|
Nihnoz posted:Is there any reason, any reason at all, for the druid to exist. Not really, because they couldn't put a foot down and decide if it was a caster or not. I guess you could give shifter and warrior druid to ranger, to give them more interesting options. Maybe at least that can come out of it.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
If I want to play a Geomancer from final fantasy I'll just homebrew a talent for another class I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
I looked through the classes and I feel like a redcap (in disguise) monk could have high comedic potential with the powers renamed a little:quote:Surprise, Fuckers! (adventurer tier form)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Nihnoz posted:If I want to play a Geomancer from final fantasy I'll just homebrew a talent for another class I guess. Well, the druid gets a lot of flak (because it's terrible) but you can do some cool stuff with it, especially if you multiclass. Want a geomancer? Be a multi-class Druid/Wizard. Take Adept Terrain Casting and then Vance's Polysllabic Verbalizations (which works on all Daily spells, doesn't say anything about wizard spells). Rename all your wizard spells according to theme, and with Vance that will actually change the effect to be more geomancer-y too! As a bonus you also get Overworld Advantage for your Terrain + Wizard spells and Ritual Magic applies to both types. You end up with an awfully solid build with tons of those sweet, sweet, dailies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
I've decided to revive something I was working on a little while after the game launched: improvements to the simpler classes. A lot of what I did early on was...problematic, but I've decided to salvage some of it and work it into something. I've got a draft of the Improved Fighter up. It's still rough and needs work. I'd appreciate any comments on it to those who are interested. Edit: I should mention this: commenting is enabled. Also, most of the work was focused on the maneuver system, but talents were also tweaked. Covok fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Mr. Prokosch posted:Well, the druid gets a lot of flak (because it's terrible) but you can do some cool stuff with it, especially if you multiclass. Want a geomancer? Be a multi-class Druid/Wizard. Take Adept Terrain Casting and then Vance's Polysllabic Verbalizations (which works on all Daily spells, doesn't say anything about wizard spells). Rename all your wizard spells according to theme, and with Vance that will actually change the effect to be more geomancer-y too! As a bonus you also get Overworld Advantage for your Terrain + Wizard spells and Ritual Magic applies to both types. You end up with an awfully solid build with tons of those sweet, sweet, dailies. Plus with Int/Wis you can put the rest of your points in Con and end up with pretty good defenses in everything but PD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Wouldn't using Vance on druid spells violate the whole no-crossing-the-streams multiclass thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
01011001 posted:Wouldn't using Vance on druid spells violate the whole no-crossing-the-streams multiclass thing? Re-reading it. Yeah... maybe... I guess so. But it's not like Gather Power or whatever. It won't break the game and if your GM is going to be that strict he's a jerkface. Also the language in the original book can be weird. See some things specifically mention "wizard" actions or "wizard" spells while others don't. I think some of the language was kept from mutliclass playtesting. Mr. Prokosch fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
01011001 posted:Wouldn't using Vance on druid spells violate the whole no-crossing-the-streams multiclass thing? Personally, I'd charge an Adventurer feat and roll with it, same as using fighter flexibles on a rangers double attack or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not going to break anything if you let it work for both, I'm just saying becausequote:(which works on all Daily spells, doesn't say anything about wizard spells)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I saw the wording and forgot that the no mixing rule applies to class features that modify powers too. After reading the example again I agree that it's technically not allowed but doesn't hurt anyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Covok posted:I've decided to revive something I was working on a little while after the game launched: improvements to the simpler classes. A lot of what I did early on was...problematic, but I've decided to salvage some of it and work it into something. I've got a draft of the Improved Fighter up. It's still rough and needs work. I'd appreciate any comments on it to those who are interested. I'm pretty bad at figuring out how to do comments on gdocs so I'll just run down my quick read impressions here:
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
