|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Part of the reason I suggested "add BAB" was because I wanted to raise the difficulty significantly using a metric that already existed.
Maybe, similar to what you have suggested, I could have my casters roll their check, penalized by the level of the spell, compared against threatening enemies' CMD?
That could create a situation where the caster provokes attacks from some of his threatening enemies (as opposed to all or nothing).
Remember the Paladin/Ranger/Bloodrager who will have a smaller chance of succeeding at the concentration DC will still have the option to risk an AoO in order to have 100% success with the spell. The question they ask themself is not "do I risk wasting my turn casting this spell" it's "do I risk taking some damage to cast this spell?" - big difference.
Furthermore, there already exists in the game an incentive to use buffs prior to wading into melee - action economy! You want to have all your magic bonuses active before you close with your enemy so you can use your combat actions offensively when you arrive.
In fact, the Paladin/Ranger/Bloodrager will be able to turn around and threaten their lower-BAB focused-caster enemies with not only their higher BABs but also their higher AoO damage output. I thus find it difficult to argue that full-BAB hybrid casters are victimized by this rule.
Thanks for everybody's input btw!
I agree that Casting Defensively suddenly becomes a 1/4 or 1/3 gambit - but! - the caster still has the choice after failing the check to either keep the spell and risk AoO or lose the spell and remain safe. That is a powerful choice they do not currently have.
Create Mr. Pitt - i'm curious if you could elaborate more on how this disproportionately impacts lower level casters. For example, I might argue that all spell levels (1st-9th) have means of avoiding combat either directly (expeditous retreat, invisibility, fly) or indirectly (color spray, glitterdust, stinking cloud) - and that damage on corresponding level AoOs remains at a roughly equal proportions of lethality at all character levels (1st-20th). I think I see your point but am not entirely convinced.
Johnnycat93 - Yes, one response to this houserule would be to invest resources more heavily into avoiding melee entirely - but wouldn't another equally contributive response be to rely even moreso on your allies' positioning and tactics? And thus stress teamwork and collaboration even more?
Nohwear - I am slightly okay with making the game a little more lethal - especially to casters - if at the same time it gives non-casters a little more of an edge. Also, given the choice between longer combats and shorter combats, as concerns systemic changes via houserules, I prefer the latter.
Remember this proposal still allows the caster to get their spell off 100% if they survive the AoO. That is no small benefit.
Also, the PCs are usually a level or few higher than the mooks (who are the most likely to use this rule to their advantage) - so Create Mr. Pit's rough math might be a baseline for a hybrid caster but a little better for a focused caster. Furthermore, the Magus and Warpriest (as Johnnycat93 pointed out) are better outfitted to survive an AoO between their superior armor, HD, and (likely) spell preparation.
Do you think this will make full casters slightly more dependent on their melee friends (and mobility/positioning etc)? That is sort of my aim here.
Well, this both makes combat casting harder (higher DC) and easier (provoke option) - and ultimately (I believe) more dangerous. My question to the forums is:
Who does this help the most?
I ask because I need help figuring out the permutations to see if it's worth implementing.
Considering the following houserule:
The idea here is to make casting in close combat riskier without removing the option outright.
Has anybody used a houserule like this? How did you fare with it? Thoughts?
Based on a post here, I ran some statistics and devised the following chart:
d12 (approx 25)
Each time a device is used, the user rolls the dice, which "declines" on a "1" to the next lower type. Once at "d4", a "1" drains the device of charges entirely.
The statistics above give an average of how many uses can be reasonably expected starting with a certain die type. So, a staff having 10 charges would start at d8.
Ciaran, spitballing here:
Bull Rush - CMB or Intimidate
What do you do about the dilemma in which skills are easier to obtain bonuses to than CMD? By assigning a penalty to the skilled attempt but not the CMB attempt? Or by having the skill attempt draw a pre-emptive AoO whereas a CMB attempt provokes only on failure?
Maybe the skilled maneuver must exceed CMD by 5 in order to succeed? And if it only "merely" succeeds (by less a margin than 5), the defender may make a simultaneous AoO?
Four Horsemen—Famine wrote:
Rainzax, at the $30 backer level, you'll get all the pdf products from stretch goals as well as a pdf of the base Talented Bestiary, including creatures and the system. You'll also be able to order a single copy of the book in print-on-demand. At the estimated $19 for print cost, you'll be getting a full color print book and three pdf products for a total of $49, which is pretty great value. Consider that a regular hardback bestiary is $40-50 without the flexible system, player options, monster classes, or templates.
