| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really appreciate the hard work you have put into this project, tzizimine. But, you already know I'm a fan of this project. Stat wise, I don't have too much to really pick apart. As for feedback, once I have the chance to play an Eberron game (or if players like, allow Eberron based content), I could give a more in depth critique of how things worked. Granted, I've never payed too much thought into the mechanics (despite playing 3rd edition D&D almost as long as everyone else.)
Also, just a slight pet peeve for ease of navigation. While everything removed/altered is in one place, I'd like it if other pages could navigate to the page to source something you have changed or removed, for someone who wants to use <insert random item here> in their games. But, that's more so an organization issue.
Thanks, Doc.
Just to clarify, is the 'Removed Material' link at the top of the pages not enough?
- Dan.
Chris,
Can you please undo the removal of the post by Loub concerning the exact recommendation on the grammar. That was actual needed.
Thanks in advance,
- Dan
First: You are my favorite. Your site is so very much what I was wishing I did. Really awesome. Really, really, awesome. It-made-my-day kind of awesome.
Second: I hit upon the idea of altering Sarlona's flavor much heavier into the eastern flavor, and started comparing weapons and armor. In the Secrets of Sarlona, they have a weapon called the 'spinning sword' which you did not omit from your site. By description (but not by the statistics) it matches the 'Urumi' from page 40 of the Ultimate equipment handbook (page 134 of the Ultimate Combat book). Apparently, its also in the Inner Sea World guide as well, but I don't know where.
I wasn't sure if this was intentional or not.
Personally, I dislike the idea of a character able to dual wielding two reach weapons, with whips being a very special case. But since I love everything else you've done on the site, it might be time to reevaluate that thought.
Again, you have done something so totally awesome. Thank you for all your hard work.
Gator,
Thanks for the compliment.
I agree that Sarlona should have a very eastern feel. I always equated Reidra to ancient China and Adar as similar to Tibet. As for the Urumi, I'll look into it. Unfortunately, the source material did not have a picture, so I thought it was similar to the extendable sword from Ivy in Soul Caliber. I have never had a problem dual-wielding reach weapons, mostly because my group doesn't use dual-wielding a lot. I will take a closer look for you.
- Dan
Gator,
I did some digging and found a picture of the spinning sword and you were right. It is _exactly_ like the Urumi. I have made the correction on the site.
Shifts do use the new Con mod if their shifter trait improves Con (ECB, pg. 19). Normally, at 9th level in 3.5, there would be 4 feats (1,3,6 and 9th) and at 18th, there would be 7 (1,3,6,9,12,15 and 18). The Weretouched Master gives 2 bonus feats, for totals 6 and 9 respectively.I stand corrected.
I am leaning toward the straight doubling (2 rnds / level) and would still encourage those that regularly use shifting in combat to take Incremental shifting for round-efficiency.I agree. This is probably the simplest solution. Would you be giving them 2 rounds of rage per feat as well?
As for the RP cost of shifting, that in turn would be reviewed once the actual shifting rules have been better tested. It is likely that the RP cost of shifting would come down some and constant flat bonus somewhere else would raise the RP total back. I should have more later this week when I crunch some more numbers.A bonus shifter feat would be pretty good here. I'll be curious to see what you come up with.
ShadowcatX,
I have updated shifters to get 2 rounds per level and doubled the rounds given per feat. This reduced the overall average of shifters by 2 RP. I have not yet decided on what those 2 RP will be reassigned to.
Let me know if you see anything else.
- Dan
Will do. And thank you. :)
Not a problem.
As for the last 2 RP, I decided to go with a +2 racial bonus to Survival. The bonus static feat option would work if all shifters were descended the same kind of lycanthrope, but since they're not, I figured the bonus to Survival equally useful.
Thoughts?
I think that fits the theme well.
I'm not so familiar with ARG rules but would that add Survival a class skill for them? I think that would be neat too. Nothing really game-breaking but allows for more roleplay-focused builds and allow people to enjoy the wilder side of the race with any class.
Sadly, no. Just like the core races can get bonuses to skills, but it doesn't make it a class skill. That and I figured not every shifter is from the wilderness.
Looks really cool!
