I have a feeling that I take things into the Abstract to a ridiculous extent, but I noticed something strange about the Exotic Proficiencies based around the blades. it's that there is one that is flat out better than the others, and one that is amazing in its field but for its secondary purpose falls flat.
Longswords, Falchions, and Scimitars
Longswords: 1d8 18-20x2 Finesse
Falchions and Scimitars: 1d8 18-20x2
Scimitar's other ability: 1d6 18-20x2 finesse and considered light for TWF.
1: Though a strength build admittedly won't care enough about finesse. if we keep the world consistent (a longswords is a longsword and can't be refulffed to look like blank) there still is that the only choice for finesse builds like that is longsword even if they'd want to wield a scimitar
2: the Falchion's one handed exotic is all but worthless considering that the scimitar does the same on the cheap.
3: the exotic scimitar's finesse was based on Dervish Dance, designed for free hand fighters, but again the longsword is a better choice for this because it has a higher damage die.
I know these are probably stupid complaints or nitpicks, but it's strange running concepts and builds in my head and realizing that there are these.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As promised, the Bestiary and other latest documents, including the revised spells chapter and the Spells Grimoire, have been uploaded!
See if this works:
Kirthfinder
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(a longswords is a longsword and can't be refulffed to look like blank)
I tend to feel that refluffing should be encouraged, rather than banned.
I do agree about the falchion, which is why I recently subsumeded it into the bastard sword -- how many one-and-a-half-handed slashing swords do you need, after all?
As promised, the Bestiary and other latest documents, including the revised spells chapter and the Spells Grimoire, have been uploaded!
See if this works:
Kirthfinder
Awesome, looking forward to it! Are spells and the bestiary the only two chapters created or with major revisions that are not covered in this thread?
I was looking at the Sorcerer chapter, and I noticed that the level 20 ability for the Kensai (page 45) is missing except for its highlighted title. In the latest PDF version that you mailed out in the days of yore, this is complete. Also, there's a highlighted "+1" on page 46 that makes me wonder if that entry is done being edited.
The bestiary looks great! (And I just noticed some more highlighted +1s on the Nymph entry.) I'm super impressed (although I shouldn't be surprised) that each entry has illustrations! Which two entries did you illustrate? (Don't say that the Invisible Stalker is one of them.)
This was obviously a lot of work, Kirth. Both the design and even organizing it all on Google Drive. Thanks very much!
Just to ask besides the bestiary and spells chapter did anything else get an overhaul or major update.
Very happily going through the new spells chapter - I really like the way you have set up the seed spell system and augmenting it. Two questions, though; did you intend for scaling bonuses to give their full value immediately, as in Divine Favor (+3 at level 1, vs +3 at 9th)? Secondly, does the order matter to receive the -1 reduction in metamagic cost? Looking at the Boost Attribute seed examples, it seems that Ability Boost, Greater received a -1 reduction on the Augment increase, while Animal Affinity did not. Am I missing something that changed on that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to ask besides the bestiary and spells chapter did anything else get an overhaul or major update.
No, they're pretty much it. Some of the feats got tweaked slightly (e.g., Weapon Focus merged into Weapon Specialization), and some of the weapons cleaned up (falchion and katana merged into bastard sword), but nothing major.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay keep up the amazing work man!
1. It's surprising to see Reincarnate be based off remove_condition (Death), which is a 1st level seed.
There should be square brackets; [death] conditions include more than actually being dead. To get past the latter, you need the augmentations, etc. as shown. The mechanics for conditions, including descriptors and tracks, are in Chapter 7, which unfortunately I'm still trying to find time to work on.
2. I suggest a new metamagic to cover (albeit incompletely) Magic Missile: Homing Spell. It can be applied to a touch-attack spell, and it homes onto the target, automatically attacking them and resolving their accuracy score vs. the target's Touch AC. Possibly 10 + 4 x spell level.
I'm not clear on what most of this means.
This covers the unusual area in the rules where Magic Missile resides in
It's a pretty simple within the existing feats; change the bolt of force from a ray to a targeted effect using Shape Spell (that changes it from a touch attack roll to a saving throw; +0 levels), and then add the Inexorable Evocation feat to remove the saving throw.
and could possibly cover any skill-based spells (where the spell instead compares its result vs. the DC, instead of giving constantly-stacking bonuses to skills, and rendering skill use obsolete).
