So I went and got some help and fixed up/recreated this homebrew feat.
What do you guys think?
Shield Evasion (Combat)
You can use your shield to hide from deadly area attacks.
Prerequisites
Shield Focus, Lightning Reflexes
Benefit
While you're wielding a shield you have the option of taking an Immediate Action. This Immediate action allows you to take your shields AC Bonus as bonus to your Reflex Save. If you fail the Reflex Save by 4 or more, your shield is subject to damage from the effect.
OH, and I wanted to try something out.. What if you take the helmets from the armor suits and remove them..
Then integrate helmets as items into the armor system.
Before
Padded Leather Helmet, (Cap, or Hood) +1 AC, 1% Chance to Negate Critical
Iron Helmet, (Cap, or Mail Hood) +1 AC, 2% Chance to Negate Critical, -1 ACPFull Padded Leather Helmet +2 AC, 2% Chance to Negate Critical
Full Metal Helmet +2 AC, 4% Chance to Negate Critical, -1 ACPRegular Helmets give a -2 penalty to visual perception checks in your flanks, and rear.
Full Helmets give a -5 penalty to visual perception checks in your flanks, and rear.
After
3 Gold = Padded Cap (1lbs., 1% Negate Critical, -1 Listen)
6 Gold = Leather Hood (2 lbs. 2% Negate Critical, -1 Listen)
14 Gold = Metal Cap (3 lbs., +1 AC, 3% Negate Critical, -1 ACP, -1 Listen)
18 Gold = Padded Mail Coif (5 lbs., +1 AC, 4% Negate Critical, -2 ACP, -2 Listen)21 Gold = Padded Leather Full Helm (4 lbs., +1 AC, 5% Negate Critical, -1 ACP, -5 Spot/Listen)
26 Gold = Padded Metal Full Helm (7 lbs., +2 AC, 5% Negate Critical, -2 ACP, -10 Spot/Listen)
Would either of those work.
No one likes my topic. -Pouts-
No one likes my topic. -Pouts-
I just now read it, let me digest...
I don't really like the %. I would suggest having them add to the confirmation roll instead.
Edited Helmets, removed the ACP, was silly of me to put it there.
3 Gold = Padded Cap (1lbs., 1% Negate Critical, -1 Listen)
6 Gold = Leather Hood (2 lbs. 2% Negate Critical, -1 Listen)
14 Gold = Metal Cap (3 lbs., +1 AC, 3% Negate Critical, -1 Listen)
18 Gold = Padded Mail Coif (5 lbs., +1 AC, 4% Negate Critical, -2 Listen)21 Gold = Padded Leather Full Helm (4 lbs., +1 AC, 5% Negate Critical, -5 Spot/Listen)
26 Gold = Padded Metal Full Helm (7 lbs., +2 AC, 5% Negate Critical, -10 Spot/Listen)
Still no comments, no one likes me or my ideas >.>
Still no comments, no one likes me or my ideas >.>
I have to agree with Xaaon of Korvosa about the % chance to negate critical hits. I'd go with what he said, the attacker takes a penalty to confirm the critical or something like that. I like Shield Evasion, it helps out Fighters and Barbarians (heck it helps out Rangers with shields too) that don't have good reflex saves. Now if only there was a feat to that gave you Uncanny Dodge :P (or something similar)
WAIT... what??? HUH!??
OOooh.. I see what he did thar... I didn't notice before that he edited his post. The text was not very wall and so I assumed he didn't come back and post.
<.< My bad.
OKIES, now that I see people do love me. -Hugs you both- EDITING PROCESS TIME.. MWAUUHAHUAUAUHAHAUHAUHAHUA -Runs off down the hall, slams a large wooden door behind me, and many sounds of banging, clanging, and sawing begin.-
Still no comments, no one likes me or my ideas >.>I have to agree with Xaaon of Korvosa about the % chance to negate critical hits. I'd go with what he said, the attacker takes a penalty to confirm the critical or something like that. I like Shield Evasion, it helps out Fighters and Barbarians (heck it helps out Rangers with shields too) that don't have good reflex saves. Now if only there was a feat to that gave you Uncanny Dodge :P (or something similar)
WAIT!
