Arlindil

Igor Horvat's page

Organized Play Member. 313 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Where is my B'Stardsword?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my expirience 4E runs better without +1/2/lvl than with it.

So for me PF2 will also run better without it.

I would just like for bestiary to have parentheses for bonuses without the threadmill.

I.E. some random 6th level orc

attack: +13(+7)
damage: 1d12+5
fort: +10(+4)
ref: +8(+2)
will: +5(-1)
perception: +6(+0)
init: +9(+3)
Spell DC: 17(11)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

5E did pretty good job in balancing "stiff" Vancian casting and "free flow" mana point usage.

While I would prefer full mana point system with fixed number of prepared/known spells(depending on class), it has only problem of forcing 5min work day even more as you can burn ALL mana on highest level spells, so instead of having 30 or so spells across 10 levels(PF2 current) you would just have 3-5 10th level spells to cast.

That is why I like 5E casting, it gives lots of freedom of multiple variations of spells in the same level and across different spell levels by means of auto-hightening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is all problem of d20, it's very existance.

Having a tool(d20) that gives same chance for best/worst(20/1) performance and an average one(10) is a bad tool. As that is not how things work.

If we have 3d6 instead of d20 +1/level or lack of it, and proficiency going from +0 to +3 would have some meaning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pillars of Eternity has Mechanics.

It is used for picking locks, making and disablind traps and also findig traps

So it could be;

Mechanics:
Finding, making, repairing and opening locks.
Finding, making, repairing and disabling traps.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having things grow faster or slower based on proficiency is a non-starter for me, since that's going to break combat (a fighter's accuraccy advantage over barbarians becomes massive instead of like +1-2). I like how the proficiency bonus being calculated is the same for skills as it is for attacks, saves, ACs, etc.- this is practically my favorite thing about PF2.

I would much rather enforce proficiency gates so that the only checks one can attempt untrained are things that basically anyone will have some idea how to do (like dog paddle if dropped in water, even if you spent your entire life in a desert being thirsty, or "be careful where you step to avoid making noise".)

Gating proves how dumb +1/level is.

it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thflame wrote:
A rogue, who survived on being a pickpocket all his life, and received formal training from the local Thieves Guild, is worse at picking pockets than a level 10 cleric who hasn't stolen anything since before he became a cleric.

So the way we fix this is by gating things with proficiency and skill feats, as is the case here. Picking pockets literally requires the "Pickpocket" skill feat, because Palm and Steal Object requires the item to be "loosely guarded".

So the level 10 cleric who can pick pockets at all either chose to take the Pickpocket feat with one of their skill feats(a deliberate investment, requiring them to also be trained in thievery), or who took the "Urchin" background in which case they aren't that different from the level 1 rogue in question, just further along in life.

Or remove passive or "welfare" bonus to EVERYTHING so bonuses has to be earned.

Payed with general feats, or racial feats, or skill feats, or class feats, or just by having one class be better at attack by levels with cost to defese or spell DC, or better at will at cost of perception.

Numbers should rise with levels, but at a slower rate and at a different rate depending on class and on resources spent while leveling.

Also AC should rise slower than attack as damage progresses more slowly than HPs


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:
Helmic wrote:
Meanwhile, Rogues have trouble picking locks in hide armor because of... reasons? Does hide armor not feature fingerless gloves or something? Can it not be assumed that it's trivial for a rogue to take off their gloves for a second to do something that requires fine motor skills?

No, armor comes in a set, you can't remove pieces willy nilly. The rogue has to take those penalties.

What next? Fighters removing their plate mail boots to improve their sneak skill?

What?

So in winter, istead of removing one of your gloves to open your house or car, you strip butt naked so you can pull out keys from your pocket and unlock a lock?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

One problem is that skill feats are terrible and 99% of them should be in core mechanics of the skills.

Also difference in +0 to +3 would mean a lot in 3d6 system but in d20 it is terrible to describe difference in training.

