Sorry to bump this old thread but I just found it doing a search for Starcraft on the whole messageboards.
Basically I done most of the conversion by using Star wars Saga rules (I found them best suited of all the rules I knew off). Well no Zerg as playable race.
This is the link where you can download the latest version:
It is in a very playable state. The biggest thing it misses are many opponents with done stats (I done some for all 3 races but not enough) and prestige classes as well as info on the starcraft universe for those that are not that familiar with it but that can easily be learned from starcraft wiki.
Of course you need to be familiar with Star Wars Saga rules or have access to its books.
Well, Starcraft 1 has been a loved game around the world for 12 years now. Now Starcraft 2 has renewed the fire in gamers all around the world and has introduced the game again to millions of people (by Blizzards own records).
There has not been any news about any PnP RPG game for this setting so I would strongly suggest Paizo to use that skill and knowledge that gave us awesome Pathfinder rules and make a Starcraft product. Get Blizzard to give you the rights for that before others have (like Wizards did with Star Wars).
I know there is an Alternity based Starcraft already but that one is outdated and honestly crap (not to mention no longer supported) and I know you can make a much much better product.
Starcraft 2 will yet have two expansion each coming out 1.5-2 years after last one so life time of Starcraft 2 will be at least 4-5 years more. That gives you plenty of time to create a book in 1 year and for a long time have a big group of people for product placement.
Please consider this suggestion honestly.
Also if anyone else wants to add their voice to mine be free to do so in this thread.
I am wondering now if I have been using AoO + Combat Reflexes wrong all the time.
Here is the text:
I have bolded the confusing part. I have always ruled this to mean that each kind of AoO action in the same round from the same person can give one AoO. So, an archer firing his bow 3 times while in reach of a fighter with Combat Reflexes would only provoke one AoO for action of firing his bow. If that archer were to fire his bow once then move out of the threatened area then he would provoke 2 AoO.
So if each use of the bow provokes an AoO why is the bolded text needed?
Choose one elemental subtype, such as air, earth, fire, or water. You can channel your divine energy to harm or heal outsiders that possess your chosen elemental subtype.
Prerequisites: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: Instead of its normal effect, you can choose to have your ability to channel energy heal or harm outsiders of your chosen elemental subtype. You must make this choice each time you channel energy. If you choose to heal or harm creatures of your elemental subtype, your channel energy has no affect on other creatures. The amount of damage healed or dealt and the DC to halve the damage is otherwise unchanged.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a new elemental subtype.
So, how does this feat actually work, are positive energy channeling clerics able to both damage or heal outsiders of certain elemental subtype or can they only heal them while negative energy channelers can only damage them?
Also since Channel Energy already affects living creatures why would a channeler need this feat?
Well they are not equal, just as fighter and barbarians and paladins and rangers are not equal. If they were then why have two classes?
Also I remember a month ago a person opened a similar topic but he claimed Sorcerer was far superior and there was no reason to every play a wizard :D
That says both classes are needed and wanted by the player population.
Personally in a regular campaign I find wizards a bit more powerful because of their flexibility.
Sorcerers are really useful if encounters you run into match the spells you choose at each level up. If they do not then the wizard usually overshadows the sorcerer as they will have a wider choice of spells and if they are smart leave a slot or two open to spend those 15min memorizing just the perfect spell for that situation.
This looks like you look at D&D combat as something it is not. Although in real life combat is simultaneous in D&D it is not. The system is not really trying to simulate this. If it did, it would be more similar to 2e where spells were fired off later in the round depending on its initiative modifier. Anyone hitting your in the meantime would disrupt this spells. Also anyone moving out of position where you are casting your fireball get saved from dying horribly.Here you end your casting during YOUR turn and your enemies take damage during YOUR turn. There is nothing simultaneous here. AoO were invented as a game mechanic to balance spellcasters and archers, not to simulate real battle.
Also by your text you would then disallow a spellcaster to cast a spell as a standard action and then (if bab is 1+) move 30 ft while pulling out a weapon?
As for Power attack, well it is not described well but I always considered it as a stance (same as Combat Expertise). A stance that you do until your next turn where you can continue it or stop it.
