Ninjariffic's page

29 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

They come from leaving regular cats alone on a derelict spaceship for thousands and thousands of years. They are very flashy dressers and very vain and they will constantly fix their hair. They can be easily distracted and will betray their best friend for fish.

Also, I love how many people didn't read the rest of the thread and ended up posting re-posting the same two responses.

TLDR: I think the Elder Scrolls is a good way to go for background.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Ninjariffic wrote:
Be a ninja, or just change the class.
Ninja is Rogue.

Oh, come on. Their spelling isn't even remotely close. Clearly you meant "without being a rogue", not "without being a Rogue", but I nitpick.

In all seriousness though, I would just change what you want to change. If other people are happy with their characters, who cares what you do with yours?

I tend to really over-analyze the logic of lairs and dungeons. It's not just a matter of 'where do they cook food?'. Where does the smoke from the fire go? How do they keep it from spreading to living/sleeping areas? Where do they poop? Where does that go? Is it just a shallow pit, or does it drop into a cavern system from which something could crawl up? Was the space always separated into rooms, or has a larger space been partitioned with curtains or wooden walls?

I try to apply what I know of the monsters behaviours to their environments. Are they lazy? This means they might put certain rooms close together even if a more suited room exists but further away.

This also means that characters who make successful monster lore checks can gain insight to their surroundings.

I try not to go into so much detail because it takes a lot of time, but damnit I'm an Architect. I really like Mark Hoover's solution though. That could really streamline the process. I could do that first and then just throw in details in the surrounding rooms.

Be a ninja, or just change the class.

I've always just given monks the ability to fall any distance when within arm's reach of a wall.

Just ask him if he really wants to be the most boring person in the group.

I picked Cavalier because he's so...knighty. The thought of Paladin rubs me wrong, but I suppose that would give him the healing Water magic.

The only choice is Cavalier. If this doesn't come to mind when you think Grippli, then you are wrong.

The Boz wrote:
But when playing a caster (the class with the good Will save), if Wis and Con are both equally effective at providing the same thing, I'd go Con every single time. HP, save and spells trump save and spells every time, especially on a fragile d6 caster.

I was going to have Wis also give HP. One would get fewer HP from one's class.

Calybos1 wrote:

Isn't there a game system that uses three categories of attributes--attack, defense, power--for both physical and mental stats?

Yeah, it's called d20.

Str = Physical power
Dex = Physical finesse
Con = Physical resistance

Cha = Mental power
Int = Mental finesse
Wis = Mental resistance

I've toyed with MAD casters a bit. I came up with Int for highest spell level one can cast; Cha for things like save DC and other spell effects; and both Wis and Con for number of spells per day.

I've never had a chance to try it out though.

hustonj wrote:
Try to build a Bene Gesserit.

This! I find some mix of Bard (with Detective archetype) and Monk works best. Either multiclass or swap some class abilities.

I also did a Duncan Idaho type character with one level of Flowing Monk and the rest Lore Warden.

ninefingers wrote:
Now while I have let this play out I see how this may have been a mistake

If you think you have made a mistake, explain this to the player. It sounds like this players previous campaign was a different DM? They can have their mimic back when they play that other campaign again.

If you're going to let the player keep it, then just insert a repeat of everything Quintessentially Me said here.

I just had a thought about the DR/armour. How about magic armour retains DR against magic weapons? That should solve that problem.

They can take a feat to get more skills or raise their INT.

Might be easier to just have crits go through armour. A bit of slugging it out is fine, since that's kind of what armour is for in the first place. It's just nice that the slugging happens without stratospheric HP.

johnlocke90 wrote:
How would iterative attacks work without increasing the base attack bonus?

They'll still be gaining levels. They would just get another attack at the appropriate level.

johnlocke90 wrote:
Well it really depends on how you plan to have spell DCs scale versus saving throws.

They won't scale. High level spells will have the same saves as first level spells. So far anyway.

LazarX wrote:
Then perhaps the real question to the OP, is what of Pathfinder DO you want to keep?

I like the underlying theory of d20, and I really enjoy the Pathfinder classes. I just don't believe constantly increasing numbers are integral to the system.

Vestrial wrote:
I didn't see mention of the specialization, how does that work?

