Isn't the whole point of roleplay games (and most games of any sort) to have fun? It's more important to be right if it's about whether it's safe to drink the milk in the fridge or when i'm balancing my checkbook. When i'm playing PF, whether I be DM or PC, my primary goal is to have fun. I'd blatantly disregard rules and balance if it makes the game more fun (though usually it doesn't). Unfortunately some people can only have fun when they're being right.
Enchanter Tom wrote: Every feat that requires CE is junk, prove me wrong. Can't tell if troll, or really and truly angry...? Combat Expertise has been a source of player rage since its first printing, hahaha. It's definitely more of a "romantic" feat than a "practical" feat. Also, I have a hard time believing that the Trip line feats are junk. A very hard time. Enchanter Tom wrote:
Bashing on designers/developers in their own forum is uncouth, though. If you don’t like the way they do things then maybe you should try DnD 4.0 or GURPS? And post on their forums? Lastly, if you don't like it because it's useless (many feats seem that way a la Prone Shooter), you can always houserule it into something you like, although it looks like a difficult feat to balance.
Peter J wrote: I've tried playing fighters before, and while they do great melee damage, they're kinda boring to play in practice. Stand there and swing, every turn. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but what do you do to make fighters exciting to play, beyond watching the big damage pop up? It's confusing to me because when you say, "boring to play," I don't know if it's the combat that's boring, the noncombat that's boring, or both! if it's noncombat that's boring to you, maybe write up some quirks, personality traits, catch phrases, phobias, philias, etc., until you feel like you can get into your character? if it's combat that's boring to you (and I think that it is), maybe go more "general" in your feat selection than specialized? Each level a fighter can basically open up an entirely new area of combat, so if you're bored with power attacking, you could get a bull rush/sunder feat, or get combat expertise to prepare for a different maneuver line, or get some ranged weapon feats so you can respond from a distance, or teamwork feats like Broken Wing Gambit for some team-attack type deals, oryou could go with any of the other fine build suggestions in this thread. If it's combat flavor you're missing, I agree with what some of the other people are saying here: Ask the DM to make your battle actions more epic, or ask him/her if you can narrate your own battle actions to be a little more exciting. ...or...multiclass...? dun dun dun
I prefer the massive damage to the SoD just because of how it translates when a SoD spell moves from the hands of a PC to an NPC/monster. After all, a PC death affects the game a lot more than a monster death, usually, and for me, it's far more exasperating to have a PC get 1HK'd than it is exciting to 1HK a monster. It is totally depressing that you usually can't kill a tough monster in one hit with a spell called "Finger of Death," I agree on that. Then again, i'm probably more likely to use a spell like that on mid-boss, or other right-hand-man/lackey creatures since his saves and hp are usually crappy enough to kill right off the bat and I don't want him giving the boss flanking or haste or whatever anyways.
The monk's always been my favorite class! Since Pathfinder came out, I like playing a sunder-monk. It's satisfying to punch >insert enemy here's< wands, rods, cloaks, rings, weapons and/or armor to death and then get to wail on something naked. And with style feats and diverse class options it's hard not to be able to find a suitable build to fit your character. My favorite archetypes are, in order:
Gunn wrote: Seems like a flaw in the pathfinder mechanic to me Ehhh isn't a metalworked item supposed to be more expensive than rope? Even if it wasn't, I feel like the 14gp difference shouldn't have a backbreaking effect on any party past level 1, and even for a bunch of baby chars, manacles seem a little more proof against more abstract escape attempts (such as using open flame to burn ropes or, idk, dipping bonds in milk to entice rats to chew through? Well, maybe not that last one, hahaha). Anyways, I don't think it's a flaw in the pf mechanic, or at least not a really serious one.
Ravingdork wrote: Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences. To answer OP's question, yes, yes I have. I kind of enjoy those players though, because I have a harder time dealing with hardcore power gamers who focus maybe too much on optimization and not so much on roleplaying, which in my opinion, is more important. With a lot of optimizers out there, sometimes I feel like those players are competing against me, trying to "beat" me, rather than roleplaying with me. Whereas a player who chooses a weaker spell because it fits their play style or character better is usually more fun to play with, as long as they don't TPK by preparing Charm Person in every slot in the middle of a forest or something like that.
