Might be best to divorce Charisma from everything mechanical and just have it be the new Comeliness.And then EVERYONE will automatically put their lowest stat in Charisma (which is more or less what happens now except for specific classes). So you can't leave it a stat like the others; you'd have to let them roll or point-buy the 1st five stats totally separately from Charisma -- otherwise it's a "get out of bad stat free" card for everyone. At that point it would be better to simply remove it entirely and hand-wave it.
I'd rather try and recify the discrepancy than exacerbate it. I'm starting to think that Cha-based spell DCs for all classes, and Cha-based hero point effects might be the only way to salvage Charisma as a stat.
Sorry to bring up a topic from 3 days ago but my group came up with a rather simple solution to fix the disparity between Charisma and the other stats. If you consider Charisma to measure the breadth of one's "force of personality" rather than simply their physical attractiveness it makes sense to swap CHA for WIS in determining a character's Will save.
We made the change months ago and haven't looked back. This solution has effectively stopped us from defaulting the "face" role to the only character with a bonus rather than a negative in his CHA modifier. Unfortunately this is a bandaid solution for now but, until we sit down and write our rules from the ground up but it's one that's likely to stay.
Like the idea but it is a quick way to make the sorceror and wizard significantly better (will saves galore) and then not worry about that other stat for will saves (not much skills other than perception require wisdom)
Basically it makes everyone way more unique but slight powerful with choice and anyone that doesn't need the choice much more powerful.
Okay I finished the barbarian document.
Page 6 Ape totem: under savage grapple change the reference to improved grapple to improved wrestling maneuvers. For rend, you changed the two weapon rend feat to be 2d6 damage instead of 1d10, do you want to change the ape totem’s rend damage also? For the bear totem change the example in improved grapple to 6th from 9th level, the barbarian now gains powerful build at 6th level.
Page 7 Bull totem: I think the reflex DC to take half damage should be based upon character level rather than hit dice. Also unstoppable charge is gained at 6th level right?
Page 8 Frog totem: Is the nondetection ability gained at 3rd level?
Page 9 Hawk totem: I think the wing shot feat has been removed, I could not find it.
Page 10 Rat totem: I could not find the bonus feat first strike, is it renamed first blood now? Under rat totem’s disease heading there is an extra period after serviceable that is not necessary. Under the spirit totem savage theurgy, does the barbarian need to wait till his third barbarian level for this ability to activate?
Page 11 under the wolf totem, I think the bonus feat adaptable flanker was changed to adaptable flanking, also I could not find the Precise assault feat. Finally, under the sneak attack example, I believe that the +4d6 would happen at 18th not 19th level.
Page 12 the rage powers table. I believe it was Panther’s quickness and Penetrating attacks that were out of alphabetical order, along with storm bred and strength surge.
Page 13 Under moment of clarity, I do not believe that raging causes a penalty to armor class anymore, you can remove the reference to it in moment of clarity.
Page 14 Panther’s quickness and storm bred are out of alphabetical order. Under rock throwing change “heard material” to “hard material”, also in the progression change the first reference to greater rage to an improved rage instead.
Page 15 I believe it was skin turning and spirit guardians that were not in alphabetical order in the table. Also spirit steed is not included in the table, did you mean to delete this option. Under the option earthbreaker change the wording to “Creatures in these squares except you must succeed at Reflex saves”
Page 17 Reckless rage: remove the reference of “the two” physical stats, I believe rage grants a bonus to all physical stats now.
Page 18 Under flesh wound add an “a” before fortitude save. Under frenzy I believe your table is right that the ability would add a + 6 bonus to your strength, not a +2 like it states in the description. Under giant’s stature remove the second a before + 6 size bonus to strength. Also in pathfinder the giant form I spell grants resistance 20 rather than 10 to one of the energy types, was the reduction in the resistance intentional? Under increased damage reduction your example is for a 10th level barbarian, but barbarians cannot take this greater rage power till at least 12th level, would you want to use a higher level example?
Page 19 Under terrifying howl, change the reference of 1 rounds to 1 round.
Page 20, the ability is listed as Power attack, improved in the table but is listed as improved power attack in the description.
Page 21 Under titan’s stature, remove the extra a before “+ 8 size bonus to strength”.
I would not worry too much about the number of errors found Kirth, any document this size will have minor problems, especially since you could have changed a description or a rule somewhere else after writing the document and it is almost impossible to go back and find every reference to the old rule. I do a pretty good job at editing my own work but I always try and get a second set of “quality” eyes on anything I do, and even then quite a few errors slip through. In fact for some of my lectures that I have given 8 or 9 times I find errors no one had caught till that 9th or 10th time I present it. I am just glad I can help and if it makes the documents better for everyone so much the better right?
Props to Christopher Hauschild. You are good at what you do man. Now I can update my downloads of these documents for my game, helps me a bunch so I want to extend a personal thanks.
The discussion of Charisma got me thinking.
What does each stat get you? I break this down into generic bonuses, tier 1 (useful to everybody), tier 2 (useful to specialists) and tier 3 (skill point tax or 'background') skills.
This is using the PF skill list.
STR: + to hit in meelee, + to damage, + to damage can apply to most ranged weapons, and + to damage is multiplied by 1.5 for two handed weapons. Also increases encumbrance levels. Two skills, both arguably tier 2.
DEX: + to init, + to hit for ranged weapons, + to reflex saves, + to AC at light encumbrance, three tier 1 skills (Stealth, Acrobatics, Escape Artist), five tier 2 skills.
CON: Death threshold past unconsciousness, + to hit points, + to fort saves, general modifier to "The environment messes with you" rolls.
INT: + to skill points, extra languages without further expenditure, + to one tier 1 skill (Spellcraft), + to 10 tier 2 skills (8 knowledge, Linguistics, Appraise), + to a tier 3 skill (craft). Bonus spells.
