Min/Max Boards

Creative Corner => Homebrew Archive => Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) => The Spellshaping Codices => Topic started by: Amechra on November 11, 2011, 03:09:29 PM

Title: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on November 11, 2011, 03:09:29 PM
If you don't want this here, then that is fine.

I would like to start this off by saying that a Warheart-item (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5580531) equivalent for this would be BEYOND epic.

Perhaps have it replace the weapon's normal attack 1/round with the Spellshape attack from that Circle, and the Formula can be 1/Encounter?

That way, you could have a +2 Greathammer of Crushing Stone, that would let you use the Rockslam spellshape attack as a Spellshaper of your ECL 1/round, with the ability to use Earth Tremor 1/Encounter.

Combine that with +2 Chain Mail of Plummeting Blow, and your random knight becomes SCARY.

Hmm... now I want to design a soulknife equivalent that gets Warheart-equivalent weapons instead of normal weapon enhancements.

I hope this gave you some ideas.

Another idea would be to have a PrC that combines this with Shadowcasting. Please? Anyone?
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 11, 2011, 05:45:00 PM
First of all, stickied, because this is a good thread to have.

I would like to start this off by saying that a Warheart-item (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5580531) equivalent for this would be BEYOND epic.

Perhaps have it replace the weapon's normal attack 1/round with the Spellshape attack from that Circle, and the Formula can be 1/Encounter?

That way, you could have a +2 Greathammer of Crushing Stone, that would let you use the Rockslam spellshape attack as a Spellshaper of your ECL 1/round, with the ability to use Earth Tremor 1/Encounter.

Combine that with +2 Chain Mail of Plummeting Blow, and your random knight becomes SCARY.

Hmm... now I want to design a soulknife equivalent that gets Warheart-equivalent weapons instead of normal weapon enhancements.

Definitely an idea that I'll be considering once I get all the new stuff up.  I always forget that spellshaping materials can be intended for non-spellshaping-based characters.

Another idea would be to have a PrC that combines this with Shadowcasting. Please? Anyone?

If only I knew how shadowcasting worked...!

In all seriousness, though, don't shadowcasters get to take prestige classes that require casting levels--such as Archmage of the Tower Conclave?
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Amechra on November 11, 2011, 11:27:29 PM
Well, they COULD, but it would be less awesome.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 11, 2011, 11:56:48 PM
Guess I'll look into it, then.

Also, a lot of new stuff went up a few hours ago--races, classes, alternative class features, feats, and racial substitution levels.  I'm about to start work on getting the two new circles up.

Edit: New circles are up.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Garryl on November 12, 2011, 02:28:09 AM
Reading through it now. Good stuff like before, I suspect.

I think your Aging table is incorrect. It looks like a copy/paste of the starting age table.

Water Stoichen seem a little bit off compared to the other options. Their normal ability is water breathing and swimming (useful, but very specific and fine for a racial), but their SLA is a cantrip. Poison immunity is nice, though. It would also be nice if their 5th level Elemental Adept 1 sub ability could give something associated with the water/cold spellshapes similar to the other elements. It just feels like the odd man out in that regard.

Caymir Anchorite 1 and Stoichen Elemental Adept 1 seem like awfully big changes for a single level. I do like the idea of turning you into your pet elemental. Maybe you could expand the range of the elemental auras to your normal melee reach instead of adjacent only, though? Being that close can actually be pretty difficult when reaches rise.

Anchorite looks like a Divine Mind with spellshaping instead of psionics and competence instead of suck. And Savant seems to have inherited the Archivist's non-spellcasting class features.

Battle Sage has the problem of getting something now (Int to AC and defensive shaping Conc checks) for nothing until later. Maybe move the AC and Concentration bonuses up to 3rd level (when you miss Int to Will), then add something else as a minor bonus at 9th and 15th to make up for the other two saves you're losing out on getting Int to (say, Int to spellshape damage rolls or attack rolls). Light armor proficiency, increased HD size, and armored shaping don't really matter unless you invest levels into the class to take advantage of them, so they can probably stay at 1st level without being a problem.

Elemental Spirit seems fair. You give up your elemental companion (a major part of the class) for a variety of helpful abilities that scale with and are appropriate to your level. Looks like a few of them were curbed from the Wu Jen and associated feats. The 20th level one is from that Paladin ACF from Dungeonscape that summons spirits, right?

Idiosyncratic Shaper is... idiosyncratic, I guess? Swap one mental ability score for another (both ways) for one of your Spellshaping class's spellshaping and features. It costs a prepared formula, but that seems fair since everyone gets plenty and you'd only be taking it if you wanted to sync up some ability score-based abilities advantageously. How does the lost prepared formula interact with the Impulse Mage's occurred formulae? Make sure it's spelled out, and consider if you want interactions like this to give you an Idiot Crusader situation.

Invoking Sage gives 8 invocations at the cost of 9 spells (each usable 1/day). Depending on what you choose, that could be a much more reliable and reusable bit of versatility over just having basic spellshaping, but whether the reusability of invocations trumps the variety of spells is another question that I don't know the answer to.

I cringe at Mage-Warrior's Steed making you strictly worse for 1 level (4th) instead of giving the mount directly then. Maybe give the mount at 4th level but say you count as at least 5th level to determine its effects (since the Paladin Mount table doesn't go below 5th)?

Prescient Mage seems fine.

Shaman of the Elements is another one of those rock now, don't pay until later deals. Save the auras until 4th when you actually give up Command Elements. It's bad enough you're giving an 18th level class feature away with it (shift aura as swift action). Not that I think restricting aura switches to being very slow is a good thing (I like the Marshal-style switch-as-swift), but if it's good enough for 18th level on one class, no reason to give it away at 1st on another. Similarly, Touch of Vitality should probably wait until 8th level and the condition removal to 12th. Maybe at 16th you can give something to make up for Wrath of Elements, like the ability for your elemental companion to spread a sort of inverted Spellshape Aura in place of or in addition to its elemental aura.

Spellshape Paragon looks like a sort of Divine Crusader/Paladin ACF for Spellshape Champions. The 10th level ability can be rewritten in a more general manner, so you don't need to keep updating it as you add new circles and so players don't need to look up exactly which circle they have to see the benefit.
(click to show/hide)
You might want to remove or tweak the Cha to saves at 2nd level and some of the other low-level abilities. It makes the class possibly too great a dip for up to 3 levels. You get Cha to saves, Mettle, Iron Guard's Glare w/o a stance, immunity to fear, immunity to disease, two auras (+4 saves vs. fear and +1 to something of your choice from a Spellshape aura), and if you want to do any more spellshaping you also have Spellshape Channeling (which can just be a minor bonus on a single melee attack per round or channeling some big major formula from another class).

Temporal Impulses seems fair at 8th level. You trade one defense (3/day say nyeh to melee attacks, plus other teleport utility) for another (3/day reroll a save, plus the option to reroll attacks). The ability to replay a whole turn at 18th level is probably a fair bit stronger than DDoor, but it's level 18 so things can be a bit wacky.

Ain't touching feats until tomorrow.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: brujon on November 12, 2011, 11:57:59 AM
You sir, deserve a place among the greats of the homebrew. This is marvelous work! Effectively putting casters on the same playfield as the ToB classes, while maintaining flavor. Splendous.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 12, 2011, 03:40:00 PM
I think your Aging table is incorrect. It looks like a copy/paste of the starting age table.

How is an aging table capable of being incorrect, exactly?  I based it off of the aging rates of other races, yes, but that's mainly because I didn't want to just pull numbers of of thin air.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean.  Fixed.

Water Stoichen seem a little bit off compared to the other options. Their normal ability is water breathing and swimming (useful, but very specific and fine for a racial), but their SLA is a cantrip. Poison immunity is nice, though. It would also be nice if their 5th level Elemental Adept 1 sub ability could give something associated with the water/cold spellshapes similar to the other elements. It just feels like the odd man out in that regard.

Yeah, the SLA kind of sucks for water stoichen.  I'll probably replace it with animate water or something similar.  Update: Animate water was, in fact, the exact spell-like ability I gave it!

In terms of the 5th level ability, I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Only earth-blooded stoichen elemental adepts have an ability that modifies their spellshapes.  The air elemental adept just gets a miss chance, and the burn damage increase on the fire elemental adept is specifically noted as applying when you're attacked--not when you attack.

Caymir Anchorite 1 and Stoichen Elemental Adept 1 seem like awfully big changes for a single level. I do like the idea of turning you into your pet elemental. Maybe you could expand the range of the elemental auras to your normal melee reach instead of adjacent only, though? Being that close can actually be pretty difficult when reaches rise.

The caymir anchorite is basically gaining trading access to one of the normal circles for a circle that was never written.  See, Codex II was originally going to have a shape-shifting circle, but there was almost no way that I could figure to make shapeshifting work in the context of formulae, recovery, and durations.  So I scrapped it.  The caymir anchorites are basically getting that.  It scales with shaper level, like actual circles, while being interesting utility-wise.

Stoichen elemental adept has had the elemental aura become an actual aura.  It has a 5-foot radius at 5th level, a 10-foot radius at 11th level, and a 15-foot radius at 17th level.

I don't deny that they're both rather big changes, but I don't think that they're actually a problem.

Anchorite looks like a Divine Mind with spellshaping instead of psionics and competence instead of suck. And Savant seems to have inherited the Archivist's non-spellcasting class features.

Both of these are entirely true, though I will point out that the savant gets uses of its knowledge that archivist doesn't.  It's basically the same ability, but tweaked slightly.

Battle Sage has the problem of getting something now (Int to AC and defensive shaping Conc checks) for nothing until later. Maybe move the AC and Concentration bonuses up to 3rd level (when you miss Int to Will), then add something else as a minor bonus at 9th and 15th to make up for the other two saves you're losing out on getting Int to (say, Int to spellshape damage rolls or attack rolls). Light armor proficiency, increased HD size, and armored shaping don't really matter unless you invest levels into the class to take advantage of them, so they can probably stay at 1st level without being a problem.

Has been addressed.  You now get the AC/Concentration bonus at 3rd level, Int to damage at 9th level, and Int x Shaper level to hit points at 15th level.  Basically, you slowly become more and more capable of waging war.

Elemental Spirit seems fair. You give up your elemental companion (a major part of the class) for a variety of helpful abilities that scale with and are appropriate to your level. Looks like a few of them were curbed from the Wu Jen and associated feats. The 20th level one is from that Paladin ACF from Dungeonscape that summons spirits, right?

E-yup.  I've been thinking that the 20th-level one might deserve a limit on times per day, though, since the paladin ACF's spirit only lasts for a certain amount of time.  Update: It has been capped at three life-saves per day.

Idiosyncratic Shaper is... idiosyncratic, I guess? Swap one mental ability score for another (both ways) for one of your Spellshaping class's spellshaping and features. It costs a prepared formula, but that seems fair since everyone gets plenty and you'd only be taking it if you wanted to sync up some ability score-based abilities advantageously. How does the lost prepared formula interact with the Impulse Mage's occurred formulae? Make sure it's spelled out, and consider if you want interactions like this to give you an Idiot Crusader situation.

Yeah, I really should define the Impulse Mage's occurred formulae thing somewhere.  If you haven't noticed, it isn't just "all your formulae except for two" like the Crusader--it's half.  I did the math at one point, though, and it was incredibly difficult to pull off an Idiot Mage (though probably doable).  More pondering shall occur, but I'll definitely define Impulse Mage somewhere in the ACF.

Invoking Sage gives 8 invocations at the cost of 9 spells (each usable 1/day). Depending on what you choose, that could be a much more reliable and reusable bit of versatility over just having basic spellshaping, but whether the reusability of invocations trumps the variety of spells is another question that I don't know the answer to.

Invoking Sage has actually caused me to lose sleep.  I've thought about dropping it to only four invocations, but that trade feels too obviously weak.  Maybe the fact that we can't figure out which way is better bespeaks the fact that it's actually well-balanced and a complicated choice...but I don't know.  I'll keep thinking on this one--and any further thoughts would be most useful.

I cringe at Mage-Warrior's Steed making you strictly worse for 1 level (4th) instead of giving the mount directly then. Maybe give the mount at 4th level but say you count as at least 5th level to determine its effects (since the Paladin Mount table doesn't go below 5th)?

Probably what I will do, yes.  Update: This is done.

Shaman of the Elements is another one of those rock now, don't pay until later deals. Save the auras until 4th when you actually give up Command Elements. It's bad enough you're giving an 18th level class feature away with it (shift aura as swift action). Not that I think restricting aura switches to being very slow is a good thing (I like the Marshal-style switch-as-swift), but if it's good enough for 18th level on one class, no reason to give it away at 1st on another. Similarly, Touch of Vitality should probably wait until 8th level and the condition removal to 12th. Maybe at 16th you can give something to make up for Wrath of Elements, like the ability for your elemental companion to spread a sort of inverted Spellshape Aura in place of or in addition to its elemental aura.

This has been mostly addressed, though I haven't come up with a new 16th-level ability yet.  I have ideas for "elemental edicts" that penalize enemies in your spellshape auras.  I don't want to tie it to your elemental companion, though, in case you take one of the two options--elemental spirit or stoichen elemental adept--that takes it away.

Spellshape Paragon looks like a sort of Divine Crusader/Paladin ACF for Spellshape Champions. The 10th level ability can be rewritten in a more general manner, so you don't need to keep updating it as you add new circles and so players don't need to look up exactly which circle they have to see the benefit.
(click to show/hide)
You might want to remove or tweak the Cha to saves at 2nd level and some of the other low-level abilities. It makes the class possibly too great a dip for up to 3 levels. You get Cha to saves, Mettle, Iron Guard's Glare w/o a stance, immunity to fear, immunity to disease, two auras (+4 saves vs. fear and +1 to something of your choice from a Spellshape aura), and if you want to do any more spellshaping you also have Spellshape Channeling (which can just be a minor bonus on a single melee attack per round or channeling some big major formula from another class).

I'll probably drop the Charisma to saves, then.  And, yes, I'll be stealing that write-up of the immunities/defenses.  Update: This is done.

Temporal Impulses seems fair at 8th level. You trade one defense (3/day say nyeh to melee attacks, plus other teleport utility) for another (3/day reroll a save, plus the option to reroll attacks). The ability to replay a whole turn at 18th level is probably a fair bit stronger than DDoor, but it's level 18 so things can be a bit wacky.

That's basically where I came down on it.  Replaying your turn is nice, but--at this point--wizards have Time Stop and psions have their version of it.  Just replaying your own turn is far from game breaking.


