>> Ask Ashiel Anything <<


Off-Topic Discussions

1,701 to 1,750 of 3,564 << first < prev | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once we get the wiki and administrative stuff handled and clean everything up, we'll likely begin to accept applications.

We may end up advertising the game on Roll20.net, but I'm sure when things finish and it becomes open to the public, the first thing Ashiel will do is post the application page here :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Raital Latral wrote:

Once we get the wiki and administrative stuff handled and clean everything up, we'll likely begin to accept applications.

We may end up advertising the game on Roll20.net, but I'm sure when things finish and it becomes open to the public, the first thing Ashiel will do is post the application page here :P

Well, I could do that if you wanted. (0-0)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They seem really neat. I look forward to when the full entries are finished. Though with how insular communities are in Sylvantha and such I'd start worrying about the genepool after awhile :p.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icehawk wrote:
They seem really neat. I look forward to when the full entries are finished. Though with how insular communities are in Sylvantha and such I'd start worrying about the genepool after awhile :p.

Yeah true that. I might reduce the level of insularity between the towns a bit or I might actually play that genepool thing up a little (maybe a little of both). :P

Sylvantha was written explicitly to allow multiple GMs on their persistent world to run adventures set in the area with whatever towns or villages they wanted to include, without it screwing up anyone else's stuff. If you wanted a town to be wiped out by something, or secretly be made up of body snatchers or something, it would be more or less okay to the grand scheme of things.

I'll play around with it a bit later.


Icehawk wrote:
They seem really neat. I look forward to when the full entries are finished. Though with how insular communities are in Sylvantha and such I'd start worrying about the genepool after awhile :p.
Ashiel wrote:

Yeah true that. I might reduce the level of insularity between the towns a bit or I might actually play that genepool thing up a little (maybe a little of both). :P

Sylvantha was written explicitly to allow multiple GMs on their persistent world to run adventures set in the area with whatever towns or villages they wanted to include, without it screwing up anyone else's stuff. If you wanted a town to be wiped out by something, or secretly be made up of body snatchers or something, it would be more or less okay to the grand scheme of things.

I'll play around with it a bit later.

In my free time this morning I created a potentially neat and clean solution, but I didn't want to post it on the forums if you didn't want me to. I could post it here, or PM you!

(It's not as well-researched as I'd like, but I don't have the time I'd prefer, either...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't hurt my feelings. :P


PM'd, as I don't understand the implication (other than, "Sharing is cool.")... but I'll post it here, if you want people here to give feed back or whatever. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure go for it.

As a note, a lot of vampires in this that I wrote are in fact badguys (there are those that aren't but the evil ones seem to propagate more readily) but a lot of them (particularly the non-ferals) often insinuate themselves into the societies that they are part of and act as a form of secret government or in some cases open government where there's no secret that the local landlord is in fact a powerful vampire.

However, these insinuations are ultimately symbiotic, which is one of the reasons that they can be difficult for some to stamp out. If there is a coven of vampires in the area, you are going to have to deal with their spies and informants (often perfectly living humanoids and/or dhampir passing as humans) who are going to mislead or snitch as to your intentions. You're going to have to deal with the fact that, on some level, some of the villages and their peoples are safer because the vampires and their servants (which often include lycanthropes) are around because they protect the people from things like trolls and/or other beastly sorts that could cause problems (and if your local vampire lord isn't particularly gluttonous, being fed on might not even spell your doom like getting eaten by a troll would).

I feel like I need to clean up some of the Sylvantha stuff (it was written rather hastily and I think I painted a too shiny image of the poor downtrodden monsters at the hands of that nasty oppressive order; or something that sounds like that). In truth, neither is particularly shiny but neither is particularly without its virtues either. There are good, and bad, in both camps (as there usually is in everything and every organization).

So a lot of the things you mentioned in your PM aren't far off from how they frequently operate. They have a way of getting into areas and making themselves just a little too useful to be driven out and purged in many cases.

In fact, one of the PCs that I've got in the campaign is a member of the Chalice line of vampires, which work strange healing magics using manipulations of the magic surrounding vampirism (such as the transference of life forces). Many of their houses actually put down deep roots during the plague and the years following, as their immunity to disease and their willingness to secretly heal the sick they were feeding on means that in some villages, if you're particularly desperate, someone you knew for a long time may take you aside and say something like...

"Look...don't ask how I know this but, if you take little Emma up to the castle at midnight, the countess will meet with you, and she'll save her life in exchange for yours. I didn't say anything," before walking off.

And when the desperate parents heed this strange advice and head to the castle, they are met in the courtyard of the old haunted castle, with the only light being the moon, a torch, and the eerie reflection of a werewolf's eyes in the darkness somewhere. The countess and her kin appear from a cloud of bats.

"Welcome to Castle Devir," she says with a formal nod and an old common accent. "I've been expecting you," she adds.

Terrified, but desperate, the parents plead for the life of their child if there is anything they can do. Fearful, they expect one of them to be taken in the child's place, but they are surprised...

"Then it is settled, your lives for the the child," the countess remarks. Kneeling down to the child, the countess bites down and instead of blood, draws forth the sickness into her like a cloud of black mist, leaving her for the first time in weeks, well.

Returning the daughter to the parents, she wipes her mouth and remarks, "As promised. I trust you will honor your part of the bargain. Some of servants will meet you in three days and better prepare you for the nature of your services. You will speak to no one about this night, save those who would seek us as you have sought us, and we may come to collect our tax from you when we see fit,"

"What tax?" the mother asks confused. The countess simply grasps her with her strong arms, causing the woman to shiver like a rabbit being held by a fox. "The one you already expected to pay," she says biting the woman and drawing blood. She then releases her bite, leaving the woman a little light headed but unharmed. "Consider this your first payment. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to visit again," she says as she and her kin suddenly vanish into a swarm of bats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've always liked my vampires more regal, but there is something about the Legacy of Kain vampires that sits well with me too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the wyrmspire. Has a feel of a magitech fantasy that I rather like without delving too deep into the tippyverse. Fines for dispel magic spells are also a nice touch.

Warrens could really use some safety nets or barriers, those bridges seem like a perfect place to trip and fall to your doom O.o


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

On a d20 legends note...
As you're probably all well aware, I like getting and using ideas from video games, and borrowing them for my table top experiences. Case in point Ash's WoW Warlock and my Dragon Knight both are classes from video games that I thought would be fun to play in a table top game.
With that in mind, how flexible will the class archtypes be to create various concepts?
Case in point...
Playing Age of Conan, they have a class called the "Herald of Xotli", which is a character that's dabbled in demonology a little too far, and has been claimed by Xotli. They are a mage, BUT are mostly a melee class.
They are big on using hellfire (both raw and with weapons), 2 handers, and wear cloth. They get boosts to avoidance, and for a bout 30 seconds (with a 3 minute cooldown) they can take on an "avatar" form, turning into a demon, which raises damage, survive-ability and pulses fire damage to all enemies in melee range.
How easy would this be to recreate?


