Antagonize.
For the record, my objection to Leadership as a feat is not in any way predicated on balance.
As a GM, I have allowed it, and accounted for it in my campaigns. It is well within the GM's powers to balance the feat (and how could it not be, when GM fiat is RAW?)
My grievance is purely aesthetic. Leadership, followers and cohorts seem like they deserve non-feat mechanics. It seems to me that the ability to make a social character should not be tied up in feat slot management.
Others may have similarly intangible reasons to protest the feat-based implementation of other tropes. This is the thread to give voice to those reservations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I object to leadership and any class ability or power that is 'outside' of a character. Stuff that is not intrinsic to their own skill or powers makes no sense in a roleplaying game.
For example, the 'fame' ability of the celebrity bard archetype. What the hell? They become famous automatically from gaining levels, regardless what they do. And it's positive fame. No actions or roleplaying required.
Because this mechanic exists, does it mean other classes are not allowed to become famous and gain benefits from it through roleplaying?
Example:
Celebrity bard walks into town and is famous and gains bonuses just for having the class ability.
A fighter walks into town, does a lot of good work and builds up a reputation, but is not famous because he doesn't have the class ability. It has locked down fame as a mechanical thing that only certain classes can benefit from.
Second example:
Celebrity bard walks into a town and is famous and gains bonuses just for having the class ability.
The aforementioned fighter walks into town and does all the awesome stuff and is granted fame bonuses to checks with the townsfolk thanks to his actions. What was the point of the celebrity feature if it can be accomplished using roleplaying?
The ability has no place in the game.
|
Heighten Spell should be just regular spellcasting option instead of a separate feat.
For a Universalist wizard -- okay; but not for a non-Universalist.
I think the Universalist Wizard, could use some more love.
I'd be okay with a Universalist applying any metamagic feat (known or unknown) at some point in their ability progression tree for the class. That would seem to play to the Universalist being the stronger option in the longterm, but the weaker class option in the short to medium run.
Each of the players has either a town, barony, mage-tower or guild that they run. All of their followers populate those areas. We use the same characters over the course of several adventures (we've been playing with these for almost two years now), with lots of between-adventures down time. These followers are used for various non-adventure tasks, like building moats or collecting mundane equipment or doing non-specialized research. The guy with the barony uses them to man his keep, as servants, guards, courtiers and such.All of this is awesome, but I feel it would be better served in play as something other than a Feat. Hence the thread.
I love the themes of leadership, and particularly the throwback to earlier editions. But a Feat? I feel like the page space dedicated to the leadership feat would have been better served toward an expanded Diplomacy skill section. Maybe something including hirelings and the benefits of having a fortress and personal standard.
If all Leadership gave you was the horde of low level minions, I would say that it should just be a feature of Diplomacy. However, as mentioned earlier, all the players took it for the monstrous cohort. I built each of the cohorts and, since most are Int 5 or so, they get treated pretty much like familiars/animal companions/eidolons/whatever. Every single one of them took the feat to get a flying mount/companion. The two players who didn't take Leadership have their own ways to fly.
But, back to the OP:
I have actually rolled Weapon Spec, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Spec into a single scaling feat in my games. At the levels you would be eligible for the next feat, you just get the benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
feats that open up a new mechanic
Especially if that mechanic is something people should be able to do anyway.
i don't beleive leadership should be a feat.
i beleive that the followers should be a basic function of charisma itself.
and i beleive that if a player honestly wanted a 2nd PC for a concept based reason. that they should be able to ask the DM (and the group) and have thier concept considered rather than automatically rejected.
I tried to come up with rules for this a while back, but it became something that needed to be adjusted based on campaign setting too much, perhaps I should try again...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Batman wants his Robin...
Why yes, yes he does -- but I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation or anyone's business but theirs.
Lurker: This is from the Equipment chapter: Inappropriately Sized Weapons
For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.Also UC has an archetype (Titan Mauler I think) that is based around wielding oversized weapons by decreasing these penalties.
Cool, I don't have UC yet, I'll have to look after the mauler once I get it.
