Valeros

ledgabriel's page

111 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

First let me start by saying I love the sorcerer class, great concept and playability, one of my favorite classes. So this is not a "I like Wizards better, lets nerf the Sorc" thread.

I have a serious problem with this Unlimited cantrips thing, it's just to easy to abuse. Sure they are revising the core spells, but the spells from other sources all need to go through some house rules. Anything that deals damage can be abused, to destroy doors, walls, cells, etc. Anything that creates, even if a little amount of anything could be abused. How much light could one create with "light", you could light a whole city inch by inch. With mending a single sorcerer could rebuild an entire castle!
C'mon, infinite cantrips are not a good way to make the sorcerer more interesting, its just a way to make the game annoying and unfeasible.

The second thing I wanted to address are the bloodlines. Loved them, I don't think anyone would disagree here, they were wonderful for the class. I just thought (and that from actual playtesting) that the sorcerer ended up with more power/spells to use that they actually needed. I'm not talking about the extra spells you choose from the Arcane bloodline, but the fixed ones and the powers, I would rather see something more like abilities that affected the character in different ways. For example, a Elemental bloodline, would make the spells of the chosen element more powerful, harder to resist maybe even receiving some free/reduced-penalty metamagic bonus; instead of just giving more elemental powers to use. Anyway, this is just a personal opinion, others may have found different.

Oh yeah, add a Gennie/Efreet bloodline, please! For arabian settings it falls like a glove.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Even if there were, Pathfinder can't use them unless they're open game content. So we're more or less reduced to re-inventing the wheel.

Oh yeah, absolutely. I meant as sources for us (and Jason) to get ideas from... ya know..


hmmm.. yes, indeed a thoughtful idea to break the "My turn. Your turn" combat and introduce a little more dynamism into the game. Immediate actions and using AOO for things other than just attack but some combat maneuvers.

This all look very good, I'm not an expert into the gazillions of supplements out there, so, are there books on this issue?


ruemere wrote:


Combat Expertise:
- prerequisite: Dexterity 13+.
- if using shield, add double to Armor Class (still subject to maximum penalty of 1/2 BAB)

Beautiful! I'll be using this. Though I'd scale so that shield type mattered. Maybe this as base for Medium Shield, if buckler then 1.5x instead of double.. or something like that. But yeah, great idea.

As with everything else in D&D, PA is much better at increasing dmg than CE is at increasing AC...

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yet the fighter ends up with things like Dodge (+1 to AC, and insufficient skill points to reach that other +1 for Acrobatics ranks). Dodge should give +1 to AC, +1 per 4 points of BAB.

And don't forget he has to 'activate' the feat by using up his swift action (yeah I know non-casters rarely need that swift action but you know... who knows when that magic item will require a swift action to activate... and the idea of wasting actions to "activate" a feat is ridiculous)

What I do is let dodge be a cumulative feat you can take multiple times. It's not that much of help, but helps a little. Specially for the fighter, getting feat every level, picking up a few dodges along the way helps a little.


Set wrote:
Man, the idea of using actions, of any sort, to activate Feats, is exponentially lame. I thought that got left behind in Alpha...

God yes, it's ridiculous! Why do they insist in this thing I don't know... If the feat maneuver takes a standard or full or whatever action to complete is one thing, it's part of the action, but wasting an action to "activate" the feat is stupid.

Oh.. yeah.. and that Int cap to CE is also 'lame'... what's up with that. Unless you're playing a nobel-prize winner fighter the feat is useless.


A question... if, instead of Fighting Defensively, a Duelist uses Combat Expertise, does he get the bonus from Elaborate Defense to AC?
I would say yes, since I see CE as an Improved Fighting Defensively.

Oh, the art is great! Loved it! I must say, I found it much better than the core book. I'd love to see some of this style in the final PRPG.


Oni_NZ wrote:
Where does it say that it can't?

Good question, I don't know. But I'm sure I read it somewhere... maybe in 3.0 was like that, you couldn't use both, either one or the other. Why did I always thought you couldn't mix them?... has to be 3.0. Either that or I'm crazy or they changed the rules without me seeing it..

Anyway, that addresses the Duelist issue I guess. If you use CE you get the bonuses... thought it'll be cheap as hell, use CE for a -1 penalty and get level+1 as AC bonus...


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Why is the Combat Expertise feat totally separate from the Fighting Defensively mechanic? Considering that CE is, basically, um, you know, an Improved Defensive Fighting feat?

This is good point, it kinda bugs me too. But when you stop to think about it, you can't use both of them together (because the rules say so), so basically since it'd be just dumb to use Fight Defensively (FD) instead of CE, you could just say your FD got improved.

I want to know how is this going to affect the Duelist now that the Beta Prestiges are out. With the Elaborate Defense, the Duelist adds his level as dodge bonus when fighting defensively or using the Total Defense... now... what if he uses the CE feat? he loses the bonuses? Stops making sense right there eh...


Finally a Swashbuckler-type worth playing. Duelist is great, excellent work. When I saw the preview at the blog, I was very anxious to see it.
Parry and Riposte, those were ideas I always wanted to implement, they came out very very good.

Now, Jason, you mentioned something about making the Blackguard a base class, any thoughts about a swashbuckling base class?

Again, great job with the prestige classes.


Starbuck_II wrote:


Explain how belongings were lost.

That would take a long time, let's just say he messed with the wrong guy.. very wrong guy.. but well.. the player is very stubborn and wan't that clever... so.. trying to deceive a lich-demi-god didn't go quite well...

Starbuck_II wrote:


D&D is very equipment centric (since 1st kinda).

