Hey everyone, I'm looking for a any webcast format playing Shadowrun, preferrably 5th edition. Particularly one where both GM and players are experienced and take their game seriously enough.
After playing for a while with my group i just and us always messing something up. Besically never being able to complete even a basic run without tripping some alarm or garnering some unwanted attention, I just wonder if the game is really supposed to be this hard, we just don't know how to play the game or maybe out GM just overdoes it on the security measures.
so I'd be glad if someone could point me some good examples of play.
This is probably wishlisting of the highest order, and I'm almost 99% sure that most if not all of these are going to be an integral part of the new edition just as much as they were before, in part because one of the stated design goals is to keep the game recognizable, which it might not be anymore if these were actually put into practice. But i'd like to express these thoughts anyway. I just want to put the thought out there and why I think they don't benefit the game.
1. Per Day/Rest Features
I used to run very typical dungeon crawling campaigns, but later I shifted toward a less combat-heavy style and it quickly became apparent that some characters could exploit this to generate massive damage output.
If we removed the per day restriction it would not only de-gamify some of the mechanics ("What do you mean, you're too exhausted to get angry anymore? You seem perfectly spry to me!"), it would help accomodate for more varied styles of play.
An open character building system is, it seems, what Pathfinder secretly really wants. Start off with a number of build points, and let players buy feats and class features from these.
This wouldn't only open up a more versatile and less convoluted path to getting the host of abilities that the player really wants for his character, it would also allow for a variety of other things:
You can still have certain predeterminations, like the distinction between arcane and divine magic. Make a player choose how they cast magic, inherently like a sorcerer, through study like a wizard, through art like a bard, dedication or worship like a cleric and so on.
I realize how deeply these go into what the game is to us, and before anyone says that i should look for a different system. I have. But I never found one that did it well enough. I like the depth of pathfinder, and most games that i found which deliver on the open character building and lack of per-day abilities that i crave, usually either lack the depth of gameplay (for example magic is barely distinguished from mundane skill usage) or are so irredeemably overruled that they are more bookkeeping than gameplay. So I thought instead i'd express how i would feel about making these changes to a system i actually like.
This may come off as nitpicky. I like the new website and forum layout, it got a desparately needed do-over without becoming completely alien in the process. I do however have one tiny pet peeve.
So while browsing the messageboards, at the top of the page you have this:
Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback
Each of these points is a clickable navigation link and I make frequent use of these, as I do in any forum that has them. But because I'm used to using them from other forums, my instinct is to click on the very first item to get back to the main overview. On this forum however that leads to a blank page with nothing but the head and footer of the website.
So unless the intention is to have something there in the future, could you possibly make the "Community" part of that line not a link?
I keep accidentally hitting it and because for me the loadtimes on the website are not super optimal that is actually a lot of wasted time. If not, I guess I'll just have to learn to break a habit.
This question came up when a friend of mine reported that his summoner had lost her eidolon in their last session of Rise of the Runelords.
According to him, the eidolon was killed in combat (which normally means you can resummon it the next day with half its HP remaining) while they were
(forgive me for this, I don't now the AP myself and I'm only reporting on what I remember that he told me) in a tower with a runewell which traps the souls of creatures that die there.
Now I argued that his eidolon shouldn't be trapped this way for two reasons.
Secondly because Outsider traits say that no soul is released when an outsider is destroyed, so the well would have nothing to trap.
Also the fact that there are no rules in the summoner class on what happens, should the summoner actually lose their eidolon. Whether they get a new one and how, or if they have to recover it or anything, so I would assume the only way to effectively lose an eidolon would be to retrain all your summoner levels away.
I don't know the GM, and wouldn't be able to tell how well they know the game, so I assume either of us could just be mistaken here. As far as I'm aware the GM let my friend just make an all new eidolon with which he seems fine, so I guess it's no harm done, but still I would like to know if it should have been possible in the first place to lose the eidolon.
Hey everyone, I'm looking to expand my collection of Gargantuan size DnD Dragon minis, and I am not really sure what to think of the Attack Wing minis regarding size.
So far I have the white and black D&D Icons dragons, the red and green Pathfinder Battles, as well as the named Blue PF Battles dragon (whose name eludes me right now, the one with all the jewelry, from I believe Shattered Star), as well as the centerpiece the Gargantuan Red Dragon from the D&D Icons line. There are two reasons why I'm only interested in Gargantuan or larger miniatures, one being that in games i just use pawns for anything of Huge size or smaller and as decoration, smaller miniatures wouldn't stand out enough among all the stuff cluttering my place.
So, from Attack Wing I know there are various dragons which are clearly significantly smaller than any of the aforementioned ones, but there are also Tiamat, Bahamut, and some other premium series dragons, of which I know about a Brass and a Silver one. Not sure if there are more. To my understanding Bahamut and Tiamat are comparable to the Pathfinder Battles Gargantuan dragons, so my question is here, how do the Premium dragons from Attack Wing compare to existing Gargantuan dragons.
Having played my home campaign up to 5th level so far I have not really encountered any glaring balance issues between my player characters, but there are a few things I'm considering tweaking a bit about the so far officially published player options.
I wanted to throw them out here to get some feedback. Which of these are unnecessary, go to far, or not far enough?
Italics have a hopefully short explanation of my reasoning
CLASSES and CLASS OPTIONS
As far as rangers go, i will stick with the unearthed arcana version.
Good morning everyone,
I'm proud to announce my project, which consumed the better part of the last year of my life is finally finished and available on the DMs Guild
The book features a professional, handcrafted layout. It contains hundreds of monsters, both from previous editions of the game and entirely new. There are several appendices covering various types of zombies, skeletons and elementals that add variety to these creatures. Additionally you will find a number of easily applied templates that change the nature of a creature, such as half-celestials, fiends and even a template that allows you to turn any creature into a legendary encounter.