However, with my previous point, I was referring to the section of the equipment rules I have bolded above. In PF you cannot wield a two-handed weapon that is sized for a creature larger than you. Likewise, you cannot wield a light weapon made for a creature smaller than you. I think this is unnecessarily limiting. The fighter/ barbarian swinging a huge sword obviously too big for him is a classic of the genre.
Sorry to Evil Lincoln for derailing his thread.
For example, the 'fame' ability of the celebrity bard archetype.
I see it as simply an additional bonus on top of whatever they do normally.
If a celebrity bard and another character walk into a town and do a bunch of roleplaying stuff to become famous, then they would both get circumstance bonuses to things that being famous helps with.
However, the celebrity gets an additional bonus on top of that.
I look at this the same as where you can have two different actors or artists, both equally skilled, but one "knows how to play up his notoriety" while the other one either lays low, or just doesn't cash in on it.
For examples.. look at Madonna vs Brian Johnson. If you had to look up who he was, then I think I've proven my point. You *might* recognize him (and especially his voice if he sang for you), but really.. it's Madonna who you'd recognize on sight, and who'd have the bigger bonus simply for being focused on being a celebrity.
One is a normal Bard (or Expert with perform skills), while the other is a Celebrity archetype.
They can both make the same effort in the roleplaying encounters, but one will simply have a higher bonus on top of that because of the way they do things.
|
|
@ Valkar, the feat is "Craft Magic Arms and Armor", you can do both, you don't need 2 different feats, and you can use spellcraft to enchant the item, without the need to know how to make it.
Some of the item creation feats are too narrow (someone will really craft several staffs in his career?), some are too wide (wondrous items? I get to enchant from carpets to lantern to footwear with the same feat and that is balanced with making potions?).
I would greatly prefer one or very few feats (enchant single use items, enchant charge items, enchant permanent items, for example) but require the guy to have a relevalt crafting skill.
You want to make potions -> alchemy, swords -> weaponsmithing, and so on, in a way similar to the way Master Craftsman work.
--
Not completely related to this tread OP, but Pathfinder has reduced the importance of skills making them trainable up to class level for each class.
So most skill granting feats, like Alertness and the other feats that give a +2 to two skills have become redundant and maybe even counter productive.
We could easily remove them without harming the game.
Natural Spell for druids, they should be able to cast in any form.
Weapon finesse, I give this for free, dexterity based characters while certainly good are subpar to strength based caracters in most cases, it is part a personal preference that I think the brutal damage dealing potential in PF went a bit too far at times.
Improved two weapon fighting +, I do not see a real reason to make these separate feats, though I am a bit wary cutting it out without looking at the impact on two-weapon fighting characters, two weapon fighting might have some 'hidden fixes' already which might turn it into a superior choice all of a sudden.
Improved Vital Strike +, no real point making these separate feats, they give diminished returns, though in this case I might introduce a feat to allow it to be used with charge and spring attack and possibly other manoeuvers.
Furious Assault, this feat seems like a no brainer, my players concluded they would not take the feat, considering it too brutal.. that is kinda telling really, maybe a revise would be in order instead
Antagonize, someone had a brainfart
Craft Feats, I think 3rd edition made it too easy to craft magical items, I vote for more restrictive rules without an expenditure in feats
metamagic feats, could use some serious revising, I rather see them used a limited number of times applied spontaneously with a maximum spell level determined by the metamagic used, quicken sell can be used spontaneously for example, but only on spells 4 levels below the highest level cast, once or twice per day maybe.. metamagic rods should work the same way.. the way metamagic works now is rather awkward and in most cases considered useless
I'll throw my votes to Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise (too much like Fighting Defensively), Eschew Materials.
Weapon Finesse isn't so much broken as it leads many people to false assumptions. For just about any class other than rogue, the mechanic is pretty crappy. . . and even for rogue it is only mildly good. It should probably just be retooled to a rogue class feature.
I've never even allowed Leadership in the games I run -- nor have I ever had an option to use the Leadership feat in games I play in -- so it's a bit difficult to justify its existence.
