The thought is that an 18th level rogue (or fighter, or barbarian, or whatever) should be equal to an 18th level wizard. 18 = 18. As it is, when a 9th level wizard > a 9th level rogue, the system is badly broken, at the very base of it, and needs to be redone. I'll take any ideas that lead to that end.
This is impossible for a number of reasons. I think the best option for this is to go primarily for old school style balancing over the long term. Mages are weak early on and their power becomes great if you survive which should be very difficult to achieve.
But honestly, it's not magic that makes the mages better, it's the flexibility. People who are more creative favor flexibility, and creativity overpowers mechanics especially in a game where you can do anything plausible in the narrative world. Players who are mire oriented towards numerical efficiency or focus more on socializing and cool stuff rather than creative problem solving, will always fall behind creative players, and the numerical efficiency players will always cream everyone else, and if you crush creative flexibility then you are reducing the game to a mere boardgame (the worst possible thing to do), and if you balance the numerical efficiency types then you get dnd 4e, also a really sucky result.
I might note how even the wargames from which rpgs spawned were originally teaching tools which relied not on mechanics but on knowledgeable referees to use their battlefield experience to bend things towards realism because the mechanics could never accomplish that task. Likewise, rpgs also suffer the same problem, they require experienced and knowledgeable gms to bend things to plausible outcomes because the mechanics simply can not do it.
This results in a case where the player's creativity becomes a hidden stat boost and everyone has a different score. Getting away from gameplay ideology about mechanical balance is therefore the best way to evade problems stemming from "imbalance" and if that can't be done because of other goals of the system then it needs to be expected as an inherent unavoidable problem and lean in on the gm to compensate for it.
Those are my thoughts on the problem in general anyway.
Personally, I'd look at the risk/reward factor. Make magic powerful but risky.
Question for Kirth or anyone else that might have a answer.
I am in the process of reworking Strength of Thousands (2e AP) over to these houserules. Thanks to the bestiary that part has gone fairly well for book 1 so far. I am looking at the free Devotion feat that comes with the AP and trying determine the best way to keep the feel of everyone has some magic ability but not sure what the best way to do it with Kirthfinder is.
My last post was not supposed to be posted till I finished it and cut it down, so I'm sorry if seems harsh as I never finished with it. It also lacks what I was going to actually suggest (but I need more time to finish typing that).
Question for Kirth or anyone else that might have a answer.
I am in the process of reworking Strength of Thousands (2e AP) over to these houserules. Thanks to the bestiary that part has gone fairly well for book 1 so far. I am looking at the free Devotion feat that comes with the AP and trying determine the best way to keep the feel of everyone has some magic ability but not sure what the best way to do it with Kirthfinder is.
Oh, that's easy. If you want everyone to have magic, look into giving them the, "Magical Talent," and, "Magical Talent Array," feats, found in the Arcane Feat section.
The thought is that an 18th level rogue (or fighter, or barbarian, or whatever) should be equal to an 18th level wizard. 18 = 18. As it is, when a 9th level wizard > a 9th level rogue, the system is badly broken, at the very base of it, and needs to be redone. I'll take any ideas that lead to that end.
First, 9th lvl mage > 9th lvl rogue is not necessarily a broken thing, such as in early editions when part of the balance was over the span of the character's career, such that being a wizard was a high risk high reward option in that early on the mage was weak and at best a minor utility character that had very little chance of survival, but if they did somehow manage to survive, to overcome the extra difficulty, then they got rewarded for it.
===
Here is what I suggest followed by how I do it in my system.
First, determine the big picture in-world balance. Why would a professional soldier not learn magic? Or if they do, what role would magic play and why?
For example, in my world, soldiers absolutely learn magic, but rarely use it for support functions. They don't attack with it very often because magic tends to be less lethal, far more exhausting, and slower than martial weapons. That said, attack magic is still used on occasion (one nation actually relies primarily on wands and similar to utilize magic without the exhaustion) especially for artillery type attacks and dealing with other similar situations, such as using cloud spells in a bunker or trench. Having a spell up one's sleeve is often held for emergencies or to surprise an opponent or for tactical benefit.
With this kind of overview and general concept magic's role in combat and why, we can jump to step two.
