|
Man, I love your houserules. I saw some of this stuff on your website before (linked from TOZ, I believe), but it seems like you've updated/revised even more since I last looked at it. This is the first time I've seen the weapons/weapon proficiency section, and it's incredible. Fantastic job.
One question, so that I can better gank your houserules for my own games: Some of your weapons have the "entangle" quality, but what does that actually do? It's not described anywhere; does it provide bonuses for the Dirty Trick maneuver, or work kinda like the net?
Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell.
I think all you need to do is doublecheck the concentration DC and it should be fine.
Edit: Checked the Houserules document, and the actual DC is 15 + double the spell level to cast while entangled.
And the DC to cast while threatened is equal to 10 + threatening opponent's BAB + 2x the spell level (I'm going from memory here, so I could be wrong.)That's the base. Add 2 per additional threatening enemy, and then tack on a check penalty if you're wounded, and it's a pretty hard check to make. Avoiding it by taking a 5-ft. step back fails if the enemy has saved at least 5 ft. of movement with which to follow you (or has the No Retreat feat).
Why is casting in combat so hard? I think of Conan disrupting an enemy wizard's incantations by chucking a couch at him. Also, I think of 1st edition, only more so.
Ouch. Does that scale with level?
A lvl 1-5 wizard getting hit well once will make casting hard unless the cleric is on the ball...
I play a fifth level wizard in Kirth's game, and it's not so bad. You just have to keep in mind that you're not a front-line damage-dealer, and that if you piss someone off with a spell, you're now seen as a threat and will have to deal with the consequences. Granted, maybe my character concept of a party buffer plays well with the way Kirth's rules define a wizard's role, but I enjoy the challenge of risk-reward for casting spells. And I love if I get to cast a few spells before a combat begins! No risk to cast, and the party is ready to kick some ass.
And done.
Thanks. I'm not able to see the .docx files either. This is the first time having an older version of Word has caused me problems!
I will say that I did not think that there was a huge discretion in the game.....
but damn.
I have only read the rogue so far.
Kirth I want to send you a halmark card or something.
Biggest reason so far?
Skill Excellence at 10th and on
I get to duplicate a spell in regards to my skill?
just phenomenal.
I am not sure if I will use them yet but I want you to know that I am showing them to my group today for starters.
Also I would like to ask if there is a Collective Document of all the rules, possibly organized like a rule book?
I would definitely go out of my way to get a copy of this printed and bound if everyone was on board (provided the rules didnt spill onto to many pages, I might have to move the classes to a seperate book)
And Lastly.
To houstonderek, Kirth, TOZ, Kyrt, and anyone else who had a hand in crafting this
You are wonderful (said with the accent of Inyego Montoya, and I expect a proper reply to this statement ;) )
Where is my post????
I really like the magic item suggestions about unlocking abilities in the gear.
My one suggestion, would be to add something along the lines of "Or to have the piece of equipment gain an ability relevant to a recent encounter" as an additional option to discovering 'latent abilities' in the equipment, where instead of finding magic that was already hidden in the stuff, you're witnessing how your own encounters with magic are affecting you and your gear.
whether or not kirth does your suggestion Kyrt (I have actually done both of these in my house rules) I think thats a great idea :)
Well my post got ate by the post monster but counted it towards the thread number somehow... argh. so I will repeat it.
I did not think the game had a huge caster to non caster discretion...
with that said
I love what you have done.
I have read the Monk, Fighter and Rogue so far (my favorite three classes)
Skill excellence? giving the rogue near magical powers with his skills....
sold.
Three Questions:
1: The fighter doesn't seem to get alot of Bow oriented abilities with his talents and I was just curious as to why? did you perhaps make that the ranger forte(havent read him yet)?
2: Is there a collective document written similiar to the Core Rulebook that if I had I could print as a full document and bind... just curious ;)
3: How long did it take you to construct this great piece of work? (I hear the sisteen chapel took a while)
Lastly I would like to thank Kirth (ofcourse) Houstonderek (you old school crazy dude, and btw I agree on the whole Finger of Death thing) TOZ for pimping this out, Kyrt for his critiquing and anyone else that helped make this a reality.
Bravo, simply stunning.
You are wonderful (in the accent of Inyego Montoya, and I expect an appropriate response :) )
Kirth,
I've only read the monk class so far, but I have to say that I REALLY like what you've done with it. If the playtest for Pathfinder 2.0 comes up, you should pitch your monk at them.
