Some more feedback on classes (assume as described in the most upto date pdf, and if they are not listed then please consider my 'wish list')
Arcanist/Bloodrager/Sorcerer - I actually would suggest a few options: eliminate this class wholly; make it a flavor of defiler/preserver; make some specific types of sorcerers and make an option for psionic or magical sorcerers depending on the bloodline. For example Yaunti are canon, and always have a psionic version once monsters are revised for psionics. Clearly this is a pretty hard to implement solution, so I kinda side towards removing them completely, since sorcerers do not learn spells really like canon preservers/defilers.
Anti-paladin/Inquisitor/Paladin/Summoner - def would like an elemental flavored version of these classes
Brawler/Hunter/Investigator/Skald/Squashsmuggler/Slammer/Werepriest - seems fine
Monk/Ninja - needs psionics imo
Summoner - elemental version seems appropriate imo
Oracle/Witch - elemental version or preserver/defiler versions seem appropriate
Bard - great job
the races are a great, great improvement on said old version that i won't trash again.
Thank you for your input, Castle_Bravo.
I'm going to politely decline the suggestions that you've offered regarding the classes. Turning everything into either elementally flavoured classes or adding psionics to the classes eliminates the need to even have the classes separate from clerics or psionicists, and the goal is to be as inclusive as possible, not exclusive. For much the same reason, I am not removing sorcerers (and their hybrid classes). There's no genuine reason to alter them from their present form. Spellcasters are not boiled down into "you're either a preserver or you're a defiler" as a class. Preserver and defiler are choices each arcane casting class makes, not classes themselves in this conversion. If I wanted to convert Pathfinder into second edition Dungeons and Dragons so that I could play a Dark Sun game, I could far more easily play second edition Dungeons and Dragons and call it a day. This is not a direct conversion; it is an adaptation that allows for existing Pathfinder material to function in a Dark Sun framework.
As for the domains, the cleric is going to have some differences from the original. First, they will have a primary elemental domain (air, earth, fire, sun, water), and they will have a secondary domain that can be anything they wish. This provides options for both character differentiation and to show that not all air clerics (for example) manifest in exactly the same way. If you want to play a fire cleric that also has the madness domain, go right ahead. There's no reason to stop you from doing so. There's also no reason to throw out every non-elemental domain and spell just to say that Athasian clerics are elementally-aligned. I'm all in favour of keeping as much material as possible.
Having said that, very few classes fail to work in the Dark Sun setting - the gunslinger being the primary one. Everything else can work with some or no adaptation, which is actually kind of beautiful.
Def can appreciate your thoughts on Domains. Re: madness for example I think works better than what I was suggesting.
If I help do you want to rework existing domains that are clearly tied to one element, ala getting rid of ice spells for water? Example, here are my reworks of a few of them that I just did. I'd also be willing to create a first draft for a magma domain.
Air Domain
Replace lightning arc SP with Wind Blast from Wind Domain.
Replace Electricity Resistance with Air Friend
Air Friend (Ex): At 6th level, you gain a +6 save versus effects caused by the elemental planes of rain, air and sun; additionally you gain a +6 to save versus any natural air or wind phenomenon. At level 20, you gain complete immunity from any effect caused by the elemental plane of air. Additionally, at will, you may resist movement and damage caused by any natural air or wind phenomenon, including silt storms, tornadoes and similar. However a tree flying though the air would still cause normal damage, at DM discretion. (Kinda struggling here to describe this from a rules perspective but I think you get what I mean. Certainly the easiest thing to do is to just keep the electricity resistance.)
Replace Domain Spells as follows: 1st Entropic Shield; 6th Sirocco
Earth Domain
Replace level 1 domain spell with stone fist
Fire Domain
Unchanged
Sun Domain
Replace Domain Spells as follows:
SU, Replace Sun's Blessing with Flare Burst 1/day for every 2 cleric levels. Nimbus of light no longer deals damage to undead, but allows the cleric to cast other sun spells as thought the sun is visible.
1st - Sun Metal; 4th Shield of Dawn; 5th Mirage Arcana; 6th Blazing Rainbow; 7th is still Sunbeam, but it does same damage undead as normal (4d6 or as follows), and if the sun is visible then it does 50% additional damage. Fungi, Molds, Oozes and Smiles still take 1d6 per caster level up to 20d6 (only the normal +2 levels effective casting level if the sun is visible, and still has -1 casting level if the sun is not visible), and additionally so do any elemental beings from the planes of silt, rain and water. 8th, Still sunburst but does not additional damage to undead and effects silt/rain/water elemental beings as described in Sunbeam above.
If I help do you want to rework existing domains that are clearly tied to one element, ala getting rid of ice spells for water?
No, thank you. I think the domains are fine as they are.
If the name is actually Andropinis that is fine. That other name however would have to go. I really dont intend to have players get into direct battle with the sorcerer kings. They might however foil plans. I can't really do a "try to survive" with no plot type of story because most players I get would lose interest. I can do a story to save a village and present things as so bleak that the idea of saving the world is far from a rational thought, even for adventurers.
Some more feedback on classes (assume as described in the most upto date pdf, and if they are not listed then please consider my 'wish list')
Arcanist/Bloodrager/Sorcerer - I actually would suggest a few options: eliminate this class wholly; make it a flavor of defiler/preserver; make some specific types of sorcerers and make an option for psionic or magical sorcerers depending on the bloodline. For example Yaunti are canon, and always have a psionic version once monsters are revised for psionics. Clearly this is a pretty hard to implement solution, so I kinda side towards removing them completely, since sorcerers do not learn spells really like canon preservers/defilers.
Anti-paladin/Inquisitor/Paladin/Summoner - def would like an elemental flavored version of these classes
Brawler/Hunter/Investigator/Skald/Squashsmuggler/Slammer/Werepriest - seems fine
Monk/Ninja - needs psionics imo
Summoner - elemental version seems appropriate imo
Oracle/Witch - elemental version or preserver/defiler versions seem appropriate
Bard - great job
the races are a great, great improvement on said old version that i won't trash again.
I think sorcerers need to stay. I think most of us who run this already intend to make the game difficult. I don't see what removing sorcerers adds to the game.
I might actually get rid of paladins altogether. I don't really care if they are in the game or not. If I run it as "hope is lost" then they likely won't be.I might run inqusitors as templars with templars being a job instead of a class.
I would allow the ninja mechanics for my own game, but not the class name. I love ninjas(the trope, not the Pathfinder class) but I dont see them in dark sun.
From what I understand being a defiler is a choice not an actual class or archetype so I see no reason for any class to have a defiler version and a preserver version.
+1, I don't really mean like literally ninjas, but more like 'ki thieves.'
Oracle/Witch I think could both be appropriate for arcane or divine casters (read their class features more than the specific spell lists). I don't think spontaneous arcane casters are super problematic within DS, but there are just a few issues with their execution that one should be aware of.
I think sorcerers need to stay. I think most of us who run this already intend to make the game difficult. I don't see what removing sorcerers adds to the game.
I agree with this sentiment. Removing sorcerers from the game doesn't actually add anything.
I might actually get rid of paladins altogether. I don't really care if they are in the game or not. If I run it as "hope is lost" then they likely won't be.
A perfectly valid way to run the game. I do, however, want to make sure that they are included (as they can work in the setting) for players that would like to use them.
I might run inqusitors as templars with templars being a job instead of a class.