Uhm.. that would not be wise.
If I were to add it to the Confirm AC, EACH point would be adding 5% to the hit chance required.
Meaning that I might as well give the lower helmets each 5% chance to negate, and the higher ones 10% each.
It's MUCH better to stick with a single 1 % chance IMO.
5 X 20 = 100
1D20 = 100%
19-20 = 10% Crit Chance
AC 10 = 50% Chance to be hit against a +0 Attack (I think)
So you want me to tack 5% onto it for each of the lower helmets as I said, instead of like 1% >.>
You're telling me to give the helmets a massive buff.. <.<
Unless I have my math backwards, in which case that would suck as I'd both feel and look stupid.
Don't think that I'm wrong though. >.>
I worked on helmets and other assorted bits of armor as options, presented in Luven Lightfinger's Gear & Treasure Shop. What we determined was that a helmet - or other parts of armor - added to the overall AC of the wearer, with corresponding penalties to Perception, additional Armor Check penalties, etc. Wearing a Frog's Mouth helmet for example, was -2 to Perception, -1 to Fortitude saves against heat (since your head was in a tin kettle, essentially) required at least Medium Armor, +1 to AC, reduced your max Dex bonus to +4, added -2 to your armor check penalty, 40% chance Arcane Spell Failure (since hearing and speaking were impaired), +1 to attack with lance due to the focus of the slit, and weighed 15 lbs - it rested on your shoulders, not so much your neck. Also, it cost 100 gp.
Sean
4WFG
Armor and Shields is the percentage chance that the spell fails and is ruined. If the spell lacks a somatic component, however, it can be cast with no chance of arcane spell failure.
Well, no offence or anything, and although I do slightly agree that perhaps it could screw spells over with verbal components. Emphasis on the could.
I'm not looking to create a +1 AC helmet that gives you that single bonus, with a cost of 100 gp, and then so many damned negatives that I'd throw it out the damned window or into the nearest pit trap I could see. That or leave the damned thing on the ground.
I'm assuming that Helmet had a tongue ability, otherwise to me it would be utterly worthless. 15 lbs, 40% spell fail, reduces max dex, -2 to acp, -2 to Perception... all for a +1 to ac pretty much.. Seems... Wrong.
I'll be gentle with that.
Anyway. I'm looking to create a relatively nice, and perhaps slightly realistic helmet. I am aware that perhaps some would add an AC, but for the most part the helmets I have have nothing to do with impairing speech. In fact the only one that actually would do anything like that. Is the Full Metal Helmet which I have listed. Everything else is open-mouth.
The only thing that I could see giving an ACP would be the mail coif which could go over your shoulders a bit, or a heavier weighted helmet.
Aside from that, the perceptions are only like that for people who don't use a realistic combat system. I use a realistic combat system. I.E. Combat Facing... Shields block where they can block, flanking is really flanking, and the perceptual negatives would be increasing your flank and rear perception checks, specifically to spot.
I appreciate you trying to help and all, but it really just seems to me that you're trying to sell me a product. You came in, laid down a product name, and then told me the exact basics of what armor is, or what a helmet would/should do, or at least in some cases. Then you presented an overly negative helmet option that is just not good... Unless of course there is some untold benefit of which you've yet to reveal.
So thank you for trying to help, and I may look at the product, but if indeed it was your intention to try and sell said product. Please refrain from doing so in the future. It's not nice, and you weren't a real help.
Pre. Script. My post may be offensive as I feel annoyed that it really seems like you just tried to sell me a product. Especially since you didn't even try and help me it seems.
No offence, but the helmet option you presented seems HORRIBLE for something with those benefits. If there are untold benefits then MAYBE it would be slightly good.
Aside from that, the helmets I've presented are 95% Open mouthed, there is only 1-2 which DO, and COULD/maybe have mouth coverings. Therefore all my helmets would NOT screw over your ASF.
