A chart caster cannot implant tricks as a standard action. Instead, he can spend 5 minutes to implant multiple tricks in a single willing target. The number of tricks he can implant per day is unchanged from the regular mesmerist class, but he can apply as many of those tricks as he chooses on a single use of this ability.
If implanting tricks in himself, the caster merely spends 5 minutes in contemplation; otherwise, he consults star charts while ritually asking the creature questions, and still must touch them to do so. At 1st level, he can select multiple instances of the same trick to implant in a single subject. At 5th level, a chart caster can implant two different subjects with multiple instances of one trick each and can choose a different trick for each subject. The number of additional subjects increases by one for every 4 mesmerist levels he has beyond 5th.
Using this ability again on an existing subject or to implant any trick on a new subject ends all previously implanted tricks. The caster can trigger only one instance of the same trick on a given subject per round.
You can adjust a mesmerist trick that has already been implanted in a creature.
Prerequisites: Mesmerist tricks class feature.
Benefit: Whenever you implant a mesmerist trick in a target, you can designate that trick as a swap trick. The implanted mesmerist trick functions as normal, except you can trigger the swap trick as a standard action by touching the target. When the swap trick is triggered in this manner, the target “loses” the swap trick and instead becomes implanted with any one mesmerist trick that you know in its place. Implanting a mesmerist trick in a target in this manner doesn’t count against your number of daily uses of the mesmerist trick class feature.
I believe that this archetype with this feat can do the following:
Take 5 minutes to implant multiple instances of the same trick in a willing target (or multiple willing targets at higher levels) using Subject of the Stars, and designate all of these tricks as swap tricks using Swap Trick. This is still limited to their total daily ises of tricks, of course
Take some standard actions to swap out some of the individual instances of identical tricks for other tricks the chart caster knows, which is the explicit and full purpose of the Swap Trick feat
Effectively be able to customise any assortment of known tricks in one (and later a few) allies
Can anyone else confirm or dispute that the combination works as such? I'm not worried about power balance, this is for a support NPC, I just want to ensure that it functions properly by the rules.
I have a player with a character that's doing a "handyman" thing with some craft / profession skill dips. One of the items on their list is making incense, or failing that mundane scented candles. We like to play by the rules as much as we can, and only homebrew answers as an absolute final resort.
Incense is apparently affordable (twice, in fact), but we haven't found an official craft skill for it or anything similar, even torches.
They have the skill ranks to spare, so we really just need help on filling in "Craft (xxx)" please.
The "Cast a Spell" part costs the actions the spell normally does.
It gives 1 free basic strike, usually used to deliver the spell. You can forgo this if you want to use more actions to deliver it with some other strike.
Striking Spell gets the Flourish trait. That way it can't be spammed, but most spells will leave you with 1 action for something else.
Some people consider the alchemist flawed, and addressing that can be complicated and get into intricate design elements, but this change is so simple.
I checked all the core classes' key abilities and attack roll abilities. Alchemist is the only one that cannot attack with their key ability.
Core Classes: Key Abilities / Attack Rolls:
Non-Casters With Weapons
Alchemist Key Ability: Int
Alchemist Attack Roll: Str or Dex
Barbarian Key Ability: Str
Barbarian Attack Roll: Str or Dex
Champion Key Ability: Str or Dex
Champion Attack Roll: Str or Dex
Fighter Key Ability: Str or Dex
Fighter Attack Roll: Str or Dex
Monk Key Ability: Str or Dex
Monk Attack Roll: Str or Dex
Ranger Key Ability: Str or Dex
Ranger Attack Roll: Str or Dex
Rogue Key Ability: Dex or (Racket)
Rogue Attack Roll: Str or Dex
Casters With Spells
Bard Key Ability: Cha
Bard Attack Roll: Cha
Cleric Key Ability: Wis
Cleric Attack Roll: Wis
Druid Key Ability: Wis
Druid Attack Roll: Wis
Sorcerer Key Ability: Cha
Sorcerer Attack Roll: Cha
Wizard Key Ability: Int
Wizard Attack Roll: Int
This wouldn't be a complicated change. Look I'll write it right now:
Using Intelligence wrote:
Since your key ability is Intelligence, your attack rolls and DCs with items that have the Alchemical trait, and with attacks and abilities granted by items that have the Alchemical trait, use your Intelligence modifier.
Why not let them do this? Picturing an alchemist using intelligence to calculate bomb trajectory seems pretty credible, and none of the mutagenist mutagens have a drawback that penalises intelligence, so an alchemist combining physical mutation with a razor mind to strike brutally and surgically sounds on theme, and would be unique and cool.
Am I missing exploits or interactions that makes this a bad idea?
You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose). The target is then temporarily immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour, but this interval overlaps with the time you spent treating (so a patient can be treated once per hour, not once per 70 minutes).
The Medicine check DC is usually 10, though the GM might adjust it based on the circumstances, such as treating a patient outside in a storm, or treating magically cursed wounds.
The target regains 2 Hit Points for every 1 point the result of your Medicine check exceeds the DC by, to a maximum of 10 Hit Points regained. If you’re an expert in Medicine, you can increase the maximum Hit Points regained to 20; If you’re a master in Medicine, you can increase the maximum Hit Points regained to 40; and if you’re legendary in Medicine, you can increase the maximum Hit Points regained to 60.
If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total of 1 hour, double the maximum Hit Points they can regain and double the Hit Points they do regain from Treat Wounds.
Success The target regains Hit Points based on the result of the check, and its wounded condition is removed.
Failure The target does not regain Hit Points and its wounded condition is not removed. It is still temporarily immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour.
Ruffian
Key Ability: Dex or Str
Trained Skills: Stealth, Intimidation
Other Talents: Sneak attacking with simple weapons, punishing the flat-footed, wearing medium armour
Scoundrel
Key Ability: Dex or Cha
Trained Skills: Stealth, Deception, Diplomacy
Other Talents: Super feinting
Thief
Key Ability: Dex
Trained Skills: Stealth, Thievery
Other Talents: Dex to damage with finesse weapons
What other types of rogue racket would you like to see published? Feel free to use this format, or come up with your own.
