| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they haven't gotten there yet? Also, this has nothing to do with rules.
Do you realize how difficult balancing such a thing would be ?
Why would Paizo put its own authors out of business ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you realize how difficult balancing such a thing would be ?
Why would Paizo put its own authors out of business ?
Well, a good argument can be had that they already risk that by working with the OGL. They did it to Wizards. ;) Kinda, anyway... with respect to 3.5, that is.
Why would they ever bother? It boggles the mind how incredibly broad a system like that would need to be to be comprehensive, and if it's not as comprehensive than it's not really useful.
Why would they ever bother? It boggles the mind how incredibly broad a system like that would need to be to be comprehensive, and if it's not as comprehensive than it's not really useful.
This.
Either it would be to complicated and impossible to balance... Or it would be useless.
|
I would never use any of those systems. I don't use any of the existing, like the race or weapon creation systems either. Because they honestly suck. I think i tried making a scimitar with the weapon creation rules, and it didn't work, wasn't allowed because it would supposedly be too powerful.
So, why should I use those systems when they're obviously not meant for this game? I have a far better understanding of the game's balance than those systems. And I also have a better understanding of my table's balance than any developer will ever have.
So if I want to make stuff for my own game, I do it myself.
Just how powerful was your scimitar?
|
|
I would never use any of those systems. I don't use any of the existing, like the race or weapon creation systems either. Because they honestly suck. I think i tried making a scimitar with the weapon creation rules, and it didn't work, wasn't allowed because it would supposedly be too powerful.
So, why should I use those systems when they're obviously not meant for this game? I have a far better understanding of the game's balance than those systems. And I also have a better understanding of my table's balance than any developer will ever have.
So if I want to make stuff for my own game, I do it myself.
Just how powerful was your scimitar? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why do you keep trying to ask for this?
It can only ever be done poorly.
Well, I just like the idea more than anything else. Not trying to be a troll on the messageboards.why do you keep trying to ask for this?
It can only ever be done poorly.
These are "those things" that you are better off looking at/playing other systems if they are important to you.
|
|
I would honestly be discourage from buying books if they made more of these pointless systems. Because the s*!#ty systems are just full of loop-holes (enough so that players shouldn't be allowed to run free with them) and limits (enough so that it's useless for DMs).
I much prefer the heavier guides they provide, such as the monster creation chapter from Unchained or the designing classes chapter in the ACG. Because these chapters actually handle the design process to bring your class/monster in-line with the Pathfinder system.
That's more in line with what I was hoping for: more like a suggestion book than a hardcore, strict, restraining rules compendium.
|
In fairness, there are item creation rules. XD
Weapon creation rules don't exist in an official capacity, but there are some third-party supplements that do it pretty well. Do armor too, I think. If you're not playing PFS, look 'em over. If what you want is in line with existing items, it'll probably be fine.
Feats and such are... too situational. I mean, some are fairly obvious, like Extra X, but Pathfinder is fundamentally a storytelling system, and trying to limit stuff to a pre-built system likely wouldn't work very well. Same for special abilities.
Emphasis in bold, even if such a system was created, it wouldn't be allowed in PFS.
At first I thought that the 'Improved Critical Threat Range' weapon quality costed 7 for picking it two times in total.
I think this is the intended mechanic, despite the wording. Because then scimitar works just fine. The same applies to scythe.
Note that the system also properly covers a dagger (with its many little bonuses), a falcata (with its crit potential) and a sansetsukon (with good damage and three special abilities, assuming just 4 points for the latter). While it can't reproduce all weapons from Ultimate Equipment, it looks they did put quite some effort into it - it would be surprising if they messed up at crits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was hoping for a random generation system. First the use or uses for an object. Material(s) it's made of. Then special qualities(alive, sentient, magic item, made in another plane, ect.) Thoes tables might best be presented in the homebrew forum.
Metal food would obviously be for your pet rust monster.
As it stands, just come up with an idea and choose balanced stats.
What, with our imaginations?! What are we, old farts who don't understand the crucial >sexiness of stats and points and charts and math!?<
fixed
You mean like Champions or GURPs?
No, as written, it does not work like that.
That's why I wrote 'despite the wording'. I'd rather go by supposed intent and Improved Damage is actually an argument for it: It offers +1 average damage for 1 point, in most cases - so it's a linear progression. Now upgrading from 20/x2 to 19-20/x2 and from 19-20/x2 to 18-20/x2 has pretty much the same effect on DPR - hence the costs should be roughly the same. Why should they apply different standards here?
Mark Seifter might have some clarifying words about it.
So is brass -1 to damage like silver? Half the hardness and hit points?
You can see how this belongs in homebrew.
What material is the OP thinking about?