As for ACP, they would not likely do that unless they weighed much, and the only ones I could see doing that are the metal ones, probably not the cap.
Coif, and Full only I would assume.
My helmets may not be perfect, and I shall attempt to remedy cost and weight problems later.. But your helmet option seems REALLY BAD.
Also, it REALLY does seem like you came in here and posted with the intent to sell me a product.
If this is true, I most certainly do not appreciate the way you went about it, especially considering you gave me reference to what seems to be a badly made item in all respects for a single +1 AC. 5% chance to not get hit.
I do however, thank you for the heat save idea.
You said you're working on ideas for helmets. I have done the same thing, in a product that was actually printed by a publisher and is selling nicely. I explained how we implemented it, and the factors we took into consideration.
Here's the thing. With a +1 to AC, a helmet + Breastplate gives you a total +7 to AC, with +2 Max Dex Bonus, -6 Armor Check Penalty - in other words, about the same protection as splint or banded mail, for around the same price, and a slight advantage in DEX bonus.
With a +2 to AC and no armor check penalty, a helmet + Breastplate gives you +8 to AC, with +2 Max Dex Bonus, -4 armor check penalty. This gives you armor that is considerably better than Half Plate, for less than half the cost. That seems a bit unfair; why would you ever buy half plate?
Now, add a heavy shield. Using our system, a helmet, breastplate, and heavy shield total +9 AC, with +2 Max Dex Bonus, -8 armor check penalty. It's a little worse than Full Plate, but costs less than a quarter of the amount. You pay for that with the weight (55 lbs vs 50 lbs) and the armor check penalty (-8 vs -6).
Using your system, that's +10 AC, +2 Max Dex, -6 Armor Check Penalty for around 250 gp - 1/6th of a price of full plate, and more protective to boot. Again, that begs the question - why ever buy full plate?
When you make regular equipment pointless, you have to wonder about balance and/or power creep.
|
That seems a bit unfair; why would you ever buy half plate?
You know someone that has bought half plate? I figured it was in the book for role-play story reasons, and to give GMs a sneezy way to give baddies armor the PCs won't want.
Rare as games are where the gold cost savings half plate offers (it's only benefit I can see) matter, I still have never seen it purchased, if only out of pride.
Using your system, that's +10 AC, +2 Max Dex, -6 Armor Check Penalty for around 250 gp - 1/6th of a price of full plate, and more protective to boot. Again, that begs the question - why ever buy full plate?
You would buy full plate because regardless of MDB, ASF, and ACP (none of which a tin-can meat shield really is overly concerned with), you could get to +13 AC using the above config.
OH, and I wanted to try something out.. What if you take the helmets from the armor suits and remove them..
Then integrate helmets as items into the armor system.
Can you add enhancement bonuses to the helmets? What about non-enhancement magical enchantments? If high-level characters can add +7 AC from a helmet, I'm mildly concerned about the impact to hit/AC ratios (i.e. anything capable of hitting a player with that high of AC will likely kill them).
(Edit: WTB spell check in browser)
You came in, boasted about your product, posted a helmet that had massive penalties.
Compare your helmet to my leather cap/hood. Your helmet is rather heavily penalized for such a small bonus, and rather unrealistic in that respect.
The interaction between the armors and the helmets had not reached my thought processing in entirety yet. It appears as if you attempted to try and relate as to why you put these massive penalties on your helmet in your first post, but you skipped it. Nor was it obvious, and nor should it have been.
Your second post once again bragged about your product. (Stop doing that)
Doesn't make you any better than myself or others, nor any more correct in your methods. Makes you luckier in the respective aspect, that is all.
You made aware the fact of game balance implications in your second post, after bragging, it should have been made in the first post, without boasting.
Several things about you annoy me to all hell, plus I'm probably having a bad day.
I apologize for overreacting, but you must understand that you shouldn't have posted in the manner that you did, same as I should not have reacted in the manner that I did.
Oh well...
