Talk to Ashiel About Anything Mark II

[Ashiel]

I disagree. Quickrunner shirt just became another must have item in a game filled with must have stuffs. Quickrunner shirt were just a patch, I dislike patchest in the form of magic items. What the game needed was a fix.

I'd agree with that. Which is why I said a "step" actually. It doesn't give them the freedom that they had in 3.0 but it was a step in that direction. One could just make full attacking a standard action I suppose if they wanted to take away any reliance on using magic at all, and that would have much the same result as 3.0 was designed around (you'll notice that you get your first iterative attack at +6 BAB, which is also the level core sorcerers have access to haste).

That's something I think doesn't get enough attention these days. The fact that, in a sense, the game was designed around the idea that a party working cooperatively and feeding into each other would be ideal. Perhaps that's because people don't want to feel like they have to adhere to the traditional party paradigm. I can sympathize with that, though I'm a little fuzzier on whether or not I'm ready to throw it out, since I think playing with unusual party comps can be part of the fun (and far from impossible).

Might be worth it's own musing session or two.

You know why. But, fine... I'll humor you.

Well I mean, I've got a pretty twisted sense of balance it seems compared to most, and there's always a good chance that someone knows something that I don't, and I respect your insight.

FE is a passive bonus that is considerably stronger than similar abilities (Studied Target, Weapon Training, Judgement, etc). It's balanced by being somewhat situational (usually). Instant Enemy effectively turns it into "use whenever you want" ability, which puts it head and shoulder above most other "attack bonus" abilities (it's not as good as Smite Evil, but you get far more uses per day).

Well, let's talk about how I see it, and we can compare notes?
1. It seems like at low levels when Rangers don't really need it, it's a situational +2 that pops up sometimes and it's neat. Not as useful as an always available effect such as the Studied Target, and also fairly difficult to exploit with multiclassing. I also think Weapon Training is a garbage ability, but that's just a side note.

2. Eventually you come to a point where your ranger might need a big gun, and that's about the time favored enemy becomes available. It's a limited resource (magic) which prevents you from spamming it without making some sort of investment into it (in the form of magic items, such as investing in scrolls, wands, pearls of power, or x/day items), but not so demanding as to force you to expend feats or something on it. Similarly, adding a resource pool or some other method of paying for using the ability to make it x/day would be awkward.

This puts it sort of half-way between smite and similar abilities, while also preventing you from having your cake and eating it too (it comes at a cost, mostly in the form of items).

3. It doesn't strike me as anything out of the realm of fine for a martial, but then I also have no problems with oath of vengeance Paladins, who can convert Lay on Hands uses into smite uses (which in turn makes Extra Lay on Hands automatically Extra Smite, and also effectively grants them a potential extra smite for every +2 Charisma modifier they attain, and so forth). Similarly in my own campaigns, Paladin smites are 1/2 effective against Neutral-aligned creatures (and the majority of enemies are neutral) and full strength against their opposing foes (like evil clerics and antipaladins), and that feels pretty similar.

These are reasons that it doesn't feel overpowered to me. Not even a little bit. But I understand that "overpowered" is something that varies from person to person, which is part of the reason I wanted to ask.

EDIT: Also I had never interpreted the spell as being able to not target a creature you had as a favored enemy, but a creature that wasn't THE favored enemy, because of the favored enemy as defined by the spell is a selected creature type (as defined in the spell's text).

Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes.

Ergo, I've always read this as if your choice of favored enemy is for example "Undead", you can still choose to target and choose a creature that is not undead even if you do also have a favored enemy bonus against the creature type, because the creature type that the spell references is the chosen type.

Put another way, the targeting of the spell is a creature that is not your favored enemy (notice it doesn't say "not one of your favored enemies") but expresses favored enemy as a singular instance. In the text, you define what your favored enemy is by selecting the type.

I can see the case for the other being made, though that seems to lead to absurd situations (like you pointed out), so unless there's a really good reason to run it that way rather than the aforementioned way, I think I'm going to stick with the aforementioned way, since it seems poorly defined (and in such cases I usually go with whichever makes more sense).

[Ashiel]

I can see this as a thing if the player buys the Ranger animal companion class feature. A Raging Bear would be a thing.

If your animal companion received the benefits of your Rage and Rage powers, I could consider that for sure.

Bardic performance would be neat too (howling wolf grants your party bonuses).

Wild shape could be neat too.

Sneak attack could be neat as a flanking buddy.

Studied Target would be decent.

