| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Merry Christmas to my favorite people on Paizo :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Christmas around the RPG table
- "A toast to the reason for the season!"
- "Phat lewts!"
- "Shut up Jerry!"
- "Mountain dew is festive!"
:D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is may be a silly idea, but have you considered publishing your homebrew when finished as a 3rd party product?
Actually, yes. I'm going to do just that (which is why at some point I'm going to end up making my Patreon public in case anyone's interested in helping out with things like art costs), though I'll assuredly make the mechanics free. I'm a big believer in the OGL and it's benefit to the RPG community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get anything neat for christmas?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would you run an encounter with one character possessing a shriveled or crippled body strapped onto the body of a much stronger person? Something like this.
Just had a thought for a powerful, if crippled telekinetic riding around on the back of, basically, a meatshield. I'm just unsure how to run this. My initial thought is using the mounted combat rules, but that seems simple, but also problematic and I just know players would want to do the same thing. Like a Halgling Wizard riding the Big Stupid Fighter into combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get anything neat for christmas?
Actually yes. After many, many, many years of just wanting one, I got a graphics tablet. I've made a folder on my PC to store my test art so I can see where I'm at tech-wise this time next year.
I uploaded my stuff from the folder to share.
Frames01 (basic frame practice)
Frames02a (I erased one of the frames because it looked suggestive)
Frames03 (actually isn't frames but practice doodles)
Layer_learning01 (I like the way this looks on paper)
Layer_learning02 (this one was pretty fast and fun)
Model01 (anatomy is challenging but a little attitude is fun)
Test01 (layer learning01 as a single image)
A doodle of my merfolk, Jyrril (warning, nipples)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would you run an encounter with one character possessing a shriveled or crippled body strapped onto the body of a much stronger person? Something like this.
Just had a thought for a powerful, if crippled telekinetic riding around on the back of, basically, a meatshield. I'm just unsure how to run this. My initial thought is using the mounted combat rules, but that seems simple, but also problematic and I just know players would want to do the same thing. Like a Halgling Wizard riding the Big Stupid Fighter into combat.
The mounted rules would probably be ideal actually. That could be argued as an exotic riding saddle. Alternatively, the character is literally just being carried as part of the bigger dude's load until they hop out or something (either way would work, the only issue with mounted combat is that if they took a feat the guy riding could potentially allow the guy carrying to avoid a hit each round via a Ride check, but IMHO I'm fine with that ["LOOK OUT YOU FOOL!"]).
I know I've had players attacked by goblins riding on each other's shoulders. Imagine the surprise when the strange four-armed creatures in the darkness turned out to be a bunch of goblins wearing humanoid overcoats. Their +4 racial to ride offsets the -4 for an unsuitable mount, so they pretty much did crazy stuff like running up and slicing at PCs with their swords or shooting bows and such while the other is running around with a spear, etc.
It was good times. >:3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An alias inspiring story to reside with the best of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An alias inspiring story to reside with the best of them.
For lots of added fun, point out what seemingly inhuman twists and movements they make, odd balance bits, and have them occasionally seem to argue with themselves in voices that sound similar but at different pitches. If someone doesn't immediately guess at what's going on, it actually has a delightfully creepy feel in a sort of insane sort of way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, fun fact, there is no rule anywhere that says a mount has to be larger than you. The closest thing is you take a -4 penalty for riding a creature unsuitable as a mount (GM discretion). If it can carry you, you could theoretically ride it.
So if you REALLY want to be hilariously freaky, you could have a really pissed off and angry goblin barbarian with bulging muscles, carrying a fat orc-shaman on his back.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Merry Christmas, and God bless you!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Happy new year everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Happy new year everyone.
Ditto! :D
Happy New Years to all! ^_^
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm working on the rogue a bit today before I have to head to work and I thought I'd give an overview of some of the major changes to the way the rogue works in D20 legends.
The recommended path for rogues in d20 legends is martial, which means if you're following the recommendation, a rogue is certainly a combat class (perfect BAB, HP, Proficiencies, and Skills). Their primary ability and the core of their class is the cunning strike (it's no longer called Sneak Attack). Cunning strike is always on, providing a bonus to hit and damage with all one-handed, light, and ranged weapons (within 30 ft.). It advances slower than the PF Rogue's SA but is more useful.
