Project Phoenix - new forum threads

Cleric Ideas

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:36:13 +0000

I noticed you said Cleric was the hardest to work on, and that you have an idea for it. What I like about this system is the options within each character class — that's what was missing from 3.x, IMO. With that in mind: some ideas for cleric options.

The Cleric's major differentiating factor (what separates one from another) has always been spell selection, but that changes daily. What about a tree that is only useful with a certain type of spell, but expands the use of that spell? Something that allows the cleric to channel energy or spell effects into his weapon? A Bard-like ability to stack or expand buff spells?

The ability to Turn has always seemed a little confining to me. Why just Undead? What about a tree like the Ranger's Favored Enemy where the cleric can choose a creature type to which his god is opposed? Even if limited to outsiders and unnaturals (like Undead), the ability to turn (or supplicate) Lawful Outsiders, Evil, Undead, etc., and corresponding bonuses to fighting (or bargaining?) with them could really set each Cleric aside.

A major defining feature of the Cleric is, of course, healing… there's got to be something you can do with that…. Nothing comes to mind, but I'll give it some more thought.

~Joe

Saves

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:14:29 +0000

d20 Star Wars inverts saves to be a defensive characteristic, not unlike AC. As a matter of fact, REF replaces AC in that system. This system seems more intuitive to me: it makes it so that any time you are attacked (whether by poison (FORT), a sword (AC), a trap (REF) or a fae's magic (WILL)) the attacker rolls against your defensive statistic. All it takes is to convert the d20 roll to a standard 10 (like AC), and REF becomes synonymous with touch AC. Was it considered and discarded, if so was it a matter of preference, or was it not considered? If it was discarded, I'd be interested to know any major complications before overhauling the system for my personal use ;-). Thanks!

~Joe

Why?

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:36:51 +0000

This stuff is awesome. I'm not surprised you have burn-out. I have a couple of "why" questions based on my initial impressions. I know that the "why" word can come across as challenging, or even hostile or critical, but please don't take it that way. I'd just like to know what you were thinking when you made some changes.

"Elves are taller"
I've always thought that D&D elves are too short (although I seem to remember that Tunnels & Trolls elves were too tall). However, given that elven height wouldn't make the top 100 of most people's complaints about D&D 3.5, why bother to change it?

"Gnomes have bonuses against sahuagin and locathah"
I am primarily a world builder; I try and make sure that rules changes to have an in-built justification in the campaign world (as otherwise I find myself tinkering with the rules just for the sake of it). I don't like that 3.5 has an implied setting (slight as that setting is) and 4ed seems to be worse in that respect. Do you have an implied setting whereby gnome hatred of sahuagin makes sense? Is there a reason why sahuagin don't repay the favour and get bonuses against gnomes? (Or maybe they do.)

"Psionics Handbook"
The introduction refers to the Psionics Handbook rather than Expanded Psionics Handbook. Are you using 3.0 psionics?

Minor observations

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:26:12 +0000

I was looking over the enviroment rules, and noticed that while you changed damage from starvation and thirst to Con damage (instead of nonlethal damage); the lines about healing the damage taken in this fashion still refer to it as nonlethal.

Also, every now and then I attempt to download/open your grand Monsters file (the zip file). I am always unable.

Power Attack

Fri, 08 May 2009 05:03:22 +0000

I've seen several ideas around various forums for "fixing" power attack. Like many others, I always thought it could unbalance things at times. Though, it's also important that there are times when a few well placed swings can take an enemy out…just like in real life.
Anyway, noticed your summary of feats suggests "max -5", but the feat description seems to take a different tact….?
Also, the description speaks of "iterative" attacks, but also suggests you get only one swing while using power attack….?

Legendary Spells

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:22:52 +0000

Just read some of the legendary spells and they seem very weak to me compared to other lower level spells.
You have the spell Disintegrate 6th level that can cause 40d6 damage at level 20 and most legendary spells don't come close to that damage.
For example, Disintegrating Blast 12th level spell will do 30d6, doesn't matter the level of the caster.
So yeah the radius of the blast is bigger and it can effect more then 1 creature, but still, nothing makes it legendary with this kind of damage as a level 12 spell IMO.

Other spells follow the same road.

Bard nerfed? Why?

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:06:04 +0000

Okay, first, bravio with other class changes. Some are decent.

Why the Bard nerf? You state:
[quote]
their songs were weak (except for fascinate, which was horribly broken),
[/quote]
But in fact, only the new Bard's song are weak.
Look at the old Bard for a second. Look at first level, heck for comparison, look at 1-7th level.

What does your Bard do in battle?
Nothing but melee/range? Yeah…pretty much since so little casting and no Bard music that does anything useful in battle.

You make Inspire Courage to be level 2 (switching Inspire Competence with it?)
In addition, your flavor test now doesn't even fit.
Have you even looked at it? You say: Bolstering them against fear and improving their combat abilities.

But there is no improvement; copy + paste error?

Now compare your Bard versus 3.5 Bard:
Your Bard has: Bardic Knowledge (some improvement), Jack of All Trades: improves skill(s).
3 songs: While nice all they do is negate sonic stuff (mostly unchanged from Countersong other Bard has), improves saves (but not attack/damage), and stuff like skills.

Now I applaude the improving bonus based on performance (gives a reason to have more than base skill ranks).

But compare to 3.5 Bard:
Improve skill, saves, damage, attack bonus, countersong also, Fascinate, suggestion, and Bardic Knowledge (useful to research legendary people aka Level 11 people).

Now, yours gets nifty stuff, but mostly just rp value.

3.5 Bard has +2 minimum bonus to Inspire Courage, but with non-core up to +6 with just 8 levels of Bard.

Now even in comparison with Core: I'd rather have a Bard improving the party in battle then just skills (wait, we have inspire competence as well).

I mean, if you are going to take away the Bards combat value at level 1: Could you at least improve their spell acquisition?

Give them 0 level 1 spells (and 1 known level 1). That way they have more ability even if that isn't much.