Karel Gheysens's page

Organized Play Member. 138 posts (325 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I've been reading through the first part of the adventure and I like it a lot.

However, when reading through the player's guide, I feel that the rule additions don't match with the core rules.

The theme feats often refer to once per combat. As far as I know, there are no abilities in the core rule set that function like that. I don't even think once per combat is a defined frequency in pathfinder and I have been unable to find it's definition in the player's guide.

The Docker’s Jank theme feat seems very similar to Swift Aid (a Combat feat) though it includes the character itself (ihmo, this is not the idea of the aid an other action) and is restricted to 4 other characters (and to once per combat).
As far as I know, the rangers Hunter's Bond is the only ability that is restricted to 'your companions' though it does not have a maximum number of characters it can affect. The Docker’s Jank theme feat seems to screw over parties larger than 5 people.

Icy End of the Earth Theme Feat speaks about stabilising a dead character. Exactly what is meant by this? The closest thing I'm aware of that has functionality somewhat similar to the feat is Breath of Life (a 5th level cleric spell which btw probably makes the feat severely overpowered). Though the amount of healing is specifically mentioned in the spell description.
Icy End of the Earth Theme Feat indicated the possibility to be stable at -100 hit points. I don't think the core rules cover this.

The Man with Two Guns is God: It offers quick draw and two weapon fighting with guns. Though it does not offer proficiency with guns. So your druid can quick draw guns and fire 2 weapons though can only shoot in his own foot because of the lack of proficiency?

All in all, I think ZEITGEIST has a lot of potential though it doesn't show easily.
Back to reading the campaign guide.

Guy Humual wrote:
Karel Gheysens wrote:

And why is this a problem?

It's not a problem. It's the only situation in my mind where a sword cane would be a good choice.

And thus, the answer to the question 'sword cane: why bother' is 'bother when you should'.

It's situational like so many things. And for some reason, there are people who don't get this and want to use it for stuff it's ain't designed for.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Also I'll remind everyone again that the base of the argument is rooted on the fact that Ezren does have a cane which is listed under his equipment as "Cane (as club)".

It's the same as with vital strike working on spring attack.

It's not because it's in an adventure, that it automatically creates a precedent and changes the rules.
If you want to follow what the designer has done, you can do so. This however does not make it a general rule as that has to come from a developer.

Your example only proves that there is one cane in the world that can be used as a club. Not that all canes in the world can be used as a club.

In the end, it's up to the dm to either allow it or not.

Guy Humual wrote:
Now supposing you live in a society were carrying weapons is frowned upon (but not illegal) a sword cane would be an excellent choice of weapon for a gentleman. Should people spot the weapon they'll simply assume that he's being polite by not wearing a sword and making everyone uncomfortable. This is the only use for a sword cane as I see it.

And why is this a problem?

I'm not saying the sword cane is the best weapon in the world.
I'm just saying that is has it's use and that a dc 20 to recognise something strange on a cane is not laughable.

That dc 20 does not give you X-ray vision. It does not allow you to see the blade. All you see is a small circle around the cane where the two parts meet (and possible a button of sorts). Your local peasant won't know what to make of it.

You can probably fool the people a whole campaign with that weapon. Sure beats investing in sleight of hands and hoping that you gm allows you to take 20 on it or else the dc will be much smaller than the sword cane.

P.S. Though as I've hinted on before, way to increase the dc might be interesting to extend the usability of the sword cane to higher levels.

Ravingdork wrote:

Yeah, the sword cane's perception DC is laughable. Any first level commoner has a realistic chance of spotting it. What are the odds going to be against suspicious guards trained to look for things out of the ordinary?

You would never survive a room full of people with this weapon. SOMEONE would spot it.

Tell me, what am I missing Ravingdork?

The dc to spot it is 20. A normal commoner not specifically trained for this has a perception modifier of 2 or 3. That makes it 10% or 15% chance someone looking for it will spot it.

Furthermore, what does the spotting of the sword cane mean?
In the end, all they spot is a strange cane. Don't think many commoners would immediately scream sword cane.

In that room of people, hardly anyone will be effectively looking for something out of the blue (meaning that you chance is 0). A room full of people just has no way (except for metagaming) to be looking for a sword cane. So they don't even get a perception check.

