This is basiclly what you are doing. You are effectivly restricting class choices (the D&D equivilant of jobs opportunities) by enforcing behaviour based on stereotypes of sexual roles (Female = weak, beatiful, sexy, etc).
To keep it short, needless restriction that limits roleplaying opportunities, based on idiotic "realistic" stereotypes. Ability mods should be applied only when there is a distinct difference (example: Halflings have a STR penalty because they are the size of a young child). Any difference in Male-to-Female averages (this is important) are much too small to warrent a penalty/bonus. Are you saying full-grown women should have the same STR penalty as people who are 3 feet tall?
And to get back to some business, any differences between Male-to-Female averages (told you it was important) should never be applied to an individual. My character is not neccesarily the average. I could be that one in something woman who is as strong as an elephant, who might also happen to be homely and shy.
This is starting to go to places I never intended, so I'll just say this:
- I don't regard charisma as physical beauty, but as overall grace. If someone's a klutz, the odds that it's a man are more than 50% (that's my experience at least) - I've once read an article about a woman that scores 239 on the IQ test. Never heard of a man that scored 200. - otoh, there isn't a singe strength or durability test in athletics where women endanger men's records. Take the competition for the world's strongest man for instance. I've never seen or heard (even in a hearsay) of a woman that could qualify for such a compitition (agains men of course) so this is not just about averages. Of course there are women with an overall greater muscle power than mine (not that many though - most lift weights or compete in shot put professionally), but I'm far from being a candidate to compete for the title of the world's strongest man.
This has nothing to do with chauvinism, being bias or living in my own private world of stereotypes. That's just how humans & primates are on our planet. Female abdomen has to occupy something that the male abdomen doesn't and female limbs have lower mass of bone & musle. Pound-per-pound males are stronger and more durable to physical punishment than women (given the same level of starting health, the same nutrition and the same amount of training).
I see no reason why such modifiers should have bearings over roleplaying opportunities or why this issue should raise such protest. I think people attribute too much impact to a single ability-modifier. Having INT-score 18 instead of 16 at 1st level won't be the most important factor to determine how powerful your Mage will be at level 13.
About halflings. An average chimpanzee weighs less than 1/2 as an average human, but is still more that twice as powerful, so I see no problem with halflings being mechanically more efficient and having only -2 STR penalty compared to humans.
I did not find the spell-points, but I did find something on strain. I think your idea was to be able to cast more spells, but less of the higher level spells without putting a strain on the caster due to the power of the magic.
I did not read the strain rules in detail so I can't say to much about that right now, but my sorcerer/your psion gives up the versatility of multiple schools with the advantage of being able to take on a higher tolerance strain in one discipline/school. The fluff could be that since he/she was not trained in magic/psions the versatility is not there, but because it comes so naturally to him/her they have more power.
Practice in anything is important, but some people are just so talented(Hakeem Alajuwon*, basketball) that even with minimal training they are better than most others.
I used him because he did not start playing until 15, and seriously until 18.
I read a couple of your other rules, and I will be commenting on them in other posts.
Armor Targeting: By targeting straps, buckles and other vulnerable points, you can reduce a foe’s armor AC by -1 for every successful hit. Armor targeting is a touch attack at a -3 hit penalty (count shield AC) that can only be done with piercing/slashing weapons. This maneuver provokes AoO's
To hit another person's armor straps if he is even close to your level is unrealistic, even in D&D. You should have a hard enough time just hitting the opponent, and to do it with such precision that you only cut the strap is not something I can see. There is also the fact that swing at someone with an increased AC just to lower the AC instead of trying to damage them seems inefficient.
Defensive Casting: 3.5's defensive casting is DC 15 + spell level, which is OK, but doesn't seem to account for variations in the opponent's fighting skill and gives the same opportunity vs. a commoner as vs. an epic level Warrior. A more reasonable approach might be DC = 10 + 1/2 attacker's BAB + spell level.
Casting defensively is just the ability to cast without presenting an opening for a free attack which is all an AoO if. The same logic applies to tumbles. When you try to tumble past multiple creatures your foot may slip, or you may have opened yourself up(on a failed check), and somebody gets a free swing.