Additionally, in conditions that would have prompted SA for a rogue in PF, cunning strike gets significantly better (so you're rewarded for doing things like flanking, ambushing, etc).
One of the mechanics that rogues will excel at is martial-generated debuffs. These are activated by reducing the number of bonus d6s you're rolling when you make a cunning strike, which add kicker effects onto your attacks (like staggered, dazzled, bleeding, etc). This means that a rogue can trade their excess damage for control-based abilities. A rogue with the staggering option is actually really hard to escape from in melee because they keep you pinned down (with higher levels allowing you to sacrifice more d6s to immobilize your foe). This makes rogues very scary for spellcasters who will have difficulties getting out of melee with them. EDIT: And out of melee with a rogue is a very good place to be because they will kill you if you give them a chance.
However, many of these abilities have other uses (this is true for a number of classes). For example, nothing's stopping you from making a rogue that's more of a tactical soldier using a sword & shield, or mixing the rogue with another class, to allow the character to get more +hit/damage with their 1 handers while using things like the staggering ability defensively (essentially making it difficult for foes to take actions and get away from them).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*slides money under table* "Make sure you overpower rogues..."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*slides money under table* "Make sure you overpower rogues..."
It's a pretty legitimate concern I think. Martials in general are getting a lot of nice stealth-buffs (e.g. none-class related buffs) at the core of the system (damage increases with BAB progression, all saves advance at +1/2 level, martials have the most skills and skills do stuff, you can move and attack effectively, etc).
Likewise, with the way that characters advance, I've taken some steps to make sure you can't roflstomp things by pushing down on martial advancements, so a number of martial special abilities have diminishing returns when used together (raging, smiting, sneak attacking, mutagen, etc don't stack too well for pushing more damage. There are reasons to use all of them together if you have all of them to use, but you can't just blow people out of their boots combining all of those abilities).
Because it really is possible to go a bit overboard with buffing, even if things are pretty poor in the source material. Part of the goal of making the core of the system more martial friendly is to free up resources that players are spending right now to be functional. For example, most casters are pretty amazing just by virtue of their existence, while even the best martials still feel obligated to take certain feat paths and options just to be relevant (archery is a big one here, but having to have things like Pounce to be a reliable melee-DPS guy is another example).
I haven't been able to check for a while and tried to search but have you been able to work on e wowlock?
I haven't been able to check for a while and tried to search but have you been able to work on e wowlock?
Not lately. I've been super busy with working and most of my free time from work has been spent on my RPG project.
Have you seen Naruto? If so, have you ever considered giving the 'ki' users, Monks, Ninja, certain Rogues, etc, access to the paper bombs used so often in the show?
For some reason, the idea of the paper bombs really appeals to me and I'd love to adapt them to the game, but at the same time, I'm not certain it's a good idea. Much like Wizards abusing [i[explosive runes[/i], allowing ki users to make the paper bombs (as depicted in Naruto) is just asking for some abuse to pop up. On both sides of the screen.
I mean, if a villain has access to paper bombs, like in Naruto, it's hard to justify why they don't use them a lot. Hell, many of the Naruto villains lay wide-spread traps using the bombs, leveling forests or caverns, even attempting to blow up an entire village using them. It's such a simple concept, but it's also has so many uses for a clever person.
I'm curious, what do you think of them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you seen Naruto? If so, have you ever considered giving the 'ki' users, Monks, Ninja, certain Rogues, etc, access to the paper bombs used so often in the show?
I haven't really watched Naruto as shonen anime hasn't really been doing much for me in some years, though I did read Naruto when I could buy issues of Shonen Jump. That said, I've seen paper / egg bombs in other ninja-themed stuff.
For some reason, the idea of the paper bombs really appeals to me and I'd love to adapt them to the game, but at the same time, I'm not certain it's a good idea. Much like Wizards abusing explosive runes, allowing ki users to make the paper bombs (as depicted in Naruto) is just asking for some abuse to pop up. On both sides of the screen.
I mean, if a villain has access to paper bombs, like in Naruto, it's hard to justify why they don't use them a lot. Hell, many of the Naruto villains lay wide-spread traps using the bombs, leveling forests or caverns, even attempting to blow up an entire village using them. It's such a simple concept, but it's also has so many uses for a clever person.