I'd like to establish a concise rule of how inspire courage interacts with spell damage to avoid making a call for every vaguely on the fence spell in the game.
From the wonderful Archive of Nethys:
Inspire Courage (Su) wrote:
A 1st-level bard can use his performance to inspire courage in his allies (including himself), bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities. To be affected, an ally must be able to perceive the bard's performance. An affected ally receives a +1 morale bonus on saving throws against charm and fear effects and a +1 competence bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls. At 5th level, and every six bard levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +4 at 17th level. Inspire courage is a mind-affecting ability. Inspire courage can use audible or visual components. The bard must choose which component to use when starting his performance.
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons? wrote:
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.
Inspire courage grants a +1 competence bonus on:
1. Attack (rolls)
2. Weapon damage rolls
1 is simple - when you use the attack roll mechanic you get this bonus. It can be for a weapon, a spell, aid another, anything. I think this is generally agreed on.
2 is the tricky part. It applies to weapons, it shouldn't apply to fireball, but it should apply to flame blade. What about fiery shuriken, is that weapon-like? If so, then would snowball count? Is shocking grasp just a kind of magical unarmed strike?
For my first draft at a one-size rule, if a spell:
1. Requires an attack roll, e.g. it could critically hit like a weapon
AND
2. Does hit point damage, among other effects, to the attack roll's target
THEN
3. The spell gains the inspire courage bonus to damage against the target
Some examples of this in application:
>Shocking Grasp: Yes
>Fireball: No (no attack roll)
>Magic Missile: No (no attack roll)
>Molten Orb (direct target): Yes
>Molten Orb (splash damage): No (no attack roll was made against the creature, I think this is how inspire courage works with alchemist's bombs)
>Enervation: No (does not deal hit point damage, even though negative levels reduce the hit points of the target)
Does anyone want to poke holes / offer other rulings / like comment and subscribe?
While the barbarian is raging, the light level within 10 feet of her lowers by one step. She can’t decrease the light level below normal darkness with this ability. Multiple barbarians with this rage power don’t further reduce the light level. A barbarian must be at least 6th level to choose this rage power.
Eclipsing Rage, Greater (Su) wrote:
Whenever the barbarian rages, the light level within 20 feet of her lowers by two steps instead of one. She still can’t decrease the light level below normal darkness with this ability. A barbarian must be at least 10th level and have the eclipsing rage† power to choose this rage power.
How do these rage powers interact with non-magical and magical light sources?
I've looked through Vision and Light. It seems there's only such a thing as magical darkness, as "non-magical" darkness is simply the absence of light (e.g. it would not suppress a light source brought into it). This leaves us with magical darkness, and these powers are supernatural abilities, but "Illuminating Darkness" seems to only discuss darkness spells and makes frequent use of things like spell levels. Eclipsing Rage and Greater Eclipsing Rage are not spells, do not appear to reference spells, and I'm not aware of a wider mechanic for determining what level of spell a barbarian's rage powers would count as (unlike, for example, kineticist wild talents).
Some scenarios I'd like to understand:
The barbarian is carrying a lit mundane torch, or engaged with an enemy carrying the same, and rages. Is the torch's light negated as a non-magical light source, and then the lighting is lowered one level, or does only the latter happen?
As above with a Light cantrip.
More broadly, since 10-20 feet is a relatively short range, if a light source is in the area of effect, is its entire light radius affected, or only the part that overlaps with Eclipsing Rage's aura? E.g. barbarian is holding a torch, would it give light past the 10 feet around them as normal (20 feet for Greater Eclipsing Rage)?
As-Is
Take an absolute total of 10 at trained/15 at expert/20 at master/30 at legendary.
Alternatives
Double rank-based proficiency bonus (+2 at expert/+4 at master/+6 at legendary), treat critical successes as normal successes.
Improves with rank, but does nothing at trained.
Roll 2D20 and take the better result, treat critical successes as normal successes.
Scales, but does not improve with rank except for the existing bonus.
Roll 3D20 and take the middle result.
Scales, but does not improve with rank save the existing bonus.
Add +5 untyped bonus to roll, replace D20 with D10.
Scales, but does not improve with rank and is unconventional.
Add +5 untyped bonus to roll, replace D20 with D4 at trained/D6 at expert/D8 at master/D12 at legendary.
Improves with rank, very unconventional.
Remove rank-based proficiency bonus and treat any result on the dice lower than 4 at trained/6 at expert/8 at master/12 at legendary as that number.
Scales and improves with rank, numbers may need tuning (legendary is still worse on average than rolling, since the +3 is sacrificed).
Accepting analysis, additional adaptations and appreciation.
If a character is missing HP, the Treat Wounds activity can be used to heal them. This usually takes 10 minutes, during which you can treat up to 6 people while rolling once, determining the result for each patient from this roll.
The DC is the number of HP the treated character is missing, maximum - current. Rolling against this, you can get the following results:
Critical Success: You heal the patient by their CON mod (minimum 1) * your level
Success: You heal the patient by their CON mod (minimum 1) * your level, and they gain the "Patched Up" 1 condition (WIP), or increase their Patched Up value by 1
Failure: You heal the patient by their CON mod (minimum 1) * your level, and they gain the "Patched Up" 2 condition, or increase their Patched Up value by 2
Critical Failure: You heal the patient by their CON mod (minimum 1) * half your level, and they gain the "Patched Up" 2 condition, or increase their Patched Up value by 2
Patched Up: When a character with Patched Up is healed with Treat Wounds (and possibly other effects), subtract the Patched Up value from the healer's level when calculating HP recovered. A character cannot benefit from Treat Wounds while their Patched Up value equals or exceeds the level of the healer that is treating them.
---
Usage Concerns
Damage taken and skill bonuses do not scale evenly with each other. This is hopefully offset by healer level typically increasing as damage does, but it is not perfectly balanced, or easy to simulate averages with.