Improved Uncanny Dodge: Once gained, it regards character level and not class level.
A fighter3/rouge 9 is most likely not as well trained as a rogue 12 at preventing attacks from other rogue types.
Only creatures with no physical body (incorporeal) are inherently immune to critical hits and sneak attacks (you could sneak attack a lich, but not a ghost). Metal constructs count as having heavy fortification. Constructs made of various minerals and ethereal creatures count as having medium fortification. Other constructs and corporeal undead count as having light fortification. The exception here would be creatures under the effect of Heavy Fortification armor and spells designed to specifically protect against these things. Multi source fortifications stack, but never get beyond heavy fortification.
Liches and Constructs have no vital areas, and part of the rogues attractiveness is that he is useful outside combat unlike the fighter. Not everyone will be useful at every encounter due to the defenses of certain monsters, so if the rogue wants to SA the construct he can take a feat that allows him to know how to strike the construct to get past this feature. There was a feat called sabotague in one of the magazines that did this. As far as SA and crits on undead, unless you have a vorpal sword you should just accept it. They don't get a con bonus to their HP so to allow sneak attacks against them would really be a bad idea.
Magically Enhanced Weapons and Extra Damage: Only one magic damage type enhancement is possible per weapon (can't be sonic and acid, etc).
No permanent ability-score enhancements by magical means. - No stacking ability-score enhancements of any sort by magical means. - No magical boosting to hit or dodge AC (you need to use your head to hit / evade a moving opponent). - No racial weapon-familiarity - No racial bonuses on attack-rolls - No racial-substitution class features
The changing of ability score enhancements will make the game harder. How do you plan to adjust the CR and experience table to support this?
Same question for the AC change
The racial familiarity makes sense, unless the PC grew up apart from his race. It could be changed to a regional feat. I agree with the racial bonus. Just because creatures are of a certain race that does not mean they fight the same way. I never used the racial substitution class features, but I don't see a reason to ban them.
- Half Elves: gain +2 competance modifier to ALL CHA-based skills.
This does not make them any more desirable to play. They should either get the skill points of a human or the extra feat(Players choice at time of character creation).
Destruction: Modified to a 9th level spell that replaces Wail of the Banshee in Death domain. Control Undead takes its place as 7th level domain spell.
why?
Disintegrate: deals 12d10 (save for 1/2). Any creature KILLED by this spell is entirely disintegrated
The spell was fine the way it was. It requires an attack roll, is subject to spell resistance, and a save for less than half damage.
Gate: "Calling Creatures" option is canceled ! ! !
I don't think there is anything wrong with the call option, but calling Epic/deity leve creatures should only be done by an epic level spell. I would change the option, not get rid of it.
Iron Body: Renamed to "Granite Body" and the recipient doesn’t suffer from ill effects specifically tied to metal, which is an unreasonable drawback for an 8th level spell. In a reality of mobile combat, 50% movement decrease is penalizing enough.
Agreed, I see know reason to spend gold on a spell that does more harm than good.
Harm/Heal: 5HP / level, up to 100. Mass Harm/Heal removed (way too powerful, especially the "Harm" aspect)
The Harm aspect is only usable by one class, and the Heal mass will be need after your party is hit with a hell ball(epic level spell)
Mage armor: An abjuration spell. It should have been so to begin with.
we agree again
Telekinesis: The option to end the spell immediately (for the greater effect) is canceled.
What is the greater effect?
True Strike: The spell completes only the 1st attack's hit bonus to +20. The core spell can be manipulated to produce totally broken offensive power.
That spell is only supposed to affect the first attack even if you can make more than one.
Wail of the Banshee: Effects everybody within AoE except the caster. The spell doesn't differentiate between friend and foe and Evasion is inapplicable.
Evasion was never applicable, and other sonic spells only affect who the user wants so why not this one?
Wish: Wish and Limited Wish are removed. Magical effects cannot be that diverse. Instead of Limited Wish, one might allow a more powerful version of Break Enchantment to cope with magical effects that are unusually potent at lingering on.
Wish cost 5,000 XP at minimum, so if the players are spamming this spell it is a DM issue. It is only as broken as the DM allows it to be. What about Miracle?