The customisability that you've incorporated into the monk has largely obviated the need for archetypes.
I also appreciate the changes you've made to flurry and monk weapons allows real-world weapons-based martial arts to be simulated rather than the 'neo-Okinawan' selection of weapons in 3.x.
Very nice!
Thanks for uploading TOZ.
PS - One point though, isn't the Dodge feat redundant except as a pre-req purchase since it doesn't stack with the existing Agile Dodge power?
The Dodge feat is for classes that don't have access to the Agile Dodge class feature. Not having combed over the new version, I don't know if there IS such a class still.
And you're quite welcome. :)
Cheers. Btw, Dodge is listed under the monk's bonus feats, which might just be a legacy carry-over, thus my P.S.
Excuse the double-post, but I'd like to ask Kirth (or TOZ if he has it) if he would be willing to post his 'design philosophy' behind his house rules. Kirth seems to be reference 1e mechanics more than once and I'm curious to hear his thoughts.
|
|
I don't know that he's ever posted a complete philosophy about it, just bits and pieces in a hundred arguments across the board. I'll see if I can sum it up a bit.
Warriors are supposed to protect casters. Casters are supposed to need warrior protection.
In our view, Pathfinder rules do not reflect that reality unless the DM and players metagame their actions to make it work that way.
Thus, we wish to change the rules to reflect the reality so we can play our characters without such metagaming.
The result is our making it harder to cast spells, while making it easier for warriors to protect others.
|
D&D/Pf philosophy: Non-spellcasters do not get nice things.
Our philosophy: Everyone gets nice things, but spellcasters have to work a little harder to use theirs 'cause theirs are nicer things.
Basically, take AD&D 1e, mix in some Victory Games 007 (and, eventually, Shadowrun when I can make their initiative system viable for D&D) and expand on the culture of options that 3x brought to the table. Mix. Serves 4-6 (or more, if I'm DMing).
Interesting stuff. Would love to play with you one day. Will finish Freehold eventually and look forward to you being at my table as well. Even if you bring HD with you ;-)
Thanks again Kirth for the house rules and thanks TOZ for changing the files into a format I can download and read.
I finished looking through the rogue and found a few inconsistencies and had a couple questions.
Some of the skill excellence skills are missing their ranks number after the spell name. The skills sleight of hand and spellcraft are the two offenders. Also under the bluff skill I think message should be rank 10 DC 20 since it is a 0 level spell. Finally, the CM after enduring scrutiny should be superscript under the streetwise skill.
Under the rogue talents Concussion Attack and Impeding Attack there is an error. The section blurb should read For example, a 5th level rogue’s impeding attack would inflict a -3 penalty on the first round, -2 on the second, and -1 on the third and final round.
Under slippery mind the “gets” should be changed to get.
Under Breach Sense initiative is misspelled.
Overall I really like what you did to the rogue and the improvements from version 1.
By making the rogue a caster with his skills his lack of a full BAB is not as noticeable plus it appears you have powered up skills overall. Allowing a talent granting darkvision or low light vision helps with sneak attacking things in the dark. Also you caught the need for making feather fall and swift spells an exception to full round casting from version 1. I do wonder how having a poor fort and will save effects your version of the rogue though. You made your Iron will and Great fortitude feats better and the rogue can take the twilight luck talent so maybe it is not an issue, but having both a poor Fort and Will save is tough.
In the skills document:
I like how you powered up the skills, a lot of good changes
A few inconsistencies I found.
You have appraise in both your primary and secondary skills tables.
Under sleight of hand you have escape artist in your Supersedes column, you decided to keep that skill right?
Under Making Your Own Handholds and Footholds you use the old one piton is needed every 3 feet but pathfinder changed it to every 5 feet.
Why did you change intimidate to browbeat under bluff, is means you need to update the intimidate references in your bluff skill
The references to intimidate should be changed to demoralize under you mass demoralize section.
Bluff : assess prowess: standard is misspelled.
Under secondary skills you still have Knowledge engineering in your table which I think you Superseded with Craft: construction.
In the secondary skills table under perform: music the word instruments is misspelled.
Thanks, as I go through the documents more I will point out anything else I see.
(Caught a lot of silly errors, inconsistencies, and typos)
Wow! Thank you!!!