Heighten Spell is a band-aid mechanic in 3.0 to help sorcerers out. With the sorcerer/bard spell-swaps added in 3.5 and more and more spells becoming available, the feat really becomes devalued. It would probably be balanced if it gave a bonus of some kind -- like +level increased bonus versus SR (6th level Heightened slow would get a +3 bonus on SR checks).
Vital Strike is a misunderstood mechanic. It's primarily supposed to be used *only* in bad situations where you can't get a full attack, not as a primary attack (like being staggered, can't charge/charge AC penalty hurts too much, etc). Players wanting the mechanic to be a primary ability (something spammed all the time) are fooling themselves.
TWF mechanics are fine. There are plenty of ways to optimize TWF, so it's really not that bad.
Antagonize is clearly a messed up muddle.
I don't quite follow that logic.
+4 AC makes it harder to get hit on an AoO once you failed your acrobatics check.
Acrobatics makes it so that the enemy doesn't get an AoO in the first place.
I don't see how +4 AC makes the acrobatics check even a tiny bit easier.
I skipped a step in writing. To spell it out:
Chance of damage = (chance of provoking attack) * (chance of being hit if attack provoked).Reduce either one, and you reduce the product as well.
Altitude Affinity.
As much love as I have for Pathfinder #6, I never thought that a feat was the way to handle this.
I'm not quite sure why this got moved to the Homebrew forum, since it is straight up commentary/opinion on the game, not house rules or suggestions for it. I guess someone must have flagged it as wrong forum. Shrug.
I will definately jump on the powerattack/deadly aim/combat expertise train. It seems to me things that are already a tradeoff dont need to be a feat.
I however dont agree that weapon finese should go away. I agree it is a straight feat tax, but I think it is an important one. Dex does a heck of alot more then strength in the game, and removing the feat tax will marginalize strength based characters entirely. I also think it makes sense from a flavor perspective. A brute with an axe needs limited training to be dangerous. Swing hard and often and you'll hurt people. Someone who is using a duelist style of fighting (dex based) needs more skill with his blade regardless of how dextrous he is. This is well represented by requiring the feat.
Leadership I think needs to be broken up partly into feats and partly into non-feat based mechanics. The ability to get advanced mounts or something similar I think makes sense as a feat. If a character wants to mount a griffin, then I think a character option (a feat) makes the most sense. But I think gaining cohorts and followers makes more sense as an in game reward coming from the dm. Though I would like to see that reward quantified (fitting followers/land/buildings into the existing treasure based reward system). Even to an adventurer minions, titles, land, or a castle has an in game value. But it has rarely been effectively quantified within the rules.
1. All Achievement feats. You could fold them into classes as archetypes.
2. Arcane Armor Training. Besides the fact that I've always found the whole arcane spell failure thing questionable, I find any armor feat weird.
3. Armor Proficiency. I could see this as a skill, not a feat.
4. Shield Proficiency. Again, skill not feat.
5. Galley Slave - what was the person who created this taking?!
6. Leadership - as has been mentioned forever.
7. Master Craftsman and all Craft Magic Item feats. Turn them into skills.
3. Armor Proficiency. I could see this as a skill, not a feat.
4. Shield Proficiency. Again, skill not feat.
Alright, I'll bite: how would that even work?
Alright, I'll bite: how would that even work?
3. Armor Proficiency. I could see this as a skill, not a feat.
4. Shield Proficiency. Again, skill not feat.
You take ACP to everything physical. Attacks, skills...everything. For every skill point you have in armor proficiency you lessen the ACP by one. That's the only way I could see it making sense- although that would take a lot of tweaking (skills points alloted, ACP of armors, and so forth). Probably more trouble than it is worth.
You take ACP to everything physical. Attacks, skills...everything. For every skill point you have in armor proficiency you lessen the ACP by one. That's the only way I could see it making sense- although that would take a lot of tweaking (skills points alloted, ACP of armors, and so forth). Probably more trouble than it is worth.