Shield Another: You place yourself to take a hit for someone else. You confer a +4 armor bonus to an adjacent ally's AC. If you're wielding a shield, whatever benefit it can grant you can be applied to your ally instead. Shielding another is an immediate action that attempts to counter a single attack. If you spend a full round action defending someone, you influence all attacks and anyone within your threaten range provokes an AoO. Drawback: the attacker(s) might turn to attack you instead as a swift action, with +4 to hit.
I like this one.
Turning Undead: Turning undead from PHB is very complicated (two rolls, nonstandard mechanics), too powerfull at low levers and useless at high levels if not used to fuel divine feats (undead HD rise much faster than their CR; at levels 10+ most undead will have more HD than party level+4). The following rule is ment to solve all 3 issues: Undead turning is a burst. It deals 1d6 / level damage to undead in the area and turns them. Will save (DC equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + CHA-mod) halves the damage and negates being turned. It is still strong at low levels, but not as much as PHB version, and it keeps being useful at higher levels. Additionally, changing "nothing or destroyed" to damage helps party tactics, because it stacks with whatever the characters are doing. Note I: This setup is much stronger against a horde of weak undead than a single strong one, which is probably for the better. It means that the Cleric unleashes whatever he can unleash... and it does what it does. Note II: Controlling undead is way more potent than turnung them, therefore Rebuke/Control undead continue to use the core mechanics.
I have seen similar concepts, but I like yours better. I will use this one.
P.S. I want to tackle some of these before I ask any more questions
I did not find the spell-points, but I did find something on strain. I think your idea was to be able to cast more spells, but less of the higher level spells without putting a strain on the caster due to the power of the magic.
I did not read the strain rules in detail so I can't say to much about that right now, but my sorcerer/your psion gives up the versatility of multiple schools with the advantage of being able to take on a higher tolerance strain in one discipline/school. The fluff could be that since he/she was not trained in magic/psions the versatility is not there, but because it comes so naturally to him/her they have more power.
Practice in anything is important, but some people are just so talented(Hakeem Alajuwon*, basketball) that even with minimal training they are better than most others.
I used him because he did not start playing until 15, and seriously until 18.
I read a couple of your other rules, and I will be commenting on them in other posts.
Hi concerro,
Thanks for the detailed attention.
let's see....................
>> my sorcerer/your psion gives up the versatility of multiple schools with >> the advantage of being able to take on a higher tolerance strain in one >> discipline/school. Strain-tolerance is not discipline/school related – simply inapplicable with my approach.
>> The fluff could be that since he/she was not trained in magic/psions the >> versatility is not there, but because it comes so naturally to him/her >> they have more power. if we're talking about someone who makes things happen without even understanding how he does it, than he should have access to any spell-list, but with a narrow repertoire.
>> You should have a hard enough time just hitting the opponent, and to do it >> with such precision that you only cut the strap is not something I can see. Yeah, maybe this one is overdoing it with unnecessary mechanics.
>> Casting defensively is just the ability to cast without presenting an >> opening for a free attack which is all an AoO if. The same logic applies >> to tumbles. When you try to tumble past multiple creatures your foot may >> slip, or you may have opened yourself up(on a failed check), and somebody >> gets a free swing. I didn't catch on what the argument was.
>> (IUD) A fighter3/rouge 9 is most likely not as well trained as a rogue 12 >> at preventing attacks from other rogue types. Didn't get the rationale.
>> Liches and Constructs have no vital areas I don't attribute precision damage as necessarily being tied to vital organs, but more to mechanics. Take the knee for instance. If the leg is straight and you connect with a powerful low-kick dead on the joint from the outer side – the knee breaks. Pure mechanics. Break the collar-bone and the arm dangles uselessly. Snap the spine and you break the skeleton in half. etc. etc. etc.
>> Not everyone will be useful at every encounter due to the defenses of >> certain monsters And that's basically the "spending the encounter with your finger stuck up you nose/ass" syndrome.