You did help me realize the game balancing implications, thank you. However, I'm going to attempt to make my helmets more realistic than yours and still keep it all balanced, instead of tacking on unrealistic penalties to a leather cap or hood...which in my honest opinion is just a retarded idea, no offence meant to be given. I'm just stating my belief, which I believe to be quite factual in respect to realism. At least with the comparison of applying those penalties to a leather cap/hood.
Now then, onto the next guy.
Wtf do you mean spellchecker, what the hell is misspelled and why do you feel the desire to point it out as you have done so?
The topic name is not "Perfect Spelling of 2010".
No the helmets are not enchantable in said respect.
I am a little concerned with an additional type of AC bonus (or is it an armor bonus that stacks?). I fear that the result will be that all characters raise their AC by 1 or 2. As such I'm not sure what is gained apart from making everyone more difficult to hit.
If you are going to the pain of adding helms and helmets to your game, you might want to think about including items that are a bit more historically accurate.
I'm thinking bascinet helms, pot helms, visored full helms, etc.
CJ
People, calm. Arguing on the internet is about the least productive thing there is.
By curiosity, are the helmets (as you propose them) inclusive in the existing armours, or are they add-ons?
For example, should I wear a full plate armour without the helmet, would I get the armour bonuses as indicated in the RaW or as they would be if I removed everything that a heavy full-face helmet would give me?
One thing does concern me. If helmets grant armour bonus to AC, constancy with the rest of the rules suggests that helmets may be enchanted. Personally, I don't like the idea of yet another item to enchant for yet another +5 to AC.
What I dig however is the diminished risk of receiving critical blows, one way or another. Personally, I think that a % miss chance works great (although I think you are very timid your %). However, a raise in the DC for opponents to confirm their critical hits would work to.
'findel
I already intend to go and gather some more historical data and then integrate that into my design.
Unfortunately I've been either tired, or busy.
Having an optional item that people can wear to make themselves all happy-like? Enemies can wear them too.
It would make Crits possibly less devastating, I dunno.
If my raise in the DC, you mean an increase to Confirm Crit AC.
That's been done, AS well as the % chance to negte.
You would NOT be able to enchant helmets via +5 AC to magic
In fact, I'm still on a weening stage where helmets may not even give you a bonus to AC, but just help protect from criticals.
As of now, I'm not entirely decided.
I'd like to think that part of the AC granted to those armors are from the helmets included.
Thus a +1 helmet, brings the full plate down to +8 AC
This could represent a problem with lower armor though, but maybe.
Also at my current desire, they may have categories like Light, Medium, and Heavy Proficiency.
-Looks at your name posted, looks at your username-
I already intend to go and gather some more historical data and then integrate that into my design.
Unfortunately I've been either tired, or busy.
There are many types of protective headgear and only so much mechanical differences you can do with them. I'd stick with broad categories and state a few examples of what fits in those categories.
If my raise in the DC, you mean an increase to Confirm Crit AC.That's been done, AS well as the % chance to negate.
Either one, the other or both. It still is my favorite 'feature' of helmets for D&D.
You would NOT be able to enchant helmets via +5 AC to magicIn fact, I'm still on a weening stage where helmets may not even give you a bonus to AC, but just help protect from criticals.
As of now, I'm not entirely decided.
Not having the helmets enhanced by magic would be somewhat counter intuitive with the rest of the armour bonus to AC rules. It would create a corner case, which IMO, isn't necessary.
That's why I'd prefer if you left the AC bonus out of this affair. Also it would make it less tempting to give an AC bonus to solerets, gantlets, bracers and other armour parts that one may or may not wear alone or in combination with a suit of armour, should you expand your houserules along the way.
I'd like to think that part of the AC granted to those armors are from the helmets included.Thus a +1 helmet, brings the full plate down to +8 AC
This could represent a problem with lower armor though, but maybe.
Also at my current desire, they may have categories like Light, Medium, and Heavy Proficiency.