While DMs gain a big roster of new monsters, players gain new types of skeletons and zombies to create with necromancy, options for familiars and beast companions, as well as suggestions and easy ways to adjust class options based on the monsters found in the book, such as cosmic dragon bloodline sorcerer origins and obyrith as warlock patrons.
I look forward to hear what you all think about it and I'd be happy to answer questions about it as well.
I was not sure whom to write to about this topic, or under which adress (since many paizo employees cannot be reach via private message)
I have a question about the legality of converting creatures from the Paizo Bestiaries to different systems and publishing them.
In my case, I made conversions of the qlippoth from Bestiary 2 as well as the Outer Dragons from Bestiary 4 to 5th edition and had the idea of publishing the conversions on the DM's Guild.
I understand that obviously the artworks are not usable and some specific creatures from Pathfinder such as the Sandpoint Devils or Daughters of Urgathoa are protected since they use proper nouns specific to Pathfinder. But for my subjects I couldn't find anything in the OGL or the copyright notice in the beginning of each book. Nevertheless I want to make sure I do not infringe on Paizo's copyright if I do this.
As an additional note, I would like to add that I made minor changes to the naming, calling the converted qlippoth obyrith and the outer dragons cosmic dragons, I also use my own artwork which features strongly altered appearances of the creatures in question.
So I don't know if I'm the only one who cares, but a lot of monsters in 5th edition changed sizes. And here I don't mean all the former colossals becoming gargantuan, or smaller than tinies becoming tiny, which is of course only because the size spectrum has been reduced. And even the changes to the carious age categories of dragons I can understand.
Here is what i can think of:
What really bothers me about this is that all this really means is that I have a lot of Pawns that are just the wrong size for the 5e incarnation, and I can't be the only one (especially thinking of people who invested in plastic miniatures).
To possibly nobody's surprise, this idea is inspired by the Numenéra setting, and the setting would essentially be the same: Earth, millions of years in the future after several civilizations have risen to unimaginable heights of technological sophistication and then inexplicably fallen from the face of the planet. Through some unknown mechanism some of the life of the planet as we know it today has been brought back from extinction, including humankind. There is no magic but there is plenty of technology that people alive in this world barely understand, that it would seem just like magic to them.
But it's not just like its inspiration: this setting has all the D&D staples: dungeons, dragons, beholders, mind flayers, fey, fiends, celestials, undead, divine and arcane "magic", innate spellcasting
Let me go through how some of these could work (many of them are taken straight from numenéra, but just reiterated here for those who are not familiar with that setting)
Magic: Anything that is labelled as magical in the game is actually just highly advanced technology. Magic items are technological artifacts. A +1 longsword could be a vibro-blade or an edge suffused with a subtle energy current. Spellcasters have somehow found a way to enforce their will upon nanomachines that have basically become an ever-present part of the atmosphere over the millennia.
Aberrations: Aberrations are alien creatures from distant worlds that have come to or were left behind on earth.
Beasts: Animals that are either naturally evolved or artificially altered to a minor extent, or perhaps brought back from extinction through technological matters. These are the more or less natural fauna of the world.
Celestials and Fiends: As physicists theorize there are far more than the three or four dimensions we can see, there may be alternate realities out there. Some of these realities are remarkably similar to ours in some ways, yet fundamentally different in others. In three of those realities the world went a similar way technologically as in ours, but the creatures living there took on bizarre forms. All of them populated by uniquely powerful beings who have mastered the secrets of travelling between realities. But while the denizens of one world are benevolent and seek to improve the lives of their own people and those of other realities, the other two are interested only in destruction and domination respectively. These are the creatures we commonly percieve as angels, demons and devils.
Dragons: Eragons were the product of a long and dedicated process of artificially splicing creatures from earth's evolutionary history to create something uniquely great. Because they retain specially engineered genetic code from almost the entire natural history of the planet, specially engineered to be stored within them, dragons can breed with almost any other earth creature.
Elementals: Elementals are essentially nano swarms that attach themselves to matter such as earth or water and animate it, or they manipulate fire or air to make those their body. Some organisms from parallel dimensions have been infested with such swarms for generations and had their physicality altered by them over time, becoming things like xorns and salamanders.
Fey: In another bizarre reality nature and technology have fused in harmonious ways and the capricious denizens of that world, known commonly as fey, sometimes find their way into our world.
Giants and Humanoids: Humans as we know them went extinct millions of years ago, but other species arose. Life from other planets and other realities was spirited to earth. Somewhere along its long history another species replicated the human species as well. Evolution and artificial engineering saw the rise of other creatures much like them
Monstrosities: As civilization after civilization left its mark upon the world, strange creatures were left behind, some are fusions of natural organisms, others are randomly mutated by strange pollutants and their strains stabilized. Monstrosities are the living relics of these events.
Oozes: Hyperevolved or engineered mucus, gray goo and other such things.
Plants: Plant creatures are much like monstrosities but they were created from flora rather than fauna. Some plant creatures, particularly awakened plants, have been infested, animated and lent a facsimile or consciousness by the nano-"magic" that created them.
Undead: When nanomachines are manipulated to infest corpses, they can preserve and animate these bodies to a false state of life. With more sophisticated methods, they can even download the consciousness of a living being and either bind it to the body they are infesting to create a sentient undead, like a lich or a vampire. Or the consciousness is downloaded into a swarm of nanomachines that has no body to be bound to. The consciousness takes over and projects a hologram of what it believes itself to look like around the swarm and becomes essentially a ghost. Some of these consciousnesses are corrupted and deteriorate into monsters like wraiths or allips and their projected image changes with that.