The skill bonuses are capped at +10 and are always enhancement bonuses, so they don't "constantly stack" and don't render the base skill use obsolete.
Did you make a list of seed spells?
The ones shown in Chapter 8.
did you intend for scaling bonuses to give their full value immediately, as in Divine Favor (+3 at level 1, vs +3 at 9th)?
Scaling bonuses scale with level, so +1/6 levels means just that. On the other hand, if you straight Augment the bonus to +3, it starts at +3, but that costs more to do. In the case of shield of faith, it's a +2 deflection bonus (base spell), +1/6 levels (augmentation), for a maximum bonus of +5 at 18th level. And yes, you could instead take the seed spell and simply augment the bonus by +1 (for +3 total), but it wouldn't improve after that.
Secondly, does the order matter to receive the -1 reduction in metamagic cost? Looking at the Boost Attribute seed examples, it seems that Ability Boost, Greater received a -1 reduction on the Augment increase, while Animal Affinity did not. Am I missing something that changed on that?
Yes; the first metamagic feat you apply gets no reduction in cost:
Metamagic Synergy: If a spell is modified with a metamagic feat carrying a spell level cost of at least +1, each additional metamagic feat thereafter applied to that spell has its spell level cost, if positive, decreased by 1 (to a minimum of +1).
I was looking at the Sorcerer chapter, and I noticed that the level 20 ability for the Kensai (page 45) is missing except for its highlighted title. In the latest PDF version that you mailed out in the days of yore, this is complete. Also, there's a highlighted "+1" on page 46 that makes me wonder if that entry is done being edited.
You totally busted me. Yellow highlighting is my idiosyncratic way of yelling "NOT DONE! FIX THIS!" to myself. Unfortunately, my attention is easily diverted ("Ooh! Piece of candy!") and I don't always follow up on them before I forget about them.
(And I just noticed some more highlighted +1s on the Nymph entry.)
There's some in some of the dinosaurs, too, and I'm pretty sure there are some monsters that got like halfway converted and then I forgot about. If people can remind me which ones, now that the spells are (more or less) done, I can go back and see about finishing them.
Which two entries did you illustrate? (Don't say that the Invisible Stalker is one of them.)
Haha! No, as lame as I am, I'm not that far gone! I did the wharlysk (which looks dramatically better in the original than it does in Google Docs, unfortunately) and a big action piece of a PC fighting a Fire Angel -- unfortunately, I can't seem to find the latter, but come to think of it, I think I ended up clipping the cover of Sign of Chaos as a placeholder while I got around to scanning it).
EDIT: I can't even find the Fire Angel file now -- it's possible not everything transferred correctly.
Going through the link remotely, I'm noticing a number of placeholder and/or notes documents included that shouldn't be, and some actual monsters not appearing that should. It seems like I was in too big a hurry to get everything set up, mea culpa, so I'll be cleaning up things a bit as I find time.
FYI, there also appear to be some temporary file versions of some of the bestiary files in the folders.
Yeah, I spotted those, too, and plan to prune them.
Also, I notice that a number of the bestiary word documents have different creatures in the .docx that aren't mentioned in the filename (see aarakocra which also has kenku+tengu). For the organized/more final version I assume you'll be making the organization clearer or the connections between the different monster entries on the same page clearer.
You may be crediting me with more ambition than I currently possess...
I really like what you've done here with the bestiary. The pieces are much better balanced on a general level than many of the other "build your own monster" systems.
Thank you!
Went through the new spells chapter in a little more detail, and found myself with a few more questions.
1. Bestow Feat: Is there any benefit if you already have a feat? For instance, Far Shot and “Hawkeye”, or Spell Penetration and “Assay Resistance”? "Accelerate Reflexes" and Improved Critical is also an example.
2. Order of metamagic: "Metamagic + 2" then "Metamagic +1" gives a final adjustment of +3. "Metamagic +1" then "Metamagic +2 -> +1" (-1 reduction for multiple) gives a final adjustment of +2. Is there a definite, use the highest metamagic cost first? Or always apply the least expensive first? I've seen it both ways in the examples, for example in Attribute Boost; compare "Animal Affinity" to "Attribute Boost, Greater".
3. Tremorsense is confusing me.. the example is 3rd level, when the Alter Senses seed doesn't give Tremorsense until 4th-5th level. Was the augment for the next tier what allows that?