Two. Big picture out-of-combat and general social impact of magic.
For example, in my world, magic is pretty common to the point even most commoner families have a family spellbook. Importantly, if you read alexandrian's article Calibrating your expectations, whether you agree with his assessment of 3.5, his assessment is something I want to have and improve in my system. That means that someone capable of inventing 3rd level spells is an Einstein of magic, but I also want most people to be able to cast at least a few cantrips with 1st level spells being pretty common. 2nd level spells are much harder to come by but can be found with such capable mages being masters of magic and thus hired specialists. Mages able to cast 3rd level spells are exceptionally rare and generally considered national assets making specialized magic gear for royals, nobles, and military special ops. I also want people to have fuzzy limits on their spellcasting, neither exacting nor unlimited but with plenty of casting per day.
Three. List any other quirks you'd like to have or avoid in the mechanics. This is also where you might start a rough sketch of magic system-wide.
Example, in my system I want skill based magic casting with variable results. I love the idea of casting a fireball and sometimes it's more powerful than expected and other times it's rather feeble.
I also love the idea of vitalizing magic.
This also impacts balance so I'll need to take it into account as well as the effects of it being a skill, such as the range where spells can not fail or can not succeed etc.
Four. Start building/modifying the universal mechanics.
Example, In mine casting magic requires a skill check, So I make a new skill per school of magic plus one for any innate magic. Keeping in mind that I want the DCs to match up for the first few levels at least, I set the DC to 5+10/SL. Metamagics adjust DCs instead of changing slot levels.
Adding in vitalizing also gives me the perfect avenue for why spellcasting classes matter in a world where everyone can use magic. I set the rule that casting magic costs fatigue, which is a dmg type in my system (using a sort of vitality/wounds type deal), so a cantrip costs 1 vp and every level above is 1d4 per SL, any 4s rolled deals 1 lethal dmg. Casting classes get slots just like normal which allows spells to be cast without the fatigue dmg. Thus everyone can cast, but the classes still matter.
Hmm, that's twice firefox has posted my post when shifted to the background.
I've been listening to the rules again since it's been so long since I last looked them over. (I'd appreciate a nice pdf download that doesn't require signing my life away to another corporate enslavement office)
I noticed this time around that you flipped the age bonuses for mental stats. This is incorrect. If you die before hitting 100 years of age, then it wasn't age that killed you. It was diet. Same for most of the so-called age related problems like dropping memory and so on, all of those are also not actually from age. IQ is one that actually doesn't increase in the real world however experience and knowledge and the ability to keep iq from declining means that older people's effective intelligence does in fact go up if they are actually healthy.
The balance of increased mental scores additionally gives players a reason to play older characters. Most of the uses of those stats do make sense for older people to have higher effectiveness.
Hey Kirth, Question: For Incorporeal Familiars, they basically just apply the Ghost Template, correct?
Should I assume that the +2 CR increase from the Ghost template isn't applied, because of the inherent downsides of Incorporeal Familiars (can't move from master's square, can't interact with anyone or anything else)?
Presumably, if I did apply the +2 CR increase of the template, then it would gain all of the benefits of the template, while still being able to interact normally with the rest of the world, right?
Either way sounds reasonable to me.
Is minimum WBL already baked into any cohort, so "Par" WBL would be considered +1 instead of +0 for them?
Yes. Minimum WBL is default for all monsters, NPCs, etc.; getting PC par costs them +1 CR. As far as creature types, Thaumaturgy should pretty much always cover a familiar (and one could argue that the half-celestial and shadow templates and Outsider HD qualify it an an outsider).
I'm mot clear om why you'd want a fighter that can't leave your square and can't interact with the others, though -- I'd consider fighting to be interacting.
BTW, sorry for the delayed responses -- I just moved and my old computer died.
First, 9th lvl mage > 9th lvl rogue is not necessarily a broken thing, such as in early editions when part of the balance was over the span of the character's career...
I grew up on 1e, and loved it, but wouldn't want to play it anymore and most especially wouldn't want to run a game with it. The idea that gaining experience makes one class far better (more options, and better ones) and does little or nothing for another class is just silly to me, unless you want to cap all the martial classes at 6th level or so (in which case you either play E6. or no one plays a martial class). If my philosophy here is offputting, I stated very clearly in the intro that there are far better games for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed this time around that you flipped the age bonuses for mental stats. This is incorrect.
