Well I am willing to help anyway I can.
I very much appreciate that, good sir. Perhaps I shall share it with you privately.
This class does not really say "bard" to me at all. I like the concept, but it seems like an entirely different class. I think it is better as a new class or an arcetype of the rogue or slayer.Bards were, in second edition Dark Sun, very much poisoners. It was a huge part of their class concept. While I understand that you feel that it belongs as an archetype of rogue or slayer, it is very true to the source material for them to be poisoners.
I will likely use the mechanics presented in an earlier link, but change the flavor about it being rude to turn down a bard from another royal family. I know people can have silly traditions, but inviting a spy into my home because "tradition" is not something that is going to work for me.
This keeps the bard class, but still allows them to fill the role they did in 2nd edition. :)
edit: I am likely going to use the archaeologist bard as the chassis and work from there.
I will admit that the tradition bit is a little hokey, but it's a clone-over from the original source material, and I can see it making sense. But, it's like turning down the chance for a famous celebrity to come to your home because some celebrities do drugs and trash hotel rooms... When you won that visit from the celebrity in some kind of contest, or some friend of yours bought you the visit. I know that I'm explaining it poorly, but if you examine it in terms of "this is the only entertainment you're likely to get", combined with "if you piss off one bard, word's going to spread and you're not likely to have another come a-callin'". So, from that perspective, it does make some sense.
It's not like our current age where entertainment is everywhere. You get entertainment where and when you can. You're not going to do anything to jeopardise your ability to provide entertainment to yourself, your family, or your future guests. Plus, there is some merit to the notion that you know that a bard is visiting, so you're going to feed them as much misinformation as you can, if you know that they're potentially a spy.
But, if it ultimately does not work for you, then it does not work for you, and I wish you the best!
I very much appreciate that, good sir. Perhaps I shall share it with you privately.Sure, you can PM me
Current materials have been shared.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I would argue getting some critical analysis before release is very important. At the very least to hear others thoughts on your work and potentially improve the work before release. Sure, not everyone is helpful and you may well have those you don't agree with your vision at all, but I feel there is more benefit then not in getting others to look over your work.Hrmmm... Doubtful. At least, not in full.
Part of the issue is that I don't want to give away everything (even though I'm making it free when I'm done anyway). The other part is that if I'm not really going to get much critical analysis before the release, there's not much point in sharing the materials.
Oh, I fully agree that getting critical analysis before the release is extremely important, I've just gotten next to none so far. I've gotten some theorycraft on bards (mostly), and a few helpful items here and there, but it's been very minor thusfar. The idea is that if the critical analysis is going to be lacking in the critical department, or analysis is going to be spotty at best, then there's not much point in posting, "Hey, guys! Take a look at this!" if it has to carry the unspoken disclaimer of, "I know you probably won't, or if you do, you won't say anything about it that's useful or helpful to improving the overall product, but kudos to you for looking at it."
Does that help explain the thought process behind the decisions so far?
Pathfinder is a small market. Those who play pathfinder and use 3PP are an even smaller market. Then subset those out to people to post on the Paizo messageboards. And then an even smaller subset for those who post in 3PP threads. And then an even smaller one for those who are interested in recreating a two-and-a-half-decade old 2nd edition AD&D campaign setting. You're looking at a very small population of people who are willing to look over what you've done and give a critique.
Radiance House recently completed a kickstarter for one of their products which they already released and want to combine (along with some new material). Even with all that, they received less than 300 backers. Among those, only 6 have given any sort of critique - and they're a well respected third party publisher with a decent sized fan base.
You've had at least 3 people give at least some critique and you don't even have a product yet. That's half of what a respected publisher has received.
Please don't belittle those of us who are trying to help by calling the time we've invested into helping you "next to nothing."
|
@bookrat
The problem is people have been discouraging the OP from having the Bard be faithful to how they are in Dark Sun by having them not having a poison masters or offering that they use other classes and tack on bardic performances. This can to a degree be considered 'next to nothing' because these people have been offering suggestions that the OP doesn't much want.
I am actually making a Dark Sun bard that is mostly faithful to the setting, but it seems to be coming out more like an evil themed investigator. It will be ok with poison, good with skills(due to versatile performance), but the damage won't be great so while I can say in flavor it is a good assassin, in actual gameplay it is not that scary. I may just refocus it around poison but some monsters are flat out immune to poisons. The only idea I have for now is to give an ability that allows it to make poisons that don't care about poison immunity. However it still will not affect constructs and undead, and the ability will not come online until later levels.
I think people can get over the loss of bardic performance and the spells as long as the class has an actual job, and not be like the monk which has a lot of abilities that dont go together well.
version 2: I was about to get it up to decent damage but that assumed haste and flanking and using the ranger's damage progression of +2 per 5 levels for it's class ability to give more damage. It also keeps him from overtaking the slayer in damage, but it is still a threat. I will post as an archetype, and the OP and anyone else can decide if they want to use it or not. It is not the final version since I have to clean up some of the wording, but he is free to use it.
On a related note:Related to feedback on the OP's bard.
I don't think the OP's bard and my bard will be exactly the same, but he should probably say what he expects for it to do in the game. Right now it looks like the bard is losing its two best features(spells and bardic performance), and getting not a lot on the return.
PS: I do apologize in advance if I overlooked how he said he wanted to bard to contribute to the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@bookrat
The problem is people have been discouraging the OP from having the Bard be faithful to how they are in Dark Sun by having them not having a poison masters or offering that they use other classes and tack on bardic performances. This can to a degree be considered 'next to nothing' because these people have been offering suggestions that the OP doesn't much want.
Just because help is rejected doesn't make it nothing. I, and many others feel that the best way to achieve results is to build with what works best mechanically rather than forcing a class that does the intended role poorly to fit the role because of its name.
I'm no longer involved in the bard discussing as there are obviously irreconcilable differences in design philosophy, but I'm more than willing to be help about other shared material or difficulties.
|
|
Wait, wait, wait... why would the Bard not have access to Bardic Performance? I thought Bodhizen was just getting rid of the spellcasting since that is a thing with Athasian Bard. Checks PDF file to see what is being talked about. It doesn't say exactly but of note is the fact their Bard can take the Archaeologist archetype, meaning Bardic Performance would have to be a part of the class.
So in that case Wraithstrike is mistaken, the only thing being given up is spellcasting. Myself I feel this is something that can be given up and the Athasian Bard still having their identity as a Bard, not as an Investigator or some other class.
Wait, wait, wait... why would the Bard not have access to Bardic Performance? I thought Bodhizen was just getting rid of the spellcasting since that is a thing with Athasian Bard. Checks PDF file to see what is being talked about. It doesn't say exactly but of note is the fact their Bard can take the Archaeologist archetype, meaning Bardic Performance would have to be a part of the class.