Ashiel wrote:
Sure go for it.

Okay!

BAM:

An idea!:
Reading up on the culture ever-so-briefly, it looks like there might be a fundamentally important place for the Moonlit Covenant within Sylvantha that could help resolve this very thing... a place that even the Divine Order would have to respect, and that the vampire houses likely leverage for themselves.

That place? Bride-Finding (yes, I've read it, and yes, it's exactly the kind of book it looks like; I inherited it from my sister, and, despite the cheesiness, which was plentiful, it was pretty good, as I recall; I was a dumb teen, though, so... maybe a spoonful of salt, there).

Point is, there are several "creepy" spells that could be quite flavorful for the Moonlit Covenant that would be perfect for this.

Stuff like...
- blood biography (really should be a witch's spell, not sure why it's not)
- cultural adaptation (again, this should be a witch spell... either way, really useful in this insular culture...)
- detect anxieties
- detect desires
- diagnose disease
- discern next of kin (I'd recommend a 'better' variant, though; what a weirdly obscurely specific spell :I)
- seek thoughts
- and, of course, [i]matchmaker
(chaperon for the duration, let them alone after the initial interest has faded).

This sort of thing could be seen as extremely important in such an insular culture - after all, if you don't know who to trust from those "foreign" towns, you need someone trustworthy to go places, find a bride, and bring her/him back. The Vampire Houses successfully recruiting the Bride Finders would be something of a coup, and one reason that the Moonlit Order does so well for itself. The necessity of the Bride Finders would be pretty solidly mean they're left unmolested and their unusual insistence on being separate from the Divine Order could very well give them the leverage.

The vampires, of course, are interested in this very thing as well - if for no other reason than they're blood-reliant, and want a nice, healthy stock. (I don't know - maybe they're not evil in your setting; I've not done enough research. Not sure.)

But why would the Bride Finders be associated with the vampires at all? Because, of course, they came from them. The origin of the Bride Finders' bloodline-based spells would certainly make for a very solid tie back to the very creatures who require blood (and healthy, er, "livestock" to persist), and, dependent upon the age of the vampiric presence within the region, could well date far enough back to have ingrained itself into the culture well before the fall of the kingdom that shattered the lands into small city-states in the first place. Maybe even predating that.

This would explain why they've resisted the Divine Order's attempts at recruitment so deeply and so thoroughly (much to said DO's chagrin)... because they'd be destroyed by the very order trying to recruit them, due to their vampiric ties or origin. To the people at large, they just seem like an eclectic, independent group that provides a necessary service.
(Also, they could be midwives or other elements that are important to low-grade functioning of the communities. Pre-fall, they'd have been broadly accepted, but not considered vital. Now they're considered vital. As a reminder, with all the farmers would be relatively aware of the problems with inbreeding stock...)

But as I understand it, it seems, here, like these hypothetical Bride Finders are, then, just an arm of the vampiric houses, and a powerful force that is neither Divine Order, nor "hidden" Moonlit Covenant. Except they're not. The Bride Finders would function more like a decentralized religious group, like Independent Baptists or Pentecostal churches. That's not to say that there isn't some sort of (set of) regulatory body(/ies), exactly - a bound group (or groups) of a devotional Inquisitors (or something similar) set up by the Bride Finders themselves and the Moonlit Covenant could exist. This body or bodies could represent the hidden "university"-like sects of the Bride Finders, whose adherence to the Bride Finder coda/tenets/core/fundaments/whatever would provide financial incentives to these fanatic-production groups. Part of that fanaticism is focusing on non-subservience, even toward the authorities that they hypothetically descend from, and are supported in that independence by said authorities - they make an excellent service and important distinctions between themselves and their servants to permit them to avoid the wrath of the Divine Order (though some houses may well wish that they could control the Bride Finders entirely; I dunno). Further, they have no political or social agenda beyond what they do.

Over-all, you create a heavily decentralized but highly consistent sect of fiercely independent fanatics who focus on overcoming the problems with the insular communities in which they find themselves as part of, as well as keeping the relative balance, and keen understanding both social and biological dynamics. Wrapped in mystery, they're weird and other, yet disarmingly local, no matter where they go. They are (despite the preferences thereof) effectively supported by the two major "opposed" organizations and the common people, because they are extremely important, and functionally non-political.

... or you could come up with something else that's just as cool or more so. Feel free!

Otherwise, awesome! Glad my ramblings worked within the flavor of the setting!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

On a d20 legends note...

As you're probably all well aware, I like getting and using ideas from video games, and borrowing them for my table top experiences. Case in point Ash's WoW Warlock and my Dragon Knight both are classes from video games that I thought would be fun to play in a table top game.
With that in mind, how flexible will the class archtypes be to create various concepts?
Case in point...
Playing Age of Conan, they have a class called the "Herald of Xotli", which is a character that's dabbled in demonology a little too far, and has been claimed by Xotli. They are a mage, BUT are mostly a melee class.
They are big on using hellfire (both raw and with weapons), 2 handers, and wear cloth. They get boosts to avoidance, and for a bout 30 seconds (with a 3 minute cooldown) they can take on an "avatar" form, turning into a demon, which raises damage, survive-ability and pulses fire damage to all enemies in melee range.
How easy would this be to recreate?

It's a bit too early for me to be giving specific mechanical routes (I noted a few posts back that aside from some very dirty and loose early drafts there has been little done to develop classes, in favor of getting the core of the system constructed) but I can say a few things on the subject that I think are relevant and will continue to be relevant even in the final product.

1) Because your base statistics such as HP, BAB, Skills, and Spellcasting aren't tied to your class, making a "mage" who exercises his magical wisdom by shoving swords up peoples asses (animal cruelty aside) is a totally valid option. :)

2) Because of the way my multiclassing system is designed, you'll be able to mix and match classes in ways never even dreamed of in d20 outside of the grossest examples of gestalting (think like triple multiclassed gestalt characters or somesuch craziness) except that it'll be at least kinda balanced (I say kinda because, who knows, I may drop the ball or something but the framework's totally legit).

As an example, you've got these things called talents. You get 'em kinda like you get feats, and they're kind of your ability-currency. You trade them for class features. Now you can also buy new classes with them (essentially saying "Okay, I'm a rogue now, check out my cunning strike!" or "Looks like I'm a champion, I got some divine powah!") which in turn allows you to spend future talents on picking up class features of that class.

So like, you'll get about 11 talents over the course of your career. Minor class features (like barbarian rage powers or thins that scale with your level) will usually cost 1-2 talents at most (so you might drop a talent to get a rage power progression that gives you 1 rage power at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level; but a second talent dropped improves the progression to 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th level as well). Other major abilities that add delightful things such as allowing you to perform multiple bardic performances at once as part of the same action may cost an entire talent.

