So, I remember there being a turn-based "game" or rather platform for playing the battletech board game on a computer. Since I'm in a mechwarrior mood, but also a turn-based strategy mood, I'm trying to find it, but I can't.
I'm not talking about the new MW: Tactics or whatever it's called, but an older program, I think it's not officially affiliated with the battletech line. It has very simplistic graphics, basically just quite simple pixel-art, and follows the original board game rules of battletech (as far as I'm aware). It's a freeware.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? If I can just figure out the name I can find it, but my google-fu is weak and I just can't find it because all searches end up on the battletech wiki or the MW: Tactics game.
Also, anyone have suggestions on games that are battletech-ish? Preferably turn-based strategy, but other games are also interesting.
So far I've played the original mechwarrior series 1-4, mechwarrior online (which was neat for a while but not really to my taste, prefer MW:4 actually) and this turn-based platform I can't put my finger on.
The few mortals still alive saw in horror as the existence collapsed around them. As the Sun Queen and He Who Is Sea fell in the third great battle, the world went dark and dry. When the stars fell upon the earth and dissolved the Chained God the last of the mortals perished.
Of the thousands of deities only two existed, and yet the fighting continued. Good and Law was gone and so was Evil. Only Chaos remained, and stood strong. But as Old Lady Darkness and Chaos fought, they slew each other; Chaos consumed by Old Lady Darkness as she was cut to pieces by the innumerable and inconceivable weapons of Chaos.
In the grand war of the gods, all of creation was destroyed. In the void after the world, a few survivors try to find meaning in the nothingness, creating a something; a newness; a second existence.
Rank Name: Self explanatory.
Weekly AP: How much AP your God gets each rollover.
Max Abilities: The maximum number of Abilities your God can have.
Cosmic Decrees: The maximum number of Cosmic Decrees your God can make. Make them wisely!
Players start as fledgling deities with 15 AP and they accumulate AP each rollover according to their rank.
Players may only accumulate a maximum of 30 AP at any one time, any gained over this limit is lost.
Rollover occurs on Mondays at 05:00 pm EST.
Rules of the Game:
Most of the rules may be bypassed with the agreement of both parties. Sometimes dice just get in the way of the final epic duel.
1 - You can't do something huge to someone else's god without consent, or at least discussion. Examples would be killing another god, wiping out an entire civilization randomly, or otherwise tearing down the star of their work.
2 - Gods that slumber for millennia cease to exist – they become mere dreams and lore, stories that may have been. In game play terms that means that a God that is inactive for 3 weeks ceases to exist – yet everything that deity created remains to continue the story. Remaining gods may target the remaining creations without the absent player’s permission.
3 - Only Fledgling and Lesser Gods can walk the Plane, and only Fledgling, Lesser, Intermediate, and Greater Gods can influence the Material Plane. Elder Gods are so powerful that them trying to affect the material plane would be like a human trying to strip the electrons off an atom. Any god may take the Cloaked in Wanderlust ability to ignore this rule completely.
4 - We know we can't think of everything, so if you have an idea for a Relic, Artifact, Ability, Monument, or anything, that isn't covered by these rules, ask! And before you hand down a cosmic decree, if for any reason you think it MIGHT be controversial, or overpowered, or you are in general unsure... ASK A MOD!
5 - Godmodding is not allowed, however ironic it may seem. I define it as 'Acting as another character or his creations without permission, or otherwise doing something without letting the other characters at the scene react.
6 - A God may be in multiple places at once. To do this, they create a "Shard" of their own divinity, and send it off. A god may only have as many shards as his rank allows. 1 Shard for Fledgling, 2 for Lesser, 3 for Intermediate, 4 for Greater, and 5 for Elder. These shards are in addition to the god's original body.
7 - Gods do NOT know when another god uses their power unless the AP spent directly affects them or their creations. An exception to this rule is the Creation of a Plane, or a Cosmic Decree. Gods will automatically know when these happen.
8 - The following things are not allowed, regardless of mutual agreement: Sexual violence; sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic etc slurs; excessive, unnecessary gore; and breaking the forum rules.
Etiquette:
It is important to understand that this is not a 'God Campaign' but a form of collaborative storytelling and world-building. If your objective is to create a god simply to show off how great you are at other players’ expense, then this is not the game for you.
- Gods are not omnipotent.
While you are playing a deity, you should not forget that you are still one of many. There are limits on what a god is capable of.
- Gods are not omniscient.
A deity is limited to what information they can gather through observation or intelligence, just as any powerful being. They are generally assumed to be able to be able find and observe anything on the Material that they wish, but they can still be surprised or caught unawares by things they aren’t paying attention to. A special note here is that things related to a god's domain allow them a vague and general sense of that element but not enough to gather specific details.
- Godmodding is to be avoided
For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, godmodding is, in short, assuming control of another player's characters or creations. In a game of this scale, sometimes it can be impossible to entirely avoid godmodding, but it should be kept to a minimum whenever possible. Remember, planning ahead with other players is the best way to avoid godmodding!
- You are not ‘invulnerable’.
Although many actions in LoC are unable to be completely destroyed by another, simply smugly saying “they get better” is not a means of making you invulnerable. All it does is alienate you from your fellow players and make them inclined to ignore you.
- Consider your fellow players.
You are not the only person trying to establish characters and write a story – everyone has their own plots and plans. Interaction between players is actively encouraged, but simply harassing them is not. Just as ignoring a player’s attacks on your own creations is frowned upon, repeatedly assaulting a player’s creations with no real purpose other than to keep them from playing is griefing, and will not be tolerated.
- Time is flexible
Time to a god's eyes is not the same as that of a mortal's eyes. In essence, there is no “standardized” timeline. Rollovers do not necessarily represent any specific span of time. There have been some instances where mere hours pass IC in one RL week and others where centuries pass in a single post. Stay flexible.
- Communication, communication, communication!
You cannot be too open. The more you plan with other players, the smoother the game gets. Surprising people can be fun, but people can’t work with you if they don’t know what you’re up to. Using the OOC thread or other communication helps a lot.
- Respect the MODs
The MODs of this LoC are here to help the players, not bully them. We oversee all the details it takes to keep this game running from maintaining the roster and world map to rules arbitration and catching cheaters. If we ask for your cooperation as MODs, please give it to us.
- Keep the OOC clean
If you have an issue with something or someone, do not go to the OOC to cry/whine or make a big issue out of it. That's the whole reason the MODs were picked. To keep conflicts out of the OOC. They make the atmosphere oppressive, they make things less fun, and generally unpleasant and maybe even make the arguments larger than they need be. So if you do have a complaint, either PM the offending party or ask a MOD to mediate on the issue. If you have a problem with a MOD, or have a reason to distrust a MOD, simply send the message to another MOD.
- Spoiler your Quotes!
Sometimes you can't help but quote another player's post, in these situations, we ask that you spoiler the Quoted parts, to make it easier for everyone to read.
Advice:
Here are a couple tips that can help you get established in the game world and set you on the right track.
1. Simply by merit of your god’s origin, you should have a connection to at least one other deity in your progenitor. Not only is having an ally useful in game terms, but writing tends to be much easier with a partner (or enemy) or two.
2. Early on, be careful to set yourself up with something to do between rollovers. It is boring to end up blowing all your starting ap on something and then not being able to do stuff for a week. Try to create something permanent and lasting you can rp with in the mortal realm to combat this problem.
3. Don’t create too many Hero’s or mortal characters – it’s hard to keep track of them all and rp them as individuals.
EDIT: I pasted the wrong link in the OP, that leads to an outdated wiki for the game. Now it is fixed.
Wiki
And these are the rules: Rules
It's a forum game / play by post RPG wherein players play gods. It's similar to Dawn of Worlds, but with more focus on the individual characters.
A summary of the rules is as follows:
Each player is a god with certain domains. Each week, the gods gain a certain number of action points, which can be spent to do awesome godly things such as create continents or planes, turn some flowers into a sentient species of flowerpeople etc.
Outside of that, each god can also act freely much like a very powerful mortal character, you know simply RP'ing a god.
Lords of Creation has a much more open "round" than many PF PbP's; it's basically "first come first serve" and the game-changing actions are limited per week rather than per round. This, in combination with a storyline created by all involved players rather than a precreated plot by a GM means that the game is much more open to varying amounts of dedication; it's okay to post once a week, or ten times a day, and players can come and go a bit as they please (not completely like that but not far from).
The game doesn't have a GM directly, but a few players take upon themselves to be referees/mods to reach a decision when there is a dispute (more than one player should be a referee since referees shouldn't mod themselves).
I've never played it before, but would be really interested in doing that; however, most games on GitP seems to be dead. This is mostly an interest check; I'm very willing to host and mod a game (if more people are interested) but first I want to know if there actually are other people interested.
It's a forum game / play by post RPG wherein players play gods. It's similar to Dawn of Worlds, but with more focus on the individual characters.
A summary of the rules is as follows:
Each player is a god with certain domains. Each week, the gods gain a certain number of action points, which can be spent to do awesome godly things such as create continents or planes, turn some flowers into a sentient species of flowerpeople etc. Outside of that, each god can also act freely much like a very powerful mortal character, you know simply RP'ing a god.
Lords of Creation has a much more open "round" than many PF PbP's; it's basically "first come first serve" and the game-changing actions are limited per week rather than per round. This, in combination with a storyline created by all involved players rather than a precreated plot by a GM means that the game is much more open to varying amounts of dedication; it's okay to post once a week, or ten times a day, and players can come and go a bit as they please (not completely like that but not far from).
The game doesn't have a GM directly, but a few players take upon themselves to be referees/mods to reach a decision when there is a dispute (more than one player should be a referee since referees shouldn't mod themselves).
