RogueMortal's page

104 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I wonder about the wisdom of including goblins as a core race, I do rather hope this trend continues so we can get further "monstrous" races as PCs, something Paizo had somewhat avoided in the past. Perhaps kobolds, gnolls, apallies, mimics, and a properly undead or frankensteiny construct option?

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Somehow I just end up expecting lots of shortstack goblin bards with a Con bonus, ranks in Profession: Courtesan, and InCase character art. They really seem an odd choice for a core race, plus step on both halfling and gnome toes by being sneaky tinkers. At least kobolds have tended to be reasonable in a couple APs, and would present some neat ideas in focusing on either draconic heritage (whether magical or mighty) or traps, which have always been a bad spot in terms of PCs wanting to set their own.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's nice to see the class getting some buffs to get it up to par, but I must agree with others showing concern over damage output and too limited a list of forms. Had a player try out the Shifter in one of my games and found that:

The claws bypassing lots of DR types fails to impress, since other martial classes tend to be picking up weapons to beat DR anyway, leaving the Shifter as 'the class without iteratives' and while it can pick up maybe a bite attack in wildshape/major aspect... it really doesn't keep up.

Aspects, Wildshape and Chimeric Form also fell rather flat compared to other classes with similar abilities. Perhaps a more flexible option would be better, with full Wildshape and blending Aspects and Chimeric Form into something more akin to eidolon evolutions or being able to apply extra traits from the Beast Shape line?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a fair cost. Little faster, but stops a few other tricks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also true. Still, I'm tempted to give them a 'Sugar Rush' movement bonus at 1st that goes up at their other empty levels. Say a ten foot speed bonus for one round, costs a sparkle point, at 7, 13 and 19 they add 5 more feet?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh, an interesting point. I suppose I took the class more to be "Fiends? In my dungeon?! KILLITKILLITKILLIT..."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, the Sparkle Princess class from Little Red Goblin Games'book, Gonzo 2, gets a pool of "sparkle points" at 1st level, similar to ki or grit or panache. The issue is that this is their only class feature at 1st level, and they get nothing to spend these points on until 2nd, meaning they have no functional class features at 1st.

They also have empty levels at 7, 13 and 19.

So is there an update I'm misding or something? Is the class supposed to have a class feature or two that got left out?

Sparkle Princesses gain their Sparkles pool at 1st level but can't use them until 2nd. Is their only class feature at that level unusable until later, or is there some other use for Sparkles, perhapsone that fills in the blank levels at 7th, 13th and 19th as well?

Chemlak wrote:
DamagedGlasses wrote:
Noticed a "Greater Spring Attack" in the list of new feats, anyone got some info on what that might do? I've always loved the Spring Attack feats.
Prerequisites up the whazoo (including BAB +16), make attacks against up to 3 targets when using spring attack, second at -5, third at -10, can’t attack same creature twice.

Rather disappointing, given that a bard can pick up Greater Bladed Dash by 13th level.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
RogueMortal wrote:
Rysky wrote:
RogueMortal wrote:
Rysky wrote:
We were not promised a class that out shapechanged the Druid
Really, the greatest frustration I ever experienced in playing has been learning that a class I enjoy is not only outdone at their specialty by another class, but that the other class has a multitude of further features. Claiming that the Shifter as a class shouldn't even match what the druid has as a class feature is insulting to new players and quite a discouraging path for designers to take.

I made no such claim. I was pointing out that Paizo also made no such claim.

The Shifter doesn’t outdo the Druid, just like a Warpriest doesn’t outdo the Cleric. But give it some feats and Archetypes and we’ll see. Look at everything the Fighter’s gotten over the years. Look at everything all the classes has gotten over the years.

It appears you did say that, and as for the Fighter... what has the class gotten? A few options that slightly alter your fighting style, but nothing to really improve the class overall. Fighter hits things, often not even as well as other classes, and outside of hitting things it has.. what? I mean sure, if they were undeniably the absolute masters of combat I could see a case for not doing anything else, but again, Fighter is a decent combatant but hardly a show stopper.