WIS: + to Will Save, + to three tier 1 skills (Survival, Perception, Sense Motive), + to one tier 2 skill (Heal). + to 1 tier 3 skill (Profession). Bonus spells.
CHA: + to three tier 1 skills (Diplomacy, UMD and Intimidate), + to two tier 2 skills (Disguise, Bluff), + to 10 tier 3 skills (Perform (all and Handle Animal). Bonus spells.
In looking at this, STR is the runaway leader, followed by DEX, then INT, then CON, then WIS, then CHA.
In breaking this out, I'm tempted to move the init bonus from DEX to CHA. I'd also be tempted to move the + to hit from STR to DEX.
I'd change Weapon Finesse to this: "With a finesse capable weapon, you can take a penalty of -1 on the base damage die of your weapon to gain a +1 shield bonus on AC. At 4th level, and every 4 levels therafter, you may take a further -1 to damage, and gain a +1 to AC. When using weapon finesse, the maximum static bonus to damage you can apply is equal to the adjusted maximum die roll on the weapon."
Weapon Finesse and Combat Expertise stack (different types of AC bonuses).
I'd change Weapon Finesse to this: "With a finesse capable weapon, you can take a penalty of -1 on the base damage die of your weapon to gain a +1 shield bonus on AC. At 4th level, and every 4 levels therafter, you may take a further -1 to damage, and gain a +1 to AC. When using weapon finesse, the maximum static bonus to damage you can apply is equal to the adjusted maximum die roll on the weapon."
I'd take this the other direction, actually...
"With a finesse capable weapon, you can take a penalty of -1 on the base damage die of your weapon to gain a +1 bonus to hit. At 4th level, and every 4 levels therafter, you may take a further -1 to damage, and gain a +1 to hit. When using weapon finesse, the maximum static bonus to hit you can apply is equal to the adjusted maximum die roll on the weapon."3/4 BAB classes don't need help with defense...they need help hitting, and you won't need to worry about it stacking with expertise.
Just my 2 cp.
EDIT: Well, I guess power attack would F**K that all up...
I actually kind of like the idea to change the bonus to initiative from DEX to CHA. Being confident and self aware makes you less prone to indecision and to be more likely to be the first one to step forward. I am not sure this stops the underlying problem with pure spell casters though since spell casters often try to max out both CON and DEX for hit points and initiative bonuses since if they do not get to go first their spells can lose a lot of their effectiveness in a battle. It will change how they allocate their ability scores but will not change their power level. The strength to DEX move I am not in favor of though since it hurts melee types much more than ranged fighters or spell casters. Damage just really does not tend to matter that much if you are only going to wound and not drop an enemy.
The issue of what attribute to make the saving throw DC for each caster's spells based off of is really a hard choice. Thinking of class equality, each class should have one attribute that can be a dump stat, two that are less important but something the class could choose to focus on and gain some benefits, and three that really matter. Right now fighting types have to focus on all three of their physical attributes and wisdom for will saves meaning they have to dump CHA and INT, attributes that give you social skills and make your character fun to role play. Pure casters only worry about their spell casting attribute, some DEX to make sure they can go first, and CON for their hit points, and so they can focus more on the social stats that can really make a character fun to role play. Changing the initiative bonus from DEX to CHA will not change this inequality, in fact it will go against what Kirth was trying to do with making wizard's spell save DC be based off CHA since now wizards could just dump DEX. If the change to initiative being based off of CHA is made I would change the wizard's, favored soul's, and sorcerer's spell DC to be based off STR and the cleric's and druid's spell DC to be based off INT. This would keep the spell casting classes from being able to gain super high save DCs.
Holy Heavens!! I'm book marking this now. Thanks, TOZ!
(And thanks for the heads up. I was too late to join Kirth's game, but really, playing in another game would unfairly slow down the games I'm running. I will surely and happily lurk his game thread.)
Okay I finished the barbarian document
Good work! Thanks again for the substantial time and effort. I've corrected the master document per your errata. Wing Shot has been subsumed directly into the Fly skill (making it available without spending a feat), so for the Hawk Totem barbarian, it should be replaced (I'd recommend Skirmish instead). First Strike was indeed renamed First Blood (to avoid confusion with the Strike feats). Precise Assault was merged with Adaptable Flanking, so another bonus feat for the Wolf Totem barbarian is needed; I'd recommend Skill Focus (Endurance).
Thanks again!
Been thinking about stats (especially in light of your post, AdAstra), and also about the biography of Wyatt Earp I read, in which he's quoted as saying reflexes are relatively unimportant in a gunfight, but rather calm and steady deliberation, ability to ignore smoke and noise, etc. are critical. That said, bonus to attacks with ranged weapons could be moved from Dex to Wisdom (which is Perception's governing stat, representing a keen eye as well, which is also important in shooting). Bonus to Will saves could then be shifted to Charisma (force of personality). Opinions?
Been thinking about stats (especially in light of your post, AdAstra), and also about the biography of Wyatt Earp I read, in which he's quoted as saying reflexes are relatively unimportant in a gunfight, but rather calm and steady deliberation, ability to ignore smoke and noise, etc. are critical. That said, bonus to attacks with ranged weapons could be moved from Dex to Wisdom (which is Perception's governing stat, representing a keen eye as well, which is also important in shooting). Bonus to Will saves could then be shifted to Charisma (force of personality). Opinions?
I like that. I'm not sure it's enough of a boost to WIS and CHA, but it's a move in the right direction. It's absolutely better than CHA is right now. It also means that good shooters aren't also circus acrobats.
To me, the least interesting stat is CON. Once you get it past 14-16, it rapidly diminishes in value.
Did you give Porpentine's Stealth rewrite a read through? I think it fits nicely into what you're doing here and could save you a lot of trouble in fixing Stealth/Perception/Invisibility independently.
Did you give Porpentine's Stealth rewrite a read through? I think it fits nicely into what you're doing here and could save you a lot of trouble in fixing Stealth/Perception/Invisibility independently.