I've gone through and corrected all of the items you pointed out in the master documents. At some point (probably in a year or so), TOZ and I will have to get together and re-post the documents with the errata corrected. Until then, I'll keep tracking them.Thanks for the excellent help!
PS - One point though, isn't the Dodge feat redundant except as a pre-req purchase since it doesn't stack with the existing Agile Dodge power?
I thought dodge bonuses were a specific exception to the "non-stacking of like-named bonuses" rule? They were in 3.5 (IIRC), and I'd intended to carry that through.
Three Questions:
1: The fighter doesn't seem to get a lot of Bow oriented abilities with his talents and I was just curious as to why? did you perhaps make that the ranger forte(haven't read him yet)?
2: Is there a collective document written similar to the Core Rulebook that if I had I could print as a full document and bind... just curious ;)
3: How long did it take you to construct this great piece of work? (I hear the Sistine chapel took a while)
1. Most of the good bow stuff was made into feats so that everyone could share the love there. In the Feats document, see the "Ranged Combat Feats" section.
2. Sorry, there's not at this time.
3. Timetable so far:
One question, so that I can better gank your houserules for my own games: Some of your weapons have the "entangle" quality, but what does that actually do? It's not described anywhere; does it provide bonuses for the Dirty Trick maneuver, or work kinda like the net?I think all you need to do is doublecheck the concentration DC and it should be fine.
Edit: Checked the Houserules document, and the actual DC is 15 + double the spell level to cast while entangled.
Sorry, yes, I know what the entangled condition is. My question was, how do you entangle someone with these houserules? Do you use a special maneuver? Are they automatically entangled anytime I hit somebody with my weapon? If I entangle somebody with my spiked chain, do I have to let go of the chain or can I keep beating them over the head with it? The only weapon in the core rules that lets you entangle somebody is the net, and you have to throw that at the target.
Ah, I misread you. I would guess it to be either a combat maneuver or part of an attack action.
For weapons that deal damage and possibly entangle, for the sake of simplicity and smooth game play, we'd been simply using the attack roll to double as a combat maneuver check as well (I suppose I'd also allow the bonuses from Improved Weapon Maneuvers to apply, but that situation hasn't come up in play testing). For something like a lasso, all you're doing is making a combat maneuver check.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually expended a lot of thought on this, given the number of other rules issues begging my attention. Any comments or thoughts are of course welcome.
Excuse the double-post, but I'd like to ask Kirth (or TOZ if he has it) if he would be willing to post his 'design philosophy' behind his house rules. Kirth seems to be reference 1e mechanics more than once and I'm curious to hear his thoughts.
Version 1 goals:
Version 2 goals:
I'm of course also happy to answer specific questions such as "why did you..."
|
|
(Caught a lot of silly errors, inconsistencies, and typos)Wow! Thank you!!!
I've gone through and corrected all of the items you pointed out in the master documents. At some point (probably in a year or so), TOZ and I will have to get together and re-post the documents with the errata corrected. Until then, I'll keep tracking them.Thanks for the excellent help!
Corrected all of Christopher's catches. Should I keep 'browbeat' or 'intimidate'? Currently keeping browbeat.
Currently keeping browbeat.
Thank you. Using "intimidate" opens up too much potential confusion with the 3.5e skill of that name; I thought it better to rename the function entirely.
Okay so tonight we ran an Arena of Death with a 4 character party.
It went rather well (we only got three battles in) and we created characters up to fourth level.
I DMed.
Here are some minor things we "caught" per say that could either use a small correction, some clarification, and etc.
Perfect Blow is referenced for all feats but under the Monk class for bonus feats it is referred to still as Perfect Strike
Holamatasu the feat has a typo for 15-20 X2 for the critical range it describes since the feat requires exotic which changes it to X3, unless it changes the critical on purpose to X2?
Using a 2 handed weapon as a monk weapon I assume doesn't let you apply 1 1/2 times your strength to damage (the wording is pretty clear on that but I had a small rules confusion with the player) but it does not specify for terms of power attack (I also ruled it to be considered a one handed in this case). just a little rules clarification.
Did you choose not to include the feat Shield of Swings or did you rename it as another feat? (player asked)
Eldritch blast (discordance also and the wizard one) can have metamagics to them, We had to hunt really hard to find the way modifying them as metamagic is. We found sorta what we were trying to find under Innate Metamagic but it otherwise doesn't explicitly state how metamagics change the level (widen does +2 or a +3 depending, we assumed it lowered the damage to up the ability)
Combat focus is no where to be found under your list of feats, I assumed you meant the Combat Form feats from the PH2 (I have it) so we used that for the monk. Do the rest of his feats (if he were to take them) for combat focus not work if he uses his Ki powers for that day so effectively loses those feats? (not that this is a bad thing, just curious).
