For some weird reason, I love me some elementals. So much so that my homebrew world has them as a central building block of the whole planet. I wasn't satisfied with only the 4 presented in the Monster Manual, so I broke out my 2nd Edition Planescape monstrous compendiums and took to converting the Paraelementals and Quasi-elementals to 5th edition, plus adding in what I call "pseudoelementals", which don't fit into the classical D&D elements, but take their influence from the 5 element system that the Wu Jen from the Oriental Adventures (3e) use (wood and metal, plus positive energy and negative energy elementals).
Along with the regular elementals (Large size) similar to those in the Monster Manual, I dropped their power down (I believe) and created lesser versions (Medium size). 20 total lesser elementals, 16 total "regular" elementals (same one as the lesser, minus the 4 from the MM). I have also begun working on greater, elder, myrmidon (like those in the Princes of the Apocalypse adventure), and what I am calling "monolithic" elementals.
So, in all, that's a grand total of 112 elementals.
Now for the part that always makes me uncomfortable, and that is throwing out links to my stuff. I would make a terrible marketing guy.
Lesser Elementals - Lesser versions of the 20 elementals, of CR 2.
Elementals Expanded - "Regular" versions of the 16 elementals not found in the Monster Manual.
Now to go rub away this feeling of being dirty for saying " 'Buy' my stuff even for free."
Oh, and PS: I tried to stay close to the powers and abilities of the paraelementals and quasi-elementals as presented in the Planescape Monstrous Manuals. When able to, anyway. Some of them were a bit much for the CRs I was aiming for for these first two, but the stronger versions could possibly have those, if I can do it justice. (Really hope this isn't against any rules doing this).
First up in the new Unearthed Arcana column is Eberron. In the PDF, it contains the changeling, shifter (beasthide, cliffwalk, longstride, longtooth, razorclaw) and warforged races; a new Wizard subclass (artificer); action points; dragonmarks (plus a new feat: dragonmarked).
Thoughts on this? Try to keep the "Eberron is terrible and the worst campaign setting ever" comments out, as this isn't about the setting itself, but the things in this pdf.
I ask because I have begun to play some fantasy/"historic" RTS games again (Age of Empires, Warcraft 2 & 3 mostly), and the idea of doing such sounds interesting. I realize I am probably not going to get much from this, as more than likely something like this would appeal to an extremely small section of those who play rpgs. Some may even say "Just play an RTS."
Along with playing RTS games again, I play in a kingdom building game on Friday nights, which led me to replay some of my favorite RTS games. It also made me realize that something like this would be something I would really love to do in a TTRPG.
So, has anyone included any RTS elements in an RPG campaign? Was it a success or a failure? Would you do so again? Would something like this even interest you or those you play with?
As the title says, I am looking for a bit of feedback on a special material I am creating for my campaign setting. Just gonna throw up the qualities and the pricing.
Reduces ASF by 25%
Increases Max Dex by +2
Reduces ACP by 4 (to minimum 0)
Light armor: +6,000 gp
Medium armor: +11,000 gp
Heavy armor: +16,000 gp
It provides no other benefits other than reducing penalties, and costs 1,000 gp more than adamantine (so far).
So, what I am wanting feedback on is if the pricing reflects the benefits.
So, I see many mentions in other threads about summoners being OP and many people banning them from their games. Which got me wondering: Why?
What about the base summoner is OP? Is it the eidolon plus having 6 levels of spellcasting? Is it really that much more powerful than a druid who wildshapes into a tiger who has a tiger animal companion? Or just a caster druid (who gets 9 levels) with a tiger animal companion? I say tiger (large cat) because I see it mentioned as the best companion because of the pounce.
I can understand a synthesist summoner, since they get the physical scores of the eidolon while retaining their mental (similar to 3rd edition druid wildshape). But is the base summoner really that game breaking?
I am trying to think of a new sorcerer bloodline, and have a few questions before I get down to spending time typing it up.
First question: Would giving a sorcerer healing spells be too much? Not so much the cure spells (cure light wounds, etc), but a different type. Which brings me to the next question.
Second question: Are there any spells that give fast healing, published by Paizo? I tried looking, but I didn't find any. I ask this one, because I thought of "converting" the regenerate ___ wounds spells from the Masters of the Wild book to Pathfinder, and giving them to this particular bloodline.
