Bonus to ride checks? Thats a low power skill, so probably a level 1 spell. +20 to ride for hours/level. Since you can't nat fail on a skills check there you go the lowest you can get is 21.Hey, it's totally realistic to break your neck on a failed Ride check!I dunno about that. Sometimes, casters make ride checks. Could we get it so that only matrials can break their neck on a failed Ride check? Or at least a spell that would allow casters to avoid the issue? That would be realistic.
Unless you have a Dex penalty, but what kind of mage would?
Make it a fort save, lol.
Hey, it's totally realistic to break your neck on a failed Ride check!I dunno about that. Sometimes, casters make ride checks. Could we get it so that only matrials can break their neck on a failed Ride check? Or at least a spell that would allow casters to avoid the issue? That would be realistic.
Vivianne Laflamme, remember Christopher Reeve?
Well, he wasn't a caster, so....
Well, he wasn't a caster, so....
Do casters somehow not have a spine or neck?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the joke. That casters should be immune to such mundane threats.
No one actually believes this obviously but again, that's the joke.
That's the joke. That casters should be immune to such mundane threats.
No one actually believes this obviously but again, that's the joke.
Ah, alrighty. I admittedly missed that.
Fly spells make you immune to failing Ride checks. Levitate probably does, too.
"You fail your Ride check and fall off your horse, hitting the ground at 35 mph! 70 move is the equivalent of 7d6 damage-"
"I have Levitate up."
"Oh. Well, you fall off your horse and are left hovering in midair, kicking foolishly to recover your balance before you lower yourself sheepishly to the ground to regain your feet. Your horse nickers at you in disappointment."
==Aelryinth
Wouldn't Feather Fall work to prevent damage while falling off your horse?
These are all an awful lot of spells to have active while riding a horse. Just sayin.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the joke. That casters should be immune to such mundane threats.
No one actually believes this obviously but again, that's the joke.
Well, it does sometimes seem that the developers do.
These are all an awful lot of spells to have active while riding a horse. Just sayin.
Everyone knows that all spellcasters always have every single spell they are capable of casting active at all times.
Of course man, nothing ever goes wrong. They are never unprepared and can use their spells they haven't cast to prevent themselves dying in a crash at high speeds.
If they fall or crash not on their turn, they also always have the relevant spell on. If they run out of actions they get levitate or featherfall turned on for free and immediately.
Feather fall IS immediate, so yeah, it would save them. They'd just have to have it memorized.
==Aelryinth
So let's set it up. Riding at speed, fail ride check and fall off horse, still partly in stirrups, have not fallen any actual distance (like down a pit) but have lost control of reins, positioning and collided with the ground, smashing head and limbs on rocks and the ground. Dragged. May finally come totally loose from the horse and stirrups, but until then will still be subject to drag and momentum across a hard surface.
I am not sure how feather fall works in this situation. Didn't fall down a hole, came off a horse and swiftly collided with the ground while still attached in part to the horse. The road or ground is hard, and they met it quickly while riding something.
If fall off horse with a leap and a descent, feather fall stops falling, but does it stop momentum? Can they still collide with a tree or rock on the side?
Admittedly, of arcane casters I only play Sorcerers, so if I have it at all, I have it ready.
Granted, it's never been an issue, because I've never had a character who needed a horse for any appreciable amount of time....
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
SO, I predict Paizo will read this thread and promptly issue an erratum for the mount spell that says, "You cannot fall off your own mount. If forced off of it, this spell gives you a +20 bonus to your Ride check to resist." And then they'll issue a new feat:
SAFE RIDER
Benefit: If you fall or are thrown from your mount, you take 1d6 damage (or damage based on the distance you fall, if the mount is flying).
Normal: If you fall or are thrown, you take the damage listed and must also save vs. Fortitude (DC equal to your mount's speed) or both legs and arms become useless permanently (a regenerate or miracle spell can heal this damage). Although your arms don't work (and thus you cannot wield weapons) you can still move your hands and can therefore still cast spells.
I like this joke.
Damn we need a new printing of the CRB anyways I just realized Piazo didn't print the rules that limit jump height based off your character's height. Probably need to errata the jump spell to remove that restriction while we are at it.