I've never played it before, but would be really interested in doing that; however, most games on GitP seems to be dead. This is mostly an interest check; I'm very willing to host and mod a game (if more people are interested) but first I want to know if there actually are other people interested.
Okay, so now that I've caught your attention, there is a matter of game design that I'd like to dicuss. I've mulled over this some and think I can explain my thought.
The tl;dr version is this:
Martial stuff stacks well which means each ability is made weak which encourages players to get "all ze abilities" for a single action; Caster stuff (originally) stack badly and each ability is instead very strong of it's own, leading casters to easily diversify; also lately casters stacking have been made easier which allows casters to become kind of super-charged. I don't provide a solution, just a problem.
Martial stuff stacks well.
Consider a fighter that has EWP (Longhammer), Weapon Focus (Longhammer), Power Attack, Furious Focus, Weapon Specialization (Longhammer) and Iron Will. In addition she has Shattering Strike, Overhand Chop and Weapon Training.
Of her 9 feats and abilities, 7 are applied to the same actions, which are also her main contributions in combat. Sure, she could drop one or maybe two of those and remain useful, but swapping three or more for feats that aren't applied to the same actions would make her notably less powerful. In addition most of her wealth might have gone into a magic weapon that further increases this.
When designers design classes, they know this. They know that martial stuff stacks, and so they're careful with giving out powerful abilities, since they have to consider "how will this ability perform when the character gains a +10 to hit and damage?". I know I do this at least when creating homebrew classes, and seeing what kind of stuff is released I'm fairly certain Paizo does this as well.
Caster stuff stacks badly (in core)
Compare to casters. A 5th level sorcerer knows 6 relevant spells; Say mage armor, summon monster 1, grease, color spray, blindness/deafness and invisibility. Her feats might be improved initiative, spell focus (enchantment), and spell focus (conjuration) since she's going for augment summoning later on. She might be a fey bloodline sorcerer, giving her entangle, hideous laughter, woodland stride, laughting touch, and +2 DC on compulsion spells.
She has 8 spells and 5 other relevant abilities. Of these, the most stacking you get is like color spray + bloodline arcana + spell focus, meaning 3 of your 13 are applied in a single action.
Due to caster stuff not stacking well, designers dare put in more power in each single ability. You would NOT see a martial ability like that bloodline arcana, at level 1 granting +2 to hit constantly with say a weapon group of choice. Weapon Training gives 3/4 of that (valuing dmg at half AB) at 5th level, and is considered one of the defining features of the class, while the bloodline arcana is treated like "eh, nice bonus".
This means fighters are encouraged to specialize while casters are free to diversify.
Any feat a fighter does not devote to one of her few main attack methods will make the fighter feel weaker, since you loose power with your most common attacks while gaining something much less useful, as the alternatives will have so little support as to be meaningless.
Consider the fighter above, and consider she want to delve a bit into sword & boarding too, to give her a more defensive option. She could switch Furious Focus and WF (Longhammer) to say Shield Focus and Missile Shields. So now, if she needs to be a bit more defensive, she can drop her hammer and draw her axe and shield - and be a lot weaker for it, her hammer attacks having dropped by -3 meaning she can't power attack as often and her axe attacks being at -4 (-1) constantly as well as not benefitting from overhand chop.
Contrast the sorcerer, who could easily drop Spell Focus (Enchantment) for Spell Focus (Transmutation) - which is about the same percentage of the specialization - and still be nearly as powerful with her most powerful spells while having a feat that is useful to a completely valid and circumstantially optimal choice of action.
High levels and new material allows casters to stack, supercharging them
I am of the opinion that if we consider just the core rulebook, there's a handfull of spells that would need to be modified because they are too good and/or open-ended as is, but other than that, the M/C disparity isn't that big, and it doesn't hit until mid-levels.
A big part of the reason why the M/C disparity appears is in my mind durations; short-duration buffs that stack badly (because they take actions to cast and can't be reliably pre-cast) become to a large extent "always on when it counts" abilities due to a combination of increased duration and often increased intelligence.
A bigger problem however is how the material published after the core rulebook (whether it's in the core line or not) have allowed casters to stack their abilities much easier and more effective; previously, metamagics where always a huge opportunity cost, and an empowered enervation took the same slot as a disintegrate. There where the metamagic rods, but only on the core metamagic feats and they as rods aren't that excellent.
Along comes rods of dazing spell and persistant spell, wayang spell hunter, magical lineage, spell perfection, various effect that buff blast damage and so on and so on. This turns the expensive metamagic feats into Weapon Focuses for spells - but they are still designed as if caster stuff doesn't stack well. Orc bloodline only adds +1 dmg/dice to an underpowered niche of casters, and elemental spell does the same (but only for an element) so that can't be too strong. Some ability adds +1 CL to a spell of your choice and hey it's just a single spell so that can't be too strong. Then comes dualblooded dipping etc etc and you end up with some 4rd level wizard doing 8d4+32 area with burning hands or whatever (okay I took those numbers out of my ass, just know I saw some wizard doing a lot more damage than it should here on the boards).
And note that while they can stack and specialize - their other abilities are still balanced as if they can't, meaning picking up those other abilities are still completely valid. You don't need to go "all in", unlike martials.
This has meant that regardless of level, there's usually a caster that has the easiest time solving an issue. The M/C disparity has spread to a lot more levels, which is a problem.
I don't have a solution for this, and certainly not one that would be possible without a huge rewrite of the system. It's mostly just something I've thought about from a design perspective.
Am I on to something here, or is my analysis wrong? What do you think?
To me, this opens up a few interesting questions, that before the ruling I felt where too ambiguous to even begin finding an answer too, but that now seems to be more graspable. As far as I can see, the answer to all these questions are yes, but I'd like your opinions.
So, the two questions:
1. Do abilities that increase your CL for a certain spell (eg gifted adept trait) work for SLA's of that name?
Example: If I get gifted adept (jump) and am a 4th level rogue taking the major magic talent (jump), does it grant a +10 bonus for 4 minutes or a +20 bonus for 5 minutes?
2. Do abilities that increase your CL for a chosen class (eg magical knack) work if you choose a class granting an SLA?
Example: If the above rogue gets magical knack (rogue) instead of gifted adept (jump), would it boost the CL of jump by 2?
3. If either of the answers to the first questions are "yes", for the purpose of Quicken Spell-like Ability (and similar abilities), do the increased CL work to fulfil the prerequisite?
Example: Assuming answers 1 and/or 2 are yes, the rogue has taken one of the traits above, and dings 9th level. It can cast Jump at CL10. Can it take Quicken Spell-Like Ability (Jump) as it's 9th level feat, allowing it to do it as a swift action 2/day?
I'm interested in your thoughts on this - both on straight RAW, on what you believe to be RAI, and if you believe there are balance issues with this.
Thanks a lot!
I'm currently working on a revamp on the weapons in the book, due to me having different design philosophy than D&D/pathfinder. One of my goals is removing unnecessary decisions that fill no noticable mechanical niche, since it broadens the availability for characters and reduces the complexity hugely without losing much depth. Instead of having 50 weapons with nearly identical stats, I find it better to have 10 different weapons (that can each represent different things) but that have noticable and distinct mechanical traits.
So, as the topic says, do we really need different damage types for piercing and slashing? Conceptually they are quite close, and many weapons that do one of the types could very well do the other (swords, I'm looking at you). The number of monsters that have DR/slashing or DR/piercing where the other bypassing really don't make sense is pretty small (only I can think of is oozes) and the game doesn't care much about damage types otherwise.
Bludgeoning damage is a whole other deal conceptually though, and skeletal creatures (which are fairly common) having DR/bludgeoning makes a lot of sense and can't really work with other damage types.
If I were just to lump together piercing and slashing into "cutting", would there be any noticable differences in how the game plays?
So, I just noticed something that to me seems odd.
Water walk has a duration of 10 minutes/level, and allows you to touch one person per level. Meanwhile, communal water walk has "Targets: Creatures touched" and forces you to split the duration.
As far as I've understood it, when the number of valid touches is stated, you can hold extra charges and touch new targets until you're out of them. However, when the range is touch and the amount of target is not spelled out, as far as I've understood it that means you have to touch everyone at the time of casting, and the maximum amount of people you can touch (assuming they're in range) is 6.
If my understanding is correct, this means that when you can cast communal water walk, as a 7th level cleric, regular water walk allows you to touch 7 people, potentially over several rounds, and give each 70 minutes of water walk. Meanwhile, communal water walk only allows you to touch 6 people, they all have to be touched at the same time, and you can only give them about 10 minutes each.
Am I missing something? This got me really confused.
EDIT: And while we're on it, a minor and probably much simpler question: does anyone know the maximum range of the ocean domain's Surge power? Should I assume 30 ft like most domain powers?
Has anyone else watched this fantastic swedish sci-fi show? I'm just finished with season one, and I must say, it's a million times better than I expected. I had quite low expectations, having read nothing about it and had just heard "swedish sci-fi with androids", but after having watched it, I'm kind of stunned.
For those who don't know about it, it's a drama show (with a bit of thriller thrown in) taking place in an alternate current time, where robotics have been developed to a point where androids look very similar and act quite similar to humans. There's even some androids that have had special software developed that basically makes them sentient and causes them to think mostly like humans.
It's quite a heavy show, and I couldn't watch more than one episode a day because it does evoke a lot of feelings (at least in me), but that's also a strength. The characters are very relatable, even those that can be considered "villains" (though most things is a large gray scale, not unlike for example battlestar galactica).
So, anyone else watching? Thoughts? One thing I kinda dislike is that I think they draw the anti-hubbot vs racism metaphor a bit too far, which to some degree ends up reestablishing some racist ideas in some way, but other than that it's really fantastic.