Might be. I am intensely skeptical of using skills for mechanics that don't involve rolling or DCs. In fact... that's one of my criteria for what makes something a good feat, as opposed to a skill. :) On-Topic!
Alright, I'll bite: how would that even work?
3. Armor Proficiency. I could see this as a skill, not a feat.
4. Shield Proficiency. Again, skill not feat.
I'm with the President here, I don't see that working. Honestly, I think armor and weapon proficiency feats are feats because they represent going above and beyond the "typical" training of your class.
You take ACP to everything physical. Attacks, skills...everything. For every skill point you have in armor proficiency you lessen the ACP by one. That's the only way I could see it making sense- although that would take a lot of tweaking (skills points alloted, ACP of armors, and so forth). Probably more trouble than it is worth.Might be. I am intensely skeptical of using skills for mechanics that don't involve rolling or DCs. In fact... that's one of my criteria for what makes something a good feat, as opposed to a skill. :) On-Topic!
I agree on this with the Evil Wearer Of Badass Beard.
But this reminded me one more thing that should not be feat: Light Armor Proficiency. Seriously, things that qualify as light armors do not require special training to wear efficiently. Even if you spent 20 years of your life burried in books you can wear them without serious drawbacks (as long as your strength is enough to wear them at least, but it is another matter than proficiency).
- Unseat (You can seriously just make this part of the normal rules for bull-rush)
No kidding. Isn't 'Unseat' just the consequence of being bull-rushed while sitting on a horse charging in the opposite direction?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Unseat (You can seriously just make this part of the normal rules for bull-rush)No kidding. Isn't 'Unseat' just the consequence of being bull-rushed while sitting on a horse charging in the opposite direction?
Strike Back.
Rhino Charge.
Notice a pattern here? These feats are irritating because they require a investment for creative uses of feats that are already an investment, and they discourage innovation in executing generic maneuvers.
All three of the above feats should really have been rules clarifications, each with the text: "Yeah you can do that, it sounds pretty awesome." Instead, they are feats that read "and for a few dollars more..."
This kind of design mistake (making everything a feat and nothing a clarification) leads to a feeling of rules paralysis, where players are pissed off because they already invested two or three feats in bull-rush/mounted combat/etc and yet they still can't derive the obvious benefits of those investments.
I'm not that butthurt over the whole ordeal. The designers do need to experiment, but it's fair to look back and say "maybe that didn't work out as a feat". It'll all come out in the wash of some revised edition, I hope.
Oh, and Unseat is even further ridiculous because of just how narrow its applications actually are. It's like having a feat that only works against 2-weapon fighting humanoids. And will you believe I had a player who actually took it?
- Unseat (You can seriously just make this part of the normal rules for bull-rush)No kidding. Isn't 'Unseat' just the consequence of being bull-rushed while sitting on a horse charging in the opposite direction?Strike Back.
Rhino Charge.
Notice a pattern here? These feats are irritating because they require a investment for creative uses of feats that are already an investment, and they discourage innovation in executing generic maneuvers.
+1
Leadership isn't an overpowered feat. It's a universal feature of reaching 7th level that you can give up in exchange for a feat. It's just written as if it were a feat in order to make the description of feat progression look consistent instead of having a strange skipped level.
+1 LOL
|
I object to leadership and any class ability or power that is 'outside' of a character. Stuff that is not intrinsic to their own skill or powers makes no sense in a roleplaying game.
The ability has no place in the game.
While I generally agree with that, I have to ask: Does that include familiars and animal companions? How about bonded objects? If not, why doesn't it?
Cool, I don't have UC yet, I'll have to look after the mauler once I get it.
However, with my previous point, I was referring to the section of the equipment rules I have bolded above. In PF you cannot wield a two-handed weapon that is sized for a creature larger than you. Likewise, you cannot wield a light weapon made for a creature smaller than you. I think this is unnecessarily limiting. The fighter/ barbarian swinging a huge sword obviously too big for him is a classic of the genre.
Agreed; but damage doesn't scale well for weapons that big. I can understand the desire to not have medium creatures with huge or even large greatswords. If upper end weapon damage followed the same weapon progression pattern as smaller weapons do (and they do, in my houserules) then I wouldnt have a problem allowing large creature weapons on medium creatures with or without a feat, like I wouldnt have a problem with large characters.