Also as mentioned ACP is too high,


Shinigami02 wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

This isn't about doing math on the fly.

You create a character and write down gear and relevant weapons attack and damage modifiers.

Same as normal. Once per weapon/level.

When you get new weapon your write it down again.

If writing on character sheet once per level or new weapon will last 3 seconds more and lead to a better game, who cares.

Goal should be better game not simpler.

You'd also have to re-math it out any time your relevant stats changed. Which thankfully isn't likely to be as common as PF1e (where stuff like Core Rage, various stat-boosting spells, Enlarge/Reduce Person, Stat Drain, etc etc existed and multiple could be thrown around in almost any given fight) but there's still the issue of someone just picked up their first Potent item... or had their Potent item stolen... and now has to re-do all their weapon stats. And maybe this happens 2/3 of the way into the session... and maybe the player's had a bit to drink since that happens at some games... on top of all the stuff Charon mentioned... yeah no, as much as I'm a mathophile myself I can see the appeal of simpler math.

yes, I also see appeal of simple math, but not at the expense or quality of the game and balance of the game.

I would rather spend 10mins more on character sheet than play another version of 4E.

That was the aim if 4E, more streamlined, simplified(read; dumbed down) version of DnD.

That is why we have PF in the 1st place as people were not so impressed by 4E.

Also you have now single stat to damage, and you will also need to recalculate if you get some temporary stat change.

If that happens more so what. If it makes maybe a better game.


Charon Onozuka wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Complex?

Are you joking?

I've mastered that formula in 2nd grade of elementary school. When I was 8yo.

Some people here really underestimate IQ of us geeks here :D

This is less about IQ and more about ease of use.

Especially considering "I can to that math easily" is not the same as "Everyone can do that math easily late at night near the end of a long session after a busy day at work." The less complicated the most basic math at the heart of the game is, the easier it is to play and run, especially when everyone isn't exactly at their best.

Not to mention that dice+mod works consistently when compared with the rest of the system, as opposed to one subsystem using multiple modifiers along with double and triple modifiers.

This isn't about doing math on the fly.

You create a character and write down gear and relevant weapons attack and damage modifiers.

Same as normal. Once per weapon/level.

When you get new weapon your write it down again.

If writing on character sheet once per level or new weapon will last 3 seconds more and lead to a better game, who cares.

Goal should be better game not simpler.


Themetricsystem wrote:

I'm sorry guys, there is no way.

There are just WAY too many variables that you're trying to throw into the most basic thing people want to figure out, which is how much damage does this do.

They need to keep that formula simple, and tossing a half dozen or more 2+(X*Abi Mod) , 2x Str 1x Dex is just overly complex.

This isn't harnmaster guys.

Complex?

Are you joking?

I've mastered that formula in 2nd grade of elementary school. When I was 8yo.

Some people here really underestimate IQ of us geeks here :D


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

@Helmic;

true,

Heavy armor needs less or no speed penalty, and reduced ACP,

But I would add more effect to damage from abilities.

1Handed weapons: +2×str mod for damage

1H finesse weapons: str+dex mod for damage

2Handed weapons: +3×str mod for damage

2H finesse weapons: str+2×dex for damage

Thrown weapons: str+dex for damage

Bows: str+dex+wis

IMHO, yes this add's flavor and keeps some realism in the game vs just looking at numbers and saying I need to do this because this has this value and that in my opinion throws off the game.

Also is 2H F weapon supposed to be : str+2 (x) dex or str+2+dex?

Also the other option to keep numbers lower is to have totals divided by some value. And IMHO is also good for young players to practice simple math or to provide an app for those who think they are math challenged.

MDC

It is str + 2×dex.

But, I'm still at a loss should it be 2×str + 1×dex or 1×str + 2×dex


I'm all for +weapon die(dice) per plus.

I'm also for +dex to damage with finesse weapons.

Also, I would drop simpe/martial/exotic weapons.

Martial training can be better described with spread of +0 to +3 proficiency bonus and access to it.
Fighter would get to the +3(legendary) in some reasonable levels, while wizard would get max of +1, probably very late 15+ levels.

