Jack Townsend's page

This itched me everytime I bought a special weapon/armor for a character and wanted to improve it. The hardest time I had with the Sunblade: Its a +2 weapon which is +4 against evil creatures and costs 25.335 gold basically. How much does it cost to improve the enhancement bonus? When I have upgraded the weapon to +3, is it a +5 weapon against evil creatures (giving a +2 special weapon property bonus ) or will it be +4 as written instead?

1. No, there's no explicit rule against putting spells into ranged spell storing weapons.
2. Fireballs can't be cast into those weapons. The Spell needs the entry "target" in its description. If the spell has multiple targets, it is only cast on the hit opponent (mostly opponents, there are strange things going on with epic dwarven defenders and spell stored heal magic though...) We "houseruled" (read taken for granted) that spells which need a successful touch attack to function also qualify to be used in this fashion.

Thanks Kae Yoss.

How do you cope with mob creatures having Spell resistance? Roll once for all? Or measure the effectiveness of area spells by the success of the caster level check like "The difference between the average spell resistance of the mob and your caster level check determines the caster level of your spell. The spell functions even if this value is lower than the minimum required caster level to cast the spell"

Mahlzeit!

Would be interesting to know the demographics of this board. I assume Germany has a good share of users, since (german) 4E isn't well supported and famous (infering from my native DnD board) here.

Dangit Pathfinder!

Ghoul and Ghul are homophones!

Dangit Pathfinder!

You make me hungry. Dinner time, Ghularschsuppe is served!

How 'bout Ponerving?

Does or does AF not block line of effect? This question often occured to me when it came to use. I it too late to put a little sentence into the final product to clarify (if the spell stayed so confusing as is)?

In this respect I'm going to call for the solution 4E came up with: Epic Destiny is the best invention the Wizards came up with in this otherwise unholy stepbrother of D&D. It just stops the Epic Sillyness that is named Epic Rules at the right time.

Maybe tie sneak attack to Skills?

5 Ranks Disable Device - can sneak attack constructs
5 Ranks Knowledge (Religion) - can sneak attack undead
5 Ranks Knowledge (Dungeoneering) - can sneak attack oozes
5 Ranks Knowledge (The Planes) - can sneak attack elementals
5 Ranks Healing - bonus sneak attack die vs. humanoids
5 Ranks Knowledge (Arcana) - bonus sneak attack die vs. magical beasts/dragons

I kinda like it, though it's like a skill tax. I rather see a special rogue ability, say at first and every 4 levels after to choose a monster type being immune to Sneak Attack in 3.X to be sneakable. That helps distinct rogues, at least in low and mid level.

And disable Device to hinder a construct? Well it adds some extra juice to an already valueable skill but is *very* special. Well, nice idea, but more for a specialised, campaign specific PrC.

Is it really a punishment to have a +0+0 BAB progression due to multiclassing in a 1/2 | 3/4 mix? I say no. Because at level 3 and 4 this problem becomes irrelevant since these levels gain a +1+1 to BAB, which is like having become a fighter.
The only real problem occurs, when a character has two 1/2 BAB classes, but that's a corner to be never approached, occuring only when you mix two arcane full casting classes and starting with a PrC at an odd characterlevel. That would be real Min/Minimizing...

Well, thats one idea and all it's upcoming consequences:

Make interrupting spells at least possible.
That can be done in two ways:
- Give melee fighters the opportunity to exchange the highest attack (the best per hand in case of more weapon fighting types) into a move action. That should only be available for BAB using PCs and NPCs/Monsters. Haste and such effects would give an extra attack at the second highest attack bonus.
- Raise the time for spellcasting the two highest spell levels for full casters according to this list:
Swift --> Move Action
Move Action (if any) --> Standard Action
Standard Action --> Full *Round* Action
Full Round Action+ --> stay as is or an extra Swift Action to let the energy go off

The roll (however it looks like) to avoid losing the spell should be based on the highest damage per attacking hand taken during the interrupt(so two for TWF types), because of balance. Being forced to make up to, well, many rolls is a bit over the top.

