Braddikar Faje

SwiftFoxDown's page

9 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Spastic Puma wrote:
I know this isn't one of the two options you listed, but how about just all cure spells functioning as maximized? That makes calculations easier and much faster. It also makes these spells worth using in a fight.

There was one house-rule I've seen floated here before which is similar: non-combat casting of any healing spells are always maximized. Still gives some randomness in-combat while making it easier to heal after a battle (which seems to be what OP is looking for).


As insaneogeddon points out, the use of augury really depends upon your DM. Since the roll is supposed to be made in secret, you first have to trust your DM to not fudge the augury roll to arrive at the outcome he wants, and then there is the general vagueness of the results from augury, particularly if you get a "Nothing" answer.

However, the concept is much cooler than a generic "I shot things with bows and duel wield pointy swords" ranger. Depending on your starting level and wealth, consider investing in the Prophet's Pectorals. It adds 1d6 to the % rolls augury and divination, and allows you to gain a bit more information on commune with nature (as an aside on the Pectorals, I would even ask your DM if its abilities could be expanded to cover other "Commune with" spells you may have access to, such as Commune with Birds, which is a 1st level ranger spell).


Ascalaphus wrote:

I'd say change as little as possible; try to explain things as "it's SCIENCE!!" - even though alchemical science can do some things we can't currently do.

I admit that the Shield feels a bit strange though; stuff that's entirely separate from the body is off-flavor. In that case I'd say trade 1:1 - for every spell you remove from the alchemist because it doesn't fit, try to give them a new spell that's more on-flavor and fills the same niche.

So basically, don't nerf, but adjust by 5% sideways.

That's what my Alchemist did in my campaign all on his own. He didn't like the magic fluff of the class and made it as science-y as possible. Worked out pretty well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

343. While visiting one of their usual taverns (or other place of business), the owner is accosted by an average looking man of unremarkable appearance offering to sell him "golem insurance." The owner loudly scoffs and jests that "there hasn't been a golem around these parts in a decade." The insurance agent smiles, agrees, and leaves. The party eventually forgets the encounter, only to learn that several weeks later, their favorite establishment has been absolutely wrecked by a golem made of steel. The local constabulary was unable to prevent its escape and is at a lost as to where it came from...


Mudfoot wrote:

Ironically, my rogue PC is a private eye. So in theory the Investigator class should be perfect. But it's not. Giving him all that alchemy stuff just doesn't belong at all in the character conception. OTOH, rogue is perfect.

Any ideas what fictional examples the Investigator might have been drawn from?

I have a PC in my home game that is in the same situation: he's a detective doing detecting things, but has absolutely no knowledge of alchemicals and would never rely on them to begin with.

That being said, even with the introduction of the Investigator, I will still be using rogues for my NPCs for two reasons. First, simplicity. I don't want to bother having to track what kind of extracts and how many they have left should I replace my rogues with the much more mechanically improved Investigator.

Second - but more importantly - I will keep using the rogue class because I can keep re-"skinning" the rogue to fit whatever kind of skilled NPC I need to build. Returning to my home game, my players have faced more rogues than they realize because of the different archetypes and situations they find the NPCs in...until a handful of sneak attack damage dice are being rolled, and then the groans begin).


Rerednaw wrote:

How do existing archetypes interact with these new classes?

Too many abilities count as other class equivalents with regard to detrimental effects, but not beneficial ones such as interaction with feats or items.

As I read it, and how I would rule if one of my players wanted to use one of these classes now, would be that you cannot use an archetype from previous material. Nothing with these hybrid classes really lines up with already constructed archetypes. I believe that, in the end, by RAW, old archetypes will be unusable with the new classes. This should not stop you from homebrewing, IMO.

However, there has been mention in other threads for the playtest that the ACG will contain archetypes for the hybrid classes.


@Odraude: He already has a detective agency, and several of the story arcs have involved investigations that he has helped spearhead. However, the rogue has gotten tied up in a lot of plot events, even on downtime, and he has not been able to keep up with the business. I have looked at the Downtime rules in UC, and am definitely thinking of implementing them.

@Are: You're right that everyone reacts different in such a situation, and I'm not sure how my player might respond. He's made a couple off hand comments complaining about how ridiculous the ranger has gotten in terms of his combat abilities, which makes me think that he might enjoy gaining the new powers from a meta-game perspective. On the other hand, as I've been throwing out hints that his character has an important cosmic destiny, he has role-played his rogue as being quite reluctant to be involved in bigger things. The fluff of a mythic path being forced on a character may not end up sitting well with him.

@Mysterious Stranger: I can see those pitfalls in adding mythic powers to a single character, particular if the rogue were able to fix his income problems. I had not considered an item and/or artifact as a solution rather than something like a mythic path like I had originally thought. An the idea that the item could grow in power over time could definitely fit in with some of the plot events that will be happening. Thanks for the idea.


I need some advice on a potentially applying the rules for Mythic characters to just one PC in a party of three.

A little background first. The party is made up of a ranger, an alchemist, and a rogue (the PC in question) (all level 8). The rogue is significantly behind the other two characters in terms of combat ability and power, and has acquired the least amount of coin from various side plot opportunities. The rogue character is a lawman, while the ranger is an assassin who has made a great deal of money from looting his enemies and being a blackmailer. Somewhat similarly, the alchemist has started his own business and is going to start raking in the money.

This has left the rogue behind in terms of power levels. I don't think this really bothers the player: he has had some fantastic moments role-play wise, and his character often overcomes potential battles and conflicts with quick thinking and cunning. But I am still concerned about him falling behind, even as the campaign is reaching the half-way point.

Part of the campaign's plot involves a new god of justice emerging, and the rogue character has been chosen to be the new god's mortal instrument (for reasons that have not yet been revealed). I have only recently been looking at the rules for Mythic characters, and I realized that perhaps I could make up the power gap between the rogue and the ranger/alchemist by granting him the first tier of a Mythic path.

The advice I require is to how well this would play out in terms of game mechanics. I have never made use of the Mythic rule set before (nor even really read up on it), and I have even less of a notion on how the rules might work if only one member of the party possesses a Mythic Path. Any thoughts, comments, concerns, etc would be greatly appreciated.


Alexander Augunas wrote:

Without being a prerequisite, Combat Expertise becomes extremely weak. It's biggest problem is that it A) requires an unreasonably high Intelligence score and B) is not better than fighting defensively until surprisingly late in the game. The feat's AC bonus needs to be increased to at least +2 baseline with an additional +1 every four BAB thereafter.

You shouldn't need to have an IQ at least one standard deviation higher than average in order to know how to defend yourself.

Another possible fix for Combat Expertise that I've seen floated around here before is that the feat allows you to add your Intelligence modifier to both your CMB and CMD. I'm sure how well that'd work out in practice, but it sounds like an excellent bump in the feat's ability.