Yes, I know that too well. And it has always bothered me, "it's about the sword, not the arm that wields it", the saying would go to D&D, contrary to the classical. That is one of the main reasons I'm switching to Pathfinder, with the classes more powerful, there will be less dependency of magical stuff to balance the game.

I wasn't looking for such complex builds, lol.... the Swashbuckler with Improved Combat Expertise was closer to what I was looking for, not there yet, but something like that. Again, I don't like being dependent on magical items, so I look for more Class/Feat options... without going into weird prestige classes from exotic supplements.

So, again, that house-rule I made up, I'm pretty happy with it, I think it'll work out. Though I still think there should be some kind of Base Defense Bonus (BDB).


Diego Bastet wrote:
Now, everyone knows that high ac characters tend to use light armor.

What? How? I've always wanted a high AC low armor pirate style, but just can't get it. With only Core (core pathfinder in this case) and the Complete Series, how do you do it?

Thinking about what I said myself, I realized that everything that requires a Reflex save are things that draw the character's complete attention to avoid, he's not worried about hitting the "thing" back, just getting out of the way (fireballs, traps, etc...). In battle, one is not only concerned about dodging blows but also at hitting back, paying attention also to the opponents defense.

With that in mind, I came up with a simple house rule that satisfied me and the players and made sense: When in Total Defense, that is, when not attacking and only worried about avoiding being hit, a character gains the higher between his Reflex and the default flat +4 to AC (if you think about it, why does everyone get +4?), not counting Dex twice of course.

Now, this doesn't change the game much since fewer classes have good Reflex, only having Base Reflex > 4 at 15th level. And, a feat or other ability that raises the save by a little should also help in such a situation. As for the classes with high Reflex, if all they want is to avoid being hit and not fight back, they should be good at dodging things...


Just a few days ago, something happened in my campaign; the Rogue character lost all of his belongings, everything. Being a Rogue 7/ShadowDancer 8 with 22 Dex, he had an insane Reflex Save (+18 if I'm not mistaken) but a very low AC (17 since he had dodge).
Now, with Improved Evasion there was almost no spell that required a Reflex save that could harm him, and he could avoid basically all but the most killer-insanely-high-DC traps.... But anyone could hit him easily, any 12° level fighter could wack the crap out of him, never missing a blow. And also, just by changing a Reflex-save trap by one that required an attack roll, he'd never avoid it.

This got me thinking how flawed the system is... a Reflex save represents a character ability to avoid being hit by something, to dodge stuff thrown at him, it's his ability to get out of harm's way... now.. AC uses a Character's DEX, but... shouldn't it use Reflex instead? Why doesn't a character never gets better at avoiding sword blows but gets better at avoiding fireballs and deadly traps??? Makes no sense.

Back in the example, the Rogue could dodge spell blasts and deadly traps, but couldn't dodge a sword blow by a fighter 4 levels lower than him . Even worse, similar traps, only because they use different systems (one with Reflex Saves another with Attack roll) had completely different effects.

It seems, if I'm not mistaken, that in D&D 4th ed. AC is somewhat related to Reflex... or they get bonus from same source.. not sure though.

Anyway, I would be very glad if the Devs would include something like this in the PRPG, AC based on Reflex or something, though I greatly doubt they will...

Any thoughts?


Krome wrote:

I read in another toic (no idea which one) where Vic said Jason was busy between Alpha 3 and Beta with adding the content for Beta. The major revisions would be looked at now. In essence He just didn't have time to get the content necessary AND work on revisions.

So, I take back everything I said.

Except that the new PA and CE sucks :)

So... should we expect Beta 2?

PA I don't mind too much as I actually thought it needed a little cap, it'd get crazy at high levels... but CE... it already had enough cap at +5/-5.


Mon wrote:

The system I use combines scaling spell DC with the concept of reserve feats from Complete Mage. Namely, encouraging casters to keep their most powerful spells in reserve for a time when they are truly needed to try and counter this: "go nova, then rest when my top 2 spell levels are depleted". AKA the 5-minute adventuring day.

Instead of Complete Mage's feats that are cooler if you keep your spells in reserve, I just apply the same principle to spell DCs.

The DC is...

10 + ability modifier + the level of the highest level spell currently available to cast (from the same class).

Thus, a 14th level wizard (7th level spells) with 20 Int (+5) has a DC of 22 for ALL of his spells (10 + 5 + 7); as long as he has at least one 7th level spell left to cast. If he uses all his 7th levels and has only 6th level spells remaining the DC drops to 21 (10 + 5 + 6), and so on.

Thus...
(1) Spell DCs scale with level
(2) Casters have some incentive not to go "nova" in the first encounter.

It's been a long time since I've posted here, so I only saw this now, sorry.

I liked this rule, good idea for an optional rule, or maybe turn this into a feat.


MegaPlex wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Yeah; really I see the fighter is lacking in

1. Being unable to disrupt spellcasting (caster just moves away and casts);
2. Being unable to guard his friends (people just walk around him); and
3. Being unable to act in response to what's going on around him.

If he could trade attacks for movement, and hold attacks and movement for use as immediate actions later on in the round, those would address his core deficiencies better than giving him extra attacks as part of the full attack action he hardly ever gets to use.

100% agreement here. Fighter does not need more ways to deal more damage, he needs more options for battlefield control.

]

+1 support here! Excellent idea, trade some attacks for small instant moves would be great.

Jason, if possible, try to give it some thought. Oh, and remove that Int bonus limit to Combat Expertise, unless you are playing a Nobel prize winner fighter, the feat is useless.