Situations where characters take little damage will be easy to brush off with normal or critical successes, while taking severe damage may make critical failure nearly certain. This may come over as a good thing as taking / avoiding damage feels more significant and less "flat", or a bad thing if that curved "average recovery cost" feels swingy / inconsistent etc. and not to your tastes.
This system makes it optimal to heal by other means first, such as magic, then use Treat Wounds last with the lowered missing HP / DC. This could also be good or bad, since most other healing is a limited resource (such as magic), and it leads to some competing incentives to use the resource now for optimal healing or save it because you think you don't need to. I reckon this effect would be a playstyle preference.
---
Design Intent
I started with "de-couple the DC from the level of the healer OR patient", drove that through "make higher level / skill healers better than lower level / skill ones", and pit-stopped at "avoid infinite healing" while attempting to bypass "too complicated".
The numeric side probably needs work. I feel the general concept has enough merit to at least share. Does it have any potential merit?
Level is a relative constant when rolled by characters of equal level. This leaves 3 factors separating a minimally and maximally effective character's roll, not counting temporary buffs and such.
The lowest a character can have:
-1 (8 ability score, never raised) + -4 (untrained) + 0 (no item bonus) = -5
The highest a character can have:
+7 (24 ability score, start at 18 + raise 4 times + stat boosting item) + +3 (legendary) + 5 (the best item bonus) = +15
This creates a potential range of 20, from -5 up to +15. This doesn't actually assure an opposing roll can always go either way, since you can't roll 0 on a D20, but keeping this "same level" range in check seems to be a design intent for P2E.
Acknowledging this, I suggest widening this range 1 more point to make room for a proficiency bonus redistribution:
This has the benefit of increasing the importance of each proficiency level, and also the drawback of increasing the importance of each proficiency level. It depends on how you view the state of proficiency at present. DCs would be increased 1 point on average, maybe 2, to compensate.
This could widen the space to grant higher proficiency levels through feats. For example, maybe a late game general feat for expert proficiency with a weapon group undermines the fighter's weapon expert identity, by reducing their lead over most alternatives below +3. With the above, the fighter has a +4 lead even when others have taken such a general feat.
In turn, this opens up room for characters to express competence in a weapon group or a saving throw by choosing a late game general feat to reach expert, without having to pick a certain class. Master proficiency could be provided with deep investment in a relevant dedication, and still have legendary tied closely to main class as is now.
A) A PC of a given level should be substitutable for a monster of the same level, and-
B) Most modifier numbers (skills, saves etc.) have fairly uniform progression, then-
C) PCs and monsters of the same level will have nominally the same bonuses, and thus a 50% success/fail rate rolling against each other.
This is not a universal truth. For example, a rogue likely has a few points more in Stealth than Perception, if only for having Dex as their best ability score.
Overall though, if a monster at the level of the party is intended to be swappable with a clone of a member of the party, they would rival a PC in their area of expertise (e.g. a sneaky monster vs. sneaky rogue).
This does not explain all issues. Monsters being experts (or more) in more fields than any PC can be does not fit this model. But if tagging PCs of level X in for monsters of level X is a goal, then gravity would pull towards equal bonuses, and 50/50 chances, against equal level foes.
PS: Attack bonuses and AC bonuses do not have mirroring sources, though may still feel unsatisfying to some.
Whichever path you choose to take, with every step the road grows rougher yet you become more powerful.
Should you take the right path, the difficulty of travel will increase more gradually than your own might. With every step taken you feel more capable, yet in turn you move further from any genuine challenge.
Should you take the left path, the adversity you must traverse grows more rapidly than your own strength. Each stride is a greater achievement to take, but each casts you as relatively weaker than the last.
Should you take the centre path, your own growth and that of what you confront are perfectly matched. You shall never feel weaker or deprived of challenge, nor feel stronger or challenged to any new extent.
The paths do not have fences. One may switch from one path to another or walk between them, but this leaves travellers to their own mastery, or that of a guide, to navigate such unmarked terrain.
Where do you want to go?
Or: Should a level 20 party facing a "level 20 challenge" find it easier / harder / as hard as their level 1 selves did facing a "level 1 challenge"?
This limits what can be included, no matter Paizo's plans for P2E. Instead of the entire first edition, the playtest rulebook can be compared to what P1E's core rulebook offered. Measured by this standard, some omissions and shortages can seem less critical.
Some examples from things I've seen:
The playtest has weak archetype support. In P1E's core rulebook, there was no such thing as an archetype. They came in a later book, and became one of P1E's most popular features despite this late start.
Backgrounds are bland and pretty limited. In P1E's core rulebook, the counterpart of traits did not exist yet. These were also introduced later on, and became fundamental to character expression.
The options are generic and unimaginative. The P1E core rulebook alone was also pretty stock in its options. 7 races, no alternate traits, every member of *race* was the same. 11 classes, no archetyping, very standard, boilerplate concepts like cleric or barbarian. No traits to mechanicalise your identity, class skills only came from class, so on and so forth etc.
Remembering P1E's humble beginning, as well as the grand scope it reached, can help in assessing P2E's beginning.
Leave to bake until level 5, then pick up the Signature Skill feat for the Heal skill (or be an unchained rogue and get it with Rogue's Edge)
Continue adding ranks in Heal and Knowledge (Planes) with each level
Results:
Levels 1-4: Once a day per rank in Knowledge (Planes), as a full-round action, heal any creature that can be healed by positive energy by 1 hit point per hit dice with Treat Deadly Wounds, regardless of if you've used that skill already on them in the last 24 hours, with no penalty for not using a healer's kit, and if you beat the DC20 by 10 or more, add your ranks in Knowledge (Planes) to the healing, the only drawback being this is all a supernatural effect
Levels 5-9: Double healing to 2 hit points per target's hit dice, and also remove up 2 ability damage from each ability score, healing 10-18 hit points on equal-level targets without hitting DC30
Levels 10-14: Healing per hit dice and ability damage recovery doubles to 4, healing 40-56 on equal level targets without hitting DC30
Levels 15-19: Potency of effects increase to 6, healing 90-114 hit points on equal level targets without hitting DC30
Levels 20: As a full-round action up to 20 times a day, heal a target of 12 hit points per hit dice, plus up to 12 points of ability damage to each ability score - by now if not sooner you should be able to hit DC30 on Heal checks, adding another 20 hit points to your healing for a total of 32 hit points on one-hit dice targets, and 140 on equal level targets
You have a pool of resonance. I'll get to its size later.
