Thanks, Oldskool. I did notice that, I'm trying to take a step by step approach to this character's development, and making sure there aren't any pitfalls.
I hope my GM agrees with your good sense!
Search Posts
I'm here for a quick rules clarification. If I choose the Armor Storm fighting style for a soldier, when I hit level 5 and get access to power armor, am I forced to use the hammer fist damage as opposed to the power armor's damage? I worry that I'd be crippling my character's damage potential by restricting myself to that 1d4 cestus battle glove damage as opposed to the 1d10 Battle Harness damage. At 5th level, the damage for each would be as follows: Hammer Fist: 1d4+13 (4 from 18 STR, 2 from Melee Striker gear boost, 2 from Hammer Fist bonus for taking Melee Striker, 5 from Weapon Spec.) Power Armor: 1d10+11 (4 from 18 STR, 2 from Melee Striker gear boost, 5 from Weapon Spec.)
You can't be wrong, pretty much by definition. I am just warning you that putting together a game where the "right" answers are forcing/reinforcing tragic outcomes might not sit well. Be prepared for rebellion. You should decide beforehand if you are going to punish it or go with it. That makes a lot of sense. The issue I'll have with allowing wildly different outcomes is that happier endings would ruin the impact of the story. Romeo & Juliet has resonated for so long because of the tragic love in the center of it. Even though people often misinterpret the story by viewing that romance in a positive light, we cannot deny its lasting impact. If that were to be taken away, I don't see the tale resonating through time like it has. Either way, I should be able to handle it. Though this does send me back to the drawing board to write up contingencies for failed missions.
If you are stuck in a mindset of there only being one right answer, why are you involving players at all? That's a harsh accusation. There's a world of difference between giving the players a specific goal and railroading them. I'm glad the adventure worked out well for you and your character, but imposing your specific situation and the rules of your campaign setting on others is not appreciated. If your only intention is to tell me I'm wrong for wanting to use certain flavor rules for my setting, I'd prefer it if you step away from this conversation.
That's a matter of opinion. Maybe the fracture resulted from the love story ending in double suicide. Maybe each 100 years the 2 lovers reincarnate and try to get it right. Maybe the only way to fix the fracture is to help them survive and escape. I agree with Pizza Lord, in that they need to die. As I'm pretty much using the Sandman comics as my campaign setting, this fits into the concept that there are "Great Stories" that arise and are retold in every era. If these two do not consummate their suicides, then the story dies for this cycle and the dreams of all creatures will be incomplete and disturbed for the millennia it takes for the story to reemerge.
Thanks for all the input! These ideas are great!
Hello all! I previously posted this request here, but I'm worried that the name of the thread has put people off. I'm soon beginning a campaign based strongly on the World's End volume of Neil Gaimen's Sandman. The party have been pulled from their different worlds and times to the safety of an extradimensional inn as reality quakes and shifts outside. Unlike in the comic, where patrons are expected to simply pass the time telling stories, the idea I'm going with is that two types of people are drawn to the inn: those with some relation to "fractures" which are preventing reality from settling and reasserting itself, and those who can help. The party is transported to the time and place of the fault and must resolve the fault. Fractures can literally be anything. An out of place person, a broken law of nature or a time that should not exist. So, I'm looking for ideas for fractures. Where they happen and how they can be resolved. The settings can be any genre and setting. I've already written a few, but I want the tone of each adventure to be significantly different, and I worry that anything I come up with would eventually feel too similar. Thanks in advance! Please let me know if there's anything else that needs clarification!
