Search Posts
And if so, how far? Just a thought that popped into my head while looking into something totally unrelated and I wanted to gather a bit of data. I tend to play in low magic / lower level campaigns personally. As such I can't remember a time when I played a character higher than level 13, and more commonly not past level 10 or 11.
I guess one question to ask in such a scenario would be to establish how common such an ability would be? Does everyone have it? or only like 1% of your population? If only your 1% then it would give rise to politicians, warlords, powerful drug dealers, etc being the ones who possessed such spell casting.
Maybe I'm seeing this from an overly simplistic point of view, but from what was stated in the original post (I've not read through the entire thread) after the initial duel in which the Barbarian lost the party Mage tries to kill the Boggard Cleric. So here is the rub. The mage acted in a VERY dishonorable way. He broke the accord of trust that would have allowed a (potentially) peaceful transfer of power to the players. Had the situation been reversed the Mage's player would have been super mad and felt betrayed if the barbarian had won and the Boggard's people been like, "naw man, screw this" and then attacked the party. I would say (personally) that the DM & the mage's player needs to have a hard look at the alignment of that character as this is a particularly chaotic neutral type of action. I'd also point out that Chaotic Good (the Barbarian) does not always mean "anything goes" but could also mean that the barbarian has a strong sense of personal honor and might reasonably feel that the mage broke the barbarian's word of honor to agree to a fair fight. Either way, I'd say the player of the paladin should probably roll a new character because that paladin would never trust the mage again to act in a "good" way. Side Note: War Priest is a great alternative to Paladin with a very similar feel to them (depending on archetypes, traits, etc of course) but with much a less restrictive code of ethics they are expected to follow. A Lawful Good WarPriest would have still been pretty upset with the Mage (and by default the rest of the party for going along with him) for breaking his word however.
Just seen this thread, I'll tell you what I do in my campaign. For starters I run a low magic campaign where magical healing is A LOT harder to get. I converted all HP damage to temporary / subdual style damage that you will recover from very quickly outside of combat. Basically rest for a hour or so, catch your 2nd wind and off you go. Good as new (full HP recovery). Critical hits by comparison were "deep wounds" that reflected the idea the character was really hurt and took some form of specialized (alchemical or magical) healing. Thus the 100 hp fighter might recover from his 75 HP of injuries, but still be carrying around that 25 point wound from a critical hit earlier in the day. Other penalties are generally applied to reflect the fact that the character is seriously injured and in need of medical attention. This style of game play allowed the party to recover more quickly from small fights and keep going, while emphasizing the idea that as time goes on they would wear down and need downtime (or magic) to heal up. It also means that the party healer was less worried about it if some took HP damage as the biggest threat from it was ultimately it would knock out the party member from the fight. (A KO'd party member could also be insta-killed with a coup-de-grace style attack, so they are not "safe" once knocked out.) With this idea of HP it is was easier to see them as getting battered, bruised, the wind knocked out of them, etc however the wounds are not generally deadly. As for questions like why did the sword strike not kill them? Well that is why you wear armor....literally.
Very cool. Thank you for sharing.
Check out the Incantation mechanic from 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, you can easily find it on the 3.5 SRD. Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out. Any other suggestions?
So I run a low magic game setting, and have for years. The setting is somewhere between Game of Thrones and the Witcher video games. I'm looking for a system of ritual magic that would slow down the casting of higher level magics such as Teleportation, Resurrection, etc. I know there have quite a bit written on Ritual Magic systems and I'm curious as to which ones others have used or would recommend. I'm looking for something more involved than "the spell now takes several hours to preform and costs a base 1000 gp x spell level in arcane components". Granted that WOULD work, and is simple to implement, but I love seeing how others have developed these ideas.
have you looked at the Incantation system from Kobold Press, in their Deep Magic book? It might be close to what you are looking for This sounds pretty interesting to me too. I've been looking for a Ritual Magic system which would be tied to specific magics like Teleport for better use in a low magic setting. Thus the spells remain in the campaign but effectively means they are not castable within combat and are more of a plot hook mechanic at that point.