Natural Spell for druids, they should be able to cast in any form.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh thats good. Wait, were you serious? :P
I've been considering going the other way and simply not allowing the feat. Druids are crazy powerful, the last thing I need is a fighter who casts spells like a wizard, and can do both at the same time.
If upper end weapon damage followed the same weapon progression pattern as smaller weapons do (and they do, in my houserules) then I wouldnt have a problem allowing large creature weapons on medium creatures with or without a feat, like I wouldnt have a problem with large characters.
I saw a general formula in your post history (in the v1.5 thread, iirc), but not an explicit table. Is the formula all you use, or do you have a more comprehensive table (that you could share with me)?
^_^ I've thought for some time that the size progression for damage dice was in need of tinkering...
While I generally agree with that, I have to ask: Does that include familiars and animal companions? How about bonded objects? If not, why doesn't it?I object to leadership and any class ability or power that is 'outside' of a character. Stuff that is not intrinsic to their own skill or powers makes no sense in a roleplaying game.
The ability has no place in the game.
I can see a gray area with animal companions, they can be problematic (as can summoned creatures). I've seen some mechanics around the d20 universe that deal with that by combining their actions with the master, making them a part of the master's action resources. Pretty cool, I think. But the general limits on what these sorts of creatures can actually do makes this manageable I believe. Cohorts are a whole different story as they can be clerics, and sorcerers, and rogues...oh my.
Whereas familiars (and of course bonded objects) are very much intrinsic to the character. Familiars pretty much ride their masters into battle, and bonded objects are worn by them.
Perhaps Run and Endurance. I would like to try to tie these into a skill, but I'm GMing a different system right now and only have time for one game.
I object to leadership and any class ability or power that is 'outside' of a character. Stuff that is not intrinsic to their own skill or powers makes no sense in a roleplaying game.
While I agree with the spirit of your opinion (if I got it correctly, of course) I think that your wording miss it a little - Cleric spells come from outside him, so does Summoner's Eidolon and yet they are and I think that they should be kept as class features.
The same could apply to Magus Black Blade.From your examples I read it that you specificially object to social (and possibly material) benefits being class features gained with levels instead of rewards earned in play - which is objection I wholeheartedly agree with. The worst offender in my opinion in that area was Fading Suns d20... Which made noble titels and land possession into feats. Urgh. Hopefuly no one ever attempts to repeat it in Pathfinder.
I reject Leadership as a purely social benegfit but I accept Leadership as a way of gaining cohort as a form of spiritual/karmic bond. Still the problem of followers remains. At least in case of conjurer/necromancer they could represent minions summoned or created that are under character's (limited) control beyond the usuall limits. With the more mundane characters the followers could represent folks swayed by the extraordinary Charisma of the character bordering with the supernatural effect.
While I agree with the spirit of your opinion (if I got it correctly, of course) I think that your wording miss it a little - Cleric spells come from outside him, so does Summoner's Eidolon and yet they are and I think that they should be kept as class features.
The same could apply to Magus Black Blade.From your examples I read it that you specificially object to social (and possibly material) benefits being class features gained with levels instead of rewards earned in play - which is objection I wholeheartedly agree with. The worst offender in my opinion in that area was Fading Suns d20... Which made noble titels and land possession into feats. Urgh. Hopefuly no one ever attempts to repeat it in Pathfinder.
Yes, that's what I meant by outside of the character. A cleric's connection with their god is intrinsic to the character, as is an animal companion, familiar or black blade. These things are part of the character's being, connected directly to their skill in their various areas.
I object to things anyone should be able to do anyway that are now feat or class mechanics. Nobody should just be able to pray to the gods and receive a resurrection spell, so that's fine being cleric only. But anyone should be able to start an army with the right skills and effort, without having to spend a feat on it to gain it automatically.
|
|
If upper end weapon damage followed the same weapon progression pattern as smaller weapons do (and they do, in my houserules) then I wouldnt have a problem allowing large creature weapons on medium creatures with or without a feat, like I wouldnt have a problem with large characters.I saw a general formula in your post history (in the v1.5 thread, iirc), but not an explicit table. Is the formula all you use, or do you have a more comprehensive table (that you could share with me)?
