| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we were getting a different version of Kobold, I would prefer the fey version from Germanic folklore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^What should we call them? Hobkobolds? Unpathetic Kobolds? Okaykobolds?
Dire kobolds!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ko-BOLDs
K.O. Bolds!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After getting Ancient Orision Pantheon based on actual Egyptian Mythology, and Tian Xia getting a few Chinese and Japanese deities, I kinda wished we got the equivalent for Greek, Roman, Norse and Babylonian pantheons. Deities and Demigods for D&D 3e was pretty neat for that ;)
Also, vampire hunting skills as racial traits for skinwalkers, and lycanthrope hunting skills as racial traits for dhampirs, because... that rivalry was barely touched upon ^^;
Also, vampire hunting skills as racial traits for skinwalkers, and lycanthrope hunting skills as racial traits for dhampirs, because... that rivalry was barely touched upon ^^;
Mebbe as a sorta stop-gap adjustment to both Dhampirs and Skinwalkers, prolly add in some elements from the Vampire-Hunter base class or the Lycanthrope Hunter Ranger archetype from the World of Vampire Hunter D PF1e sourcebook? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, vampire hunting skills as racial traits for skinwalkers, and lycanthrope hunting skills as racial traits for dhampirs, because... that rivalry was barely touched upon ^^;Mebbe as a sorta stop-gap adjustment to both Dhampirs and Skinwalkers, prolly add in some elements from the Vampire-Hunter base class or the Lycanthrope Hunter Ranger archetype from the World of Vampire Hunter D PF1e sourcebook? ;)
There's always a way to do that, but I just think it's weird that the classic vampire/werewolf rivalry wasn't used for dhampirs and skinwalkers, let alone actual vampires and lycanthropes.
If I had to guess, it's because it's more a work of fiction than an actual mythical thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, still wish we got pantheons for Aztec, Greek, Japanese, Norse, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, vampire hunting skills as racial traits for skinwalkers, and lycanthrope hunting skills as racial traits for dhampirs, because... that rivalry was barely touched upon ^^;Mebbe as a sorta stop-gap adjustment to both Dhampirs and Skinwalkers, prolly add in some elements from the Vampire-Hunter base class or the Lycanthrope Hunter Ranger archetype from the World of Vampire Hunter D PF1e sourcebook? ;)There's always a way to do that, but I just think it's weird that the classic vampire/werewolf rivalry wasn't used for dhampirs and skinwalkers, let alone actual vampires and lycanthropes.
If I had to guess, it's because it's more a work of fiction than an actual mythical thing.
The main difference between "a work of fiction" and "an actual mythical thing" is how many people had input into it, and whether they put their names on it, and how long ago.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the Vampire/Lycanthrope rivalry in base Pathfinder at all? It can be added to particular settings, but, then again, other settings could have them as allies (well, those of similar alignment, at least)
I thought that was only in Classic World of Darkness (which was good) and in some bad movie.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And in a bunch of books which drew from WoD or the movie(s). Pop culture is an incestuous mess which steals from other properties all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the Vampire/Lycanthrope rivalry in base Pathfinder at all? It can be added to particular settings, but, then again, other settings could have them as allies (well, those of similar alignment, at least)I thought that was only in Classic World of Darkness (which was good) and in some bad movie.
Tbh, my understanding in WoD wasn't a rivalry at all. There's no competition over food(Werewolves don't need to eat humans), they mostly live in different biomes(cities vs rural areas) and their end long term goals are entirely different and not in conflict.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
K.O. Bolds!
Are those kobolds who are 9's and 10's with slim waists and perky personalities or kobolds with a mean uppercut?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
K.O. Bolds!Are those kobolds who are 9's and 10's with slim waists and perky personalities or kobolds with a mean uppercut?
Submitted for your consideration...
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71s1Ap7MMCL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 1E version of Guns & Gears
ArchMage and Artificer prestige classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mebbe someone could homebrew a medium Kobold analogue for Kobolds, similar to how something "created" Hobgoblins from Goblins?