I did, and while I'd like Stealth to work more like that in practice, a written skills rule of that length means that my players won't read it. I'd have to cut it down a lot before adapting it.
I think the change to attacks with ranged weapons and will saves would work and it would help to rebalance the attributes a little more. It would give rangers more incentive to select a higher wisdom, help shift the superiority of ranged attackers over melee attackers back some (less bard and paladin ranged attackers at least), with how sneak attack works rogues really are not the best ranged weapon masters so it does not affect them much, and it would lower most sorcerers and wizards chances to hit with rays powering them down a little more. Wisdom would likely be ranked under Charisma now, but with so many good classes spell casting being based off wisdom it really should not be that noticeable, plus the greatness that is the perception skill should never be under looked. On a side note you will get a lot more archer clerics and druids if you go this route though.
Also Errata for the fighter
Page 1 Class skills, add (all) to Craft and Profession.
Page 2 Under Bonus feat, delete the references to tactical feats and dueling feats, it appears they have been removed as a classification, though attack with opposition in the feats document is still classified as (dueling). I am unsure if this was meant to be changed. For feat aptitude and ant haul one may want to add a clause Starting and 2nd level and starting at 3rd level respectively.
For the next several pages, in the talents section sometimes you reference the prerequisites as feats or as talents and sometimes you do not. I will assume you would like to clarify for each prerequisite whether it can be found in the feats document or under the fighter talents section.
Page 7 Under armed deflection add “feat” after weapon finesse.
Page 8 For Fast recovery, you gain 1 hit point per character level per 8 hours of not resting and 2 hit points per character level for each full nights rest. So even a 16 hour day of not resting a one 8 hour night of rest would gain you 4 hit points, what is the benefit of full bed rest for 24 hours if even that only gives you 4 hit points per character level per day, should it be 5 hit points per character level instead? Also in the second paragraph of this section add “a” before “successful use of the heal skill”. Under Fleet footed add “feat” after dodge. Under fleet footed and fortification add “talent” after mobility and armor training. Finally under fortification in the special clause section you reference improved armor training which I believe you subsumed by allowing armor training to be taken more than once, would you like to delete or change this reference?
Page 9 Under iaijutsu focus add “feat” after first blood and improved initiative. Under Ki damage add “feat” after weapon finesse and add “talent” after weapon training. Under knightly banner add “talent” after knightly order; also in your table’s attack bonus column what does the fighter with this talent gains this bonus also? Does this refer to the allies gaining a morale bonus to attack as part of the charge; if it does do you want to change the description which says +1 to +3?
Page 10 Under knightly order add “talent” after Challenge. Under field marshal beacon is misspelled. Under mobility add “feat” after dodge.
Page 11 Under onslaught of blows, opportunity, contentious, and perfect defense (stance) add “feat” after multiattack, combat reflexes, and improved weapon maneuvers respectively.
Page 12 Under Riposte add “feat” after dodge, combat expertise, and weapon finesse.
Page 13 Under Shield other and strike team leader add “feat” after combat expertise and dodge respectively.
Page 14 Under templar, change the reference to arcane spells to divine spells in your example. Under thicket of blades add “feat” after combat reflexes and no retreat. Under uncanny dodge, improved add talent after uncanny dodge; under benefit change the two references of “rogue” to “character” since now classes other than rogues can gain sneak attack.
Page 15 Under improved armor skin, advanced armor training, bone splitting strike, and bulwark of defense add “talent” after armored skin, armor training, weapon training, armor training again, defensive stance, and juggernaut respectively; also under advanced armor training did you want to remove the reference to improved armor training?
Page 16 Under critical specialist add “feat” after critical focus. Under both mobile defense and defensive stance add “talent” after armor training and juggernaut. Under defensive stance change the reference to “his” to “your” strength and constitution.
Page 17 Under devastating blow, flurry of blows, epic dodge, and elaborate defense add “feat” after backswing, overhand chop, dodge, combat expertise, and two weapon fighting respectively. Under epic dodge change the references to responsive duelist to riposte talent? Under flurry of blows are your example to hit bonuses correct? I would think they would be +11/+9/+9, +9/+9/+7/+7, +11/+9/+9, and +9/+9/+7/+7/+4/+4 respectively if I am doing my math right and with the fighter is not benefiting from any other talents or feats. Under fast healing add “talent” after fast recovery.
Page 18 Under iaijutsu master change first strike to first blood feat, and add “talent” after iaijutsu focus. Under knight of quality add “talent” after challenge and knightly order; also delete the “an” between the words “you gain” and “advanced abilities”.
Page 19 Under manticore parry under the source section delete the reference to responsive duelist. Under greater power attack, precise attack, and robilar’s gambit add “feat” after power attack, weapon finesse, combat expertise, combat reflexes, and dodge; add “talent” after riposte.
Page 20 Under storm of throws, swarm of arrows, and deadly two weapon defense add “ feat” after point blank shot, rapid shot, point blank shot again, rapid shot again, weapon focus, combat reflexes, two weapon defense, two weapon fighting, and improved two weapon fighting. Under Sneak attack of opportunity and deadly two weapon defense add “talent” after sneak attack opportunist and deft two weapon fighting.
Page 21 Under deft two weapon fighting, superior two weapon fighting, and two weapon rend girallon add “feat” after two weapon fighting (x3), improved two weapon fighting (x3), and two weapon rend. Under order of the cockatrice: the challenge should read as gain a +1 bonus per 4 levels of “fighter” correct? Under skills add (all) after perform.
Page 22 under order of the dragon: for the challenge the bonus should increase by every 4 levels of “fighter” correct? Under skills whenever an order of the “dragon” not “cockatrice” uses survival, also the bonus to the survival check should he half his fighter not cavalier level correct? Under the aid allies clause should it read “At 8th level of fighter, and every six fighter levels thereafter, this bonus increases by an additional +1.” Under order of the lion his challenge and skill’s increases should be based only on fighter levels correct?