I'll stick with Paths & Phasms ...

But that 'Buscanderos' did sound very very nice... though I lose the picture of warriors in shining metal armors going through a dungeon and instead get some guys with mustaches and sombreros hacking their way through bushes with a butcher's knife...


Paths & Phasms

It has the Path, the '&' , the matching monster and even the cool ring to it!!!!! :) Perfect!! :P


Krome wrote:

While I agree that PA anc CE have been totally nerfed I do not think it matters any more. The Beta is out, and the designers did not make changes, even after some very vocal complaints following the Alpha release.

Feel free to re-argue these problems, but I do not believe there will be any changes made in the final version of Pathfinder.

What we see is likely to be 99% of the final product. Some editorial changes will be made, fixing typoes and clarifying rules (CMB VERY poorly explained!).

You are very right Krome, a simple example of this is that there isn't specific forums for Beta Playtesting as there was for the 3 Alphas. We have a general Playtest Report forum.

I'm not sure about the 99% though :P.. but the point is right, we won't see any major changes to the final edition.. unless they start releasing Beta 2, Beta 3, etc...

This new Combat Expertise sucks by the way...


My vote for this rule!!

I've always felt the same, spells don't scale as the Caster gets more powerful. If a 10th level Fireball is stronger than a 6th level one (on damage at least), why shouldn't a 20th level one be more powerful? In this case by the DC.


I personally don't like the crit rules the way they are now. A 6th level fighter and a 1st level wizard have the same chance of threatening to score a critical hit if using the same weapon. And more, without the Improved Critical, a 20th level fighter and a 1st level wizard still have the same chance... This is ridiculous for me.... yeah, you could say the wiz will have a lower chance to confirm the critical, but the point is: To threaten a critical doesn't matter your skills, to confirm it does. It bogs down gameplay by having another die roll.

I'd prefer critical (and fumbles) much more if they were relative by how much you hit the target. Say, by 12 or more it's a critical. One might argue "but then a high level fighter with a big bonus to attack will hit a crit every time on low AC targets...." well.. yeah, its a high level fighter focused on fighting with his weapon, a champion of battle.. fighting against a couple low level orc bandits? Hell yeah he'll drive his sword through them like butter.

Anyway, I'd prefer criticals if they depended more on the attack roll vs AC than only a fixed 5-10% chance... but... I'm one of those who can't grab the "armor makes you harder to hit" concept and uses armor as DR.. so.. just my copper piece


David Jackson 60 wrote:


Also, spells like create water might have a problem, but I often choose that spells like this don't actually create, adding additional mass to the planet but are rather pulled from the surrounding enviroment or temporarily summoned from another plane. If the first was an option in-game in a desert, I would probably let the spell be cast a fair number of times and then it would start failing due to lack of water in the surrounding area to pull from.

Perfect man, ruling so that it doesn't create water but instead pulls from nearby sources, you can easily keep it as a Cantrip and prevent abuse.

It even opens up story possibilities since you are taking water out from somewhere else you are affecting the beings living next to it; maybe draining the water out of a nearby village creek.

humm.. on a second thought, it would actually make the spell too powerful, wouldn't it? A cantrip able to affect a whole environment like nothing else...

Dark Sun concept working here...


0gre wrote:
To me the fact that they incorporated a change or fix we suggested is a much bigger compliment than having my name on a list with 10000 other people who happened to download the Alpha.

I'm with you here! I would be much more glad (a freakin' lot more!) if some of the changes I've suggested appeared on the Final Edition than having my screen name appear amongst other 10000 names with a size 2 font in a downloadable web supplement.


MarkusTay wrote:


I was just thinking maybe something like -

No Armor = 3 x Dex bonus
Light Armor = 2 x Dex Bonus
Medium Armor = 1 x Dex Bonus
Heavy Armor = No Bonus

I thought it nice at first Markus, but then it occurred to me, high-dex characters would have a very high AC in the beginning but would never improve (unless he spends points on Dex of course). Your 18 Dex rogue would have a 22AC in the 1st level not counting Dodge and stuff. Armor for him is pointless until very high levels if he could get some +5 Leather. And it shouldnt be, I mean, a light leather gotta be better than nothing.

BDB I believe should be progressive, and armor giving a penalty (but never going negative) instead of a limit like Max Dex. Why? So that higher levels characters are rewarded for being more experienced, it shows they can defend themselves better and are more used to armor. Limit BDB to +2 and as soon as a character gets it, it'd never improve; make it be -4 penalty instead (but never below zero), and he'd only be able to get some effective BDB when he gets +5 or better, showing he's growing more experienced at his techniques and at wearing armor.


Wolvorine wrote:


The Alchemist can create things that relate to his field because instead of using his own ability to manipulate Magic (which he doesn’t have), the Alchemist utilizes the inherent flow of Magic found in his ingredients. This takes considerably longer, but does suffice.

Yes, that is my line of thinking also. That's how I started the whole concept of potion brewing with alchemy. Now I'd just have to playtest it, see how it goes.

I got the Netbook of Herbs (it's old, for AD&D still), it has a trillion of herbs, too much for actual gameplay I believe, but good as source material. You can get it HERE

Man, it'd be so nice if the devs gave a little more attention to Alchemy in Pathfinder... oh well..


Yes, that's what I had in mind, Skilll and feats. I had suggested in the beginning of the thread using the Craft Alchemy to replicate the brewing of potions wiz's coud do.. with some Taxidermy and Herbalism to lower the cost of buying material.

You think it's a good idea?

