Van Silke's page

21 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't see him finally mentioning how to attack objects without crashing the game. There's still no rules for how to do it, let alone to attack attended items.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rules for attended objects (especially items) and attacking them. Seriously, it's a mess.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find the lack of RAW guidance a massive issue, especially when it comes to attacking and damaging items, and item attendance. Walls are a part of it, too, but to a lesser extent.

No RAW action for attacking objects means you can't actually damage anyof them by hand, there's no code for it. Well, maybe no. There is code for what happens when you hit, and there is some alluding to what you need to do (as some objects have AC values) but other things are otherwise an enigma.

And yeah, as a GM you can go with whatever makes sense and I'm sure 90% of GMs went with this mindset without thinking too hard about the system, but that's baking rule 0 into core rules and GMs who prefer to run things by the book as written would have a terrible time.

Does a fireball damage a wall? Does it also trash your backpack? That is the question.

Not to mention rules for item attendance. I mean sure, people coming from 1e know what that is, but even then spells like Telekinetic Haul don't even bother specifying you can move an object around, and besides, that's again depending on the GM to understand what developers have been trying to do and homebrew accordingly, which is simply bad design and SHOULD have been more important on the improvement list if not for an abhorrent number of people apparently writing it off as a non-issue.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, but did you patch in the missing code for attacking objects and which effects can damage attended objects?

Because it's more important than anything on the list.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we actually attack objects yet? Just asking if it's a part of an update or still pending

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So I've had a quick looksie through the rules and I've noticed that you can't actually damage items - either that, or it opens up a massive Pandora's box.

1. Strike doesn't work on objects.
Yeah, great way to start, right? Strike basic action specifically calls out targeting creatures which means you can't use it on anything else, and most definitely not on objects.

Strike wrote:

You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with

an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach
(for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack).

2. No Sunder, no object AC

I may have missed something, but the game doesn't have an object AC or a sunder action. Since Strike cannot designate objects, what can? Is there even a way? I suppose there is, because traps like the spinning blade pillar have a hardness value and listed number of dents, so it's a telltale sign the developers wanted your BSF to be able to play trapper for once. Only, he can't, because Strike only targets creatures (even though hazard entries mirror those of monsters, they are explicitly different by the rules, as bestiary sets a clear divide between them).

3. What if hitting objects is automatic?
Since there are no rules, are we supposed to assume hitting objects is an automatic affair? That would make battle sundering (as a tactic, since - as described above - there is no action tied to damaging objects) extremely powerful, considering most usual objects, armor, weapons and shields can take around 2-5 Dents before being permanently destroyed.

4. What about non-hitting sources of damage?
Let's give spellcasting some credit here and mention Fireball and how it's phrased.

Fireball wrote:

A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage;

creatures in the area must attempt a Reflex save.

What this implies is that while creatures can make a saving throw to save themselves, all of the objects within Fireball's radius, including the players' gear, takes full damage - not because "well it doesn't say they don't" but because everything else implies that item damage is a thing that exists within the rules, so it goes without saying that items take damage, while the spell needs to explicitly make an exception for creatures. Heck, even if we assume that items in your possession get the benefit of your save and you save for half damage, the Fireball's minimum is usually more than enough to break everything in your possession save for armor and some other items, since I doubt a majority of your gear, trinkets and baubles would exceed Hardness 6. And if the fireball rolls half-decent, moreso if the wizard throws another one your way, say goodbye to all your magic items, all your coinage (unless metal is immune to fire), your entire clothing and probably a blacksmith backstory hammer you bought before it had an in-game item entry (seriously, what was up with that?).

So... I guess instead of DPR, Fireball is now excellent at severely crippling geared up NPCs. Cool.

I agree with this. Most examples you could think of, that utilize or balance ability scores are the byproduct of the necessity to balance and utilize ability scores in the first place.