Would Wyvarans qualify? We have several size Medium reptilian humanoids; what we don't have is any explicit lore suggesting that any of them are upsized kobolds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mebbe someone could homebrew a medium Kobold analogue for Kobolds, similar to how something "created" Hobgoblins from Goblins?Would Wyvarans qualify? We have several size Medium reptilian humanoids; what we don't have is any explicit lore suggesting that any of them are upsized kobolds.
True that, David Knott 242; unfortunately there were some dislikes expressed earlier about using Wyvarans for that role. Since the appearance of Kobolds were changed in PF2e, possibly a revamp of the Wyvaran's appearance might be in order so that they'd appeal to more folks?
Either that or shoehorning in Kobold Presses' Dragonkin might work or fit the bill, as well...
Yeah, still wish we got pantheons for Aztec, Greek, Japanese, Norse, etc.
for me practically the azlant pantheon is Greco / Roman, and they only point out 1 or 2 gods with similarity to the Aztecs in arcadia
That every character had the option to get a class feature from another class(and maybe their same class if there are options). This option would be at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th. No feat cost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep thinking that the Undead TYPE should be a SUBTYPE, with the regular traits and qualities.
I dunno, one issue I see is everything related to type-specific spells and effects. I actually LIKED when they ditched the Beast, Giant, Shapechanger and Elemental types.
I keep thinking that the Undead TYPE should be a SUBTYPE, with the regular traits and qualities.
Similar in concept to how they have zombie as a monster template?
I agree about dropping beast, giant, and shapechanger as a creature type, but elemental should have stayed a creature type.
I keep thinking that the Undead TYPE should be a SUBTYPE, with the regular traits and qualities.Similar in concept to how they have zombie as a monster template?
Kinda...
A human vampire should still be a Humanoid creature even if he's a walking blood-sucking corpse...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see undead as a subtype.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda wish the inventor was reworked as an alchemist archetype, keeping the spell list for gizmos, but replacing the rest by a customizable weapon, a customizable armor and a customizable construct, essentially following the eidolon rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-That you could move and still get a full attack action.
-That you got much better stat progression(maybe 1 point per level) and a lot less reliant on stat boosting items.
-That you got to add 1/2 your class level to AC(including touch/FF and maybe CMD) so you wouldn't need amulets of natural armor and rings of protection.
-Better base saves so you don't need cloaks of Resistance.
-Monsters add 1/2 their natural armor bonus to their touch AC.
-That all classes with armor prof. could loose that prof. to get a monk-like AC using main mental stat or even Con mod in the case of Barbarians, Brawlers, Fighters, and Kineticist.
-That Arcanist, Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard got a "Force Armor"(Su) ability that is a constant mage armor effect that increases by +1 AC at level 6 and an additional +1 for every 3 levels after 6th.
-That every player race got at least 10 race based feats.
-That once you put a rank in a skill it was considered a class skill(+3 bonus).
-That you got max HP per HD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-That all unarmored/natural weapon specialized classes(Brawler, Monk, Shifter, etc.) would gain a +1 enhancement bonus for their unarmed strike/natural attacks at 3rd or 4th and increased by +1 every 4 levels after maxing out at +5 at 19th or 20th level.
-That all classes have at least 4+Int mod skills.
-That martial classes got at least 1(maybe 3 for Fighters) free exotic weapon prof.
-That weapon focus was for weapon groups.
-That Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Power Shot, and maybe Vital strike would be built into combat rules(no feats needed).
-Weapon finesse was a weapon trait(no feat needed).
-Rouges(all finesse weapons) and Swashbucklers(all piercing finesse weapons) got Dex to damage built into the class.
-Combat maneuvers didn't provoke as long as you have at least a +1 BAB.
-That cantrips did more damage(if 1d3 then 1d6+casting stat mod, if 1d4 then 1d8+casting stat mod, and if 1d6 then 1d10+casting stat mod).