After playing a Monk in a couple of campaigns it's pretty okay, though I dislike how doing literally anything but a form attack mostly ruins you for the whole combat. They're really slow to ramp up. So to help speed them up a bit, what if, instead of using a basic attack during an attack of opportunity, Monks could spend a point of ki to use the next step in a form instead? It shouldn't be too crazy, since that would require the Monk to forgo spending another point of ki to fudge the die or use a ki power, at least until they take the champion-tier ki feat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:So I just noticed this about the Martial Artist but the Oaken Pole Form power and the Adventurer Feat both do the same thing? One just says hit and one says attack? Does that mean something different in this case? So to clear this up - without the feat the next time an enemy attacks you, you reduce the damage. With the feat, the next time you are hit - whether that's immediately or in three rounds - you reduce the damage. The time factor is the upgrade. There aren't that many enemies who deal miss damage, but I see the problem you're running into. I'll add this to the list of corrections for the class (which is like, two right now) but until I do, change the adventurer feat from "hit" to "take damage" which should solve the miss damage weirdness and still enforce the improved time factor. Thanks for the question!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Another question! In the fancy new Eldcaller PDF, it says that the Eldcaller uses Dex for their basic melee in the basic attacks block, but everywhere else says that you have to have the Trickster in order to use it. Was this just a typo, or an old thing that never got changed or what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Raenir K. Artemi posted:Another question! In the fancy new Eldcaller PDF, it says that the Eldcaller uses Dex for their basic melee in the basic attacks block, but everywhere else says that you have to have the Trickster in order to use it. Was this just a typo, or an old thing that never got changed or what? I think that's a typo and the attack stat should be Strength, but Fish can maybe answer that better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Yup, should be strength with taking the Trickster needed to use DEX.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Nihnoz posted:Is there any reason, any reason at all, for the druid to exist. Is there any reason for the wizard to exist? The fighter? Rogue? I mean, aside from the obvious, that people thought it would be fun to pretend to be one in a game. I don't get what you are going for here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Dionysos510 posted:Is there any reason for the wizard to exist? The fighter? Rogue? I mean, aside from the obvious, that people thought it would be fun to pretend to be one in a game. It doesn't really fill a role that isn't filled by other classes and has nothing concrete holding it together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Dionysos510 posted:Is there any reason for the wizard to exist? The fighter? Rogue? I mean, aside from the obvious, that people thought it would be fun to pretend to be one in a game. I'm saying it's a bad class and asking how I could redeem it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Nihnoz posted:I'm saying it's a bad class and asking how I could redeem it. I think giving 4 talents is a serviceable fix
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Or having it gain a talent at each tier like the Ranger. Honestly when I first saw the Druid, and then again when I saw the final version, I actually kind of liked how it was done. Since the talents were major things that completely changed the way the class built. A lot of talents other classes have seem rather mediocre and small but the Druid's had huge effects on how it played.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Druid talents aren't actually talents, they're fractional mix-n-match subclasses. There are no actual Druid talents. Thought experiment: What does a druid who assigns no talents look like? Now, what does a wizard who assigns no talents look like?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
It's really pretty hard to imagine the same team that designed the Bard designed the Druid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
The Druid looks like Multiclassing: The Class, which would be cool if there wasn't actual multiclassing in the same book. I mean I prefer the 2/3 + 1/3 form of multiclassing, which the Druid would do, but still. (Still gonna play a druid if I ever notDM 13th Age, I bet.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
01011001 posted:It's really pretty hard to imagine the same team that designed the Bard designed the Druid. I honestly feel like the Bard is probably the best class in 13th Age. Like not in a 'this is amazingly great'. It's great, sure, but I'm saying best in a 'not overpowered but certainly the best bang for your buck' style. It's versatile without any of the stuff it's versatile about really suffering, while adding stuff that other classes can't do. Basically I'm saying the Bard is OP but not necessarily by numbers, purely by the amount of options it has. It's very strange.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Hey, so I'm running my first game for some friends soon, and I'm super excited! I have one question though, and that is about the paladin's cleric training talent. It says that you add the spell as part of your powers, but what I'm wondering is if that just makes it a daily power, or if it adds spells per-day to the paladin? I was also thinking about just making it encounter for some spells, but I want to double check with the thread because the book doesn't specify.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
I believe they get the spell the same way the Cleric does, so daily if it's a daily spell, or more often if it's a spell the Cleric gets more often (once per battle or at-will).
