![]() ![]()
![]() Mystic 'X' wrote: I can't agree with this; I don't think that a universalist should be punished for being a universalist. The various special abilities of all of the groups should have the same relative power level (The Wish and Limited Wish really are too much), and make each area of specialization (or lack thereof) just as desirable as any other. They're not being punished for being a universalist. They have a great ability that the other specialties do not: The ability to memorize any spell and maintain their specialist abilities. If my Necromancer bars Transmutation, but I need to cast Make Whole, I may or may not be out my specialist abilities for the entire day. If a Universalist wants to memorize one spell of every school, he's free to do so AND keep his "specialist" abilities. His ability is spell flexibility. While others can ape it (via scrolls, wands, and other such things), they can't match it. ![]()
![]() I rather like critical threats. As mentioned, it reduces the number of criticals that weak opponents get against strong opponents, while keeping it fairly quick. If we WERE to get rid of the threat, I would borrow from Combat and Tactics, which required that your critical roll beat your minimum needed to strike by 5 or better. So, if I need a 20 to hit something, I can't critical; I can only critical if I normally have to roll a 15 or better to hit that AC, and roll a 20. The increased critical range would become a decreased critical range... a longsword could make its critical if you rolled a 20 and beat the necessary to-hit by 4. A scimitar would only require you to beat it by 3. Not sure of the math on that, but it looks good, keeps most of the mechanics intact, and removes the threat roll. ![]()
![]() I did have a list of several ranger styles at one point. One of them simply added a die of sneak attack every time you got a combat style increase. Another was directed around Mounted Combat, and included bonus Natures Bond feats (to make your animal companion a worthy mount). I think another was directed around mobility, or some other thing. It's been a while since I used them. ![]()
![]() DM Maggi wrote:
However, I'm not splitting hairs about where I strike it. I'm pointing out that, even though they don't feel pain, their bodies are still constructs which have weak points and can be broken more effectively by striking those. Where you strike is incidental; it's a matter of description. That you scored a critical... an attack that hit in a place that will lower long-term combat effectiveness more than normal (i.e. will cause a lot of damage because it hit a vulnerable spot)... is the important bit. Change it from a skeleton to a morhg, or whatever they're called. Similar construction, more HP. If my fighter rolls a critical, or my rogue sneak attacks, I can explain it as being to a vital area (that tongue, an elbow or knee which would make it more vulnerable to destruction), even if it doesn't have meat and doesn't feel pain. ![]()
![]() I will point out, however, that the lowered effectiveness of saving throws was a major factor in increasing the power of spellcasters in 3.x; one of three that are directly attributable, IMO, to changes, or lack thereof, in the spell system. In previous editions, a high-level character was very likely to save against spells; about 12th level, it became 50/50 for almost everyone. This affected what spells a magic-user threw, and how effective they were. If you chose Disintegrate, because it was an instant death spell, there was a good chance that your opponent would save against it and waste your action. It was better, in many situations, to cast Chain Lightning, which might not instantly kill your opponent, but gave you the ability to cause half damage if he saved. You wanted to be cagey about expending this spell, of course, because it would take you a solid hour of study to regain it. 3.x changed this. Saving throws became much more difficult, meaning save-or-die spells (like Disintegrate) now had a decent chance of succeeding, and often carried a penalty for failing a save; they become much more attractive as a result. Simultaneously, all spell memorization/preparation times were slashed; instead of 10 minutes per level of spell you were memorizing, you could prepare all of your spells in one hour, no matter how many there are. At 18th level, a 2nd edition wizard had to spend about 23 hours memorizing his spells if he expended them all. This is going to make him reluctant to spend his big hitters when he doesn't have to... they're time-intensive, and things happen while he's studying. By comparison, an 18th level wizard in 3.x can blow his entire spell memorization quota in just over 5 and a half minutes (not including