Baron Samedi's page

No, I had read that; I was just trying to suggest some already published (and therefore I can only assume already playtested) mechanics that could back up the suggestions you put forth. Not many people like the d10 system they use, but I enjoy it from time to time, and the way that world is built just makes me happy.

I am really surprised that no one has brought up the casting system from Warhammer Fantasy (the 2nd ed, not the new one. And that's the RPG not the armies one). In that casters had unlimited spells per day of every level they had access to, but in order to cast them they had to succeed on a variant of a caster check. The check was based on an attribute that mages had, and the more powerful spells had much higher checks that were sometimes almost impossible to hit.

The thing was, if you didn't make the spell check it just fizzled, and your turn was wasted. If, however you rolled all ones on your check, you got hit with the spell's damage. If you rolled doubles or triples on the check dice the spell worked as per usual, but something terrible happened to you. Mutations, sanity loss, demons breaking through to this world, the usual.

There were a number of special feat style talents that allowed you to boost your dice pool when making the checks, but it was absolutely never a sure thing. It fit the feel of that world perfectly.

And that is just it, it fit the feel of That world perfectly. I have always wanted to transfer it into D&D, and I had a way that worked really well in 3.5, with home made feats and everything, but in Pathfinder, it is almost unnecessary. What with the mages already getting unlimited scaling spells per day (that 0 or 1st level one they get, you know). Sure you could brew up a world where you used a system like that, but for me at least, it doesn't seem necessary this time around. Give me a few years to get bored with the system, and then I might try putting in the Warhammer idea again.

Ha, wonderful. We were thinking that since yeah, its singing and breathing at the same time it should be good, but just wanted to see how other people thought. Thanks all.

There is one in the party right now, and just got the first level of the prestige. Also, she is a gnome, which just makes me happy (we really don't care so much for min/maxing) but is besides the point. Any way, what is the point is a question in regards to the breath attack.

She asked if she would be able to continue using her song ability if she shot one out, or if the attack would interrupt it, and she would have to activate another usage afterward. As of right now I am leaning towards saying yeah, she can continue singing. Its not effecting the game, and I really cannot see how it could possibly make things go awry, I'm just curious as to what other people think. Right now we just say she is yelling at the enemy.

Also, a little aside: barbarian to duelist is one of the coolest non-hardcore maths combos I have ever had the opportunity to dm for. This is one of my favourite groups ever.

There are a lot of good points about the stats and the power of the class being in line with everything else in the game, it's just that when you see all of the special stuff that the other prestige classes get, the EK looks kind of boring in comparison.

I homebrewed a version for my group, and while it's far from perfect, and can most assuredly broken by someone who is better at maths, it works very well for the group I game with, and has actually gotten played.

For the most part things are unchanged. The BAB and saves remain the same. What is changed then is:

at 3rd level, there are no new spells gained. Instead a special ability is. We called it spell burn and it allowed the caster, as part of a standard atk action, to sacrifice a spell, and add its level in d6s to the atk's dmg. This can only be done as part of an atk with a weapon, and only once per turn. We had it so that you had to announce this prior to rolling the atk, and if you missed the spell was not lost.

at fifth there are no new spells gained. Instead the arcane channeling ability the duskblade has is added. This works as normal, with a touch atk being added to a weapon strike. At ninth level it does the multiple strikes thing too.

at eighth level the EK gets no new spells, but gains the mettle feat that the hexblade had. It is basically the imporved uncanny dodge feat, but instead of being applied to ref saves, it is with fort.

and then that was it. A simple little add on and suddenly the class was much more attractive to the players. We had some arguments that it was too powerful, but as it is the d6s don't make that huge of a difference when they get used, since they still have to succeed on a weapon attack, and the spell channel allows them to add a little variety to their turns. Mettle doesn't make the big difference is made in 3.5, but it is still useful against things like energy drain. That last feature that the class has in the book, the auto cast on a critical is a really neat feature, and the fact that it can be any spell is really cool. The problem is that crits, specifically confirmed crits just dont show up often enough to make that one ability really worth it. And like others have said, the change in HD just wasn't enough of a draw for my players.

Ah then, if this is based on such a specific inquiry then things get a lot easier.