Personally I would allow each player as a free action at the end of their turn to choose which weapon they want to use to threaten. If they do not say anything the default will be their main (or the one they attacked last with).
Same, spellcaster can at the end of their turn just grab the weapon again in two hands. For clerics with a light shield and a weapon in the other hand I allow the weapon to be switched to the shield hand, cast the spell and switch the weapon back in the original hand. Both switching moves are free actions.
As I said earlier, there is no reason why the spellcaster after he cast his spell cannot put both of his hands on the weapon and threaten the area around himself again!?After all if he cast his spell on the spot he stood he can still use his move action. If having bab +1 means you can pull your weapon out as part of a movement, I think it is much much easier just to grip the weapon with two hands again.
1. I did play with munchkins before, not anymore. I used to be a powergamer once as a player but not anymore. I grew out of it all. Now I like roleplaying more then numbers and "cool" abilities from 100 books. Try it, it is fun.And I do not tied their hands. I just state what is allowed in my game. Who does not like it can play with a DM that does allow it and I find players that do like it. Most important thing is to play with people you will not have problems with. As a player I have left some campaigns after getting fed up with the way DM ran things or decided things. It was not for me. There is not shame in not playing with people you dislike.
That is the point I am trying to bring up with my posts. If you want to play with x,y,z books and x,y,z ways and the DM only wants x book and y way then find another DM or play the way DM wants to. Or you run then game where all you want is allowed.
Just as you will not play basketball with your friends if you do not like basketball, you do not need to play in games you do not like.
As you will not complain that basketball is stupid and why do you need to throw the ball all the way up to the basket do not complain about the rules of the game that DM is running.
2. No, I said you were complaining because you are a player in that game and if you want to change things you can do that when you are a DM.
3. I do not need to kill the party. But normally the fun of combat is mostly about defeating your opponent. I as a DM cannot do this. I get most fun out of out of combat situations, and during combat if they felt it was tough.
PS: I do not do whatever I want, LOL. I just set up rules before the campaign starts. And I explain this to players, and if they still want to play I expect they agree with these rules. I also change stuff I see as unbalancing and problematic during the campaign. I do not do it out of whim. Each of my changes got a good reason behind it (to me).
I agree with you one the you can either threaten with a glaive or the spiked gauntlets, but do not on the spellcasting part.
Spellcasting starts and ends on your initiative and has almost nothing to do with what happens outside your initiative.
If you cast a touch attack spell and do not use it on anyone then gripping a two handed weapon will let you threaten with that weapon and not your touch attack spell.
We are only human and like to have the mob on our side when making decisions that someone else is not going to like.
But when we see that is not going to happen we go with what we already decided before.
What is even more funny is all these people coming on these topics and expecting to be able to change the mind of the OP. That happens only in 1 out of 100 cases.
That is usually not enough. Something being broken is always a case of numbers.
1. Actually that is the answer. It is so easy. Play my game or run your own. In my experience DM are much harder to find then players. Quality DMs even harder. I consider myself a quality DM.Although it might not look like that to powergamers or munchkins, but I do not play with those kind of players.
2. Good for you. Then you can put up any rules you want in your games. But you cannot expect other DMs to run games by your rules.
Off Topic: Of course it does. You do most work. You spend more energy during and before sessions. You never get to kill the whole party and cheer afterwards (well you can but you will probably need to find new players after that :D), while the players do that every session.
Uff this tactic can ruin PC characters. It it not that difficult to make a defensive monster with high intimidate that just spends round after round to make one PC run away. What 3 rounds only to practically defeat one PC while his buddies attack others.
But look the bad logic of this: 4 baddies attack 4 PCs. One of them stays a little in the back and intimidates the PC fighter. Each round PCs kill on the baddies and fighter get closer to fleeing. In the third round only that one baddie is alive but the fighter get scared of him and runs away only because this guy said stuff to him. Come on?! Really?
My own house rule will be that this skill can only ever bring you to shaken condition during combat, for anything more then that you need magic or other special abilities.
Also the +5 to DC for more check to me reads if you fail and try again the DC goes by +5.