Challenge could be neat too.

Judgment might be decent.

Witch hexes could be fun (hex people and have your raven cackle for example).

Probably could think of a few others that would be neat.

[Lemmy]

Jason Bulmahn has always had a tendency to nerf/ban any build, tactics or ability that he didn't foresee or didn't like... No matter if they were balanced or even underpowered.

*cough* armor spikes *cough*

[Ashiel]

JJ has always had a tendency to nerf/ban any build, tactics or ability that he didn't foresee or didn't like... No matter if they were balanced or even underpowered.

*cough* armor spikes *cough*

Uh-oh. What'd he do with armor spikes?

[Lemmy]

Uh-oh. What'd he do with armor spikes?

It's what started the worst errata in Paizo's history: SCHRONDIGGER HANDS!

HOW DARE YOU TWF WITH ARMOR SPIKES AND A TWO-HANDED WEAPON?! I DON'T LIKE IT, SO IT'S BROKEN! NOW YOU NEED "HANDS" FOR EVERYTHING! I'LL ALSO PRETEND THIS WAS ALWAYS THE CASE, EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T MENTIONED OR EVEN IMPLIED ANYWHERE IN THE CRB! ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS A FILTHY ROLLPLAYING MUNCHKIN!

[Lemmy]

Well, let's talk about how I see it, and we can compare notes?
1. It seems like at low levels when Rangers don't really need it, it's a situational +2 that pops up sometimes and it's neat. Not as useful as an always available effect such as the Studied Target, and also fairly difficult to exploit with multiclassing. I also think Weapon Training is a garbage ability, but that's just a side note.

2. Eventually you come to a point where your ranger might need a big gun, and that's about the time favored enemy becomes available. It's a limited resource (magic) which prevents you from spamming it without making some sort of investment into it (in the form of magic items, such as investing in scrolls, wands, pearls of power, or x/day items), but not so demanding as to force you to expend feats or something on it. Similarly, adding a resource pool or some other method of paying for using the ability to make it x/day would be awkward.

This puts it sort of half-way between smite and similar abilities, while also preventing you from having your cake and eating it too (it comes at a cost, mostly in the form of items).

3. It doesn't strike me as anything out of the realm of fine for a martial, but then I also have no problems with oath of vengeance Paladins, who can convert Lay on Hands uses into smite uses (which in turn makes Extra Lay on Hands automatically Extra Smite, and also effectively grants them a potential extra smite for every +2 Charisma modifier they attain, and so forth). Similarly in my own campaigns, Paladin smites are 1/2 effective against Neutral-aligned creatures (and the majority of enemies are neutral) and full strength against their opposing foes (like evil clerics and antipaladins), and that feels pretty similar.

It's not overpowered in the "game-breaking" sense, but it's definitely not balanced with other similar options. I don't ban the spell, but I do think it's better than it should be. And like I said. The things that "balance" it just make the game more "samey" and less fun, IMO. I won't delve too much into it so as not to bore everyone, but IMO, if an option is so good that it effectively becomes a "must have" (or "must have not"), there is either something wrong with that option, with everything else, or both.

[Nicos]

It's what started the worst errata in Paizo's history: SCHRONDIGGER HANDS!

HOW DARE YOU TWF WITH ARMOR SPIKES AND A TWO-HANDED WEAPON?! I DON'T LIKE IT, SO IT'S BROKEN! NOW YOU NEED "HANDS" FOR EVERYTHING! I'LL ALSO PRETEND THIS WAS ALWAYS THE CASE, EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T MENTIONED OR EVEN IMPLIED ANYWHERE IN THE CRB! ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS A FILTHY ROLLPLAYING MUNCHKIN!

While that errata was really bad, and the people defending it were worst ("I always knew how it was supposed to work, even when it worked differently than in 3.5 and they left unchanged the text"). How do you know who was the mastermind behind it?

[Ashiel]

It's not overpowered in the "game-breaking" sense, but it's definitely not balanced with other similar options. I don't ban the spell, but I do think it's better than it should be. And like I said. The things that "balance" it just make the game more "samey" and less fun, IMO. I won't delve too much into it so as not to bore everyone, but IMO, if an option is so good that it effectively becomes a "must have" (or "must have not"), there is either something wrong with that option, with everything else, or both.

I thought about that sort of thing for a long time, and I eventually came to the (perhaps ill conceived) conclusion that the final conclusion is either removing anything that isn't mediocre, or removing everything that is.