Edit: Some feedback I got in a message has brought something to my attention.

Quote
There is one import observation - spellshaper champion with spellshape study becomes very potent and durable ranged attacker. Especially at level 5th he nearly doubles his damage output. I don't know if it's a flaw in your system, but want to bring it to your consideration.

It's a decent point.  Spellshape champions can take one feat and suddenly become just as capable of ranged combat as other spellshapers, while retaining all of their defenses.  In the light of Spellshape Paragon--which restricts you to one circle--the possibility of an armored cannon becomes even more of a thing.  Should spellshape champion's ability to make spellshape attacks at range by taking Spellshape Study be axed?
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Garryl on November 12, 2011, 05:24:09 PM
Spellshape Auras: How do these work from multiple sources? An Anchorite 1/Spellshape Paragon 1/Shaman of the Elements 4 has it from 3 different sources. Does that mean 3 auras at once?

Anchorite:
I missed this before, but the auras each have nice basic effects in addition to scaling bonuses.
Also, this should say somewhere that you can only project one aura at once before 10th.

Feats:
Not sure how I feel about Metashaping feats. Without Metashaping Mastery, you have a good chance of failure, lost actions, and nonlethal damage even on things with effective levels a few below your max level.

Chain Spellshape - Keep the 7th level+ penalty as dazing, not stunning. Stun immunity is easier to come by than daze immunity, like from Elemental Adept 10, for instance.
When shaping a chained melee spellshape (or channeled through a melee weapon), the ranged touch attacks for secondary targets might make you provoke an AoO. I'm not sure exactly, because I can never remember exactly what the rules on AoOs for ranged attacks are, nor how the usual wording for no provoking AoOs for SLAs that melee spellshapers use goes.
The example is incorrect. The DC only drops by 2, not 4 (secondary DC 15 not 13).

Enhanced Formula - Do you still have to make shaper level checks to use the metashaped formula? If so, this feat is strictly worse than just applying the metashaping feat manually.

Mastered Formula - Should recover it either:
a) 5 rounds after you last shaped it, or
b) after it has been expended for at least 5 rounds.
As written, if you shape it, recover it, and then shape it again, you'll recover it twice (once 5 rounds after the first shaping, and again after the 2nd one). If you start spamming it over and over, you can eventually be recovering it every single round. Probably not intended. The above suggestions will change it so you lose the pending recoveries if you recover the formula sooner (a, b), and if it is expended without being shaped (b).

Maximize Formula - Large amounts of bonus damage instead of large dice may make failing a 4th level metashape more dangerous than at 7th level one.

Metashaping Mastery - Since you take 10 like a skill check, you still can't take 10 in combat (or other stressful/distracting situations), the main time when you'd want to other than with Persistent Spellshape. Just needs to add the "even while threatened or distracted" clause.

Mobile Shaper - Shot on the Run for spellshapes? Precise Shaper is a wasted feat for characters who want this for use for melee spellshapes (using it as Spring Attack). Speaking of which, you might want to let Mobile Shaper count as Shot on the Run, Mobile Caster, and/or Spring Attack for prerequisites and other options. Just a thought.

Persistent Formula - 10 minute duration is well enough for something with encounter-period recovery. Might be a bit tedious keeping it up all day, though. Maybe make it 24 hours, but dismissible if you need to get the formula back or change which formula you persisted? Or is this part of the balancing to prevent someone from persisting formulae they can't always succeed on the shaper level check for?
Just a thought, how about letting a shaper take the feat multiple times, each time letting you persist another formula at the same time?

Sculpt Spellshape - How does this interact with a Spellshape Champion's channeled spellshape? Forget Spellshape Study for a ranged shape, I'm taking this 1st degree metashape to make my melee attacks AoEs.

Shaper's Stride - This is bloody cool.

Spellshape Aura - How does this interact with already being able to project a Spellshape Aura? Similar to Anchorite and Shaman of the Elements, shouldn't this be a full-round action to project?

Still Spellshape - How would this work with a channeled spellshape? I hit you with my sword without moving.

I think your Aging table is incorrect. It looks like a copy/paste of the starting age table.

How is an aging table capable of being incorrect, exactly?  I based it off of the aging rates of other races, yes, but that's mainly because I didn't want to just pull numbers of of thin air.
For most aging tables, the age for each category is fixed, with only the maximum life span being variable.
Since the numbers on starting age and age categories are copied, funky things happen. Adulthood (the time between the start of adulthood and the start of middle age) is 0 years. Anyone playing a character with a late starting age (Wizard, etc.) has a decent chance to be beyond their maximum age, dying years before character creation.
The longest lived Caymir (Adulthood 18 yrs, similar to humans) has a maximum age of 18+6+12+18 = 54, which seems a bit short, no? Masked Ones are 15+4+6+12=37, Stoichen are 20+12+18+24=74. I think only Azurin have similarly short lifespans compared to starting age, and that's part of their racial fluff (born with essentia but the incarnum energy eats their bodies up, burning through their lifespan quickly).


Edit: A couple typos I noticed.

Stoichen
Automatic Languages: Stoichen speak Comman and the elemental language appropriate to their ancestry (Aquan, Auran, Ignan, or Terran).  Bonus Languages: Aquan, Auran, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Halfling, Ignan, and Terran.

Eternal Moment
Senescence -  and a a cumulative –2 penalty to Dexterity and Constitution.

Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 13, 2011, 02:19:30 AM
Feats:
Not sure how I feel about Metashaping feats. Without Metashaping Mastery, you have a good chance of failure, lost actions, and nonlethal damage even on things with effective levels a few below your max level.

So, I'm going to address the other issues you brought up at some point in the near future, but I wanted to actually ask about this one.  What do you think would be an appropriate setup for failure?  Should it just be that you shape the formula normally and can apply no more metashaping feats to it, or something?

The problem is that I'm trying to avoid the truenaming problem, where there's no reason NOT to try improving all of your utterances, as failure simply causes them to work normally.

The simplest way would be to simply let you apply metashaping feats as easily as one applies metamagic (only without the casting time increase), while requiring that formula level + degree does not exceed 1/2 your shaper level (rounded up).  Metashaping Mastery would, of course, then be removed.  Thoughts?


(Oh, and typos were corrected.)
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: carnap on November 13, 2011, 03:06:56 AM
Invoking Sage gives 8 invocations at the cost of 9 spells (each usable 1/day). Depending on what you choose, that could be a much more reliable and reusable bit of versatility over just having basic spellshaping, but whether the reusability of invocations trumps the variety of spells is another question that I don't know the answer to.

Invoking Sage has actually caused me to lose sleep.  I've thought about dropping it to only four invocations, but that trade feels too obviously weak.  Maybe the fact that we can't figure out which way is better bespeaks the fact that it's actually well-balanced and a complicated choice...but I don't know.  I'll keep thinking on this one--and any further thoughts would be most useful.

Because spellshapers have such nice firepower, they wouldn't benefit much from offensive invocations which are generally weaker than formulas. But invocations provides things that spells generally can't - very good, long-lasting buffs (as alter self, see invisibility, blindsense, flight, invisibility). I feel that offensive spellsages would prefer spells and more utility-oriented spellsages will choose invocations. It means that you can't really compare this two variants, because their areas of specialization are definitively different.

One more thought - isn't Savant better than Impulse Mage? Actually, Savant got more class features (which also affect his team), bonus feats, only a bit worse hit dice and more skill points (due to Intelligence focus), the same number of formulas and much more predictable recovery mechanic. Shouldn't you boost a bit impulse mage?
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 14, 2011, 12:35:41 AM
Spellshape Auras: How do these work from multiple sources? An Anchorite 1/Spellshape Paragon 1/Shaman of the Elements 4 has it from 3 different sources. Does that mean 3 auras at once?

Anchorite:
I missed this before, but the auras each have nice basic effects in addition to scaling bonuses.
Also, this should say somewhere that you can only project one aura at once before 10th.

To be dealt with shortly.  Update: Dealt with.  Unless you specifically gain the ability to project multiple auras at once, only one at a time.


Feats:
Not sure how I feel about Metashaping feats. Without Metashaping Mastery, you have a good chance of failure, lost actions, and nonlethal damage even on things with effective levels a few below your max level.

Chain Spellshape - Keep the 7th level+ penalty as dazing, not stunning. Stun immunity is easier to come by than daze immunity, like from Elemental Adept 10, for instance.
When shaping a chained melee spellshape (or channeled through a melee weapon), the ranged touch attacks for secondary targets might make you provoke an AoO. I'm not sure exactly, because I can never remember exactly what the rules on AoOs for ranged attacks are, nor how the usual wording for no provoking AoOs for SLAs that melee spellshapers use goes.
The example is incorrect. The DC only drops by 2, not 4 (secondary DC 15 not 13).

Enhanced Formula - Do you still have to make shaper level checks to use the metashaped formula? If so, this feat is strictly worse than just applying the metashaping feat manually.

Mastered Formula - Should recover it either:
a) 5 rounds after you last shaped it, or
b) after it has been expended for at least 5 rounds.
As written, if you shape it, recover it, and then shape it again, you'll recover it twice (once 5 rounds after the first shaping, and again after the 2nd one). If you start spamming it over and over, you can eventually be recovering it every single round. Probably not intended. The above suggestions will change it so you lose the pending recoveries if you recover the formula sooner (a, b), and if it is expended without being shaped (b).

Maximize Formula - Large amounts of bonus damage instead of large dice may make failing a 4th level metashape more dangerous than at 7th level one.

Metashaping Mastery - Since you take 10 like a skill check, you still can't take 10 in combat (or other stressful/distracting situations), the main time when you'd want to other than with Persistent Spellshape. Just needs to add the "even while threatened or distracted" clause.

Mobile Shaper - Shot on the Run for spellshapes? Precise Shaper is a wasted feat for characters who want this for use for melee spellshapes (using it as Spring Attack). Speaking of which, you might want to let Mobile Shaper count as Shot on the Run, Mobile Caster, and/or Spring Attack for prerequisites and other options. Just a thought.

Persistent Formula - 10 minute duration is well enough for something with encounter-period recovery. Might be a bit tedious keeping it up all day, though. Maybe make it 24 hours, but dismissible if you need to get the formula back or change which formula you persisted? Or is this part of the balancing to prevent someone from persisting formulae they can't always succeed on the shaper level check for?
Just a thought, how about letting a shaper take the feat multiple times, each time letting you persist another formula at the same time?

Sculpt Spellshape - How does this interact with a Spellshape Champion's channeled spellshape? Forget Spellshape Study for a ranged shape, I'm taking this 1st degree metashape to make my melee attacks AoEs.

Shaper's Stride - This is bloody cool.

Spellshape Aura - How does this interact with already being able to project a Spellshape Aura? Similar to Anchorite and Shaman of the Elements, shouldn't this be a full-round action to project?

Still Spellshape - How would this work with a channeled spellshape? I hit you with my sword without moving.

I think your Aging table is incorrect. It looks like a copy/paste of the starting age table.

How is an aging table capable of being incorrect, exactly?  I based it off of the aging rates of other races, yes, but that's mainly because I didn't want to just pull numbers of of thin air.
For most aging tables, the age for each category is fixed, with only the maximum life span being variable.
Since the numbers on starting age and age categories are copied, funky things happen. Adulthood (the time between the start of adulthood and the start of middle age) is 0 years. Anyone playing a character with a late starting age (Wizard, etc.) has a decent chance to be beyond their maximum age, dying years before character creation.
The longest lived Caymir (Adulthood 18 yrs, similar to humans) has a maximum age of 18+6+12+18 = 54, which seems a bit short, no? Masked Ones are 15+4+6+12=37, Stoichen are 20+12+18+24=74. I think only Azurin have similarly short lifespans compared to starting age, and that's part of their racial fluff (born with essentia but the incarnum energy eats their bodies up, burning through their lifespan quickly).


Edit: A couple typos I noticed.

Stoichen
Automatic Languages: Stoichen speak Comman and the elemental language appropriate to their ancestry (Aquan, Auran, Ignan, or Terran).  Bonus Languages: Aquan, Auran, Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Gnome, Halfling, Ignan, and Terran.

Eternal Moment
Senescence -  and a a cumulative –2 penalty to Dexterity and Constitution.

All of this has been dealt with.  I changed metashaping feats to require no action, but formula level + degree of all metashaping feats cannot exceed 1/2 your shaper level (rounded up).

Things like Sculpt Spellshape and Still Spellshape now require that you would be making the spellshape attack as a ranged attack.

Persistent Shaper uses your ideas.

Mobile Shaper is changed to qualify you for things.  And while, yes, it's a wasted feat for melee shapers...I'll like to point out that Spring Attack normally requires both Dodge and Mobility, as opposed to just one feat.

Edit: Also, prestige classes up.  Planning to get another one or two up tomorrow.


Edit:
One more thought - isn't Savant better than Impulse Mage? Actually, Savant got more class features (which also affect his team), bonus feats, only a bit worse hit dice and more skill points (due to Intelligence focus), the same number of formulas and much more predictable recovery mechanic. Shouldn't you boost a bit impulse mage?

I'm actually more likely to try to figure out how to weaken the Savant, to be honest.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: carnap on November 14, 2011, 03:06:19 PM
I'm actually more likely to try to figure out how to weaken the Savant, to be honest.

I think that bad fortitude progression (it's very useful save) and cutting bonus feat at 1st level would make the Savant more on par with the Impulse Mage.

New PrCs are great (especially gishy Spellforge Warsmith), but is there any chance to see more of "meshing two circles" classes, as Lavamancer or Hand of Death's Chill?
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 14, 2011, 03:43:26 PM

I think that bad fortitude progression (it's very useful save) and cutting bonus feat at 1st level would make the Savant more on par with the Impulse Mage.

Bad Fortitude will probably happen, yeah.  In terms of dropping other stuff, I'm thinking of giving Lore Mastery the axe, instead--thereby simultaneously dropping a small bonus and slightly weakening everything that depends on knowledge.  Update: This has been done.  I THINK that puts me up to date with feedback and comments, except that Shaman of the Elements needs a 16th-level ability.  Update: Shaman of the Elements now gains the ability to project both of its elemental auras at once at 16th level.

New PrCs are great (especially gishy Spellforge Warsmith), but is there any chance to see more of "meshing two circles" classes, as Lavamancer or Hand of Death's Chill?

