Recent Forum Posts

From categories:

All categories Project Phoenix: Project Phoenix General Project Phoenix: Playtest reports General Discussion: General Discussion Site issues: Site Issues

Cleric Ideas

Joe (guest) 1257554173|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Cleric Ideas

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

Re: Minor observations

Joe (guest) 1257315815|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Minor observations

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

Saves

Joe (guest) 1257311669|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Saves

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

Re: Why?

Kerrick 1254622909|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Why?

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.

Re: Minor observations

Kerrick 1254621973|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Minor observations

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.

Why?

amethal (guest) 1252175811|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Why?

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?

Re: Minor observations

Aramar the Black (guest) 1251332365|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Minor observations

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.

Minor observations

Aramar the Black (guest) 1251314772|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Minor observations

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.

Re: Power Attack

Kerrick 1242580118|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Power Attack

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.

Power Attack

Chuck (guest) 1241759002|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Power Attack

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….?

Re: Legendary Spells

Kerrick 1241139808|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Legendary Spells

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.

Re: Legendary Spells

Necrovaar (guest) 1241098222|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Legendary Spells

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.

Re: Legendary Spells

Kerrick 1240363575|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Legendary Spells

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.

Legendary Spells

Necrovaar (guest) 1240345372|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Legendary Spells

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.

Re: Bard nerfed? Why?

Kerrick 1239061677|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Bard nerfed? Why?

See, you see that you move abilities around giving them less low level impact on battles.

Actually, I didn't see that until you pointed it out.


Front-loading is only a bad thing when used for 1- 2 level dips: which I doubt anyone did with the Bard.
Not really, no - the abilities definitely aren't good enough for dipping.


I mean, when you gut Inspire Courage's combat ability: yeah that kinda weakens them.

The reasoning behind removing the bonus to attack and damage was so that I could have something to give the higher level abilities. I was thinking about this the other day, and I realized something - the higher abilities don't have to be completely different, only better. So I think I'll add the attack bonus back in (that's the really important part) at +2, +1/10 points. This means a higher-level bard can either choose Inspire Courage and get a really good bonus (but only to attacks, which is good for companions who deal decent damage but may not actually hit), or do Inspire Greatness, which gives a lesser bonus to both attack and damage.


While singing (or whichever he did) the Bard can fight with +1 hit/damage (while buffing the team) or just hang back and buff them.

+1 hit/damage is combat improvement: I can hardly call just saves as combat improvement especially when it seems redunant for the text to read improve saves and saves.

Oh, you mean "improves saves and combat ability". I totally missed that, but the above change will take care of it. Thanks for the feedback.

Re: Bard nerfed? Why?

Starbuck_II (guest) 1238958042|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Bard nerfed? Why?

You say:

"Actually, my bard has MORE spells than the 3.5 bard - I gave them 1 spell at every level where they get 0. you do have a point about giving them 1st level spells at 1st character level, though; it might be a good boost. "

But then you admit:
"I thought they were a bit too front-loaded (5 abilities at 1st level), so I moved Inspire Courage down, and renamed Inspire Competence into Collaborative Chant, part of the buff song path (which is now available at L1 instead of L3)."

See, you see that you move abilities around giving them less low level impact on battles.

Front-loading is only a bad thing when used for 1-2 level dips: which I doubt anyone did with the Bard.

I mean, when you gut Inspire Courage's combat ability: yeah that kinda weakens them.

"It gives a +2 morale bonus to saves vs. charm and fear effects."

A Buff isn't really as impressive if it is followed by a nerf to same ability.

Yes, +2 is higher than +1, but remember your version only improves saves. The Old version improved everyone's hit and damage.
And it stacked with other 1st level buffs.

Remember, the difference between everyone and a warrior type like a Fighter's BAB is only +1 at level 1.
While singing (or whichever he did) the Bard can fight with +1 hit/damage (while buffing the team) or just hang back and buff them.

+1 hit/damage is combat improvement: I can hardly call just saves as combat improvement especially when it seems redunant for the text to read improve saves and saves.

I rather think I would rather play the 3.5 Bard except maybe at higher levels: then yours starts catching up (since it has more spells/day) and gets improvements due to performance.

Re: Bard nerfed? Why?

Kerrick 1238953439|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Bard nerfed? Why?

I've gotten a lot of flack over the bard, but it's a very hard class to do well. The (3.5) archetype is a bit odd - they're best used in a support role, using their songs to bolster allies, and of course they shine in RP situations. They can only wear medium armor, have a medium BAB, and have a limited (though still decent) weapon selection.


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?

About the same thing as a 3.5 bard does in battle - cast a few spells, use a bow, or bolster his allies with his music (which is rather useful in battle - that's why it's part of the Battle Music path).


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

Actually, my bard has MORE spells than the 3.5 bard - I gave them 1 spell at every level where they get 0. you do have a point about giving them 1st level spells at 1st character level, though; it might be a good boost.


You make Inspire Courage to be level 2 (switching Inspire Competence with it?)

I thought they were a bit too front-loaded (5 abilities at 1st level), so I moved Inspire Courage down, and renamed Inspire Competence into Collaborative Chant, part of the buff song path (which is now available at L1 instead of L3).


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?

It gives a +2 morale bonus to saves vs. charm and fear effects. That's a direct copy from the PHB. I do need to bold the header, though…


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.

So… you're saying they're not a whole lot more effective. I could add some attack/damage bonuses into Inspire Courage, but it would step all over the later songs in that path - those were hard enough to balance as it was.


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

The revised bard gets 7 (count 'em) songs total. That means he could easily do as much as a 3.5 bard - he can choose a variety of songs from all four paths, or focus solely on two paths (though he would only get 3 songs in the second one). So, you could have a battle bard/loremaster who can give huge bonuses to his allies AND do research, or a battle bard/countersong specialist (nasty), or a charm/loremaster for the player who's more interested in RP… that was the whole point of paths: customization over cookie-cutter characters with all the same abilities.


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

Compare that to: a base +2 bonus, +1 per 10 points over DC 15 (with no cap). Someone who min-maxes with non-core material could probably boost his Perform skill high enough to get +6 at L8.


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.
That's not a bad idea, actually. But, uh… the 3.5 bard doesn't have all that much combat ability either. The only abilities he has that are useful in combat are countersong (limited use), inspire courage +1, and two 0-level spells.

I've got an idea, though… monks have the Fighting Style Ability feat, where they can choose an extra ability from their chosen style, and druids have Extra Form; I could give bards Extra Music, which would let them choose an extra song for which they qualify.

Bard nerfed? Why?

Starbuck_II (guest) 1238900764|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
in discussion Project Phoenix / Project Phoenix General » Bard nerfed? Why?

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.