[Nicos]

If your animal companion received the benefits of your Rage and Rage powers, I could consider that for sure.

Bardic performance would be neat too (howling wolf grants your party bonuses).

Wild shape could be neat too.

Sneak attack could be neat as a flanking buddy.

Studied Target would be decent.

Challenge could be neat too.

Judgment might be decent.

Witch hexes could be fun (hex people and have your raven cackle for example).

Probably could think of a few others that would be neat.

Uhm, Challenge, Rage, judgement and sneak attack cost the same as Favored enemy, so I can see an exchange there without a problem.

Things that modify those features are extras (like rogue talents than add to sneak attacks, and rage powers) so I would be hesitant to give them to the companion for free. Though, if the companion have a class feature they could buy those extra things with their own feats.

[Lemmy]

I thought about that sort of thing for a long time, and I eventually came to the (perhaps ill conceived) conclusion that the final conclusion is either removing anything that isn't mediocre, or removing everything that is.

"Mediocre" only means "average". If the average stuff is at a good point, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's probably a good thing. Options can be equally good without being the same.

The problem with PF is that the average quality of many things is pretty low. Bloat and Paizo's terrible errata policy pretty much force players to dumpster-dive to find the few good gems that are worth taking. I doubt even 25% of PF feats are actually decent. And I'd not be surprised if a good amount of the bad ones had never actually seen play. Besides... I'm not expecting or demanding perfect balance. Just good balance. Sure, Druids are more powerful than Rangers, but Range do still have enough advantages to feel useful and fun... Unlike, let's say, Bard x vanilla Rogue.

Power Attack is probably better than Combat Reflexes for most characters, but I'm ok with that, since both feats are still useful. I can see my self taking both (in fact, I usually do). Or maybe Iron Will, or Improved Initiative, etc... But what's the point of having things like "Water Skin" in the game? Or "Sure Grasp"? My problem with Instant Enemy is that it effectively removes nearly all 3rd level Ranger spells from the game. And makes the ability unbalanced with similar ones.

[Zilrax]

Never been a problem for me. If anything instant enemy saves me from being left out of a class feature. And I still pick up other third levels because there are still great ones besides it. Like Fickle Winds, Named Bullet... And thats about it because most of the other spells are really situational. Greater Magic Fang if I went AC I guess.

[Ashiel]

In case anyone cares, this is actually the mechanics I'm using for Rangers in my current online campaign.

Predator's Focus (Ex): 1st 1st level, rangers receive a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls, and Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th), the ranger increases this bonus by +1.

Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, 5th level, every 5 levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th), the ranger chooses a creature type. Against the chosen creature type, the ranger doubles his bonus from Predator's Focus.

[137beth]

I'm a bit late to the party, but with all the arguments y'all were having over Automatic Bonus Progression, I feel like it would be appropriate to link to forumite Grod_The_Giant's approach to reducing magic item dependency. It's written for 3.5, but it's still reasonable to compare it with Pathfinder. The key things it does better than Paizo's ABP are

1)It doesn't just grant number boosts. There are a lot of very powerful abilities and immunities in 3.5 that are very difficult to get without either magic items or spells. This variant rule allows everyone to get these abilities as a part of leveling up.

2)It gives players a lot of options to choose from at each level. It doesn't just give everyone the same bonuses.

[Ashiel]

I'm a bit late to the party, but with all the arguments y'all were having over Automatic Bonus Progression, I feel like it would be appropriate to link to forumite Grod_The_Giant's approach to reducing magic item dependency. It's written for 3.5, but it's still reasonable to compare it with Pathfinder. The key things it does better than Paizo's ABP are

1)It doesn't just grant number boosts. There are a lot of very powerful abilities and immunities in 3.5 that are very difficult to get without either magic items or spells. This variant rule allows everyone to get these abilities as a part of leveling up.

2)It gives players a lot of options to choose from at each level. It doesn't just give everyone the same bonuses.

That's pretty neat. :D

I could pitch my campaign setting into the pile to see if anyone is interested.

Alvena Summary
History in a Nutshell: Gods are few, create the world and its life; primitive man was dominated by dragons; gods share knowledge of magic with humanity, humanity punches dragons in the jimmies; dragons get scarce, humanity creates advanced magical civilizations; magical civilizations get lazy, find demons; demons invade world, much problems; humanity survives war, lost civilization; magic diminished, dragons get ballsy again; humanity tries to rebuild civilization with mundane or low-magic means, while adventurers search for relics of the past; the gods wait for this cycle to carry their children to godhood.