I advice that whatever you do does not take anything from the suits of armour should you remove the helmet. If anything, have the helmet add a particularity to an existing suit of armour. This way, you don't have to go through the process of removing AC bonus and whatnot when you design a NPC (or use one that is already published) and it looses/doesn't wear a helmet. Then, the process should be "does the NPC wear a helmet? No, then no adjustments. Yes, then add this ability." That's another reasons why I'd leave the AC bonus out of the equation.
I think the Light/Medium/Heavy helmet categories is the way to go. Most models of protective headgear should fit in one of those. It also takes care of proficiencies and give you three levels of protection to play with.
'findel
Not meaning to thread-jack...
...But am I the only one who read the title of the thread and got this image of Elmer Fudd singing 'Spear and Magic Helmet!'.
Sorry...
Back on topic...
I agree that the current system doesn't handle helmets, but, putting them in is a huge headache (I tried). I am hoping that perhaps in PFII they will redo the armor section to make armor sectional with AC bits per section, so you could wear a breastplate with leather armor for example, and cover helmets as well as boots and gauntlets.
|
I love the Shield Evasion thing.
The Helmet issue I don't really see as working....yet. The padded cap and leather hood just plain suck. I give up 1 perception for a 1 or 2 % chance to negate a crit? Not even close to an even trade. For those 2 items I would remove the penalties involved and up the cost slightly.
The headgear that adds to AC seems to work out better with my only suggestion being to at least double the pricing.
I could also see expanding this to include mantles that protect the neck and back of the head and maybe some bone or wood reinforced leather/cloth caps and hoods.
Overall I like the premise and would love to see it refined a bit.
I love the Shield Evasion thing.
The Helmet issue I don't really see as working....yet. The padded cap and leather hood just plain suck. I give up 1 perception for a 1 or 2 % chance to negate a crit? Not even close to an even trade. For those 2 items I would remove the penalties involved and up the cost slightly.
The headgear that adds to AC seems to work out better with my only suggestion being to at least double the pricing.I could also see expanding this to include mantles that protect the neck and back of the head and maybe some bone or wood reinforced leather/cloth caps and hoods.
Overall I like the premise and would love to see it refined a bit.
The idea is slowly being refined, and I decided to go back to my original plan, but use some more historically accurate names.
Now I just gotta do some research..
Also, if you don't think a -1 to perception is a fair trade for even the SLIGHTEST CHANCE to negate a critical hit attempt on you.
I'd say something is wrong with you.
Anyway... AC is no longer included.
New Helmets Rough
Leather Coif, 1% Negate
Mail Coif, 7 lbs. 2% Negate
Camail, 3% Negate
Barbute, 6 lbs, 4% Negate, -3 Perception
Armet, +1 AC against Confirm Critical, -6 Perception
Now then, looking at the perception... -Lowers from -5, and -10 to -3, and -6.
This might change... actually, nah, I'll keep like it is now.
Okay, I need to get gold cost and weight.. however...
I can counter the cost by adding another penalty.. Sooo
Leather Coif, 1% Negate
Mail Coif, 7 lbs. 2% Negate
Camail, 3% Negate
Barbute, 6 lbs, 4% Negate, -3 Perception
Armet, +1 AC against Confirm Critical, -6 Perception, -2 ACP
There, that will enable me to keep the cost down for the armet due to its nice bonus there.
If you're not aware a +1 AC (5%) according to the I think it's the Arms and Equipment Guide costs 750 gold.
Don't think we want a helmet costing 750 gold, One of the reasons for the -2 to acp. The others due to the fact that it gets hot, and you can't breath as well.
Now then, if you'd be using these helmets with a realistic combat variant. (Combat Facing)
The perception penalties would change to as follows.
Barbute, 6 lbs, 4% Negate, -5 Perception to Flank, -10 to Rear
Armet, +1 AC against Confirm Critical, -5 Perception to Flank, -10 to Rear, -2 ACP
Will be updating Weights and all that jazz later.
|
|
Also, if you don't think a -1 to perception is a fair trade for even the SLIGHTEST CHANCE to negate a critical hit attempt on you.
