Not even, you at least gain some benefit from Prone Shooter, even if you might not ever use it. Ability Focus (Constrict) literally gives you no benefit.
This is sort of like my world. The history is kinda long, but TL;DR of it is: Magic once existed, empire conquers most of the known world, daemons invade the world, magic is banished from the world to get rid of said daemons. Modern technology develops over 2000 years, then nuclear war breaks out, which breaks the seal on magic. A god sacrifices himself to prevent the daemons from invading ever again. Fast forward a few centuries, large parts of the world are nuclear hellholes, and the gods have essentially banned technology from developing past a certain point, since they realized that nukes could kill gods.
Anyway, if you want, I could send you a list I compiled. The list is of monsters from the three bestiaries that look like they'd appear in a Fallout-like setting.
Silent Saturn wrote:
Dunno if he charges a lot, we haven't played yet. Considering that he wants to play a skirmisher-type character, he'll probably like it.
Also, I suppose it could be a combat style feat, but considering that he's taking TWF at first level and Double Slice is a pretty good feat, I dunno if he'll even take it as a bonus feat.
Should clarify: the effect seems totally fine to me. I agree with Detect Magic that it's a bit underwhelming for a feat. Then again, I'm of the opinion that TWF as a standard action (1 hit with each weapon, as "Doublestrike") should be the standard game mechanic, and that the TWF feat should include iteratives (instead of being a feat tree). So maybe I'm too eager to give things to players!
I agree with this. I'm thinking of houseruling the TWF standard action bit, along with a few other things to make melee combat better.
For example, making Combat Expertise and all subsequent feats only require 10 INT.
Two-Weapon Charge (Combat)
I have someone playing a TWF ranger in an upcoming game, and I'm wondering if this feat is overpowering in some way. (He is new to the game, so he I don't expect him to break the game too much anyway)
Some official rules on this would be really nice, but I really think it's going to be up to GMs.
It really depends on if spells have visual effects in your game world. Personally, I prefer spells to be like the force in Star Wars: you only see what is absolutely necessary. If the jedi mind trick caused the jedi's eyes to glow and stuff, that guard would get REAL suspicious.
Neil Spicer wrote:
This made me laugh. I calculated 144,000 gold from an item that could cast Charm Monster at will. I didn't put the Craft Wondrous Item feat because I forgot to.
Thank you for the feedback, and, if you read this reply, thank you for reading it. I'm definitely using this as a cursed item.
I think this would fall into several of the auto-reject categories, the one that comes to my mind is "makes adventuring safe."
Also, one issue I have is this: what prevents a skilled thief from just stealing everything from the Janni?
Book of Convincing
Anyone who reads the book must make a DC 16 Will save. Those who fail the save believe anything written in the book to be true, and their opinions on anything written about in the book change to match the book's opinions. At the GM's discretion, this may change a character's alignment. Once convinced by the book, nothing can make the reader doubt what the read in the book, but a successful break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell removes this effect.
Yeah, I know I forgot to put Craft Wondrous Item. If that was the sole reason I didn't get into the top 32, I will cry myself to sleep tonight.
Have you tried Foxit instead of the craptastical Adobe reader?
I never fully fleshed out this idea, but one that I rejected was an amulet that augmented a druid's wild shape to increase their size and give them the ability to grab and swallow whole.
Unfortunately, this was A. getting too close to the word count for comfort and B. too similar to an item submitted in 2009.
I'd like to add a vote for this, although I'd say that you don't HAVE to choose weapons of a smaller size category, since powerful build races don't HAVE to choose weapons of a larger size category.
Actually, he's absolutely right. Page 8.
Melissa Litwin wrote:
I second this motion. This is just as important, in my opinion.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Seriously. Your customers want an objectively-priced race-building system, isn't the fact that your customers want it enough reason?
By "minimum of 10," I mean that you can't play a race with more RP than one that would allow 10 points.
So, in a 20 point campaign, you could not play a 40 point race, since that would be a point buy of 5 points. Basically, 10 RP is worth 5 points under my system.
I like Umbral Reaver's idea as well, which is more balanced would probably come down to a bunch of number crunching that I'd rather not do.
DM fiat your boots to horseshoes. You re-fit those boots of teleportation to horseshoes of teleportation.
i doubt its an error but why are both small and medium races classified as 0 points. Surly small should be -1 if medium is 0. It is a disadvantage after all.
Trading weapon damage, CMB, and CMD for bonuses to AC, attack rolls, and stealth rolls is great if you're a rogue or a spellcaster.
Oh, never mind, I thought you were talking about racial traits having requirements based on creature type.
I think you can even afford to lose creature type.
Zephyr Runeglyph wrote:
Even if Jason says that it would make the game completely unplayable, I'd still allow it. Since Toxic doesn't distinguish between natural and manmade weapons, I assume that it would let you envenom your natural weapons.
Also, a bit off-topic, but something funny I noticed with how the Toxic racial ability is written.
In other words, this could be misinterpreted that you can envenom a weapon that you use your toxic saliva or blood to wield.
So, rather than having CR adjustments for each race tier, why not allow different point buy totals for different tiers? (In campaigns that allow point buy, that is.)
with a minimum of 10 points.
So, a High Fantasy campaign (20 points) would allow Standard (10 RP) races to have 20 points of ability scores, while Advanced (20 RP) races could have 15 points of ability scores, and Monstrous (30 RP) races could have 10 points of ability scores.
I think it's supposed to go in this thread.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Changeling (Like, REAL changelings, not those half-hag things you call changelings, Paizo.)
Breath Weapon (4 RP)
Smite (2 RP)
Also, a version of Claws that can be used by standard races.
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
I'm kind of pissed that they made languages cost racial points at all. My group has pretty much ignored the language limits by race for as long as I can remember.
I was hoping for a slightly more GURPS-like approach, where there'd be a point value for just about ANYTHING you wanted to do. Instead, I get the already-made racial abilities cut-and-paste from the book with a point value attached. For example, why are energy resistances put into categories like Celestial and Shadow? Or Elf Immunities even put in there at all? Instead, make a 1 RP ability for immunity to sleep, and a 1 RP ability for +2 to saves against a school of magic.
Also, I plan on ignoring all of the non-categorical (Standard, Advanced, Monstrous) requirements for the racial abilities, don't bother putting those in IMO. Halfling Luck is just +1 to saves, even if you want to give it to an elf sub-race of your making. It should still cost the same.
EDIT: I think I'll go through this playtest and make list of things that should be separated from each other. For example, Slow shouldn't automatically allow medium races to ignore encumbrance.
That's true, except for the fact that I don't know how. Trust me, I've tried making my own stuff in PCGen before, none of it works like it should.
I don't see anything official, but the groups are generally clear enough that most, if not all, of the APG weapons clearly fit into a certain group. Are there any specific weapons where you feel like the appropriate group is unclear?
I'm mostly hoping they'll come out with something official so that the people at PCGen will put them into groups. They won't do anything there unless there's official word on it.
Joking aside, I really would like to see something like the miko represented in gaming. And whatever the hell the male equivalent would be.
I'd like to see a different planar cosmology, one that isn't Transition+Elemental+Alignment planes. If anything, I'd like to see a two-plane cosmology: a material world and a spirit world. (I'm basing this not on any knowledge of eastern religion, but on the MTG Kamigawa set novels.)
Also, I'd like to see Mikos, as either a PrC or an Oracle archetype.
Mikos with armpits.