4. The Enhancement seed and the Skill Enhancement seed appear to conflict, or at least overlap. Is the higher cost of the Enhancement seed for skill checks offset by the flexibility of also affecting weapons and armor?
5. Per Skill Enhancement, let alone Enhancement, "Jump", "Acute Senses", and "Easy Climb" should all be higher level or lower bonus. Unless the “final” level is pre-negative adjustments?
6. I think the Ritual Spell should be called out as a GM only metamagic, unless it is intended that hour long buffs become 1 or 2 spell levels lower for the “cost” of saying the buff routine in the morning is ten minutes instead of ten rounds. For example, look at Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment; both 3rd level, and both unaffected by a Ritual Spell to take a <6 second action to a >6 second action (-1 reduction for full round casting). False life, as another example, could trade the Reduce Spell -1 for a Ritual Spell -1, and be 10d6+10 THP for hours/level.
7. “Swim” is a 10 foot speed, by the example. Spider Climb, reflavored to swimming, would be a more direct corollary.
8. Possible error: Bolt of Force / "Magic Missile". Bolt of Force has no saving throw, but Evocation, Inexorable is still added to the mix.
9. Do Rangers count as divine casters? If they have a deity/domain access, can they use Consecrate Spell?
found myself with a few more questions.
You've come to the right place!
1. None, unless the feat in question says you can take it more than once.
2. Order is generally going to be predicated on other stuff. For example, if you have two touch-range effects and the final spell is Medium range, you want to cascade them together BEFORE you apply Reach Spell, so that you don't have to apply it individually to each component.
3. Exactly -- in this case you're not waiting for the Heighten effect to kick in automatically; instead you're forcing it up one step with the Augment.
4. I'd thought about combining them, but the functions are potentially different. The short answer is that, yes, you could use the enhancement seed on a tool to get an enhancement bonus on checks using that tool, but using skill enhancement on the user is usually more efficient.
5. Let me look at the examples and get back to you -- I certainly don't claim that my math is always without flaw.
6. That's a very good point. On the other hand, you are spending a feat to get those effects, and applying negative-cost metamagic takes a lot more than ten minutes, so I'm sort of on the fence.
Negative-cost metamagic, when applied while preparing spells, requires an additional 1 hour per spell level worth of reduction (this does not apply to pre-modified spells). Metamagic feats that reduce the final spell level cannot be applied spontaneously.
7. I'll look.
8. For magic missile, we've Shaped the "ray" effect to a "target" one. That means we no longer need a ranged touch attack, but the target gets a save for half damage. After that, we apply Inexorable Evocation to take away the save.9. In general, I've been treated them as druidic casters with some arcane access (a la 1st ed. AD&D). But, yes, if they have appropriate Domain access and are sworn to some [good] deity or cause, I'd let them have Consecrate Spell.
5. Acute senses: 0+1+1 = 2, not 1, so, yeah, it should be 2nd level. Using the Augment to jump tiers instead of relying on Heighten is OK -- I really need to spell that out somewhere. There are probably similar examples with other seeds.
Easy climb: Again, Augment is being used to "artificially" bump us up 1 tier.
Jump: Likewise.
Also bear in mind that the bonus isn't a flat +10; it's +1 per 2 caster levels (+10 maximum at CL 20th). For the first 10 levels of your career, the Augment is providing exactly zero benefit.
The mechanics for conditions, including descriptors and tracks, are in Chapter 7, which unfortunately I'm still trying to find time to work on.
I had a bit of a thought on tracks today at lunch, would implementing them in both directions be an idea and a way to streamline things or more trouble than its worth. As an example right now we have the fear track.
Normal-->Shaken-->frightened(I think)--->Panicked.What if instead we called it the morale track and it looked something like this
Undaunted <-->Bold<-->Confident<-->Normal<-->Shaken<--> Frightened<-->Panicked.
With spells both on the fear side and on the Morale booting side using the same track and moving you up or down a number of steps to a maximum number of shifts or capped level based on the level of the effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OOH, interesting! Probably not something I'm able to tackle; I'm having a hard enough time making the various condition tracks work at all (witness the spells, which are still all over the place instead of having one nice set of 0-level minor condition spells with consistent augmentations).
OOH, interesting!
Yeah thinking about the tracks got me to brainstorming a bit while driving and how that would streamline so many abilities and spells by having a simple mechanic to work off of.
