Ilina Aniri's page

even with Deadly Agility from Path of War Allowed in a Home Game, for a 2 Feat Cost to get Dex to Damage with all finesse weapons instead of a 3 feat cost to get Dex to damage with 1 sword. that was still 2 Feats the Dex Build was behind the Str Build, and Dex Builds Still Couldn't Dump Str because Power Attack was drastically superior to Piranha Strike and Strength was still needed to effectively use Bows. so Arguably, you would have a Dex build who needs like 14 strength rather than a Dex build who can get away with 5 Strength (which is nonexesistent)

Deadly Agility from Path of War was a feat i felt Paizo should have had in the core rulebook from the start, its sole requirement being weapon finesse and its benefit being dex to damage with all finesse weapons, while fully benefiting from double slice when dual wielding. or adding 1.5x dexterity bonus with elven curveblade.

i would put strength requirements on the heavier or better weapons to balance Dexterity to damage. technically, 5e made a splatbook armor called spidersilk clothes gave a Dexterity based character the same end game AC as a plate Wearer without requiring armor proficiency, plus spidersilk clothes could be enchanted further. both Spidersilk and Plate give you an 18 AC from just armor and dexterity except Spidersilk requires a 20 dexterity to get that high, doesn't require proficiency and has no strenth requirements.

but strength saving throws, athletics skill, carrying capacity, thrown weapons, strength based variant composite bows, the use of alternate attributes for skill checks depending on the circumstance, and the fact that failing a strength saving throw is usually quite debilitating when it does occur are huge factors 5e does to balance strength. even if the rapier deals the same damage as a longsword with a damage type that becomes better if you use the critical hit chart due to an increase in the percentage of delivering instant death attacks from piercing damage in place of bludgeoning or slashing. which is less about dexterity being broken and piercing becoming a broken damage type when you use the optional critical hit charts.

In Savage Worlds this was not my experience at all. I have only seen people choose skills that fit their character idea, and none of them were a "skill tax", but more of something special their character could do. I don't think this game plays like d&d, nor is it meant to.

Notice is the most powerful skill in Savage Worlds and i have never seen a PC who didn't buy at least a d6 in some point in their career. other valuable skills include fighting and shooting, which let you make attacks without penalties.

the savage worlds tables i played at pretty much buy notice, fighting and shooting on every character so they could not only make a lot of attacks at a variety of ranges but also avoid ambushes,

backgrounds weren't a thing in 4e core, but 4e campaign settings introduced backgrounds intended for organized play. the 2 most powerful Faerun backgrounds are Durpar, which gives +2 to perception, and Algorond which lets you train perception at +1 even if it isn't on your class skill list.

and 5e lets you swap background skills and there are races that get free skills. so i see most 5e characters swap a more useless background skill like performance just to get perception and spend a feat on prodigy to get expertise in perception. of course most characters i have seen have either been humans, half human or warforged envoys to get free perception.

If we accept that Perception is Best Skill (and if it's now Initiative, that's a plausible claim), then it becomes the default optimal choice any time you get to select a skill to improve (by item or feat or whatever). Presumably this was Paizo's reasoning for making it a non-skill.

Whether this actually applies is going to change throughout the playtest, as the way skills work hasn't entirely settled down yet.

Perception is a Broken Skill in any system that has it as a skill. look at Notice in Savage Worlds or Perception in D&D 4e and 5e. having to spend skill points on the ability to notice things was literally a skill tax and in 5e, entire choices were made in race and background to get free perception much like 4e.

Savage Worlds characters always spent at least 2 skill points on notice and skill points in Savage Worlds increased the die value from untrained to d4. d6. d8, d10 then d12 at the top with exploding dice, and it was always better to buy a d6 notice with 2 of your 15 starting skill points to ignore the -2 untrained penalty on not spending points on notice, because a d6 notice and your d6 wild die gave you 2 50% chances to notice most things and a decent chance of one of them exploding to spot an ambusher plus alertness was an edge that could be taken in Savage Worlds where +2 is extremely massive for even a legendary character because a thief with the edge only gets +2 to stealth and only inside an urban environment while alertness always applied.

even in other skill and advantage based systems, perception is not a skill in Chronicles of Darkness because it would just be another skill everybody would waste skill points maxing out and the Alertness Advantage Literally had a capped Rank for chargen in GURPS to prevent characters from cheaply piling on massive perception scores.

most RPGs usually either not make perception a skill at all or base perception on something else entirely because making perception a skill makes it mandatory for everyone. by virtue of it being the best skills and DCs modified to accomodate for the fact everyone in the group will max it out and roll it at every moment. expertise in Perception was Broken in 5e. especially for a cleric or druid with the prodigy feat.

because legendary perception would be a mandatory facet of the game, it would literally invalidate rogues, bards, and rangers in the stealth and perception departments and those are the 3 classes that actually should be legendary at perception and opening it to everyone else makes rogues obsolete.

