Can I suggest that Dexterity is used for determining attack for thrown weapons (such as knives, shuriken etc.) and Wisdom for ranged (bows, crossbows, firearms etc.)
now this I might be able to agree with kirth
Can I suggest that Dexterity is used for determining attack for thrown weapons (such as knives, shuriken etc.) and Wisdom for ranged (bows, crossbows, firearms etc.)
I had the same idea myself, but I almost think it should be Str for thrown weapons (which would be really cool for barbarians throwing axes and spears and stuff). Dunno. IRL I have a high Dex and low Wis and Str; dunno how good I'd be at throwing axes or whatever.
For version 3.0 in the very distant future, when two attributes can govern things, projectile attacks will use (Dex+Wis)/2 and melee and maybe thrown weapons will use (Str+Dex)/2.
But for now, Wis for projectiles and Dex for thrown weapons seems fine. Or Wis for projectiles and Str for thrown weapons. Or Wis for both. I could make a case for any of the three, I suppose.
How about a boost to generalist wizards. They have the worse at-level ability (c'mon, throwing stuff that's gonna miss?), and a whopping 6 levels of meta-magic on the fly. Wahoo. glowy eyes and floatie feet aren't anything more then cool flavor.
I suggest:
3 spells/level instead of 2 for free. They do study all schools. Specialists memorize more spells, universalists KNOW more spells.
If they have a spell from each of the 8 schools prepared in the morning, they get +1 CL and +1 DC's to all spells.
At level 11, if they have 2 different spells from each school prepared in the morning, this bonus increases to +2.
Get rid of the mage hand thing and give them +1 free metamagic/level to prepared spells (leaving the at-will to later), subject to the metacap. It won't make them equal to a specialist in raw spell levels (the specialist pulls ahead at level 5), and they still have to blow feats on the metamagic to make them worthwhile. I'd also restrict it to a single spell.
Also, give them +1 to DC's of whatever school of magic they clearly have the most spells prepared in, in the morning. If they don't have a clear favorite, they get no benefit.
==Aelryinth
I thought they could also choose any arcane feat in the place of a low arcana. No one is forcing them to have to take the powers you listed.
I thought they could also choose any arcane feat in the place of a low arcana. No one is forcing them to have to take the powers you listed.
That's true, but still, I don't like how the specialist is a "slam dunk." I'm thinking of making generalists better at item crafting, and/or expaning their metamagic abilities somewhat -- although I'll have to tread exceptionally carefully there, because nothing has the potential for borkenness like free metamagic.
Also, the specialist disadvantage for barred schools (2 slots) isn't large enough; I'm thinking spells from barred schools would also be cast at -4 caster level (same for item crafting).
Why not just bring back 3rd edition's form of specialization Kirth? Where a specialist can't cast banned schools. (I've also toyed with the idea of opposing schools. If specializing in conjuration or transmutation means you've automatically banned the other, then specializing in one of those won't be such an automatic decision.)
Ooh... neat idea. I remember in 2e, you had very limited choice re: banned schools... and IIRC, diviners had only one barred school, and transuters had like 3.
Why not just bring back 3rd edition's form of specialization Kirth? Where a specialist can't cast banned schools. (I've also toyed with the idea of opposing schools. If specializing in conjuration or transmutation means you've automatically banned the other, then specializing in one of those won't be such an automatic decision.)
while a quick fix I would argue that it doesnt make sense. If you can learn spells why cant you learn those spells? what makes you not able to learn them? just because?
I think the -4 casterlevel is an elegant fix that works mechanically, just so long as you buff the generalist a little.
Perhaps giving them a +5 to checks to Heighten Spell?
while a quick fix I would argue that it doesnt make sense. If you can learn spells why cant you learn those spells? what makes you not able to learn them? just because?
Why should a person who spent his entire life learning to summon and bind demons automatically be able to throw a fireball? That doesn't make sense to me.
"Make sense" are words that have no meaning when it comes to D&D.
By the way here are some things that have happened in the past couple of sessions that I have noticed so far:
- A few of my players dont like reading and are not used to the new skills. I love the new skills but I can't give an accurate playtest of how they work until I actually see them used.
- Classes are Rogue, Barbarian, Monk, Bard (skald), Monk, and Rogue. Which makes me wonder why no one wanted to play a caster (the bard skald guy is not doing really any casting), especially the guy that ALWAYS plays a caster (probably just trying something new). The rogues were happy about the free weapon finesse. The Monks made two seperate builds, one for defensive and one for offensive.
- Flexibility: I loved the fact that there was exceptional flexibility for characters within their own class. Just because two are playing the same class does not mean toes are being stepped on.