Technically, every class is a job. The game, as I am presenting it, assumes that inquisitors are, by default, templars. That doesn't necessarily mean that all inquisitors are evil, or serve evil masters... Just most of them.
I would allow the ninja mechanics for my own game, but not the class name. I love ninjas (the trope, not the Pathfinder class) but I dont see them in dark sun.
I was tempted to change the name, myself, but what to? Ultimately, it really just boils down to a name.
From what I understand being a defiler is a choice not an actual class or archetype so I see no reason for any class to have a defiler version and a preserver version.
In the original setting, defiler and preserver were classes, not choices. Second Edition Dungeons and Dragons had two primary arcane casting classes: the wizard and the illusionist. The illusionist was a catch-all for any specialised mage. If you wanted to play a necromancer, you specialised in necromancy and called yourself a necromancer instead of an illusionist. If you wanted to play an evoker, you specialised in evocation and called yourself an evoker.
In the version of Dark Sun that I am presenting, being a defiler (or remaining a preserver) is a choice in how you wish to utilise your magic as opposed to a class that you initiate into at level one.
I don't think spontaneous arcane casters are super problematic within DS, but there are just a few issues with their execution that one should be aware of.
These issues are...?
Thanks for the info. I thought templars were a class too, but if not then I might allow a templar to be any caster working for a sorcerer-king. That might be limited to divine casting once I learn more about the setting however.
Thanks for the info. I thought templars were a class too, but if not then I might allow a templar to be any caster working for a sorcerer-king. That might be limited to divine casting once I learn more about the setting however.
In second edition, templars were a class all by themselves. They had rights based upon their level within the city that were largely narrative in scope anyway. They were divine casters that gained their spells and authority directly from their specific sorcerer-king. In this conversion, templars work very well as divine casters that owe their powers to their sorcerer-king, and their skills and abilities fit very nicely into the inquisitor class. So, every inquisitor will be a templar in service to a sorcerer-king; most will serve the evil dragon-kings, though some may serve the lone avangion in the setting instead. Instead of being called inquisitors, though, they shall be called templars instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just for easy referencing and clarification...
Standard Second Edition D&D Classes: (9 classes)
- Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
- Illusionist (Specialist), Mage
- Cleric, Druid
- Bard, Thief
Second Edition Dark Sun Classes: (13 classes)
- Fighter, Gladiator, Ranger
- Defiler, Illusionist (Specialist; can progress as either a defiler or a preserver), Preserver
- Cleric, Druid, Templar
- Bard, Thief, Trader
- Psionicist
2015 Pathfinder/Dark Sun Conversion Classes: (39 classes)
- Antipaladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger
- Alchemist, Magus, Sorcerer, Summoner, Witch, Wizard
- Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Templar (Inquisitor)
- Bard, Ninja, Rogue
- Psion, Psychic Warrior, Wilder
- Kineticist, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Psychic, Spiritualist
- Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Investigator, Shaman, Skald, Slayer (though not named "Gladiator", it seems to be the best thematic fit), Swashbuckler, Warpriest
I like options. Most players like options, to the best of my knowledge. While I haven't provided every option available from Paizo and Dreamscarred Press classes (8 classes were left out; aegis, cryptic, dread, gunslinger, marksman, soulknife, tactician and vitalist) due to thematic clashing, I think I have done an adequate job of representing every class that doesn't clash with or cause major problems within the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These issues are...?
I kinda go into when I suggest pulling them.. but when 2e ds was created, sorcs were not a base class so all of the canon lore assuming the old 'vancian' style of casting. If Sorcs still derive their powers from their heritage, why do they need defiling at all? How is magic so rare and controlled if some have magical powers that naturally occur. Can a sorc evolve into a dragon?
Also many bloodlines aren't really appropriate for a few reasons: base monsters for the bloodline is poorly represented in DS (aberrant, abyssal and the list goes on and on); and a few monsters that are totally or strongly psionic instead of magical (yaunti, a lot of undead). So if you can get over these issues, you are still left with a shell of the class as described in PF core.
On its face there don't seem to any issues with it, but the more you dig into the details it becomes slightly problematic imo.
On the other hand, if noone picks a sorc you don't have to explain anything and the class is already designed so you don't lose much including it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda go into when I suggest pulling them.. but when 2e ds was created, sorcs were not a base class so all of the canon lore assuming the old 'vancian' style of casting.
If we go by this argument, we need to go back to the thirteen classes that were available for second edition Dark Sun and remove all others. That would leave us with the Fighter, the Slayer (as Gladiator), the Ranger, the Defiler Wizard, the Preserver Wizard, the Specialist Mage, the Cleric, the Druid, the Inquisitor (as Templar), the Bard, the Rogue (as Thief), the Trader (I'd have to come up with something for this), and the Psion (as Psionicist). This is undesirable for a variety of reasons, first and foremost that I do not wish to limit player choice. I find this point to be untenable.
If Sorcs still derive their powers from their heritage, why do they need defiling at all?
Simple. Their access to their powers manifests from their bloodline, but they still need to draw energy from the surrounding flora to power their spells. It's not dissimilar from cheetahs having four legs and a specific bone and muscular structure to enable them to run at speeds of up to 120km/hour, but they still need to eat in order to run. If you want a quick path to power and you don't care what that path does to the surrounding flora, you defile and call it a day.
How is magic so rare and controlled if some have magical powers that naturally occur.
This is another simple question to answer. Arcane casters are hunted, much like white tigers were. When you kill those that show evidence of arcane spellcasting ability, they become rare, and you control how openly they use their abilities (because they don't want to wind up dead). This works in the same way that hunters kill tigers that are white, and therefore, they become rare (they were, at one point, extinct). The ones that exist today exist because of genetic mutation, and are carefully monitored and controlled.
Can a sorc evolve into a dragon?
Yes, if they also master psionics.
Also many bloodlines aren't really appropriate for a few reasons: base monsters for the bloodline is poorly represented in DS (aberrant, abyssal and the list goes on and on); and a few monsters that are totally or strongly psionic instead of magical (yaunti, a lot of undead). So if you can get over these issues, you are still left with a shell of the class as described in PF core.
Some bloodlines are restricted for that very reason. That still leaves you with 52 remaining bloodline options that are valid, regardless of the rarity of their influence in the original setting.
On its face there don't seem to any issues with it, but the more you dig into the details it becomes slightly problematic imo.
I agree. It is slightly problematic, but those issues have already been resolved to my satisfaction, and to the apparent satisfaction of others.
On the other hand, if noone picks a sorc you don't have to explain anything and the class is already designed so you don't lose much including it.
I don't think that any further explanation is required. If there is celestial blood in your family line, then it may one day manifest within your character, while it may not have manifested in your character's parents. This isn't any different from the norm in standard Pathfinder.
If we go by this argument, we need to go back to the thirteen classes that were available for second edition Dark Sun and remove all others.
Not really. This is obv not the case since I see no problem with a lot of the pathfinder classes and think they should be included (as is or 'wish listed' like in the list above).
Simple. Their access to their powers manifests from their bloodline, but they still need to draw energy from the surrounding flora to power their spells.
Then why don't the source 'magical creature' defile when they use their spell like abilities? Why does the sorcerer evolve into a dragon when he is bloodlined as an undead or whatever.
For what it is worth, I wasn't really trying to convince anyone of anything just thought (and still do think) your project shows a lot of promise. Maybe my posts in this thread seem like a troll to you but honestly this forum has a lot of kiddiegloves just based on who plays pathfinder for the most part... and you are writing a conversion for a game that features slavery and cannibalism.