“Claiming that the Shifter as a class shouldn't even match what the druid has” I did not say this. I said we weren’t promised such a class. And Paizo hadn’t promised such a class. I then followed it up with give it Time, and Feats and Archetypes, just like every other class.

As for Fighter look at the Advancing Training options.

True, you merely said that a class which is built around shapeshifting was never promised to be better at it than a class for which shapeshifting is one of many abilities, as if the lack of a promise somehow makes the shifter situation fair or sensible.

It has archetypes, each of them finding a different way to insult anyone who may have been interested.

Advanced Training Options. Now this thread isn't really about fighters, but okay at least they can at least trade out some features for others?

And once again, doing this in the name of making an easy to use class for new players seems disingenuous, because the biggest lesson to be learned will be that others can easily outdo them at what they thought was going to be their niche, and those others continue to have more and stronger options.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
RogueMortal wrote:
Rysky wrote:
We were not promised a class that out shapechanged the Druid
Really, the greatest frustration I ever experienced in playing has been learning that a class I enjoy is not only outdone at their specialty by another class, but that the other class has a multitude of further features. Claiming that the Shifter as a class shouldn't even match what the druid has as a class feature is insulting to new players and quite a discouraging path for designers to take.

I made no such claim. I was pointing out that Paizo also made no such claim.

The Shifter doesn’t outdo the Druid, just like a Warpriest doesn’t outdo the Cleric. But give it some feats and Archetypes and we’ll see. Look at everything the Fighter’s gotten over the years. Look at everything all the classes has gotten over the years.

It appears you did say that, and as for the Fighter... what has the class gotten? A few options that slightly alter your fighting style, but nothing to really improve the class overall. Fighter hits things, often not even as well as other classes, and outside of hitting things it has.. what? I mean sure, if they were undeniably the absolute masters of combat I could see a case for not doing anything else, but again, Fighter is a decent combatant but hardly a show stopper.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

From what I’ve read the Shifter is neither lazy nor uninspired nor unplayable. Paizo and the designers have failed no promises here. We were not promised a class that out shapechanged the Druid.

The absolutely only promise they gave was “full-BaB shapeshifter”, which they delivered. Making a class revolving around a complicated mechanic easy to pick up and run with is also not insulting, decrying ease of of access and playability in this instance as compared to other classes played by “veterans” with more system “mastery” is just malicious gatekpeeing.

Really, the greatest frustration I ever experienced in playing has been learning that a class I enjoy is not only outdone at their specialty by another class, but that the other class has a multitude of further features. Claiming that the Shifter as a class shouldn't even match what the druid has as a class feature is insulting to new players and quite a discouraging path for designers to take.

Matthew Shelton wrote:

Humans can be proud warriors, contemplative, elegant, hard-working, or philosophical too...why couldn't there be all sorts within the other races.

I'm sure there can be, but humans whole gimmick is being the adaptable race the way that elves are snobby magicians, dwarves are stoic warriors and aasimar follow a higher calling. Sure you could have an elven barbarian or a tea totalling socialite dwarf, but those aren't what people imagine when thinking of those races. Shirren just strike me as a whole race that goes against type for anything I want out of playing bug people.

Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:
There's the Haan, which are supposed to be in First Contact and presumably the Alien Archive as well. Though, they seek more arachnoid than insectile.

Thanks, will take a look. Space spiders sound like a fun option.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

Just don't give them direct orders, and you'd be fine. Phrase everything as a choice between two superficially different options. The same as dealing with young children.

A PC race that you have to treat like children just brings back kender shaped trauma.

David knott 242 wrote:

The problem is that the hive mind in question here is the main antagonist of the setting, the Swarm.