I wonder if a good compromise between "martials should only able to do realistic things, like Aragorn, characters from Game of Thrones, etc" and "high level martials should have flexibility comparable to casters" would be through magic items?
For example, you could have boots that allow you to jump a mile, but only if you have a Strength of at least 25. Plate Mail that makes it possible to charge through a five-foot-thick wall, as long as you can make a high CMB check.
That way, martial characters can have nice things, but it doesn't break versimillitude for people who feel that humans can only do normal things except when magic is involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is nothing stops a really good item from going to use by the caster as well. If it's really something they want to do they can hit those prereqs as well.
It could still work -- if each class had a different WBL chart. But then people would still pool their money and divide loot "fairly," so the currency would have to be non-transferrable: personal "mojo" or the like.
That and it still leads to the same old system of "A martial character needs a mage to buff him or make a magic item for him before he can compete".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that was my favorite part about the Nibelungenlied too. I really liked the part where Siegfried was an ordinary mortal until he found a really cool pair of boots and the boots made him superhuman. I really liked how his heroism had nothing to do with himself, but rather was entirely due to the spiffy boots he wore.
Yeah, that was my favorite part about the Nibelungenlied too. I really liked the part where Siegfried was an ordinary mortal until he found a really cool pair of boots and the boots made him superhuman. I really liked how his heroism had nothing to do with himself, but rather was entirely due to the spiffy boots he wore.
Well, the guy had an Helm of Disguise/Cloak of Invisibility and a Dragon Bane Sword. He also doesn't stand up to Fafnir in a "fair" fight, but killed him from below. Clever, but not very heroic. (Actually, Sigurd is not the sharpest sword in the armory and frequently needs advice from others. At least he's smart enough to accept it.)
Due to the dragon's blood, he's nigh invincible after that. Those are quite a few external conditions that make him exceptional.
That and it still leads to the same old system of "A martial character needs a mage to buff him or make a magic item for him before he can compete".
Not if PC's personal "mojo" (our theoretical new currency) could be spent on the PC and/or on his/her items by the player. We cut out the middleman, in other words.
Sigfried can spend a bunch on impenetrable skin, and use the remainder for his cloak, sword, etc. Arthur can spend all his on his sword and scabbard, if he wants to -- the stuff just gets handed to him from out of a lake, without him having to hit up Merlin to craft the stuff for him.
Problem is nothing stops a really good item from going to use by the caster as well. If it's really something they want to do they can hit those prereqs as well.
If the prerequisites are strict enough, the casters won't be able to. You could have them dependent on Rage, Sneak Damage, Weapon Training, Ki, etc.
On top of that, you'd have to make them a lot cheaper than other items that don't have strict prerequisites, to deal with the WBL issue. Quite a lot of work, but do-able.
For players who'd rather be Hercules, there's still the Mythic rules, of course.
How about feats with certain class features as prereqs that give a lot of utility to the character. Or just flat out houserule special abilities autmatically gained at BAB 11 and up. Getting cool stances and moves or special physical talents that full casters can't have because they are too busy cultivating their spells.
Yes that would take them back into that weird vague and apparently completely arbitrarily defined area of unrealistic but really who cares.
If you want to keep martials gritty and "realistic" perhaps you will want to make casters gritty too by tuning down their magic a couple of notches.
Yes that would take them back into that weird vague and apparently completely arbitrarily defined area of unrealistic but really who cares.
Around half of the player base seems to hate the idea.
If you want to keep martials gritty and "realistic" perhaps you will want to make casters gritty too by tuning down their magic a couple of notches.
That's not an easy thing to do. I mean, you could go through every spell in the game and decide if you wanted to keep it, remove it, or make it higher level, but at the end all you'd have is some very annoyed casters.
What if fighters used the monk save progression?
If you want to keep martials gritty and "realistic" perhaps you will want to make casters gritty too by tuning down their magic a couple of notches.That's not an easy thing to do. I mean, you could go through every spell in the game and decide if you wanted to keep it, remove it, or make it higher level, but at the end all you'd have is some very annoyed casters.