I'm looking at the warforged, and I noticed a rules error:
Natural Attack (Slam): Medium: 1d4 + 1/2 Str, Small: 1d3 + 1/2 Str. This counts as a secondary attack (-5 to hit if used in a full attack).
If the attack is secondary, it always gets -5 to hit. If an attack is primary, and is the only attack you have, it gets 1.5 strength.
Further, SKR ruled on a forum post that if you only have a single natural attack, no matter if it is defined as secondary or not, it is a primary attack and gets 1.5 your strength.
I think you should clarify what the intent is with the slam attack.
Under the deathless subdomain, it is listed as a subdomain for the renewal domain. The renewal domain is a third party domain. It might not hurt to mention that (as I had a difficult time finding it over at pfsrd). I'm pretty sure this is the first time I have seen 3rd party material come up in the conversion as well.
Thanks for the catch. I'll add links in the appropriate spots. There were a few 3rd party domains used.
Natural Attack (Slam): Medium: 1d4 + 1/2 Str, Small: 1d3 + 1/2 Str. This counts as a secondary attack (-5 to hit if used in a full attack).If the attack is secondary, it always gets -5 to hit. If an attack is primary, and is the only attack you have, it gets 1.5 strength.
Further, SKR ruled on a forum post that if you only have a single natural attack, no matter if it is defined as secondary or not, it is a primary attack and gets 1.5 your strength.
I think you should clarify what the intent is with the slam attack.
I'd further this by asking why not just let it be a standard slam attack? The RP cost isn't changed, and I don't see allowing it to be a primary attack (as slams generally are) as overpowering in any way.
So I'd suggest just making it "A warforged gets a slam attack as a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 damage (1d3 for a small warforged)." If you think it needs further clarification, you could just add that "it obeys all the standard rules for natural attacks." That should be enough to send a person looking at the rules for natural slam attacks.
Looks really cool!
I'm looking at the warforged, and I noticed a rules error:
Natural Attack (Slam): Medium: 1d4 + 1/2 Str, Small: 1d3 + 1/2 Str. This counts as a secondary attack (-5 to hit if used in a full attack).If the attack is secondary, it always gets -5 to hit. If an attack is primary, and is the only attack you have, it gets 1.5 strength.
Further, SKR ruled on a forum post that if you only have a single natural attack, no matter if it is defined as secondary or not, it is a primary attack and gets 1.5 your strength.
I think you should clarify what the intent is with the slam attack.
Knight Magenta,
Thanks for pointing that out. I am reading through that forum now.
- Dan
Natural Attack (Slam): Medium: 1d4 + 1/2 Str, Small: 1d3 + 1/2 Str. This counts as a secondary attack (-5 to hit if used in a full attack).If the attack is secondary, it always gets -5 to hit. If an attack is primary, and is the only attack you have, it gets 1.5 strength.
Further, SKR ruled on a forum post that if you only have a single natural attack, no matter if it is defined as secondary or not, it is a primary attack and gets 1.5 your strength.
I think you should clarify what the intent is with the slam attack.
I'd further this by asking why not just let it be a standard slam attack? The RP cost isn't changed, and I don't see allowing it to be a primary attack (as slams generally are) as overpowering in any way.
So I'd suggest just making it "A warforged gets a slam attack as a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 damage (1d3 for a small warforged)." If you think it needs further clarification, you could just add that "it obeys all the standard rules for natural attacks." That should be enough to send a person looking at the rules for natural slam attacks.
I was just wondering that. I am thinking that would be the best way to go, but does anyone have an order of operations for combining weapon attacks with natural attacks (type of action, modifier to BAB, etc)? I want to make sure that other areas that will likely have the same problem (i.e. Shifter attacks and the Second Slam feat) get appropriately addressed at the same.
- Dan
|
Thanks for posting this, you've obviously put a lot of work into it. Great stuff!
I'm not sure to what extent you want to re-design things rather than convert them (since conversion in itself is a heck of a lot of work). However ...
Warforged no longer get light fortification. Perhaps that makes the Improved Fortification feat (granting Medium fortification) overpowered? In any event, since constructs can be Critted in Pathfinder, it is arguably not appropriate anyway.
Also, some of the Warforged feats seem like being forced to use up a feat for stuff that you should be able to buy with gold. Spiked Body comes to mind! (Especially since magical warforged components can now be used by anyone.)