Circle-specific prestige classes really dominated the scene in Codex I, so I made an effort to have most of the new prestige classes allow generalist builds.  Dreamwalker requires one Glimmering Moon formula, but that's not terribly specializing.  However, the Oracle of the Stars--which will be posted as soon as I finish its write-up--combines Astral Essence, Brilliant Dawn, and Glimmering Moon in the way that Codex I prestige classes combined circles.  It's astrology-themed.

Beyond that, none of the Codex II prestige classes really "mesh" circles.  However, I'm not planning to up and die any time soon, so meshing prestige classes could always be wrtten in the future.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: sirpercival on November 14, 2011, 03:52:01 PM
I haven't looked over the PrC's in detail, so if there already is then shame on me, but I was wondering if there are any plans for a PrC mixing spellshaping and ToB initiators?  Because that could be quite awesome.

I'm going to try and play a spellshaper soon, probably an Impulse Mage going into either Chaos Shaper or Dreamwalker.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 14, 2011, 04:33:31 PM
I haven't looked over the PrC's in detail, so if there already is then shame on me, but I was wondering if there are any plans for a PrC mixing spellshaping and ToB initiators?  Because that could be quite awesome.

I'm going to try and play a spellshaper soon, probably an Impulse Mage going into either Chaos Shaper or Dreamwalker.

There are currently two such prestige classes--the Edgewalker Knight (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=879.0) and the Flamedancer (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=882.0).  The first, a servant of life and death who maintains the boundary between them.  The second, a flashy wielder of flame who dances around his foes as he sears them.

Codex II does not, alas, contribute to the list of spellshapers/initiators, but that sort of combination is something that I'm pretty likely to continue in the future.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Amechra on November 14, 2011, 06:07:02 PM
Weird idea; a PrC that would allow you to ready Maneuvers as Formulae and Formulae as Maneuvers, with benefits for doing so.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 14, 2011, 11:22:36 PM
Hrm.  Interesting idea.  I've been rolling an idea around in the back of my head of a base class that gets both formulae and maneuvers, but prepares/readies them in the same "pool."  That is, he can choose to have more formulae or more maneuvers, since they both fill up the same slots.  Is that something like what you're getting at?

Also, two more prestige classes up.  Master Reshaper and Oracle of the Stars.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Amechra on November 14, 2011, 11:54:01 PM
Precisely, actually.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 17, 2011, 04:33:37 AM
Well, that one should be hitting shelves a few weeks after I finish getting Codex II online and have fielded the worst of the criticism.

New prestige class up, incidentally.  Not terribly flashy, but offers some versatility.  Whoo, stealing the eternal blade's eternal training ability and removing the "once per encounter" cap!

Edit: Wildheart mage is up now, too.  With that, all of the Codex II material is online.  Now, criticize away!  I am on hand for Quickened Errata.

Also, the indices for both codices are now in the same thread, for the purpose of efficiency.  If this is horribly appalling, say so and I shall return to the two-thread setup.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Amechra on November 17, 2011, 10:58:36 AM
You inspire me with your work, you know that?

I've been meaning to work on a similar project... But don't know how to start. Suggestions?
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 17, 2011, 11:25:06 AM
Man, if I had any idea how the spellshapers actually happened, I would be happy to just hand out the magic formula.  It basically grew out of my desire to be able to play a fire-based magic-user who was not objectively terrible, and sort of...ran away from me.  The elemental adept is what grew out of the original "pyromancer" class, and the Searing Flame circle is actually the oldest of them all.

The thing is, with a project like this, you have to be willing on some level to write abilities that you yourself would not be interested in.  I did the math at one point, and I would probably never choose to use one-third of the base classes, three-fifths of the circles, and seven-tenths of the prestige classes.  Approximately, that is--rounding occurred to bring you those figures.  Amusingly, the things that I like have historically been the ones to end up underpowered.

Start small.  Sketch out maybe a single class that uses a prototype of the system you want to build.  Very, very small-scale, though.  Don't try to get the whole thing put out at once.  What you need to do is establish how you want things to feel, then move on from there.  Once you know how the system is going to work, start making things more interesting and complicated.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: sirpercival on November 17, 2011, 11:28:45 AM
I'm considering something also... I created a new magic system for my most recent PrC (the Ritual Warrior), and I'm thinking about expanding it into a base class and adding some Ritual feats, but I'm not sure how far to go with it.  Some playtesting would help too, as I really have no idea how the class will work in an actual game setting, and I'm hesitant to expand on the mechanics until I know they aren't broken.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 17, 2011, 01:25:27 PM
Really, all I can tell you is to keep fiddling with it until it feels right, then just run with it.  I really have very little idea of how balance works--it's only been fourteen months since I was introduced to the game.

Anyway, any comments or criticism on the new circles or prestige classes?  Or is it just too much to go through this quickly?

If you guys don't give me some errata to write soon, my brain is going to get bored and start coming up with new material.  >:(
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Amechra on November 17, 2011, 01:39:01 PM
Alright, I cast Silence and Machine Invisibility on the audience; I want you to release more material, my canine friend.

Thing is, I've not noticed any major problems with any of the classes at all, except for, of course, a couple of spelling errors (that I can't locate again, cause there are only about 5 that I've seen throughout the entirety of the material); damn it, man!

Though, may I ask to use this material for a campaign setting? It kinda helped inspire it (the idea was, "what would it be like if Initiating was wide-spread, and came BEFORE magic?" Then I added some Runelord's material.)

Though, in that case, I would have to screw around with Spellsages and all the PrCs that advance spellcasting; they would have to be altered to work with Shadowcasting or Binding (the only "actual" systems of magic; Shadowcasting drains Sanity, while pretty much all Pact-Magic users are part of their own sovereign nation and run the religious institutions all around the main continent (think the Vatican))...
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 17, 2011, 02:44:59 PM
Argh, but if the audience can't speak, they can't provide feedback!  If they can't provide feedback, I can't improve things!  And, if I can't improve things, I'll explode!

Anyway, the spelling errors are unfindable because I went back in time and fixed them.  Went over all the Codex II stuff with a fine-toothed spellcheck, and I think I had already eliminated all of the Codex I typographical errors.

The campaign setting idea sounds neat, and has my full approval!  I'll see what I can throw together about shadowcasting, but I have a lot of work for the next week or so--so don't expect anything instantaneous.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Amechra on November 17, 2011, 06:28:15 PM
Well, it's the Binding stuff I'm worried about; spellcasting -> shadowcasting is actually fairly simple, with just a little bit of thematic tweaking necessary; Binding, however, requires a little... something different.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 17, 2011, 06:34:43 PM
Maybe give it the ability to bind vestiges for short periods?  You'd be able to bind one vestige of each level, but you'd only be able to bind each vestige for a number of rounds equal to your Intelligence modifier, and never more than one at once.

I have no clue if that would work in any viable way at all.  Just spitballing.


Edit: On the topic of spellshaping material, I've decided to go full circle.  I will be adapting the first homebrew that I ever wrote (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10407.0) to be a spellshaper/martial adept.

The current plan is for the class to have access to formulae from one circle--depending on the energy type of an individual's breath weapon--and maneuvers of the Tiger Claw discipline.  One formula will be recovered whenever you initiate a maneuver, and one maneuver will be recovered whenever you shape a formula or make a full attack.  Formulae and maneuvers will be readied in the same slots, meaning that you can choose to focus on one over the other.  The fact that the breath weapon has a recharge time, however, means that you're probably always going to want some maneuvers.

Instead of draconic auras, the class will receive a single spellshape aura, dependent on the circle to which an individual has access.

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I want to keep draconic invocations on the table.  It might be too much.

A few other things are being shuffled around--the breath effects are gone, obviously, as is the sorcerous knack ability.  Stay tuned for me actually writing the blasted thing.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Amechra on November 17, 2011, 07:45:32 PM
Might make a Hexenhammer variant for the Binding...

And I'm glad to see that you are remaking an old class; I've been planning something similar for my old Librarian class...

May I suggest an optional ability to use Spell-shape attacks as a breath weapon? So you would fire a cone of Withering Hand, or something?

It would be as simple as converting it to a small cone/line, and replacing the attack roll with a reflex save.

Alternatively, just give them an at-will breath weapon, that they use instead of their spell-shape attack.

Or something.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 17, 2011, 08:05:22 PM
May I suggest an optional ability to use Spell-shape attacks as a breath weapon? So you would fire a cone of Withering Hand, or something?

It would be as simple as converting it to a small cone/line, and replacing the attack roll with a reflex save.

Alternatively, just give them an at-will breath weapon, that they use instead of their spell-shape attack.

Or something.

Guess that wasn't clear!  The breath weapon is going to function as a spellshape attack under the effect of the Sculpt Spellshape feat.  It's still going to be a 1d4 recharge time, though, so maneuvers are a thing.

Edit: For clarity, my notes as they exist now.  Warning, shorthand ahead.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: Amechra on November 17, 2011, 08:36:49 PM
I would like to say one thing...

Look up the Breath of Fire discipline, if you dare.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 17, 2011, 09:09:22 PM
I might look at it for class feature ideas--there's an idea, bringing back breath effects as modular modifications for your breath weapon, rather than specifically applied effects--but not as one of your options.  I really like the one-to-one feel, and I don't want to be mixing maneuvers with the spellshape attack.

If I do end up adding more options, it'll be:

One circle of formulae, determined by your breath weapon energy type.
One circle of formulae of your choice, all of which are reshaped (as by the Reshape Formula feat) to the circle associated with your breath weapon's energy type.

Tiger Claw maneuvers.
One discipline of your choice.
Title: Re: Discussion thread.
Post by: DonQuixote on November 18, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
Because I can, shorthand notes for another specialized base class that is kicking around in the back of my head.  Extremely fire-based.  Sort of an extrapolation of the stoichen elemental adept, specified for fire, then mixed with some other stuff that was kicking around.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on November 18, 2011, 07:26:31 PM
If you wouldn't mind, could I post a "In X campaign setting" post for each of the base classes and prestige classes, on their threads; you know, like they had in some of the later MM for Eberron, Greyhawk, and Forgotten Realms?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 18, 2011, 08:05:21 PM
Sure!  Go right ahead.

Technically, the thread isn't locked.  Anything pertinent can be posted in any of the threads.

...I wonder how difficult it would be to get people to write handbooks...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on November 18, 2011, 10:15:32 PM
YAY! I'll put that up when I'm ready.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 21, 2011, 03:28:45 PM
Welp, the dragon aspirant update is posted.  It is now called the dragonheart adept, because I am the least inventive namer ever.  Which you probably caught onto a while ago.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 22, 2011, 05:16:36 AM
So, the future.  It's a thing.

The style of the Dragonheart Adept post is probably what's going to happen a fair bit.  I like the idea of writing Web Enhancements for my stuff--even if it's ridiculously pretentious and ego-inflating.  Therefore, I'm going to continue being annoying and writing in that manner.

However, stylistic elements aside, there remains the matter of what sort of content is forthcoming.  And the answers lie below--in no particular order, mind you.

I have no idea what my updating schedule is going to be like--even as I type, I am aware that I should be working on those two papers that are due Wednesday.  Moreover, my roommate just fixed my corrupted copy of Umineko no Naku Koro, so it's a good bet that I'm going to spend a lot of the upcoming weeks on that.

Remember, though, I run on the fuel of feedback and suggestions.  If I don't know what's bad, I don't know what to fix.  If I don't know what's good, I don't know what to keep doing.  And, if I don't know what people want, I don't know what to write for them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on November 22, 2011, 07:22:38 AM
  • Prestige Class: Unnamed, Shadowcaster / Spellshaper - Well, I have to learn how shadowcasting works--the only Tome of Magic material that gets any frequent use at our table is binding--but I see no reason not to at least try to fulfill Amechra's request on this one.

The coolest shadowcaster I ever came up with was a beguiler/shadowcaster/mystic theurge/noctumancer.  Was 17/18 in beguiler/shadowcaster casting, so kind of like a homemade gestalt.  Some name ideas:

Night shaper
Sky-schemer ["shadow shape" in greek is phonetically skemo-skia]

Quote
  • Base Class: Unnamed, Focused Searing Flame Spellshaper - No name for it yet--everything sounds too stupid or has been used--but this guy was previewed in one of my shorthand note thingies a few posts ago.  Basically, a melee combat spellshaper who uses melee touch attacks and gets a rage-like ability.  And some other goodies.  There is absolutely no guarantee that this will evolve into one base class for each circle--in fact, I find it highly unlikely.  I just really like Searing Flame.  The entire project grew out of my desire to play a fire-based magic user without being horribly underpowered, so this is really just inevitable.

Burning Rage Acolyte
Scorching Blood Cultist

Quote
  • Base Class: Unnamed, Focused Devouring Shadow Spellshaper - Basically, my answer to the dread necromancer.  I'm trying to decide whether I want it to start undead--as in a ritual that you undergo at 1st level that basically necropolitan-izes you--or whether I want it to slowly become a lich--like a dread necromancer.  Similarly, I can't decide whether I want it to make lots of minions, or whether I want it focus on just one in a manner reminiscent of the Pathfinder summoner.  Either way, it's getting a phylactery sooner or later.

I would recommend NOT modeling it after the DN's lich-iness.  People who want that can already be a DN, and one of the biggest strategies for a DN is to become Necropolitan as soon as possible.  I wouldn't give it at first level, though -- give it at 3rd, to make it roughly equivalent to becoming Necropolitan.  Undead immunities at 1st level are pretty brutal.

Also, there are again already several classes built around an undead army.  I would look for something unique to bring to the table there.  In particular, Devouring Shadow is NOT about undead, it's about negative energy and status effects.  I would say that you could make a devouring shadow/necromancy dual-progression PrC that would work well, but as a base class I personally would go for something a little more oddball.  Like, maybe give a negative-energy version of something like the Shifter Druid's beast spirit ACF, modeled around a ghostly visage... and then some of the class features basically bind you to it to get more and more abilities?

Another thing is that based again on the flavor of the Devouring Shadow formulae, maybe a lich makes less sense than something like a vampire?  Liches are more self-contained, while vampires, you know, devour.  They also do negative levels and things with attacks, so thematically and mechanically it fits.

Anyway, I can't give you name suggestions until I know more about what you'll do with the class :D

Quote
  • Possibly More? - Really, this one's up to chance and you guys.  Either I'll randomly have ideas, or you'll suggest them.  Either way works, really.