Psionics: Psionics could arguably be transferred as-is. Whether it should be regarded as scifi or fantasy is I think up to opinion.
So mechanically nothing would change, really the world is just technological rather than mystical and it would probably show in its visual appearance, looking a lot more like Numenéra than a medieval fantasy setting.
What do you think? Did I evoke your imagination at all? Would you be interested in playing in such a setting, perhaps even DMing it (no this is not a recruitment, I'm just curious)?
This is a list of weapons I homebrewed for 5th edition. Some of these only exist because I needed to port the favored weapons of some of the deities of my homebrew setting. Others have more specific uses.
For one there are the balanced and oversized weapons, which exist to slightly improve the martial power of strength based characters, since Strength has not nearly as much out of combat use as Dexterity I decided it would be nice if it distinguishes itself in-combat from its rival stat a bit more.
You're free to comment, either here or in the document or use any of these for your own game.
Monks are already MAD while wizards are SAD, and then there is the ever reviled dump stats. But instead of making classes sadder, and ending up with a bunch of characters who all seem to have only one or two functional ability scores, what if we went the other way?
First remove all semblances of weapon finesse and dex to damage feats and abilities (like dervish dance, fencing/slashing grace) and composite bows.
Now we do something similar for spellcasters. All spellcasting related numbers are still based on the regular spellcasting ability, except for spells per day.
To alleviate this need to spread ability scores more, Point buy gets more points per tier but any ability score above 16 becomes even more expensive.
For the sake of this discussion let's ignore any non-core classes and focus only on core.
I think the general consensus is that Pathfinder is largely a better system than 3.0 or 3.5 were. That is why we are all here after all.
But are there any things that you feel were better in the 3rd editions?
For me personally it would be that I feel fights seemed to last a little longer in terms of the number of rounds. But this could also be due to the relative inexperience with character optimization the group(s) I played with had when we were still playing 3rd.
So I would like to hear what everyone else's opinions are. Is there anything you found more fun or better designed in 3.0 or 3.5 than in Pathfinder?
This is just this simple question: Which of the Archdukes of the Nine Hells and the Demon Lords in D&D are copyrighted by WotC and which are "public domain".
I'm pretty sure for example Baalzebul, Mammon, Orcus and Baphomet are free to use, since their names are taken straight out of Mythology.
But I'm not so sure about all of them.
So i've seen some discussion previously on how passive perception is supposed to work, especially with the observant feat around. So I wanted to open this can of worms here once again and give my idea how to handle it in a way that makes sense:
Reading the PHB, it seems like the idea is, if a character is not actively looking for something or someone, the DM is supposed to compare the Perception DC to the character's Passive Perception. If the character does actively look, he or she makes a Perception check.
Now this is already strange because that would mean a character with, say, a +3 Perception (and consequently 13 passive) who is not actively looking for something is 100% assured to find anything hidden with a DC of 12 or less. Now if the same character is actively trying to find it, he has a good chance of missing the thing, because the roll could come out below the DC.
This only becomes wierder with the observant feat, which adds +5 to the creature's Passive Perception and nothing to active rolls.
So eventually I came to the conclusion that the only way to really make sense of this is if you always apply Passive Perception AND on top of that a creature can make a roll if it is actively looking out.
For example: our +3 Perception character is exploring a dungeon expecting traps, so the player makes active perception checks. He comes across a trap that is hidden with a DC 10 and rolls a 3 on the d20 (+3=6), the active check wasn't enough but because the passive is also in effect he finds the rather shoddily hidden trap. Later he comes across a DC 18 trap, his passive is not enough to spot the trap, so he better hope he rolls a 15 (+3=18) or better on the d20 if he is still looking for traps. If he has stopped actively searching for traps, he will not get a check and automatically miss this one.
This is how I have come to handle Passive Perception and active checks. It does mean that anything hidden with a DC 9 or less is basically obvious to anyone who isn't distracted or somehow impaired (disadvantage reduces passive by 5) or fairly oblivious in general (due to a negative Wisdom mod and no proficiency in Perception)
How do you do it? Do you think my way of doing it is correct? Or did I just state what was already obvious to you?
Two of my players just asked me about an idea they had. One is playing a paladin, the other a druid (with a barbarian dip for the rage bonuses).
Their idea was that the paladin player would take the Mounted Combatant feat and the druid wildshape into a large animal that can carry him. Which would mean that when the paladin mounts the druid, the paladin whould for one get advantage on attack rolls against anything smaller than the druid's wild shape, the paladin could redirect any attacks aimed at the druid to himself and the druid would essentially have evasion.
I looked over the rules for mounted combat and the feat's description and saw no problems with the RAW. But I felt that, aside from the advantage on attacks the rider gets, the feat exists to allow a level 10+ character to ride into battle on a regular warhorse without the horse just being pounded into paste by a single attack from a CR appropriate enemy. So I decided to rule that you can only apply the effects protecting the mount if you are controlling the mount (as per the mounted combat rules, where a mount can act independently on its own initiative or be controlled by the rider and act according to the rider's inputs on the riders initiative).
I thought it made sense this way because it's the rider's feat and it doesn't magically makes the mount better at avoiding damage, but the rider is guiding the mount while controlling it.
Since the druid is an intelligent creature, the paladin would not be able to control it like a horse and not be able to apply the mounted combatant benefits, except for gaining advantage on attacks. I felt this was appropriate, using the existing rules and more in spirit with the feat's intention and it doesn't turn the two of them into a symbiotic tank.