I'm finding it interesting that there is not a lot more engagement with this one. It tells me that most of us didn't really find all that much that they really connected with from the other versions. Interesting.
I'm curious what are the top 3 rules (+/-) which have come about from later versions of D20 / PF / D&D that stood out to you as "Why wasn't THAT in PF 1 from the beginning??" A couple of the ones that have stood out to me was: Non-combat spells cast as ritual magic (5th ed?) Rolling with Advantage / Disadvantage (roll twice and take the best / worse roll) What about you guys? What stood out to you?
I'm looking at a way slow down healing for a low magic campaign. Magical healing will still be available but i'm trying to come up with ways to either make it less of a guarantee that it works, or slow down how quickly it takes effect. A) Obvious answer to this is the spell works normally but takes minutes, hours, etc before the full effect can be seen. B) Healing magic can only be used a limited number of times per day on the same person, thus emphasizing the utility of life saving magic but still requiring non-magical supplementary skills. C) The spell requires a Heal Check which in some way effects the success of the spell. Perhaps the heal check determines if the spell gets full dice for the Cure X spell line. Or....something. I like this idea of requiring the heal check because it rewards a dedicated doctor / healer concept versus someone that has only limited healing abilities, even when casting the same spell. D) The Heal Check as currently written under PF1 is simply too strong as it allows for full recovery in about 3 days from virtually any level of injury without the aid of magic. WITH the aid of magic I'd be fine with this as that is still a miraculous recovery, but otherwise is simply too good. E) I'd REALLY like some rules on non-magical ways to account for non-combat healing such as surgery. Would combine well with # C. Are there any archetypes or rules variants that come to mind which do this sorta thing? F) A cleric with the Healing Domain should get some form of bonus to their healing spells. NOTE 1: No need to point out that this slows down recovery time between combat / adventures. That is exactly the point and the campaign setting and pacing has already been adjusted to account for that. NOTE 2: other aspects of combat have already been reworked with variant rules so I'm focusing specifically now on how to recover from combat.
Sorry to come late to the party. It looks like you've given a lot of thought to this. I'd point out that a lot of similar work has been done in published supplements and I can't help but wonder if you have created this b/c you didn't like what was already published, or didn't know about it? Either way, you're direction here looks pretty solid to me and I'd be more than happy to accept such rules at the table if I were playing. One question: How do you deal with magic which will simply trivialize the whole thing anyway? Spells like Endure Elements comes quickly to mind. It is after all a 1st level spell for virtually everyone and has a 24 duration. Even a low level party would be able to cast such spells, and that is not even taking into consideration things like wands, scrolls, potions, etc.
My answer to this was as follows:
There are no "partial free actions" such as swift actions, etc. It is simply a free action or it isn't. A move action is resolved normally. A standard action + a move action could be spent together to effectively get a "double move". A standard action can be used to make a full round attack as per a fighter with multiple attacks. This was put in place specifically because melee classes got burnt the hardest by the move OR attack original rule set under the current action economy of PF1. NOTE: it is worth mentioning that earlier D20 editions didn't have that restriction. A NOTE ON STANDARD ACTIONS: This does not give non-melee types additional actions, extra spells cast per round, or other such weirdness. Rather it simply allows the melee classes the chance to actually use a core class feature (ie; multiple attacks per round) which they are otherwise denied during most combats.
Yeah, I definitely like the idea that an Ice Ball (reverse of Fireball) would leave the area frozen and slippery.