I'm curious, what do you think of them?
Not sure. I might have to look them up but paper-bombs as a thing (even if not a naruto-version thing) seems pretty fine. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been able to check for a while and tried to search but have you been able to work on e wowlock?Not lately. I've been super busy with working and most of my free time from work has been spent on my RPG project.
haha, bummer!
Well whenever you have it ready, I am an eager customer :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been able to check for a while and tried to search but have you been able to work on e wowlock?Not lately. I've been super busy with working and most of my free time from work has been spent on my RPG project.haha, bummer!
Well whenever you have it ready, I am an eager customer :)
Thanks! I'm pretty confident that I'll have it into alpha playtest condition sometime within 2016.
Well we could always continue it in the A.A.A. thread thread. As to what the iron giant did, it was using a very early version of some conceptual combo-abilities based off a slightly revised version of Awesome Blow; wherein after making a big strike your character also makes a special attack to chuck your victim (potentially as a ranged attack), and another ability that allowed it to charge as an immediate action right after tossing something. I was using the giant to experiment with how quickly such actions could be resolved and the test came back in the good (it was actually really fast :D).*Grabbyhands playtest* ;3;I promise I'm working on it diligently. :P
** spoiler omitted **...
I want to reply so much to this but I don't wanna hijack the thread :p. Funnily enough I'm mostly interested in what the giant did though. Hope that's an option cus that sounds awesome cus I wanna play hackey sack with a goblin.
But should probably put this up in somewhere else.
Cross thread posting!
That seems neat. Hopefully we can use Awesome Blow even though we aren't massive. That always struck me as weird, I can at high levels benchpress a car but I can't punch a commoner an inch backwards because I'm not big enough. But I've always enjoyed combo moves like that.
I just cooked a steak. You interested?
(You've got to get to central Florida within the next three days, though, or it'll no longer be edible. I also highly recommend within the next three hours...)
;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just cooked a steak. You interested?
(You've got to get to central Florida within the next three days, though, or it'll no longer be edible. I also highly recommend within the next three hours...)
;)
That will be difficult! Though I've been to Florida at least twice in my life, my granddad's birthday is today so we're eating...steak (I think) grilled on the...grill. :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cross thread posting!
That seems neat. Hopefully we can use Awesome Blow even though we aren't massive. That always struck me as weird, I can at high levels benchpress a car but I can't punch a commoner an inch backwards because I'm not big enough. But I've always enjoyed combo moves like that.
Well, after I get about 4th level magic worked out (as in 0-4th level spells), I'm going to return to working on the classes in earnest (at the moment only a few exist in any playable format), and I'll also be working on monsters (because there's still some things to determine as to how monsters will be built, but I'm hoping to make monster building a bit easier and more akin to PC building, both to aid GMs in rapidly building monsters and also to make incorporating odd creatures into campaign settings as PC-choices more practical).
The deal with the iron giant was I wanted to create a couple of monster abilities that made the encounter a bit more dynamic than "I big, I hit big too". Having the giant golem literally toss PCs around like ragdolls and then bum-rush them sprang to mind as something cool and thematic (I'll admit I probably was inspired by the Sentinel from X-Men children of the Atom and subsequent Marvel vs Capcom games).
Kind of a precursor to things I'd like to make a little more common throughout the game if possible.
As to combo-based abilities, we might be seeing some in different places, both for monsters and PCs. Not something that will be for (or forced) onto every character, but there's at least one martial oriented class that's intended to generate and expend resources while fighting (possibly allowing them to perform combos), and my friend Raital is super anxious for me to create some spells and abilities that are intended to be used as combos (such as a spell that causes someone on fire to detonate in an AoE or something).
To a lesser extent but still qualifying as a sort of "combo", rogues in the system currently have an option to cause creatures to begin bleeding, and then have another option that allows them to hunt creatures based on that bleeding (so the rogue is still going to merc you if you're invisible) and have higher crit-chances against foes already bleeding out.
Mind you, it's an option, not all rogues would have it (in fact, neither of the party's rogues took that route, as they were more interested in pushing their non-crit damage harder at these levels).
