Monks?If monks were officially recognized as a type of fighter they would get the ten max deflection bonus too.
With that in mind, clerics must draw power from a diety, while monks draw power from philosophy and the multiverse through their being.
Where does this "max deflection of 10" come from?
Where does this "max deflection of 10" come from?Monks?If monks were officially recognized as a type of fighter they would get the ten max deflection bonus too.
With that in mind, clerics must draw power from a diety, while monks draw power from philosophy and the multiverse through their being.
5 deflection from armor, and 5 from the shield. Bracer's deflection bonus doesn't stack with either, so limiting this level of bonus to owning 2 magic items seems part of the problem. Clerics can cast spells so that's why I'm willing to leave them out.
Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Page 462 Core rulebook.
Where does this "max deflection of 10" come from?Monks?If monks were officially recognized as a type of fighter they would get the ten max deflection bonus too.
With that in mind, clerics must draw power from a diety, while monks draw power from philosophy and the multiverse through their being.
5 deflection from armor, and 5 from the shield. Bracer's deflection bonus doesn't stack with either, so limiting this level of bonus to owning 2 magic items seems part of the problem. Clerics can cast spells so that's why I'm willing to leave them out.
Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Page 462 Core rulebook.
That's plain Armor Class, Deflection is something else, since it applies to both Flat Footed AC and Touch AC.
Aye, a DEFLECTION bonus is what you get from a Ring of Protection, or the spell Shield of Faith.
From armor and shields, you get armor and shield bonuses. The +5 to each is an ENHANCEMENT to the armor and shield bonus.
==Aelryinth
Aye, a DEFLECTION bonus is what you get from a Ring of Protection, or the spell Shield of Faith.
From armor and shields, you get armor and shield bonuses. The +5 to each is an ENHANCEMENT to the armor and shield bonus.
==Aelryinth
Congratulations! A major philosophy is that a chair is a chair because it functions as a chair. However the enhancement bonus is identical to a deflection bonus except for one completely arbitrary limit on deflection.
All's this changes is the wording of what I want. I want characters to get an enhancement bonus to their AC based on level. This will not stack with the combined enhancement bonus on armor and shield.
I personally don't care if the upper limit is 10 or 8. Since I'm DMing the forthcoming playtest of The Cleaves, I'll put it at 8 for now.
Untrue. You're ignoring the characteristics of the bonus.
A deflection bonus is akin to a force field, diverting stuff away before it actually touches you.
An enhancement bonus makes something tougher or harder. So, you have stronger armor or shields (or Nat Armor)...which does nothing against touch attacks, or incorporeal attacks that ignore armor and shields.
They are definitely not the same thing, nor are they priced that way. Deflection is muchly superior to have.
So, the question will be...exactly what are you enhancing?
Also, the melees should get their bonuses slightly faster then other classes.
==Aelryinth
|
Can someone please translate for Goth Guru?
What does a Deflection Bonus even have to do with unarmored and non-shielding characters getting a free Mage Armor or Shield casting retroactively? What freaking Monk ever would not love that ability to kick in once they get hit.
Or, off topically, when did Monks becomes fighters? Officially or otherwise?
Can someone please translate for Goth Guru?
What does a Deflection Bonus even have to do with unarmored and non-shielding characters getting a free Mage Armor or Shield casting retroactively? What freaking Monk ever would not love that ability to kick in once they get hit.
Or, off topically, when did Monks becomes fighters? Officially or otherwise?
1: Nothing. They are separate wants. A defensive spell is useless for your character if they can only cast it after they get hit.
2: I was suggesting that in the new edition Monks should be classified as a type of fighter.
Untrue. You're ignoring the characteristics of the bonus.
A deflection bonus is akin to a force field, diverting stuff away before it actually touches you.
An enhancement bonus makes something tougher or harder. So, you have stronger armor or shields (or Nat Armor)...which does nothing against touch attacks, or incorporeal attacks that ignore armor and shields.
