[Drop Dead Studios] Spheres of Combat Kickstarter


Product Discussion

451 to 500 of 795 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

I regret to inform that I have pulled my pledge.

This isn't because I think Spheres of Might is necessarily bad. I'm just not sure if it's worth backing when I'm starting to question if its design decisions are what I want out of a combat system. Plus other kickstarter issues like paying money for a book that's going to take months to come out when I could just wait till it does.

I still hope the project goes well.

Would you mind if I ask which design decisions are off-putting to you?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Rednal wrote:
Hmm... do we have, like, a 5th-level character sample or two yet we could show off, to explain how the system works as characters grow?

Probably...? I know I have some 5th level characters from playtests, but I'm not sure how much overlap they have with materials we've made public so far. Let me look into a few things and see if we can swing something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

I regret to inform that I have pulled my pledge.

This isn't because I think Spheres of Might is necessarily bad. I'm just not sure if it's worth backing when I'm starting to question if its design decisions are what I want out of a combat system. Plus other kickstarter issues like paying money for a book that's going to take months to come out when I could just wait till it does.

I still hope the project goes well.

Would you mind if I ask which design decisions are off-putting to you?

I don't mind:

* Athletics Sphere base packages being "worse" than picking up the TK magic sphere and its flying talent.
* Basing so many things around needing to expend martial focus when it takes a full-round action to charge up at default.

The thing is I'm not finding SoM very exciting: the spheres/talents ultimately feel kind of limited next to Spheres of Power. That kind of makes sense, as SoM is designed to do stuff for one aspect of the game, whereas Spheres of Power can do lots of different things.

Ultimately I think I don't mind Pathfinder physical combat being a boring series of whacking people with pointy sticks or skills just being basic die + adds, insofar as I figure those aspects of the game are something I don't care to engage in anyway. So I'm not really interested in putting money down right now for a system which I may decide later only adds to a part of the game which I ultimately don't care about.

Tl;dr: I think I'd actually rather simplify the non-magic aspects of the game than expand them.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

In other news it appears that some people have adopted "spheremighter" as the fan term for those that use this system.

I'd like to informally vote against that name as I think it sounds clunky.

Instead I'd propose "spherefighter": I find the "f" flows better.

I personally prefer "spheremartial"


Grovestrider wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

In other news it appears that some people have adopted "spheremighter" as the fan term for those that use this system.

I'd like to informally vote against that name as I think it sounds clunky.

Instead I'd propose "spherefighter": I find the "f" flows better.

I personally prefer "spheremartial"

That's not too bad. Still doesn't roll off the tongue quite like "spherefighter".


The Paragon feels like it should be any good, not anything but true neutral. While evil characters can be guardians, they are unlikely to focus only on those who can't protect themselves. Nor would I think they have much compunction about fighting someone at a disadvantage. Maybe lawful evil could justify them, but I see chaotic evil and neutral evil having trouble fitting in this class as written. I like the class written though, and might try as my boxing/guardian character.

I also vote for spherefighter.

I do think the athletics sphere might be asking for a lot of investment, I would love to take talents from it, but it isn't a sphere I would want to put a bunch of my talents in.

I love the shield sphere though. I fully plan on using it on a character. Also like some of the bits in the equipment sphere that aren't just proficiencies.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Grovestrider wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

In other news it appears that some people have adopted "spheremighter" as the fan term for those that use this system.

I'd like to informally vote against that name as I think it sounds clunky.

Instead I'd propose "spherefighter": I find the "f" flows better.

I personally prefer "spheremartial"
That's not too bad. Still doesn't roll off the tongue quite like "spherefighter".

My issue with spherefighter is that I am quite certain that there will eventually be a Sphere of Might archetype for the Fighter class, and would like to avoid future confusion when someone refers to the Sphere Fighter (fighter archetype) vs a Spherefighter (SoM system user).


@SilvercatMoonpaw -- Don't pull your support yet, chief; this is pre-alpha material. Still things to work out.

Of the spheres we've seen so far, Guardian is my favorite -- Combat Reflexes and Combat Patrol functionality from level one??!! I most want to see the Two-Weapon Fighting adaptation(s) (just so I can hopefully build my dream version of my eponymous character).