So I've been scratching my head a little bit. I want to make proper stat blocks for some monsters which are supposed to be proficient with tools, most commonly thieves' tools.
The monster manual says in the introductory section, that a monster is considered proficient with whatever tools, armor or weapons it has. The problem with that is, that while weapons can be inferred from their Actions and armor and shields from their Armor Class entry, there is as far as I could gather nowhere in the statblock that denotes what tools a monster has. I've checked the Monster Manual, Player's Handbook and the one Campaign module book (Hoard of the Dragon Queen) I own, and I couldn't find any precedent for a monster or NPC stat block with any tools or proficiencies therein. The closest thing would be the magic items listed under a Special Equipment point in some named NPCs' stat blocks.
Is there any official statblock anywhere that gives a precedent on how to properly denote what tools and/or tool proficiencies a monster or NPC has?
I've been confused about the elemental language(s). The PHB lists Primordial as the language of elementals, and the Elemental Evil Player's Guide has genasi speak Common and Primordial, but when I go through the Monster Manual, all creatures with the elemental type actually speak or at least understand Aquan, Auran, Ignan, or Terran, depending on their element(s), which aren't mentioned in the PHB as far as I know, and not a single one actually knows Primordial at all.
Can someone shed some light on this? What exactly is Primordial and how does it relate to Aquan, Auran, Ignan, and Terran?
So the plane shift Zendikar and Innistrad articles have inspired some people around here to work on some mechanics that tie MTG's color system into the mechanics.
I would like to present my approach here
This is based on the Spell-lists as colors that Laurefindel took the time to compile. This lists which spells are associated with each color. (some spells being associated with multiple colors and as a result appearing multiple times)
I wanted to make the system so that similarly to the card game, the fewer colors you use the more easily you can cast your spells but also the less varied your options become.
To compensate for this drawback I want to give spellcasters with fewer colors other advantages. So any spellcaster gets the all the benefits from the following list given for their number of colors and higher number of colors (so a 2 color spellcaster gets the benefits for 2 colors, 3 colors 4 colors and 5 colors). These benefits only apply to spells from your Spellcasting feature, Pact magic feature, Magic Initiate feat or Ritual Caster feat.
I'd love to hear feedback if you think this system sounds fair to you or if a mono colored spellcaster us useless or overpowered.
The weather has been gracious for travelers lately, the skys clear and the wind mostly at your back. Each of you, for their own reasons, has been travelling in the direction of a small town in the Greenfields known simply as Greenest. Roiling fields of green grass gently wave over low hills with barely a tree or rock dotting the landscape. Another day of walking is coming to a close as you approach a fork in the road.
As you approach, an old man looks up at you. The lone camper at this side is a fair skinned human, still blessed with a full head of long white hair, albeit somewhat messy, probably from the trek, and a short trimmed sliver and white beard. Though his skin is wrinkly and mottled from age, his eyes are still sharp and his posture, though weary, betrays no frailty.
The fur clothes he wears as well as the bow and shortsword leaning against the log he is sitting on suggest he is a hunter. Behind him a small tent made of animal hides has been raised and lies empty, save for a hide bedroll and a worn-out leather backpack.
He pulls the stick with which he has been stoking the campfire in front of him out of the flames and gestures for you to come closer as he speaks with a Jovial tone, his voice raspy but still strong: "I didn't expect to meet anyone today. But come have a seat, pull up a log." he breifly looks around himself before continuing "If you can find one."
We will be starting with a little preamble to allow players to roleplay and establish relationships between characters before we start into the module proper. You will not have to use trail rations or anything until the actual start of the module, which you will be able to tell has begun when you actually see the town of Greenest
Each of you may arrive at the camp individually or in groups, it's up to you.
When you post, please describe your character's appearance, you may just copy and paste the description from your alias, or weave it into your introductory text more organically, I'll leave it to you.
Due to a quick idea I had I came up with a whole setting for 5e which i've been designing mechanics for over the last couple of days. The setting is a sort of over the top futuristic setting somewhere between cyberpunk, the postapocalypse and some fantasy, taking a lot of inspiration from action movies especially from around the 80s.
I created a rogue archetype, a barbarian path and a sorcerous origin for this setting, on which I would like some critique.
A few pieces of relevant information:
Primal Path: Bulletmonger
I Don’t Need Two Hands to Kill You
Roguish Archetype: Hacker
Hack the World
Master of Machines
Sorcerous Origin: Nanomachines
I spent a lot of time yesterday going back and forth on acharacter build, not being able to decide whether I wanted to use strength or dexterity for my melee stat. So I got the idea to lay out the pros and cons for each. I aim to help people new to the game, especially those coming from Pathfinder or 3rd edition, who might think this: "If I can just use a finesse weapon with dex to both damage and to hit, and it also adds to my AC and so many skills, why would I ever build a strength character?"
In Pathfinder this would be a very legitimate question. Dexterity adds to your AC, ranged attack bonus, Initiative, Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Disable Device, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, CMD and one of your Saves
While Strength only adds to your melee attack bonus and damage, Climb, Swim, CMB, CMD and Encumbrance (which barely anyone uses)
So allowing the same thing in Pathfinder would make the Strength stat obsolete for anything other than roleplaying purposes. At first glance you get a similar impression in 5th Edition DnD, but it is not quite so.
Dexterity adds to the following in 5e:
Strength is used for these purposes:
Now at first glance strength seems less useful because it is less varied in its application. The latter is true, the former is not.
Athletics represents not only the equivalent of climb and swim as well as the jumping use of acrobatics, but is also basically your CMB in this game. You use it to shove, grapple and so on and doing so no longer provokes attacks of opportunity in 5th edition.