After I hammer out the 1st-4th level spells, I feel that the next "big hurdle" is going to be the monster rules. Mostly because I want to bring a bit of order to the house and write some rules for handling things like SLA access or special abilities like regeneration (which in turn would finally allow you to build lesser and greater versions of monsters more easily, and it would also squelch the #1 issue people have with simulacrum w/ monsters).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of classes, let me give a preview of how the class system works. It's been kind of held behind the curtain for a bit, though I think I can give an explanation without dropping actual mechanics into the thread (I was advised by a friend to avoid posting any actual game material on the forums due to potential legal ramifications).
Basically, classes aren't tied to your progressions anymore. It's a weird thing for veterans of d20 to wrap their heads around at first (it took my buddy Jay a bit for it to truly sink in, then he got excited about it while making his character). Instead, classes are kind of like archetypes or sets of class features and they aren't directly connected to your stats.
At each level, a character chooses how they are going to advance (this includes your 1st level which is essentially your advancement from a level 0 commoner to a heroic character). You options for advancement are along a martial path, hybrid path, or magic path, which determine how your Hp, BAB, Skills, Magic Power, and Proficiencies improve for that level.
So a person who goes 20/20 martial path will have "perfect" martial oriented stats (lots of HP, perfect BAB, lots of skills, crappy magic power, lots of proficiencies). Someone who goes 20/20 magic would be the opposite (crappy HP, crappy BAB, crappy skills, full-casting), and hybrids would be a lot like Bards.
You can mix and match as desired (Jay's "chapel librarian" bard for example was a mixture of Martial/Hybrid).
Now, you also get a class more or less for free starting out. Your class determines what sort of special abilities you have and what sort of special abilities you have access to. Unlike in regular d20, you do not have a "class level", you either are a class or you aren't, and you can be multiple classes (a bit more on the multiclassing system below).
For example, becoming a druid gets you the basic druid class feature (Wildshaping + Access to Magic), while becoming a Barbarian gives you Rage, becoming a Ranger gives you an animal companion, becoming a rogue gives you Cunning Strike, becoming a Bard gets you bard performances, etc, etc.
Now, you get a number of talents that you can invest (kind of like feats). You can spend a talent to unlock further aspects of a class (such as unlocking rage powers for a barbarian) OR you can spend a talent to unlock a new class. Unlocking a new class gets you the basic class feature of the new class and allows you to spend further talents into unlocking features from your new class as well.
For example, Druids don't automatically get animal companions in D20 Legends. Instead their shtick is centered around Wildshaping and other druid-y things (such as nature magic). Rangers get animal companions strait out of the gate, but if you wanted to make a Pathfinder-style druid, you'd simply pick up both classes and how much you invest into either of those will represent what you are overall.
Because of this, Jay's character was mostly bard with a splash of champion (cleric/paladin replacement) who was mostly about martial skills with a bit of casting. Really, the potential options are near limitless.
It largely invalidates the need for archetypes, prestige classes, or anything of that nature. Instead, you simply mix different classes to create things like Slayers or Arcane Tricksters. Even greater is the potential to fill nearly any niche, since adding additional talent options to classes (similar to how you can add rage powers or rogue talents in Pathfinder) is more practical than adding entirely new (and often conflicting) classes or archetypes.
It even offers up the potential to create specialized hybrid character options through the use of talents that require talents from multiple classes (such as creating a talent that required a character to have both Rage and Divine Power, which are features of two different classes). The potential is great. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That will be difficult! Though I've been to Florida at least twice in my life, my granddad's birthday is today so we're eating...steak (I think) grilled on the...grill. :DI just cooked a steak. You interested?
(You've got to get to central Florida within the next three days, though, or it'll no longer be edible. I also highly recommend within the next three hours...)
;)
Sounds fun! Enjoy and God bless you and your graddad! :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like this has much promise. God speed Ash :)
Crappy magic power for martials huh... So is casting not tied to stats, or are you meaning like a martial has a reduced spell list more like the paladin/ranger etc? Just curious how that works. Like a Martial Druid is stuck to 4th levels, or is it they have lower base dcs, like 8 instead of 10+spell level+stat, or... what?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crappy magic power for martials huh... So is casting not tied to stats, or are you meaning like a martial has a reduced spell list more like the paladin/ranger etc? Just curious how that works. Like a Martial Druid is stuck to 4th levels, or is it they have lower base dcs, like 8 instead of 10+spell level+stat, or... what?