This is just a well-developed rough draft, man.

And, not to be *too* snarky about it, but it should get a bit of a laugh: The only thing better than flying is teleporting; but we can't all have the Warp sphere, right?

tl;dr -- Stick it out, man! They're still calibrating everything!

@jedi8187 -- The guardian sphere has a great deal of purely offensive implications, particularly with a dedicated martial focus that you wouldn't want to expend. I would wonder about the possibility of a drawback that modified the guardian sphere so that the challenge ability and its talents couldn't be taken . . . .

general question --

1) Have there been any changes to the Sniping Sphere from the first sample? Should we test it as-is?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i mean, ive just been calling them mighty martials. or Mighty Xclass when relevant ie Mighty Monk etc.


I will say I agree with Silvercatmoonpaw somewhat.

We were promised significant out of combat options and the only sphere that I feel adds anything out of combat so far is athletics.
Some of the scoundrel stuff adds very very specific options.

I hope that this is simply due to it being the alpha play test and they add more options as they develop the system.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
J4RH34D wrote:

I will say I agree with Silvercatmoonpaw somewhat.

We were promised significant out of combat options and the only sphere that I feel adds anything out of combat so far is athletics.
Some of the scoundrel stuff adds very very specific options.

I hope that this is simply due to it being the alpha play test and they add more options as they develop the system.

This is actually something that I'm slowly working to fix, as both brute and barrage gained two new utility talents. We're looking to expand things further, and will continue to do so as things develop.


Sorry, but it kind of doesn't matter whether this material is early stuff: as I tried to say, I'm not interested in a whole big system for the "mundane" aspects. And by that I don't mean power level: physical combat and skills just aren't grabbing my attention. By the time you get to a "level" at which I'd be interested in them again you've reached magic and I can do that with Spheres of Power.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Sorry, but it kind of doesn't matter whether this material is early stuff: as I tried to say, I'm not interested in a whole big system for the "mundane" aspects. And by that I don't mean power level: physical combat and skills just aren't grabbing my attention. By the time you get to a "level" at which I'd be interested in them again you've reached magic and I can do that with Spheres of Power.

Sounds like you might be more interested in the Legendary talents they've talked about?


Luthorne wrote:
Sounds like you might be more interested in the Legendary talents they've talked about?

Maybe. But I really don't feel like getting the whole system for just those.

Also maybe not: if the Legendary Talents just enhance physical combat and skills then they're still not giving me anything I need.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Luthorne wrote:
Sounds like you might be more interested in the Legendary talents they've talked about?

Maybe. But I really don't feel like getting the whole system for just those.

Also maybe not: if the Legendary Talents just enhance physical combat and skills then they're still not giving me anything I need.

Well, the ones mentioned involved flight and cutting through space, so I guess it depends on if you consider those physical combat and skills...


Luthorne wrote:
Well, the ones mentioned involved flight and cutting through space, so I guess it depends on if you consider those physical combat and skills...

Still the issue of getting the whole book when I might only want them.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Luthorne wrote:
Well, the ones mentioned involved flight and cutting through space, so I guess it depends on if you consider those physical combat and skills...
Still the issue of getting the whole book when I might only want them.

Indeed, that element is purely up to you, I just meant to address the latter point you had brought up. The primary point certainly remains.


Luthorne wrote:
Indeed, that element is purely up to you, I just meant to address the latter point you had brought up.

That's fair. I'll apologize just in case I came off as hostile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Silvercat -- I may have missed this, but I still don't understand what things you're indicating you need . . . . Or why initial playtest material isn't satisfactory.

Part of the burden of proof here is to demonstrate that this combat system works. I would argue that such is the greater part of that burden at this point in time. If the basic spheres and talents can't or don't function in a way that: 1) moves martial characters into a broader range of options than "charge" and "full attack" in combat, and 2) contributes at least as well as those two options to "victory conditions" in gameplay, then the "Legendary talents" won't matter. So far as the system as a whole is concerned, anyway.

Also: if the Legendary talents are "what you need", aren't you still going to need some basic insight about how and where to incorporate those effects in character builds and encounters? I *am* asking this while operating from the basic understanding that we're/you're/they're looking for something more consistent than the "Mary Sue" phenomenon, by the way.