- Powerlevel - versus actual monsters it actually leveled the playing field a bit for everyone. Monsters dont suck because of usual high speeds and multiple attacks (through a gorralion against them and it was a good battle)
Problems:
- Stacking. The barbarian of the group put all his eggs in one basket with AC. He was impossible to hit at his level, though he was a gnome. Once I got in close I just grappled him (took the AOO). This isn't bad I just would like to note that to first time players unlike DnD stacking anything too high becomes in effect useless if you dont cover other aspects. Essentially he trapped himself.
- Scent. So how does scent work? is it basically an autodetect? one of the monks has it and eventually I just had to make a ruling that he has to roll to percieve them but at the normal roll for a visible creature with sight (DC 10 standard) because he said "why would creatures be disguising their scent?"
- Meta-gamey attitude. While I love your system there are a few players that are so overwhelmed by the new powerlevel it has become less of a roleplaying game for most everyone. They are doing everything to avoid AoO's like asking questions to avoid actions due to danger, Saying things like "I cast detect magic constantly", and various other things.
Stacking and metagaming are not this systems fault at all, just my players initial reactions.
Any advice?
while a quick fix I would argue that it doesnt make sense. If you can learn spells why cant you learn those spells? what makes you not able to learn them? just because?Why should a person who spent his entire life learning to summon and bind demons automatically be able to throw a fireball? That doesn't make sense to me.
"Make sense" are words that have no meaning when it comes to D&D.
My opinion is that they should be able to wield magic if they wield magic. If it can be put on paper and read like any other wizard spell why are you having trouble reading it?
yes you can make a reason, perhaps the wizard needs to try some Hooked on Phonix but to me its making a fiat that mechanically does not fit nor is it necessarily in good flavor. This doesn't encourage flexibility, allowing them to still cast the spells (however weak they need to be) sounds fine to me. Maybe it wasn't their best subject, I know I suck at english.
EDIT: Besides most casters will stay away from spells like that at -4 caster level, perhaps coupled with a -2 DC. I know most specialists I encounter simply dont cast spells that they ban just because their character refuses to wield that type of magic (though they have the ability)
Scent. So how does scent work? is it basically an autodetect? one of the monks has it and eventually I just had to make a ruling that he has to roll to percieve them but at the normal roll for a visible creature with sight (DC 10 standard) because he said "why would creatures be disguising their scent?"
- Meta-gamey attitude. While I love your system there are a few players that are so overwhelmed by the new powerlevel it has become less of a roleplaying game for most everyone. They are doing everything to avoid AoO's like asking questions to avoid actions due to danger, Saying things like "I cast detect magic constantly", and various other things.
1. Scent is not an auto-detect; it's just harder to Stealth against. That's spelled out in the rules for Perception and Stealth... which I guess you guys aren't using, so I can see how it would get lost there.
2. A lot of that is, I think, a natural reaction to a new bag of toys. Two specific things I'd remark on, though:
(a) Trying to avoid AoO's isn't metagaming; it's common sense.
(b) We houseruled that the range of detect magic is touch.
Regarding massive specialization exploits: we had one character who jacked up her AC with Dex, insight, dodge, agile dodge, and combat expertise to the point where she was un-hittable at 5th level... until she got feinted and found herself with an AC of like 14 instead of 36. She finally died against an enemy who needed a 20 to hit anyway, so he Power Attacked with gleeful abandon, eventually catching her with a single crit for something like eleventy bajillion points of damage: from full strength to "way past dead" in one lucky blow.
I've tried to include at least one counter to every massive-stacking exploit; if your players find one without a counter, please let me know. I'm actually kind of glad they're power-gaming it a bit, in that regard -- it makes it easier to find the broken parts.
1. Scent is not an auto-detect; it's just harder to Stealth against. That's spelled out in the rules for Perception and Stealth... which I guess you guys aren't using, so I can see how it would get lost there.
well I am using those rules the problem is this:
What is the standard DC to smell someone? Can you stealth-check away your smell? If not and it is a standard DC 10 like it is to see someone who is visible then it basically is an auto detect because it grants a +8 bonus for creatures with a smell and he has ranks.
that is what I meant, I just wanted to know how you handled the perception rules in that aspect.
(a) Trying to avoid AoO's isn't metagaming; it's common sense.
I would say it is metagaming when they continually ask me what is going to provoke an AoO if they do not know or have not performed an active knowledge check on the creature, etc. AoO avoiding is not bad in moderation, but in my opinion when you are slowing down combat astronomically so you can charge in a way to avoid a creatures AoO due to a reach that is metagaming. Spending 4 to 5 minutes selecting your charging path to avoid AoO's is just ridiculous. Also whenever I do something even mildly intelligent for some creatures I get asked what the intelligence score of the creature is, yet their 7 wisdom character just had an insight about the environment in combat. Metagaming.
I'm actually kind of glad they're power-gaming it a bit, in that regard -- it makes it easier to find the broken parts.
yeah 1 is a huge power gamer and the other is the stacker. I will keep you posted.