So in that case Wraithstrike is mistaken, the only thing being given up is spellcasting. Myself I feel this is something I feel can be given up and the Athasian Bard still having their identity as a Bard, not as an Investigator or some other class.
Ok, it does still have bardic performance. I guess that will work then. I will use the core bard instead of the archaeologist as my chassis. That is good. Yeah, I can do without the spellcasting
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Yep, my bard/alchemist hybrid suggestion was only to preserve the power level of the class. As I 6 level caster, a bard loses a lot if you strip away spellcasting - you need to replace it with something nice.
I guess I tend to see things this way:
4 level caster - spellcasting is a tacked on ability
6 level caster - spellcasting is about half of what you do
9 level caster - spellcasting is your main thing.
So if you take casting away from a bard, you've stripped away about half the utility of the class. 2e Dark Sun didn't really do that, but bard casting was a lot weaker in core 2e - you got a spellbook at level 2 with some random spells in it, and that was it for freebies. So even having higher level spells to cast was dependent on treasure/GM niceness.
In my way of thinking extracts + poison use seem roughly equivalent in power to 6 level casting, and fit in fairly well with the poisoner flavor. But hey, if you and your players are happy with your version go for it.
|
|
Thanks for the reply. You raise some interesting points. I am assuming that in a Dark Sun game, characters won’t be the bad guys, even if they are not the good guys, so PC wizards are likely to be preservers who have the option to give themselves a power up by defiling in extreme situations (rather than habitual defilers). By casters I didn’t just mean arcane casters, however. In a game without equipment, a druid eventually makes a much better melee combatant than a fighter does.
Dark Sun is a very rich world-setting that could fit into nearly any sword and sorcery RPG. It's essentially the world of Barsoom (John Carter of Mars) set to Dungeons and Dragons. Sure, it takes some work, but you can preserve the flavour of the setting and largely use Pathfinder's mechanics (including weapon-breaking). Of course, you don't have to use the weapon-breaking rules (just as you don't have to in standard Pathfinder).
You don’t have to use any rules variants in a Pathfinder game of Dark Sun. However, you would then end up with plate-mail clad half-orcs wielding steel greatswords, which is probably not what you want. There have been a couple of posts on this thread about weapon breaking rules, but nothing up until now to suggest not using them.
If you cast alter winds (a relatively benign spell), in standard Pathfinder, generally no one freaks out. If you cast alter winds in the Dark Sun setting, people scream bloody murder, and everyone, from the kindliest grandmother to the most innocent of children will run to the templars to tell them you're a sorcerer.
Or a druid. Or (depending on how Templars get their spells) maybe even a Templar. And that assumes the people watching have read the Core Rulebook and know that it was an Alter Winds spell rather than (say) a psionic power or the supernatural ability of some kind of elemental-based monk or something.
It also assumes these are witnesses. Pathfinder combats often take place in dark alleys, hidden cellars and remote ruins. The PCs tend to mix with people who wouldn’t go to the Templars under any circumstances – as it would result in a death sentence for themselves. Is the GM supposed to balance the game by dividing encounters between those where the arcanist can cast, and those where he is useless? Or should he just split it between sessions, so the player knows which sessions to turn up for and which to miss?That's where the game gains balance. Arcane casters have to be sneaky about casting, or just not cast. Arcane casters even have to hide their powers from their party-mates, often-times. Almost everybody holds these beliefs, and the ones that don't are generally part of a society of arcane casters that work to kill defilers and heal the land. Go ahead... Cast a spell. Bring every foe in the world-setting down upon your head. I double-dog-dare you. )
I don’t think a game where arcane casters don’t actually cast spells is a good fit for Pathfinder. It also makes every adventure after the first one be about the caster. Everybody else can forget about their in-character goals as the campaign is now all about killing the arcanist.
Of course (per the quote above) it might be that the rest of the party kill the arcanist as soon as he casts the first spell, so it won’t derail the campaign. You might find the group has lost a player, however.
If you don’t want people to play arcane casters, you should just say so rather than “1 spell = death sentence”.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
One thing to put on your radar is how to handle magic items and shopping/item creation. Pathfinder assumes a certain amount of magical gear is gained when leveling and messing with that too much screws with the CR system quite a bit.
However, Ye Olde Magick Shoppe doesn't really fit with the flavor of Athas.
I'd suggest having psionic items be what's available in shops. Set the cp cost equal to what the normal gp cost would be. This lets the PCs have the stats they need and have toys to play with while keeping the magic=bad, psionics=good flavor.
I'd have actual magic stuff use the gp=gp rate of metal items, making them super rare and expensive. No one will zip down to the corner store to buy a scroll if that scroll runs them 2500 cp for a first level spell.
This is a very rough idea so there are probably big issues with it.
Or a druid. Or (depending on how Templars get their spells) maybe even a Templar. And that assumes the people watching have read the Core Rulebook and know that it was an Alter Winds spell rather than (say) a psionic power or the supernatural ability of some kind of elemental-based monk or something.
It also assumes these are witnesses. Pathfinder combats often take place in dark alleys, hidden cellars and remote ruins. The PCs...
What people recognize is the actions of an Arcane caster. Gestures, Incantations, Material Components etc. What Dark Sun had was a skill specifically for concealing the fact that you are casting a spell. It was just about the most important skill for any caster to have in Dark Sun because the only casters that weren't illegal were the Templars. I'm not sure but I highly suspect that the Dragon Kings probably used propaganda to make any caster type out to be the bad guy. Pretty sure Psionics were legal though, basically everybody and everything had some form of Psionic ability.
Another important factor to remember is that Dark Sun wasn't really your typical Dungeon Crawling campaign setting. A lot of the Action happened in urban environments, or at least around people. It was a pretty people focused setting.
One thing to put on your radar is how to handle magic items and shopping/item creation. Pathfinder assumes a certain amount of magical gear is gained when leveling and messing with that too much screws with the CR system quite a bit.
However, Ye Olde Magick Shoppe doesn't really fit with the flavor of Athas.
I'd suggest having psionic items be what's available in shops. Set the cp cost equal to what the normal gp cost would be. This lets the PCs have the stats they need and have toys to play with while keeping the magic=bad, psionics=good flavor.
I'd have actual magic stuff use the gp=gp rate of metal items, making them super rare and expensive. No one will zip down to the corner store to buy a scroll if that scroll runs them 2500 cp for a first level spell.
This is a very rough idea so there are probably big issues with it.
Well Dark Sun assumed a lot of different things that the typical D&D setting. Two big things were that the setting is super deadly, and that your characters were super badass having survived to adulthood on Athas. Seriously the default was starting characters are Level 3 and roll 4d4+4 for stats. Not a terribly good rolling system, doesn't produce great stats, but it allowed you to have a 20 in an ability score before racial modifiers. That says something about the setting. Also it had you make 3 characters because your character is going to die.