UrbanLabyrinth fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:I believe they get the spell the same way the Cleric does, so daily if it's a daily spell, or more often if it's a spell the Cleric gets more often (once per battle or at-will). oh, duh. I'm not sure why I didn't look at that earlier, that should have been pretty obvious. Thanks for the quick reply though!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Ugh. I just got done with a disaster of a play by post. Wasn't really the DM's fault, though. Much more the adventure. The Burrowing Dead it's called. We did just fine until the mayor told us about the creepy tomb outside and because we weren't brain dead, we figured the undead we're coming from there. And we were right! But because we didn't waste our time faffing about, we somehow got there to late, where we would have otherwise gotten there just fine. And then we fought an encounter balanced for 8 people with only 5. And one of the enemies had an at-will confuse save ends. And not to mention all the last gasp saves all over the place. I mean we're level 2! We don't even have level 3 powers yet. And we're meant to take on a level 5 and a level 4 accompanied by some level 2s?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, why are there save(x3)-or-dies on a second level monster? There's no reason those couldn't be normal zombies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Mr. Lobe posted:I think giving 4 talents is a serviceable fix I think 6 talents is closer: A cleric is much better than a strength druid in terms of durability-- increasing base hp by 1 does not really make up fro the four point discrepancy in AC. The druid then spends 3 talents on elemental/terrain caster to get the cleric's spell progression. Wild healer adept (2 talents) starts out weaker than the cleric's heal class feature, and ends up stronger (and the cleric doesn't have to spend feats to access at-will spells). So, six talents is what I would do. Gonna recommend that to the druid in my fiancee's game. Edited because I forgot that druids now start with wizard AC. Earthorn fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Ugh. I just got done with a disaster of a play by post. Wasn't really the DM's fault, though. Much more the adventure. The Burrowing Dead it's called. We did just fine until the mayor told us about the creepy tomb outside and because we weren't brain dead, we figured the undead we're coming from there. And we were right! But because we didn't waste our time faffing about, we somehow got there to late, where we would have otherwise gotten there just fine. And then we fought an encounter balanced for 8 people with only 5. And one of the enemies had an at-will confuse save ends. And not to mention all the last gasp saves all over the place. I mean we're level 2! We don't even have level 3 powers yet. And we're meant to take on a level 5 and a level 4 accompanied by some level 2s?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Ugh. I just got done with a disaster of a play by post. Wasn't really the DM's fault, though. Much more the adventure. The Burrowing Dead it's called. We did just fine until the mayor told us about the creepy tomb outside and because we weren't brain dead, we figured the undead we're coming from there. And we were right! But because we didn't waste our time faffing about, we somehow got there to late, where we would have otherwise gotten there just fine. And then we fought an encounter balanced for 8 people with only 5. And one of the enemies had an at-will confuse save ends. And not to mention all the last gasp saves all over the place. I mean we're level 2! We don't even have level 3 powers yet. And we're meant to take on a level 5 and a level 4 accompanied by some level 2s? Not to mention that the level 5 has a basic at-will attack that confuses (save ends).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
That's the level 4 actually. The level 5 is just made of damage. Which means even if you had faffed about, you'd still have fought it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
01011001 posted:I'm pretty bad at figuring out how to do comments on gdocs so I'll just run down my quick read impressions here: I like your suggestions and I've been working to address them though I am not really finished yet. Once I feel I've adequately addressed them, I'll get back to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
RyvenCedrylle posted:So to clear this up - without the feat the next time an enemy attacks you, you reduce the damage. With the feat, the next time you are hit - whether that's immediately or in three rounds - you reduce the damage. The time factor is the upgrade. There aren't that many enemies who deal miss damage, but I see the problem you're running into. I'll add this to the list of corrections for the class (which is like, two right now) but until I do, change the adventurer feat from "hit" to "take damage" which should solve the miss damage weirdness and still enforce the improved time factor. Thanks for the question! Yeah, I sent you a message about this, but even with this explanation I'd suggest making the feat the default and coming up with a new feat for Oaken Pole because as it stands it seems pretty uninspiring, all things considered. By default it triggers even on a whiff, which is lame, but for a feat it only triggers on a hit, when you'd actually want it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Yeah, I sent you a message about this, but even with this explanation I'd suggest making the feat the default and coming up with a new feat for Oaken Pole because as it stands it seems pretty uninspiring, all things considered. By default it triggers even on a whiff, which is lame, but for a feat it only triggers on a hit, when you'd actually want it! Thing is, Oaken Pole is really good otherwise. I've questioned whether it's too good, in fact, or at least a clear head and shoulders above the rest of level 1. If I juice that part up, would it make the Form a no-brainer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
So, I'm a level 8 Rogue, and I'm bored with my attack powers. There's very little in terms of options besides bleeding strike, potentially hampering with a slick feint, or, if the enemy's about to die, going for an assassin's strike (then going on to bleeding strike). What're some level 7 or 9 attack powers that are balanced for multi-attacks, ally aiding, or battlefield manipulation? Two basic attacks or attacking invisible enemies seem really lame. On the plus side, between Roll with It, a shimmering sash, a ring of defense (lower natural attacks by 1) and a few other powers, I only get hit electively, or be mental attacks. But if I have momentum, there aren't a ton of options to hit with! Golden Bee fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Swashbuckle all day e'rry day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 11:57
|
|