Summerizing things told I would like to be in the rules:
- Free metamagic in general shouldn't raise the level of a spell over the spell level capacity of the user (or capacity +1)
- Those rods can only be used by casters who have the corresponding feat
- With these changes the rods can be easily prized down to a half or even third.

On a tangent:
- Summon x spells should be able to cast monsters with CR equal to casterlevel when the spell is available -4 (in case of Summon Monster 8 it would be a CR 11 Monster) when Gate should be able to do the same, just faster with more monsters called (say 1 to 3).

Thematical fitting spells and might of the ability?! ;)

Little side note: In the german PHB is a little clause that explains that the masculinum is used because it has grinded into neutrality.

But the roaches are still there. And Pizza Hut. It won the merchandise wars too, you know.

I need my pills.

Old vorpal is 1 in 400, at worst: Natural 20 to score a threat, natural 20 to confirm against any AC 20x20 being 400.

My version gives you a 1 in 8000 chance (or better) to kill: Natural 20 to score the threat, natural 20 to confirm against any AC, and the victim rolling a natural 1 to fail the required fort save.

I don't have my copy of pathfinder at hand, but given Vorpal hasn't changed since 3.5 I hate to disappoint you but: Upon a roll of natural 20 (followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit), the weapon severs the opponent’s head (if it has one) from its body.

You only need a normal confirmation, no nat. 20 again. Makes the math more interesting.

Maybe in addition the use of metamagic rods can be restricted to those who have the feat in question.

Lecen of Mitran wrote:

As it known, in 3.5, you can move and attack, but never move and make a full attack. Even if you are a 20th lvl Fighter running towards a colossal Red Dragon.

The problem is: why should the fighter run and attack the dragon, if in the his turn the dragon will be able to make a full attack against him?

Does the new pathfinder adress this issue?

I don't think PF addresses this issue, but you can always use some 3.5 supplemental books for your fixes. The Complete Champion has a feat that lets you move with a Swift action called Travel Devotion. The ability lasts for a minute and you can take the feat multiple times for more uses. In the same book you could always take an alternative class feature for the Barbarian that will trade away Fast Movement for the ability to do a Full-Attack on a charge. Your Fighter will have to dip one level in Barbarian but most people consider that a good trade-off.

Why don't address the problem in core rules instead of making players using this and that splatbook madness just to be any useful? Please stop those "but you could make that prestige class mandatory" - comments...

As I mentioned in another thread: make the last iterative attack a trade off for your move action. Maybe than Haste could give an extra move action, making it viable for casters again.

Maybe the number of disjoined items/spells can be reduced by making it depending on casterlevel. But that needs some tweaks. Firstly the order of the disjoining has to be clarified, maybe the caster defines groups of magic which are effected first. Those could be: Spells, martial equipment (weapons, armor, arane bond) wonderous items and so forth.
Maybe that interferes too much with the new (and very fine) 1destroys rule.

The will save idea is poor considering another use of concentration: avoid losing spell due to damage. It should be hard, but a 10th level wizard hit by a 10th level fireball has no chance of making his will save. That's just not appropiate and even less compatible.

Charm isn't real control, it's just an adjustment to attitude towards the caster and shouldn't be effected by Protection from [add alignment]. I further would like to see a consumable protection against control:
"3. As a swift action the warded creature can end the other benefits of this spell but use the spells energy to block any attempt to possess or to take control of the recipients mind for the rest of the duration of Protection from Evil. If this spell is cast after the creature is being effected by such an effect, the warded creature can make an immediate save against the dominating to use this blocking effect.
A new casting of Protection From Evil ends any previous casting of Protection from Alignment spells."
Well the wording needs some clean up, I admit.

The changes Quandary mentioned are neat. How do they interact with the Haste spell? For this spell I'd like to see a more 3.0ish solution of letting it give an additional move action.

@topic: As I posted in another thread, the terraced effects of SOD/SOS is a fine idea in my opinion, but probability adds problems. The chance of being henceforth effected has to rise significantly in order to make it no auto success. In the other thread I recommended high penalties to consecutive saves (at least, attack and skill penalties are possible too) at a minimum of the level of spell.