Allow me to rephrase then; will there be any bug race options that aren't shirren? Proud warrior bugs? Chitinous Vulcans? Elegant moth folk? Hard working, philosophical beetles? Interdependant but hardly hive-minded social insects? Anything at all?

David knott 242 wrote:

To be suitable player characters, the Shirren require free will -- they cannot be part of a hostile hive mind.

However, since they derive pleasure from making choices, I can see them getting overly excited over choices that do not really matter, or for which there is obviously a single right answer with numerous inferior alternatives. I would guess that one sign of maturity among them would be learning to focus on the choices that actually matter even if they don't come along as often as they would like.

A fine point about hostile hive minds, but other insect races have certainly existed without being such things. Thri-kreen spring to mind, and Dragon Magazine had a race that while normally hive minded, could adapt to individuality if seperated from it. Or maybe those were robots, it was a decade ago. And those are just two of more than a few from d20 games. Not to mention many hive dwellers are't nearly as much mindless cogs as they seem. Bees are actually quite democratic and ants have tirned out to be along the lines of "anarchists with common goals".

For now I take it that the shirren will not have a more traditional option though.

Will there be any mechanical effect from their "pleasure of choices", and if so any alternate traits for a more traditional sort of bug folk?

Seriously, all I can see shirren doing is causing problems because "You're not my host! Don't tell me what to do!" Though I suppose the "gets along with everyone and puts the group first" is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too way around that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, will choose targets carefully then!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question about the Magical Girl and Tension. They gain tension if their Finishing Move reduces a foe to 0 HP, and can spend tension for more damage with their finishing move, but upon using the finishing move they lose all tension. Does this reduce them to 0 tension, or only to the value of a defeated foe?

Spheres of Carnage? For these talents do lean toward laying waste across all battlefields.

Okay, so combos are just using different actions for talents.

Also, another vote for dual tower shields, been looking for that ever since a 3.5 drow book had art of it.

I have a few reservations too, mostly stemming from the term "combo", and exacerbated by the Armiger being a cyclone of weapon swapping. It all sounds very Capcom vs Pathfinder II Turbo Alpha at this point. Also the Conscript having terrible proficiencies to start. How terrible? Commoner bad? Simple only? Remember, even spending a feat on a bastard sword tends to be considered a poor choice for a fighter, let alone a less feat intensive class trying to get a regular longsword.

Alexander Augunas wrote:

To be quite honest, I don't particularly care for the Tier system. Its a biased metric that favors ability to "solve problems" over everything else that characters do in our game. Because of how it functions, you basically can't be Tier 1 without being a prepared spellcaster, when prepared spellcasters have plenty of downsides and weaknesses that balance them against fighters, rogues, et all from a design perspective.

Other than the ability to solve problems and overcome various types of challenges, how would you rate the relative capabilities of classes then? What "everything else" do you mean? Classes provide mechanics to interact with the rest of the game, and should be relatively equal at all levels. Roleplaying can be somewhat divorced from mechanics, but often still needs that structure to back it up. And yes, casters have the drawback of a smaller HD, but also far more options to avoid being hit, more options to bypass AC and HP entirely, mobility to easily escape or pursue martials, etc.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Also, second wind is a baseline class feature—you don't have to go for it.

True, but then you're back to the old fighter hoping the cleric heals them.

N. Jolly wrote:
Tier 4 for an entirely unmagical class isn't bad at all. Unless you're going full TOB/POW, it's probably the ceiling for things like this.

Does it though? Why does 'not magical' have to mean 'hopelessly mundane'? Fighters can absolutely have Ex abilities without being magical at all, there's no reason to limit them to T4.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

I really am looking forward to this one.

However -- The math and general wording for Second Wind in this blog seem to be a bit off. Starting with 1d8 at 3rd level and adding 1d8 per 2 levels, you reach 4d8 at 9th level, not 11th. And having information about the maximum dice at 11th level and maximum added points at 20th level makes a slightly confusing read.