As for the Guards, there perception modifier isn't that high and they still have to beat the dc 20. Your character is an idiot if he gives his cane to the guard allowing them to lower the dc to 10. If needed, bluff your way out of it. If your disguise is solid, the lie is believable and the dc should not be all to hard.

furthermore, nobody says you should pass the guards. Stealth/swim/climb/acrobatics might allow you to get past the guards.

And if your gm agrees with you that the perception dc are way to low, you might be able to convince him to grant bonuses from masterwork/magic to work towards increasing the perception dc.

The dc is 20. Not sure what's craptastic about that.

Atarlost wrote:
I think Achilles may have been a barbarian. I seem to remember some serious berserking when he fought Hector after his boy toy got offed.

Achilles ain't a barbarian. Even in the film (which is not a good representation of the real story ihmo) he's only angered for a small part.

Furthermore, on several occasion you can see that he doesn't want to fight which is not a characteristic of a barbarian ihmo.

I think there is only one real druid archedruid in lord of the rings, and that's Tom Bombadil.
And there is only one real archegunslinger and that's Roland from The dark tower series (Steven King).

To comeback to the usefulness or uselessness of trap-spotter. What exactly is the definition of trap here?

Weak structure in dungeons and are in risk to collapse or even weak bridges. Not a trap like a pit or arrow trap though I'd probably let it work there.

I'd even go further. What about nature hazards (or natural traps so you like). Things like quick sand, low oxygen bubbles or more creative stuff (I think they are DMG)?
I interpret the survival skill (dc 15 to avoid nature hazards)here to allow characters to avoid area's where those hazards typically occur as part of a general survival check made for something else (like finding food, tracking etc probably with a slightly higher dc). Though not on a case by case situation like with traps. Unless you specifically look for them (probably moving at 1/2 or 1/3 speed) or have something similar to trap-spotter, I'm not sure I would let them notice it.

Ear Seekers are a nice example

Quandary wrote:
If Quickdraw isn`t your thing, this multi-class really only seems beneficial/synergistic if you could convince the GM to allow taking Two-Weapon Defense (a 6th level Ranger option) at the 2nd level of Ranger (it doesn`t actually have any high level pre-reqs as a Feat). Two-Weapon Rend is a 11th level Ranger Bonus Feat, but does have high Pre-Reqs... If you are happy with Quickdraw or CAN and want to take 2 Weapon Defense, I can see a 2 level or so dip in Ranger as being useful. That isn`t the most powerful approach by any means, but at least you could be making use of all the class features.

I think the best solution is to not take the TWF combat style. It duplicates to much of what the monk does.

Either take Natural Weapon combat style, bow combat style and go switch hitter (without switching weapons, you can flurry with your feet just fine) or two handed fighting combat style assuming there are two handed monk weapons worth using.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Traps have to be actively looked for, but when you look how much area do you cover?

It's just a perception check based on the position you are standing with all the appropriate modifiers.

Just like a perception check to notice a stealthy opponent or identify the square of an invisible attacker.

Thus, no line of sight, long distance or too little light severely hamper the chance to detect something.

This unlike trap-sporter where the distance is always (less than) 10 feet. Line of sight is less of a problem at this short distance and I don't think there are light sources off less then 10 feet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asteldian Caliskan wrote:

True you do things faster, so Rogue is taking a car instead of walking (well, more like riding a horse). Assuming the Rogue takes Trapspotting as a talent. A lot of Rogues don't bother with it because mechanically it is convenient but not required.

But now come to fighting you have brought a featherweight boxer to a heavyweight fight.

A princess may get old waiting for you to slowly find traps with Ranger or Bard, but she is just plain dead when the party never make it because they were beaten to death because they could not handle the encounters.

On the other hand, a well build rogue might open different approaches to the encounter through their skills and tallents (stealth, climb, disables device etc.) without expending resources from other classes.

Just look at the armies today. Intelligence (not the stat, but knowing what your enemy does) and (mechanical aided) skills are atleast as important as holding the biggest gun.

ihmo, you can't grasp the complexity of an encounter in simple metaphors. You can twist them and focus on certain aspects to prove each and every point.

