Main Pages
Design and Miscellaneous
Site Management
Kerrick 1258683758|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
It's a mistake - delete the bolded sentence. A first-tier sorcerer must see the results of the action (i.e., roll the die) before he can affect it, whereas a fourth-tier can predict the future and alter it beforehand. I must have been thinking ahead when I wrote that part, or not paying attention.
Thanks for the correction, and for the support. :)
Kerrick 1258683179|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Good question. My original intent, when I did it, was that all clerics didn't have the ability to turn undead. That is, only a select few could actually do it - others might be able to turn lycanthropes, elementals, demons, etc., but not undead; hence the universal system. As it stands now, you would have to take a feat/PrC/domain that lets you turn creatures other than undead (like the elemental domains); otherwise, it would just apply to undead normally, unless you and the DM worked out something beforehand.
I'll post what I've got this weekend, so anyone who's interested can adapt it for their campaigns.
Joe (guest) 1257910155|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I would love to see what you've got so far. I like the turning system too. I'm a little unclear on how you turn anything besides undead, though. Do you choose what you turn when you need it, or do you choose something besides undead at character creation?
Joe (guest) 1257659916|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Ah. I haven't read 4e.
Kerrick 1257623195|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I was working on a new domain system, something similar to wizard schools - each domain has four abilities, plus the granted power. Every 5 levels, you can either choose a new domain or take another ability from an existing one. This is, of course, limited by what domains your god has, and what kind of access you get to them. Pelor, for example, has Sun as a major access domain, so you could take all four abilities; he would have, say, Strength as a lesser access, so you could only get the first two abilities. The system is only partially complete; I have abilities for about half the domains, then I gave up due to burnout. I could post what I have, in case anyone's interested.
As for turning, check out the Turning system I've got. It's a lot more flexible, in that you can use it against ANY creature, not just undead. I did this in part because several domains let you turn creatures other than undead (elementals and lycanthropes).
I'm not sure what to do with healing, or if I really want to make it a major focus of the cleric. That's what they do now, and they're called "healbots" because of it. With the sorcerer's ability to take divine spells (including healing), and the paladin's slightly expanded healing ability, it takes some of the strain from clerics to be healers, instead letting them be mortal representatives of their gods (as they should be).
Kerrick 1257622613|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
That's too much like 4E, IMO. I didn't want to go *that* far in changing things.
Joe (guest) 1257554173|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
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
Joe (guest) 1257315815|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Another possible oversight in the sorcerer's Heritage abilities — in the alter probability tree:
1st level, the sorcerer can reroll any damage roll or caster level check he makes with a spell, but he must use the second roll, no matter the result. He can wait until the roll has been made to make the alteration.
At 16th level, the sorcerer can wait until the roll is made to decide whether or not to attempt a reroll – this simulates his ability to predict the outcome before it happens and choose another one.
This seems to be either a mistake, or it's unclear. It seems like 16th level is saying exactly what is bolded in 1st level. clarification?
LOVING this ruleset, by the way! Fantastic job! Keep it up. :-)
~Joe
Joe (guest) 1257311669|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
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
Kerrick 1254622909|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Don't worry - I don't take offense if someone asks why, as long as they're civil about it. =)
Elves are taller… because I, like you, thought they were too short. No other reason, really - it was just a minor tweak just for the sake of tweaking.
Gnomes: Yes, actually, there was a justification for it. I say "was", because I ended up changing it. Originally, gnomes were changed to be seagoing - hence the racial enemy change. When I changed all the cultures around, I dropped the racial enemy entirely.
Psionics: No, I'm not using psionics at all, but I was drawing from the SRD. IIRC, all the feats are from the 3.0 Psionics Handbook, bnot the XPH.
Kerrick 1254621973|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Apologies for taking so long to reply; Wikidot is supposed to send me an e-mail when someone posts, but it's not - I think it's going to the spam box.
Re: Starvation and thirst: Good catch. I fixed that.
Re: poison pricing: You would be correct, sort of.