>> so if the rogue wants to SA the construct he can take a feat that allows >> him to know how to strike the construct to get past this feature. Yes. WotC practically have a feat for everything, but there are just too many feats and too little slots to ever assemble a really useful group of feats. Too many products on the market – too little room to carry them home.
>> They don't get a con bonus to their HP so to allow sneak attacks against >> them would really be a bad idea. Yes, but there's also a feat somewhere that allows you to SA undead, so this just basically makes the skill-monkey invest everything on damage – bad thematics. With the moderate SA damage, things don't get out of proportions and our friendly neighborhood rogue has a feat to spare.
>> Why (Only one magic damage type enhancement) Well... 1st, because fire & ice / acid & lightning damage make no sense. 2nd, with my mobile combat + easier crit / precision damage, things could really get out of control. I made everything possible to expand character's range of capabilities in order to drastically reduce dependency upon magical gear, not stack them one on top of the other.
>> The changing of ability score enhancements will make the game harder. >> How do you plan to adjust the CR and experience table to support this? Being able to increase any ability-score every 2 levels and gaining a point each level (see "Character Creation/Advancement" in my revised rules) and boosting that with another temporary +6 seems more than enough to me.
>> Same question for the AC change I've seen builds on these boards that grant characters AC 75 (armor + dodge + deflection + moral + sacred + circumstance + magic +...). Ridiculous. With 1/2 ref-save mod to dodge AC (my rule) and moral bonuses going to dodge – this should provide more than enough.
>> The racial familiarity makes sense, unless the PC grew up apart from >> his race. Working with weapon-groups (see 1st link in the 1st spoiler of the 1st post), having a single weapon familiarity makes no sense. My weapon-groups approach provides way more focused choice and makes racial weapon familiarity redundant.
>> I never used the racial substitution class features, but I don't see a >> reason to ban them. Because I don't like race-class ties. They make no sense.
>> - Half Elves: gain +2 competance modifier to ALL CHA-based skills. >> This does not make them any more desirable to play. It does if you value social capabilities. Playing a social warrior could be great. Robin Hood was a kind of unfettered & social warrior.
>> They should either get the skill points of a human or the extra feat >> (Players choice at time of character creation). 1. "Player's Choice" doesn't qualify for a racial trait. 2. Where's the distinction from the human ?
>> why? (Destruction - 9th level ; replaces Wail of the Banshee) 1. Wail of the Banshee is just another way to kill someone "normally". 2. "Destruction" is a kind of ultimate doom
>> The spell (Disintegrate) was fine the way it was. It requires an attack roll, >> is subject to spell resistance, and a save for less than half damage. With my gamerules you have a lower HP average (40d6 would be hysterical) and it's just a 6th level spell. Using it after several combat rounds have passed could be disastrous even in its modified form.
>> I don't think there is anything wrong with the call option "Calling Creatures" is basically an "I win" spell. You get another uber-ally to fight for you.
Harm/Heal: 5HP / level, up to 100. Mass Harm/Heal removed (way too powerful, especially the "Harm" aspect) >> The Harm aspect is only usable by one class, and the Heal mass will be need >> after your party is hit with a hell ball(epic level spell). One class too many. Ok, if we're talking epic, maybe it's not such a good idea to limit, but 5 / level still seems reasonable (especially with Mass Harm).
>> What is the greater effect (Telekinesis)? Forget it. Re-reading the description made me realize it's actually far less grandiose than I initially thought.
>> That spell (True Strike) is only supposed to affect the first attack even >> if you can make more than one. Being a Mage's spell only, I guess it's Ok for pure Mage, but it could turn out really problematic with a Spellblade. I need to think about it (suggestions could help).
>> Evasion was never applicable (Wail of the Banshee), True
>> other sonic spells (Wail of the Banshee) only affect who the user wants so why not this one? Shout / Greater Shout don't work like that. Minur/major/permanent Image don't work like that. A violent 1-time scream shouldn't work like that.
>> Wish cost 5,000 XP at minimum, so if the players are spamming this >> spell it is a DM issue. It is only as broken as the DM allows it to be. I'm all against XP payment – voluntary or otherwise. It's all explained in my revised rules.