Point is, because all classes and combinations are vying for your talent points, the end result is a 20th level character has the same general value of abilities as another 20th level character. Except one might be the paragon barbarian who's fully invested 100% into Barbarian; you might have the other character being some sort of Mage/Ranger who whisks around on his loyal dire wolf Mr. Scruffles while he tosses fireballs and occasionally lets Mr. Scruffles grow scales and breath fire; or you might have that one guy that has yet to fully explain why he's a priestly paladin-bro who performs interpretive dance magic while fighting with a lightning katana in one hand and a parasol in the other, while and growing a wolf tail out of his ass...but it kind of works for him.

3) I think that, perhaps most importantly, when I'm designing a something for the game, I strongly imagine and envision how it would play out. I kind of project scenarios in my head thinking "How would this be used?", "what would be fun?", "How can this be made interesting to play?", and so forth. Much like games like World of Warcraft, it's not about being a particular role, it's about enjoying filling that role the way you want to fill it. Playing a Restoration Druid is a vastly different style of healer than a Discipline Priest. Being a Warlock is vastly different from being a Mage, even though they are on the surface both DPS/CC specialists wearing light armor and using magic.

When I try to design something, I try to design abilities and features as packages and intend for them to be used together. For example, here's some examples from the very rough and ugly and unfinished and oh my god the embarrassment early class drafts for the rogue.

Cunning Strike; Sinister Strike; Staggering Strike; Blinding Strike; Rending Strike; and Blood Hunter.

Here, you can see where part of the vision for the rogue involves being able to be a terrifying beast in close quarter's combat. They hurt you, a lot. But moreso, they are good at disabling and harassing people if direct damage isn't the best option. But looking at these abilities, the rogue's gameplay "goal" is to get on a target and make it difficult for the target to fight back or escape them. Staggering strike makes it progressively harder to get away from them or chase allies. Blinding strike makes it hard to fight back (in D20 Legends, Dazzled = everything has 20% concealment, which also means the Rogue can Stealth vs you). Rending Strike causes you to start bleeding, ups their critical chances against you, and makes it almost impossible to use misdirection to fool the rogue (he'll find you and gut you, even if you're invisible or have mirror image or displacement spells active).

The element is get on that guy and make is life miserable. Flank when you can. Fight dirty. You have a specialized role, now milk it like only you can.

If you're a ranged rogue, you might be more of a debuffer, skulking the battlefield and taking pot-shots at people to assist your team with status ailments, or spotting enemies your allies have already given the bleeding condition and directing their attacks.

Lots more needs to be added but I hope this gives an idea as to the sort of mindset that goes on when I'm designing stuff. I don't just make a stand-alone ability, I make a series of abilities intended to be usable with each other towards a common goal or theme, and then let players do with them as they please. Sometimes you might make a hybrid. I know a friend of mine made an assassin lady who fights with a pair of sewing scissors, a parasol, and throws knitting needles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is exactly the response I was looking for.

I started to ask a bunch more questions, but I know you're not done and probably can't answer them at the moment. So, to keep them concise:

1) Do you envision every character getting the same talent pool, or will it be limited by BAB choice? Or will BAB be a talent choice as well?
2) Could some talent choices auto-negate other choices? (like having both full BAB and 9th level casting)
3) Would bonus feat progression be a talent purchase?
4) Are you worried about "core builds" or a list of obvious talent choices for a character type or concept?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

This is exactly the response I was looking for.

I started to ask a bunch more questions, but I know you're not done and probably can't answer them at the moment. So, to keep them concise:

1) Do you envision every character getting the same talent pool, or will it be limited by BAB choice? Or will BAB be a talent choice as well?

I currently don't have any plans to have class talents require things like BAB or requiring certain levels of spellcasting (unless the talent somehow actually requires it for some reason).

BAB (and spellcasting) is irreverent of class or talents. Instead when you gain levels you progress down one of three routes (Martial, Hybrid, Magical) and you can flip-flop between them (so if you want to advance 10 levels as martial and 10 levels as mage you're going to be functionally identical to a 20 level hybrid).

Quote:
2) Could some talent choices auto-negate other choices? (like having both full BAB and 9th level casting)

Currently as a design standard, there will be no way that you will be able to completely have your cake and eat it too. Martials are getting revved up and I believe on a fundamental level that you should not be able to do things like in 3.x/Pathfinder where Gishes can casually reach top-level magical superiority while also getting to have all the benefits of being a martial and then some.

There are plans to create some class features that allow special exceptions, such as allowing classes to get certain themed spells in a limited capacity in the same way that bards get irresistible dance despite it traditionally being an 8th level spell, but by the large, BAB or spellcasting are two ends of the same see-saw, and you can't rise on both of them at the same time.

Quote:
3) Would bonus feat progression be a talent purchase?

Maybe.

Quote:
4) Are you worried about "core builds" or a list of obvious talent choices for a character type or concept?

Yes! We'll probably include a few sample themed builds (not terribly unlike how certain barbarian archetypes recommend certain rage powers) and we'll also include suggested paths for certain iconic character paths.

And once people are comfortable with the system, they can begin to branch out and try more exotic things if you'd like. In fact, I commented to Aratrok that one of the things I was most looking forward to would be the inevitable forum threads on whatever forum we used as the platform for our game, where actual players were posting their unique mixtures of classes and talents making up their own archetypes out of the options they had.

I'm excited about giving people some LEGOs and see what make of them. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

This is exactly the response I was looking for.

I started to ask a bunch more questions, but I know you're not done and probably can't answer them at the moment. So, to keep them concise:

1) Do you envision every character getting the same talent pool, or will it be limited by BAB choice? Or will BAB be a talent choice as well?

I currently don't have any plans to have class talents require things like BAB or requiring certain levels of spellcasting (unless the talent somehow actually requires it for some reason).

BAB (and spellcasting) is irreverent of class or talents. Instead when you gain levels you progress down one of three routes (Martial, Hybrid, Magical) and you can flip-flop between them (so if you want to advance 10 levels as martial and 10 levels as mage you're going to be functionally identical to a 20 level hybrid).

Quote:
2) Could some talent choices auto-negate other choices? (like having both full BAB and 9th level casting)

Currently as a design standard, there will be no way that you will be able to completely have your cake and eat it too. Martials are getting revved up and I believe on a fundamental level that you should not be able to do things like in 3.x/Pathfinder where Gishes can casually reach top-level magical superiority while also getting to have all the benefits of being a martial and then some.

There are plans to create some class features that allow special exceptions, such as allowing classes to get certain themed spells in a limited capacity in the same way that bards get irresistible dance despite it traditionally being an 8th level spell, but by the large, BAB or spellcasting are two ends of the same see-saw, and you can't rise on both of them at the same time.

Quote:
3) Would bonus feat progression be a talent purchase?

Maybe.

Quote:
4) Are you worried about "core builds" or a list of obvious talent choices for a character type or concept?
Yes! We'll probably include a few...

>I'm excited about giving people some LEGOs and see what make of them. :)

I believe someone has already proved that the first thing people make out of LEGOs(any LEGOs, or anything modular for that matter) is, inevitably, a giant penis, so you've got your answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Good stuff

Cool beans. I'm super happy with this, and would be happy to participate in any testing you all need, or even to bounce ideas off of.

