Byrdology's page

I use MCAs for villains and noteable NPCs. It always keeps the party guessing and adds some great lore and flavor to the setting.

Ok. Sounds interesting, looking forward to it.

Honestly, I think you are better off having racial ATs for base classes, which I think they have done. 3 level paragon dips, favored class features, PrCs... it's all there. What specifically are you looking for. There are a plethora of options that are fully supported and (relatively) balanced. What in your opinion is not supported?

My take on your premise, hope it helps. You could treat the specific "rune stone" in question as an heirloom item.

You are actually right. I was thinking rapid shot and TWF, but those are all part of the full attack action. So I guess never mind about the whole thing, just play 5e if you want a game with less iterations.

@ Lady-J: I'm sorry I wasn't clearer... I meant to imply the % chance to hit, self buffed with no magic, at full iteration and class only dmg modifiers (per swing).

I know that a twf rogue can do over 60d6 + (w x 6) under ideal circumstances, but those iterations fall of sharply when you consider the lack of buffs (weapon training and class feats, smite, rage, inspire courage, etc). The balance portion comes when you factor how reliable that dmg is; from modifiers like situational, # of times/ day, and % chance to hit.

Then that same chart at only -4/-4 iterations. It should slightly buff the second attack and certainly buffs the 3rd for a rogue, but is it enough to reliably compare with other classes that (may do less dmg, but) do it more reliably?

@Hrothgar: there are feats that let you get two attacks at -2/-2 on a standard attack, -4/-4 is mechanically weaker, but doesn't cost a feat. Hence the (proposed) balance.

The other significant hurdle is that so much stuff gets covered under magic. A wizard can potentially do nearly anything that can be imagined, because if someone imagines it, they write it into a spell. Even long held divisions within magic often get blurred as time goes on and designers/writers want to create new effects.

For example, if you take out just a couple of spells (like Knock), suddenly there's an increased reason why you need someone with Disable Device in the party, giving a non-magical character a niche to fill.

This is fine for Society Play where you limit access to things To promote diverse group mechanics, teamwork, and spotlight sharing; but in a homebrew sandbox type setting a GM/ designer should shift focus to giving the PCs more options to act in more varied ways. This helps fulfill the second major premise of facilitating the desired hero experience for a PC.

There are great systems that do great things but seem to lack in one or more of these areas. The intent of the subsystems listed below is to detail and mechanize a way to implement them into a system that is lacking.

Systems, such as: BUrning Wheel, Dungeon World, and Fate Excellerated do many of these things above and below well, but the concepts are to tied in with specific game mechanics to be universally interchangeable.

There are some terms that are linked to a completely separate faction building sub system, but I hope the idea translates. Seeing how faction Standing and rewards factor in, it should incorporate with exploration and character/ world development rewards.

Give me a bit to mull it over and I'll try to be more constructive and objective. Thanks for sharing in any case, you never know where this may lead or what it may unintentionally inspire.

Sorry, that didn't come through any clearer for me.

You want a dragon form that grows more powerful with levels?

Ok, makes sense. Seems complex and unnecessary, but that is admittedly my finite perspective. Play it out and see if others enjoy it, it looks... idk, intriguing(?).

What you detailed is pretty much what the 3.5 UA described... replace the flat + 10 with a d20 roll + armor bonuses vs a D.C. Of monster attack +11. I've been using this for years, and highly enjoy it. A lot less paperwork and rolls on the DM part. It gets even more interesting when you add DR from armor and shields.

Or did I misunderstand?

Melkiador, how do you think the system does that? I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but what you just said gives me high hopes.

I hate to say it, but if you are focusing on exploration as a central element, why would you allow such an obvious crutch? Tracking and augry do this just as well.

Don't get me wrong, this is a solid item entry... just don't think it supports your ideal.

That said, I would give it a faint divination aura and set range limits...

What if there are multiple CR groups? I.e. Kobolds attending a dragon, displaced beasts hunting a dire creature... etc

Also on a related off topic note: how is your campaign going to focus on exploration? What incentives and reward structure do you plan to implement in support of that?

Because this is homebrew, I would say you are within your perview to conveniently overlook that one line that could potentially solve your issue.

I also limit my barbarians to d10 HD because they have class features that increase their Con, and have built in DR as a class feature. With that in mind, Barbies with adamantine breastplates and shields are still absolutely capable of fulfilling their role because of the DR stacking. The situational ref bonus helps everyone as well. I will say this though, I would limit magical bonuses on shields to effects, not +X to AC.

