Synergex |
To whit:
"If a spell, item or feat exists that modifies an ability or feature, there exists equivalent (same costs, availability and similar requirements) feats, items or spells that modify any alternate abilities or features of the original ability or feature in mechanically the same way."
OP, broken or busted? Tell me how or why.
Bardarok |
By alternate abilities you mean archetypes?
If so than this is only OP if you allow all the random splatbooks which is never a good idea.
As long as you follow the prime rule of "The GM has the right to say no if she thinks it will unbalance the game" Than this would be a good place to start looking for feats/items/spells for an archetyped character.
Synergex |
By alternate abilities you mean archetypes?
If so than this is only OP if you allow all the random splatbooks which is never a good idea.
As long as you follow the prime rule of "The GM has the right to say no if she thinks it will unbalance the game" Than this would be a good place to start looking for feats/items/spells for an archetyped character.
GM ALWAYS retains the right of refusal. Didn't actually think that needed to be said. :-)
And yes, this primarily is intended to redress the gap between feats/spells/items options for "vanilla" classes and alternates/archetypes.
Synergex |
Do you have any particular examples for what you're trying to do?
1. Any archetype of X whose vanilla has a feat/item/spell that says "Treat your X level as +# for purposes of Y ." (Too many of these to list)
[And if vanilla gets them, why not show the same love for players that choose to archetype?]Essentially, it saves Paizo (and GM's) from having to house rule to cover every possible combo and just pares it down to, "This combo of X+Y is OP as ****! I'm going to have to say no." While also increasing (immensely) the diversity built into the game for character customization. (IMHO of course)