Yeah, my vision of this type of change is that it will pretty dramatically change the way that Evocation (specifically Elemental attacks) are handled. This is further complicated by the fact that I run an E12 campaign and all spells that do direct HP damage, or require a save vs physical damage, have been retyped as Evocation (aka "destruction"). This brings back earlier edition feels that Evocation was a dangerous force to be dealt with vs one that you could merely laugh off. (NOTE: yes, I've already addressed other factors such as Evasion in the campaign setting, however that is outside the scope of this article and I'm requesting we stay focused on the secondary effects of elemental magics for this discussion.) So far things I know for certain that I'm going for are Fire effects can set things on fire. How often this occurs I'm not 100% certain yet, but I'm thinking something along the lines of 1d6 per spell level, lasting 1 round per spell level. As for explosions (Fireball being the most obvious) I'm definitely looking at the the Explosion metamagic from 3.5 becoming default for the spell. It adds a significant knock back effect which works well for the effect I'm looking for. Thus a Fireball would not only get the knock back from its explosive force, but would see a + 3d6 / for 3 rounds due to being set on fire, unless the fire was somehow put out obviously. NOTE: the lingering burning effects would be mundane effects and thus could be put out by normal means. So far this concept is still fairly rough but should give an idea of the sorta thing I'm going for. As for the other elements I'm looking for a type of stun effect for electrical damage. For cold effects, perhaps with cold slowing the victim for 1/2 movement for 1rd per spell level and adding fatigue. YES this changes the power level and dynamic of how these spells will be used in the campaign, no this is not an over sight. I'm looking for creative effects to add a much more dynamic feel to elemental evocation spells. With these changes an Elemental Fire Mage would definitely have a much different feel from an Elemental Earth Mage, or etc.
So the majority of the direct damage spells in my campaign have been retyped as Evocation. "Direct Damage" as in, if it does HP damage or is a Fort save vs some form of massive damage (exploding organs and that sorta thing) then it is "direct damage". In addition these types of Evocation DD spells have for the most part been retyped not only as evocation but as elemental. That said, i'm looking for ways to make the various elements stand out from each other. Specifically Earth manifests physical attacks (such as a magic missile spell that fires solid metal ball bearings). Where as the others are pretty self explanatory. Fire = fire, cold = cold, electrical = electrical. Poison, Acid, Sound and Force are not considered "elemental attacks" and thus not allows in the DD Evocation catagory (and for the most part have been dropped from the campaign setting as a whole). So, some of the 2ndary effects i'm looking for might knock back effect from explosions (such as Fireball), or a stun effect from cold or electrical, etc. I'd like to see each element bring a specific 2nd effect or condition to make them feel different from each other during game play. Any suggestions are welcome.
I've previously looked at a pure spell point system and decided against it. It allows too much freedom in the hands of the PC's and thus can make it very difficult for the DM to predict just how strong the NPC's will need to be to present a challenge without overwhelming the PC's. The spell slot system allows the dm to better predict the game scaling without needing a spread sheet to do so. As for the Pearls of Power referenced, I've never used that system and honestly have never looked at the rules for it, so I've really no point of reference in this context.
Yeah, i like the idea of the potion being worth x spell levels that can be used to either replace a spell or used for meta-magic of equal level. As for the question of why not just use a potion X or a scroll of Y, bear in mind what I've suggested would be a campaign replacement (entirely) for such things. This helps to keep your party mage relevant later in the day, without allowing for additional flexibility in their casting. Why would you do such a thing? Because i run a campaign where spell all spell casters must be specialists in a field of magic, and face heavy casting restrictions outside of that statement. Think back to the Major and Lesser spell domains of Priests from 2nd ed and you are pretty close. This helps to keep the feeling that the campaign casters are unique, sorta like in the modern world how you don't just go find a generic "smart guy", but you would hire an engineer, a doctor, an accountant, etc. In the same way my campaign has Healers, BattleMages, Seers (divination specialists), etc. As for how such things would be made, and who could make them, I've not decided yet but I'm thinking that you might have to expend a spell of equal level to create the mana potion. Basically storing the spell in the potion, but as an open spell slot. Would this require the stored spell used to be + 1 level higher than what is actually captured in the potion? Would it require the spell to be cast twice to get one dosage? ETC. I'm also thinking about putting a cap on the number of these that can be used in a day, thus stopping every mage in the known world from simply stockpiling them (like they do potions, scrolls and wands now).
What about this, instead of traditional potions and scrolls in the campaign setting, have Mana potions which restore spend spell slots. In other words it functions similar to a scroll or potion, but only to restore spent spells. Alternately it could be used to power meta-magic effects by absorbing the additional levels needed for the meta-magic. Thoughts?
I remember something similar to what you are describing, however i think it was in a 3pp which was based on building armies and mass combat.