Also weapons need bigger dice, especially 2Handers, non finesse with little or no extra properties.

I.E. great-ax, 2handed, slashing damage, no extra stuff or some minor.
3d6 damage.

Oh, and get rid of d4 dice. With removed weapon categories, and bigger 2hander dice, dagger can be 1d6 without any problems.

Finesse weapons should suffer 2 dice categorie penalties.

I.E. 1hander without any special extra powerful traits would do 1d12 damage, finesse cannot be better than 1d8 with some minor traits added.

2hander max would be 3d6, so finesse 2hander could max be only 2d6, as penalty would go 3d6->2d8->2d6


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Helmic;

true,

Heavy armor needs less or no speed penalty, and reduced ACP,

But I would add more effect to damage from abilities.

1Handed weapons: +2×str mod for damage

1H finesse weapons: str+dex mod for damage

2Handed weapons: +3×str mod for damage

2H finesse weapons: str+2×dex for damage

Thrown weapons: str+dex for damage

Bows: str+dex+wis


Bluenose wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
ryric wrote:
Basically, attacks should scale faster than AC, skills should scale faster than skill DCs(but only for skills you want), and saves should scale faster than save DCs. What number constitutes an successful roll on the d20 should get lower as levels increase.

Skill DCs should NOT SCALE AT ALL.

A legendary lock has the same DC no matter who picks it.

But, I do agree that AC should scale much slower, if at all.

HPs are your virtual scaling AC

The last does of course lead to the situation where being hard to hit with a weapon means you can fall long distances and expect to survive. And to the desire for constant increases in the power of damage spells due to the constantly increasing hit points of targets. And to the requirement to add more and more damage to every attack.

Oh, I have ruled falling damage decades ago.

You take 10% of your MAX HPs per 10ft. 100ft=100% HP. you die.

You can always try acrobatics check to reduce distance by 10ft or more


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Basically, attacks should scale faster than AC, skills should scale faster than skill DCs(but only for skills you want), and saves should scale faster than save DCs. What number constitutes an successful roll on the d20 should get lower as levels increase.

Skill DCs should NOT SCALE AT ALL.

A legendary lock has the same DC no matter who picks it.

But, I do agree that AC should scale much slower, if at all.

HPs are your virtual scaling AC


MER-c wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

making all weapons have minimum strength and having either str or dex for attack and damage would be far better. and no weapon categories(simple, martial, exotic)

I.E.

Dagger, 1d4, no min str,
shortsword, 1d6, min str 8
sabre, 1d8, min str 12,
longsword, 1d10, min str 16
battle-ax, 1d12, min str 20,

2handers.

spear, no min str, 1d8
bastard sword, min str 8, 1d10
great sword, min str 12, 1d12,
great axe, min str 14, 2d6
maul, min str 18, 2d8
mercurial greatsword, min str 22, 3d6

bows
str 6, 1d4
str 8, 1d6
str 12, 1d8
str 16, 1d10
str 20, 1d12
str 22, 2d6

now if you have 22 str and manage to have even more dex than that, then be my guest and finesse the hell out of that huge ### sword.

Under the assumption of current Potency I don't think we want multi dice damage for weapons, otherwise things get strange, I don't think we want to have to change multiple subsystems just to allow for dex to damage. That seems a bit excessive.

does not have to be strange.

with potency:
1d4->2d4->3d4->4d4...

or

3d6->6d6->9d6->12d6...

now some martials can throw fireball-like handful of dice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

making all weapons have minimum strength and having either str or dex for attack and damage would be far better. and no weapon categories(simple, martial, exotic)

I.E.