So, this isn't strictly for pathfinder RPG but since it's a setting that's mostly made for the same kinda game I thought this would be the most appropriate place to ask...
I'm soon starting up a small Planescape campaign, or at least I'm hoping to. Originally the plan was to run a more "standard" fantasy campaign, maybe RotRL or Shadows of Undrentide, but it seemed the players wanted something more... fantastical fantasy, rather than (in their words) "13th century with anthropomorphic lizards".
So I immediately thought of Planescape because I've long wanted to run a campaign in that setting. Now the issue is just that I really have no good ideas for adventures of the top off my head; we'll probably start playing quite soon, assuming one of the players actually want to play.
Because one of the players have never played roleplaying games before, and also is a bit shy towards strangers (they've just met once or twice before, though I know all the players well). The new players fear they won't be able to match the other players in terms of creativity, getting an interesting char etc, or that they'll get the social rules of roleplaying wrong.
So my plan is to start off with a little one-on-one with the new player, introducing them both to roleplaying and to Planescape. Now, I've never done one-on-one's before, so I guess I wonder if there's anything in particular to think about?
And then the big question: Do you guys have any good plot hooks or suggestions, both for the campaign in general but especially for the one-on-one?
They don't have to be very _challening_, more that they should be interesting.
Oh, and one more thing, this will probably be a far less combat-heavy game than most, not much dungeon crawl etc.
I plan to try to get my hands on the great modron marsh and dead gods, heard well about them, but it's not that easy to get 20 years old supplements in this country.
Heh, this became kind of a wall of text, sorry for that.
tl:dr;
1. Do you have any good suggestions for plots in Planescape?
2. Is there anything special I should think about before running a one-on-one adventure?
Dungeon Squad Extended is my new little project, a simple, rules-light roleplaying game. The goal is to keep it to minimum words, minimum math and maximum fun! It's aimed at people who want some quick and easy rules for fantasy roleplaying, and prefer three pages to three hundred.
Some of you may know of Dungeon Squard, a fantastic little game created by Jason Morningstar. It's only 1500 words or so and works well as a very basic dungeon crawling game. There have been alterations to it already, but I feel most go too far from the basic rules light, maths light system it is designed to be. Advanced Dungeon Squad is no less than 42 pages, and while I can say nothing about it's value as a system, it's not what we're looking for.
However, I felt it lacked, both in that it was literally just useful for dungeon crawling and had no support at all for determining anything else, and in that character advancement was pretty much everyone averaging out without options for specialization, and that it was a bit rough in the wording and left out things like basic combat rules (who acts when, what can you do when you act).
So I cleaned it up a bit, added and altered a few rules, removed the concrete, math heavy wealth system and put in a maths light abstract wealth system, made some implicit things explicit etc.
The result is a 3-page, 2500 word rule system that fills the basic role for a dungeon crawl, and has minimal (but existing) rules support for stuff that isn't really tied into dungeon crawling (such as bluffing etc).
Now, a few things to keep in mind:
- Specific overrides general, as standard in rules sets.
- This is not a system for rules-lawyers, munchkins or cheesers. It is intended for people that want to have fun wacking monsters and telling a story without being burdened by a heavy rules-system; as such, it will not hold up to the scrutiny of legalistic rules lawyers.
- It is not intended for people who have never heard of roleplaying and just pick it up in a vacuum, because that doesn't happen. There's no reason to include a "what is roleplaying?" section because most people who encounter RPGs - and especially fringe RPGs from independent writers - already know the basics of what they are.
Other than that, I'd be very happy if you check it out, and if you like it, try it out, if you don't, please tell me why!
I'm grateful for any feedback at all; typos, rules that look weird or unnecessary, important parts left out - but of course, playtest reports are the most powerful feedback possible!
Future plans:
If this works out well, and it functions well in our group (we've used Dungeon Squad in several one-nighters and it's been fun), I might make two supplements that I think would fit nicely, adding a little more depth and content. The basic idea is that each will have 3 pages.
Dungeon Squad Enlarged - 1 page monsters, 1 page rules for social interaction, adventuring etc, 1/2 page traps, 1/2 page special locations.
Dungeon Squad Empowered - 1 page magic items (both Stuff and Bling), 1.5 pages of a new rule of Special Ability, which each character gets a single, and 1/2 page of new spells.
In addition, as soon as I have a version I think is solid enough to call a 1.0, I'll translate the game into Swedish (my native language), so if there's any Swedes out there, go for it! :)
(Also, if anyone lives in/near gothenburg I'd be interested in playing with you)
With all the recent debate on handedness/TWF/THF, I hope an eventual pathfinder 2 just drops it. I hope they make something like this instead:
You have two (physical) hands that work like the magic item slots, basically. Two-handed weapons occupy two physical hands to wield. One-handed weapons occupy one hand. Nonhanded weapons occupy no hands to wield. You always wield your unarmed strikes. The "light" weapon category disappears completely, but the weapons currently in it get a "finesse" trait that works like what rapiers have.
Then in combat, instead of having two-weapon fighting, different bonuses depending on how you hold the weapon etc, and instead have this:
Strike: Select one weapon you wield. Make either one attack as a standard action or your full iterative attacks as a full-round action. Add your strength bonus to damage.
Heavy strike: Select one weapon you wield. Make either one attack as a standard action or your full iterative attacks as a full-round action. Add your 1.5 times your strength bonus to damage. You do not gain a bonus for wielding a shield for this round.
Double strike: Select two weapons you wield. Make either one attack each with these as a standard weapon, or one attack per weapon for every iterative attack you have as a full-round action. You take a -4 penalty on these attack rolls, and do not gain a bonus for wielding a shield for this round.
And simply have the feat two-weapon fighting reduce the penalty from -4 to -2.
This way, handedness only affects what weapons you can wield, and have no effect at all of what the weapons do. Hands are tied directly to physical hands, and a lot of unnecessary, balancewise meaningless restrictions are gone.
Some addtional rules would be needed for entities with an unusual number of arms, and of course the language would be different, but I think an approach similar to this would be far better than the current one.
As the title says, I'm looking for some medieval or fantasy game set in something similar to the early medieval/migration period, and/or something a bit more gritty than the standard late medieval/renaissance high magic worlds.
So, thinks I'd like in no special order of importance:
- Migration period/early medieval
- Historical would be a bonus but not necessary
- Low or no fantasy
- Low or no magic
- Low tech
- A bit "low-key". This is hard to define, but I guess less of the massiveness of Lord of the Rings and more of the personal struggles of the Thief series?
Game type genre is less relevant than flavor genre; I'm not much for straight-out RTS's unless they're unusually good, but first-person sneaker or action, classical RPG, turn-based strategy, action RPG or anything similar works.
So far I've found the thief series (which where great, at least the first two, though a little too high-tech) and Mount & Blade (especially with the Brytenwalda mod which is set in the 600's of the British Isles).
I really don't think the issue is that some classes are single ability dependant and some are multiple ability dependant. The issue is that the game design treats the value of a score as equal for SAD and MAD classes.
Currently, for example, the DC of a class ability is usually equal to 10+1/2 level+Ability Score. The effect of class abilities are usually within the same range and mostly are save for no effect.
This means the misfortune hex of a witch, which is SAD and can buff it's intelligence to about 18+1/2 level without large issues, will be much much harder to resist than the stunning blow of a Monk, which is MAD and has a wis of maybe 16+1/3 level (or less). The effects are both save or no effect and I think they're about equal in power level WHEN THEY WORK.
To abstract things a bit more, if classes mainly get offense, defense and utility (in different amounts of course) from their class abilities, the issue is that a SAD character like a wizard gets offense, defense and utility from it's Intelligence. Meanwhile, someone like the monk relies on it's strength for offense, dex and wisdom for defense and wisdom for utility. Both of course also require a decent amount of con, but let's ignore that for the moment as they're equal in that.
The issue is that if the wizard gets X offense, X defense and X utility from Int, and the monk gets X offense from str, 1/2X defense from wis, 1/2X defense from dex, and X utility from wis, there's a disparity. For it to work well, the monk needs to get 2X offense from str, X defense from wis and dex each and 2X utility from wis (or some similar inflated value).
A MAD character needs to get more from each score, or more abilities not tied to ability scores, than a SAD character.
For example, in the case above about special abilities of the classes, there are four main ways to do this:
1. Increase the DC of abilities of MAD classes. I dislike this because I like the symmetry.
2. Increase the effect on a failed save against MAD classes abilities; basically let them gain more powerful abilities but let them still be easier to resist.
3. Have the abilities have an effect on a successful check. In the case of stunning blow, for example, something like dazzled&-2 on acrobatics for a round or another "meh" effect.
4. Allow them to use the abilities much more freely to allow the abilities to trigger more. Stunning blow is 1/round only, and 1/day/level only. Making it "any number of times per round but only once in each full-attack routine" and/or doubling number of times per day would make it a much more useful ability (for example).
It's very possible to make super-MAD classes balanced with super-SAD classes.
Now, PF has done a little of that, but also reduced the MAD of classes (for example dropping Wis as a relevant ability score for paladins). I generally like MAD classes more than SAD, and honestly think all ability scores should be useful (though not mandatory) for all classes. But that's kind of a different topic and relates to the general weakness of skills. Well well.
I hope this is the right subforum for this post. When I have the Pathfinder RPG subforum selected, if it's on "focus" I can see a list of focused threads but without focus it shows up as empty. Other subforums, including those within Pathfinder RPG (rules questions and advice for example) work as they should.
It has been this way for some time but haven't bothered to ask for help. It's kinda frustrating though.