>> What about Miracle? That's different. The DM has full control where divine intervention is involved – and you can't bother a god more than say 1ce a year.
>> my sorcerer/your psion gives up the versatility of multiple schools with >> the advantage of being able to take on a higher tolerance strain in one >> discipline/school. Strain-tolerance is not discipline/school related – simply inapplicable with my approach.
I know it is not designed to work with schools, but is it impossible to make it work that way?
>> The fluff could be that since he/she was not trained in magic/psions the >> versatility is not there, but because it comes so naturally to him/her >> they have more power. if we're talking about someone who makes things happen without even understanding how he does it, than he should have access to any spell-list, but with a narrow repertoire.
They know how to do certain things, just not as many things as the wizard(mage), but the things they do know how to do are done extremely well. It is kind of like that kid in school who gets really good grades in one or two subjects, but is lacking in all the others.
>> Casting defensively is just the ability to cast without presenting an >> opening for a free attack which is all an AoO if. The same logic applies >> to tumbles. When you try to tumble past multiple creatures your foot may >> slip, or you may have opened yourself up(on a failed check), and somebody >> gets a free swing. I didn't catch on what the argument was.
We may have a different view on it, but I understood AoO's as only taking place when someone opened themselves up for an attack. I also mistakenly thought that failing a concentration check provoked an AoO, which it does not. That is why I tried to use the tumble thing as an example of why failing that check provoked an AoO
>> Liches and Constructs have no vital areas I don't attribute precision damage as necessarily being tied to vital organs, but more to mechanics. Take the knee for instance. If the leg is straight and you connect with a powerful low-kick dead on the joint from the outer side – the knee breaks. Pure mechanics. Break the collar-bone and the arm dangles uselessly. Snap the spine and you break the skeleton in half. etc. etc. etc.
You changed your precision damage to breaking arms, and such. Well if that is the case then I have no argument here, but if that is the case it would not cause more damage, but it should affect their d20 rolls and AC since a body part is now ineffective, but I do understand how you planned to make them vurnable to precision damage so I will leave this one alone.
>> Not everyone will be useful at every encounter due to the defenses of >> certain monsters And that's basically the "spending the encounter with your finger stuck up you nose/ass" syndrome.
Most monsters don't make characters totally ineffective just, a lot less effective, and as long as the DM does not make this a habit it is not that bad. Another thing is considering the amount of damage that SA does monsters should get a HP increase if they don't have any defenses against it. Mainly the ones with no con score
>> so if the rogue wants to SA the construct he can take a feat that allows >> him to know how to strike the construct to get past this feature. Yes. WotC practically have a feat for everything, but there are just too many feats and too little slots to ever assemble a really useful group of feats. Too many products on the market – too little room to carry them home. true
>> They don't get a con bonus to their HP so to allow sneak attacks against >> them would really be a bad idea. Yes, but there's also a feat somewhere that allows you to SA undead, so this just basically makes the skill-monkey invest everything on damage – bad thematics. With the moderate SA damage, things don't get out of proportions and our friendly neighborhood rogue has a feat to spare.
I guess I need to check that out to, but even before I do, wouldn't that moderate SA hurt the rogue against monsters that do have a lot of HP, because he won't do as much damage. I realize he is giving up power for versatility, but most monsters are not immune to precision damage, and the rogue's situation damage is not something he should be sacrificing.
>> Why (Only one magic damage type enhancement) Well... 1st, because fire & ice / acid & lightning damage make no sense. 2nd, with my mobile combat + easier crit / precision damage, things could really get out of control. I made everything possible to expand character's range of capabilities in order to drastically reduce dependency upon magical gear, not stack them one on top of the other.
It is a fantasy. If the sword is made of fire, and does ice damage or it is made of ice, and does fire damage then I would understood. If the sword is made of fire and ice then I understand, but there is no reason to say one sword can't do two energy types.
>> The changing of ability score enhancements will make the game harder. >> How do you plan to adjust the CR and experience table to support this? Being able to increase any ability-score every 2 levels and gaining a point each level (see "Character Creation/Advancement" in my revised rules) and boosting that with another temporary +6 seems more than enough to me.
I will have to look at that again.
