I notice the print edition is no longer available. Will there be a reprint?
Search Posts
You're right. I never thought of it that way.
I think with +X enchantment dual wielders are disadvantaged, but with other enchantments like flaming, they're actually at an advantage, because having the flaming quality twice equates to a +2 bonus, but it costs them less than a single +2 weapon. That's a good point.
So the other day I was thinking about the inherent difficulties that a dual wielder runs into compared to two-handers. Beyond feats, one such problem dual wielders encounter is having to shell out twice as much gold for weapon enchantments. I came up with a pair of ideas that could lessen weapon cost impact. The first idea I had was basing weapon enchantment price on the size of the weapon. Trying to work such a system off a weapon's weight would be too complicated, in my opinion. The much more simple way of doing it, I think, would be to base the cost off of the weapon's damage. Roughly, I think the prices would work decently as: 1d10 or larger 100% base price
This system will, however, impact other areas of the game. The first that comes to mind is the bastard sword. Paying the feat to become proficient with a bastard sword seems even less worth it if enchantments would cost more than they would on a long sword. Also, all small characters would be able to buy weapon enchantments at a much lesser rate than their medium-sized counterparts. Maybe set enchanting cost as above, but for two-handed, one-handed, and light weapons, respectively? My second idea was one of 'weapon sets.' When enchanting a pair weapons, so long as you are applying the same enchantment to each, you may enchant them as a set. Enchanting a weapon set costs 150% of the price of enchanting a single weapon. Only a one-handed weapon and light weapon, or pair of light weapons, may be enchanted as a set. The enchantments applied the weapons as a set only function when they are both possessed by the same character. The enchantments applied to weapons as a set count against each weapon's singular weapon enhancement bonus, and maximum weapon enhancement bonus. When enchanting a weapon set that has one weapon with a higher enhancement bonus than the other, use the highest enhancement bonus among the two weapons to determine the price of further enchantments. That's it. I'd love to hear feedback. Thanks for your time!
My Google-Fu only provided me with the Fiendish Codex, and the Monster Manual entry you mentioned. Thank you for the reply!
On page 155 of Fiendish Codex 1 there's a long list of lords of the abyss. What's the story behind Alrunes, "The Soothing Spirit," Demon Lord(?) of Protection and Sisterhood?
Keeping the Paladin as LG only makes as much sense to me as restricting the Barbarian to CN, the Druid to NN, and the Inquisitor and Witch to CE.
Thank you for the quick responces. As a DM, I have to agree that these rules could make for some great NPC's. I also thought soon after posting this that these rules could be used for a strictly post 20 game, much like old epic. Perhaps if my players ever make it there, I'll let them use these. As to my superhero comment, I want to make clear that I do like many superheros. What I meant was, to me, the characters are already at that level, and I saw that any addition onto that was needles. Also, thank you for the quick reply Mr. Bulmahn. I do notice that you sidestepped my qudestion, though :P I'll probably end up picking this book up eventually anyway. Like or dislike, its too interesting to not pick up.
I do not want to come across like I don’t want Paizo to write this book in my small rant. They will, and that’s fine. It is not for me, but I understand that some players will love it, and I am glad for them. My idea of the perfect RPG is going to be vastly different from many people, and I expect and accept that. So, I don’t really understand why anyone would really want to play Mythic. As Pathfinder stands, all Player Characters are already borderline superheroes from first level onward already. For example, it used to be that 18 was the maximum any character could hope for in any given stat ever, and now it’s common to have first level characters to start with a 20 in their main stat. Magic items are everywhere. Furthermore, I don’t see what these rules can be used to represent that cannot already be represented with higher level characters. Why do we need to be even more godlike in a game where we are already so above the regular humanoid norm? Why does our high magic high fantasy game need to be even more so? I love Pathfinder, but this just seems like a bit much. I think that this book to me is what Ultimate Combat was for many people. Some dislike firearms in their fantasy game, and others dislike eastern influences on their western setting. I don’t like being given more than what my race, class, and feats give me. So I’m just going to deal with it. If anything, this seems to me the opposite direction they should have taken. I personally would like to see a source book that deals with lower magic campaigns. A campaign where magic items are very very rare. A campaign where casters may not be able to cast as often or as reliably or only at a great personal cost. So, to conclude, I’d like to say again that I’m not against this book coming out. I’m glad for the people who are going to like this book, I just never see myself playing a Mythic game. To the people are psyched for Mythic, can you tell me what has you most excited? And to the people at Paizo, do you think we will ever see a lower magic, gritty source book?