It's the same way regardless of which computer I am and which browser (firefox/chrome/iexplorer) I use, but seems tied to my account. It's the same way with my other alias selected (on the same account that is).
Does anyone have an idea of what the issue is? Is it a setting issue? It seems so but can't remember changing anything.
While I don't usually believe in "consumer power", this is a case where we need to set a clear example. By not buying from them and informing them of that being the reason, they will know people do not accept this kind of behaviour.
They of course say they have nothing to do with it, but they clearly benefited from this and could have prevented it before.
So, I'm coming from this thread that became a bit infected. Basically, the topic of discussion is "should mundane crafters be good at crafting exceptional stuff". I'm of the opinion that they should, and that it's a trope that should be recognized and supported by the rules. This thread is not for discussing "if", but rather "how" that trope can be supported.
I think feats are a good way. To be more precise, this is my proposal, replacing master craftsman:
EXCEPTIONAL ITEMS
Exceptional items are of even higher quality than masterwork items. All exceptional items are also masterwork. They provide an enhancement bonus to various statistics.
Weapon & Armor: Exceptional weapons and armor are treated as if enchanted with an enhancement bonus equal to it's exceptional bonus, except that it is not a magical bonus. The price of an exceptional weapon or armor is the same as corresponding magical piece of equipment. They can be enchanted.
Tools: An exceptional tool apply it's enhancement bonus to one skill fitting for the tool in question. An exceptional tome might provide a bonus to knowledge checks, an exceptional mask might apply it to disguise checks. The price of an exceptional tool is (bonus squared * 300 gp). This may be limited by DM adjudication.
SKILLED CRAFTSMAN Prerequisite: Craft (any) 3 ranks Benefit: Choose one Craft skill in which you possess at least 3 ranks. You are exceptionally good at that craft. You gain a +2 bonus on that craft.
You may also apply Accelerated Crafting several times, and each time doubles the amount of silver pieces per day (apply this after calculating the roll * DC) and stacks exponentially. Thus, taking +20 to the DC increases the amount of silver per day by 4 times (apart from the standard increase by higher DC).
In addition, you may create Exceptional with a bonus no higher than +1.
Special: This feat may be taken several times. Each time it applies to a different craft.
MASTER CRAFTSMAN Prerequisite: Skilled Craftsman; Craft (same as Skilled Craftsman) 7 ranks.
Benefit: Your skill in crafting is truly amazing. You can craft exceptional items of your chosen craft, the only requirement being that you must have 3 ranks per enhancement bonus applied. You cannot craft exceptional items with an enhancement bonus higher than +6. When working with special materials, the time required to craft does not increase. In addition, choose one of the following benefits:
Imbue - You may craft magical items of your craft as if you had Craft Magic Arms & Armor or Craft Wondrous Items (choose one).
Expert - You know almost every fact of your craft. Whenever you would make a knowledge or appraise check concerning your craft, you may add your craft modifier to that roll.
Networked - You are well-known and well-liked among your peers. You gain a +4 bonus on all diplomacy checks when dealing with others of your craft.
Special: This feat may be taken several times. Each time it applies to a different craft.
This means that anyone that focuses on a craft skill can quite quickly be much better than someone who just puts a point into it and has a decent intelligence modifier - already at level 3 they can create something that normal people can't, and create simple items at a quite good rate (a crafter might at this point have +10 or so with ranks and tools, meaning it can craft DC10 items at double normal speed by accelerated crafting. someone really focusing in it can create DC17 or so items at that speed).
At level 7 they can start doing stuff not even casters can, and decently effective. Being able to craft non-magical enhancement bonuses can be cool, but feels balanced as it has both benefits and drawbacks (doesn't penetrate DR/magic, is immune to anti-magic field). The extra bonus ones where to keep the magic crafter for those who want it, but allow for those that want a completely mundane caster to have some benefit too.
Being able to craft +6 items eventually (yay at level 18) means that there's something that can be better done with skill than with magic. I feel that is how it should be, and since it'll be so rare I don't feel it threatens balance at all.
Now, this rules out professions from master craftsman (though they where already in a very gray area of the RAW as to how they worked with MC) and I could see similar feats for professions, but how do you think of these in respect to crafters? Too good? Too weak?
Hi all! So, starting up a minecraft server with the mod TerraFirmaCraft, a mod that puts the focus on survival in minecraft, a bit more realistic than normal minecraft and heavily influenced by games such as Dwarven Fortress.
Wondering if anyone would be interested in joining? It's going to be a small server, only about a half-dozen people or so, with mixed experience with the game and the mod. Mainly looking for cooperative gaming, no PvP unless everyone is okay with it and so on.
I thought starting the thread here might draw some more used to single player into it, and also I have some bad experience with the minecraft forum when it comes to servers (a lot of immature people join, a lot of sexism etc).
34 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
So, it became quite a lively discussion in another thread on this subject and it was requested someone started a FAQ thread. While I personally feel the rules clearly allow it, some feel that there is unclarity or that the rules do not allow it (it's better I say upfront what my stance is rather than try to act like I'm objective).
Examples of the combination are things like longspear/kick and greatsword/spiked armor.
The argument why it is allowed is this:
1. The TWF rules do not note a difference based on how many hands a weapon require, (and neither does any other notes on two-weapon fighting I've found) they only designate the secondary attacks as "off-hand", and there are many cases where an off-hand is not an actual hand. Basically, the TWF rules allow you to fight with two weapons, and nothing in the rules say this is a non-allowed exception.
2. The spiked armor description clearly notes you can use them to make off-hand attacks as long as you have not made any other off-hand attacks that round (and the longspear/greatsword is not an off-hand attack or it would only add 1/2 str to damage).
3. The wording is exactly the same as the 3.5 SRD, word for word, and in the 3.5 FAQ it was explicitly allowed. Generally, when this is the case, the same rulings from 3.5 seem to be inherited to PF unless a developer says something else (part of the whole "backwards compability" thing). See spoiler for FAQ quote.
3.5 FAQ:
Just how and when can you use armor spikes? If you’re
using two weapons already, can you use armor spikes to
make a second off-hand attack? What if you’re using a
weapon and a shield? Can you use the armor spikes for an
off-hand attack and still get a shield bonus to Armor Class
from the shield? What if you use a two-handed weapon?
Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an
off-hand attack with the spikes? What are your options for
using armor spikes in a grapple? Can you use them when
pinned? If you have another light weapon, can you use that
and your armor spikes when grappling?
When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an
extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater
Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra
weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as
the extra weapon.
If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn
(or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you
use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack
action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light
weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a
shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases,
you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your
armor spikes.
Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon,
you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see
Table 8–10 in the PH). When using armor spikes along with a
two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed
weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the off-
hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary
weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but
when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light
weapon in your off hand.
You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a
second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two
weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes,
you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with
the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and
the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in
Chapter 7 of the PH).
4. In 3.5, it was explicitly the intent, and since I assume the pathfinder developers looked through the FAQ when designing pathfinder, I assume they saw/shared that intent. Of course, these are assumptions of mine and might very well be incorrect.
The argument why it isn't allowed, I'm not so sure and someone else might be better to state it. The general feeling i've gotten is that the reason is "it's broken", and "greatswords use your off-hand" but I may have misinterpreted that and without math and rules references, it's hard to evaluate the arguments. If someone can present the argument better I'll try to incorporate it in this post.
If you think it's worth dev input, please click the FAQ button.
Just kidding. Wonderful to see such excellent rulings in both that and the sunder issue, and clearing up Attack Action. This is why Paizo is the only RPG I pay money for.
Discussion: How do you feel about the new rulings? Was it the rulings you hoped for? For me, all three things addressed (attack actions, sunder and flurry) worked out as I hoped.
So, coming from the recent fighter thread I felt in the mood to throw this together and try to get some feedback.
If you think the fighter is fine as is and want to discuss that, this is not really the thread for that. If you think these changes break the fighter however, please point out that (and preferably how, too).
Basically, I don't think there's any _big_ flaws in the fighter class, and I like the basic design idea - someone so good at fighting it doesn't need no fancy spellcasting or supernatural powers, it can carve out a place for itself in a world of dragons with nothing but it's personal mundane awesomeness, shoring up any weaknesses with magic gadgets. I like that.
I do think that there are a few limitations that I dislike though. First of all, many of the cool, flavorful feats are locked away behind feats you don't want, or prohibiting ability scores and so on. This isn't itself a bad design, but it does lower the fighters ability to be good with many different styles and weapons; it doesn't prevent power as much as versatility, so the fighter has to limit itself to just a few techniques.
Second of all, I think that it, as all other melees, has a certain degree of MAD to it, which by design promotes dumping Int and Cha. Since it has no out-of-combat abilities like a paladin, and much lower skill points than a ranger, this means it has a hard time being decent at skills without sacrificing too much. That's easy to fix though.
the intent of abilities:
My intent is that the changes should be quite simple, and easy to implement. I don't want to do major overhauls, but rather just give them a little more oomph that can be easily applied to existing characters.
Skill points per level is obvious. It needs a bit more. This way an int 7 non-human still gets 2-3 skill points per level, and with average intelligence they can get 4-5. An unusually intelligent fighter will gain about as many skill points as an unusually stupid ranger.
Class skills: Added acrobatics as a lot of it has to do with combat movement, and it also allows it to move at least decently in heavy armor. The "choose one extra" was because I felt a lot of typical fighter concepts still involve some skill(s) that are not class skills, such as stealth, knowledge (geography/history/nobility), heal, diplomacy, etc. Instead of adding all those to the class skill list and making it a skill-heavy class, I though that "add one of your choice" would be a good compromise.
