@Isabelle Thanks for pointing that out, it's definitely interesting. @SheepishEidolon Yeah, I didn't realize Nethys had such a comprehensive search. It looks like you're right. Thanks for pointing out VMC as well, I hadn't thought of that.
So, I had a player who looked for a god that bandits worship. The best he could come up with is Besmara. I think there may be a demon prince, but a God of Banditry seems to be missing.
Dot.
Me personally, or what I would expect from a player at my table... W1: 1-4
F1: 0
R1: 0
Saving Space, Explanation: The way I see it, is the low level wizard needs to conserve resources. I expect by the time they have level 3 spells, it's a backup if they aren't swinging the tide of battle and they can afford to use more spells in a fight. By the time they're looking at 5th levels spells, a nice level 1 at will isn't going to be there backup actions, additional buffs or spells are. They'll bust it out when they would usually bust out a magic missile. The fighter will always enjoy having magic missile, because they never need to carry a backup ranged weapon. In most fights, they're going to want to swing their weapon (I'm assuming a sword and board or two-hander fighter) and they only need it against opponents they're ineffective against (either because they're incorporeal or at range). Once they have additional iteratives and it becomes much easier to fly or they have additional maneuverability, it really drops off in usefulness. The Rogue can't sneak attack with it. So it's a nice thing to have if they aren't in sneak attack position, can't get into sneak attack position, have something else going on, whatever. I can't think of a point where the Rogue is so good at something else that throwing Magic Missile into the mix isn't a good bet.
I would advise against this. By extending every move, you're increasing the amount of time spent on combat not resolving the combat. It will move a bit slower because most players are adding additional description. If all of your players are good with it, it would be fine, but if any player doesn't like it, they're now waiting twice as long. Additionally, not every player is comfortable with flowery descriptions. Once again, if you float it to your group and they're all for it, go for it. But for a generic group I would recommend against it. As for suggestions, I would suggest reading this. In summary, you want to keep combat moving fast and increase the feeling of urgency. Make it so that every action feels like the last if people don't do something RIGHT NOW. People will be more invested and feel more excited.
So, I never popped into this thread to thank the judges for the selection and everyone who has provided commentary on my monster. So, thanks all!
Sent my submission this morning. I'm looking forward to this, it's my first time submitting anything to any RPG company or contest.
So, from my view, there are a few different types of cursed items: The cursed item that screws you over (-1 sword). The cursed item that can be made useful, but doesn't fit its intended usage (bag of devouring, dust of choking and sneezing). "Gently cursed item": The item is genuinely useful, but has some kind of drawback that may limit use or require a hard choice (net of snaring, mace of blood). Is there a very rough guess of what percentage of the items in the book are each type? Because I've actually been trying to brainstorm a lot of that third type.
I think the second idea makes more sense to me and allows for more fun roleplay actually, now that I think about it. Spoiler: Togarin can't interact with Rozimus period. Togarin is aware through his studies that a Rozimus copy should exist somewhere in the sanctum and killing him would cause a paradox, but they are at different points of time. Togarin can't go find Rozimus, he isn't in the same part of the time stream. Imagine the fun roleplay opportunity of walking into Togarin's room with Rozimus. The PCs can interact with both (they "sit atop the time streams" as true outsiders or something") , but Rozimus and Togarin can't hear or interact with each other. The fun roleplaying opportunity is that if Togarin asks them to kill paradox Rozimus and a player says that, Rozimus could have a negative reaction. I don't know if this has enough "solidness" to fool perceptive players, but I know that when I'm exposed to time shenanigans, I chalk it up to time shenanigans.
Man, I just read through Thornkeep. I think you make a good point. My immediate solution would be Suggestion: to chalk it up to the time shenanigans of the location. For whatever reason, as a "native" of the plane, Togarin cannot interact with Rozimus until Rozimus is dragged to the right "time". Basically, Togarin can't hunt down Rozimus' past self, because he's at a different point of time, but if Rozimus is scooped up and dragged around by the PCs, then he can interact with him. Or even better, Rozimus can walk around just fine. Togarin and Rozamus are on different "time levels" and can't interact with each other, but the PCs can interact with both of them. Togarin could still be aware of the possibility of a Rozimus "time echo", but may not be able to interact with it.
This would also help play up the weirdness of the time shenanigans involved.