There doesn't really need to be a morality system put in place to deal with something like that. Look at literature, as was said earlier, for a quick and easy solution. The mental taint thing is a good idea, but even simpler is the fact that the player is dealing with pure evil on a tangible level.

Just, every so often mind you, allow something terrible to happen as a direct result of that player's well intentioned actions. Summon a demon to defeat a very mortal threat? Well okay, the mental taint comes into effect, maybe some morality lost, but what's this? Ah crap, the demon summoned was masquerading as a lower caste creature and is actually quite capable of casting a spell to bind it to 1)this plane 2)a person 3)the player themself. Now not only do you have a possibly amazing story hook to play around with, but also a nice way of letting the player know just what it is they are messing around with.

I really must caution away from coming down too hard on them too often though. This is almost exactly the sort of character that I always enjoyed playing the most. As you said, the world is not black and white, and there is a great attraction to getting to use the more evil bits. Plus, since (I'm guessing) no one else is doing anything like this, it is a good way for them to stand out in the group. I always really enjoyed classes like the Dread Necromancer for that exact reason. Everyone else in the group (Dm included) only ever looked at direct damage characters, and always were squarely in the good good echelon of alignment. Needless to say, there were some sessions that I really did not enjoy as much as I could have because of pushing from other characters to either be good, or from the Dm who was always thinking of some way to force me out of neutrality and into either good, or into evil, where I would then get killed by the other players or her self insert npc character.

Like you said earlier, let them have fun doing what they are, just remind them every so often that there are consequences to dealing with the absolute evil that they are. The Malconvoker class is an easy out. You have to be good to take it, and it lets you 'trick' demons into serving you. It really is a cheap solution, but hey, there you go. Apart from that, the mental taint is a really good idea. Look at how Warhammer Fantasy handles their sanity system (what they have instead of morality), but make sure it is the 2nd edition. Their new 3rd is just a rip off of D&D's 4th, and it really shows. So once more: as long as everyone is having fun, then everything is good. And as long as something goes terribly wrong just every so often, things are even better.

I have always taken a reductivist approach to the alignments, putting down the basics, and then extrapolating them as they need. For me then:

Lawful means to have a code(s) of conduct that you will never knowingly or willingly break. It could be something like never stealing, or it could be more esoteric, like always making sure a balance is maintained. Whatever it is, whenever it would be applicable in a situation, it is what you must do. Being lawful does not necessarily mean being a slave to the written laws, but it means having a more meditative approach to life that will make you much more appreciative of the written laws, as you will tend to view them in the context of a larger code of conduct.

Chaos in its purest form would mean flipping a coin and reacting based off of that. Since no one plays like that though, it also means to treat each situation as an absolute novelty. You are likely to do something just to see what happens as a result, regardless of the situation.

Neutrality is usually thought of as the lazy alignment. While it could mean not really caring about the philosophies of the extremes, it could also be characterized by trying to maintain a balance between them in the world.

Good is the one I always had the most trouble with. Most people think of good in terms of 'small good'. This is the immediate one where you try to redress all wrongs and provide succor to all who need it right now. It thinks of people as individuals and considers the situation as it is happening. 'Big good' on the other hand, could actually be better described as neutrality. This is more concerned with ideas than with people. Big good would allow a horde to overwhelm a town because it knew that after doing so, they would be exhausted. Big good would them lead its forces in and wipe out the horde once and for all. The lives that were in essence sacrificed were a paltry number in comparison to what the horde would have been able to take if left alone, so in the long run, good was achieved. You can see why I got into arguments with my DM, yeah?

Evil is also hard for me to describe. It falls into the same sort of big versus small categories I think. However, a good short hand is to ask yourself, is this going to cause undue harm, suffering, or loss? It will? Okay then, that's evil. Have fun. Murdering for profit rather than anything else is evil as an example. Really though, these are the times that would require a sort of pause in the action to really take into consideration the real ramifications of an action.

Combining alignments should be just that. You look at their basics, and think of how they would interact to inform your world view. They are not really the steadfast markers of how a character is allowed to act, rather they should for, the guidelines for how they think and approach situations.

I know I sort of ignored the Point system you were working on. Sorry. I do hope that this helped out regardless though. If only in some small way.