At the current iteration (this could be subject to change but we're going to explore it more deeply), your spell access is based on your magic power, which is a value that determines things like your spell access.
If a character has access to magic (we're currently discussing a fair total replacement for magic for those who want to play super muggles), their spells look like this at 20th level:
Full Martial Route = 5th level spells (Paladin-like)
Full Hybrid Route = 7th level spells (Bard-like)
Full Caster Route = 10th level spells (Wizard-like)
As for save DCs, currently + 1/2 level + ability modifier regardless of the spell level is the projected standard. The reasons for this choice:
1. It allows DCs to scale better on PCs and on Monsters (monsters have no equivalent to things like Heighten Spell for things like SLAs which always use the spell's base level).
2. It makes it vastly easier to keep track of for new players and GMs, having to deal with a single modifier. I'm not saying that +spell level is rocket science but the game's pretty complex enough and having so many different abilities at different DCs isn't particularly helpful to teaching newbies and I don't feel like it really adds enough to the game to warrant the extra complexity.
3. It keeps more class routes relevant. If you want to make a bard or spellblade sort of character who is capped at lower spells than a focused caster, the spells they can cast will still have relevant DCs (this is one of the real shortcomings of classes like Bards who are fighting a losing battle and thus should likely ignore charm type spells later on). At the moment, classes like Paladins and Bards are better off ignoring the existence of any spells on their list with "Save negates" as it's a waste of time.
4. It provides a non-ability score / feat sign of improvement. Even if you only get new spell levels occasionally (such as in the case of a Pathfinder bard), you still get a +1 to your spells every 2 levels, so your charm person gets a little better.
5. Saving throws have been replaced with Defenses, which are kind of like AC vs special attacks. Saving throw DCs have been replaced with special attacks, which are rolled vs the defense. So an 8th level Wizard might have a +12 special attack w/ spellcasting, which is tested against Fortitude, Reflex, or Will, depending on the spell. It's a lot easier to just assign your modifier for all your abilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crappy magic power for martials huh... So is casting not tied to stats, or are you meaning like a martial has a reduced spell list more like the paladin/ranger etc? Just curious how that works. Like a Martial Druid is stuck to 4th levels, or is it they have lower base dcs, like 8 instead of 10+spell level+stat, or... what?
A more direct answer is: reduced spell progression. If you want to make a feral druid (+20 BAB, +10 magic power) they'll max out at 5th level spells over the course of their careers. They'll shred things to pieces with wild shape though. Also, unless they tanked their casting stat, their DCs for their low-level spells will be relevant enough that it's worth trying them against level appropriate foes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crappy magic power for martials huh... So is casting not tied to stats, or are you meaning like a martial has a reduced spell list more like the paladin/ranger etc? Just curious how that works. Like a Martial Druid is stuck to 4th levels, or is it they have lower base dcs, like 8 instead of 10+spell level+stat, or... what?A more direct answer is: reduced spell progression. If you want to make a feral druid (+20 BAB, +10 magic power) they'll max out at 5th level spells over the course of their careers. They'll shred things to pieces with wild shape though. Also, unless they tanked their casting stat, their DCs for their low-level spells will be relevant enough that it's worth trying them against level appropriate foes.
Speaking of feral druids, this is probably my absolute favorite thing about what I've got cooked up for this system. There is no need for a truckload of classes that are essentially X class but with different base statistics. We've been dealing with (and are still dealing with) either a flood of new classes or a drought of classes that can fill certain niches (like the Paladin-progression arcane caster that people have been begging for).
You pick your progression. So if you want to build a "Paladin", you grab the champion class and go full martial. If you want to build a "Cleric", you grab the champion class and go full hybrid. If you want to build a "Priest", you grab the champion class and go full caster. Or some mix of the three (if you want slightly more or less in a given thing). The champion class itself provides Divine Power + Domains. Divine power is consumed to channel positive/negative energy or smite stuff, domains give extra abilities and automatic spell access.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
COOL!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Ashiel
If you were going to make a party (probably the BBEGs for a campaign but interpret this however your will) based on the Seven Deadly Sins how would you go about it?