What is the standard DC to smell someone?
There are no separate rules for seeing/hearing/smelling, just as there aren't separate rules for hit locations on the arm vs. the leg. It's all just abstracted as a single Perception vs. Stealth, and scent just tips the balance in favor of Perception a bit.
I would say it is metagaming when they continually ask me what is going to provoke an AoO if they do not know or have not performed an active knowledge check on the creature, etc. AoO avoiding is not bad in moderation, but in my opinion when you are slowing down combat astronomically so you can charge in a way to avoid a creatures AoO due to a reach that is metagaming.
I'm still not seeing it as a "metagaming" issue (I mean, they can see the enemy in front of them; I wouldn't require a knowledge check for that) -- but as a "bogging down play" issue it would be, for me, a much greater sin anyway! It's totally unacceptable for a person to take inordinately long to declare their actions while everyone else sits around, bored.
Three possibilities:
(1) If you must use dolls, also use an egg timer for people's turns.
(2) If you and your players have a high level of trust, throw away the battle mat. If you know that only a very labyrinthine path could work, just tell the player, "You can charge, but you'll end up passing within at least one enemy's reach. Who do you want it to be?"
(3) Encourage the people doing this to invest in Acrobatics or the Mobility fighter talent to avoid AoOs legitimately.
The following are direct links to the Word documents. At some point in the future I intend to make a SRD style site for them. In the meanwhile, feel free to post comments and questions here.
Armor.
Feats.
Houserules.
Races.
Skills.
Weapons.Barbarian.
Bard.
Cleric.
Druid.
Favored Soul.
Fighter.
Inquisitor.
Monk.
Prestige Paladin.
Ranger.
Rogue.
Sorcerer.
Wizard.
?no alchemist?
?no alchemist?
Nor summoner, due to profound lack of interest on the players' part. I'd allow them as options; I just haven't bothered to change them at all. And before you ask, the witch and cavalier got rolled into the wizard and fighter, respectively, as options.
Has anyone bothered to compile all of these into a single document for the sake of convenience? If I missed it elsewhere in the thread, I apologize.
Has anyone bothered to compile all of these into a single document for the sake of convenience? If I missed it elsewhere in the thread, I apologize.
My projected timetable is as follows:
12/2009 - Version 1.0 released; playtesting begins in home game12/2010 - Version 2.0 released; playtesting continues in home game, commences online
12/2011 - Version 3.0 complete. Kirth orders hardbound rulebook from Lulu.com.
The last date may be moved back if our home game doesn't get back online soon -- players' jobs, babies, and other issues have things currently on hold here in Houston.
The page count nears the Core, but I think i am going to print it soon anyways lol
EDIT: How many gold pieces are you worth to make an alchemist haha
Has anyone bothered to compile all of these into a single document for the sake of convenience? If I missed it elsewhere in the thread, I apologize.My projected timetable is as follows:
12/2009 - Version 1.0 released; playtesting begins in home game
12/2010 - Version 2.0 released; playtesting continues in home game, commences online
12/2011 - Version 3.0 complete. Kirth orders hardbound rulebook from Lulu.com.The last date may be moved back if our home game doesn't get back online soon -- players' jobs, babies, and other issues have things currently on hold here in Houston.
HD and I were small-talking and it came up in passing. He mentioned about having Version 1.0 in print and I figured that there had to be some DOC or PDF file available for perusal instead of a number of different individual links. Since you said that version 2.0 has been released, is that available online to download?
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding this. ;-)
He mentioned about having Version 1.0 in print and I figured that there had to be some DOC or PDF file available for perusal instead of a number of different individual links. Since you said that version 2.0 has been released, is that available online to download?
The documents TOZ linked are version 2.0. Version 1, upon being written, I printed at Kinko's and bound a copy for each person in my home group (they got CDs of version 2) -- at the beginning of each session, we'd vote on rules amendments, and the bound copies got pretty well scribbled in over the year.
Sorcerer errata, clarifications, and suggestions.
Page 1 Class skills add (all) after the skills craft, knowledge, and profession.
Page 2 References to Table: sorcerer should be changed to “Table 2: Sorcerer spells”.
Page 3 I could not find the piercing evocation feat. Also I believe that Eschew materials is out of alphabetical order.
Page 4 For aberrant change the improved unarmed strike to Exotic weapon proficiency (unarmed strike)? Also under aberrant the eldritch touch ability does not match the other bloodline’s touch abilities, is that intentional? For the abyssal feats add “the” before “planes” for the skill focus.
Page 5 Under the amber bloodline, I cannot find the trump artistry feat and you did not list what the improved blasts save DC is (I assume 10 + ½ your sorcerer level + your Cha modifier).
Page 7 For artistry add (any) to skill focus: craft and “Starting at 1st level” for sure perspective.