I was just wondering that. I am thinking that would be the best way to go, but does anyone have an order of operations for combining weapon attacks with natural attacks (type of action, modifier to BAB, etc)? I want to make sure that other areas that will likely have the same problem (i.e. Shifter attacks and the Second Slam feat) get appropriately addressed at the same.
- Dan
I'm not quite sure what you mean about order of operations.
If you combine a manufactured weapon with natural attacks, all natural attacks are treated as secondary, which means they take -5 to hit and do 1/2 strength damage (even if normally they would do full strength). As a general rule, this is only going to come up on a full attack action (because other wise how are they getting multiple attacks).
If it is that simple, that would be what I am looking for. I have been under the impression that a secondary attack could be used like dual-wielding (longsword in one hand and slam with the other).
Thanks for posting this, you've obviously put a lot of work into it. Great stuff!
I'm not sure to what extent you want to re-design things rather than convert them (since conversion in itself is a heck of a lot of work). However ...
Warforged no longer get light fortification. Perhaps that makes the Improved Fortification feat (granting Medium fortification) overpowered? In any event, since constructs can be Critted in Pathfinder, it is arguably not appropriate anyway.
Also, some of the Warforged feats seem like being forced to use up a feat for stuff that you should be able to buy with gold. Spiked Body comes to mind! (Especially since magical warforged components can now be used by anyone.)
Good catch, Amethal. Thanks.
The warforged did not get Improved Fortificaiton since there was no option for it in the ARG rules. This does mean I need to take Improved Fortification back to the drawing board.
As for the other warforged feats, there are some that could be duplicated with gold pieces. I will review the Spiked Body feat as well.
If it is that simple, that would be what I am looking for. I have been under the impression that a secondary attack could be used like dual-wielding (longsword in one hand and slam with the other).I was just wondering that. I am thinking that would be the best way to go, but does anyone have an order of operations for combining weapon attacks with natural attacks (type of action, modifier to BAB, etc)? I want to make sure that other areas that will likely have the same problem (i.e. Shifter attacks and the Second Slam feat) get appropriately addressed at the same.
- Dan
I'm not quite sure what you mean about order of operations.
If you combine a manufactured weapon with natural attacks, all natural attacks are treated as secondary, which means they take -5 to hit and do 1/2 strength damage (even if normally they would do full strength). As a general rule, this is only going to come up on a full attack action (because other wise how are they getting multiple attacks).
Any natural attack can be used along side normal weapons, so long as they don't use the same limb. However, primary attacks always (basically) become secondary attacks when doing so. For example:
A razor claw shifter holds a long sword in one hand and uses his claws with the other. He has +4 BAB and a +4 bonus from strength and no other modifiers to hit or damage.
His full attack routine would look like:
Longsword +8 1d8 +4, Claw +3, 1d4+2.
But, he would not be able to a longsword attack and claw attack as dual-wielding?
I.e. could not do as a standard action
Longsword (+8 -4) = +4 1d8+4
Claw (+3 -8) = -5 1d4+3
Are you asking how Two-weapon fighting stacks with natural attacks?
Other than the Two Weapon Warrior fighter archetype, I'm not aware of a way for a PC to "dual wield" as a standard action attack.
in the case of two-weapon fighting and natural attacks, they would be adjudicated as ShadowcatX outlined above.
Let's assume a longtooth shifter with two-weapon fighting, a longsword, a dagger, a bab of +4, and a strength of 18 (while shifting).
Full attack would be:
Longsword +6 (1d8 + 4)
dagger +6 (1d4 + 2)
bite +1 (1d6 + 2)
Are you asking how Two-weapon fighting stacks with natural attacks?
Other than the Two Weapon Warrior fighter archetype, I'm not aware of a way for a PC to "dual wield" as a standard action attack.
in the case of two-weapon fighting and natural attacks, they would be adjudicated as ShadowcatX outlined above.
Let's assume a longtooth shifter with two-weapon fighting, a longsword, a dagger, a bab of +4, and a strength of 18 (while shifting).
Full attack would be:
Longsword +6 (1d8 + 4)
dagger +6 (1d4 + 2)
bite +1 (1d6 + 2)
Ok... that's what I thought. This kind of scenario doesn't come up a lot in my group, hence why I am rusting on the exact math.