The Dexterity bonus to AC seems to be a must have at first, but when you begin to understand how AC works in 5th Edition you will notice that dexterity is highly optional. In fact you will usually have the highest AC if you use options which completely ignore your dexterity bonus. At early levels a heavily armored character will start out with chainmail armor which gives them a flat AC 16, while a lightly armored character will start out with leather armor and not have a Dex bonus higher than +3, so their starting AC is 14. As the game progresses a lightly or medium armored character will reach a maximum of AC 17 (12+5 or 15+2) since all ability scores cap out at 20 (+5), while a heavily armored character will reach an AC of 19. This is not counting shields or magical armor which are equally accessible to both. So for the best possible armor class dexterity is not needed at all. It is only relevant for a character who either needs to be good at stealth and still have a reasonable AC, since heavy armor imposes disadvantage to stealth, or doesn't have proficiency with heavy armor.
TL;DR and conclusion
Use dexterity if your class only gets proficiency in light or no armor or if you want to build a stealthy or primarily ranged character. It's basically a no-brainer for rogues, monks and many melee paths for spellcasting classes (Warlocks with pact of the blade and bladesinger tradition wizards for example). Barbarians are the big exception here, though they only use light, or more often no armor at all, their rage ability only works with attacks that use strength, so they are better off going primarily with strength and keeping dex secondary or tertiary.
Use strength if you want to be a frontline melee character, if your class grants you proficiency in heavy armor or is simply a barbarian who needs to use strength to benefit from their rage ability, or if you want to be able to blast past terrain obstacles. Especially paladins and fighters focused on melee who want to deal as much damage as possible and have the option to trip, grapple or push around enemies are safe in the assumption that strength is their best bet, so long as they don't need to be stealthy or good at acrobatics.
the Quality Build:
When using point buy you spend almost the same amount of points bringing two scores to 14 as you would raising one to 16, that is if you use a race like humans or half-elves who get an increase to two abilities or their choice or to Strength and Dexterity each in particular. However it is 1 more point from the buy pool and you have to park both of your ability score increases on dex and str, so you will have a little less for everything else.
A quality character would benefit from all the advantages of both Dex and Str characters (long range firepower, high damage and varied melee options, all skills function decently, decent initiative) however at the cost of ever so slightly reduced numbers on all of it (at least at early to mid levels before they start reaching 20) and perhaps also on numbers pertaining to abilities outside of Str and Dex. A barbarian might go down this road since their unarmored defense does benefit from AC, and they generally cannot use heavy armor even if they are proficient with it, simply because it interferes with a lot of barbarian abilities, while at the same time they still need to use Strength.
I'd have to build a lot of test characters to say anything definite on this idea.
I've been wanting to play HotDQ for a while now, just because I like dragon themed campaigns, unfortunately when i got into a game running the module, the DM's style didn't really agree with my sensibilities, which might be in part due to the combat heavyness of the material but I still think it can be run differently. So I decided to DM it myself.
A few things about my DMing style:
You are welcome to apply if you've played HotDQ before, but I'd strongly prefer players who haven't finished it yet and aren't currently in a game running the module.
We would play PbP, here on the Paizo boards.
Character creation guidelines in case there is enough interest (so I don't have to put it in a later post that people can't find):
If interest persists through the module I might also continue running the campaign through Tyranny of Dragons.
I'm also open to any further questions, in case I missed something in the essay above or you just need some other information.
So I have my 5 or 6 PF Pawn boxes and my 4 erasable flipmats. I'm prepared for all manner of battles. Except if there is a gargantuan or colossal monster involved.
Are there some affordable minis above Huge size I can get for the many different gargantuan and upward monsters that fill the Bestiaries and Monster Manuals of the world? Or do I have to go with expensive (sometimes not even) fully detailed minis if I don't want to just put a small cardboard box on the table as a stand-in?
Beast masters are not very good, they have to spend their action to get their beast companion to do anything other than wandering around the battlefield and watching, they don't even automatically take the dodge action. As long as you don't tell them what to do they just take everything an enemy might throw at them. And if that weren't enough the companion doesn't even get to use their full attack power if it has multiattack and doesn't get the extra damage from Hunter's Mark
What if we take the beast companion rules though and read them a little differently?
It explicitly says the companion does nothing unless you order it to take the attack, dash, dodge or disengage action.
What if we simply assume the beast will continue executing the command it got until the conditions are no longer met. That is to say, it's target is dead/disabled, it has reached the point it needed to go, it is no longer under threat of attack or within the melee range of an enemy.
This is not supposed to be a discussion about the RAW and/or RAI, simply an idea to make the Beast Master archetype a more viable/attractive choice, without having to actually write homebrew rules, by simply reading into the rules a little bit.
Similarly you could interpret spells like specifically Hunter's Mark in such a way that the beast companion being your class feature is effectively a part of "you" for spells that benefit "you" without "you" being the spell's target. Because you deal the damage when your class feature hits. (Perhaps more of a stretch, since the ability to share spells implies the beast is not affected by spells that target you unless you want it to, but certainly helps the archetype's case)
What do you all think, would this be a helpful addition to improve the archetype or would it break the action economy, or still not make the beast master a good choice?
First off apologies if this shouldn't go in this subforum.
My name is Tobias Beis and I am a learned print media designer living in Germany, currently suffering from a lack of open positions in my chosen professions in my area. So I was considering putting my professional skills to use with my passion for roleplaying games.
I have yet to have professional experience designing rules, I have written homebrew rules and setting details for both Pathfinder and 5th Edition before, as well as compiled them in illustrated and professionally laid out pdf documents.