Resonance can be used 3 ways:
Investing: Magical items with passive effects require a one-time investment of resonance, renewed each time you regain resonance. A suit of magical "Flameward" armour, found in a pile of loot, can be donned for 1 resonance to gain all of its benefits. If you do not spend resonance, then wearing the armour will still grant mundane benefits, like AC bonus and anything its quality level provides. As mentioned above, when you refill your resonance points (e.g. by resting), you must again spend 1 resonance to gain the armour's magical benefits. This can be done right then, or later on in the day if unsure what you will face.
Activating: Magical items with active effects require spending resonance for each use. Some lesser effects don't cost resonance, like the item version of cantrips. As an example of active effects, my made up "Flameward" armour has a passive and an active effect. Investing in the armour grants you the "Energy Resistance (Fire)" passive effect. If you spend 1 resonance point as a reaction, the passive's effects get doubled for a single round. If you're facing a red dragon, planning a dip in some lava, or facing another situation where your passive fire resistance won't cut it, spend some resonance to double down.
Urgency: Urgency is for tough spots. In my head it can only be used for active resonance effects, but maybe something, potentially a feat, can extend it to passive effects. When you choose to use urgency, it has the same effect as spending resonance without actually depleting any. You then roll a flat D20, DC is 10 plus your previous number of uses of urgency today (so your first roll is DC10). If you fail on this roll, you lose access to urgency until you next refill your resonance pool. Rolling a success will avoid this, and a critical success does not count toward your growing daily DC. I'm not sure what a critical failure should do at this time, maybe drain 1 resonance point anyway. Urgency lets you drink a potion, trigger an item and so forth, when you've run out of resonance or are trying to conserve it, and know that it will work. It's the next one that won't if you fail that flat roll, keeping the limitations while avoiding the risk of wasting actions and items.
Regarding how much resonance you get, I would like to propose 5 + 1/2 level + Cha mod. P2E's design has striven for consistency, with features like +level to roll. 5 + 1/2 level fits this by smoothing the growth of resonance, tightening the scarcity / abundance at the lowest / highest character levels, while keeping a sense of progression. It also makes Cha more valuable, since at maximum level it forms a larger portion of your resonance (at level 20, 15 + Cha mod vs. 20 + Cha mod).
---
Working with this take on resonance, magic items have 3 basic types:
Passive: Invest resonance to gain their benefits until you next refill your resonance
Active: Spend resonance each time you use, otherwise has unlimited uses per day
Consumable: Spend resonance to use (like Active), but is consumed upon that use
You could have advanced item types, such as "Charge" for staves perhaps, which act like batteries of resonance, letting you invest ahead of time, then spend from its stored charges to trigger the item's active effects.
I think non-artefacts should not get more complicated than that.
Evasion lets a PC treat successes on reflex saves as critical successes.
A critical hit with stunning fist makes the target treat their following fortitude save as one step worse.
These two abilities do not interact, since they work with different saves.
They do offer examples of ways abilities can influence degrees of success.
So, how would these abilities interact if they came up in conjunction?
If they use order of operation, I see issues with both orders.
Benefit, then penalty:
>Defender rolls a critical success
>Defender's ability does nothing (no degrees exist above critical success)
>Attacker's ability reduces to normal success
Penalty, then benefit:
>Defender rolls a normal success
>Attacker's ability reduces to normal fail
>Defender's ability does nothing (not a normal success to modify)
How should this ability interaction work? It seems useful to lay a clear foundation for further types of success shifting abilities to build upon.
I'm struggling for a superior name, but bypassing obstacles through direct force can come up in many adventures. P1E has large quantities of data on breaking down doors, escaping bindings, damaging objects etc. whether by a single "strength burst" or chipping away with damage vs. HP and hardness.
It's popular enough to call staple, it's something some characters might want to invest in being good at, and those characters may reasonably not be the same characters who excel at climbing, swimming, track and field.
The paladin code is a part of the playtest. Whatever each person's view on that, the developers put it in there to be tested. I, for one, say let us.
The essential elements of the code:
Universal Paladin Code:
"The following is the fundamental code all paladins follow. The tenets are listed in order of importance, starting with the most important. If a situation places two tenets in conflict, you aren't in a no-win situation; instead, follow the most important tenet."
>You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
>You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
>You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
>You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.
To test this code is to apply it to a challenging scenario, and see if following it promotes the behaviours that it intends to.
I now submit my own example.
---
A holy champion staggers from the lair of evil. They are wounded, exhausted, for they have given their all to expunge the irredeemably vile forces that have preyed upon the innocent for too long. Now, in reeling aftermath, there is at last a chance of rebuild in its wake.
Much good remains to be done. Even as they stride from the realm of the smited foe, they come across another victim, a woman stricken by grave wounds. Horrors deepen, as she is most obviously pregnant with child.
"Can you help me?" asks the woman.
"Yes," answers the paladin, for it would violate their code to lie.
"... Will you?" the woman asks next.
"... No," they answer at last.
"Why?" her voice struggles.
The paladin struggles too. Standing there, every mote of divine energy expended battling evil, they cannot lay on hands, nor offer any other salvation by their own means. The only way to save her, and in turn her child, in the time left to her is to use the wand of infernal healing they confiscated from the forces of evil, brought it back as evidence in the hunt for evil. "It would be casting an evil spell," they whisper.
She weeps to the end. If they have tears left, so does the paladin.
Not that one you actually use, not the one that's mechanically viable.
That one with flavour you like, yet your characters never select it, because it costs a whole feat.
