James Langley's page

267 posts (364 including aliases). 4 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:

Part of what I'm going for with advice here is how to sell it on DM's Guild. Give me a hook about the class, describe what kind of person takes this class in a way that makes them sound different from things like Bard and Rogue.

In some ways, this is a pulp adventurer, an explorer who's been everywhere and seen everything. They expect the unexpected. A good, evocative description will help this catch people's eye.


Yeah. I'm totally going to write the descriptive portions.
I just want the crunch parts out there right now.
Have no worries there :)

Rune wrote:

One small suggestion on the Spellfire feat/ability: The reaction Absorb Spell is way too good. In itself it could very well be a feat (targeted by a spell, counter as a reaction?); as an incidental means of recharging is just way too much. It also encourages Spellfire users to spend all charges as quick as possible and walk around with 0 charges, thus becoming almost immune to spells.

Make it like 3e: You need to Ready an action to absorb spells as they're cast. It pretty much sucks (you have to be lucky enough that the enemy casts a single-target spell focused on you), but, honestly, the spell-absorption isn't the main draw here.

Compare it to Defensive Duelist and you'll quickly see it never scaling back.

Think about it this way: if you use your reaction to absorb a spell, that means no AoO, no Shield/Feather Fall spell, etc. for that round.

That's what my thought was when I was designing it.
It could definitely work as readying an action, though.
On that note... I need to see how counterspelling actually works in 5e.
Like, the action of doing counter-magic.
I don't think I'd seen rules on that lol

Irontruth wrote:
The Factotum seems like a collection of cool abilities surrounding the concept that "I'm really good at stuff". It's kind of generic and uninteresting. It seems like a class designed around abilities, instead of abilities designed around an in-fiction concept. The abilities are balanced, but other than "being good at stuff" I don't know what really unifies them.

This is actually how the original 3.5 class worked. It was meant to be the ultimate jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none.

I'll agree that the concept is pretty bland, overall. But the class is supposed to be "an adventurer with a large bag of tricks."
I played one back in 3.5 and it was by far my favorite class in that system.

If you were to suggest a fix for the "generalness," what would you like to see?
I'm more than open to ideas :3

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:
James Langley wrote:

*snip* Besides, the only class that could never get spellfire would be, ironically, the sorcerer since you cannot multiclass into your own class...

Breaking-up your spellfire feat into two or three feats could also work. Even if the final result is strong, ASIs are a rare commodity to trade.

Okay, I derped.

I meant to give sorcerers all the things.
Why didn't I just say that then?

So, basically, you get ALL of the feat as-it-is-now if you take sorcerer levels, but you can take a feat to gain the spellflame and reserve bits.

That's what I had meant to say.
My derp.

Also, I don't want to break this into several feats (which I'd thought of doing already) as there is no precedent for feat chains in 5e. Just my design preference, really. But, I could also just keep tinkering and release it in a future book-thing.

If 3rd party stuff is allowed, you could use my 5e Factotum class.
Choose the Knack for Warfare and you'd get the medium armor proficiency, choose the Knack for Espionage and you get your stealthiness.
Only problem with that route is that it takes 11 levels to get both of those knacks running side-by-side...
But testing it would be mighty helpful to me ;)

Outside of that...
The Scout Fighter "kit" was pretty great. Allows you to use Mastery Dice to do scout-y things.

That's about all my 2cp can do, though :(

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laurefindel wrote:

Hi James,

Spellfire does a bit much for a single feat. Compared to Magic Initiate, Spellfire gives you more spells, of higher level, and even more as you level-up. Spellfire does not refresh after a long rest, but the way to recharge your spellfire is yet another set of beneficial abilities.

Spellfire has its own pool of points, its own mechanics, abilities and some improvement as you gain level. For me, this is class material, specifically a new sorcerer archetype.

Someone else had said it does quite a bit.

And I agree completely!

The trick is that anyone is supposed be able to gain spellfire, not just those who can already do magic.
However, I did just think of a way to make it into a sorcerer thingy...


~Place a majority of the features into a sorcerer archetype.
~Keep the feat, but it only grants a reserve (and only the absorb spell recharge) and the create spellflame feature.

This way, it would allow someone to use spellfire, but it would require a little bit more investment to get the meaty-goodness of the original concept (via levels in sorcerer).

Does this seem workable?

Part of me putting this up was for folks to try it out in their games. I don't have the time/ability to game right now. So, I write instead :P

Also, not sure if you've seen the 3.5 factotum or not, but all of your points are pretty much exactly how this class worked in that edition.
For more information, look at this thingy.

Lorathorn wrote:
The factotum is an interesting class, and I meant to leave a comment, but it just seems like something that might better suit a bard archetype. I don't want to rain on any parades. I'll have to take another look to see if I have anything to say about specific class features.

See, that's what I'd thought to do as well.

At first.