I'd never heard of a Penobscot bow before now, so I thank you for contributing to my education on the matter. I would agree with you, this definitely appears to be a real world version of the bow I was asking about. I think I'll just around at the various types of bows which have been written up as a starting point of how to stat this out.
It is from the Witcher video games, and I just liked the aesthetics of it as an exotic bow which was uncommon enough that if it were seen in public it would be noticeable. So a "Double Limbed Laminated Bow" it is then. @Zwordsman any suggestions for stats on this thing? I'm thinking a top tier composite strength bow?
@Dajur that is already factored into to my rewrite. Feel free to scroll up and you'll see I've already stated that I use an AC = DR system and the H.Xbow is quite effective against it.
I don't disagree with any of the input being offered here, however in order to maintain game balance there is a point at which reality stops and games mechanics have to kick in. As such in order to deal with the extreme possibilities of real world ranged weapons we simply have to pick values based upon relative ranges and then scale those numbers relative to the different weapon types available in the campaign. As for the use of scopes on the crossbow, I agree it isn't "realistic" in some ways, especially within the first range increment, but does help to explain why only more wealthy mercenaries, nobles, etc would have such a modified Xbow. In short, because they are expensive. This doesn't matter much when you are looking at a level 10 + character vs a CR 10 + encounter, but matters A LOT when you are asking how many of these weapons would be commonly found in the hands of a 3rd - 5th level NPC Warrior. A L.Xbow would likely be fairly common, and a H.Xbow probably much less so given its greater expense, weight, etc. The same would be true of a Sbow vs a Lbow. The short "hunting" bow vs an elven long bow. Why do we even care about such a thing? For the same reason we care about things like how much gold or silver a typical NPC might earn in a month. It allows us to have a relative sense of who has the gold, the power, the influence and how much of it. These factors mean a lot when world building. Don't think so? Take one look at Game of Thrones, or the Witcher video games, vs say World of Warcraft. GOT / Witcher put a lot of thought into these sorta things and their worlds feel like living worlds as a result. As a DM I look closely at this level of detail so that I design encounters which remain consistent, and thus more believable.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/362117626282164775/
It is the Scoiatael / elven double Long Bow from the Witcher video games. Has anyone seen any stats for this bow? If not, how would we stat this one? As a long bow with better range?
I 100% agree with you on how the sling is written. It will be added to me list of changes for balance purposes and be rewritten in as a thrown weapon. 500ft range for a sling is pretty crazy after all.
As this is text based its hard to emote. So just for clarity. I'm not trying to argue anything. Just giving ideas and giving counter thoughts. Since you're trying to build something and extra viewpoints help. Completely understand. Please allow me to be equally as clear when I say that the additional thoughts and feedback are more than welcome. No harm done, please proceed. Slings get str to damage as thrown. But. they are projectile weapons and are labeled as such. In Core and Ultimate Equipement. So they get 10 increments as any other ranged projectile weapon. Allow me to draw your attention to the following d20PFSRD.com webpage: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/sling which states Cost — Weight —
Now for comparison I'll also draw your attention to the boomerang (an obviously thrown weapon): Cost 3 gp Weight 3 lbs.