Adept Learner: This is the biggest change, and the intent is to allow fighters to get feat chains without having to take _all_ the feat taxes and to reduce their MAD at least a bit. Now a fighter can take Rapid Shot if he has either 13 dex or point blank shot, and so can be a decent ranged attacker at lower level (and allow for more other styles to be added - versatility!). Note that certain feats work based on another feat, and as such you may not be able to ignore the prerequisites - you can take Dazzling Display without weapon focus, but it won't do anything since it only works for weapons in which you have focus. It does allow you to completely ignore some feats with no penalty for the greater version, such as great cleave. I feel most of those aren't too good feats anyway though, so I don't feel it matters that much.
Weapon Training change: Again, broadening versatility, allowing things like battleaxe/handaxe dual wielding, switching between a greatsword and a longsword etc. It also means if you take exotic weapon proficiency in one of the weapons in a group you become proficient with them all (in that group) - so that Katana/Falcata build isn't out of reach anymore! (although still highly inefficient due to twf with non-light offhand). I also feel it increases the pull towards more uncommon weapon groups, like close, monk and thrown since you'll get access to a lot of varying weapons with varying abilities and damage types.
So, what do you all think? Is it in the right direction?
I remember reading an article in a dragon magazine about how different warriors might talk, what they might call their feats and such. Since English isn't my main language, and I'm forced to play in it anyway these days, it'd be a very useful reread.
Does anyone know which issue it is in? I've only had like 30 or so issues in total, and it's from the 3.0 or 3.5 period and not older, but I can't find it!
Or if you've got other good hints on sites/articles for this kind of thing it'd be very useful.
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
d20pfsrd wrote:
Wrist Sheath, spring loaded
This item works like a standard wrist sheath, but releasing an item from it is an swift action. Preparing the sheath for this use requires cranking the sheath’s tiny gears and springs into place (a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity).
d20pfsrd wrote:
Wrist Sheath
This is a sheath designed to be strapped to your forearm and hidden under a long sleeve. The sheath can hold one forearm-length item such as a dagger, dart, or wand, or up to five arrows or crossbow bolts. Alternatively, you may store up to 1 pound of ammunition in a wrist sheath. As a move action, you can bend your wrist to cause some or all of these items to drop into your hand (provoking attacks of opportunity as normal). You have a +2 bonus on Sleight of Hand checks made to oppose the Perception check of someone observing or frisking you regarding items in the sheath. You can only wear one wrist sheath per arm.
Couldn't find adventurers armory on the official PRD so something might be wrong in the quotes. Has it been clarified if the spring-loaded wrist sheath provokes? On one hand by RAW it seems to do - on the other hand I know no other swift actions that provoke, and thematically it doesn't really make sense. It would mean it doesn't replace quick draw as easily I guess, which is good.
EDIT: Also, drawing weapons does not provoke normally, so the "provoking as normal" line doesn't really make sense either.
"A couple of days a go, my friend Linn sent me an e-mail, being very frustrated: Amazon just closed her account and wiped her Kindle. Without notice. Without explanation. This is DRM at it’s worst."
Nature’s Healing (Ex) - Beginning at 3rd level, the ranger gains a +2 bonus to Heal skill checks. If he can beat the appropriate Heal DC check, the ranger heals an additional 1d6 hit points of damage plus 1 for every three ranger levels. Nature’s healing can only be used when a ranger is in one of his favored terrains. A ranger does not need a Healer’s Kit in order to use this ability.
How is this intended to work?
Heal can be used to:
First Aid
Long-term care
Treat wounds from caltrops, spike growth, or spike stones
Treat deadly wounds
Treat poison
Treat disease
Which of these uses would get the 1d6+1 extra healing? I assume long-term care and/or treat deadly wounds, but how about the others? If it works with say First Aid, or to stop a Bleeding weapon, is it supposed to have a times per day per target limitation? Otherwise you could do like 1 bleed damage, heal for 1d6+1, do 1 damage, heal for 1d6+1 and so on which seems... weird.
I'm after a reasonable answer of how you think it's supposed to work (or even better if you know for sure), not RAWy-RAWiness of RAW because that I can figure out ;)
Just finished up a few new rules. Basically, effects similar to those of demoralize (from intimidate) and the feat Antagonize, but turned into combat maneuvers instead - that way they don't require heavy investment and their effect is more limited than that of the oft-criticized Antagonize. Also added a bolstering ability because I think the "mundanes" need a few more tools in their toolbox.
The goals:
1. Rules that allow a "tank" or anyone to draw the fire, not through mind control but rather through encouraging attacks on the "tank" (or other).
2. A method for "mundanes" to more easily mess with casters without forcing casters into melee.
3. Rules that allow for the "great leader" trope to be represented. Think braveheart speech.
4. Rules that aren't too counterintuitive and that allows the combat types to have the easiest time using these abilities and, more importantly, to resist them. (why I think 10+BAB+Wis is better DC than 10+HD+Wis).
Honest criticism appreciated! It hasn't been playtested yet, but from the basic maths it doesn't seem to get too powerful. Non-wis based casters will have the hardest time with these, but on the other hand - they have quite an easy time otherwise, and the penalties don't seem TOO prohibitive.
It seems I'm finally going to get to play offline. Wonderful, it'll be the first time in maybe 10 years that I get to see the other side of the DM screen (as I've been the only DM-willing around before).
It seems I'm going to play with one other PC, who is more or less completely new to PnP roleplaying (and the d20 system). I know one other player (who's also completely green) is interested in joining but hasn't asked the GM yet, so maybe, just maybe we'll be three PC's.
Now, I'm thinking of what to play. As I'm decent at optimizing and know the system well, I fear I might accidentally out-optimize the other player and I don't want to do that, so my idea is to make something odd or "suboptimal", but I've not chosen yet. I'm also thinking the character being more of a defensive/support character is good to not outshine the other player - it's better they be the center of the action, I've got nothing against standing back on the glory.
So hit me with your ideas! I think it might be Core only, and I know nothing of the campaign, but other than that, anything goes.
I've been thinking of maybe like a "warsinger" type of character, bard/fighter with mostly defensive abilities and buffs. Or maybe a monk as "precision support" that can scout a bit. Or a rogue that relies heavily on alchemical items and having "gadgets" (and if we branch out to the APG I can splash in some alchemist into the mix).
I don't know anything about the campaign or the other PC, so I can't decide yet, and so now I'm mostly looking for input.
The legendary Rogue-like Ancient Domains of Mystery (ADOM) will be going through a renaissance. After a successful indiegogo campaign, the developer Thomas Biskup got enough cash to make a new version of it... And it looks like it's going to be awesome.
So, this not only makes it the most funded gaming product ever on indiegogo, it also makes it the most well-funded Rogue-like in the world. We have much to hope for.
For those who don't know about the game, here's a Let's Play: Youtube link
What do you think? Is it going to be awesome? Have you played ADOM before? What's your favorite class/race combination? Made any ultra endings with cool characters? And so on and so on...
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quite often I see the argument that we shouldn't include DM fiat (or assume no DM fiat) when discussing rules balance, and generally how the game works.
Latest in the line is the Charm Person thread where it is said we cannot assume modifiers will be added to the ability check because if and what modifiers are added is DM fiat.
That doesn't work. Because the game is BASED on DM fiat. Determining a bonus or penalty on a check with an NPC a PC meets is no different than determining what class that NPC had or even determining that the PCs meet an NPC.
It simply becomes impossible to discuss if we assume the rules in a vacuum.
I: "Smite Evil is great! It's a MASSIVE amount of damage that can be used with a decent frequency.
Someone else: " That assumes DM fiat to put evil enemies in your campaign."
I: "Acrobatics isn't broken, we don't need to increase the DC - you'll get check penalties for negative terrain quite often, and on higher levels many negative circumstance modifiers based on odd terrains or forms of movement also might apply."
Someone else: "Penalties are DM fiat. I abhor DM fiat so we should ignore it when we discuss. Acrobatics DC's is super-easy to beat."
Ignoring DM fiat to discuss the game simply makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation about it.
PLEASE, try to stay away from that awful argument. What can be useful is rather _how common_ a certain kind of DM fiat might or might not be in games in general or specific.
Footnote: Now, to some extent it depends on what people mean with DM fiat. If they mean things like roll fudging and the like that is one thing but not what I'm discussing right now.
So, in my opinion sorcerer bloodlines are what makes sorcerers interesting, more so than their spellcasting. I thought it would be nice with an archetype that focused more on the sorcerer turning itself into whatever it has it's inheritage from, rather than just having it as a minor bonus.
I thought evolutions would solve this nicely. Here is the result:
The Rootseeker
(Yeah, it's a bad name. Suggestions for better names are welcome)
Devin the Demoniac, example rootseeker:
DEVIN THE DEMONIAC (human sorcerer 8)
NE Medium humanoid
Init +6; Senses Perception +4
DEFENSE
AC 22, touch 14, flat-footed 15 (+4 armor, +4 natural, +1 deflection, +2 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 48 (8d6+20)
Fort +6, Ref +4, Will +4 Special +2 vs poison
Resist fire 10, electricity 5
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft., fly 30 ft.(good)
Melee 2 claws +5 (1d6+1) max 7 rounds/day
Sorcerer Spells Known (CL 8th; concentration +12)
4th (3/day)—stoneskin
3rd (5/day)—rage, summon monster III, stinking cloud
2nd (6/day)—invisibility, mirror image, bull’s strength, summon monster II, summon swarm
1st (6/day)— identify, mage armor, sleep, shield, cause fear, summon monster I
0 (at will)—acid splash, arcane mark, detect magic, light, mage hand, prestidigitation, ray of frost, read magic
Bloodline Abyssal
Evolutions (5 pts): Improved natural armor (twice), fly, resistance (fire)
STATISTICS
Str 12, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 18
Base Atk +4; CMB +5; CMD 19
Feats Augment Summoning, Combat Casting, Eschew Materials, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Spell Focus (conjuration)
Skills Appraise +6, Bluff +10, Fly +12, Knowledge (arcane) +6, Linguistics +3, Perception +2, Spellcraft +6, Use Magic Device +10
Languages Common, Abyssal, Draconic, Infernal
SQ bloodline arcana
Combat Gear elixir of fire breath, potion of bear’s endurance, potions of cure moderate wounds (2), potion of cure serious wounds, potion of eagle’s splendor;
Other Gear handy haversack, ring of protection +1, bedroll, tent, bejeweled pesh vial (400 gp), 38 gp
PC Gear +25,200
Note that I've not written the text in legalese, trying instead to make the intent clear. Since it's homebrew that won't see organized play there's no reason to make it "unbreakable" rather than easy to understand.
