| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes; Warp is going to be coming out very soon, and it will be included as well.
Search Posts
I'm most curious about who prints the 'Pawns' series if they use multiple people, but either way I wanted to know who handles their print needs.
I think kingmaker has rules for this for searching map tiles n such Thank you, I appreciate that.
That's what I'm asking; what's an appropriate amount of time? This is for sandbox adventures; there is no narrative need to be met.
If the players are hiking through the wilderness looking for a ruin, how long does it take to search a square mile to see if its there? If the players are hiking through the wilderness looking for a specific object, such as a dead body, dropped item, or a hiding fugitive, how long would that sort of search take per square mile?
How much do generic alchemical or magical components weigh? As a player, if you were planning on doing some alchemy/magic item creation on a journey, you'd have to buy the prerequisite materials before you left, which means if you're working on a +10 magic sword, you've got to be lugging 100,000 gp's worth of materials around with you. Alternately, as a GM if you're giving out 'magic item creation components' as loot raided from an enemy wizard's lab, they need to be able to cart that stuff out. Long story short, I can't handwave it, so I'm wondering if there are rules/traditions/remnants of old editions that might help me answer this question without just assigning an arbitrary number.
So... the thing that made SoM so cool was the reason SoM drawbacks get the nerf and SoP drawbacks won't. Understood. Pretty much. The problem with making Spheres of Might unique from Spheres of Power is that it requires its own unique balance considerations.
Will the Spheres of Power drawbacks be nerfed as well? Probably not, at least en masse. With very few exceptions, using a drawback to get a talent from SoP results in replacing one standard action with another, or adjusting the size and scope of what your standard actions can do; an adjustment of options rather than an escalation of power. In SoM, drawbacks with the ability to pick any talent you wanted often resulted in replacing one of two standard actions with a move or swift option, or growing the number of combo'ed powered that activat off of your attack action, meaning the drawback often resulted in a calculated growth of power of the non-drawback taker, which is what we wanted to avoid.
Skills are the sorts of things martials should already be able to do. The idea of a fighter who can 'only' fight is a terrible thing; the iconic medieval fighter, the knight errant, was expected to know horsemanship, heraldry, how to repair his equipment, athletics, diplomacy, intimidation, etc., etc.. However, there's only so much we can give out with a single talent and retain some semblance of balance. We are already giving out some talents that are the equivalent of 2 or more core feats, and things like Fencing are giving out full ranks in Bluff AND half-level sneak attack. I honestly agree with most of the complaints in this thread; they went through my head as well when we discussed this change. At the end of the day, though, conscripts with SoM are better skill monkeys AND better fighters than either the core skill monkeys or core fighters, and we can't claim to be able to play next to core if we didn't cap that advantage at least a little. I hate to introduce an extra layer of bookkeeping with this change, but at the end of the day we thought there were few builds it would even effect; so long as you've spent 4 talents in a skill sphere by level 20, nothing changes in your build. If you have, say, 2 skill spheres you only plan to spend 2 talents in each by level 20, you can spend 1 of your class's skill ranks per level filling in the gaps and still end up with them at max rank by level 20.
I am dismayed to discover that the Technician's Improved Backpack Freezer has no stated ability to inhibit decay. There comes a point where the complete implications of something is in the hands of the GM; we can't forsee everything you might do with a freezer to make a pre-ruling on it. that being said, we should have the space to add a line like that to the freezer improvement.
@Robert Jordan: Dang, you've found things that need to be updated. Taking barrage doesn't let you make full attack Rapid Shots, and by that logic I guess it should be removed as an associated feat. For Cone of Death, you should only be able to take that once 'per 5 bab you possess'; we'll add that in our pre-print update.
@Hexed: shove now it lets you move and hit, so as a full round action you can move to your opponent, do light damage, and do a maneuver. It was more game-friendly than the old version, we thought, and more balanced. @Thunder_Jeffro: When it just triggers an attack it is not an attack action, so it can't be combined with vital strike or other attack-action-only things.
Without steampowered/chemical/electrical/mechanical insight, you are limited to creations based on independent inventions. If you have one of those other insights though, you can make constructs without being limited in that fashion, so long as what you are making is an official golem of that style, or is given the appropriate subtype (aka, costs 50% more but gains some extra abilities).