Page 8 For the beguiler’s bonus feats change Improved feint and Uncanny feint to Improved tricky maneuvers and greater tricky maneuvers I would suspect. This does make the 9th level beguiler’s power surprise casting needs to be changed though since it appears uncanny feint has been merged into greater tricky maneuvers. Under master of deception add “the” before “glibness”. For the bloat mage you are missing a few bonus feat options, I would propose “Combat casting, empower spell, Improved great fortitude, Skill focus (endurance), Skill focus (Heal), Toughness”.
Page 9 Under blood pool “you regain” rather than “regains”.
Page 11 Under child of ancient winters add “At 20th level,”. Under broken pattern you gain gate at 17th level rather than 19th level I suspect. Also change the bonus feat craft staff to imbue item? Finally under planar traveler add “At 1st level,”.
Page 12 Under the celestial feats, mobility and ride by attack I think were removed, also knowledge religion is now knowledge the planes; unsure how many times a good creature can benefit heavenly fire since you contradict yourself; the DC for the improved blast should be clarified; for power of mercy “At 1st level,” should be added; finally for ascension you gain immunity to cold and acid at 19th level in the chart above.
Page 13 Under hand of the apprentice add “At 1st level”.
Page 14 Strength of stone should read “At 20th level, your flesh becomes as hard as stone and you become immune to petrifaction.”
Page 15 Add “At 1st level” to aquatic adaptation. Did you want to make the deep ones immune to cold at 19th and 20th level? Finally for the bonus feats on destined diehard was replaced (change to ignore condition?) and change to skill focus (endurance) instead of endurance.
Page 17 I think the wording for greater blast is better as “otherwise, the listed effect occurs on a failed Fortitude save (DC 10 + half your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier) and the duration lasts as the listed spell with a caster level equal to your sorcerer level.”
Page 18 Under the dreamspun bonus feats heighten spell was removed and improved feint was changed to improved tricky maneuvers.
Page 19 For elemental power would you rather say “You can command or rebuke air creatures as the command undead feat with a cleric level equal to your sorcerer level.” And is there a limit of 3 + your cha modifier? This is repeated for all the elemental bloodlines.
Page 20 For fist of stone and touch of fire add “At 1st level”. Also under the fire elemental bonus feats searing is misspelled.
Page 21 Under swim change wording to “can take 10 on a Swim check”. Under fey change the bloodline’s bonus spell’s levels to 13th, 15th, and 17th.
Page 22 Under woodland stride add “At 1st level”. Under eldritch blast feat is misspelled.
Page 23 Did you really want to make the Djinn bloodline immune to acid? Under bloodline arcana did you want to say “without using up a higher level spell slot or increasing the casting time” instead; this also happens under the efreet, marid, and shaitan bloodlines. There is an extra the after you in the 2nd paragraph of the whirlwind form description.
Page 24 In the 4th paragraph of whirlwind form change casting check to concentration check; also in this paragraph at the end change “its” and “the whirlwind” to “you”. Again is paragraph 5 of the whirlwind form change casting to concentration check. Under flame blade change “time” to “times”.
Page 25 Do you really want the shaitan bloodline to be immune to electricity?
Page 27 Under darkvision there are two periods in a row. Under worg mount do you want to say this creature also “gains”?
Page 28 Under hag resistances the T in this should be lower case. Under drain item add “At 1st level”.
Page 29 Under strike ethereal change “her” to “your”. Under snatch spell change “effects” to “effect”.
Page 30 Power of the pit, you are already immune to fire and poison at 19th level according to the chart.
Page 31 Under the orc bloodline spells the levels do not look to be updated; also you have diehard as an option under the bonus feats, do you want to change it to Skill focus (endurance)?
Page 32 Under shroud of vermin do you want to change the language at the end to something like “if you had the command undead feat as a cleric of a level equal to your sorcerer level.” The protean bonus feats still list agile maneuvers.
Page 33 The serpentine bloodline has no 9th level power, I would propose “Reptilian Telepathy (Su): At 9th level, you gain telepathy (100 feet) and can communicate with reptilian animals (including various forms of dinosaurs, lizards, and other cold-blooded creatures). You may cast suggestion on such creatures a number of times per day equal to your Charisma modifier. This ability is telepathic and does not require audible or visual components. At 15th level, once per day you can telepathically call and request a service from a reptilian creature as if using demand or greater planar ally.”
Page 36 Under veils do you want to add “Also starting at 3rd level, when you create a warding (see above)”
Page 37 For the Shadow bloodlines bonus feats change improved feint to improved tricky maneuvers. Also under nighteye add “At 1st level” and there are two periods after ft.
Page 38 Do the gen familiars really gain resistance to all 4 energy types plus a vulnerability to one?