I ain't proud, and require no credit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


If you're a ranged rogue, you might be more of a debuffer, skulking the battlefield and taking pot-shots at people to assist your team with status ailments, or spotting enemies your allies have already given the bleeding condition and directing their attacks.

How likely is there to be a Cunning Strike equivalent without the 30ft hard limit for the more snipery types?


Heh. Gishes were always a weird idea to me in 3.5. I mean, when was the answer use your sword instead of cast a spell? As complicated as it is, I always liked the magus because it was the first to me that made the gish class feel like he wasn't just a wizard who's holding a longsword for some reason. I mean prior too, you were either a martial who wasn;t as good at martialling but had some answers to things, or you were a wizard who decided I want less options. Magus managed to make you not have to pick between solving the problem with a spell, or attacking.

I;m perfectly fine with them not having both in a system where martials will be worth a whole lot more. Though I do hope the hybrid option will at least not return us to the feel like I am choosing between a martial or caster each turn instead of being a unified whole of sorts.


Personally, I always disliked the idea of a martial caster where both magic and weapons are used to attack. I always wanted a class where the weapon is used to attack and the spells were in support of attacking with a weapon, such as invisibility, spider climb, enlarge person, etc. But I've never seen a class that really seemed like I wasn't expected to be a blaster with spells as well as sword.

Then again, the magic system of d20 isn't really the best for spellsword characters to begin with.


It would be cool to have a talent that lets you choose to specialize in self buffing or some kind of spell strike evoker style. That way you could accommodate either preference without allowing for both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mashallah wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


If you're a ranged rogue, you might be more of a debuffer, skulking the battlefield and taking pot-shots at people to assist your team with status ailments, or spotting enemies your allies have already given the bleeding condition and directing their attacks.

How likely is there to be a Cunning Strike equivalent without the 30ft hard limit for the more snipery types?

Very. Especially given my brother's overwhelming love of dwarven riflebros and his love of the rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icehawk wrote:

Heh. Gishes were always a weird idea to me in 3.5. I mean, when was the answer use your sword instead of cast a spell? As complicated as it is, I always liked the magus because it was the first to me that made the gish class feel like he wasn't just a wizard who's holding a longsword for some reason. I mean prior too, you were either a martial who wasn;t as good at martialling but had some answers to things, or you were a wizard who decided I want less options. Magus managed to make you not have to pick between solving the problem with a spell, or attacking.

I;m perfectly fine with them not having both in a system where martials will be worth a whole lot more. Though I do hope the hybrid option will at least not return us to the feel like I am choosing between a martial or caster each turn instead of being a unified whole of sorts.

Well, assuming you go full-route, you'll end up like this.

+20 BAB, 5th level casting (or an equivalent)
+15 BAB, 7th level casting (or an equivalent)
+10 BAB, 10th level casting (or an equivalent)

Further, what we know as "caster level" is 3.x/PF is always equal to your level, and your chance to overcome your foe's saves is the same regardless of the level of spell you are casting. As a result, the lesser casters (such as the Pally types and the Bard types) will have a much better time of keeping pace with their abilities, they just have fewer spell abilities than a full-caster and may not reach the highest tiers of spells (8th-10th).

Now, one of the major features of having a high BAB is that it also applies bonus-damage to attacks you make. This includes spells you make attacks with (so things like flame blade, shocking grasp, scorching ray, acid arrow, blah-blah) which can make certain spells really attractive to the martially inclined.

Likewise, many of the better buffing spells will tend to be 5th level and lower (things like divine power, polymorph, bull's strength, etc), which means if you want to be a martial with a splash of support magic, that's definitely an option.

I would like to include some talents on certain classes that allow you to cast spells as part of attacks (such as channeling a spell through a sword or like an arcane archer), or quicken spells when performing certain types of actions (such as physically attacking someone), which would allow for a nice magus feel for those who preferred that route.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:

Personally, I always disliked the idea of a martial caster where both magic and weapons are used to attack. I always wanted a class where the weapon is used to attack and the spells were in support of attacking with a weapon, such as invisibility, spider climb, enlarge person, etc. But I've never seen a class that really seemed like I wasn't expected to be a blaster with spells as well as sword.

Then again, the magic system of d20 isn't really the best for spellsword characters to begin with.

In that case I would strongly recommend the Bard in Pathfinder. While they don't have enlarge person (that I can recall anyway) they have a delightful set of spells that are incredibly for supporting their martial habits, including (but not limited to) things like heroism, good hope, greater invisibility, mirror image, blur, displacement, haste, glitterdust, see invisibility, dispel magic, dimension door, freedom of movement, greater heroism, etc.

Bards are remarkably good at this, because you don't build them as casters. Minimum casting stats are A-Ok, anything else is bonus spells only. Buff and stomp people. A well played bard is often functional more or less irreverent of their statistics (seriously, +2s across the board is very functional), and can often tank better than front-liners and beat ass like warriors (you have a 3/4 BAB, loads of long-duration spells and performances that stack, and access to the Arcane Strike feat that adds scaling damage).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If flurry of blows is a talent, will it be limited to unarmed attacks?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Good stuff

Cool beans. I'm super happy with this, and would be happy to participate in any testing you all need, or even to bounce ideas off of.

I ain't proud, and require no credit.

Definitely. I feel like I've still got a lot of ground to cover before it's ready for some real playtesting but progress is being made.

It's slow progress though, because it's being produced during my *cough*"free"*cough* time (whatever that is), and there is soooo much editing to do. It's in the nooks and crannies of the various chapters. A lot of text is getting trimmed, some new texts added, mechanics cleaned up or converted as needed, and stuff like that.

To put it into perspective, the Alpha I release of the Pathfinder playtest was on 3/18/08, and with an actual "staff" to work on it, it wasn't out of beta and in final form until GenCon 2009.

So in many ways, I'm proud of how much work I've been doing given how much stuff has to be changed. The big hurdles is less in terms of building classes, abilities, and stuff like that. It's the minutiae that's remarkably important, much of which wasn't addressed or fixed from Pathfinder.

A friend of mine, having been curiously doing some research on 3.x->PF, had this to say to me on Discord.

Rules Rant:
I decided on a whim to compare 3.0 -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder's systems for Cover and Concealment. I am f&&%ing livid.

3.0's system had vagaries (though the value of cover was no more subject to discretion than normal -> improved cover later), but they at least TRIED to address the thing where it's harder to shoot a dude with a crowd around them than with one guy in the way. It also didn't give you f@!&-off huge bonus to Hide if your cover was really good for some reason. Concealment is whatever. Basically the same with more granularity.