You'd lose some granularity, but as a payoff you get much less huge ugly spreadsheets, and you don't have to calculate things as much. Also, the fact most ability-affecting effects usually appear in +/- 2, 4, 6... speaks volumes of the score system's redundancy.

Thanks. That clarifies things a little bit.

In other words, what makes one participate in (or enter) combat?

In case of "a combatant is in an initiative order" answer, steps of entering combat say, that "when combat begins, all combatants roll initiative". So, you need to be a combatant in the first place to have an initiative order.

I'm largely confused and need to know, because I can't find any direct clause that says when a character becomes a combatant/enters combat.

Empower Spell's fluff reads:

You can increase the power of your spells, causing them to deal more damage.

Other than that, its actual Benefit has nearly identical phrasing to Maximize Spell.

I have frequently come across both Maximized and Empowered versions of spells like Summon Monster, Mirror Image, Enervation etc.

I haven't found any official examples of the feat being used this way, that's why I'm asking. It seems the intended function is to amplify the spell's damage, but doesn't ban from using it for other things...?

Maximize Spell reads:

Your spells have the maximum possible effect.

All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. [...]

From how it's phrased, one might assume, that while maximizing Embrace Destiny, my recorded roll becomes a 20.

Is this correct?

Nowhere in the Dead condition is it written, that you can no longer take any action, while conditions like Paralyzed call this fact out.

Sure you can become Dying and it probably still applies in a natural course of action (hit point damage>dying>dead), but there are plenty instant-death effects that skip right to Dead right past the Dying part.

Unless there's something I'm missing...?

For the record, mudra skeletons are only described as "created with four or more arms" and after stacking all energy types together a single successful melee attack (with a manufactured weapon, no less) deals at least 5d6 to 6d6 general elemental damage. And it doesn't say what governs creating mudra skeletons with even more arms.

RAW there is nothing stopping me from animating a skeleton with multiple energy types stacked on top of eachother, unless "losing cold immunity" is a prerequisite for an energy variant. If not, would such skeleton be immune to all energy types and deal +1d6 of each energy type on melee attacks?

Can you take a fire variant and stack it on top of a burning skeleton, along with other energy types, or does a burning skeleton already count as a fire variant?

Also, what would a template for an archer bloody burning mudra skeleton look like?

(and just to be silly with it, how much HD would it cost to animate an acid archer bloody burning electric fire frost mudra sonic skeleton?)

bitter lily wrote:

I'm grateful to hear you're worried about overcomplications! Because I think this class has a lot of promise, but badly needs simplifying.

** spoiler omitted **...


I will make sure to clearly state out those two limits. I'm currently reworking this to make use of drowsiness, which really does seem like mage's equivalent of fatigue - more fitting, to say the least.


I have been indeed thinking about converting the spells memorized into simply spells per book, yes. I'm not sure what to do about the writing spells part, because right now he does so intuitively just to make creating loadouts a little bit more convenient. I could make it into classically "wizardly", as you've suggested, of course, but I need to look into this with more depth. They're going to need a lot of spellbooks to copypaste or research spells.

Nope, I just threw a bunch of "gives extra move action" clones at the wall to see what sticks. Thanks for pointing out that swift&immediate shouldn't really exist.

As for move actions, even though you can't move, there's plenty you can do with an extra move action anyways - like redirecting a second Flaming Sphere, standing up, pull out a wand/staff, or cast a full-round spell right after doing any of the above.

It's another leftover from the older versions. I figured I'd give the guy something similar to arcanist's exploits, or any other kind of level-gained class perk-feat-bonus, just so they can get a little bit of specialization going.

I forgot about them, because I'm halflingist.