ChibiNyan wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course, it is similar to PF1, because 3rd Ed embraced this restricting (or at least the threat of) of movement. Some of it might me interesting in a tactical Squad Leader sort off way, but the other, not so much.

I don't know that I find it "interesting" so much as I think restricting actions creates more interesting decisions tactically..

Right on, in what way, does it make it more interesting, tactically?

I would assume (Because I feel like this), that making it so you have to think about the current positioning before making your decisions adds a layer of depth to the combat tactics. You can't always just spam your "routine" or go to the immediately obvious thing without at least considering what's going on. New advantages and disadvantages can be created by, for example, actually restricting movement of enemies towards squishy mages in the back, or attack from right angle to get a flank and being able to deny those to enemies.

I find the opposite, the lack of the threat, at least psychologically, opens up for more dynamism, freedom of movement in combat.

The cheaply counting squares to avoid the dreaded and dastardly "AoO" got old about 18-years ago.

i think that giving AoO should be a feature of the fighter dedication multiclass feat which itself would be a benefit of taking a feat or 3 to become a fighter.

i'd make cantrips 1 action. but i'd stop right there, mostly because cantrips don't have the static bonuses a strong fighter will be packing on a magic weapon and also don't have as much of an attack bonus because fewer casters put as many points in dexterity as they do in their prime stat, because you can't put weapon properties on a spell, and because you can't become legendary with attack spells.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

a bard may be able to pin a balor,

Not possible, Balors are huge, but they can pin a Pit Fiend; at 9th level, easily, which is superbly lame.

Welcome to the 5th Ed Multiverse, where Bards and Rogues are the best wrestlers.

actually, human blooded barbarians with the prodigy feat and athletics as thier expertise choice are the best wrestlers before breaking out unearthed arcana, which gives expertise to anyone who takes a feat, a relevent +1 to the skill's key stat, and a utility ability appropriate the skill.

so a barbarian takes the Athlete Feat gains

+1 Strength
Expertise in Athletics
Doubled Carry Capacity that stacks with bear totem, allowing a 20 strength human barbarian to carry 1,200 pounds without being staggered.

You guys are not selling 5th to me at all.

the Advantage of 5th is How Hackable it is. it has fewer moving parts than Pathfinder, and s less minmaxy than Pathfinder 1e. just gives your characters the desired +1 weapons for thier build, both melee and ranged, and they should be fine. 5th has smaller bonuses making even a 16 important. lot alone a 12, yo can also train skills by spending a number of downtime weeks equal to 10 minus your intelligence moodier. or 5 to 15 weeks.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

plus, expertise can literally be gained with feats in 5e. there is literally an expertise feat for every skill you could learn.

So, what does that have to do with grappling being tied to Athletics (potential Expertise) and how easily abused it is?

And these Feats, they are not in the PHB or any other 5th Ed books, would these be UA stuff?

they are UA stuff. there is also Prodigy in Xanathar's Guide which can be taken by any human character and any partially human character. considering that monsters at the higher challenge ratings have a higher strength cap than players. who cares if the bard takes expertise in Athletics to mitigate thier Poor Strength? a dragon or giant doesn't need expertise to have comparable Athletics to a level appropriate high strength expertise bard, except nobody builds strength bards for one reason, lack of medium or heavy armor on a class whose best melee weapon is the rapier.

remove the rapier and increase the size of strength weapons by one die size, and strength weapons will be fine. sure, a bard may be able to pin a balor, but not a dragon or giant. varied foes are important. in fact, try forcing that bard to roll some strength saving throws. there are many that will take out a weak PC fr several rounds.

balors are spellcasting monsters. not mega melee threats.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Dexterity to damage is finesies in 5e because most builds that use it are using weapons with lower damage dice and with the lack of static damage bonuses in 5e, a weapon's base damage is highly important, and for finesse, your options for non monks are blackjacks, daggers, scimitars, shortswords and rapiers and only the rapier does more than a d4 or d6. a single level in monk or the tavern brawler feat lets you use unarmed attacks as a light finesse weapon that deals 1d4 for non monks or for dexterity based characters who lack the wisdom to become monks.