bonus spells, but also not including Quickened spells), and then recover all of them with 8 hours of sleep and 1 hour of study. This freed wizards from having to be judicious with their now-more-powerful magic, greatly increasing their power on a daily basis (especially if the player metagames the number of encounters, or there is a convenient escape from easy interruption of sleep... such as the sextuple-duration Rope Trick that came with 3.x). And what didn't happen? Spell damages didn't change. Magic Missile does the same amount of damage now that it did in 1977; less, if you account for the fact that it now caps at 5 missiles. While HPs were going up (due to lowered threshholds for a Con bonus and uncapped Con scores and bonuses), spell damages remained the same, meaning that a successful wizard did WELL to fall back on the quick killing save-or-die spells, because his direct damage spells were the equivalent of peeing on a forest fire. Sorry, I've rambled; this topic is a bit of a pet of mine, and I keep running across new ways that 3.x really messed up the dynamic between warriors and wizards, heavily slanting things in favor of the wizards; these are just the reasons that deal with the magic system, not the combat system as a whole, or other things that were included. Short version: Improving the save DCs of spells is a bad idea, as it puts full spellcasters further ahead of non-spellcasters, a boost they do not need. Low-level spells are easy to save against because they are relatively simple and low-powered magical constructs; it is the skill of the wizard that ekes out more oomph from these little constructs, giving you the increases in effect with level, but they can't do anything about its complexity and power without either redesigning it or kludging it and throwing more power behind the spell (i.e. Heighten Spell). ![]()
![]() Moff Rimmer wrote: Here's the biggest problem with the dwarf abilities the way I see it -- Most of the abilities are really up to the DM to see in play. If you don't see any magic users, the bonus to saves is useless. If you don't see any orcs, goblins, or giants, that bonus is a waste. If you never have an adventure underground, darkvision is a waste. And you end up with a slow fighter with some extra hit points. How realistically are you to never run into a spellcaster in D&D? Sure, you might never run into humanoids, but when have you had a game where your ability to save against magic has never been tested? Or never have a use for the ability to see in the dark at any point in the game? Not to mention the benefit of stability, which is highly useful in a trip build (prevents counter-tripping). ![]()
![]() When I started working on my version of 3rd edition (when WotC was still denying that they were creating a 3rd edition), I did something like this. The "racial" traits were assigned; every elf had low-light vision and a resistance to sleep and charm magic. However, the cultural traits were variable, and bought according to the whim of the player (and the restrictions of the DM). Only the half-races (half-elf, half-orc, and half-ogre got finished before I lost interest with the official announcement) had no racial traits, just a lot of optional ones they could purchase... because they made do with what they had, and every one would wind up being unique. ![]()
![]() Another part of the reason that dwarves prefer axes and hammers (and, one would assume, picks would fall into this as well) comes from 2nd edition's "Arms and Equipment Guide." It mentions in there that part of the reason that dwarves favor hafted weapons is because stunties have a low center of gravity, and so aren't likely to fall victim to the imbalance difficulties inherent in such weapons. It was a fluff description, but it was a well-thought out one, IMO. ![]()
![]() One aspect of changing it from a flat bonus to bonus dice is that, under the standard mechanics, those bonus dice will not multiply on a critical. Several ranger and paladin spells take advantage of the critical, IIRC (allowing auto-confirms on certain enemies, for example), which would render their special damage less impressive. ![]()
![]() Statistically, a DC 10 favors the attacker slightly; the average for a d20 is 10.5. If you're going to change it, I would be more in favor of 13+CMB. This puts it in the "not an easy option" range, but doable. If someone specializes in it (i.e. Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, etc.), the DC goes down to 11+CMB... or about the average of a roll. I'd prefer not going back to an opposed roll, for a few reasons. One, it's more time consuming. Two, randomness favors the NPCs drastically. It favors the less skilled (who are usually the NPCs) and those who are exposed to fewer rolls (who are always the NPCs). If you have a random roll, individual NPCs benefit a lot more than PCs. ![]()