3.5 did a few good things. Condensing 3/4 and 9/10 cover into Improved Cover was good- having +7/+3 cover and +10/+4 cover that are nearly identical just adds more modifiers to remember (and +10 AC is even closer for f%&@-off huge). Removing the chance to hit buddies with your attacks was probably good, because comparing your attack to 3 different target numbers when soft cover is in play is f~$+ing crazy. It's hard coded instead of "I dunno, ask your GM if it applies". What they f*@~ed up was not giving you examples for what supply different kinds of cover- 3.0 had a nice table for this, but 3.5 just says "In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus". The rules for shooting at big creatures are bugged and actually only apply when you're stabbing them, so if Godzilla has a boulder by his foot he's got cover. Also thereis now a f#!+-off huge +10 bonus to Hide checks. Concealment is weird and only Darkvision (not anything like Blindsight) is referred to as doing anything about darkness. Having Concealment and Total Concealment is easier on headspace, but you lose a little variety. Then they toss this out the window by saying "naw, GM makes up whatever concealment numbers are appropriate, have fun with your 17% concealment, b%+%$".(edited)
Pathfinder is literally just a copy paste of 3.5 on this. There are so many little things that could be cleaned up while reducing the amount of text, and they didn't even f%+!ing try. It's embarassing. Also because all they did to integrate stealth was f@*~ing CTRL+F "Hide" and "Move Silently" and replace them with Stealth, the +10, +20, and +40 bonuses to Hide from this shit apply against all other senses now. RAW, having an arrow slit to hide behind makes you harder to detect by sound than hiding behind a solid wall, and that's f%%~ed. The section on Concealment even refers to your Stealth check as if it were Hide ("even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues").

Goddamnit. I'm mad. I had to rant about that. F*~*.

It's stuff like that which will take the longest. Also spells. Dear god, spells. (T-T)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
If flurry of blows is a talent, will it be limited to unarmed attacks?

Probably not. I didn't even limit it to monk weapons on my psychic monk (you can flurry with whatever you darn well pleased, you just got bonuses with unarmed strikes/monk weapons).

There's a sort of soft-cap on how many attacks is a good idea though. Each extra attack you make adds a -2 penalty to all your attacks, so if you can make like 6 attacks / round, you can take all of those attacks as you desire, but you're eating a -12 penalty to hit. This can be great if your intent is to slaughter a half-dozen orcs in a round, less so if your plan is to pummel the BBEG.

That said, for special extra attacks (like flurries or haste) I'll probably drop the penalty.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Would it be badwrongfun to ask you a potentially spoilerific question about Iron Gods?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Would it be badwrongfun to ask you a potentially spoilerific question about Iron Gods?

Nope, but I've also not really been following the APs lately. I've been so busy working and such that I haven't really had any need or desire to run them, but I don't mind trying to answer any questions if it's something I can answer. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Would it be badwrongfun to ask you a potentially spoilerific question about Iron Gods?

I have played it, so if Ashiel can't help, maybe I can?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
If flurry of blows is a talent, will it be limited to unarmed attacks?

Probably not. I didn't even limit it to monk weapons on my psychic monk (you can flurry with whatever you darn well pleased, you just got bonuses with unarmed strikes/monk weapons).

*text*

That said, for special extra attacks (like flurries or haste) I'll probably drop the penalty.

Wouldn't it go against the idea of accuracy trade-offs between single and multiple attacks?

If there are no penalties whatsoever for bonus attacks (not even a -1 like from how you said you'll rework Multiattack in d20 Legends) and no limitations whatsoever on what kind attacks you can make, will there ever be any reason again to make a single attack instead of multiple?


I think he means the penalty will only be dropped in special circumstances.

So the Flurry or haste effect will "bonus attack plus any other you make" and if you make lots of other, you'll suffer the penalty on the other, but not the "extra" attack you're granted.

The reason this (might*) work is that the bonus attack always has some sort of opportunity cost that you could use to get some other benefit of (presumably roughly) equal value.

* It might not actually work out. It's unclear because it's unpublished. Balancing would have to take place around the concept.

EDIT: To clarify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I've gathered it may work is that, essentially, they add a free attack with no penalties.

For example, you may have a BAB of 8 and opt to make 4 attacks (1 normal and 3 additional, each giving a -2 penalty) with a bonus of +2 before any modifies. But, just before you attack, the wizard casts haste allowing you to make a 5th attack, but what th out the usual -2 penalty. Flurry might work the same way.

Hmmm... it might be interesting, based on what I can recall of the system, if Flurry let you make an additional attack at no penalty for each additional attack you make. For example, the above fighter making 4 total attacks would instead get to make 7 attacks. As a downside, maybe each attack only does half damage. It would be a great option for critical or status based characters, but not for ones who rely on damage to take out foes.


What I mean is, if you have, say, 3 bonus attacks (for example, 2 from flurry, 1 from haste), is there ever any reason to make less than the 4 attacks you can do without any penalty whatsoever?
Is there ever any reason to make a fifth attack and thus suffer a penalty on the other 4 attacks which are otherwise without any penalty?

I'm afraid of the potential situation where both options would be suboptimal, essentially making using only your special extra attacks the only meaningful option for characters who possess such special extra attacks, effectively removing the whole multiple attack system for such characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, these are hypotheticals. We'd need to run the math and see how it works out in practice, but if there's no penalty for flurry, it'll probably be a single bonus attack similar to being hasted, or it might be attacks that carry a separate penalty (e.g. they don't reduce your other attacks), or we might simply make them a standard source of extra attacks and just let you eat all the penalties usually (in which case you might do something like make a flurrying dual-wielder who's strategy is roll lots of d20s and count the natural 20s).


Pathfinder does an admirable job at providing a ruleset for adventures in a classic fantasy setting-medieval fantasy with dragons and magic. It doesn't really extend all that well into high-tech settings, though.

Will D20 legends have support(in the form of rules, classes, or what else) for settings with a higher level of technology?


Klara Meison wrote:

Pathfinder does an admirable job at providing a ruleset for adventures in a classic fantasy setting-medieval fantasy with dragons and magic. It doesn't really extend all that well into high-tech settings, though.

Will D20 legends have support(in the form of rules, classes, or what else) for settings with a higher level of technology?

I think that already posted weapon rules showed that it would be the case - weapons damage depended on size size and technology level.

I also recall seeing some rules for shotguns and such posted in this thread.

All of that implies at least some support for higher levels of technology.

Radiant Oath

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Icehawk wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Would it be badwrongfun to ask you a potentially spoilerific question about Iron Gods?
I have played it, so if Ashiel can't help, maybe I can?

Iron Gods Post-Campaign SPOILERS!:
Did your party make Casandalee a new goddess? If so, what alignment did you give her and what domains/subdomains did she ultimately end up with?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mashallah wrote:

What I mean is, if you have, say, 3 bonus attacks (for example, 2 from flurry, 1 from haste), is there ever any reason to make less than the 4 attacks you can do without any penalty whatsoever?

Is there ever any reason to make a fifth attack and thus suffer a penalty on the other 4 attacks which are otherwise without any penalty?

I'm afraid of the potential situation where both options would be suboptimal, essentially making using only your special extra attacks the only meaningful option for characters who possess such special extra attacks, effectively removing the whole multiple attack system for such characters.