They are definitely not the same thing, nor are they priced that way. Deflection is muchly superior to have.
So, the question will be...exactly what are you enhancing?
Also, the melees should get their bonuses slightly faster then other classes.
==Aelryinth
So you are suggesting to make armor and shields with nothing special besides an enhancement bonus obsolete I would have to have them give whatever they wear and use as a shield an enhancement bonus of 1-5? It would be so funny if some wizard started holding a dead rat as a shield. I'm going with that. When using this rule, pretend shields don't have a chance of causing spell failure.
IN truth, GG, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm just telling you that enhancement bonuses on armor and shields and deflection bonuses are not the same thing, and the latter is MUCH stronger.
so, just color me confused on your language issue. Is English your native language?
==Aelryinth
American English is my only language.
Try to respond without the insults.
A +5 shield of "everyone else at this level has the same thing" takes the same arm as a more appropriate for your character shield. You can't use both shields.
I'm trying to build a mechanic that replaces both that and the bracers of item slot wasting.
I looked back at the previous posts and I can't find where this argument came from. Just allow a character to gain or select a deflection bonus that goes up a point at a time. If a character's enhancement bonus to their combined gear is more than or equal to the inherent deflection bonus, then they use that instead.
American English is my only language.
Try to respond without the insults.
He don't believe he meant it as an insult. Your posts have been hard to follow, beginning with blurting out something about modifying the "limit" of deflection bonus of 10 instead of 8...which does not correlate to any rule I know. Thus my question.
We are just trying to have a conversation.
American English is my only language.
Try to respond without the insults.
Insult would be saying you write like a 6-7 years old.
Insult would be saying you write like a 6-7 years old.American English is my only language.
Try to respond without the insults.
Or that you fight like a cow
But enhancement and deflection bonuses to AC both stack. And armor/shields don't provide deflection bonuses.
If you're trying to change the stacking rules, just stop using deflection bonuses.
"Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers or armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning."
The deflection bonus is like bracers of armor without the actual wrist slot wasting trinkets. I hope in the new version they just say "this is a list of armor bonuses"
"1-Armor, shield, and enhancement bonuses to both"
"2-Deflection and force bonus to the person or gear"
"The highest total bonus is the only one currently functioning"
As it stands, shields slip through the loophole like barkskin and stoneskin which should be an enhancement to the skin.
The other people posting homebrews about this subject want to just cancel the enhancement bonus entirely, and they seem to be finding plenty of people to play at their tables.
I always try to meet people half way, and most of the time snipers from both sides start shooting at me. :(
Bracers of armor are just magic items with mage armor on them. All sources of deflection do not stack with armor including any enhancement bonuses on said armor.
The wording in the core rulebook is too darn complicated.
Bracers of armor are just magic items with mage armor on them. All sources of deflection do not stack with armor including any enhancement bonuses on said armor.
The wording in the core rulebook is too darn complicated.
Don't worry TOZ...I don't think anyone knows what he is talking about.
^Name Levels from D&D were the level at which you were considered to actually be a: Wizard; Warrior; etc. Each level had its own name, but - Wizard, for example, wasn't achieved until around 9th level? 12th? I don't recall atm. But the point was: you were working your way to a level of mastery, and only then could you begin to do extraordinary things, or have a keep/tower/castle, etc.So... no mechanical affect. It's just a name....
I don't understand why adding it would do anything but restrict options.
Actually, it did have some effect. You couldn't have Followers or build a Keep until you were a Name Level. You couldn't even consider Crafting magical items until you were a Name Level - which I liked because making magic items required that you have a level of mastery that simply isn't possible at level 3.
Actually, it did have some effect. You couldn't have Followers or build a Keep until you were a Name Level. You couldn't even consider Crafting magical items until you were a Name Level - which I liked because making magic items required that you have a level of mastery that simply isn't possible at level 3.
Sooooo... restricting flavour to no benefit. That sounds very irritating. How do non-adventurers ever get anything.