Sanctuary is listed as a 1st and 2nd level spell for the bard, I assumed first level spell.
What action is it for a Skald to continue using Bardic Performance? (I assumed it to be free)
Lastly this was a fairly good play test and everyone was really happy with the characters they made.
The monk definitely had the biggest damage out put, the Bard did well, sorceror struggled a little (wasn't used to the new rules for casting being a five foot step and such if had somatic). Fighter played a dagger thrower, did very well (several really amazing hits though so lady luck may have contributed).
We rolled randomly for what they fought.
An ogre was the first battle, 9 tieflings for the second and a fire giant for the last (which totally anihilated them but hey the Sorceror stuck hideous laughter for one small round)
PS - One point though, isn't the Dodge feat redundant except as a pre-req purchase since it doesn't stack with the existing Agile Dodge power?I thought dodge bonuses were a specific exception to the "non-stacking of like-named bonuses" rule? They were in 3.5 (IIRC), and I'd intended to carry that through.
You are right. My bad.
|
|
Lastly this was a fairly good play test and everyone was really happy with the characters they made.
This really is the focus of all the work, making sure everyone can play whatever character concept or fantasy archetype they want and still have a blast, feel useful and be happy with the choices they made. Eliminating trap choices was/is a HUGE focus. Some are going to be a little better than others for certain concepts, but all options should be viable and fun.
Dude, I am happy y'all had a good time. I really like playing with these rules, and I plan on using them when I run my homebrew.
1. Perfect Blow is referenced for all feats but under the Monk class for bonus feats it is referred to still as Perfect Strike
2. Holamatasu the feat has a typo for 15-20 X2 for the critical range it describes since the feat requires exotic which changes it to X3, unless it changes the critical on purpose to X2?
3. Using a 2 handed weapon as a monk weapon I assume doesn't let you apply 1 1/2 times your strength to damage (the wording is pretty clear on that but I had a small rules confusion with the player) but it does not specify for terms of power attack (I also ruled it to be considered a one handed in this case). just a little rules clarification.
4. Did you choose not to include the feat Shield of Swings or did you rename it as another feat? (player asked)
5. Eldritch blast (discordance also and the wizard one) can have metamagics to them, We had to hunt really hard to find the way modifying them as metamagic is. We found sorta what we were trying to find under Innate Metamagic but it otherwise doesn't explicitly state how metamagics change the level (widen does +2 or a +3 depending, we assumed it lowered the damage to up the ability)
6. Combat focus is no where to be found under your list of feats, I assumed you meant the Combat Form feats from the PH2 (I have it) so we used that for the monk. Do the rest of his feats (if he were to take them) for combat focus not work if he uses his Ki powers for that day so effectively loses those feats? (not that this is a bad thing, just curious).
7. Sanctuary is listed as a 1st and 2nd level spell for the bard, I assumed first level spell.
8. What action is it for a Skald to continue using Bardic Performance? (I assumed it to be free)
1. It should read "Perfect Blow" everywhere; I renamed all non-Strike feats called "X Strike" as "X Blow" to avoid confusion with the Strike feats.
2. Ugh. I never liked that feat to begin with! OK, I'm going to tentatively recommend changing all the "x3" notations for Unarmed Attack to "19-20/x2" instead. That would allow the feat to function more or less as written, and shouldn't damage unarmed attacks too much.
3. You ruled correctly; I should have worded that more clearly.
4. The omission is intentional, in order to make "sword and board" a more attractive option. That said, an 11th level fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting could take "flurry of blows" as a talent, then acquire the Two-Weapon Defense feat, and he'd in essence have Shield of Blows, if he wanted to. A monk could pull this off sooner.
5. Innate Metamagic sets a minimum caster level for use 3/day, at will, or at all. Damage is not affected. A 4th level bard could not apply a +2 level metamagic feat to discordance at all, because he fails to meet the minimum caster level of (1st + 2) x 2 = 6th.
6. Combat Focus was eliminated entirely after no one expressed any interest in it at all during the v. 1.0 playtesting. If your players like it and want to bring it back for use at your table, by all means do so, using whatever rules you think are fair!