In short, thanks
Your comment has been very insightful, thank you. I'm not promising anything, but another person pointing out my shortcomings is honestly a great way for me to learn as I go along. I might post a next version next week, we'll see how the next one goes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Here4daFreeSwag wrote:
Good to have some free updated Anchor stuff out there. ;)

Yup. It sure has changed. I've still got some general ideas for improvements, but nothing radical.

bitter lily wrote:

Can you describe the "original spellpoint system" you're reacting to? When I think of "spellpoints," I think of a system where for instance someone who could cast 5th level spells and had 20 spellpoints could cast 4 5th-level spells in one day, or 20 1sts, or something inbetween.

Original meaning the old thing I've aased my resource upon, bu yes. the general gyst is mainly what you're describing. A character who can cast 5th level spells can cast a handful of 5th levels and be done with it, or cast a ton of lower level spells (which is a main appeal of similar systems).

I've directly adapted spell costs, and coincidentally the anchor receives about as many points of his own resource as an old wizard using spellpoints. I've also adapted from elsewhere (can't remember where) the idea of increasing spell costs - casting a single spell once is cheap, but casting the same spell a lot of times gets increasingly more expensive.

bitter lily wrote:

Minor immediate reaction: that concentration bit should cost 15 minutes and 1 minute per spell level.

Probably, yeah. I didn't want to overcomplicate it, in all honesty.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Version 1.171

I've been playing around with a spellpoint-like class, and here's the result. It's somewhat similar to an arcanist in design, but you might say, that he's weaker in some aspects.

While coming up with a concept for this class, I've had a mental image of a mage who anchors himself to the ground to strengthen his spellcasting (hence the name).

What I can't stress enough, is although I've posted him a week ago, he has changed significantly, and I've made sure to do everything in my power to make him accessible, powerful, but fair - and I'm still not sure if I fully succeeded in this goal.

The following are his class features so far.:

He uses a Strain point system, which is somewhat similar in design to original spellpoints - although somewhat more tame, and he needs a Wisdom score instead of Int to increase its max treshold. Exceeding tresholds forces a save, and failing a save causes some nasty effects.

His spellbook is divided into a limited number of spell slots instead of simply pages. However, he makes up for a limited size by being able to select any spell from the sorc/wiz list while rewriting it. I put it in, because this semi-limiting factor won't let him abuse the system, while still getting benefits of having a book.

He can enter a "trance", which grants him variable bonuses, with a catch - the trance uses up Strain points for each round it's active as well, so this candle burns from both sides. Additionally disturbing his concentration while he's in trance might just outright kill him.

Last but not least, he's got a choice of "willpowers", which grant him handy strain-based bonuses and abilities, as well as allow for a degree of specialization.

I'm afraid, that his kit is too specialized to really allow for many playstyles, but if it allows for one or two, I'm happy with it for now - after all, nothing is stopping me from adding some specializing choices and archetypes.

One of Anchor's class features is choosing one of the spell descriptors as Attuned. And...there you go. I'll probably keep this one, unless it doesn't do anything.

I've dumped arcane actions and most of the spellbook stuff, if you're interested in the progress.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Hypothetically, this guy has no limit to the number of spells he can cast each day. Is that right? I hope not.

...yeah, I can see where I went wrong with this.

Either way, thanks for that. I'm not promising any breakthroughs, but you can expect an improved version around next week.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Link to the latest version

Hello there.

I've been moving in and out of this project for about a month now, and it's simply one character class I'm making for sport, and potentially play it later. I'm doing it mainly for myself, but I'd rather like to consult someone with an actual experience.

His gimmick is that he can anchor himself to the location and cast spells with less limitations at the cost of being forced to hold position, but it blew way out of proportions.

A "potentially broken" because this little spellcaster here is able to prepare any spell from his spellbook at any time, with no upper limit except for a number of spells he can hold in his memory.

There's also a second part to this guy, as he's got a limited pool of points he can spend to cast more spells in one round, bending if not outright breaking action economy.

He has a potential to be a very interesting thing, but as of right now he's a "Suck or be God" kind of thing.

Right at the end of the document there are several alternate options I'm considering for his class features, but unfortunately I'm unwilling to part with most of them.