Search results

Forked from: Nerf the spellcasters! I was thinking about this last night. I agree, to a point - given the choice between nerfing the mechanics and nerfing the PCs, you go for the mechanics first. But, I don't see a way to do it in this case. I'm not totally sure, but I think the 5-foot step...

You mean Dodge and the +2 save feats? Yeah, I figured as much. I was talking about SF stacking. :) True, but like I said, I think we can assume that as a matter of course - most spellcasters would do it. I could be wrong, of course... if they realized that their spell DCs are just fine as is...

Right, I was looking at that. Low saves aren't all that high... but I don't know. That's what I meant - if you take it at L5, you're not going to get screwed because it doesn't scale. Now that could work. I did something similar with Toughness - you get +2 hit points, +1/level (retroactive). I...

Same here. The guy is too human - most groups would balk at essentially torturing/ripping him apart to get whatever they need. Unless the PCs are evil (which I somehow doubt), this is going to be a very tough puzzle as written.

Well see, that's why I was going to let it stack. What if you take it at, say, L5 or L10? Do you suddenly get a +2 or +3 dodge bonus? I assume the bonus increases as you level... Wow... that would effectively turn a low save into a high save, or boost a high save into a really high save. A...

True. I played judo in college... if the other person knows what he's doing, it takes about 5 seconds before you're out. 10 + grapple check + spell level sounds reasonable, especially since most casters will have super-high Concentration checks anyway. That's something else I'm looking at...

I have no problem with that, really. It's not the numbers I'm concerned about so much as the number of attacks being made each round (i.e., the amount of dice being rolled). Like I said, I'm seeking a way to reduce the amount of die-rolling. Why be forced to take all your attacks if you don't...

Ouch. I'm reading the aforementioned thread on the PF forums right now (link, if anyone's interested) and they've got some interesting ideas. Someone brought up this point: He just pointed out something I missed - casters taking a 5-foot step and casting a spell. I would therefore suggest...

Oh yeah. I think someone else suggested that... I totally forgot about it. That could work. I like it too - it makes perfect sense, to me... unless you're casting a stilled spell or a spell with no somatic components, you have to move around and get the gestures just right, which precludes...

Oops. I totally missed that. I could put a cap on number of attacks equal to 1/5 BAB (for each hand)... or simply rule that the bonus for any attack can't be reduced to below +1 instead of +0 (+0 BAB notwithstanding, since it's not a reduction). That would give poor BAB classes more attacks. I...

:lol: But seriously. There are several discussions on the PF forums about reducing spellcasters' strength in combat, mostly centered around defensive casting. A few people have come close to figuring out why spellcasters became so powerful in d20, but no one's actually hit on it. But I have. I...

Okay, now I see where you're going. You're treating them like bonus types - they all overlap, so only the best one applies. Cool. That's exactly what I was thinking - I already have that mechanic (degree of success/failure) set up for several other things, and it works very well. I like that...

I'm not sure this is the proper thread for it, but... UK, do you mind if I borrow the AMC and Metamagic Freedom feats for my project? Personally, I don't see why we just don't allow spellcasters to freely stack metamagic anyway. I don't recall the discussion on why that feat was necessary. Oh...

They're not linked to HD, they're linked to size. The problem is not so much the huge numbers of HD as it is the underrated CRs. As has been discussed above, grapple (and all the other combat manuevers) was changed on its own. And I've tweaked saves a bit too.

Hmm. I never noticed. I'd forgotten about that thread, too - thanks for pointing that out. I need to do some revisions. :) Yugh. That would suck. Basing anything besides ability saves off HD (like things that are affected by a word of <alignment>, or the polymorph spell) simply doesn't work...

I was looking at UK's site for some things, and I stumbled across his revised fighter. How he handles iteratives is very interesting - you get a single bonus, but you can take any number of iterative attacks you want, each at -5 from the previous (1 at -5, 2 at -10, etc.). I would add that you...

Right. I changed it to an insight bonus, so it doesn't go away when you're flat-footed. The 3.5 monk's unnamed bonus doesn't either (but it does if he's helpless, which implies that it's a combination of dodge and insight). The way it works is this: 1d20 + CMB (AB + Str mod + size mod) +...

I was toying with the idea of higher-level spells being immune to dispel but not greater dispel also, but at that level of play, you're not going to see many simple dispels - if you're using L6 spells, you're more like to get to get hit with greater dispel or maybe even disjunction. If you...

It's more that there's a significant lack of high-level feats, which is part of the reason why fighters start to fall behind in viability. PHBII has some tactical and teamwork feats, but I don't have that book. It really depends on the campaign - one that's heavy into politics and RP, sure...

Yeah, like I said, I dropped that idea. I see your point, but is one level all that big a difference? Let's use a concrete example here to see. We'll take a L5 wizard and a L5 fighter vs. a minotaur (WotC CR 4, UK CR 6, so I think it's close enough). The fighter has BAB +5, 17 Str (+3), a +1...