Page 23 for order of the shield and order of the star, their challenge, skills, and the order of the shield’s resolute ability should be based off of fighter levels correct?
Page 24 the order of the star’s calling and for the faith abilities should be based off of fighter levels correct? Also for the retribution ability the clause “If the attack made by the enemy was a critical hit, the cavalier may treat the enemy as the target of his challenge for the attack of opportunity” seems strange since all the order of the star gains is a bonus to saving throws against targets of his challenge and I an unsure how that saving throw bonus would help him with his attack of opportunity. Under order of the sword does their challenge ability improve based on every 4 levels of “fighter”? Under by my honor receives is misspelled; also I assume you can use the +2 to any saving throw an unlimited number of times per day. Under mounted mastery I believe the bonus feat choices should be updated to “Mounted Combat, Skill Focus (Handle animal), or Spirited Charge” as the other feats are no longer used.
Did you give Porpentine's Stealth rewrite a read through? I think it fits nicely into what you're doing here and could save you a lot of trouble in fixing Stealth/Perception/Invisibility independently.I did, and while I'd like Stealth to work more like that in practice, a written skills rule of that length means that my players won't read it. I'd have to cut it down a lot before adapting it.
While I can see where you're coming from this, one of the main reasons why those rules are so long is because the actual Stealth/Perception rules are spread out through the main rulebook.
All in all, boiled down to JUST the changes, his rules reduce the amount of verbiage on Stealth/Perception considerably.
I'll ask him how his 'Cliff Notes' version is coming along.
|
Kirth, what do you think of Traits from the Monte Cook's Iron Heroes? I'm using them for my Midnight game and you can check them out by clicking on my profile, if you do not have the access to the book. I find them pretty great for allowing the players to explore greater diversity when creating characters.
Been thinking about stats (especially in light of your post, AdAstra), and also about the biography of Wyatt Earp I read, in which he's quoted as saying reflexes are relatively unimportant in a gunfight, but rather calm and steady deliberation, ability to ignore smoke and noise, etc. are critical. That said, bonus to attacks with ranged weapons could be moved from Dex to Wisdom (which is Perception's governing stat, representing a keen eye as well, which is also important in shooting). Bonus to Will saves could then be shifted to Charisma (force of personality). Opinions?
an interesting thing I saw a use for charisma for was Overall Luck Bonus. Perhaps hero points could tie in with charisma, afterall heroics typically come from the charismatic.
As for stats "tier level" I think they depend solely on the character class.
Initiative could really be argued to be anything.
Ranged attack roles definitely require a steady hand, but they also require sight (point blank shot maybe for the short range).
Being calm could be improved initiative, you are always prepared. I would also say Wyatt was an inquisitor... which gets to add wisdom in addition to dex to initiative. The reason he probably says in a gun fight is because most things in the old west happened on the draw, meaning that everyone could shoot, it was about who was shooting FIRST that decided what happened.
Basically I think initiative should be totally up to modifiers taken and no real ability score should add to it (unless of course it allows you to add it like said inquisitor).
Will saves to me should stay wisdom, its your perception of reality and your will power.
Charisma may not be a stat that everyone needs or wants, but think about it how many people do you know purposefully have bad charisma or are uncharismatic? I know alot. A great deal actually. People that NEED to be good at charisma are the ones that should have it. They are the ones that were growing up and people said "your going to be a regular politician marty".
Charisma may be a dump stat for some people, but its a dump stat for some people in real life. It does not need any further application to balance it because its REALLY good if you use it and if you dont you simply dont use it.
The usefullness of an ability score is totally relative to the class you play. Making a stat that most people realistically dont have (charisma or wisdom) a necessity to be playable is not a good idea.
Also that change wouldnt change much and it would add confusion to the changes, basically to me it moves all the furniture to the left, nothing changes.
The reason he probably says in a gun fight is because most things in the old west happened on the draw, meaning that everyone could shoot, it was about who was shooting FIRST that decided what happened.
There's a similar monologue from Little Bill Dagett in Unforgiven:
Dagett: "Look son, being a good shot and quick with a pistol don’t do no harm but it don’t mean much next to being cool headed. A man who will keep his head, not get rattled under fire, like as not will kill you."
Biographer: "But if the other person is quicker and fires first..."
Daggett: "Then, he’ll be hurrying and he will miss." (draws his pistol not extremely fast but smoothly.) "That’s as fast as I can draw and aim and hit anything more than 10 feet away, other than a barn door."
I notice at least one police department has linked to this conversation as required reading for all officers.
Will saves to me should stay wisdom, its your perception of reality and your will power.
So why is "will power" governed by a different stat than "force of personality"?
Charisma may not be a stat that everyone needs or wants, but think about it how many people do you know purposefully have bad charisma or are uncharismatic?
None. Charisma is described as "force of personality." People don't intentionally have weak personalities. Some people are intentionally offensive, socially (zero ranks in Diplomacy), but that's not the same as dumping the governing stat.
The usefulness of an ability score is totally relative to the class you play. Making a stat that most people realistically dont have (charisma or wisdom) a necessity to be playable is not a good idea.
At least one aspect of Dex and Con and Int and Wis applies to EVERY class. Having some stats be class-specific only, and others be universal, and then pretending that they're "equal" is bad game design. Whether or not it makes sense, it's deliberately creating "trap" options and auto-dump stats. I'm totally inflexible when it comes to this basic philosophy: (a) if two things cost the same, they should be similarly useful; and (b) no one should have a choice of having to trade something useful for something that does them no good at all.