So then, yes, both the warforged slam attack and the shifter natural attacks need to be redefined as just normal natural attacks, obeying all the rules as such. Adjustments to that effect will be made later today.
I really appreciate the hard work you have put into this project, tzizimine. But, you already know I'm a fan of this project. Stat wise, I don't have too much to really pick apart. As for feedback, once I have the chance to play an Eberron game (or if players like, allow Eberron based content), I could give a more in depth critique of how things worked. Granted, I've never payed too much thought into the mechanics (despite playing 3rd edition D&D almost as long as everyone else.)
Also, just a slight pet peeve for ease of navigation. While everything removed/altered is in one place, I'd like it if other pages could navigate to the page to source something you have changed or removed, for someone who wants to use <insert random item here> in their games. But, that's more so an organization issue.
Thanks, Doc.
Just to clarify, is the 'Removed Material' link at the top of the pages not enough?
- Dan.
Mostly what I'm asking for is like a reference to various things that are removed or have some bits of removed material referenced on other pages. For example, the Titan template changed to Advanced Giant, could be referenced on the templates main page. It's no biggie, really.
Mostly what I'm asking for is like a reference to various things that are removed or have some bits of removed material referenced on other pages. For example, the Titan template changed to Advanced Giant, could be referenced on the templates main page. It's no biggie, really.I really appreciate the hard work you have put into this project, tzizimine. But, you already know I'm a fan of this project. Stat wise, I don't have too much to really pick apart. As for feedback, once I have the chance to play an Eberron game (or if players like, allow Eberron based content), I could give a more in depth critique of how things worked. Granted, I've never payed too much thought into the mechanics (despite playing 3rd edition D&D almost as long as everyone else.)
Also, just a slight pet peeve for ease of navigation. While everything removed/altered is in one place, I'd like it if other pages could navigate to the page to source something you have changed or removed, for someone who wants to use <insert random item here> in their games. But, that's more so an organization issue.
Thanks, Doc.
Just to clarify, is the 'Removed Material' link at the top of the pages not enough?
- Dan.
Funny you should mention that. It was originally like that and I thought it gave the pages a more cluttered look. I do plan on reorganizing the Remove Material page once I get to a point when it feels like there is nothing more to add to it.
Thanks for posting this, you've obviously put a lot of work into it. Great stuff!
I'm not sure to what extent you want to re-design things rather than convert them (since conversion in itself is a heck of a lot of work). However ...
Warforged no longer get light fortification. Perhaps that makes the Improved Fortification feat (granting Medium fortification) overpowered? In any event, since constructs can be Critted in Pathfinder, it is arguably not appropriate anyway.
Also, some of the Warforged feats seem like being forced to use up a feat for stuff that you should be able to buy with gold. Spiked Body comes to mind! (Especially since magical warforged components can now be used by anyone.)
Good catch, Amethal. Thanks.
The warforged did not get Improved Fortificaiton since there was no option for it in the ARG rules. This does mean I need to take Improved Fortification back to the drawing board.
As for the other warforged feats, there are some that could be duplicated with gold pieces. I will review the Spiked Body feat as well.
Ok,
Improved Fortification, while having the same name, now gives bonus hit points as if the warforged was a construct of the same size category. All references to fortification, as per the armor special quality, have been removed.
Spiked Body remains mostly the same, but with some cleaning up of the language and now with immunity to the broken condition. One thing I will point out, use of the Adamantine Body, Cold Iron Tracery or Silver Tracery feats also applies to these armor spikes as well. Truthfully, I don't suspect many will take this feat directly, but it is a bonus feat for the Warforged Juggernaut.
I think that should fix those two, but let me know what you think.
- Dan
BTW, let me know what you think of the Vadalis Beastkeeper prestige class.Funny you should ask, I was debating commenting on it earlier. I think it is incredibly odd, and probably too weak. Requiring 2nd level casting, from a PRC you can get into at 5th level really makes you want to be a full caster, but then it only advances half your caster level, so you really don't want to be a full caster. Mechanically, it probably isn't worth it for anyone but maybe a ranger, and honestly probably not even then.