![]() I agree that perfect immunities get really annoying, but there are situations where they are appropriate. Really, I think that most Outsiders are a good example of "appropriate to have immunity to various ills". Why should a creature from beyond this world be discomfited because you dropped some cyanide in his drink? He's physically more alien to you than an aboleth... his physical construction could be incredibly-dense twinkie-matter, for all that you know. However, that raises the issue of "If a demon has it, why can't I emulate it with a spell?" And that's when we get into the downward spiral. I'd prefer to see more things like what was done with Identify. The low-level spells are bonuses to do things. The high-level spells may be perfect immunities. The mid-level spells are either super-huge bonuses or imperfect immunities (e.g. Lesser Globe of Invulnerability). ![]()
![]() I would like to see monster entries with a Knowledge check DC, as opposed to the basic formula. While the basic formula (10+CR) works in some cases, it doesn't account for the "What the heck is a flumph?" aspect of rarity and oddity, and it becomes more difficult in cases of creatures with multiple CRs ("What do I have to roll to know that this blue dragon is going to breathe lightning? Is it based off his actual CR, or is it based off the lowest CR where he gets that ability?"). ![]()
![]() I believe the reason they moved gnomes away from illusionist as a favored class is because illusionist is a subset of wizard. If elves have wizard, and gnomes have illusionist, then elves are able to specialize in the same thing gnomes are supposed to excel at. Bard for gnomes has never sat well for me; it doesn't fit with how I've long seen them (which is somewhat stereotypically Jewish, if the truth be known [gnome?]). If Pathfinder gnomes are going fey, I can see it working, but the musical aspect of the bard still seems like an uncomfortable fit. ![]()
![]() Richard Vujs wrote: I'm going to disagree with this. Elves have always been the original wizards with 1000's of years to perfect their art. Magic is an art form to them to show string them into the bard or sorceror role doesn't real fit that ideal. How does moving the majority of elves to sorcerer or bard prevent elven wizards from spending hundreds or thousands of years perfecting their art? Do sorcerers not perfect their art? Do bards? Do the elven wizards suddenly disappear in a puff of logic? ![]()
![]() Does anyone else read the restrictions on specialists that if I say, prepared Make Whole (to fix my fighter friend's armor), and then cast it right away, I would be able to use my specialist abilities the rest of the day, since I don't have any more Transmutation spells prepared (and we are assuming Transmutation is a prohibited school, of course)? ![]()
![]() smaggi wrote: The undead should remain immune to critical damage/sneak attack damage, especially the corporeal ones. They have 0 for CON because their bodies no longer function like the living according to the mechanics of the game. Their bodies are really shells or containers for malevolent spirits (wights, morhgs, mummies and even the drone-like skeletons or zombies). Rogues can compensate just the same way as the other classes, get weapons and items that destroy the undead more effectively. Disagree. Even if they're just shells, there are still more effective places to hit them... even if a skeleton is an evil spirit, you smash its knee or elbow, and it becomes less combat capable. ![]()
![]() Kalebon wrote: The words Elven High Wizard means nothing then, elves are wizards, the original mage. I think sorcerer should not be their favored class. Gnomes should be kept as bard since bard spells have mainly illusions. Turning them into sorcerers is kinda stupid since sorcerers are very restricted in spell selection, but not as restricted as psions, psychic warriors, and wilders are in there powers. I disagree that making an elf's favored class bard would make Elven High Wizards meaningless. Elves would still have high wizards, but the class they are best at, the class they are naturally inclined towards, would be bard. The wizards would be the ones with the drive to know, the ones with the drive to excel in the magical arts beyond the relatively sedate path and safe magics of the bard. The bards would be the ones who reveled in songs and the joy of life, as the stereotypical elf does. That most bardic spells are illusions, and therefore gnomes should be bards is, IMO, a poor argument. What else about bards screams gnome? Certainly not musicality... gnomes have never been noted for their music. The 1st edition gnomes were known for being doughty fighters with a knack for illusions. The 2nd edition gnomes were known for being illusionists with a fascination for machines. The 3rd edition gnomes became illusionists who studied and cataloged the world so efficiently that scholars learned gnomish to read their works. Pathfinder seems to be pushing them more towards creatures who are half-fey, both in the technical sense, and the sense of being somewhat removed from reality by the intensity of their focus on their chosen endeavor. Who are gnomes? Who are elves? While elves have long been associated with magic, how they are connected is variable. ![]()