Post about that feat, why you like it, where it falls short, what it has to do to earn a home in your build.
---
For myself I'll mention Nimble Moves. Ignoring a space of difficult terrain sounds interesting. With its successor Acrobatic Steps I could make really creative movements around exciting terrain layouts, but my feats are prioritised toward meeting more fundamental needs.
If Nimble Moves was Acrobatic Steps, or the DEX-based characters it fits had fewer holes to patch, I'd adopt and love you so.
There are several martial weapon styles offered in P1E. Here is a list of those I have identified:
Two-handed melee weapon
One-handed melee weapon
One-handed melee weapon and shield / "Sword and Board"
Two melee weapons
Reach melee weapon (e.g. polearms)
"Classic" ranged weapon (e.g. bows)
"Modern" ranged weapon (e.g. guns)
Thrown weapon (including splash weapons)
No weapon (e.g. unarmed strikes, natural weapons)
Honourable Mention: Grappling
I use "weapon" to mean something that can defeat/kill opponents in its own right, without outside help. Grappling is mentioned because dealing damage is an option in the grapple tree, but tripping/bull rushing/disarming etc. cannot generally do this (some feats side), despite having tactical merit.
If a style is still missing, feel free to point it out.
It's reasonable for people to want styles they like to not just be present but also offer worthwhile strengths / have mechanical appeal as well as thematic. Some feel that P1E did this with varying success for different styles. Here is my own personal view, broken down into 3 broad categories:
Generally Effective Styles:
Two-handed melee weapon
Reach melee weapon (e.g. polearms)
"Classic" ranged weapon (e.g. bows)
Niche Effective Styles:
One-handed melee weapon
One-handed melee weapon and shield / "Sword and Board"
Two melee weapons
"Modern" ranged weapon (e.g. guns)
No weapon (e.g. unarmed strikes, natural weapons)
Honourable Mention: Grappling
Rarely Effective Styles:
Thrown weapon (including splash weapons)
Generally effective styles might require feat investment, but would work out mechanically effectively without overly restricting your build, e.g. needing a class / archetype written specifically to support the concept.
Niche effective styles would be mechanically effective provided you were willing to base large portions of your build on them, such as choosing a sneak attack class for two-weapon fighting, or gunslinger / an archetype with gunslinging features if you intended to play a gun-using character.
Rarely effective styles can be challenging to make effective and require knowledge of the right options and combinations, even if you are willing to devote your entire build toward trying to make the concept effective.
---
People probably disagree about specific categorisations, but looking at the overall principle, what should be changed in P2E?
From what's been shared so far, Sword and Board sounds like it's getting a boost from changes to shields. Guns are also being held off on, until more focus can be given to their implementation. The new action economy will hopefully somewhat close the gap between melee and ranged, as well.
Personally, I'm currently most concerned about two-weapon fighting and thrown weapons. The former could struggle to keep up with two-handed fighting in damage even when used by more or less its poster-boy, the sneak-attacking rogue, and didn't have much to distinguish itself other than damage, unlike e.g. the reach offered by reach weapons.
I don't have any thrown weapon characters myself, but unless you would count alchemist bombs, I think it's the most under-represented style in my personal experience of P1E. I think feats like Startoss Style might have brought it up to somewhere around on par with two-weapon fighting.
In my experience, playing and watching recorded games, there are groups where people make a roll, stating their total result if not evident, and the GM says whether they succeeded or not (and how much in some systems).
Any pause between the former and latter is only the processing delay of human response, and generally shrinks with experience. Early on a player / GM might say "Okay, that's 12 on the dice, +6 for a total of 18" / "Good, let's see... It looks like that's a hit", and later refine it down to "18 to hit" / "Nice, roll damage". Flavourful description may come with that, of course, but right now I'm discussing the purely mechanical overhead.
P1E has a number of abilities with trigger conditions to the tune of "You must decide to use this ability after the first roll is made but before the results are revealed by the GM". For people who play in the above way, do they find this disruptive to their rhythm? It seems like the GM needs to interrupt their fluid response and either prompt the player to state whether they will use the ability, or wait for the player themselves to do so. This could be especially wrong-footing if the condition rarely comes up, and the ability was gained several sessions/levels into the campaign.
How do you feel about these abilities? With degrees of success as a core mechanic, the risk for re-rolls is greater as you might shift a fail into a critical fail. Would that uncertainty add to, or detract from, the game?
In P1E, ranged combat was viewed by some as the strongest martial style in high-level play. This was due to being able to more reliably execute full attacks by burning less actions repositioning, and mitigating most of the drawbacks of ranged combat through long but effective feat lists.
In P2E, the new action economy removes full-attack dependency, but your ranged output is still more potent by default. Attack > attack > attack beats move > attack > attack if "attack" on each side is of equal value.
How would you like ranged weapon combat, e.g. bows executed compared to melee so that each has distinct merit without one being flatly favoured?
Withholding my own answer from colouring the thread in the initial post.
I'm trying to understand the interaction of a series of options around gauntlets. I'll make some discrete statements to see if everything I'm thinking of is rules-legal, or if not what parts are and aren't legal.
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplates) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
Locked Gauntlet wrote:
This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense to keep from being disarmed in combat. Removing a weapon from a locked gauntlet or attaching a weapon to a locked gauntlet is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
Spiked Gauntlet wrote:
This is a gauntlet of thick leather or metal with blades or spikes protruding from above the knuckles, allowing the wearer to stab with the force of a punch. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. An attack with a spiked gauntlet is considered an armed attack. Your opponent cannot disarm you of spiked gauntlets.
---
Gauntlets are weapons, and you can attack with them.
Gauntlets can be made masterwork weapons, and enhanced as weapons.
You get free (normal) gauntlets with some armours.
Locked gauntlet is a modification that can be applied to armour.
You could take a single gauntlet, make it a masterwork weapon (with the spell Masterwork Transformation if needed), enhance it as a weapon, and make it a locked gauntlet on your armour provided you pay all the costs.