Still not trying to diss (you would know if I was), I am just an old jaded man. So I am sorry if my words seem/ed like an attack. I have tried to give you the '2e ds' perspective as someone who has tried to do a conversion like this before. It was wayyyy to much for me and I really don't have enough PF rules knowledge..
I sincerely hope you succeed where I have failed and that I will soon stand on your shoulders. So from here I'll thank you again and enjoy the rest from the sidelines. Best of luck.
They why don't the source 'magical creature' defile when they use their spell like abilities?
This is another easy question to answer. "Preserver" is the default setting for arcane casters in my conversion. The source "magical creatures" draw off of plant-energies just the same as arcane casters do in order to power their spells.
Why does the sorcerer evolve into a dragon when he is bloodlined as an undead or whatever.
There are a couple of possible reasons for this.
- They don't. Hamanu, for example, is evolving into some sort of leonine creature. Not every metamorphosis must be the same. This was explicitly mentioned in the last of the Prism Pentad novels.
- It is possible that the only known means of metamorphosis alters the sorcerer-king into a dragon. They're playing with forces that are beyond their bloodlines. After all, why does the spell dragonvoice give you the ability to imitate the vocal inflections of dragons? Because that's what the spell was meant to do. The bloodline of the sorcerer in question does not alter the nature of any other transmutational spells.
For what it is worth, I wasn't really trying to convince anyone of anything just thought (and still do think) your project shows a lot of promise. Maybe my posts in this thread seem like a troll to you but honestly this forum has a lot of kiddiegloves just based on who plays pathfinder for the most part... and you are writing a conversion for a game that features slavery and cannibalism.
I am aware that this setting features slavery and cannibalism. They are not the primary focus of the setting, though they are important elements within the setting. We're not debating those elements. We are discussing classes (sorcerers in particular). There's no reason that we can't have a rational intellectual discussion on that point while maintaining civility.
Having said that, I am not accusing you of trolling this thread.
Still not trying to diss (you would know if I was), I am just an old jaded man so sorry if my words seem/ed like an attack. I have tried to give you the '2e ds' perspective as someone who has tried to do a conversion like this before. It was wayyyy to much for me and I really don't have enough PF rules knowledge.. I sincerely hope you succeed where I have failed and that I will soon stand on your shoulders.
So from here I'll thank you again and enjoy the rest from the sidelines. Best of luck.
I know the second edition perspective, having played Dark Sun in second edition when it originally came out. Please do not assume that I am undertaking this conversion with no insight into how the Dark Sun setting originally functioned.
In the original setting, you had to travel to either an elemental plane or the astral plane to complete your metamorphosis into a dragon. This explicitly opened the door to both planar travel and outsiders (beings from those planes) being present upon Athas to spread their blood through the races.
Thanks for the well-wishes, though! I'm going to continue plugging away at it.
If we go by this argument, we need to go back to the thirteen classes that were available for second edition Dark Sun and remove all others.Not really. This is obv not the case since I see no problem with a lot of the pathfinder classes and think they should be included (as is or 'wish listed' like in the list above).
Simple. Their access to their powers manifests from their bloodline, but they still need to draw energy from the surrounding flora to power their spells.Then why don't the source 'magical creature' defile when they use their spell like abilities? Why does the sorcerer evolve into a dragon when he is bloodlined as an undead or whatever.
For what it is worth, I wasn't really trying to convince anyone of anything just thought (and still do think) your project shows a lot of promise. Maybe my posts in this thread seem like a troll to you but honestly this forum has a lot of kiddiegloves just based on who plays pathfinder for the most part... and you are writing a conversion for a game that features slavery and cannibalism.
Still not trying to diss (you would know if I was), I am just an old jaded man. So I am sorry if my words seem/ed like an attack. I have tried to give you the '2e ds' perspective as someone who has tried to do a conversion like this before. It was wayyyy to much for me and I really don't have enough PF rules knowledge..
I sincerely hope you succeed where I have failed and that I will soon stand on your shoulders. So from here I'll thank you again and enjoy the rest from the sidelines. Best of luck.
I think you are really trying to help, but a lot of the restriction seem like "just because" or "because 2nd edition DS". Now honestly sometimes "because 2nd edition DS" is a good reason, but only when it causes consistency issues with the setting. I don't see sorcerers causing a problem, just because they did not learn from a book. Due to the sorcerer-kings being called sorcerer kings, I can see a name in the class name if the GM want to avoid some confusion, but beyond that I don't see the restriction as being needed.
I have a good amount of rules knowledge so hopefully I can help handle any mechanical problems that come up.
I have been busy, but I plan to get back on our other(poison) issue soon enough. So far I have no issue to the flat bonuses given by the hyper poisons, and how they interact badly with the poison prices.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just popping in to say i thoroughly enjoy the work and collaboration going on, and look forward to using the material generated here to run a Dark Sun campaign in the future.
Hi Bodhizen. Fantastic work - I've only had time to check out the Races PDF so far - do you have one link for all the conversion material - trying to locate all the links in the thread is painful... ;)
* I pllayed Dark Sun from the original boxed set. Favorite DnD setting by a long margin.
Only ever read one novel abut a Templar who went to the cannibal Halfling Jungle or something. Not too bad.
* I was lucky enough to play in a PF PbP (along with Hayato Ken - hi Hayato!) with this alias/character - a Gulgite nganga/Templar and one time Gladiator [reskinned Inquisitor (Witch-Hunter)] / Gladiator [Fighter (Gladiator)].
An honored nganga of her people, Dai had been captured by Balican slavers and fought in the gladiatorial arenas - the Gladiator archetype's Performance Weaponry, Perform Skills and Piecemeal armor buffs (if you use Piecemeal armor rules) are a perfect fit for Gladiators in Dark Sun. I took Dazzling Display as one of my bonus feats...Nothing says doom like a Performance Gouge...
The Witch Hunter's anti-spell mechanics are a perfect fit for Templars.
* Check the Campaign Tab of the game in which Dai played, it might have some more resources for you.
* My favorite resource ever for Dark Sun was the Dragon Magazine issue in which the Gouge and some other weapons were first introduced - in my opinion the mechanics for some of these weapons were lost in later conversions. If you don't already have that Dragon issue I'll try to scare up the material...
* As for classes, I'm fine with almost any class for Athas - classes are after all, mechanical bundles that can be reskinned. Daishata was nominally a functionary of her "goddess" Lalai Puy (sp?) but time and distance did not prevent her from still gaining her "deific" spells... So, I guess I'm saying Paladins? Yes. Gunslingers? Hmm, maybe not, but perhaps a bio-version? Of futuristic planar-Gith? Sure. ;)
* The "new" approach to an Athas-esque world by the original author was, in my opinion, a complete creative failure. I backed it on Kickstarter. ) It had none of the mood, sweeping grandeur or dark noir of the original.
And lastly, continue to not get riled by "OMG brokenorzz" or "PF won't work for Dark Sun" or "that's not Dark Sunzzzz" posts in this thread - you seem to have the essence down pat for me...And PF is fine for Dark Sun, as all the players on Tabletop and PbP are proving every day...
- Oceanshieldwolf
Hi Bodhizen. Fantastic work - I've only had time to check out the Races PDF so far - do you have one link for all the conversion material - trying to locate all the links in the thread is painful... ;)
He has not released all of it yet. He only has the core classes and races released so far.