I'd say something is wrong with you.
A -1 to every perception check, all the time(a bunch of times a game session), or the chance to, maybe once a game session, have a 1 or 2 % chance to negate a crit.....that's a much bigger negative than the positive. The positive most likely will never be a factor in the character's career. That's my reasoning. Just an opinion but if you don't like it then don't use it. It's all good and I still think you are doing some cool stuff here.
Updated, added weight.
Leather Coif, 1% Negate Critical, 1.5 lbs.
Mail Coif, 7 lbs. 2% Negate Critical, 5.5 lbs.
Camail, 3% Negate Critical, 7 lbs.
Barbute, 6 lbs, 4% Negate Critical, -3 Perception, 5.5 lbs.
Armet, +1 AC against Confirm Critical, -6 Perception, -2 ACP, 20% ASF, 12 lbs.
|
|
Basically fortification, if broken down turns into 500gp per 3% chance (roughly). Skills break down to +1 per 500gp. If I am giving up 1 skill point I would expect at least a 3% fortification if not a smidge more. That's what I base it on.
For my math- light fortification is a +1 ability to armor so it would cost at least 4000gp to add to a suit and gives 25%
Most skills in magic items are +5 for 2500gp. See ring of jumping among others....
That's where I am coming from on this.
I see a problem with your calculations.
They are magical bonuses.
Thus they are achieved through means to gather an effect which are both not possible by normal/practical/non-magical means.
THUS, it stands to reason that they would cost more for the simple fact that they are magical bonuses.
Therefore I would not use that to rate a skill's price.
But you also have to take into account that these are different items than armor.
And also non-magical. Thus it would be perfectly reasonable for the armor to give you more of a benefit vs it with the magical effect at no penalty.
These however, once again are non-magical, non-armor armor / (Helmets).
Some of them WOULD actually block your vision in some cases.
You also have to take into cost the pure fact that if we went by what you're saying.
My Leather Helm would be 160 gold I think?
We don't want that... now do we.
Thus we'll keep it at a fair price, and for the higher ups we'll add a negative to keep with both realism, and fair price.
Also, we shouldn't price everything necessarily. Just because you sleep and it gives you -10, are you saying that sleeping should have a gold refund?
So that every time you sleep, you get extra gold equal to that penalty to spend while you're sleeping.
(Lets not point out the fact that you basically can't buy anything while you're sleeping)
but rather the fact that you gain other benefits from sleeping.
Anyway.
Magical Means can be more expensive, or cheaper. It really depends.
Well, it's not perfect but it works for now.
Leather Coif
5 Gold, 1% Negate Critical, 1.5 lbs.
Mail Coif, 7 lbs.
15 Gold, 2% Negate Critical, 5.5 lbs.
Camail
30 Gold, 3% Negate Critical, 7 lbs.
Barbute
60 Gold, 6 lbs, 4% Negate Critical, -3 Perception, 5.5 lbs.
Armet
100 Gold, +1 AC against Confirm Critical, -6 Perception, -2 ACP, 20% ASF, 12 lbs.
"Shield Evasion"
I think less words and thoughts make this feat better. Something like:
"You may add your shield bonus to your reflex saves versus area effects. You must be wielding a shield and enhancement bonuses to the shield are not added to the save."
|
|
I wasn't saying that you should use the magic item pricing as a guide. I was stating that per magic item pricing, a +1 stat boost would be equal to a +3% to fortification. So a -1 perception would offset a +3% to fortification. So why would I ever even consider taking a -3 perception penalty in exchange for 4% fortification? -3 perception should entail an equal (or close to) exchange, or a +9% to fortification.
And on that note I am done with your thread. You have decided to be condescending and belittling and I don't feel it was deserved in a thread where you asked for assistance, review and ideas.
For reference here is the quotes I am unhappy with-
"We don't want that... now do we."