When using such a gauntlet as a locked gauntlet, you are still wielding the gauntlet as a weapon whether or not you can actually attack with it.
All the above applies to spiked gauntlets (e.g. you could make a spiked locked gauntlet), except they don't come free with any armour varieties.
An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
Does an Amulet of Mighty Fists with no enhancement bonus and just special abilities overcome DR/Magic?
My gut reaction is to say "it is a magic weapon, it turns off in an anti-magic field, so yes", but my gut suffered from the Nauseated FAQ and has been cautious of hasty actions ever since.
A ninja with this ability can recall one trick taught to her by her ancient masters. When she uses this ability, she selects one ninja trick (not a master trick or rogue talent) that she does not know and can use that ninja trick for a number of rounds equal to her level. She must pay any ki costs associated with the trick as normal. Using this ability expends 2 ki point from her ki pool, plus the ki cost of the trick she chooses.
Can a ninja using Forgotten Trick select a ninja trick they don't meet the prerequisites for? A couple of other ninja tricks for phrasing comparison:
Combat Trick wrote:
A ninja who selects this trick gains a bonus combat feat.
Style Master wrote:
A ninja who selects this ninja trick gains a style feat that she qualifies for as a bonus feat.
Hello. Say I have a ratfolk rogue who's looking to purchase a tailblade, cus more sources of sneak attack are nice. He's not picking enhancements for a while, but he would like to choose a good foundation to build upon.
A medium ratfolk tailblade costs 11gp, weighs 1/2lb and does 1d3 slashing damage. Since he's small he'll buy a small tailblade, which weighs half as much at 1/4lb and does 1d2 slashing damage instead, and still costs 11gp.
Next part is where he needs help.
The ratfolk doesn't mind the small damage dice, but wants to hit, so he's willing to pay for a masterwork tailblade, which costs 311gp.
He thinks about special materials too. If he's not going to enhance it, a cold iron tailblade might help against DR for example. Then he considers silver, and then mithral which counts as silver. Then he gets confused.
A tailblade is a weapon, not an armour or a shield, so it comes under the cost of "Other items: +500 gp/lb.".
He looks at a medium mithral tailblade, he sees that it would cost 252gp, and that "Weapons and armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below" and now he wonders if he would be paying 50gp less for a tailblade that's a masterwork and lighter and also counts as silver. That seems odd to him.
Then he finds an FAQ about pricing a weightless weapon for mithral saying treat it as 1/2lb. He guesses it's intentional because a 1/2lb mithral weapon will always cost 250gp more than the base and will always be masterwork too, so it must be okay to pay less, then.
Then he remembers he wants a small tailblade with a base weight of 1/4lb because he is small. That would cost 136gp, and he realises it would cost more if it had no listed weight, and a weight-based price costing less than if it weighed nothing gives the rat a headache.
Please help this ratfolk rogue pay the fair amount for his small mithral tailblade and not validate negative stereotypes about his class or race.
Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller
Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than itself.
A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is. Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures.
Movement During a Charge wrote:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
What is the intended combined behaviour of these rules?
"A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is" this part indicates a sufficiently smaller creature cannot block movement any more than a blade of grass.
Movement During a Charge is, obviously, a form of movement, and begins with "You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles)". If this opening line is stating the rule's intent, then a much smaller creature is neither difficult terrain or an obstacle. However, there's a later part saying that "If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge". Allies do not normally obstruct movement, so this seems an intended extra restriction.
To put this in a scenario:
PC1 is standing in the open, total defending.
Colossal Monster 1 (CM1) is standing a moderate distance from PC1 across open terrain, and on their turn charges them.
PC2 is invisible, has eluded CM1's perception, and is positioned in CM1's charge lane such that CM1's charge will end with PC2 directly "behind" CM1 (adjacent to CM1, on the opposite side from PC1).
I figure when CM1 charges either:
PC2 violates the conditions for CM1's charge, causing the charge to fail, I would guess directly in front of the comparatively tiny PC2 that somehow halted CM1's momentum without acting.
CM1 moves through PC2's space, provoking an attack of opportunity that PC2 can take on any one of the 5-foot increments of movement that are valid AoO targets. If PC2 was an epic trip master somehow able to successfully trip CM1, they would probably wait until the creature no longer overlapped with them before dropping it on its face.
I've presented a situation where a creature will "force the issue", as it doesn't have the knowledge to avoid the move by either avoiding or attacking the intervening character, but I'm generally curious if CM1 could, if sufficiently intelligent, knowingly charge past a row of puny foot soldiers, enduring the AoOs, to attack a VIP target further back.
I'm looking for a rule-based, if possible PFS-robust answer rather than well-meaning but homebrewed suggestions, please :).
You're joining a new campaign (assume at level 1 if that matters to you), and the GM gives you a choice at character creation (each player makes an independent choice, it's not a group-vote). You can either:
Use the heroic NPC array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 before modifiers) that works out to a 15 point buy.
Have a 10 point buy you can assign in any legal combination, including dumping if you desire.
Which one do you pick? Why that choice? And how do you feel about the two options as a comparison?
For my answer, I'd choose 10 points for the opposite reason some might. A number of my characters don't suit a blunt, widespread failing like the 8 of the standard array imposes, to the extent if I had to take it, I might drop it on a racial strength (or vice-versa if human) to cancel out to 10.
Aside from that, I often prefer choice over power as an individual taste, so I know where I lie.
I'm fond of numbers, and decided to explore a few values and ratios that can be derived from the monster creation rules/guidelines. I thought some others might find them interesting, so I'm sharing what I found :).
I did this in Excel, I'll give steps to follow along if anyone wants to play with the formulas themselves.
Setup:
Copy the table into Excel from A1, it should reach down to K33. Then if your Excel's like mine, paste A4 into A3 and then change A3 to 0.5, since Excel decides 1/2 must mean a date.
The table includes hit points as well as "high" and "low" damage for each CR. The first can be divided by one of the second for a (very simplified) idea of the relative damage 2 monsters of equal CR would do to each other in a single round.