![]() Personally, I'm all for scrapping the idea of elves being wizards entirely; relegate them to bards, and move gnomes to wizards. However, I hadn't noticed the severity of the Diplomacy bonus from Unearthly Beauty; that is rather disturbing. While I like the concept, it also raises an interesting image of a city full of elves, where everyone is either nice to each other, or stabbing each other in the back (since no one, no one can have in indifferent attitude... they're either Friendly or Unfriendly) ![]()
![]() I'm what I've long referred to as "semi-pro"; I freelance for Palladium (written a number of articles for the Rifter, a book that's been accepted for publication and, as of recent press releases, has cover art, and been published in Hermes Portal, the Ars Magica e-zine). I can't call myself professional, but I don't make my living off it. ![]()
![]() I'd say that something on par with the established mechanics for grappling (i.e. you get "raises" at 5 points above the difficulty) would be the most reasonable. I would also make the healing very limited in amount. So, let's start with the 1D4 at difficulty 10 that was suggested. We then add +1 per 5 points the DC is exceeded by, with a maximum of your level times your constitution bonus (your level is always possible, however, no matter what your constitution), since there's only so much you can patch up quickly, but tougher people, with more HP, recover more quickly from the wide variety of difficulties that a loss of HP represents. ![]()
![]() One difficulty I had with 3.x was that flat-bonus feats (such as Skill Focus and Weapon Specialization) did not scale with level. This meant that, while they may be useful at an early point in the game, or as prerequisites for other things (PrCs, feats), they were less impressive as time went on. For example, Weapon Focus. At 1st level, the +1 to strike is useful, if you have your chosen weapon. While subsequent levels would allow you to take Improved, Greater, and Weapon Focus with a Cherry on Top, these required further investments in resources, making the initial feat a sub-optimal investment... it was a gateway to greater bonuses, but only if you were willing to buy into the pyramid. I have suggested that these feats should provide a static bonus, plus an additional bonus every X levels; weapon focus, for example, providing a +1 at level 1, and an additional +1 at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20, keeping a focused character with a 3/4 BAB equal in bonus to a non-focused character with a 1/1 BAB, but without the benefits of improved BAB. Skill focus would be +2 at first level, and an additional +1 every third level, making for a useful bonus, instead of a static brick around your prestige-classed neck. ![]()
![]() I enjoy Rifts quite a bit; I write for Palladium fairly regularly (3 Rifter articles in the past 3 years, and, hopefully, my first book out later this year). Most of my work is for Palladium Fantasy, though I'm currently working on a project for Rifts (well... when I'm not on message boards). The system is fairly old school; it's frequently called "1st edition AD&D with house rules", and that's not too inaccurate... there are a lot of similarities. Skills boil down to D%, roll under. Combat boils down to opposed d20s, then rolling damage. There is a lot that could be done to simplify and clean up the system, but if you keep those things in mind, you're pretty clear. The game itself benefits from a GM willing to say no to PC concepts. IME, the best Rifts games have all been when the GM has said "Ok, you are all part of group X; make characters that fit in with that." It may be that we all have to be Coalition-acceptable (leading to a CS Psi-stalker, an EOD Specialist, a CS Special Forces trooper, and a human Mercenary) or we all have to be working for the Atlantean clans (leading me to play, as a replacement for my slain repentant demon-worshiper, a young dragon who thought these guys looked like "fun", while everyone else was a True Atlantean something or other). Power creep can be