Riuken's page

Greetings all! Been awhile since I've been on the boards, but I wanted to stop by and share the modification to the mythic system that I've created. It aims to simplify mythic characters, tone down the more outrageous numbers, and focus only on the coolest stuff about being mythic. I just finished running a 15 month E6 game using these rules and was quite pleased. I hope someone else will enjoy it as much as me and my players did.

Google drive link: Simple Mythic

For length, are you interested in adventures that take players up:

• 1 level or less,
  
• 2-3 levels, and/or
  
• 4+ levels?

Multiple, short, 1 level or less adventures are better. If they can tie together that's great, but mostly I just need small bits to plug and play into a bigger campaign.

As far as scope goes, do you want an adventure that

• is a 1-2 session break from the main story
  
• you can make part of the main story by changing the names, or
  
• a campaign that start up high

I'm usually looking for a piece to drop into a homebrew game when the creative juices/effort just aren't there that week, so I'd say a 1-2 session break from the main story. Little one-off self-contained stories.

While we're at it, lets talk campaign setting. I can't use Paizo Campaign Setting (obviously). Would you rather have:

• JBE's own campaign setting, allowing us to delve into our own lore, making the world flavorful and unique, or
  
• More generic, allowing it for easier working into your own campaign setting or Paizo's campaign setting?

As others have stated, using your own setting can give inspiration, and removing setting flavor is easier than adding some that was never there.

Since magic item creation is more about "feel" than the calculations, it can get hard in these situations. There isn't really a definitive rules answer. "First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point."

His intent is to have 100% continuous protection, regardless of how he words it or mechanically hopes to achieve it. Given that intent, along with the power of such an effect, especially for this type of character, I would stick to the 18,000gp for this item, or even increase it drastically. Around 35,000gp feels right, as not really achievable until around level 10, and more likely a final-development type of purchase. This negates one of the few downsides of a very powerful template, and needs to be balanced accordingly.

EDIT: You can always gauge how much the item is "worth" by having there be only 1 such item, and have an anonymous buyer bid against him on it. Make sure the other buyer barely wins it, then have that buyer offer to sell it to the PC at the final offer price, but only after the PC completes a favor for him (sidequest).

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

i would think wizard/fighter would be a good combo as when you are out of spells to cast/dont have the right one for this siputation you can still back some ones face in with a sword very decently plus thats masically what an eldtich knight is a fighter/wizard

Fighter//Wizard is not actually a very good combination, as you still have to deal with arcane failure chance due to armor, and because wizards don't actually run out of spells very often. Since so many of the Fighter abilities have to do with the armor you won't be wearing....

I'd suggest Slayer//Wizard or Ranger//Wizard. Less armor hassles, more skills, better saves and some nice passive bonuses. Basically, they give you the useful stuff from Fighter and more besides.

wizard fighter into eldrichknight something else would deal with arcain spell failure chance and in my experience all spell casters run out of spells fast

Most gestalt rules I've seen say if you take a prestige class you don't get a second class to pair it with for those levels.

Quoting myself from Best Tank?

The 3 points of the tanking triangle:
1) threat
2) control
3) mitigation

1) In order to be a threat to the enemy (and therefore be targeted) you need to do different things depending on the enemy. Mindless or animal intelligence creatures may attack you for simply being the closest target. Next to that, dealing large amounts of damage will make you a preferred target as well. More intelligent enemies will attack weak but dangerous targets, which will work against you. This is actually the hardest part of tanking to achieve in pathfinder. You will generally have to be a solid damage dealer to be a tank, which will frequently exclude many builds that otherwise look very "tanky".

2) Control for the tank is simple: keep the enemies where you want them doing what you want them to do. Frequently the most effective character at this part of tanking is actually a caster. For the more traditional tank types (read: mundane melee), this will likely involve the use of combat maneuvers, but can be accomplished a bit through threatening attacks of opprotunity.

3) Mitigation is the easiest of the three tanking points for the pathfinder tank to achieve. For the purposes of this discussion, what is meant by mitigation is reducing the impact of offensive effects on the party as a whole. This breaks into two parts: effective hit points and resistance to negative effects (spells etc.). This means some combination of HP, AC, saves, DR, self healing, etc. Basically anything that can keep you effective longer.