Dagger, 1d4, no min str,
shortsword, 1d6, min str 8
sabre, 1d8, min str 12,
longsword, 1d10, min str 16
battle-ax, 1d12, min str 20,

2handers.

spear, no min str, 1d8
bastard sword, min str 8, 1d10
great sword, min str 12, 1d12,
great axe, min str 14, 2d6
maul, min str 18, 2d8
mercurial greatsword, min str 22, 3d6

bows
str 6, 1d4
str 8, 1d6
str 12, 1d8
str 16, 1d10
str 20, 1d12
str 22, 2d6

now if you have 22 str and manage to have even more dex than that, then be my guest and finesse the hell out of that huge ### sword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:


Nat 20s on a d20 offer all the "chance to succeed" I want for people who aren't trained in a skill. If you don't invest in a skill, you should be bad at it.

As it stands now, unless the particular check you are attempting is gated behind a proficiency tier, everyone and their dog just attempts the check. If your specialist rolls sub par, but the complete novice rolls decent, he beats your character.

43% of the time, a Trained individual will beat an Expert, an Expert will beat a Master, and a Master will beat a Legendary, assuming their relevant attribute scores are the same.

24% of the time, an Untrained character will beat a Legendary character, assuming their attribute scores are the same.

That is mainly the problem of d20.

Run the math in 3d6 and you will have better consistency, even with only +1 difference.

d20 is Legacy and I understand that, but ironically, d20 is biggest "ball and chain" on d20 system.

We invent advantage/disadvantage, assurance feats, minimum d20 effective rolls, anything to tame the d20, but in the end all those are makeshift band-aids trying to fix what is unfixable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:


I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge.

If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.

Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle?

My only issue is that it trivializes CRs below your level really fast 2 or 3 levels max, and makes higher level CRs completely out of reach not matter how much preparation, tactics, or numbers you put in the fight.

A 20 str Orc with a huge ax, even if he is CR1 encounter should be a threat somewhat to higher level character, especially if he brings few friends along you you don't have any AoE or you are ambushed by them.

That's where I disagree completely. High level characters shouldn't have any problem dealing with low level orcs. Like at all. The fighter should laugh at them as he easily deflects all their blows and then slice through them like butter.

10th level fighter already has 10×HPs or similar over 1st level orc and 2 or 3 times more damage, and without +1/lvl +2 or +3 in attack and AC. Do you really need 10 more attack or AC over them?

If you could beat 1 at 1st level, now you can 15 or 20, without any +level bonuses, if you are careful not to be cornered/flanked/grappled.

beating 100 seems dumb.

But to each his own. Everyone of us has different view how fantasy should work.


Draco18s wrote:

How about this spread:

Human, Elf, Dwarf (core fantasy)
Halfling, Gnome, Goblin (the short races)
Tengu, Ratfolk, [Lizardmen] (the civilized beasts)

I would add Orcs to core fantasy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Richard Crawford wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:


I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge.

If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.

Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle?

My only issue is that it trivializes CRs below your level really fast 2 or 3 levels max, and makes higher level CRs completely out of reach not matter how much preparation, tactics, or numbers you put in the fight.

A 20 str Orc with a huge ax, even if he is CR1 encounter should be a threat somewhat to higher level character, especially if he brings few friends along you you don't have any AoE or you are ambushed by them.


IMHO there should only be bows.

Their damage/range tied to minimum str needed to use them.

str 8, 1d6, range 40, agile 12 str

str 10, 1d8, range 60, agile 14 str

str 12, 1d10, range 80, agile 16 str

str 14, 1d12, range 100, agile 18 str

special; if you have str 4 pts higher that bows rating, it gains agile trait.

No deadly, no volley, no propulsive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Problem is in the number bloat that serves nothing.

If every class gets +1 to everything then what is the point?

If all the difference is in -4/0/+1/+2/+3, then just work with that and item quality bonuses.

Because the characters are not fighting each other. THey fight enemies of many different levels.
and monsters are defined by the same +1 per level.
Yes but you aren't going to fight something of equal level over and over. At level 4 you might fight a large group of goblins of varying levels. The lowest ones should be easy cannon fodder, the specialists should be fairly easy, but still a slight challenge, the captains should be equal level challenges, and then the big boss should be higher level than you guys. Without + to level then how would these goblins be differentiated?