EDIT: Sorry for the following rant...

@developed topic: Fighters need love, Mages need nerf. I stopped playing in a 3.0 group I've been from levels 1 to 27, because I prefer to play martial characters. Even my spell using ones were primary (self)-buffing melee types. Guess how the group composition changed during that? First couple of levels we agreed to play middle-low magic. The only full caster we had was a necromancer who had abandoned evocation and transmutation the rest were melee-types. Worked very well, the fights were typically full of tension and quests were easy to handle for the GM.
20 levels later someone cast reverse gravity on this group.
There is only one real fighter in there and even this character casts spells through the (in 3.0 way too cheap) ioun stones more often than he uses his axe (I'm exaggerating, but not much) and he is constantly overwhelmed in combat by the druid and the cleric while the wizards/wizard-rogue are blasting away the last enemies in reach.
I confess we are using splatbooks. Two did real evil things to the group: Epic level Handbook and Magic of Faerun. Even with their martial pendants the splatbooks favor casters over fighters beyond repair.

So what's the morale of the story: Pathfinder tries hard but is to lose his fight for parity, because of the splatbook madness. But tuning down casters in core rules a bit and bringing fighters up some steps could bring some balance to that. Casters are inferior beginning level 13 up. But they are equal to fighters by levels 7 to 13. That's 6 levels of fighter dominating and infinite ones of casters, rendering melee types useless at some point, even with core rules only(not including encounters designed for fighters, sadly that had to be done by my DMs)

Honestly I prefer a putting down numbers entirely, how 4E did (but it has gone too far I believe). But naturally the cutdown for casters has to be bigger, since they were blasted over the top at some point. That added no tension to the game. It's just waiting for the BBEG to fall prey to the druid or mage while hoping for the meleers not to be decapitated. Maybe my experience is extreme but looking at min/maxing boards I find much more caster builds than any other.

SOD/SOS are not a balance problem, they are just boring both when failing and when succeeding. Maybe the first occur of it is thrilling, the third one isn't. It's just annoying on one side or the other.

Remove the 1 always fails for poisons and I'm fine with making poisons deadlier thus more expensive or it's use in the world of NPCs/PCs very rare or sanctioned in ingame terms.

SOD-conditions are the real problem here since a poison dripping archer quickly gains many opportunities to get you role a saving throw. When these poisons don't have the chance to come in effect by the role of 1 this archer has to buy the expensive stuff. Sounds good for me.

Poisons shouldn't be too realistic, when game balance is in danger.

The short description for Touch of Idiocy still says "Subject takes 1d6 points of Int, Wis, and Cha *damage*" and should be "Subject takes penalty to..."

Skullking, Kalyth, both of your solutions favor the PC's enemies since they have 1. much more HP 2. more Hit Dice general speaking. With this sort of spells you kill the minions and not even effect the BBEG, which they should but with a not so heavy and boring effect like: Bang, your dead, what now?

(Making the resulting effect depend on Caster level/HD relation was a poor idea in 3.5 since boost on caster level is quite cheap. Damn that hasn't changed, at least there's a saving throw now)

Oh, I'm sorry. It wasn't a fireball. That was an combust spell (Spell Compendium)

Standard Metamagic-Superman-Built (Wiz5/Inc10/Halruaan Elder5):
Combust (SpC) with CL10+: 10d8
Per Ocular Spell (LoM) or Reach Spell it becomes a Ray.
Then Split Ray: 20d8
Twin Spell: 40d8
Energy Admixture (Fire): 80d8
Maximize Spell: 640
Empower Spell: 820
Enervate Spell (LM): 1230 for one 9th level spell slot(yeah that stacks fully)
Searing Spell (Sand) just because it's possible!

Thanks to massive Use of Metamagic-Reduce-Abilities you pack a theoretical Level 22 Spell into a 9th level spell slot.
You need 3 Slots (or 2 and a Pearl of Power Level 9) to prepare 2 Ocular spells and one Reached one.
The 2 Oculars are loaded, remaining 8 hours. As a full round action you blast out the 2 Ocular spells and with a Greater Metamagic Rod of Quickening the Reached Spell as a Swift action.
Does a total of 3690 fire damage as a Full-round action and with 3 9th level spells that ignore resistance completely and immunity in 50% of the cases.
Maybe there's Munchkin somewhere, but I don't think so.