Dread has given a cosmic list of plants so that Alchemycal-Herbal potions differs from Magical ones; it adds more to the game but I'm afraid it could get more complicated with so much detail on individual plants; maybe just have a list of possible Alchemical potions and the and DCs to to find the specific necessary herbs to make it and to actually make it.

I thought it would be simpler just replicating the magic potions we have... I don't know.. I'd have to play a lot to test all this stuff...


mindgamez wrote:

Converting my Alchemist and Herbalist Classes to PRPG has been a stumbling block. .........

.... I just really liked the idea of Infusions and made a couple of custom feats that let them use Artificer Infusions in the field by infusing vials of water and making instant potions on the fly. That is going to be hard to duplicate.

So you used Bastion's Press Alchemist and Herbalist classes or have made two of your own?

Like I mentioned in the start of this thread, wouldn't it be better Alchemy being a skill? Everyone could train in it, maybe even some feats (like Advanced Alchemy to make higher level potions... etc...).
Really, how much of alchemy is there to make a whole class based on it? Considering it's "weak-guy" style like wizards, so low BAB, low HP, it would have to balance out against the Wizard's spells by creating damn powerful potions by the lot... anyway.. I don't know the class.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
ledgabriel wrote:


Slime is right. While all these things (Alchemy, Martial Arts, Religion, Shamanism, etc...) are indeed based in real life concepts, they are all by far 100% accurate, they work as they should in a fantasy world. Their point here is not to mimic the same real-life concepts so people can understand about Spirituality/Martial Arts, etc... but to provide something we can have fun with, giving us freedom to experiment with things we wouldn't never do otherwise.

But you know, those things make sense enough assuming magic does exist as it does in D&D. Potion-makers did exist and still do (while not much respected anymore), people with knowledge of herbs and other ingredients would provide concoctions for people's needs just as we have our modern medicine now; and what is a medical pill but a more technological-advanced herbal concoction? Potions brewed with mystical/magical properties is not something of D&D, people would believe in decoctions like these, and, again,...

Shamanism, hermetic magic, druidism, these are exactly the things that tell me that, in no way should alchemy be included, because of the balls up that their representations in D'n'D represent. Hell, their isn't even any hermetism in d'n'd's take on hermetic traditions.

Really Zombieneighbours, with all due respect, please, this is not the topic for this. I started this to discuss new ideas for Alchemy in PRPG (whether the devs will incorporate anything of the sort isn't the point, they probably won't.. it's a big change and they aren't willing to go that far, but I want opinions for at least house rules). Alchemy as we know in our classic medieval-fantasy style: Old man in a hut mixing exotic ingredients to brew some mystical concoction... or the wanderer warrior who gathers herbs and animal parts to brew himself some healing salves and strength-boosting potion to drink during a fight. We are not here to discuss the search for ascension, the purification of the soul, the quest for inner growth idealism behind the alchemists of our time. And more important, it took years (for the few who actually came to understand it) for them to come to these realizations, they actually started trying to turn led into gold and brew a potion that would give them eternal life. Only a selected few came to see the "material illusion" these things were and were able to achieve a much higher level of spiritualism and understanding of life.

And you know what, if D&D magic were real, many of these alchemists would have gone a completely diferent path, fascinated by the actual ability to turn led into gold, extend their lives and being able to annihilate the king's army with a wave of his hand.

D&D's rules for magic (divine and arcane), martial arts, alchemy, etc etc... is not meant to mimic real world conceptions of these things, but it doesn't prevent you from using them in your game if you wish. If you want your potion-brewer wizard to start a search for his inner self, his ascension in the spiritual world and realization of the insignificance of these "material illusions" we live in; fine! The rules won't stop you. There is no rules for this and there shouldn't be, these are the "fluff" part of the game, you use these concepts as you like and understand.

If you want to discuss these more conceptual part of the game (or at least of Alchemy), please let us start another topic for this.
I asked for recipies for Banana-Pies and you are talking about the techniques the farmers use to plant bananas.
no hard feelings, ;-)


hogarth wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
I've never understood the call to drop the full round casting time for spontaneous casters, what reason is there for it other than wanting everything for free?
Well, I just want sorcerers to be able to use Quicken Spell; removing the extra time is a simple way to allow it. I don't really care whether Empower Spell takes a standard action or a full action, though.

Perfect Hogarth, it's my opinion also. Any other metamagic could take a full round to cast, no problem, just change Quicken. C'mon, it's already a 4 spell level increase! Since Sorceres get higher spell slots later than Wizards they are already being penalized.

What I think about Wizards (of the Coast) is that they overestimated spontaneus casting, sure it's good, it's great. But they ruined the Sorcerer because of that.

Use of metamagic feats? Full round to cast, you can already cast it spontaneously. Quicken Spell? No, you cast spells spontaneously, no Quicken for you. Leveling up? Wait a little more, stay a level behind the wizard for those higher slots, you already cast spells spontaneously. Special abilities? Hell no!! You can cast spells spontaneously, no need for more special abilites. Extra feats? Never!! You cast spells spotaneously, it's more than any feat would give you!


I'm one of those guys who usually like to mess with the rules, always trying to optimize something, make something better, have lots of house rules (not that I use them all.. but still). But in this case I must stick with the core rules, am I the only one who likes Metamagic as it is? But anyway.. here's my 1 CP...

Absolutely don't like this concept of improving (or using more) feats the more you have of the same kind... The reasoning behind this is not of my style definetively.