It's incorrect for your game. For what I'm trying to do, it works. If you need more ideas, I was reading over my undergrad class notes and was blown away by how much smarter I was back then than I am now. I have more experience (xp) now and am probably higher level. but my mental stats are all lower, to include Wis and Cha.
The balance of increased mental scores additionally gives players a reason to play older characters. Most of the uses of those stats do make sense for older people to have higher effectiveness.
There are more ways to balance. If your age gives you -4 to all your attributes, you've essentially gained the Devolved template (-1 CR) and can therefore be 5th level (CR 4), even though the rest of your (younger) party are only 4th level (CR 4) -- and you're still all on equal footing.
The balance of increased mental scores additionally gives players a reason to play older characters. Most of the uses of those stats do make sense for older people to have higher effectiveness.There are more ways to balance. If your age gives you -4 to all your attributes, you've essentially gained the Devolved template (-1 CR) and can therefore be 5th level (CR 4), even though the rest of your (younger) party are only 4th level (CR 4) -- and you're still all on equal footing.
Oh certainly, but I still think your suggestion is more complicated and off putting. Before, I could just build my character first, and if I wanted one more +1 or decided to be older, all that was needed was to adjust a couple ability scores and done.
The idea that gaining experience makes one class far better (more options, and better ones) and does little or nothing for another class is just silly to me,
Interestingly, this seems to have a real basis. For example, the v22 osprey (that helicopter plane hybrid thing) has been noted by the military as requiring significantly more training, practice, and experience to achieve similar levels of proficiency as other aircraft, or in game terms, requires more xp per level of proficiency.
Additionally, creativity of the player matters. A new might be useless or pointless to an average player but be overpowered to a creative player. What makes more options and better options is at least partially about the players rather than the mechanics.
Lastly, balance and desire. In older style where few spells could be cast, a major aspect of the balance was the limited slots. Sure a fireball might do a lot more dmg but it couldn't be spammed and it took away from doing other actually useful things that would have been hard to complete with by martials. A wizard using a fireball was a circumstantial effect because it wasn't worth it to try to out-fight a fighter with magic. The fifteen minute workday, which is from bad gming rather than mechanics, killed that balance, allowing what should have been a special case spell into a spamable spell. Alternative balance considerations like this matter a whole lot. Changing circumstances of play can impact the balance way more than mechanics design.
This is more about getting you thinking about how and why such things could be considered balanced so you can keep those circumstances in mind in your own mechanics.
If my philosophy here is offputting, I stated very clearly in the intro that there are far better games for you.
It's not off putting. In fact I like a lot of what you are going. I don't always agree with how you go about it or the assumptions you make. Still, I like a lot of your fundamental goals.
I noticed this time around that you flipped the age bonuses for mental stats. This is incorrect.It's incorrect for your game. For what I'm trying to do, it works. If you need more ideas, I was reading over my undergrad class notes and was blown away by how much smarter I was back then than I am now. I have more experience (xp) now and am probably higher level. but my mental stats are all lower, to include Wis and Cha.
The impression I get is that your mechanics are trying to mimic reality. If that's true, it's unethical to not at least mention that you are mimicking a myth (since it involves health). However, it if you are intentionally deviating from reality, that's fine but perhaps the text should be looked at to see if it needs tweaked to be more clear. The reason for this is because if I as a GM believe it's trying to mimic reality but based on a myth, I'll correct for what I believe is true, however, if I know the rules are deviating intentionally, whether as a point of balance or saying something about the world, then I'll play into that and look at the consequences to the world, such as adding sayings like "Old wizards always go mad." or the fact that everyone will know and be afraid of what old spellcasters might do. It would be a jumping off point for tons of interesting effects, IE a wizard might have forgotten something while casting a major spell leading to an accidental curse and the players need to work with a forgetful wizard to figure out how to undo it. Either way is the job of the gm.
Is minimum WBL already baked into any cohort, so "Par" WBL would be considered +1 instead of +0 for them?Yes. Minimum WBL is default for all monsters, NPCs, etc.; getting PC par costs them +1 CR. As far as creature types, Thaumaturgy should pretty much always cover a familiar (and one could argue that the half-celestial and shadow templates and Outsider HD qualify it an an outsider).