Heaven's Agent wrote:
That makes sense to me! I don't think it can get any clearer than that. In regards to the alchemist specifically, alchemists don't know "spells,' they know formulae, which can get converted from spells, but aren't spells, even though they are referred to as extracts from spells. Does this mean that formulae still count as spells?
"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the
Since the spell isn't on his list, why would we assume it would have to be based on the alchemist's caster level? So the minimum caster level of whoever can cast it most efficiently I would assume be sufficient. The default check to create items is 5+CL of the item as far as I understand it. Wouldn't adding +5 for insufficient caster level, and +5 for a caster level higher than your own be double jeopardy? Well, I'd assume we'd use the alchemist's CL for the spell because he's the one creating the potion using his magical telent, but you could use the a wizard's instead, I guess-- if the alchemist is considered as good as potion making as a wizard is at casting spells, then perhaps you could translate the CL using the wizard's CL, which makes sense, especially if you use a wizard's spellbook to learn the inflict spell (though that would lower the DC by 5 anyways!). I know it sounds circular, but, raw, you can't set your own CL to 7, of course, so there's the first +5, but you must set it at CL 7 anyways, so there's the other +5. You could rule that it's not fair to charge a character twice for similar prereqs, and I feel the same way, although it makes crafting items uncomfortably easy for me!
I'd think that, raw, there are too many undefinable terms to conclusively agree on what prereqs can be converted to DC and which ones can't, at least in terms of spell knowledge, since potions don't require a spellcraft check to use, yet they do require the spell to be known, like a spell completion/trigger item. i'd think that, rai, an element of experimentation in the creative process of alchemy and potion making would allow for an alchemist to create a potion of a spell he or she did not know, and that this experimentation would be difficult and unreliable until he or she had developed an appropriate formula at the correct character level.
In regards to the correctness of the method used to create the potion, there is no raw violation of the item creation rules in your nefarious plot. I think. In regards to the correctness of the DC to create, 5 + (min caster level) + (unmet prereq)*(5) is also correct, but the min. caster level of a 3rd level spell for an alchemist is 7, so in conclusion, 5+7+ 5(unknown spell)+ 5(insufficient caster level for spell) +5(caster level higher than your own level)=27 The last two prereq additions are somewhat circular, since you must set the caster level at 1st because it cannot be higher than your own level, but because the caster level for that spell must be higher than your own level, it does not meet either prerequisite. On the plus side, i don't think you have to add a +5 to the DC just because you're crafting it (unless "+5 crafting" is in regards to another prereq I didn't catch, bringing the total to 32). OR, a conscientious DM might rule an additional +5 because that spell is not even a class spell for an alchemist, but this is not a raw ruling. Besides an alchemist can learn any "potionable" spell from a wizard's spellbook. I believe, however, that the nefarious plot can still be executed as planned with a few more modifiers anyways, such as mwk tools, or traits, or maybe feat selection. I think the item creation DC settings are a little vague and complex anyways.
One of the largest issues of postepic play for me is providing a reasonable growth base for my characters. I often wonder if epic characters could stop gaining experience points de jure but continue to gain experience points that award feats or skill points or new/existing class abilities/spells. I feel that horizontal growth is appropriate for epic pcs because it fills the basic desire to improve. My question is, then, is epic vertical growth (BAB, saves, spells per day etc) a significant source of unbalance in the pathfinder setting? Is horizontal growth (spells known, feats, skill points, etc?)
wraithstrike wrote:
As an interesting side effect, using Greater Sunder transfers excess damage to the wielder, which would gain the benefit of smite evil. if the evil character's weapons are aligned due to a class ability or magic property (meaning they overcome damage reduction of that alignment type), then they are considered evil, and smite evil applies to the weapon, since successful sundering precedes a weapon damage roll.