So, what'y'all think? Is it a good idea at it's very base? Is it balanced? I'm afraid that it will be too strong, but since most evolutions are either defensive or do not stack very well with spellcasting (claws for example) I feel it might be okay.
EDIT: You'll also note that there are no evolutions for the Fey bloodline. This is simply because there weren't enough meaningful evolutions that fit (basically only flight and a few half-fits like spell resistance or skilled). There are also only the core bloodlines, but I could make up more if people like this.
Searched but couldn't find a thread on this, and since I read a comment on it in another thread I wanted to respond to I thought it was best to start a thread on it.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
sexual orientation (which is genetic and nobody chooses it,for the record. Sexuality is less black and white than we think, and society influences how willing we are to indulge our various urges. But you don't choose attraction.)
This is hardly some undisputably proven thing. There's some evidence that environment affects it too, and from a personal experience, for me it has to be environmental to a large part because my sexuality shifts over time - and seem to match what kind of people I'm around at the time being.
When I was young and kind of afraid of girls, I was completely into boys, didn't even think about sex with girls at all. Then when I got older and got female friends I realized they were to a large degree far more tolerable and I grew a dislike for the male gender role - at the same time, I lost my interest in men more or less completely and was completely straight for several years. In the latest year, I've met a lot of guys that I respect and I've started to grow attracted to men again, not just those good guys I meet but also in general.
So, in effect, I could probably somewhat affect who I am attracted to, by choosing who I'm around. While you could simply say I'm bisexual, which isn't entirely incorrect, it's simplifying sexuality; when I was straight, I wasn't interested at all in men, and when I was gay, I wasn't interested at all in women. No interest at all. I identified myself as homo/heterosexual. Now I'm attracted to both (though mostly women) and I've also recently felt that I can be attracted to transpersons - before, I've never had interest in non-cis people.
So, while I don't think everybody can just choose who they're attracted to, I do think that both genetics and environment can affect it - for different people probably to a differing amount. If you are a person for whom the environment has a large effect, and if you're aware of that effect, I think you can probably somewhat affect who you're attracted to.
So, I'm soon starting up a kingmaker game using E8 rules, and my idea is to make the Nyrissa plotline into some kind of cosmic horror theme, portraying fey as otherworldly, strange creatures that care about only their own goals and see humans and the human world as insignificant (partially because I like cosmic horror, partly because you cannot fit a group of 8th level characters against a CR20 caster). While this is somewhat the case already with Nyrissa, she's not the run-of-the-mill fey, and I want to mark the whole group as alien and weird.
Pan's Maze will be something of an inspirational source.
That isn't very hard to do generally, as many fey can easily be portrayed as territorial and deadly and some are downright evil as is (though we're not using any alignment system). Dryads, nymphs, satyrs, and quicklings can easily be used this way.
I've also managed to get my hands on an adventure for a swedish rpg that has just that feeling, with a sentient, fey-like tree as a mindcontrolling leech that lives on sucking the life-force from enslaved elves. Fits right in.
HOWEVER. There are other fey, and I don't know what to do with them. Right now, I'm mostly concerned with Tyg-Titter-Tut and the fairy dragon, since it's right at the beginning. I could just drop the encounter, but it's a nice, non-combat encounter (and that's heavily needed in all AP's since they're so combat heavy) and it's also somewhat important to get important info. I could leave it as is, but I don't want fey to feel ambivalently "sometimes good, sometimes bad"; I want them to feel alien and hard (if not impossible) to understand for human beings. I could switch tyg-titter-tat to something else. Or I could make griggs into something else than fey, though that seems a weird solution.
So, my questions are two-fold:
1. What should I do with the fairy nest encounter?
2. Do you have any other suggestions, ideas, or warnings about my idea in general?
I usually play in homebrew games (only run half the RotRL AP, ever), but I feel kinda drawn to the Kingmaker AP. I've been able to glean a bit from a comrades PDF version, but if I'm to run it, I want it in my hand.
The issue is that it seems to be hard to find in Swedish stores, both physical and web shops seem to lack at least Stolen Lands.
Just asking for tips, if anyone knows where to buy it in Sweden. I'd rather not import it manually due to large shipping costs, lack of paypal or the like, and so on.
Been thinking about buying kingmaker, but my group prefers E7 games (past level 7, feats instead of levels). Would it be a lot of work converting kingmaker to E7? Do many important concepts base themself in high-level casting?
Leadership is too good for a feat. That's a simple statement of fact. Now, it can be ignored and people will just take the feat at level 7 if allowed, or some people ban it altogether. I want to go the other way. i WANT people to have cohorts. They can make great plot elements, and be a great way to incorporate NPC's into the PC's retinue.
The reasons for this are many.
1. I dislike feat taxes. If a feat is a no-brainer, it's not a fun choice.
2. I like for the players to feal like big frakkin heroes, even when they're lower level. I mostly run E7, so having to wait until level 7 to get someone who idolizes you makes no sense.
3. Leadership is a good measurement of BBEG's base forces; how many of them are loyal followers and how many are just in it for the cash?
The basic idea: Giving everyone leadership for free. At level 1.
More advanced idea: Linkylink
I also changed it from measuring levels to measuring CR. I did this because it negates a lot of the debating monstrous cohorts/followers, and because it opens up for them in a balanced manner (balanced from what I can see). I've seen people argue that you can't have monstrous followers (I agree that that is RAI but it makes no sense sometimes), and I've seen people argue that since the follower table only measures level, you can have a level 1 storm giant warrior as a level 1 follower by RAW. This way, it's more explicit.
I also included a note on designing cohorts that we've used for some time. It disallows a player from optimizing it to hell, but still allows for some control.
What do you people think? Anything big that fails? I'm a little afraid about the conversion of level to CR, since I don't know if any low-CR monsters can break what should and should not be possible at those levels. Any ideas?
As I recently replayed ocarina of time, I got hooked on the idea to run a short campaign in Hyrule, during the seven years between old and young link in OOC. The world will of course have to be a bit larger than in the game in terms of geography, but not that much really.
I'm wondering what the best way to go about with this is. Suggestions? I know there's been some d20 Zelda game made some time, is it any good? I have my suspicions.
Would the PF system work, or should I look for another rules system? Any ideas about where to get some more indepth lore about the OoT Hyrule?
I'm mostly playing in homebrew worlds and a little golarion, planescape and FR, so adapting a world that didn't have tabletop rpg's in mind when created is treading new ground for me.
Note: This thread is just for fun.
Note2: This thread is just for fun.
I thought it might be amusing to see how we can "break" the CR system by various appliances of templates, optimized NPC's and the like. The point of the thread is NOT to try to "prove" that the CR system is bad, because as we know all systems can be broken. It's just because it's fun to see how well we can optimize things for a given CR.
Using odd interpretations of the rules are okay, but breaking them is not.
My examples:
Skezriax The Fleshless (EL5):
Once a powerful sorcerer, skilled in necromantic arts, Shezriax made a pact with the lords of hell - in exchange for his loyalty and service, he would not become some lowly dretch upon his death but instead a fiend of some respect. When he died the lords held their promise - he was reborn an incubus. However, he was made small and physically frail, so his struggle in the hells where greater than for most. Despite that, he made it all the way through the promotion - finally ending up as a pit fiend, yet still physically small and weak. Other pit fiends thought him an abomination to pit-fiendness, and so he was sent on dangerous mission after dangerous mission in the hopes that he'd get killed. Finally, during a mission to Golarion he was, but the necromantic powers still flowed through him and he rised as a skeletal champion. Now he haunts Golarion, finding and killing any adventurers he sees, in a vain attempt to get some revenge after dying twice and still not getting rest...
Skezriax, young skeletal champion pit fiend (CR5)
LE diminutive undead (extraplanar)
Init +22; Senses darkvision 60 ft., see in darkness; Perception +35
Aura fear (20 ft., DC 23)
DEFENSE
AC 34, touch 32, flat-footed 16 (+18 Dex, +4 size, +2 natural)
hp 275 (22d8+176); regeneration 5 (good weapons, good spells)
Fort +7, Ref +25, Will +23
DR 15/good and silver, DR 5/bludgeoning; channel resistance +4; Immune fire, poison, cold; Resist acid 10; undead traits; SR 31
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft.
Melee 2 claws +23 (1d4+6), 2 wings +18 (1d3+3), bite +23 (1d6+6 plus poison and disease), tail slap +18 (1d4+3 plus grab)
Space 5 ft., Reach 0 ft.