I'm soon beginning a campaign based strongly on the World's End volume of Neil Gaimen's Sandman. The party have been pulled from their different worlds and times to the safety of an extradimensional inn as reality quakes and shifts outside. Unlike in the comic, where patrons are expected to simply pass the time telling stories, the idea I'm going with is that two types of people are drawn to the inn: those with some relation to "faults" which are preventing reality from settling and reasserting itself, and those who can help. The party is transported to the time and place of the fault and must resolve the fault. Faults can literally be anything. An out of place person, a broken law of nature or a time that should not exist are some ideas I've had. So, I'm looking for ideas for faults. Where they happen and how they can be resolved. The settings can be any genre and setting. I've already written a few, but I want the tone of each adventure to be signifigantly different, and I worry that anything I come up with would eventually feel too similar. Thanks in advance!
Thanks for the input! So, yes, any campaign setting in which this system would be used would most likely be one in which magic is feared by the common folk and interchangeably used and feared by the nobility. I'm aware of the effects that high level magic can have on a campaign setting, and concern over those effects is not the driving force behind this project. Mainly, I feel that magic is too guaranteed, too safe in PF/D&D. The idea of dangerous magic that is unpredictable without the most rigorous care and focus is exciting to me, and I want to make sure that the system is sustainable before offering it to my table.
I would go for stick and carrot. Thanks, GeraintElberion! I will try to make this happen!
Bad GMs don't become better if everyone gives up on them. I want to help my friend become a better GM, and this is the battle I'm currently fighting. That said, I do agree with your assessment of fumble rules!
Thanks for the input, everyone, you've all given me a lot more fuel for hating this rule. However, I'm still at a loss for how to deal with the GM himself. Whenever I try to discuss this with him, no matter if I'm bring up facts or feelings, he just goes stone-faced and responds to everything with "this is the way I've always done it." Has anyone had any luck piercing similar walls? If so, how was it done?
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this, but I'm looking for advice, so here it goes... I'm currently playing in a campaign in which the GM has, what I feel, an absolutely horrible house rule on how critical fumbles are handled. The mechanic runs like this: after a natural one is rolled, roll the d20 again, with all of the same bonuses. If the result of the second roll hits your character, then you suffer an adverse effect. As a melee character with a high strength, this means I'm scoring that adverse effect (usually dropping my weapon, but can be significant damage) on a roll of 9 or higher. Everyone else at the table hates the rule, but he won't budge, and his only defense is "this is how I've always done it." Does anyone have any pointers on dealing with a stubborn GM with a cherished, but terrible, house rule?
Bump for additional input!
In my opinion, the bite is too powerful. Standard damage for a bite attack (such as the half-orc "Toothy" and goblin "Hard Head, Big Teeth" alternate racial traits) is a 1d4 primary natural attack. Additionally, while I like the idea of the fast healing, I think this goes a little overboard. Perhaps start with 2 at 4th, and add two every 4th level, with the duration being a straight die roll (1d6, perhaps). On the other hand, I feel that the capstone ability is lacking. At 20th level, DR vs silver is very weak as most, if not all, opponents will be wielding the +3 or better weapons that can bypass the DR. I don't have any suggestions at this time for replacements, but this does have promise, so I hope you keep working on it!
I've added the bones of two variant takes on the system: a "Risk & Reward" variant that retains the 2d10 mechanic, and a d10 based system. Document can be found here Any input is appreciated!
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into it, although the base 1 in 10 risk of "wild magic" seems a bit harsh.