Suggested additional effects that could be tied to Charisma; these aren't fully developed, just intended as seeds for thought:
- In rounds in which a combatant does not do an offensive action (something that would make you become visible when invisible) he may add his Charisma modifier as a circumstance bonus to his AC (this doesn't apply to non-sentient attacks and attacks against which the combatant is flatfooted)
- All characters possess DR X / - where "X" is the charisma modifier. Any damage prevented by this DR is instead experienced as non-lethal damage
- 10% discount to items bought per Charisma mod
- 1 bonus non-combat feat at level 1 per Charisma mod
- Can use class abilities of next level for a number of rounds a day equal to Charisma modifier
- Can get destiny to act as an "aid" effect a number of times a day equal to Charisma modifier
- May attempt to shake a debilitating condition Charisma modifier times a day
I think possibility 1 and 2 could both be viable ways to keep Charisma relevant for all characters.
Okay I will bite and think about how I would redo the attributes granting bonuses if I could.
Skills: I would give extra skill points per level based on the average of INT and CHA rounding up. One has to be smart but that is not enough, someone has to have the drive to push themselves to learn new things. Raw talent can make things easier, but I see a lot of raw talent wasted due to laziness and lack of drive. The people that are best at what they do take pride in their work and strive to keep up with learning new things.
Initiative: I would base this again on the average of DEX and WIS rounding up. Fast reflexes are nice but if you are a day dreamer I do not see why you should be reacting to a situation any faster than the person who was actually paying attention.
Encumbrance: I would base this on STR and CON rounding up. We all know those weight lifters who can bench 300 lbs, but put a 40 lbs backpack on them and ask them to march for an 8 hour day and see how long they last. You need lifting power and cardiovascular endurance for carrying things around.
To Hit: I agree with breaking it up between STR and WIS. Cool heads are much better at ranged attacks and raw force will help get you through armor with a melee attack.
So what would I have each attribute be the sole influencer of (the important skills based upon it are in parenthesis).
STR = Damage (Athletics, probably not the most powerful skill though)
DEX = AC (Acrobatics, stealth, escape artist, all great skills)
INT = extra languages known (Spell craft which was merged with use magic device, arguably making it the best skill in Kirth’s rules)
CON = hit points (Kirth’s endurance skill, which I think pretty much is a must have for combat characters)
WIS = nothing (Perception is the most used skill in the game hands down, heal was definitely powered up by Kirth, and survival is overall of great use for adventurers)
CHA = influence the save DC of all spells you cast which is new (Bluff, diplomacy, and streetwise)
This leaves the 700 lbs elephant in the room which is saves, why are they such a big deal, well because they influence your Save or DIE chances and death is something to be avoided for all characters. All the other abilities we have talked about really only matter for some character types and none of them will come down to a life or death roll of one single die, but all characters will eventually have their LIFE on the line over the roll of one Fort, Ref, or Will save. So what to do to make the attributes fair? You could go and let the player choose one of two choice attributes from his character and let the best attribute win route, but that really cheapens the other attribute. This is tempting though because nothing is more annoying than when a DM says “everyone make a (Will, Ref, Fort) save” and one first level character goes oh I have a +6 and another grumbles they have a -2, and it only gets more uneven as the levels and attribute bonuses start to add up. On the other hand the choose your best attribute for the bonus at least increases the chance them can play in the same ball game. There is a second choice though which I prefer, average two attributes and round up for your bonus to each save. This makes both attributes matter equally and so neither can be neglected totally. It also means that the save bonuses tend to be more even between the different characters on average.
So in conclusion for saves
Fort = average bonus from STR and CON rounded up
Ref = average bonus from DEX and INT rounded up
Will = average bonus from WIS and CHA rounded up
Finally remember that for most classes all but maybe one or two attributes start to matter less and less as one levels up and your saves, feats, skills, BAB, class abilities, and magical equipment starts to accumulate. I like the averaging component since it keeps characters a little more equal, especially at lower levels. What does everyone think?
Victory Games' James Bond 007 rules (better rules than 3.X in a number of ways) use average of two stats for almost all skills -- e.g., Drive = (Dexterity + Perception)/2 + number of ranks in skill. That makes sense for almost all skills and saves, and I wouldn't mind using that, but it takes a MUCH larger step away from 3.X than I've already done so far. I'd still be willing to do it, but all current players would have to unanimously agree.
I would likely only use the average for INT and CHA to determine the number of bonus skill points per level, I would leave how the skill ranks are determined and the bonus each attribute grants to the skill the same as 3.5 for simplicity sake.
The averaging would make the characters who dump charisma likely to have fewer skill points to distribute per level, those dumping INT would have more; those who dump wisdom would have a lower initiative bonus, while clerics and druids will likely have a larger initiative bonus; and rogues, clerics, and druids would likely have lower save bonuses in their best saves, but the trade off may be some higher bonuses in some of their weaker saves. Of course if everyone in the party is dumping STR, INT, and CHA whenever possible their overall save bonuses will be doing down though. Also at higher levels rogues, clerics, and druids will not be able to count of their attribute bonuses to further increase their saves.
I would be curious to see what the net effect on your player's existing characters would be, but yes I agree I would not implement something like this unless everyone is in favor of it. In fact I would likely only make a change to the attributes when starting a new campaign since any change you make to them can have a large influence on character generation, being that is when the attribute bonuses make the biggest difference.
Kirth I respect your opinion but I do disagree :). Its cool.
I would request the changing abilities thing be an optional rule (especially with the averaging change) just so those that don't want to diverge that far could stay with what you have.
Sorry maybe that request is a little jerkish, I know you didn't make this game for everyone else but nonetheless I figured id ask.
I would request the changing abilities thing be an optional rule (especially with the averaging change) just so those that don't want to diverge that far could stay with what you have.
Hell, these house rules are ALL optional. Every one of them. Take what you like; change or ignore the rest as you see fit. There is no "perfect" game, just variants that appeal more for some groups, less for others.
I would request the changing abilities thing be an optional rule (especially with the averaging change) just so those that don't want to diverge that far could stay with what you have.Hell, these house rules are ALL optional. Every one of them. Take what you like; change or ignore the rest as you see fit. There is no "perfect" game, just variants that appeal more for some groups, less for others.
