|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Scàthach Ulster wrote:
I like this perspective.
The PCs are recruited for a mission to assist the Bellflower Network with a rescue. Their contact has a ship, and the PCs are to sail to the estate of a noble who lives on the coast just outside of a large city, break into the well-guarded estate, evacuate the halflings that live there, and escape.
Dangers include navigation through suddenly bad weather, sea monsters, the noble's mini-army of land and boat bound soldiers, and the noble family themselves who have some sort of supernatural secret.
Designed for a full party of characters 4th or 5th level.
I think I like this and will run it by my players. I am now curious to see your Gnome stats. I assume, similarly, you merely turn the "Small Size" into the "Little Folk" trait and call it done.
How long have you been doing this for?
How would you change the mechanics?
This makes sense to me.
One more point I want to make and then I'll back down.
I feel like your proposal, as-written, doesn't really "feel" like a poison. It's basically just a re-flavored bomb. The cool thing about the concept of recurring damage is that it differentiates the mechanics in such a way that it changes the "feel" as well.
If the Toxicicist uses a recurring-damage mechanic, then instead of getting instant burst damage, their victim eventually "succumbs" after a few rounds (and failed saves) which "feels" more like a poison-laced victory for our Toxicicist.
Either way, good luck writing your class!
We could even potentially do an "Unleashed Juggernaut" monster sphere...
So let's say this Monster Sphere concept comes to fruition by virtue of the size of the kickstart being able to stretch it. What would we be looking at here? Like, five special Monster Spheres, general rules/suggestions for advancing monsters using Spheres, and twenty sample monsters CR 1-20?
Something like that?
You know, I kind of like the idea where higher level slots are granted but without corresponding spells known. This leaves it in the DM's purview to control access to higher level "game-changer" spells without impeding terribly on the progression.
If I were to do something like this, I would still keep the Wizards and Clerics in the game as masters of metamagic with the spells that are still available.
Perhaps gate spells I wanted to control behind some kind of "ritual" mechanic - perhaps as X/week abilities that allowed the Wizard or Cleric to sacrifice high level spell slots for the week in order to have occasional, controlled uses of spells that typically "game-change" narratives.
To me, it's being able to cast these spells with incredible frequency that poses the biggest challenges for higher level play - and less the existence of the spells themselves.
This kind of project seems to have the same motives that springboarded inspiration for E6, E8, or E12.
As a DM, I run that "believable" < "unlikely" < "far-fetched" < "impossible" and that only one can apply to a specific con.
That said, I could imagine a situation where a lack of needed convincing proof could stack against a believability penalty on a single Bluff check - even though no such penalty exists on the table (but could be inferred from it's opposite).
And ultimately, perhaps your DM's frustration is that there is no automatic way that the difficulty of Bluffing (or using Diplomacy to influence) his NPCs increases with their level? I share this frustration and implemented a house rule that NPCs add their level, their WIS, and their CHA to a base DC of 10. Any attempts to Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate them must succeed against this DC. If using Bluff, then one of the believability penalties applies. And this works well at our table.
Friendly to Amanuensis' suggestion, I could see your poison being "frequency-fied" like so:
A Toxicicist's poison deal 1d6 damage plus his Intelligence modifier once per round for one round, plus one round for every two Toxicicist levels he possesses, and requires a single successful save to throw off the effects. Multiple poisons in a single victim stack damage and virulence - the victim only makes a single save each round, and each successive dose increases the Fortitude DC by +2.
What are you going to do about the following discoveries:
Concentrate poison: The alchemist can combine two doses of the same poison to increase their effects. This requires two doses of the poison and 1 minute of concentration. When completed, the alchemist has one dose of poison. The poison's frequency is extended by 50% and the save DC increases by +2. This poison must be used within 1 hour of its creation or it is ruined.
Sticky poison: Any poison the alchemist creates is sticky—when the alchemist applies it to a weapon, the weapon remains poisoned for a number of strikes equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier. An alchemist must be at least 6th level before selecting this discovery.