I have been busy, but I plan to get back on our other(poison) issue soon enough. So far I have no issue to the flat bonuses given by the hyper poisons, and how they interact badly with the poison prices.
So do you have a proposed resolution for the pricing? I'm willing to entertain it. I do want to note that I'm wary of increasing the prices because a) the wealth by level limits are going to be set lower than the norm for standard Pathfinder, and b) I don't want a class ability to specifically cost money.
Just popping in to say i thoroughly enjoy the work and collaboration going on, and look forward to using the material generated here to run a Dark Sun campaign in the future.
Thank you very much for your support.
Hi Bodhizen. Fantastic work - I've only had time to check out the Races PDF so far - do you have one link for all the conversion material - trying to locate all the links in the thread is painful... ;)
I kind of did that on purpose. I won't assemble the final .pdf file until it's ready to go. For now, it's piecemeal on purpose.
* I pllayed Dark Sun from the original boxed set. Favorite DnD setting by a long margin.
I was very fond of Dark Sun, myself.
Only ever read one novel abut a Templar who went to the cannibal Halfling Jungle or something. Not too bad.
That would have either been the first of the Prism Pentad novels when the gang goes out to the Halfling Forest to go see Nok to get the Heartwood Spear or it possibly was the third of the Prism Pentad novels where Nok came after Sadira to get his cane back. It's been a while since I read the novels, so I don't precisely recall.
* I was lucky enough to play in a PF PbP (along with Hayato Ken - hi Hayato!) with this alias/character - a Gulgite nganga/Templar and one time Gladiator [reskinned Inquisitor (Witch-Hunter)] / Gladiator [Fighter (Gladiator)].
An honored nganga of her people, Dai had been captured by Balican slavers and fought in the gladiatorial arenas - the Gladiator archetype's Performance Weaponry, Perform Skills and Piecemeal armor buffs (if you use Piecemeal armor rules) are a perfect fit for Gladiators in Dark Sun. I took Dazzling Display as one of my bonus feats...Nothing says doom like a Performance Gouge...
Sounds like a good time!
The Witch Hunter's anti-spell mechanics are a perfect fit for Templars.
Works really well, since Templars are reskinned Inquisitors. :)
* Check the Campaign Tab of the game in which Dai played, it might have some more resources for you.
I'll be sure to do so. Thank you.
* My favorite resource ever for Dark Sun was the Dragon Magazine issue in which the Gouge and some other weapons were first introduced - in my opinion the mechanics for some of these weapons were lost in later conversions. If you don't already have that Dragon issue I'll try to scare up the material...
Was that Dragon Magazine #185?
* As for classes, I'm fine with almost any class for Athas - classes are after all, mechanical bundles that can be reskinned. Daishata was nominally a functionary of her "goddess" Lalai Puy (sp?) but time and distance did not prevent her from still gaining her "deific" spells... So, I guess I'm saying Paladins? Yes. Gunslingers? Hmm, maybe not, but perhaps a bio-version? Of futuristic planar-Gith? Sure. ;)
I don't think that I'm willing to write a bio-gunslinger, and I'm not convinced that it would fit the setting anyway. I'm summoning to mind images of a dwarf holding up a mini-kank and squeezing its abdomen so that it projectile-poops, and that's just too ridiculous.
* The "new" approach to an Athas-esque world by the original author was, in my opinion, a complete creative failure. I backed it on Kickstarter. ) It had none of the mood, sweeping grandeur or dark noir of the original.
I wasn't particularly impressed, either.
And lastly, continue to not get riled by "OMG brokenorzz" or "PF won't work for Dark Sun" or "that's not Dark Sunzzzz" posts in this thread - you seem to have the essence down pat for me...And PF is fine for Dark Sun, as all the players on Tabletop and PbP are proving every day...
Thank you, kindly!
Out of curiosity, are you going to throw in some Athasian traits as well?
Sorry, I meant to say I have no solution for the issue with the flat DC's. I agree with you about not wanting to increase the price or make the class feature use gold to work, beyond the actual poison itself.
My suggestions are to let the hyperpoison set the new DC of the poison, not add to it. Right now we have been trying to stop them from being too good, but once we bring them in line with orginary DC's at level 7, we will have to keep them relevant at the higher levels. With the randomness between prices and DC's and the effect hyperpoisons have that is not going to work without completely rewriting the poison section or the hyperpoison ability. I really dont want to mess up poisons for every other class, unless you really think they need an overall.
The other idea is to not use hyperpoison, and find a way to keep poison relevant. Personally I prefer to keep the hyperpoison, even if we have to adjust it. I know you did not want scaling DC's, but nothing I come up with stops the poisons from failing with the flat DC method.
Out of curiosity, are you going to throw in some Athasian traits as well?
That wasn't on my radar, but it is now! Thank you!
Do you have any suggestions?
Sorry, I meant to say I have no solution for the issue with the flat DC's. I agree with you about not wanting to increase the price or make the class feature use gold to work, beyond the actual poison itself.
My suggestions are to let the hyperpoison set the new DC of the poison, not add to it. Right now we have been trying to stop them from being too good, but once we bring them in line with orginary DC's at level 7, we will have to keep them relevant at the higher levels. With the randomness between prices and DC's and the effect hyperpoisons have that is not going to work without completely rewriting the poison section or the hyperpoison ability. I really dont want to mess up poisons for every other class, unless you really think they need an overall.
The other idea is to not use hyperpoison, and find a way to keep poison relevant. Personally I prefer to keep the hyperpoison, even if we have to adjust it. I know you did not want scaling DC's, but nothing I come up with stops the poisons from failing with the flat DC method.
Can you show me an example of maybe two or three poisons that you'd do a scaling DC method on, just so that I make sure that I fully understand where you're going with this? I want to make sure poisons are relevant, but I don't want this to end up becoming an issue where hyperpoisons are always challenging to make, either.
I am saying the hyper poisons should have a scaling DC that replaces the poison DC if the poison DC is lower.
Out of curiosity, are you going to throw in some Athasian traits as well?That wasn't on my radar, but it is now! Thank you!
Do you have any suggestions?
Well, most traits give small skill bonuses as well as add a certain skill as a class skill. Though they're not limited to this.
Perhaps, for example, there could be an Athasian Gladiator trait that grants proficiency with 1 performance weapon of choice.
To be clear about my last post the hyperpoisons would use the 1/2 class level + 10 +cha modifier formula like every other special attack.
To be clear about my last post the hyperpoisons would use the 1/2 class level + 10 +cha modifier formula like every other special attack.
Here's what I do not like about this formula.
I want to put someone to sicken a target for 1 round. So... I add siltwater solution to black adder venom. At level 5, this is a DC 12 (we'll round down, with no Charisma modifier) hyperpoison to craft. At level 15, to accomplish the same effect, this is a DC 17 hyperpoison to create, although it's no better than it was at level 5. This is kind of silly, and I'm sure that it's not what you had intended.
But, I don't like the resistance formula more either for a couple of reasons. At level 5, the same black adder venom + siltwater solution to sicken your target is DC 14 to resist (without any Charisma modifier, but we'll call it a +3 modifier, so it's DC 17 to resist). So if you're more charismatic, your poisons are harder to resist, which doesn't make sense, but whatever... I get that it's Charisma based to not make the bard multiple-ability-dependent, or at least more so. At level 15, now it's DC 22 to resist (with the same Charisma modifier). It's easier to resist than purple worm poison, and that doesn't seem very hyper to me.