Hobbun wrote:
With Improved Feint, it's possible to feint and cast a spell in one round. It is not possible to use the bluff skill in any other manner in conjunction with casting a spell unless a) the spell is cast as a free, swift, or immediate action, b) you have a special ability from a class or similar sort that modifies this rule, or c) you are delivering a secret message that is ruled to take less than a standard action (this rule is RAI since it is difficult to gauge how long a given message may take to relay. a hidden message takes twice as long to relay as normal, but the metagame application does not specify a numerical time frame for a free, swift, or immediate action, which spoken messages often are ruled to represent)
Dear Paizo Community, This is my homebrew base class thread. The purpose of it is to post base classes I have created. Feel free to critique, comment, or modify these classes, or post any other relevant opinions or even your own material (just don't take my classes and say they're your own!) I will answer any questions regarding the applications of the rules for using any aspect of this class, or any discrepancies between how this class is used and the official Pathfinder gameplay rules. I will probably not answer any questions or comments about the aethestics, roleplaying, or "balancing" aspects of the classes I submit, because I invested enough time in them so that they are balanced for my campaigns and play style. I try not to submit untested or unbalanced work to my peers! Yet there's always someone who thinks an idea is underpowered or overpowered or needs to otherwise be modified, and I don't like to explain or justify my opinions for roleplay devices I've already perfected (for my purposes). Because of the format settings of this forum, I cannot provide the class summary tables that I am so fond of. I have used an annotated
Sincerely, Manplant POSSESSED ARM Level: base (1-20)
“One minute I’m telling her the temple is closed to the public, and the next I’m being slammed into a wall by this freakish shining arm. It looked like it didn’t...belong to her” --Risham, watch lieutenant 3rd rank, Kerzhen Town Guard Possessed arms are a mystery even to themselves. Some historians think they are the holy or unholy results of a union between celestial, demonic, or devilish patrons and the common races. Others believe that possessed arms are simply unwilling hosts for beings that have found a living instrument with which to do their bidding. Others still contend that these hosts are not unwilling at all, but have signed some sort of contract to follow the agenda of their symbiote beings, often known as patron beings, in order to become living weapons. There is definitely some truth in this theory, for possessed arms are known far and wide for the devastation they cause to their enemies. What little is known about them, is that they definitely share the nature and disposition of the extraplanar outsiders that they draw their powers from. Their conviction, and their willingness to use force to further their goals, is legendary. As a result, possessed arms are distrusted, feared, and ostracized in most societies. They are often mercenaries, guardians, or wandering crusaders, working for the cause of the forces that grant them their strength. Possessed arms are never referred individually as possessed arms, but rather for the type of patron being they serve. They may be known as either a demon arm, devil arm, angel arm, or azata arm.
CLASS SKILLS
Skill Ranks per Level: 2+Int modifier CLASS FEATURES
Author’s Notes:
This is a rough essay regarding the Oracle base class. Please critique it. I know I’m not the only member on the board; if you are critiquing this essay on a thread, please address your response to me or quote a part of the essay you are using as reference so I know that you are responding to me. Letter to Paizo, 2 In regards to the new Oracle base class. Dear Paizo, I have recently been devoting a great deal of my GM time to the study of your two new base classes, the Cavalier and the Oracle. This essay includes some of my playtest data on the Oracle class. As with most of my in-game studies, I awarded the class to a beginning player to observe its effects on the PC with less bias and a more frank view of how well the game or aspect thereof is working for them. Having only recently converted to Pathfinder, I had my player shelve his druid and make an oracle of the same level (fringe fifth level). He recognized early on that the foci of the oracles were akin to domains of the cleric. He liked them much more than cleric domains because they created more (and more powerful) options available to his PC. He had settled on the Stone focus after an hour of debate and discussion with the play group. Ironically, he had chosen his curse to be Clouded Sight, but then elected to acquire the Crystal Sight revelation. I told him this was counterproductive and he decided to be Haunted. For the sake of expediency let’s us his character name, Shorm (from Shorm the Coniferous as a druid to Shorm the Stoneclad as an oracle) to describe his reactions and play strategy during a campaign. Upon the completion of character sheet, I noticed that his sheet was less cluttered than any other spellcasting class I had ever made a character sheet for (I’ve made most of them). The straightforwardness of the oracle’s abilities make a fine base class for beginners and perhaps would have made a feasible core class. Shorm’s spell selection process was a little confusing for him, because he did not know which spells from the cleric spell list would be useful to him. I told him to look for any spells with the [acid] and [earth] descriptors. he couldn’t find very many, I’m afraid. I suggested using the druid spell list instead, but he, knowing that I was studying a playtest class, elected to stick to the rules. My first suggestion, therefore, is creating an oracle spell list. I know it is a hard, tedious process, but it will give a vast majority of players more viable spell selections if they choose foci based on elements. I feel a new spell list would also balance the nonelemental foci such as the Bones focus, since they often have a much, perhaps unfairly, larger selection of foci-related spells. Shorm led the party in terms of tactical