>> I never used the racial substitution class features, but I don't see a reason to ban them. Because I don't like race-class ties. They make no sense.
fair enough
>> - Half Elves: gain +2 competance modifier to ALL CHA-based skills. >> This does not make them any more desirable to play. It does if you value social capabilities. Playing a social warrior could be great. Robin Hood was a kind of unfettered & social warrior.
It is good fluff, but mechanically they are still inferior to both the human and the elf.
>> They should either get the skill points of a human or the extra feat >> (Players choice at time of character creation). 1. "Player's Choice" doesn't qualify for a racial trait. 2. Where's the distinction from the human ?
They already get most of the benefits of being an elf, but they get nothing other than any favored class from being human. Giving the skill points or the feat brings something from the human side and makes them better mechanically
>> why? (Destruction - 9th level ; replaces Wail of the Banshee) 1. Wail of the Banshee is just another way to kill someone "normally". 2. "Destruction" is a kind of ultimate doom
ok
>> The spell (Disintegrate) was fine the way it was. It requires an attack roll, >> is subject to spell resistance, and a save for less than half damage. With my gamerules you have a lower HP average (40d6 would be hysterical) and it's just a 6th level spell. Using it after several combat rounds have passed could be disastrous even in its modified form.
With all these rules changes you have created your own system. I can't really say it is D&D anymore. I admire the effort, but the PHB is almost worthless now.
>> I don't think there is anything wrong with the call option "Calling Creatures" is basically an "I win" spell. You get another uber-ally to fight for you.
The spell could just be modified to a creature who's CR is equal to the caster level instead of twice the HD.
Harm/Heal: 5HP / level, up to 100. Mass Harm/Heal removed (way too powerful, especially the "Harm" aspect) >> The Harm aspect is only usable by one class, and the Heal mass will be need >> after your party is hit with a hell ball(epic level spell). One class too many. Ok, if we're talking epic, maybe it's not such a good idea to limit, but 5 / level still seems reasonable (especially with Mass Harm).
So mass harm might be borderline epic(pauses). ok you might have a point here
>> That spell (True Strike) is only supposed to affect the first attack even >> if you can make more than one. Being a Mage's spell only, I guess it's Ok for pure Mage, but it could turn out really problematic with a Spellblade. I need to think about it (suggestions could help).
I will have to read the spellblade(assuming it is one of your creations), and get back to you, but it probably won't be until tomorrow.
>> Evasion was never applicable (Wail of the Banshee), True
>> other sonic spells (Wail of the Banshee) only affect who the user wants so why not this one? Shout / Greater Shout don't work like that. Minur/major/permanent Image don't work like that. A violent 1-time scream shouldn't work like that.
It has the death descriptor, but then again mass instakill sounds worse than mass harm. I may have to rethink this one myself
>> Wish cost 5,000 XP at minimum, so if the players are spamming this >> spell it is a DM issue. It is only as broken as the DM allows it to be. I'm all against XP payment – voluntary or otherwise. It's all explained in my revised rules.
I read that, but fluff-wise I look at it as draining the character, on what level I dont know, not him getting dumber.
>> What about Miracle? That's different. The DM has full control where divine intervention is involved – and you can't bother a god more than say 1ce a year.
He has full intervention with Wish. They are divine/arcane versions of the same spell. Some DM's play with the players who use wish, but I would just say no that will not work. No point in making them turn into rabbits, or some other nonsense just because they try something I don't like.
This is starting to go to places I never intended, so I'll just say this:
- I don't regard charisma as physical beauty, but as overall grace. If someone's a klutz, the odds that it's a man are more than 50% (that's my experience at least) - I've once read an article about a woman that scores 239 on the IQ test. Never heard of a man that scored 200. - otoh, there isn't a singe strength or durability test in athletics where women endanger men's records. Take the competition for the world's strongest man for instance. I've never seen or heard (even in a hearsay) of a woman that could qualify for such a compitition (agains men of course) so this is not just about averages. Of course there are women with an overall greater muscle power than mine (not that many though - most lift weights or compete in shot put professionally), but I'm far from being a candidate to compete for the title of the world's strongest man.