I totally understand what you mean. Honestly, I did want to include something like that from the beginning, but it got lost somewhere in the mix of calculating DCs and attempting to create the special abilities of the casting classes. An idea I was toying with was transposing the WFRP system a little bit more whole cloth. What I mean is that casting rolls are made with a pool of d10s. At 1st level (or whichever level a caster gains their first level spells), they are granted 1d10. Whenever they gain the ability to cast a new odd level of spells (3rd, 5th, 7th & 9th), they gain an additional d10. When casting a spell, the caster can choose how many dice they roll at a time, then add the totals to see if they beat the spell's power DC. Doubles, triples, etc. cause wild magic effects, and rolling all 1's results in the critical failure effect. Obviously, I'd need to rework the target numbers and other balance issues, nor have I determined defensive casting works. I was moving away from this system, as it doesn't feel like a d20 system mechanic, but it does grant some of the risk/reward dynamic you were mentioning from Shadowrun. On top of it, the system feels overly complicated. A lot of the math and the rolling could probably be condensed down. While it's neat to roll both to determine controlling a spell and determing a spell's power, I feel you could reduce that to two caster level checks. Heck, you could probably reduce it to a single check considering that the control die's math is really simple. Why not make the whole thing a caster level or a concentration check but with a critical failure system based on the natural result? For example, maybe casting a 4th level spell requires a concentration check and if you roll a natural 4 or lower, you cause a wild magic event? Maybe the DCs are based on caster level so you can choose to reduce the probability of failure by lowering the spell's CL? I like this suggestion, and will definitely attempt some additional tests with it. I also don't recommend the changes to spell resistance. Adding a scaling bonus basically makes it impossible to affect creatures with spell resistance due to the fact that saving throws already scale with HD. SR isn't suppose to make it impossible to affect a creature with magic - it just adds an extra point of failure. It would... Another good point. I didn't think of the issue with stacking. My main issue with SR is the way it doubles down on defenses for certain spells, particularly evocation. For instance, scorching ray has to deal with touch AC, energy resistance and SR. If you've run into similar concerns, how have you dealt with them?
First off, let me apologize for the delay. For some reason, I've been unable to access the forums from any computer other than my phone, and I really didn't want to attempt digesting the input and responding on my phone. 1. It looks like the Power die is essentially doing the same thing as a Concentration check to cast defensively, except it applies all the time. The obvious question, then, is "What happens when I cast defensively?" Do you make both checks (clunky and a drag on play time)? Do you make the Power check at a penalty? This is actually something I had overlooked. I'd definitely add a penalty, but I need to math out what that would be. 2. I know there are logical reasons I should dislike adding randomness like wild surge tables, but they're so daggone fun, to me, that I can't bring myself to condemn them. And casters have enough pretty toys that I sure don't mind them taking some risk. That said, some of the worse-offending spells for abuse are the out-of-combat ones (simulacrum, planar binding, etc.) that you can just try again to cast the next day. From that perspective, having a chance to lose the spell and/or being dazed 1 round really is not "dangerous" at all. That is true. Perhaps increasing the risk of escalation to the more sever tables for higher level spells? 3. "On a Critical Success, the caster may apply any one metamagic feat they have obtained to the spell without increasing the spell’s level." Looking at records of egregious abuse throughout 3.0 and 3.5 has led me to the conclusion that "free metamagic" perks are like in-laws: the less you see of them, the more you like them. If I were in a game where every spell had a nearly 10% chance (2 dice, 20 on either = 0.098) to be Quickened (or worse, Dazing) for free, I'd go out of my mind. I want to institute some mechanic for critical success that can be applied to all spells, not just direct damage/healing. Do you think it would be more balanced if the critical success required both d20s to roll natural 20s? Thanks for the input!
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I apologize if this has been posed before, but in this system, no creature, without the use of abilities like Flurry of Blows, can make more than 3 attacks per round. How have you found that this affects the threat posed be creatures that normally get many more attacks per round? (IE: Larger dragons can make 6 melee attacks per round: Bite, 2 claws, 2 wings & tail) Other than that one question, I really like this system and am already looking for an opportunity to try it out!
I was hoping that edit was enough to clear things up!
Not exactly. When you roll the 2d20, the die that rolls higher is the power die. The result of that die, plus a bonus granted by x number of caster levels, must beat the spell's Power DC in order to cast. This result can be further augmented by taking a channeling move action prior to casting the spell, which allow the caster to add their casting stat mod to the roll. The die that rolls lower becomes the control die. This die must beat the spell's control number (spell level + 1) in order to avoid adverse side effects of casting the spell. It has no bearing on the actual casting of the spell. Thanks for the feedback! Any suggestions on how I can explain the dice mechanic more clearly, to avoid future confusion?