In both cases these are listed as "projectile" and "thrown" with the description for each specifically stating they are strength based attacks...meaning they are thrown weapons and not "launched" as would be the case with an Xbow. This is likely a point I'll address in my house rules for clarity and to avoid confusion at the gaming table should this come up. There are plenty of upgrades to crossbows it sounds like in your game. True, but then if you look across the 200 or so officially published PF manuals and AP books from the past few years you'll see that is still D20 cannon (at least in concept). Repeating Xbow, Double Xbow, scopes, extended magazines (I forget where I seen this one), specialty bolts (such as grappling hooks), alchemical bolts, etc etc. And let us not overlook the composite bows, strength bows, etc etc on the other side of the table. Standing armies get trained. I don't see why the soldiers you mentioned would use simple weapons instead of martial weapons if they were being trained. Training takes time and money. In the modern military not all soldiers are trained to the same levels. Basic training is just that...basic. Advanced Infantry Training (US Army) went much further into weapon training, and special forces groups much further still. Medieval / Fantasy armies are no different, and the cost of a L.Xbow vs that of a sling while much more expensive also allowed a typical "grunt" to hit a target from twice the range with a L.Xbow or 2 1/2 with a Heavy Xbow, for even more with the various bows. This is what is know as "first strike capability", IE the ability to hit the other guy before can really do anything about it. Typically because you have superior range. As for why not have them use martial weapons, because not all of them were trained as fighters, or even warriors. Keep in mind most medieval armies were little more than farmers pressed into service. Drafted troops (canon fodder) get like a week of training at best. Historically speaking. At the current set up, if they wanted to improve their ability instead of paying for light xbows and bolts. They'd be able to instead provide better armour or shields and just use slings. True but if that were all that were needed the Romans would have outfitted their slave / soldiers with slings and not swords. Instead however they were outfitted with both weapons and armor, given the opportunity to do so. Unless you're kingdom is the type that does the "several months of service on a rotation" sort of thing I suppose. In which case they're back to the "soldiers why not martial trained" situation. Though that would mean the kingdom would probably have substanally more light xbow laying around than an army that just drafted random villagers. True. I'm using a couple of assumptions here for the composition of an army (specifically). #1 I'm more or less following established demographics for a population. 95% of the "soldiers" are level 1 - 3 commoners or warriors. Not classed Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, etc. About 1 in 20 MIGHT have a PC class, however even then these troops likely still have NPC class levels which has slowed down their progression. This is important because it affords us the opportunity to look at who could afford better weapons and equipment. ----------
I dont' think the sling heavy light comparison is quite the same as short, long, bastard swords. Those three are all used in different situations and reasons. Short for brush/inside. long with shields or mobility. Bastards for hauling off. Agreed, my example was not a direct 1 to 1 comparison, merely making the point that the like the swords, slings, xbow, bow, etc all have their nitch roles and can be effective in those roles. I'm sort of hard pressed to see a timing when someone would use a light crossbow over a sling (for simple weapon folks). This goes back to the thrown vs projectile points addressed earlier. It is my assumption that the sling is effectively using the rules as a thrown weapon, and thus limited to 5 range increments vs the L.Xbow being able the shoot out to 10. Thank you for your thoughts and input!
As to your second question about why the light crossbow would have developed in a world with the additional options present with the H.Xbow, I say that it is simply not as complex of a weapon. It is lighter, and intended for soldiers and hunters who did not have extensive training in military weapons. This is essentially the same reason there are short swords, longs swords and bastard swords. Simple weapon, trained weapon, and specialized weapon. A fully upgraded H.Xbow would definitely be a specialized weapon, vs a "standard" H.Xbow would be the sorta weapon that typically only professionally trained soldiers or mercenaries would be found using with any degree of accuracy.
@Zwordsman
Also the sling is treated as a thrown weapon and therefore only has like 5 range increments vs an Xbow which has 10. Thus the answer to your question of "why use an Xbow when slings are more common and much cheaper?" Longer range, higher base damage, more customization options and the potential for higher crits. I'd also point out that when pressed into military service for a kings army the troops were often given weapons, armor and training fitting to the role said ruler demanded of them...at least if he wanted them to live long enough to actually accomplish whatever task was set before them. Thus by this point, those who were expected to be using Xbows would have been trained with the weapon and given one as a part of their assigned duties. Versus those who were simply pulled out of a farmer's field and thrust onto the front lines would still have their slings and other simple / common weapons and likely not much else. This second group of "soldiers" would of course be more accurately be called "cannon fodder" than soldiers if they were being deployed in the same capacity as a unit of Xbow snipers.
@Mudfoot my objective here is definitely not to suggest that the Xbow vs Bow are direct peers, and thus should be effectively the same weapon.