So the badass stats a character is assumed to have helps to offset equipment issues, but the left over danger is really working as intended.
Pathfinder is a small market. Those who play pathfinder and use 3PP are an even smaller market. Then subset those out to people to post on the Paizo messageboards. And then an even smaller subset for those who post in 3PP threads. And then an even smaller one for those who are interested in recreating a two-and-a-half-decade old 2nd edition AD&D campaign setting. You're looking at a very small population of people who are willing to look over what you've done and give a critique.
Radiance House recently completed a kickstarter for one of their products which they already released and want to combine (along with some new material). Even with all that, they received less than 300 backers. Among those, only 6 have given any sort of critique - and they're a well respected third party publisher with a decent sized fan base.
You've had at least 3 people give at least some critique and you don't even have a product yet. That's half of what a respected publisher has received.
Please don't belittle those of us who are trying to help by calling the time we've invested into helping you "next to nothing."
I'm going to attempt to answer responses and concerns in the order in which they were posted, so... You're up.
Bookrat, the number of backers to a kickstarter or the population willing to look at what I've done here on the forums is irrelevant. It's not a numbers game. Well, it is, but it isn't primarily a numbers game. It's a quality game. Telling me that something looks okay, or looks good, doesn't improve the end product. Even at times when I disagree with the perspective that is offered (mostly on Bards, so far), it helps me to refine the process and address some issues that I may not have otherwise thought of.
I do not mean to belittle you or your assistance, but can you honestly say that you've spent 1% of the amount that I've spent working on the conversion reviewing the work so far? Yes, I recognize that I've not given you an accounting of how many hours or minutes that I've spent on this so far, so it's a poor question to ask, and yes, I recognize that it's ultimately irrelevant. It's not about the amount of time, it's about the quality of the feedback. "I love your work!" is great to hear, and I very much appreciate it, but it doesn't offer me any critical analysis.
I am not accusing you of offering zero critical analysis, nor am I making specific accusations. For the amount of material that I've shared, I expected more in-depth analysis than I've received so far, because I feel that the community is awesome like that, which is why I shared it here and not to Google+ or Facebook or some other social media site. I don't know if that's me just having unreasonable expectations for this community, but there it is.
In the end, I apologise if I have given offense. In some fashion or another, I was venting.
I am actually making a Dark Sun bard that is mostly faithful to the setting, but it seems to be coming out more like an evil themed investigator. It will be ok with poison, good with skills(due to versatile performance), but the damage won't be great so while I can say in flavor it is a good assassin, in actual gameplay it is not that scary. I may just refocus it around poison but some monsters are flat out immune to poisons. The only idea I have for now is to give an ability that allows it to make poisons that don't care about poison immunity. However it still will not affect constructs and undead, and the ability will not come online until later levels.
I think people can get over the loss of bardic performance and the spells as long as the class has an actual job, and not be like the monk which has a lot of abilities that dont go together well.
version 2: I was about to get it up to decent damage but that assumed haste and flanking and using the ranger's damage progression of +2 per 5 levels for it's class ability to give more damage. It also keeps him from overtaking the slayer in damage, but it is still a threat. I will post as an archetype, and the OP and anyone else can decide if they want to use it or not. It is not the final version since I have to clean up some of the wording, but he is free to use it.
On a related note:Related to feedback on the OP's bard.
I don't think the OP's bard and my bard will be exactly the same, but he should probably say what he expects for it to do in the game. Right now it looks like the bard is losing its two best features(spells and bardic performance), and getting not a lot on the return.PS: I do apologize in advance if I overlooked how he said he wanted to bard to contribute to the party.
As JonathonWilder kindly pointed out, the bard is not losing bardic performances. The only thing that bards are losing is spellcasting. I hope that the enrichment text is providing a job or function for bards that is consistent with the second edition materials.
As for the bard in its current iteration, it already possesses a capstone ability that allows for a once-a-day poison that ignores poison immunity. Poison is something far too easily avoided in Pathfinder, so I wanted to ensure that it could still matter without it breaking the game.
Just because help is rejected doesn't make it nothing. I, and many others feel that the best way to achieve results is to build with what works best mechanically rather than forcing a class that does the intended role poorly to fit the role because of its name.
I'm no longer involved in the bard discussing as there are obviously irreconcilable differences in design philosophy, but I'm more than willing to be help about other shared material or difficulties.
I appreciate the fact that you're willing to help out with other materials. Personally, I feel that the class can work, and work well, without turning them into Alche-bards. In fact, I feel that it works better to not do so, but that's probably a difference of opinion. I respect differences in design philosophy, and I appreciate the discourse.
Yep, my bard/alchemist hybrid suggestion was only to preserve the power level of the class. As I 6 level caster, a bard loses a lot if you strip away spellcasting - you need to replace it with something nice.
I guess I tend to see things this way:
4 level caster - spellcasting is a tacked on ability
6 level caster - spellcasting is about half of what you do
9 level caster - spellcasting is your main thing.So if you take casting away from a bard, you've stripped away about half the utility of the class. 2e Dark Sun didn't really do that, but bard casting was a lot weaker in core 2e - you got a spellbook at level 2 with some random spells in it, and that was it for freebies. So even having higher level spells to cast was dependent on treasure/GM niceness.
In my way of thinking extracts + poison use seem roughly equivalent in power to 6 level casting, and fit in fairly well with the poisoner flavor. But hey, if you and your players are happy with your version go for it.
I understand the suggestion, and I will respectfully disagree on a few points; that a) extracts are needed, that b) the spellcasting abilities of bards are that heavy of an influence on the class, and that c) the setting material would work better with alche-bards instead of alchemists and bards as separate and distinct classes.
I'm going to tackle other responses momentarily, as some get somewhat involved.
I will say that it was a surprise to see as much activity on it since yesterday as there is, and I do want to reiterate that I appreciate the help. I'll post a link to the updated materials in a forthcoming post.
One thing to put on your radar is how to handle magic items and shopping/item creation. Pathfinder assumes a certain amount of magical gear is gained when leveling and messing with that too much screws with the CR system quite a bit.
However, Ye Olde Magick Shoppe doesn't really fit with the flavor of Athas.
I'd suggest having psionic items be what's available in shops. Set the cp cost equal to what the normal gp cost would be. This lets the PCs have the stats they need and have toys to play with while keeping the magic=bad, psionics=good flavor.
I'd have actual magic stuff use the gp=gp rate of metal items, making them super rare and expensive. No one will zip down to the corner store to buy a scroll if that scroll runs them 2500 cp for a first level spell.
This is a very rough idea so there are probably big issues with it.