I´m all in for increasing casting times generally. (I foretell this comment: OH MY!!! he tries to nerf my 1300 point of damage fireball [I've seen one...])

Why there is a need for a unified [Death Spell] category? Some could do CON damage, CON drain, massive HP-damage, cause real instant death, drop hit points to a certain level. That can be scaled by spell level. Also some effects should delay a round, but lessen post applied countermeasures.

Example: Phantasmal Killer:
1. round: Will save for disbelieve, -4 to attacks, saves, skill checks caused by fear
2. round: Fort save for instant death

Baleful Polymorph
1. round: Fort save against beginning transmutation, fail causes -5 to
attacks, saves, skill checks and lets spells have a failure chance of
1% per caster level,
2. round: Fort save against full transformation, fail causes usual
disadvantages
3. round: Will save against losing mental abilities

Finger of Death
Causes Instant Death, nothing on successful save
Or
1. round: Fort save partial: do 1 point/2 level CON drain, save
reduces to 1/2 that amount and ends ongoing effect
2. round: Fort save partial: do 1 point/2 level CON drain, save
reduces to 1/2 that amount and ends ongoing effect
3. round: Fort save partial: do 1 point/2 level CON drain, save
reduces

Flesh to Stone
1. round: Fort save against partial petrification, -6 to attacks, saves, skill checks, gain vulnerability to acid and cold.
2. round: total petrification

Wail of the Banshee
1. round: Fort save against beeing stunned, gain -9 to attacks, saves,
skill checks, spell failure of 2% / level for spells with verbal
components, save negates stunning, the -9 penalty but the spell failure
remains
2. round: Fort save against instant death

There's no a need for a time effort to sustain the effects. The penalty to attack, saves and skill checks is obviously equal to the level of the spell, since countermeasures are equal effective to the level of it. (Death ward, level 4, gives +4 against death effects, Protection from spells, level 8, gives +8 and so forth). It could be even higher since normally those spells kill instantly.

Finally, the Spell section is open.

OK here are some spells I had problems with just by looking at them due to the fact they haven't been changed since 3.5 or changes are a bit too good

Mage's Disjunction: Changes have been nice, but make the duration instantaneous and mention the dispel time in the text in order to keep the party/enemy from dedispel the disjunction's effect.
Maybe the duration could be 1h/level or even 2h/level, since friendly fire should be a real menace, not just a little thing to concern. (Well maybe the 5% chance to ruin the item does the trick, I haven`t seen the new version in combat yet, it's hard to say because it is more a psychological problem)

Rusting Grasp: Needs a touch attack. It's common in 3.x DnD but since it is more like a sunder than any other spell, why don't use the CMB system? Make it an attack to CMB with a bonus to +1/level (if that seems to make the CMB quite easy, remember how often a mage misses a touch AC. Often in low level, almost never in midlevel, highlevel... well depends on the DM)
Additionally for quickness sake a note could be added that dispelled magical items qualify to be effected.

Antimagic Field: A question that always concerned me and wasn't ever clarified: Does AF break Line of Effect? Does a lightning bolt stop in an AF or springs it out of the other side again?

Oh yeah, get rid of this dark brother of use rope.

And it's been suggest Phil. Problem is, EVERYthing has been suggested, and likely none of it is going to be acted on. So we're just entertaining ourselves.

Well, at least it's a decent coffee party... with selfmade pie. I hope it is without wizard beans. I don't wanna have weight and balance problems.

@topic: I suggest making full attack a standard action but leaving the last iterative attack. Instead make this attack only occur as an additional use of move action: If you haven't moved in your turn (except for a 5 ft. step) you use your move action for an additional attack. It uses your full BAB -5. (Last part is to be changed I think).
Finally increasing casting time seems quite fine to me.

This would mean one free attack from all of your allies just for the price of one Bull Rush. And, when doing the timing well, that's a full attack for everyone of them before the poor guy even knew what hit him.
A Bull rush is potent enough when timed well, so don't give it unnessecary boost.

