Elf

Kaithan Kanathar's page

27 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Thanks for bringing these to my attention! I haven't had a chance yet to look at them in depth, but they look promising. I appreciate it.


My question *should* read "What if for *any* of the PrC ARCANE classes as base I used the spell progression of the bard..." If that helps DM Blake. You are right about that Death Arrow ability too. See, this is why I ask questions! +5 Toaster, you have a good idea there. I think I'll steal it! ;) I'll tinker around with it and post my results.


Anyone care to share an opinion?


I've been thinking about this a little and I came up with an idea I wanted to throw out there. Remember this would only be for NPCs. The Nzunta are supposed to be very magical in nature, and I was wanting to come up with something that would set them apart from the typical NPC. I decided that since they are so inherently magical that I'd make them all predominantly sorcerer based. I figured that even the warrior types in their culture would be magical as well. To that end I decided that having them be able to choose a PrC that has arcane magic as a staple of the class. I am also considering creating a ranger class that can cast arcane spells instead of clerical, but I may open that up to PCs depending on how it works out.

What if for *any* of the PrC classes as base I used the spell progression of the bard, but let them choose spells from the sorcerer spell list? That would mean no 3rd level spells until 7th level, and starting out they'd only be able to cast around 3-5 spells a day. This seems reasonable to me, but I still would like to hear from others.


Yeah, its only for NPCs. I was thinking the same thing Ragnarok. If they had the same spell progression as a sorcerer then the main thing that I'd think would make them OP is their ability to increase the range of their spells. They still wouldn't be able to cast 3rd level spells until 6th level for instance.


So I'm getting the sense that people think this would be overpowered, but I am still not seeing it. What is it about this idea that makes it OP?


Yep, that's pretty much how we do it.


We like using the miniatures to help visualize the battle, but as far as I know we aren't using any fig rules.


*bump*


If I give full attacks to the other classes after moving would that help negate the effect of losing AoO as Pupsocket suggested? At the very least I think I am going to have to go through the feats to see about making them viable in some other way.


Well they have a level adjustment of +2. I'm guessing this is the same as racial hit dice? Apologies if these seem to be obvious questions, but my 3.5/PF-Fu is weak. What makes this overpowered? If instead of giving them the Sorcerer spell progression I just assumed the "existing class" to be Sorcerer on the table on pg 375 of the PFCRB, would that make it more balanced?


I'm creating a Dragonlance campaign where an evil race called the Nzunta will play a major part. They are very attuned to magic and in my campaign their preferred class is Sorcerer. I've read a lot of comments on these boards about how prestige classes aren't really as good as the base classes in a lot of ways, and I came up with an idea to allow NPCs of the Nzunta race to be able to use some of the arcane PrCs as base classes instead of prestige classes. For instance an NPC could start as an Arcane Archer at first level instead of having to meet the prereqs of the class first. Since the Nzunta are natural sorcerers in my campaign I was thinking of giving them the spell progression of a sorcerer as well. I also like the idea purely from a fluff viewpoint, as I want the Nzunta to be "different" from the norm. Do you think this would make my NPCs too powerful, or not powerful enough?


Actually after reading all the replies I feel better about not having AoOs. It sounds like most of you feel like it won't break the game, and that was my main concern. Many of you pointed out that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander and i will definitely be implementing that. Thanks for the responses.


Nah, I'm not trying to hinder the wizards. I just wonder about the stability of the "machine" if you essentially are removing one of the "gears".


Interesting Bruunwald. I haven't really DM'd in 3.x yet and don't have much first hand experience with the AoO rules. My concerns are largely based on the fact that *so many* feats and skills seem to refer to the AoO rules in one way or another, and I worry that I'll end up having to nerf a whole slew of feats/skills because of it. i've considered changing feats/skills prereqs to something that is not tied to AoO, but I haven't looked into it yet. I've also considered making it so that you can get an AoO but at the expense of your normal attack if you so choose. Either of these sound do-able?


blackbloodtroll,
I hear ya and I'd love to do that. The thing is all of us are getting pretty long in the tooth and none of us really have a group of gamers outside of ourselves that we know. If I tried to implement the AoO rules, they just wouldn't play and I'd be stuck with all these cool ideas I have for DMing by myself. I do like your idea though Pupsocket. I'm going to see if they are open to implementing it. I also like the fact that ranged attackers also benefit from the lack of AoO. I may have to start taking advantage of that in their game, for no other reason than to show them how jacked up not having AoO can be.