This has nothing to do with chauvinism, being bias or living in my own private world of stereotypes. That's just how humans & primates are on our planet. Female abdomen has to occupy something that the male abdomen doesn't and female limbs have lower mass of bone & musle. Pound-per-pound males are stronger and more durable to physical punishment than women (given the same level of starting health, the same nutrition and the same amount of training).
I see no reason why such modifiers should have bearings over roleplaying opportunities or why this issue should raise such protest. I think people attribute too much impact to a single ability-modifier. Having INT-score 18 instead of 16 at 1st level won't be the most important factor to determine how powerful your Mage will be at level 13.
About halflings. An average chimpanzee weighs less than 1/2 as an average human, but is still more that twice as powerful, so I see no problem with halflings being mechanically more efficient and having only -2 STR penalty compared to humans.
Still didn't answer my comment on averages, and how my character isn't neccesarily average.
And just to say, I was not really trying to get into some "PIG!!!!!!" type argument. I'm just pointing out that this is not a very good rule. It's an obstacle to roleplaying, (and possibly a min-max tool) nothing more.
Still didn't answer my comment on averages, and how my character isn't neccesarily average.
To my better judgement, I did: "I've never seen or heard (even in a hearsay) of a woman that could qualify for such a compitition (agains men of course) so this is not just about averages."
Rustmonster wrote:
And just to say, I was not really trying to get into some "PIG!!!!!!" type argument. I'm just pointing out that this is not a very good rule. It's an obstacle to roleplaying, (and possibly a min-max tool) nothing more.
I wouldn't role a female just to get that extraa +1. The gameflow will suffer too much for it to be worth it. Again, I don't believe it will have a major impact (but maybe it's just my poor min-max skills).
I know it is not designed to work with schools, but is it impossible to make it work that way?
Maybe by playing around with the strain costs, but I have no idea how to do it in a balanced way.
concerro wrote:
They know how to do certain things, just not as many things as the wizard(mage), but the things they do know how to do are done extremely well. It is kind of like that kid in school who gets really good grades in one or two subjects, but is lacking in all the others.
Ok, so progression in disciplines is a must if I go with your approach, but if we keep the higher-level powers toned down, than the Psion has just too few powers. So what are your thoughts, would having a number of powers according to the core Wizard's spells-per-day be reasonable or too much ?
concerro wrote:
the amount of damage that SA does monsters should get a HP increase if they don't have any defenses against it. Mainly the ones with no con score
That's where fortification comes in. Not every strike will produce the extra damage.
concerro wrote:
wouldn't that moderate SA hurt the rogue against monsters that do have a lot of HP
The SA damage was not all that moderated and with a hand-axe or hand-pick he can still do some decent damage at 9h level (without making large+ size Rogues too uber).
concerro wrote:
It is a fantasy. If the sword is made of fire, and does ice damage or it is made of ice, and does fire damage then I would understood. If the sword is made of fire and ice then I understand, but there is no reason to say one sword can't do two energy types.
Maybe you're right. With the ability-boost & combat-stat-boost moderation this one is probably not needed.
concerro wrote:
It is good fluff, but mechanically they are still inferior to both the human and the elf.
They still get the Able-Learner as racial feature. Combined with the core ratial traits + having +2 to ALL CHA-based skills, I think that makes them Ok (they'll sure make a powerful party face and natural leaders).
concerro wrote:
With all these rules changes you have created your own system. I can't really say it is D&D anymore. I admire the effort, but the PHB is almost worthless now.
I always had a poblem with how HP work in D&D. On one hand, a Wizard can have more HP that a Barb of the same level (all in the dice & CON-mod). Otoh, a level-20-Barb can have as many as 336 HP (pre rage & magical intervention). With a steady start and a moderate incline, the HP ratio between the classes is preserved and characters don't get Godzilla-level HP. With DR and increased means of defense, there's no justification for uber-HP. And if someone feels too frail, he can always take Toughness.
concerro wrote:
The spell could just be modified to a creature who's CR is equal to the caster level instead of twice the HD.
Sounds decent enough.
concerro wrote:
it has the death descriptor, but then again mass instakill sounds worse than mass harm.