Mechanically its highlights are the full base attack bonus, advancement to spellcasting, the advancement of your companion, and magebred companion.
Its weaknesses are that it doesn't advance spellcasting enough for any serious spellcaster to want it, yet seems to be geared primarily towards spellcasters, especially with the 2nd level spells requirement.
I think I'd drop the spellcasting requirement first off, and then give an option similar to the War Mind PRC where the prestige class can either advance casting (maybe 7/10?) or grant its own minor casting. That'll make it friendlier I think. Also, I'd give it back the magebred transformation but I just really like that ability.
** spoiler omitted **
ShadowcatX,
I knocked down the BAB and Ref saves on the Vadalis Beastkeeper and upped the spellcasting to every level. The prestige class is meant to attract druids, summoners and other spellcastings that do a lot of summoning in order to take advantage of the Magebred template and then the Master's Coordination. If it's not attractive to those kinds of classes, then it misses its goal.
Let me know how that looks.
Side note, I don't have anything against the material from 4e, and I figured that Eberron would have new stuff in it. I just want to sink money in books I would only use in this conversion. But if there's something you think I should particularly look at, let me know.
- Dan
It looks much better. As a full caster, magebred summoning and magister's coordination may end up being too good. It might need to loose a caster level (probably at first level). I'd recommend testing it at 7th, 11th, and 15th just to see how it performs.
As I was looking through the other classes, I noticed that as written the nosomatic chirugeon with a siberys mark doesn't need the least mark to get into the prc, but no exception is made for them needing the lesser mark. I think that wording will need to be changed.
As to 4th edition Eberron stuff, I'll send you a pm about it. Tomorrow though, because I'm bushed.
I did the math on the Druid, Summoner and Wizard going to Vadalis Beastkeeper. While the Druid and Summoner can get to the class with their 6th level being the 1st level of Vadalis Beastkeeper, the BAB requirements forced the Wizard to wait one more level (7th being their 1st level of the prestige class).
Without adjusting the caster level, the druid's BAB, Ref save and Will save all went down by 1-2 points, while the Fort remained the same. The summoner's BAB, Ref and Will went down by 1-2 points, while the Fort went up by 1. The wizard, who had to wait longer, had their BAB and Fort go up by 2 points, Ref was the same and Will went down by 2 points.
Now, the animal companion and eidolon benefited from the class equally well by the class, particularly with the Magebred Template, while the familiar benefited but not by as much (at least without the Improved Famliar feat).
Based on this, I have removed the +1 to caster level at 6th, which is when the Magebred Template is applied to the animal companion, eidolon, etc.
... you were right...
Think you could tell my wife? I'm pretty sure she'll mark this date on the calender.
I am one of those who think that the Warforged built-in armor was very important to the species/race/uh..., and hate to see it go. I can see there is nothing like it in the Advance Races Guide. Or in any official Pathfinder books, for that matter. You have done as clean of a translation as possible by removing the body plating.
An idea stuck me, however, of bolt-on armor. It could be removed in a matter of minutes (say 5 to 10 times the normal armor of its type) and require tool to do so. Because it is actually meant to act closer to a second skin than regular armor, the armor check penalty would be reduce and the maximum dexterity bonus would increase (by one, I think).
Bolt-on armor, to me, is a half-way point between a full-on racial trait and equipment. A character can get it enchanted, may choose not to wear it, and can replace it. Because the "wearer" is a warforged, they suffer no negatives in regards to sleeping in it. Warforged can also remove the bolt-on armor, and wear normal armor, or a robe, or a good pair pants if they want.
This also seems like a cost effective method, in regards to mass production. Different units produced would have different requirements for armor. Instead of producing fifty scouts (light armor), a hundred troopers (medium armor), and fifty shock troopers (heavy armor), you could just produce 200 warforged and adapt armor for what you needed.
Now, how to implement this...I have no idea. But its a thought I had, and like I said, I loved everything else you did. Maybe this is something that would fit in your Eberron.
As I was looking through the other classes, I noticed that as written the nosomatic chirugeon with a siberys mark doesn't need the least mark to get into the prc, but no exception is made for them needing the lesser mark. I think that wording will need to be changed.
I have also cleaned up the specifics of the Nosomatic Chirgeon. Turns out that little oversight had a cascading effect throughout the rest of the class.