Points of Interest: Alvena is a post-apocalyptic world with emerging technologies, countless ancient dungeons, ruins, even entire civilizations overtaken by nature and ripe for exploring. Civilization is inching its way back into existence with communities and settlements and a few governing powers with a loose control over their lands, and without high magic the world has become a mish-mash of swords and sorcery and emerging engineering technologies (such as ballistae, gunpowder, steam power, hot-air balloons, etc). Much of the world is untamed, unsettled, unexplored, and contested by emerging powers. Low level magic (primarily provided by adepts) makes communities in inhospitable places more practical (such as settlements in desert wastelands, or towns built on the side of a mountain).

Gods, Divine Magic, Religion: The "true gods" are the creators of the world, most mortals have forgotten they exist. They want their children the mortals to succeed but intentionally take a hands off approach (intervening indirectly with things like dream spells or proxies and disguises), because for them the world and its challenges are a form of tough love that causes no "permanent" damage to their mortal children and will lead them to ascending to godhood. To some this might seem cruel, but it's how they too came into being before the creation of this world and it's how their children will grow to godhood. They don't see their short lives on the material plane in the same way mortals do, and when mortals die they are reincarnated later anyway, so while they want heroes to succeed they're more than patient enough to wait for it.

Other gods are too many to mention and run the gamut of various outsiders of varying powers, and more mundane creatures that have developed cults (such as tribes of kobolds making offerings to hydras, or dragon cults sacrificing virgins to wyrms, etc).

Divine magic actually comes from the user, not from an external source. Most mortals don't know this, some mortals do. This is why priests often worship things as gods that aren't actually gods and why simply piousness doesn't necessarily lead to greater spiritual power (because the strengthening of the soul through struggle does), which is why clerics and the like doing things tend to level faster than those who spend their days praying in a monastery).

Power Scale:


If any of this stuff sounds kind of amusing, I could elaborate on more, but I don't want to bore anyone with lots of details.

[Zilrax]

I'm interested certainly. I like the setting for certain thus far. Definitely not biased by being able to legitimately refurbish a tank in it.

[Ashiel]

I'm interested certainly. I like the setting for certain thus far. Definitely not biased by being able to legitimately refurbish a tank in it.

Amusingly, because most basic physics-based tech was kind of ignored during the magic-dominated era, things like ballistae are kind of a novelty. There's a dragon in the campaign right now who's stuck in human form (she's an 18 HD white dragon that was cursed by some frost witches and trapped in a human body to teach her a lesson), but in the recent session the screenshot was from, the party used several CR 4 ballistae to kill a CR 9 dragon*. The white dragon in question was disturbed by this because it was damn effective.

Each of the ballistae was a CR 4 trap that had a +20 to hit and inflicted 6d6+6 damage per shot, throwing a large spear with exceptional force and speed. The CR 9 wyrm duked it out with the party for a bit but took four shots from the ballistae and died with one shot through its mouth and lodged through its skull. Though the white dragon (in human form) was brutally overpowered by the CR 9 dragon (and she was very upset about that for a variety of reasons) she was also unsettled by how she was saved, because seeing this "terrible weapon" used against the wyrm was frightening. Non-mages weren't particularly frightening to dragons throughout history, but suddenly with the decline of magic's popularity humanity has begun inventing all sorts of new things, and the idea that a few commoners with oversized crossbows could hurt let alone kill a huge-sized dragon is extremely upsetting to the dragon and she's having a bit of an emotional breakdown at the moment.

*: Most of the common dragons in Alvena are not true dragons. Most are created using the half-dragon template applied to various creatures to create different variations of the more simple dragons that aren't super magical but are essentially huge beasts that spit fire and lightning (a slight variance between this and the published template is that the breath weapon inflicts 1d6/2HD and has a cooldown instead of being 1d6/HD but usuable 1/day). Despite not being true dragons, the majority of the world doesn't really see a practical difference most of the time. It also lets me make various exotic dragons that have a gimmick or two that aren't super complex.

[Nicos]

Anyone knows good houserules for Guns?

The touch attack and the neccesity to get as many shot per turn to makes me dislike the pathfinder ones.

[Lemmy]

For simplicity's sake, I just go with:

Firearms: No longer target touch AC, but have the distance of each range increments tripled and their reload time reduced by 1 step (full-round -> standard action -> move action -> free action). One-handed firearms are considered light weapons. Masterwork firearms misfire only on a natural 1 (if the firearm originally misfires on a 2) or not at all (if the firearm originally misfires only on a natural 1).