Changes I'd like to see: Spoiler:
1) Armor as DR as standard (without all the ways it can be overcome in UC) 2 Roll the Spellcraft skill into the Knowledge skills for their respective casting type. Aka, Soc/Wiz/Witch = Arcane, Cleric/Oracle = Religion, Druid = Nature, ect. 3) A detailed entry on how to use Diplomacy to haggle prices. 4) Roll Ride into Handle Animal. 5) Clearer wording on what bonuses can be applied to each CMB and CMD. 6) Slings reloading as a free action. 7) Strength increasing throwing weapon range increments. 8) Bucklers that can bash. 9) Combat Maneuvers that only provoke AoOs on failed attempts. 10) Spontaneous casters having the same spell progression as prepared casters. 11) Unique favored class bonuses not tied to race. 12) Make Deadly Aim do more damage for crossbows like two-handed weapons with power attack. 13) Make a number of feats useful (Martial Weapon Prof., Fleet, Prone Sniper, Monkey Lunge ect) Changes that I’d like to see that I doubt I will: Spoiler:
1) Multi alignment paladins! 2) Spell points instead of silly spells per day. 3) A brand new Gunslinger class, recreated from scratch. (With guns that don’t target touch AC!) 4) Slim down the Move/Standard actions into half actions. Take 2 Half Actions or one Full Round Action. Naturally, most spells would need to become Full Round Actions. 5) Combine AoOs and Immediate Actions into Reactions, but unattach said Reactions from Swift Actions. 6) Some way of making HP loss matter before reaching 0 HP. 7) More fear checks throughout gameplay. There are more, but that’s all I can think of at the moment.
I've got mine. Thanks!
Dotted for the same purpose.
I really like mundane gear, special materials, item curses, or terrifying monsters. I'd really like to take a look at Class Acts: Rangers, please.
The best thing to come out of this thread was Bomanz's first post. All other posts are unneeded. Especially this one.
I'd love for Frog God to arrange with Flying Buffalo to put out a Grimtooth's Traps: Complete. They'd seem like the perfect company to do it, as Bill (along with Clark as Necromancer Games) previously had a similar arangement with them for this book, and Frog God Games evidently isn't afraid of putting out huge uber-books, which a compilation of all seven of the Grimtooth books would be, especially when you added in stats. I can't +1 this hard enough.
So, umm.... How's about City of Sin seeing the light of day? That would be cool...
As a GM who allows alternate alignment paladins, I think it's strange that paladins can still only be LG while sorcerers can cast using any mental stat and orc witch doctors can cast using their Con!
Actually, the idea isn't inherently bad at all. Hence why a 'half undead' template was included in the race building rules.
The half-undead template is intended to produce undead themed race without costing as much as, or being as powerful as, regular undead. If you feel it fits your race, then go for it. If you feel your race is a bit different than what the half-undead template offers, then spend your race points on other traits. It's your race, and no one gets to tell you if you're doing it right or not. The only peace of advice I can give is that the race construction guide is far from perfect, and best used as a rough guide, rather than cold, hard rules. The costs of some traits are fairly off. For example, the half-undead type you're looking for is 5 RP, whereas buying the traits that make up the subtype cost only 3 if purchased individually.
stuffah... if I read the mass damage rule correctly its 50% of max hitpoints with a minimum of 50. Not quite. There is no minimum per-say. It's either half of your maximum hit points, or the number based around the formula, whatever one is lower.
One of my favourites is entirely too complicated and has been hard to explain to new players. I never liked how static the 50 points for instant death were, that the DC never changes, and how it instantly kills you or leaves you able to fight on just as well on the next round. Unneeded complexity away! Spoiler: Massive Damage: Every creature has a Massive Damage Value (MDV). Whenever a creature takes damage exceeding its MDV from a single source it must make a DC (damage in excess of MDV) Fort save or be immediately reduced to -1 HP, if it would not have already been reduced to below this. On a successful save, the creature is instead Sickened and Staggered until the end of its next turn. A creature’s MDV is either half of its maximum number of hit points, or a value calculated below, whichever is lower. To find a creature’s MDV first check its size and consult below: Size: F:10, D:20, T:30, S:40, M:50, L:60, H:70, G:80, C:90 Secondly add the creature’s Constitution bonus to the number based off its size. Thirdly, add half the creature’s total BAB to the sum. This is the creature’s total Massive Damage value, if half of its maximum number of hit points is not lower.
