dharkov's page

I am creating an ancestry of almost giant-sized creatures. One of their heritages is associated with their capability to wield large weapons for a medium-size creature. The way I modelled the larger weapons was granting a +2 damage when wielding large weapons with no disadvantages. I consider this a fair enough benefit for a heritage. However, I don't like the way it interacts with other abilities, especially, the Giant barbarian instinct, since the titan mauler says specifically "You can’t remove this clumsy condition or ignore its penalties by any means while wielding the weapon." Since my heritage grants a large weapon with no penalty. Creating a Giant instinct barbarian of my ancestry will in effect create a member of that heritage that is actually worst at wielding large weapons than someone that is not a giant instinct barbarian.
My question is:
How can I word a way to circumvent the penalties from the barbarian or even the enlarge spell that is not quite wordy or cumbersome.
Or should I grant the clumsy condition to members of my heritage to be consistent? And If I do it, will it be underpowered to grant +2 to damage in exchange of the clumsy condition?

Thanks in advance.

I am creating an ancestry of almost giant-sized creatures. One of their heritages is associated with their capability to wield large weapons for a medium-size creature. The way I modelled the larger weapons was granting a +2 damage when wielding large weapons with no disadvantages. I consider this a fair enough benefit for a heritage. However, I don't like the way it interacts with other abilities, especially, the Giant barbarian instinct, since the titan mauler says specifically "You can’t remove this clumsy condition or ignore its penalties by any means while wielding the weapon." Since my heritage grants a large weapon with no penalty. Creating a Giant instinct barbarian of my ancestry will in effect create a member of that heritage that is actually worst at wielding large weapons than someone that is not a giant instinct barbarian.
My question is:
How can I word a way to circumvent the penalties from the barbarian or even the enlarge spell that is not quite wordy or cumbersome.
Or should I grant the clumsy condition to members of my heritage to be consistent? And If I do it, will it be underpowered to grant +2 to damage in exchange of the clumsy condition?

Thanks in advance.

Hello, I been working on a homebrew campaign based on the pathfinder system. My idea is a setting that is constantly ravaged by eldritch storms and frequently random portals appear to random parts of the universe, anyway the end result is something akin to Magical Fallout with a Mad Max vibe. Large contaminated wastelands, strange monsters, harsh and difficult survival and wild magic.

One of the key features is the idea of a sort of contamination that appear everywhere, something like magical radiation. I initially wanted to use the radiation poisoning rules that exist in pathfinder, however this rules are not comprehensive enough, radiation is treated like a one time poison check everyday you are exposed to it. I wanted to create a system in which character get progressively "sicker" by the magical fallout.

The system I created works like this.

Corruption is a magical effect that permeates most of the setting with different grades of intensity. If somewhat follows the rules of cold environment damage in which for each unit of time exposed to the corruption in the environment the characters has to roll a fortitude check that increases for each unit of time the player is exposed to the corruption. If the player fails the check they receive 1d6 points of "corruption damage" this damage is tracked separately and is not hit point damage. It keeps building up until it reaches a threshold. (51-101-151 and 200). When the player reaches the first threshold it rolls in a table of magical mutations, and as they reach higher thresholds they roll in different tables (Low, mid and High corruption).

The mutations are interesting changes that give disadvantages and some of them small advantages usually with drawbacks.

Healing corruption is hard, the idea is that treatment is a costly and a time consuming effort. This with the idea of avoiding the common problem with environmental hazards that become irrelevant fairly quickly as many spells and feats make them trivial.

I decided that mutation can be heal depending of the nature of the affliction because curing the damage will not remove the “mutation” even if you go below the threshold . Some of them are physical, requiring a heal check, some of them are curses requiring remove curse, (I am still thinking of other classifications and treatments). The idea is that the skill check or caster check required is DC 10+1/10 of the current level of corruption the character has.The idea is that the more infected the character is the harder is to remove the affliction.

Now here comes the problem.

How to deal with cured afflictions and re infections?
Let's say the character reaches the 51 threshold and rolls in the affliction table and gets... let's say, a third eye. The player rushes to a healer and it successfully removes the eye with a heal check.
Now the character is sitting in 51 infection but no mutation whatsoever. So, there are two ways to handle it. You could say that now the character is immune to reinfection until it reaches the next threshold (At 101). Or you could say the next time it takes damage a new affliction will appear.

I dislike both approaches, the first one makes it too trivial. Acquiring the next 50 points of infection will take a great deal of time and the player will become effectively immune during that period, and if it gets close to 200 (reaching 200 will kill the character) and reaches all three thresholds and cures the character is now completely immune.
In the other hand acquiring infection is fairly common in this setting so taking damage again is almost certain, therefore making healing kind of irrelevant, because you will end with a mutation no matter what.

So, I am stuck here.

What do you all think? What do you think about the system in general? And what solution can be used for the reinfection problem? Also does anyone forsee any more problems?
Sorry for the long post. And also for my sup par english.
Thanks

I decided to make things slower paced in XP terms. However I found out that the slow pace IS WAY Too slow.
Between level 12 and 13 there are 125 000 Xp points of difference. Each level 12 monster is worth 19200 that, divided among 5 players is 3840 each, meaning that they have to face 32 encounters to level up. With an average of 3 encounters per session it takes 10 sessions to level up given that each one is so heavy on combat or reward able activities. I am using level 12 monsters as an average, because not every encounter is challenging or easy.
After all 10 sessions for most players that play weekly is worth 2 and a half months of play,
I would like to know what is the felling with other advancement rates, also what is the equivalent rate of the standard 3.5 system.
Also if my math is wrong in some place. :P

I find rather problematic the Lore master in higher levels. Most Knowledge DC end up around DC 30, specially in story related knowledge. Not hit dice related. So Let say a bard at level 12 has 12 ranks in knowledge of arcana. And has +2 int. +3 because is class skill, and half her level. 6. You End up with a static 23 in that rank. If she takes 20 you have a raw 43. This is far more that most knowledge requires. And since you can do it once per day and those story related knowledge don't come as often as a swing of a blade. The bard ends up knowing it ALL. I really don’t enjoy placing pieces of information that are just absolutely unknown. It feels like cheating the players. The take ten can be a problem too, because it eliminates the chance of failure, meaning that below certain DC a characters knows it all again, an given a 23 skill. DC 33 seems pretty obscure knowledge. Perhaps level 12 seems pretty high but In 5 level is 22 still. I just want to be able to add certain chance of failure. I am cool with a very knowledgeable person but not nearly omniscient.

The new many shot feat takes the position of the rapid shot feat for most purposes, In 3,5 the rapid shoot grant you an additional attack during a full attack action at -2, thus being the equivalent of improved two weapon fighting in range. And Many Shoot as a STANDAR action allows you to shoot 2 arrows or more with a penalty as well -4. That made both feats distinct, the rapid shot add more attacks to full attack and the many shot was used to take a move action and shot more than one arrow. Now the Many shoot is an extra arrow during you fist shoot in a full attack without penalty, becoming pretty much the same as rapid shoot but without the penalty. I know that rapid shoot is a lower level feat, but I am certainly against feats that are just steps with no purpose of their own. I think those feats should be back the way they were, or some other arrangement. Anyone has any suggestions?