Page 39 Under Genie-kin do you want to change the end wording to “if you had the command undead feat with a cleric level equal to your sorcerer level.”? For the spellthief’s bonus feats I would propose adding “Dodge, Improved lightning reflexes, Improved tricky maneuvers, Greater tricky maneuvers”.
Page 40 Under steal spell and steal spell effect does the touch attack provoke an attack of opportunity? Also under steal spell effect in the 4th paragraph change his to your.
Page 41 Under absorb spell do you need to list the 20th level section since you list it again under master spellthief. Also under master spellthief you can delete “you gain permanent”. Under starsoul the 7th level power is blank and I would propose dimension door. Finally does suffocating touch provoke an attack of opportunity?
Page 42 Under stormborn’s class skill change it to survival.
Page 43 Under Undead’s bonus feats would you change diehard to ignore condition. Also change the skill focus knowledge: religion to the planes. Finally under one of us you already gained immunity to cold at 19th level.
Page 45 add (all) to the skills craft, knowledge, and profession.
Page 46 For the battle sorcerers spell progression of spells known would you max it at 3+1 and have them gain at 1+1 for two levels, then 2+1 for three levels, before finally gaining 3+1?
Also some of the bonus spell focus feats do not have a selected focus, is that intentional?
Forget the alchemist, I would rather have an updated hell knight prestige class similar to the paladin. It is actually not too hard to do on your own, but that would honestly be the only class I would add to the ones Kirth has already done. (Not really a fan of the antipaladin so that one I do not think needs to be updated).
I also lean towards the banning of certain spell schools like the 2nd edition approach for specialists. My bias is that I am not really a fan of generalist wizards and clerics so I usually do not allow them anyways so I do not really mind if they are weak.
Kirth; what effect did you find changing Detect Magic's range to "touch" have? I'm considering doing this myself.
-Idle
Kirth; what effect did you find changing Detect Magic's range to "touch" have? I'm considering doing this myself.
That was Jess Door's excellent suggestion -- in play, it means that people don't walk around detecting magic continuously, which in turn means that there's no 0-level at will "detect magic traps and high-level NPCs" ability. It has been a great blessing to the game.
Alright, so concerning those opposed schools I mentioned earlier, here's the chart I came up with. (Obviously just a suggestion.)
Transmutation : Conjuration
Evocation : Abjuration
Illusion : Necromancy
Divination : Enchantment
Opposed schools can make sense thematically, that way each specialist has a forbidden magic, like religion and some types of meat (lol jk but you get what I mean)
I guess the cant cast certain schools thing isn't so bad.
I will say Illusion should be versus enchantment as they are two sides to the same coin
Conjuration should be against abjuration since one constructs magic and the other degenerates it
Transmutation could be versus Necromancy as both manipulate physical manifestations and create unnatural things (or natural if trasmuting to animal)
Divination and Evocation can be opposed because thematically I can see how Diviner's wouldn't be throwing around lightning bolts and fire mages wouldn't be looking into the future but hey thats my opinion.
This is how I will probably run it YMMV
House rule document clarification
Page 1 Under alignment would you want to include clerics who chose the chaos, evil, good, and law domains as also radiating their domain’s alignment. I would also wonder about undead with a bond to the negative energy plane.
Page 2 Under critical success and hero points would you want to rephrase paragraph 3 and 4 to something like “If “the” referee and players can all agree on particulars, then Hero Points can also be used to cause remote but non-quantifiable possibilities to “become more likely or even a certainty.” For example, a Hero Point might allow a player to "remember" that his character bought more arrows at the end of the last adventure (even though the player himself forgot all about the need to restock ammo). The more reasonable the scenario, the “fewer Hero Points required;” less likely coincidences ("What are the chances that somebody recently lost a $100 bill near here?") should require a larger outlay. Judgment and compromise are often necessary here.
An unlimited number of Hero Points can be accumulated. Note that the method of “accrual favors making pointless skill checks”. While this mechanic can be used to provide “an” incentive to rely more heavily on skills use, it should come with the caveat that characters who sit around all day attempting pointless tasks just to try for excellent results should NOT earn any Hero Points—only tasks that are attempted as part of the ongoing game should count.”
Page 2 cont. I am not sure of the benefit of not counting NPC class levels for total character level from an advancement purpose; if that is purely for determining level appropriate encounters it makes sense, but you lose time advancing in these empty levels either way. Finally under bidding war I have a hard time understanding the 1st paragraph, did you mean so say something like “declare a check DC higher than the check DC before it and some set of consequences that could logically result from failure. Such consequences might include the inability to retry,”; also (page 3) in paragraph 3 change “results” to “result” and “win” to “wins”.
Page 4 You seem to reference being able to make a save to ignore a light wound, should that be removed?
Page 5 It looks like you missed a period after standard action under the tricky maneuvers section.