Further, it isn't that unrealistic to assume that a bull rushed opponent doesn't provoke AoO's but the attacker does, since it's quite a raw act to perform but a rather defensive one to resist. And only allies aware of your maneuver, waiting for it should get an advantage, by performing the Delay or Ready Action.

I repeat: Bull rush is potent enough without giving it the AoO possibility when used tacticly clever.

There is the choice of two evils behind that: either you can position one ally with a hole standard action without provoking an attack of opportunity or you can make an enemy running the gauntlet through an espalier of AoOs. Maybe there's a way to fix that.

Let's see: The rushed opponent isn't subject to AoOs. The combatant who did the bull rush attempt provokes AoOs for moving.

In addition, whenever the monk successfully performs a combat maneuver, he may choose to deal damage as though he had hit his target with an unarmed strike attack."

This idea is basically interesting, but there is a balance problem when the CMB defense of the opponent is equal or even lower than its AC. Than it's easier to attack the CMB than the AC and you gain the benefit of the maneuver in addition to the damage with more ease.

Well, the frequency for such occasions must be proofed. Monsters with high natural armor seem most likely to be more vulnerable to combat maneuvers. If there's only little chance for such things happening it seems ok to give the monk his really shiny moments. Just guessing I think those events are quite rare, since AC increases slower than BAB usually.

Though full unarmed damage seems a little too much to me. Damage equal to WIS bonus (maybe 1,5 times the amount) I'd prefer at first glance.

Well, seems everyone missed my point... I should have been clearer.

Poisons in 3.X were weak. Most of them. The problems occur when using a poison which has nasty conditions as result, doing this with many attacks and combining it with the "1 always looses" rule. The DC's are a bad joke, correct, but when using helpless making poisons your party is dead within rounds just because of this one rule.
There I see the problem, which comes up in the realms of high-level DnD.

To your service

I derived that out of the "Problem with saves" thread 'cause it was offtopic but interessting I think.

Maybe it's really just a problem with poison rules. Now they're unbalanced, because poisons are way too cheap. Ok they are quite ineffective, but the 1 looses rule makes a high DC unnecessary when you have many attacks.

Ok, let's increase the price. But which poison you choose: The DC 20 one for 20.000GM or the DC 15 one for 15.000? When your opponents start to have sufficient Fortitude saves to fail only on the roll of 1 I take the DC 1 alcohol dip for 1000...
Higher levels exclude this option.

Solution: don't give poison to PC's/NPC's with character classes, make it a monster only thing. Than the 1 looses rule is ok.

It is possible to cause considerable damage via grapples

Right, but grapple balances that by being a rather dangerous maneuver since the actual rules give the grappled one the first chance to hit or get out of harms way by having a high Escape Artist value.

Nice idea (which is covered by the Master Craftsman feat already). But the increase for the DC of not having a relevant spell available should mirror its difficulty to be cast. So the increase could be equal to the level of the (highest) spells not being available (minimum +5 of course).

Or the difference (or half that value for Non-casters with the Master Craftsman feat) between needed caster level and actual level could be added to the DC.

Well, here there has some math to be done.

Agreed. The huge variety of bonus types is a problem itself, not of CMB.

Something that was mentioned earlier (by Xuttah I think) is that, when you don't have a chance to hit it normally you do a maneuver instead, because it is easier. I don't think that's a bad thing, since the combat maneuvers do not result in hit point damage (presuming I interpreted the combat maneuver rules correctly), but in changing the situation by reducing AC (Grapple, Trip), by moving the foe (bullrush) etc.

So it's an tactical alternative that is easier to do but only results in hit point damage indirectly by giving your allies an opportunity to hit The Unhittable Sulk.

Maybe it's really just a problem with poison rules. Now they're unbalanced, because poisons are way too cheap. Ok they are quite ineffective, but the 1 looses rule makes a high DC unnecessary when you have many attacks.