-That we got alignment, electricity, fire, force, negative energy, and sonic damage cantrips.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-That you could move and still get a full attack action.
-That you got much better stat progression(maybe 1 point per level) and a lot less reliant on stat boosting items.
-That you got to add 1/2 your class level to AC(including touch/FF and maybe CMD) so you wouldn't need amulets of natural armor and rings of protection.
-Better base saves so you don't need cloaks of Resistance.
-Monsters add 1/2 their natural armor bonus to their touch AC.
-That all classes with armor prof. could loose that prof. to get a monk-like AC using main mental stat or even Con mod in the case of Barbarians, Brawlers, Fighters, and Kineticist.
-That Arcanist, Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard got a "Force Armor"(Su) ability that is a constant mage armor effect that increases by +1 AC at level 6 and an additional +1 for every 3 levels after 6th.
-That every player race got at least 10 race based feats.
-That once you put a rank in a skill it was considered a class skill(+3 bonus).
-That you got max HP per HD.
Have you looked at Automatic Bonus Progression rules and the Unchained Rogue? They seem to cover (in spirit at least) a lot of the items from your last two posts...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-That you could move and still get a full attack action.
{. . .}
My idea for this is that when you do a full attack, you can forgo one or more attacks starting with your lowest attack bonus and use the time to move instead, by an amount that is 2 * your_speed * number_of_attacks_sacrificed / number_of_attacks_granted_by_BAB. The time can be at any time during your turn, and can even be split if you sacrificed more than 1 attack; it does not have to be split evenly. The remaining attacks still count as a full attack for purposes of interacting with feats and class features that specify requiring a full attack but do not specify the interaction of attacking and moving (such as Charging). So it would be sort of like an echo of 2nd Edition's/Pathfinder Unchained's action economy that would be superimposed on the Pathfinder 1st Edition action economy, but you would need to pass BAB 5 to start using this feature, and then get better at it as your BAB went up (note that this would be a perk for martials).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-That you could move and still get a full attack action.
-That you got much better stat progression(maybe 1 point per level) and a lot less reliant on stat boosting items.
-That you got to add 1/2 your class level to AC(including touch/FF and maybe CMD) so you wouldn't need amulets of natural armor and rings of protection.
-Better base saves so you don't need cloaks of Resistance.
-Monsters add 1/2 their natural armor bonus to their touch AC.
-That all classes with armor prof. could loose that prof. to get a monk-like AC using main mental stat or even Con mod in the case of Barbarians, Brawlers, Fighters, and Kineticist.
-That Arcanist, Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard got a "Force Armor"(Su) ability that is a constant mage armor effect that increases by +1 AC at level 6 and an additional +1 for every 3 levels after 6th.
-That every player race got at least 10 race based feats.
-That once you put a rank in a skill it was considered a class skill(+3 bonus).
-That you got max HP per HD.
(Taking each one by one)
1) We do have feats and abilities for that.2) That would be unbalanced, because 2 points on the same stat gets you a modifier increase.
3) I don't see the necessity here.
4) If anything, all classes should have at least 2 Good saves and just 1 bad save.
5) Again, not necessary.
6) That sounds like archetypes or specializations.
7) Those classes shouldn't be in melee all the time though...
8) Well, we got this eventually for the 7 core races.
9) Nah, I'd prefer more class skills instead.
10) Hard disagree; you should either roll your HP or get the average. At best, your 1st level should be maximum.
-That all unarmored/natural weapon specialized classes(Brawler, Monk, Shifter, etc.) would gain a +1 enhancement bonus for their unarmed strike/natural attacks at 3rd or 4th and increased by +1 every 4 levels after maxing out at +5 at 19th or 20th level.
-That all classes have at least 4+Int mod skills.
-That martial classes got at least 1(maybe 3 for Fighters) free exotic weapon prof.
-That weapon focus was for weapon groups.
-That Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Power Shot, and maybe Vital strike would be built into combat rules(no feats needed).
-Weapon finesse was a weapon trait(no feat needed).