The quandry with having a wealth of psionic items is that, by and large, you have items with their own intellect (or proto-intellect), which the original setting wasn't too big on, either. I don't see item-creation necessarily needing to change, as PCs are the default protagonists of the setting, but I agree with you that Crazy Uncle Horserik's Butter Shoppe and Magic Emporium (patent pending) is not something that you're really going to encounter. Most magical items are likely as a result of uncovering lost relics of a bygone age. Besides, wealth by level is probably needed for more important investments, like regular access to food and water, and a safe place to call home.
The idea that I have in mind is that items made of readily accessible materials are going to be at a percentage of the cost for such an item in the normal world (for example, perhaps an obsidian longsword will cost 15 ceramic pieces, while a bone longsword might cost half that, and an iron longsword might cost 30 ceramic pieces [twice that], but a steel one might cost 45 [three times]). Magical items would need to be adjusted accordingly to account for their rarity, if they're available at all. Things like potions might be had from your local apothecary (read: alchemist), but wands and scrolls would be rare beyond belief, as would spellbooks, and asking for such items is quite likely to draw unwanted attention.
In the end, there will be a note to GMs regarding appropriate CR encounters. While the game is intended to be more lethal than the standard Pathfinder game, there should not be such a discrepancy that a group of 10th level characters finds it impossible to handle a CR 10 monster (though one 10th level fighter going toe-to-toe with a CR 10 monster might be sketchy). It's something that will have to be playtested, to be quite honest, so I'd need a playtester group for that (ideally) to run maybe three or four encounters.
Ye Olde Psionic Shoppe doesn't fit Dark Sun either.
From the books, special items of any variety were exceedingly rare. Usually, gifted by powerful individuals, or rarely found or stolen. Most were defiler artifacts of one sort or another. Psionic items also had a place based on the content from the rules and setting books. As I recall a good deal of the Psionic items were actually alive. Including symbiotes that bonded with the user.
Really, though items were super rare and characters usually just got by one their own prowess with the magic items being little more than a McGuffin. A better option might be to try something like 3.5's Vow of Poverty or just award Mythic ranks to compensate representative of that character's own personal increase in prowess.
Playing in Dark Sun, i'd just throw preconceptions of 'expected WBL' out the window.
my 2 cp.
Thanks for the reply. You raise some interesting points. I am assuming that in a Dark Sun game, characters won’t be the bad guys, even if they are not the good guys, so PC wizards are likely to be preservers who have the option to give themselves a power up by defiling in extreme situations (rather than habitual defilers). By casters I didn’t just mean arcane casters, however. In a game without equipment, a druid eventually makes a much better melee combatant than a fighter does.
In Dark Sun, your characters may be either good-guys or bad-guys, depending on what you'd like to play.
You do raise a valid point here. In a game without easy access to magical equipment, druids do eventually become better melee combatants than fighters. There are a few ways that I can handle this. First, I can bump up the power level of martial classes to make things dead faster. This can dramatically alter the game at lower- or mid-levels in favour of the martial classes, so I'm somewhat loathe to do that. Second, I could input a "feat tax" that does not allow you to wield metal weapons without picking up a specific feat, but also state that metal weapons do a much, much better job than wood, bone, stone or obsidian (either as they currently stand, or beefed up). This second one would be easy to do, with iron weapons being equivalent to +1 weapons in the setting (given the scarcity of metal) and steel weapons being equivalent to +2 or +3 weapons in the setting. That, and making it so that wood, bone, stone or obsidian weapons shatter so easily compared to metal makes somewhat of a difference, though I recognize that does little against a druid's wildshaped claws, hence why metal weapons might need a bit of beefing up.
You don’t have to use any rules variants in a Pathfinder game of Dark Sun. However, you would then end up with plate-mail clad half-orcs wielding steel greatswords, which is probably not what you want. There have been a couple of posts on this thread about weapon breaking rules, but nothing up until now to suggest not using them.
Accounting for the possibility that some people don't want to play with weapon-breaking rules is not my suggestion that people not use them. I certainly do not wish for there to be plate-mail clad muls (not half-orcs) wielding steel greatswords becoming common in the setting. Metal weapons and armour are going to come at a premium (in terms of cost). Weapon-breaking is going to be a default rule.
Or a druid. Or (depending on how Templars get their spells) maybe even a Templar. And that assumes the people watching have read the Core Rulebook and know that it was an Alter Winds spell rather than (say) a psionic power or the supernatural ability of some kind of elemental-based monk or something.
It also assumes these are witnesses. Pathfinder combats often take place in dark alleys, hidden cellars and remote ruins. The PCs tend to mix with people who wouldn’t go to the Templars under any circumstances – as it would result in a death sentence for themselves. Is the GM supposed to balance the game by dividing encounters between those where the arcanist can cast, and those where he is useless? Or should he just split it between sessions, so the player knows which sessions to turn up for and which to miss?
So... As Hark mentioned, a lot of the adventures are in urban environments, and people are wise to the idea that arcane casters use words, gestures and spell-components, whereas templars, clerics or druids do other things. That's why most of the arcane spellcasting classes are getting Sleight of Hand added as a class skill to mask the use of components and gestures. They might want to invest heavily in Bluff just to ensure success.
Ideally, arcanists (or other arcane casters) aren't going to play a game of hack/slash/fireball. That's just asking for trouble. They're going to have to be circumspect about what spells they cast and when. It's not a setting where they can cast any spell they want to, anywhere they want to, at any time they want to, unlike the default setting for Pathfinder. Rather than casting lightning bolt at a foe in the middle of a crowded square, they might need to retreat to a location where they can safely cast first, or cast force punch instead so that they can easily explain it away as a telekinetic punch. That's not to say that there are no situations in which lightning bolt might ever be useful, but it's probably going to see less play in favour of other less-flashy spells.
I don’t think a game where arcane casters don’t actually cast spells is a good fit for Pathfinder. It also makes every adventure after the first one be about the caster. Everybody else can forget about their in-character goals as the campaign is now all about killing the arcanist.
Of course (per the quote above) it might be that the rest of the party kill the arcanist as soon as he casts the first spell, so it won’t derail the campaign. You might find the group has lost a player, however.
If you don’t want people to play arcane casters, you should just say so rather than “1 spell = death sentence”.
Casters can cast in Dark Sun. They just have either be aware of the consequences of their casting, or they just not care and suffer the consequences anyway.
However, if an arcanist casts a fireball and the remainder of the campaign turns into "run away from everyone who is trying to kill the arcanist", then your GM is pretty darn monofocused. That's something that you have to work out with your GM (and the other players). If they are playing characters that are absolutely opposed to arcane spellcasters of any sort, then that's an issue that needs to be resolved before play begins at the table.