Charender wrote:
You can take a 10 on perception checks, all you have to do is declare it. By the RAW you can take a 20 to find traps, but some DMs don't allow it, and it really slows the party down(1 minute to search each 5 foot square).

Even take 10 consumes a lot more time than trap spotter. Trap spotter is an immediate action (so no time lost) compared to a standard/move action (on average, 3 seconds).

Again, this may or may not be relevant to you and your character.

On top of, there is the problem of looking for traps in combat and the distance effect. trap spotter is always at 10 feet away. Checking for traps in a room either means you take distance penalties at the other side of the room or you spend a lot of time searching in different places.

Just try and find the other rogue treads on this board. They are filled with examples of rogue shining, rogue versus wizard comparisons etc.

In the end, it comes down to what you expect from the character and the type of game you run. And only the OP or his DM can answer those question.

P.S.The same can be said for every class. If each monster has 100 dr, your fighter is going to be useless.
I agree that in the current version of the rules, there are a lot of competitors for the rogue (too much I would say). Though this does not mean a rogue can't be the right character in a given situation.

InVinoVeritas wrote:
Karel Gheysens wrote:

Furthermore, when it comes to traps, there are no/little replacements for rogues. As far as I know (and I hope UM or UC doesn't change this), the rogues is the only class that has access to Trapfinding.

unless you plan to run around a dungeon taking 10 on you perception check, you are not going to have a lot of use from your Trapfinding ihmo.
That already changed in the APG. The Urban Ranger gets full Trapfinding, and a number of Bard archetypes can disable magical traps.

Sorry, should have been trapspotting.

Asteldian Caliskan wrote:
Or go Ninja to be Roguish and the party face and say 'traps? No one cares about them anyway'

As has been said a zillion times, that might be true for the games you play though this is not an assumption that is valid for all games. The usefullness of finding and disarming traps is specific for each game. The necessity/usefulness therefore depends on the specific game and can only be stated in relation to the game.

caith is the only one that judge the necessity for trapfinding/trapspotting.

Furthermore, when it comes to traps, there are no/little replacements for rogues. As far as I know (and I hope UM or UC doesn't change this), the rogues is the only class that has access to trapspotting (edited to trapspotting).
unless you plan to run around a dungeon taking 10 on you perception check, you are not going to have a lot of use from your Trapfinding ihmo.

caith, if you expect to face a lot of traps, many more ingenious then a simple hit point drain and with role play concequence, consider atleast dipping into rogue for two or tree levels and take trapspotter as a tallent. Those levels of rogue go quite good with levels in ranger and bard anyway.
If not, an other class that offers trapfinding should be enough. Use perception when traps are to be expected (like when exploring a thieves cave or around important artefacts) and just take the other traps like a man (or woman).


CMB is the equivalent of a normal attack roll. Both don't apply 1-1/2 (or 1/2 for off hand) to their check.

Are you going to 'force' your playings to take a pirate trait?

If so, you may want to include some stuff for casters. Something like +4 bonus to concentration check to resist the motion of a ship (I actually think there is a similar trait, not sure where though). Or a +1 caster level for water spells.

ihmo, you need a trait to (substantially) decrease armor check penalties. No self respecting pirate would accept heavy penalties on live saving skills such a swim, climb and acrobatics.

Classes that use heavier armor for protection become a lot less interesting (though maybe this is a good thing).

Name to be filled in: When first joining a gang of pirates, you only had steel armor for protection. Even though everyone you predicted you would drawn due to it's encumberment, you couldn't get adjusted to a life of danger without the protection of steel. Through the years, you have learned to move with grace when wearing that particular kind of steel armor. You reduce the armor penalties for a particular kind of armor with 2 to a minimum of 0.

P.S. About 'We Named the Monkey Jack'. I don't think it's a good idea to tie it mechanically to a familiar (Alertness, improved evasion, share spells, empathic link, +3 bonus to a skill). At low level, this will be overpowered. And what to do when it dies.

I think a mechanical function as an animal companion (Link and share spells) with the stats of a familiar might be better.

Dumb Paladin wrote:
Given how crucially important it seems to be, I don't think it's "munchkin" at all to want to acquire it no matter what class you're in.

And you can do that without a problem. Non-class skills no longer advance at half speed (like in 3.5).