Plus, it would be the exact same to resist small centipede poison + heartleaf stalk, which has a significantly different effect. Even if you went with (10 + the bard's level + Charisma modifier), you'd be looking at DC 18 at 5th level (assuming a +3 Charisma modifier) and DC 28 at 15th. It's better, but so what? So they fail the save when you're at 15th level and a level 1 cleric suppresses your siltwater hyperpoison anyway, so that your target feels no effect via remove sickness. I've just now addressed this in the latest draft, because allowing that was just silly.
Ultimately, it's not a special attack. It's a special ability. It doesn't have an instantaneous duration, it's not delivered directly like a cleric's channel energy ability is, it doesn't necessarily work at range (unless you're coating an arrow with the hyperpoison or blowing an inhaled hyperpoison into an area), nor are its effects generally more effective the higher you go in level (with the notable exceptions being obsidian spores, disorientation dust and whispering wine).
I think constitution makes more sense but yeah I didn't want to make the bard MAD.
Another idea I have is to have the bard class apply a scaling bonus to poison DCs such as +1 every 3 levels. That is just an example not the exact advancement rate I am suggesting. I haven't run any numbers but I think the pricing is going to be an issue. If we do this then some hyper poisons will definitely get more use than others. In some way the class level will have to be tied to the saves. That keeps them on par with current enemies. That also means the poison saves are overwritten by the bard class features or the poison rules are rewritten to make the poison DC scale. But that might lead to an issue with money.
I will look at some 3pp rules to see if anyone has tried to do anything else with poisons.
You could avoid the whole DC issues if hyperpoisons just forced 2 saves and take the worse.
You could avoid the whole DC issues if hyperpoisons just forced 2 saves and take the worse.
Explain in detail how this is a solution to the problem we are having.
Is the problem not DCs? If not, then why is it mentioned in so many of the posts above mine? If not, explain in detail what your issue is without using the word DC.
Is the problem not DCs? If not, then why is it mentioned in so many of the posts above mine? If not, explain in detail what your issue is without using the word DC.
You still did not explain what you meant. Your answer will not solve the problems I listed. If so, then I don't see how.
I think constitution makes more sense but yeah I didn't want to make the bard MAD.
Another idea I have is to have the bard class apply a scaling bonus to poison DCs such as +1 every 3 levels. That is just an example not the exact advancement rate I am suggesting. I haven't run any numbers but I think the pricing is going to be an issue. If we do this then some hyper poisons will definitely get more use than others. In some way the class level will have to be tied to the saves. That keeps them on par with current enemies. That also means the poison saves are overwritten by the bard class features or the poison rules are rewritten to make the poison DC scale. But that might lead to an issue with money.
I will look at some 3pp rules to see if anyone has tried to do anything else with poisons.
I don't want the saves to be insurmountable, but I don't want them to be too easy, either. Are you suggesting that the bard class apply the scaling bonus on top of what's already there? If not, it may be way too easy. If so, then things might need to be readjusted, but that might also make things more complex, and I want to keep it simple (in as much as is possible).
Honestly, I don't think that pricing is going to be an issue. It's the base poison that's going to affect the price, not the hyperpoison. Hyperpoisons don't cost anything. If you're using siltwater solution, and you pair it with small centipede poison, it's going to cost you 90 ceramic pieces to produce a single dose. If you pair siltwater solution with tears of death, it's still going to cost you 6,500 ceramic pieces to produce a single dose. What's the difference? The base effect of the poison. Please do not forget that hyperpoison effects don't override the effect of the base poison, they're added to it.
So, if you want to cause 1 point of Dexterity damage plus add sickness on top of that, you go for the 90 ceramic piece poison and rub it all over your dagger. If you want to cause 1d6 Constitution damage and paralyse your opponent for one minute, plus add in sickness, then you go with the 6,500 ceramic piece poison and rub some on a piece of paper, then leave it for your victim to touch later. Of course, you probably wouldn't want siltwater solution for that purpose, but that's neither here nor there.
Additionally, without any changes (yet), the DC to resist Siltwater Solution + Small Centipede Poison is 18, and the DC to resist Siltwater Solution + Tears of Death is 29. Siltwater Solution is a comparatively weak hyperpoison compared to something like Poisonweed Pollen, but the great reason to pair Siltwater Solution with a base poison like Tears of Death is that instead of waiting for it to take one minute to take effect, it takes effect instantaneously upon contact.
This system currently encourages you to use more expensive poisons to boost the DC to save (and to use more deadly effects for the base poison) at higher levels. While that does encourage the bard to spend some of their accumulated wealth on poisons, the wealth by level somewhat keeps a lid on this, since they can't crank out hypertoxin after hypertoxin with expensive base poisons. However, I can see that character level probably needs some inclusion somewhere, as you may end up only using your hypertoxins once or twice a campaign because they're just not keeping up in effectiveness. I still want Siltwater Solution to be a useful thing at 16th level.
So... I'm going to fiddle around with this a bit.
I don't want the saves to be insurmountable, but I don't want them to be too easy, either. Are you suggesting that the bard class apply the scaling bonus on top of what's already there? If not, it may be way too easy. If so, then things might need to be readjusted, but that might also make things more complex, and I want to keep it simple (in as much as is possible).
What do you mean by on of what is already there?
Just to be clear I am saying we ditch the flat bonuses from the hyper poisons, and make it scale in some fashion. I know you don't like the normal formula for determining saves in this case, but we need something that scales with level.
Honestly, I don't think that pricing is going to be an issue.
The pricing has already proven to be an issue because the base poison has erratic pricing when compared to the save DC they come with.
You might be reading more into what I am saying, than what I am saying. I have never added a price to any base poison.
When you craft poison it is at 1/3 the normal price. You don't pay full price when crafting unless you are saying that when adding hyperpoisons you have to pay the full price.
As currently written the hyperpoison were too good last time around. I have not forgotten how they work. Them adding to the effect is part of the problem, not a solution.
My last few post have used that in my writeups.
It's the base poison that's going to affect the price, not the hyperpoison. Hyperpoisons don't cost anything. If you're using siltwater solution, and you pair it with small centipede poison, it's going to cost you 90 ceramic pieces to produce a single dose. If you pair siltwater solution with tears of death, it's still going to cost you 6,500 ceramic pieces to produce a single dose. What's the difference? The base effect of the poison. Please do not forget that hyperpoison effects don't override the effect of the base poison, they're added to it.
This system currently encourages you to use more expensive poisons to boost the DC to save (and to use more deadly effects for the base poison) at higher levels.
What system? In the core book poison price and DC don't scale together well. Some of the cheaper ones have a higher DC.
Just to be clear I have been using the cheaper ones with higher DC's to get saves that are high for the character level. Also by only applying one feat(skill focus) to the poison crafting I had save DC's that CR 13 and higher monsters might struggle to deal with, and the bard was only around level 7 or 8.
On the other hand if we need to make sure the poisons(with hyperpoisons) are still useful at higher levels.
What do you mean by on of what is already there?
The intention of what I have presented is that the hyperpoison adds to the DC of the base poison. My apologies if I implied that you didn't grok this. That was not my intention.
Just to be clear I am saying we ditch the flat bonuses from the hyper poisons, and make it scale in some fashion. I know you don't like the normal formula for determining saves in this case, but we need something that scales with level.