Dex to damage is one of the most egregious design errors in 5th Ed (it already covers AC, Initiative, Ranged Attacks, one of the most common Saving Throws, Stealth...leave something for little old Str...), and with Feats, it is even worse; you know something is wrong when the most powerful Fighter build is a hand crossbow wielding lightly armoured guy.

Str, Int, and Cha are all easily dumped in 5th Ed, depending on your class, not good.

There is no Blackjack (sap) in 5th, though it's easy to add: 1d4 bludgeoning, finesse, light.

Houseruling out Dex to damage is one of the best things to happen to my 5th Ed action, oh, and grappling being a proficient Str check, none of this broken Athletics (Expertise) garbage - my 9th-level bard can pin Pit Fiends to the ground with impunity, yay!

the real issue with dex to melee damage isn't that it is dexterity based but rather that there is one finesse weapon that is outright better than any other melee one hander, talking about the rapier. if the rapier was just a cosmetic reskin of the shortsword, strength weapons would have the advantage of that d8.

the real issue with finesse weapons, is all of them deal 1d4 or 1d6 but there is one outlier that deals 1d8, which invalidates strength builds. just remove that one irksome outlier, and strength weapons get the advantage of a bigger damage die. because the problem with finesse builds is that they all use the rapier, because the rapier is that one outlier.

if you really need to, you could increase the damage of non-finesse weapons by an additional damage die in addition to removing the rapier.

plus, expertise can literally be gained with feats in 5e. there is literally an expertise feat for every skill you could learn.

i can understand permanent items being attuned to resonance but consumables should be unlimited use and only limited by the group's supply. purely because the wand of CLW in PF1 and the Wand of IH were the only valid cures to the 1 minute adventuring day that didn't involving devoting a player character slot to a walking anthropomorphic first aid kit. what i hate about what i have seen about PF2e playtest is that they force you to bring a character that is minmaxed to be a walking sapient anthropomorphic first aid kit if you want to fight more than 1 encounter per like two weeks.

Edit: did i say 1 minute adventuring day? i meant to say 1 minute per 2 weeks.

Dexterity to damage is finesies in 5e because most builds that use it are using weapons with lower damage dice and with the lack of static damage bonuses in 5e, a weapon's base damage is highly important, and for finesse, your options for non monks are blackjacks, daggers, scimitars, shortswords and rapiers and only the rapier does more than a d4 or d6. a single level in monk or the tavern brawler feat lets you use unarmed attacks as a light finesse weapon that deals 1d4 for non monks or for dexterity based characters who lack the wisdom to become monks.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I don't think it is just new players. I have seen many a veteran player posting on optimizing threads that prioritize dex and perception too.

i said new game masters, not new players. meaning game masters who are either new to 5e or just skim the rulebook for the basics and don't bother with the complex stuff.

Ah ok. Hmm not sure. that's harder to confirm. I have noticed that new GM's want to over use perception checks anyways. The new DM's didn't seem to take dex as much of a god stat I don't think but they did have experience playing and watching another GM so maybe they weren't exactly new.

perception checks and dexterity rolls usually get over rolled for mundane things. perception isn't general vision, it is merely ability to notice minute details like ambushes.

I don't think it is just new players. I have seen many a veteran player posting on optimizing threads that prioritize dex and perception too.

i said new game masters, not new players. meaning game masters who are either new to 5e or just skim the rulebook for the basics and don't bother with the complex stuff.

graystone wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Greylurker wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Part of the reason I liked resonance was because it gave charisma something to do.

Charisma has something to do, just a lot of people think they can bypass it by talking directly at the GM and claim they are "Role-playing" instead of playing the insecure mumbler that their 6 Charisma says they should be.

That totally explains why its a universal dump stat for anyone who is not playing a charisma based class or the party face.

And people aren't doing that with int NOW?