That +3 extra bonus from class skill isn't going to make such a large difference. It's just 15%. And over half of the uses of this skills are one pass for all. If one character find the trap/secret door, the other don't have to. It only works for ambushes without any prep time.
And if you think it does, there are enough ways to get some bonuses.
Racial bonuses, traits, feats, extra wisdom (btw, don't get why nobody mentioned this. Will saves, bonus to perception, heal, survival, profession, not that bad to go from 10 to 12 if you want higher skill bonuses)...

What is munchkin, is trying to outperform a full caster half-elf druid at perception checks with a fighter that has minimal wisdom and refuses to make sacrifices. And it appears to me that some want this.
It doesn't work without sacrifices.

Trying to combine everything in a single character just doesn't work.

Joseph Davis wrote:
However, I have a question for those at Paizo: Vital Strike (greater vital strike to be exact) is mentioned in Treeraiser's stat block (from the Inner Sea World Guide) and it's mentioned in his tactics that he charges with it. Is this a misprint, or an oversight, or what? Sorry if my post seems rude or snappy, just curious.

It's a difference in approach to the problem between the developers and the designers.

Some designers (as do some of the people on this board) think the game is better when vital strike works with spring attack and charge. The developers however say the rules don't allow this.

I'm not sure it's an oversight. It might date before the clarification by the developers (and thus, it's an interpretation of the rule) or it might be a design decision that (the developers believe) makes the game better.

Anyway, feel free to see this as an excuse to use vital strike with charge and spring attack. The general consensus is that it doesn't really change all that much as you long as you don't apply this tactic to monsters with huge damage dice.
Though it's a house rule. one of the more sensible house rules though one never the less.

In the end, you need to decided between using the rules because they are the rules are stretch them where needed to make a more interesting game.

Such a creature would have to take (will, he doen't have to, though it would be wise) the Multiweapon Fighting.

One can wonder why not improved version of this feat is included. It may very will be a balance issue.

clff rice wrote:
Dose this idea seem balanced and if so what powers should it replace?

Base it on the druid.

Replace the animal companion/cleric domains with something appropriate for a necromancer (your suggestion works just fine).
Do something similar for the wild shape ability. Let your class wild shape into something necromancy (possibly working with templates for the most popular undead).

Change the spell list to something necromancy and use it to balance out the class, a spell list is flexible enough that can easily adapt for the increase in power for undead animal companions.

This should be the upcoming release schedule for Pathfinder RPG:
1. Ultimate Combat
2. Bestiary 3
3. Advanced Race Guide
4. Ultimate Nature
5. Ultimate Gears
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?


Ultimate Nature: focussed around nature theme with nature focused versions of the bard, wizard, sorcerer... More/different animal companions, beast master version of the cavalier, new base classes, extended use of 'nature skills heal, survival, ride (? How really knows how all those feats work with mounted combat)'. Alternative nature options such as fey based druid for gnomes, vermin based version of the current nature classes etc.
Ultimate Gears: compendium with everything about gear and gears. Includes a take on a robot race (you know what I mean, though is that OGL?), much more equipment, alternative craft rules, equipment focussed classes like the Artificer, prestige classes for a priest that forged it's own weapon (there is a 3.5 version of that I think). Further extension of the guns/cannons and other science related issues that fit in the gears section. Includes largely the Ultimate Equipment from Raymond Lambert, I just don't think you can fill a book with just equipment, hence the extension.

Start by using the fox as familiar. A small wolf or a fox are (if you ask me, identical - in terms of game mechanics anyway).

As for advancing it to a real wolf, I don't think it's a good idea fir balance.
All core based familiars are small, it's even specifically called out that small familiars can flank though no mention is made for medium or larger familiars.

I've browsed over the list and there are no medium familiars. I assume this is to prevent people from using animal growth (or whatever the spell is) and obtaining a large familiar with reach. For survivability and flank ability, I can imagine this to be highly beneficial.
Further, it has trip which is quite strong.

So a full grown full does not look like a good idea.

If you want to remain in the wolf/dog/fox visual for a familiar, I would consider applying the young template to the wolf and then applying either celestial, resolute or one of the other suggested templates.

This reduces the size while making the familiar much more magic. And to me, a familiar should be magical. Certainly an improved familiar.

