I'm currently trying to make some 2nd level NPCs for My starfinder campaign, but I have a little trouble understanding the secondary magic option in the NPC creation method in Alien Archives. It reads as...
Secondary Magic: The NPC gains spell-like abilities (chosen
But when Looking at the chart Table 7 spells for NPCs, on page 143. SO I decide to go with Spell like abilities, Does this mean my NPC must chose only the 2 at will level 0 or the 2 first level, 1/day spell like abilities, or does it only get a choice between one level 0 or 1 first level spell like ability?
Thank you so much
Iam also using the genius guide to simple class templates, which allows advanced class and hybrid class options as well. There isn't an occult version yet, and I don't want to use one for the chromatic and metallic dragons.
Each of these great wyrms are unique npcs and have a major influence on world events. They are the only dragons to reach great wyrm yet.
So far I have
Silver Paladin seemed obvious enough that I already began working on it first. I Love the Gold Oracle. The Brass caviler is the only one I think poses a challenge. Since I'm using simple class templates and not the actual class, the Brass dragon would get a mount.
I'm working on a homebrew campaign which will include only one great wyrm of each the chromatic and metallic dragons. To flesh them out more I want to add simple class templates to each with out repeating a class template but I'm having trouble deciding which class template to apply to each dragon and I would like some advice. I have both the monster codex and the genius guide to simple monster templates.
I'm currently planning a campaign for 5 players each starting at level 5. I plan on using the classic elements as the theme. I'll have them travel from I've location to location. In each place they have to resolve some problem before they can access that location's elemental temple. The overarching story has the players combating the efforts of the archvillian, who's trying to destroy the world by throwing the elements out of wrack. Feeling like four elements were not enough I'll also feature negative and positive energy as elements. The elemental planes do not exsist in this world. Instead spirits embody these. I want to design this very much like a video game but I'm very discouraged because it seems too much like tales of symphonia. Does anyone have any advice?
Another issue to think about is the possibility that the players may very well use the swords themselves. How many players do you have in the party? Each may want to use the swords, which also brings up more questions. Do they cooperate and take turns with the swords? How many swords do each get to use?
I suggest that the Devil be near by or otherwise able to collect the swords almost as soon as the players get them early in the game, at least until theirs enough swords so each player gets one. This also opens more plot lines. There are far too many suggestions on how to run the game. Ultimately, You should consider how the players will react to these weapons and the use or lose of each one. These can also be used to plot out the encounters in which they will be found.
This is an important step I did forget, you are correct in the fact that a weapon most advance in steps first.
I'm not trying to increase the bow's strength bonus any further, as I do not intend to increase my strength.
Another question would be whether or not the strength modifier cost is added to the enhancement bonus cost.
A Composite Long Bow without a strength bonus getting a +1 enhancement bonus which would cost (2,000 Enhancement cost + 400 Masterwork composite longbow cost = 2,400gp)
But what about a composite Longbow with a +2 strength modifier (100gp base price + 200gp strength bonus + 300gp masterwork cost) getting the same +1 enhancement? Would it be priced at (2,000 Enhancement cost + 200 strength modifier + 400 master work composite longbow = 2,600) for the enhancement, or would it not count the strength modifier and simply cost the same 2,400gp for the +1 enhancement?
Also I would like to thank every one for taking interest in my inquires, and baring with my long strings of text.
My Mighty composite bow is master work of course, It's the only weapon I'll be using so the tremendous cost doesn't concern me. But this opens another question. I always thought that once magical, a weapon can be further enhanced. If this is the case or would some one need to costume build a magical weapon, with all the abilities they wanted from the very start?
I know that in 3.5 one could simply further enhance the weapon with the normal craft dc rules for creating the overall weapon, and the cost for such further enhancement would simply be the difference of the new overall cost compared to the original cost of the item. So for example, If I wanted to turn a +1 longsword into a +3 longsword, I would need to invest the I would need to pay (18,000gp - 2,000gp = 16,000GP) to gain the new enhancement. I even asked a representative at wizards of the coast, who originally pointed this out to me.
I'm currently working on a level 5 ranger who will use archery. Now Something I want to know is, if my bow is already mighty with a +2 bonus from my strength modifier, and then I have it enchanted by a wizard who enhances weapons, would the enhancement bonus overlap or stack with the strength bonus?
John Kretzer wrote:
Have them fight other gesalts would be my primary method if I ever ran a game with gesalts.
When Facing NPCs thats exactly what I do. I was speaking more about monsters.