I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge.

If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.


Malk_Content wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Problem is in the number bloat that serves nothing.

If every class gets +1 to everything then what is the point?

If all the difference is in -4/0/+1/+2/+3, then just work with that and item quality bonuses.

Because then we get the 5th ed style where low level enemies are a prolonged threat. Now this is a fine style, but there is a popular game that does that already on the market.

On level enemies are a reasonable encounter on their own. The actual span of threats you will see spans something more like lvl-3 to lvl+2, where the difference in numbers matters.

Ofc, but good ideas are meant to be stolen :p

but if you remove or flatten the treadmill a little you can get -5/+5 in levels that can be used used in encounters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Problem is in the number bloat that serves nothing.

If every class gets +1 to everything then what is the point?

If all the difference is in -4/0/+1/+2/+3, then just work with that and item quality bonuses.

Because the characters are not fighting each other. THey fight enemies of many different levels.

and monsters are defined by the same +1 per level.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Problem is in the number bloat that serves nothing.

If every class gets +1 to everything then what is the point?

If all the difference is in -4/0/+1/+2/+3, then just work with that and item quality bonuses.


Megistone wrote:

If a feat allows Dex to damage, there must be another feat that makes you use Str for AC, Reflex saves and ranged hits.

How's that?

There is for AC. you need more strength for more bulk of heavy armor.

and thrown weapons are str?

Now, I agree that heavy armor has too much penalty attached to it.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Also,

Remove constitution and merge it's mechanics to strength.

Let's see how many are willing to dump str then.

Combine wisdom and charisma while you're at it.

I have a variant where int,wis&cha are reworked into Willpower and Cunning.

Willpower is for casting spells(all) and Will saves(duh!) and forceful part of the mind, like possible paladins auras, frightful presence, etc.

Cunning would cover most skills(excluding athletics, acrobatics, stealth, thievery), be used for bonus languages, bonus skills, etc... The finesse part of the mind


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also,

Remove constitution and merge it's mechanics to strength.

Let's see how many are willing to dump str then.


Best thing would be that str or some combination of abilities are used for bonus damage.

I.E.

1handed weapons 2×str mod
2Handed weapons 3×str mod

Finesse melee or thrown str+dex mod
2handed melee finesse 2×str+1×dex mod

bows: dex+wis mod
Composite bows str+dex+wis mod


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am all for dex to damage, being able to aim better with high dex and ranged/finesse weapons does not mean just hitting the target wherever, it means also hitting more precise into more vulnerable areas.

Personally I would get rid of weapon categories and give each weapon minimum str to use.

And made all melee weapons dex or str for attack and damage.

With minimum str score required str could not be a dump stat unless you want to be sentenced to eternity for 1d4 dagger damage.


Now if only they go for 3d6 instead of d20 standard and 5 above and below AC/DC( :p ) for crit success/failure and it would be only better.


one solution is to give extra skill trainings in "non-essential" skills.

Similar vas option in 3.5e/PF1

You would get 2 skill points per level for various craft, proffesion, perform categories, appraise, handle animal, pick pocket etc...


Combat Monster wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Also for removal of ability scores.

They serve nothing in the game except "legacy".

And if you only care about legacy, there is PF1 and 5 editions of D&D to have ability scores.

Couldn't we turn that logic around and say if you don't like legacy, there are other games for you?

We don't need "all new, all different" for it's own sake. Having ability scores isn't broken. Considering it will alienate some players out of
buying into 2nd Edition, what bonus is there to remove them?

IF in the end PF2 will be a good game I will play it, no matter if they keep ability scores in just for nostalgia.

I will ignore it for other good stuff in the game.

Biggest concern for me is still religion like dogma for d20 as it is the biggest mistake of any d20 RPG system(oh the irony).

Point is, when you cling too much for legacy it can prevent you from making a new great game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also for removal of ability scores.

They serve nothing in the game except "legacy".