The kickstart announced that the development team can do one but not both of:
1) Creating extra DM Monster material ("Mighty Sphere Monsters")
I for one would be a a proponent for the former. But that is because my primary role is a DM right now.
That said, I am unclear where the "voting by backers" (?) for this will be...
I was thinking it'd bake right into the Athletics sphere. Because, primarily, the sphere is about movement in several modes - climbing, jumping, running, and swimming - and the Withdraw action is essentially about tactical movement through those modes. So like:
Admittedly, I'm having a hard time differentiating linguistically between "dedicated focus + focus expended" and "dedicated focus + focus unexpended" - the language is incredibly tricky to convey and perhaps needs some clean up...
There are a lot of new effects that are FAEWINYTs, or "free action even when it's not your turn." Two pieces of feedback here.
One, perhaps they need their own name. Free-immediate?
Two, there seems to be a lot of them. And because of that, they might risk slowing a combat round down even more than attack of opportunity already do - don't get me wrong, I love AoOs! - but you may want to consider economizing them.
Like, a Mighty Martial can take one FAEWINYT (or free-immediate action) per round at 1st level, plus one at BAB 6, 11, and 16.
Because I never liked that Crossbows could "be just like bows" if they put in the extra feat or two (Rapid Reload, and Crossbow Mastery if heavy) to drop their reload time.
Instead, I'd like to see Crossbows carve out their own niche - and not just by taking an archetype, but actually having their own special feats/talents. I think any player would be okay with extended loading times if that one shot per round packed a wallop and had it's own special chain of abilities that kept it competitive yet distinct from other ranged weapons. Bonus points of the "feel" of light, heavy, and hand crossbows are all slightly different!
Yeah my posting here is a reflection of my excitement. I have a feeling that as good as SoP was to improving the casting system (which was a lot), SoM will be an even greater improvement to the martial system by comparison!
What about additional Crossbow support?
(Like, as distinct from the other ranged styles)
I have no problem homebrewing solutions.
I just wanted to be helpful by pointing out something that may slip through the cracks.
Nothing like a self-contained subsystem that expands upon existing systems and plays well with the standing rules including provisions (sidebars, added rules text, etc) for potential problems of interaction/implementation as needed.
Last question for reals:
Will Spheres of Might feature mechanical incentives for building martial characters with high mental ability scores?
Because I would love to be able to rock a combat with a martial character who boasted one of the following arrays:
INT > ST/DX/CON > others
This is indeed a core system problem, but one I would argue that has been able to go unaddressed because of the "inertia" around making combat maneuvers "work" for martial characters. Part of the reason I am so exited for this project is because you stuck your design flag in this underexplored-but-potentially-rich section of the combat rules. As a consequence, I might expect this longstanding problem to crop up with greater frequency - and I know the last thing you want is for all your lovely design to incidentally slow the pace of play with easily-fixable rules kerfuffles.
Off the top of my head, there is Initiative and Order of Declaration (for ready actions); but also perhaps CMB or BAB?
Congratulations on being funded btw! Can't wait to get my hardcopy in like a year, when my (mostly new-ish) players will be ready for some added martial complexity.
N. Jolly wrote:
Clever design can mitigate this greatly, yes.
But what if, for example, two Mighty Martials who have the same Talent ready the same Trigger - say, both trigger off "prone" and both expect to move the target 10 feet closer - what will be the process for ordering resolution?
Last relevant question for now:
Do you expect to inherit the difficulties of "timing windows" that many card games have?
It would seem to me that a system built on Triggers and Board-Altering Effects might clash when two Triggers fire simultaneously for two different Mighty Martials whose Effects would be sequentially mutually exclusive. This could perhaps be mostly settled with initiative count, but in the instance of readied actions, I could see this being a potential wrench in the pace and flow of Mighty Combat.