Are there any rules about how templates work on creatures with a CR of less than 1? Adding a +1 CR template to a creature who's CR is 1 or more is simple, but what does it do to creatures who's natural CR is 1/2? or 1/4th? or all the way down at 1/8th? Do they round up or down, or should they move one 'step' higher instead of a full +1 CR? And even if the rules would be to round them up to 1, what 'should' it be instead, given that a celestial bat is much weaker than a celestial dog, whatever the rules say?
So since we've seen how starfinder attacks work, it looks like SoM is actually pretty close to that system, which is pretty cool. Makes me wonder if someone working on it had some starfinder inside info. Any thoughts on starfinder compatibility for SoM? No none of us are in on Starfinder so I can't speak about compatibility, but that makes the possible similarities interesting to me; apparently we weren't the only ones who thought such-and-such parts of Pathfinder were getting in the way of the fun.
Oversight; I'll fix that tonight.
the new version of the Sage, which has been changed to be less mystic and more in line with the rest of our classes This is actually part of a larger issue that we've been tackling with. I love the mystic flavor of the sage, but by the time we were done with the first version and his energy shots and ranged healing and other ki powers, I felt like I'd just re-written Spheres of Power; we could have done the same thing in fewer words by just giving him a caster level, some talents, and perhaps an optional 'healing wave' ability. We're talking about possibly making an archetype to re-add the mystic flavor back to the class, or simply move the whole class to the gish book since we'll have to cut a few classes anyway, but we were afraid that the old sage was straying too far away from being a martial class toward being a magic user under a different name. Does that make sense?
This conversation happened months ago it seems, but I would be interested to hear what the world looks like now. How has it shaped up according to the stated design principle?
Anyone have stories from the table of using this? I always love to hear stories about a product from 'within the trenches', as it were.
The templates don't do anything other than 'they can travel in that medium', so they're not actually templates with a list of mechanical alterations like monster templates are. Making your vehicle 'air, land, or water' only adds a new medium of travel, and unlocks certain vehicle rooms and components you can add to them.
A few points on that: 1. That's just the base-line model; you can improve the strength with after-market upgrades. 2. Pathfinder rules aren't built for verisimilitude. A Colossal-sized creature with a Strength of 10 may not have as high a bonus as your half-orc fighter, but he can still pick up 2 of him as a light load, so it's up to the GM how that works out for arm-wrestling.
I feel terrible I actually missed this shout out when it happened; thanks for passing it along.
Now that the book has been out for a couple weeks, I'm curious what people's reactions are; how's the class and the new grappling options and such played at your table?
I've seen stamina hailed as the savior of the fighter, but I also know people who hate the very idea of encounter-based powers. What are you arguments in relation to the system, for or against?
You suffer a -4 penalty to disarm a target if you are unarmed. Does that mean if you have improved unarmed strike you no longer suffer that penalty?
I understand the intent of using improvised weapons, but the rest of the feat doesn't seem to actually make sense in an at-the-table sort of way.
*Cough* Monk of the Empty Hand *Cough* Honestly, I see that as being objectively worse than the normal monk in every way. Have you ever seen one played or rolled one yourself? How did it go?
Catch Off-Guard
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon. I'm trying to understand the RAW and RAI of Catch Off-Guard. When I see that name and that description, the image that comes to mind is someone, say, drinking beer from a mug, then smashing it over someone's head as a surprise round attack before the enemy had a chance to draw their sword. However, I don't think I've ever seen it used that way. Heck, I've never even seen someone pick up a weapon from the environment. The few times I've ever seen someone take this feat, they ended up just carrying statues and table legs around on their belts as if they were swords. The weapons weren't 'improvised' as much as they were specialty clubs, usually used as part of a Disarm build where they would try and remove the enemy's weapon in the middle of combat in hopes they could get a Flat-Footed attack in. While this is a legitimate build, it doesn't quite make sense to me in either a thematic or a verisimilitude fashion; you're not really 'catching them off-guard' with the table leg any more than you would have with any other weapon. Plus, I don't think the image the feat gives me works, anyway. If you attack someone in the surprise round they're already flat-footed if they haven't acted (assuming they would use their action to draw a weapon), so what's the point of the feat? I guess if you won initiative you could get an extra 'they're flat-footed' attack in the first round if they haven't drawn a weapon yet, but I've never seen that circumstance happen. Am I missing something about this feat? Is there really a way to catch someone off-guard with the feat that feels like catching them off guard?