There are ways to resolve these concerns, and the single most effective way can be summed up in three words: the Veiled Alliance. For those that either do not know, or do not remember, the Veiled Alliance was a society of preservers working to bring about the restoration of Athas and the downfall of the sorcerer-kings (and any other defilers). They often provided assistance to preservers and their allies to hide them, smuggle them out of a particular city-state, or generally help to resolve specific troubles. If your arcanist (and the party members) have ties to the Veiled Alliance (who also recruit agents that are not arcane casters), then life becomes easier, though not necessarily easy. If the templars that witnessed your spellcasting are dead, they can't do as effective of a job of reporting your transgression, can they? (By the by, templars are agents of the sorcerer-kings, and are, generally speaking, bad guys from the perspective of most adventurers, but that's what you get for working for an evil, pre-dragon, defiler boss.)
So, to sum up... Arcanists can cast spells. They just need to not be suicidal and stupid about it.
Best wishes!
Playing in Dark Sun, i'd just throw preconceptions of 'expected WBL' out the window.
my 2 cp.
Or heavily adjust it, but the idea is noted.
For those that were interested in offering critical analysis on the Core Classes, please follow the link.
For those that were interested in offering critical analysis on the Core Classes, please follow the link.
Not much to say about the Core Classes yet, but the Wizard has the Sorcerer Archetypes listed as its acceptable archetypes.
I'm going to take a look at the Dark Sun Gladiator Class. As I recall it was pretty distinct from the fighter. I want to see if it needs its own class or if there is an archetype that fits the old Gladiator class role.
For those that were interested in offering critical analysis on the Core Classes, please follow the link.Not much to say about the Core Classes yet, but the Wizard has the Sorcerer Archetypes listed as its acceptable archetypes.
I'm going to take a look at the Dark Sun Gladiator Class. As I recall it was pretty distinct from the fighter. I want to see if it needs its own class or if there is an archetype that fits the old Gladiator class role.
Thank you for spotting that error. I shall correct it presently.
I had in mind for the role of the Gladiator class... The Slayer hybrid class.
Class Critique:
1. The rules are pretty clear on poison. There is even a Paizo blog on it. Ok, so the blog makes them clear, but my point is there should be any questions on poison except for possibly one specific poison.
2. Bard. I like your "connected" ability. I had one with the same name, but it works differently. I might use yours instead.
Question: Do the hypertoxin add the number in the chart to the original DC?
Example: Let's say I have a poison with a base DC of 20, and then I add a hyperpoison such as "Obsidian Spores" is the base DC now 32?
I think the capstone ability should be moved up to at least level 12.
Clerics: I think that with the elemental forces present in Dark Sun the domains are pretty good.
Why does the Sun(domain) cleric have special rules?
I started getting lazy with my reading after this so I will have to read the other classes in detail later on.
I had in mind for the role of the Gladiator class... The Slayer hybrid class.
After looking it over the Gladiator isn't quite as special as I seem to remember it being. The only special features it actually has are Proficiency with ALL weapons, and what amounts to the Fighter's armor training.
The proficiency with all weapons is interesting in that it makes for a really interesting Exotic Weapons master. So I feel that a Fighter archetype is probably the best way to go with an Athasian Gladiator.
It is odd though, I seem to remember the Gladiator having d12 hit die, but I can't find that anywhere.
Well, there´s a decision to be made if this should be as close to the original as possible or some things updated. The ipdate would be mainly on crunch that as changed since then.
Gladiator class is a nice example.
There are now a ton of performance combat feats, performance combat rules and weapons...all of which fits a gladiator perfectly.
I think i´ll do eventually my own version of this, along with a port of Mummy´s Mask to Athas and either Occult classes or Ultimate psionics, or both.
Class Critique:
1. The rules are pretty clear on poison. There is even a Paizo blog on it. Ok, so the blog makes them clear, but my point is there should be any questions on poison except for possibly one specific poison.2. Bard. I like your "connected" ability. I had one with the same name, but it works differently. I might use yours instead.
Question: Do the hypertoxin add the number in the chart to the original DC?
Example: Let's say I have a poison with a base DC of 20, and then I add a hyperpoison such as "Obsidian Spores" is the base DC now 32?
I think the capstone ability should be moved up to at least level 12.
Clerics: I think that with the elemental forces present in Dark Sun the domains are pretty good.
Why does the Sun(domain) cleric have special rules?
I started getting lazy with my reading after this so I will have to read the other classes in detail later on.
wraithstrike,
The blog is a lot of what was copied in, because there are questions about poisons and how they work. So... I'd rather be safe than sorry, there. As for the connected ability, I appreciate your support.
As for the hypertoxins, they do indeed add to the difficulty of the original poison, so... If you choose disorientation dust to belladonna, you end up with a poison that is ingested (as normal), with a DC 19 to resist (or create, instead of DC 14), an onset of 2d4 rounds (instead of 10 minutes), a frequency of once per round for your bard level in rounds (instead of 1/minute for 6 minutes), with an effect of 1d2 Strength damage plus confusing your target (as per the spell). It's still cured by one save, and it still costs 33gp, 3sp, 3cp to make.
As for the capstone ability, why do you feel it should be moved up to level 12, specifically?
With regard to the Sun domain, the special rules are intended to reflect how sun magic worked in the novels (which is where sun clerics were created). At night, or underground, or during any other event that obscured them from the sun, their magic was severely weakened.
I had in mind for the role of the Gladiator class... The Slayer hybrid class.After looking it over the Gladiator isn't quite as special as I seem to remember it being. The only special features it actually has are Proficiency with ALL weapons, and what amounts to the Fighter's armor training.
The proficiency with all weapons is interesting in that it makes for a really interesting Exotic Weapons master. So I feel that a Fighter archetype is probably the best way to go with an Athasian Gladiator.
It is odd though, I seem to remember the Gladiator having d12 hit die, but I can't find that anywhere.
I am not sure if the Athasian gladiator had d12 hit dice either. I couldn't recall.
Why do you feel that a fighter archetype is better than using the slayer class to represent gladiators? Granted anyone can be a gladiator, even a rogue, but why do you feel that a fighter archetype is the way to go, here?
Well, there´s a decision to be made if this should be as close to the original as possible or some things updated. The ipdate would be mainly on crunch that as changed since then.
Gladiator class is a nice example.
There are now a ton of performance combat feats, performance combat rules and weapons...all of which fits a gladiator perfectly.I think i´ll do eventually my own version of this, along with a port of Mummy´s Mask to Athas and either Occult classes or Ultimate psionics, or both.
There are some things that are going to be updated, naturally, but I'm attempting to preserve as much of the original as I possibly can in terms of flavour.
As far as psionic classes go, I've made a decision on that. The plan is to use the following classes from Ultimate Psionics: psion, wilder, psychic warrior (and possibly the tactician and vitalist classes as well). I also plan on adapting all six classes from the Occult Adventures playtest. Revisions will, of course, be required after Occult Adventures comes out.
Thank you for the feedback, all!
Gladiators did indeed get d12 hit die in 2nd Ed. Dark Sun
Along with access to special gladiator weapons, and armor optimization, which gave them more AC.