Keeping these things in mind, I'd use an invulnerable rager superstitious barbarian. He'll have a reach weapon and spiked breastplate. He'll take the beast totem line of rage powers and increased DR. He'll have combat reflexes, improved inititative, power attack, and raging vitality. He considers using his attacks of opprotunity to trip. He would consider taking his first 2 levels in monk and dropping the armor. He wants high str and con, decent dex and wis, and dumps int and cha. He boosts acrobatics to fight defensively and tumble. He takes perception because... it's good. He puts most of his wealth into the "big 6".

Claxon wrote:

If you give the archer Inquisitor 5 more feats over normal they're just going to pick up more feats that make them better at archery, and while at first you might see a little diversity in builds it only exists until everyone comes on here and start optimizing what to do with those extra feats that now have.

The problem is one of optimization vs options.

You want build diversity. This doesn't exist if you want an optimized character. What exactly is optimal may vary a little depending on who you ask, but it's still going to be pretty narrow. [...]

As long as a player wants to optimize their character, there is not build diversity.

This is where I come in, asking for a specific list of feats that would be options for the "extras." Feats that would lead to the next -- put the first on the list, but not the second (or third). Mostly, I'd like to see feats that add color rather than optimization on this list. But what feats?

And since no one answered me, I'll ask again: Why give some classes (and humans, of all things) an extra bennie to "balance" them when the variant applies to all classes & races equally?

Regarding your question, it's because "10 more feats for everyone" is not an equal application. The fighter's bonus feats now only increase his total feats by 50% instead of 100%. A human doesn't have 10% more feats, he has 5% more. by doubling the total number of feats everyone else gets, you have lowered the overall value of bonus feats by half. The reduction may even be more if the bonus feats were needed to make a build work, and now they are just extra bells and whistles.

In terms of proportional increase and effective power boost, it is not equal. At risk of being tangential, here's an example:

Everyone makes $50 a week. A certain number of people make an extra $50 a week in addition. So while some people make $50, some others make $100, double the amount. If everyone then is given another $50 a week, some will make $100, while some others make $150, which is less of an overall wealth divide than it was before. By increasing the total currency available the value of each unit of currency is reduced, making any single currency increase less valuable by comparison.

If anything, this AP is a great chance to try a sub-par character idea, so long as it isn't a fire/cold/lightning/acid blaster. Get everyone in your group on board and play all the builds the messageboards tell you are bad.

I'd suggest if you go with the paladin to plan on using your diety's favored weapon, or a longsword if you don't have a diety. A good choice while keeping with what you posted would be to be a paladin of Iomedae and two-hand your longsword. Keep a buckler on your other arm so you can switch to sword&board for extra defense when needed. Any further information would probably be [spoilers].

Someone in your party should play a paladin. Similar to RotRL and wizards, you lose out on some of the AP by not having one.

Side note: all 4 of your character ideas will work out fine, really.

Why force the next level to be sorcerer? Seems like it would have been better to give him the bloodline class feature and level 1 sorcerer casting, but leave it cha based. Assuming it was meant to be a "reward" for his role-playing a specific character idea well. If it is meant to be a cursed item it sounds like the goal is to have the curse removed before your next level.

Basically, it's fine as a GM to give benefits and penalties, but don't remove a choice as intrinsic to playing a PC as class choice. You might as well just hand him an NPC to run.

In response to the OP, you've got 1 person who thinks the weapon is affected, and 5 that think the disintegrate is deflected to no effect. I'm not saying Snowlilly's point is invalid, just pointing out that it is a clear minority. Short of an FAQ/errata popular consensus is the best you'll get.

I think the main thing we've proven here is you don't need to multiclass to make a versatile character. Most concepts fit within 1 class, and in this case will fit into several different ones without issue.

Fair points. I guess I'm mostly saying they are more combat focused than perhaps this player will want, since the "little bit of everything" doesn't tend to be very combat focused of a desire, except when intending "a little bit of combat". I'm projecting here, but he sounds like every player who has ultimately found their love in the bard class, or something similar.

Edit: In all fairness, magus is also a very solid choice. Maybe even a bard/magus multiclass? Sounds kinda bad, but it has to be better than "multiclass in all classes".

You hate Magus? I thought they were reasonably well thought.

Generally the issue with magus is they pretty much do one thing (though very well), and not much else. If they're not spellstrike/spell combating they don't tend to have much to contribute. Standard fighter issue: arcane edition.