So, the short version is 50 bucks (30+19ish) lands me a print copy?
Or do I have to print it out myself?
New to this kickstarter thing...
The only thing I don't like about these proposals is that they are based off skill checks.
To me, the "rogue" concept is about versatility. And from that follows that the proposals above that are based on skills should be optional (rogue talents or part of archetypes), while the other ones should be general. That way I can spend my 8 skill points how I like and not miss out on anything no matter how I do.
My 2cp again.
This looks cool. Excited for print.
To build on Malwing's ask, any way those that order both print and pdf who have formerly purchased PC (or LH) could secure a discount? If not I'll probably just get the print edition.
Also, any spoilers to the changes you have made to Morale Checks or Antagonize Checks?
Since the Rogue is short 5 BAB for full initiation under the system, I was figuring when I had the time I'd do a quick archetype for him that traded the Talents gained at 2,6,10,14, and 18 and granted full initiation, plus maybe a couple little perks related to sparking with skills (assuming you go with the reactive version and not the XP based one).
This sounds like a cool idea
A wee bit melodramatic, no?
I did not have a character who was negatively affected by the errata.
But I can understand others' frustration on exactly how the errata was handled. I'd say about half of the changes were fair, the other half were overly punitive, as if Paizo wanted to erase a page in their history altogether (despite folks - some admittedly overzealous - being invested in it). That many options, instead of being brought down a notch were brought down several notches seems to me a lazy design decision. Like removing the squeaky wheel instead of applying some oil to it. To me, the errata represents a lot of lost opportunities to come up with creative solutions. Add to that the fact that Paizo holds the "it's up to the DM to balance things" line while turning around and creating the reason this thread ought be made.
Have some respect for the dead, eh?
Social Talent Tier Requirement:
An initiator may only recover her maneuvers a number of times per day equal to her Constitution bonus (minimum 1) plus initiation modifier (minimum 1). She may exceed this limit by accepting fatigue until the next time she rests. She regains all her recovery surges after a full nights rest.
In order to use a recovery surge, the initiator may use her initiator class ability (Stalker's +4 dodge bonus, Warder's Defensive Focus, Warlord's Gambits) to recover all of her prepared maneuvers, or may take a move action to recover a number of maneuvers equal to her initiation modifier (minimum 1).
If she possesses no levels in an initiating class, she may use a recovery surge to recover a number of maneuvers equal to her Constitution bonus (minimum 1) as a standard action.
A limitation and a boost in one
possibly you are unfamiliar with a probable outcome of expressing critique of PoW material...
Your three suggestions are appreciated! But I'm not sure if they are the solution I am looking for. The "vancian" initiator is an interesting idea but to me falls short on the flavor (it's a little too premeditated). The per-maneuver daily cap is a good limitation but introduces a lot of additional bookkeeping. And the "no recovery until all expended" idea is just a little too wonky for actual execution. Maybe with more tinkering some parts of one or more of these ideas can be transmuted into a satisfactory one?
And yes, the DM must balance the encounters to the players, naturally, but he must also balance the players to the other players. Now these two aren't mutually exclusive nor does focusing on the first automatically take care of the second. And though I appreciate the suggestion, it won't work for me as I have a few old school players who are not interested in using maneuvers whatsoever.
I'm looking for a more sweeping change that I can somehow apply to all initiating classes (as well as core classes that take the maneuver-granting feats) that closes the infinity loop and limits other shenanigans (for example, even though I think "Skill Check vs Attack/Saves/AC" is bad design for PF, I'm willing to give it a reluctant pass on a limited basis). Ideally I'd like these classes to stand alongside my (house rule buffed) core martial classes with roughly equal contribution potential.
This is the Acquisition check, organized by price, DC, and time:
100 (DC 20) 1d6 weeks
Player may use an appropriate skill (Appraise, Diplomacy, Local, Merchant, Nobility). Check may be attempted once per week for a particular item. A player may add +1 to the check for each +10% they are willing to pay extra (max +10). For each 5 the check succeeds subtract 1 die worth of weeks time (minimum 1 day). Natural 1 cannot re-roll for a number of weeks (roll time).
I feel the Crafter's advantage of being able get items at a discounted rate is still pretty significant.
Thanks for the settlement and kingdom info. I think my version of the CRB has left out the "a new check... in 1 week" sentence. I double-checked and I'm not seeing it. Anyhow, I settled on weeks because it makes sense to me.