I am seeing the wisdom in this. I've done a little work this evening to reflect this.
The pricing has already proven to be an issue because the base poison has erratic pricing when compared to the save DC they come with.
Unfortunately, unless I rewrite the entire poison system, which I'm not willing to do, this isn't going to be an issue that we're going to resolve. Ultimately, I don't feel that it's as critical as you seem to feel it is.
You might be reading more into what I am saying, than what I am saying. I have never added a price to any base poison.
Possibly so.
When you craft poison it is at 1/3 the normal price. You don't pay full price when crafting unless you are saying that when adding hyperpoisons you have to pay the full price.
No, I just was posting quickly and didn't pay attention. I'm not changing the rules there.
As currently written the hyperpoison were too good last time around. I have not forgotten how they work. Them adding to the effect is part of the problem, not a solution.
The whole point is to gain effects on top of the base poison, not just to alter their onset/frequency/DCs. It's a lot more limited than spellcasting, and it costs ceramic on top of that, so it should be worthwhile, but not game-breaking.
What system? In the core book poison price and DC don't scale together well. Some of the cheaper ones have a higher DC.
I realise this. The DC should not necessarily be tied to the price, but there should be some tiered pricing. Regardless, my intention is not to "fix Pathfinder", just to convert the Athasian setting into something usable with Pathfinder.
Just to be clear I have been using the cheaper ones with higher DC's to get saves that are high for the character level. Also by only applying one feat(skill focus) to the poison crafting I had save DC's that CR 13 and higher monsters might struggle to deal with, and the bard was only around level 7 or 8.
So that's definitely worth adjusting. How much of a discrepancy was there?
On the other hand if we need to make sure the poisons(with hyperpoisons) are still useful at higher levels.
Oh, absolutely.
I appreciate your assistance.
I am not keen on rewriting the entire poison system either. What I am going to do in my own games is to open up poison usage to all of the poisons in the game, not just the CRB ones.
I might also allow the bard the ability to change the stat modifier a base poison affects. That will also help with the versatility of what he wants to do with a poison. The reason for this is because eventually some base poisons will become obsolete, and we can use similar poisons that are still useful.
Example:
Imaginary poison X does 1d4 dexterity damage with a DC of 23
I might want to do strength damage, but the closest strength damaging poison might only go up to a DC of 15. This allows for me to do strength damage that actually has a chance to take affect.
I know constitution is more dangerous than other types of ability damage so I will have to account for that in some way.
I have an ideal in mind for how to work this out. I just have to put it on paper.
In the end it should still work with the hyperpoison system.
PS: If I missed any questions you wanted answered, let me know. :)
I am not keen on rewriting the entire poison system either. What I am going to do in my own games is to open up poison usage to all of the poisons in the game, not just the CRB ones.
There's nothing preventing a player from using third-party poisons. :)
I might also allow the bard the ability to change the stat modifier a base poison affects. That will also help with the versatility of what he wants to do with a poison. The reason for this is because eventually some base poisons will become obsolete, and we can use similar poisons that are still useful.
Example:
Imaginary poison X does 1d4 dexterity damage with a DC of 23
I might want to do strength damage, but the closest strength damaging poison might only go up to a DC of 15. This allows for me to do strength damage that actually has a chance to take affect.
I know constitution is more dangerous than other types of ability damage so I will have to account for that in some way.I have an ideal in mind for how to work this out. I just have to put it on paper.
In the end it should still work with the hyperpoison system.
I'm eager to see what you come up with.
PS: If I missed any questions you wanted answered, let me know. :)
Ummm... I can't think of anything at the moment... But, you might want to review the few new hypertoxins and hypertoxin rules that I added.
This has been written and edited as a stream of consciousness as I’ve read through the last month of posts. I trimmed it into spoilers as it got a bit long for a normal post.
It does seem to be lacking Poison Use as a class skill. That seems essential for any kind of poisoner. I understand that they have abilities that let them use poisons, but they are at risk of poisoning themselves whenever making poisons, unlike an Alchemist or a Ninja (or other classes with this class ability). Currently, if the bard rolls on his craft check, and rolls a 1, he is poisoned by his own hyperpoison.
Perhaps to tie in what Hayato Ken said back on page 2: Give them Bardic Talents every other level. Allow them to take Rogue Talents (Any not related to Sneak Attack actually seems more fitting here) and maybe even some of the poison based Alchemist discoveries (Like those listed as “Poison Discoveries” here)
When looking at the scaling DCs of the poisons, what if you had a static modifier or ”poison level” foe each Hyperpoison? The formula for the newly modified poison could be [base poison] + [“Poison Level”] + CHA. I like using the base poison better than a static 10 as it makes the base poison matter. That said, I think Bards should have regular access to a base poison with a DC of 10 to make their concoctions with for no cost (thus making the Bard’s core mechanic not cost them out of pocket every single time).
I do think that they’ve come a long way from the original post.
With the most recent update, the above may be irrelevant.
I might also add a clause in the Athasian bard that they can use their charisma in place of their Intelligence when Prestige Classing into Assassin. Or, if allowing them to take some rogue talents, include the assassinate trick from the ninja’s advanced tricks. Seems up their alley.
Connected I’d like to see this progress like a rangers Favored Terrain (new city every few levels) or maybe the Famous ability of the Celebrity Bard? More the former than the latter.
While it’d make the task harder, I feel like the bard should receive more in this trade.
I’m excited to see how your take on the Athasian Bard turns out. I’ve been a fan of some of your other works.
The Fire Cleric gets every heavy and light blade (They can all be made of obsidian) or any polearm with a metal head?
If that’s the direction you’re wanting to go, cool beans, just making sure someone said it out loud.
I feel like Variant Channeling might be a better route to go for these clerics than Elemental channel. It’s less potent healing / harming power. And it’s actually effective far more often.
I really like the added familiars for these folks. Really fits the concept.
Disregard. You said brawler later. In that case, I approve of this decision.
Best of luck in all of this.
This has been written and edited as a stream of consciousness as I’ve read through the last month of posts. I trimmed it into spoilers as it got a bit long for a normal post.
It does seem to be lacking Poison Use as a class skill.
What do you mean by "lacking Poison Use as a class skill"?
Poison is not a skill like acrobatics or spellcraft is anywhere in the game.
I do like the idea behind this, but I don’t know that it’s strong enough to replace spellcasting entirely.
It does seem to be lacking Poison Use as a class skill. That seems essential for any kind of poisoner. I understand that they have abilities that let them use poisons, but they are at risk of poisoning themselves whenever making poisons, unlike an Alchemist or a Ninja (or other classes with this class ability). Currently, if the bard rolls on his craft check, and rolls a 1, he is poisoned by his own hyperpoison.
First off, thank you for contributing to the discussion.
Athasian bards, once they hit 3rd level, never risk poisoning themselves accidentally. Is that not comprehensive enough to cover crafting poisons or applying poison to a weapon?
Perhaps to tie in what Hayato Ken said back on page 2: Give them Bardic Talents every other level. Allow them to take Rogue Talents (Any not related to Sneak Attack actually seems more fitting here) and maybe even some of the poison based Alchemist discoveries (Like those listed as “Poison Discoveries” here)
Thank you for the suggestion, but that's not the route that I'm going. I do not wish to cobble together bits and pieces from rogue and alchemist and call it a bard.