Double-barreled firearms: No longer allow characters to make an extra attack with a standard action. They simply carry twice as many bullets. This should make them useful without the added complexity they add to game balance.

Or I just use my wonderful CUSTOM WEAPON GENERATION SYSTEM and simply don't actually give them the "Firearm" modification...
- - -

BTW, I said James Jacobs in a previous post, but I meant Jason Bulmahn... I always get the names of those two mixed up...

[Tels]

While I'm interested in the campaig setting, I, personally, am most interested in learning how you all play the game. As a player I've always had to struggle with the GMs I've played with. They're used to a certain way the game was played in older editions, and they keep trying to shoehorn those limits into the current games. One of the big things is the relative power of things.

Like, anytime I would bring up something that someone could do, if it "sounds" strong, then they reflexively nix it because it's new, and different, and scary, and they don't like it. For example the Paizo version of Kineticist from Occult Adventures is overpowered because it gets at-will kinetic blasts. I love that class dearly, but I'm fully aware the Kineticist isn't the king of anything except being anime as ****.

It's been so frustrating because I never know how the game functions. They will change rules from session to session which makes it so hard to do anything. Like, how is someone supposed to live if the physics of the world keep changing every day? Some examples include a troll that was able to stand up from prone, double move, pick up a child, move to a door, open the door, move through the door, close the door, and lock the door via a drop bar all in the same turn. Or my 19th level Ranger with a +40 in Perception can't see the enemy sneaking up on her, but the Wizard with a +16 Perception is able to do so, despite my Rangers minimum check automatically being higher than the Wizard's check. Or when an enemy wizard uses a fireball and wipes out my mirror images even when I point out area effects don't do that, but it worked, "because it does in his game" and when I do something similar, it somehow no longer works because that's what the rules say...

If I question this, I always get the same response, "stop focusing on the rules and let the GM tell a story, or is that against the rules?" Like I'm somehow that bad guy because I'm trying to play the game with the mutual assumption the rules work the way they say they do.... I'm ranting now, sorry.

So as a player, I've always ended up building what I'm sure most would consider weak characters because that's what I'm allowed to build. The one time I was ever able to flex my knowledge of the game, my best friend was the GM and I ended up building, or help building 3 1/2 out of 5 1/2 of the characters. We had 5 players, but one person was consistently a no-show and our only Arcane caster, so my buddy had me build a secondary Wizard that would only be played when the other guy wasn't around. The guy missed so many sessions he eventually quit and the Wizard became a permanent party member and now I was playing 2 characters.

That was an interesting game as I was also the default "back-up" player for everyone's character. If someone had to leave early or miss a session (except the sorcerer who wouldn't let anyone touch his sheet), they would have me control their character in the meantime. One session had two people leave due to an emergency so I ended up playing 4 characters for 2 hours as we finished the mess we were embroiled in.

Anyway, as I said, I'm most interested in seeing how you all play and learning from it. As a player, I'm still very much a noob, I actually have more experience as a GM than as a player and I consider GMing easier. Probably because it's harder to prepare for situations as a player but as a GM I can literally rewrite reality on the fly if necessary. I'm also not sure I even have that much fun playing characters anymore to be honest.

[Zilrax]

Yeah that would be spooky for a creature used to such things. I get the need for lack of complexity for certain. I kinda like the Taninim from in the company of dragons expanded myself most part.

But yeah those ballistas would out damage the cannon too most part amusingly until one could get a huge sized tank at level 9. Cannons also don't target touch ac. Mostly between the two far as a tank went, cannons are more expensive and reload slower but have better range and a bit more damage. Big advantage is that they count as weapons for feats and such over said trap ballistas. Vital strike. Gotta make up for only firing every other round somehow :p. At least til I can put a secondary weapon on it to use while the first is reloading.

Can only imagine a dragons reaction to a steam pumping landship driving along. Basically be Age of Wonders 3 all over again. Dreadnought vs Druid, FIGHT.


Ugh, inconsistent rules is the worst. I understand changing things because you were in error before but... Yeah. And being shot down because muh story really rubs me the wrong way most the time. I mean I can understand if everyone agreed to this sort of thing the first time but... It's rarely like that.

[Ashiel]

While I'm interested in the campaig setting, I, personally, am most interested in learning how you all play the game. As a player I've always had to struggle with the GMs I've played with. They're used to a certain way the game was played in older editions, and they keep trying to shoehorn those limits into the current games. One of the big things is the relative power of things.