Page 6 Just want to double check for the elaborate defense table (fighting with a shield columns), the fighting defensively and total defense bonus increases do not seem to match, are they right?
?no alchemist?Nor summoner, due to profound lack of interest on the players' part. I'd allow them as options; I just haven't bothered to change them at all. And before you ask, the witch and cavalier got rolled into the wizard and fighter, respectively, as options.
oh well i did enjoy the read though thanks
I may rewrite spells along these guidelines at some point.
very intriguing.
I will run this by my players.
I like your choices Kyrt I merely gave my own my friend.
Playtest again last night. No major problems, we however would like to know how 5 steps are supposed to work. We basically ruled the first 5 feet of any tactical movement you take is treated as your five foot step but I was curious how it would play out.
Finally used skills last night to a decent degree. Went particularly well and people are actually thinking about what skills they want to pick up with earnestness.
Monks had great fun and the rogue had a very useful set of abilities.
Basically last night went very well, everyone was happy with how the characters functioned and liked the new combat system as it allows more diversity. They particularly liked how people can now react to actions in a round and function as normal (which they are starting to take advantage of).
I havent thrown out a spellcaster yet so we will see how it goes when it comes to that.
We are adjusting well and the metagamey attitude is leaving (thank god) and people are getting more in character.
Will keep more coming! Thanks again.
Review of the races document
Note: Under the medium entry for the races, would it flow better to say “gain” rather than “have”.
Page 1 1st sentence, do you want to say “The” following? Under languages sylvan comes before wood elf alphabetically. Under typical classes as mentioned before delete the reference to arcane warrior.
Page 2 Under weapon familiarity, alphabetically it would be “long swords, rapiers, short bows (including composite short bows), and short swords”. For class skills under elf paragon add (all) for craft, knowledge, and profession. For weapon and armor proficiency alphabetically it would be “Martial proficiency with long bows, long swords, rapiers, short bows, and short swords”. Alphabetically under weapon focus it would read “This feat must apply to the rapier, long sword, short sword, short bow, or smallsword. Wood elf paragons must choose the hand axe, long bow, short bow, or spear.”
Page 3 Alphabetically languages should read “Draconic, Dwarven, Gnome, Goblin, High Elvish, Orc, and Sylvan.” Under typical classes 3rd bullet point it should alphabetically read “dagger, hand axe, heavy club, longbow, or short bow.”; under the 4th bullet point “improve” should be “improves” I believe. Alphabetically under weapon familiarity it should read “bows, daggers, hand axes, and heavy clubs. Those with Martial proficiency in all weapons from a class feature also gain Exotic proficiency in longbows and short bows”.
Note: For the races that gain a +2 to any attribute, can you just say “characters get a +2 bonus to one ability score of their choice at creation to represent their varied nature.” Rather than needing the additional “+2 to One Attribute” comment. Finally the woodcraft option seems redundant with the favored terrain option, can be it deleted.
Page 4 Do you really want to keep the summoner choice for favored class? Under adaptability the feats alphabetically should read “receive Iron Will, Skill Focus, or Skill Synergy as”. Under sociable change “fail” to “fails”. Under the class skills add (all) to craft, perform, and profession. Under weapon and armor proficiency simple is misspelled; the wording would be better as “and are proficient with light armor.” Under spell casting change the wording to “gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (bonus feats, bard abilities, and so on). If a character had more than one spellcasting class before she became a half-elf paragon, she must decide to which class when she adds the level of half-elf paragon.”
Page 5 Under typical classes: delete the alchemist and summoner options, for druid change intimidate to bluff, under fighter change “maneuvers” to “maneuver”, and the monks bonus no longer makes sense. Under eye for talent change sense motive to bluff checks.
Page 6 Under spell casting the wording should be adjusted to “(bonus feats, bard abilities, and so on).” or similar wording.
Page 7 Under typical classes the favored soul’s bonus no longer makes sense, also for the rogue should the bonus be to sixth sense (these also apply on page 8)? Under smithcraft change to “craft (blacksmith)”. Under weapon familiarity it would make more sense to say “axes, hammers, and picks” (this also applies on page 8).
Page 9 Under class skills add (all) to the craft and profession skills. Under gnomes they are fey creatures “that” can. Rearrange the languages to “Dwarven, Giant, Goblin, High Elvish, Sylvan, and Wood Elf” so that they are in alphabetical order. Under typical classes delete the alchemist and summoner? Under rogue I think you can delete the “each time they gain a level of rogue” clause.
Page 11 Under class skills add (all) to craft, knowledge, perform, and profession.
Page 12 Under typical classes delete summoner; under bard I believe you should change diplomacy to streetwise and disguise to perform (acting); under monk I am not sure about the extra stunning fist attempts, finally under rogue the weapons are not in alphabetical order.