I think in the end it comes down to a GMs call. RAW, I think it would affect undead if it said "undead creature" in the target line, like it does in a spell like Repair Undead. I did a search of spells real quick and usually it doesn't say "dead creature" it says "corpse". I think you could also make the case that Pathfinder is a permissive rule set and it says nothing about NOT affecting undead, undead are, you know, dead, and it should affect them. It comes down to the GM. While thinking about this answer, I also saw a similar comment about Gentle Repose and undead. Gentle Repose targets a corpse, but I feel like I've seen references to Gentle Repose on an undead character. That might be a good litmus test for your GM. If a Gentle Repose effect keeps a zombie from decaying, then Sculpt Corpse should also work on undead. I'll revise a prior statement I made. I would not allow this spell to shape undead by RAW. If you were playing in my game and had an idea for an undead sorcerer who went around changing his appearance to avoid being discovered, we'd run with it. But I don't think you're going to get a truly firm answer that will stand up to table variation. Edit: Looks like I was ninja'd on the Gentle Repose comparison. :)
BLUF: I would say to expect table variation and, as always, to talk to your GM. As a GM, I would probably not allow it. You're right that an undead creature is a dead creature that has been animated somehow (in Pathfinder, that would be negative energy, unless I'm mistaken). I think the big determination comes down to what you think about "undead" being a "dead" creature. As a game, I think the rules make a distinction between living creatures, dead creatures, and undead creatures. By that logic, since the spell makes no mention of affecting undead I would say it doesn't, since by game rules, an undead creature is not the same thing as a dead creature. I think a case could be made from a more narrative perspective that undead could shift their appearance with this spell because they are in many cases walking corpses, and, you know, dead. I think one important thing to note is that they compare it to other spells that affect corpses, such as Speak with Dead or Raise Dead, both which are listed as not affecting undead creatures (which, depending on your reading, could be a point for or against allowing it to work on an undead creature).
It may not be quite the same thing, but for my core setting I wanted Hobgoblins to be a core race. However, I knew going in that I didn't want them to be called hobgoblins. I gave them a new name and decided that hobgoblin was actually a slang term or slur that they would NOT respond to well. So, maybe that's an out. Pick a name you like more for what the race call themselves. Bugbears probably don't call themselves bugbears.
The important bit is to identify your grognards. Your old guard that has seen many editions rise up and crumble before them. They must be converted or purged. Raise the newer players in the way of Spheres and ban any mention of Vancian casting. Burn the old books and spread their ashes to the winds. In all seriousness, the other answers here are quite good. Spheres of Power is fairly intuitive. The best comparison is that spells are like feat chains, in that you pick a base ability and build on it (making what some feel is a more intuitive system). There are ways to build into it slowly if you wanted to introduce it as a supplement into another game instead of starting a new one, namely through the Basic and Advanced Magical Training feats. While the system has a prestige class that is meant to blend Vancian casting and sphere casting, I would recommend that most characters pick one or the other.
When I GM I generally play my monsters and select targets that make sense for them. Beater monsters beat on things, smarter monsters try to make the best tactical decision they can. I usually find out that a player has low health because a monster will hit them and a player will report to their comrades that they're injured and starting to worry about it or possibly bleeding out.
Trying to put together the elements I feel I need to run an "open table" game based on plundering megadungeons. So, I'm making my own key for Undermountain, making some adjustments to the map and story of Sunless Citadel, and trying to create and playtest some Spheres of Power content.
Tacticslion, thank you for your good deed for the day.
Dotting.
The mountain is a genius loci. After too long with humanoids inside of it, it developed an "immune system" and ate all the dwarves. The best time for the players to realize this is when they're deep inside, making a ruckus with something that was more natural than them and they wake the mountain. Then they have to escape dealing with the mountain's "immune system" whatever that is. I'm thinking various elemental earth creatures.
I'll also chip in and say that for the small portion I've already read, $20 is a steal if you don't have these products.
I understand making the Paragon more alignment agnostic. I'd be very interested in seeing something like the original paragon make it back in as an archetype.
I'm really impressed with everything I've seen so far. I'm looking forward to seeing more of the Spheres.
So, I ended up having time tonight to take a crack at the next monster. Adrenaline Ooze:
This gray, watery orb stinks of sweat and tears and begins undulating and rolling in your direction! Adrenaline Ooze CR 4
Defense AC 7 (-3 Dex); Touch 7; Flat-Footed 7
Offense Speed 20 ft.
Statistics Str 18, Dex 5, Con 22, Int - , Wis 1, Cha 1
Pheromones (Ex)
Scent of Fear (Ex)
Adrenaline oozes are an offshoot of more common oozes and are found anywhere oozes may appear. They can taste fear in the air and release a chemical into the air that triggers an extreme adrenal reaction in creatures that the ooze feeds on. Unlike other oozes, the adrenaline ooze is not acidic and instead attempts to envelop creatures and crush them.
Design Thoughts: Oozes are weird. Ability scores are all over the place, so saves end up all over. I gave it more HP for its CR and a little oomph on it's big thing (causing fear) to make up for having abysmal defenses. Swallow Whole became Engulf, which isn't an option in the list and makes more sense for oozes. I'm curious if anyone thinks the fear effect is over the top. Scent is its primary sense and "Scent of Fear" combined with scent is basically supposed to be "blindsight, but only for fearful targets".