If magus seems too pigeonholed there is also bard, inquisitor, bloodrager, skald, and more (plus archetypes and prestige classes). I would personally recommend bard for this group and the role he wants to fill. Can do combat, has plenty of spells, lots of skills, some utility abilities, and overall could step in to support any member of the group with what they're doing.

I think it comes down to number of viable options. When I look at making a character for 5e, and let's say a guy who is in the front and fights with an axe and a shield, I start to feel like there are really only 2 or 3 ways to do that effectively in 5e. Pretty much every axe+shield character looks very same-y, at least mechanically. In pathfinder I can make that character with a third of the classes out there, many of which have an archetype or two that support the idea, and that's before feats and magical gear selection.

Basically, character sheet for "Dwarf fighter with weapon and shield" is going to be pretty universal in 5e, but in PF there are enough extra fiddly-bits to make them all at least a little different.

A bit of a tangent, but it's a bit similar to what has happened in World of Warcraft over the years. They've slowly stripped away all of the odd, gimmicky, and mostly useless abilities from the classes, and only kept combat abilities. So every class functions very smoothly, but there has been some loss of that unique spark for each class that actually made them different. Yeah dampen magic wasn't really that good of a buff/debuff, but it was a fun and quirky tool to have that made you, as a mage, feel more in control of magic.

Basically, efficiency of play for the loss of weird quirky bits.

Sounds like he isn't thinking in a team mentality.. the issue may go deeper than just the wonkyness of his character concept. May want to spend more time discussing the character he wants to make on a conceptual level.

Ask him what his role in a team is. What is he known for? What might lead him down another path. If his religion is a strong point, explore just how strong, and ask him what might make him question his faith. You really need to figure out if he is just misguided, or wants to be a one-man-show, and address each of those differently.

So... back on topic:

1) Do something with spellcasting. Fix trouble spells, remove prepared casting, or change away from vancian completely, etc. Not sure exactly what change to make, but the current casting system is probably the #1 source of trouble for the system.

2) Bound and diversify. Heresy, I know. I hear your cries of "that's just 4e/5e". I mean this in a very light-handed way. Hyper-specialization causes many balance issues, such that the game can turn into a binary "always succeed or always fail", depending on the character. Reduce the rate of bonus gain from ability scores as the score gets higher, and reduce how many different bonuses can stack.

3) Remove +X items. Every magic item should have an effect that isn't based on making numbers bigger.

Overall I'd echo most of what Secret Wizard said.

There are still some cool "high-concept" threads coming out. I'm a big fan of "The Aeons Sigh", for instance.

I've just started following that one, and it's been pretty interesting so far. I'm really hoping it doesn't get derailed too soon. Might be nice to make a "high-concept" index? Something like a "greatest hits" for the Paizo messageboards would be cool.

Have them play two characters, but they can fuse and unfuse at will, using the rules for a synthesist summoner. Should work well with a caster and a martial, or any two very different characters. Maybe give them each a matching earring, and a special dance they have to do.

EDIT: this reminds me of the game Everyone is John.

I know for myself a lot of the "lost luster" seems to come from what I perceive as a shortage of homebrew topics and/or high-concept "how a game system works" conversations. I don't get much out of another "how do I stack the most bonus to hit with a scorching ray" type conversations, but something that steps outside the details is always fun. Alternate systems, unique campaign ideas, what the goal of a piece of game design is... those sorts of things. They seem to be lacking these days, possibly tied to the reduction of rehashed topics like C/MD and "does the paladin fall".

I had almost forgotten that every nice thing is supposed to be for casters. It all makes so much sense now.

"If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished."

I'd assume an animal companion would be released from the strain of adventuring when it would be old enough to have penalties. Or it dies and the druid performs the same 24 hour ritual anyway.

Weapon Finesse: Just go full tilt and have the feat apply dex-to-damage, but no str bonus (penalties still apply).

CE/DA/PA: This works great, but I might drop the concern for the BAB+1 requirement. It probably doesn't matter anyway.

Point-Blank Shot: Just remove it since it's completely unnecessary.

Improved Unarmed Strike: Leave it as a feat but remove it as a prereq from several feats (eg. imp grapple).

If that feat doesn't have a Dex requirement over 13 and the prereqs of followup feats are changed accordingly (including the Dex requirements), then yes.

Yeah, DEX 13 required for that version of TWF. Double Slice requires DEX 15. Two-Weapon Rend requires Double Slice and BAB +11. That's the entirety of the TWF feat chain as I have it in my houserules. (except two-weapon defense, but really...)