And of course, I'm going to suggest some homebrew theurgery.  How about a spellshape/ritualist (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1334.0) blend?  :D :D

Also, a spellshape/incarnum prestige class would be amazing.  I have a couple of incarnum homebrews (a wilder/totemist prc and an aberration-themed base class), so if you like I can work on something.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 22, 2011, 07:36:40 AM
Quote
  • Base Class: Unnamed, Focused Searing Flame Spellshaper - No name for it yet--everything sounds too stupid or has been used--but this guy was previewed in one of my shorthand note thingies a few posts ago.  Basically, a melee combat spellshaper who uses melee touch attacks and gets a rage-like ability.  And some other goodies.  There is absolutely no guarantee that this will evolve into one base class for each circle--in fact, I find it highly unlikely.  I just really like Searing Flame.  The entire project grew out of my desire to play a fire-based magic user without being horribly underpowered, so this is really just inevitable.

Burning Rage Acolyte
Scorching Blood Cultist

Possibilities.  I'm trying to make it less...shall we say...barbaric in flavor.

Quote
  • Base Class: Unnamed, Focused Devouring Shadow Spellshaper - Basically, my answer to the dread necromancer.  I'm trying to decide whether I want it to start undead--as in a ritual that you undergo at 1st level that basically necropolitan-izes you--or whether I want it to slowly become a lich--like a dread necromancer.  Similarly, I can't decide whether I want it to make lots of minions, or whether I want it focus on just one in a manner reminiscent of the Pathfinder summoner.  Either way, it's getting a phylactery sooner or later.

I would recommend NOT modeling it after the DN's lich-iness.  People who want that can already be a DN, and one of the biggest strategies for a DN is to become Necropolitan as soon as possible.  I wouldn't give it at first level, though -- give it at 3rd, to make it roughly equivalent to becoming Necropolitan.  Undead immunities at 1st level are pretty brutal.

Also, there are again already several classes built around an undead army.  I would look for something unique to bring to the table there.  In particular, Devouring Shadow is NOT about undead, it's about negative energy and status effects.  I would say that you could make a devouring shadow/necromancy dual-progression PrC that would work well, but as a base class I personally would go for something a little more oddball.  Like, maybe give a negative-energy version of something like the Shifter Druid's beast spirit ACF, modeled around a ghostly visage... and then some of the class features basically bind you to it to get more and more abilities?

Another thing is that based again on the flavor of the Devouring Shadow formulae, maybe a lich makes less sense than something like a vampire?  Liches are more self-contained, while vampires, you know, devour.  They also do negative levels and things with attacks, so thematically and mechanically it fits.

Anyway, I can't give you name suggestions until I know more about what you'll do with the class :D

While I tend to agree with you on the progression of undeath and the non-army-ness, I must, unfortunately, make it lich-themed.  There is a running joke among my friends that I am secretly a lich--thus, I cannot pass up the chance to write a lich class.

Quote
  • Possibly More? - Really, this one's up to chance and you guys.  Either I'll randomly have ideas, or you'll suggest them.  Either way works, really.

And of course, I'm going to suggest some homebrew theurgery.  How about a spellshape/ritualist (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1334.0) blend?  :D :D

Also, a spellshape/incarnum prestige class would be amazing.  I have a couple of incarnum homebrews (a wilder/totemist prc and an aberration-themed base class), so if you like I can work on something.

I'll definitely look at the ritualist stuff, though I have no clue what compatibilities exist.

Also, what's incarnum?...oh, wait...that sounds familiar.  I...I think I have a PDF named something like that?  I'm not sure...I don't think I've ever opened it...
:P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on November 22, 2011, 07:38:40 AM
 :lol
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on November 22, 2011, 02:17:14 PM
I've got a PrC or two for your system I'm working on, and I'll be able to post them in a bit.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 22, 2011, 02:26:39 PM
Huzzah!  Third-party material!   :p

Anyway, I probably won't meddle too much with anything anyone chooses to post here, unless you're really asking for it.  However, I may meddle with the exact wording of posted material, as I am a stickler for proper phrasing and the like.  Hope nobody minds.

Edit: Because I'm neurotic--and I really don't want to write this paper--I have posted a set of caveats, rules, and guidelines for people who are not me who wish to post spellshaping material.  It's pretty basic stuff, but my neurosis demanded that I make the post.  Said rules may be updated as more ideas occur to me or suchlike.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 23, 2011, 02:09:31 PM
...and, then, my brain decided that I didn't get to be done with Codex II.

See, I was trying to figure out how exactly to attack the Warheart item issue--I don't want to just directly copy it if possible, and I'm trying to decide how I want the spellshape attack to work in there--when my brain betrayed me.

"You know," it said, "you put some Wondrous Items in Codex I, and no magic items in Codex II at all.  I guess someone isn't dedicated to his current project."

"Like hell I'm not!" I roared at my brain, trying--in futility, as always--to punch it in the snout and thereby establish my dominance.  "Just watch!  The Warheart Items could go really well in Codex II!  Yeah, there's going to be a magic items chapter in there, just for them!"

"An entire chapter, for just one thing?" my jerk of a brain asked.

...things rapidly went downhill from there.  So, I guess I'm now semi-officially announcing that, at some point, the shaper's lamen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamen_%28magic%29) will be a thing.  You'll be able to use a lamen to enhance your spellshape attacks like they were weapons, sort of like a necklace of natural weapons.  Except that, instead of using the necklace of natural weapons way of doing it, the effects of a lamen will automatically apply to any spellshape attack you shape, unless you choose to suppress the lamen's effects.  However, a lamen costs approximately twice as much as a similar weapon of the same total enhancement bonus.

I'll give it more thought and planning when I actually feel alive.  As it is right now, I keep having to read the thread over again, as I keep almost-dozing-off.  Basically, though, modifying your spellshape attacks will be a thing that you're capable of doing.



Update (11/26/11): So, some more thinking has occurred in those rare moments that my family allows me to myself.  First of all, Still Spellshape is going to be removed--it's too good, and it lets you bypass too much.

Secondly, a new feat will be added.  This is the feat that's going to let you craft the warheart-item-equivalents, as well as crafting lamen (lamens?  Plural to be investigated).  A lamen is going to work sort of like an ioun stone, in that it won't take up an item slot, but it probably won't circle your head.  Base price currently undetermined.

It's going to work like enhancing an item, except that the enhancement bonus will apply on either checks made to overcome spell resistance or on attack rolls, depending on the spellshape attack.  Moreover, there's going to be a specific list of enhancements, rather than just being any weapon effect.

There's also going to be a nice conversion setup that lets a crafter convert pre-existing bonuses to other bonuses, making it easier and cheaper to redesign your combat style.

Pricing is still up in the air, but I'm thinking 1.5 x the cost of a weapon with the equivalent bonus level.  Spellshape attacks are a little better than weapons, after all, but I don't want it to be too cost-prohibitive.


Still trying to decide if there are any other sorts of magic item that should be included for spellshapers.



Update Again (11/29/11): So, I've written up the actual rules text for lamens and about a quarter of the special abilities.  I just need to write up the other fifteen, figure out Spellheart Items, and write the feat.

I'm then planning to make a single "Items" thread, much as there's a single thread for feats.  I expect to have it up this weekend or next.



Update the Third (11/30/11): Nothing new to report in the way of progress, as I fell asleep last night when I was planning to write more enhancements for lamens.  However, I have figured out how spellheart items are going to work.

Weapons will be capable of holding formulae that modify spellshape attacks, whereas armor will hold formulae that affect you or your allies, rather than splitting it on major and minor formulae.  This allows armor that holds things like Brilliant Radiance, which makes more sense than a sword.

They will get enhancement bonuses in the same way that warheart items do, and they won't be conventionally enhanceable, also like warheart items.

However!

A spellheart weapon will not deal damage in the way that a normal weapon of its type will.  Instead, it will always deal damage as though it was the spellshape attack contained in it.  Moreover, spellheart items do not get an enhancement bonus to damage, and you do not add your Strength modifier to damage rolls with them.

In other words, a Warhammer of Crushing Slam won't deal 1d8 points of bludgeoning damage, with a x3 critical modifier.  As a Crushing Stone weapon, it will deal damage as though it were a rockslam attack shaped according to your shaper level.  As a weapon of a 5th-level formula, it will have a +3 enhancement bonus to attack rolls, and it will have an initiator level of 9th.  In total: +3 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, deals Xd8 points of bludgeoning damage, x2 critical modifier.  Once per encounter, you can shape the Crushing Slam formula through the weapon.

That's for 28,000 gp, so, not bad.  However!  There is more.  A spellheart weapon can be enhanced as though it were a lamen, which I'm going to have to figure out how to price.  Since the weapon already has the enhancement bonuses, I can't just have it priced normally--you'd pay for some of the enhancement twice.  I'm thinking you pay the amount necessary for the enhancement increase.  Thus, to enhance a spellheart weapon that already had a +3 enhancement bonus with an ability that costs a +1 bonus, you would pay the difference between +3 and +4--21,000 gp.  (I'm also making this the case for further enhancing lamens that have already been enhanced, so yay for not having to pay XP costs for already-applied enhancements.)

This means that, technically, a spellheart weapon as a lamen works out as cheaper than a normal lamen.  However, since the lamen enhancements would only apply to spellshape attacks channeled through the weapon, I'm okay with that.  Also gives something nice to spellshape champions, so, yay.

Spellheart armor has its spell failure chance reduced by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus increased by 2, and armor check penalty decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).  This stacks with, say, being made of mithril, allowing for goodness.



The Updates Never End (11/30/11): Scratch much of what was said in the above update about spellheart weapons and armor.  Weapons will work like normal weapons of their kind, with an enhancement bonus to attacks and damage based on formula level.  Strength will apply to damage as normal, and all attributes will be...well...normal.  Except that, as a free action, you can choose to verb the energies of the spellshape attack, causing the weapon to deal damage as though you were channeling the appropriate spellshape attack through it.  Once per encounter, you can shape the formula inside the weapon.

If you have the ability to actually channel a spellshape attack through a weapon (because you're a spellshape champion), you can choose, when channeling a spellshape attack, to have the weapon deal damage appropriate for the spellshape attack, rather than for the weapon.  In such a case, it will basically work like a spellforged weapon.

Spellheart weapons will be enhanceable as lamens, but the enhancements will only apply when you're channeling a spellshape attack through the weapon as described in the paragraph above.

Spellheart armor is just armor with a formula inside it and an enhancement bonus.  No reduction of arcane spell failure chance or armor check penalty, and no increase of maximum Dexterity bonus.

Making a spellheart item will be a process of enhancement, not forging.

Things Left to Do:
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 01, 2011, 12:52:20 PM
Whoo, items are up.

And, with that, I'm probably done pumping out new material for a few weeks.  Finals are coming up, so...I should probably pay attention to class again.

I will be doing odd moments of errata, whenever I come across something that needs errata-ing.  I have a list of things from Codex I that I came across, so those will probably be done in a week or two.  I'm going to be pretty low-key about it, what with those finals, so we'll see what my timetable looks like.

I'll also be responding to comments and discussion, and changing anything that needs to be changed.  So, feedback away--you'll be heard.  I just won't be writing anything entirely new for a wee bit.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: veekie on December 03, 2011, 12:42:20 AM
Woo, thats an enormous amount of material to go through at once.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 05, 2011, 11:35:00 PM
Yeah, the sheer volume is part of the reason that I decided to pause the deluge of material.  I think it currently weighs in at about 300 pages when formatted in the style of a D&D sourcebook.  That's an incredible amount to expect people to read.  Given that I crave feedback the way that some people crave coffee, I figured it was a good idea to stop before it became too intimidating for the uninitiated.

The current plan is to take this pause as a chance to re-read all of the material, noting inconsistencies and issues and fixing them.  I'll also be responding to any feedback and taking it into account during the extended period.  Mind you, there probably won't be any big changes--mostly, it'll be fine-tuning and fixing mistakes.  I'm only actually planning to replace one formula, and there are no class features that I currently think are huge problems.  However, if anything glaring is brought to my attention, it will be addressed.

During this period, I'll also be formatting Codex II in PDF form and making it available for download.  While I know that most people probably prefer the online version, I am vain and obsessive enough to go ahead and imitate actual material.  Ridiculously presumptuous, I know.

The pause will last for as long as it does, after which new material will appear according to the whims of my brain.  It will probably all be in the form of "Web Enhancements," like the dragonheart adept, rather than part of a new Codex.  Most ideas that have been mentioned here will be addressed at some point in time.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: deanruel87 on December 07, 2011, 03:02:44 PM
Is there a way to download the work that's been done so far, primarily I am speaking of the Codex 1 material, in PDF.  It is simply unusable in it's current format here on the forum.  It really seems like genuinely interesting and potentially valuable work being done here but unless it can be read as a PDF or in the very least as a wiki I can't see anyone anywhere being able to use it.  Certainly as a beginner it is the most intimidating as to even get the basic rules and words and classes down I've had to open a dozen different forums at least.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 07, 2011, 05:28:04 PM
There's a link to a Codex I PDF right underneath the Codex I table of contents.  Check the Index thread.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 09, 2011, 02:46:36 AM
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: deanruel87 on December 10, 2011, 02:46:07 PM
Hello Don, I did some playtesting last night and figured I would post some thoughts that occurred to me during the process.  Obviously you have no need to use anything I write but I thought I would at least inform you of some balance considerations for the classes and the system you have clearly put a tremendous amount of effort into.

Alright let's start at the top with minor or aesthetic critiques:
*All spellshape attacks should be the same.  It should be called a spellshape attack or a spellblast.  The fact that I need to know and differentiate between whether I'm using galvanic charge, gusting zephyr, searing.....whatever or telekinetic double-whatever is a waste of time and conceptual space.  There is no benefit gained from having 12 very tremendously slightly different spellshape attacks to run probably one maneuver apiece in actual battle.  There is just not enough difference to necessitate me remembering 12 discrete pieces of information about the system where 1 would absolutely do the job.

*This one may seem unfortunate but it is absolutely true.  You have chosen to use Tome of Battle's arrangement system for maneuvers in your book.  Of breaking each school of maneuvers into their own little sub-chapter with each maneuver listed alphabetically therein.  This is terrible.  It was a terrible idea then and it's no better now.  See in something like the PHB all spells are listed alphabetically, the same with every other D&D book except ToB.  There is a reason why they only did this once.  See in the PHB format you only need to know one piece of information to be able to look up your spell; it's name.  In the ToB format you need to identify 3 pieces of information across 2 seperate steps.  You need to know the maneuver's school, it's location alphabetically in the index, and then after going to that section of the book you need to go to the spell name.  It is in every way worse and was a considerable mistake in the formatting of the ToB.  Something to consider.