Formula + Results:
In Cell M3: =B3/F3
In Cell N3: =B3/G3
Select and drag down to duplicate across rows 3 to 33.
After some early inflation, the values stabilise in a fairly consistent place, which I found interesting and wondered about being intentional.
Of course, even setting aside the massive list of excluded conditional factors (damage types/resistances, healing, non-HP damage etc.), this is missing a basic step. Under the table, Average Damage is defined as "This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack". So one, this is only if all attacks hit, and two, it does not take critical hits into account.
I can't properly fix the latter (if anyone can I'd be interested), but for the former, the table provides both AC values and high attack/low attack bonuses. The principle's similar even if the formula is trickier.
Formula + Results:
In Cell O3: =((D3+21)-C3)/20
In Cell P3: =((E3+21)-C3)/20
Select and drag down to duplicate across rows 3 to 33.
While the length of combat for "low" monsters generally lengthens as CR increases (probably cus they put more and more into fighting with other non-HP means), the "high" monsters that primarily fight through HP stay within a 1-round range. If you average this (formula "=AVERAGE(Q3:Q33)" for those playing along), you get a result of 4.088195707, or about 4.1.
In summary, monsters who fight mainly through AC and HP would take 4ish rounds to beat (or be beaten by) an equal foe at any CR. The table also includes saves and DCs, but since failed saves can mean anything from a fighting handicap to instantly dead, I couldn't think of much to derive.
Thoughts, criticisms etc. welcome, including telling me I have way too much spare time :).
The Unconscious condition doesn't specify that creatures fall prone, but this can usually be ruled with sensible consistency.
On the other hand, I can picture holding onto or dropping items. A person dropping things due to the force or shock of being knocked out is common, but a warrior still clutching their weapon as they fall isn't far-fetched.
A character getting healed back to consciousness during combat isn't too uncommon, and whether they still hold their items can make a significant difference. One way can allow them to rise from prone with a move action and contribute a standard action that turn, while the other can see many characters needing to "collect themselves" with 2 (or more) move actions and be unable to help until next round. As the situation seems likely to come up and likely to matter, I think an official ruling for consistency (or clarity) would be useful. If you agree, please feel free to FAQ this.
Picture this: A wizard, for whatever reason, decides at creation to VMC as an oracle. They take the Battle mystery, and upon reaching level 3, pick Skill at Arms as their revelation (d20 link since it's less scrolling).
Skill at Arms wrote:
You gain proficiency in all martial weapons and heavy armor.
Sure Part: The wizard is now proficient in martial weapons as well as heavy armour (albeit with no help against arcane spell failure chance).
Unsure Part/Question: Is the wizard now proficient in all simple weapons and medium and light armour?
Fundamentally, does martial weapon/heavy armour proficiency itself make you proficient in "only martial weapons/heavy armour", or "up to martial weapons/heavy armour"? Hoping there's some official rule tucked out of immediate sight, like medium armour = medium encumbrance.
Asking more for curiosity than practical use, thanks for any help :).
When you use Acrobatics to move through an opponent's threatened area or space without provoking an attack of opportunity from that opponent, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on your next melee attack roll against that opponent and that opponent is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC, as long as you make that attack before the start of your next turn.
Hello :D. I have a bunch of questions about creatures being on fire, and can't find answers I'd be confident quoting in PFS, so hopefully the forums can help me out.
I'll start by quoting the official rules for catching on fire, from here.
Catching on Fire wrote:
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.
I'll base my questions upon the Touch Of Combustion spell (bottom of the page, sorry I don't know a better source).
Touch Of Combustion wrote:
Your successful melee touch attack causes the target to ignite in a violent burst of flame, dealing 1d6 points of fire damage. If it fails its saving throw, the target also catches on fire. If the target catches fire, on the first round thereafter, creatures adjacent to it (including you) must each succeed at a Reflex save or take 1d4 points of fire damage.
Premise: Creature A casts Touch Of Combustion on creature B, who has no special defences against fire. The spell connects and creature B fails their saving throw, so they catch on fire.
Questions:
When does creature B roll their next saving throw against being on fire, on the next turn of creature A, or their own next turn? (Catching on Fire says "In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw.")
What action is it for creature B to perform the reflex saving throw, if any?
Catching on fire says "rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus". Since it says "another save", does this mean creature B can fail their first saving throw, take 1d6 damage, then roll on the ground to receive "another save" with a +4 bonus? Also, would failing this save cause another 1d6 damage? (I really hope not, but want to be sure.)
If the last point is true, can creature B only roll on the ground on its second save, or can it attempt to gain a bonus on its first save to avoid any fire damage that round?
What action is "rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like" to gain a +4 bonus? Personally I could see anywhere from free (dropping prone), through move (dropping prone and rolling about), standard (you're actively trying to put yourself out), or full-round (the alchemist's explosive bomb discovery requires this, but it may be "stronger" being-on-fire), but haven't found a clear answer.
What would be the DC for creature B to stop being on fire after the initial save when it was hit by the spell? Would it be the DC of the spell, or DC15 as given in Catching on Fire?
Citations of answers would be very appreciated, since I want to be able to share these rules with others. Thanks for any help :).
Hello, I have a small question regarding a simple piece of adventure gear.
After seeing a feat (Torch Bearer), I noticed that torches have this line in their description:
Torch wrote:
If a torch is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage.
The part that suddenly stood out to me was "of its size". Does this imply there are different sizes of torch? If so, are there mechanical variances for size like weight or range of effect, and what are they?
A lot of basic pieces of equipment have size-varying stats, such as small containers that weigh less but have less capacity. I haven't been able to find rules for different torch sizes, but if there aren't any wouldn't it just say "equal to that of a medium gauntlet" (or just "1d3 bludgeoning")?
I'd imagine this is right, but at least one source I found said the first print stated None: 0-5 and Faint: 5-10, an editing mistake. I've read it was corrected on common sense, but the above doesn't match the pattern of every other tier that goes "Up to some multiple of 5, the next starting 1 level higher". I like it stopping at 4, I think that's a good low-power range, but I'd like to be sure before we hit the 1 level it affects, so is there an official clarification or errata or similar anywhere to cite?