Play with it, find a balance, and rock it.

Yes, and then you factor in the fact that bear cubs are born roughly the size of walnuts... life just isn't fair sometimes. I used to work in Labor and Delivery, so I know there are possibilities... just don't know if corner cases need a stat block. You could easily play a tall halfling or short human as written and just flavor the backstory as desired.

Yay! My hero! Keep up the good work, but keep it at a manageable pace. It may seem a thankless job, but I'll throw my thanks into that hat.

I think it's an incompatibility issue. The organic mechanics may be a (forgive the term) bit of a stretch. Dragons, demons, orcs, humans, and elves share (sometimes through magical means) the same size category. It's not even a matter of the act itself, but more the gestation and delivery of a being that is substantially larger than the gestating host. Dwarves would possibly be the notable exception.

I've always preferred shields as offering a stackable source of DR or situational bonus to a save. The concept of a shield is more in line with soaking dmg than "dodging" it.

It's a good point Ventor, but simple additions can fix this... I don't necessarily see Fighters as leaders of men, but masters of tactics and strategies. In my homebrew, I use Concept Skill checks. This allows fighter to act more often in more varied ways throughout more varied scenarios. One example is allowing fighters to use their level check to socialize with other fighters or intimidate/ inspire civilians to follow them. Another would be land navigation (which the ranger could also do, but the Ranger would be able to forage and take advantage of other "ranger-ey" class features while doing it). But at the end of the day, the Fighter (or PC that has chosen to ply one) favors tactical combat over Social interaction.

@Lazaryus: what are you hoping to accomplish exactly? Is that best defined as a race or racial bloodline that can be simply added to any character? Is it best defined as an archetype that, with more hacking an modding, can be used as an AT for any class? Or is it best defined as a PrC that can be accessed by a wide variety of race/ class combinations?

After you answer that, it's a matter of defining the flavor and parameters of the mechanics you envision. And after that it's all about balance and insertion. There are a plethora of possible approaches and enough interest from the community to help make it happen, but it all starts with your answers to the questions above.

On Concept Skills: the intent is to give more (varied) characters more options to act in more scenarios in more varied ways.

The mechanics: instead of selecting class skills each level, all classes are proficient with all class skills and may attempt checks that are thematically aligned with their chosen class. This is represented by a level (+ determined number between 1-3) check + relevant ability mod.

The potential issues:
1) multiclassing
2) skill requirements for feats or PrCs
3) feats and other mechanics that give bonuses to specific skill ranks

The potential solutions:
1) half level checks
2) level vs skill rank requirements
3) a boon/ bane mechanic

I'm going to add the option to make two attacks as a standard action @ -4/ -4 with the caveat that precision or special damage (smite/ power attack/ etc) can only be applied to 1 of the 2 attacks. I'll even go further to say that the player can determine which attack receives the special dmg after the roll.

The intent is to give players a chance to do more with their turn and allow for more reliable way to land their special dmg (d20 chance > than -4/ -4 penalty).

Special thanks to Hrothgar for bringing this to my awareness.

I have a homebrew rule that allows casters to tap their hp after they have expended their spell slots. The damage is non lethal = to the spell level + metamagic adjustment. I think that using this in conjunction with your mania will produce interesting results and RP. I'll let you know after I play with it a bit. Good job though, lots of flavor.

oh no the rogues might actually be useful on combat what ever shall we do

I'm all about rogue love, and I'm sure it may work out, but at lvl 20 two attacks that do weapon dmg + mods AND 10d6 SA each at only a -4/-4, may be too much. I know in 5e SA only applies 1/round and that may need to be applied to this attack option... but I would reserve final judgement upon mathematical hit hit /dmg %s.

Thematically taking -4/-4 lends itself to a more reckless less presicion approach, but at higher levels, -4/-4 seems more tactically viable than 0/-5/-10.

Basically it would be stronger than almost every other classes standard attack at -4/-4, but is much more balanced against classes that have full BaB and built in "to hit" mechanics that help them land them more reliably.

But by that same token, the concept fits perfectly with the rogue style of hit and fade or maneuver then strike.

So if anyone is up for it, it would be nice to see the rogues standard double attack vs other classes standard double attack as well as the rogues standard double attack vs full iterations.