Next we have minor design issues.
*Two minor things about the Impulse mage.  The Impulse Mage should be proficient and able to wear light armor.  Every character in D&D is expected to be able to use at least light armor because it is a mandatory part of the games expectations for the combat RNG.  Additionally the 8th level ability Shift-Slip is very good and very interesting but comes too suddenly.  You go from being 7th level and never having used the ability before in your life to making it a absolutely integral part of your combat tactics at 8th.  The ability should be gained in steps.  1 use every 3 levels or so seems reasonable.

*The Telekinetic path's third level ability "Marionette" is both far too good and too vague.  In most combat situations it is a save or die effect.  Most characters are armed with a weapon and if the character can literally just mime stabbing themselves in the eye to kill anyone who fails the first save then it's too good.  Not too good -ever- just too good for a third level effect.  It's an auto include as written so you might want to modify it. (As a note as well the comatose thing if they save is probably the real problem.  Someone who's helpless in 3.5 for 1d4 rounds is deceased so you really can't save against the suicide application of the effect)

And Finally: Major Design Concerns
The classes you've made here simply are not able to enter high level combat excepting only the spellsage.  There are three reasons for this: Lack of range, Lack of versatility, and Lack of Buffs.  The first problem is simple, the range on spellshaping effects is usually about 45 feet or so on average, generally capping at 60.  That just isn't enough to compete with real high level monsters.  By 10th level these characters are mages with mage saves, mage armor, and mage hp who are expected to get up close and personal with things like Fire Giants.  They just can't cut it.  It also means mobile threats like ranged fliers can completely shut them down by just staying out of a 40 foot bubble.  Most ranged characters are effective out to much farther range so this is a considerable problem.  Second is lack of versatility.  Thinking of ranged fliers again the only class that could let you easily handle fliers is the Spellsage.  The Spellshaping classes entire flight abilities are relegated to a couple of air maneuvers which means your average character has a good chance of being without.  Besides flying the class has no answer for lots of tactical problems that can arise because while they look like spellcasters they actually more resemble archers in terms of actual tactical diversity.  They shoot and that's about it.  Steps should be taken if you want the classes to be able to operate at high level to give them effects they can apply to themselves to troubleshoot problems.  Which leads directly to a Lack of Buffs.  This one is simple.  All high tier classes can buff.  Even Tome of Battle characters have buffs in the form of various stances that they can activate to modify their characters abilities.  Spellshapers just don't have this which means they're out of place in the "Big Dog leagues" of D&D classes.  The Spellsage can choose Buff spells which let him compete.  A spellsage can have by 8th level Stoneskin, Fly, Invisibility, and Shield.  Letting him prepare for equal leveled opponents.  I think that with increased average range to their abilities, an ability to buff in some fashion, and some access to tactical effects like spells or innate abilities the Spellshaping classes would be absolutely on par with the best material out there.  I think that adding these effects and changes is something you should at least consider.

Thanks for your time.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 10, 2011, 05:03:46 PM
Man, you must hate warlocks.

Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: deanruel87 on December 11, 2011, 11:38:11 AM
I do dislike warlocks.  Warlocks were very close to being one of the most interesting classes produced in 3.5 and as a class concept it had tremendous traction.  People wanted to play the warlock.  Warlocks are conceptually awesome.  But they were bland, underpowered, and under-capable of performing at an appropriate level in a party.  They were also a miss in the sense that their abilities can be far too easily separated into "Good" and "Shit" piles which means any three Warlocks will probably run just about the same.  This is not really a personal opinion either as Warlocks underpowered nature was a regular forum point in late 3.5.  In fact I will cite that the third result that you get in google when you type in "3.5 Warlock" after the two Warlock wiki entries is the forum topic "Is the 3.5 Warlock underpowered".
Source: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/243648-3-5e-warlock-underpowered.html

But as to our points
1: Sure, your system, do your thing.
2: It is a pretty clearly worse system.  I mean one can be pretty objective about this in the sense that, again, in a traditional index you simply look up one piece of information in one step and in the ToB method you look up two across two steps.  And you are incorrect.  Their are 13 books published after the Tome of Battle in 3.5.  They are Dragon Magic, Cityscape, Complete Mage, The Fiendish Codex 2, Dungeonscape, Complete Scoundrel, The Magic Item Compendium, Complete Champion, Drow of the Underdark, The Monster Manual 5, Exemplars of Evil, The Rules Compendium, and Elder Evils.  All of these used the more traditional index system for ordering their spells.  But YMMV.
3: But getting to add an extra stat to armor is a feature that is thrown around all over the place and it is almost always accompanied by the ability to just also wear light armor.  Swordsage does it in the book you are trying to replicate and he wears light armor.  When designers give out an extra stat to AC bonus it is to help lightly armored characters use their shtick and be just as effective as at least medium armored characters.  In DnD Armor is a standard so not wearing armor is a big loss, this is one of the primary reasons why a good Swashbuckler class has never really been done.  Armor has very few negatives, huge positives, and was a conceptual standard for the designers when making the game.  So the name for characters who don't wear armor is not "Fencer" but "NPC".
4: Cool. Shame your not a fan of Impetus though.  I thought that finally being able to make a cool force using characters was one of the big selling points of what you had.  DnD just somehow never ever managed to get it right.  Primarily I think because they repeatedly shackled the entire concept to the telekinesis spell which is terrible.
5: Perhaps we are.  But the balance point I'm aiming for for your classes is the same I aim for for all classes; equal to monsters.  People who make classes fight each other are sort of missing the point.  Equal CR Monsters are something a class should be competitive against and that's really all that matters.  I have no doubt that your classes would do really nicely in the beginning 5 levels or so but then they will start losing ground and they won't stop until whatever campaign ends.  And to your two points about range and buffs; In range I actually added up the average range of powers in the Shocking Current Discipline which I chose at random.  The average range all totaled for ranged powers is 56 feet, so I was under by 10 with my guess.  I still believe the point stands perfectly however that the class suffers from a lack of good ranged options.  If you are trying to emulate the Warlock then I would recommend including things to improve their actual ranged capability, as the Warlock has a single effect which makes all his attacks 400 feet long.  As to buffs I will assume you know more than I.  I don't feel like they have enough powerful buff capability but despite my fondness for testing rigor I'm not gonna go through every maneuver.  The maneuvers I've seen on my read through tend to be not quite powerful enough for the characters level, situational, possessing a short duration, and need to be pre-chosen for encounters which means taking up space from directly effective combat choices.  So  your flight troubleshooting maneuver and your teleportation troubleshooting maneuver both compete with space with your awesome doing-things maneuvers.  And magic flight or teleportation items do exist, but yes you are correct.  Melee characters WERE screwed forever in 3.5.  Famously so.  It was all anyone really ever talked about.  We even had phrases for it.  DMF: Dumb melee fighter comes to mind.  High level monsters didn't have to interact with fighter characters that just swung swords, you really had to bring a lot more to the fight or else you literally couldn't play in the big leagues.  And the idea that this imbalance is in any way fixed by the idea of making every 1oth level barbarian spend 27,000 gold of his total 49 on some boots of flying and a cape of the mountebank is pretty offensive.  I mean at that point your really talking about a huge handicap being put onto what are already the worst and least performing classes in the game.  But as I said, if you think your classes buff paradigm is up to snuff I won't argue it further as I will assume, rightly, you have a finer mastery of your system than I do.  However I do urge you to at least look at some of these concepts, any one really roll a dice, when revising your product.  I think you have something that has a lot of potential here.  That's why I've written like 3 billion words over just 3 days of playtesting.  I think you could produce something that could be seen on a lot of tables and I would like that.  The concepts that you are attempting to realize are strong ones but I think some revision is required, and if I may be somewhat forward here, I think the concept of reading a tremendously lengthy series of in depth critiques on your product and saying that every single one of them is without merit is....well....really unlikely.  It's dishonest to the idea of publishing the strongest product you can to slough off critique.  At least consider these things, strong products require revision and require rigor.  And I think you could have one.
Happy designing, and good luck on your finals bromie.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 12, 2011, 01:34:04 AM
3: But getting to add an extra stat to armor is a feature that is thrown around all over the place and it is almost always accompanied by the ability to just also wear light armor.  Swordsage does it in the book you are trying to replicate and he wears light armor.  When designers give out an extra stat to AC bonus it is to help lightly armored characters use their shtick and be just as effective as at least medium armored characters.  In DnD Armor is a standard so not wearing armor is a big loss, this is one of the primary reasons why a good Swashbuckler class has never really been done.  Armor has very few negatives, huge positives, and was a conceptual standard for the designers when making the game.  So the name for characters who don't wear armor is not "Fencer" but "NPC".

5: Perhaps we are.  But the balance point I'm aiming for for your classes is the same I aim for for all classes; equal to monsters.  People who make classes fight each other are sort of missing the point.  Equal CR Monsters are something a class should be competitive against and that's really all that matters.  I have no doubt that your classes would do really nicely in the beginning 5 levels or so but then they will start losing ground and they won't stop until whatever campaign ends.  And to your two points about range and buffs; In range I actually added up the average range of powers in the Shocking Current Discipline which I chose at random.  The average range all totaled for ranged powers is 56 feet, so I was under by 10 with my guess.  I still believe the point stands perfectly however that the class suffers from a lack of good ranged options.  If you are trying to emulate the Warlock then I would recommend including things to improve their actual ranged capability, as the Warlock has a single effect which makes all his attacks 400 feet long.  As to buffs I will assume you know more than I.  I don't feel like they have enough powerful buff capability but despite my fondness for testing rigor I'm not gonna go through every maneuver.  The maneuvers I've seen on my read through tend to be not quite powerful enough for the characters level, situational, possessing a short duration, and need to be pre-chosen for encounters which means taking up space from directly effective combat choices.  So  your flight troubleshooting maneuver and your teleportation troubleshooting maneuver both compete with space with your awesome doing-things maneuvers.  And magic flight or teleportation items do exist, but yes you are correct.  Melee characters WERE screwed forever in 3.5.  Famously so.  It was all anyone really ever talked about.  We even had phrases for it.  DMF: Dumb melee fighter comes to mind.  High level monsters didn't have to interact with fighter characters that just swung swords, you really had to bring a lot more to the fight or else you literally couldn't play in the big leagues.  And the idea that this imbalance is in any way fixed by the idea of making every 1oth level barbarian spend 27,000 gold of his total 49 on some boots of flying and a cape of the mountebank is pretty offensive.  I mean at that point your really talking about a huge handicap being put onto what are already the worst and least performing classes in the game.  But as I said, if you think your classes buff paradigm is up to snuff I won't argue it further as I will assume, rightly, you have a finer mastery of your system than I do.  However I do urge you to at least look at some of these concepts, any one really roll a dice, when revising your product.  I think you have something that has a lot of potential here.  That's why I've written like 3 billion words over just 3 days of playtesting.  I think you could produce something that could be seen on a lot of tables and I would like that.  The concepts that you are attempting to realize are strong ones but I think some revision is required, and if I may be somewhat forward here, I think the concept of reading a tremendously lengthy series of in depth critiques on your product and saying that every single one of them is without merit is....well....really unlikely.  It's dishonest to the idea of publishing the strongest product you can to slough off critique.

Quoting these for later perusal.  Don't really have time to examine them in-depth at the moment, but I can already tell that these two points are the main actual arguments at this point, as opposed to simple philosophical differences.  Taking a final in an hour or two, so...yeah.


Errata Update! So, I've found the time to tweak a lot of the things that were bugging me.  At this point, everything in that list up there has been accomplished except for replacing Spell-Linked Companion and Marionette and retooling the Service of the Suppliant ability.  I'm not completely happy with the change to Elemental Magic, but it'll do for now.  All of said errata has also been tweaked in the posts--though no new PDF has been compiled yet, since I figured I might as well finish doing this stuff, first.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on December 12, 2011, 09:44:14 PM
I'd like to adapt spellshaping for my Magipunk setting that I'm working on.  My idea was to do something called the Psykin as a base class that's like a spellshaper version of an X-Men mutant.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 13, 2011, 11:46:32 AM
deanruel87 - Haven't forgotten about you, I'm just still slogging through the finals process.  The issue of impulse mages and armor is a fairly simple one, just one I haven't been able to come down on yet.

The other point, for obvious reasons, is much more in-depth.  Especially given my rather limited experience with D&D, I don't fully understand all of the sides of your argument--I rolled my first character in September of 2010, and I've only played in two campaigns.  One ended at level ten, and the second was a level six gestalt game in which no levels were gained.  Of the two campaigns that I DMed, one also ended at level ten and the other one was more built around an engaging story than around super-challenging encounters--indeed, I tend to have a habit of building encounters to suit players' abilities, so there's that.

Basically, what prevents spellshapers from performing on the same level as Tome of Battle characters?  With all of the minor formulae options--as well as the possibilities inherent in Extend Formula and Persistent Formula--I feel that spellshapers can certainly match the self-buffing potential of boosts and stances.


sirpercival - Sounds interesting, though I'm not exactly sure what a "spellshaper version of an X-Men mutant" would entail mechanically.  Or were you talking more about flavor with that one?

(I'm also not terribly familiar with the X-Men, unfortunately.  All I know is that some are psychic, some shoot lasers, and some have metal claws and freakish healing capacities.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on December 13, 2011, 12:18:53 PM
sirpercival - Sounds interesting, though I'm not exactly sure what a "spellshaper version of an X-Men mutant" would entail mechanically.  Or were you talking more about flavor with that one?

(I'm also not terribly familiar with the X-Men, unfortunately.  All I know is that some are psychic, some shoot lasers, and some have metal claws and freakish healing capacities.)

It was more of a flavor thing.  Rather than "learning formulae", having the ability to bend reality around themselves due to a genetic quirk or mutation.  My idea was to reflavor one or two of your classes this way, so as not to flood the setting with spellshaper-analogs.  However, I'm not sure which ones to take, which would make the most sense.  Probably Impulse Mage would work, or Anchorite.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 13, 2011, 12:48:15 PM
Impulse mage and anchorite are good choices, yeah.  Their mechanics aren't terribly attached to their fluff, making them easy conversions.  Spellshape champions might also make some sense, depending on how you interpret spellshape channeling.  I can't really say I know much about the campaign setting, but--if the powers are genetic--the stoichen elemental adept might also make some sense.