Like, anytime I would bring up something that someone could do, if it "sounds" strong, then they reflexively nix it because it's new, and different, and scary, and they don't like it. For example the Paizo version of Kineticist from Occult Adventures is overpowered because it gets at-will kinetic blasts. I love that class dearly, but I'm fully aware the Kineticist isn't the king of anything except being anime as ****.

It's been so frustrating because I never know how the game functions. They will change rules from session to session which makes it so hard to do anything. Like, how is someone supposed to live if the physics of the world keep changing every day? Some examples include a troll that was able to stand up from prone, double move, pick up a child, move to a door, open the door, move through the door, close the door, and lock the door via a drop bar all in the same turn. Or my 19th level Ranger with a +40 in Perception can't see the enemy sneaking up on her, but the Wizard with a +16 Perception is able to do so, despite my Rangers minimum check automatically being higher than the Wizard's check. Or when an enemy wizard uses a fireball and wipes out my mirror images even when I point out area effects don't do that, but it worked, "because it does in his game" and when I do something similar, it somehow no longer works because that's what the rules say...

If I question this, I always get the same response, "stop focusing on the rules and let the GM tell a story, or is that against the rules?" Like I'm somehow that bad guy because I'm trying to play the game with the mutual assumption the rules work the way they say they do.... I'm ranting now, sorry.

Well now I have to run you a game, because that is absolutely horrible!

So as a player, I've always ended up building what I'm sure most would consider weak characters because that's what I'm allowed to build. The one time I was ever able to flex my knowledge of the game, my best friend was the GM and I ended up building, or help building 3 1/2 out of 5 1/2 of the characters. We had 5 players, but one person was consistently a no-show and our only Arcane caster, so my buddy had me build a secondary Wizard that would only be played when the other guy wasn't around. The guy missed so many sessions he eventually quit and the Wizard became a permanent party member and now I was playing 2 characters.

That was an interesting game as I was also the default "back-up" player for everyone's character. If someone had to leave early or miss a session (except the sorcerer who wouldn't let anyone touch his sheet), they would have me control their character in the meantime. One session had two people leave due to an emergency so I ended up playing 4 characters for 2 hours as we finished the mess we were embroiled in.

Anyway, as I said, I'm most interested in seeing how you all play and learning from it. As a player, I'm still very much a noob, I actually have more experience as a GM than as a player and I consider GMing easier. Probably because it's harder to prepare for situations as a player but as a GM I can literally rewrite reality on the fly if necessary. I'm also not sure I even have that much fun playing characters anymore to be honest.

Maybe I can make it fun for you to play too.

[Ashiel]

Yeah that would be spooky for a creature used to such things. I get the need for lack of complexity for certain. I kinda like the Taninim from in the company of dragons expanded myself most part.

But yeah those ballistas would out damage the cannon too most part amusingly until one could get a huge sized tank at level 9. Cannons also don't target touch ac. Mostly between the two far as a tank went, cannons are more expensive and reload slower but have better range and a bit more damage. Big advantage is that they count as weapons for feats and such over said trap ballistas. Vital strike. Gotta make up for only firing every other round somehow :p. At least til I can put a secondary weapon on it to use while the first is reloading.

Can only imagine a dragons reaction to a steam pumping landship driving along. Basically be Age of Wonders 3 all over again. Dreadnought vs Druid, FIGHT.


Ugh, inconsistent rules is the worst. I understand changing things because you were in error before but... Yeah. And being shot down because muh story really rubs me the wrong way most the time. I mean I can understand if everyone agreed to this sort of thing the first time but... It's rarely like that.

Well, something worth noting is I don't use Paizo's splat materials like their siege weapons and such. Really just haven't had a use for them, since I can do better (IMHO) with the core trap rules. The ballista for example were CR 3 traps one wheels. Here's a breakdown of the trap in question.

The Dragonator (CR 3, 800 XP)
Perception DC 0 (-1 CR) (It's a ballista, it's not exactly hard to spot.)
Disable DC 5 (-1 CR) (Cut a rope or jam something in it.)
Attack Bonus +20 (+2 CR) (Punches through armor and is quite fast.)
Damage 6d6+6 (avg. 27) (+3 CR, avg. damage ~30.)
Special Can be manually reset as a full-round action.