Wrath
Sloth
Gluttony
Envy
Greed
Price
Lust
(I listed them in case you were like me and any time someone asks for the sins I end up spacing on one or two... Last time I forgot Gluttony... SERIOUSLY! It is like the BEST one!)
And I guess you could just Thassilonion mage this away but I think it might be sorta obvious that there was a theme.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Ashiel
If you were going to make a party (probably the BBEGs for a campaign but interpret this however your will) based on the Seven Deadly Sins how would you go about it?
Wrath
Sloth
Gluttony
Envy
Greed
Price
Lust(I listed them in case you were like me and any time someone asks for the sins I end up spacing on one or two... Last time I forgot Gluttony... SERIOUSLY! It is like the BEST one!)
And I guess you could just Thassilonion mage this away but I think it might be sorta obvious that there was a theme.
I'm not Ashiel but this is relevant to something I'm running so I'm gonna answer too, wahahaa!
For Wrath, the obvious answer is the barbarian but I'd use the Ranger myself. Why? Favored Enemy. Not that you need to run FE like that but I like the idea. Slayer could work too.
Sloth in pathfinder has been traditionally associated with conjuration, and I can see the logic but I personally think an Enchanter sorceror would make a better one, fey bloodline, or maybe kitsune. Why? Because I personally find social activity exhausting but as a social species it's incredibly important. Someone who uses mind control over going through the efforts to change minds, use rhetoric, make friends etc, that strikes me as the epitome of lazyness. Also sleep spells are in there.
Gluttony is the alchemist, no question. Why? Cus I can recast all their alchemical stuff as magic food or whatnot. Easy one for me.
Envy is a hard one. There's soooooo many ways to do this one. I can think of several third party ways I'd do this one but in first party work, hm... Maybe a Sandman Bard? Not exactly best though, but the alternative in my head involves disarm/steal combat maneuvers and those are kinda situational. Or then again... Maybe Antipaladin. Since they're great at tearing others down to their level or below it. Yeah, Antipaladin.
Greed's the wizard. No other class really outdoes them for crafting, making easy money etc.
Price would be a ranger, maybe multiclassed with zen monk to represent his sniping skills and... Oh you meant Pride, not the guy from CoD Modern Warfare. Oh in that case, Paladin. Now I WANT to say Anti-Paladin but Paladins are just so much better at just repelling every thing that comes their way. And is it not just the most classic of paladin downfalls? Well it has to come from somewhere. And admittedly a lot of my paladins take a certain level of pride in their powers even if they are using it to help others. To quote one, "Course I'll save the village, if they're dead, who's going to see how amazing I am?" Real knife's edge but her actions spoke louder than intent in the end.
Lust is kinda like Envy, it's a hard one to represent because there's not many good mechanics that just naturally lend itself to the idea. There's obviously enchantment spells, but that's way too easy. There's bard, due to cliches, also too easy. It's also another one I can think of third party stuff would be more effective for... Not that kind of third party :p. No, I think the best for Lust might be the Inquisitor. A Monster Tactician Inquisitor. Someone who summons pretty things exclusively for their own tactical benefit, since they all get to share teamwork feats and such.
But yeah that's how I'd do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Ashiel
If you were going to make a party (probably the BBEGs for a campaign but interpret this however your will) based on the Seven Deadly Sins how would you go about it?
Wrath
Sloth
Gluttony
Envy
Greed
Price
Lust(I listed them in case you were like me and any time someone asks for the sins I end up spacing on one or two... Last time I forgot Gluttony... SERIOUSLY! It is like the BEST one!)
And I guess you could just Thassilonion mage this away but I think it might be sorta obvious that there was a theme.
Well, I'm about to go to bed so I'll need to think about them in detail and get back to you tomorrow afternoon (or later today depending on timezones) but a few off the top of my head...
Lust = Telepath psion. Not only are they among the best in the game at charm and compulsion effects, they even get a power called attraction which can temporarily make someone obsessed with someone or something (and aversion which makes them avoid it). Mixing mind-affecting effects and a mixture of social skills which are class skills, they can incite and enact lust very effectively.