After a bit of math and a bit of messing around, this is likely what second wind will look like now:


Second Wind (Ex): At 3rd level, a fighter can tap into his stamina in order to temporarily regain vitality. By spending 4 stamina points from his stamina pool as a swift action, the fighter gains a number of temporary hit points equal to 1d10 + 1 point per fighter level (maximum +10), up to a maximum number of temporary hit points equal to the current amount of hit point damage that he has taken. This effect lasts 1 minute. Temporary hit points gained from multiple uses of this ability don’t stack, and if the number of temporary hit points that the fighter has from this ability ever exceeds the amount of lethal damage that he has taken, excess temporary hit points are lost. For instance, a fighter that has taken 20 points of damage can gain up to 20 temporary hit points from this ability. If he is later healed for 15 points of damage, the maximum number of temporary hit points that he can gain is reduced to 5, and any temporary hit points in excess of this amount are lost.

At 11th level, the fighter can use this ability as an immediate action. In addition, he can spend 6 stamina points to gain a number of temporary hit points equal to 2d10 + 1 point per fighter level (maximum +20). At 19th level, he can use this ability as a free action once per round, even if it isn’t his turn.

Couple of notes for the changes:

— The intention was always to make the ability work comparably to false life, so the decision was made to make the temporary hit point gains scale like false life (and for the...

I would say that scaling like false life is quite underwhelming, givin that wizards are just looking for a small buffer while the fighter is in close with foes that can easily outdamage second winds Per Hit, let alone on a full attack. It is also quite costly, so even if it kept up with incoming damage you can still only use it for a couple of rounds, less if you also spend stamina on combat bonuses. As it is the best option for surviving remains going for combat bonuses and killing enemies faster.

Might work for another concept, but in this case the PC is going to be more of a doctor. Also spending time trying to make Kuthites sit down and chat, to see if they can't be convinced to try a less ridiculous take on their ideals.

Arshea does seem like a better fit than Lymnieris, at least so long as you're not looking for any chastity play!

And then everyone replied while I was typing for Neils Bohr, haha!
I'll take a look at Lymnieris then, didn't seem to fit the concept on first glance but maybe if I dig a little? Just remember Neshen sounding good but being a disappointment.

Thanks for the advice, will check out Arshea and the rest as well.

Neils Bohr wrote:
Depends on your characters personality, it's hard to know which good to pick if we don't know what the character stands for

Well, the basic idea is a character to oppose the current "Hollywood writers" grade representation of BDSM in Pathfinder. Avoid the whole deal where that sort of thing has to be Chaotic and/or Evil, and go for some of the actual ideals among the community.

Specifically, a Peri-blooded aasimar, torn between their angelic nature and cruel urges from that mysterious ancestor they all share. They did spend their youth giving in to their darker side (and picked up their vivisection and beastmorph abilities with unfortunate strays) before their more celestial nature drove them to regret it and they sought aid in curbing their urges. At that point they entered a church or cult, preferably one that would involve some degree of mortification as penance. Perhaps they enjoy that aspect more than they should, but they're not a divine caster. By game start, they have found a balance where they can indulge either side of their nature, keeping to actual rules of SSC and taking great offense at the likes of Kuthites or even Calistrians.

With Crimson Throne coming up for a re-release in the near future, one or two people I know are considering running it, and I've come up with a character concept. But I rather need to give them a solid connection to a church/cult despite not being a divine caster.

So, what are some fitting LG deities/Empryeal Lords for someone who can debate SSC with all the cenobite sorts in CotCT?

Thanks for the quick reply then, seems I have only myself to blame for not realizing they could turn their homunculus into... stuff.

Just ran into a situation where a player used a polymorph effect on a construct... and apparently it works. Is this intended? Constructs are immune to anything requiring a Fort save unless it works on objects, but everything from the (Animal's) (Attribute) spells with their "Will negates (harmless) to Polymorph targeting only willing creatures but still having a Will save for some reason just bypasses that immunity. Are constructs supposed to be able to benefit from all the same sorts of transmutations as other creatures, or is there some bit of errata I missed?