Sorry, I was generalizing. Specialization would be skill focus.

As for armour, maybe it should give DR/-? That should counteract magical weapons, would it not?

As for tons of bonuses from stacking spells, it's not an issue. The group would never stack that many things together at once.

Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:

I like the irony that while forums like this are trying to find ways to make pathfinder darker and grittier and tougher and more intense...

The publishers are trying to playtest a book on how to make everything heroic and legendary and uber and sparkly.

That's more like the game we've already been playing. A powerful cabal of dwarven sorcerer nationalists are searching for artifacts to activate an unstoppable golden mechanized army to destroy the humans who are currently having a civil war while the elven kingdom from the desert across the sea is taking advantage of the situation by assassinating key people and sabotaging a dangerous prison on the back of a giant turtle.

It sounds kind of silly when you just lay it out like that.

Vestrial wrote:
Ninja, the more I think on it, the more static skills just feels unnatural to me...If you want static skills, I would say you should ditch skill focus feats too, since +3 would effectively double their rank.

I'm actually kind of fine with that. One is untrained, trained, or specialized. Ability increases will help the skill a little as well.

Dragonchess Player wrote:
Use the Words of Power system from Ultimate Magic to reign in spellcasters a bit.

I haven't tried that system yet. Does it really reign them in at all? It seems to me that there are some spells they can't recreate but they make up for it in general versatility...and paperwork.

For the people who think the Wizards will terrorize this; Is it Wizards specifically or arcane magic in general?

Fighters get Weapon Training. There are also plenty of feats that only Fighters get. They will in all likelihood have higher STR and CON. Iterative attacks give them a boost too.

I'm a little amused at the comments claiming that I'm "changing the system so much." I'm not actually changing that much. Aside from a couple of class abilities I'm not changing how anything works.

Suggestions that I "play another game" and that there are "lots of other systems" indicate that you haven't actually read everything I've posted.

I already wrote:
I own a LOT of roleplaying games. I enjoy reading the books even when I can't find time to play. In my current group are new players who were excited enough to buy their own books. We've been playing Pathfinder for a while and I would like to do something different without making them feel that their purchase was wasted. I also enjoy the d20 mechanic and I really like the classes in Pathfinder.

Wizards seem to be the main sticking point for people. So lets assume for the moment that the Wizard and their spells have been fixed. Can anyone think of anything else that might cause a problem?

I just read the E6 article. Very interesting. The feel is similar but different. The article better explained the level halt. I have a pathological need for system and setting to blend and support one another. I try to take a holistic approach to world building.

E6 deals with monsters much the same as I was intending. Also, in case it wasn't clear, monsters HP will be equal to their CON, the same as PCs.

The one thing I am trying to reconcile with this is that I enjoy getting high level abilities, but I find high level numbers a snore. I just really like the idea of this.

Vestrial wrote:
I would ditch Toughness, as it would basically become a mandatory feat since it would be such a huge bonus.

Good call. Toughness will be removed.

I do intend martial characters to get their +1 BAB. As for iterative attacks I am completely undecided. If allowed I don't think cumulative attack penalties are necessary.

Boy, that escalated quickly.

I own a LOT of roleplaying games. I enjoy reading the books even when I can't find time to play. In my current group are new players who were excited enough to buy their own books. We've been playing Pathfinder for a while and I would like to do something different without making them feel that their purchase was wasted. I also enjoy the d20 mechanic and I really like the classes in Pathfinder.

I'm looking at this from a player perspective, so don't worry about monsters. Assume monsters are adjusted. They're the easy part.

In addition, I am not against numbers ever going up. I just find the continuous and inevitable climb to be pointless, especially when challenges are supposed to scaled to match. If monsters and characters are increasing their numbers at roughly the same rate I don't see the point.

Dead levels. There really aren't that many. Pathfinder classes are pretty well padded out. If there seems to be glaring hole, giving them a feat seems to be a good idea.

I'm currently keeping all feats.

Other than damage I don't think spells will be much of a problem. Since everyone will still be getting the class abilities they'd get otherwise, casters shouldn't be any more powerful than they usually are.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Maximum class level is 5 or 6 each level after you either gain a Feat, a Single thing from your class, or Spell-&-CL progression.