And if you only care about legacy, there is PF1 and 5 editions of D&D to have ability scores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Life of an adventurer is cheap and seldom long.

Have 2 or 3 back-up character sheets.

DM should be the one that imports new character as soon as possible.

Later on, if reversal of condition is possible, player can return(if he wishes) to old character.


I would rather put str categories on bows.

shortbow 8 str, 1d6 damage

longbow 10 str, 1d8 damage

greatbow 12 str, 1d10 damage

dragonbone bow, 14 str, 1d12 damage

No, str bonus to damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
So basically it's there to punish newbie players and/or veterans who don't metagame and make the game less fun for them?

Yes, if you are unpreparad and without any info of what you are fighting, you should be killed/permanently disabled.

And it is not "permanent" as there is a cure for any condition.

Even death.

Also lvl12 characters, if there is 4 to 6 of them in a group should between themselves have atleast one copy of any antidote available from lvl1 to atleast lvl7 spell levels.

In any game that I played at around that level I had 100 or so potions/scrolls on me.


Low light vision: triples the range of light sources.
No range limit but line of sight, see normally(colors, etc...)
-5 penalty for attack, perception in darkness, can move with half speed in darkness normally.

Darkvision: 30ft, can see black and white only. Can move normally in darkness with full speed, -2 penalty to attack and -5 to perception as colorblind gives less detail.

This both gives incentive to use light sources as you can only have 100% within a lighted area.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mechagamera wrote:

I think Scythia brings up a good point: you can "improve" a stat by giving it a universal benefit or by making it more useful for more classes. Posts on the forums about how to add universal benefits to strength or intelligence have been pretty underwhelming in my opinion.

It seems like Paizo isn't doing any better than the forum goers in this regard, so maybe they should focus on providing specific benefits for classes that don't normally use int or str to use them. It seems like that would be a more manageable goal.

Strength:

Remove weapon and armor proficiency categories.

Every melee weapon can have str or dex as attack and damage stat.
Ranged is dex as normal

Add minimum str for every weapon. Without it you are unproficient with weapon(-4) and deal minimum damage.

Add minimum str for armor. Without it you are unproficient(-4 AC) and take extra 5ft speed penalty.
Add ACP to spell attacks and DCs.
For every 2 str above minimum reduce one ACP. max reduction 2 with 4 extra str.

Intelligence should add both skills and extra language on one-on-one basis(like 1e).

Add option for perception to be either int or wis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:

My house rules for a silver standard in 1e:

1 gp = 50 sp = 250 cp

Silver and copper are 200 to the pound, but gold is only 100 to the pound. (So it's worth 25 times as much as silver by weight)

And for converting prices, if the price is a large number listed in gold, divide by 25. If the price is a small number listed in gold, double the number and change the unit to silver. If the price is listed in silver, change it to copper. And if it was already listed in copper, just handwave it.

This all makes the currency reasonable historically accurate, as well as giving gold a decent amount of purchasing power that seeing someone pay for something with a single gold coin is suddenly a momentous occasion. (At low levels) Also, new silver pieces are close enough in size to dimes and the same weight that I literally have a bag of $5 in dimes as a prop.

Also, interesting gaming history lesson- the urban legend for why Gygax made a gold standard with 0.1-pound coins was to make Smaug-sized hoards remotely possible.

why complicate as 1:100:10000 in nice, metric and intuitive?

And easy to calculate back and forth between copper:silver:gold.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They should kill the sacred cow of 6 abilities and go with 4.

Str: current str+con, fort saves, melee&thrown attack and damage, HPs, carry capacity, str skills,

Dex: dex, reflex saves, AC, +init, range/finesse attack and damage, dex skills,

Will: will saves, magic attack, damage and DCs, channel energy etc...

Cunning: bonus skills and languages, +init, int,wis and cha skills,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good solution would similar to attunement form 5e but with charisma added.

I.E. you can attune to 1+cha mod items. Min 2.

And every item that is more powerful than simple +X to something would require attunement.