Yeah would probably work better as a baseline mechanic for a new system than trying to simply work it into an existing one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, because you'd just be sliding up or down -- you could almost just put a set of strips with check boxes on the character sheet, making it really easy to track during play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to ask besides the bestiary and spells chapter did anything else get an overhaul or major update.
This isn't an overhaul, nor is it very major, but the #1 area of recurring confusion seemed to be about how numen works (Ch6), so I added a column to the table and re-organized the notes slightly to (hopefully) make it a little more accessible.
What's your reasoning behind just one feat for both Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation?
I love the spell seeds. It brings a systematic coherence to spell design that was lacking - but I have two related questions:
1. When a caster chooses a spell seed as a spell known/prepared, can they choose the seed in place of a higher level spell? Or if they gain a higher level spell that uses the seed, can they construct other spells with metamagic feats and augmentations using that seed?
2. What happens to spells that have had their level changed (e.g. magic missile). Are they still received as bonus spells for classes that get them at the level indicated or do the bonus spell lists need to be reworked?
What's your reasoning behind just one feat for both Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation?
(a) Pretty much everyone who takes the latter already takes the former, and (b) it's a bunch of related +X stuff with the same weapon (enhancements to the weapon affect both, as does the blessing spell, etc.), and (c) because that's how it worked in AD&D.
1. When a caster chooses a spell seed as a spell known/prepared, can they choose the seed in place of a higher level spell?
Yes, if they want.
Or if they gain a higher level spell that uses the seed, can they construct other spells with metamagic feats and augmentations using that seed?
Only if they have all the other metamagic feats needed to "deconstruct" the finished spell back into that seed, and then to build it back up to what they want.
2. What happens to spells that have had their level changed (e.g. magic missile). Are they still received as bonus spells for classes that get them at the level indicated or do the bonus spell lists need to be reworked?
For spells that increased in level, the Restricted Spell feat is specifically intended to let us keep spells more or less where they were, by reducing the spell level for people with the correct bloodline/mystery/domain/class. That said, some of the lists may still need to be reworked a bit, which is something I haven't tackled yet.
Shade, your negative Grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 correspond nicely to what I'd been calling Minor, Moderate, Serious, and Critical conditions, so that's an easy correspondence.
I'd played with having attribute penalties/damage tied to conditions (penalty = minor, below half = moderate, penalized to 1 = major, damaged to 0 = critical), but ultimately that turned it into a game with 7 sets of hp to track, which didn't seem like the way to go. (I retained Dex damage/drain being tied to paralysis/petrifaction, and Con damage/drain to death/destruction, but the others seemed like more of a stretch.)
Still, there's a lot of really good stuff there, and I look forward to going through it more carefully, given the opportunity.
A question for the group:
I'd been listing spells named after their in-game creators by the creator's name (e.g., Leomund's Tiny Hut), so that all the spells from the same person would be together. Would the Grimoire be more user-friendly if those spells were distributed throughout the document (e.g., as "Tiny Hut, Leomund's")?
I think putting the names after a comma makes the list more accessible. My 2 cents.
I also noted that many of the spells which gave penalties, now do so by way of the shaken or sickened conditions, rather than a flat penalty that stacks with others. Of course, an Accursed Blessing spell can still give a penalty, but overall this seems to reduce the amount of de-buffing that can be done with spells.
Are combat maneuvers in KF supposed to be limited by size the way Pathfinder changed them to? Ie, you cannot trip a creature more than one size larger, and I think grapple has some size restrictions as well... I cannot find any call out for Trip specifically, and am missing it in general if it's called out elsewhere.
Are combat maneuvers in KF supposed to be limited by size the way Pathfinder changed them to? Ie, you cannot trip a creature more than one size larger, and I think grapple has some size restrictions as well... I cannot find any call out for Trip specifically, and am missing it in general if it's called out elsewhere.
No; larger creatures already get a bonus to CMB/CMD; outright immunity on top of that seemed like overkill.
I also noted that many of the spells which gave penalties, now do so by way of the shaken or sickened conditions, rather than a flat penalty that stacks with others. Of course, an Accursed Blessing spell can still give a penalty, but overall this seems to reduce the amount of de-buffing that can be done with spells.
As a referee, I for one get tired of keeping track of too many -1s and -2s; some limit on the number possible doesn't seem like a bad thing. Also, the trend in KF is to emphasize the use of conditions (via [strikes], etc.) and I wanted to continue that with the spells.