For anyone interested This is one such document I made in compliance with the Pathfinder fan license (Google Docs link)
I also have various other homebrew rules work in progress which I currently plan to eventually publish under the PFRPG fan license or the DM's guild.
Finally I also do Illustration (Deviantart link) in both digital and traditional media.
The difficulty of my situation is that I am not aware of any 3rd party publishers in Germany so a work relationship would probably only be possible over long distance.
So I was wondering if anyone had some advice on how to get into 3rd party publishing, either independently, as my own publisher, freelance or employed with another publisher.
Also if I piqued somebody's interest I'm willing to privately share more of my work, such as the aforementioned monster conversion and my work in progress rules.
Hey everyone, I just went over the weapon table in the Player Handbook, curious if I could extract some sort of system out of the table, by which one can homebrew their own weapons and keep them all at about equal usefulness to what already exists. And I found this relatively simple solution. Feel free to let me know what you think.
Weapon Creation Guidelines
- A weapon with 3 or less QP is either a very primitive weapon or perhaps a tool or farming implement repurposed for fighting, rather than something designed specifically for combat.
Step 1: Classification
Step 2: Damage
Dmg | QP
Step 3: Weapon Properties
Finesse. A ranged weapon cannot have the finesse property unless it also has the thrown property
Step 4: Range
Range | QP
Step 5: Total QP and determine Category
QP | Category
Certain characteristics automatically qualify the weapon as a martial weapon even if its QP total is below 5. If one or more of the following applies to the weapon, it is a martial weapon even if it has 4 or less QP:
Step 6: Name and other qualities.
Club: 1d4 damage (+1QP), light (+1QP): Total 2 QP
New weapon samples
While the content of the 5e Monster Manual is as good as ever, I've perhaps come to be a little spoiled by Pathfinders abundance of monsters (with now 5 core books full of them and pretty much anything that isn't in those but exists in print somewhere else, collected on d20pfsrd)
So one monster manual seems very slim in comparison. So I've been trying to look for sources of monster stats in 5e.
Google in general wasn't very cooperative, it mostly gave me the Monster Manual or articles/posts about it as results.
I know Kobold Press is working on the Tome of Beasts, which looks awesome from what I've seen in previews but I couldn't even find any info on when it is going to be released.
Also I've been browsing the relatively fresh Dungeon Master's Guild, but most content there is very small and fragmented and/or just contains variations on existing monsters (like monster races with different "classes" than the ones in the MM)
And finally I found 5th Edition Foes by Necromancer Games, which looks pretty big but what I've seen of its contents is bothering me, and perhaps irrationally so, but the stat blocks are written more in a 3rd edition layout and some of the terminology seems like 3rd edition too, and doesn't actually mean anything in 5th edition (for example some creatures have spell-like abilities listed, rather than innate spellcasting), which in turn makes me doubt that the designers fully grasped how this edition works. If someone has perhaps used this supplement before, could you give some insight on it?
Other than these, does anyone know any good monster sources for 5th edition? Preferably big collections, like some sort of 3pp Monster Manual (like what 5e Foes and Tome of Beasts intend to be)
(also I was planning on using Qlippoth in my upcoming campaign, if anyone has seen any converted that would help too)
Hi everyone, a few questions came up for me regarding wild shape:
Firstly I have some issues understanding how skill and saving throw proficiencies work
Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus instead of yours.
As far as I understand the attacks in my wild shape forms are always made at the total bonus in the animal's statblock, no matter how high my normal proficiency bonus is, I use that of the animal.
Let's say my druid normally has STR 10, WIS 16 and is proficient in athletics (so a total +2 to athletics) and not proficient in Perception (so total +3 perception) and now I wild shape into a tiger (Str 17, no proficiency in athletics, but proficiency.)
Also another question is, some animals have skill or attack bonuses that don't make sense.
For example black and brown bewars have 1 less in their attack bonus than would be expected from their STR scores. The brown bear has +4 STR, but both its attacks only have a +5 total attack bonus. Which doesn't make sense because as far as I could see a proficiency bonus of less than +2 is unprecedented anywhere and their perception suggests that they do get +2 proficiency (it's +3 at a wisdom bonus of +1)
Is this a mistake? I couldn't find it corrected in any Errata.
Conversely Panthers, Tigers, Lions and Sabertooth Tigers have a +6 Stealth bonus even though their Proficiency bonus everywhere else cannot be higher than +2 and they all have a DEX bonus of +2.
How does this work in wild shape? Are they just assumed to have a +4 proficiency bonus to stealth, or a an additional +2 bonus of some kind?
I haven't started my 5e campaign yet and I'm already beginning to come up with homebrew ideas, some of which are just more options while others are balancing attempts, which is just slightly worrying because one of the reasons i switched to 5e is because I wanted to get a way from the four pages of balancing homebrew rules I wrote for Pathfinder in part because there are some players that are new to d20 games, so here's hoping I don't come up with (much) more.
So here goes
CR 1/4 or less | Ranger Level 3: Your companion benefits from your Hunter's Mark spell the same way you do | Ranger level 6: You can order your companion to attack as part of your own attack action. | Ranger level 10: Your companion's attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.
The changes to the ranger basically just improve the damage output of your companion to make the Beast Master archetype a worthwhile combat option compared to the Hunter and the change to how a companion uses multiattack is there because animals with multiattack would otherwise not be able to use as much of their potential as animals without the ability (who usually instead have more damage or extra effects, up to and including a bonus attack stacked onto their single attack). And the addition that it will automatically use dodge if not given any other command is just there so the animal doesn't just stand around like some sort of machine lacking input, but has some basic form of autonomy. The probably somewhat confusing list of extra benefits (which I would have posted in table form if it were possible) is there to make it a viable choice to have lower CR beasts as companions, if you want to keep for instance your dog or wolf for flavor reasons.