I've been working on making a new magic system, based on the WFRP, which I posted here
So, since 2010, I've been playing in a Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play 2nd Edition game, and I've really fallen in love with the magic system. So, I've been working on applying the spirit of that magic system to Pathfinder. The following is a link to my current version. Please note that this is a prototype and has yet to be play-tested. I'd really appreciate any feedback! Thanks in advance!
With all due respect, I think this skews the critical threat percentages too far to remain fair. So, for our basic d20, adding 1 to the crit threat increases the possibility of a crit roll by 5% (20=5%, 19-20=10%, 18-20=15%, 17-20=20%). With your proposal, we get the following spread:
I think that's too steep of a curve to keep the weapons balanced without changing any other factors.
How would you classify the Highland Claymore or German Zweihänder swords? I always felt that these were the basis for the D&D/Pathfinder Greatsword and neither would be particularly useful for bracing against a charge.
For the Dreadly, with their insubstantial bodies, but aptitude for martial combat, I'd suggest some CMB bonuses. Possibly grapple and trip, as their able to use their mutable form to wrap parts of their limbs around their opponents. Also, perhaps an innate DR/Slashing as I can't imagine bludgeoning doing much damage to them. Is their physical form part of them, or is it a suit that the actual entity possesses?
Thanks for taking time to address some of my concerns. Another concern you voiced was Quicken Spell being switched to a Move action - well, the main purpose of Quicken Spell is to get two spells cast in a single round and that change still allows for that... however, when you ask why anyone would want 3 swift actions, you answer your own question - with three swift actions and Quicken Spell performing as written, that would allow three spells to be cast in a single round and that would definitely be 'game-breaking'... That's a good point, though it would be a very expensive way to run a caster. I was looking at these changes as a package, so I was considering the benefits without Quicken Spell being a swift action. Do you think there are other situations that would benefit a character to exchange both their move and standard actions for swift actions? I'm not seeing this as a problem, I'm just curious. The -20 action Pathfinder combat can be very slow, especially at higher levels. This change makes combat even slower while not granting any particular advantage. If every hero, villain and monster is granted this, no one gains a particular edge. Also, what happens if a creature's initiative is lower than 20? Do they miss out on that bonus action? If so, there's another hit to casters who won't be able to consistently get that 21+ initiative.I'm really sure what all of this means... combat won't be any slower, (some) characters will be getting more actions and combat moves at the speed of actions, not time. If I wasn't clear that I was speaking of playing time rather than in-game time, I apologize. That being said, actions takes playing time. So adding additional actions each round will increase the time every combat takes.
I stand corrected! Thanks, Khudzlin!
Have you play tested any of these modifications yet? I'm seeing a lot of potentially game breaking changes. First off, your existing house rule shoots 1/2 BAB classes in the foot for initiative, and 3/4ths to a lesser degree. At higher levels, a wizard is all but guaranteed to go last, even with improved initiative. 5 Foot Step Being bigger doesn't necessarily mean being able to adjust one's position easier. If a troll were to shift ten feet in one motion, it would be an awkwardly wide shuffle traversing a distance almost as wide as the creature is tall. There's no way that sort of action wouldn't leave the monster open to some attacks. Additionally, This rule would allow larger creatures to move respectable distances and still get full attack actions, whereas the heroes are still stuck to their 5' or a single attack. Additionally, this would open the martial PCs up to more attacks of opportunity and rob them of their own full attack actions. For example: The party is fighting a troll. The troll takes a full attack against the party fighter, then uses its free move to back up 10 feet. The fighter must now expend a move action to close back into melee, which gives the troll an attack of opportunity and the fighter only has a standard action left, so she can only make one attack. Swift & Immediate I'm pretty sure you can do both in RAW. Can you share where it states that both cannot be performed? Action exchange You can already exchange a standard action for a move action. What are the benefits for allowing up to three swift actions in a round? Quickened Spells I'm noticing a theme that casters should be slow. If you make this change, does the spell level cost of Quickened Spell decrease, as its usefulness has? Why do you want to make this change in the first place? The -20 action Pathfinder combat can be very slow, especially at higher levels. This change makes combat even slower while not granting any particular advantage. If every hero, villain and monster is granted this, no one gains a particular edge. Also, what happens if a creature's initiative is lower than 20? Do they miss out on that bonus action? If so, there's another hit to casters who won't be able to consistently get that 21+ initiative.