-Rouges(all finesse weapons) and Swashbucklers(all piercing finesse weapons) got Dex to damage built into the class.
-Combat maneuvers didn't provoke as long as you have at least a +1 BAB.
-That cantrips did more damage(if 1d3 then 1d6+casting stat mod, if 1d4 then 1d8+casting stat mod, and if 1d6 then 1d10+casting stat mod).
-That we got alignment, electricity, fire, force, negative energy, and sonic damage cantrips.
(taking them one at a time)
1) That would be kinda broken and would devalue spell buffs...2) AGREE! There's no need to only 2+int skill points.
3) I could see them getting proficiency in specific weapon groups instead, which would include exotic weapons.
4) No, that requires training. I would have those feats scale with your level instead of haivng to pick the entire tree.
5) No, again, training...
6) Not all rogues or swashbucklers will use dex though.
7) The feats should either negate that, or already grant that.
8) AGREE... but they could scale instead.
9) AGREE
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-That you could move and still get a full attack action.
-That you got much better stat progression(maybe 1 point per level) and a lot less reliant on stat boosting items.
-That you got to add 1/2 your class level to AC(including touch/FF and maybe CMD) so you wouldn't need amulets of natural armor and rings of protection.
-Better base saves so you don't need cloaks of Resistance.
-Monsters add 1/2 their natural armor bonus to their touch AC.
-That all classes with armor prof. could loose that prof. to get a monk-like AC using main mental stat or even Con mod in the case of Barbarians, Brawlers, Fighters, and Kineticist.
-That Arcanist, Psychic, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard got a "Force Armor"(Su) ability that is a constant mage armor effect that increases by +1 AC at level 6 and an additional +1 for every 3 levels after 6th.
-That every player race got at least 10 race based feats.
-That once you put a rank in a skill it was considered a class skill(+3 bonus).
-That you got max HP per HD.
I give half base movement/full attack.
-That magic weapons did extra dice damage(not static damage bonus) based on enhancement bonus, examples would be a +2 short sword would be 3d6, +5 dagger would be 6d4, etc.
-That magic armor granted DR/magic based on the enhancement bonus(at least x2 the bonus).
-That magic shields granted it's enhancement bonus to touch AC or as an additional bonus against ranged attacks.
-That wands used the users level as caster level and highest mental stat modifier for save DCs.
-That wands and staves had limited charges that recharged each day.
-That casting level(for spells and spell powers) is always equal to character level.
-That anyone can use wands.
-That casters get to add their casting stat mod to damage based spells.
-The option to use Str instead of Dex for to hit with thrown weapons(no feat needed).
-That a natural 20 was an automatic crit, that a natural 20 always hit even with concealment and similar effects(mirror image, etc.), but if the target is protected by such effects a crit is not automatic and you must roll again to confirm.
- A special version of Vital Strike for Fighters exclusively which once per day per fighter level, they can declare a Strike that deals (base weapon) x (their levels) + (modifiers).
- Heightened Spell reworked as a non-metamagic feat, so that again, once per day per spellcaster level, they can increase a spell's DC without using a higher spell slot. At best, each extra slot spends a use.
- Make all 1st-level school/bloodline/domains power scalable per level, similar to how cantrips scale in P2E.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better NPC classes(ex: Aristocrat, Commoner, Cultist, Healer, Merchant, Pirate, Sage, Squire, Warrior, etc.) that could be used for leadership feat(instead of core classes) and better uses for NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I agree, constructs and undead should have had Con scores, but they should still keep their fort save immunity to anything that does not also work on objects like before.
I would say in the case of the construct and the undead that their constitution is based on the hardness that they possess, Since by definition the constitution represents the health, biological defense and nutrition of the individual, however none of these 2 possesses these qualities, if we place a score of Constitution I would point out that it is based on the hardness of the material and not on the purchase of points or the throwing of dice
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better NPC classes(ex: Aristocrat, Commoner, Cultist, Healer, Merchant, Pirate, Sage, Squire, Warrior, etc.) that could be used for leadership feat(instead of core classes) and better uses for NPCs.