I have usually 2 things to say to people (players) that complain like this to the people that spend 10x more time in preparation of games (DM):1. My game, my rules. Either play with us or go play Diablo 2 (or WoW).
2. Run your own game and lets see how you like every player taking whatever they want from whichever book they want.
Is it that difficult to devote a portion of prep time mastering the creatures your using, so over time you build up a deep understanding of them (or pool of organized data) so when the time comes to use them you have it right there in a heartbeat's notice?
Sometimes it is. Especially when you are running your own adventure and using new monsters from the MM combined with selfmade NPCs. NPCs you can learn while creating them and that takes a lot of time.Usually while I am done creating NPCs I am so tired I just almost randomly pick appropriate CR monster from the MM and then read their special abilities and what their spells do during the session :D
This is good advice but often unrealistic. Especially if the GM has a life outside D&D.
Dave Young 992 wrote:
In my experience most players at the table get very interested when someone pulls out 25d6 to roll :DAnd they are all interested to see what number comes from it.
I see monks as really useful combatants in pathfinder, but where they really shine is combat maneuvers. Getting Trip line of feats makes the monk crazily good. There are not many opponents that will be able to stay on their feat and falling down removes tactical movement in combat as well as lowering their AC by 4 while giving them a -4 penalty on melee attacks. For the cost of one of the many attacks in the flurry this is crazily powerful. No debuff spell is as useful for such a small cost. And unless he is fighting a dwarf or a creature with more then 2 legs trips will have a huge success rate.
And you are basing this expectation on what?Weapon focus (crossbow) gives you a +1 to attack. Weapon specialization +2 to damage. Dodge +1 AC.
I think compared to those feats this one is pretty sweet.
Feats either give flat constant minor bonuses or another option that your base class does not have (like power attack). This feat is another option. Just like the one you would get by taking Improved Grapple (which is standard action as well) or Vital Strike.
Some of you might have read my thread about my problems with Channel Energy and the house rule I decided to put upon it.
For Selective Channeling I am not sure how to make it more useful (as situations where you do not want to damage friendly undead in the area are really rare; same for not wanting to heal unfriendly undead). One option is to remove this feat and give its ability automatically (Cha mod targets can be excluded from the effect, still useful for those evil clerics wanting to wipe out a square of innocents while not killing their helpers who guard them there for 1 minute). I am not sure what else I could do with it.
For Channeling Smite I was thinking still allowing it to work as normal for negative channeling clerics, but to give something to positive channeling as well as it would be unfair for evil clerics to attack living with this feat while positive channeling could still attack undead as normal but could not affect living. My house rule would basically favor negative channeling then.
So what do you think? Any better ways to change these feats to work with my house rule?
This only works if you did not take selective channeling, but as I said any good cleric not taking Selective Channeling so he can heal the party in combat unmolested is shooting himself and his party in the foot.The ability it too good to not use it in combat. That is why I am nerfing it as I am.
Well my last version of the house rule only affects using channel to heal living or damage living (1 minute to use). Channel Energy will still work the same for undead (standard action to use). So those undead will get to use that resistance.
If you let the ki blast work as any attacks made in a round rather than just a standard action, I'd take it in your game :)
It would be too powerful to allow this. Monks are weak in ranged attacks for a reason.You have to consider balance and not stealing the spotlight of other classes when designing new stuff. If you make the monk all powerful all players will want to play them and other classes will suffer :)
Expending 1 Ki point or 2 stunning fists for a 60 ft range blast that is a ranged touch attack, does 3d6+Wis mod force damage is sweet. There are many situations where it will be really useful, like start of any combat where you cannot come to where you want in one round by doing a double move. Or against any flying pests or enemies on accessible areas.
I started playing in a new game of "The World's Largest Dungeon", and we have a couple new players. One of the new player's chose a monk. After a few sessions, the rest of us are picking up magical weapons, armor, etc. She made the comment "Do I get any cool magic stuff too?" "Nope, but your stats get bigger on their own." To which she replied "Oh...", in a very bummed-out way.