Against my better judgement, I stayed up late making this: Void Walker:
Void Walker CR 19 XP 204,800 NE Medium Aberration Init +10; Senses blindsight 120 ft; Perception +37 Defense AC 34 (+4 deflection, +6 Dex, +14 natural; Touch 20; Flat-Footed 30
Offense Speed 30 ft, climb 30 ft, swim 30 ft
Statistics Str 20, Dex 22, Con 23, Int 27, Wis 18, Cha 19
Special Abilities
Rending Tentacles (Ex)
The void walkers are some of the deadliest servants of the terrible horrors that lie within the black of the void. Void walkers serve as generals of aberrant armies with a combination of alien intelligence, skill at arms, and magical skill. A void walker will not hesitate to enslave races in order to build strange spaceships and then lay waste to a world in the name of their dark masters. Void walkers have the mouths of sharks and no eyes, the upper body of men, and a lower body of viciously barbed tentacles. I don't think I've ever made a high CR monster from scratch, so I would appreciate any feedback. I used the Spheres of Power instead of standard spellcasting. There's a Spheres of Power wiki if there are questions about talents. As for the options I rolled and how they panned out, Burn became Cold, Rend was a little weird because I didn't want to use claws, Powerful Charge was a terrible roll and is in the block for gravy, Tremorsense just isn't as good and is made redundant by blindsight, so it's not there. "Character classes and levels" became casting as a level 17 generic sphere caster. I tried to avoid adding any abilities that were on Goth Guru's list (which is why the Void Walker has several Spheres of Power talents in order to get SR, DR, and energy resistance). I did give it Immunity to Cold because it seemed appropriate with the Cold ability (I also wanted it to be able to survive in space). I'll have to apologize for not formatting the stat block with bolding to make it easier to read, but it's late.
None of the wizards I have ever played worn pointed hats or robes. I actually went to the rules and double checked that the teepee thing worked. That's brilliant.
If you wanted to homebrew a Mite race, I don't think you would be out of line using Doom as a lesser spell-like ability. The argument could be made that the spell is an attack because it targets a foe, but I really think that having Doom 1/day is hardly going to break anything.
So this article from theangrygm.com is pretty topical. It's a great read about probability math in tabletop games and messing around with it: Just a warning, the AngryGM's adopted tone can be somewhat off putting and his articles are long, but they are very informative.
Alright, so link to the Destruction Sphere and relevant text in the spoiler: Destructive Blast:
Destructive Blast
As a standard action, you may deliver a burst of blunt magical force as a melee touch attack or a ranged touch attack within Close range. A destructive blast deals bludgeoning damage as indicated on the table below. This damage bypasses DR/magic, but being bludgeoning in nature, does not automatically bypass other forms of damage resistance. A ranged destructive blast counts as a ray attack. So, I feel as GM you could rule it either way. It's a sphere ability, so it's functional to a spell. But the basic destructive blast does bludgeoning damage and "does not automatically bypass other forms of damage resistance" which could mean DR or just any effect that would protect it from weapons. As a fine swarm, it has immunity to weapon damage. At my table, I would rule that it was immune to the single target Destructive Blast. If they are using an AoE or an energy type talent on there, they would deal damage.
This is all really fascinating. Dotting.
Would you happen to be up against a level 20 rogue that has to get through all of your plane's defenses?
I would actually use the squeezing rules, even though they say width. It's almost exactly what you would expect from someone having to crouch. They are slower moving and can't attack or defend effectively. This is also how they handled it in the first adventure of Rise of the Runelords. What They Did: The goblins around thistletop have tunnels through a huge bramble of thistles that are four feet tall. The squeezing rules are used to impede the players.
I've been debating for a while about house ruling certain feats as either everyone gets them if they meet basic prerequisites (anyone with "combat training" can Power Attack or use Combat Expertise) or allowing the use of a feat with a large-ish penalty that goes away when you have the feat. As an example, I hate the feat that lets you ready an attack to attack a creature that has a longer reach than you (Strike Back, maybe?). But applying a -4 "non-proficiency" penalty and allowing a player to get the benefits of the feat sounds like a possible compromise to me. I think that applying fixes to feats like you mention is something that isn't necessarily a huge problem in the game as much as it is something that will vary from DM to DM and each DM will want their own house rules for how they solve the problem.
This is a great guide. It's funny, because I feel like a lot of the choices you make creating a character this way are things I've adapted to do as a gut feeling, but it's really smart to actually codify the system and make solid comparisons.
I'll be back with a full post later but I wanted to try my hand at this. My rolls were based on the Wizards Dice Roller. 62 Cecaelia
I have a good feeling about this.
If you've talked to the player, explained that his characters unbalance everything for the rest of the table, that the choices he makes affect everyone else, he isn't willing to help get everyone else up to his level, and he still hasn't been willing to change his behavior, you basically have only two options left. Accept the situation, realize there is nothing you can do, and continue to allow his behavior to dictate the fun the rest of the table (including you) have. Or tell him that your table isn't for him. He needs to be at a table that is less casual and is also full of people who can keep up with him and a DM to match (not criticizing you on the DM front here). In the end, I'm not trying to say you or Bill are playing the wrong way. But it sounds like you're playing with two different table expectations. If everyone else is at one level of power, and he's far above that, he either needs to adjust (I had a player who once said as an optimizer he preferred to play bad classes because it kept him at roughly the same level of power as the other players) or find a table where he'll fit better. Also, remember that before you start a campaign you have the final say as DM. You can absolutely tell a player that while it may be rules legal to have bloody skeletons, that you aren't going to allow it because it unbalances things. That is your choice as DM. Anyway, that's a bit long but I hope it helps. |