Let me know how that looks now.
- Dan
... you were right...Think you could tell my wife? I'm pretty sure she'll mark this date on the calender.
I am one of those who think that the Warforged built-in armor was very important to the species/race/uh..., and hate to see it go. I can see there is nothing like it in the Advance Races Guide. Or in any official Pathfinder books, for that matter. You have done as clean of a translation as possible by removing the body plating.
An idea stuck me, however, of bolt-on armor. It could be removed in a matter of minutes (say 5 to 10 times the normal armor of its type) and require tool to do so. Because it is actually meant to act closer to a second skin than regular armor, the armor check penalty would be reduce and the maximum dexterity bonus would increase (by one, I think).
Bolt-on armor, to me, is a half-way point between a full-on racial trait and equipment. A character can get it enchanted, may choose not to wear it, and can replace it. Because the "wearer" is a warforged, they suffer no negatives in regards to sleeping in it. Warforged can also remove the bolt-on armor, and wear normal armor, or a robe, or a good pair pants if they want.
This also seems like a cost effective method, in regards to mass production. Different units produced would have different requirements for armor. Instead of producing fifty scouts (light armor), a hundred troopers (medium armor), and fifty shock troopers (heavy armor), you could just produce 200 warforged and adapt armor for what you needed.
Now, how to implement this...I have no idea. But its a thought I had, and like I said, I loved everything else you did. Maybe this is something that would fit in your Eberron.
I like the idea and I have it written down with my list of personally created new material, but I'd like to wait until what's on the site is already stress-tested before adding anything more.
Thanks tho'
- Dan
This is crazy... cause its exactly what I've been looking at. Basically, a warforged would default to an unplated or 'exposed frame'. Then they can pay for armor in the form of plating, which they can have affixed to their frame. It basically just costs them time and money, and maintains the feel of the original racials.
This is crazy... cause its exactly what I've been looking at. Basically, a warforged would default to an unplated or 'exposed frame'. Then they can pay for armor in the form of plating, which they can have affixed to their frame. It basically just costs them time and money, and maintains the feel of the original racials.
Agreed. I figured it would be a collection of mundane armor types (light, medium and heavy) that would have it's own pricing, armor bonus, max Dex, etc, but all with the benefit of being able to be donned and removed quick-er than normal armor and quick-LY with a Craft check. Then stack masterwork, enchantments and special materials as normal.
I'll dabble with something this weekend (if no one beats me to the punch)
- Dan
Dot
Do you think the mythic rules fit Eberron, and if so how?
Personally, I'd be very stingy on handing out mythic abilities and mythic tiers, though I do think the Lord of Blades would probably be high mythic tier. (He can grant spells, and that's one of the mythic abilities IIRC, and it keeps him in RAW. Probably 14 fighter 7 mythic champion maybe?) He'd probably be my only exception to the rule though.
I myself think it fits Eberron perfectly. You can now play low-level characters (fits in with 'very little number of high-level adventurers') while still feeling like you're really shaping the world around you.
I can imagine the following NPCs having Mythic levels should you use the rule (in no particular order other than their likelyhood of Mythic):
Hags of Droaam
Erandis d'Vol
Jaela Daran
that awakened oak tree archdruid thingy
(some) Ascendant Councilors
(some) Dragons of Argonessen (Zenobaal, eyes of chronepsis...)
(some) Inspired Lords
(some) Lords of Dust
Not so sure about the Lord of the Blades (I think of him as either on the path to attaining Mythic tier or has just gained one) and King Kaius but that's just off the top of my head so I could be wrong.
But then again, if I recall correctly the Lord of the Blades is an epic-level NPC in 4th edition so he might be on the 'certainly' list for me too.
I believe in 3rd edition the Lord of Blades is a 14th level fighter. But he can grant divine spells to his followers so that really hints that there's more to him than just fighter.
And I can see that the inspired lords, lords of dust, and even the court of the undying could have mythic tiers, but I don't think I'd give them to Jaela or Erandis, they're both already incredibly powerful, but they're not out in the thick of things the way I think of mythic characters being but that's just personal taste.
Fair enough, fair enough. Although on the matter of our beloved warforged granting divine spells, I think that's more to do with Eberron's deliberate vagueness when it comes down to divinity in general. When somebody believes in one thing hard enough, they can get divine spells through that sheer belief alone.