Using my above hypothetical, the melee character with a BAB of 8 takes a -6 penalty to make 3 extra attacks, but then also uses Flurry for 3 more bonus attacks at no additional penalty all 7 attacks are made at the same -6 penalty, for a net BAB of 2, and all attacks deal half damage.

HypotheticAlly, it might be good for criticAl or status based characters that rely on simply hitting, but not for damage focused characters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:

Pathfinder does an admirable job at providing a ruleset for adventures in a classic fantasy setting-medieval fantasy with dragons and magic. It doesn't really extend all that well into high-tech settings, though.

Will D20 legends have support(in the form of rules, classes, or what else) for settings with a higher level of technology?

Yes. Even if it kills me. D20 Legends is, as I said before, stemming from my efforts to create the d20 system that I want to use to run my games for my players. Over the years, I've enjoyed playing/GMing D&D, D20 Modern, Star Wars, Pathfinder, etc.

I also have a habit of mixing a lot of these things together where I feel it's appropriate. For example, in a Star Wars game I ran years ago, I used ankhegs and advanced ankhegs to create a giant acid-spitting ant-colony type thing on a planet somewhere, which ended up with the PCs battling these monstrous "aliens" with lightsabers and blasters (and when the force-sensitive bounty hunter was grappled in the beast's mighty maw, he shoved a thermal detonator down her throat and hoped for the best as the acid was burning through everything).

Reverse it to a campaign I was running last year for Aratrok, Ms. Raital Latral, and my brother (and a few other friends who cycled around as our schedules fit together), set in my Alvena setting. In that world, the apocalypse technically already happened, and a lot of the magical doodads and crazy constructs like golems and stuff are remnants of a bygone age of technology and knowledge. The dungeon that they were exploring was a "floating city" and is one of many of these fallen cities that now dot the landscape. When you get right down to it, these were essentially space station cities orbiting the planet. Inside them is powerful ancient magic, strange constructs and guardians, and in this one, an infernal presence that was trapped within by the city's anti-planar travel barriers (which existed to prevent magicians in the ancient world from teleporting troops or terrorists into the city, and now made for a fine prison for a marilith who was trapped inside when the city fell).

I absolutely want a d20 system that deals with low and high technology and everything in between. I want a system that could handle running a campaign that is essentially set in a time of great change and new discoveries, or can handle small patches of "mad science" levels of tech (like when you have some crazy alchemist who builds a plasma cannon to mount on his golem, powered by a fire elemental and unicorn piss).

I've even got a few simple theories on how to handle the "balance" of that sort of thing without throwing everything out of whack. That is, tech items will generally be akin to magic items in form and function. For example, the main difference between things like plate armor and futuristic armor will probably be less about AC and more about absorption (to protect against energy attacks, or provide some DR against particular weapon types), which is functionally equivalent to things like resist energy.

This creates a nice "dial" so to speak, because if you're running a campaign that's like Star Wars or something, you just use a higher standard of currency. For example, if in your game, energy weapons and armors that protect against them are commonplace, then your campaign's starting currency might be something like 10,000 "galactic credits" or somesuch, and it just happens that a single "credit" is worth like 1 gp, just the economic scale is different.

It's delightfully simple because the rules can remain the same. Just changing the dial on how much currency is standard solves the problem. Because in a game where things like laser rifles and astrotech armor is as commonplace as bows and full plate, you just might start with 20,000 galactic credits or imperial seals or whatever instead of 200 gp.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Icehawk wrote:
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Would it be badwrongfun to ask you a potentially spoilerific question about Iron Gods?
I have played it, so if Ashiel can't help, maybe I can?
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
Yes. CG, I believe the Domains were Good, Chaos, Artifice and Charm. But I can't quite recall.

Course after the events of all that my character started an heretical sect of Zyphus dedicated to self-actualization of mortals due to the complete and utter failure of every diety except Zyphus to help us save the planet from a insane machine god. The clerics of Brigh laughed us off, the other gods did nothing even when it was imminent, the ONLY god who got involved was Zyphus, admittedly for selfish reasons. So far as my character is concerned, Zyphus is right. The gods aren't worthy of their power and position. They were prepared to let the world burn from a diety who didn't follow their hands off rules even after being alerted to his existence and plan. So screw em.

I have very strong feelings about this AP. Very few of them good. Some are not the AP's fault itself. The whole rant though was more a character thing though, but have to say, that's some pretty blind omnipotent folks there.


Hmm, I have only recently started reading this thread, so I don't know all the goals of this system you are developing, but there do seem to be some aspects that overlap, in which case it might be beneficial to join together, at least for those aspects. For example, handling of technology.

I still will stick with my own d20 mod of course, since I want classless (I hate classes with a burning passion), but it might lead to these other aspects being better in the long run.

So what are all the changes you are going for?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:

Pathfinder does an admirable job at providing a ruleset for adventures in a classic fantasy setting-medieval fantasy with dragons and magic. It doesn't really extend all that well into high-tech settings, though.

Will D20 legends have support(in the form of rules, classes, or what else) for settings with a higher level of technology?

Yes. Even if it kills me. D20 Legends is, as I said before, stemming from my efforts to create the d20 system that I want to use to run my games for my players. Over the years, I've enjoyed playing/GMing D&D, D20 Modern, Star Wars, Pathfinder, etc.

I also have a habit of mixing a lot of these things together where I feel it's appropriate. For example, in a Star Wars game I ran years ago, I used ankhegs and advanced ankhegs to create a giant acid-spitting ant-colony type thing on a planet somewhere, which ended up with the PCs battling these monstrous "aliens" with lightsabers and blasters (and when the force-sensitive bounty hunter was grappled in the beast's mighty maw, he shoved a thermal detonator down her throat and hoped for the best as the acid was burning through everything).

Reverse it to a campaign I was running last year for Aratrok, Ms. Raital Latral, and my brother (and a few other friends who cycled around as our schedules fit together), set in my Alvena setting. In that world, the apocalypse technically already happened, and a lot of the magical doodads and crazy constructs like golems and stuff are remnants of a bygone age of technology and knowledge. The dungeon that they were exploring was a "floating city" and is one of many of these fallen cities that now dot the landscape. When you get right down to it, these were essentially space station cities orbiting the planet. Inside them is powerful ancient magic, strange constructs and guardians, and in this one, an infernal presence that was trapped within by the city's anti-planar travel barriers (which existed to prevent magicians in the ancient world...

>Yes. Even if it kills me.

That's the spirit! Go big or go home, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:

Hmm, I have only recently started reading this thread, so I don't know all the goals of this system you are developing, but there do seem to be some aspects that overlap, in which case it might be beneficial to join together, at least for those aspects. For example, handling of technology.

I still will stick with my own d20 mod of course, since I want classless (I hate classes with a burning passion), but it might lead to these other aspects being better in the long run.

So what are all the changes you are going for?

In d20 legends classes would work more like meta feat trees than anything else, really, so it will be practically classless as is.

The way I understand it, at least.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:

Hmm, I have only recently started reading this thread, so I don't know all the goals of this system you are developing, but there do seem to be some aspects that overlap, in which case it might be beneficial to join together, at least for those aspects. For example, handling of technology.