Now, burning your life force to empower spells... yeah.. this is good. Though I thought you started getting too complex, with those saves and tests and all... Leave the core rules and also let casters who don't want/can't spend more higher level slots burn their Con instead. No more 5th level slots and wanna Empower that fireball?? -2 Con...

I'd would suggest longer casting time to reduce the penalty by 1 (it could be a feat though, not a rule), maybe casting a Standard-Action Spell with 1 minute would reduce the penalty by 1. It's like taking your time to cast it more relaxed, slowly taking your time...


I posted something about Defense Bonus here but didn't get much attention, it seems few people have this line of thought.

Well, what I proposed was having 3 "levels" of Defense Bonus (just like BAB); High, Medium and Low.

High: Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Medium: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Druid, Monk
Low: Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard

I made the list based more or less on the Class BAB and Reflex saves. So Rangers that have High BAB and High Reflex should have High Defense Bonus, Rogues have Med BAB but High Reflex, still High Defense. Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin all have high BAB but Low Reflex and tend to rely more on armor (or physical brutishness in case of the Barbarian) so Medium Defense. Although numerically the Druid is the same as the Rogue, the concept of the Druid is not as an agile dodging character as the Rogue, so Medium Defense. Monks got Med Defense because they already have a natural class bonus to AC, so it could get insanely high otherwise.

Armor should restrict the amount of BDB (Base Defense Bonus) you can get as a penalty (but never going negative) instead of a limiting factor. Why? Because lower level character are less trained in fighting right? So they'd get less bonus (or nothing at all) than higher level ones. Limiting the BDB to +2 for a given armor for example, would make a level 5 rogue (lets say he can get +2 BDB at this level) get the same benefit from a 15th level one. More, a low level character is more dependable on his armor than higher level ones, that makes perfect sense, they are less experienced at fighting and depend more on armor.

I haven't figured out the numbers yet, but we have to be careful not to make Armor obsoletes at high levels. A 15th level rogue wearing a very light MW Leather Armor should be a little better than being armorless... but not necessarily better than one wearing a full plate.


Laurefindel wrote:
I'd say keep the 3.5 ed special materials rule and include a variant rule in a nice little frame next to the description of the special materials, stating what "+" is equivalent to what special material.

100% agree!!! It's not that hard and takes almost no extra space at all.. a littly sidebar... so small.. and solves a lot


Dread wrote:


Plentiful: DC- 5 Cost 1 CP Availability: 90%

1. Dandelion (Stems) made into Tea. Helps Prevent Disease.
+2 on Fo Saves vs Disease for a duration of 1 day after drinking tea.

2. Extripia <The Marching Plant> (Seeds) Seeds Boiled and treated. Reduces Fatigue. Reduces level of fatigue with FO save at +2 DC 10. a natural 20 reduces fatigue 2 levels......
.
.
.

Damn man.. where did you get this list? You actually play with this? I was thinking of something far less complex... but thanks a lot, it'll be of great help no doubt.

Slime wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

I would rather see 'the royal art' left out of Pathfinder altogether. (...)

Alchemy is a subject more than rich enough to be the subject of an entire game line. After all, the purification and transmutation of the soul, is hardly a theme that meshes well with Killing sentient creatures and takin' their stuff.
As opposed to Martial Arts, Druidism, Hermetic Magic, Religious Awakening, Shamanism, Witchcraft, etc?

Slime is right. While all these things (Alchemy, Martial Arts, Religion, Shamanism, etc...) are indeed based in real life concepts, they are all by far 100% accurate, they work as they should in a fantasy world. Their point here is not to mimic the same real-life concepts so people can understand about Spirituality/Martial Arts, etc... but to provide something we can have fun with, giving us freedom to experiment with things we wouldn't never do otherwise.

But you know, those things make sense enough assuming magic does exist as it does in D&D. Potion-makers did exist and still do (while not much respected anymore), people with knowledge of herbs and other ingredients would provide concoctions for people's needs just as we have our modern medicine now; and what is a medical pill but a more technological-advanced herbal concoction? Potions brewed with mystical/magical properties is not something of D&D, people would believe in decoctions like these, and, again, assuming D&D-magic does exists, why can't they be real? Today we have steroids, in more ancient times I'm sure it was already possible to brew something that would boost your physical abilities (yes, it would be toxic and have nasty side effects, but I'm sure it's not impossible to be done since steroids come from natural ingredients at some base), and in D&D you have magic to do this, and it can be made into a "drug" (a potion, via our magic-fantasy alchemy).


Finally we played a session with this,

Critical = Maximum Damage (in case of x3 weapons it's 1.5 max damage)
one below critical = +2 dmg bonus
minimum to hit = minimum damage
one above minimum = -2 dmg.

Seemed allright, it had the "ugh, barely touched him"... or "just a scratch" feeling. The players considered a bit more using power attack.. it was simple enough and finally it took away the "ok, with a 11 you hit him but not strong enough do deal damage (need a 12 to hit).. roll a 12 and you can deal max damage"...

In case any of the intervals overlaps, (like if you need 19 to hit someone) then just roll the dice normally.

Well.. in case they don't give an optional rule for armor as DR and it proves to cumbersome to house rule it; I´ll definitely play with this rule or something of the kind.

Any ideas?


Lilith wrote:
Master alchemist appeared in the Magic of Faerun book.

Oh, thanks Lilith.. gonna take a look at it. Is it nice, you use it?


Dread wrote:
Diferentiate between Alchemy and Herbalism.

Absolutely, they could work together, one adding to the other, but two independent things.