As for the bow begin generally "better" I don't necessarily agree per se. It is however more specialized in that my adjustments allow for the bow to have a better rate of fire than the crossbow (already a part of the D20 RAW), longer range, and more common (but less powerful) crits. This fits well within my current vision of the weapon. I've also included a few house rules for things like getting impaled by an arrow, etc so the bow vs xbow are should balance out well within their given roles. @Zwordsman
AoO and Reload speeds I've not touched with these rules for the Bow or Xbow. As for the rate of fire on the Xbow, yes...it sucks. Just like it does in real life. Bows simply fire much faster, that is the difference between the two. I'd also point out however that multiple attacks don't really become a thing until mid-tier levels anyway, and even then really only for core martial classes with full bab. Thus 85% of the classes will feel the effects of this pretty minimally, and fighters have extra feats for things like Improved Crit and Rapid Reload to help off set this limitations. Given my campaign tops out at E12 a lot of the issues (which only really appear at higher levels) are not as much of a consideration for my campaign.
So then, in answer to the question of (essentially) "why bother?" Because it is an aspect of world building that I'm working on. In my vision the Xbow has a poor range and reload speed but offers more knock down power and is easier to learn how to use. Much of this is already D20 cannon, however i'm trying get a feel for the types of missions the crossbow would be used in over the bow. Understanding these types of elements early in a campaign helps with the immersion of the campaign setting when it all remains consistent. 2)I've decided the way to address some of this (while giving consideration to everything said here on the forums in both this thread and in others) is to not increase the base damage of the Xbow, but rather to adjust it's threat / crit ranges and range increments and then do the same with the bow in order to maintain distinction between the two weapons. H.Xbow: 1d10 w/ a natural threat on 20, crit x2 (x3*), range 80
Within the first range increment the H.Xbow has a x3 critical damage
L.Xbow: 1d8, 20 / x2 (x3*)
Arguably the scope could also reduce range penalties to only -1 within their respective range increments. IE; - 1 within the first 3 range increments for a MW scope mounted on a H.Xbow. Lbow threat: 19-20 x 2, range 120
I think this would pretty much addresses my original concerns. The Xbow is more dangerous at short to medium ranges, but those ranges are shorter, and outside of those ranges becomes less accurate. The bow by comparison benefits from longer range and more frequent crits although generally requires more training. This of course also makes L.Xbows more common than its martial H.Xbow brother. Both bow and xbow family continue to benefit from the plethora of magic enchantment and feat possibilities as per normal. I'll have to given additional thought to how other types of these weapons would be effected by things like composite bows, etc.
So I'm giving so thought to how I'm going to redesign the Crossbow vs the Bow. To this end I'm making a few assumptions. These weapons are developed along similar lines to what was seen IRL, however not necessarily within the same time periods. IE; the crossbow hasn't been around as long and its design has focused more on knock down power than it has on range and reload speed. The bow is for longer range, faster shots and offers a higher threat. The crossbow has comparatively shorter range, longer reload times, but offers a larger base damage dice and has a higher crit multiplier. The biggest difference here is range of the Xbow. I'm thinking that when I compare the Heavy XBow to a longbow I only want it to have about 70% of the range. This is my thought so far...ideas?
Thank you kind sir!
So I went looking for the rules on how to determine the max effective distance for bow vs crossbow and I'm having trouble finding it. Can anyone either cite it or drop me a link please? I was thinking it was 15 "units" for bow and 10 for crossbow, but I don't recall and cant seem to find it at the moment.
So I run a low magic campaign, and have since just after Pathfinder was launched... I add special effects most elementals spells, such as fireball being 1/2 fire and 1/2 sound (concussion) with and Explosion added effect. Similar I've ruled that black powder (used almost exclusively be gunslingers) becomes VERY unstable around Arcane magic (more like nitroglycerin than black powder). As for should you allow multiple usages of these things to stack? Well there was a great episode in Game of Thrones when a certain temple was blown to smithereens by a couple of hundred barrels of what could only be called Alchemist Fire. Even in GoT however the simple fact that this much of the stuff existed in one place was enough to scare the hell out of those that found it. They feared if they so much as sneezed it would explode. So what is to stop the PC's (or the bad guys) from stock piling the stuff? Nothing. Let them do it. Then write in as part of your adventure how some terrorist cell was going to use the stuff as a weapon of mass destruction (on people or structures) but something went wrong and it blew their building to kingdom come! This sets the tone and lets your players know that this could have been them. They want to put the stuff in a catapult and fling it at their enemies? Sure, but does it blow up in the catapult first? Does it destroy the catapult in the process? Also don't forget to track the cost of these potions. If this is a tactic used commonly it will stop the player from having other nice items they may have otherwise been able to afford
So just wondering if this has ever been addressed (I assume it probably was at some point). Why was power attack changed from 3.5 to its current form in PF? Was it a balance issue?