I'd probably roleplay them as a character who saw little difference between convincing someone verbally of a thing and convincing them mentally of a thing, seeing the latter as just another form of communication (which could be pretty twisted). I'd probably play them as hedonistic, and among the least obviously dangerous of a group, likely being quite lustful themselves and taking joy in breaking down the walls of other people's comfort zones (such as subverting people's sexual orientations).
Envy = Egoist psion. They have a lot of powers that center around improving and changing themselves to be like something else, such as the metamorphosis line of powers and a lot of self buffs. They can eventually get fusion which allows them to literally absorb someone else to use their qualities.
I'd probably roleplay the manifestation of their powers as literally being fueled by envy. They envy traits or aspects of others so much that they can't bear to be without them until they actually take on those aspects. I'd roleplay them as jealous, entitled, and spoiled, and they would want the attention of others when possible and would dislike it when someone else was garnering the most attention, and would always end up being second or third banana in the group since they don't really have the attitude to ever truly aspire, settling to simply envy.
I'd probably make them a lover of lust.
Sloth = Master summoner. Not particularly interested in doing much themselves, especially physical labor, their eidolon tags along pretty much as a swiss army knife for manual labor and skill doing, while combat is primarily done through proxies and buffing because they hate actually getting their hands dirty themselves. Later uses things like planar binding and simulacrum to further increase their laziness and just how little they have to actually do themselves.
I'd probably roleplay the character as being incredibly lazy and interested in doing anything other than something useful, rarely taking anything seriously. They likely keep an at-will or similar magic item of mount around because they detest walking, or ride on their eidolon. Could make 'em fat but it might be more interesting to make them skinny because they're too damn lazy to stop whatever they're passing the time with to go find something to eat, relying on their eidolon servant to cater to their needs and help or remind them to do mundane and menial things like get dressed, take a bath, etc.
I'll think of some more ideas later. Sleep time now. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't wait to see this ruleset.
Sounds great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah! and yes... PRIDE... Not Price... finger slip.
Though if Price were a deadly Sin Wal-Mart would be a divine sanctuary (Lowest prices in town!) and Progressive insurance would be some sorta devilish contracting organization (Name your price... SO CREEPY!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't wait to see this ruleset.
Sounds great.
Thanks. I can't wait to unveil it but I want to make sure it's polished and is properly readable and such (formatting & stuff). :)
One of the biggest changes is that inherent modifiers have been baked into the system (wish and similar spells do something a bit different now), which means all your ability scores scale with your level. This removes the threat that people will get up in arms 'cause you conjured an Efreeti to get your party's inherent modifiers, but the end math remains the same (and it makes it overall easier to resist spellcasters so that's a plus).
Bah! and yes... PRIDE... Not Price... finger slip.
Though if Price were a deadly Sin Wal-Mart would be a divine sanctuary (Lowest prices in town!) and Progressive insurance would be some sorta devilish contracting organization (Name your price... SO CREEPY!)
Actually, Price could be a sin from the perspective of being "bought". In other words, the point that you would forsake your moral standards for some sort of reward; such as with Judas selling out Christ for monetary gain (at least that's how the story is most regularly spun, and it's why in the Last Supper painting, Judas clutches a bag - presumably of coins - from having sold out the Messiah earlier).
At what price can your compliance be bought? You might be a righteous man/woman, but what's the point you're willing to sell out your morals? Many will say "Every man has his price", no?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Integrity is not having a price :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is the description of greed from the religious standpoint.
If money is able to sway you from god (the path of god)- that is greed.
The original interpretations of the sins are fairly shocking by todays standards. Food was not meant to be enjoyed- it was a necessity for life. The one that gets me the most is sloth- the original interpretation was sadness. Basically sadness was a sin. If your feelings of distress/frustration/depression turned your attention from god you were committing a CARDINAL sin...
Like... crap... No allowed to enjoy food and sex and you can't be sad about NOT enjoying them either...
Monks man... set the bar HIGH!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is the description of greed from the religious standpoint.
If money is able to sway you from god (the path of god)- that is greed.
The original interpretations of the sins are fairly shocking by todays standards. Food was not meant to be enjoyed- it was a necessity for life. The one that gets me the most is sloth- the original interpretation was sadness. Basically sadness was a sin. If your feelings of distress/frustration/depression turned your attention from god you were committing a CARDINAL sin...