I see no reason why the monk cannot get Bracers of Armor +x, rings of protection and Silver Kama +1 for instance. Even a set of 50+1 shurikens would bring a smile to his face, especially since he can fire them as part of the flurry.
You cannot make CE work same as PA, that is not balances. All numbers different feats give have a purpose and are mathematically sound.
Power attack gives you additional damage with your first attack and reduce the already low chance of subsequent attacks hitting similar to Vital Strike (vital strike takes away all extra attacks for even more bonus damage).
CE gives you the chance to avoid all damage. If you wanted to give it more effect them a more logical change would be that it gives DR for penalty to attacks. So it is something similar to power attack.Reduces incoming damage for a penalty to your attacks while power attack would increase damage you do for a penalty to your attacks.
True. But I still stand by my point. If it was one or another then it could be claimed Combat Expertise is weaker but since both can be used at the same time I do not see the problem.
Actually they stack, so you can take both and should if you plan to be a different kind of a fighter. Also both give to CMD which is really useful for different situations.
Dodge also requires a swift action if I can remember correctly which means it cannot be used together with feats like Arcane Strike or the one that reduces Spellcasting failure.
And, Combat Reflexes has much more powerful feats in its chain then Dodge.
That's the point. Monks are supposed to be able to handle being a front-line damage dealing class. They shouldn't have to "step back and let the REAL men handle this!" as you so rudely suggest.
No they are not. That is not their role. That is the fighters and barbarians role.Last session my group were fighting wererats as well without silver weapons. Monk did pathetic damage but he was far from useless. Actually he was much more useful then I anticipated.
He tripped everyone, gave the fighter in the group +4 to all attacks and additional attacks as those enemies tried to get up. Fighter killed two of the 3 of those opponents with this AoO. And if they could have got up or stayed up things would have been though for some other members of the party. In the end while the fighter did his standard job the monk did really great and made the encounter easier.
The elf ranger with a bow ended up as the least usefull.
Oh jesus. Another person that only compares d6s and uses Fireball as an example. Please people stop. That is like comparing a two-weapon fighting power attacking guy against a single weapon guy and saying two-weapon guy does more damage without ever mentioning that two-weapon guy has penalties to attack same as power attack giving penalties.
Fireball has counters against it, most common being A Reflex Save and Spell Resistance. There are numerous others.
CPE has almost none. Things that counter CPE counter about everything else (stun, paralyze and such). There is also antimagic zone which counters almost all spells, but how often is this going to occur?
Secondary effects for elemental spells would be cool.
I already did :)
As for Vital Strike, as was mentioned here, Improved Feint, Sneak attack and Vital Strike work great together. I think players in my campaign are going to meet some Mr. Fighter/Rogues with Greatswords doing one attack per round :)
@Frogboy: You misunderstood most of my points (or I was not clear enough).
Most encounters the PCs will run into won't have positive energy channeling clerics unless they are playing an evil campaign. You're only going to see this a handful of times throughout the length of the campaign. In these cases, you can use your actions to pretty much cancel out theirs but the rest of your party will still be hammering away on them.
This was an example where the enemy is evil cleric not the other way around.
Maybe this should be the standard evil cleric. I'd fear him more than what you consider the standard especially if my cleric was just some schmuck with a 12 or 14 CHA who casts bull's strength on himself and charges up into melee on the first round. He will quickly outpace him on the channeled energy once he's bone dry.
Looks like it needs to be, except in my campaigns where channel ability will be changed. I think I will like my evil clerics more if they cast disables or buff and go melee.
How many will save a WILL DC of 19 at second level? 25-27 at 10th level? 35 at 20th level?
As I told you already, you completely needed to change the standard cleric to make him good with this. Imagine creating a Greatsword wielding fighter with most important stat Dex. Compared to what is usually done that guy is not going to do as much damage or have as great to hit. But lets say he got a new ability with pathfinder and suddenly he needs really good Dex to be good with a greatsword. This is how this cleric feels. And all you said just confirms my worries and point of view. I do not want to see the cleric as we know it from 3.5e go away completely (nerfed a bit yes, but not this radically changed).
Maybe what you consider the standard negative energy channeling cleric but not me. I will out do him as the rest of my group dismantles the front lines.