Please don't misunderstand: I understand your complaint -- "There's not enough here that I want." Just add "yet" to the end of that sentence. I want more TWF options; we'll see them soon enough, I'm sure. There's more unarmed combat material here than I need for my purposes, but I don't enjoy the monk/brawler/grappler part of PF very much.

This is the group that knocked it out of the park with Spheres of Power; I have every confidence that this system will "get there" for martial prowess, too.

I sincerely hope that I'm not coming across as combative or rude. I am trying to express a few things:

1) I have great confidence in the end result of DSS' work.
2) We should be patient with them, and help them.
3) I want more, too; they've asked for our informed input on what's released so far -- let's test it.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:


@jedi8187 -- The guardian sphere has a great deal of purely offensive implications, particularly with a dedicated martial focus that you wouldn't want to expend. I would wonder about the possibility of a drawback that modified the guardian sphere so that the challenge ability and its talents couldn't be taken . . . .

I'm fine with keeping guardian, evil characters can still have motivation to guard. My point was more towards a class ability the specifically doesn't work towards opponents who aren't aware of you, incapacitated or lower level (weaker than) you. These tactics very much reflect a good aligned mindset, I could justify them in a lawful evil character maybe but would have a much harder time with a neutral evil or chaotic evil character. And I don't see a chaotic neutral character taking them off the table as options either. The role section of the class write up also mentions protecting those weaker than yourself, again a very noble and good aligned mindset.

The class obviously has it's roots in a non magical paladin class, and then according to N.Jolly's reply to my comment on the document itself they didn't want to alignment restrict the class on principle. Except they did, by removing the non true neutral option, which ironically imo is more likely to follow the class as written than around half of the alignments the class is actually allowed to be.

TL;DR: My problem isn't with the sphere, or even mechanics of the class (I actually rather like the class as is). I just find to the alignment call out strange given the mechanics.

I would like to see a version that makes as much sense for evil or chaotic neutral characters as the current version does for good and lawful. Maybe changing the restriction to good and providing archetypes for evil, lawful, and chaotic options. Although that would likely be a lot of work.


jedi8187 wrote:
I would like to see a version that makes as much sense for evil or chaotic neutral characters as the current version does for good and lawful. Maybe changing the restriction to good and providing archetypes for evil, lawful, and chaotic options. Although that would likely be a lot of work.

I just wanted to say that if they make the Paragon class restricted to good alignment and then included archetypes for evil, lawful, chaotic, and maybe even true neutral options, then they can each be written to make sense.

For Example, if written and fluffed for the Skybourne setting:

The base Paragon could be focused in protecting the weak (or Destroying the Oppressive).
The Evil Paragon could be focused in destroying the weak (or Protecting the Strong)
The Chaotic Paragon could be focused in the expansion of the Cryptwood.
The Lawful Paragon could be focused in destroying the Cryptwood.
The True Neutral Paragon could be focused in Protecting themselves (be it family, organization, etc).


Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Part of the burden of proof here is to demonstrate that this combat system works.

I would agree, and I would say the previews have shown that SoM does work.

Thing is I find myself not caring: as I said earlier I don't want more physical combat or skill options at this time. I just....don't.

And if I don't care about those options right now it makes sense from my perspective to withdraw my money to use elsewhere. We're projected not to see a finished product till maybe Dec 2017 (and we all know Kickstarted stuff can run long, even with the best of intentions): that's a long time to not have something that I'm not even sure I want. Unless I'm getting a significant discount on the price or free stretch goal PDFs I've got other things I'd like to spend the money on. (And even if there was free stuff that's not a guarantee: I'm in a Kickster that's still giving me stuff some time after I've decided I don't care that much for it.) (Also I don't need any of the other products they're offering as add-ons, in case you were going to suggest it.)

Maybe I'll get SoM when it comes out. Maybe I won't. But if I'm not committed to it there's no reason for me to sink the money in right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
I sincerely hope that I'm not coming across as combative or rude.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because I do tend to overreact a bit.