Yes, but it becomes much trickier, since it doesn't distinguish between friend & foe.
I looked at the rogue, and i saw no d6 sneak attack. Did you change it completely or just not put the d6 in the table. I saw the versions that extend crit range, and do possible death attacks.
Originally Posted by concerro View Post I know it is not designed to work with schools, but is it impossible to make it work that way
? Maybe by playing around with the strain costs, but I have no idea how to do it in a balanced way.
Originally Posted by concerro They know how to do certain things, just not as many things as the wizard(mage), but the things they do know how to do are done extremely well. It is kind of like that kid in school who gets really good grades in one or two subjects, but is lacking in all the others.
Ok, so progression in disciplines is a must if I go with your approach, but if we keep the higher-level powers toned down, than the Psion has just too few powers. So what are your thoughts, would having a number of powers according to the core Wizard's spells-per-day be reasonable or too much ?
He can learn spells like a sorcerer(3 9th level) or psion(3 9th level), which will have him knowing less than a wizard. I would go with 3-5 ninth level powers at 20th level. I am leaning toward 3 since it will demonstrate his limitation with different powers/spells. You could create more powers if the higher level ones don't have enough variety, and if his limitation still hurts him so that he is not as useful as he should be then give him advanced learning evey so many level(I am suggesting 4 or 5, but definitely not every 3 levels).
Originally Posted by concerro It is good fluff, but mechanically they are still inferior to both the human and the elf. They still get the Able-Learner as racial feature.
Combined with the core ratial traits + having +2 to ALL CHA-based skills, I think that makes them Ok (they'll sure make a powerful party face and natural leaders).
Cha based skills are not that important in D&D unless you want to typecast the half-elf into a bard-type character. Giving +2 to noncombat based skills will not help them be more attractive. The skill points or feats can be used to build the character the way the player wants. If you want to make cha that important to the half-elf then give him the fast talker abilitiy(I made this one up). It lets him make diplomacy check that would normally take 1 minute can be done with a full round action, and if they rush it then the check takes a -10 but it can be done in one round. As far as able-learner I would rather get an extra skill skill that I know I will use, than access to all the skills with only half progression, and knowing I most likely wont be able to use them. Able-learner is like offering someone their choice of twenty different things to eat. It is nice to have the choices, but since you cant eat everything you might as well just get the few things that you like best.
Originally Posted by concerro With all these rules changes you have created your own system. I can't really say it is D&D anymore. I admire the effort, but the PHB is almost worthless now.
I always had a poblem with how HP work in D&D. On one hand, a Wizard can have more HP that a Barb of the same level (all in the dice & CON-mod). Otoh, a level-20-Barb can have as many as 336 HP (pre rage & magical intervention). With a steady start and a moderate incline, the HP ratio between the classes is preserved and characters don't get Godzilla-level HP. With DR and increased means of defense, there's no justification for uber-HP. And if someone feels too frail, he can always take Toughness.
Some guy with his head in a book, and a guy who gets into fights, are generally not going to be able to take the same amount of pain or get out of certain situations with the same degree of difficulty which is what HP represents. With the damage some monsters do they will need that XP. I hit a player with 80 HP of damage by using power attack using a monster I had not modified(17th ish level). A wizard would never have allowed someone to get that close, but it is a melee type's job to get that close so when their AC fails they better have something to fall back on. DR at 20th level is a joke. What good is DR 3 or 5, even the - type when you are getting hit for at 40-80 points. Some monster have a +30 to the damage modifier, and if they crit on two hits and another one or two lands that is 120 before I roll the dice. Going from taking 175 HP(an example) down to 165 is not going to save you most of the time. You may have changed toughness, but if you mean the regular 3.5 version then that is what I call a roleplaying feat, and it has no real usefulness.
i
It has the death descriptor, but then again mass instakill sounds worse than mass harm.
Yes, but it becomes much trickier, since it doesn't distinguish between friend & foe.
Most DM's let their players choose exactly where to put the center of the spell if it has a radius affect so most casters will just put it where it can affect as many enemies as possible with hurting allies, and the party could always have death ward cast if they know that is what will be unleashed first.