It certainly helps me understand where your design is coming from, if not solve my needs for the way I'd like to handle groups of combatants.

Although I would certainly disagree with the rarity of casters, as plenty of classes possess at least some level of casting (even rogues!), and surely the forces of Heaven and Hell (among many others) must have plenty of troops with built-in spells!

The CR system and monster building tends to have issues of it's own, but if I'm at that point I may as well just make up a template or something.

But I get that you intended Troops to be made up of low end humanoid mooks rather than more potent sorts of creatures, and that works for your games. Good luck and happy gaming!

John Compton wrote:

On a somewhat related note, I am sure that Brandon's insights would be even better here than my own. However, it's important to remember than Paizo's contributors are under no paid or contractual obligation to comment on these messageboards. Nonetheless, many are very passionate about discussing their work with fans and helping GMs make the best use of what they've written. That's a blessing to the community, and it speaks highly of the great authors Paizo hires.

We also trust those authors to assess how to best spend their time on our messageboards. If an author is having fun and engaging in positive correspondence, I think it's a fair bet that you'll see more of him or her. This is true even if fans aren't entirely agreeing with the author, but everyone's approaching the topic is a respectful and courteous manner. Calling someone's work "hideous" and then taunting that author for disengaging in a conversation he's not obligated to have in the first place does not fall in that range.

Help help make—and keep— a pleasant place to visit and discuss the games we enjoy together.

A fair request, and I apologize for my choice of hyperbole in calling the Troop 'hideous'. I'll try to avoid taking it so far in the future.

Personally I'm alright with the idea of auto-hits, that's necessary to keep the group a threat to more powerful PCs, but if we're assuming that out of that group at least one is going to hit, why isn't damage based on the weapons used by the troop? It makes a bit of sense for a swarm to have lots of little hits that add up to a few d6, but when you take a hit from a morningstar and the wielder has a +2 from strength, it doesn't make sense to use a mere d6 for damage.

How do ranged attacks work for a troop anyway? They have the auto-damage melee thing, do they just deal damage to everything in range if they have bows?

Yes, running away is always so effective at disproving those who disagree with your work...
But why, when we can look at the issues right here on...

Oh dear

It appears that Paizo hasn't even added it to the PRD
But that's okay, there are other sources troop

So, let's look at what I feel makes it so unbearably generic. According to the type, can you tell me the difference between a troop of human fighters with greataxes compared to human fighters with rapiers and daggers?

How do spells and breath weapons or gaze attacks work?

Are they immune to other combat maneuvers like dirty tricks?

How much damage do they even deal? It says damage is based on HD but nothing more, is it the same as a swarm?

How does being a troop affect the CR of the component creatures? It clearly makes a tougher encounter than a single creature, but is a troop of orcs a fair challenge to a 10th level party? 15th?

Please, feel free to defend your work at any time.

I'm running a Dungeon Keeper inspired game for my group, and I wanted to find a way to clump groups of minions together into some sort of unit rather than tracking a hundred individuals.

Unfortunately, the Troop subtype is hideously generic. Assuming the same level, a group of human fighters is the same as gnome barbarians is the same as orc brawlers is the same as everything else with d10 HD. The subtype doesn't even cover the idea of a troop of creatures with spells or other special attacks. Do they all pick the same target? Does that target take a -10 to the save or roll 50 times? Does a troop of wizards casting fireball deal 500d6?

And then the Mass Combat rules get into Army Challenge Rating, where 50 minotaurs are CR 2.