Thing is my statement of withdrawl is, for me, a form of feedback: they weren't producing what I wanted. BUT I also feel that they don't need to: I actually want something in a completely different direction. I want physical combat and weapons and skills and all that stuff to be simplified. I don't need martials and skill classes: I feel like they could just disappear. But that's not what SoM is trying to accomplish, and I don't think it should try, so I've been trying to withdraw gracefully.


Gotcha. Understood.

Happy hunting, chief!


I think half my gaming group might be preoccupied with the Superbowl, so I am going to try and arrange for the other half to playtest some characters against groups of traditional monsters and NPCs.

Any certain suggestions of what needs some playtest time... assuming my plan works.


Wraithguard wrote:
Any certain suggestions of what needs some playtest time... assuming my plan works.

The Athletics sphere and anything that requires expending Martial Focus.


Alright, the guy that wants to start GMing is happy to do a little one-shot to test this stuff and give himself some practice.

I plan on trying to do a Dragon's Dogma faithful Assassin and possibly a Lancer character trying to emulate some FF goodness. The Assassin will be my NPC contribution to this, so it is definitely a character.

Athletics will definitely be getting a test, as well as the Armiger class.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

I regret to inform that I have pulled my pledge.

This isn't because I think Spheres of Might is necessarily bad. I'm just not sure if it's worth backing when I'm starting to question if its design decisions are what I want out of a combat system. Plus other kickstarter issues like paying money for a book that's going to take months to come out when I could just wait till it does.

I still hope the project goes well.

Just wondering: At which point did you come to that conclusion? Compared to the first preview, I don't see any particular design shift having happened, which invalidates the first impressions I had.


EldritchWeaver wrote:
Just wondering: At which point did you come to that conclusion?

Reading the comments people were making on the preview document. In particular the one around how certain maneuvers required expending martial focus and how this meant a character would be constantly spending rounds not doing any attacking because it requires a standard action to regain.

Whether or not any of that is a problem it just turned me off. I'd been waffling between Pathfinder and another system, and I decided that since the other system already had fun combat options AND implemented them in a simpler way that I would just use that for now.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Reading the comments people were making on the preview document. In particular the one around how certain maneuvers required expending martial focus and how this meant a character would be constantly spending rounds not doing any attacking because it requires a standard action to regain.

Spending an action to regain focus once every four or five rounds doesn't sound anywhere near what your describing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Reading the comments people were making on the preview document. In particular the one around how certain maneuvers required expending martial focus and how this meant a character would be constantly spending rounds not doing any attacking because it requires a standard action to regain.
Spending an action to regain focus once every four or five rounds doesn't sound anywhere near what your describing.

I think there was a misunderstanding here; you don't have to expend focus whenever you use a talent or an attack action talent. We actually have a list of which talents require dedication (2 talents per sphere max, 0 min) and which talents require you to expend focus (4 for boxer, most have either 1-2, some have 0), so I don't think focus is going to be nearly as big an issue than a lot of people expect.

I do hope you enjoy whatever game you decide to play SilverMoonpaw, and we're going to make this the best project possible in case you want to check it out once we're finished.


I didn't back Spheres of Power when it was Kickstarted, and that turned out okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have also just dropped out of the Kickstarter for this.

My wife and I are snagging tickets for the Aretha Franklin gala concert in our home town, and the tickets are breaking the entertainment budget for the year. At our ages (67 & 69) and her age (74), this is probably the last opportunity to see the Queen of Soul live, so it is something we just can't pass up.

I'll buy the PDF after it is generally available next year; thanks for creating this and sorry I can not afford to participate at this time.

-- david


N. Jolly wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Reading the comments people were making on the preview document. In particular the one around how certain maneuvers required expending martial focus and how this meant a character would be constantly spending rounds not doing any attacking because it requires a standard action to regain.
Spending an action to regain focus once every four or five rounds doesn't sound anywhere near what your describing.

I think there was a misunderstanding here; you don't have to expend focus whenever you use a talent or an attack action talent. We actually have a list of which talents require dedication (2 talents per sphere max, 0 min) and which talents require you to expend focus (4 for boxer, most have either 1-2, some have 0), so I don't think focus is going to be nearly as big an issue than a lot of people expect.

I do hope you enjoy whatever game you decide to play SilverMoonpaw, and we're going to make this the best project possible in case you want to check it out once we're finished.