I had in mind for the role of the Gladiator class... The Slayer hybrid class.After looking it over the Gladiator isn't quite as special as I seem to remember it being. The only special features it actually has are Proficiency with ALL weapons, and what amounts to the Fighter's armor training.
Okay, so apparently I wasn't thinking straight. I was planning on using the Brawler, not the Slayer.
Why I think the poison capstone should be moved:
Now I may be misunderstanding the flavor but from what I understand bards, aside from being information brokers and spies are poison based assassins. If your victim is immune to poisons then he has just removed your main way of taking him out and bards especially without spells while decent in a fight are not that great of a threat unless someone who is really good at optomizing builds them. Bypassing the immunity actual makes keeps their main threat viable. If I am wrong about the assassin idea then it can stay as it is. Later I will run numbers to see if the craft DC is a real hinderance to hyper poisons being used to create really high DC's too early. I like the idea a lot though.
Okay, so apparently I wasn't thinking straight. I was planning on using the Brawler, not the Slayer.I had in mind for the 65f u jcn NJuujmyk role of the Gladiator class... The Slayer hybrid class.After looking it over the Gladiator ihTVBvlgarisn't quite as special as I seem to remember it being. The only special features it actually has are Proficiency with ALL weapons, and what amounts to the Fighter's armor tjlpraining.
That makes a lot more sense. I considered brawler too. Fighter was my choice simply because most of what the old Gladiator had is already in the fighter. The real problem I had after looking over Fighter is finding things to replace since basically everything was a Gladiator feature.
In the past the distinguishing factor between fighter and Gladiator in Dark Sun was Gladiator focused on personal combat while fighter grew into a mass combat leader. The fighter doesn't really fit that old role but does a good job of describing the old gladiator.
Why I think the poison capstone should be moved:
Now I may be misunderstanding the flavor but from what I understand bards, aside from being information brokers and spies are poison based assassins. If your victim is immune to poisons then he has just removed your main way of taking him out and bards especially without spells while decent in a fight are not that great of a threat unless someone who is really good at optomizing builds them. Bypassing the immunity actual makes keeps their main threat viable. If I am wrong about the assassin idea then it can stay as it is. Later I will run numbers to see if the craft DC is a real hinderance to hyper poisons being used to create really high DC's too early. I like the idea a lot though.
When running the numbers, I might suspect that the bonus to Craft (Alchemy) is what's going to ruin that balance, so that may need to come out.
My concern is that bypassing an immunity is, to me, a pretty big deal. While I recognize that poisoning still offers a save to completely avoid its effects (unlike bypassing, say, resistance to acid), I'd have to see how your numbers shake out, I suppose. I don't want to create something dramatically overpowered (or underpowered, to be honest).
Thanks for the input. Please feel free to add more.
I have my analysis. I thought I was going to need a build, but in the end I didn't. I just wrote the post as I was thinking.
I dont know how point buy and WBL will play out, so I will go with a 20 point buy, half of WBL, and I am going to use a normal pathfinder race instead of the powered up ones.
Unless I missed something I still have versatile performance so even if I go with an intelligence of 10 I should be ok with skills, to include knowledge checks.
Since I don't have spells I won't need a really high charisma. The goal is to create a skill monkey and good party buffer who is decent in combat, and also good at debuffing enemies particulary bosses.
Before I go into the actual number crunching I wanted to look at which hyperpoison was the best and compare it to the other. Heartleaf Stalk is only a +6 to the DC and I get to add the dazed condition. That alone is worth gold to me, and it will be my favorite hyper poison most likely since nothing in the game is immune to daze. Well I should say no creature type, but I also dont know of any monsters immune to daze. Another good thing about his hyperpoison is that it changes the onset time to immediate.
One question that needs to be answer is that if I add two hyperpoisons, does the longer or short onset time take precedence? I would suggest a long time, but of course my theory may be wrong. For my build I will assume the shorter time takes precedece. Another question is which frequency takes place? Some of the hyper poison have strange onset times such as "1/hour for 2d4 hours". I would suggest sticking to onset times measures in rounds or minutes. You can still have an affect such as sleep last for hours, but keeping the frequency in rounds or minutes makes it easier to judge, and to make a general rule of what has precedence.
Poisonweed Pollen(hyper poison) is a +12 that makes people unconscious, but I can add Siltwater Solution(hyper poison) for a +3 and make it have an immediate onset. Now to offset a potentially high craft bonus to the DC I can choose a poison with a low craft DC. Black adder venom has a base craft DC of 11 meaning I can put someone to sleep, do 1d2 con damage, and sicken them with a craft DC of 26. Now honestly the sicken won't really matter, but I only took it to drop the onset time. Craft allows for taking 10 so I only need a +16 modifier.
stats with no racial modifiers.
str 14
dex 11
con 14
int 12
wis 12
cha 14
Level 7 bard has 7 ranks and +3 for a class skill so that is a +10 already. An alchemist lab is 200 gp and it adds a +2 cirumstance modifier. Now we are at a +12
+1 int brings it up to +13. The class modifier gives me another +3. Now I have a +16 .
Taking 10 means I have a 26. So now we ask what when can we expect for most monsters to make this save.
Well, most monsters have a 50% chance of making this on their good save when they have a CR of 13. Since I can have 3+cha mod of this poison a day that gives me 5 chances to make it stick.
But even without the bonus to the alchemy check I still had a 24, and I am not really pushing intelligence. That is bare bones. A DC 22 has a 50% chance of being made by a CR 9 monsters.
Black adder venom is an injury based poison however and honestly this bard is not likely to be hitting the AC of a CR 13, but that CR 9 monster may every well be hit, and I doubt he is making the save. But why take the chance with that? Just coat the weapon of a full BAB party member, and that chances of the poison hitting the enemy just got a lot better.
Now let's suppose the party comes across a CR 11 or CR 12 enemy. In that case in a low WBL Dark Sun game that monster's AC may be really tough to hit even for a front liner. The bard can use an inhaled poison in place of the black adder venom. The lowest inhaled poisons start with a DC of 15 so now the craft DC and the save are 30. Skill focus(craft alchemy) provides another +3. Now you need an 11 on the dice to make this poison, but you also have 5 chances to roll an 11 or better. Chances are high that the bard will make the poison, and at a DC of 30 the bard is now able to put down CR 17 monsters. At next level the bard can take 10 and automatically make the checks. Even if the GM houserules no taking 10 the bard has a good chance of making the poison.
In an actual game I am sure I could make that poison at level 7 by taking 10 because my craft bonus would be higher.
|
|
Personally I would suggest this:
Step One - Ability Scores
'Focus and Foible'. Besides this, the 25 point buy method is also recommended. It’s challenging being a an adventurer when most of the world is against you*.