So, can anyone recommend me a 3pp or set of house rules that cover grouping up creatures into a sort of mob, but still allow a unit of driders to be different from one made of shambling mounds?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:

Have you checked out the Shaman from Kobold Press? Full 9th-level spontaneous druid is exactly what the class is! Heck, "The Spontaneous Druid" are the very first words in the product's store text! :)

Oh, and regarding the name, this class came out *before* the Paizo class :)

If you want more bang for you buck, the Shaman is also one of the classes in the New Paths Compendium

Starbuck_II wrote:

The 3.5 Spirit Shaman is a 9th caster Druid spell list spontaneous class. In fact, each day it can repick its spells known (it is pretty cool). Thus, it can change which spells its uses spontaneously each day.

It uses pathfinder turning mechanics, interestly (for hurting sprits not healing). Spirits including
-- Incorporeal Undead
--Creatures with the Spirit Subtype
--Rakshasas (included in the above)
--Nagas (also with Spirit subtype retroactively added)
-- Outsiders

But I would in Pathfinder grant more spells/day, because it has a lot rate (which is unusual for spontanous casters).

Thanks for the advice, though I'm well aware of the non-Paizo shaman options, I can't help but wish they'd make one themselves. After all, there are already prepped and spontaneous casters that use the Sorc/Wizard list and others for the Cleric list, but we have no full 9th level spontaneous casters with access to the Druid or Witch lists. It just feels incomplete.

And sorry for the slow reply, RL is a pain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

New stuff I want to see

9th level casting spontaneous druid. Was really hoping the shaman would have been this, not sure what it would even be called with the name taken.

Alchemist archetype that trades away the mutagens for Evolution Points to represent grafted limbs and organs from monsters. Could be restricted to shackle-born tieflings? Might also swap the bombs for Sneak Attack, or not so it can stack with Vivisectionist.

Alchemist archetype that relies on mundane chemistry to build non-magical items. Maybe they can aim at a higher crafting DC to make stronger alchemist fires and acid vials, craft thermite or even chemical ammo packs to power non-magical energy weapons.

There are more than a few non-evil undead to be found in myths, legends and other source materials too. Mummies are divine rulers, bodies preserved in case they one day return to lead the living once more. All the stuff about curses tended to come from gods and spirits acting as tomb guardians, the mummies themselves being more likely to return with powers fitting the glorious god-kings they had become. LN is much more likely for a mummy alignment, with a decent number of LE and LG over the centuries.
There are so many stories of goodly ghosts that Paizo has even granted them an exemption from their view of non-evil undead being anathema to the Golarion setting.
And here and there other stories crop up about undead who aren't malevolent. It's been a long time and the details are fuzzy, but I recall a tale of a murdered man, who later overhread his killers standing on his grave and plotting to rob his daughter and fiance on their wedding. He dug himself out and proceeded to warn the police and his daughter. He was there when they were caught, and didn't go trying to kill them or anything. He did wish his daughter a wonderful life, and returned to his grave to rest in peace.
And then there are ideas that just don't work if all undead must be evil. A paladin, loyal beyond death, who still strives to complete their last, vital objective; to hold back the hordes of Hell at a forgotten portal or to protect all travelers in an area from whatever killed the paladin.
Perhaps something based on the RL, self-mummifying monks? Sounds like a non-evil lich option.

@Ssalarn and Adam B. 135: All perfectly reasonable, as I said before I imagine that I've just got a different idea of what mecha and technology should be, and hope that plenty of people will find this particular vision of such a game to be a good time.

Adam B. 135 wrote:

And RogueMortal, you can see here:
Ssalarn wrote:

There will be some non-psionic mech options in the final product, and initiators are definitely on the list. At the moment, I'm holding off on diving in to initiators, because martial initiation + big robots = potential ****storm if not done carefully and well. I'm still running some numbers and ideas for the low level stuff, looking for that balance point. It may end up being something that needs to be level gated, like a PrC, or something where they have to choose between their maneuvers and their mech until they hit a level where both can comfortably integrate.

Long story short, it's on the projected menu, but I'm still refining the recipe.

And in the previous thread (should probably be reposted here):

Ssalarn wrote:

It's actually on my list.