Page 13 Under class skills add (all) to craft, perform, and profession. Under the half orc’s typical classes do you still want to say runeblade and do you want to delete the alchemist entry?
Page 14 Under class skills add (all) to craft and profession. Under monstrous mien the wording should likely change to “bonus on bluff checks to browbeat.”
Page 15 Under the hobgoblin’s typical class: fighter change “maneuvers” to “maneuver”; monk you may want to delete the stunning fist clause. For their languages giant is out of alphabetical order.
Page 16 Under class skills add (all) to craft. Under elf slayer do you need the second “in” before ranger? For river folk do you want to put the -2 wisdom after the charisma bonus?
Page 17 Under class skills add (all) after craft, knowledge, and profession. For touch of idiocy does it provoke an attack of opportunity?
The new way at looking at save or die spells is very interesting, but it would effect some of the current martial feats also.
I am reviewing the feats and have a couple questions/suggestions.
For the eagle eyes feat, would you want to have it subsumed by the hawkeye fighter talent and the various keen sense talents of some of the other classes (the monk, ranger, and rogue would like it, maybe the druid also).
Speaking of the keen sense abilities, the rogue's and monk's are different and I think the monk's may be too good. Also you allow the ranger to have scent but no low light vision or dark vision without the favored enemy adaption ability, and the druid needs to take both the cougar's vision and scent feats to gain both (they are feats though so maybe it is okay for the druid, though with shapeshifting the feats may be weak at higher druid levels). I would suggest standardizing the classes so they can select a keen senses ability granting either low light or darkvision (wording similar to the rogue's) along with scent to make them more equal (it would fit more with the barbarian's keen senses also).
While we are on the topic of senses, what about combining the blind sense ability the monk, ranger, and rogue can select. Monk's currently need an advanced sutra to gain blind sight while rangers and rogues at higher levels get it for free (just change it so blind sense replaces blind sight as an advanced sutra for the monk). I would use the rogue's wording under blind sense for all 3.
Finally, you could probably remove the druid feat practiced bond since they should be able to take the practiced companion feat.
I may rewrite spells along these guidelines at some point.
Would Restoration spells fix the ability score damage? If not, would you create six different Restoration equivalent spells (Restore Strength, Restore Dexterity, etc.)?
Or would you still keep spells like Remove Paralysis? This option would require you to keep track of the reason(s) that an ability score was hit.
And it seems weird that the act of waking someone up from a Sleep spell instantly heals Wisdom damage, for example. I think I could get used to it, though.
@Christopher -- In addition to the usual excellent work, thanks in particular for the senses heads-up. I'll go through the examples you listed and see if some sort of standardization is in order.
@TOZ -- That's been my preferred solution for a while. For single-target death effects, I'm thinking something along the lines of 1d6 Con damage per level of the spell, save for half. Flesh to stone would deal 6d6 Dex damage, save for half; if Dex reduced to 0 or below you're petrified. Dominate person would deal 5d6 Cha damage, save for half, dominated if reduced to 0. Etc. One thing I like is that a number of spells could deal mental stat damage and thus be "anti-caster" spells, in addition to the ones that deal physical stat damage.
@Andostre -- Good question. As a gut reaction, I'd be against separate spells for each attribute. Keeping remove paralysis doesn't bother me, although it might eventually lead, down the road, to a codifying of ability damage -- all Con damage is "death effect damage," all Dex damage is "mobility damage," all Wis damage is "alertness deprivation damage" (sleep, etc.) -- whatever, so that you wouldn't need to track separate sources. That's something to get sorted out for v. 3.0, though, and right now I'm still working on 2.1!
@Midnight -- Glad to hear things are going well! For 5-ft. steps, one possibility is to allow a half-move or a 5-ft. step in conjunction with a full attack; the latter covers less ground because it doesn't provoke AoOs. If you go that route, characters with Skirmish could take a 10-ft. step instead.
A word of caution about changing spells to cause ability damage. Often monsters (and players for that matter) have one low stat. Ancient blue dragons have a dex of only 8 for example, so even with a successful save vs. the flesh to stone spell alteration you propose you have very good chance of an auto win if you get past spell resistance.
I like the idea for changing spells but the current 3.5 rules do not take it into consideration so it could cause some major imbalances without a lot of playtesting. You would need to lower the successful save damage to less than half or use a lower full damage potential.
@Midnight -- Glad to hear things are going well! For 5-ft. steps, one possibility is to allow a half-move or a 5-ft. step in conjunction with a full attack; the latter covers less ground because it doesn't provoke AoOs. If you go that route, characters with Skirmish could take a 10-ft. step instead.
Ill bring your suggestion to light next session friend.
Thanks again.
I didn't go into detail but the combat is extremely exciting now. its incredibly versatile. Movement now matters! by the way the AoO replacement for 5 foot step, great idea works seemlessly so far.