Yeah the Blood of the Vol, to me, is the most successful pyramid scheme in Khorvaire :p
Great site. Love the work you put into this.
Note:
Class favored Bonus for Gnomes:
Gnomes: Add +1/2 to Knowledge (arcana) and Use Magic Device.
Don't you think this a bit much. +10 to THE skill for the artificer seems a bit much. I wouldn't give a bonus to UDM. I would change it to a bonus to Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft. Item use and Item creation all tie into UDM. As it stands there is no reason to play any other class but a gnome if your going artificer.
Do you think the mythic rules fit Eberron, and if so how?
Personally, I'd be very stingy on handing out mythic abilities and mythic tiers, though I do think the Lord of Blades would probably be high mythic tier. (He can grant spells, and that's one of the mythic abilities IIRC, and it keeps him in RAW. Probably 14 fighter 7 mythic champion maybe?) He'd probably be my only exception to the rule though.
Absolutely,
The whole conversion process started about this time last year when Paizo announced Mythic Adventurers. I have a 3.5 Eberron game that went from 1st to 20th over the course of 2 1/2 years and my players are wanting to bring it back for the final chapter.
But since we all converted from 3.5 to Pathfinder in the meantime, I realized I had a lot of work to do.
I am still reading through my pdf copy of MA, but the tentative idea was
Lord of Blades: Warforged Fighter 8 / Warforged Juggernaut 5 / Artificer 7 / Champion Path 3
Lady Vol: Elven (Half-Dragon) Necromancer 20 (Mythic Lich Template)
I was kinda disappointed that their was no Mythic Leadership feat or rules for Leadership scores 26+, like there was with Epic Leadership. And it was kinda important as Epic Leadership was one of the prereqs for a home-brew Epic (now Mythic?) feat called Deify, where if you weren't already a divine caster, you founded your own religion, others can pray to you for spells and you have divine spell casting, but only for the domain spells of your domains.
-Dan
Yeah the Blood of the Vol, to me, is the most successful pyramid scheme in Khorvaire :p
Very true
Great site. Love the work you put into this.
Note:
Class favored Bonus for Gnomes:
Gnomes: Add +1/2 to Knowledge (arcana) and Use Magic Device.
Don't you think this a bit much. +10 to THE skill for the artificer seems a bit much. I wouldn't give a bonus to UDM. I would change it to a bonus to Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft. Item use and Item creation all tie into UDM. As it stands there is no reason to play any other class but a gnome if your going artificer.
Dragonamedrake,
Thanks for the catch
Interesting point, I will need to check on that.
I personally dislike the idea of making the big bads 20th level, one of the big draws for me was that the primary characters weren't all 20th level, that even mid level characters could have a huge impact on the world. But that isn't an issue when your characters are already 20th level.
And I'd probably drop LoB from Fighter 8 to Fighter 6 / Barbarian 2. More in keeping with his style I think and significantly stronger.
It's a matter of scale. The party has been fighting a three-front war with the LoB, Lady Vol and the Inspired from 1st to 20th without meeting any of the big bad leaders; all over the restoration of Cyre.
Now that the group is 20th w/ 1st mythic tier and going from there, I want to make sure that it's still a challenge. In another campaign, the LoB would probably only be CR 12-14, but then he wouldn't be one of the main big-bads.
-Dan
Great site. Love the work you put into this.
Note:
Class favored Bonus for Gnomes:
Gnomes: Add +1/2 to Knowledge (arcana) and Use Magic Device.
Don't you think this a bit much. +10 to THE skill for the artificer seems a bit much. I wouldn't give a bonus to UDM. I would change it to a bonus to Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft. Item use and Item creation all tie into UDM. As it stands there is no reason to play any other class but a gnome if your going artificer.
Dragonamedrake,
Thanks for the catch
Interesting point, I will need to check on that.
After looking at it, I agree that the UMD needs to be removed, but replacing it with Spellcraft runs into much of the same problem. However, given how prolific the gnomes of Zilargo are with elemental bound items, I applied the same bonus to checks to control, command or regain control with dealing with those items.
The Knowledge (arcana) remains the same.
-Dan