Perhaps some feats in the preview that show off other ways to regain martial focus would help satisfy some people who are on the edge about supporting the project. That said not every system is for everyone. I have actually met one person who didn't like spheres of power and I found that flabberghasting. Keep up the good work DDS I am not going anywhere.


Bardarok wrote:
I have actually met one person who didn't like spheres of power and I found that flabberghasting.

You've piqued my curiosity here... what specifically did they dislike about it?

[Speaking personally, I like SoP, but feel it's a very different game from the sort I GM. One I'd love to play in but probably wouldn't run.]


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
I have actually met one person who didn't like spheres of power and I found that flabberghasting.

You've piqued my curiosity here... what specifically did they dislike about it?

[Speaking personally, I like SoP, but feel it's a very different game from the sort I GM. One I'd love to play in but probably wouldn't run.]

Well it wasn't so much that they disliked SoP it was more that they really like traditional DnD style spellcasting and therefore had no interest in anything else. Specifically they liked some of the more flavorful effects and the names that went along with them; prismatic spray, bigby's crushing hand, tasha's hideous laughter, etc., and disliked that SoP was, by default, flavor neutral.

They just weren't really into world building, as they generally ran pre-canned adventures and had no real interest in third party stuff or homebrew rules. So really not the target audience. But to each their own.

Personally I really like that spheres of power is flavor neutral as a design principle allowing the GM and players to create unique casting traditions and whatnot. And if I want to recreate a traditional effect for the most part I can. And If I want to rename a spell effect I can, and do.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Curious about something with the Athletics Sphere. With the abilities that let you substitute your BAB in place of ranks for various skills would you get the +3 Class bonus if the skill was a Class Skill and you had no ranks in it normally, or would you still need to put at least 1 Rank into the skill to get the Class Bonus?


N. Jolly wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Reading the comments people were making on the preview document. In particular the one around how certain maneuvers required expending martial focus and how this meant a character would be constantly spending rounds not doing any attacking because it requires a standard action to regain.
Spending an action to regain focus once every four or five rounds doesn't sound anywhere near what your describing.

I think there was a misunderstanding here; you don't have to expend focus whenever you use a talent or an attack action talent. We actually have a list of which talents require dedication (2 talents per sphere max, 0 min) and which talents require you to expend focus (4 for boxer, most have either 1-2, some have 0), so I don't think focus is going to be nearly as big an issue than a lot of people expect.

I do hope you enjoy whatever game you decide to play SilverMoonpaw, and we're going to make this the best project possible in case you want to check it out once we're finished.

i think you should turn those numbers around. 2 max for expending focus, these should be the big finishing moves, and any number that require you to dedicate.

like i said in the preview, i am actually playtesting the system, and i find that i never keep my martial focus even a full round. If i have it its almost always spent immediately, because the options for spending it always severely outweigh the benefits of keeping it.


would like to call to attention my three questions about lancers impale in the preview document. I would like to begin playtesting the sphere, but have some core mechanical questions that prevent it

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Baval wrote:
would like to call to attention my three questions about lancers impale in the preview document. I would like to begin playtesting the sphere, but have some core mechanical questions that prevent it

And answered them all, answers are in the doc.


thanks!


There is a large discussion going on in the preview about the damage output of the Sage class.
If anyone feels like testing a few possible builds with me I think it would be a good idea.


Rysky wrote:
Curious about something with the Athletics Sphere. With the abilities that let you substitute your BAB in place of ranks for various skills would you get the +3 Class bonus if the skill was a Class Skill and you had no ranks in it normally, or would you still need to put at least 1 Rank into the skill to get the Class Bonus?

remember that class skill bonuses aren't ranks in a skill.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
christos gurd wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Curious about something with the Athletics Sphere. With the abilities that let you substitute your BAB in place of ranks for various skills would you get the +3 Class bonus if the skill was a Class Skill and you had no ranks in it normally, or would you still need to put at least 1 Rank into the skill to get the Class Bonus?
remember that class skill bonuses aren't ranks in a skill.

Huh?