Special Attacks constrict 1d4+6, devil shaping
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 18th)
At will—blasphemy (DC 25), create undead, fireball (DC 21), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only), greater scrying (DC 25), invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 27), persistent image (DC 23), power word stun, scorching ray, trap the soul (DC 26), unholy aura (DC 26), wall of fire
3/day—quickened fireball (DC 21), quickened empowered wall of fire
1/day—meteor swarm, summon (level 9, any 1 CR 19 or lower devil, 100%)
1/year—wish
STATISTICS
Str 23, Dex 47, Con -, Int 26, Wis 30, Cha 26
Base Atk +16; CMB +34 (+38 grapple); CMD 53
Feats Cleave, Empower Spell-like Ability (wall of fire), Great Cleave, Improved Initiative, Improved Iron Will, Improved Vital Strike, Iron Will, Multiattack, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (fireball), Quicken Spell-Like Ability (wall of fire) Vital Strike
Skills Appraise +19, Bluff +30, Diplomacy +30, Disguise +22, Intimidate +33, Knowledge (arcana) +33, Knowledge (planes) +30, Knowledge (religion) +33, Perception +35, Sense Motive +35, Spellcraft +33, Stealth +55, Use Magic Device +30
Languages Celestial, Common, Draconic, Infernal; telepathy 100 ft.
SPECIAL ABILITIES
- Devil Shaping (Su): For details, see Pit Fiend
- Devil Chills: Bite—injury; save Fort DC 20; onset immediate; frequency 1/day; effect 1d4 Str damage; cure 3 consecutive saves.
- Poison (Ex) Bite—injury; save Fort DC 20; frequency 1/round for 10 rounds; effect 1d6 Con damage; cure 3 consecutive saves.
When scrying around and seeing some group of hapless adventurers, he usually teleports invisibly to their vicinity - preferably when they're asleep, he's a mean bastard. On the first round, he usually casts Mass Hold Monster (DC 27), followed by a quickened empowered wall of fire on as many as possible. Second round he usually mops up survivors through a quickened fireball followed by, if needed, meteor swarm. While he's lost the ability to fly, he often still carries a potion of fly to use as needed.
How it's broken: This is completely RAW and not an interpretation. Skeletal Champion gives a CR equal to skeleton CR+1, skeleton CR is 8 for a 20HD creature. Then it's -4 for applying Young four times, which actually is a beneficial template for a creature without a con score. I DID give him an extra feat in exchange for the double improved initiative. I didn't swap any other feats though (great cleave for weapon finesse? yes please).
On to the second, which is where I got the idea to the thread (from the "staves are to expensive" thread)...
Blinn the Accidental Havoc-Wreaker (EL 2):
Blinn had always put his nose where he shouldn't. After being relegated from the second school of magic, despite showing some talent, he dedicated his life to full-time arcane burglary. Just lately, he's stolen a wand that looks really pretty, although it IS kinda old and worn. He hasn't had time to identify it, but is looking for a fence for that and some other stuff, when BAM he runs into some holier-than-thou soldier and his pals on some "quest" to stop all the thefts from the mages guild lately... Whoops. What to do? Well, he can test the wand at least!
Blinn CR2
XP 400
Human wizard 1/rogue 2
NE Medium humanoid
Init +6; Senses Perception +5
DEFENSE
AC 15, touch 12, flat-footed 13 (+3 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 22 (3 HD; 8+1d8+1d6+6)
Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +2
Offense
Speed 30 ft.
Melee Dagger +3 (1d4/19-20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +1d6
STATISTICS
Str 13, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +1; CMB +4; CMD 16
Feats Weapon finesse, improved initiative, scribe scroll
Skills linguistics +7, knowledge (arcana) +7, spellcraft +7, knowledge (local) +7, stealth +7, perception +4, bluff +4, appraise +5, diplomacy +4, sense motive +4
Languages Common, abyssal, elven, infernal
SQ trapfinding +1
Gear Wand of Summon Monster V (1 charge), dagger, some gems and trinkets worth ~50 gp
If blinn gets initiative, he uses the wand. He doesn't really know what he's doing, but either an infernal bearded devil, a babau, a salalamder or a kyton appears. He hopes for the best when he sees the creature and screams for it to attack, in all languages he can speak. Then he runs.
How it was broken: The rules can be read as that wands with X charges are readily available (75% chance) at X/50 original price. Thus a 1 charge wand of a 4th level spell, such as a summon monster V from a summoner, only costs between 420 and 600 gp. It also requires no checks whatsoever to succeed as long as you have the spell on your list! Since 3rd level heroic classed characters have a 650 gp alotment for weapons, yeah...
10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
4 people marked this as a favorite.
I know it's much to ask that you as a gaming company change things in the core game, but this is something most players on the board seems to agree with and it would be easy to fix.
I know it can be house ruled, but something so basic should really be a part of the base system and isn't hard to change. It's a major bug in the system. And seeing as how you're trying to fix stealth, this would be very easy and very important to fix. I know it can be hand-waved but so can anything, and it is an important part of the game.
Right now, the distance penalty for perception is -1 per 10 ft. of distance. The DC to see a visible creature is 0. Thus, the maximum distance at which you can see a medium-sized creature "in plain sight" is 20 + perception modifier * 10 ft. That means the average Joe can only see people 200 ft. (60 m) away - which isn't really appropriate. You can never see a huge dragon soaring through the sky, because they're far too far away. I'm currently watching a "tiny" gull maybe 100 m (300 ft.) away, and can determine the species.
The solution would be really simple: A different set of distance penalties. For example:
10 ft. -1
30 ft. -2
60 ft. -3
100 ft. -4
150 ft. -5
Every 50 ft. after that, another -1.
That way, the maximum distance to (just barely) see a medium-sized human if you're actively looking (taking 20) is for the average person 900 ft. (300m). You can see a huge dragon at 1300 ft. That seems about right. And it's not that much harder to remember.
EDIT: I know it might seem rude to ask Paizo to change rules printed so long time ago, but in this specific circumstance I feel it's motivated. In any case, it's meant as a plead or request, not as an order.
EDIT2: If you think this is a good idea, please FAQ the thread.
EDIT3: Edited thread title to not look as aggressive.
I'm currently working on a lower magic, e7, rules-light (or rather, refocus of the rules) d20 homebrew game, and I was thinking of dropping classes, or rather, to just have one class.
The thing is, one of the goals is to make classes more modular in any case - turning class features into feats and skill uses and handing out more feats and such. Turned sorcerous ("inner power") casting into feats accessible by anyone, for example. Now that I want wizardly casting to be more skill-based (basically, summoning demons to use magic for them through int- and cha based skills), I realized I have no need for a mage class anymore and so I'm down to just having an expert and a warrior class.
So I'm thinking, what about only a single class?
2/3 bab. 4+int skills per level. all saves at 1/2 level. Gain one feat every level.
Then you have "proffessions" chosen at 1st level, based on your background, that sets class skills and gives a +2 bonus to a save or two.
In a low-magic world, skills gain a lot of power and even more mundane professions (not the skill) might be relevant. Thus it would be easy to have a good bunch of professions, without having to fill out seven levels of abilities and having multiclassers and the like, and without it taking up so gorram much space.
What do you think? Is it possible without characters becoming bland? Any loopholes to watch out for? I realize balance might be harder to determine, but none of the players in my circles are very power gamery so it might not be a huge issue.
There's been a lot of talk about item crafting on and off. Does it allow you to break the WBL? Is it worth it? How much time should you spend crafting vs adventuring?
The ease at which magic items are created are also a factor in why the christmas tree effect as well as ye ol' magic shoppe is such ingrained features of the system.
I want item creation to be present in my games. Without rules for item creation, players will wonder where all stuff they have come from. If they can't smith a sword or brew a magical potion, who can?
On the other hand, I don't care for Accountants and Attourneys. I mostly Thus I present to you Craft on the Run - crafting, quick and easy.
The Craft Skill:
CRAFT (INT)
You are skilled in the creation of a specif ic group of items, such as armor or weapons. Like Profession, Craft is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Craft skills, each with its own ranks. The most common Craft skills are alchemy, jewelry, leatherworking, clothworking, painting, blacksmithing, trapsmithing, and woodworking.
Check: You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning half your check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the craft’s daily tasks, how to supervise untrained helpers, and how to handle common problems. (Untrained laborers and assistants earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.)
In addition, whenever you put a rank into a Craft skill you have successfully produced a new “height of your work” worth of item. When you gain a rank in a craft skill, you may choose a mundane item normally created through the craft skill in question. It may be worth no more than (your skill rank * your skill rank * 20) gold pieces. You have successfully crafted that item and gain it for free. This item should not count against your wealth by level.
Item Creation feats:
BREW POTION [ITEM CREATION]
You know how to brew magical potions.
Prerequisites: Craft (alchemy) 1 rank, spellcraft 1 rank, caster level 1st.
Benefit: Upon taking this feat, choose a number of potions equal to your spellcraft rank. None of these potions may be of a circle higher than half your craft (alchemy) rank. You gain those potions for free. Whenever you gain a level, do this process again, using the new ranks.
Special: Potions created through this feat should not be included when calculating wealth by level as long as they are in the parties possession.
CRAFT PERMANENT MAGIC ITEM [ITEM CREATION]
You have such skill in your craft that you can craft magical items.
Prerequisites: Craft (any) 3 ranks, caster level 3+
Benefit: Select a craft skill you have at least 3 ranks in. Choose a magic item whos mundane counterpart is crafted with the relevant skill. The magic item may not be worth more than 400 gp per rank you have in the craft skill. You have successfully crafted that magic items and gain it for free. Whenever you gain a rank in the selected craft skill, you may enchant your magical item more, up to a total worth of 400 gp per rank. The magic item is bonded to its creator, so if you do not possess it, you sense the general direction in which it lies (but not the distance).
Special: Magic items created through this feat should not be included when calculating wealth by level as long as they are in the parties possession. This feat may be taken several times. Each time you have crafted another magic item.