^_^ I've thought for some time that the size progression for damage dice was in need of tinkering...
I posted the full table up here at some point I believe, but I dont remember where or when.
I'll re-post it, but first I'll explain the process behind it.
Right. Here we go. Below are all the options, you can build your own table by picking which rolling method for the number you like most. If you use dice programs instead of real dice, a d24 poses no problems... for the rest of us, here are some alternatives. It's worth noting, if you have one person using d24s instead of d20+d4, lows and highs become more likely for the app user. I'm okay with this, but you might want everyone to us an app, or have everyone use the method that is easily replicated by dice. At the end I'll include a simple "Which options does darkholme use, weighing in the pain of extra math versus getting close to the desired range."
I have 3 types of options here, generally.
A: This will be the simplest option.
B: As above, but includes weird things, like d2s, d3s, and d5s, which means more complication but for a more accurate curve. More Complication. May occasionally include elements of C if A is too bellcurvey as well.
C: single regular die, multiply the total by some number. so like 2d8 for a d16, except instead of rolling separately and adding together, you roll one and double it. You get the damage spread out properly in this option (generally) but you're losing out on the full range of numbers, which you may not like. When its an option I'd strongly consider this one.
D: one I'm not including: If you include odd numbered dice, like d3s, d5,s or what have you; you can get the ability to roll a 1 back by going with something like (d12+(1d3-1) for a d14). I dont think the extra complication is worth the effort here though. YMMV.
Flat:
1
1d2
1d3
1d4
1d6
1d8
1d10
1d12
1d14 A:(d10+d4) B:(d12+d2) C:(n/a) (d14 Available; very uncommon)
1d16 A:(d12+d4) B:(n/a) C:(d8x2) (d16 as above. very uncommon)
1d18 A:(d12+d6) B:(n/a) C:(n/a)
1d20
1d22 A:(n/a) B:(d20+d2) C:(n/a)
1d24 A:(d20+d4) B:(n/a) C:(d12x2)
1d26 A:(d20+d6) B:(d20+(d3x2)) C:(n/a) This one is hard.
1d28 A:(d20+d8) B:(d20+(d4x2)) C:(n/a)
1d30 A:(d20+d10) B:(d20+(d5x2)) C:(n/a)
1d32 A:(d20+d12) B:(d20+(d3x4)) B2:(d20+(d6x2)) C:(n/a)
etc.
Curved:
1
1d2
1d3
2d2 A:(1d4) B:(2d2) - you could renumber two dice if you want 2d2 to be easy to roll, if you dont like going odd/even or high/low, or dividing a d4 by 2. 1d4 if youre horribly lazy.
2d3 A:(1d6) B:(2d3) - either d6/2 or renumber some d6es to go 1-3 twice. 1d6 if youre horribly lazy.
2d4
2d5 A:(d8+d2) B:(2d5) - renumbered d10s or d20s, or d10/2 twice, added together
2d6
2d7 A:(d8+d6)
2d8
2d9 A:(d10+d8)
2d10
2d11 A:(d12+d10)
2d12
2d13 A:(2d12+1d2)
2d14 A:(2d12+1d4)
2d15 A:(2d12+1d6)
2d16 A:(2d12+1d8) C:(2d8x2)
Here's the simplified version for people less picky who still want to use the hack to make large creatures more playable and have a more logical damage progression for weapon size. This one is just plug and play. I did the selection work for you.
Flat:
1
1d2
1d3
1d4
1d6
1d8
1d10
1d12
1d14 d12+d2
1d16 d8x2
1d18 d12+d6
1d20
1d22 d20+d2
1d24 d12x2
1d26 d20+d6
1d28 d20+(d4x2)
1d30 d20+(d5x2)
1d32 d20+d6x2
Curved:
1
d2
d3
2d2 relabel some dxes if you have to. d6es roll better than d4s. use those.