Drastically different beast than the ballistas in Paizo Siege Engines, but they're easier to balance encounters for whether they are on team goodguy or team badguy, and you can get a lot more variation in how powerful a machine is and not have to worry about the "ignores hardness" nonsense of Paizo siege weapons.

[Zilrax]

Yeah I think the ignore hardness was to make catapults actually dangerous to walls sorta. Though honestly castle walls problem is they've so much hp a catapult would take forever to get anything done. So that could work.

But yeah I can see how that'd be useful for dealing with things than all the rigamarole for handling the siege rules. Though I also would avoid them cus, well, Technician and all. http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/technician#toc149

Assuming that's the route we go anyways. If not I'll find something else, I just want to see if I can make it work haha.

[Ashiel]

Yeah I think the ignore hardness was to make catapults actually dangerous to walls sorta. Though honestly castle walls problem is they've so much hp a catapult would take forever to get anything done. So that could work.

But yeah I can see how that'd be useful for dealing with things than all the rigamarole for handling the siege rules. Though I also would avoid them cus, well, Technician and all. http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/technician#toc149

Assuming that's the route we go anyways. If not I'll find something else, I just want to see if I can make it work haha.

I would make a catapult using the trap rules as well, and allow them to damage vs hardness as well.

Catapult Prototype (CR 5, 1600 XP)
Perception DC -5 (-1 CR) (It's a catapult, it's not exactly hard to spot.)
Disable DC 5 (-1 CR) (Cut a rope or jam something in it.)
Attack Bonus +0 (-2 CR) (You're aiming at spaces and it's not super accurate.)
Reflex Save DC 5 negates (CR -1) (Walls don't make saves, soldiers do.)
Damage 10d6+70 (avg. 105) (+10 CR, avg. damage ~100.)
Multiple Targets Creatures and objects within 10 ft. of the attacked space.
Special Must be manually reset.
Notes Catapult must be fired at a creature or space, and a miss uses the misfire rules as a grenade-like weapon. The catapult inflicts its damage to creatures and objects in each square within 10 ft. of the point of impact. A DC 5 reflex save negates the damage from the catapult (unattended objects such as Walls do not receive a saving throw unless they are also magically enhanced). Since the hp of a wall is per 10 ft. x 10 ft. section (see Environment chapter, Dungeon Environment, Walls) the damage of the catapult is especially effective at destroying walls (as a direct hit or near direct hit will damage the same wall multiple times due to hitting each section of the 10 ft. x 10 ft. space individually).

This catapult must be fired at the target (+0 vs AC 5 for targeting a space). It then inflicts an average of about 100 damage to the space and all spaces within 10 ft. Due to the wide arc and ability to see the attack coming, it's relatively easy for most soldiers to leap out of the way before it hits (but walls and the like aren't entitled to saves). Because it inflicts damage to creatures and objects in every space and wall HP is per 10 ft. x 10 ft. section, a direct hit to the wall actually inflicts 10d6+70 damage to each section of the wall it makes short work of a wall (a typical masonry wall has 90 HP per foot of foot of thickness but even after the 1/2 damage from ranged attacks penalty would suffer an average of 178 damage on a direct hit, making the catapult break through about 2 ft. of wall per hit).

[Zilrax]

Yeah that would do it. Be good vs the oozepocalypse if an ochre jelly or 6 fell into a blade trap too.

[catman04221985]

That's pretty neat. :D

I could pitch my campaign setting into the pile to see if anyone is interested.

Alvena Summary
History in a Nutshell: Gods are few, create the world and its life; primitive man was dominated by dragons; gods share knowledge of magic with humanity, humanity punches dragons in the jimmies; dragons get scarce, humanity creates advanced magical civilizations; magical civilizations get lazy, find demons; demons invade world, much problems; humanity survives war, lost civilization; magic diminished, dragons get ballsy again; humanity tries to rebuild civilization with mundane or low-magic means, while adventurers search for relics of the past; the gods wait for this cycle to carry their children to godhood.

Points of Interest: Alvena is a post-apocalyptic world with emerging technologies, countless ancient dungeons, ruins, even entire civilizations overtaken by nature and ripe for exploring. Civilization is inching its way back into existence with communities and settlements and a few governing powers with a loose control over their lands, and without high magic the world has become a mish-mash of swords and sorcery and emerging engineering technologies (such as ballistae, gunpowder, steam power, hot-air balloons, etc). Much of the world is untamed, unsettled, unexplored, and contested by emerging powers. Low level magic (primarily provided by adepts) makes communities in inhospitable places more practical (such as settlements in desert wastelands, or towns built on the side of a mountain).

