Search results

Yeah... ALL martial weapons for one feat is too much. All simple weapons is fine - they're not very good, overall. I was balancing power and desireability, not just one or the other. By those criteria, Weapon Finesse rates about a 5. Powerwise, it's around 4; desireability-wise, it's very close...

I hooked up with some local gamers through my FLGS here, and we sat down for our first game today. I had a blast - for playing with a bunch of guys I'd never met, the game ran very well, and everyone got along famously. By the end of 5 hours, we were working together well already. I think a...

All simple weapons isn't really that big a deal - almost everyone gets them anyway. Agreed - 1 point per weapon is just too much bookkeeping, and not very fun at all. It's not really unbalanced, per se, just... odd. I mean, your average fighter might know how to use a dozen or so weapons, and...

Do it like UA - weapon groups. A fighter gets proficiency in, say, 3 weapon groups, and you can take a feat to gain proficiency in 1-2 each - that effectively models what they have. With that system, though, you could probably ditch the EWP feat entirely - most groups don't have more than 1...

Cool, thanks. I've been wondering - why bother having a feat to allow stacking of metamagic? Why not just make it a standard rule like it was in 3E? The high-level spell system I'm doing is predicated on the premise that metamagic stacks, so it kind of makes sense for me. I don't know how you're...

If I were to just eyeball them, I'd say they're of equal worth, sure... but I want to figure out their actual value. I'm weird like that. I think it'll help better evaluate other feats and figure out better prereqs; Project Phoenix (see link in my sig) has no "epic" as such - it's just "levels...

I know this is slightly off-topic, but check out my revised monk. Some folks say the PF version is still better, but I'm not convinced. At the least, it's not a random mishmash of abilities (I felt the same way you do).

Greetings, fellow gearheads! I've got a challenge for you. Sylrae came up with an idea for feat points - basically, you place a value on every feat; characters gain x feat points per level (1, I think), which they can then use to buy feats provided a) they qualify for them and b) they have...

I want to do a recap for the folks at home, since we've gone over a lot of things and it's gotten rather confusing. This is, I think, a summary of what we've agreed on so far: SR is divided into four (five) levels: minor, moderate, major, full, (epic). SR adds a bonus to saves. A successful...

I was going to suggest simply assigning values like 1, 2, or 4 (or 2/4/6) to each, then I got caught up in my ramble. :p I agree. Interesting idea. Have you noticed that fighters get Martial Weapon Proficiency with ALL martial weapons, but the MWP feat adds only ONE? :D Diehard isn't all that...

Ohh, I think I see - if you take a 5-foot step away from an enemy, the Concentration check is DC 10 + BAB + spell level. If you simply take a 5-foot step (no enemies around), it's DC 17. Right?

Okay, now I see what you're saying. You're right - feinting like that isn't bluffing someone. Oh. I had to look back upthread to see what we'd done.... I'd say leave it as "a successful feint (by attacker OR defender) leaves the target flat-footed". That makes it a lot easier to remember, and...

Pathfinder powers up the base classes to put them more on a par with stuff that appeared in later WotC supplements. Many people noted early on that it's "D&D turned up to 11". That being said, it is basically just a heavily house-ruled version of D&D; almost everything that we know and love is...

It's not a bad idea, just after thinking about it for a few minutes. You can buy a bunch of piddly little feats, or wait, store up points, and get a couple better ones - it's not dependent on levels. The main problem I can see is that you could really use some kind of guidelines for rating...

True... but being a good liar does help with being able to point over your opponent's shoulder and yell "Look out!" and have him look. Hence the bonus for ranks, not a straight Bluff check. Wait, wait... you're considering a -4 penalty to an attack more powerful than being flat-footed? Against...

Yeah, you did. I thought it might be too much, but if you think the same, I'll give it a whirl. Definitely. But, uh... what is this Concentration check for? Defensive casting?

Yeah, I don't want to get rid of the 5-foot step. I'm thinking that b) might be the best solution, though applying a penalty could work too - even a high-level archer would think twice about a -8 penalty to his last attack. A spellcaster wouldn't even blink at a -4 to Concentration checks...

No, just letting anyone who cared know that I found it. I could drop it to 1/5 ranks... then a Rog 10 with max ranks and 14 Cha vs. a Ftr 10 would be 1d20 + 7 + 2 + 2 vs. DC 10 + 10, or 1d20 + 11 vs. DC 20. I just think there should be some kind of bonus for PCs who are especially proficient at...

Found it - it was in House Rules. Anyway, the real reason for bumping this thread was that I came up with some new combat stuff and needed an opinion. We have feint and demoralize, and I found taunt in the Netbook of Feats when I was looking for more feats (the author adapted it from the...

I started to write this in the other thread (AoOs and the 5-foot step), but I thought it would be more appropriate here. Personally, I'd change defensive casting to be more similar to defensive fighting - it gives you a +4 bonus to Concentration checks. If you cast in combat, you provoke an...