And last, consider what to do with the trip and the discrepancy between the fox entry and the wolf entry. The fox gains a +4 acrobatics Racial Modifier when jumping.

Really, on every attack. I thought Ex were standard actions (and thus that it functions like vital strike)?

Kalraan wrote:

I know this may be resurrecting this topic again, but can anyone answer me the following:

1) Does this "per successful attack" apply to animals?
2) Can animal companions even get Precise Strike?

I have a player (Druid) who has this on his small Cat companion and it appears to break the game a little.

1) sure. If they get Precise Strike, it works just like for humans. Once for each attack.

As some animals get lots of attack soon in the game, this might indeed be a bit powerful.

2) However, I don't see how an animal companion can get Precise Strike. It's not a feat nor can animal companions take levels in a class.

P.S. Well, that's about the duellist class ability Precise Strike anyway. There appears to be a team work feat that adds 1d6 per when you flank an opponent.

Animal companions with an intelligence of 3 or higher can take all feats he is (physically) capable of performing. If that team work feat is overpowered in your game, consider it off limits. A team work feat requires communications ihmo and an animal companion can not communicate as good as humans can.

This blog post might be interesting.

Weapon finesse builds that want to mimic what fighters/barbarians do don't work.

And there is a good reason for this. You need to make high strength useful for something. Let strength builds have their high dps. Dex builds bring other advantages to the table.

Forinstance, you can get good damage when you combine it with other damage sources (such as sneak damage). You can be useful when you main focus isn't melee damage (forinstance, a switch hitter bow/finess weapon or a skill based character). Or you can build around the various critical feats.

It is like with so many mechanisms in the game.

The spell is situational.

For some, this makes the spell horrible. For some, this makes the spell situational.

Image you meet the king (and offcourse, you can't carry weapons there). Your bard will be more then pleased with the functionality provided by the spell when you happen to come into a conflict there.

I can imagine that this does not come up in your games, Jadeite. However, this does not make the spell horrible. This merely makes your game lacking of the situations to put this spell to good use which off course is your good right.

P.S. And I agree, -4 penalty.
P.P.S. And there is noting wrong with a spell that is designed for scrolls. Permanency is one of those spells that may not find a place in many campaigns.

Carbon D. Metric wrote:
PRD- " If your attack exceeds the CMD of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands."

Note that it reads items. Plural.

To me, that lines seems to refer to forinstance dual wielding 2 weapons or a weapon and a focus component (each in a different hand). And not to one items held in two hands.

The other quote from the prd is the one that has to be used for 2 handed weapons ihmo.

Finarin Panjoro wrote:
IMO an intelligent monster is going to know that a full attack from a powerful foe is far more dangerous than taking an AoO.

This goes in both directions. Your intelligent monsters know that they will kill the pc's faster using a full attack rather then a standard action.

So if their aim is to kill the pc's, full attacks are probably the way to go.

Also I hate static combats. They're boring. Terrain becomes irrelevant once everyone is in the optimal position and then it's just an endurance test. So I keep the monsters moving even if it isn't always the optimal action.

First, I'm not sure static combats and not moving are equivalent. Depending on the number of foe, when they come into the fight, what tactics they use and what they do (summons forinstance, controlling), combat might still be dynamic.

P.S. Note that a ranger is much more the just a killing machine. You can play into his versatility (skills and spells) and his animal companion and nature abilities if you want to make him more relevant.
P.P.S. And can't trip help with the problem. Standing up takes a move actions. So they either don't attack and run away with their standard action or they take a standard attack and risk a full attack. You can even use the trip attack of an animal companion wolf for it.

I think the most important question is why there isn't basic damage? Or at least base spells to cancel out the acid spells.

I want my basic splash now!


Spring attack is a full round action. Vital strike is a standard action. You can't combine those.

Just like you can't full attack and then do a standard action attack (or heaven forbid, a vital strike).

I think it's a stupid rule. Those mobile fighting style can use a bit of buff though that's how it works.

Ksorkrax wrote:
I'm not that into physics but errr... radiation has a temperature?

A perfect black body (a body that is a perfect adsorbed and emitter) will be in equilibrium with the background of the universe when it has a temperature of 3 K. At 3 K, the perfect black body will emit as much energy as it adsorbs.