Gods, Divine Magic, Religion: The "true gods" are the creators of the world, most mortals have forgotten they exist. They want their children the mortals to succeed but intentionally take a hands off approach (intervening indirectly with things like dream spells or proxies and disguises), because for them the world and its challenges are a form of tough love that causes no "permanent" damage to their mortal children and will lead them to ascending to godhood. To some this might seem cruel, but it's how they too came into being before the creation of this world and it's how their children will grow to godhood. They don't see their short lives on the material plane in the same way mortals do, and when mortals die they are reincarnated later anyway, so while they want heroes to succeed they're more than patient enough to wait for it.

Other gods are too many to mention and run the gamut of various outsiders of varying powers, and more mundane creatures that have developed cults (such as tribes of kobolds making offerings to hydras, or dragon cults sacrificing virgins to wyrms, etc).

Divine magic actually comes from the user, not from an external source. Most mortals don't know this, some mortals do. This is why priests often worship things as gods that aren't actually gods and why simply piousness doesn't necessarily lead to greater spiritual power (because the strengthening of the soul through struggle does), which is why clerics and the like doing things tend to level faster than those who spend their days praying in a monastery).

Power Scale:


If any of this stuff sounds kind of amusing, I could elaborate on more, but I don't want to bore anyone with lots of details.

I quite agree with the power scale. In my own homebrew Lv 10 is the upper limit on the NPC'S

[Ashiel]

Yeah that would do it. Be good vs the oozepocalypse if an ochre jelly or 6 fell into a blade trap too.

You have given me a hilarious idea for a dungeon.

I quite agree with the power scale. In my own homebrew Lv 10 is the upper limit on the NPC'S

The campaign basically expects player characters to attain godlike power while the world is noticeably less powerful. The idea is that the world keeps going through these cycles of weal and woe, and the challenges that heroes face strengthen them with the intention that over time their children will grow up and become gods too. At least two of the major deities currently worshiped in the campaign were in fact heroes that ascended at the end of the previous demon wars.

A few other things noteworthy about the campaign at the moment is...



The 8,000 gp limit only applies to the magic item effects (not the base item, so a +2 longsword is fine). Players are expected to craft or discover more powerful items on their adventures. Also, in the current campaign I'm running, item creation can be done without feats (the feats allow you to use Spellcraft instead of a specific craft), and certain professions give synergies, as so...




Here's a list of profession synergies.

[Zilrax]

That's neat. I like the synergies. Probably a lot more ring of summoning efreeti huh?

And yeah ooze dungeons, oof, now I'm thinking of the Oozemancer Dungeon in Tales of Maj Eyal. Real nightmare, that one. Worth it to unlock the Oozemancer though.

[Rynjin]

@Ashiel: Your setting sounds pretty cool, and has a lot of potential for campaigns. Reminds me a slight bit of Numenera's setting, but not as bland.

@Tels: Oof. Really all I have to say about that.

[Ashiel]

@Ashiel: Your setting sounds pretty cool, and has a lot of potential for campaigns. Reminds me a slight bit of Numenera's setting, but not as bland.

I've never checked out Numenera, but maybe I should. ^.^;

The setting is sort of something that's sort of bubbled up and been spliced together from a few different ideas that I've had over the years. The campaign is regularly being updated and expanded, and a lot of my stand-alone campaign ideas end up actually being connected to the core setting, snapping together to form the different regions of the world. it's always evolving. A lot of times things get added because people desired them.

For example, I'm kinda not into anthromorphs, like, at all. Internet probably ruined them for me forever. So as a result, I really didn't have any plans to add them to the campaign until a friend of a friend wanted to make an anthromorphic cat-girl thingy. So I pondered this for a bit, and ended up with a land to the west of the main continent that is ruled by anthromorphic humanoids, with influences from egypt, aztecs, and even the lion king in some ways, with variants of classic D&D critters among them (gnolls on the main continent are more like wolf men, while those in the beastlands are the classic hyenas, and there are lizardfolk, gatorfolk, and other sorts of reptilian sorts). They keep enormous amounts of slaves and their tribes command great cities and civilizations across their vast open lands.

They're lands have a very different sort of feel from the prime continent.

EDIT: Ironically, that player didn't actually stay around very long because I didn't approve a custom race she wanted. However, I've actually grown quite fond of the land of the Beast Kings, so silver linings.