The point with clerics is that instead of needing a healbot character, the game now assumes healbot items. That leaves every player open to playing a proactive character instead of a reactive one, which most people seem to enjoy more. The entire focus of the cleric class changed, from "middleweight melee and healer" to "divine full caster". Clerics are not "replaced with a Bard with a healstick", since that bard cannot call outsiders or move across planes. The goal was to remove the "draw straws and the short one is going to be the cleric".

Now the trap//rogue interaction still needs fixing/removing, but at least PF got one of the Required Class syndromes removed.

So lets say to bring two weapon fighting closer combine all the two weapon fighting feats into one progressive feat. add a feat that lets you attack with both weapons as a standard action (i think 3.5 had one of those) does that pretty well do it?

I said it before but this is what you're looking for I think:

"Each time you make an attack with your main hand you may also make an attack with your off hand. Off hand attacks from iterative attacks use the same base attack bonus as the iterative attack that produced it. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6."

A feat that reads like that solves 75% of the issues with TWF. Still have double cost enhancements and DR to deal with, but I think those are offset by the bonus-per-hit advantage.

I changed the feat "Two-Weapon Fighting" to read as follows:
Prerequisite: Dex 13.
Each time you make an attack with your main hand you may also make an attack with your off hand. Off hand attacks from iterative attacks use the same base attack bonus as the iterative attack that produced it. Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. (effective -2/-2 with light weapons)

I also have a bunch of other houserules that interact with both this and two-handed fighting to make them more even. TWF requires 1 feat to function, then has 2 others that are options to make it good (double slice, two-weapon rend). 2H fighting doesn't require a feat to work, but has PA as an option to make it good. TWF is a better idea if you have a bunch of static bonuses to damage and enough feats, otherwise use 2H fighting.

Generally it just works out that a more melee focused character will get TWF since there is a higher damage potential than with 2H fighting, and 2H fighting is easier for someone like a melee cleric to pick up.

I've been trying to find a way to define what I think of as a "reasonable" attribute array using the point-buy system. I think I've got it figured out, and it looks nice in an excel table, but I'm worried it's too complicated to actually use without the spreadsheet.

highest attribute maximum of 17
highest attribute minimum of 15
lowest attribute maximum of 10
lowest attribute minimum of 8
maximum of 1 attribute less than 10
maximum of 2 attributes less than 11
maximum of 1 attribute greater than 16
no more than 2 of the same value
at least 3 positive modifiers
if highest attribute is a 17, use 21 point buy
if highest attribute is a 16, use 23 point buy
if highest attribute is a 15, use 25 point buy

This is all pre-racial. I would normally just give 3 arrays (shown below), but I feel the point-buy with restrictions could give more variety than the arrays. Is it just too hard to navigate?

17, 14, 12, 12, 11, 8
16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 9
15, 15, 14, 14, 11, 10

My recommendation is to use stat arrays and a more balanced curve for attribute increases from leveling. There are many ways to accomplish this, but the following is what I use.

Arrays:
16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8
17, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8
18, 12, 12, 10, 8, 8

Level Increases (no ability score can be increased by more than +1 at each level):
2) +1
4) +3
6) +1
8) +3
10) +2
12) +3
14) +2
16) +4
18) +3
20) +4

All items that give an enhancement bonus to attributes are removed.

Jill knew what the truth was. Her flaw was that she would rather accept an easy lie than a difficult to explain truth. This flaw was what let the witch influence her and made her agree that the sun did not exist. The witch cannot simply dominate Jill with a spell and control her like a puppet. Jill had to be convinced. Jill had to give in. The magic helps but at some level Jill has to agree, she can't be forced against her will.

I prefer magic that is more subtle, individual and intricate like that, it literally bursts with RP material.

While subtle magic like that is really cool, and yes I agree full of RP material, Pathfinder magic is not built that way. Magic in DnD/PF is the overt "control her like a puppet" kind, and it's pretty baked into the system. You don't commune with the fire spirit of a nearby candle and bargain with it to produce a fireball; you yell loudly and flail your arms about and s#*! explodes.

The other side of that is, like the typical less-than-lethal fireball, the effects of your failed will saves are also short-term. Sure, you may betray your friends this time, but it isn't a permanent personality drift towards being a traitor. The type of magic that DnD/PF has used is a more "concentrated" kind, where effects are stronger but short-lived in all but the most extreme cases. Overall I think it makes the game feel more "action" instead of "drama".