I think you are misunderstanding my common/uncommon/rare naming convention. The rare items are essentially any other magic item in the game, not represented by the base value (75%) and not represented by the store shelf slots (random). Just as a crafter is free to craft any item whatsoever, and the reason I posted this in the homebrew section, I want my players to have a system in place that uses non-craft skills to acquire items above and beyond what the CRB allows.
That said, do you think having a single DC with a mechanic to pay up to twice the market cost to acquire a "rare" item is fair? >link<
I'm kind of hoping nobody pops in here and accuses me of hating martials...
I actually like the recovery methods of the stalker, warder and warlord. But I think limiting recovery somehow is a way to cut the classes off from some of their infamous exploits.
I wanted to avoid X times per day and instead introduce X encounters per day. But that may too slippery a definition as well.
Oh I love randomness too (Thanks for the link!). You just described the "common" (75%) and "uncommon" (roll random) items as proposed.
All I really did was allow for items above and beyond these two groups to be accessible by creating the "rare" category. I might be caving to player entitlement, sure, but I figure, especially for a metropolis, and a buyer willing to pay up to twice the market value, almost any item could be acquired given enough time (and knowing the right "guy"). This still puts the advantage in the crafter's court, if mitigating the distance a little.
How often do you allow your PCs to use the generator? Once a day? week? session?
If so, that doesn't really close the infinity loop. Which may or may not be what you are trying to do.
I figure using the abstraction "encounter" as it is understood by the material itself can provide a parameter. Kind of like the notion of 4E healing surges. But different in that the initiator can prepare maneuvers without limitation, but only recover them in the context of a limited number of encounters. If that kinda makes sense.
The catch being they create a minor addiction for level 1-2 extracts, a moderate addiction for level 3-4 extracts, and a major addiction for level 5-6 extracts. Choosing the Infusion discovery removes the addictive qualities.
I have done away with Experience Points in my game, and as such, Prestige Points have more or less come to replace them. I am running Fame and Prestige straight out of the book (despite how this thread began), so far with a single exception: "Arcane Study" replaced by "Divine Prayer" (using Cleric list instead of Wizard list plus no ability damage).
Anybody else got some cool uses for Prestige?
BMC turns a metropolitan community's minor and medium items into a flat 75%, and you roll up 3d8 other items that are available as well. I presume these major items are 100%.
Also, lately, I have been wondering lately what to do with items that don't land in the 3d8. Are these items simply unavailable forever? For a week? For a day?
I would have the Chakras available at 1/3/5/7/9/11/13. Because that is when characters get feats.
Also, as ki is an extremely limited resource, being careful in selecting how much is required to power this set of abilities is important.
May I suggest: "As a standard action, the monk may expend an amount of ki up to the highest chakra he has learned how to open. Starting with the first round, each round he may open a single chakra as a free action, gaining it's benefits immediately. On the second round and each round thereafter, he must expand one point of ki to keep previously opened chakras open as well as to open a new one. Chakras may only be opened in ascending order. The highest chakra he can open is equal to the ki he initially expended in activating this ability. His chakras close when he ceases expending ki to keep them open."
This is good feedback.
I will respond to #2 by saying that the "versatility" of spells is for the most part divorced from the actual creation of spells. The difference here is between classes. Unlike a Wizard, a Sorcerer cannot "rebuild their character on a daily basis." While I said "for the most part," what this rewrite seems to be doing is to shorten feat chains by having a handful of primary feats and a lot more secondary feats whole only prerequisite is the primary feat. Bushes instead of trees, if you will. So, this partially mitigates the concern as well.
As to #1, while I agree with your analysis of feats in the pathfinder system, I do not think that what is being homebrewed here sidesteps that. Many of the feats here "give you new things to do." Especially the stances and the secondary feats. And, as these are being designed around staying competitive with iterative attacks, not only do many of them provide you with new things to do, but new combinations to make, each taking up only half the round (standard or move). Also what you are seeing is just the skeleton.
As to #3, do you think that Spheres of Power constitutes "bloat" as well? These are not new feats - these are replacement feats for the old feats. So, I don't see this bit of feedback as being relevant.
As to #4, we'll just have to wait and see...
I think the weeks > days > hours > minutes progression, even for MF points, is way too fast.
Maybe continuous halving instead?
Also I would just make A Hundred Hobbies have the Master Craftsman prerequisite and allow a single craft skill to be used for the purposes of qualifying caster level (equivalently) for any item, but the proper craft skill must be rolled. If craft were a trained only skill (a house rule of mine), this ability would allow craft checks to be made untrained as well. As written I think it's too good.