Dread wrote:


My homebrew campaign has it set up. I modified the 3.0 Prestige cass of master alchemist and that fills that niche...then created an extensive list of Herbs that can be used by an Herbalist....One is magical the other is natural. It works. Its fun, and adds a flare to the game.

Where did you get this prestige class? Would you mind giving a little more detail on how your system works? I like to see more ideas...


I started a post about defense bonus too. I think it makes sense... if character get better at hitting why don't they get better at avoiding blows?

I had thought of as having 3 BDB (Base Defense Bonus), High, Medium and Low, not the same bonuses as the BAB though; and would be something like this:

High: Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Medium: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Druid, Monk
Low: Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard

I made the list based more or less on the Class BAB and Reflex saves. So Rangers that have High BAB and High Reflex should have High Defense Bonus, Rogues have Med BAB but High Reflex, still High Defense. Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin all have high BAB but Low Reflex and tend to rely more on armor (or physical brutishness in case of the Barbarian) so Medium Defense. Although numerically the Druid is the same as the Rogue, the concept of the Druid is not as an agile dodging character as the Rogue, so Medium Defense. Monks got Med Defense because they already have a natural class bonus to AC, so it could get insanely high otherwise.

And yes, armor should restrict the amount of Defense Bonus you can get (since its concept is of dodging and mobility).

I'd like to play with Armor as DR and some sort of Defense bonus (with armor as DR there is no need of attacking rolls afection damage rolls like I mentioned, since if you didn't hit you didn't touch.. there's no such thing as "you hit but not strong enough"). I know PRPG will not have something of the sort as a standard rule, it would be a big change and they are not willing to go that far; I´m sure they will keep the common AC rules we all know; but it'd be very nice if they included something of the sort as an optinal rule at least... even if a small sidebar.


Yeah, I always think about in-game slow downs, your rule was quite complex though, maybe something simpler.

In case you rolled
The minimum to hit = Minimum damage
One above minimum = well.. one above minimum, all 2's
19 = 2 below the maximum (or maximum in case criticals are multiplied)
20 = maximum (or multiples as in the core rules)

all the rest you would roll normally... maybe just give a +1/-1 bonus for higher/lower rolls.

In case the minimum is a 19 or a 20... then just roll the damage normally... that would be the whole "emotion" of the hit...


Always in D&D the attack and damage rolls were two completely separate things, no matter if just rolled the minimum necessary or 12 numbers higher, your damage rolls were the same.

With 3.x (and pathfinder) we officialy had critical damage, when you rolled a 20 you did double damage (and all the x3, x4, etc..., or maximum damage now in 4th); but if you hit the minimum it is still the same as getting one closer to the critical.
Another point to address is the whole "armor makes you harder to hit" eternal problem D&D has always faced. I know if you rolled one below the minimum it doesn't mean you didnt hit the target, you may have hit but not strong enough do deal damage; but it's strange when you think that one number higher you'd get to roll damage and could deal a lot of damage... strange isn't it? One below the minimum wasn't strong enough to deal damage, roll one higher and you can deal maximum damage... if you roll a 20 you deal double damage....

One way to address this would be the classical house rule to have armor give DR and not AC, but i do not believe Pathfinder would consider this.

So, what I had in mind, as a way to make the attack rolls more significative, to actually have some meaning as to how your blow went; is to have the attack roll directly affect the damage roll. So, while rolling 20 is a critical (whether it's maximum or double damage), rolling the minimum necessary results in minimum damage (all 1's); rolling 1 above the minimum you would get a -3 penalty to the damage roll (but never below minimum); 1 below 20 would give you +3 bonus to damage (but never above maximum).

Wel.. it's not finished yet, but it's a start.

What you think?


amethal wrote:

Story wise, you apparently don't have a problem with waking up one morning and being able to cast magic missile 3 times a day, and disrupt undead 6 times a day.

However, you do have a problem with the flavour text of some other of the mysterious new abilities you've suddenly developed on a whim./QUOTE]

Gotta admit, it's true.


Raymond Gellner wrote:

This hits on a major problem with the defense bonus, PCs will be harder to hit, and so will monsters. This could slow the game down considerably.

Besides, there is already a defense bonus aspect to the game: the Combat Expertise feat.

It wouldn't slow down that much, as I said, armor interferes with mobility (max Dex) and thus also restricts how much you can get from your defense bonus. What it would do, is make light-armored fighters able to defend themselves. C'mon, a fighter wearing Leather has a ridiculous low AC, he'll be hit everytime; and the Combat Expertise feat just makes both opponents equally harder to hit, it's the same as saying "You get +4 to your AC and so does your opponent".

Why can't the light-armored fighter learn to be better at dodgig (Dodge Feat, +1 to Ac.. yeeee!!... :p) than his heavy-armored counterpart? The current system has no way to support this type of character.


Why it doesn't show?


A simple concept; as you level up you get bonuses to AC. If you get better at hitting things why not getting better at avoiding being hit? Specially for the physical combat-oriented classes.

Most D20 RPG's use some version of this mechaninc, including Iron Heroes, Star Wars and d20 Modern. And it has proven to be a good mechanic that makes sense.

My suggestion:

There are 3 "levels" of Defense Bonus (just like BAB); High, Medium and Low.

High: Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Medium: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Druid, Monk
Low: Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard

I made the list based more or less on the Class BAB and Reflex saves. So Rangers that have High BAB and High Reflex should have High Defense Bonus, Rogues have Med BAB but High Reflex, still High Defense. Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin all have high BAB but Low Reflex and tend to rely more on armor (or physical brutishness in case of the Barbarian) so Medium Defense. Although numerically the Druid is the same as the Rogue, the concept of the Druid is not as an agile dodging character as the Rogue, so Medium Defense. Monks got Med Defense because they already have a natural class bonus to AC, so it could get insanely high otherwise.

