Tim4488's page

Yeah, Alchemist Mutagens work pretty well for the Witcher. If you want to emphasize combat more, I think Fighter/Alchemist or Ranger/Alchemist are pretty viable options. I would start level 1 with the full BAB class unless the party already has a lot of beatsticks, though.

It seems fine to me.

I'd make Military training just add +1 to attack rolls on top of the normal flanking bonus, so it's a little easier to keep track of (and so high-initiative gnomes aren't gimped). Actually, +1 damage when flanking might be better balanced.

Weapon Training is... problematic. D&D has experimented with letting Medium creatures wield Large weapons on a few occasions, and the balance was wonky every single time. That makes me leery of this as well. Especially given their improved accuracy from size and Military Training.

Some kind of alchemically-oriented archetype for the Fighter (say, the Mutant) could be pretty cool. I'd be more comfortable with these as individual archetypes than as something one Fighter could necessarily mix and match automatically though.

Make it cost a Feat and it should be okay, so long as it doesn't affect Fortitude saves? That would be my inclination.

Not sure how I feel about them getting Improved Crit at 5th level. Also, those new class skills are in addition to, not replacing all of the old ones, right? You should include the old class skills as well up there.

I'd reduce the range of throwing melee weapons on Weapon Training 2 to something more like 10 or 20 ft. 50 ft is a bit absurd.

Greater Bravery is a neat idea, but I can't imagine anyone giving up their Standard Action for a +2 bonus on a situational save on that level. Either make it a +6 or +8 and reduce the duration, or keep it as is and make it cost a Move or Swift action, I would say.

I do like some of the other changes, I would say not a bad start, but it needs some tweaking to feel finalized.

Trade-off: "to blame" or "another possible source material for a game focusing on the fantastical"?

As Metool said, those are the only two. It's worth noting, however, that some tracks consist of 2 or more options with entirely separate abilities, and you can't take those separate options as multi-class options. For example, a Rogue's Offensive Track can be either Assassin, Demo Man, or Swashbuckler, but they all count as the "Rogue Offensive Track" Track. You can't make someone with two of those options. The same applies to the Rogue's Defensive Track (3 options), the Ranger's Daggers and Bolts (2 options), Sage's Wrath (2 options), and, in a lesser way, the Undead Track (5 options, although not every circle is different for those 5).

That is a downside I suppose I should have mentioned - sometimes I find it difficult to make decent monsters given what we have so far. The mechanics provided don't always quite give me the feel or set of abilities that I would like. That said, a monster guide is on the way and should include a LOT more to work with.

I realize this is probably reopening a terrible can of worms, but actually, I'd argue that (Ex) is generally more powerful than (Su). Not that Ex abilities themselves are more powerful, but that the same mechanic, if an Ex rather than an Su, is more powerful. After all, supernatural abilities are negated by Antimagic Field, while extraordinary abilities are not. Yes, abilities designated supernatural are usually more powerful in actual execution, but in terms of the designations themselves, with no attached mechanics, extraordinary has the fewest disadvantages.

I'm having trouble finding it, but Rich Burlew (GitP, OotS) used to have a rule that let characters make a Knowledge check, once per encounter per Knowledge skill they had ranks in, to get a small bonus. Examples included using Knowledge (Arcana) to get +2 DC on a spell cast against an enemy shaman by examining the arcane energies flowing around him, or using Knowledge (Geography) to find a small divot that could be used for cover, granting +2 AC or Reflex against a specific attack. Something like that, using either Knowledge or Charisma skills, could work for the Warchanter. In any case, the PC had to justify it to the GM, although if you're making it a class feature maybe they don't have to. Set DCs at either 15 and 25, or 20 and 30, for +2 or +4 bonuses, keep the requirement of only once per skill per encounter. Of course, you'd have to lose something else to get this, but it might fit what you want.

You've added a lot of combat ability while mostly taking away abilities that are more non-combat and skill-oriented. I realize that was the goal in some ways, but it feels like an overall bump in power that may make this archetype too good. Reducing spells/day, or taking away some of the other Bardic Performances like Suggestion might help balance this out. I like the basic idea, but I think it needs some refining.