Also this may seem unrelated but I don't want to start a separate thread for this. I usually add HP to monsters or characters that have templates, by the same amount as if the gained the same number of hit dice equal to the CR increase. So if a template increases the monsters CR by 2, and the monster had a D8 Hit die, I would increase it's HP by 2d8, but not the actual hit die it's self.
I personally love gestalt. I know a lot of players find it over powered, but the aspect that attracts me to it the most is versatility. Back when my group was playing D&D 3.5, I tried it out with a few test NPCs. I didn't like how so many Paladins were so similar. It got the point where every paladin felt exactly the same. I encountered this with the ranger, rouge, monk and druid as well. My players also like gestalt, for much the same reason. One of the things I do to help balance the gestalt setting is to increase the DCs on monster abilities, usually by +2 to + 4. Or I'll set the average encounter level at +1. What are some things you might do to compensate for gestalt characters?
I'm pretty sure he means the 20 level base class that paizo published in one of it's Dragon magazine issues.
Okay! So here are some more ways to do this. In the end every one will find something that suits them out of all the ideas floating around here.
Black Rabbit suggested adding these effects to critical hits, this makes the chances of landing an effect less likely, Which for some would be idle, while to others wouldn't be useful enough.
Maybe there should be an offset. Something to discourage the constant use of combining melee attacks and maneuvers constantly. One offset could be, when the attacker uses a sweeping motion to perform a trip as part of their attack, the get a -2 penalty to ac until the start of their next turn since they are partially prone themselves. Of course I could see a problem with this penalty in the case of pole arms though.
We could simply allow the improved maneuver feats to deal damage, or half damage and let the greater feats deal full damage.
I'll elaborate on these a bit later.
Here are two ideas I came up with
First idea. Many weapons have the ability to allow the user to perform a type of combat maneuver with that specific weapon. We could simply allow the weapon to deal it's normal damage when the maneuver is successful. For example, the heavy flail can be used to perform disarm and trip. Using a heavy flail to perform these maneuvers would certainly invoke images of sweeping at the targets legs or bashing an opponents arm to make them drop their weapon.
The second idea is to create a feat that allows the user to modify their attack to add a maneuver, much the same way as vital strike or spring attack would.
What do you guys think of my Archer Daemon?, I had hoped to keep closer to the guide lines and not make the same mistakes as with the Knight daemon.
The Archer Daemon is another in the ranks of the horseman of war. Personifying inescapable death by a firing line, these creatures are used to provide support towards other warring daemon.
Evil Space Mantis wrote:
The foot soldiers of Szuriel’s army, Knightdeamons are among the most numerous daemons in all of abandon. They attack with a blood lust unparalleled even among daemon kind. During combat Knightdeamons tend to charge whenever the opportunity rises, caring little for the inherent danger they may place them selves into. Used mostly as shock troopers, Knightdaemons clear the way for more powerful daemons. Representing death from hordes of enemies, it is believed that those who are willing to fight impossible odds in great desperation become Knghtdaemons after death.
A lengthy figure stands poised to strike, with blades for hands and plated head and torso almost appearing to be armor, the only hint of sentience is harsh red eyes filled with malice.
Also, The new CR will be 3, I'll stat the lieutenant as well.
One thing I'd like to point out about the Dretch and Imp, each has damage reduction, spell like abilities and a host of resistances and immunities. The Dretch has "Melee 2 claws +4 (1d4+1), bite +4 (1d4+1)" and the imp uses poison and has fast healing. In comparison the knightdeamon only has Ferocity, which is not as useful as damage reduction or fast healing. Again, the resistances and immunities is granted to each of these monsters due to their creature type and suptype. I feel that this version is more then appropriate for it's challenge rating
Heres version 2, I reduced the HP and AC to something more appropriate for it's CR. I'm also Working on higher level variants and another monster that uses ranged attacks.
KnightDeamon CR: 2
The second attack comes from the two weapon fighting feat, and the immunities are all a part of the deamon subtype. Tenacious is my little invention to help the monster constantly charge. I tried pounce first, but it's not compatible with the two weapon fighting feat. I'm not sure If I want to rework the monster, or reassign it's CR. Either way I'll make an updated version and post it later on tomorrow.
I Have taken an interest to the new Deamon monsters from Bestiary 2. How ever I find that there arn't enough low CR versions, So this is the first one I created. I would like feedback on the flavor and mechanics behind this concept, tell me if I made any mistakes, or if I need more clarification please.