The universe can be seen as a room at 3 K which doesn't change temperature.

So it's not really a temperature. Though a body at a temperature higher then 3 K (assuming it comes close enough to a perfect black body) will lose energy due to the difference in radiation (just like in a room at 3K).
Hence when a character is teleported into space, it will eventually cool down enough to take cold damage.

P.S. However, closer to the sun, the 'radiation' temperature will be much higher (doesn't the moon heat to something like 300 °C?). So I say the spells needs to be errated to allow a character to choose the type of damage depending on where he wants the enemy to be teleported to.

Kais86 wrote:
That's not right... space isn't that cold. There's this weird dichotomy where in the upper portions of the Earth's atmosphere are intensely cold, then once you are completely past them, you will find yourself wishing you were back in the atmosphere, for more reasons than just "I can't breath".

Space is quite cold. Only depends where you measure. Close to earth, the radiation of the sun indeed makes it quite hot. However, further away from the sun, it becomes very cold.

Very cold. The background radiation has a temperature of 3 K.

As for the lack of ways to lose heat. I would not be so sure of that either. First, with a difference of roughly 300K between your temperature and the temperature of the background, radiation might become rather important. It's an effect that scales with the 4th power. Just think of it as an ordinary heater. If the heater is 300°C, you will feel the radiation. Similar, the background will feel your radiation.

Further, the evaporation of liquids in vacuum should be much faster then in ordinary pressures. And I don't really see what air has to do with it. As for the heat of evaporation, it becomes larger with decreasing pressure.

Maybe vacuum has strange effects I'm not aware of.

P.S. Humm, seem like NASA disagrees. Strange.

Noting about multiclassing?

I've been thinking about trying a magus/duellist some day. Both seem to rely on the same abilities (int, dex* and if you want str) and the same shieldless fighting style.

You gain bab, hitpoints, int to ac and I think most abilitities should work together.

*: If you take 10 levels of duellist, you don't get heavy armour making dex more important for ac.

P.S. And you're not even considering multiclassing with fighter? Seems like an open door to kick in. Feats, bab, hitpoints...

Sloppycrane wrote:

No class awards 0 skills points.

You can declare 2 skills points before declaring the class that you level into.

What about a fighter with negative int modifier? He doesn't get 2 skill points.

So what's the deal with him?

I'm very inclined to say that's not a rule and you are making it up. Though I might be wrong so I'll give you the benefit of the t doubt for now.

Archeantus wrote:
1. If a druid is in wildshape form and has a BAB of +5 and he has the attacks bite/claw x2 and he is making a full round action is his attack then (ignoring ability mod for now) bite +5/claw +5/claw +5 or does he suffer the penalties for wielding multiple weapons?

There are no penalties for wielding multiple natural weapons.

However, one of the attacks (probably the claws) may be a secondary attack. Giving them a flat -5 penalty.

Though this depends on the animal you wildshape in and should be clear from the entry in the bestiary.

2. Furthermore, the rules for natural attacks state that you don't get additional attacks for a high BAB but instead u get attacks rolls for multiple limbs capable of making the attack? I don't get the difference between an attack and an attack roll. Lets say the same druid above is performing the same full attack with a BAB of +6/+1. How does this rule affect him? The limbs capable of making this attack include a head and 2 paws. Does he get another single bite or claw at +1?

As far as I know, this does not change anything. You still just get the 3 attacks you did in the previous case at a higher bab.

Howie23 wrote:
'Rixx wrote:
How a druid's animal companion behaves while being used as a mount, clarifications on when mounted creatures can make attacks, and whether or not you can cast a spell and have your mount charge and attack a creature int he same round.

Mounted combat is definitely a ripe topic for the thread. I don't know all of what you're communicating, but trying to put these as topics are questions:

1. Animal Companion as Mount: (what's the issue?)

2. Can a mount and rider both attack on a charge? How does a reach weapon, a mount's reach, Ride-by Attack, and/or a mount's spring attack interact with these? Can a mount and rider both take an AoO if provoked; if so does it require a Ride check to fight with a war trained mount? That Ride check is a free action; does that mean it must have been made during the rider's turn?