7. I wrote a note to myself at one point to address that, and it looks like I forgot. Mea culpa. I'd say go ahead and make it 1st level.
8. Yes. Errata: Bard - Bardic Inspiration - 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence should read "Once started, bardic inspiration can be maintained each round using the bardic performance ability (see above) as a free action."
Okay so tonight we ran an Arena of Death with a 4 character party. Here are some minor things we "caught" per say that could either use a small correction, some clarification, and etc.
As I failed to do so in the last post, let me thank you for giving these rules a shot in play, and for noting some more of my endless list of errata!
I created these rules for the personal amusement of gamers like houstonderek and myself who enjoy them; if your group fits that description, I hope they'll work for you as well -- and in any event, you should of course make whatever alterations work for your mix of players and specific play style. Happy gaming!
I've submitted these to my gaming group to pour over and theory craft a bit.
I'm gonna be continuing a game I'm running where I let the players gestalt, so im gonna use these classes as NPCs for now. I'm not gonna let them gestalt them :P
I'll have feedback in a few weeks or so.
I'm not gonna let them gestalt them
There are any number of semi-gestalt options built in (e.g., the Templar fighter talent, the prestige paladin's "knight-troubador" options), so allowing full gestalt on top of that would most certainly be overkill!
And for anyone keeping up with the errata, you can find them by clicking on this avatar.I have added all errata on this profile to all .doc files. Hopefully I can get an admin to edit the links in the first post so that no .docx file is referenced.
I changed all the .docx links to .doc.
I'm not gonna let them gestalt themThere are any number of semi-gestalt options built in (e.g., the Templar fighter talent, the prestige paladin's "knight-troubador" options), so allowing full gestalt on top of that would most certainly be overkill!
No kidding.
But this does bring up how much harder it is going to be for a martial or mobile character to multi class with a caster. Well not harder to multi class, but how big of a price will be paid when standing still all round to cast...
Well not harder to multi class, but how big of a price will be paid when standing still all round to cast...
Yes. Elric of Melnibone either casts or fights -- never both at once, so the "pulp" precedent is that it should be hard. Still, it can be done by selecting a bonded weapon or Eschew Materials (to get rid of material components) and then using Still Spell (to get rid of the somatic ones). Or just play a skald!
Well not harder to multi class, but how big of a price will be paid when standing still all round to cast...Yes. Elric of Melnibone either casts or fights -- never both at once, so the "pulp" precedent is that it should be hard. Still, it can be done by selecting a bonded weapon or Eschew Materials (to get rid of material components) and then using Still Spell (to get rid of the somatic ones). Or just play a skald!
How does a Magus operate under these rules? Would he be an exception?
How does a Magus operate under these rules? Would he be an exception?
1. Take levels in an arcane spellcasting class (choosing a bonded weapon, preferrably) and in fighter.
2. Take the Eldritch Knight talent.3. Select Spell Strike as a feat, and/or Battle Touch, Energy Infusion, Energy Shield, Arcane Shield, Spell Power, or whatever else you want to be able to do. (Any of them that are directly combat-related should be made available as fighter bonus feats.)
How does a Magus operate under these rules? Would he be an exception?1. Take levels in an arcane spellcasting class (choosing a bonded weapon, preferrably) and in fighter.
2. Take the Eldritch Knight talent.
3. Select Spell Strike as a feat, and/or Battle Touch, Energy Infusion, Energy Shield, Arcane Shield, Spell Power, or whatever else you want to be able to do. (Any of them that are directly combat-related should be made available as fighter bonus feats.)
LOL so no magus base class. Gotcha.
LOL so no magus base class. Gotcha.
I was working on one, then realized that I'd rather be able to choose how much combat vs. how much spellcasting I put into the mix. For example, I can now play a fighter 18/wizard 2 (BAB +19, CL 11th), or a fighter 2/wizard 18 (BAB +11, CL 19th), or anything in between. A fighter 10/wizard 10 gives you BAB +15, CL 15th (same BAB as a magus, with slightly better spellcasting). I can also pick whether I want spontaneous casting (by simply substituting Sorcerer into the above).
Or, I could simply play a battle sorcerer. Or a skald.
|
|
I run two characters under these rules right now, a wizard and a Rogue/Fighter (I ignore the psion level I picked up in true Gygaxian fashion - drinking from a well - as it only adds about a quarter of a level of usable features).