I'm asking if I have 0 ranks in a skill and I take the ability that substitutes my BAB in place of ranks for that skill would I get the +3 Class bonus since I have ranks in it now I guess?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Curious about something with the Athletics Sphere. With the abilities that let you substitute your BAB in place of ranks for various skills would you get the +3 Class bonus if the skill was a Class Skill and you had no ranks in it normally, or would you still need to put at least 1 Rank into the skill to get the Class Bonus?

As written, you wouldn't get the +3 bonus even if you had a single rank in it because you're substituting your base attack bonus in place of your ranks, so only things that boost your base attack bonus would provide a bonus; this also means feats like Skill Focus and Athletic would not provide their normal bonuses. To get the +3 bonus, it would have to be phrased as allowing you to act as if you had a number of ranks in that skill equal to your base attack bonus.

Edit: However, remember that dedicating your martial focus to the Athletics sphere does provide a reasonably substantial bonus.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Luthorne wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Curious about something with the Athletics Sphere. With the abilities that let you substitute your BAB in place of ranks for various skills would you get the +3 Class bonus if the skill was a Class Skill and you had no ranks in it normally, or would you still need to put at least 1 Rank into the skill to get the Class Bonus?

As written, you wouldn't get the +3 bonus even if you had a single rank in it because you're substituting your base attack bonus in place of your ranks, so only things that boost your base attack bonus would provide a bonus; this also means feats like Skill Focus and Athletic would not provide their normal bonuses. To get the +3 bonus, it would have to be phrased as allowing you to act as if you had a number of ranks in that skill equal to your base attack bonus.

Edit: However, remember that dedicating your martial focus to the Athletics sphere does provide a reasonably substantial bonus.

Wow, that's kinda a bummer.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We're working to remove a LOT of required focus from athletics sphere, as it's the most focus heavy sphere we have out so far.

Liberty's Edge

Rysky wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Curious about something with the Athletics Sphere. With the abilities that let you substitute your BAB in place of ranks for various skills would you get the +3 Class bonus if the skill was a Class Skill and you had no ranks in it normally, or would you still need to put at least 1 Rank into the skill to get the Class Bonus?
remember that class skill bonuses aren't ranks in a skill.

Huh?

I'm asking if I have 0 ranks in a skill and I take the ability that substitutes my BAB in place of ranks for that skill would I get the +3 Class bonus since I have ranks in it now I guess?

does substituting ranks count as having them for class skills? Good question. I don't actually know. There a precedent? I dony see a callout in the weapon master handbook options to use BAB for ranks.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So I built a Striker earlier today and I'm not sure how spoiler-y we're allowed to get. With that in mind, here's my sorta-vague opinions.

Sorta-vague opinions:
THIS IS AWESOME.

But really though. I built the character I've been trying to homebrew a class for, Faith from Mirror's Edge generic parkour heroine. I must say, I was not expecting to have such a strong offense at Level 1 - I spent all my talents on Athletics goodies and only got Open Hand for actual martial prowess after all. The class seems to have high physical offense and defense potential numbers-wise and has a lot of options for mobility. I really like Tension as a mechanic as it adds a small minigame in managing your points for combat bonuses and utility. So far I'm really impressed! I'm in the process of progressing the build by-the-level to see how it grows.


Stack wrote:
Rysky wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Curious about something with the Athletics Sphere. With the abilities that let you substitute your BAB in place of ranks for various skills would you get the +3 Class bonus if the skill was a Class Skill and you had no ranks in it normally, or would you still need to put at least 1 Rank into the skill to get the Class Bonus?
remember that class skill bonuses aren't ranks in a skill.

Huh?

I'm asking if I have 0 ranks in a skill and I take the ability that substitutes my BAB in place of ranks for that skill would I get the +3 Class bonus since I have ranks in it now I guess?

does substituting ranks count as having them for class skills? Good question. I don't actually know. There a precedent? I dony see a callout in the weapon master handbook options to use BAB for ranks.

Adaptable training from the Armor Master's Handbook is similar but it actually grants skill ranks and allows the player to retrain any ranks assigned to the skill. That would only work if it was the base ability instead of the focus ability though. Still something to consider.

451 to 500 of 795 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / [Drop Dead Studios] Spheres of Combat Kickstarter All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.