Sooooo... restricting flavour to no benefit. That sounds very irritating. How do non-adventurers ever get anything.
No more so than currently exists, since there are level requirements before you can start taking any Crafting feats. It simply moved it back to a more (imo) appropriate level, like 9th or so.
Having it official rather than house-ruled curbs the sense of entitlement I find in a lot of Pathfinder players. But then I'm one of those who feels your build shouldn't be dependent on magical items, which are meant to be special, rare and unique.
Sounds like punishing unusual and interesting builds, as those are the ones that would utilize unusual magical items that wouldn't normally drop or be available for purchase.Sooooo... restricting flavour to no benefit. That sounds very irritating. How do non-adventurers ever get anything.No more so than currently exists, since there are level requirements before you can start taking any Crafting feats. It simply moved it back to a more (imo) appropriate level, like 9th or so.
Having it official rather than house-ruled curbs the sense of entitlement I find in a lot of Pathfinder players. But then I'm one of those who feels your build shouldn't be dependent on magical items, which are meant to be special, rare and unique.
Items taillored to the Characters vs Characters needing to learn how to use the Items?
Bracers of armor are just magic items with mage armor on them. All sources of deflection do not stack with armor including any enhancement bonuses on said armor.
The wording in the core rulebook is too darn complicated.
Bracers of armor grant an armor bonus, not a deflection bonus, which is usually granted by rings of protection. Being of different bonus types, rings and bracers DO stack.
If you think that Pathfinder is complicated... don't even THINK of trying Hero or Rifts.
So force that functions as if it was armor, that doesn't have any encumbrance, and doesn't cause any spell failure chance, cannot be called deflection? I'm starting to see the value of making it an enhancement bonus to the person.
Does Hasbro have a monopoly on Deflection?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see Paizo move in a different direction than WotC's 5e.
Embrace the character deckbuilding aspect of the game. Allow sweet combos to exist. Don't shy away from magic items or even the magic Christmas tree effect, just be clear in how they are part of the game.
However, I'd like to see game symmetry go away. What is complex for the players shouldn't have to be for the GM; PCs and NPCs/monster don't need to follow the same rules. Complex games are cool for the players, but the GM needs a break...
No, Mage Armor and bracers of armor grant armor bonuses. That's just what they do.
Shield grants a shield bonus.
Shield of Faith grants a deflection bonus.
These things are intentional to make it so they can stack.
Bracers of armor are just magic items with mage armor on them. All sources of deflection do not stack with armor including any enhancement bonuses on said armor.
The wording in the core rulebook is too darn complicated.
Bracers of armor grant an armor bonus, not a deflection bonus, which is usually granted by rings of protection. Being of different bonus types, rings and bracers DO stack.
If you think that Pathfinder is complicated... don't even THINK of trying Hero or Rifts.
So force that functions as if it was armor, that doesn't have any encumbrance, and doesn't cause any spell failure chance, cannot be called deflection? I'm starting to see the value of making it an enhancement bonus to the person.
Does Hasbro have a monopoly on Deflection?
It's a matter of nomenclature. These words have specific meanings. Armor, Shield, Natural armor, Deflection, Luck, and a few others. These are 'bonus types' with particular definitions, some stack, some don't. In all cases, except dodge bonuses, only the largest of the same 'bonus type' would count. See Combining Magic Effects, page 208 of CRB. Also, Common Terms, page 11 CRB.
I wouldn't mind seeing the revised action economy from Unchained being the baseline. It's a lot more nuanced and flexible than the current system. It's a bit lacking due to space constraints in Unchained, but giving this system the proper space (like the current system) could make something spectacular.
Either bracers of armor gave a deflection bonus in 3.5 or my gaming group was using the wrong words happily for years.
In any case, I said I was fine with any form or spelling of some kind of level dependent bonus to characters for ability ratings, hit/damage, and armor class. Such a system would also allow armor and weapons to wave the bonus requirement.