Just curious if anything has been announced yet about possible new maps.
The feat skill focus (heal) and the trait battlefield surgeon Not a bad option...I'll have to give this one some thought.
Why would Charisma have anything to do with a reroll?Charisma is your force of personality. In Sorcerers/Paladins/etc. This also represents a connection to the divine, or the weave of the universe, or whatever else connects all living things. This could absolutely give you some power to determine your own fate. While not a bad answer I would answer this question more directly: To discourage "dump stats" and give an incentive for having a well rounded character. This is particularly important in campaigns where Role Play (RP) is more heavily emphasized. If you are playing in a campaign where the point really just comes down to kill bad guy, take his stuff, level up, next dungeon...then this rule is probably a waste of time for your group.
One of the thing not to forget when looking at the wizard vs the sorcerer is the simple fact that a wizard can change their spell selection on a more or less as needed basis, where as the player of the sorcerer needs to be damn nearly psychic themselves when choosing their spells. Sorcerers need a lot of flexibility built into their spell list (or magic scrolls, wands, etc that make up for a lack of flexibility) and thus tend not to specialize as often, nor as deeply as their Wizard counterparts. NOTE: I personally never followed this advise and always pointed out that my Sorcerer (or Mage) was there to "blow sh** up!" and the party for the most part just accommodated for this type of build.
Try this instead, Cha based classes use their Int for the bonus rerolls, all others use Cha for the rerolls. Still gives incentive to avoid dump stats. Hell in my campaigns a dump stat, or a low save is simply a plot hook!
Spell Mastery in most campaigns is a wasted Feat...however if you are running a campaign setting in which you are removed from civilization you may find you have more need to avoid situations like loosing your spell book and getting screwed over. I have seen this feat mostly taken reactively by players who don't trust their DM's to not screw them over, or taken when the DM has warned them in advance this would be a theme in the campaign. More frequently players would just opt for Sorcerers in such campaigns if they knew it was going to be set up like that. Properly built a Sorcerer looks a lot like a wizard and doesn't have the spell book handicap.
If your referring to my idea of pre-generating the results, I'd point out that it is still 100% random...to your players. They never knew the difference, however as the DM it allows for greater creative freedom because you can now tailor other events around the results of the cards, or magic box from hell, or "gift" from the Ouija Board spirit, or whatever. Personally I used the imagery of the "Magic Box from Hell" (MBH) to represent several items in my campaign, especially if the players where never meant to have the item. Or if they were meant to have, never truly master the item, and thus have it remain a perpetual mystery to them of exactly what they had their hands on. In this way each time they interacted with it, it could act as a different item while still being the box.
So yeah, looking for some archetypes (or variant rules) which offer a non-instant healing option. I seem to recall there was an Alchemist surgeon type of option for this sorta thing, or maybe a Druid herbalist? Any suggestions would be great, thanks!
Why would you delay the damage?* For more on this ability and why one would use it as a delayed attack you might want to take a look into the "Dim Mak" (aka; Death Touch) martial arts technique, which as I understand was the original inspiration for this ability. Basically the story goes that the technique was originally developed by the Shaolin Monks as a form of Chi manipulation which could be used to both heal (in a fashion similar to acupuncture) and to injure. With a touch of their hand the Monk could force the targets chi to flow backwards within their body, or infuse it with "bad chi", thus messing up the targets health. This attack could be used to set up organ failure such as kidney failure, heart attack, etc. NOTE: this info is heavily paraphrased for simplicity sake but more or less historically accurate to the best of my knowledge. Imagine if you will that you are an assassin sent in to kill a high profile target, however you have one problem: how to get away with it? If you simply kill the guy then his entire castle of guards starts a room by room search intent on killing anyone they don't recognize. BUT, what if you could could simply walk by the guy and pat him on the back while encouraging him to have a good day? Or maybe you shake hands with him while closing a business deal? Or perhaps a prostitute who says good night to her target / client. Anyone one of whom could have used the Dim Mak technique and set up a fatal attack on the unsuspecting victim. Days later the victim drops dead with the assassin no where near them. No one is looking for a person that hasn't been anywhere near the deceased for the past 10 days! Can the attack be stopped?