That's all I have for now, feedback would be appreciated.
Long title, but I don't know how to make it shorter. I'm looking for mythological creatures with bestial aspects that are created from regular human beings being transformed into such a creature. Either by infection, some sort of curse or even willingly accepting the transformation.
The most obvious example would be werewolves, but also wendigos fit the bill, and to a lesser extent vampires (though the connection with bats is actually more modern than the vampire myth itself)
What I'm not looking for are animalistic creatures that have the ability to take on a human form, like selkies and kitsune, but creatures that were once normal human beings and somehow became afflicted with their animalistic state.
I'm toying with the idea of running a 5e game with a setting similar in theme to Bloodborne, so a victorian era styled dark gothic horror setting focussing around themes of lycanthropy, eldritch horrors and lots of blood.
I'm not a hundred percent sure yet I want to commit to this, because it has been a long time since i tried GMing a PbP game, and I would have to build up some basics of the setting first.
Should this happen however, I'd say I would allow all PHB options, except for races which would probably be limited to humans, tieflings and shifters from the Eberron Unearthed Arcana article and the gunslinger martial archetype from Critical Role.
As I said I'm not sure I will go through with this yet, I just want to see if people would generally be interested in this.
I've been thinking about how Pathfinder would work with miniatures but without any grids, neither hexes nor squares. Instead using an inch tape measure.
If you measure it in 1 inch representing 5 feet I think it would work just fine. The usual miniature bases (or at least those of the PF cadrboard pawns) have a diameter of 1, 2, 3 inches respectively. So the bases are perfectly adequate in representing the space it occupies, you can freely draw lines and place cones and radius AoEs. You might need a template for the latter perhaps, or at least it would help. With 1 inch bases a player can also move their character edge to edge if they want to make a short move and don't want to use a measure.
The only part i think needs more explanation would be AoOs for leaving a threatened square. But i think rewording it to "Moving more than 5'/1" within or leaving a hostile creature's threatened space" should do the trick.
The advantage of such a system would be that movement and ranges would be represented more realistically. You don't move inexplicably slower if you don't go straight in one of the 6 basic directions given by your adjacent hexes, or inexplicably faster if you're using squares but not the 1.5 squares for diagonal movement rule and you don't have to do the additional head math of counting 1.5 squares each diagonal step or rather remember when to count 2 squares for diagonal steps of you're making a longer move if you do use the 1.5 square rule.
I don't think using tape measures or similar implements should be much of a problem, since I have played the Warhammers before where you push around significantly larger numbers of miniatures with tape measures.
Has anyone ever tried this? What are your thoughts? Any gameplay problems you see coming up?
I'm trying to come up with a time domain for clerics for my homebrew setting but I don't understand the balance of 5e enough yet to make informed decisions.
I already picked a list of domain spells that seems to fit, because they all somehow involve or can be reflavored to involve manipulation of spacetime:
1st - expeditious retreat, feather fall
But this part was easy, i just needed two spells each of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th spell level, which is not a problem, considering that spells in 5e are the same spell level for all classes that can use them.
So what I need is a 1st level ability, a channel divinity ability for 2nd level, a 6th level ability, a divine strike for 8th level and a 17th level ability.
I've been thinking about one of these giving one or more subjects the ability to slow down their perception of time momentarily giving them speed advantage on a single ability check, save or attack roll until the beginning of the clerics next turn (or perhaps for a longer time, similarly to bardic inspiration). But that's really all i've been able to think of so far that would definitely be in line with 5e abilities in power and design philosophy.
So I would appreciate some help, I feel quite lost.
I've had very limited experience with 5e so far. I've turned the core books upside down a few times now, but in actual playtime I haven't got too much in. I've been trying to get a feel for the new system from PbPs but so far i've only gone through a few encounters with 1st level parties had two battles with a tenth level party. So I cannot really say too much.
I am currently in the process of writing a campaign to play locally and I cannot decide whether I want to run it in PFRPG which is definitely not a system i'm going to abandon completely or if I want to go with 5e DnD.
So I've been trying to make myself a list of each system's strengths over the other. One thing i cannot gauge yet is how well balanced 5e is.
So on the risk of kicking loose a "martials can't have nice things" debate, I would like to ask for other peoples impressions and experiences. How do you feel about class balance, and balance between magic-using and non-magic-using characters?
So yesterday it was my birthday and my girlfriend woke me up with a present.
As a bit of background story, I've been super hyped for Dark Souls 3 lately even though I have yet to finish my first DS1 playthrough, on which by the way I did not manage to save Solaire from the chaos bugs. So after I was forced to put him down, I was stricken with grief, I picked up his shield and decided to take it all the way to the end of the game and use it to defeat Gwyn in his honor.
So anyway this morning she gives me this little box with a tiny hand made card on it.
But whose soul could that be? Which soul could possibly so grossly incandescent?
This little present was so sweet that I just needed to share it with people.
To see all 12 dark souls/humanities and solaire's soul in detail please head over to my girlfriend's tumblr (maybe give some likes and reblogs too)
Playing Fallout 4 I found myself kind of liking the mole rats. They are a lot less ugly than in the previous Fallouts and at the same time more terrifying and yet kind of adorable. So I decided to make some dire mole rat stats for Pathfinder.
DIRE MOLE RAT
Dire Mole Rat - CR 1
Dire mole rats are remarkable for their exceptional resistance to pain which makes them particularly persistent foes to deal with. They live in large underground colonies centered around a single reproducing female, while the large majority of individuals are infertile and act as workers, much like ants or termites.