But, try as I might, I couldn't hammer the original class concept into a bard archetype.
I'd either end up losing class features from the original factotum or losing some of their versatility or both.
Open to suggestions though :3

No parades rained on.
Well, I mean, Pacific Northwest so it's always raining, but I digress :P

Huh. No comments on the factotum yet. Not sure if I should be worried or flattered lol

Malaclypse wrote:
Very cool, I especially like the Sha'ir Warlock. Perfect for the Elemental Evil campaign.

I actually hadn't thought of that. But... yeah. That would be slick as snot.

I designed it for my home campaign setting, actually. It, too, features elemental cults, but not necessarily those dedicated to APOCALYPSAGEDDON.

Hi, everyone!
Long time, no chat.

At any rate, I have some things that I've written up for 5e that are conversions of older material (3.5 and back) and I need some help looking over them for balance, viability, etc.

Because I intend to put these things into a neat little PDF and put them on the DMGuild for a "pay what you want" fee.

And, if possible, that would include free. (But donations are always appreciated :3 )

So, without further rambling:
Sha'ir Warlock
Spellfire Feat
Tome of Magic (Simple)

Each of these is set up so that you may comment directly on the document. Or you can leave your thoughts here and I will collect them.
Either way, help is appreciated :)

I was considering running a game based on this concept.
As others have said, it does matter a little which class we're looking at.
Overall, IMHO, this wouldn't be broken, though. Just be careful of weirdness. As always.

On a related note, I was looking at running a game that used a modified gestalt rule: you could choose one archetype and gain its benefits on top of the normal class features. You could choose a second archetype, but you would treat your modified class as the base class.
The strangest interactions with this model occurred in the Summoner.

Overall, this is pretty sweet stuff, IMHO.
Well done, mate :)

If the god that you actually worship is a god of trickery, then I would totally think they'd be okay with you using another god's symbol.

But I'm also one of those weirdos that thinks that "story trumps rules" in a lot of cases.


The biggest trouble I ran into when I started running 5e was that my players didn't fully understand the action economy.
I had one player quit because they didn't understand the way that TWF works in 5e (subtle hint: you can always do it, no penalties to rolls, by using a bonus action [much better than previous editions IMHO]).
Paraphrase - "Why did I bother choosing to play a warlock when a fighter can just do that?"
/end scene

Sangerine wrote:

Use Polymorph Any Object to make lava into a lovely stone floor.
When AMF hits, the effect is suppressed.
The floor is now literally lava.

Naturally the BBEG is already standing on the furniture, they know how the game works.

I have this lovely visual of the completely insane lich standing in a banquet hall on an adamantine table.

"You can't get me, foolish heroes! The floor is lava!"
Commences cackling.
Heroes don't quite know how to proceed.


Ask nicely?
Maybe the DM will allow some flexibility? Trade one prof for another, forex.


Even though I've become one of PF's most vocal detractors in recent years, and have fully switched to 5E, I used to love Pathfinder quite passionately.

I came to the "Paizo Side" shortly after seeing how terrible 4e was (that is, shortly after it was launched).
And though I had started my RPG experience with 2nd Edn., I learned how to really play and run the game during 3.X.

So, naturally, when Paizo brought my favorite RPG into the new millennium, I latched on for dear life.
And it was a sweet ride.

I bought everything that I could - core, class guide, race guide, ultimate campaign/combat/magic, etc. etc.
As well as tons of 3pp stuff (like Thunderscape core book [which I still highly recommend for everyone]).

And I still dust off the books occasionally.
The artwork is still beautiful.
The rules are still comfortable for the most part.
And Paizo will sometimes publish things that surprise me and draw me back in.

But, I feel like we're now old friends that have grown apart rather than bosom pals.
Lots of fond memories, but we don't really stay in touch.


Imbicatus wrote:
steve Arnold wrote:
Would a Limited wish bring one back? Or a wish?

I'd require two wishes. One to recreate the body, and one to restore it to "life"

That's a a house rule though. RAW nothing brings one back. 0 HP and its gone forever.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't "specific beat general" in terms of rules?

As nothing is an absolute, it is a general statement.
So, specifically, high powered magic that says it can do anything (wish and miracle) should work.
Although, yeah. Probably two of those for good measure.

Just being pedantic :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slithery D wrote:

They're not going to errata a spell that has existed this way since previous editions. And they didn't overlook the issue with the new Possession spell when they left the mind-affecting tag off.

This was a very poor attempt at humor on my part. I've been around since 2nd Edn.

Just poking fun at the senseless/needless errata that tends to come out with the things that actually matter.

Christopher Dudley wrote:
pipedreamsam wrote:
My Self wrote:

Currently he's a Psychic Warrior (Dreamscarred Press)/Fighter/Champion (Mythic Path). I created him like a mythic hero because it seemed appropriate. I may change it around to a monster + MR to get the DR/epic.

His Psychic Warrior powers give him a "attack and then teleport" power that I expect to use. I like the balcony idea in conjunction with that. Maybe I'll move their final fight into the great hall of his palace. He can attack, then port into safety of the upper tier.