Can this be changed? Definitely, it's just that you'd probably be better off using a different system that encouraged that type of magic to start with, and there is no shortage of them. Usually the benefit of homebrewing for PF players is system familiarity and published adventure availability, but in this case those are both lost due to the drastic changes that need to happen across the system.

Well, this thread has been a whirlwind. Starting on overriding player agency, and moving into the territory of Mental Illness, Rape and Victim Blaming. I bet you all miss alignment threads now.

Bring back alignment threads, at least they're not will-save threads! Make message boards great again!

By game rules use the 1-2-1-2 diagonal rules even when going vertically.

I could see "use twice the vertical height, or the horizontal height, whichever is bigger" as a quick rule.

1) Give every mythic creature Dual Initiative, Fortification, and Second Save
2) Multiply mythic creature HP by their MR

That's a good start, but there are many further steps as needed, including adding MR to AC and all D20 rolls.

Another option is to remove mythic paths, and only let the PCs use the base mythic tier abilities (surge, attribute increases, mythic feats, etc.).

I've also heard of replacing mythic with hero points or a similar system.

For the game I've been playing our GM is massively multiplying enemy HP and completely rewrites every major encounter. Minor encounters typically get roleplayed through or simply described.

Cloudkill, add widen spell if needed. Throw a quickened one too while you're at it.

1) Paladin
Mostly I love the amazing saves, especially on an archer. The focus on charisma is nice if for nothing else than picking up diplomacy. Like MrCharisma, I feel like their spellcasting is one of their weakest features, and with things like Paladin's Sacrifice and Shield Other it's still pretty good. I've had no RP issues with them as I typically like to play LG types anyway, and I haven't had a GM be a jerk about slight variances. I like to play big hero, and paladin fits the bill perfectly.

2) Wizard
I love the versatility. I love the feeling that you can always do better, and not just with better luck, but through your own system mastery. I love knowing that I can have a solution to anything. The only downside is I do occasionally just want to zone out and deal some damage.

3) It's hard to pick here. Probably Bard.
Also Inquisitor, Ranger, and Cleric.
I love the strong team-player aspects of all of these, but especially the bard. Bard, inquisitor, and ranger are sort of do-it-all classes that can use weapons, skills, and magic all fairly well. Cleric makes the cut for similar reasons as wizard made my #2, but in general I feel like they're a bit bland as a class since they basically have no features but spells and channel energy. Wizard at least gets a few bonus feats in there and multiple skills from high intelligence.

As a point of disclosure, I haven't played much of the ACG classes, though even of the one's I've played and having looked at the rest, none stand out. I've also not really looked over OA at all except for kineticist, which didn't turn out to be quite the class I'd hoped it would be. I feel it lacks depth, like it's too focused and missing oddball utility abilities. The class ability list looks long, but it's really all just "blast better and different".

Just got done playing my by-weekly session with my wife and 3 others last night. We have a pretty good time of it, in level 13 now. I've been playing for years, same as 2 others. My wife and the last guy are new and enjoying it too though. I find it's mostly older folks, 30+ (well, older compared to "git rekt noob! lol L2P" kids).

Solo play will be a bit harder, as the game is obviously designed with group play in mind, with group sizes up to 6 (or 12 for raids). The solo difficulty setting and hirelings do help, but it's hard to say since I'm one of those "always on elite" guys for difficulty setting, which all but requires at least 4 competent players working together. If you can find even 1 other person you can play with regular it makes a big difference.

I've got almost 100 characters at various levels; I just keep trying out new builds and ideas. Some work well solo, some with 1 other, some need a whole group. Some dungeons require a certain body count (ex. 4 players required, hirelings may not suffice). This is usually some mechanic to force a party split or a puzzle of some sort. Like Pan said, most puzzles that do come up are quite simple, and you can always google an answer.

Same as Pan, let me know if there are any specific questions you have. My epic (20+) experience isn't that deep, only 1 character that high, but most other aspects of the game I'm pretty familiar with. I'm especially well versed with the different classes since making new builds is one of my favorite parts of DDO.

The obvious one is

Regarding "Couldn't a sorcerer just do other things?" -

Yes, a sorcerer could, just like your 2-handed fighter could pick up a shield and use that, or a melee cleric could cast a destruction spell or two. If a character was built to do a specific thing, is it not likely that that thing is what the player wants their character to do? Should I not be able to use my character's iconic powers, the same ones I've been using and refining for the entirety of the campaign, in the final climatic scene? Sure, provide a challenge with regard to its use, but to outright shut down what you've built up the entire campaign is rather anticlimactic, really.