Flavorwise, it also might make sense to have pregenerated groups of related circles.  I'm not sure how a genetic quirk would arbitrarily grant you powers of moonlight, rocks, and wood.  Of course, that may also be too arbitrarily restrictive.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: deanruel87 on December 15, 2011, 02:24:37 AM
The other point, for obvious reasons, is much more in-depth.  Especially given my rather limited experience with D&D, I don't fully understand all of the sides of your argument--I rolled my first character in September of 2010

HOLY CRAP!!!

That is goddamned astounding Don! I seriously just need to lead off by saying that.  I mean it is seriously an absolutely astonishing feat to have only been playing for a year and to have already put together and (essentially) completed a project of this magnitude.  That is amazing and I think that is speaks of a bright future in game design for you from here forward.  Really: Bravo.

Alright on to the actual questions posed.

First of all I'll say I didn't read through or use codex 2 so I didn't use any metashaping feats.  Honestly those seem incredibly important in bridging the gap.  The difference in being able to fly for 3 rounds with being able to fly for 6 is huge (or potentially all rounds, at later levels).  That is a really really big deal and a good way to go about it.  The only thing I would say now is move it into the main book.  I think you can push one product to people as "Your cool homebrew thing" but not 2 with anywhere near the rate of success.

So if you move the metashaping feats into the main rulebook the only problem you really have left in terms of power is a lack of available slots for your troubleshooting powers (I.E. your flight, ghost touch, invisibility type powers).  See if by 12th level you only have some 4 prepared slots for about half of your classes they just can't use them up with troubleshooting options AND valid combat spellshapes.  I think this is a problem.  I believe you could solve this either by increasing the number of available prepared slots to people OR an option I like better: Allowing people to do some sort of swift action, once per encounter switch out of some (or all) maneuvers.  That way you are always able to handle a flying opponent by suddenly switching in your flight spell instead of always keeping it on as one of your 4 ready maneuvers.

My apologies for this post being so brief, more later.  It is quite late here, but I think there's some semblance of a point there so far : )
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 15, 2011, 08:58:33 PM
Mainly because I can't think of a reason not to, I'll probably also end up giving light armor to Anchorites, Impulse Mages, and Savants.  This will happen in the future, at some point.

First of all I'll say I didn't read through or use codex 2 so I didn't use any metashaping feats.  Honestly those seem incredibly important in bridging the gap.  The difference in being able to fly for 3 rounds with being able to fly for 6 is huge (or potentially all rounds, at later levels).  That is a really really big deal and a good way to go about it.  The only thing I would say now is move it into the main book.  I think you can push one product to people as "Your cool homebrew thing" but not 2 with anywhere near the rate of success.

So if you move the metashaping feats into the main rulebook the only problem you really have left in terms of power is a lack of available slots for your troubleshooting powers (I.E. your flight, ghost touch, invisibility type powers).  See if by 12th level you only have some 4 prepared slots for about half of your classes they just can't use them up with troubleshooting options AND valid combat spellshapes.  I think this is a problem.  I believe you could solve this either by increasing the number of available prepared slots to people OR an option I like better: Allowing people to do some sort of swift action, once per encounter switch out of some (or all) maneuvers.  That way you are always able to handle a flying opponent by suddenly switching in your flight spell instead of always keeping it on as one of your 4 ready maneuvers.

If the metashaping feats will handle it, I think I'll go ahead and port over Extend, Maximize, Persistent, and Quicken into Codex I.  To compensate, I'll write four new metashaping feats for Codex II, based on Empower Spell, Fortify Spell, Heighten Spell, and Line of Shadow.

I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of lack of available slots.  One class--spellshape champion--has only 5 prepared formulae at level 12.  Everything else has around 8 or 9.  However, given my realization that Brilliance of Flame doesn't really make sense in a Codex of Spellshaping, I decided to axe it and replace it with an Adaptive Shaper feat that let you change your prepared formulae as a swift action 1/encounter.  After a bit of thought, though, I realized that there was no reason not to make it a freebie.  Everyone will have the ability to change their prepared formulae once--and only once--per encounter.  Spellsages aren't included in "everyone" here, primarily because their recovery mechanic already involves changing their prepared formulae.  Given that they kind of have a leg up on everyone, I see no problem with restricting them to their full-round action.

(Brilliance of Flame is still getting the axe, but it will probably reappear when I do more stuff that combines spellshapers and martial adepts.)

Also, a note on the "two products" issue--I don't tend to differentiate in my mind between Codex I and Codex II.  In fact, the distinction between the two books can be traced back to one thing: ease of PDF editing.  I compile these PDFs in Microsoft Word because I don't know how to use anything else.  It is an absolutely atrocious process, and anything that changes page count results in a crapton of formatting work.  For example, if I add enough feats that I need another page for them, I have to move everything down one page.  Text boxes, tables, everything has to be done by hand.  It is hellish, and is the main reason that I haven't updated the Codex I PDF with the recent errata.

This issue is compounded by the fact that I tend to prefer the subforum to the PDF for the purpose of consulting my material.  The subforum system just syncs up with the way that I think about things--I can immediately jump to what I want to look at.  I recognize that this is not true for everyone--and might have more than a little to do with the fact that I tend to know what I'm referring to and what things are intended to do.  That's why the Codex I PDF exists and why the Codex II PDF is in progress.

This is probably the last thing that I'm going to get the chance to say before Saturday night.  I have three papers to write by then, so I'm going to be a little occupied.

Recent Errata Updates: Spell-Linked Companion was removed.  Sculpt Spellshape and Dragonheart Adept now benefit more from Spellshape Focus and Greater Spellshape Focus--to compensate for the loss of the +1/+2 on attack rolls, spellshape attacks that affect an area now get a +1/+2 increase to their Reflex save DCs.  Edgewalker Knight's Service of the Suppliant ability is now a swift action that can be used once per encounter.


Finally, to address my vanity!

HOLY CRAP!!!

That is goddamned astounding Don! I seriously just need to lead off by saying that.  I mean it is seriously an absolutely astonishing feat to have only been playing for a year and to have already put together and (essentially) completed a project of this magnitude.  That is amazing and I think that is speaks of a bright future in game design for you from here forward.  Really: Bravo.

As I've said before, I still really don't know how it happened.  Bauglir asked me one night what I thought about the idea of Tome of Battle-style magic.  Now, he was talking about allowing caster level to increase in the same way that initiator level does, but I thought that he was talking about...well...something like the spellshapers.  His idea led me to build a pyromancer base class that was, looking at it now, pretty awful.  However, it led me to the idea of setting up rules, which eventually resulted in multiple circles, which slowly grew into what we have here today.

If I'm going to be honest about the spellshapers, though, most of the credit belongs with others.  Most abilities and mechanics are adapted from pre-existing ones, and a lot of things have been salvaged only because forum-goers and friends were able to point out exactly how terrible they were.  My main role in this process has been a willingness to go through every maneuver, power, and spell in the game in search of abilities to adapt--or, in some cases, flat-out steal.

Because, honestly?  I do not have an intuitive sense of balance.  When I first started building the spellshapers, I thought that flat damage increases were more interesting than penalties to saving throws.  This system is only what it is today because people have been willing to tell me what is good and what is not, and that information allows me to re-evaluate where things stand.  Often, this process will lead to complete newness, but that generally comes about through the manipulation and tweaking of adapted material.  For example, the lavamancer's pool of magma was originally a slightly-changed version of the deepstone sentinel's mountain fortress stance.  Similarities are still there, but it's pretty much its own ability at this point.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 16, 2011, 03:17:31 PM
Okay, the feats have been moved, Marionette has been replaced, a little tweaking has been performed on the Impulse Mage's progression of occurred formulae, and various other small erratas have been errata-ed.

A new version of the PDF, reflecting all the recent changes, is also up.

Currently, all of the errata left on my plate is writing the new metashaping feats for Codex II, followed by the not-errata-but-related task of compiling the Codex II PDF.

Now, if only my brain would let me work on my papers...

Update: New feats have been added to Codex II to offset the loss of those metashaping feats.  Next step, unless anyone raises any other points, will be to compile the Codex II PDF.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on December 25, 2011, 01:14:33 PM
...This is beautiful.


However, I see a niche that needs to be filled.

See, you only have one Initiator/Spellshaper class, and it's a specific one. What you need is a fairly generic one of those. That way, someone who wants to play, say, a Warblade/Spellshape Champion, can do so, without losing much power for the flavor of the combination. You know?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 26, 2011, 04:11:08 PM
Hrm...!

Yes, yes.  A generalist initiator/spellshaper is going at the top of the to-do list now.  I had been going to write nine base classes, each of which combined one discipline with one circle, but I prefer this idea much more.

Incidentally, the Codex II PDF is assembled up through the first prestige class.  Shouldn't take much longer, but I don't want to give a time frame in case I exceed it.

Vague News: The Dragonheart Adept was tweaked in response to some feedback in the GitP thread.  The fact that I got Skyward Sword for Christmas has slowed the assembly of the PDF, but I'm forcing myself to do it, bit by bit.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 28, 2011, 10:26:38 PM
Okay, so we have a statement of official errata that hasn't been worked into the main body of text yet.  This is because doing so will take forever and I want to finish the Codex II PDF first.  So, for the purpose of RAW DMs who point at the various maximums referenced in this material, we have the following!

Quote from: OFFICIAL ERRATA
   In the case of any ability, class feature, or other part of the spellshaping material that scales by shaper (or initiator) level and references a "maximum" value--for example, many spellshape attacks mention a maximum amount of damage at 17th level--these maximums are intended to be used only in non-epic play.  Epic characters continue to advance at the same rate that they did before reaching these "maximums."  For example, a 21st-level elemental adept has a fireblast attack that deals 6d6 points of fire damage, even though fireblast is said to reach its maximum damage of 5d6 points of fire damage at 17th level.  Similarly, an anchorite's spellshape aura bonuses continue to advance beyond 20th level, and a dragonheart adept's enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls continues to increase by +1 every three levels.

(click to show/hide)

This ruling is immortalized here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=848.msg5396#msg5396), in the "Notes on the Rules of Spellshaping" section.

Random Format Update: Because it was difficult to find, Idiosyncratic Shaper has now been re-posted in all of the base class threads.


PDF Progress Update (12/29/11): I'm forcing myself to work on the Codex II PDF, bit by bit, and I've gotten into a fairly decent pace.  It should not take more than a few days for me to finish it, though I'm currently being hampered even more than usual due to the necessity of applying for summer internships.

Post-PDF Projections: The first thing that I'm going to try to get up will be the as-of-yet-unnamed generalist spellshaper/initiator, whose entire existence is currently shrouded in mystery.  I'm sorting through a bunch of ideas, so we'll see how that turns out.

After that, I'm going to put up the also-as-of-yet-unnamed fire-based spellshaper.  It is basically my gift to myself, existing simultaneously as a callback to the origins of this project (a pyromancer class) and an exploration of the different things that I can do with my favorite element (which is fire).  It will start with access to Searing Flame, then gain additional circles in a way similar to the anchorite.  These additional circles will all be automatically reshaped, as with the dragonheart adept.

The next thing that I hope to write--and these are all hopes, mind you, I have no idea how much of this will actually be feasible--will be a new circle.  Screeching Roc, a sound-based circle.  Yes, it is a pun.  No, I have no regrets.

After that--jeez, this is a long To-Do list--I'm planning to post some new options for the elemental adept, as it is currently one of the most limited classes.

Next, I'm going to attack the idea of writing an illusion-based circle that deals nonlethal damage.  I have no idea whether I'll succeed in writing this--of all the ideas listed here, it's the one that I'm least sure will happen.  No promises here, but I'll at least look into it.

Finally, I'm planning to write a prestige class or series of prestige classes that combines the powers of Brilliant Dawn and Devouring Shadow.  I don't know much about what I'm going to do with this one yet, except that I'll almost certainly let you adjust the ambient light level as a supernatural ability.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 30, 2011, 07:30:26 AM
What's this? (http://www.mediafire.com/?skjuqk8bxao1osa)  A Codex II PDF?  Madness.

Update: So, some Codex I changes have been pushed through.  The spellshape champion's recovery mechanic now allows you to recover all of your expended formulae, the physical-damage spellshape attacks now note that you may use your shaper level in place of your base attack bonus (instead of forcing you to do so), and the Extra Prepared Formula and Formula Study feats can now be taken multiple times.

However, there's no new Codex I PDF yet.  Why, you ask?  It was pointed out that the spellshape champion can hold aggro a lot better than other tank classes, but doesn't have any defensive abilities.  Thus, I'm trying to cook something up for that.  Since that's also a Codex I change, I figured that I wouldn't bother with a new PDF until that's in it, too.

Speaking of which, any ideas for a defensive class feature?

Update of the Update: I ended up stealing the crusader's Furious Counterstrike and Steely Resolve combo for the spellshape champion.  Except that, instead of a bonus on attacks and damage rolls, Shaper's Focus gives you a +1 bonus to your shaper level and a +2 bonus to your AC for every 5 points of damage in your delayed damage pool.

Update of the Update of the Update: Codex I PDF updated. (http://www.mediafire.com/?8ab068u4fvr5uy3)
Title: A Present for You!
Post by: Amechra on January 07, 2012, 08:48:42 PM
I made Spellshaping an Archetype for my Salvager! Take a look.

Link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12489027)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 08, 2012, 05:26:20 AM
Merged the link into here temporarily while I figure out what to do organizationally with spellshaping material that is posted elsewhere as a part of a larger project.  I think it's going to end up resulting in a sticky.

Interesting stuff, though.  I'm reading through it now.

Incidentally: Melee-based spellshaping classes and prestige classes now note that they are generally immune to the harmful effects of formulae that they shape through melee attacks.  It would be kind of silly, otherwise.

Update: Updated PDFs have been posted.

Secondary Update: Well, I've finished the rules text for the spellshaper/martial adept.  I'm literally finished with everything except for the name and the flavor...

...and that's probably going to take me another day.  Flavor always takes significantly longer for me than actual mechanics.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 10, 2012, 11:12:24 PM
The Mage-Knight (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2737) is up, with a terrible name as usual.  But, hey, it's a pretty good combination of martial maneuvers and arcane formulae.

Meanwhile, the Index now includes a "Materials Using Spellshaping" section, for things like the salvager that use spellshaping without being based entirely in the system.

Other things that will happen tonight:

Update: The spellshape champion looked so sad with so few formulae known and prepared, so I gave it more.  I also changed its recovery mechanic so that you have to have hit an opponent with a melee attack in order to recover, meaning that you can't just take Spellshape Study and become an all-ranged character.  Spellshape Paragon no longer gives you an additional formula at 3rd level, as it now maps perfectly to the number of formulae in a circle without that compensation.  Updated PDFs to come.