WIN!
Hey by the way I plan on updating all my personal docs sometime this week with christopher's errata and changes because I am starting a whole campaign this weekend (will give feedback ofcourse).
With that said in as short a post as possible besides chris what else should be changed (nigh the egg of coot stuff if any)
if you get the chance id appreciate ;)
With that said in as short a post as possible besides chris what else should be changed (nigh the egg of coot stuff if any)
Everything I've caught personally I've put under the Egg of Coot alias. Stuff that other people have caught is all in this thread (most of it from Christopher; some stuff earlier on from kyrt-rider; Aeleryth has made some useful comments as well).
With that said in as short a post as possible besides chris what else should be changed (nigh the egg of coot stuff if any)Everything I've caught personally I've put under the Egg of Coot alias. Stuff that other people have caught is all in this thread (most of it from Christopher; some stuff earlier on from kyrt-rider; Aeleryth has made some useful comments as well).
Thanks kirth!
I looked over the weapons document. A lot longer than I was expecting but I do like it.
Page 1 Table 1, I could not find the sap and spiked armor in the later descriptions, did you forget to include them? For close weapons did you want to make a separate entry for the cord garrote and the wire garrote? Under flails and whips the scourge and spiked chain are out of alphabetical order. Under hammers and picks the Great hammer is out of alphabetical order.
Page 2 Under reload your normal attack penalty progression needs to be changed to 0/-5/-5/-5. Under multiple options, the long spear example references the phalanx fighter talent, I think it was removed from the fighter’s talents section. Axe, great is out of alphabetical order. Under Glaive change “by adding a hood” to “by adding a hook”.
Page 3 Under bastard sword exotic, what does the “or special” mean?
Page 4 Under dagger change first strike to first blood. The cutlass heading should be changed to machete I suspect; also change reference to wakizashi to be a masterwork machete.
Page 5 Under club, heavy I cannot find the dazing strike feat, was it renamed? Under club, light do you intentionally give a free feat for martial proficiency? Under mace, heavy was crushing strike renamed since I cannot find it?
Page 6 Under staff, quarter was it intentional to get a free feat for martial proficiency; also I cannot find the two-weapon feint feat was it renamed?
Page 7 Under dagger, punching rename first strike to first blood; also I could not find the deft strike feat was it renamed?
Page 8 Under gauntlet, spiked rename first strike to first blood. The table for unarmed attack, should the first entry be +0 rather than +3?
Page 9 Under unarmed attack you refer to unarmed parry, I did not see the parry rules in the house rules document, are they somewhere else? The Flails section should come before the hammers section to stay in alphabetical order. Under crossbow, light do you want to add a clause “along with the -2 penalty for firing it with one hand” when you are discussing shooting a crossbow with each hand; also under martial and exotic do you want to add a clause “see text” after two handed ranged since you state you can fire the weapon one handed in the description?
Page 10 Under Hammer, great you reference the dazing strike, was the name changed? Under hammer, war, lucerne hammer, pick heavy, and pick, military you reference crushing strike was it renamed? Under hammer, light do you still need the clause about being equal to a monk’s level, the feat now works off BAB? For all three of your picks you state piercing (secondary bludgeoning), what does that mean exactly; this also happens on page 11 under flail, pole? Under pick, light was Deft strike renamed to deft blow?
Page 11 Under flail, heavy two weights and damage types are given, which is correct; also was perforating strike renamed to penetrating strike (this also is a question under the flail, pole entry)? Under scourge was bloody assault renamed bleeding strike? Under the staff, three-section, was in intentional to give a feat for martial proficiency
Page 12 Under whip is it intentional to give simple and martial proficiency the exact same benefits?
Page 13 Do you want to discuss the ranseur and and long spear under pole arms since that section comes before the spears section? For spear, long is it intentional that the simple and martial proficiency give the exact same benefits; also I could not find the phalanx fighter talent?
Page 14 Under boomerang I could not find the feat stunning assault was it renamed?
I just saw that some of my questions on feats were answered under the egg of coot. Thanks
I just saw that some of my questions on feats were answered under the egg of coot. Thanks
Thank you. After standardizing the rules for Strike feats, I went back through and changed all the names of "X Strike" to "X Blow" (or something similar), in an effort to avoid confusion. Unfortunately, I missed those references in the Weapons document the first time around.
Parrying rules are on p. 7 of the main Houserules document.
For the bastard sword, the "special" use immediately follows in parentheses.
Martial light club proficiency might have the following clarification: "Light melee, 1d6/x2 and feat (Two-Weapon Fighting, with two light clubs or light club and dagger only)." See the flavor text before the stats for the reasoning there; I wanted monks to be able to easily pick up the paired-stcik fighting you see in Steven Seagal and Jeff Speakman movies.
For the ones with no clear differentiation between Simple and Martial use, I'm happy to solicit suggestions.
For the long spear I would change the simple proficiency to cause only 1d8x2 damage, for the whip I would allow those with the martial proficiency to have the whip cause lethal or nonlethal damage (exotic proficiency with the whip should likely have this clause included also, along with exotic proficiency with unarmed attacks since neither explicitly state it under their headings).
Also just glancing through the cleric domains and noticed that the suffering domain’s exemplar of suffering is blank, along the greed domain’s variant channeling ability.
Also just glancing through the cleric domains and noticed that the suffering domain’s exemplar of suffering is blank, along the greed domain’s variant channeling ability.
Anything blank and/or highlighted in yellow is "placeholder" stuff until I can come up with ideas and/or suggestions.
I will second the idea that flying shouldn't be automatic just because you don't use wings. (this is the way it has always been done so maybe you just left it as is which i can understand)I agree all around. The fact that "with wings" was left in there just means that I spent a lot more time and effort on classes and feats than I did on skills, and it shows. Thanks to everyone for catching things.