@ Hrothgar: I think it is an excellent option as a standard attack. I would personally have a problem with granting precision dmg in conjunction with it, but I wouldn't argue either.

^this

^Not sure how that is supposed to work, but now that you mention a divine class, if you are a Kobold, you can take the Scaled Disciple feat and get spontaneous divine spellcasting to be counted as arcane for the purpose of qualifying for and being extended by Dragon Disciple. I don't know of any spontaneous casting Paladin archetypes off the top of my head, though -- this is intended more for an Oracle (could also work for an Inquisitor, but not as good).

With a nod to john's reply and Potato's suggestion, framing an AT based off of the summonses eidolon is a great way to approach this. If you can work out a decent frame, the AT can be modified to each class by swapping out abilities of a similar power.

I'd like to do an in-post bump for "^^" to get some feedback towards it.

The fighter is the guy who fights. His skills help him get into fights, his abilities carry him through the fight. He has the ability to master a wide variety of styles that help him in a wide variety of fights... but fighting is his thing. It's even in his class name.

I'm not saying he can't expand his repitoir, I'm not even saying he shouldn't... but if he signs up to be a fighter, then fighting is what he should expect. Sure, he relies on equipment, but at least the appropriate gear is available to him to use without CL checks or restrictions.

If he wants more out of life than fighting, then there are options that can add to his tool box.

Not that it doesn't favor others at all, because it does. But Rogues and Monks don't have built in to hit buffs (unless I'm that out of touch with the new material) or spells to supplement combat viability (like full and half casters with 3/4 BaB).

?: how would you read the monk's flurry table with this?

I want to apologize in advance... I got through the first few comments and skipped to the end.

Fighters in a high magic setting do have access to magic. They adeptly and reliably make use of magic items. They may not innately cast magic like a sorcerer (saw someone upset at geni-kin mundane characters), but that is what sets them apart and makes them Fighters. There is literally nothing keeping you from choosing a full or half- magic class at character creation. Nor is there anything keeping you from choosing ATs, multi-class levels, or feats and races with SLAsto refine your heroic concept.

A base lvl 1-20 fighter is simply not that hero.

Ready to have your mind blow'd? Here is an idea for an alternative skill system: Concept skill packages. Basically, you take a class's skill list and make it a level +1-2 check with appropriate ability mods. This lets a PC make a check that should be relevant to a situation even if the skill (like knowledge: tactics) isn't easy to express. If there is a skill group offered through multiclassing then offer them based on the multiclass level.

Sure prestige classes that require skills to qualify will need tweaking, but that is a silly pre req anyway. On the flip side, you have more classes being able to act in more scenes in more varied ways.

About knowledge: tactics specifically though, it's cool and flavorful, but it seems like a niche skill that has diminishing returns. This may help.
- tactics + int to plan an assault or ambush
- tactics + wis to determine tactics used against you
- tactics + chat to bluff or convince someone to go along with a plan
- tactics + str/dex to feint instead of bluff (?)

Byrdology wrote:

necromental wrote:

Aksess wrote:

We have a sorcerer who can distribute the Shield spell ...

How does the sorcerer distribute a personal spell?

By having PCs as familiars... it's an intensive feat chain, but worth it.

That is an interesting chain I'd like to see.

It's an unfortunate joke...

John Lynch 106 wrote:

@Ninja: I'd be interested to see how that assertion stacks up in Pathfinder. Remember you didn't get weapon training in 3.5

That's a very good point, John. Fighters are stronger in Pathfinder than in 3.5 (as are many of the other classes).

Every other class than the rogue anyway... well the PF rogue is stronger than the 3.X, but not near close to the power curve of the others. This particular thread favors rogues and monks more than others.

Not a fan of using Str to get an AC boost.

Fighters currently have a choice between Str for damage or Dex for AC...this would make Str a no-brainer, giving them benefits for both for high Str.

What about Str mod as DR? It's thematic and balances out the loss of 2WF or 2HF

Shields provide their bonus to AC and ref saves.

Shields providing their enchantment bonus to AC and base bonus + material to DR fixes the ref save issue. Especially when combined with the armor AC tweak. Also provides a mechanical reason why someone would wear armor they are not proficient with.