1/11/12: Both PDFs updated.

1/13/12: The Flamespeaker (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2801.0) is up because nobody is allowed to doubt what my favorite element is.  (No, it is not water.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on January 13, 2012, 04:19:49 PM
Type 2 Idiot Crusader Impulse Mage (WIP)
(click to show/hide)

Never mind. This doesn't work. The spellshaping rules have enough differences from ToB that it can't be done (nothing keeping your classes' formulae separate for one; the whole small section on multiclassed spellshapers is pretty sparse). Still, plenty of Charisma synergy in the classes, which is fun to note.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 13, 2012, 04:38:14 PM
Type 2 Idiot Crusader Impulse Mage (WIP)
(click to show/hide)

Never mind. This doesn't work. The spellshaping rules have enough differences from ToB that it can't be done (nothing keeping your classes' formulae separate for one; the whole small section on multiclassed spellshapers is pretty sparse). Still, plenty of Charisma synergy in the classes, which is fun to note.

Hrm.  I actually tried to more or less copy out the rules on Readying (Preparing) Maneuvers (Formulae).  I just went back and checked, and the clause keeping maneuvers separate isn't actually in the Multiclass section of Tome of Battle.  I do want to have that clause, though, to prevent you from assigning formulae willy-nilly according to class bonuses and recovery mechanics.  Any idea where it is?

Also, by causing me to review the rules, you led me to find an out-of-date reference to a limit on how many times you can take Formula Study.  I'll change that at the same time as adding this.

Can't decide how urgent it is to go into sublime shaper and specify that the immunity only applies to your sublime shaper formulae.  It makes it a bit of a cheesy dip for ranged shapers, but I'm not sure exactly how terrible that is, since you're dipping for the purpose of not being quite ranged.

When you say "Not really worth it, given Dragonheart Adept," are you referring to the invoking sage in general, or just its use in this build?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on January 13, 2012, 04:49:16 PM
Just it's use in the build and as a small-level dip in general.

IIRC, the rules against learning/readying the same maneuver from multiple classes, and from sharing between, was from the FAQ (one of the parts that people don't seem to refer to as "Skip Smokes Crack" for some reason). It may have been form the online Ask the Sage column (but I think most of those were put in the FAQ anyways).

Also, one of the classes I was looking at (I think it was Dragonheart Mage) had a typo. I think it was in the section about the spellshape breath weapon. I wish I'd recorded it. All I remember was that it said "you" instead of whatever the word was supposed to actually be.

By the way, wasn't there some feat akin to Extra Granted Maneuver for Impulse Mages? I can't find it. I also can't find any rules talking about what happens when you get more formulae prepared when you use granted formulae.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 13, 2012, 05:00:37 PM
Whenever I try to quote someone in this subforum, I inevitably accidentally hit the "Edit" button first.  Having mod powers is weird.

Just it's use in the build and as a small-level dip in general.

Ah, all right.  So I don't need to freak out and rebuild everything.

IIRC, the rules against learning/readying the same maneuver from multiple classes, and from sharing between, was from the FAQ (one of the parts that people don't seem to refer to as "Skip Smokes Crack" for some reason). It may have been form the online Ask the Sage column (but I think most of those were put in the FAQ anyways).

Ahh, okay.  I'll sniff that out and include it, then.  Errata will be that you cannot learn a formula that you already know from another class, and you cannot prepare formulae between classes.  Which means that selecting circles from which you already know all the 1st-level formulae allows the idiot impulse mage.

Also, one of the classes I was looking at (I think it was Dragonheart Mage) had a typo. I think it was in the section about the spellshape breath weapon. I wish I'd recorded it. All I remember was that it said "you" instead of whatever the word was supposed to actually be.

Typoooos!  :shakefist  I can't even count how many times I've typed "adn" instead of "and."  I'll find this later and fix it.

By the way, wasn't there some feat akin to Extra Granted Maneuver for Impulse Mages? I can't find it. I also can't find any rules talking about what happens when you get more formulae prepared when you use granted formulae.

So, the rules are listed whenever gaining an additional formula comes up.  Because they're different based on whether you gain the formulae from impulse mage class levels (in which case you just use the table) or if you gain them in some other way.

The Extra Prepared Formula feat:
Quote from: Extra Prepared Formula
Extra Prepared Formula
You are an unusually perspicacious student of spellshaping, and you find it easy to keep a large number of formulae ready for use.
   Prerequisite: One level in a spellshaper class
   Benefit: Increase the number of formulae you can prepare for your spellshaper levels by one.  For example, a 5th-level spellsage can normally prepare six formulae.  With this feat, she can prepare seven.
   If you are an impulse mage, an additional formula also occurs to you at the beginning of an encounter and whenever you recover your expended formulae.
   Special: You can take this feat multiple times, gaining an additional prepared formula each time.  However, you cannot take this feat if doing so would cause the number of formulae that you can prepare to exceed the number of formulae that you know.

The rules on spellshaping prestige classes:
Quote from: Advancing Spellshaping Progression
If you choose to add the formula prepared to an arcane formula progression derived from impulse mage class levels, one additional formula also occurs to you at the beginning of an encounter (and whenever you recover your expended formulae) for each additional formula you can prepare.

There wasn't an exact analogue to Extra Granted Maneuver that I can remember writing, since I just let you take Extra Prepared Formula.  Crusaders can't take Extra Readied Maneuver.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on January 14, 2012, 05:51:46 PM
Typo in Sublime Shaper, Formulas and Maneuvers Prepared. The same type is also present in Dragonheart Mage. "May" should be "make".
Quote
However, whenever you may a full attack,

You need to tighten up your wording with Extra Prepared Formula. As written, the extra occuring formula applies based on whether or not you are an Impulse Mage, not whether or not you get extra prepared Impulse Mage formulae. Also, I think it, as written, applies to ALL spellshaping classes you possess, not just one. And I'm pretty sure that the limit of taking it based on your prepared vs. known formulae would be rather nonsensical on a multiclassed spellshaper who knows things from multiple classes.

Elemental Channeler's Elemental Shape ability refers to taking the form of an animal. Shouldn't it be an element, instead?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 14, 2012, 08:28:54 PM
Fixed the wording on sublime shaper and dragonheart adept, cleaned up the feat, and posted a new PDF with errata to the system and the updated feat.  You now cannot learn a formula that you already know, cannot prepare formulae across spellshaping classes, and specifically are noted as using all your formulae--even those from other classes--only for the purpose of meeting a formula's prerequisite.  All in the Rules of Spellshaping issue.

In terms of the elemental channeler, the idea is that you turn into an animal made of your element.  Like a bird made of water or a bear made of stone.  Or a fire dolphin, if you took the class for the porpoise of going swimming in lava.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on January 15, 2012, 12:23:59 AM
Mwahaha. I now have a simple, Cha-focused Idiot Impulse Mage. Disciple of the Circles really goes well with it, since you have so many refreshed formulae that you can't use them all no matter what you do. This is just a first draft, leaving as many of your choices open as possible. More specific versions could be made better.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 15, 2012, 01:10:28 AM
I...what.

Is this a thing that I should prevent?  It's...simultaneously fascinating and horrifying.

Edit: Crippled it slightly.  While dragonheart adept still gets Scales at 2nd level, you don't start adding your Charisma bonus until 4th level.  If this is a problem for its AC, then I'll just switch the Charisma bonus onto a generic AC bonus ability so that they just don't stack.  Screw it, just made it an AC bonus ability so that they didn't stack.  Easier that way.

Sublime Shaper's Guard now only applies to your sublime shaper formulae.

Also, edited the AC bonuses on dragonheart adept and sublime shaper so that they specifically do not stack with similar AC bonuses, such as from taking levels in disciple of the circles.  I'm not sure that I'm okay with allowing you to add the same stat to your AC multiple times.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on January 15, 2012, 11:47:59 AM
Embrace it. Or not. I guess I'm just destruction-testing one aspect of your system. Take from it what you will.

With those changes, I'd switch the first few levels to Spellsage (Idiosyncratic Invoking Battle Sage) 2/Dragonheart Mage or Sublime Shaper 1/Impulse Mage 1/Spellsage +1 (which actually lets you get the Idiot Impulse Mage running sooner, at 4th level). More invocations, too, but fewer stances. Edgewalker Knight is no longer needed, but 2 levels are still tasty for Cha to saves and a few immunities. Using Spellsage also opens up your options dramatically for later circle access. The Battle Sage's Int to AC (now Cha with Idiosyncratic) still stacks with Disciple of the Circles, so that's nice. Replace Elemental Channeler with Spellforge Warsmith for Cha to attack rolls in melee (synergistic with Disciple's Strike, which also asks you to attack in melee). Master Reshaper 2 might also be helpful to keep your formulae available even with the single spellshape in your weapon.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 15, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
Argh, okay, I'm going to go errata in that Battle Sage's AC bonus doesn't stack with others.  As I said, I'm not sure that I'm okay with the same ability score going to your AC multiple times.

Nitpick on Spellforge Warsmith/Disciple's Strike: Spellforge weapons aren't melee touch attacks, so you can't use both.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on January 15, 2012, 04:31:39 PM
Ah. I confused it with Spellshape Hand, which lets you make spellshape attacks as melee or melee touch, as appropriate to the spellshape in question. Shame that Disciple's Strike only works with touch attacks, since there are still a few non-touch spellshapes that it won't work with.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 15, 2012, 04:43:18 PM
That's a thing that I'm going to fix when I errata Battle Sage.  Thanks for pointing that one out to me.

Edit: Errata applied online, working on updated PDF.

Update: Updated Codex II PDF is up.

Statement of Intent: Looks like I'm going to start poking around for Screeching Roc ideas.  We'll see what I come up with.

Update: Well, I've come up with seventeen possible ideas, though I think I'm going to have to play around some more before I start trying to put them together as formulae.  Especially since I don't feel that there are enough minor formula effects thus far.

Update Again: I've figured out what all the Screeching Roc formulae will do.  Now, I just need to name them and write them up in a format that isn't terrible.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 23, 2012, 03:37:40 PM
So!  A point for discussion.  My girlfriend playtested a flamedancer last night, and she raised an interesting point. Entering as a swordsage/spellshape champion, she had four readied maneuvers and four prepared formulae. However, recovering maneuvers took a full-round action, while recovering formulae was a move action. Moreover, advancing as a flamedancer gives you three more maneuvers readied and two more formulae prepared, making recovery incredibly painful, even at higher levels.

Is there any reason that I shouldn't hand the sublime shaper's recovery mechanic to flamedancers and edgewalker knights? It would specify that you cannot recover any maneuvers or formulae in a round in which you benefited from it, obviously.

The one potential problem would be crusaders and impulse mages, but I think that--as written--choosing to recover a maneuver by shaping a formula (or vice versa) would simply prevent you from doing the "big refresh" that re-scrambles your maneuvers and formulae.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 26, 2012, 03:23:57 PM
Been moving slowly this week, as I suddenly had way too many readings to do.  Sleep, what's that?

Anyway, Screeching Roc is still sitting at "figured out, just not ready for posting."  I hope to have it ready soon, but that all depends on how quickly I ease into my new workload.

In addition, my friends and I are gearing up for new campaigns with the beginning of another semester, which means that people have been building spellshapers!  As a part of this process, I've come to see a few raggedy bits, which I plan to clean up in a large errata push at some point after I get Screeching Roc posted.  Current plans are as follows.

Quote from: Codex I
  • Elemental Adept - Elemental Companion - Add an enhancement bonus to AC equal to 1/4 master's shaper level to "Devotion" ability.
  • Elemental Adept - Elemental Companion - Add an enhancement bonus on attack rolls equal to 1/4 master's shaper level to "Elemental Strike" ability.
  • Spellshape Champion - Break up "Armor Mastery" ability, splitting its benefits over several levels.
  • Corrosive Blade - Remove "Skirmishing Shaper" ability
  • Darkened One - Change duration of "Dominate Soul" ability to five rounds, with a save each round to end the effect.
  • Edgewalker Knight - Change "Knight's Oath" ability to just let you shape all formulae in armor.  It's just easier that way.
  • Edgewalker Knight and Flamedancer - Add "Sublime Shaping" ability
  • Elemental Channeler - Increase daily uses of "Elemental Shape" ability to equal your class level.
  • Flamedancer - Change enhancement bonus on fire blade to 1/4 shaper level (rather than 1/2 class level)
  • Hand of Death's Chill - Clean up wording on "Touch of Chill Death" ability
  • Unseen Master - Put a limit on "Concealed Stride" and "Unfettered Sight" abilities.  Why did you think that was a good idea, again?
  • Unseen Master - Remove Mindsight feat from "Telepathy" ability.
  • Unseen Master - Change daily uses of "Alter Memory" ability to once per day.
  • Woodspeaker - Add a paragraph break in "Nature's Rejuvenation" ability.
  • Woodspeaker - Change "Call Brambles" ability to have no daily limit, add dismissal, make move action.
  • Woodspeaker - Change "Call Healing Spore" ability to once per encounter.
  • Woodspeaker - Change "Body of the Forest" ability to give you traits and change your type, rather than giving you a template.

Quote from: Codex II
  • Spellshape Paragon - Clarify that, because you do not learn a new formula at 2nd level, the number of formulae you know at all higher levels is reduced by 1 (to a maximum number of formulae known of 21)
  • Spellshape Paragon - Change "rebuke spell" ability to immediate action.
  • Heighten Formula - Add: "In addition, major formulae that add damage to your spellshape attacks add an extra two dice of damage for each level by which you heighten the formula."
  • Spellforge Warsmith - Change enhancement bonuses to 1/4 shaper level (rather than 1/2 class level)
  • Spellforge Warsmith - Change the "Spellforge Armor" ability to grant immunity to the appropriate damage type (as by Spellshape Paragon), rather than dealing retributive damage.
  • Wildheart Mage - Add to "Fey Transformation" ability, making the tenth level in the class more compelling (especially for caymir)

Quote from: Web Enhancements
  • Sublime Shaper - Change "rebuke spell" ability to immediate action
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 29, 2012, 06:12:34 PM
Screeching Roc is up.

Update: You see all that errata up there?  Well, it's all been completed in my Word documents.  I'll start working on the PDFs and updating the online versions tomorrow.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 30, 2012, 01:14:35 PM
PDFs have been updated with errata and new versions are online.  Similarly, the forum posts of all the errata-ed material have been updated with the errata.