2d3 relabel some d6es if you have to.
2d4
2d5 relabel some d10s if you have to.
2d6
2d7 d8+d6
2d8
2d9 d10+d8
2d10
2d11 d12+d10
2d12
2d13 2d12+d2
2d14 2d12+1d4
2d15 2d12+1d6
2d16 2d12+1d8
The idea is simple: Look at the weapon. Find its damage on whichever chart its on, and note what creature size its for. For each creature size above that that you want to give it to, move it one step up in the table. for each creature size below the creature the weapon is for, move it a step down.
So say I have a gargantuan giant's weapon. Say it does 2d12 (A very beastly weapon, and likely bigger than youll ever need, but bear with me). Now we want to know what this weapon would do if built for a halfling. So Gargantuan>Huge>Large>Medium>Small: 4 steps below gargantuan. So - 2d12>d12+d10>2d10>d10+d8>2d8. In the hands of a halfling, this weapon does 2d8 damage.
For a more likely example, lets look at the Greataxe, built for a minotaur. In Core it does 3d6, breaks the pattern, and illustrates a big reason large creatures dont work for players. With this more cohesive pattern, we can see it does d12<d14(d12+d2), which is much more reasonable on a player, and follows the established pattern that small and medium creatures generally use.
Additional possible uses of this system are to change a weapon from light - one handed- two handed weapon without having to build a new weapon from scratch. light < 1h < 2h. Use the same scaling rules, and it should work, just note what size creature you're building it for, because inappropriately sized creatures take penalties to use them.
And there you have it.
[Edit:]It may be worth noting that you could condense these into a single damage track, and once youre above a d12, jump to the curved table. This will mean easier to remember dice combinations, at the expense of the dice giving you average damage far more often than it should for that weapon type at larger sizes. I think the two progressions are warranted though, otherwise we would have both a greataxe and greatsword with the same damage type.
|
Bleh. I think each weapon should have one damage value, no matter what size it is.
Why, you ask? Because when you increase in size, you already get a Str bonus, which increases base damage by itself.
I don't like to encourage fighters to use the biggest mass they can lift as a weapon more than they already are.
|
|
Bleh. I think each weapon should have one damage value, no matter what size it is.
Why, you ask? Because when you increase in size, you already get a Str bonus, which increases base damage by itself.
I don't like to encourage fighters to use the biggest mass they can lift as a weapon more than they already are.
I definitely disagree here. But I like the idea of the fighter picking up a minotaur weapons, or what have you. So I dont want to drop the size idea. but I do want to fix the table so it doesnt suddenly break and become horribly powerful when you have a bigger weapon, or have a bigger creature.
when you increase in size, you do not necessarily get a str bonus. you get that if its through spells. thats about it.
having the bigger weapon dice means a large minotaur is getting -1 to hit and +1 damage. not overpowering. you get a cmb/cmd bonus of +1, a -4 to stealth, possibly reach, and (most likely) 10 foot space, meaning you can be flanked by an extra 4 people if they get the drop on you.
A large creature with +0 strength? thats entirely possible.
I will note that I dont think small creatures should get all the exceptions from the size increase decrease pattern that they do, namely 5 foot reach/space. but thats a topic for another thread.
I will ask you this though TOZ: You must see that this is more reasonable than the table in the core book, right? taking a large creature's greatsword no longer does 3d6. If you were to *play* a large creature with a greatsword (yes I know, no PF option currently supports this...) you shouldnt get the 3d6 either. Make a nice pattern, and keep it. There's a pattern at low levels already, and they throw it out above medium. I say just keep using the pattern. +2 max damage each size category. (+1 avg).
|
|
A large creature with +0 strength? thats entirely possible.
Old Size* New Size Str Dex Con Natural Armor
Fine Diminutive Same –2 Same Same
Diminutive Tiny +2 –2 Same Same
Tiny Small +4 –2 Same Same
Small Medium +4 –2 +2 Same
Medium Large +8 –2 +4 +2
Large Huge +8 –2 +4 +3
Huge Gargantuan +8 Same +4 +4
Gargantuan Colossal +8 Same +4 +5
There may be a Large creature with a +0 racial Str adjustment. But by the rules, increasing in size gives at least a +2.