3. When a mount is charging, may the rider also make actions such as casting a spell?

If I may add.

4. What's the deal with overrun etc. Who takes what feats to gain what benefit. I'm talking about improved/greater overrun and trample. Further, who's making the combat manoeuvre check.

For me, concept goes over mechanics.

If they have a good concept, I couldn't care less how they implement. I just think the prejudice against certain mechanics will in the end hurt the game.

The fact that not a single prestige class is included in ultimate magic is an example of this. No way in hell there isn't a concept that they didn't think of and that would make a good prestige class and is all about magic.
Though for some reason, these ideas will either not be implemented or somewhere they don't fit as good as in ultimate magic.

Sean FitzSimon wrote:

Archtype: When an existing base class covers enough of the mechanical ideas behind the idea to simply modify. Example: The ninja could be designed around either the monk or rogue classes.

Base Class: When no existing base class can cover the mechanical concept you are attempting to create. Example: A druid based spontaneous caster would require a new base class to fully embody.

Prestige Class: When a concept simply expands, or narrows, a class (or class combination) ability's focus. Prestige classes should only be used to create ideas that are achieved after a certain amount of prestige or experience. Prestige classes should not be used for concepts that should be played from creation.

You should add Alternate Class.

Alternate Class: When the mechanics are identical to a base class though the concept is to far away from the core concept of the class or when combining the two classes is unwanted. The anti-paladin is a good example.

area of effect spells don't cover the whole area perfect. There are always certain spots that take less damage or no damage.

Depending on the success of the reflex and (improved) evasion.

Name Violation wrote:
rogue. 3 levels gives sneak attack, some nice skill points, evasion, and a rogue trick

It gives more than that. You also get trapfinding and disable device/use magic device as a class skill. If you take your rogue tallent as trap spotter, you should be able to take on most traps.

Not sure I would go to level 3 though. 1d6 extra sneak damage does not seem worth it ihmo.

The derro entry in the bestiary describes something very similar to what you want (an aklys).

It's a club on a string that can be retrieved as a move action. It does 1d6 damage for a small creature.

Now, a normal club is a simple weapon. The alkys has added damage and a retrieve/throw mechanism. All in all, these are atleast 2 addition to the simple weapon and therefore, an exotic weapon.

Now, if you are forced to take a move action to switch from ranged to melee (or reverse), you can add one advantage.

I think this might be a better reference for what you try to do. Here you are modifying a weapon with similar abilities rather than trying to add a strange ability on an existing weapon. I think the latter will be harder to balance.

Dragon78, can I ask what method you have used to balance these races against the other core races and/or against each other?

There is a player create guide somewhere on this forum that tries to explain the balance behind the core races.

Based on what I remember from that guide, I don't think your races are balanced against the other core races.
So I though I might be missing something.

First, you still have 2 session to be an ass about the detect evil. Claim it invades your privacy or something.

If you can get him to stop within 2 sessions, you don't have a problem as he won't use his detect evil on you anymore.

If your character is so lawful as you claim it to be, play on the paladins lawful side. As long as you follow the law and assuming the law is made by good people, you can't be that evil that it's worth smiting.

brassbaboon wrote:
The Greeks had multiple coordinate systems, in fact there was a great debate about coordinate systems in ancient Greece. They did not have "integrals" or "differential equations" because both of those are specific mathematical artifacts of the Calculus system developed by Newton and Leibnitz (is that right? Been a long time since I took advanced Math classes in college).

I think integrals are from Riemann. Why else speak about the Riemann sum?

P.S. And isn't the discussion about the coordinate system still present today? Don't quantum mechanics calculate in a Riemann space (with multiple parallel lines through a point) instead of the standard Euclidean normal people use?
P.P.S. And why do you want to know what math your character knows Kilmore? Do you plan to born monsters to dead? Or just drive you dm crazy?

If they really come from the depths of the underdark, should their societal survival not be based on anaerobic organisms rather then aerobic?
It's not like they have giant fans in the caves to provide them with oxygen.

Maybe some sort of magic nuclear fusion based organism that converts carbon (from oil, coal, gas) into oxygen?

Is nobody going to argue for a prestige class to support this?