I still will stick with my own d20 mod of course, since I want classless (I hate classes with a burning passion), but it might lead to these other aspects being better in the long run.

So what are all the changes you are going for?

In d20 legends classes would work more like meta feat trees than anything else, really, so it will be practically classless as is.

The way I understand it, at least.

That's a pretty good assessment. The idea is that class based systems are usually too restrictive, but classless systems aren't restrictive or more specifically aren't structured enough.

For example, in most classless systems (especially those based around specific point buys), it's entirely possible to have a god of war and a complete gimp in the party at the same time, which might seem cool at first but it's a huge pain in the butt to try to actually design encounters for Marduk the Destroyer with a million HP, the ability to slice mountains in twain, and shit dragonfire, and his trusty companion Tim, who speaks three hundred different languages and is really good at chess.

So what we've done is kept the leveling system, which acts as a "I'm this tall to ride" standard (you KNOW that characters will be in a certain range based on their levels) but I removed the classes from that progression and turned them into a sort of "build your own" thing where you purchase classes and their features with a resource (talents).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAlicornSage wrote:

Hmm, I have only recently started reading this thread, so I don't know all the goals of this system you are developing, but there do seem to be some aspects that overlap, in which case it might be beneficial to join together, at least for those aspects. For example, handling of technology.

I still will stick with my own d20 mod of course, since I want classless (I hate classes with a burning passion), but it might lead to these other aspects being better in the long run.

So what are all the changes you are going for?

The goals are basically...

1) Create an all-in-one d20 system that I can use to run my games, whether I'm running D&D, Star Wars, D20 Modern, or My Little Spacemarine: Slaanesh is Magic.

For example: Having a d20 core that supports everything from stone-age to plasma-blasters and laser swords out of the box. That gives explicit examples of what sort of things are expected at certain levels and adjustments that need to be made if those things are removed. An explanation for what levels mean and how to adjust your game if you're looking for something that's more "gritty realism" instead of heroic fantasy.

2) Reduce caster/martial disparity. This is done in a lot of different ways throughout the system (from buffing martials to nerfing casters in certain areas, to changing how some magic items work, to changing how mundane things work, to changing how some feats and spells work, to changing how combat itself works, etc).

For example: Full attacking got the axe and a new pro/con system for making lots of attacks introduced. Combat is more mobile. Saves scale differently so it's impossible to just target the "weak save" trivially. Spells are weaker vs level appropriate foes so things like flesh to stone can instantly turn a mook into a lawn ornament but a heroic character has some time to react to it as it slowly turns them to stone. Casting spells is harder and being threatened while casting spells is super-bad (it may force you to cast lower level spells or risk losing them, even if you aren't hit). Lots of other stuff.

3) Make skills better. Skills will be harder to get and reward investment more than raw modifier. This will mostly be keyed to how many ranks you have in a skill, which means you'll actually attain new uses and potentials for skills as you gain levels, and simply having a better than normal modifier doesn't provide the superpowers from those skills.

For example: We've discussed making skills have new functions at certain breakpoints of rank investment. So having 5 levels worth of ranks in Acrobatics might let you do something like walk on water, and even though the DC to do so might not be super high (like maybe 25), you simply cannot do so unless you have invested the proper skill points, even if your modifier is +60. Skills are also not tied to Int, and martial characters have more skills / level than mages do.

4) Make the game easier to play. I'm reducing a lot of the minutiae, trying to clean up the rules, axing a lot of the redundant stuff that nobody uses, say more in less, and reduce bookkeeping where possible. Also trying to make it easier to teach new players. Understanding things like your spells, resting/recovering/preparing spells, and things of that nature are easier. Reducing (hopefully eliminating) trap options, and including sidebar examples of when and why to use certain options.

For example: So much stuff has already been gutted from the Combat and Magic chapters and re-written from scratch. The magic chapter alone has had the arcane magical writings section completely re-written, arcane/divine magic isn't a thing anymore (magic in generally just doesn't really like armor, which gives incentive for priestly and clerical sorts to limit themselves to lighter armors if magic is their main focus). Rules are less scattered everywhere. Dealing with prepared casting isn't much more complicated than spontaneous casting.

5) Make the game more fun to play. A big point to this design goal is that you're never a gimp for a % of your career. You can feel like a mage from 1st level, and still feel like a warrior at 20th level.0

For example: Mages begin the game being able to do magey things like drop AoE spells, or actually cast magic each round as a reliable thing (rather than falling back to 1d3 cantrips or crossbows), and martials become superheroes at high levels, capable of running through a horde of mooks and leaving corpses in their wake (a side effect of a huge BAB and changes to how full-attacking works), and running over clouds (a side effect of skill changes), or wrestling dragons to the ground (combat maneuvers aren't limited by things like size, and we're also working on a system that lets you scale large monsters and cling to them while fighting them, so your martial would be able to run up a dragon and grab its horns and ride around on it as it moves).

Mages (casters in general) can still do awesome things. They can even do some more awesome things (we're planning to include blasting spells that do really fun things like raze cities) but major spells are often weaker vs level appropriate foes. So while your 20th level wizard might be able to wave his hand and turn a battalion of soldiers to stone or into chickens or something, doing that to a mighty dragon or a 20th level warrior is probably not happening. This means that you don't run into the issues where Epic Dudebro the Dood ends up a lawn ornament or the family pet because he rolled a 2 on a save.

Spell durations and ranges have been normalized. This means that buff spells are useful at low levels and at high levels, and those spells nobody casts at low levels because they only last 1-2 rounds are good then too. A lot of spells, especially martial-buffing things last a long time, so prepping things like bull's strength is a super cool idea.

6) Magic items are going to be parsed into the usual stuff and the good stuff. The good stuff is basically the junk you can't just go to a metropolis and find and there's a reason for that. You can't just poop it out with gold. This loosely connects to ideas such as the "wish economy concept" but at a certain point, general wealth stops converting to power and you have to use certain special materials like soulgems to create magic items or as special key spell components. These types of items have a GP value (for determining their worth for item creation or spells) but since they are must-haves for making legendary items or using legendary spells, nobody sells that junk and you'd be an idiot to sell it too.

This means that after a certain point, basic material wealth becomes a plot device. Start building kingdoms and shit. Outfit an army with +1 weapons. Ask your genie for your own mountain of money. We don't care. The sorts of weapons, armors, and items that you use at high levels aren't traded for in gold pieces. They have to be earned by things other than repeated castings of wall of iron and your friendly neighborhood Efreeti can't poop them out for you.

For example: You might be able to buy basic magic items with gold. A lot of the medium and below stuff. But grabbing a magic lamp, or finding an infinite money scheme just doesn't help you in the long run. The real wealth comes in the form of things like powerful soul gems, or the essence of a dead eldritch horror, or whatever. These high level currencies will be included as part of adventures and WBL, but they're essentially outside of the typical game economy. If you want a +5 sword, or the material component to that gate spell, you'll need to use these exotic currencies to do it. We haven't mapped out what the exotic currencies will be, but we do know that soul gems will be at least one of them.