superiority almost wire to wire. He almost drowned crossing a river because he had no ranks in Swim, but used his ranks in Climb to get elevation and simply leapt across it. He asked me if I would nullify the first 1d6 points of falling damage regardless of his Tumble check because his bones were stone-like. Shorm had quickly become an avatar of stone and earth, and roleplayed as such. Shorm’s player is a spell hoarder, if you are familiar with the term. He saves every spell for what he perceives to be an important or final incident, except spells with a specific purpose, such as omen of peril or spider climb. I often punish his tendency (just to show that meta-game planning doesn’t always work, not to punish his roleplay strategy) by putting a large but weak opponent in the path of the party, in this case, a Huge monstrous spider blocking their path through the forest. Facing no alignment restrictions, he cast inflict moderate wounds, used his acid arrow focus spell, and it was dead (the spider had 49 hp). The party assisted, or course. He then cast cure moderate wounds on himself, since I had the spider attack him on one of its two turns of combat. In short, he had become a very versatile spellcaster. His small number of spells turned his hoarding tendency into a deadly boss-beater. unfortunately for Shorm the real boss was yet to come; it was a 7th level Bones oracle, in this case (I wanted to play a nonelemental oracle and see how much more powerful, if at all, they were). With four first level spells left, he used his Exploding Shard revelation to ruin the skeleton minions of the oracle (even though I ruled that the shards did piercing damage). He cast shield, magic stones, and cure light wounds to heal and damage the opponents. His Steelbreaker Skin revelation did not work this time, but Shorm is determined to use it until it does. The Bones oracle I used was hard to hit with his Armor of Bones revelation, but his Resist Life revelation did more harm than help. The higher level Oracles I generated for test play showed a more noticeable difference in abilities; the Clouded Vision Battle oracle is a terrifying blind swordsman, and is now a favored PC template of mine. As a result of these encounters, he ran out of both revelations and spells fairly quickly. I had difficulty finding any other technical discrepancies with this class. I have observed complaints from the online community about the class being weak, especially at lower levels; most of their suggestion go into reworking the spell system to provide for more spells a day or a different spell list. I feel that such changes might be unnecessary if the oracle simply gained more revelations over the course of his level progression. Or perhaps make several minor revelations that can be used more often, or are always active. I personally do not see any need to change the spells known or the spells per day of the oracle. An oracle becomes, in combat, an opportunity combatant, but primarily serves as a supporting character. I am in the process of choosing special druid spells to add to the oracle’s class list so at least the selection process will make up for the lack of versatility and the relatively finite casting power. I might go so far as to allow oracles to choose spells from the cleric and druid spell lists, or allow them to choose which spell list of the two they would like to pick their spells from. That is also my suggestion to the design team. I would expect an oracle in my party to use their revelations and spells only when standard attack options aren’t working or the party looks to be losing ground. I suspect that they are much the spellcaster’s answer to the monk class; actually, a multiclass monk/oracle could be a very lethal combination. At higher levels, the oracle has both an effective set of melee abilities and an effective set of spellcasting abilities, making them seem underpowered at first but overpowered at last (again, much like the monk class). A 15th level oracle, with appropriate gear, that I played against a CR 11 barbed devil singlehandedly slew it in six rounds. Alone, against a CR 15 neothelid, she was slain in eight rounds, bringing the beast down to nearly half hp. As a roleplaying character, the oracle is a treasure for the PC and GM alike. The manifestation of the oracle’s curse is a useful tool for adding intrigue and interesting situations for the GM, and the thematic fixation of the oracle on his or her focus makes for a dedicated PC who has a clear idea of the oracle’s personality and lifestyle. Shorm will remain an oracle because his player enjoys the class so much. The image of a haunted, stoic, dwarven stone-mage is clear and compelling for Shorm’s player, skin slightly gray like rock, eyes glowing like gemstones as he summons earthly spires to crush his enemies and crystal sight to seek out a cavernous place to start a new clan. In conclusion, the oracle has been an explosive offensive force in my campaign testing. I feel that although it is a class for advanced players primarily, its limited casting ability is offset by powerful revelations and effective spells. A beginning player would often spend too many spells and revelations in one place; if you wish to design the class for beginners, I would suggest making a wider spell selection and more always-active abilities to make it easier to manage the expenditure of their power. My prediction is that the oracle will be the closest answer to the spellblade (otherwise known as the gish) that Paizo offers in the near future and that the oracle will carve out its niche as a multiclass option for characters of all classes. I realize that my solutions may have already been considered, and that similar observations are being made by the Pathfinder community. I understand that the design team may have different feeling on the power of the class and the balance of power as the oracle progresses, and I defer to their experience in any case. I plan to fully utilize the oracle class in future campaigns. I can send the stat blocks of any and all created characters upon request. This can be said for any character created in any of my essays unless otherwise noted. This is the unabridged version of the Oracle essay. -Manplant
This is a rough essay regarding the cavalier class. Please critique it.