I'm mot clear om why you'd want a fighter that can't leave your square and can't interact with the others, though -- I'd consider fighting to be interacting.
I'm looking for the closest equivalent to a Pathfinder Protector Familiar. I want the Fighter primarily because it gets the Shield Other [Stance] as a Fighter talent.
Any issues with that?
However, it if you are intentionally deviating from reality, that's fine but perhaps the text should be looked at to see if it needs tweaked to be more clear.
Not a bad point.
Either way is the job of the gm.
This is where we disagree, I think. I usually run games for other DMs who want a chance to play. They know the rules (either my homebrew ones or existing ones) and don't want someone else making them up on the fly. So I run the NPCs according to their abilities, personalities, and goals, and we all want the rules to support that. I don't railroad the plot.
Either way is the job of the gm.This is where we disagree, I think. I usually run games for other DMs who want a chance to play. They know the rules (either my homebrew ones or existing ones) and don't want someone else making them up on the fly. So I run the NPCs according to their abilities, personalities, and goals, and we all want the rules to support that. I don't railroad the plot.
Sounds like a difference in what the rules are for, a tool for describing the world vs a dictation of play.
As a tool for description, the goal is fit the results to what is being described without getting too fiddly and thus useful primarily as guidelines the gm can adjust as needed as well communicating (ie stats for orcs having higher str communicates that orcs are generally stronger).
But as a dictation of play, the goal is consistency in limitations so one can memorize them and gain rule mastery in essence becoming less like tools and more like strategic units.
Oh, btw, do you have a pdf somewhere that doesn't require signing my life away? Scribed is demanding sign up to download.
I never assembled a PDF, sorry. You can download the Word documents by clicking on the link in my profile.
Question.
How does Ray-Splitting work regarding action economy?
It's the equivalent of Manyshot, correct? So when releasing the spell, you release 2 rays instead of 1 with the same "release" partial action (which is also the same partial action you make use of verbal components).
That much makes sense. But, what about iterative attacks? Am I correct in assuming that making an iterative attack while ray splitting requires the use of an additional partial action - the "iterative attack" partial action, to be exact?
If so, how does this work with Quicken Spell?
The action to release the spell, as well as the "Manyshot" function of the rays - that part is a swift action. But further iteratives still require a partial action despite being a Quickened Spell, correct?
EDIT: I'm realizing that, if there isn't an inherent "One spell per round" rule in place, then the most effective means for a spellcaster to deal damage is probably to rely on Still SLAs since that's only one partial action, correct? If I can cast multiple every round, then that's always the preferred option over Ray-Splitting, isn't it?
If there IS a 1 spell/round clause, can I begin the process of casting somatic components for another spell after releasing a Still SLA on my turn?
It's the equivalent of Manyshot, correct? So when releasing the spell, you release 2 rays instead of 1 with the same "release" partial action (which is also the same partial action you make use of verbal components).
That much makes sense. But, what about iterative attacks? Am I correct in assuming that making an iterative attack while ray splitting requires the use of an additional partial action - the "iterative attack" partial action, to be exact?
For something like scorching ray, each split ray is an iterative attack. If you have the Manyshot feat, you can apply it per the normal rules for that.
If you want to simultaneously activate multiple effects, use the more expensive Mass Effect Spell feat.
If there IS a 1 spell/round clause, can I begin the process of casting somatic components for another spell after releasing a Still SLA on my turn?
There's not, but it's implied by the explanation above. For SLAs, you still need to target and activate, so that's a move and a partial action. To get two off in a round, you'd need access to 3 partial actions in addition to you move action, and most caster's don't ever get that. That said, if you somehow did, go nuts. Or if you wanted to get a head start on next round's spell, with the knowledge that paints a target on your back.
Also note that, if you have enough partial actions, you could, say, activate a SLA and also make a weapon attack in the same round.
"I have , a couple of times, actually performed a spell in the middle of a fight, the way sorcerers do. I don't recommend it, and I really hope I won't have to do it again." --Brust, Jhegaala.
Also, obviously, that should have been casters, not "caster's."
I'm just happy this is still a thing.