KnightDeamon CR: 2
Creating a sun blade is not the problem. The problem is how making a larger sun blade, and enchanting it would work. For instance, The cost of making a large weapon is twice the cost of making a medium weapon, but the sun blade costs 25,335gp to make. So, would it cost 50,670gp to make? or would I use the cost of a masterwork great sword? Also, The sun blade is a magic weapon, but doesn't have an entry showing if it has a enhancement bonus, or what that value might be. The Dm would need to make some decisions about such rules. I'm sorry if I'm going off rude or ungrateful, But these are the problems that came up while trying to work out such a weapon.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
I'm well aware of effort values when it comes to what weapons can be wielded but what sized creatures. The point is not to have an impossibly large weapon dragging behind me. I'm simply looking for the highest base damage a weapon could provide, and a large great sword would have worked, except that it was already a two-handed weapon. There are no other weapons that can provide 3d6 base weapon damage other then a huge sun blade, which can still be wielded as a short sword.
Robert Petty wrote:
Well I spoke to my DM. Seems like he agrees to my making a sun blade. He needs to review the steps I'm taking to do so. He'll make a determination soon enough, and I'll post the results. Thank you everyone for you'r support and advice.
My Dm and I have decided it was best to stick to making a normal great sword. It is supported by the core rules without any need for special rulings, which is the very reason we are sticking to the core rules. again thank you every one for your help.
I think I discovered a problem with this entire setup. Technically master craftsman doesn't allow me to create spell trigger or spell activation items. The sun blade can be swung overhead to create an effect similar to real sunlight, but it doesn't say it is the sun light spell. In any case my DM would have allowed me to do so, but I feel this is really over complicating the entire game, too many questions as to wither something is legitimate or how to go about it. For now I'll stick with something more appropriate.
Just to correct my last post, that would be a huge sun blade instead of large, sorry.
I have another 2 other questions if any one cares to answer. How would you go about pricing over sized weapons? I would also like to know what I should consider a sun blade for adding enhancements, if it can evenbe enhanced?
Ask your GM because not everyone will agree with that. To me you can not do that as the weapons Size is that of a bastard sword not of a short sword. So while it counts as a short sword for proficiency and such it is not the size of a short sword so not usable.
In the Sun Blades description it reads:
This means that it's effort level would still be that of a two-handed weapon if I get a large sun blade. It's really not a matter of how big the weapon is, but how difficult it is to use.
Thank you, this is exactly the kind of advice I was looking for. Originally I wanted to use a large great sword and enchant it with flaming, frost, shocking, vicious and the required +1, so that on a successful sneak attack from flanking, I would deal 18d6 from my weapon.
No, only the pathfinder core book.
I currently building a 15th level half orc (barbarian 7, rouge 8). My strength score is 18 without raging, and I plan to use Improved vital strike. How ever I want to use a large greatsword, but the size increase would put the weapon beyond the two-handed weapon effort. I'm trying to find a way that I might still be able to wield it using only the core rule book. The only thing I can think of doing is using my rouge talents to gain major magic and use enlarge person twice a day, but I would really like to wield it at my current size of medium creature. can any one help please?
I understand about stone dragon with escape artist, however I do think iron heart with sleight of hand is appropriate. Using balance seems a bit awkward to me, seeing as the school focuses on causing opponents to over reach, or a quick yet subtle motion for other maneuvers in the Iron heart school.
The biggest problem is simply a matter of how each skill is perceived to be used. Stone Dragon can use escape artist to narrowly avoid a strike, but I see the school more as the warrior who can take a hit. Also, though I'm aware that it has not been challenged yet, I will defend Tiger claw using fly as it's key skill. Any one who is used to striking from above, can get used to doing the same while in flight. Using fly seems more appropriate anyway, seeing as any one using such a maneuver is exerting at least some measure of control over their movement while in the air.
Arcane Blade is really good. It is similar to both the Psychic Warrior and Dusk Blade, but still has it's own feel to it. One thing I'm confused about is wither the Arcane blade has a spells known list or if the know every spell on their list.
Storm Child is also very interesting. I would reconsider the spell list, and give it some abilities to change the energy type of damaging spells to match their own energy type.
Both classes are well done, I would like to make a NPC to test play both in a coming game I'm starting. I'll post what develops of these.
Scipion del Ferro wrote:
Most of this isn't about trying to force Paizo to rewrite the class, but just a number of insights. No one will ever truly agree 100% on every class. These were just about making a workable class in the meantime. I do agree that increasing the range of thrown items should be a feat instead of a class feature, I could very much imagine a knife thrower wanting that.
As for the bomb, well every one has different ideas about it. I imagine a simple vial of explosive substances that simply isn't able to ignite just yet.
I found your comment about the justification for evasion to be very humorous. But you correct about this issue and I couldn't put it better myself.