"Also, we shouldn't price everything necessarily. Just because you sleep and it gives you -10, are you saying that sleeping should have a gold refund? So that every time you sleep, you get extra gold equal to that penalty to spend while you're sleeping. (Lets not point out the fact that you basically can't buy anything while you're sleeping)"
If you can't take advise or minor critiquing, don't ask for it. Just do whatever you want and use it in your game.
Good day.
|
|
Now then, onto the next guy.
Wtf do you mean spellchecker, what the hell is misspelled and why do you feel the desire to point it out as you have done so?
The topic name is not "Perfect Spelling of 2010".
No the helmets are not enchantable in said respect.
My comment about a spell check in a browser was to explain why my post might flag as being edited. I submitted my post, saw misspellings, then edited them to correct it. I wanted to be sure no one thought I was editing my post to actually change anything I said. My apologies for any confusion.
I wasn't saying that you should use the magic item pricing as a guide. I was stating that per magic item pricing, a +1 stat boost would be equal to a +3% to fortification. So a -1 perception would offset a +3% to fortification. So why would I ever even consider taking a -3 perception penalty in exchange for 4% fortification? -3 perception should entail an equal (or close to) exchange, or a +9% to fortification.
And on that note I am done with your thread. You have decided to be condescending and belittling and I don't feel it was deserved in a thread where you asked for assistance, review and ideas.
For reference here is the quotes I am unhappy with-
"We don't want that... now do we."
"Also, we shouldn't price everything necessarily. Just because you sleep and it gives you -10, are you saying that sleeping should have a gold refund? So that every time you sleep, you get extra gold equal to that penalty to spend while you're sleeping. (Lets not point out the fact that you basically can't buy anything while you're sleeping)"If you can't take advise or minor critiquing, don't ask for it. Just do whatever you want and use it in your game.
Good day.
Are you going to complain next how mages can't wear closed helms because it's bad for their casting and not fair? In my opinion the 3% per -1 perception SHOULD NOT be a vital game balancing feature here....
Seriously. Good, leave then, you weren't helping anyway, you were complaining about 3% fortification (Something that is FAR more valuable than a 1 perception in the 1% mark IMHO.)
I would NOT EVER trade those for 1 to 1, they are not equals in my eyes.
The fact of the matter was that you were saying 3% fort is equal to 1 perception skill rank..... I see that as HIGHLY unlikely.
Tell me, would you rather be able to have the highest perception in the world and STILL not see the guy sneaking up from your flank or rear.
Or would you rather have a normal perception and have even the slightest chance, if not immunity to the critical hit he's about to land on you.
You tell me which is worth more.
My comment about a spell check in a browser was to explain why my post might flag as being edited. I submitted my post, saw misspellings, then edited them to correct it. I wanted to be sure no one thought I was editing my post to actually change anything I said. My apologies for any confusion.Now then, onto the next guy.
Wtf do you mean spellchecker, what the hell is misspelled and why do you feel the desire to point it out as you have done so?
The topic name is not "Perfect Spelling of 2010".
No the helmets are not enchantable in said respect.
My apologies for reacting the way that I did.
If you wish to change something in your post feel free, I don't mind the reason really.
Also, I respect your desire to improve your spelling, I just dislike when people point it out to others on a constant basis and treat minor spelling errors like the plague.
Which is what I thought you were doing, so once again and very much so, my apologies.
"Shield Evasion"
I think less words and thoughts make this feat better. Something like:
"You may add your shield bonus to your reflex saves versus area effects. You must be wielding a shield and enhancement bonuses to the shield are not added to the save."
You're probably very correct on this point, and I have no choice but to agree with you.
I'll make the changes as you suggested.
Shield Evasion (Combat)
You can use your shield to hide from deadly area attacks.
Prerequisites: Shield Focus, Lightning Reflexes
Benefit: While wielding a shield you may add your shield bonus to your reflex save as an immediate action vs area effects. If you fail the save by 4 or more, your shield is subject to the damage. You cannot use a buckler for this effect.
Updated it, sort of stayed within the same text area, but it looks much better in my opinion.