If there IS a 1 spell/round clause, can I begin the process of casting somatic components for another spell after releasing a Still SLA on my turn?There's not, but it's implied by the explanation above. For SLAs, you still need to target and activate, so that's a move and a partial action. To get two off in a round, you'd need access to 3 partial actions in addition to you move action, and most caster's don't ever get that. That said, if you somehow did, go nuts. Or if you wanted to get a head start on next round's spell, with the knowledge that paints a target on your back.
Also note that, if you have enough partial actions, you could, say, activate a SLA and also make a weapon attack in the same round.
Umm... are you sure about that? From what I gather from Chapter 7's explanation on action economy, targeting and activating a spell is basically the same partial action, not two separate partial actions.
Spellcasting in Combat
Casting a spell or channeling energy generally involves several steps, each of which requires an action:
- Retrieving material components and/or presenting a focus component generally requires a partial action, although this time can be reduced to a swift action or even a free action through the use of the Sleight of Hand skill (Chapter 4), and can be eliminated altogether with the Eschew Materials feat (Chapter 5).
- Performing the somatic components of a spell requires a move action.
- Speaking the verbal components and targeting the spell can be completed together as a partial action.
Therefore, a 1st level wizard with no skill in Sleight of Hand, casting a spell with verbal, somatic, and material components, spends his or her partial action retrieving the components and the move action performing the somatic gestures. On the next round, as a partial action, he or she can finally speak the verbal component and target the spell.
A 12th level sorcerer (BAB +6) with the Eschew Materials feat spends his or her bonus move action performing the somatic gestures, and a partial action to speak the verbal components and direct the spell; that leaves another partial action available to take a 5-foot step, make a single attack, or whatever.
There are 3 main partial actions associated with spellcasting - material components, somatic components, and a combination of verbal componets + targeting/releasing the spell.
Material components can be erased with Eschew Materials or cheated through Sleight of Hand (or the Somatic Weapon feat). This erases 1 of 3 actions.
Somatic components can be erased with Still Spell, eliminating a second of 3 actions.
Verbal components can be erased, but the action requirement to target/release the spell doesn't change...unless certain conditions are met.
The Still Spell metamagic feat (Chapter 8) eliminates the need to perform somatic components. The Silent Spell feat removes the need to speak the verbal components, but the spell must still be directed, requiring a partial action unless one of the following applies:
- If the spell is Silenced and affects only you (i.e., has a range of “Personal” and a target of “You”), this step can be completed as a swift action instead.
- If the Quicken Spell feat (reducing the time to a swift action) is applied. Casting a Silent, Stilled, Quickened spell with no material components or requires one swift action.
So, with no material and somatic components, shouldn't there only be 1 partial action left, allowing a 6 BAB caster the ability to cast two Still SLAs in a round?
Doing it the way you suggest, would probably require changing the action economy on spellcasting from 3 actions at base to 4 actions.
"Spell-Like and Supernatural Abilities: Treat the activation of a spell-like or supernatural ability as the casting of a spell by a sorcerer. Spell-like abilities therefore do not have material components, but do generally have somatic components requiring a move action to perform, and require an additional partial action to direct"
From Chapter 7 Page 4
So you still need 2 actions per spell-like ability.
"Spell-Like and Supernatural Abilities: Treat the activation of a spell-like or supernatural ability as the casting of a spell by a sorcerer. Spell-like abilities therefore do not have material components, but do generally have somatic components requiring a move action to perform, and require an additional partial action to direct"
From Chapter 7 Page 4
So you still need 2 actions per spell-like ability.
One of which is a somatic action, which can be erased via Still Spell Metamagic.
Ergo, a Still Spell SLA is only 1 action, no?
Is there some reason to make the different components into different actions? If we just ignore that entirely, then the entire issue of action economy can be handled without interference from components at all, which goes both directions, allowing other options to be invented or allowed to alter the actions necessary without removing the components (and their consequences) and also allowing the components to be removed without worrying about the impact on action economy.
The concept looks neat superficially, I'll grant that, but ultimately I don't see any value in it except as a cool gimmick with a significant cost in mechanics complications.
One of which is a somatic action, which can be erased via Still Spell Metamagic.