My 2cp:

Give him the DR anyway.
You're the DM.
You can't cheat.
Because you establish the rules.

And that fight's setup sounds freaking awesome.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It isn't right now, but wait for the errata.

Jiggy wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
The Sword wrote:

Interestingly, a peculiar thought recently occurred to me:

What if 5E's chassis is so elegant and streamlined that creating brand new content is actually less work than assembling the necessary pieces to build a complex/unique Pathfinder character?*snip*

James casts Minor Tangent!

This exact thing.
I have homebrewed several things from earlier editions into 5e with almost no trouble.
Even full classes.

Not to mention, I feel way more capable of free-running my dungeons and stuff off-the-cuff in 5e MUCH MORE than in 3.P.
I don't quite know why this is, but it might have something to do with the bounded accuracy aspect of 5e.

Sadly, MendedWall, this is a game of numbers.
The bigger, the better.
Flavor tends to come second to being able to pump DPS/auto-gib.

alexd does have a point, though: table variance does occur.
But the community does seem geared towards optimization.

My experiences are very much like Jiggy's near the top.
Nothing but awesome due to every character actually being able to contribute in a variety of arenas.

Also, multiclassing actually works in 5e.
We had a barbarian/warlock/fighter at 7th level that was able to contribute in a variety of ways.
And didn't suck at any particular task (we called him the "king of the short rest").

Interestingly, due to the "archetype" features and the way that backgrounds work in 5e, I was able to faithfully recreate a gestalt character that I was intending to run in a PF game.
With only one class.

Overall, I'd say that 5e is leaps-and-bounds more balanced than PF in terms of character design.

Just build a character and run with it.
Surprise yourself.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

Holy cats. When I first clicked on this, I was like "that is something only a noob would ask."

But I became far less certain as time passed.
Far less certain.

Noobz, you have genuinely shaken my understanding of the foundation of Pathfinder's combat system with this question. This is the kind of madness and tactical genius that I love to see in players.

Mind you, I strictly play 5e now (where this highly interesting situation doesn't even exist), but I would love to get something resembling an official ruling on this matter.



5 people marked this as a favorite.

I Think I Borked It: Have a character slain or rendered obsolete by errata.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
James Langley wrote:

Painting the Roses Red: Slay a group of nobles in a woodland or garden environment.

This clearly should be, "Painting the Violets Blue." c'mon man.

Duly noted. Will fix in the errata.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Open Mouth, Insert Foot: Fail a Diplomacy check at a crucial, campaign-changing moment.

Open Foot, Insert Mouth: Receive an impromptu amputation from something with sharp, pointy teeth.

Must You?: Play a bard and successfully seduce your way to bed with at least three different NPCs.

I Thought You Had It?: Misplace an artifact or other item that you were sent to retrieve.

Did We Forget Something?: Leave a plot-crucial NPC for dead.

Hope They're the Right Ones: Cause a riot by making the townsfolk doubt the power of their god(s).

Painting the Roses Red: Slay a group of nobles in a woodland or garden environment.

That Guy: Arrive to a session with a cheesed-out character.

Anybody Want a Peanut?: Roll a natural 20 on a Perform (oratory) check.

But It's What My Character Would Do!: Avoid having your alignment becoming changed with a well-thought-out argument.

What is That Thing!?: Have three or more of the following: Eldritch Heritage feat, sorcerer's Bloodline feature, alchemist's Mutagen feature, Aberrant Tumor feat, alchemist's Tumor Familiar discovery, summoner's Aspect feature, etc. (I'm sure there are a TON more, but this is the general idea :D)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
I got into the habit of using candy as monster figures at a convention.
..... Okay, I didn't think of that, but now that it's in my head, I'm buying a ton of Halloween candy next year (when I can afford it). Not only will the money be chocolate coins,...

That is brutal. I mean, it's one thing to eat the flesh of your fallen enemies in-game, but IRL? Twisted :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Kind of an interesting side-effect of the "unsummoner" being the only one allowed in PFS is that you are required to buy this book in some format then. Hmm...

At any rate - this whole thing is one reason why I don't do organized play at all. I'd rather folks played what they wanted (within the confines of what my game world allows) than have things be nerfed/buffed/removed/errata'd into oblivion.




1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

*snip* death note campaign

Player(s) receive a notebook and play the part of Kira *snip*

Play this game using "Everyone is John."

That way, everyone is literally playing the part of Kira.

Must be the sudden shift in the Earth's axis...

Freaking autumn >.<

1 person marked this as a favorite.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mesmerist (Cult Master).

I'm an assessment specialist/job coach.
Getting people to believe in themselves is what I do.
Even if they don't want to.



Like the Witch, good stuff here :)

I like the combo cleric spells/"oracle points" thing going on here. And using them to fuel higher-grade revelations? Great move :)

I see this more as an archetype for the Warlock than the Wizard. Just my 2cp.

Overall, nice up-vert of the PF class, though :) Might make use of this for a villain of mine...

1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>