an issue, but it can also be addressed by compartmentalizing the game. Unlike 3.x, where anything is supposed to be usable anywhere, most areas in Rifts are fairly self-contained. South America is weirdly powerful, but if you keep things in South America, and only use things that should be in South America (i.e. from the books South America 1, South America 2, Underseas and Atlantis), you won't really notice. It's when you try to import your "cool South American character" into a game full of CS City-Rats that you get issues. I've never seen evidence of the racism Sol mentions, nor have I seen it mentioned elsewhere. There are certainly racist societies in Rifts, but they're speciesist... no D-bees (Dimensional Beings, i.e. non-human sentients without supernatural or magical abilities), rather than no blacks or no Asians. Personally, I'm very comfortable with the game, and so find it a lot of fun. If you have a GM who isn't comfortable with the game, or who tries to throw everything into one campaign, you're going to have problems. ![]()
![]() I agree that many of the LA+RHD calculations are borked, but LA=CR is flat-out wrong. First of all, CR was, in original concept, that an encounter between a party of four and an equal CR'd creature would result in about a 20% loss of resources (including HP, spells, arrows, etc.). So, if you have 1 Ogre facing 4 ogres, that 1 ogre should, in theory, be able to severely cripple one of the 4 ogres before going down (taking all but about 5% of the wounded ogre's HP). However, CR doesn't neatly translate into LA because some things are very useful in a brief encounter, but game-breaking in a campaign. Use, for example, the Jann. It has a CR of 4, meaning I can play my 1st level Janni rogue in a campaign with 5th level characters. Of course, I'll have 6 Outsider HD in addition to my 1 rogue HD, I'll be able to Plane Shift my entire party at will, create food and water as a 7th level caster, Etheral Jaunt on my own, and turn invisible or fly around with impunity... and that doesn't include stat bonuses (which are a minimum of +2 to everything), telepathy, and hey, natural armor. In a quick encounter, or an occasional NPC, those abilities are useful. They can feed a party, get them where you want them to be, and allow the NPC to avoid a fight (or sway it the way it "should" be). In a PC, that means the game is pretty much "The Janni and her sidekicks, the Colonels Nelson," unless everyone else is playing similar characters. Really, in order to fix it, you have to make a more nuanced go at it. Outsider and Dragon HD really should count towards ELA; they're powerful and useful. Humanoid HD, however, stink on ice... I've taken to allowing people to replace them with levels of NPC classes, reflecting their role in the society they came from (I've also created a "Hedge Wizard" arcane counterpart to the Adept; uses the Witch list from the DMG, and the Adept rules otherwise). And, I think from that change we can gain a bit of insight; NPC classes count as one less for CR purposes; RHD for Abberations, Animals, Constructs, Elementals, Giants, Humanoids, Oozes, and Plants can be replaced with NPC classes (if the player so chooses) and are reduced in value for ELA calculations by 1. This puts our Ogre at ELA 5; LA 2 + (RHD 4 - 1 because they're Giant and Giant HD are subpar). It's not perfect, but it reduces the hit from playing monster races who were overvalued by WotC. ![]()
![]() Palladium Fantasy has had magic item shops since its inception. I view them a bit differently than most, perhaps. You don't go in and rifle through the bargain wand bin, peruse the display of discount potions, or take practice swings at pells with flaming swords. You go in and talk to an apprentice alchemist (the magic item makers) or majordomo. You first have to convince them that you're serious, not just a time-waster. If you have an appointment, they get the alchemist, after putting you in the public study (the one without anything useful in it). If you don't have an appointment, they see if the alchemist is free, and set one up if he's not. Then you talk about what you think you need, what you're facing, and what the alchemist thinks you need and can provide you, and at what cost. You don't see any of this at this point... just talk. Once he's convinced that you're serious (and have the money to afford this; you're looking at the equivalent of buying a car or a home if you're purchasing magic items), then you see what he's got. You never see his workshop. You never browse his inventory. You work on his timetable, since he's the respectable businessman, and you're the tomb-robber. It lends a far different atmosphere to buying magic items, I find, and I've carried it over into d20. |