This isn't an overhaul, nor is it very major, but the #1 area of recurring confusion seemed to be about how numen works (Ch6), so I added a column to the table and re-organized the notes slightly to (hopefully) make it a little more accessible.
Another thought I had was to make the new gear system optional: e.g., "You don't have to track your own numen, but if you choose not to, the referee will assign you gear up to par and you will not be able to craft items, maintain long-lasting spell effects, or keep items that you find lying around." But that seems pretty harsh, even to me. Still, there's no reason the referee should have to do the players' bookkeeping for them, unless he/she delights in spreadsheet maintenance and volunteers for that task.
A suggestion to handle the book-keeping aspect - look at the scaling magic items from Unchained. Linky. They break things down into three categories which represent a certain chunk of wealth; a major prize might be a weapon, worth 30% of your available par, while a bauble is 5% and something that adds flavor and minor utility. Some pre-made items, or a simple scaling menu with selections, would possibly let someone less interested in bookkeeping still enjoy some depth without forcing the referee to do it all.
Some pre-made items, or a simple scaling menu with selections, would possibly let someone less interested in bookkeeping still enjoy some depth without forcing the referee to do it all.
I worked too hard to make "design your own" functional to go back to lists of set magic items now. Some examples, OK, but I'm loathe to start churning out conversions en masse.
I was thinking more along the lines of, a magic staff is 30% of your numen; every two levels, add one spell at minimum caster level. Every 5 levels, add one feat with no pre-requisites. Something that's roughly priced out and scaling, but no more than a minute or two of work. I definitely wouldn't want you to waste time on developing lists of magic items when you come up with such wonderful additions and innovations!
An idea would be to shave off the wizards' names entirely, such that Leo's Tiny Hunt is only a 'see also' reference for Tiny Hut.
Mordenkainen's -> Mage's works well, but the others don't do that well (if at all).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An idea would be to shave off the wizards' names entirely
The 1e nostalgics that I started this project for would rebel! "Tiny Hut, Leomund's" seems to work OK, so I'll probably go with that. And then try not to get carried away--e.g., it's tempting to call them "Tentacles, Evard's Black" and "Tentacles, Evard's Menacing," so that they're together in the list, but too far down that road and no one can find anything.
(Reminds me of the Army: you are issued one (1) "Blanket, wool, green.")
Evard's Tentacles (Black) might do it, if you stomach that.
Question on Staff-Like Wand feat, in regards to earlier commentary on charged items being effectively at-will (which I agree with); (1) does it make sense to have distinctions between staves and wands as spell trigger items when charged items are effectively at will, and (2) should the Staff-Like Wand feat still exist in that environment? Or conversely, should it be applied to all at-will or per day spell effects bound by numen? Obviously, that would then lead to a very cheap way to get caster level effects.
Perhaps something similar to Magical Talent, where a number of spells = ranks in concentration/spellcraft may use your caster level in place of minimum, with a maximum spell level of 1/4 or 1/5 your ranks in spellcraft? Or completely differently, maybe have a spellcraft check to be able to use your ranks instead of the minimum, with a "fizzle" if you fail the check?
Question on Staff-Like Wand feat, in regards to earlier commentary on charged items being effectively at-will (which I agree with); (1) does it make sense to have distinctions between staves and wands as spell trigger items when charged items are effectively at will, and (2) should the Staff-Like Wand feat still exist in that environment? Or conversely, should it be applied to all at-will or per day spell effects bound by numen? Obviously, that would then lead to a very cheap way to get caster level effects.
(1) you're right; it makes no sense; and (2) probably not, but I forgot to revise or remove it.
Thanks!
Quick Headcount of ways to cast spells that aren't actually straight casting:
- Scrolls are a one-off spell at a pre-set and paid for caster level, easily usable by casters with the matching spell list
- Potions are a one-off spell with a pre-set and paid for caster level, easily usable by anyone
- Command word/Use activated items are repeatable spells with pre-set and paid for caster level, easily usable by anyone
- Which would seem to leave a design space for a medium which can cast at the bearer's caster level and using the bearer's relevant feats/class abilities/ability scores, increasing with level
Immediately, the power conduits section in Ch. 6 comes to mind, with the note on being able to use those spell slots to power spells linked to the item - however, this does have a caster level pre-set in both the costing of the conduit and in the individual spells assigned to it. Figuring out the math for stave pricing in relation to charges from PF seems wonky, but maybe Casting Modifier times per day (or half that) a spell from a conduit can be "boosted" to use the bearers level/abilities? Trading a lower number of usages for a faster day to day recharge. The only hesitation I have is that no 2nd or higher level spell can be made this way, without including lower level spell slots...