My ideas on this for a Pathfinder 1.5 = D&D 3.875 (these are related to but evolved relative to what I posted elsewhere on these boards years ago):
Everybody gets a creature hit dice, so 0 HD creatures become 1 HD creatures, and the first class level no longer replaces this. Pathfinder 2nd Edition does this to a certain extent, but I would combine it with the Pathfinder 2nd Edition style of Backgrounds, and unlike Pathfinder 2nd Edition, retain Traits (with some balancing work going into them -- they range from awful to better than some feats, even if you don't count Campaign Traits, which are supposed to approach feats but also have a huge range of how good they are). Normally, PCs would be started with already enough XP to get from their creature hit dice/NPC class level to their first class level, but you could start a campaign at 0 XP and have the PCs play through their creature hit dice/NPC class level. PC classes would become effectively like prestige classes with very low level entry requirements.
Then, for converting existing NPC classes:
Adept: Works like an Arcanist blended with a Shaman, but intentionally very MAD, and having you choose a spell list. The spellcasting you get from this qualifies you for PC spellcasting classes and stacks with levels of spellcasting you get from PC spellcasting classes. Going into a PC spellcasting class, you use whatever its type of spellcasting is, but you retain the ability to cast some of your lowest level spells Adept-style, even retaining spells of the lowest level that are not on your PC class' spell list. Warrior-Adept archetypes would also exist that would give you a bigger hit dice and 2/3 BAB in exchange for much more limited spellcasting -- these would be what you would most commonly and easily use to go into a 6/9 spellcasting class. (PC spellcasting classes would no longer have an offset of spellcasting progression.) However, Adept would not be the only way to get into spellcasting classes -- you could instead use innate spellcasting abilities (including those gained from traits or feats) to get into spontaneous spellcasting classes, and you could use certain other means of entry (TBA) into prepared spellcasting classes.
Aristocrat: Basically Phantom Thief Rogue, but with sub-archetypes thereof. One notable archetype would be Socialite, with an ability Unencumbered by the Thought Process, which would award Charisma Modifier worth of skill ranks, earmarked for spending on social skills.
Commoner (might be best split into multiple NPC classes): These are the low-skilled working class types, but instead of all being totally wimpy, these would have varying hit dice, Base Attack Bonus, and Saves depending upon what kind of Commoner. Unskilled laborers would be d10, with good Fortitude Saves, full BAB, and weapon proficiency related to the tools of their trade; semi-skilled laborers doing moderately hard work would be likewise, but with d8 and 3/4 BAB and a bit more skills; semi-skilled laborers doing work not requiring heavy lifting or the like would be d6 and 1/2 BAB and have some social skills on top of the skills related to their work.
Expert: These are the highly-skilled workers, and would be like a working-class analog of Phantom Thief Rogue (Phantom Thief Rogue itself is really specialized to be the Aristocrat replacement).
Warrior: Basically a Fighter -- this is your go-to if you need Martial Weapon Proficiency and don't need to give an early start to a spellcasting career.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^To add to the above on Warrior: Different Warriors would give perks like early entry to certain fighting styles, or to abilities that are currently too high up in levels in certain martial PC class archetypes (Phalanx Soldier Fighter, I'm looking at you), or even easier access to certain Exotic weapon proficiencies. (Note: What I would do with weapon proficiency would be a tweaked version of what Kirthfinder does, so Exotic Weapon Proficiency ({some Simple or Martial weapon}) could still be very useful.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to spells...
- Detect and Read Magic as class features (as spell-like abilities) instead of cantrips... If you're a true spellcaster, those should be given for free. The Occultist DOESN'T get those unless it picks Divination implements, which are some of the weakest of the class.
- The "Caster level" is underutilized for spellcasting. I'm sorry, but a Fireball cast by a 15th-level caster should be way more difficult to resist than when cast by a 5th-level caster. I swear, half your caster level should have been added to the DC and to attack rolls if applicable.