Will there be a rewrite to how Combat Maneuvers in general work? For example, a common house rule is that maneuvers only provoke an a failed attempt (as opposed to pre-emptively). If not, and if certain "styles" are centered around certain maneuvers, how will these interact with the current feat system (like Improved Trip, Greater Trip, etc)?
Building off that question, how will Combat Maneuvers be made relevant at later levels? For example, if I build a Mighty Martial whose Talents Triggers off of the prone condition, will my toolkit be rendered obsolete against a flying enemy?
And building off that question more generally, with the prospect of Mighty Monsters getting my Evil DM side excited, how will these interact across the various size and movement mode discrepancies of PCs and Monsters?
Finally, concerning Counters, aside from using Talent selection to leverage better positioning (which is really cool!), will there be any sort of Rock-Paper-Scissor dynamics? If so, what might some of these look like?
Will there be Counters?
Say for example I know my opponent's "style" triggers off of knocking me prone. Will there be alternative ways (aside CMD) for me to prevent her from being able to do that? If so, what might that look like?
The SoM system is more about chaining together cool combos of moves rather than using the same ones repeatedly.
This describes the feel of the system. My question is about the actual mechanics.
Perhaps from this we can deduce that instead of "might points" each Talent has a Trigger (ex. "enemy is prone"), an Action Cost (ex. "attack of opportunity"), and an Effect (ex. "damage plus area effect") to balance it's daily use?
* For those unfamiliar with Spheres of Power, can you clarify the way the system works. Right now it seems cool, and obviously SoP is popular, but I have no idea how the system works.
Basically in Spheres of Power, casters get daily spell points, and each Talent gives you a Sphere that unlocks "at-will" abilities and/or "spell point" abilities.
One big question is will there be "might points" or some equivalent in Spheres of Might?
...they'd have to cast Summon [Marimba] at the start of every combat...
This would be fabulous to see!
One thing I find very interesting is the disconnect between "components" and "displays" - maybe if we explicitly acknowledge that they aren't always the same thing, we could open up design space.
For example, playing an instrument requires Movement, Vocal or Somatic components, whereas susceptibility to bardic performance requires experiencing Visual or Audio displays.
So like, the Bard Tunes a few Moxie points into his Instruments.
Thereafter, while he actively plays the Tuned Instruments, effects happen.
And, he may use un-Tuned Moxie to do the standard Bardic Performance stuff.
An Instrument can have a maximum Tuning equal to his ranks in the associated skill. And each effect requires an amount of Moxie equal to thrice-minus-two the level of the effect (scaling parallel with his acquired spell slots).
How do skills like Sing and Dance stay as relevant?
N. Jolly wrote:
Thanks for that.
I see that *** means Occult Adventures.
What are the other markers?
Omigod there is 3 of them. All highly reviewed, no less. Ok gang, which one has the best low-level Earth Talents?
Onyx Tanuki wrote:
I'll have to go through the talents more, though; there's quite a few which simulate spells, and some of those may work with stone vandal as well.
Pretty sure that's it. Let me know if you find something else.
I noticed the 2nd level Druid spell Soften Earth and Stone and, while mechanically similar to Entangling Infusion, targets an area as opposed to a person. And as the spell effects "all natural, undressed earth or stone" in it's area it is an example of a spell that could be converted to a talent that could work with Stone Vandal.
What is KoP? Those abilities sound cool.
Maybe a Panache pool.
But instead of "deeds" they get "dirty deeds" at the appropriate levels. Then you could use that to design what you want them to be able to do at 1st, 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th.
Pawns in my Game
-While you have one or more panache in your pool, creatures you threaten are also considered threatened by other creatures you consider enemies. This ability sets up a few class features of the warmonger, and affected creatures are hereafter referred to as "pawns."
Into the Fray
The idea being that each of these types of dirty deeds could scale by level - for example becoming the abilities Gather Crowd and Incite Violence (as the Demagogue Bard) upon reaching appropriate levels (perhaps 3rd then 7th). Cheers!