The prestige class will probably not match all to well with the classic fighter, cleric and paladin (which ihmo is a good thing). The abilities probably have limitations similar to the duellist.
And those classes ihmo don't really need it.

You can then aim to provide the support to rogues, ranger and monks. Precision damage, critical hit modifiers or switch hitter is the way to go if you want to support dex based melee damage.

Nofi but just a feat that offers dex or int to damage ain't really interesting. All you do is change the ability to use, clearly arbitrary create for a rogue that wants to focus on skills rather then damage.

Maybe a duellist archetype could open the prestige class for a more dex based TWF style.


Critical hits and even precision damage unless specified differently.

The reason IIRC was to increase the effectiveness of classes that rely on precision damage (such as the rogue). If there are to many monsters that are immune to their main damage source, it's not fun for them.

Hence why undead are now not immune to precision damage and critical hits though have increased hit points (1d8 rather then 1d6 IIRC) and maybe some other advantages like extra dr.

P.S. I don't think the other monsters (constructs, oozes) had their immunity removed though you may want to check to be sure.

I have no experience with the changeling. Though maybe these versions for other systems can offer some inspiration.


Sense motive seems to come up as additional skill. Atleast that one does not work on charisma and doesn't really help with disguise - unlink bluff which is just disguise in a sound form.

And linguistics might be the other skill you are after.

Irulesmost wrote:
Only thing is, though, do we feel like this pigeonholes into rogue, bard, or w/e? Because it's important for races not to pigeonhole, IMO.

ihmo, yes it's to focussed around disguise. 3 out of 4 traits focus on it with the 4th being optional.

I would change the skill bonuses to something not social related.

Tim4488 wrote:
Karel Gheysens wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
Personally, I give them back the +1 on attack rolls with thrown weapons from 3.5

Don't think a +1 on attack rolls is a worth 5 points even though it comes close to a feat. Throwing weapons just are not so interesting.

How about letting them qualify for weapon specialization and the like with their level as fighter levels.

It's more than a feat. +1 with daggers or throwing axes or any one throwing weapon is equivalent to Weapon Focus, +1 with the group is better. Granted they're still underused and under-useful weapons, but strictly speaking that's worth 4 if not more. Letting them qualify for weapon spec without Fighter levels rubs me the wrong way just because I like the idea of the Fighter having a few exclusive toys. It's not a bad idea, just not my taste.

Well, most people don't take weapon focus because it offers a +1 to attack (I know I wouldn't as I'm sure there is something more interesting to do.). They take it to qualify for the more interesting weapon specialization and the greater versions of those feats.

In short, weapon focus is a feat tax rather then a real feat

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why are you arguing with me then? I'm no more focused on a rogue assassin than you are. See bolded text. My whole point is you do not need a separate class to have the fluff of an assassin. Any class can have that.

Offcourse you can try to fluff any class to an assassin concept.

My point was not fluff related.

From both your posts, I get the idea that you would have designed to assassin as a rogue variant.

Even though I agree that a rogue archetype/rogue talents can be an interesting addition to the game, this archetype/these talents won't offer the same things the assassin prestige class offer.
Forinstance, non rogue assassins are more flexible with the prestiage class. A small dip can be made in assassin to take whatever feats you desire.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
You don't need a separate class to have the fluff of an assassin. A rogue can be anything from a thief to a local sheriff, a murderous assassin to a merchant prince.

First, your rogue can be good and doesn't need to have killed someone.

I like my assassin evil and bloody. Though that's just me.

btw, why so focussed on a rogue assassin? Noting in the requirements demand levels in rogue. You can perfectly create a bard assassin. Or even a fighter. All it takes is to have killed someone and some skill ranks.
Heck, even an alchemist might not be a bad combination now that there is this archetype that offers sneak attack.

Matthew Trent wrote:
I think the example you wanted to pick is the Red Mantis Assasin who have a distinct set of abilities that are more representative of their fighting style (Sawtooth Saber TWF) and their deity (Red Mantis transformation) than on being a murderer. And yes I agree that campaign organizations are another good use of prestige classes. So that means that campaign organizations and muilticlass enablers are the two times I don't mind prestige classes.

Isn't the assassin very similar (in role) to the red Mantis though not campaign specific? A group of assassin can serve as a dark brotherhood for every setting.

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>