Ok, let's increase the price. But which poison you choose: The DC 20 one for 20.000GM or the DC 15 one for 15.000? When your opponents start to have sufficient Fortitude saves to fail only on the roll of 1 I take the DC 1 alcohol dip for 1000...
Higher levels exclude this option.

Solution: don't give poison to PC's/NPC's with character classes, make it a monster only thing. Than the 1 looses rule is ok.

Nobody denies that bonuses and penalties would be more realistic and logic. But it adds an amount of complexity the CMB system tried to reduce. You can't tell me the "Oh I found *another* bonus I forgot"-syndrom makes you that happy...

But yeah, I agree that *some* conditions to alter the CMB should be included. Cover, fighting defensively, power attack and charge penalty unnamed bonuses/penalties come in mind. (And even that's too much, the last point isn't that fine)

Finally I vote for adding DEX as an alternative for calculating the CMB defense value. The mage should have at least a chance to resist grapple...

My campaigns all have no max rank to skills.

What do you think?

Honestly? Crap... (please, don't take that personally, its just a ridicolous rule, which strengthens superior skills over the top. It's just munchkin.)

The NPC thing... well just break the "NPCs are the same as PCs"-rule and say, if that shoemaker fabricated shoes his hole life, he *is* better than the adventurer who happens to have a needle of +10 to shoemaking.

We have a house rule, if you save vs. any effect three times, you are immune for the rest of the day. This prevents the sorts of problems you are seeing, while still allowing the danger of a auto fail on a natural 1.

I like the idea of a threshold, but it can be some micro management. But any effect is too wide an area. Make the threshold number equaling 3 or your Con-bonus and apply it to helpless making/death bringing attacks and we got a nice optional rule.

Ah, sorry, I misread your post. (it's late in the night here...)

Ever played high-level DnD? 50+ Damage is common. Fighters don't get in the Massive Damage situation very often due to the half max HP cap for massive damage. But poor sorcerers. They shouldn't go in melee but they find themselves there quite often. The BBEG does this amount of Damage. And wouldn't be the BBEG (or his right hand man) if he didn't hit the nova-blaster first. Don't get me started on spells like harm.
But Massive Dammage is sufficiently discussed in another thread.

The real problem is the 1 looses rule. It's ok when used seldomly. But poisoned arrows are a real problem. AC increases much slower than attack bonus does. Hits become more common. 16th level fighter/rogue: 5/4 attacks are usual. 4/3 attacks hit normally. After 3 rounds theres a circa 50% chance of beeing affected by a poisoned arrow. Way too much, I think.

Which would kill the Shield-Fighting Style. Enemy has a shield? Grapple the idiot! It might seems realistic but brings up balancing issues.

My thoughts on CMB:

1. I really like it

2. It doesn't work well for sundering. But that is no problem of CMB, it is the maneuver itself. I don't get the logic in: It's a halfling, it's small, it's harder to hit, but sundering his ring on his pinky is the easiest thing ever. Please, give creatures smaller than middle a bonus against sunder, and add points to difficulty for sundering small objects.
It should be almost impossible to break Saurons ring, I think.

3. You have invented a new system for these maneuvers. Why not exceeding it's use, the spell rusting grasp or warp wood comes in mind, which is quite a sunder attack. Make it a CMB attack with a bonus depending on caster level (ok it's for the opening of the spell section but it fits here as well)

I'm no fan of the 1 always fails rule. It's not bringing up a problem in moderate numbers of uses. It adds tension. But having to roll for massive damage every attack (!) in higher levels just bugs me. And the Pixie-Sleep-Arrow-Machine-Bow with high damage output adds two (!) saves per hit. Ok it's realistic. But it's 8 save rolls per round caused by only one character...

conclusion:
Kick out death from Massive Damage. All 3.5 groups I was in ignored this rule. It just becomes too usual in mid-levels.

1 always looses? It's a nice thing for tension issues but crappy in save-or-die situations. Skip it for effects that kill you or bring you into the helpless state.

Adding the old cleave functions to the new sounds like a great idea to me.

I'd prefer making the new Cleave and Great Cleave a standard-action and adding the old versions seperately. The idea of adding more than one maneuver to one feat brings me a painful memory of tactical feats. Two words: not good.