Don't look at me, I axed Spellcraft and use the appropriate knowledge type for each caster. (Arcana for arcane, Religion for paladin/cleric, Nature for ranger/druid.) Brilliant.
Cannibis is not addicting.I know plenty of past addicts that disagree with you. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence -- it's anecdotal. If you were to say for some people cannibis isn't addictive then you would be right, but as an universal statement about the qualities of cannibis you are not. Cannabis isn't physically addictive. It's mentaly addictive, like everything else you can ever do, inclueding Pathfinder.
Exactly. When using this varient I wouldn't expect to see regular armour. If any regular armour contradicted the piecemeal rules, I'd change the regular armour to match. This is, of course, just how my group runs the system. By being a varient rule to begin with, there is no right or wrong way a DM could rule on this. Generally, using this varient leads to better and cheaper armour.
it would still reduce your speed cause' its medium armor... chain torso only counts as light if its by its self. add any other armor, even padded and it goes to medium as defined at the bottom of table 5-9 of UC. While running this variant I would rule the opposite. I think it could be argued either way, though... If a character is wearing more than one armor piece, she add the armor costs, armor bonuses, and weights of the armor pieces, and takes the worst maximum Dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, and speed limitations from among the various armor pieces to determine the full statistics and qualities of the armor she is wearing. (italics mine) Also, I believe you only get the extra +1 to AC if all three pieces are of the same type. Nope, you're thinking about the extra 5% arcane spell failure.
Ok besides HP, damage and combat manouvers what are the options of a fighter? Exactly the problem. Fighters and fighter types are walking gods of destruction! What we really need is to see Pathfinder go to is a 1/2 BAB or 3/4 BAB system, with no full BAB for player characters. I mean, these humans and demi humans are supposed to have the same BAB as Dragons? As Demons?! WTH! You're telling me that martial characters can develop the same amount of skill with weapons as these immortal beings? If Paizo really wanted martial characters to be grounded in reality, they really screwed the pooch. And don't even get me started on that 1d10 hit die being similarly so high. Also, Fighter types get too many skills. I could see the Barbarian, Monk, ect getting 2 a level, but Fighters really should only have about 1.
I've had problems balancing casters in my games as well. The path I took was simply banning Sorcerers and Wizards, and replacing them with the Beholder Mage.
It sounds like you played your paladin as a paladin.
I addressed the strength bonus issue. How is the feat issue addressed without nerfing bows? Make reloading the light crossbow (or heavy crossbow with Rapid Reload) a move action or attack action. Edit: Or just a swift action.
Just the races that fit my setting. All core races, plus changlings, shifters, humanoid trolls of obvious plagiarism, mongrelfolk, walkers (elf damphir cross breads), and alternate orcs and goblins.
Now that I rethink it, an artificer class would probably be best as an alt class. Better still, a pair of alternate classes. Have a weird inventor as an alchemist alt class, and a pet focused crafter as a summoner alt. The shape shifter idea sounds cool.
I'd like to see Paizo's take on the Artificer and Factotom base classes.
Agreed, but one could say the same thing of meta magic feats. Want to increase duration? Get a feat, then increase the spell slot level. Same thing for more power, more range, more area, ect.
...casters get hundreds of spells... Each of which you have to prepare daily. Having a zillion spells for most situations but not one for the exact situation you're in can happen, and quite easily. Not to mention the situational where you might have not prepared said spell enough times that day. The exception, of course, is spontaneous casters, who don't have hundreds of spells, dozens at high levels, but their selection is stil very limited. I retain that the real problems with casters are cheating players, and GMs who don't know the limits of casters and the spells they cast. But to answer the question, I think the best change that could come to pathfinder would be to give all classes familiars. Martial classes are just lonely and they want their kitty.
The problem is that it's extremely hard to actually hit with SA. That's what makes it useless. Status effects are nice, but what needs to be fixed is the lack of accuracy. I agree. I'm a fan of an idea I saw on this bard that gave rogues +1 to hit with sneak attacks, dirty tricks, disarms, and I believe trips, for each odd numbered sneak attack die the rogue possessed.
There are few classes that can match the damage potential of an offensive fighter, and none of them can do so as reliably. I generally stay out of arguments regarding class balance, more so with classes I've not as much experience with, but current Fighters are nothing short of fantastic.
I made up a new house rule regarding the Fighter. Fighters have 8 plus int modifier skill points per level and all Knowledge skills, Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics, Heal, Linguistics, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Use magic Device, and Disable Device are class skills along with the normal class skills. I mean no malice or hard feelings toward you, but this is a terrible idea. Speaking as a pure fighter player from 1-16, we really don't need this. At all. We kill things, we kill them well. Better than many classes. We don't need skills. We are not skill monkeys nor should we be.