Yeah, Str, Int, and Cha, all take a bit of a beating in 5th Ed (all easily dumped, depending).

this is because a lot of New Game Masters forget how important Athletics and investigation are as Skills, which led to the perception of dexterity being a god stat and perception being a god skill. because a lot of GM's ask you to roll Acrobatics for checks that should be Athletics (like Jumping) or ask for Perception rolls for things that Should be investigation or insight.

one thing that is detailed in the dungeon master's guide and is a highly important optional rule is you can make a case to justify any attribute for a skill in the right circumstance. for example, you can roll the rare intelligence based persuasion check to Coerce an AI through Logic or a Strength based Intimidation roll as a show of raw might.

there are a lot of things that by the game's design should use strength or intelligence, that the game masters end up accidentally calling for dexterity or wisdom.

this is especially common amongst newer game masters of D&D 5e as well as less secure ones who allow their players to push them into rolling the skill they want to use rather than the skill they are supposed to use.

this is the big reason dexterity appears to be a god stat and perception appears to be the uber skill. because not enough game masters call for athletics or investigation rolls when they are supposed to and some 5e third party module writers can't really make the distinction. this is also confusing for game masters who came from Pathfinder or even 4th Edition, where you could take a five foot step as a free action and shoot a dude you were once in melee with for free, or make an acrobatics roll with an Easy static DC to negate opportunity attacks.

i can't stand the "is it evil to eat orcish babies?" threads and the "how can i make the paladin fall?" threads because alignment restrictions do a piss poor job of balancing the mechanical power of a class, the benefits for serving a faction should be mostly flavor and hooks if they have a code of conduct and nothing that grants more than the occasional circumstantial social modifier.

i think if we balance the cleric and paladin around not needing an inherent behavioral restriction, we tack on the flavor features through faction or religion choice in exchange for a code of conduct. but we could allow clerics who venerate a set of ideals rather than a god. such as a cleric who draws thier divine powers from the ideals of the bushido code or a cleric who draws thier power from a specific great wyrm dragon or arch fey. so cleric can also be used to represent cults or non-deity based religions. like Shintoism, where you venerate a series of nature spirits rather than venerating one supreme god so that clerics can be used to represent bhuddists as well as shamans, shrine maidens and other key religious archetypes such as warlocks.

i mean, there should also be fighter archetypes for designing your own fighter, like a dervish who treats scimitars (and other one handed slashing swords) as finesse agile weapons and gains dexterity bonus to damage rolls with scimitars, preferring to go unarmored, and there should be an unarmored femme fatale/ladykiller archetype for rogues that focuses on social skills, prefers to go unarmored, and focuses on gathering information with a few provocative uses for the performance skill to help in combat.

maybe we can have an archetype for bards that is all about feigning innocence and appearing harmless via performance until they get off that lethal finisher, focused on acting, bluff, disguise, sleight of hand and adopting the persona of a noncombatant, whether a damsel, a waitress or a tagalong child.

i think the alignment system should be dropped. religions and factions can still have clear codes of conduct, but i'd rather have the clearly defined code of conduct for each religion or each faction over alignment restrictions or even the alignment system plus removing the alignment system in favor of clearly defining religion/faction specific codes of conduct or nation specific laws fixes the "how can i make a paladin fall?" threads as well as the "is it okay to murder orcish babies?" threads.

luckily, your character is assumed to have a home, a day job and a decent sized wardrobe of clothing appropriate to their station. means lifestyles can go the way of the dodo.

ChibiNyan wrote:

Just to prevent misinformaiton spreading...

Sneak attack does multiply on a critical hit in 2E, as seen in Merisiel's pregen sheet. Her Sneak attack Crit with a rapier deald 4d6 + 1d8 +8. This comes from doubling Rapier's d6 dice, doubling sneak attack's d6 dice, 1d8 from Rapier's Deadly tag, and 8 from doubling her DEX mod.

Sneak attack might be a lot better this edition at compensating for low damage on Rogues. That damage is ludicrous at level 1 even without the +8 at the end.

So in light of sneak attacks multiplying on crits, crits being easier to land with the rogue's now better accuracy, and sneak attacks being much easier to set up, why do we need to give the rogue an additional 4-8 damage?

because rogues have a smaller base weapon die to multiply, less base sneak attack dice, and 1d4+4 at level 1 is better than 1d4+0 or 1d4-1.