Also Detect Evil says "Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell". Do the other spells sense good, lawful or chaotic intents, or is evil a "stronger" alignment for noticing?
What Is A "15 Minute Adventure Day"?
The "15 Minute Adventure Day", along with its variants of name such as "5 Minute Work Day", is a term for a pattern of play.
This pattern arises in Pathfinder and other systems with party resources, such as spells, special abilities and hit points, that refresh on a daily basis after resting. A 15 minute adventure day happens when a party, with sufficient control over when they face encounters ("You see the monsters, do you attack now or think up a plan?"), liberally expend these abilities in their first fight and rest shortly after to recharge them, rather than rationing them over multiple encounters as the GM/designers often intend.
15 minute adventure days can result in numerous balance issues, including overpowering the party in general, and causing power disparities between classes with sustainable abilities and those meant to have limited ones.
The problem is widely-discussed, and professional attempts to address it include "Milestones" from D&D 4th Edition and a major design focus in 5th Edition/D&D Next. It doesn't affect all players and games, as many will do what suits their characters and narrative over exacting optimisation, but its influence can creep into the tense decisions many games strive to present the players with.
Adventurous Drive The further you can push yourself, the more potential you draw out.
"Adventurous Drive" is a system that, like many efforts before it, aims to offset the 15 minute adventure day with mechanical incentives. This is based on the philosophy that while people can roleplay around game mechanics with ingenuity, in an ideal system they roleplay WITH them.
Adventurous Drive grants bonuses to the party for fighting on through multiple encounters without a full rest. These bonuses are intended to emulate the heroism of characters in fiction (and sometimes life) that fight through a gauntlet of obstacles without relenting or retreating, and the reserves of might they drag out of themselves in doing so (the system was originally named Heroic Might, but I changed it to be more alignment all-inclusive).
These bonuses take the form of "Positive Levels". Positive Levels are a homebrew condition, and an inversion of the official Pathfinder concept of Negative Levels, granting bonuses that mirror the penalties suffered under the latter. Gaining a Positive Level grants the following bonuses:
+1 To Ability Checks
+1 To Attack Rolls
+1 To Combat Manoeuvre Checks
+1 To Combat Manoeuvre Defence
+1 To Saving Throws
+1 To Skill Checks
+5 Current/Total Hit Points
+1 Level For Level-Dependent Variables (spells, class features etc.)
These bonuses are of the new "Positive Level" type, which stacks with all bonuses, including itself.
Positive Levels are temporary, and awarded to the party at a rate of 1 each time they earn experience equal to that awarded by an "average" or CR = APL (Challenge Rating = Average Party Level) encounter. This will depend on the party level, but should remain a consistent percentage of the exp needed to reach next level due to Pathfinder's design. Positive Levels stack with themselves, but are lost upon performing any action equal to resting for 8 hours that recharges daily abilities (e.g. using "Nap Stack" and resting for 2 hours).
Narratively this represents the momentum of raised adrenaline and being "in the groove" from fighting continuously, and mechanically it gives players an incentive to maybe not rest right outside the big boss of the dungeon, as they can carry their hard-earned heap of bonuses right into that difficult fight (while tactical resting is not invalidated, and become a pro-con decision).
As a last note, when facing actual Negative Levels, Positive Levels can act as a "buffer". By having Negative Levels cancel out Positive Levels before they can directly affect characters, bookkeeping is lessened and Positive Levels have an additional incentive to earn in some instances.
Balancing
By itself, Adventurous Drive is a flat boost to the PCs' might, in the same vein as Hero Points and some other optional rules. For those who want to add it to games they GM, they should keep in mind that they are handing the players raw power with no drawbacks in this form.
For those wishing to balance Adventurous Drive without a power creep, various handicaps can be implemented. Personally, I suggest halving the wealth by level progression of the party (not including starting gold), as Positive Levels can grant many thousands of gold worth of benefits, and it further emphasises the heroism of the characters over owning an "Iron Man suit" of enhanced equipment. This has not been playtested to any useful extent, but seems like a good place to start such efforts.
In addition to this, GMs may want to limit gaining or stacking Positive Levels. I recommend the default rule of "Characters cannot have more Positive Levels than their hit dice", as this controls numbers in the first few levels where such bonuses can have the biggest impact. Most games are unlikely to see parties achieve more than 5 Positive Levels at once, barring exceptional endurance and resourcefulness, so this can be implemented as a "sensibility limit" as an alternative.
Parties may also intentionally "farm" numerous relatively weak enemies to build up their bonus at practically no cost, so a minimum limit to experience from a single encounter that counts may be prudent. However, if this does happen in the game the problem runs deeper, as the party will be achieving permanent levels "easily" from that same experience.
Overall, the Adventurous Drive system can be added to any game whether 15 minute adventure days are an issue or not. It lays simple, desirable benefits at the mechanical level along the path of playing characters adventurously. As I lack the social network to put this system through substantial playtesting, any feedback, suggestions or input in general is highly appreciated. Overall I want to embrace the spirit of people working together to have a good time that is arguably the foundation of roleplaying, whether tabletop or otherwise.
Hiya :D. I have a question or 2 on the unchained alternate action economy.
It seems like you can perform a single attack with 1 action, or 2 attacks with your main and off-hand weapon once per turn (twice with improved and three times with greater two-weapon fighting). You could also attack with all your natural weapons once each with "Make All Natural Attacks".
There's also the rule that every "Attack" type action you take beyond the first in your turn adds a stacking -5 penalty onto your to-hit rolls, too.
Under this system, is there any use for secondary natural attacks, such as bites, on characters who use weapons that deal more damage and in the normal economy used them as added bonuses in full-round attacks? Am I missing a way to bring these out that isn't "I will attack once with this instead for the same negative to hit and lower damage"? Cus it's just the sole issue holding me back from a system that I'd otherwise love to adopt.