I still haven't worked out the numbers in itself, I thought about making them the same as the BAB progressing, but it's not a good idea after all; I believe they should be lower for balancing reasons.

Also, armor should restrict the amount of Defense Bonus you can get (since its concept is of dodging and mobility).

I would really like to see this in Pathfinder, it's interesting and gives more reliability to the light-armor agile type of fighter.

Any ideas?


The thing that has always bugged me in D&D is the "Armor makes you harder to hit" issue, I know it's not that what it means, maybe you hit the opponent but not hard enough to deal damage, but most of us aggree that it doesn't feel that way. So, I've always played with Armor as DR and I would really like to see (maybe as an optional rule) this concept in Pathfinder.

I would suggest converting directly all Armor (and natural armor) to DR, but at higher bonuses the conversion should be less; converting on a 1 to 1 basis for high AC's is not a good idea, a +8 Armor giving you 8 DR is too high in the game concepts and you have the problem that light-weapon combatants (including bow/crossbow shooters) don't deal enough damage, they hit fast and constantly but never deal damage. So there should be the need for some "aiming" which would let one strike vulnerable areas for a penalty (it would seem as the inverted idea, DR becomes AC, but it makes sense).

Any ideas?

I know there's all the "backwards compatibility" thing, but it's not that hard to convert to a DR system, your AC lowers and your DR increases... so please those that are going to be against, use other arguments.


Argamae wrote:

... the more open mechanic of the CMB allows for more creativity for the players. Before, I got the impression that D&D always facilitated maneuvers that were 'officially allowed", nudging players towards a "adjust-the-situation-to-fit-a-certain-maneuver" instead of the much more creative "think-of-a-maneuver-that-best-fits-the-situation" attitude. GMs can easily adjust the CMB requirements for a creative maneuver the player comes up with instead of telling him "no can do".

At least that is the way I see the possibilities.

Perfectly put, it's the way I see it too. Iron Heroes also gives a lot of freedom and stimulates players to think of interesting maneuvers, but the rules are a bit clunky. Now, with CMB (and some skill tests to not leave every maneuver with the same bonus) it's gotten simpler and faster. Thumbs up for CMB... with 15 DC.

Now.. Jason.. what about those 4 skill points for the sorcerer, uh?

lol.. just kidding, I don't wanna change topics


Now, sorcerers do need 4 skill points... it's about time devs quit being stubborn about this, from what I've seen, the great majority of people agree with this.


Krome wrote:

While I must admit I love the flavor and boost to the sorcerer, bloodlines

is not the way to go.

Bloodlines should be tied to race, not class.

For example, when my dwarven fighter takes a level of Sorcerer suddenly I get a Bloodline

that has never materialized before now. Ok, possible but stretches all credibility. The

bloodlines ONLY manifest for the sorcerer class.

Bloodlines can be limited to only manifesting at Character level 1, but then so much of the

new sorcerer is tied to the bloodline that multiclassing is hosed.

I would almost agree with your, but then I gave a second thought and saw it from another

angle.

Krome wrote:

when my dwarven fighter takes a level of Sorcerer suddenly I get a Bloodline

that has never materialized before now.

YES! Exactly, it has never materialized before until you started to look inward, look within

yourself to find the answers to what you are. Maybe you were always fond of the Fey, you

find yourself confortable in the wilderness and never knew why; maybe when a child you

always felt "haunted" when alone, had the feeling something evil was watching you; maybe

there's a reason why you were always good to people, why you had visions of angels when a

child... and innumerous other possibilities.
The point is, the power was always there, latent within you. And it never showed until now,

when you started to pursue a more personal path, get in touch with your inner self, accept

and develop your abilites.

Maybe one day your dwarven fighter suddently shot fire from his hands, he was completly

stunned by it, maybe he just let it go, probably something caused by the magic of the place

he was in... but then maybe it happened again, or it started troubling him so much he

couldn't igone the fact there was something different in him.. and it started to make sense,

why he was always drawn to fire, why he was so interested in dragons and while other people

would flee from even mentioning it he was curious to understand them... and he started to

understand himself a little more, understand and accept what he was, develop his innate

powers (and thus gaining sorcerer levels...)... or again, another possiblity... he didn't

give a rat's ass about it, he learned he could shoot a little fire from his hands, someone

told him he had dragon's blood in him.. "what the hell" he though, "might come in handy

sometimes", and continued his mastering of the sword and axe (got onelevel of sorcerer for

some Burning Hands and thats it... ).

Try to see the it from another angle. You can have a bloodline (no matter your race/class), and the sorcerer class is your "giving in" to these powers, it's the "developing" of the innate magic within you.

The class concept ends up opening a lot of roleplaying oportunities.


2x Caster Level is a lot... I mean, a 3º level potion would have a 31 DC... and assuming with some feats/ranks requirement one could brew higher level potions, a 4º level potion would be nearly impossible with a 37 DC and a 5º level potion would be crazy with a 43 DC!! Why would anyone want this....

I'm still against the spellcasting requirements however... let spellcasters magically enchant their potions and alchemists brew them with their herbs/exotic monster parts and knowledge. I see it as two different things.


I don't like the concept of taking days and days to make a potion... what could take so long? you extract the ingredients from raw materials, boil them or something, mix them up and voi'la! Please no lecture on potion making here, I'm just saying it looks weird for me taking 5 days to brew a potion. A full day is a long time already, and the cost is pretty high, 3x the normal for a spellcaster, it's enough to limit the mass production.