Dexterity to damage with finesse weapons wasn't that bad in 5e. i played several games of it, strength and dexterity builds have similar accuracy, strength builds were ahead by a point or more of armor class, strength weapons have larger damage dice, and dexterity builds were only five feet faster at most,

it wasn't healing word that is the issue. it is the game master's fault due to lack of interesting encounter design and lack of use of monstrous tactics. essentially, the whack a mole problem is because the game master allows the whack a mole problem. the solution isn't to nerf healing word but to make encounters more interesting, make them more dynamic and actually have monsters use thier own limited use abilities or consumables to use against the players.

arguably, giving low level monsters classes or giving the terrain interesting features could balance things, or simply having the monsters play smarter and threaten the healer, who will likely be easier to damage than the barbarian.

healing word wasn't broken on its own in 5e and it really doesn't need to be nerfed or banned. healing word is an issue that could be mitigated by clever use of intelligent monster tactics.

monsters can also have classes and chill touch is basically a spell that stops healing for a round. there is also a few acid spells that inflict damage on the next round, there is the use of terrain features, such as a group of kobolds igniting barrels of oil to start a fight inside fire which could burn the downed PC every round, causing either a wasted healing word or failed death save. and there is also having enough enemies make ranged attacks to the point where one healing word a round won't save your party. there is also the smart thing of monsters targeting the healer the moment they can identify said healer.

even wolves know to flank the obvious healer over playing whack a mole with the barbarian. the healer is usually in most cases less armored and wearing a less dangerous weapon. the only class with healing word that can wear anything better than studded leather or spidersilk is the cleric, and the cleric usually wears scale unless their domain gives them plate. and if your cleric has plate and shield, they are likely martially focused due to the strength requirements of plate. meaning those points in strength are coming at a cost, and if they have the strength to wear plate, they are probably war domain and not healing domain, meaning they are probably healing for 1d4+2 instead of 1d4+6.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

don't say Nekomimi. say Catgirl. Catgirls are essentially human women with cosmetic cat ears.

Exactly like nekomimi. I don't see why the two terms can't be interchangeable.

Nekomimi is the Japanese word for the concept. and the terms are interchangeable, but not every catgirl is Japanese. some might prefer to call themselves by a culturally appropriate name or thier real name. Y'shtola is a catgirl or nekomimi. but she isn't east asian, she grew up in the western hemisphere in Eorzea rather than Doma. Y'shtola isn't a western Nekomimi. Y'shtola is Y'shtola. a highly trained healer and a follower of the scions of the 7th dawn but also warmhearted and patient as most final fantasy white mages tend to be.

be rude to call an individual cat eared person a beastfolk or a catfolk.

don't say Nekomimi. say Catgirl. Catgirls are essentially human women with cosmetic cat ears.

i'm fine with Dex adding to attack and damage rolls with finesse weapons which should mostly be resricted to daggers, batons, needles, and unarmed strikes (or similar objects of appropriate size and precision) unless you spend a feat to gain finesse with a better weapon. where the weapon groups would be in tiers.

Aether Reserve

Qui Reserve

Primal Enervation

Reiatsu

Spiritual Pressure

Leylight

Luminescence

Aura

Chakra

Quintessence

Heartlight

Hard Drive Divinity

Stamina

Energy

Incandescence

Flourescence

Radiance

Bioelectric Field

Juice

Battery Reserve

Lantern Reserve

Lamp Fuel

Soul Oil

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Ilina Aniri wrote:

if Paladins were the best martial class. people would complain about everything being tailored to paladins or about paladins being too powerful, because a code of honor doesn't balance the power for a player that has a boyscout mentality to begin with.

it isn't really roleplaying when you play yourself.

I'd say the same about all the people reeeing over CG champions and their code.

the complexity of most humans can't be defined by a mere two words. i'm against alignment as a whole. i mean i'm against black and white morality. i'd prefer a personality traits and character bonds system ala Apocalypse World over the concept of Alignment.

Alignment is just a cheap excuse to keep some classes under a straightjacket. even though any of Sir Rolands enemies wouldn't view him anywhere near as righteously as the French stories did.

i mean, Sir Roland's order of Paladins served one of the biggest Fascist Dictators in history who sent anyone who questioned his Authority to be tortured for eternity and literally rewarded his faithful with brainwashing to upkeep a false Utopia that cannot exist.