I'd do a huge protection from energy. Break the normal CL limit if you have to. Make sure they can figure out that this buff is active and that they are reducing it with damage. That way the sorcerer can still "win" with their mechanic, they just have to go through some HP first like most other characters.

Some resist energy along side that is also a good idea, but unlikely to really do much in the grand scheme. Being incorporeal gives a flat 50% reduction to damage, which could help resist energy matter. It will also make the prot energy go farther. Imp evasion with only a moderate save will reduce damage by another 50% without shutting them down. Shield other lets you take 50% less by sending the other 50% to some chump minion. Stack enough of these 50% reductions and a resist 30 might be good enough (effective 240).

My issue with globe of invulnerability and counterspelling is that it shuts the sorcerer down instead of challenging them. Same with "huge ref save + evasion".

Could always go a misdirection route and use lots of illusions, summons, teleports, and contingencies. This frustrates many players in an un-fun way though.

Riuken wrote:

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Both systems look interesting, hmm. Did you guys actually try building the existing classes using your own systems?

Yes. The points values point out a fraction of the class imbalance that I believe currently exists.

SheepishEidolon wrote:

@Riuken: Phew, full sneak attack progression for a single point is quite a budget choice. Especially when combined with full BAB.

This was discussed in the thread I linked. It basically came down to "I think it's worth more than 1 point, but less than 2, and I don't really feel like it fits well enough to add to another package. For now it sits at 1 point to encourage use, and if that use shows it to be undervalued I'd increase it to 2 points. If 2 points makes it unused I'll have to find another option."

You could have the cost or magnitude of the ability conditional on attack. You'd have to give accuracy boosters BAB equivalent value based on their magnitude, uptime, conditionality, and action cost, but any damage booster should have variable pricing.

That gets tricky. It's close to saying "power attack should only be 1/2 of a feat on characters with less than full BAB, since it benefits them less" or "bards should get buy-one-get-one-free on metamagic feats since those feats are really made for wizards." I'm not saying that is what you mean, that's just where my logic takes it.

Instead, it's easiest to approximate equivalency based on the average user. Basically, how good is it for most of the characters that are going to take it anyway? In this case, I assume a character taking sneak attack will have some capability to leverage its benefits, usually with high attack accuracy and/or above average number of attacks. That does not change the fact that sneak attack doesn't work in many situations, and even in those where it can work, effort must still be made to apply it, regardless of how much effort you think it really takes.

As the points sit, I don't think it's as valuable as a good fort or will save, or any of the other 2-point options. That means it must cost less than 2 points. It might get overused at 1 point, but as a poster in the discussion thread noted, there weren't enough 1-point options anyway.

Both systems look interesting, hmm. Did you guys actually try building the existing classes using your own systems?

Yes. The points values point out a fraction of the class imbalance that I believe currently exists.

@Riuken: Phew, full sneak attack progression for a single point is quite a budget choice. Especially when combined with full BAB.

This was discussed in the thread I linked. It basically came down to "I think it's worth more than 1 point, but less than 2, and I don't really feel like it fits well enough to add to another package. For now it sits at 1 point to encourage use, and if that use shows it to be undervalued I'd increase it to 2 points. If 2 points makes it unused I'll have to find another option."

Riuken wrote:

I made this a while back: Point-Buy Class Builder

Not updated for anything past ACG, but it's worked pretty well the times I've used it.

I like it, but I disagree with the pricing on a few odd things.

What's your method for pricing Spellcasting? They seem all over the place

Almost all pricing is done by "feel", though there is some method. For spellcasting, generally it's some combination of maximum spell level and quality of the spell list. Basically, how hard can your class lean on spellcasting alone, and how much does the spellcasting you pick need other supporting class features.

The discussion thread for it is here. Feel free to necro that thread if you want to discuss it in more detail, instead of filling this one with it.

Riuken wrote:

I made this a while back: Point-Buy Class Builder

Not updated for anything past ACG, but it's worked pretty well the times I've used it.

What about custom abilities?