Yes! Which raises the spell level, which raises what level you need to be to pull it off. When you're demigod-tier, things that are impossible for ordinary mortals are easy. But that's not typical, and if you follow the level progression guidelines in Chapter 1, no one (or almost no one, if you play long enough) will hit that point.
Is there some reason to make the different components into different actions?
Very interesting... let me think on that. Part of the reason for defining different actions was to fit into components, but if it doesn't matter, I'm all for simplifying things. Again, I'll need to think about downstream effects. Thanks!
For what it's worth, I don't think that there's a problem with a 12th level caster getting off 2 Still Spells / SLAs in one turn.
That said, this combo is available as early as level 6, since SLAs are readily available to Fighters and the like via the Magic Talent feat.
By level 6, a Fighter would have 2 partial actions, each of which can be used to cast a Still SLA. If it's a 1st level spell (which for Still Spell would require a level 0 cantrip or the addition of negative level metamagic applied to a higher level spell), then level 6 is also the level where one can cast the spell at will.
Dual-casting Still SLAs at will as early as level 6 is probably the only real point of contention.
I think the most simple solution is this: Switch the Metamagic spell level adjustment of Still Spell and Quicken Spell.
Ergo, Quicken Spell, which turns the partial action to direct/release a spell into a swift action, should only be worth +1 spell level adjustment. Meanwhile, Still Spell, which completely erases a partial action, should be worth +2 spell level adjustment.
That way, the "full" Quickening of a spell is still worth +4 Spell levels (Still, Silent, Quicken), but Still Spell itself is less overbearing and properly weighted. Furthermore, you have less issues with applying it to SLAs because higher level SLAs take much longer to reach "at will" status (i.e. a +2 Still level 0 spell requires 12 ranks in Concentration to become "at will" which is around the same level that a full caster can begin abusing it).
If it's not at will at low levels, then it's not a problem. If it's at will at higher levels, then it's still not a problem.
Also, if Still Spell is higher level, then it wouldn't make Ray-Splitting mathematically redundant, like I suggested before.
For what it's worth, I love the splitting of separate actions for spellcasting components, and I don't want to see it disappear. I think a slight tweak should be more than enough to make things work a bit more smoothly.
Also, when jumping from per day to at will, one can always add a recharge time, so an at will sla might have a three round recharge or a 1d6 roll for recharge similar to dragon breath from older editions. You can then adjust the recharge to smooth the power jump from per day to at will casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That way, the "full" Quickening of a spell is still worth +4 Spell levels (Still, Silent, Quicken), but Still Spell itself is less overbearing and properly weighted. Furthermore, you have less issues with applying it to SLAs because higher level SLAs take much longer to reach "at will" status (i.e. a +2 Still level 0 spell requires 12 ranks in Concentration to become "at will" which is around the same level that a full caster can begin abusing it).
If it's not at will at low levels, then it's not a problem. If it's at will at higher levels, then it's still not a problem.
For what it's worth, I love the splitting of separate actions for spellcasting components, and I don't want to see it disappear. I think a slight tweak should be more than enough to make things work a bit more smoothly.
I really like where you're headed here, as it aligns nicely with my design goals. Let me get past some pressing RL concerns, then let's look at this and see what changes would be needed. Thank you!
Hey Kirth, someone posted some of your stuff to a website, https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJ-M5zAiLx. It seems really cool. That's where I decided to write and post my mechanics. You should check it out.
The Advanced Monk Sutra: Improved Ki Attack mentions "fist of the forest". Where can I find that?
The Advanced Monk Sutra: Improved Ki Attack mentions "fist of the forest". Where can I find that?
It got rolled into Sacred Fist (druid option). Thanks!
Wow, long thread. But I am glad I decided to wade through it!
2. Unless I am misunderstanding something, the prestige paladin can be entered at 5th level and is 15 levels long, making the last level 19th. ISTM that it would be neater to either delay entry to 6th or make it 16 levels long so you don't "run out" of levels before 20th.
4. The superscript AA reference is overloaded - Adventurer's Armoury and Animal Archives.
6. You don't get XP for killing monsters in Pathfinder (or 3.x for that matter).
Thanks for the feedback!