Sanity check: does the game need a way to use your own caster level/ability scores/feats, when the Manna from Heaven rules allow for upgrading any equipment when you level by investing more numen? If it doesn't already, feats could be modified to this end: Spell Focus (Fire) applies no matter the source of the spell, so that a scroll of fireball read by someone with SF (Fire) would still benefit.
This starts to reverse as you add more spells known - i.e., more flexibility. At 5 spells "known" of each level, the conduit is less expensive than the command word, at will for 5 spells at 2nd level spells; and less expensive than the use activated at will, 5 spells known, at 3rd level spells.
CAVEATS: The command word/use activated items should really be 1/day at 6 spells known since the conduit tops out at 6 spell slots per level, which swings the lowest price way back towards non-conduit options. The above should realistically be 1.12 charges per day for the command word/use activated pricing. However, you give up a huge amount of daily flexibility in doing so, which is the advantage of the conduit. Note that the costs at these levels are more than are level appropriate, so it's mostly academic.
TL:DR -> lacking spells "known" as a spontaneous caster, Conduits of power are incredibly expensive compared to use activated or command word items. If you know you will have a 1/day emergency button, use the 1/day item creation pricing. If you know you will need something more than 5 times per day, use the at will. If you have multiple spells per spell level that you aren't sure you would need more than once but less than 5 times a day, and are not a spontaneous caster, MAYBE it's worth doing a Conduit of power as above.
Would it be possible to allow spellcasters to trade out spells known for metamagic feats?
Would it be possible to allow spellcasters to trade out spells known for metamagic feats?
Nope, because that's like giving them multiple new spells for the price of one.
In the long run, you get a lot more spells than feats, so even in a core Pathfinder game, that's an unbalanced trade.
Well, I intially envisioned it as like, "Diminshed Spellcasting" but with the bonus of metamagic. Now that I think about it though, at most this should be limited to a single metamagic feat for 1 spell/level you lose from Diminished Spellcasting. Any more trading than that could unbalance things, probably.
But even for one free metamagic, it's not a bad idea. Reminds me of Spheres of Power Casting Traditions, which allow a player to take some downsides for more spell points, only...in reverse, I guess? Loosing 1 spell known/level for a single metamagic feat.
I dunno, I think I'm starting to ramble.
About Barbarians in the new version getting automatic Vital Strike damage, it seems to me that this favors dual-wielding builds (for more attacks) over classical heavy two-handed builds. While I like the idea of the Barbarian getting a straight (and substantial) damage bonus from rage, bonus precision damage doesn't seem very thematic for barbarians.
About Barbarians in the new version getting automatic Vital Strike damage, it seems to me that this favors dual-wielding builds (for more attacks) over classical heavy two-handed builds.
That's true from a pure damage standpoint, but the increased likelihood to hit counts for a lot. Taking the Backswing feat can also help offset the damage differential.
While I like the idea of the Barbarian getting a straight (and substantial) damage bonus from rage, bonus precision damage doesn't seem very thematic for barbarians.
I can totally understand this, but remember that one of the primary goals of the system was to eliminate extraneous mechanical sub-systems -- from that perspective, pressing Vital Strike into service seemed appropriate. (To be honest, I'm still annoyed that I couldn't figure out a slick way to merge VS and sneak attack).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side project, I'm statting up characters from gaming, literature, and mythology to demonstrate the four "tiers" of play. So far I've done Jarvis Braeburn (my own favorite character from past gaming; human Warrior 1/Fighter 2/Rogue 1) for Journeyman tier; Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser will represent the Heroic tier; at Champion level is Lord Robilar (ftr 15), one of the earliest D&D characters; and the Demigod tier is illustrated using the Irish hero Cu Chulainn (bbn 10/ftr 5/bard 2) and Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone (summoner 15/fighter 2, with Stormbringer as an ediolon). I'm open to more suggestions, particularly for the first three tiers.
Added Robert Asprin's Skeeve (destined sorcerer 3) and Robert E. Howard's Solomon Kane (fighter 1/cleric 1/ranger 1) as examples of Journeyman tier characters, and Disney's Moana (waves incarnate 7) as a Heroic-tier character. Still looking for one more Champion-tier example.