- Acid is sometimes a Conjuration effect, and sometime an Evocation effect... The latter should ahve been chosen.
- Speaking of Evocation, all energy types (Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid and Sonic) should have gotten a 3rd-level spell. I'd like to point out that Force Punch is available, so yeah. An Acid cone (Acid Breath used to be 3rd in D&D 3.5), a Cold cylinder (a variant of Ice Storm) and a Sonic radius from you would have been welcomed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some spells needed a rework...
- Both Magic Jar and Possession have the following restrictions:
"You can't choose to activate the body's extraordinary or supernatural abilities. The creature's spells and spell-like abilities do not stay with the body."
Basically, if you possess a dragon, you cannot use its Breath Weapon. Why? No reason was given.
- Greater Possession... still doesn't allow you to use the target creature's abilities, it's supposed to be a stronger spell.
I swear, this is like a huge missed opportunity...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More practical uses for Combat Maneuvers... oh boy, that one's a missing opportunity...
- They ALL provoke attacks of opportunity, unless you possess the Improved [Maneuver] feat, which also requires one feat or more.
- As I mentioned, the feat tax is high, whether be Power Attack or Combat Expertise.
- Weapon qualities (disarm, trip, etc) DON'T negate the attack of opportunity.
- Of all the Critical Feats, only Dirty Critical Hit allows Dirty Trick, while Impact Critical Shot allows a Bull Rush (with a ranged attack). Yes, there isn't that ONE Critical feat would allow you to make a Disarm, Trip, Sunder, Drag with whatever with a critical hit.
- Since it's either damage or combat maneuver, barely anyone uses it, as damage will get you better results. There should have been a feat that allows you to use a combat maneuver as a secondary effect of your melee attack once per round, so you could deal damage while tripping, for instance.
- The feats don't render YOU immune to failing. If you fail to disarm or trip an opponent, it can STILL disarm or trip YOU, and there isn't something that prevents that.
- There aren't alternative ways to use maneuvers on creatures that would be "immune". For instance, you cannot disarm someone who's unarmed, but your Disarm ability should allow to cripple a natural attack for one round or two.
So yeah, LOTS of issues with those...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There should have been a feat that allows you to use a combat maneuver as a secondary effect of your melee attack once per round, so you could deal damage while tripping, for instance.
I like what you're saying about maneuvers, but I want to point out that the "Greater" maneuver feats allow an AoO when you succeed with the maneuver. So in effect, there are feats that allow a melee attack as a secondary effect of your maneuver. And they're not limited to once per round if you can do more than one AoO per round.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
- Since it's either damage or combat maneuver, barely anyone uses it, as damage will get you better results. There should have been a feat that allows you to use a combat maneuver as a secondary effect of your melee attack once per round, so you could deal damage while tripping, for instance.
{. . .}
Bull Rush Strike, Disarming Strike, Repositioning Strike, Sundering Strike, and Tripping Strike all say hello, and can all be found here.
Shield Slam says hello, and doesn't need a Critical, and improves your Bull Rush action economy, and in some reasonably common situations also gives you a free Trip in all but name (it would render Bull Rush Strike obsolete, except that it has much harsher prerequisites).
I think that these are NOT the only ones . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
- Since it's either damage or combat maneuver, barely anyone uses it, as damage will get you better results. There should have been a feat that allows you to use a combat maneuver as a secondary effect of your melee attack once per round, so you could deal damage while tripping, for instance.
{. . .}Bull Rush Strike, Disarming Strike, Repositioning Strike, Sundering Strike, and Tripping Strike all say hello, and can all be found here.
Shield Slam says hello, and doesn't need a Critical, and improves your Bull Rush action economy, and in some reasonably common situations also gives you a free Trip in all but name (it would render Bull Rush Strike obsolete, except that it has much harsher prerequisites).
I think that these are NOT the only ones . . . .
I stand corrected, because those feats aren't labelled as Critical Feats. That's why I didn't find them.