Such a system would free up space in magical armor so the bulletproof quality could be added. The bulletproof quality might require a new high level spell and would be very expensive. In essence, a game wreaking PC could not just shoot the king.
Either bracers of armor gave a deflection bonus in 3.5 or my gaming group was using the wrong words happily for years.
They are/were probably fans of Wonder Woman and the like.
Also, you might want to read this. DnD 3.5 OGL rules.
Back on topic: I would like for the rogue and monk to get a major OverHaul
Edit: For them to be much better at high level
Don't want it.
It's not needed.
Several books full of variant rules, plus one that totally rewrote four base classes, show that unless the basic system is flawed there is no need for a 2nd ED.
Do NOT go all D&D/Shadowrun/CoC/WoD on me guys. I've dumped systems for that. In fact I've dumped three of the four I just mentioned.
Don't want it.
It's not needed.
Several books full of variant rules, plus one that totally rewrote four base classes, show that unless the basic system is flawed there is no need for a 2nd ED.
Do NOT go all D&D/Shadowrun/CoC/WoD on me guys. I've dumped systems for that. In fact I've dumped three of the four I just mentioned.
That is why I suggested "make a new one, but don't discart the old one".
Design Manager
|
That is why I suggested "make a new one, but don't discard the old one".Don't want it.
It's not needed.
Several books full of variant rules, plus one that totally rewrote four base classes, show that unless the basic system is flawed there is no need for a 2nd ED.
Do NOT go all D&D/Shadowrun/CoC/WoD on me guys. I've dumped systems for that. In fact I've dumped three of the four I just mentioned.
Yeah, I'd hope that a PF 2.0 would be roughly as backwards compatible with the current version as PF is with 3.5. In other words, streamline cumbersome or poorly worded/explained subsystems, toss out the trash so it can be recreated from the ground up, but keep the basic framework similar enough that all my current collection isn't completely worthless if I play a game using the new rules.
Yeah, I'd hope that a PF 2.0 would be roughly as backwards compatible with the current version as PF is with 3.5. In other words, streamline cumbersome or poorly worded/explained subsystems, toss out the trash so it can be recreated from the ground up, but keep the basic framework similar enough that all my current collection isn't completely worthless if I play a game using the new rules.That is why I suggested "make a new one, but don't discard the old one".Don't want it.
It's not needed.
Several books full of variant rules, plus one that totally rewrote four base classes, show that unless the basic system is flawed there is no need for a 2nd ED.
Do NOT go all D&D/Shadowrun/CoC/WoD on me guys. I've dumped systems for that. In fact I've dumped three of the four I just mentioned.
That is not what I meant, but whatever.
Edit: that would be closer to a Revised Edition than a New Edition.
?That is not what I meant, but whatever.
Edit: that would be closer to a Revised Edition than a New Edition.
If they make a new edition/system, stopping the current one altogether might not be a good decision.
A new edition using a similar basic framework would actually end up closer to a revised edition than a new one.
An actual new edition/system would require a new basic framework.
|
|
Do NOT go all D&D/Shadowrun/CoC/WoD on me guys. I've dumped systems for that. In fact I've dumped three of the four I just mentioned.
Call of Cthulhu may have seven official editions, but the differences between the first six are pretty damn minimal. There are more substantial differences in different printings of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook than between any of the first six editions of CoC. And even the 7th edition doesn't stray too far...I'd say it's more compatible with any of the previous editions of CoC than Pathfinder is with 3.5 stuff.
D&D also stayed very compatible throughout all of it's pre-2000 editions. You can pick any character, monster, mechanic, or adventure out of any of those editions, plug them into any of the others, and play them as-is. There's a reason the 2E adventure Return to the Tomb of Horrors just included a direct copy of the 1e module Tomb of Horrors...a full conversion would have been almost exactly the same. This all changed in 2000 when some guys who had seen the game of D&D in the movie E.T. decided to rewrite the game.