I am playing in a campaign being run by three of my old AD&D pals, but are now using the 3.x rules. Before I started playing the other three decided that they would ignore the AoO rules as they felt it dragged the combats out too long. At least that is what they *say* the reason is. I strongly suspect that the *REAL* reason is because one of the players is something of a control freak who likes to play magic users, and he found that the AoO rules made it more difficult to showboat his character.
The other three players all take turns DMing a Forgotten Realms campaign while I will be DMing a Dragonlance game with different characters. In their campaign they don't use any PF material, but in mine I will be using the PFCRB for classes and feats.
My main concern is that not using AoO will effectively nerf several feats/skills in both the 3.x material as well as in the PFCRB material. There will be no convincing them to use AoO rules. It'd be pointless to even try. My solution so far has been to just ignore any prereqs for feats/skills that give you AoO bonuses. I just pretend those feats/skills don't exist as a prereq when it comes time to build my character. I just worry that there is going to be some kind of serious imbalance further down the line as the characters gain levels. What are the thoughts of others?


Thanks to all who posted. I'm new to these PF boards and PF in general and I seem to keep forgetting to mention things. I'm old school, not having played much 3.x D&D and never PF before. All my experience comes from 2e D&D. One of the things I forgot to mention is that we create our characters old school by rolling them up (4d6 re-roll 1s, place as desired) and do not use a point buy system. I haven't actually rolled his stats yet, but what I am seeing here is along the lines of what I was considering. I am not familiar with Urban Barbarian or Invulnerable Rager however. Are these in the PFCRB?


I should mention we only use the PFCRB as well. Sorry for not mentioning that up front.


He'd be a strength build with secondary ability being dex. I'd go with TWF with a bastard sword/short sword wield, maybe further down the line wielding two bastard swords.


Really my only goal is making a character that matches the story I have in my head for him, but mechanically is a character who can pull his weight at the higher levels and will still be fun to play. He doesn't have to be the best and baddest of the group or anything.


I have a half-orc character that I'd like to build with ranger/barbarian/rogue levels. His original class would be barbarian for story reasons and his main class would be ranger with only a few (maybe only one) level of rogue. I like the whole animal companion aspect of the ranger class, and would choose a bear. What I was wondering is how effective of a build would this be, and maybe some advice on how many levels of each I should take. I am not overly concerned with being an uber powerful character, I just want to be able to keep up at higher levels. Thanks.


Wow. Yeah a lot of the stuff in that thread is really interesting. I made it to page 4 before I needed to hit the sack. Definitely gonna be reading the rest though! Thanks Shalafi.


Devil's Advocate: As this will be based during the WotL there won't be any Mystics, and I just say that Sorcerers are available to one race (high ogres) in this time period. No one is playing a high ogre sorcerer so that point is moot. I've modified my DL setting with the idea that PF/3.5 is the *only* version there has ever been and retroactively change things accordingly with that in mind. So, most human mages adhere to the rules about staff, dagger and etc but elves who have always been good at multi-classing between mage and fighter still do so in my campaign, much to the chagrin of the humans in the ToHS. However, they are not considered renegades for doing so. Knights of Solamnia are a prestige class in 3.5 DL, and they are different enough from the PF fighter that I don't see that being an issue. I also give KoS and paladins the die hard feat and the toughness feat for free at first level, but not fighters.
In this campaign most of the PCs are human or elf, with one dwarf, one kender and one high ogre thrown in, so until some of the other issues arise I am going to let them lie, waiting...


Y'know I thoroughly despise the Age of Mortals era of DL and will be converting the module(s) to the War of the Lance time period, making my job all that much harder. However, I think that Cam Banks and Sovereign Press really did a good job on those three *massive* modules. It really is like taking a tour of the AoM Dragonlance setting. Too bad about the giant, uber, space dragons mucking everything up...


*bump*


Hello all! First time posting on these boards so bear with me if I am being repetitive here...
I am going to be running my PCs through the Dragonlance Age of Mortals campaign, or at least the first module of that campaign called the Key of Destiny. I bought the Pathfinder Core Rule Book several years ago, and I think I'd have what you guys would call the "3.75" version.
Anyway, my idea is to allow the core classes and feats from the PF book to be used in lieu of the core classes and feats out of the PHB. If a player wants, they can still use the classes in the PHB, but the PF classes are there if they want to use them. Right now only one of my three players is likely to take advantage of the PF book, along with my main NPC. I've looked through the book and I don't see anything likely to imbalance my campaign much, aside from the fact that the PF classes are just cooler and more useful, but I was wondering if anyone else might see a problem with me doing this?