That's why it'd be a really cool idea if Paizo published an "Ultimate Low Magic" where they did a few tweaks so the game could be run in low magic mode. Since there are so many threads in the forums and home-brews, this'd probably be quite popular*.
*relatively speaking, but since it'd reduce options of casters and use inherent bonuses rather than items - it'd probably not sell as well as a book like Ultimate Magic.
That and it still leads to the same old system of "A martial character needs a mage to buff him or make a magic item for him before he can compete".Not if PC's personal "mojo" (our theoretical new currency) could be spent on the PC and/or on his/her items by the player. We cut out the middleman, in other words.
Sigfried can spend a bunch on impenetrable skin, and use the remainder for his cloak, sword, etc. Arthur can spend all his on his sword and scabbard, if he wants to -- the stuff just gets handed to him from out of a lake, without him having to hit up Merlin to craft the stuff for him.
That is an idea I've toyed with off and on again for sometime but never made into acual rules. I blame my lazyness.
The idea is that instead of getting money and valuables for every encounter the PCs get 'wealth' which can be either 'treasure' or 'mojo' (I dodn't have a good word for it, your mojo idea is the best so far), depending on what the encounter is and what the player wants.Treasure is actual money and goods, and can be used to buy itens in shops, pay for costs of living, hire helpers and craft stuff.
Mojo is virtual money and can be used to find itens (instead of random itens you pay for the item and then find the item you want in the next loot pile), evolve weapons and armor (making weapons and armor that grow with the user), buy itens at extra price so they're not actual itens but you just getting more powerfull (avoiding the christmas tree effect and making for a possible vow of poverty character).
That way when you kill a bandit and take his stuff, you gain treasure, when you kill a wandering pack of direwolfs, instead of finding a bag of coins in their stomachs you gain mojo. When the group does a contract or something the DM can decrase the money offered and then give some mojo for the difference. It allows one player to get most of his Wealth by Level as treasure and end up richer than a small nation and covered in magic itens, while another has an ancient weapon that grows in power together with himself and no other itens, it's all his internal badassery.
Now if only I could get this mess as rules text...
That and it still leads to the same old system of "A martial character needs a mage to buff him or make a magic item for him before he can compete".Not if PC's personal "mojo" (our theoretical new currency) could be spent on the PC and/or on his/her items by the player. We cut out the middleman, in other words.
Sigfried can spend a bunch on impenetrable skin, and use the remainder for his cloak, sword, etc. Arthur can spend all his on his sword and scabbard, if he wants to -- the stuff just gets handed to him from out of a lake, without him having to hit up Merlin to craft the stuff for him.
That is an idea I've toyed with off and on again for sometime but never made into acual rules. I blame my lazyness.
The idea is that instead of getting money and valuables for every encounter the PCs get 'wealth' which can be either 'treasure' or 'mojo' (I dodn't have a good word for it, your mojo idea is the best so far), depending on what the encounter is and what the player wants.Treasure is actual money and goods, and can be used to buy itens in shops, pay for costs of living, hire helpers and craft stuff.
Mojo is virtual money and can be used to find itens (instead of random itens you pay for the item and then find the item you want in the next loot pile), evolve weapons and armor (making weapons and armor that grow with the user), buy itens at extra price so they're not actual itens but you just getting more powerfull (avoiding the christmas tree effect and making for a possible vow of poverty character).That way when you kill a bandit and take his stuff, you gain treasure, when you kill a wandering pack of direwolfs, instead of finding a bag of coins in their stomachs you gain mojo. When the group does a contract or something the DM can decrase the money offered and then give some mojo for the difference. It allows one player to get most of his Wealth by Level as treasure and end up richer than a small nation and covered in magic itens, while...
second ed had some kind of turn gold into xp thing going on IIRC....
|
That and it still leads to the same old system of "A martial character needs a mage to buff him or make a magic item for him before he can compete".Not if PC's personal "mojo" (our theoretical new currency) could be spent on the PC and/or on his/her items by the player. We cut out the middleman, in other words.