And there are plenty of games that do that just fine, d+d derivatives aren't one of them though.

they can do it though, there just seems to be a massive backlash every time the concept of alignment is dimished. look at D&D 5e. Alignment is completely optional in that edition and has absolutely no sway over your character.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

if Paladins were the best martial class. people would complain about everything being tailored to paladins or about paladins being too powerful, because a code of honor doesn't balance the power for a player that has a boyscout mentality to begin with.

it isn't really roleplaying when you play yourself.

I'd say the same about all the people reeeing over CG champions and their code.

the complexity of most humans can't be defined by a mere two words. i'm against alignment as a whole. i mean i'm against black and white morality. i'd prefer a personality traits and character bonds system ala Apocalypse World over the concept of Alignment.

Alignment is just a cheap excuse to keep some classes under a straightjacket. even though any of Sir Rolands enemies wouldn't view him anywhere near as righteously as the French stories did.

i mean, Sir Roland's order of Paladins served one of the biggest Fascist Dictators in history who sent anyone who questioned his Authority to be tortured for eternity and literally rewarded his faithful with brainwashing to upkeep a false Utopia that cannot exist.

Paladins can't Cure Vampirism.

if Paladins were the best martial class. people would complain about everything being tailored to paladins or about paladins being too powerful, because a code of honor doesn't balance the power for a player that has a boyscout mentality to begin with.

it isn't really roleplaying when you play yourself.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

the act of making an undead or becoming one might be an evil act for most. but at the same time a vampire, mummy, ghost, lich or other intelligent undead has the potential to redeem themselves within their undead state. they can do good and eventually become good.

Ok, now THAT is another pair of shoes. Though difficult, an intelligent undead can try and redeem itself. It is probably a very rare event, about as possible as a demon becoming good. *wink

ilina Aniri wrote:

undeath can also be a reward from a deity.

Lady Vol approves.

thing is, a Lawful Good Incubus Paladin with a Vow of Chastity is totally on my Bucket List but nobody wants to accept one.

the act of making an undead or becoming one might be an evil act for most. but at the same time a vampire, mummy, ghost, lich or other intelligent undead has the potential to redeem themselves within their undead state. they can do good and eventually become good.

undeath can also be a reward from a deity.

No.

you don't need attack penalties on additional attacks if you limit how high those bonuses scale relative to target numbers. which makes low level mooks a threat. because less difference between a low level attack bonus and a high level armor class.

i think they could fix this by adopting a limit on bonus scaling akin to what D&D 5e offers. However 5e balances Dexterity builds by limiting melee options and weapon restricting certain classes to prevent the hoard of dual wielders.

So I'm just resistant to your comment then.

resistant is finesies.

I think the occasional immunity is deserved but I'lm ok if its sparing I think devils immunity to fire and creatures that are element based should remain (or become in some cases) immune to their element.

i believe the only things that should be immune to thier element are element based crreatures that are exclusively defined by thier element such as elementals for example.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.

sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances.

Sorry i'm Immune to your comment.

instead of giving angels or demons a mountain of resistances or immunities because "Lol it is an Angel" "Lulz it's a Demon." how about we replace the XP budget spent on those immunities with unique reactions that inflict a unique consequence instead of "Lulz, your fireball autofails."

this makes resistances and immmunities more special when they do show up. and frees up monster XP budget. if a monster truly depended on immunities? how about you just increase the hit points and add engaging reactions.

Look at Monster Hunter, Dark Souls or Kingdom Hearts to see examples of unique monster reactions with specific triggers.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Talek and Luna wrote:

Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.

the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b$*%&!&$ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.

instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Creatures should have immunities where it actually makes sense, where it fits their abilities, not just because they're an angel or demon and so are randomly immune to multiple different energy types and status effects they don't even use.

sorry, piling on immunities doesn't make a creature interesting. immunities are one of the most bland and boring abilities you can give, just as boring as resistances. unique reactions would be more engaging than flipping an on/off switch.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b++*!%~! creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.

instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.

That sort of change would feel to both my players and me like playing the game on an annoyingly easy mode, so I hope it doesn't happen and if it does I will likely houserule it right back out as appropriate.

Unique reactions as well as immunities I could get with.

the unique reactions could easily be beefed up to replace a lack of immunity to make things less easy. just because a highly dedicated Pyromancer can burn a fire elemental's fuel supply as a means to damage it doesn't mean your average generalist would have that option. purely so the dedicated Pyromancer or dedicated Swordsman isn't useless. Dedication would come with the ability to treat immunities as merely resistances and eventually damage anything with thier signature.