Dire Mole Rat Queens The queens of dire mole rat dens are larger and stronger than their more common kind. A dire mole rat queen can be represented by a dire mole rat with the giant creature and advanced simple templates.
So as we all know (or most of us, as sometimes a case crops up where somebody interprets it differently) when you score a critical hit, you multiply the number of weapon damage dice and any bonuses (from strength, magic improvement, power attack etc.), but not any extra dice (like flaming, vital strike or sneak attack)
This results in weapons with high crit ranges being generally considered superior to their peers since that one extra crit in 20 attacks the falchion gets over a greatsword with all those bonuses adds a lot more to the character's average damage, than those 2 extra damage points per regular hit, the greatsword would give you.
What if we took a step in the direction of how crits work in 5e, (but not go all the way, because in 5e crits are almost the direct opposite: you multiply ALL the dice but NOT the static bonuses) and have critical hits only multiply the weapon damage dice and nothing else?
Of course this would mean an all over nerf for martial combat in general, which of course we don't need, but let's just look at the problem in a context where magic doesn't exist. Purely looking at the balance between weapons.
Would it make for example falchions and greatswords about equal in power or would it underpower falchions in comparison to other weapons of its size and type? How would the other types of crits fare, like greataxes and scythes for example?
Those among you familiar with swords in real life might know that longswords and bastard swords are kind of the same thing. Comprising the so called hand-and-a-half swords that have historically been used primarily in two hands, but can at least hypothetically be wielded in one hand.
So I've heard people say that what we call a longsword in Pathfinder would rather be an arming sword (or knights sword), a sword which actually is designed for one-handed use. But remember that a longsword can still be used two-handed in Pathfinder to get an extra .5 STR bonus to damage. An arming sword would have to short a handle to really make use of a second hand on the weapon.
So I looked up the descriptions of both weapons in the game and compared them simply to what's on Wikipedia (because I'm lazy, and I thought that'd enough research for classifying fantasy weapons).
The Longsword's says description says it is about 3.5 feet long and according to the weapon profile it weighs 4 lb.
The bastard sword's description puts it at 4 feet long and 6 lb. weight.
According to wikipedia a longsword is between 39" (3.25') and 51' (4.25') long, and weighs 2.4 to 4 lbs.
Then I looked at another sword that is very popular to have in Fantasy RPGs but at least by name is conspicuously absent from Pathfinder, the scottish Claymore. Which in reality is calssified as a longsword but is known to be on average larger than a longsword to the point where most RPGs treat it as a type of greatsword, which in reality is much larger than a claymore. Claymores according to wikipedia are 47" (~4') to 55" (~4.5") long and weigh 4 to 6 lb.
So I put it to you, should you even care, that the longsword is actually meant to be what we historically know as a typical longsword, while the bastard sword is meant to be a larger version of the longsword, such as the claymore. They just wanted a broader term for it than "claymore" (which incidentally is also the name of a broad-bladed, basket hilt sword from a later era in history).
So one reason why casters can be problematic is that they are balanced to have a limited supply of high power, while martials generally have an unlimited supply of average power, but when it comes to in game practice, groups will often stop to rest as soon as the caster(s) run(s) out of spells, effectively making that balance point nonfunctional.
So I was thinking perhaps spells per day should be removed. Essentially a spellcaster can cast as often per day as they want, but instead they have to succeed at a check to cast each spell. Replacing the smaller number of higher level spells per day with a higher DC.
I'm thinking a caster level check DC 10 or 15 + double spell level. But how this would incorporate concentration checks and Spell Resistance I'm not entirely sure. Rolling three checks at worst would be a bit unelegant.
Arcane spell failure from armor could instead increase the spellcasting DC by +1 per 5% of spell failure chance. In fact I think it should, it makes success slightly harder than rolling an independent percentile roll for failure chance which I think would be necessary. My reasoning here is that the reason spellcaster players avoid even low arcane spell failure chance like 5 or 10% is that it is a potential waste of their limited resource. If the resource is unlimited, the arcane spell failure chance needs to be a little more severe in order to deter spellcaster from using armor.
Any input on this idea would be appreciated. Why you think it could or might not work. Any ideas for spell resistance and concentration etc.
Really quick and dirty question. I'm trying to level up my pyrokineticist and was hoping to find a more interesting 3rd level feat than a second instance of toughness.
The feats say "with a ranged weapon". Kinetic blasts are spell-like abilities that do ranged attacks.
I know I cannot use deadly aim because that doesn't work with touch attacks.
But are Point-Blank and Precise Shot usable with Kinetic blasts?
I was wondering, has anyone ever seen a character actually counterspell something?
You have to know (and have prepared if you're a prepared caster) any spell you want to counter and expend one of your own uses of that spell. But in order to do that you have to ready an action. So you have to gamble your own turn on the chance that your opponent is going to cast a spell that you have ready and that has you within its range on their next turn and then still have to succeed at a spellcraft check.
This seems like such an unlikely gamble that I don't ever see a counterspell happen in an actual game of Pathfinder. And in my hisory of playing 3rd edition since 3.0 through PF I have never seen anyone even attempt to counterspell anything.
So what about you? Have you ever seen someone attempt a counterspell? Did it work? Was it worth it?
This is an attempt at rebalancing attack actions in a way to make martial characters more mobile than normally. It is loosely based on ideas i got from the Revised Action Economy in PF Unchained, but works without completely retooling the entire action economy and as a result would avoid all the homebrew adjustments needed for all manner of feats and special rules that alter attack abilities:
Full attack (This is here just for completeness's sake, it's unchanged from normal rules)
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
As a bit of additional fluff: I have tried outright making full attacks standard actions, but that just resulted in the fights ending before the casters even got to try casting a spell.