|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm trying to tie it to magic items that I can create (as a DM).
As an example, say I create a book called A Gaeologist's Manuel to the Life Aquatic. If a caster reads the book, it adds one "aquatic" monster to each numeral of Summon Nature's Ally.
As I want to create multiple of these, though the feats help, I'd like to find a way to systematize the selection process.
If that makes sense.
Thank you for your responses! I will definitely check out that book. But again, I am looking as a DM, so while pre-existing feats are helpful, they aren't getting at what I really want: A general process for deciding whether to include a creature onto a Summon list.
CR is probably not the best benchmark for the summon monster spells.
I agree with you in that it shouldn't be the only benchmark, but I think it is perhaps safe to make this the first benchmark, as it automatically weeds out a lot of creatures that are either too "weak" or too "powerful" for placement on a list of a certain numeral.
For example, what about using the following list as a starting point:
SM I, CR <1
Then, once I am considering a monster at that CR, looking at it's spells, spell-like abilities, and movement modes, to round out the decision?
Seconding the importance of Tactics and Teamwork, especially when considered together. The game is very lethal unless a party works together smartly, unselfishly.
If I had to quantify it, I would say the party tactics and teamwork can be "worth" up to 3 CR in either direction. As the party understands this more, their collective chances of survival improves.
Charge a feat!
Alternate Magic Source
Thank you for all your responses. Let me know if this sounds good (building off Balkoth's suggestion):
An NPC has effective CR equal to their character level -2. If they have PC levels and/or wealth, each removes a -1. So, an NPC with both PC levels and wealth has effective CR equal to their character level.
Then, when attempting to defeat a challenge (for their PC friends), they have a 50% chance of success if their CR is equal to that of the challenge. This base chance is modified by +/- 20% for each difference in CR, as illustrated in this table:
Challenge / Success Rate
CR -3 / 100% (certain)
Does this sound it strikes a balance between being both easy and fast to use as well as a fairly reasonable application using the CR system?
Thanks for you speedy reply!
Two things I want to say.
Say I have a Level 4 Aristocrat NPC who wants to defeat a CR 3 challenge (for their PC friend). What should be their chance of success?
How does this change if the CR exceeds the NPC's level? (Or how ought this to scale generally?)
How does this change if the NPC has PC levels (and/or equipment/wealth) instead?
Thanks in advance.
Some more general play questions - on the Revised Action Economy itself as well as your innovations upon it (primarily the "passive act" I believe).
Was it a problem that low level PCs could attack three or four times per round?
What about the NPCs?
How do you handle creatures with natural attacks? Does it matter how many they have? For example creatures with 2, 3, 5, or 8 natural attacks?
What is the impact of getting rid of "tertiary" attacks? By this I mean the second iterative in the old system (at -10) as one might expect it to translate into the new system (at -10).
What are the exact rules for the 5-foot step? For example, if I have used 1 act to move this round, can I save my passive act for a 5-foot step? (This is prohibited in the regular rules).
Ok lemme know if I am getting this.
A character with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat may:
A character with the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat may:
A character with the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat may:
Is that right?
So, let's say I have a Rogue who wants to use the Two-Weapon Fighting feat under this system.
I can move my full speed (first act), attack with both weapons at -2/-2 (second act), and either move my full speed again or make another double attack at -7/-7 (third act)?
Or, if I "stand still", I can use all three acts to attack a total of six times at -2/-2 (first), then -7/-7 (second), then -7/-7 (third)?
Or, if I have the Improved Feint feat, I can move my full speed (first), attempt to feint my opponent (second), then attack at -2/-2 (third)?
For all of these options, may I also take a 5-foot step (a passive act) before/after any of my other three acts? Or do 5-foot steps still follow the "only if you haven't otherwise moved" limitation?
Last question: how does the Spring Attack feat work? Is it a double-act or triple-act?
Story Hook: The partyfulfilled an ancient prophecy, fortelling the messiah. But depending on interpretation, any of them could be the messiah.
Ok imagine 5 different narrative junctions.
You do not have to flesh these out in advance - rather let them develop organically during play, and spend some DM time reflecting between sessions.
Each iteration, choose a single word in the prophecy to change in light of new events. You can hash it up to translation, interpretation, what have you.
Just careful not to paint yourself into a corner.
Take a cue from the Acrobatics skill?
If you have 3 ranks in the Acrobatics skill, you get better mileage out of Fighting Defensively and Total Defense (+1 and +2 to AC respectively).
Maybe you could cook up something similar for the Athletics skill?
If you want to work with the system (using 5th level as "earth maximum" baseline), keep the modifier modest through the first 5 ranks.
I had this happen - and was inconvenienced by an unscrupulous weasel.
I called around for the 1st book of an AP, and got a guy who worked in my local game store saying he'd sell it to me for twenty bucks. I asked him if he'd take my number "just in case" and he refused saying "what for?" So I took 2 hours public transit to the store the next day. When I got there, the guy I talked to on the phone pretended that he didn't know what I was talking about. He had a horrible poker face. I just walked out.
I think what happened was he found out he could sell it for more, and since he didn't take my number, didn't give me a courtesy call to redact his offer.
Almost jaded me enough to discontinue my patronage to the store. Almost.
Morale: if you make a deal, make sure they take your number!
Only related tangentially, my group finds the Craft and Profession skills to be useless and are dump skills that receive one or two ranks at best. I know they can be fairly useful, but no one in my group ever bothers with them.