*Dark Sun in a dangerous place, one where pretty much evil being rule the land in a place where defiling as turned it into a wasteland. The game requires the party to be of stronger stuff, just to survive in an otherwise hostile setting.
Focus and Foible
Choose a Focus, an ability score at which you excel. You receive an 18 in that score. Choose a Foible, an ability score that is your weakness. You receive an 8 in that score. The other four, roll 1d10+7 four times in order. There are no rerolls or moving of ability scores. Those are your other four scores.
Why this Method?
This method makes slightly more powerful characters on average. A 'Focus and Foible'-built character costs 25 build points to make on average but more powerful characters are not uncommon. It compensates for the potential increase in power by making characters slightly random. Randomness never completely hamstrings a character though (the lowest total you can roll is ’8’ after all) and never gives them an ability score higher than their focus.
Therefore your wizard might have a high dexterity and charisma as well as having a high intelligence and a low strength. It is considered that this tends to create slightly more interesting, unusual and diverse characters. If the randomness and potential for character inequity bothers you, we can discuss using point buy for your character instead.
A Foible score in a Dark Sun Game is a pretty dangerous thing. Especially when it gets even lower through racial stats.
The 25 point buy wasn´t for nothing.
I agree with the 25 point buy. As for rolling I suggest the GM not make that stats be done in order, and allow for everyone to use the best stats no matter who rolled them. Having a wide variance in rolled stats can cause problems, but in the end each GM will have to decide how to deal with that.
edit: Does anyone remember if the site converting Dark Sun to Pathfinder had a WBL suggestion such as 50% less?
|
|
Sighs, the problem with point buy is there is no stat variance. Everyone pretty much goes with the same stats and there isn't much in the way of chance. That is one reason why I often prefer 2e AD&D in many cases, there was actually some challenge since you didn't always have the best score. That and 8 really isn't that bad, especially if you watch to make sure the racial penalty wasn't in the Foible score.
Yet that is only my feelings on the subject and the above was just a suggestion. Seems risk and chance isn't something many want to worry about.
Sighs, the problem with point buy is there is no stat variance. Everyone pretty much goes with the same stats and there isn't much in the way of chance. That is one reason why I often prefer 2e AD&D in many cases, there was actually some challenge since you didn't always have the best score. That and 8 really isn't that bad, especially if you watch to make sure the racial penalty wasn't in the Foible score.
Yet that is only my feelings on the subject and the above was just a suggestion. Seems risk and chance isn't something many want to worry about.
My problem with rolling is too much variance between players. Now some GM's balance it out behind the screens, and some just allow you to reroll until you are close to another player. If they are going to do that, then it defeats the point. Now on the other hand if the players are ok with something having great stats and possibly being overshadowed in their own niche, then it is fine. Now of course the super character can "play down" so as to not step no another player's toes, but most people I have played with are perceptive and would catch on. In the end however it boils down to the group. It would work for some, and not for others.
One thing I did in a game before was I allow players to choose if they wanted to roll or use point buy individually. 2 of the 6 actually chose to roll.
IIRC I did 2d6+6 roll 7 times, and take the highest 6 numbers for those willing to be brave.
When I DMed ages ago I actually had player roll 4d6 drop lowest 6 times. I then had them take the lowest roll and replace it with an 18.
Basically, ensured that everyone was very good in their chosen specialty and minimized anyou serious weaknesses. There was still a lot of variance, but everyone was equally awesome in their focus so the variance didn't matter that much.
What I would recommend for the standard is an above average point buy as the default suggestion, though a recommendation for a rolling alternative might be welcome.
Rolling is always a gamble. There are two things to be said about it however:
1. Dark Sun is per default harder than other settings. There were reasons you started at level 3. How much that is resembled by a Pathfinder Dark Sun has to be seen and depends on the GM most likely.
Also if you use the Psionic Beastiary or not.
2. Rolling stats might lead to some players having very low stats. Forcing stats in order ends with a different game, since you then can´t freely choose your class anymore. I would make sure before everyone is really in for that. Most likely you will end up with stats that are far above average though, in the 30+ point buy range. That seriously messes up any CR calculations then.
Other than the environmental issues and being killed by people who really dislike arcane magic what other dangers are there in Dark Sun?
Is there a way in the setting to tell arcane magic from divine magic even if no defiling is done?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arcane caster: <cast spells>
Peasants: We don't want your kind here. You destroy the planet with every spell you cast. <People show up with pitch forks>
Arcane caster: <Bluff check 25 >Oh no, it is not like that. I have just used a divine version of ____ because I am actually <insert divine class>. <goes on to explain why no holy symbol or divine focus was used>
Raiders (elves and Thrii-Kreen often), Slavers, cannibalistic halflings, various monsters in different terrains on the search for food, there might also be ruins with different forms of undead.
Also in the cities different groups with different interests, citylife itself, the dragonkings and their templars.
A decent bluff is always a good thing. Beware the templar around the corner though^^
I have my analysis. I thought I was going to need a build, but in the end I didn't. I just wrote the post as I was thinking.
So... You raise a few interesting points about the hypertoxins.
- It seems that the bonus to Craft (Alchemy) is overkill.
- Hypertoxins are not meant to be stacked (i.e. 2 hypertoxins added into a single base poison). I will have to make that more explicit. Even if the decision were made to allow stacking hypertoxins, the quickest onset and frequency overriding longer ones, but still carrying the same duration of effect is rather silly and confusing. Checking once per round for six rounds to see if your target is rendered unconscious for an hour plus being sickened doesn't make a lot of sense. If they're vomiting in their sleep, that's also kind of gross. So... No stacky-stacky.
- Onset times are either quick (2d4 rounds is the longest of the variable ones) or static (i.e. 1 hour). Frequency checks are consistent with the effect. I decided that it would be a bad thing for a sleep effect (for example) to last for hours, but have you check the frequency of it every few minutes. If I had you do a frequency check every 10 minutes, you're doing 6 checks per hour. While that would give you 6 chances every hour to shrug off the poison, if you fail every single check, that means that you've made 12-48 individual checks. With the frequency set to mirror the effect duration, you're instead making 1 check per hour to see if you can shrug it off after 2-8 checks.
- This seems to argue that hypertoxins (as written) are too good? That would mean that lowering the capstone ability would be undesirable.
A Foible score in a Dark Sun Game is a pretty dangerous thing. Especially when it gets even lower through racial stats.
The 25 point buy wasn´t for nothing.
I think I must agree with this assessment. Thank you, Hayato Ken and wraithstrike, and JonathonWilder for offering the suggestion.
Other than the environmental issues and being killed by people who really dislike arcane magic what other dangers are there in Dark Sun?