My basis for this deals with my campaign world. In it, there are 8 "elements", being the original 4 (earth, air, fire, water), plus 4 others: life (positive energy), death (negative energy), shadow and light. So, wanting to make a bloodline based on the positive energy element. And in this world, celestial isn't synonymous with life energy.
So, would giving the sorcerer access to the regenerate wounds spells from Masters of the Wild in this bloodline be overpowered? For those who don't know, those spells gave fast healing (light = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3, critical = 4) over 10 rounds, +1 round per level. Would this be too much?
I was wondering something about the weapon version of the divine bond. Can a paladin use a natural weapon for his divine bond? Such as a paladin with a couple levels of Monk, or one with a claw attack (such as an awakened big cat)?
Which is the better choice? Friend of mine says the weapon, as if you take the mount you are basically a weak version of the Cavalier. I have had this character concept of a gnoll paladin for a few months now, but the divine bond feature trips me up. I have always liked the prospect of the animal companion (which the mounts count as), and even made my cleric take the animal domain to get one. But my friend's comment threw me off.
Is the mount really that bad compared to the weapon? Is a mounted paladin really worse at mounted combat than a cavalier of the same level? I looked at the 3 guides to the paladin in the sticky up top, and each have said to only take the mount if you are Small.
So, which should I choose if ever I can be able to create this character (so many DMs say CRB + aasimar + tiefling for race)?
I have a bit of a situation with my wizard in my Tuesday game. We are level 5, and my wizard was bitten and poisoned by a Con draining poison (lasts 6 rounds, was poisoned twice, thus I believe the duration is 12 rounds?), and has been failing her saves each time.
It is 5 rounds in the duration, and I have lost 7 constitution points (started at 14, down to 7). I started out with 28 maximum hit points. Losing 4 points of Constitution Modifier, that drops me by 20 max hp, to a maximum of 8. Now, I still have 7 more rounds of poison left.
My question is this: If I lose 4 more Con to this poison (reducing my Con to 3), that would reduce my maximum hit points to -2. If my maximum hp is 0 or less, but I still have a Constitution score above 0 (being 3), am I still alive? Or would that qualify me as completely dead? Personally, I think having maximum hit points at less than 1 would equal death, but wanted to make sure.
So, I have been working on a homebrew world for quite some time now (since 2003). I am trying to get away from the "magically inclined" version that seems to be the norm when it comes to gnomes, and am trying to take them into a "martially inclined" version that focuses on military. Basically turning them into a small-sized version of the Spartans how they are depicted in tales and such. Was hoping that people here could help me out with them. Below is what I have going so far, but was wondering if there is something I could tweek.
Gnomes:
Ability Scores: +2 Constitution, +2 Charisma, -2 Wisdom
Type: Gnomes have the humanoid type with the gnome subtype.
Size: Gnomes are Small creatures and thus gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on their attack rolls, a -1 pentalty to their Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.
Slow Speed: Gnomes have a base speed of 20 feet.
Languages: Gnomes begin play speaking Common and Gnome. Gnomes with a high Intelligence score can choose from the following: Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant, Goblin, Orc, and Sylvan.
Defensive Training: Gnomes gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against monsters of the giant subtype.
Military Training: Gnomes gain a +1 racial bonus to attack rolls when attacking the same target as an ally, but only after their ally has attacked.
Keen Senses: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception checks.
Obsessive: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on a Craft or Profession skill of their choice.
Hatred: Gnomes receive a +1 bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the reptilian and goblinoid subtypes because of their special training against these foes.
Weapon Familiarity: Gnomes treat any weapon with the word “gnome” in its name as a martial weapon.
Low-light Vision: Gnomes can see twice as far as humans in conditions of dim light.
Weapon Training: Gnomes deal weapon damage as if they were Medium creatures (they use the Damage (M) column in the weapon tables to determine the damage dealt) due to their militaristic background.
My additions are in Italics, but I am curious more about whether they are too strong, not strong enough, or are fine. Not too concerned about the ability score change (-2 wisdom instead of strength), but would be glad to have any feedback on that.
As mentioned, I am going more for a military/martial-focused race, instead of the fey-like illusionists that are the default Pathfinder gnomes. So, any feedback on my version would be greatly appreciated.