I had one player who carried a statue with him instead of a club, and I've seen some people try to game Catch Off-Guard by disarming foes so they're technically 'unarmed', but other than that I've never really seen someone use improvised weapons. Have you used them in game before? And were they actually used as improvised weapons (i.e., look there's a chair let's hit them with it), or just as a replacement for a normal weapon, like club guy mentioned above?
What does constitute a mini setting vs a non-mini setting? Skybourne has two books out of player options, but is still working on the more specific setting info.
Although a lot of people are saying they're not bored in their games, I'm actually hearing that their lack of boredom is more based on what they were able to do to get around the boredom of straight combat, rather than finding combats interesting in and of themselves. Is that right?
@Aviricus: I'm not saying I'm bored with a current character, I'm just wondering how people who play these focused builds feel about them in the long-run, if that makes sense.
I'm not asking about outside of combat, I'm asking about in combat; does it get boring when you've got one schtick you use every combat?
When people complain about martials, they usually complain about the lack of options; it takes 10 levels to solidify a build, at which point you have one trick you're really good at and that's it. However, I've looked over people's builds and some of those single tricks are REALLY effective. Do these martial builds get boring, though? If you slug it out long enough to GET to level 10 and master your build, You may be powerful enough for the next 10 levels, but from a player-perspective, is it worth it?
Excluding the old "I had a feat to burn" option, I can only think of two reasons to use Combat Reflexes: You're building a controller (the snap shot tree or the lunge feat to threaten a large area and keep people from moving) and/or you and your teammates have a lot of Greater combat maneuver feats and you're all about group-stunlock-killing the enemy (trip him, disarm him, push him, and provoke an AoO from your allies with each success). Am I missing some other build idea?
They have the books, but they're on 'preorder' until they've been officially processed through their system.
How easy is it to merge Spheres of Power into an existing campaign? They're designed to merge, and there's a guideline in the "Player's Guide to Skybourne" book about how to mix traditions for the various classes and things like that, as well as feats to allow a spherecaster to use a few spells per day, if that's what you're looking for.
Two-weapon fighters and sword and shield fighters have a million feats to take, but if you're a two-handed fighter you eventually run out. I'm curious; after you've 'covered your bases' as it were with power attack, weapon specialization and other essentials, what feats do you like taking?
So the main defense against abusing combat maneuvers and easily getting into flanking position is that these things provoke attacks of opportunity, and in order to NOT provoke or better survive a provoking, you have to take feats (improved trip, improved disarm, mobility, etc.) Just curious, but in order to cut down on your allies' feat taxes, has anyone just played a character who's job was to provoke AoO's? Like, "Don't worry, I'll run stupidly through the enemy formation so the rest of you can safely get into position"?
No actually, I have no group at the moment, this is a hypothetical exercise in how to adapt the game to a different paradigm.
It's not just about making things slow, it's about making things simple yet challenging Using NPC classes is a way to, in one sentence, do what would otherwise involve a lot of cutting down of spell lists, class options, etc., as well as a lot of re-balancing of what constitutes above-average challenges for a group. I guess as a GM I'm a little bit tired of android alchemist/gunslinger/bloodragers where I'm somehow supposed to fit that into a coherent world, and human/NPC classes only is the easiest way I can think of to fix that problem while still allowing people to fully-explore the theme of the brainy, angry ranged-combat expert previously mentioned.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the world so I can't really help, but I'd love to see what you can come up with.
That sounds perfectly in line with being Lawful Good and trying to accomplish good. True, paladins are warriors and are usually more militant, but I see no conflict between the paladin creed and what your trying to accomplish. Mainly I'd just be concerned for how to do this without it turning into an RP-fest between you and the GM that leaves everyone else with nothing to do, but so long as they're interested, you've got the makings of a great story on your hands.