Yes, but those are poor examples because a fighter can do the same for weapons. What if I wanted to role-play Chandra Naalar from Magic the Gathering? All I want to use is fire. I can't because immunity to fire is the most common immunity in the game. If its unfair to punish a fighter because he overspecialized in swords than it should be unfair to punish my fire mage as well.

the sheer omnipresence of resistances and immunities also bothers me. i honestly think b*~~$~$~ creatures who exist solely for thier immunities should be removed and that drastically fewer creatures should have immunities. i can understand a being made of fire requiring specialized gimmicks for a Pyromancer to defeat such as burning out thier fuel supply, but a random creature from the abyss shouldn't be immune to fire, ice, acid, electricity, and swords in addition to having spell resistance at the same time. in fact, true immunity should be a few and far between monstrous ability and not gainable through spells or items.

instead, give monsters unique reactions instead of immunities.

vorArchivist wrote:

Also if you can use magic as a fighter and its not breaking your theme why can't your theme use wands or scrolls?

You have me confused. How does using a wand or a scroll make a difference?

If a creature is immune to fire its immune to fire. That would be like me saying. "What is the big deal? Its immune to swords. Pull out your mace. "

but against a creature with fire immunity. you can still use a spell that deals cold, acid or electricity damage and against a creature that is immune to mind effects, you can still use glitterdust to blind them or cast haste to make your fighter do it for you.

but casters don't play Artillery because there are far nastier effects a caster can inflict than damage and fireball is merely a vessel to deliver dazing spell.

and most fighters who specialize enough in one fighting style to inflict respectable damage do so by literally being useless at every other style, because strength and base attack are not enough at high levels, because a swordsman who switches to a mace literally no longer has thier sword feats while they carry the mace and might as well be a member of the warrior NPC class.

Funny Thing, 3.5 had a Goblin Subrace that boosted strength, dexterity and constitution in exchange for -4 charisma and +1 ECL with the ability to rage cycle from level 1 and a +0 ECL Race of Elves with cold immunity that Boosted strength and constitution by +2 each in exchange for -2 charisma

Ilina Aniri wrote:

missing an attack isn't the same as losing an action 5 percent of the time. i wouldn't want spellcasters to waste a spell slot 5 percent of the time either. fumbles for nobody. and before you say "casters have a limited amount of spells per day."

Spells ignore A Target's Armor, can be tailored to Target Lower Saving throws, Generally have the Capacity to Affect Several Targets at once, can be done at longer ranges, generally have effects more crippling than raw damage, can be tailored to the lowest resistance, and casters have more than enough spellpower to cast a meaningful spell every round of combat and still have enough utility spells to solve every issue out there.

a country having one or two nukes in thier arsenal doesn't change the devastation said country could do to a signifficant portion of the planet with merely a single nuke. if you look at the Stuff Moses did in the bible, those are all comparable to the power level of a 5th level wizard casting maybe 3rd level spells.

If you would be upset about a caster wasting a spell slot then how do you explain the reason for spell resistance still being a part of the game? Shouldn't it be sent to the scrap heap of game design since a failure wastes an action?

I also don't buy your arguement that spells can be tailored with precision so that they can overcome any weakness. If spellcasters all combined the flexibility of sorcerers for casting and the vast ability to know all spells as a cleric then you would have a valid point. However, since Vancian casting is still a thing so you have to memorize spells and you have to make choices. So you could have an enchanter being crippled when fighting undead and golems, fire wizards against devils, electrical weilders vs undead, etc. This is all hand waved away by the assumption that every caster is a wizard with a vast library or a cleric but this is not often the case.

even a Sorcerer or Oracle can simply take a different spell of a different level for each defense plus there are spells like most instaneous conjurations that ignore spell resistance. but i also dislike spell resistance because it was such a commonly misused mechanic that was mostly a feat tax or a spell slot tax to overcome.

Spell resistance for PCs is useless, and for NPCs, 2 feats turn it into a joke as does a 4th level swift action spell that lasts until the target dies. and even without that feat chain or that spell, spell resistance rarely affects your best spells because so many ways to increase your effective caster level for the spells most important to you.

and even if a spellcaster doesn't have a spell of the appropriate type prepared, they likely have a scroll or few of it or if you are a sontaneous caster, you can blow a third level slot to temporarily learn any spell you wish and change it with each casting.