Fair enough, I'll share this with my group at our next session.
Thanks for the support. As a follow up question, how would you suspect such an effect would interact with defensive abilities like Burn or a Hamatula's Barbed Defense? If it's the aura interacting with the creature, would my character take the effects of those abilities? This issue was the core of the debate.
Last night I played in a campaign where one of the other players is running an Incanter with the light sphere. During a boss fight, he imbued my character with Encompassing Light, which was pretty sweet. However, this kicked off a rules debate on how this effect actually increases my attack range. You may create bright light that encompasses the glowing creature, allowing it to function as if it were larger than it is. The glowing creature deals damage and gains reach as if it were 1 size category larger than it is. This improves to 2 size categories at 10th caster level, and 3 size categories at 20th caster level. Over on Giant in the Playground, we get the following explanation from Adam Meyers when asked how EL changes the damage and range: My understanding is that encompassing light provides a 'virtual' size increase, while alteration gives an actual size increase. Thus they stack with each other. Alteration wouldn't stack with enlarge person, light wouldn't stack with an impact weapon or primal warrior stance, etc. While useful to know that they stack, it still doesn't explain how the fact that my character is glowing brightly increases his damage and range. How we played it off at the table was sort of a Blue Dragon ripoff: the light coalesced into a large sized construct of my character which surrounded him and it was the construct's weapon that was doing the damage. While a neat image and it kept the game running, I'm still curious if anyone has a more codified explanation of how this is supposed to work. Are there any other abilities from Paizo or other 3rd party companies that provide a similar effect with a better explanation?
Aberrations are Knowledge (Dungeoneering)
Thanks YBD! I actually found it right after I posted and was about to remove the post!
I'm finally getting my first opportunity to play a character using the SoP system! However, I've come across a nagging question that I just can't find an answer to. In Chapter 2: Basic Magic, under Magic Talents (page 8), the book says "Magic talents, like feats, may be spent to allow a caster to gain new powers and abilities." Does this mean that feats can be used to buy more spheres and talents? The quote seems to suggest so, but I can't find a solid rule in the book, with the exception of the incanter being able to use their bonus feats on spheres and talents. UPDATE
Edit there is also an Injury system in Unearthed arcana that might be a good place to look for inspiration. That's way more elegant. I think it's back to the drawing board for me.
Oh, kind of forgot a big part (again, rough first idea): When the injury penalties to a body part equal the creature's con score, the next attack to that area the creature fails an IR roll against causes a critical injury. Critical injuries do 2 points of ability damage to the stats listed in the IR location table, plus an additional two for every 5 the IR missed the DC by. Reducing any stat to 3 or lower incapacitates the creature. Reducing any stat to 0 is death. Ability damage heals as written in RAW. Additionally, they heal 1 point per stat per die of healing from a healing spell (i.e. Cure Moderate Wounds would heal 2 points per stat of the target). Ability penalties are healed as HP in RAW.
Thanks for the advice. I know HP is a big one to tackle, but I've been delving deep into retinkering and using different mechanics, so I thought I'd give this a try. Not easy at all, but very fun. I am planning on rebalancing attacks and AC. Additionally, I was thinking of using a defense/DR mechanic as introduced in Ultimate Combat, though adding DR/armor to this idea might be too much. Right now, I was planning on making it apply to NPCs and monsters. As for magic, my current goal is to apply a WFRP-esque risk factor to casting. Though I do have the spheres of power PDF and am really getting into that.