I will ask you this though TOZ: You must see that this is more reasonable than the table in the core book, right?
I'll take your word for it, I didn't make it through the wall of text. :)
Cleave. Characters Are Not Rock Em Sock Em Robots, Therefore Can Swing A Weapon In An Arc If They Need To.
|
|
There may be a Large creature with a +0 racial Str adjustment. But by the rules, increasing in size gives at least a +2.
I'll take your word for it, I didn't make it through the wall of text. :)
I will ask you this though TOZ: You must see that this is more reasonable than the table in the core book, right?
I agree that if you take a medium creature and increase its size (particularly with monster advancement rules) it gets a +2 str. I'm just saying the possibility of a large size race that is balanced with player characters in terms of stats isn't necessarily impossible. They might get a +2 in str, but so can any halforc, human, or halfelf.
as for the wall of text, I'm kindof bad for that. lol.
just look at the table in the third spoiler box, and the paragraph below it. lol
|
|
as for the wall of text, I'm kindof bad for that. lol.just look at the table in the third spoiler box, and the paragraph below it. lol
I did skim that, and it looks reasonable, if not what I like.
I just feel like large creatures get enough of a boost without having large numbers of damage dice. It's doubling up bonuses, and I don't like it. *shrugs*
I had an idea where the max damage didn't increase, but the minimum did. Like 1d8 going to 2d4. Thus the min goes from 1 to 2 while 8 is still the max. But there aren't enough combinations to make that easy to do.
|
|
Similarly if a caster should chose between craft wands and craft weapons and armors he will often chose the former as it is more useful for him and a prerequisite for some higher level feat/discovery.
I would actually take Craft Magic Arms and Armor over Craft Wand, myself, since you can ignore most prerequisites with Magic Arms and Armor, but not with Wands. This is especially true if I'm playing a Sorcerer, with fewer spells known (and thus less flexibility in creating Wands)..
BTW, some great suggestions in this thread.
@Darkholme: Thanks very much for re-posting that, it's quite useful for me. I do see the improvements to the curvature of damage entailed in your progressions.
Similarly if a caster should chose between craft wands and craft weapons and armors he will often chose the former as it is more useful for him and a prerequisite for some higher level feat/discovery.I would actually take Craft Magic Arms and Armor over Craft Wand, myself, since you can ignore most prerequisites with Magic Arms and Armor, but not with Wands. This is especially true if I'm playing a Sorcerer, with fewer spells known (and thus less flexibility in creating Wands)..
BTW, some great suggestions in this thread.
Craft Wand can be nice if you have good ties to an NPC cleric to obtain healing wands. On the whole, though, I agree, Magic Arms & Armor are easier to craft as well as more reliably worth their investment cost.
I admit to curiosity, what feat(s) or discovery(-ies) is Craft Wand a prerequisite for? I'm not familiar with it/them. ^_^;
I will ask you this though TOZ: You must see that this is more reasonable than the table in the core book, right? taking a large creature's greatsword no longer does 3d6. If you were to *play* a large creature with a greatsword (yes I know, no PF option currently supports this...) you shouldnt get the 3d6 either. Make a nice pattern, and keep it. There's a pattern at low levels already, and they throw it out above medium. I say just keep using the pattern. +2 max damage each size category. (+1 avg).
I can understand your issue with the weapon damage by size table. There are too many monkeys out there trying to take advantage of it. However, I love it. In 3.0 the chart was linear, much like yours, but in 3.5 they fixed that and gave giants giant-sized weapons!
And, I just have to say; they don't "throw out" the pattern above medium. The pattern is based on each size doing 1.5 times as much damage as the one below it. They use this throughout, rounded to the nearest dice combo that works. It's just that you can only do so much with dice. I'm sure if the game used flat 'damage values', it would be x 1.5 round down. ;)