Now, the wizard is easy, I'm just going straight class with him.
But my f/r? Every time I level I agonize over whether to pick up another fighter level or rogue level. I love that both offer enough options just about every level that the decision is hard. I grow my characters organically, I don't map out my advancement, as I like to think about what I did before leveling that might influence what skill set he improved the most. I'll probably take one more level in fighter (so I can get that +6 BAB and take Multiattack), then spam rogue for a while, but I'm sure the next level after I'll be right back to agonizing.
And I find these houserules let me do that without hamstringing myself.
Okay so tonight we ran an Arena of Death with a 4 character party. Here are some minor things we "caught" per say that could either use a small correction, some clarification, and etc.As I failed to do so in the last post, let me thank you for giving these rules a shot in play, and for noting some more of my endless list of errata!
I created these rules for the personal amusement of gamers like houstonderek and myself who enjoy them; if your group fits that description, I hope they'll work for you as well -- and in any event, you should of course make whatever alterations work for your mix of players and specific play style. Happy gaming!
Well I can assure you we will most likely run a campaign soon with these rules (most seemed to like the ability to play basically any concept in the imagination and, not suck ever)
If you would like I can keep pumping feedback (errata stuff as well as the good stuff)
but first I want to say the good stuff I liked from last time (totally forgot :S)
1: Feats rock -- Every feat (that the players saw or read anyways) was tempting, no easy picks. Exactly the way it should be.
2: Weapon wielding -- The fact that people could wield weapons different ways was just phenomenal. One of my favorite parts so far.
3: Bonuses -- It became apparent you could literally better ANY aspect of any character (AC, to hit, Damage, sense, etc.) Which can lead to some one sided selections, a few players decided to punp as much damage as possible, but there is a cost to it since every one else can too. It encourages you to really try and cover everything instead of min maxing (although it isn't completely out there to do this). I liked that it encouraged players to pick up things because last level was hard without it.
4: Secondary Skills -- brilliant idea. limiting while at the same time extremely beneficial. Brilliant.
5: Talents Galore -- I really like how everyone gets some form of a talent (always liked the idea of basically class specific feats) it shows that even within the class there can be so much diversity it is nearly endless in character possibilities.
6: Magic Users -- They got nerfed in some areas of ridiculous benefits (being able to move full speed with somatic components always seemed silly) but also got talent factors. Basically you didn't nerf the casters, you changed the system they worked in. Excellent choice, my caster players actually enjoyed the change.
7: Well put together -- Despite small (I have seen worse from published books) typos and errors the documents were well written and well put together kudos.
8: References -- Using old sources like Dragon and such was amazing, brought a lot of good ideas that I really liked while confining them all into a few pages in an updated version. Props.
So there are some words of encouragement.
One question: (dont shoot me :P)
The inquisitor in the doc uses the old judgement from the playtest? is this intentional? if so I am curious why you decided to revert to the prior judgement usage (I am a fan of the new one but I am open to your thoughts)
And for anyone lurking or on this thread I HIGHLY recommend atleast trying these rules. They are very easy to combine with a pathfinder game and very easy to customize for your personal table.
TTFN gents
The inquisitor in the doc uses the old judgement from the playtest? is this intentional? if so I am curious why you decided to revert to the prior judgement usage (I am a fan of the new one but I am open to your thoughts)
Honest answer: no one was playing an Inquisitor, and I never really got around to looking at the APG version, vs. the playtest one. That's totally my fault.
If you would like I can keep pumping feedback (errata stuff as well as the good stuff)
Yes, please!!!
So there are some words of encouragement.
My wife would argue that encouragement is the last thing I need, but it never hurts to hear what people like, and what works for them. If these rules make houstonderek's and my game more fun for us to play (and that seems to be working), they've served their purpose. Anyone else beyond that is an unexpected but pleasant bonus!
I was able to spend a little time tonight looking over more of the skills section.
In diplomacy you state to make a wealth check. I use a slightly modified version of the panache system from fantasy craft, do you use something similar or do you determine wealth checks some way else?
Under disable device: in the 1st table activation is spelled wrong and the time and DC columns for the first option are blank.
Under Endurance: Run you place a limit on maximal exertion and fighting at 10 + endurance mod, is that in the PRD or is this a house rule?