7) A number of spells are showing up earlier, some later, and some are changing the way they scale.

For example: Some spells like blasting spells are showing up earlier and scaling differently, or have greater benefits when you cast them from higher level slots (kind of like intensify/heighten built in for blasting spells).

The spell Summon Monster no longer comes in I-IX varieties, and it has gobbled up Summon Nature's Ally in the process. Instead, you have one spell that scales with the spell-slot used to cast it and is limited primarily to animals and elementals. Class specializations (for things like conjurers, druids, bloodline sorcerers, etc) expand the list of things that you can summon.

So if you're a druid, you can expand it to summon things like fey, plant monsters, unicorns, and beefy ancient or primordial animals. A conjurer might be able to branch out into conjuring outsiders such as devils, demons, angels, azatas, etc. This generally means that summoning will tend to be more focused, but we can also make it more rewarding in some ways (such as being able to poop out a decently beefy or magical creature at levels where they're still fairly relevant).

We currently intend to revise the caps and limits on spells like Animate Dead, Planar Binding, Simulacrum, and Summon Monster, so that they aren't based on things like HD, and they're more flexible while also being more balanced (our current projection is to allow you to control a certain level worth of monsters, similar to building an encounter of a particular CR using an XP budget). Simulacrum's gonna need to get a biiiiiiig tweak and may end up requiring some of that super-currency we were talking about.

That's...most of it, I guess. General things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And a lot more, actually, come to think of it. I've already make a lot of strides in un-hardcoding a lot of the mechanics and giving more artistic freedom to GMs and players when it comes to things like describing their worlds and characters. I've even just recently created some mechanics for handling spell books (cost, weight, capacity, materials) which opens up new avenues for "spellbooks" that aren't books at all (things like stone tablets, rubics cubes, rune stones, etc).

Weapons and armors are simplified for mechanical benefits. There are not (and will not be) lots of redundant weapons. A sword is a sword is a sword. It just matters the size, tech, and qualities assigned to it.

Same deal with light, medium, and heavy armors. You'll be able to customize them but it doesn't really matter a whole lot in game terms whether you're wearing some medium armor from Japan or a medium armor from Europe. It's a medium armor, mkay? :)

I'm currently planning on splitting magic item creation into a mundane aspect and a magical aspect. Things like Craft will be able to provide a superior weapon or armor (which will improve raw mechanical aspects such as enhancement bonuses) while magic adds special abilities to it (so a legendary smith could forge a +5 sword, and a power enchanter could then make it a +5 flaming sword).

Geeze, so many changes. o_o

I'm going to go to bed so I can get up for work, then come home, and do more work.


Ashiel wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:

Hmm, I have only recently started reading this thread, so I don't know all the goals of this system you are developing, but there do seem to be some aspects that overlap, in which case it might be beneficial to join together, at least for those aspects. For example, handling of technology.

I still will stick with my own d20 mod of course, since I want classless (I hate classes with a burning passion), but it might lead to these other aspects being better in the long run.

So what are all the changes you are going for?

In d20 legends classes would work more like meta feat trees than anything else, really, so it will be practically classless as is.

The way I understand it, at least.

That's a pretty good assessment. The idea is that class based systems are usually too restrictive, but classless systems aren't restrictive or more specifically aren't structured enough.

For example, in most classless systems (especially those based around specific point buys), it's entirely possible to have a god of war and a complete gimp in the party at the same time, which might seem cool at first but it's a huge pain in the butt to try to actually design encounters for Marduk the Destroyer with a million HP, the ability to slice mountains in twain, and s*&! dragonfire, and his trusty companion Tim, who speaks three hundred different languages and is really good at chess.

So what we've done is kept the leveling system, which acts as a "I'm this tall to ride" standard (you KNOW that characters will be in a certain range based on their levels) but I removed the classes from that progression and turned them into a sort of "build your own" thing where you purchase classes and their features with a resource (talents).

So much for the promise to cut down feat trees with a +4 axe of treecutting. You are just making more of them!

> So having 5 levels worth of ranks in Acrobatics might let you do something like walk on water, and even though the DC to do so might not be super high (like maybe 25), you simply cannot do so unless you have invested the proper skill points, even if your modifier is +60.

Wouldn't that interfere with people coming up with new uses for a skill, since now GM would need two numbers(minimal ranks and DC) instead of one (just DC) to come up with an appropriate roll for the situation?

> The real wealth comes in the form of things like powerful soul gems, or the essence of a dead eldritch horror, or whatever.

O, I like that. It might even make mundane crafting better, if you could craft things with it that are useful in lategame by just using special materials. I had some similar thoughts on the subject, actually, see PM.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

And a lot more, actually, come to think of it. I've already make a lot of strides in un-hardcoding a lot of the mechanics and giving more artistic freedom to GMs and players when it comes to things like describing their worlds and characters. I've even just recently created some mechanics for handling spell books (cost, weight, capacity, materials) which opens up new avenues for "spellbooks" that aren't books at all (things like stone tablets, rubics cubes, rune stones, etc).

Weapons and armors are simplified for mechanical benefits. There are not (and will not be) lots of redundant weapons. A sword is a sword is a sword. It just matters the size, tech, and qualities assigned to it.

Same deal with light, medium, and heavy armors. You'll be able to customize them but it doesn't really matter a whole lot in game terms whether you're wearing some medium armor from Japan or a medium armor from Europe. It's a medium armor, mkay? :)

I'm currently planning on splitting magic item creation into a mundane aspect and a magical aspect. Things like Craft will be able to provide a superior weapon or armor (which will improve raw mechanical aspects such as enhancement bonuses) while magic adds special abilities to it (so a legendary smith could forge a +5 sword, and a power enchanter could then make it a +5 flaming sword).

Geeze, so many changes. o_o

I'm going to go to bed so I can get up for work, then come home, and do more work.

We've done something similar to this in our home games. The DCs are higher (which isnt a probelm for a PC with points invested in the skills) you can use craft to reduce ACP, add armor/to hit bonuses, increase max dex, lower weight, etc. It's worked out well so far, but we end up with some crazy stuff by high level.


Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Would it be badwrongfun to ask you a potentially spoilerific question about Iron Gods?
Icehawk wrote:
I have played it, so if Ashiel can't help, maybe I can?
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Did you try turning off the computer and turning it back on?

Did you try pushing the button for twenty-one seconds, and (after it's turned off), press the button again to turn it back on?

Did you try hitting "F2" repeatedly when you first turned it on, and select "Safe Mode" when you did so?

Did you hit the large, red button that said, "Do not press this button" or anything similar?

Did you try reading the manual?

Note: I've not played Iron Gods and am not talking about whatever might be behind that enticing-looking spoiler; instead I'm making a general joke about technology and "tech help" in general. :)

1,701 to 1,750 of 3,564 << first < prev | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >> Ask Ashiel Anything << All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.