Here is a thought for you: Equip an Assassin (Monk) with this ability + Disquise Self and have them go lay some bad chi on someone. "Someone" realizes they have become sick and sends for healers. The healers realize the dude is doomed if they can't find "Master Foo from the Mountain" to heal him, or if the Assassin can't be found and killed (NOTE: historically this would not have worked, the damage was already done.) Perhaps Master Foo is the Assassin? Perhaps he is the Assassin Grand Master that ordered the hit? Or maybe he is part of a "healer guild" of Monks that work to stop such things...etc etc. In all cases hopefully this helps with understanding the ability and where it came from.
Personally I never determine these effects randomly...ever! Instead I work it out ahead of time for each player and based on the number of cards. IE; if Tom has Grognak the Orc Barbarian draw 1 card then X happens, if 2 cards then XX happens, etc. They players never knew this however as I had them draw from a card deck to give the illusion that it was random, but in truth the results (regardless of what card was drawn) was already determined well in advance. Ironically this always worked out well as I used it as an easy DM intervention for correcting holes in the characters (such as given a bonus to a critically bad save, or applying a nerf I'd already discussed with the player previously). It also avoided campaign wrecking randomness such as a key player suddenly being stuck in the 9th ring of Hell by some pissed off devil. Here is another idea for the Deck of Many Things that you may like:
Here is an article on the effects of a low magic campaign that I found to be very helpful reading. http://www.dndadventure.com/html/articles/art_low_magic_adventuring_WOTC.ht ml
Right on man, feel free to reach out to me anytime with this. I'd love to follow any additional developments you might come up with. One tip I will share with you is if you are looking for something that will be highly compatible with already published materials take a hard look at the existing optional rule variants. Just create a list of ones you would like at your gaming table. That way a new player to your campaign can see that these are "official options". It is weird how many players freak out over the idea that something is different, but are both quick and happy to accept the idea that something is an official rule variant. Expect those players to come to the forums however and nit-pick it to death anyway looking for loop holes. Personally I cant wait until I tackle the spell squish and re-write. I'm envisioning the back lash from that will be huge. I'll probably just publish that as a pdf and let it roll vs trying to "sell it" to my players and the Pathfinder community. Not worth all the negative feedback on it. I'm envisioning something similar to the works of Monte Cook with that one. Anyway, awesome comparing notes with you. Please feel free to share more of it you are so inclined. I'd also be interested in how these rules were implemented or were changed as a result of actual game play. Did they work as intended or did they just present unexpected problems?
Not a bad idea. I like it and may adopt something similar for my own use. I did something similar with Intelligence (got tired of seeing martial types treat it as "unimportant / dump stat"). So I allowed background traits instead of bonus languages in the campaign. As my campaign only used common as a language this was a more reasonable trade off that all character types & classes actually got some use out of. Charisma I used as the stat to determine the DC of spells, arguing that it represented the force of will of the caster, where as their primary caster stat determined their bonus spells and other class features. Aside from using Cha for spell DC I also focused on the RP aspect of my campaign. Any time some low Cha character tried to be all cool, or charming, or whatever I'd let them know that their attempts were not met with the reaction they were expecting. "Hey baby, I've just saved the whole town and thought we might grab a drink and celebrate" would come across more like, "You...girl. I'm a hero, now you owe me some lovin!" My players quickly realized that low cha characters (especially in town) generally meant their character really needed to keep their mouth shut unless they were actually trying to intimidate someone.
|