Craft can save a character money if they put in the time. Thus, I find the value of the skill to be largely dependent on the DM.
As for Profession, perhaps consider a house rule I use: For associated skill checks whose DC is under 20, Profession can act in place of other skills, provided a justification can be provided and agreed upon by player and DM. This way, you can get a little horizontal mileage out of the skill, but save specializations for the skills that actually cover the "high skill" functions.
For the sake of argument, my reasoning is threefold.
1) It's called Uncanny Dodge so I claim "intent" with this argument (you don't "dodge" a beam or wall while you traverse it).
Curious to hear the reasoning of the other side though...
Agreed with above posters.
If you want to improve the fighter's saves and skill points, why go the roundabout way? Just give 'em an extra save and extra skill points and class skills.
So maybe your fix could look something like:
A 1st level fighter chooses one of the following packages below and gains the listed skills as class skills.
Derring – Acrobatics (Dex), Escape Artist (Dex), Fly (Dex), Knowledge (Local; Int),
I just deleted the skills that are already class skills and added a couple to even 'em out - perhaps aim for 3-5 per package
I have my own simple patch which I use in conjunction with tweaks to my base system (feats, skills, combat) and other 3rd party solutions.
Fighter gets 4 skill points, good Will saves, several more class skills (utilizing INT, WIS, CHA), and the ability to retrain their "fighter bonus feats" on a daily basis similar to how a wizard prepares spells.
Popping in to give my opinion about the Kickstarter survey (classes vs. monsters).
Count me in the camp that says changing the packages after the fact constitutes a breach in the original agreement, and is therefore bad form.
That said, I fully support the project moving forward, and expect to be dazzled by the final product. Best!
My change to Point Blank Shot is to let the Sneak Attack class feature "count" as it for feat pre-requisites. The reasoning is three-fold:
1) Archery is already a powerful style and deserves to be feat intensive.
So, your 1st level Rogue (of any race) can start their career being a specialist at shooting into a melee (Point Blank Shot), shooting with incredible speed (Rapid Shot), or shooting from incredible distance (Far Shot).
Furthermore, I also allow "Sneak Attack +3d6" to count for "BAB +6" pre-requisites for the Improved Precise Shot feat (yes I lowered the BAB from +11 to +6 to allow Fighters to keep up with Rangers), and generally allow sneak attack dice to count for twice it's dice number in BAB for other feats that I find thematic for a Rogue (like Improved Critical, Lunge, and Pinpoint Targeting).
I also do similar things with Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge.
To answer your last question, W E Ray, I think the idea is that you better be able to hit a target at 10 meters away [i]really well[i/] before you begin practicing anything else tricky.
I already do a few feat consolidations and bypasses (ex. "Improved Maneuver" feats upgrade immediately upon meeting pre-requisites, TWF and Improved TWF and Greater TWF are all a single feat, Sneak Attack counts as Point-Blank Shot for pre-requisite purposes, other tweaks).
But this thread got me thinking about an idea that may help you. Maybe at certain BAB unlocks (like 6, 11, 16; or maybe some other sequence) a character may "upgrade" a single feat for free by choosing another feat "up the chain" to unlock so long as they meet the prerequisites. Basing it on BAB would help the characters that need it most and be a general boost for everybody.
Ex. An 8th level rogue improving to BAB 6 who already has the Mobility feat may choose to unlock Spring Attack without spending a precious feat slot.
Good luck with your house rules in any case. Cheers!
Dropping in to give my opinion on Spheres of Talent.
(because I don't have a giant in the playground account per kickstarter recommendation)
I think the answer is yes, pending the success of Spheres of Might (which I believe will actualize in a big way with the community) with a caveat:
Because combat is at the center of the Pathfinder game, I don't think it'd just be as straight-forward as releasing a third book with 10 new "rogues" - because, in my experience, with the arguable exception of the Rogue base class, all classes either have Power (spellcasting) and/or Might (big attack bonuses), which constrains the design-space around focusing solely on Talent (skills).
So, I think the smart play it would be to think of a third Sphere system as something that sits atop the base two, which perhaps 2 or 3 new classes based entirely around Talent, and twice or thrice (or more) that many also utilizing Power and Might accordingly.
Short answer: Yes!
Some more background:
I'm actually going to run it as a "mindscape" of sorts. As in, the players will not be physically traveling to the Mwangi Expanse, but instead transported metaphysically to "re-live" an expedition that began as a successful overland adventure but quickly descended into a massacre of most of the expedition party - ending in an ancient ruin that has dark secret.
The goal of the "mindscape adventure" is expositional for a meta-plot. If even one PC survives to the "end" of the adventure, they unlock all of that backstory, basically gaining information as to what happened to the original expedition some 50 years ago.
Hope that makes sense.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Absolutely no pressure.
But I am definitely looking forward to seeing the finished product!
And if you would like some vectored feedback after I run it (with some flavor doctoring, likely), I can provide you that.
I would love to have a look at the full proposal!
I dunno if that helps, but I've been wracking my mind to think of some kind of suggestion to accompany my criticism. Digging into the combat system this deeply causes some ugly inconsistencies to rear (like "hand of effort" and "natural vs unarmed attacks" and "unarmed size increase") while simultaneously creating opportunities to address some of those inconsistencies. Perhaps with some further development, the Open Hand sphere can be such an opportunity?
Scàthach Ulster wrote:
I like this perspective.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.