Under Endurance: Hustle you state one can hustle “for a number of minutes equal to 10 + his Endurance modifier. Each additional hour of hustling in between sleep cycles deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, and each additional hour deals twice the damage taken during the previous hour of hustling.” In your version 1 document you could hustle for 3x your endurance check result. I think there is an inconsistency with what is currently written and the fact as untrained (in that section) you can hustle 1 hour for free without a check.
Under Endurance: Diehard you are still using the – 10 rather than – Con for dying.
Under Endurance: Sleep in armor you state “If you sleep in armor, you you do not become…” there should not be a double you. (sorry, bad pun)
In Escape artist escaping from ropes in the PRD requires a check equal to the binder’s CMB + 20, did you not want to use that or the binders escape artist check +10?
In escape artist to escape a grappler in the PRD it is the grapplers CMD, did you not want to use that?
Escape artist: Squeezing through a space paragraphs 2 and 3 were removed in the PRD do you still want them based on the old 3.5 rules?
Escape artist: Escape grapple do you want to update it to the PRD wording?
Escape artist: untrained has double ands in the paragraph. Also the PRD does not have this section, do you want to include it or just remove it?
I was able to spend a little time tonight looking over more of the skills section.
1. In diplomacy you state to make a wealth check. I use a slightly modified version of the panache system from fantasy craft, do you use something similar or do you determine wealth checks some way else?
2. Under disable device: in the 1st table activation is spelled wrong and the time and DC columns for the first option are blank.
3. Under Endurance: Run you place a limit on maximal exertion and fighting at 10 + endurance mod, is that in the PRD or is this a house rule?
4. Under Endurance: Hustle you state one can hustle “for a number of minutes equal to 10 + his Endurance modifier. Each additional hour of hustling in between sleep cycles deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, and each additional hour deals twice the damage taken during the previous hour of hustling.” In your version 1 document you could hustle for 3x your endurance check result. I think there is an inconsistency with what is currently written and the fact as untrained (in that section) you can hustle 1 hour for free without a check.
5. Under Endurance: Diehard you are still using the – 10 rather than – Con for dying.
6. Under Endurance: Sleep in armor you state “If you sleep in armor, you you do not become…” there should not be a double you. (sorry, bad pun)
7. In Escape artist escaping from ropes in the PRD requires a check equal to the binder’s CMB + 20, did you not want to use that or the binders escape artist check +10?
8. In escape artist to escape a grappler in the PRD it is the grapplers CMD, did you not want to use that?
9. Escape artist: Squeezing through a space paragraphs 2 and 3 were removed in the PRD do you still want them based on the old 3.5 rules?
10. Escape artist: Escape grapple do you want to update it to the PRD wording?
11. Escape artist: untrained has double ands in the paragraph. Also the PRD does not have this section, do you want to include it or just remove it?
Great, thanks!
1. I'd planned on coming up with something similar, because I dislike the 3.X wealth paradigms. However, my time was not equal to my ambition in that regard.
2. The blanks should read "Immediate Action" and "Trap DC + 10," respectively.
3. House rule, but it should probably be abolished, as combat now provides fatigue with lost hp.
4. Good catch. 10 min + Endurance is more realistic, but in a heroic game, a base of 1 hour is probably easier and better.
5. Fixed.
6. Thanks!
7. I didn't want Use Rope to be governed by combat ability and Strength. Binder's check + 10 better fits what I was aiming for.
8. I don't think the grappler's deflection bonus, for example, should hinder your escape. Also, using the grapple results makes people with Improved Wrestling Maneuvers harder to escape.
9. I'm not clear on why PF removed them, to be honest.
10. See #8.
11. The other skills have one; I don't see why Escape Artist shouldn't.
The inquisitor in the doc uses the old judgement from the playtest? is this intentional? if so I am curious why you decided to revert to the prior judgement usage (I am a fan of the new one but I am open to your thoughts)Honest answer: no one was playing an Inquisitor, and I never really got around to looking at the APG version, vs. the playtest one. That's totally my fault.
Haha no I was just wondering Kirth.
Inquisitor is a very fun class, atleast to me.
Also curious about two things (players asked and I said I would oblige, you seem to be a popular person among my group ;) ):
How does using metamagic feats for things such as Eldritch Blast and Resonance work normally? (without innate metamagic)
Do you have a character sheet for your system? If not are there plans to make them? (players dont like having to write in the new skills but love the new skills system)
We will probably have another go around soon and I will inform you how it goes!