1. I can't take credit for this one -- it was a Frank & K "Tomes" thing, and I was impressed at how logical it was.
2. Let me look at that some more.
4. Will correct -- thanks!
6. Yeah, farming mooks was a 2e D&D thing.
Whenever a Monk gives up their ki power progression in exchange for theurgy towards another class' spellcasting progression, do they retain the ability to meditate mid-day to regain spell levels of spell slots, or do they give that up in the process?
Ranger Mage is a tad confusing. Since it says "Add all sorcerer/wizard spells of the appropriate levels to your class spells list. You also gain the following multiclassing benefits:" before the bullet points, but has the last bullet point say "If you have no levels in any arcane spellcasting class, you instead gain a suite of racial spell-like abilities," does the last bullet point count against only the other bullet points?
Can a Mind Blade take the form of an Unarmed Attack? What would that even look like, a momentary visual manifestation on whatever body part is used in the attack roll, or would the Soulknife have a full body glow like they're a Diablo 3 Archon?
1. Whenever a Monk gives up their ki power progression in exchange for theurgy towards another class' spellcasting progression, do they retain the ability to meditate mid-day to regain spell levels of spell slots, or do they give that up in the process?
2. Ranger Mage is a tad confusing. Since it says "Add all sorcerer/wizard spells of the appropriate levels to your class spells list. You also gain the following multiclassing benefits:" before the bullet points, but has the last bullet point say "If you have no levels in any arcane spellcasting class, you instead gain a suite of racial spell-like abilities," does the last bullet point count against only the other bullet points?
3. Can a Mind Blade take the form of an Unarmed Attack? What would that even look like, a momentary visual manifestation on whatever body part is used in the attack roll, or would the Soulknife have a full body glow like they're a Diablo 3 Archon?
1. If you trade in ki powers for actual spellcasting abilities, they conform to the normal rules for the latter.
2. I should move the class list thing into one of the bullets, and/or clarify that it means the ranger versions of those spells (since rangers no longer have a specific list).3. Sure, why not! As noted in the intro chapter, purely cosmetic stuff is totally up to you. An exception is if you want your "body glow" to count as an actual light source.
2. Unless I am misunderstanding something, the prestige paladin can be entered at 5th level and is 15 levels long, making the last level 19th. ISTM that it would be neater to either delay entry to 6th or make it 16 levels long so you don't "run out" of levels before 20th.
In my defense, I've never actually played to 20th level in any edition, so that level is not really on my radar most times. As noted in Chapter 1, under these rules, at 20th level you're as much if not more a plot device than a character.
Under Designing Custom Items: Spell Effects, what kind of action does it take to use a Command Word Activated item? The description doesn't say, and the best I can find in the Combat chapter is phrases and commands each counting as Free Actions. My best guess is there's a separation between activating and directing the spell effect: Free Action to activate the magic item, a Partial Action to direct the spell effect, Swift Action to direct if the spell effect is Quickened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, wasn't saying it was a major issue - just thought it could be a bit neater.
Agreed. I'll see what level of effort that would entail and follow up.
1. Under Designing Custom Items: Spell Effects, what kind of action does it take to use a Command Word Activated item? The description doesn't say, and the best I can find in the Combat chapter is phrases and commands each counting as Free Actions. My best guess is there's a separation between activating and directing the spell effect: Free Action to activate the magic item, default Partial Action to direct the spell effect.
Mind Blade (Su): ...You can use feats in conjunction with the mind blade just as if it were a normal weapon; any weapon-specific feats (e.g., Weapon Specialization) that apply to your mind blade in one form also apply to the mind blade in all other forms.
2. Does this allow weapon-specific feats to apply to a form that normally wouldn't qualify (e.g., Crushing Blow feat with a greatsword form)?
Theurgy and Bonus Spells: When racial spell-like abilities are given up in favor of spellcasting synergy (as described for each race in Chapter 2), the racial spell-like abilities listed can be used in place of the standard bonus feats for the primary casting progression.
3. Is this supposed to say "in place of the standard bonus spells"?
4. Is the Spells Grimoire acting up for anyone else? It'll work if I download it, but it's refusing to load within Google Drive.
5. How do you make the table of contents links in the beginning of the Feats chapter, and can this be used to link to specific sections of other documents?
I would appreciate help on any of these. Thank you.