CRAFT WANDS [ITEM CREATION]
You can create magical wands out of gems.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 3 ranks, caster level 3+
Benefit: When you take this feat and whenever you gain a level, you have successfully crafted a wand. Upon taking this feat, choose a spell. It may not be of a circle higher than half your craft (jewelry) rank. You gain a wand of that spell. When you reach 4, 6 and 8 spellcraft ranks, you repeat this process (you may choose a new spell each time).
Special: Wands created through this feat should not be included when calculating wealth by level as long as they are in the parties possession.
SCRIBE SCROLL [ITEM CREATION]
You can use the magic of written words to create powerful scrolls.
Prerequisites: Linguistics 1 rank, spellcraft 1 rank, caster level 1+
Benefit: Upon taking this feat, choose a number of spells that you have the ability to cast equal to your spellcraft rank. None of these spells may be of a circle higher than your linguistics rank. You gain two each of those scrolls. Whenever you gain a level, do this process again, using the new ranks.
Special: Scrolls created through this feat should not be included when calculating wealth by level as long as they are in the parties possession.
So, reactions? Ideas? Have I lost my mind? Please evaluate and critique (sp?) honestly!
I tried searching for this but couldn't find anything - if it exists, it's buried below tons of threads on the language skill.
For those of us who doesn't have English as their native language or live in an English-speaking country, in what language do you play? (Or for that matter, for those who just choose to play in another language for some other reason.)
Do you play with a translation of the game, is there an official or some 3pp or have you translated it yourself? Do you play in English? Do you play in another language but use English game terms?
Is there anything in particular you have noticed when playing in another language?
---
I'm a swede myself and play in Swedish when off-line. While there's no official translation, an amateur (Mikael Börjesson) has made an excellent translation of most of D&D 3.0/3.5 so we use that, adding stuff as we go along. When I started playing about eleven years ago, we used Swedish with English game terms but it feels really dorkish and awkward so today, I'd actually prefer to play in English only to playing in "swenglish".
I've noticed a lot of translations of names and places also feel cheesy and goofy in Swedish - the words are often both ugly (because not the same words are pretty in Swedish and English) and feel like something out of a childs story (and not in a good way). This is especially true for compound words, and even more so when the words are for races, places and people. Those often can not be translated, so you have to rename it and mostly skip compound words.
I've also noticed it's sometimes hard to translate, because English has more words than Swedish. I'm no linguistic, though I've got a good vocabulary in Swedish (dabbling in spoken word and so on) and a decent one in English, but it's hard to get a different word for everything. Luckily, it doesn't really matter if both the Wizard class and the Magician archetype are called "Trollkarl" in Swedish, since they're not in the same game, usually.
A few words are far more beautiful in one language or the other though; I really like the word "ranger" but dislike the closest you can get in Swedish, "jägare". "Enchantress" is a bland and boring word to me, but "Besvärjerska" is wonderful.
It's been a lot of talk about cavaliers (and samurais) mounts, that they need an option. This is my suggestion:
Knight Errant
Wandering throughout the lands to fight his cause, the knight errant is less of a cavalryman and more of a lone hero, upholding his ideals through skill with the blade. While he may travel by horse, he usually fights unmounted.
Traveler (Ex)
At first level, a knight errant gains Endurance as a bonus feat. He also gain a 5 ft. bonus to his base land speed. At levels 5, 10, 15 and 20 this bonus increases by +5 ft, to a maximum of +25 ft.
This ability replaces Mount.
Protective Charge (Ex)
From 3rd level and onwards, the knight errant does not take a penalty to armor class when charging. Instead, he gains a +2 bonus to armor class when charging. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 3rd, to a maximum of +6 at 19th level.
This ability replaces Cavalier's Charge
Survivalist
At 4th level the knight errant gains Skill Focus (Survival) as a bonus feat. If he already has Skill Focus (Survival) he instead gains a Skill Focus feat of his choice.
This ability replaces Expert Trainer
Combat Feat
At 11th level, the knight errant gains a bonus combat feat. When choosing this feat, he may take feats that require a fighter level of up to 8.
This ability replaces Mighty Charge
Weapon Mastery (Ex)
At 20th level, a knight errant chooses one weapon, such as the longsword, greataxe, or longbow. Any attacks made with that weapon automatically confirm all critical threats and have their damage multiplier increased by 1 (×2 becomes ×3, for example). In addition, he cannot be disarmed while wielding a weapon of this type.
This ability replaces Supreme Charge
Dvillj's Photographic Reading School divination; Level bard 1, sor/wiz 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components S
Range personal
Target you
Duration 10 min/level (see text)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
This spell was invented by Dvillj the Loremaster to speeded up reading for his more advanced students. It confers the same ability to read magical writings as Read Magic, but also allows the caster to read both magical and mundane writing at the speed of two pages per round. The knowledge is as thorough as if you had studied this text in detail, and the caster is able to recite the exact wording for up to a week afterwards, even on long or unusual texts. The spell gives no ability to read unless you already have it; it doesn't allow you to understand new languages.
Hiccup School enchantment [mind-affecting]; Level sor/wiz 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target 1 humanoid
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw will negates; Spell Resistance yes
This spell causes the target to suffer from uncontrollable hiccups, causing a -1 penalty on attack rolls and skill checks, and a 10% chance of spell failure.
Numbing Trap School abjuration [electricity]; Level bard 0, sor/wiz 0
Casting Time 10 minutes
Components V, S, F (golden lockpick, 2gp)
Range touch
Target object touched
Duration 1 day/level until discharged (D)
Saving Throw reflex half; see text; Spell Resistance yes
Traps an item to cause damage to whoever opens it. This is a common spell among lowly mages to ward of thieves. When casting this spell, the focus lockpick is bound to the trap like a key. If someone touches the trapped item with the lockpick, the trap is immediately discharged with no effect. If someone opens the trapped item when the spell is active, it discharges, dealing 1d4 +1/two levels nonlethal, electrical damage to the opener. A single item can only have one instance of this spell active at a time. A successful reflex save halves this damage.
Skin of the Cadavre School necromancy; Level clr 0, druid 0, sor/wiz 0, witch 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range personal (see text)
Target you
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw fortitude negates (see text); Spell Resistance yes
This spell causes your skin to become sickly pale and sores to start oozing. For the duration of the spell, you take a -4 penalty on bluff and diplomacy checks, but gain a +1 bonus on intimidate checks. If anyone touches you or makes an unarmed or natural attack against you, they must succeed at a fortitude save or be sickened for one round. Creatures with a natural armor bonus of even +1 are immune to this effect.
Thirst School enchantment [mind-affecting] [water]; Level bard 1, druid 1, sor/wiz 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration see text Saving Throw will negates (see text); Spell Resistance yes
This spell causes a creature to instantly feel uncontrollably thirsty. It only affects creatures which have to drink. The creature takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, skill checks and saves. If the target can see any drinkable liquid, this penalty iincreases to -3. Drinking at least ¼ gallon of non-magical liquid or any kind of magic potion, ends the spell. Drinking ¼ gallon of liquid is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
Amphibious creatures and creatures with the [water] subtype take a -2 penalty on the saving throw of this spell.
Web, lesser School conjuration (creation); Level sor/wiz 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (spider web)
Range 5 ft.
Effect patch of web
Duration 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Creates a small patch of sticky, strong web. This can be used to secure an object or the like. It can hold up to 50 pounds before it breaks, and the item can be torn loss with a DC 10 strength check. However, the item has to be in place at the time of casting, so that the web completely covers it. The spell can also be cast to create sticky web that covers a 5ft by 5ft square - that square counts as difficult terrain for the reminder of the spell.
This is connected to the issues of martial/caster inequality. There's been a lot of those discussions, and there is a thread about suggested fixes, but since this is a pretty unique one I haven't seen mentioned I thought starting a new thread would be OK.
The basis of the idea is that maintaining many of the buffs, debuffs, and conjurations would require some basic form of concentration; a free action every turn, and usually nothing more than that.
Casters (especially arcane) mostly seem to be designed with the goal of being artillery; lots of powers, but easy to shut down. Glass cannons is a word for the extreme versions of this. The issue is that due to the plethora of spells that increase the defensive potential, from displacement and protection from arrows to fly and dimension door, that's not really the case, especially at higher levels.
Requiring a free action to maintain spells could go a long way towards this, since even a single turn of being denied actions would shut down most of the casters spells. This would also be a boost to the currently under-performing monk, who seems to have something of an anti-caster design but isn't really that good at it. Its stunning fist would be a lot better with this change.
It would also mean spells with an instant effect, for example blasts and many other now under-performning spells, would get a boost since they don't suffer from the spellcaster being shut down for a round.
This idea could of course be expanded, and here I had two ideas:
1. Some powerful spells, especially debuffs/SoSs, would require a move action to maintain. This would end the standard for casters to both move and cast every turn, without having to remake all spells into full round casts.
2. Taking damage in combat would require a concentration based on the number of spells the caster has to maintain, or concentration is lost. The DC could be pretty low to begin with, something like 2 * number of spells + damage. This would require some additional bookkeeping, because you have to know the number of spells active, but it's usually not a huge number (especially not with this rule) and would mean that the 13th level caster can't effectively have 10 low-level buffs up at the same time, lessening that sort of bookkeeping and making the all-day-15-buffs sorcerer more risky.
Yeah, so that's the idea. Is it great or just idiotic? It would be nice to get some feedback on this, since to me at first glance it seems a great solution; the effect of the house rule increases by level (which is a goal, since the disparity isn't as much an issue at level 3 as at level 17) and it's not really that much rules that has to be changed. The only issue is finding out what spells should require the free action to be maintained (and the move action if that's a desirable idea).