While I do not disagree with a flavor choice making it harder for flying mages to remain aloft (indeed, my group explored such mechanics before PF), I feel compelled to call out my interpretation of the RAW in PF.
Unfortunately, the Fly skill is written in the very best "rules-by-omission" style established so heartily in 3.0/3.5, and by extension, carried forth by our beloved Pathfinder. I believe the logic behind wings or no wings is that if you are NOT using wings to fly, then you are using some kind of magical effect, be it spell or supernatural (or the rare extraordinary like the Beholder, to which this would still apply), and therefore do not need to flap or glide to remain aloft. Whereas, even a masterful flyer (like a small bird) who crashes into something, will plummet at least briefly, and (do to incredible innate skill) recover. But the bigger and clumsier the beast, the more difficult the recovery.
Just my observations.
I believe the logic behind wings or no wings is that if you are NOT using wings to fly, then you are using some kind of magical effect, be it spell or supernatural (or the rare extraordinary like the Beholder, to which this would still apply), and therefore do not need to flap or glide to remain aloft...
I prefer to start from a standpoint of "...but they can still be shot down," though, rather than Pathfinder's default of "...and magic trumps everything else, always, so there, nany-nany-booboo!"
And that difference in philosophy is my primary reason for rewriting the classes.
I believe the logic behind wings or no wings is that if you are NOT using wings to fly, then you are using some kind of magical effect, be it spell or supernatural (or the rare extraordinary like the Beholder, to which this would still apply), and therefore do not need to flap or glide to remain aloft...I prefer to start from a standpoint of "...but they can still be shot down," though, rather than Pathfinder's default of "...and magic trumps everything else, always, so there, nany-nany-booboo!"
And that difference in philosophy is my primary reason for rewriting the classes.
what he said. Just because you cast a spell shouldn't mean that your magic just automatically makes you a perfect flyer, fly speed is good enough as it is.
Question: Do you want to add a clause to the barbarian’s rage power that this bonus to wisdom does not grant any bonus ki powers or spells for the increased wisdom?
Here goes for the Druid document
Page 1 Table 1 Would you include bonus language in 1st level special column? Detect spirit should be italicized. For class skills add (all) to craft and profession.
Page 2 For canny defense did you want to say “with benefits” as the fighter class features since they work differently in regards to what the druid needs to give up. Does this wisdom bonus also grant a bonus to CMD? Would you add the clause “If you are caught flat footed or otherwise denied your dexterity bonus, you also lose this bonus”. Under Detect spirits you missed some references to it as a spell, it should be referenced as a “spell-like ability” or “ability”. Detect spirits lingering aura power 1st paragraph should read “A spirit’s presence lingers after the spirit departs or is destroyed. If the detect spirits ability is used and directed at such a location, the ability indicates an aura strength of dim (even weaker than a faint aura). How long the aura lingers at this dim level depends on its original power, as given on the table above.”
Page 3 Under wild empathy change adds to add after “you roll 1d20 and”. Would you like to add a clause at the end of the wild empathy 2nd paragraph that says something like “This can also be used to protect yourself from magically summoned or controlled magical beasts, vermin, and plants as well, see below."? I noticed that the druid’s wild empathy capstone ability happens at 19th level while the ranger’s happens at 17th, is this intentional? Would you like to give rangers immunity to being attacked by vermin, and possibly elementals from any elemental plane they have as one of their favored terrains? Remove the “a” in wild empathy’s 4th paragraph between influence and magical beasts. Would you want to give druids, and possibly some rangers with an elemental plane as their favored terrain the ability to influence elementals at a -16 penalty on the check?
Page 4 Under favored terrain you could likely just change the last sentence to “Your favored terrain bonus is equal to half your class level, but you do not gain subsequent favored terrains.”
Page 5 Under primal bond at what level would you give the druid tireless rage (an 18th level barbarian ability)? Under the Hierophant abilities table change the first row to “Gain bonus Arcane feat” right? Also add “check” after wisdom in the mind over matter ability description.
Page 7 Under animal shaman, in the wild empathy ability, did you still want it to be used as a full round action or leave it more open ended like diplomacy? In totem transformation bear change the “feat endurance” to “skill focus (endurance)”. In a clarification for wild shape, Dose this effect your number of times per day you can use wild shape? Also how many hours per day can you stay in your wild shape (druid level -2)? Was it intentional to give both greater wild shape and a bonus feat at 10th level? For bonus feats, bear: diehard was replaced, endurance changed to skill focus (endurance), improved great fortitude was replaced. How about improved wrestling maneuvers and greater wrestling maneuvers as replacements for the bear totem? For bonus feats: eagle how about improved lightning reflexes to skirmish? For bonus feat: lion how about improved iron will to advance? For bonus feat: serpent change improved feint and strike back to weapon finesse and combat reflexes? Finally, for animal shaman’s numinous hierophant ability they gain that ability at 20th level correct?
Page 8 for the aquatic druid how does their rounds per day for their wild shape work? Also for the DR on the deep diver ability does the druid choose between being affected by piercing or slashing or are they basically only immune to bludgeoning weapons?
Page 9 channel plant change the will DC to be “+ your druid level + your wisdom modifier.” For the arcane hierophant’s wild shape again how many hours per day can the change last? Under aspect of nature in the aspect of nature section change two references of “retains” to “retain” and change her to your. In the sentence “Aspects available at 4th level include the following:” the word aspects is misspelled.
Page 10 Under elemental, air don’t is misspelled.
Page 11 Under greater wild shape italicize beast shape III. Under savage wild shape add the clause “You gain no additional uses per day, however.” For daggerspell shaper the prerequisites should read: “sneak attack +1d6 or the skirmish feat, the Two-Weapon Fighting (feat), and the Weapon Focus (dagger) (feat).