I've decided I really want the next game I run to get back to basics, not just thematically, but mechanically as well. Grim and gritty, low magic, high risk, monsters are truly dangerous, fey and non-human races mysterious and magical, that sort of thing. Because I want to do this with as few major changes as possible, I'm thinking of primarily accomplishing this by limiting all classes available to only NPC classes-warrior, expert, or adept. I'm curious, does anyone have experience running games with NPC classes, or have house rules that would facilitate this sort of game? I want to keep the game fun and allow people to play concepts, just without the mechanical bloat and hours-long character creation that makes character death a true pain. So far, my thoughts are: 1. Multiclassing: Use Adequate Commoner (it has lots of good multiclassing feats), and allowing the feats-for-multiclassing as outlined in Pathfinder Unchained. 2. Spells: Allow adepts to pick a spell list (cleric, wizard, druid) at character creation to choose spells from rather than the adept list. Spheres of Power is also available. 3. Feats: Allow experts to spend feats on rogue talents, warriors to treat their class levels as fighter levels for the purpose of feats, and adepts to spend feats on witch hexes.
Anyone?
The spell astral projection creates a copy of you on the astral plane, and gives you the chance to create a copy of yourself on another plane if you travel to it. Is there any information out there on how this is accomplished? Do you swim to the other plane, and how fast do you travel? How does one 'navigate' to another plane? I've got homebrew ways of doing this, but I'm wondering if there is an official way (or even unofficial-but-generally-accepted-way) of handling this.
So I'm going over the mass combat rules, siege engines, etc., and I have a question to make sure I'm understanding things. Namely, am I correct in deducing there is NEVER a time a time when a Profession (soldier) check is called for? And other than making the DC 15 Profession (siege engineer) checks needed to load a heavy catapult and the 5 ranks needed for some feats, am I correct that there is NO OTHER check nor reason for that skill's existence? It seems like everything I feel a high Profession (siege engineer) would help with is already tied to Knowledge (Engineering), including the more powerful siege engineering feats. It just seems strange to me; if you are the helmsman for a ship there are (limited) reasons you might want to take Skill Focus (Profession [sailor]), but if you are the ship's gunner you'd be better served dedicating yourself to Knowledge (Engineering) instead, and there seems to be absolutely no reason nor ability to specialize in being a commander. Just wanted to know if I was missing something.
I agree with others here; I think the Vigilante should be the 'base-class version' of the Master Spy, the way the Magus is the 'base-class version' of the Eldritch Knight. I know the class is heavily-based on Batman, but I shouldn't feel limited to only BEING Batman; I really want to be able to feel like any number of superheroes, or something else of my own making that isn't a superhero but still works off of the mechanical concept. There's a character in my head; a man who must hide his identity and so has crafted 3 new ones; the noble making political alliances, the bard singing the praises of the noble, and the mild-mannered scribe who sees how both the others are received. So far, the best way I've found to represent this character mechanically is to be a Street Performer Bard, and severely handicap myself (weapons only in noble form, magic only in bard form, neither in scribe form). I really, really want the vigilante to be the class that lets me finally make this guy, if it could.
And wands still remain pretty potent, access to even a basic sphere can offer a fair array of options, since spheres tend to be rather more flexible than spells in Pathfinder. Though yeah, your save DCs are still going to be low. Honestly, if you want a wand-slinging skill monkey, I'd recommend a hedgewitch with with the Focus Casting restriction and just flavor the magic as coming from the focus wand, perhaps modify the restriction a bit so that you can have multiple foci, but each allows access to a different sphere, instead of all of them. In the organizations at the back of the book, there is an artificer tradition created for the Artificer's guild that builds off of that idea. Wands are expensive, but by combining Wand Wielder, Artificery, Improved Artificery, and probably Skill Focus (Use Magic Device), you can create a character that can create any wand he wants and can use his caster level in place of the wand's caster level, giving him effectively every sphere at his own potency for a comparatively small gp price. I understand they can get expensive compared to spell-in-a-can wands, but at the same time you can use wands that don't have the 4th level limitation of core wands, are rechargeable, and grant you at-will, unlimited-use abilities along with their limited powerful versions.
What can I say? I like the hedgewitch.
|