I've never played either of them, sorry.

Currently GMing a game in a homebrew 1930s dieselpunk fantasy world. I like that it's easy to play unusual races (we have a Ghoul Ranger) from 1st level, have the unusual race clearly affect the abilities of the character, but without being unbalanced compared to an elf or human of the same class. You can play something very straightforward - we have a Human Rogue whose main stats are Dex and Cha and uses sneak attack - or something very unusual, like a dragon-descended inventor who wades into melee with draconic claws and small automoton machines that provide a defensive field. Those two characters would be equally easy to make and roughly mechanically balanced with each other in Legend, which is not something many systems can claim.

No alignment system, and a condensed skill system, although with some very nicely streamlined uses for skills in combat. Gear is, as Metool alluded to, much condensed as well. Items are a smaller percentage of your abilities, your character itself gets more. There's no disadvantage to using Trip or Disarm until you have 2 attacks, so combat maneuvers are a much bigger part of the game at lower levels (and for Monks, at all levels). Also, as Metool said, even "mundane" types really aren't. It's worth noting that the martial classes are the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and (some) Rogues - there's no "Fighter" in this system (at least not in Core). Several abilities that are rare or tricky to get in 3.5/PF are easily accessible or even expected in Legend - the book explicitly states that just about everyone will have access to flight, whether through a class feature or an item, by around 10th level. Tremorsense is not hard to get your hands on. Where PF has a feat for +5 to your land speed, Legend has a feat for +15 to all of your speeds, with no prerequisite.

The system is very larger than life, I guess is what I'm saying. I'd be happy to address any other questions as well.

On the flipside, it's probably a good thing that several different character types can fall under each philosophy. Even in vanilla alignment, not all NG or CN characters are exactly the same, or should be. There should be a range within any given philosophy, with different Grim BvC or Principled LvB characters disagreeing with each other on certain things.

I think it makes more sense for Grim to mean "willing to violate principles" and Principled to mean "unwilling to do so," with no statement as to what methods are "dreadful" or not. For example, a Principled LvB character would never break the law for his own advancement, even if he believed in his own advancement at the expense of other people. A Grim LvB character would believe in law and order in general, but be willing to break the law for larger goals (in the same way a Grim BvC character might break a law for a "Larger Justice").

Couldn't Mummies serving as tomb guards for ancient kings be Principled LvC?

Conformity, Autocracy, Despotism. Obedience is a more neutral term, perhaps.

Better one for LvC would be "The Greater Good," now that I think about it.

Sort of a different theme for the naming scheme. I'm honestly not sure if I like these myself, but maybe they'll spark someone else to think of something better.

BvC: The Ordered Society
BvL: To Each Their Own
CvB: Survival of the Fittest (alternately, The Strong Will Rise)
CvL: Individualism
LvC: Protection Under the Law (could swap BvC and LvC names, if you like)
LvB: Authoritarianism (alternately, Honor Thy Ruler)

... Y'know, this might be the best alignment rehash I've seen yet, at least when it comes to introducing new terms and not just some people who have made very, very good interpretations of the existing ones. Are Paladins automatically Principled?

Water could be flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.

I agree with Big Lemon on Dragons and Genies. The Ifrit, Sylph, Oread and Undine are natural choices for the races.

Heathen's Smiting contains both of the following chunks of text:

"if the target of this smite is an outsider with a subtype opposite to her deity's alignment axis, or a dragon (or creature with levels of cleric or paladin/antipaladin) with the selected alignment, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the divine champion possesses;"

"If the target of this smite is an outsider, a dragon, a creature
with levels of paladin/antipaladin (or cleric with domains opposing the divine champion's domain), the bonus to damage on the first successful
attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the divine champion possesses. This ability modifies smite evil/good."

Only error I've seen so far. Very cool stuff as always, Maxximilius. Thanks for producing it.

I agree that BAB cannot increase through a class feature. A competence bonus to attack rolls, sure. BAB, no.

I actually like Ingenuity quite a bit.

The Scrolls Branch is really underpowered, to be honest. I mean, playing a skill monkey is cool and all, but compared to Swords or Spells you're not going to be able to do much in an actual fight. Maybe give them the ability to use Knowledge checks to get bonuses (or grant bonuses to allies) against relevant foes, kind of like the old Archivist?