When looking at the scaling DCs of the poisons, what if you had a static modifier or ”poison level” foe each Hyperpoison? The formula for the newly modified poison could be [base poison] + [“Poison Level”] + CHA. I like using the base poison better than a static 10 as it makes the base poison matter. That said, I think Bards should have regular access to a base poison with a DC of 10 to make their concoctions with for no cost (thus making the Bard’s core mechanic not cost them out of pocket every single time).
The current formula for hyperpoisons is: Fort Save = DC (base poison's Fort Save DC + bard's level). So, a 10th level Athasian bard using small centipede poisons plus any hyperpoison will have DC 21 to resist the poison. The same bard, of the same level, using oil of taggit will have DC 25 to resist the poison. There really isn't any need for "poison levels".
Also, I am quasi-uncomfortable with giving bards a base 10 poison that they can craft for free, because that would give them unlimited or regular use of a DC 30 hyperpoison at 20th level. They'd be able to coup de grace low-level characters like a school of piranha on a drowning boar. While I understand that this places the bard's poison ability into the category of, "it costs you money every time you make it", no bard should be able to wipe out an mid-sized or better army of low-level soldiers by poisoning their water with a large cask of Generic Brand X Poison™ plus Obsidian Spores.
I do think that they’ve come a long way from the original post.
Thank you kindly.
With the most recent update, the above may be irrelevant.
I might also add a clause in the Athasian bard that they can use their charisma in place of their Intelligence when Prestige Classing into Assassin. Or, if allowing them to take some rogue talents, include the assassinate trick from the ninja’s advanced tricks. Seems up their alley.
I do not wish to overcomplicate (or bloat) the bard or step on too many other classes' toes.
Connected I’d like to see this progress like a rangers Favored Terrain (new city every few levels) or maybe the Famous ability of the Celebrity Bard? More the former than the latter.
If there were dozens or hundreds of city-states, I'd be all for it, but we're talking single digits here. Plus, gaining a bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Knowledge (local) checks versus tens of thousands of people from your city-state is pretty hefty. If your entire party is from Gulg, and that's your chosen city-state, you gain those bonuses with every member of your party.
While it’d make the task harder, I feel like the bard should receive more in this trade.
Such as...?
I’m excited to see how your take on the Athasian Bard turns out. I’ve been a fan of some of your other works.
Thank you kindly, good sir.
It seems like clerics get every weapon (or just about every weapon) as a favored weapon. This seems a bit broader than what clerics usually get. The water cleric can treat that catapult as a favored weapon because it’s made of wood? Or an Orc Skull Ram?
The Fire Cleric gets every heavy and light blade (They can all be made of obsidian) or any polearm with a metal head?If that’s the direction you’re wanting to go, cool beans, just making sure someone said it out loud.
It remains true to the source material. Athasian clerics are handicapped in other ways, particularly since most of the elemental domains are not very good.
I feel like Variant Channeling might be a better route to go for these clerics than Elemental channel. It’s less potent healing / harming power. And it’s actually effective far more often.
I thought I had addressed that before, but I have now addressed it in the .pdf. They're actually going to have the option to use both Variant Channeling or Elemental Channel, but they're not able to channel energy in any other way.
I really like the added familiars for these folks. Really fits the concept.
I agree, and it remains true to the source material.
Most of these look awesome. I like the change to the Paladin’s Divine Bond, though I wish I could have me a Mekillot.
A mekillot would just be overkill, I think.
I’d toss out that a spellcaster, even a prepared caster, should be able to add Metamagic that they know to a spell they have prepared when using defiling. It makes it more tempting if you’re losing the fight and could choose to maximize that fireball or make that hold monster a persistent, piercing spell.
You can already read that into the text. Defiling allows you to apply one or more metamagics to your spellcasting. It does not say that the metamagics must be prepared, does it?
I feel like Brawler might actually be the best bet for the gladiator. They pick up a Nodachi, an Orc Skull Ram, a Monk spade, whatever. They swing it around for a few seconds [Standard action for Martial Flexibility] and wham! they’re proficient for as long as they really need to be.
Disregard. You said brawler later. In that case, I approve of this decision.
I don't know why my brain keeps reverting to Slayer in this sometimes, but Brawler is definitely the way to go for a Gladiator.
Best of luck in all of this.
Thank you kindly.
Perhaps you could include a "Gladiator Champion" Brawler archetype that focuses on using performance weapons, including getting the scaling damage dice.
To further integrate this theme, you could class all the arena weapons in Dark Sun (dragon paw, lotulis, singing sticks, the lot) as performance weapons.
What do you mean by "lacking Poison Use as a class skill"?
Poison is not a skill like acrobatics or spellcraft is anywhere in the game.
Poison Use is a class ability granted to the alchemist, Ninja and a fistful of archetypes that lets them not poison themselves when they roll a natural 1 on the check to create a poison. I’d think that natural 1 penalty would prevent someone from taking 10 on crafting their poisons, though I might be mistaken. 5% chance of possible death seems stressful to me.
Poison Use (Ex): Alchemists are trained in the use of poison and starting at 2nd level, cannot accidentally poison themselves when applying poison to a weapon.
There are feats and items that augment this ability so it might be worth while using it as named instead of putting it’s mechanics in without naming it specifically.
While it’d make the task harder, I feel like the bard should receive more in this trade.Such as...?
Mostly what I’d suggested above. Adding some kind of talents or discoveries. A bard is half spellcaster half everything else. These guys replace spellcasting with a class ability they have to spend WBL to use.
It seems like the flat modifier to the hyperpoisons will lead to fairly linear saves. Bards will sort out which poison has the best GP/DC ratio and use that exclusively. I haven’t looked at the numbers, but it’ll wind up being something like “That’s Giant Wasp Poison plus Blossomkiller, DC 30 or be paralyzed”
“That’s Giant Wasp Poison plus Whispering Wine, DC 30 or be Charmed”
“That’s Giant Wasp Poison plus Heartleaf Stalk, DC 30 or be Dazed”
etc.
Every effect will have the same DC. That’s mostly why I suggested the Poison Level or something similar. Like what you had initially with the static modifiers per Poison.
Most of these look awesome. I like the change to the Paladin’s Divine Bond, though I wish I could have me a Mekillot.A mekillot would just be overkill, I think.
I should have noted I was kidding there… Mekillot might be overkill.
You can already read that into the text. Defiling allows you to apply one or more metamagics to your spellcasting. It does not say that the metamagics must be prepared, does it?
It doesn’t say that they don’t either. I’d assume, as a player and as a GM that if a new rule doesn’t say it’s an exception to the rule, then it isn’t.
I somehow missed that the other classes were up. I’ll dive into them asap. Hopefully I’m being helpful instead of a pain in the tail.
Great work so far.
I know what poison use it. I thought you had gotten some terms from various editions mixed up because of how it was written the first time.
I think poison use would be better also, but he effectively gets it at level 3 and in Dark Sun the idea is to start at level 3 so its not a big deal.
However I would just give it at level 1, if I were to start the characters at level 1.
Poison Use is a class ability granted to the alchemist, Ninja and a fistful of archetypes that lets them not poison themselves when they roll a natural 1 on the check to create a poison. I’d think that natural 1 penalty would prevent someone from taking 10 on crafting their poisons, though I might be mistaken. 5% chance of possible death seems stressful to me.
Is the statement that the bard cannot accidentally poison themselves ambiguous? I believe that rolling a 1 on a Craft (Alchemy) or when applying poison to a weapon qualifies as accidental exposure, correct?