Sigfried can spend a bunch on impenetrable skin, and use the remainder for his cloak, sword, etc. Arthur can spend all his on his sword and scabbard, if he wants to -- the stuff just gets handed to him from out of a lake, without him having to hit up Merlin to craft the stuff for him.
They don't need to go this route though - you can easily key items to be tied to character classes in 3rd ed/PF with a little work - to address the issue of:
"Problem is nothing stops a really good item from going to use by the caster as well. If it's really something they want to do they can hit those prereqs as well."
You know how you address this? Easy -
To use boots of Mighty Stomping Your Enemies to Death the wearer must have at least +4 BAB in Fast BAB, or +4 BAB in medium BAB. That's it.
Now not only did I restrict this item to Fighters, Rangers, Pallys and Barbs I also made an allowance for mid level Clerics and Rogues to use it, while slow BAB casters cannot - at all.
And you could put a nuanced effect where rogues use Mid BAB to qualify for X items, but are treated as Fast BAB for Y (certain martial or combat items). So now not only have you created a system that limits items to certain classes, you also have created a "need to be this level to ride" qualifier. Hell - with this system I can give out a few tiered swords that start making a difference at level 4 and the player can keep it till he's level 12 (or higher).
Sword, Masterwork (hardened) (+0 BAB)
Sword +1 NSA (+4 BAB)
Sword +1, Cold +1d6 (+6 BAB)
Sword +2, Cold +2d4 (+9 BAB)
Sword +3, Cold +2d4 (+12 BAB)
Partially eliminating X mas tree or the need to swap out gear every so many levels.
Basically putting prerequisites into items the way you would to qualify for a prestige class. And if someone doesn't qualify (not enough BAB) they get a lesser version/limited version of the item. If wizards are going to dip into 4 levels of fighter to use one item - hey, I'm ok with that.
So we don't need class dedicated WBL, or internal powers system (something I and few others have toyed with), we just need to find a way to key item ability and potency to classes and level.
My suggestion is BAB (that's one) another would be having X Class Skill with Y ranks, that's another. Anything to help control who gets to use what - doesn't need to be for all items, but I think having some class dedicated items would help bring some balance and fun back into playing martials.
Class dedicated items was something that was lost in the translation from 2nd to 3rd ed.
I think having class-dedicated items would be something interesting to look into. If not class dedicated, then at least requirements like BAB, minimum caster level, etc to use would be an option.
I understand why it's not used very often now(simplicity and ease of use), but lots of other games(video game RPG's in general) rely on similar systems and it goes a decent ways towards diversifying things, helping avoid the classic Christmas Tree Effect.
Everyone knows that all spellcasters always have every single spell they are capable of casting active at all times.No they don't. Rather, at the very worst spellcasters have one set of abilities they can't change on the fly right now because they don't have time.
That's the joke.
That and it still leads to the same old system of "A martial character needs a mage to buff him or make a magic item for him before he can compete".Not if PC's personal "mojo" (our theoretical new currency) could be spent on the PC and/or on his/her items by the player. We cut out the middleman, in other words.
Sigfried can spend a bunch on impenetrable skin, and use the remainder for his cloak, sword, etc. Arthur can spend all his on his sword and scabbard, if he wants to -- the stuff just gets handed to him from out of a lake, without him having to hit up Merlin to craft the stuff for him.
I'm teetering on the edge of preferring this to any of the other suggestions I've seen.
It puts the decision firmly in the hands of individual players/groups rather than hard-coded into the rulebook, which is my personal #1 requirement.
I'd rather it wasn't quite so abstract, but tbh that's just a minor niggle of mine, and I've been getting to like abstraction more and more over the years due to the number of problems it can solve. Pretty certain I could learn to love this when remembering what the alternatives could have been :)
I'm teetering on the edge of preferring this to any of the other suggestions I've seen.
It puts the decision firmly in the hands of individual players/groups rather than hard-coded into the rulebook, which is my personal #1 requirement.