As a bit of flavor to spice up to hit/ AC/ DCs, here is an advantage/disadvantage mechanic:

As the situation dictates, substitute any flat bonuses or penalties with a d6 roll that is added or subtracted to the character's roll. This can turn a miss into a hit, a hit into a crit (threaten) or vice versa. D6s could potentially be stacked (with caution) if there are multiple sources affecting an outcome

This is an optional rule to replace flanking, cover, and skill bonuses/penalties. Can be used in conjunction with the rolled AC mechanical change listed above.

This is intended to add spice, but with a little modification it can help to eliminate opposed rolls altogether (tedious GM book keeping). Find a moderate DC and modify based on size and special abilities... it's the same effect, but facilitates player agency.

Aksess wrote:

We have a sorcerer who can distribute the Shield spell ...

How does the sorcerer distribute a personal spell?

By having PCs as familiars... it's an intensive feat chain, but worth it.

Here's my alternative rules that stop iteratives from being quite so bad:

Extra Attack: At BAB +6 a character may make a full attack and gain 2 attacks with their main weapon at a -2 to attack for both attacks. At BAB +11 a character may make 3 attacks as a full attack with their weapon weapon at a -3 to all attack rolls. At BAB +16 this increases to -5 for 4 attacks.

This is "balanced" against the usual BAB rules (for your stock standard fighter either two-handed or two-weapon). Dunno how it works out for rogues or clerics though.

This isn't bad... I know that some classes have an issue with "to hit" and no built in mechanic to offset it. Idk if this really helps, but it certainly buffs the iterations for these guys.

TWF penalties would stack as written... it could work, maybe -4 @ BAB 16? Because the penalty is shared by each attack, I don't think it would be much of a problem... 3/4 classes would hit more often even if not as reliably with their first attempt.

I would allow -4/-4 to all characters for attacks that can't benefit from the full attack action (essentially it would look like aimless flailing). After that, the BaB rules as written are adequate and carefully balanced against the whole system.

In fact I may have snagged this for my homebrew bible if it weren't so obvious at this point.

How about just replacing combat style with weapon training and fighter specific feats?

As a bit of flavor to spice up to hit/ AC/ DCs, here is an advantage/disadvantage mechanic:

As the situation dictates, substitute any flat bonuses or penalties with a d6 roll that is added or subtracted to the character's roll. This can turn a miss into a hit, a hit into a crit (threaten) or vice versa. D6s could potentially be stacked (with caution) if there are multiple sources affecting an outcome

This is an optional rule to replace flanking, cover, and skill bonuses/penalties. Can be used in conjunction with the rolled AC mechanical change listed above.

I don't think the system can support this mechanic.

here

This may be of service to you. See mechanical changes. If it's not enough, let me know because I have something else for you.

No, combat is fine. It's the other pilars that don't get the same system support that combat does.

Trailblazing is more about putting items on a map and overall securing a location. What you detailed would be more of a discovery aspect.

What would be a good xp ratio? Maybe a CR average?

I tend to agree with Bwang. You don't need to frontload every benefit... that's where class levels and magic items/ feats come in. Having the NPCs gestalted with bloodline levels or mythic paths is fine, but if you ever want a PC of that race, these adjustments need to be additive in their nature to maintain balance.

You have flavor, you have multiple suggestions on how to achieve the power level, what more (specifically) are you looking for?

Combat is a non issue for this segment, so with that in mind: If this is a game about character development, social interaction, and exploration; then how is it about that? What incentives and reward structures support that? Thus is the thesis.

This system does not adequately support MH play style. The way I figure, best thing you can do is customize a hit zone, facing, and agro sub system that can apply to the monsters as written. There will still be the challenge of adding tension to a combat system that is best described as a "race to 0 Hp".

Allowing for PCs and Mobs to flee and be tracked while using terrain and natural resources to manipulate the battle appropriately are absolutely essential.

Y'all are responding to a thread from 2011 just fyi :)

Did not notice that, I was just scrolling through and responding to things that piqued my interest.

Ranger/Monk (sohei?) so you can flurry of scimitars. I've seen some crazy builds in the past all the way back to 3.0, but I think that a few levels of ranger followed by a heavy dose of monk is probably the less feat and multiclass intensive approach.

Base stats aren't as important as the training and items gained through character development (i.e. Leveling). Since Blade is specific and unique, there is nothing wrong with a little DM fiat and taking liberties with the source material.

Class wise, I would say some sort of fighter rogue/ranger (urban).