For Goblins, i would go +2 Dex +2 Con -2 Cha because Goblins hang around in Filthy Environments and tend to be the sheep that are lead by the Shepard. a Sheep shouldn't be the charismatic one, that is the Shepard's Job. it might turn them into a really good martial ancestry but it would actually allow a viable option for people who want small barbarians.

medium races are still better than thier small counterparts at the martial role due to having better CMB, better CMD, better Weapon Damage, and more mileage out of enlarging effects.

Gear Shouldn't be the primary source of personal power unless your character is essentially Atanasio Stark, also called Iron Man or Tony. and Iron Man is a unique exception rather than the common rule. a detective who gains the Psionic Power called "the Eye of the Heart" by maintaining the bhuddist inspired vow of Living the NEET lifestyle would be less gear dependent and donate that wealth gained from rewards to charity and prefer to live on the minimal diet of Doctor Pepper and Ramen. the NEET Detective would have different motivations for Adventuring than the Greedy Treasure Hunter. Gear shoul at best be less than 5% of your personal power unless the gadgets are your build.

missing an attack isn't the same as losing an action 5 percent of the time. i wouldn't want spellcasters to waste a spell slot 5 percent of the time either. fumbles for nobody. and before you say "casters have a limited amount of spells per day."

Spells ignore A Target's Armor, can be tailored to Target Lower Saving throws, Generally have the Capacity to Affect Several Targets at once, can be done at longer ranges, generally have effects more crippling than raw damage, can be tailored to the lowest resistance, and casters have more than enough spellpower to cast a meaningful spell every round of combat and still have enough utility spells to solve every issue out there.

a country having one or two nukes in thier arsenal doesn't change the devastation said country could do to a signifficant portion of the planet with merely a single nuke. if you look at the Stuff Moses did in the bible, those are all comparable to the power level of a 5th level wizard casting maybe 3rd level spells.

Ilina Aniri wrote:

Quote:

I disagree that your assertion of a martial class is equal to an olympian at any level below 9th. Even 9th level is pushing it. An olympian would be like 15th level and above character.

most World Records on Earth can be broken by a character who is 5th level. takr a 5th level character with an 18 dexterity, acrobatics as a class skill with 5 ranks and Skill Focus. they can clear the World Long Jump Record 30% of the time which is a lot more reliable than real world Olympic leapers.

Yeah and they can take far more damage in a fight than a normal person could using lethal weapons in any normal circumstance. So what? You are handing out the near ultimate in human dexterity, probably the ultimate as I have never witnessed what I would consider a 20 dexterity and given that to a mid level character. It does not make that character Olympic in a fantasy setting at all. It makes them low to average at best.

if said character existed in our world, they would dominate olympic long jumps every f!$%ing time. the world record isn't even 30 feet, and this 5th level character can leap 30 or more feet forward 30% of the time. our best olympic leaper could leap like 28 feet on a crit naked. give the 5th level character a 25 pound pack, a strength of 12 and a suit of leather armor and they still have a 30% chance of breaking the 30 feet, which is more than the 28 foot long jump record.

considering most of the hardest knowledge or craft related checks in our world can be done in Pathfinder with a DC of 20 or 25. take a Mathmetician with 18 intelligence, 5 ranks in knowledge (mathematics), has knowledge (mathematics) as a class skill and skill focus. they can literally take 10 and solve any real world mathematical equation.

you won't beleive how many 4th-6th level characters have an 18-22 in their primary stat before magic items.

if we keep bonuses but get rid of the scores. point buy would actually be a lot simpler to track as would level advancement.

there was a Nasty Poison in Second Edition called "Spider's Kiss" that was a potent hallucinogen from the Drow Sourcebook. it worked on poison immune creatures because it counted as a Recreational Narcotic (like Alcohol) rather than a proper poison. it gave the Target Temporary Damage resistance of 2/- but penalized both their ability to land hits and avoid hits quite heavily. 50% chance to turn a miss against the target into a hit, and a 50% chance to turn the target's hits into misses and a 50% chance to turn the target's successful saving throws into failures. it lasted a handful of hours, but was a white powder that could be used in place of sugar, or blanched onto a dagger or arrow head.