The archetypes I've got in some stage of development right now are-

Druid (bio mech)
Monk (inspired by Fei Fong Wong from Xenogears)
Vitalist (possibly - this one may be cut if I can't nail down the mechanics)

I've also just added the Cryptic archetype to the playtest docs.

So its not just psionics, and it was not planned on being just psionics. There will be mecha class archetypes for a variety of classes. There will be standard, buyable mechs too.

As for Craft Pharmaceuticals and the like, this still makes sense. Even in the most technologically advanced civilization, basic dudes probably won't be able to make technology. Most people living in 1st world countries cannot build a computer, cell phone, or watch from the parts, much less from scratch. They cannot make...

Ah, thanks for pointing that out, I had missed it before. Good to hear that non-psionics can get in on the action. Still a concern that the mechs are basically construct eidolons, and still a concern that the buyable ones won't compare as well, but we'll see.

As for the crafting feats: Not everyone can make things, sure, but I have a hard time imagining that everyone currently living in a first-world nation had to take a feat to be familiar with technology at all. And I'd certainly consider a pharmacist to have some very specialized skills, but it's not as if they're working in secret with carefully hoarded secrets about this mysterious "technology" stuff like on Golarion. Sure, a feat to represent years of study at college seems fair, but Craft Pharmaceuticals literally produces potions that work in anti-magic zones, at an incredibly slow rate unless there are legions of ridiculously high-level people pumping out all those "take two twice a day for the next sixty days" prescriptions. Same goes for other technology crafting feats. Some items can indeed take a long time to craft, but not nearly as long as long as rules written under the assumption that it was built by a cabal of wizards poking around at things they don't understand. For example, a car takes about 48 hours to assemble, and I'm quite sure that the price will shift that well into weeks or even months, depending on how much it costs. Magic items are made by a gibbering guy in a pointy hat, technological items roll off production lines by the tens of thousands... or they should, on any advanced world.

Well, I was certainly excited when a friend linked me here, but after a few moments I'm afraid that my interest was cut down by the realization that Arcforge, and especially the mecha, are primarily a psionics thing and not a technology thing, despite my being a big fan of Psionics Unleashed and related materials. Mecha as class features is a disappointing way to handle them, and the fact that these have been given priority leaves me concerned that those available to other classes/archetypes will be about as effective as a standard horse compared to an eidolon. Even then, no mundane martial, and not even magic users, can operate these mecha due to reliance on manifester levels and psionic feats.

Is there a reason that a gnome can get an aerial mech-suit sooner than a human? Would it somehow be unbalanced to have all three types start at the same size as the wearer, or even a size larger for those who don't want to play a certain ferrous male? The term "Mech" does tend to conjure images of robots the size of a bus at least.

I also get the impression that this book is meant to be used more with a fantasy setting than sci-fi (psi-fi?). DSP never struck me as being too chained down to Paizo standards or the Golarion setting, but the inclusion of feats like Technologist and Craft Pharmaceuticals give a far more "Mana Wastes" vibe than belonging in a technologically advanced world where everyone ought to be familiar with technology and have actual pharmaceuticals rather than the pseudo-potions of Golarion.

The new AP rules could just be a bonus to hit if they merely ignore some AC bonus, same effect without needing to stop and recalculate for each attack/target. A tiny handful of targets might have lower armor bonuses than the hit bonus, but that's far fewer in need of recalculating bonuses when/if they show up.

Overall I suspect that I simply have a different idea of a mech-game, and certainly hope that many other groups will enjoy your vision of Newtype adventuring!

I find the most irksome thing about Handle Animal is that it's required to get your Animal Companion to do stuff. You know, your supernaturally enhanced, bonded critter, a class feature that already grants you extra actions a round, slowing down combat and it even requires a little more extra time because you have to see if it feels like doing what you ask every round.

Currently playing in a gestalt game with a Vexing Dodger/Mouser Swashbuckler. Planning to pick up Snake Style so my unarmed strikes count for all the bonuses to light piercing weapons. The rules for climbing do sort of make things a pain though.