Now, higher DCs? That could be, it's a delicate matter mixing up those things... what would you suggest? I said 15 + Caster Level + Spell Level, maybe 2*Spell Level???

Alchemist as a class? Doesn't sound bad, but the game in itself would have to change a lot, in D&D everything revolves around magic and magical stuff, there's no place for someone as an alchemist unless he's a spellcaster (note that I'm against this concept, one of the reasons I started the topic... make the game less "Harry Potterish")


Krauser_Levyl wrote:

For instance, if you wanted to play a hobgoblin wizard on 3.5E, the talk with your DM would be like this:

Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Okay... uh.. why?
Player: Well, no particular reason.
DM: But... do you know that you will have a +1 level adjustment?
Player: Yes.
DM: And... you know that you won't have 3rd-level spells because of this level adjustment?
Player: Yeah, I don't care.
DM: Alright. But don't complain later.
Player: I won't.
DM: ... Hey, look, I will warn you that this is a serious campaign with a very well prepared plot. No comic relief characters, please?
Player: But it's not a comic relief character.
DM: Then, why do you want to play a hobgoblin wizard?
Player: I dunno... maybe because I like hobgoblins and wizards?
DM: Okay, enough of it.

And on 4E would be like this:

Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Okay.

What are you saying...? That's completely to the players (including DM) if they like unusual characters, how much freedom the DM allows, etc... anyway, if one of my players wanted to play a Hobgoblin Wizard I would've stopped at:

"DM: ... you know that you will have a +1 level adjustment?
Player: Yes."
And just because some people forget about this stuff.. otherwise would be just like your 4th ed talk.

Anyway, here's my view on this conversation.

3.5
---
Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Interesting, that's different, but sure, if you want. Just remember you'll have a +1 level adjustment, is that Ok?
Player: Oh yeah, Ok, no problem.
DM: Go ahead then.

.
.

4.0
---

Player: I want to play a hobgoblin wizard.
DM: Ok, here's your character:

Hobgoblin Warcaster
Level 3 Controller (Leader)
Medium natural humanoid XP 150

Initiative +5 Senses Perception +4; low-light vision
HP 46; Bloodied 23
AC 17; Fortitude 13, Refl ex 15, Will 14
Speed 6

m Quarterstaff (standard; at-will) &#10022; Weapon
+8 vs. AC; 1d8 + 1 damage.
M Shock Staff (standard; recharge &#9859; &#9860; &#9861; ) &#10022; Lightning, Weapon
Requires quarterstaff ; +8 vs. AC; 2d10 + 4 lightning damage, and
the target is dazed until the end of the hobgoblin warcaster’s
next turn.
R Force Lure (standard; recharge &#9860; &#9861; ) &#10022; Force
Ranged 5; +7 vs. Fortitude; 2d6 + 4 force damage, and the target
slides 3 squares.
C Force Pulse (standard; recharge &#9861; ) &#10022; Force
Close blast 5; +7 vs. Refl ex; 2d8 + 4 force damage, and the target
is pushed 1 square and knocked prone. Miss: Half damage, and
the target is neither pushed nor knocked prone.

Hobgoblin Resilience (immediate reaction, when the hobgoblin
warcaster suffers an effect that a save can end; encounter)
The hobgoblin warcaster rolls a saving throw against the eff ect.

Alignment Evil
Languages Common, Goblin
Skills Arcana +10, Athletics +4, History +12
Str 13 (+2) Dex 14 (+3) Wis 16 (+4)
Con 14 (+3) Int 19 (+5) Cha 13 (+2)
Equipment robes, quarterstaff

Hobgoblin Warcaster Tactics:
A hobgoblin warcaster uses force lure and force pulse to maneuver
enemies into the waiting steel of a line of soldiers, followed
by shock staff to daze them while within its allies’ reach
------


Archade wrote:
Ummm ... just a random thought. Couldn't someone with Use Magic Device be able to duplicate the Brew Potion feat? With a DC 20 UMD, they can emulate a class feature (spellcasting), so I imagine a DC 25 UMD would let you duplicate an Item Creation Feat ...

They probably could but wouldn't be as fun :D :D

Chef's Slaad wrote:


  • Material cost for the potion is 25 x caster level x spell level, using the lowest value for any class. ...
    ....
  • This means we have potions that cost either 25 gp (1st level) 150 gp (2nd level) or 375gp (3rd level)....
  • I just put on a higher cost because I thought it might be unfair to Spellcasters who brew potions, I mean, they (Spellcasters) need to cast their spells and expend XP in addition to the cost. An alchemist just paying the same cost without casting any spells or XP seem unjust. And besides... they are casting spells, it's easier this way.. the Alchemist is doing the same potion without the aid of any spell, so it's reasonable they need more material/dedication.

    Chef's Slaad wrote:


    the material cost assumes the alchemist has a fully stocked lab. Gathering (or buying) components for the potion is assumed to be part of the brewing process and doesn't need to be played out. At least not allways. If the alchemist have the ingredients he needs this either impacts the DC or the cost (Im'n not sure how yet).

    Yes, the cost would assume he bought everything... but if he didn't buy, there would be no need to spend the money. So I tried this "extract creature parts" thing, but in a simple way, you don't need to specify what parts are there, just how much gp you've got worth from it. Of course, special exotic ingredients should be given particular attention.

    But again, you could already work with a reduced cost (like the one you mentioned) and assume the Alchemist is constantly gathering stuffs as he ventures out, much like the Wiz's component pouch.

    1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>