How would you level the field between casters and non-casters? Spell blights and called shots. Throat shots are wonderful.
I hardly think there is much of a power gap between the martial and magical classes. As a die hard martial player and DM I'm more inclined to think the power sits on the other side of the fence on this one. Every fighter-type I've played under the current rules set has repeatedly out performed the party's caster types, even at higher levels. On the DM front, my current party's barbarian is an avatar of destruction that the rest of the party, caster included, haven't been able to compete with. Most cases of casters being overpowered come from the DM either not knowing the rules/spells, and often not running enough encounters per day. EDIT: I do think it is silly that characters need the feats to perform combat manoeuvres without provoking AoO's, however.
Dhampir.
Make me five.
Pathfinder Modern, more alternate rules, Factotom, and Artificer base classes.
That variant was actually put in the 3.0 (and maybe 3.5?) DM's Guide. I'm a fan of it, although I recently switched the the variant of it in the Epic Level Handbook, exploding (and imploding) d20's. As per the fumble deck, I love it and use the confirmation rule myself. If a GM thinks the deck is too harsh on martial characters, I'd recommend the previously mentioned alternate confirmation rule; use the character's full base attack bonus instead of reducing it for whatever attack it was that round.
I like the idea of the rule, however it would be quite situational. I particularly like the idea of using True Strike with with this rule.
One of these days I may get around to updating the Dragon #310 alternate paladins. You might check those out as well. The only alignment I don't know of a write-up for is NE. I'll take a look right away. Thanks! I think you should do a Neutral Good Paladin write up. NG always made more sense to me than LG as a Paladin alignment, anyway, as NG is basically doing whatever is the most good in any given situation. Well rather than making a paladin variant for each of the alignments, what I wanted to do was create paladins for each of the extremes on the alignment chart, and relax the alignment requirements from there. As it is, a NG character could either go for being a paladin of justice or freedom. The world I run is Ebberon-like with the divine casters alignment restrictions removed, and deities being distant, so I wanted paladins to be less restrictive as well. Thanks for the input!
Awesome, thanks!
Hello all. I've never been a fan of the strict 'lawful good only' paladin style. I really liked it back in 3.5 when unearthed arcana came out with alternate alignment paladins. Having Pathfinder paladins so changed, these were far out-dated. So, here's my take alternate paladins. Paladin of Justice:
Paladin of Freedom:
Paladin of Tyranny:
Paladin of Slaughter:
I apologize for needing to download them, as I didn't realize until after that how hard it would be to copy-paste into the forum with how they were laid out ^^' (I may try to do just that later anyway) As you'll notice, I didn't change much from one to the other, especially in the case of Tyranny and Slaughter. If you have any suggestions for improvement, I'd be eager to hear. I look forward to the feedback :)
I agree with the original poster entirely. Giving an entire weapon class the ability to ignore armour, and at a range(!)(however short) is ridiculous. If you want to talk about realism, longbows were able to penetrate armour of their era within a similar range as these firearms. Yet the humble +5 Mighty (+6 Str) Composite Longbow has nothing to show for this other than a x3 critical. I agree that firearms should have an even higher critical than bows, but making them able to ignore armour bonuses, shield bonuses, and natural armour bonuses is ludicrous (and conflicts, in my mind, with the idea behind the Missile Shield feat in the APG). Furthermore, the misfires rule is entirely too harsh on the wielder. A 5% chance (at best!) of breaking your weapon whenever you fire it? What the hell! And at the lowest price being 1,000 gp, what sort of a fool would invest so much into such a self destructive weapon? What of adamantine firearms? +5 enchanted firearms? "Nope, sunny, broken is broken. Your hardness and hit points be damned." On the topic of price, 1 gp per bullet? What are they making those shots out of, solid gold? Lastly, these rules are really missing out on what made firearms deadly in the real world; simplicity. It took a knight years to gain, what would be called in game terms, Martial Weapon Proficiency (Longsword). Whereas a commoner could be drilled on firearms usage in a day and be considered proficient in its use. With all I've said, I'm very much looking forward to firearms being released. If these rules stay as they are, my campaign shall correct them by reworking the entire misfire mechanic, tossing the Range and Penetration rule entirely (even the maximum range bit), making all firearms simple weapons, cutting the cost of firearms to a quarter of what they are here, and dropping the price of bullets to a tenth of what it is here. |