Also some feats could "key" from charisma, leadership like: providing bonuses to attack, temp HPs, bonus damage, vs. fear/mind control rolls, etc...


EberronHoward wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Yes, and now that everyone ignores melee and just waltz through is sooo much better.

AoO makes closing in with melee more rewarding as it punishes ranged attackers for bad positioning.

If ranged attackers have melee foes just waltzing up to them, then they're being punished for bad positioning. The difference is, as Dire Ursus said, ranged attackers can't ever get out of AoO purgatory by disengaging.

So add an action as I have suggested, 2 actions for one Step that does not provoke AoO. If that proves to easy or hard make it 3 actions for 1 Step or 3 actions for 2 Steps.

Also, we could add that if you do not have a melee weapon you suffer -2 AC penalty as you do not threaten your melee attacked or cant add "parry" to your AC and attacker can attack you without worry about his safety.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
citricking wrote:
I really like the bonuses like from race and class coming before the point buy, that gets rid of the problem of some races being unbalanced, while still keeping the bonuses and flaws.

If you make class and race bonuses non-stackable then you do not have problems with everyone getting their primary stat maxed, except when race has penalty in primary stat for a class. But they you should be able to boost secondary and tertiary stat for the class and still be ok.

The thing about making Class and Race/Ancestry not stack is it results in weird things where the Ancestries that logically should be good at a thing (Intelligent Ancestries and Wizards, Dexterous Ancestries and Rogues, etc.) actually wind up weaker than an Ancestry with stats completely unrelated to their class, because they wind up shorted those couple points from the bonuses that don't stack.

System is tailored that it does not happen.

I.E. fighter could boost str, dex or con. Wizard con, int, wis. Rogue dex, int, cha. ranger str, dex or wis... etc...


citricking wrote:
I really like the bonuses like from race and class coming before the point buy, that gets rid of the problem of some races being unbalanced, while still keeping the bonuses and flaws.

If you make class and race bonuses non-stackable then you do not have problems with everyone getting their primary stat maxed, except when race has penalty in primary stat for a class. But they you should be able to boost secondary and tertiary stat for the class and still be ok.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Please no AoO. We finally have gameplay where people aren't just five foot stepping every single turn. It's vastly superior to pf1 in that regard.

Yes, and now that everyone ignores melee and just waltz through is sooo much better.

AoO makes closing in with melee more rewarding as it punishes ranged attackers for bad positioning.


citricking wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:


I would not start at 8, PCs are unusal. heroes. I would leave 8 for racial flaw.

a character with 18,18,18,8,8,8 would probably see himself killed well before 5th level.

Yeah, I'd prefer to have 10 be the base too, and leave 8 for extreme cases like racial flaws.

But I feel that if you have your system of boost to 14 = 1, 16 = 2, 18 = 3 it's too expensive to make a character with an 18, meaning the expected difference between the highest and lowest stat is +3.

The system I proposed wouldn't allow things like 18,18,18,8,8,8

Citricking wrote:


Your Ancestry gives you two fixed boosts, two free boosts and one flaw, or three free boosts. No two boosts can be in the same ability score.
Your background give two fixed boosts, and two free boosts. No two boosts can be in the same ability score.
Your class gives a choice of one boost.

This gives a total bonus of +8, with a max of only one stat being 16, and ensures at least four stats have a bonus.

Then you can use five boosts, but it costs two boosts to increase a stat from 16 to 18, or three boosts to increase a stat from 18 to 20.

The normal max stat you'll have is 18, because boosting a stat to 20 takes all of you free boosts so it's too expensive for most builds.

That gives you a normal spread of 18 as the highest stat and 10 as the lowest, for a difference of +4.

Point is that it is too expensive.

As usually it is to specialize in one thing over generalization.

And I would have point buy about 3E power curve and race and class bonuses that do not stack(13th age take on it).

And no background bonuses.

They you will have probably only one 18 and one 16(matching race and class bonuses).

1 to 50 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>