DISCLAIMER The following is a super rough first draft of an idea I came up with at work, and wrote really quickly during a short break. Alright, so I'm trying to get away from expendable resources in the game (spells per day, for example). In exchange, I'm trying to create additional mechanics that allow for the chance of a good or bad roll of the dice to create similar limits to player ability. The following is an idea I've had to replace HP. Obviously, the following mechanic will require a massive retooling of how much damage certain creatures, abilities and spells cause. For now, let's assume 1st level. Injury Resistance Whenever a creature takes damage, they need to roll an Injury Resistance roll with a DC of the damage taken + 1 per previous successful attack made against that creature this combat (Successful attacks are those that exceeded the character's AC, not just those that cause an injury). The roll for this save is 1d20 + CON bonus (if any) + BAB + any DR the creature possesses. If the creature fails the IR roll, the creature takes an injury. Roll a second d20 to determine the location and effect of the injury. Severity of the effects increases by 1 for every 5 the result of the IR roll was below the DR. 01-03 - Head -1 penalty to all mental stats
Penalties remain until the character can rest for 8 hours.
I'm sure you can dig up a PDF for the WFRP. I'm using the 2nd edition core book. Drive Thru RPG has it on PDF, though still pretty pricey.
I'd say that any skaven that uses magic should automatically roll on the mutation table.
MUTATION TABLE
(Please note: all the mutation names and the inspiration for their effects came from the 2nd Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay core rulebook (C) Games Workshop Limited 2005)
Honestly, I'd start with PF goblins, add the swarming trait and a climb speed and pretty much call it a day for skaven. Getting into the clans will be more complicated. Clan Moulder (alchemists and monster breeders) +2 craft (alchemy) and Animal Handling, +2 Int Clan Pestilens (fervent priests of the lord of disease) +4 bonus vs. disease, +2 Wis Clan Eshin (ninja) Poison use, +2 on saving throws vs. poison, +2 stealth and disable device Clan Skryre (wizards an war engineers) +2 Int, +2 Knowledge (engineering) or Knowledge (Arcana) Clan Mors (strongest of the warlords) +2 Str, short sword, long spear and (polearm of your choice) proficiency, Hatred vs. dwarves (+1 to attack). There are more clans, but those are some of the most common.
I think the poison resistance works (WH halflings can eat anything), but the halflings are just as susceptable to disease in the Old World. Particularly Stenchfoot Fever (Nausea, shivers, sweating and a foot stank so potent that everyone within 4 yards takes penalties because of it.)
That's awesome and silly. I was going to start up with WH Halflings can't be wizards based on the title, but as this class s more of a pastry themed alchemist, I don't have any complaints. Remember though, in Pathfinder, any class can be a character's favored class.
I think it really comes down to taste and preference. If a player wants to spend skill points on a craft or profession, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to, with the exception of skills that don't make sense in the campaign, like craft (spaceship) or profession (hacker), presuming a standard fantasy setting.
C'mon, man, let it go. I have. You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you and there's nothing in the RAW that unquestionably supports either of our points (the fact that we were both quoting the same text in an attempt to prove the other wrong shows that). So, if the OP follows either of our suggestions, it's up to them to decide what they like more. Rockblood, sorry for derailing your thread.
Thanks everyone for the great input. I'm still standing by my opinion that profession (cook) is for consistently producing decent meals in large quantities in order to make a living, while craft (food) is geared to producing either exceptional dishes or meals that are more about artistry than sustenance; or creating new recipes for others to follow. Though, in the end, it doesn't really matter, as this was more of a thought experiment rather than something I actually plan on implementing as either a GM or player. One question, though. I've noticed that a lot of people are suggesting that the result of a craft skill must be enduring and non-perishable. Is this expressed somewhere in the rules and I missed it, or is it just an assumption based on the common craft skills being things like weapons and armor?
I'd go with Perform (Cake Boss)
|