I still think that your % of negating a critical hit are VERY timid. Receiving a confirmed critical hit is a (somewhat) rare occurrence as it is. Depending on the DM style, I'd say it happens, in average, somewhere between once per game to once every third or fourth game.
Even at 4% chance of negating a critical blow, it is an ability that kicks in once every 25 to 100 games. Is it really worth it?
I remember discussing this subject with you before. Since then, I've been playing that helmets (I have only two categories) negate a critical hit either 20% of the time or 50% of the time). After 3 month or so, this has saved about 5 critical hits so far (all players and NPC together). Granted, only one character wears a helmet and they have faced mainly monsters without protective gears, but all that to say that it hasn't been game breaking.
On the other hand, I've removed Armour Fortifications from the game. I always liked the mechanical effect, but I never cared much for the "more enchanted than enchanted armour" concept. Instead, I shifted the ability to helmets (without the protection from sneak attacks and precision damage).
I remember that you didn't like the idea of removing fortification and shifting their advantages to helmets (at a bargain price!). Yet, I think that if a player must endure the penalties of a helmet several time per game (since perception checks are frequent and -3 is a significant penalty), the turnout effect should kick-in every second or third game or so, not every 50th game...
|
|
I still think that your % of negating a critical hit are VERY timid. Receiving a confirmed critical hit is a (somewhat) rare occurrence as it is. Depending on the DM style, I'd say it happens, in average, somewhere between once per game to once every third or fourth game.
Even at 4% chance of negating a critical blow, it is an ability that kicks in once every 25 to 100 games. Is it really worth it?
I remember discussing this subject with you before. Since then, I've been playing that helmets (I have only two categories) negate a critical hit either 20% of the time or 50% of the time). After 3 month or so, this has saved about 5 critical hits so far (all players and NPC together). Granted, only one character wears a helmet and they have faced mainly monsters without protective gears, but all that to say that it hasn't been game breaking.
On the other hand, I've removed Armour Fortifications from the game. I always liked the mechanical effect, but I never cared much for the "more enchanted than enchanted armour" concept. Instead, I shifted the ability to helmets (without the protection from sneak attacks and precision damage).
I remember that you didn't like the idea of removing fortification and shifting their advantages to helmets (at a bargain price!). Yet, I think that if a player must endure the penalties of a helmet several time per game (since perception checks are frequent and -3 is a significant penalty), the turnout effect should kick-in every second or third game or so, not every 50th game...
Crazy talk! You are gonna get in trouble for questioning his methods now....
I still think that your % of negating a critical hit are VERY timid. Receiving a confirmed critical hit is a (somewhat) rare occurrence as it is. Depending on the DM style, I'd say it happens, in average, somewhere between once per game to once every third or fourth game.
Even at 4% chance of negating a critical blow, it is an ability that kicks in once every 25 to 100 games. Is it really worth it?
I remember discussing this subject with you before. Since then, I've been playing that helmets (I have only two categories) negate a critical hit either 20% of the time or 50% of the time). After 3 month or so, this has saved about 5 critical hits so far (all players and NPC together). Granted, only one character wears a helmet and they have faced mainly monsters without protective gears, but all that to say that it hasn't been game breaking.
On the other hand, I've removed Armour Fortifications from the game. I always liked the mechanical effect, but I never cared much for the "more enchanted than enchanted armour" concept. Instead, I shifted the ability to helmets (without the protection from sneak attacks and precision damage).
I remember that you didn't like the idea of removing fortification and shifting their advantages to helmets (at a bargain price!). Yet, I think that if a player must endure the penalties of a helmet several time per game (since perception checks are frequent and -3 is a significant penalty), the turnout effect should kick-in every second or third game or so, not every 50th game...
Really... I don't recall you, hmm, well if you say so. I do disagree with your rate of critical hits however, in my games they are present far more often.
Aside from that, I suppose your method may or may not work, and it could very well be good.
I do think that I'll stick with my system, BUT, there is the possibility that I could swing your way.
BTW, oh hey fake, what are you doing here?