Manifest a klar and avoid the incoming debate about whether shields are weapons or only "can be used like weapons".

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
- scrap metal and a lil magic for shrapnel. Sad to see the 4th level casting, hopefully you'll make an archetype that does away with the dirty, unclean casting...feels a bit like an Alchemist with the magic...]

Gotta say I agree, the idea of 4th level casting seems... off. Maybe if it really was an alchemist type with 6th level extracts? Or back to the mundane rogue, lose the casting and maybe learn some extra traps? Though I admit, I feel that generally there aren't nearly enough options for mundane characters to be good at things compared to "eh, this guy uses magic".

Go for a Two-Handed Fighter archetype for a fighter. Those builds can pump out silly amounts of damage, and in the really high levels get the ability to auto-crit with an extra +1 on their multiplier. I recommend a scythe for an interesting weapon with decent damage, can trip if you want and if you ever get up to that crit trick, you really will be the reaper. Keep in mind that martials deal more damage from static bonuses than die type.

Sounds like an interesting AP, though I might be careful about making the party all play Kuthites. Should be easy enough to have the kyton employer and then half the party is likely to be Kuthites by player choice.

Is this the same Liquid Pain as 3.5's Book of Vile Darkness had?

Might also be interesting to have the kyton not as tied to ZK as usual. After all, the kytons are attempting to force evolution, to graft themselves into perfection even if it hurts. They want to help you too! ZK is just pain with no other goal. Very angsty teenager attitude, with no clue about the S&M lifestyle he picked up other than "It looks scary and makes me miserable, so no one else could enjoy it either, right?"

Might also be a chance to bring back everyone's fsvorite elf from CotCT, Laori Vaus! Whether unredeemed and working for ZK again, or perhaps having broken from the church and spreading the word about SSC.

1) Steal the class design from Legend, with a few tweaks. You build your own class by picking a chassis and then three "tracks" of class features, with a strong recommendation to have one each of Offense, Defense and Utility. For example, a Barbarian Rage or Alchemist Bombs would be offensive tracks, Bardic Performance and Druid Wildshape are utility, while... there's not a lot of good stuff for Defense currently, would need to add options. Chassis would be Full BAB with six skills per level and access to a single magicrelated track if desired; 3/4 BAB with eight skills per level and access to one magic track or four skills per level and two magic tracks; or a 1/2 BAB with the option to take all magic tracks. Everyone gets two good saves. This allows far greater flexibility in class design and opens up all sorts of build options.

2) Replace the Vancian casting with Spheres of Power. Each magic track grants a single Sphere and a total of seven talents across your levels. You must have at least one SP to use a spell, even if it costs nothing.

3) Remove the need for feats to use options like Power Attack or Combat Expertise, Maneuvers and other options that should just be available. Allow feats to scale up instead of needing chains. Allow feats to stack on certain actions, such as a Springing Vital Whirlwind Cleave attack.

4) Armor as DR and bounded accuracy. Iterative attacks apply as normal but the accuracyof a given attack maxes out at +5 BAB plus other modifiers. So a twentieth level fighter has four attacks at +5 plus modifies from strength, training, etc. You may always make all iterative attacks with a standard action, Full Attack is no longer a thing.

5) Remove WBL and the majority of items. Allow one or two items to each PC, and let them scale.

I can imagine this from a couple of other angles as well. Like a True Primitive Barbarian with a slightly reworked Fetish Trophy ability, perhaps changed to (Su) and acting as a tattoo instead of being added to gear. Or a Tattooed Sorcerer whose spell tattoos all come from killing sentients and adding tattoos from their blood. "Oh, my fireball spell? Used to be some ifrit chick until I bound her! Still tries to struggle sometime, like when I used her to burn down her elf friend and use 'em to power Cat's Grace!"

*Edit: spelling

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>