I like the idea for changing spells but the current 3.5 rules do not take it into consideration so it could cause some major imbalances without a lot of playtesting. You would need to lower the successful save damage to less than half or use a lower full damage potential.
That's an excellent point. Scaling is tricky. Hmmm, if we start with a PF standard ability-damage spell, ray of enfeeblement is 1st level and does 1d6 + 1/2 levels (max +5), save for half. We could use that as "standard" and just up the damage cap by level per the 3e DMG:
If you always get a save for half, then a 3rd level hold person has very little chance of paralyzing anyone, but it would sure cut down on their AC and Reflex saves. If the target were already exhausted from wounds, it would be even more dangerous.
But dragons would still be screwed by a simple hold monster spell, even on a save. Hmmm. This will need a lot more tinkering. Maybe leave the +1/2 levels standard, but scale the dice faster.
OK, animal companions.
Let me state up front that I displike the PF rules for them not from a balance standpoint, but just that it seems to me that if you're going to add that much page count, there should be a corresponding increase in options. Instead, you're shoehorned worse than ever, but have like 17 pages laying out how to do it.
I'm thinking of striking all that out and making the animal companion "any creature with the Animal type and CR less than or equal to half your druid class level." You could then fine-tune your critter by applying the Young and/or Giant or Advanced templates, or by advancing HD -- or even adding barbarian, fighter, or ranger class levels. You'd then have a lot more freedom of design as far as your pet goes, but it would be subject to more or less the same constraints in power as in 3.5 edition.
(Improved Familiar might work in much the same way, except obviously you wouldn't be limited to the Animal type, and you could trade CR for familiar abilities).
Scaling is tricky.
Possibly reducing the effect upon certain creatures?
I'm looking forward to this getting fleshed out, as my Medusae commonly envenom their arrows with their 'hair'.
Scaling is tricky.Possibly reducing the effect upon certain creatures?
I'm looking forward to this getting fleshed out, as my Medusae commonly envenom their arrows with their 'hair'.
I was thinking about combining it with the "save each round" mechanism that PF uses for SoS spells, and the result would be that SoD/SoS spells would work much the same as poison. Flesh to stone might deal 1d6 Dex/round for 6 rounds (1 round per level of the spell), with a save each round to negate that round's effects, and 2 consecutive saves ending the spell.
Dude this is beautiful. Especially when some animals just naturally fall into some classes. (Barbarian Badger/Wolverine, Ranger Wolf, etc)OK, animal companions.
Let me state up front that I displike the PF rules for them not from a balance standpoint, but just that it seems to me that if you're going to add that much page count, there should be a corresponding increase in options. Instead, you're shoehorned worse than ever, but have like 17 pages laying out how to do it.
I'm thinking of striking all that out and making the animal companion "any creature with the Animal type and CR less than or equal to half your druid class level." You could then fine-tune your critter by applying the Young and/or Giant or Advanced templates, or by advancing HD -- or even adding barbarian, fighter, or ranger class levels. You'd then have a lot more freedom of design as far as your pet goes, but it would be subject to more or less the same constraints in power as in 3.5 edition.
(Improved Familiar might work in much the same way, except obviously you wouldn't be limited to the Animal type, and you could trade CR for familiar abilities).
What about a way to sort of craft your own animal? such as something similiar to an eidolon set up so that way your wolf can have cold abilities or something.
Just an idea but I like the above alot.
Along those lines, I just made an incorporal familiar (that can't leave your square) an option for the wizard, which, when offered as a nature's bond, neatly supersedes the druid's spirit guide as well.
Anytime I can expand options while also getting rid of two appendices, I'm a happy guy.
What about a way to sort of craft your own animal? such as something similar to an eidolon set up so that way your wolf can have cold abilities or something.
Apply some sort of cold template (like maybe the burning skeleton template, but cold instead of fire, at the cost of +1 to the CR).
What about a way to sort of craft your own animal? such as something similar to an eidolon set up so that way your wolf can have cold abilities or something.Apply some sort of cold template (like maybe the burning skeleton template, but cold instead of fire, at the cost of +1 to the CR).
you know its interesting because this is probably how the eidolon should have been done. What an elegant solution haha
EDIT: What about multiple animal companions? total CR no more than half?
I am looking over how pathfinder changed ability damage right now. Seems like ability damage no longer actually reduces the ability score (except for Con), it just gains a character penalties. Ability drain is required to actually lower the score. One could make a failed save cause ability drain and a successful save cause half that number in ability damage and it may work out. Of course, the problem with drain effects is that you need to recalculate the entire character sheet after it happens (do you still qualify for feats, redo your saves, did encumbrance change your move, attack bonuses, bonus spells, maximum spells you can cast, a bunch of skills, etc.) Making the drain a per round effect like poison would just increase the math each round and may slow down play.