Is there a way in the setting to tell arcane magic from divine magic even if no defiling is done?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arcane caster: <cast spells>Peasants: We don't want your kind here. You destroy the planet with every spell you cast. <People show up with pitch forks>
Arcane caster: <Bluff check 25 >Oh no, it is not like that. I have just used a divine version of ____ because I am actually <insert divine class>. <goes on to explain why no holy symbol or divine focus was used>
A short list of dangers on Athas:
- The sun (and the heat).
- Lack of water.
- Sandstorms and other environmental hazards.
- Completely rational but also batshit crazy fear of arcane magic.
- Giants.
- Cannibalistic Halflings.
- Thri-Kreen.
- The undead.
- Raiders.
- Sorcerer-Kings.
- The Dragon of Athas (i.e. Borys of Ebe).
- Templars.
- Defilers.
- The Veiled Alliance (especially if you're a defiler).
- Psionics/Psionicists.
- Monsters.
Now as far as arcane casting... Preservers have an easier time of hiding their spellcasting as there's no visible defiling going on. However, as I've mentioned before, when you disappear into thin air after wiggling your fingers and chanting forbidden words and flinging reagents that look like they might have been bought in the Elven Market, people are going to default assume that you cast some kind of arcane spell. Clerics in the original setting were explicitly limited to elemental magics, and templars were templars and you didn't question templars (who used magic given to them via the sorcerer-kings).
Otherwise, it pretty much works as you described. High bluff check, and you just might get away with it... Though it's better if you use a Sleight of Hand check to hide your gestures and spell components so that you can far more easily pass it off (Bluff) as an act of psionic prowess.
Even without the half class bonus from class feature I think a dedicated player can hit an DC of 30.
When I was speaking of the frequency it was the fact that the core book has frequencies in rounds or minutes. That can be separate from saying you sleep for 2d4 hours as a duration.
However to clear things up here is what I am understanding, if a hyperpoison, assuming you stay with them, has a frequency measured in hours, and the normal poison has one measured in minutes the longer hour based one would be used because it is the longer method.
Another issue is that the things with the greater abilities don't have the highest craft DC. That is why I brought up the daze condition. IIRC it had a low bonus to the craft DC, but at the same time if you give it a higher DC it pushed the poison DC really high. I would try to apply that to almost every poison I used. It will pretty much end any boss who fails the save.
I think you should divorce the craft DC from the save DC for the hyperpoisons. <----My advice.
If you want to keep add a craft DC for the hyperpoison then add a +5 or +10 to the DC. Another idea is to treat the hyperpoison as a masterwork component for poisons and have it crafted separately.
I would allow a hyperpoison to be chosen every so many levels similar to how a paladin chooses mercies(just an example). >--I think you were already doing this, but I misread it, and that is why I thought hyperpoisons could be combined.
When a hyperpoison is added to a normal poison I would allow the bard's class level to determine the new save of the poison. I would use the 10 +1/2 class level + charisma mod formula.
Back to the difficulty saving throw when adding them to poisons: Let's take drow poison which has a low DC of 11 or 13. We will use 13 for this example. Let's say the hyperpoison has a DC of 20. Since the hyperpoison has a higher DC I would allow the 20 to take precedence. If the hyperpoison has a lower DC than the actual poison then I would allow the poison's DC to take precedence.
On the capstone: Well I think that can wait you figure out how good the poison will be for the bard. It may not need the boost.
That´s one of the great things with Dark Sun. I think it enforces roleplay on a whole other level, because so many details become a lot more important that are normaly handwaved in other settings.
Now that there´s more stuff about Pathfinder Unchained out of the box, i can tell you, there´s a new poison system. One that really made me happy! It makes poison use a lot more efficient and meaningful.
So taking a look at this again in two weeks and then rethinking poison and the bard in Dark Sun is definately worth it.
That´s one of the great things with Dark Sun. I think it enforces roleplay on a whole other level, because so many details become a lot more important that are normaly handwaved in other settings.
Now that there´s more stuff about Pathfinder Unchained out of the box, i can tell you, there´s a new poison system. One that really made me happy! It makes poison use a lot more efficient and meaningful.
So taking a look at this again in two weeks and then rethinking poison and the bard in Dark Sun is definately worth it.
This is a good idea. I know that in normal games I have never purchased poison because I felt like it was overpriced.
Even without the half class bonus from class feature I think a dedicated player can hit an DC of 30.
You are probably correct.
When I was speaking of the frequency it was the fact that the core book has frequencies in rounds or minutes. That can be separate from saying you sleep for 2d4 hours as a duration.
However to clear things up here is what I am understanding, if a hyperpoison, assuming you stay with them, has a frequency measured in hours, and the normal poison has one measured in minutes the longer hour based one would be used because it is the longer method.
I just feel that it's silly that you save in minutes for an effect that lasts for hours. Regardless of normal poisons having frequencies in rounds or minutes, these are not normal poisons, and their values override the base poisons, so I don't find it especially problematic.
Another issue is that the things with the greater abilities don't have the highest craft DC. That is why I brought up the daze condition. IIRC it had a low bonus to the craft DC, but at the same time if you give it a higher DC it pushed the poison DC really high. I would try to apply that to almost every poison I used. It will pretty much end any boss who fails the save.
I would be receptive to some suggestions on more appropriate DCs to properly set the difficulty to craft the poison (or possibly to save against it).
I think you should divorce the craft DC from the save DC for the hyperpoisons. <----My advice.
If you want to keep add a craft DC for the hyperpoison then add a +5 or +10 to the DC. Another idea is to treat the hyperpoison as a masterwork component for poisons and have it crafted separately.
I think that you may be correct. The craft check should definitely be higher than the save DC. That's an easy fix without doing too much else.
I would allow a hyperpoison to be chosen every so many levels similar to how a paladin chooses mercies(just an example). >--I think you were already doing this, but I misread it, and that is why I thought hyperpoisons could be combined.
Yes, I believe that I was already doing it. At least, that was the intent.
When a hyperpoison is added to a normal poison I would allow the bard's class level to determine the new save of the poison. I would use the 10 +1/2 class level + charisma mod formula.
Personally, I think I prefer the additive model rather than making every hypertoxin's save DC the same.
Back to the difficulty saving throw when adding them to poisons: Let's take drow poison which has a low DC of 11 or 13. We will use 13 for this example. Let's say the hyperpoison has a DC of 20. Since the hyperpoison has a higher DC I would allow the 20 to take precedence. If the hyperpoison has a lower DC than the actual poison then I would allow the poison's DC to take precedence.
I think the additive model solves this with less fuss.
On the capstone: Well I think that can wait you figure out how good the poison will be for the bard. It may not need the boost.
Agreed.
Thank you for the assistance!
Maybe the first thing to do is to decide which hyperpoisons are the best to use, and why. I will give my opinions on that later on.
Maybe the first thing to do is to decide which hyperpoisons are the best to use, and why. I will give my opinions on that later on.
Much appreciated, sir.