Letter to Paizo, 1 In regards to the new Cavalier base class Dear Paizo, As a player of eight years and a dungeon master of six, at only twenty years old, I’m afraid I don’t have the experience to properly address all or even any of the technical advantages or disadvantages of the cavalier base class. I have, however, made some observations through gameplay that I would like to share with the designers of the class, since that is, after all, what the class packet was intended to be used for. It should be noted that these observations take place in a homebrew campaign with beginner players (I feel that new ideas should always be tested on those unfamiliar with the system so that the reactions to the class are felt rather than thought out, if you understand my meaning). I adapted a 3.5 character (a gnome knight 3) with the player’s permission. The player was drawn to the knight base class (from which many of the cavalier concepts seem to be drawn) primarily because of the particular role in party play that it often fills--the alignment-driven combat tank/party leader. Her character (Lady Heldeguard by character name; let’s be informal and refer to her by it as Lady Helly) was tailored for this role, and fit well once converted, with primary abilities being Strength, Charisma, and Constitution. She was very excited about choosing an order to affiliate with, as most players are when given many options. The problem with Lady Helly as a knight was that the plethora of level-dependant abilities made it difficult for her player to keep track of them all. The knight’s challenge can be used in many situations, a certain number of times, for different effects, while the bonuses given to her in terms of armor, shields, and mounted combat left her character sheet a mess of my footnotes so she wouldn’t forget any viable options during combat. This variety put a great burden of complexity on the player’s memory to fully utilize Lady Helly’s abilities. And this is at 3rd level. Once converted, I can’t say I expected these problems to go away, after all, the class is to appear in the Advanced Player’s Handbook, not the beginner’s player handbook. I groaned inwardly as I realized I would have to rewrite her riding dog mount stat block & annotate it for her use. Thankfully the core rulebook has such an annotated block. Since the companion functioned exactly as a simplified druid companion, this was easy to run and maintain during combat. Since the bonuses to mounted combat were permanent and uniconditional (mounted charge only), it was easily used to run down foes (I had several orc rangers that were brutally murdered this way) in open areas, but was unavailable in strange or constrained terrain (which happened once the rangers were chased into wooded area). We can’t wait until level 11 to get Mighty Charge. When I told the player that Lady Helly could choose any of the given oaths for any of the given effects, she actually told me she would only use one oath (the oath of protection) and asked if she could always have the effect of the oath active as long as the conditions were met (in this case, she wanted the AC bonus as long as she was in combat adjacent to her ward, which, to her, was more like protecting than hoping that the warded character took no damage after she had spent a whole day waiting to gain its benefit). I agreed. In short, I would suggest making only a few oaths available to a given cavalier, and simplifying the effect conditions to be active until broken. It might also be better to exclude bonuses based on HD and rather use character level for all oath bonuses, since the former punishes players and DMs for using a certain play strategy. I created and tested my own 10th and 15th level cavaliers and found their oath powers to be equivalent of a medium magic item (max +5 bonuses on saves, checks, or rolls), a significant but not unbalanced boost, save in the instance where a 20th level character has four active oaths in four separate fields (+5 AC, +5 saves, +10 saves that include the previous general +5 and the specific +5 offered for some effects, and +5 attack rolls is a little much). I feel it would be much better to have two active oaths by 20th level and no more, doubly so since a player character does not want to feel her rolepalying choices must be oppressed in order to fight effectively. Here is my revised version of the cavalier’s oath ability. Oath: A cavalier can swear an oath at 1st level to do something particularly honorable. As long as the cavalier fulfills the conditions of this oath, he gains a bonus. If he breaks his oath, he loses this bonus for 24 hours, after which his oath is restored once the conditions are met (if he breaks this oath during this 24 hour period the time resets from the most recent violation). Once chosen an oath can be revoked only through a week’s worth of time rededicating oneself to a new cause. At 9th level a cavalier may take a second oath, so long as it does not conflict with the first. Although the DM and the PC set which oaths the cavalier is going to take, here are some examples of cavalier oath options:
These oaths provide more of a hindrance to the PC but are simpler in their scope and usage. I realize that they may not be simple enough, and that some conditional issues have not been solved. The next area of the cavalier I looked at was the order system. In short, I think it is beautiful. I am absolutely happy with all aspects of it (as are my players) save one. Lady Helly often forgets to challenge. When I remind her, she just as often tells me it’s not worth the effort to keep up with! We both had similar issues with the knight’s challenge ability, because 1) it had to be renewed for each new enemy and 2) the effects, although useful, were often not useful enough. The restrictions and variables of the challenge ability for either knight or cavalier class has proven too much for PCs to keep up with. Although the cavalier’s challenge is a powerful tool in combat, I feel it might be better with less rules regarding its application. Especially since the cavalier already has an oath system, and an order system that works well without the challenge ability, I would suggest removing it entirely. If not that, I would suggest making it resemble the smite ability, usable once per day, against any one opponent, making cavalier a viable choice for former paladins who want to avoid alignment restrictions of that smite ability. OR, it is feasible to make it like a ranger’s favored enemy ability, but usable only against a specific foe, only a certain number of times per day. OR, since I have seen multiple complaints online about such use of similar (“pirated”) class features, you could engineer a (somewhat) new method for challenges, like the one below: Challenge!: A cavalier can challenge an opponent, calling on the force of his will and the strength of his sword to overwhelm his foes. He can make an attempt to demoralize a foe in combat, adding 1/2 his class level to the roll, and any other modifiers that normally apply to it. If he succeeds, he gains an advantage against that opponent, depending on the order he is a part of. He may only challenge once during an encounter. At first level, he may challenge only one opponent, but at 5th level, and every three levels after, he may challenge one more opponent at a time (using the same demoralize roll). From there I suppose your design team could create some advantages in the form of foe penalties or player bonuses. I used this method with Lady Helly, who, needing only to make one challenge per encounter (usually on her first turn) to utilize its function (as an Order of the Shield cavalier I thought it fitting for her to gain a +2 morale bonus to AC against her mark), shouted a variation of a phrase and title from her favorite death metal song: “Come Forth And Die!!” I realize that this may not be simple or original enough for your purposes, but the purpose of this essay is to provide suggestions for a remodel structure, not to provide a remodel structure. Unlike some forum members, I do not see any unbalancing issues with specific class abilities, except perhaps the Move As One order ability, which should be made daily rather than...encounter-ly. That aside, such abilities, though powerful, only shape one battle and a good GM can always recover from a fast-won battle with an insidious design or cunning twist. Some of these abilities may need to change according to the changes to other class abilities I have suggested, if they are adopted. I also read several complaints about the role-playing element of the class, which I found to be totally irrelevant on the basis that a player character’s roleplaying potential is never hurt by having more options. Many members of the online forums thought the class was unnecessary or pirated from other classes. I do not share this view because I cannot see the harm of having to choose between a few more classes, regardless of how specific their function or occupational role. A good PC makes a personality and backstory for her character, and a good GM rewards her with challenging decisions and recurring themes that either show her worth or expose her weaknesses. I don’t care about what niche the cavalier was meant to cover, be it mounted-unaligned-fighter-druid-knight or nonspellcasting-tank-mounted-combat-specialist blah blah blah. A PC thst wishes to play as a knight from her first level is well served with this class. The point of Pathfinder is to find paths, not follow predetermined ones. This is the unabridged version of my essay on the Cavalier base class. -Manplant |