It's simply made to let you do your own version of hybrid classes, and is intentionally less flexible to keep a higher degree of balance. It's not a guide to creating a custom class, which should look like a textbook for a college class, and probably cost money. It is instead a quick, easy, and mostly balanced way for a player or GM to make a class that fits their concept better than current class option allow.

If you want to "weed out unnecessary abilities" and "make some of your custom abilities" this won't fit the bill. It's much less granular than other similar systems specifically to keep it simple.

I made this a while back: Point-Buy Class Builder

Not updated for anything past ACG, but it's worked pretty well the times I've used it.

For BESM, you definitely need a concept first. The beginning of the book has a more structured build process you should at least look at (like x% stats, y% attributes, etc.), and also has a benchmark table to help give yourself some idea of what power levels are appropriate for the points level of your game. On that note, you will need to get the points level from the GM, and in general will have to keep a dialog with the GM regarding your attributes, what levels they are, what your character goals are, etc. It's alot more back-and-forth than most games like PF and DnD.

Can't give you much help with NWOD, sorry.

@captain yesterday
NWOD = new world of darkness (the more plug-n-play version between supplements)
BESM = big eyes, small mouth (though this game is almost exclusively referred to with it's acronym, even on the cover of the rule book)

EDIT: added URL to wikipedia pages
EDIT2: If you want help with sifting through the MASSIVE number of BESM attributes feel free to send me a PM and I'll do what I can. I'll try to keep the "ask your GM" responses to a minimum ;D

Well - since this thread is fully resurrected now -

I like stat arrays. I like to avoid the randomness of rolling, and I like how it gives less advantage to the SAD classes relative to point-buy.

Second liking stat arrays. As a GM I tend to give 3 arrays, with the more generalized ones being worth more "point buy". Something like:

You've got a 3.5 holdover hangup. Only ACP in PF.

Albion, The Eye wrote:

Ok, so a Fighter would do well in specializing in a weapon or group, as well as in a particular fighting style?

Does he have enough versatility to combine multiple fighting roles (say... being a Bodyguard kinda guy and also a mobile fighter, or being a tank kinda guy but also be able to 'shutdown' or harass casters)?

One of my personal favorites for a fighter is to make her human, gaining the extra feat at first level. She now has 3 feats to start. Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Sawtooth Saber (is considered a light weapon for purposes of two weapon fighting), Weapon Focus: Sawtooth Saber (is applicable to both weapons simultaniously) and Two Weapon Fighting. Given that in just one level, you'll be gaining another feat, go for either Improved Initiative and get a quicker attack time or go for Double Slice and apply more strength damage.

I've found great success with this build and use it quite often. The fighter's full attack bonus makes the penalties almost negligible.

This is an example of a perfectly acceptable fighter, and the character power benchmark PFS and APs are made for. Noting that, you could make this same concept better with another class, and a better fighter with a different concept. TWF is weak overall, spending a feat on EWP is almost always a waste, and double slice doesn't actually add much damage for the cost of a feat.

You could do this concept better with a human ranger using kukris. At level 2 you could pick up some archery feats to have good ranged damage options, you have decent skills, and eventually a companion and spells. The difference from sawtooth saber to kukri is mostly unnoticed, and TWF really only needs the first feat and rend.

A better fighter could be made by just using a greatsword with no feat changes or anything else. Literally just drop your sabers and draw a 2-hander. I benchmark my fighters with the question "would this character just be better by using a greatsword instead of whatever style I'm currently planning on?" Most of the time, even with no investment into being 2-handed, the greatsword is a better option.

so if i were to bump it up to a 3 level dip to decrease the reload time would it be worth it?

You just have to be aware of the lines between a multiclass dip, a full multiclass, and being so invested you shouldn't even take another class.

Once you're 3 levels in for free-action reload, why not take another 2 for dex-to-damage? What are you losing from the other class with each level you take in your "dip"? Should you just go full gunslinger and focus up your UMD? Maybe you take 3 levels of gunslinger (musket master) then 5 of eldritch archer, then 2 more gunslinger, then back to eldritch archer.

You might even find that a hard multiclass would suit you better. Like 1 musket master, 3 wizard, 2 musket master, 4 wizard, 2 musket master, 8 wizard.

Haven't done it personally, but I know there's alot you can do combat-wise with intimidate. I believe Cornugon Smash is central to this. After that it's just a matter of getting 1 more skill point each level freed up to use on diplomacy. The cha score you're using for intimidate should also be good enough for diplo.

If someone more acquainted with the build could give a better guide that would be helpful.