That has a certain appeal, but I am turned off by numbers increasing and then suddenly stopping arbitrarily. As my Statics prof said, "this does not make our lives more beautiful."

Rynjin wrote:
Give everyone a free level of Gunslinger.

Cute, but this doesn't do anything about number creep. Quite the opposite.

I'm sorry. I'm unfamiliar with the terms E5 and E6.

I had some ideas for giving my game a grittier feel and I'm annoyed by number creep. I wanted to see what people thought, and maybe get some more ideas.

First, things like HP, BAB, Saves and Skills don’t increase with level. You get your level 1 value plus relevant ability modifier. HP will be equal to CON score. I haven’t decided if certain classes will get a bonus to HP, but I'm leaning away from it. Those characters will likely have a higher CON anyway, and will probably be wearing some form of armour. Which leads me to…

Armour as damage reduction. The rules are straight from UC.
Classes will still grant all of their usual abilities, with some possible exceptions like Sneak Attack. That may have to be a flat bonus equal to half your level. That bonus could be applied to damage, or to bypass Damage Reduction.

Class still determines how many skills you may be trained in (+3 bonus), but the skill lists are irrelevant. Players can get their +3 bonus in whatever skills they want. I want to encourage players to make whatever character they feel like without having resistance from the rules.

For feats, all BAB requirements will be replaced with level requirements. I'm tempted to remove class restrictions. That might require playtesting. Has anyone here had success with that?

Spells will be a bit of a hurdle. I don’t know what to do about them yet. Damage is the big issue. I don’t so much mind the other effects of high level spells. The save DC will always be equal to 1st level spells I think.

I'm interested in any feedback you guys have.

My own low magic campaign consisted of the following:

1. Sorcerers were monsters only.

2. I took away the ability to memorize spells. Instead, wizards could cast any spell directly from their spellbook. This had a minimum casting time of 10 minutes per spell level. Certain spells had longer casting times.

3. Wizards automatically gained all item creation feats.

4. Magic items with charges could be recharged.

5. Spell-trigger items could take different forms, such as gauntlets. This allowed a wizard to have several spell-trigger items handy at the expense of magic item slots.

This meant that the only way to effectively cast spells in combat was with magic items. The expense alone limits wizards in the world. In response people's reactions to magic were much more extreme.

It was really fun, with a great sword and sorcery feel.

Ahh, but if it were consumed there would be nothing about the circle being disturbed.

MCAE wrote:
If the circle of powdered silver laid down in the process of spellcasting is broken, the effect immediately ends

I'm with all of you, but I don't think you realize how literal my DM is. I'm sure there's already enough here to convince him. He's not unreasonable. That spell is terribly worded, however.

There's also the spell Rest Eternal. Anyone wanting to resurrect has to make a caster level check. It's only a 4th level cleric spell.

Wow, ok. I clearly wasn't thinking when it came to divine focus. I completely forgot about that. Shows how often I play a divine character.

Supplementary question: Does that mean that an arcane caster has restricted mobility using this spell? I know the circle moves with the caster, but the silver on the floor wouldn't. The 20' radius was assuming the caster can leave the circle of powdered silver, but must keep the silver within the emanation to protect it. That gives you a mobility range of 20' around the powdered silver.

We had a bit of a disagreement at game concerning this spell. I searched the boards but no one has addressed our specific problem. I suspect this is a result of our incredibly literal DM.

I argued that the circle of powdered silver is only necessary when using the binding application of the spell. The DM disagreed as there was no mention of the material component being conditional. His ruling therefore was the circle emanated from the cleric, but if he moved in such a way as to expose the powdered silver enemies could break it and end the spell. This limits the cleric to a 20' radius around the powdered silver.

I don't think that's the intention of the spell and I was hoping someone could some clarification.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Bees build their homes in hex format. Therefore hex maps are literally the bees' knees. :)

Agh! I hope you get hives.


This wouldn't work for PFS, but I like the idea of tweaking the monk a little to approximate a Jedi.

Start with Qinggong. Replace Stunning Strike with Precise Strike. Replace Flurry of Blows and Unarmed Damage with Black Blade and allow ki to be spent to increase enhancement bonus like the Arcane Pool.