Page 12 Under sneak attack remove the reference to skirmish. Under swift hunter add at 4th level and to a maximum of +30 ft. at 19th level. Under agile dodge add “at 4th level a” also change “you is” to “you are”. Add “(strike)” after the Numinous Hierophant heading of druidic hunter.
Page 13 Under Bond with the green change the first part to say “At 4th level you can, in a four-hour ritual that you conduct in a private natural setting, gain an”. Under nature’s gift add once per day. Under greater speak with nature spirits change to 100 yds to be consistent. Under greater nature’s gift I believe the example of a 18th level druid should grant a “5” round divine bonus.
Page 14 Under bond with plants change “he is” to “you were”. Under earth’s communion delete the “(as the skill)” and discretion is misspelled.
Page 15 Under Holt warden’s numinous hierophant ability whispers of the forest should be italicized; also change the +10 insight bonus to bluff and diplomacy checks.
Page 16 Under nature warden's numinous hierophant ability change “her” to “your” animal companion. Under stunning jab what feat would you change brutal strike to? I assume thunder strike’s Fort DC is “DC = 10 + half your class level + your Charisma modifier”.
Page 17 Under spirit shaman: chastise spirit class level to druid level, also begin it with “at 4th level”. Under recall spirit usual is misspelled.
Page 18 Under spirit shaman’s numinous hierophant change the 1000 XP to 5000 gp? Not sure if you follow the pathfinder system for that or not.
Page 20 Under animal feats the feats agile maneuvers, improved bull rush, improved overrun, mobility, and run have been replaced.
Page 22 Under the animal companion choices, was it intended to allow the druid to select an elemental as a companion without requiring a special feat or initiate ability?
Page 24 Under the snake spirit guide it should grant the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency (unarmed strike). Correct?
Page 25 Change the druid of earth and metal prerequisite to craft(blacksmith).
Page 26 For oaken resilience and photosynthesize should the reference to life bond be dropped?
Page 27 Under practiced initiate change caster to druid x2. Under scent change the first sentence to “You can expend one daily use of your wild shape”.
Page 28 The feat wolverine’s rage, should it be upgraded +2 STR, CON, and DEX no AC penalty, still not as good as a barbarian's rage without the will bonus but better than written.
For the favored soul's and the sorcerer's spells known, should it read "begins play knowing four 0-level spells, one 1st-level spell of her choice, and a bonus spell chosen by her" mystery or bloodline respectively.
"and a bonus spell chosen by her" mystery or bloodline respectively.
"determined by," rather than "chosen by."
P.S. I'll reply to the druid soon; Mrs Gersen is demanding access to Facebook currently, so I've got to log off for now!
I prefer to start from a standpoint of "...but they can still be shot down," though, rather than Pathfinder's default of "...and magic trumps everything else, always, so there, nany-nany-booboo!"
And that difference in philosophy is my primary reason for rewriting the classes.
Hey Kirth, just letting you know I enjoy popping in from time-to-time to check out your house-rule stuff. Admittedly, they're a bit too numbers-heavy for my personal tastes, but I really like the philosophical positions you draw them from (like the great one above) and they give me great ideas for my own campaigns. I may have to implement a rule which gives a nod to shooting things out of the sky when my campaign gets to that level again (we're back in level 2-3 range at the moment).
Really cool stuff!
what he said. Just because you cast a spell shouldn't mean that your magic just automatically makes you a perfect flyer, fly speed is good enough as it is.I believe the logic behind wings or no wings is that if you are NOT using wings to fly, then you are using some kind of magical effect, be it spell or supernatural (or the rare extraordinary like the Beholder, to which this would still apply), and therefore do not need to flap or glide to remain aloft...I prefer to start from a standpoint of "...but they can still be shot down," though, rather than Pathfinder's default of "...and magic trumps everything else, always, so there, nany-nany-booboo!"
And that difference in philosophy is my primary reason for rewriting the classes.
Yeah, like I said, I don't disagree with a change. I was just pointing out that there is some logic behind the rule.
And you're right, your magic doesn't automatically make you a perfect flyer.....it makes you a good one...;)
Because war is a greater reality now that leadership isn't totally broken and fighters can actually have nice things in this system I am curious about this:
Now that everyone is very powerful, what "mass battle" rules work best with this system or you think would?
My first campaign session this saturday I hoped to throw them into a war battle basically and see how it flies, thats why I was asking
Also:
Is there a way to play a Jester in the system (feats and such combined) like the one from the Dragon Compendium? the player asked and if not I will just let him import it I suppose. Just curious.
Now that everyone is very powerful, what "mass battle" rules work best with this system or you think would?
That's my next pet project: trying to figure out a way to make armies and navies relevant. Right now, I have no idea. But I want them to be! Probably I'll end up grossly modifying the Aid Another mechanic or the DMG2 Mob rules or something, so that a group of 100 archers would produce an area-effect rain of arrows, for example, dealing a lot of damage. I want 300 CR 1/3 warriors to be at least equal to a CR 10 monster.
Now that everyone is very powerful, what "mass battle" rules work best with this system or you think would?That's my next pet project: trying to figure out a way to make armies and navies relevant. Right now, I have no idea. But I want them to be! Probably I'll end up grossly modifying the Aid Another mechanic or the DMG2 Mob rules or something, so that a group of 100 archers would produce an area-effect rain of arrows, for example, dealing a lot of damage. I want 300 CR 1/3 warriors to be at least equal to a CR 10 monster.
Yeah.
Although I think 300 warriors should maybe be above a CR 10 but maybe not. Its just difficult to imagine 4 guys taking out 300 warriors I guess haha
I know you assimilated just about everything in it into your updated rules but I still can't find your reference to Responsive Duelist. Is it still used in your game or did you combine it with another feat I may have over looked? If it's just missing from the documents did you make any changes to the mechanics since it was built off of the 3.5 version of dodge where you had to designate a target rather than getting the universal +1 to AC?
The Art of the Duel "Responsive Duelist" feat got merged into the "Riposte" fighter talent.