I would love to see the combination chains, personally. Earth + Water could create an entangling mud? Wind could extend the duration or increase the damage for 1 round of Lingering Fire, like a bellows?

The Warded Man and its sequel are fantastic books. I feel like you could already do the Warded Man himself with one of the Tattoo-themed monk homebrews I've seen on these forums, though, to be fair. Well, not so much the laying down of runes, but his personal combat abilities would fit pretty well.

I can't wait for the third book.

What distinguishes chaos from destruction? Is chaos the creative force, then, with order as organization and structure?

Have you looked at Words of Power in Ultimate Magic? This reminds me quite a bit of that.

I like the Matrices and the Spellblast. Attunement and Mana Mantle are nice little bonuses, though it might be good to add one or two other small things to fill out some of the dead levels (not very traditional Black Mage, I know, but fitting for PF).

Psychic's lingering effect could create a sort of "mind fog" lowering the saving throws, or other checks, of those within it.

From a purely mechanical viewpoint, I'm worried about Force and Thunder having no lingering effects. I understand the advantages to uncommon damage types, but it still seems to make them less useful options.

Fine Control is elegant, and probably on par with Bravery. Nice.

Focused Strike looks scary at first, but it's really no more powerful than having Quick Draw and a Greatsword on their back. So that's probably fine.

And since a lot of the rest of this was cribbed from the TWF archetype, I'd say overall, you're probably fine. Nicely done, you put a lot of thought and math into this before posting it, which definitely helps us to analyze it.

I worry that Circular Thrust is a bit weaker than Armor Training. Enemies wielding shields are a lot more circumstantial than a bonus to the armor you yourself are wearing, especially in a campaign that uses more monsters than humanoid NPCs. Other than that, it looks good to me.

I'd be less interested in a bonus to a particular function, and more interested in a feat that added new options. Maybe a new use of UMD that let you sabotage an opponent's magic items, "turning it off" for a number of rounds equal to your Cha mod, or being able to use Handle Animal as Wild Empathy. I think things like that would be more likely to be taken.

Wait, this monk archetype simply loses some class skills and gains spell resistance? They need to lose something way more significant for such a good ability.

You make a good point about the armor proficiencies. And I do see the tradition of trading two set mediocre feats for one chosen feat, but I don't know, Throw Anything is still better than Endurance, I would argue. Really Throw Anything/Quick Draw wouldn't bother me as much, except that the tricks are definitely better than Bravery also. Losing shield proficiency might be a better route than losing heavy armor, though.

Couldn't this be a reworked Bladebound Magus?

I'd be inclined to say that you should remove this archetype's Heavy Armor Proficiency, partially for thematic/stylistic reasons, partially because of Deft Hands trading two feats for one, and partially because Thrown Weapon Tricks are probably mechanically superior to Bravery. I suppose the trade-off is that thrown weapons are just often weaker than other weapon choices, but I'd still be a bit more comfortable with it if it lost something.

Cha 13 is a bit more costly for some characters than Handle Animal 3 Ranks would be, though. 3 skill ranks aren't really equivalent to putting a 13 in a score that you won't use often, especially for Fighters, Barbarians, and the like. Though the fact that you have to continue to spend points on Handle Animal does help somewhat, in an odd way... it's an unusual mechanic. I'd probably be more comfortable with it if it required Skill Focus (Handle Animal or Rdie) or Animal Affinity.

Well, the socketed item should cost more than 750, but it should still cost less than an ioun stone. The whole benefit of ioun stones is that they take up no slot whatsoever - socketed items would take up some kind of a slot, just a new and different slot. Since a slotless item is worth twice as much as one that takes up a slot, the Rune of Tarvos should cost 3,400 gp. It gets in the way of using a different socketed item, in a way that ioun stones never do.

I mean, he is referencing 4e. He was just wondering if anyone had homebrewed something similar into PF, on a larger scale than traits or occupations.

Sounds like you want to expand Silversheen into a whole new class of items, more or less? Unless you need it to be nonmagical so it can be created with Craft (Alchemy) alone.