I'd rather it wasn't quite so abstract, but tbh that's just a minor niggle of mine, and I've been getting to like abstraction more and more over the years due to the number of problems it can solve. Pretty certain I could learn to love this when remembering what the alternatives could have been :)
Well, I wouldn't make it totally abstract: I would hard-code a lot of the pricing, for example. But, yeah, as a DM I'm firmly in the camp of "your career-defining gimmick or gear should be up to you," not "you'll take what I give you and like it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I wouldn't make it totally abstract: I would hard-code a lot of the pricing, for example. But, yeah, as a DM I'm firmly in the camp of "your career-defining gimmick or gear should be up to you," not "you'll take what I give you and like it."
The abstract bit for me is having it a purely meta-currency, but like I said, minor niggle on my part and I'm starting to find more and more places where it's preferable. The nice thing is it can be left completely to the individual player, or a table can decide "our universe just doesn't work that way so while the 'power' options are out, but these 'item' are still good" (or vice-versa, ofc)
It's a little reminiscent of another mechanic I'm starting to love, which is the use of Story Points in Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space to allow players to use what would be otherwise mechanically-underpowered characters (such as the Doctor's companions 90% of the time). With Story Points players get influence over the game at a meta-level outside of their character's personal abilities, keeping them somewhat in balance with more powerful alien PCs.
It's kinda strange because I've always been against meta-mechanics in the past, but the more I try them out the more I find they let me enjoy richer stories and games.
Another similarity I feel myself drawing towards it is super-hero games where you might spend points on a power but for some it'll be an innate power while for others a technological device, etc. It works well there, and there's no reason it can't work equally well here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a simple mechanic for removing magic shops, crafters, etc:
Between adventures, your characters reset to their Wealth by Level in magic equipment. You don't have to worry about where this equipment comes from - you could say that you have unlocked a new power in your old sword, for example.
You can also choose to use Inner Powers in place of magic items. An Inner Power costs the same as a magic item that would do the same thing. An Inner Power must have a weakness, to be negotiated with the GM, to balance out the fact that an item could be sundered or stolen. For example, I could say instead of having a belt of +4 Strength, I have an innate +4 Strength enhancement bonus that only applies if I eat as much food as ten men. The cost would be the same - the gold price is notional and comes out of your Wealth by Level.
Actual treasure can then be spent on strongholds, charity, partying, etc.
Dood man I could totally make every anime protagonist ever with that rule.
I kinda like it.
I kinda do too. I'll have to run that one past my group.
Weapons of Legacy(3.5e), anyone? With a major overhaul, of course.
Given the character investment in said WoL, first overhaul I'd do is remove the tables that force the character to take hits to skills, saves, attack bonuses and HP, right away. Ora t the very least, drastically reduce the penalties of such.
I always loved the "progression of power" idea for weapons. WoL was cool except for the irritating penalties, agreed. Alternatively, you could tweak something off the Magus's Black Blade.
I always loved the "progression of power" idea for weapons. WoL was cool except for the irritating penalties, agreed. Alternatively, you could tweak something off the Magus's Black Blade.
Yeah, the Black Blade archetype is kinda cool. I just like the options and customizing that WoL offered, and that they didn't need to be weapons at all. Could be a pendant, a monocle, basically anything occupying a slot. I once played a "talky" rogue in an urban campaign who had a WoL that was a broach, with powers all based around crazy bonuses to social skills, detect magic, and true seeing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds awesome =)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's real, it's MUCH WORSE than that. It means the designers hold high-level martial characters to the standards of what sedentary game designers can do, not what actual athletes can do.http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
It's even more worse than that. It means they're approaching it from entirely the wrong direction.
Figure out how what you want the martial characters to be able to do, then come up with a way to let them do it. If you want two weapon firearms to work, introduce a mechanic to allow it. If you don't, don't. Don't make the decision on whether TWF works based on whether you think a gimmick from a pre-existing item is realistic or not.I sure hope the dev's never try to actually cast a spell, either. Or wizards are going to get hosed...
The logic is preposterous; "Hmm, lemme try this thing. Unh, it's not very easy. Ergo, it can't be easy for anyone, ever. Even people who actually practice it. Herpderp."
There was a lot of this going around in the old sling thread too before it got locked. For better or worse its been on display in a lot of Pathfinder design and evaluation.