Like... crap... No allowed to enjoy food and sex and you can't be sad about NOT enjoying them either...
Monks man... set the bar HIGH!
Yeah, religion is a funny thing for a lot of reasons. XD
Still trying to think up some interesting combinations for the others. Like Icehawk mentioned, wrath really sounds tailor made for a Barbarian, especially with stuff like Come and Get Me, since wrath is associated with vengeance or retaliation, according to the last time I checked the dictionary on the word.
However...
Gluttony - I once ran a red dragon NPC in an Eberron game that really fit this particular bent. She was hedonistic and over indulgent in everything. Sex, drugs, and food. She spent the majority of her time in humanoid form because she preferred it for indulging herself (it takes a hell of a lot less cocaine to get wrecked as a 120 lb. human woman than it does as a 4 ton dragon). She was an embarrassment to her dragon peers but they couldn't really say much because she was also a red wyrm so who's going to really do more than make the odd sarcastic or snide comment.
I mean she could have literally eaten the other dragons in her peergroup. Though she was too busy in amassing her horde and putting together groups of concubines, and running an opium den or something in her basement so she could get a steady flow for her personal use.
Her seemingly useless and foolish bent had a side effect of making most underestimate her. She was in fact horrifically powerful (great red wyrm) and dangerous beyond measure and even if she often seemed like she was useless, foolish, and incapable of doing anything worthwhile...well...she didn't get to be a great wyrm for being incompetent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how dragons are represented in Rifts/Paladium. Mainly how when they change shape, they keep all of their physical characteristics (MDC, supernatural strength, breath weapons, spells, etc.).
How would you suggest doing this in Pathfinder? Right now, their change self ability is based on polymorph rules, which pretty much do not allow what I'm proposing. How would you design or create a specific rule set for dragons for this purpose?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how dragons are represented in Rifts/Paladium. Mainly how when they change shape, they keep all of their physical characteristics (MDC, supernatural strength, breath weapons, spells, etc.).
How would you suggest doing this in Pathfinder? Right now, their change self ability is based on polymorph rules, which pretty much do not allow what I'm proposing. How would you design or create a specific rule set for dragons for this purpose?
Change shape supernatural ability would be the fastest way to do it. With default change shape, you don't adjust things like ability scores, which means you end up with a humanoid with some reeeaaaally beefy stats. :P
In fact, Aratrok and I were discussing how goofy it is for a wizard to create a great wyrm gold dragon and wear it as their body for a while.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, Aratrok and I were discussing howgoofyTOTALLY FRIGGIN' AWESOME it is for a wizard to create a great wyrm gold dragon and wear it as their body for a while.
FTFY! :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, Aratrok and I were discussing howgoofyTOTALLY FRIGGIN' AWESOME it is for a wizard to create a great wyrm gold dragon and wear it as their body for a while.FTFY! :D
Yeah, gold dragons can change shape and retain all their stats and such, as well as things like their natural AC and what-not. It also has no particular duration, so you simulacra up a dragon, then have them change shape, then magic jar around in them (carry the jar on your person).
Shape simulacra even means you can customize your appearance. So sure, you just look like a sexy human adventurer. It's just you're a sexy human adventurer who's also sporting godlike statistics. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how dragons are represented in Rifts/Paladium. Mainly how when they change shape, they keep all of their physical characteristics (MDC, supernatural strength, breath weapons, spells, etc.).
How would you suggest doing this in Pathfinder? Right now, their change self ability is based on polymorph rules, which pretty much do not allow what I'm proposing. How would you design or create a specific rule set for dragons for this purpose?
Change shape supernatural ability would be the fastest way to do it. With default change shape, you don't adjust things like ability scores, which means you end up with a humanoid with some reeeaaaally beefy stats. :P
In fact, Aratrok and I were discussing how goofy it is for a wizard to create a great wyrm gold dragon and wear it as their body for a while.
Hmm. Interesting, that's the ability they already have, I didn't realize it specifically says "don't adjust the stats". Odd thing is, though, it says only one size category smaller or larger. So a gargantuan Bronze dragon becomes a Huge human?