Mostly what I’d suggested above. Adding some kind of talents or discoveries. A bard is half spellcaster half everything else. These guys replace spellcasting with a class ability they have to spend WBL to use.
No talents, no discoveries. The Athasian bard is not a hybrid rogue/alchemist. It's unnecessary to get the intended poison use feature to work, it's clunky (given everything they'd have to be forbidden access to), and the bard is getting a small suite of abilities in place of the spellcasting. Balancing against spellcasting is always a subject of hot debate, simply because spellcasting is so versatile. I get that it's a loss to the bard, and I hope that the hyperpoisons are at least valuable enough that they are worth having to offset the loss of spellcasting. It fits the original theme and setting to a tee.
It seems like the flat modifier to the hyperpoisons will lead to fairly linear saves. Bards will sort out which poison has the best GP/DC ratio and use that exclusively. I haven’t looked at the numbers, but it’ll wind up being something like “That’s Giant Wasp Poison plus Blossomkiller, DC 30 or be paralyzed”
“That’s Giant Wasp Poison plus Whispering Wine, DC 30 or be Charmed”
“That’s Giant Wasp Poison plus Heartleaf Stalk, DC 30 or be Dazed”
etc.Every effect will have the same DC. That’s mostly why I suggested the Poison Level or something similar. Like what you had initially with the static modifiers per Poison.
You're going to get that, no matter what you do. This is not a problem, because different base poisons do different things, so utility will be a feature, as will cost.
I should have noted I was kidding there… Mekillot might be overkill
Sorry. I was going along with the joke. Bloody lack of emoticons.
It doesn’t say that they don’t either. I’d assume, as a player and as a GM that if a new rule doesn’t say it’s an exception to the rule, then it isn’t.
Honestly, if wizard defilers have to prepare their metamagic in advance, this doesn't break anything. They just know in advance that they're going to defile. I'm fine with "applying metamagic" happening at the time of preparation or at the time of casting. In fact, thematically, this might work out better, since the vitriol is directed mostly at sorcerers, and all other arcane casters catch hell in a guilt by association model.
I somehow missed that the other classes were up. I’ll dive into them asap. Hopefully I’m being helpful instead of a pain in the tail.
You are, thank you!
The threat of bad things happening on a failure does not prevent taking 10. Otherwise swimming, climbing, and disable device for traps would not allow taking 10.
I’ve never wanted to play a witch before, you’ve changed that.
Do Warpriests replace the Blessings class feature with a domain, or do they use those blessings and those blessings only?
I won’t gush quite so much here quite as much as base classes. I think that all came from reading about Witches last.
Is the statement that the bard cannot accidentally poison themselves ambiguous? I believe that rolling a 1 on a Craft (Alchemy) or when applying poison to a weapon qualifies as accidental exposure, correct?
That wording is not ambiguous. It is not as helpful to the bard as saying “At third level the Bard gains the Poison Use class ability.” Paizo supports poison based characters by releasing feats, Magic Items and Prestige Classes that require the “Poison Use” ability. Or that augment it. Or that penalize characters without it. Why not name it if it does exactly what you want anyway?
No talents, no discoveries.
I understand. I was just letting you know what my “Such as” was. I’d named it before the statement you’d quoted.
Honestly, if wizard defilers have to prepare their metamagic in advance, this doesn't break anything.
It removes the temptation always being there. If it can be applied spontaneously, it makes it an ever present temptation. You might find the proud preserver in the middle of a fight, watching his friends die, wishing he could maximize that fireball. Or make that Hold Person a persistent spell.
A preserver will never defile anything if there’s no temptation to do so. I prepared my spells last night when I was nice and comfy in the inn as opposed to being ambushed by some Templar.
There should always be that smidgen of temptation to draw just a bit more life from the area if your life or the lives of your friends are at risk. The path of the preserver is supposed to be a trial, right? Its supposed to be something you struggle through. If a Wizard preserver can literally never defile without deciding to do so the night before, it's not really a temptation for anyone other than a spontaneous caster.
I love everything in here. I have no constructive or destructive criticisms here. This write up is beautiful.
I’ve never wanted to play a witch before, you’ve changed that.
Thank you very much. I thought that witches were just different enough that this should work out beautifully.
Bloodrager has the word “Arcanist” in it’s class skill description.
That's what I get for copy-pasting. Thanks for the catch!
Do Warpriests replace the Blessings class feature with a domain, or do they use those blessings and those blessings only?
Warpriests choose two blessings. One of the two must come from the list: Air, Earth, Fire, Sun or Water. The other can be any blessing they so desire.
I won’t gush quite so much here quite as much as base classes. I think that all came from reading about Witches last.
I appreciate the words of support and praise.
That wording is not ambiguous. It is not as helpful to the bard as saying “At third level the Bard gains the Poison Use class ability.” Paizo supports poison based characters by releasing feats, Magic Items and Prestige Classes that require the “Poison Use” ability. Or that augment it. Or that penalize characters without it. Why not name it if it does exactly what you want anyway?
The way that poison use is written and applied is cyclical. Poison use doesn't reference Craft (Alchemy) checks, only when applying poison to a weapon, but crafting poisons references the Poison Use class feature. It's silly, but I suppose it doesn't harm anything to give them the Poison Use class feature.
It removes the temptation always being there. If it can be applied spontaneously, it makes it an ever present temptation. You might find the proud preserver in the middle of a fight, watching his friends die, wishing he could maximize that fireball. Or make that Hold Person a persistent spell.
A preserver will never defile anything if there’s no temptation to do so. I prepared my spells last night when I was nice and comfy in the inn as opposed to being ambushed by some Templar.
There should always be that smidgen of temptation to draw just a bit more life from the area if your life or the lives of your friends are at risk. The path of the preserver is supposed to be a trial, right? Its supposed to be something you struggle through. If a Wizard preserver can literally never defile without deciding to do so the night before, it's not really a temptation for anyone other than a spontaneous caster.
I've subtly revised the sidebar to be more explicit.
Bodhizen, I just wanted to thank you for all this effort. Dark Sun is one of my favorite settings TSR ever produced; after someone mentioned it to me recently I really wanted to run it in Pathfinder. You have saved me so much work, not to mention given me many ideas with your interpretations.
Now for some questions. The original setting had no potions as they existed in other settings; instead they made use of potion fruit. Based on your Alchemist write up it seems you've decided to ignore this quirk. Was that intentional?
While I generally like how you've described defiling; I have three comments. In addition to affecting the plant life, defiling affected those (friend or foe) caught with-in the defiling radius; it reduced their initiative. Had you thought of adding in some affect to replicate this?
Secondly, in the lore defiling is generally depicted as something once you start doing you can't stop. With the rules you've set up, even the Dragon could cast a spell without defiling. Had you considered inflicting some inertia type penalty on defilers? I.e. the more defiler points they have the more difficult it is not to defile out of habit even when not intending to? Perhaps make it a Will save with the DC based on number of Defiler Points and the level of the spell reduced by the Caster Level (higher level means more control)? Having said that, I'd also give them the option of taking an extra action to ground themselves to guarantee they don't defile (say a move action).
And lastly, how do you envision your version of defiling interacting with Trees of Life? No plant life destruction is the obvious one; but does the potential defiler accrue points when they offset the defiling to a Tree?
Again, thanks for all the hard work!