Base price: 25 gp
Save DC 13: +30
Mild neurotoxin: +60 gp
Primary damage (1 point): +20 gp
Secondary damage (4.5 points): 90 gp (this should be 45, not 90)
Subtotal: 225 gp
Ingested: Multiply by 1.5 = 337
Common: Multiply grand total by 0.5 = 168.5 gp, or 170 gp
Looks like we both got it wrong. =P Thanks for pointing it out, though - I'll go over all the prices again and make sure they're correct.
BTW: since the secondary damage cost is 45, not 90, the correct end price is 135 gp.
amethal (guest) 1252175811|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
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?
Aramar the Black (guest) 1251332365|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
On your list of poisons you have Arsenic costing 120 gp (rounded down from 123, I assume), and note that this price is before rarity modifiers are factored in. Yet, in your example of how to calculate poison prices (at the bottom of the main Poison page), you achieve the figure of 120 gp by including rarity (a .5 modifier). Further, I think you missed a step in your calculations; that is, the increase in cost due to the Type of poison.
Arsenic is a mild nuerotoxin, so 60 gp (60 x 1) is added to the base price (25). The DC is 13 (+30) , primary damage 1 point (+20), secondary damage 4.5 (+45) for a subtotal of 180 gp. It's ingested, so multiply by 1.5, for a before-rarity-cost of 270 gp. This makes the final cost, including a 'common rarity' modifier of .5, 135 gp.
Arsenic is not the only victim of this error, if it is indeed an error.
Black adder venom is another mild nuerotoxin. Base (25), mild nuerotoxin (+60), save DC 11 (+10), primary damage 3.5 (+70), secondary damage 3.5 (+35), for a subtotal of 200. It's injury-based (x1), so the before-rarity-factor cost is 200 gp, not the 185 that you have listed.
Now, had you calulating with a DC of 12 (as it is in the DMG; you've since changed it to 11), and been forgetting the 60 gp due to Type costs (nuerotoxin = +60 gp x strength rating), and been multiplying secondary damage by 20 (as you did in the example, and not by 10, as the table says one should), then indeed the before-rarity-factor cost would be 185 gp.
I think the other poisons may have also been mispriced by the same errors; I have not checked all of them. I just thought I would bring this to your attention. Sorry if my post is hard to understand at any point.
Aramar the Black (guest) 1251314772|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
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.
Kerrick 1242580118|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Hey, sorry for the delayed reply - I didn't see this post.
Originally, Power Attack was a single attack as a standard action (the visualization is a single, powerful blow); you could take up to 5 points from your BAB and add it to damage. There was probably a disconnect between the feat and the Combat section - I found a few such mistakes.
I later changed it to the version you see now and cleaned everything up so it all says the same thing.
Chuck (guest) 1241759002|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
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….?
Kerrick 1241139808|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
The problem is that disintegrate is overpowered - the cap for a single-target arcane spell at L6 is 20 dice, but since it deals 2d6/level instead of 1d6, you end up with a figure that's double the cap. If we reduce it to 1d6/level (which is still pretty powerful, given what the spell does), d. blast would be much more useful - the cap for L12 is 35d6. Having a higher "if you save" damage figure isn't a bad idea, though; I could see 10d6 instead of 5d6.
Necrovaar (guest) 1241098222|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I still don't think 40d6 damage is a lot for a level 12 legendary spell, as I see it I expect a legendary spell to do much more damage then normal spells and give you the tools to fight really insane creatures with tons of HP.
The 6th level spell Disintegrate still does the same damage at level 20, so maybe give a higher damage cap on this spell? like 2d6 per level of the caster or something similar and a higher damage on a successful save like half damage or 10d6.
If the spell stays like it's now I think it can fit for a 9th or 10th level spell easily with that kind of damage.
a 20ft blast radius isn't much, especially when the 6th level spell can also do even a bigger area damage if it's 1 continuous area like a wall or a building.
I will take another look at the other spells and see if I find anything else about them.
Kerrick 1240363575|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Hmm… I messed up on that one - damage should be 40d6, not 30d6, and it should say Wiz 12 (my copy says Wiz 13). It could be a bit high; I had to guess at the factors for "change ray to area" and "set area to 20-ft. radius", though I think the latter is good at +2. Still, a spell that does pure destructive energy (no resistance/immunity) in an area should be legendary.
Give me a list of the other spells you're talking about, and I'll look them over.
Necrovaar (guest) 1240345372|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
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.