Look, your targets get a save for half, his don't. So he will always outdo you. It is as simple as that. Ignoring this fact does not help you at all.
Taking out enemies faster means less need for healing. Wands of cure light are cheap.
But you are not taking them out faster if there is a good cleric on the other side as he will always outdo you. As I said, this ability is only useful if no good/neutral clerics are on the other side.In a campaign with one player being that cleric, evil NPCs clerics he will come upon on occasion have no business using negative channel energy as it will do little. Only in situations where it can finish the PC (which is not the point of those encounters) it will matter. Even if it brings the PC to -x but does not kill him his buddy good cleric will just heal him back up.
Silence will not stop mine or any other negative energy channel. Clerics are the hardest to take out with disabling effects since they have a good FOR and REF. They'll likely go after the Wizard first.
It is not supposed to as your power comes from your buffs/debuffs and disables. If you go Channel negative energy the good cleric will laugh at you and already mark another win on his sheet.
I never said anything about a head to head fight. Last week, my lowly level 2 cleric made a suicidal charge into the middle of a room with 30 goblins in it: 15 up front to engage in melee and 15 in the back shooting crossbows. I blasted all 30 of them once for 4 damage each (5% save chance). In the second round, the back 15 turned and ran because there was a 33% chance (9 HP each) that I would wipe out all but a few of the little critters. My second channel only hit the 13 or 14 left up front and I rolled another 4 (so close). After being swarmed by goblins for two rounds I did end up getting taken down but not before doing...ready for this?...164 HP worth of damage! Let's see your Fighter do that in two rounds! In real life PC encounters, negative energy channeling is balanced. For someone who specializes, it might even be broken. I'll let you know as I continue to level up.
This was one situation that played to your strength. This was also a situation where the DM probably done the encounter the old (3.5e) way. I know I would. I would expect the party to behave the way they did before. And they all will except for the new cleric (both good and evil side). And I do not like it, and that is the main reason why I am changing it. I do no want to need to change the encounter logic because of what I feel is a really bad change to turn undead mechanics.
By the way if you didn't have this ability (and no other class has anything similar at this level) this encounter would probably kill your party. 30 goblins against 4 lvl 2 players is not a balanced encounter, not even close.
Nice post there Set. Nice way to explain "other" kinds of Monks.
And Bruce Lee was not that special. If he lived to old age I am sure he would not be as known or popular. We (humans) like to turn dead people into myths and tell glorious stories about them, just look at Jesus :D
Today you got at least a couple of actors that can do at least as good as him.
I think they are more Shaolin inspired then Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee had nothing mystical about him, he was just strong and fast.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
I was reading about this whole stuff in the book and managed to miss it.
Heh, monk in my group is going to love this as his CMB is going to become much better :)
So this would mean that Weapon Focus (unarmed) gives a +1 bonus to CMB if he is tripping using his unarmed attack.
And it still only heals 1.75 hp per cleric level.
Still better then the equal level Mass cure wounds. And can be used from lvl 1.
There is no comparison. In my mind this ability is not balanced with other stuff in the game. It cannot be used during combat because it radically changes encounters.
Also it has a much bigger maximum output then Mass Cure Wound spells, which for lucky players (and those are around more then we want them :D) with lucky rolls means even more for the encounter.
Your comparison of CPE with fireball and ogres is flawed. Both fireball and melee attacks regularly fail in standard situations while CPE only fails in special circumstances (cleric is stunned, paralyzed or unconscious). Ogre will hit one round and miss the next. Cleric will succeed both rounds.
Fireball will do full damage or half damage. It might not go through SR. Resistances will lower its damage, Evasion or Improved evasion will ignore it. So will immunities. Casting on the Defensive might make the caster fail so can Readied actions.
Even casting mass cure light wounds can be stopped by multitude of actions (AoO, readied action, grapple and so on). None of this affects CPE.
In the real world, yes. In a fantasy world where you are supposed to box with heavy armored guys wielding swords that can cleave you in half?Against magical barriers that can push out a 200 pound man?
Against HUGE dragons whose scales resist even the biggest non-magical swords?