Daredevil could work as a name.

Ability bonus is not something typically granted as a class feature, and is probably too much, even with the restriction on applying it to the same stat. I would probably scrap this altogether.

The possibility for a bonus feat at every even level seems like too much to me. I wouldn't let them choose it multiple times, or at least force them not to choose it multiple times in a row.

If they take enough Energy Resistance to get it to 30, you should probably just grant immunity, I've seen that done a few different places.

I would maybe look at 3.5's Draconomicon and Dragon Magic, if you have access to them, for more ideas. Draconomicon in particular had a lot of Breath Weapon-related feats that you could possibly turn into Draconic Powers to expand the list.

It's a good start, but I think you need more Draconic Powers options to flesh it out.

3.5's Draconomicon had random tables for dragon hoards in the back that may not be QUITE as extensive as what you want, but would probably get close. You might also go to rpgdrivethru or just use google and look for third party products, I've seen some pretty extensive mundane item tables as cheap or free PDFs out there.

Hmm. I see what you mean about Duck Under, but if it's just equal to their BAB, for any foe under 10th level, the Fighter will have a better than 50% of making it even if his Reflex save is +0. That's just to easy to hit every time. At the very least I'd say make it 5+BAB, that gives a 6th level Fighter (first opportunity to get the ability) with a Dex of 10 a 60% chance against a 6th level Fighter foe with a reach weapon, which is still better than even odds.

I only just saw Sense Hostility and War Story, are they new? I like them.

Edit: Remember with Duck Under, you're allowing them to make a Reflex save to get a bonus they would otherwise not have, which is not the same as a Reflex save to avoid negative effects.

Stubborn is great, but the last line should probably still say "charm and compulsion effects" just to make it mechanically clear.

Duck Under has a weird DC. At the very least it should be 10 + enemy's BAB, and more likely (10 + 1/2 enemy's HD + Strength or Dexterity Modifier), really.

For Leap Aside, can the attack still hit if the Fighter takes a 5 ft step out of the opponent's reach?

Its, not it's in the last line of Get Attention.

These are fantastic. I love the flavor, it's an add-on that doesn't change any of the core Fighter mechanics, they look pretty well-made for the most part. Bring 'em Down is fantastic. The Con check for Second Wind is perfect. I really, really like these. Nicely done.

I think at-will Tactical Strike is fine so long as it continues to require a standard action to attack and cannot be combined with a full attack. It's really not a very big bonus and it is the centerpiece of the class. And I agree with you that this class makes more sense with always-available features rather than per-day uses.

If in the end the balance is really that problematic, maybe drop it to only a +1 at first level, but it's always usable, and increase the amount later on.

Focused Specialist says Divination right now, which I can't imagine is what you meant.

I would like to see some kind of option where players could pick Physical or Mental as "Primary" and "Secondary" and have staggered advancement based on that. Maybe you get a bonus to your Physical scores every 3, and a bonus to your Secondary scores only every 5, or something to that general gist.

I'm not an AP GM, though, so maybe this would underpower players relative to what they need for APs.

Perhaps players could pick the "Balanced" option you have above, receiving bonuses at the same rate (good for say, Paladins and Inquisitors), or take the "Staggered" option I'm proposing and receive some other bonus to compensate (better for Barbarians and Wizards). Not sure whether to do this in the form of faster advancement in one other category of bonus, a bonus feat at RARE intervals, or some other kind of bonus entirely (you can manifest a +1 enchantment on any weapon you hold through sheer force of will, or on any suit of armor you're wearing, or any wand you hold gets 3 "temporary charges" per day that don't actually drain the real charges, or something).

What about barbarians blessed by totem spirits, fighters or rogues with a special 'knack' favored by a god of luck, or alchemists whose mad science is guided as much by divine insight as intellect? I think you could make divine spells fit, if you wanted to.

If you're going to tone down the fey damage resistance, it's probably only worth 2 RP, bringing them down to a 7 RP race with the bonus on saves against spells.

I think generally, when people have run the numbers, wielding a weapon one size larger than normal is not actually that much better than Weapon Specialization in most situations. There are some exceptions, though, especially if you get people going from Large to Huge.