Next phase of new material: options for elemental adepts.  You'll be able to choose different secondary circles--Unseen Impetus for Air, Screeching Roc for Earth, Shocking Current for Fire, and Deteriorating Corrosion for Water--if you so desire.  Additionally, since elemental companions gain feats as they gain Hit Dice, I'm planning on "Companion" feats that make them better companions, at the cost of the normal combat feats they would take.  Finally, I'm toying with the idea of an alternative "Paraelemental" Adept, letting you choose Ice, Magma, Ooze, or Smoke.  Not sure about that last one--but we'll see.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on January 30, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
Random logistical question.  How do you go about making the PDFs?  Do you copy/paste into Word from the site, or do you have some other method?  I want to turn all the Magipunk stuff into PDFs...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 30, 2012, 01:50:14 PM
Aghghghg, the PDFs.

Long Version:
(click to show/hide)


Short Version:
To answer your actual question, I add the text to a Word document, print it to a PDF, then clean it up and optimize it with Adobe Acrobat.  Within the confines of Word, I format all of the text with text boxes, rather than typing directly on the document itself.  This allows me to move the text easily, change its size and shape, and easily adjust for tables.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on January 30, 2012, 01:53:59 PM
Ack! That's a lot of work... I was thinking about making all my tables in an Excel spreadsheet for easy formatting & copy/paste, and then porting them into Word.  I don't think I'm going to bother with multiple columns, it's just too annoying (as you've found out).  Since I'm doing all my workthroughs on this site, all the stuff gets built and posted here first...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 30, 2012, 06:37:08 PM
Yeah, sounds like a much more sane option.

Some Web Enhancement options for the elemental adept are up. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=851.msg38483#msg38483)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on February 01, 2012, 02:57:31 PM
Hi! I am reading through your material, very good stuff!

I am noticing the distinct lack of any sneaky classes, with the exception of corrosive blade. Will you introduce any? Maybe a spellshaping/initiating/sneak attacking class.....please?  :)

Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 02, 2012, 09:52:14 AM
Not actually sure how anything could possibly be sneakier than the unseen master, what with its incredible sneakiness.

I'm also pretty sure that a base class with formulae, maneuvers, and sneak attack would be a little too much, but another sneak attack prestige class wouldn't necessarily be out of line.  I'll toy with the idea.  I don't really want to be so trite as to write a Devouring Shadow/Shadow Hand prestige class, but making an unarmed strike that also carried your withering hand attack would be an amusing interpretation of "Shadow Hand."
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 02, 2012, 10:05:32 AM
Maybe a Setting Sun/Brilliant Dawn PrC, if only just for the imagery? The two do have a shared theme of debilitating foes that could be interesting.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on February 02, 2012, 10:28:52 AM
Well the Unseen Master isn't really sneaky. It hasn't got Hide or Move silently, and doesn't advance sneak attack. And I was thinking more in the lines of a Base Class. Something to marry rogue wth spellshaping. There is classes that bring to mind, sorcerer, wizard, warblade, Dragonfire Adept, crusader, dragon shaman...but nothing that says rogue.


Plus I don't realy concider shadow hand/devouring shadow combination trite. It seems a natural combination. An awesome combination. Maybe a swordsage shaper who can channel withering touch through his blades?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 02, 2012, 12:33:30 PM
Maybe a Setting Sun/Brilliant Dawn PrC, if only just for the imagery? The two do have a shared theme of debilitating foes that could be interesting.

Mmm, interesting.  This is being added to my to-do list.  I already have a pun ready and everything.

Well the Unseen Master isn't really sneaky. It hasn't got Hide or Move silently, and doesn't advance sneak attack.

See, I consider the ability to turn invisible and remove yourself from people's memories to be "sneaky."  Sneak attack, to me, is not a particularly sneaky thing--it's just a damage boost slapped onto sneaky things that would otherwise not be particularly stellar in combat.

And I was thinking more in the lines of a Base Class. Something to marry rogue wth spellshaping. There is classes that bring to mind, sorcerer, wizard, warblade, Dragonfire Adept, crusader, dragon shaman...but nothing that says rogue.

The difference is that all of these classes--with the exception of warblade and crusader--are actually based somewhat on magic.  The rogue isn't.  And, as far as warblade and crusader go, I'm assuming you're talking about the spellshape champion and the sublime shaper.  The spellshape champion was written in order to allow a basic gish class, and is more based on the duskblade than anything else.  Meanwhile, the sublime shaper exists wholly for the purpose of a spellshaping/initiating gish, not to mimic a particular class's feel.

Basically, a spellshaping base class should be based on magic use.  Moreover, I'm leery of doing too many melee-based spellshapers--the spellshape champion serves the generic melee purpose, the sublime shaper serves the purpose of combining two very similar systems, and the dragonheart adept exists as one giant reference to the first piece of homebrew that I ever wrote.  If we get too far beyond that, we start treading on the toes of the Tome of Battle.  We already have a melee system that functions more or less identically to spellshaping, so why not use that instead?

Finally, I'm just going to officially note that I am intentionally not replacing every archetype ever with spellshaping.  A large part of why I love 3.5 is that classes all work differently.  If I then offer an alternative to every single class, all of which function in exactly the same way...well, that just feels silly to me.  Doubly so if I'm just tacking on magic to something that is, at heart, not a magic-using archetype.

Plus I don't realy concider shadow hand/devouring shadow combination trite. It seems a natural combination. An awesome combination. Maybe a swordsage shaper who can channel withering touch through his blades?

Thing is, the two shadow-based ability pools, plus sneak attack, is just...it feels overdone.  Moreover, if I did end up writing a Devouring Shadow/Shadow Hand base class with sneak attack, there's probably no way that it would feel like rogue.  Because I don't like the idea of another class that just channels magic through its weapon.  We already have one of those, and she's doing quite well.

Instead, it would probably be based on unarmed strikes, which would be its only means of delivering a withering hand attack.  As extra damage, though, not channeled like a spellshape champion.  The problem then is sneak attack damage, so that would be cut to half progression--ending up at a maximum of 5d6.  After that, though, it still needs a handful of token class features, so I'd probably end up stealing some wuxia-style movement ideas--stuff like letting you run along tree branches, across water, and up walls, as well as being able to jump in straight lines.  Then, to appease the "sneaky" aspect, it'd probably receive Hide in Plain Sight and Trapfinding.

This is just me spitting into the wind, you understand.  As I've said, I'm not actually particularly attached to the idea of writing another meleeshaper base class.  That's what Tome of Battle is for.  In fact, the more that I look at the above paragraph, the more that I realize that it would be pretty much unambiguously better if we cut spellshaping entirely, changed it to a full sneak attack progression, and added the Diamond Mind and Setting Sun disciplines.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on February 02, 2012, 01:12:26 PM
Wow, that was quite an indepth response  :)

As I read it, I find myself agreeing with you. Although I do like the mental image of a shadow hand/devouring darkness rogue, I can't think of a way to make it really stand out.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 02, 2012, 08:12:44 PM
Well, with Screeching Roc and the new elemental adept options done, looks like I'm going to begin trying to throw together Fleeting Image, the illusion circle.

Now, I want to preface this one, since I have absolutely no idea if I'll be able to complete it.  We're talking about twenty-one single target, weaponized illusion effects.  If anyone has any suggestions of spells for me to look at, that would surely help.  As it is, I'm about to base a circle of formulae on a school of magic that I've never been particularly drawn to.  Should be interesting.

Also, because pretty much everyone I know is playing an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, it looks like there's going to be a prismatic circle at some point in the future.  God help me.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on February 03, 2012, 02:33:59 AM
Blasting with illusion effects. Now I've seen everything. Sounds like that and the prismatic circle are going to be fairly unique.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on February 03, 2012, 02:44:17 AM
Not many damaging spells come to mind. The only thing I can suggest is Indigo Trickster http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12244 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12244). His invocation are mainly illusion-y.

I would like to also make a suggestion about a probability harnessing circle.
Focusing on  buffs and debuffs.
Spellshaping Attack:
Probability blast; Ranged touch attack; Untyped Damage; Hits creature and causes freak incidents (burst blood vessels or something similar) tha cause it damage.
Higher level Formulas enable you to bring two or more possibilities into reality at the same time. Maybe giving you extra actions or your allies extra attacks, as ghostly duplicates of their hands come into being from a reality that could have been.

Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on February 03, 2012, 07:23:20 AM
Here you go: Holomancer (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2311.0) Lens Mage (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2732.0)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 03, 2012, 10:41:22 AM
Blasting with illusion effects. Now I've seen everything. Sounds like that and the prismatic circle are going to be fairly unique.

Yeah...as I've said several times, I'm far from certain I'll succeed at writing an illusion-based circle.  We'll see, though!

I've actually figured out the base mechanic for the prismatic circle, and I'm suspecting that many of its effects are going to be taken from existing formulae.  If only because I don't want to write 147 new effects.  Given the random nature of the circle, though, I feel that it will be interesting enough in spite of this.

Not many damaging spells come to mind. The only thing I can suggest is Indigo Trickster http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12244 (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=12244). His invocation are mainly illusion-y.

I would like to also make a suggestion about a probability harnessing circle.
Focusing on  buffs and debuffs.
Spellshaping Attack:
Probability blast; Ranged touch attack; Untyped Damage; Hits creature and causes freak incidents (burst blood vessels or something similar) tha cause it damage.
Higher level Formulas enable you to bring two or more possibilities into reality at the same time. Maybe giving you extra actions or your allies extra attacks, as ghostly duplicates of their hands come into being from a reality that could have been.

Good point about indigo trickster--definitely something to keep my eye on.  In terms of the probability circle, I'll think about it.  The problem is that, if I do a probability circle (which will be law-aligned), I also have to do a chance circle (which will be chaos-aligned).  Not sure if I'm ready to commit to two circles until I've waded through the two that I have on my plate right now.

Here you go: Holomancer (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2311.0) Lens Mage (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2732.0)

Thank ye kindly!  I'll get to looking at them this afternoon.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on February 04, 2012, 04:32:14 PM
Quote
Wildfire
Searing Flames (Major) [Fire]
Level: Elemental adept 3, impulse mage 3, spellsage 3, spellshape champion 3
Prerequisite: One Searing Flame formula
Shaping Action: 1 standard action
Range: Fireblast attack
Target: One creature
Effect: 10-ft.-radius spread of fire
Duration: 5 rounds
Saving Throw: Reflex half; see text
Spell Resistance: No

The flames of your attack burst against your foe, then ignite the ground at his feet in a fierce blaze.

As a part of shaping this formula, you make a single fireblast attack that deals an extra 3d6 points of damage.  If it hits, your attack creates a 10-foot spread of fire, centered on your target.  The fire deals 1d6 points of fire damage per two shaper levels to any creature standing in an affected square at the beginning of its turn, with a Reflex save for half damage.  In addition, the flame deals damage to any creature entering or passing through an affected square.
   As a move action, you can command the spread of flame increase or decrease its radius by up to 10 feet, up to a maximum radius of 20 feet and a minimum radius of 5 feet.  You can also use a move action to command the flame to move along the ground at a speed of 30 feet.  Finally, if you so choose, you can command the fire to increase or decrease its radius by 5 feet and move 15 feet with a single move action.

I have a question about this formula.
It does spellshaping attack damage+3d6
Then I use move ation to increase its radius by 10ft

Now the enemys turn.
He start his round in the wild fire so ref for half damage.
He then tries to get out passing through 6 affected squares. Does he suffer damage again? The description says you roll a reflex save if you pass an affected square. He passed 6.



Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 04, 2012, 11:59:11 PM
He only takes damage from moving through the fire once.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on February 07, 2012, 08:08:42 PM
Hm...

So, I'm rolling up a Spellforge Warsmith for a Gestalt PbP campaign, and I was wondering... Is it intended to render ranged combat (via throwing/archery) completely invalid?

If not, perhaps saying that the weapon vanishes at the end of the round it's let go of would work...

Oh, and why is it treated as a light weapon? Is it to prevent people from two handing it for a decent increase in damage?

Also, how do Lamens work with Spellforged Weapons? As-per normal, allowing a character to enchant it? What about with armor?

If they work differently with the armor and shield, perhaps a class feature allowing a Warsmith to gain some defensive abilities is in order.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 07, 2012, 11:47:18 PM
Hm...

So, I'm rolling up a Spellforge Warsmith for a Gestalt PbP campaign, and I was wondering... Is it intended to render ranged combat (via throwing/archery) completely invalid?

If not, perhaps saying that the weapon vanishes at the end of the round it's let go of would work...

Well, the class was designed entirely with melee combat in mind, so I hadn't given any thought to throwing or ranged weapons.  However, I have absolutely no problems with a ranged variant in which it vanishes at the end of the round in which it is let go.  Let me give it some thought before I errata anything.

Oh, and why is it treated as a light weapon? Is it to prevent people from two handing it for a decent increase in damage?

The reason behind it being a light weapon is that I lifted the rules text for it from flamedancer.  I don't see a real reason that it would matter that greatly, though your point about two-handing it is interesting.  If there is a good reason for it to not be a light weapon, let me hear it.

Also, how do Lamens work with Spellforged Weapons? As-per normal, allowing a character to enchant it? What about with armor?

If they work differently with the armor and shield, perhaps a class feature allowing a Warsmith to gain some defensive abilities is in order.

From the lamen rules:

Quote from: Lamens and Spellforge Weapons
The properties of a lamen apply only to spellshape attacks that are shaped normally.  A spellshape champion who channels her spellshape attacks through a sword, for instance, would receive no benefits from a lamen.  However, spellforge warsmiths and flamedancers benefit from lamens normally, as their abilities note that the weapons they create are subject to effects that would modify their spellshape attacks.

As such, only your weapon would benefit.  The idea about defensive abilities is an interesting one, though I'm unsure of how to implement it without having to map a different defensive ability onto each offensive ability a lamen could have.


----


In other news, I've come up with a few ideas for Fleeting Image, though--amusingly--almost none of them involve actually creating images.  Mostly, it's deceit and suchlike--though I'm very amused by one formula, which calls for a Will save against disbelieving in your own existence.  The 9th-level formula, incidentally, might end up being a rip-off and a cop-out--essentially a shadow conjuration for formulae that lets you mimic any other formula if your target fails their Will save.

After looking at it briefly, I think I'm actually going to abandon the prismatic circle idea.  It's just...too much.  It would effectively be seven new circles in one, and I'm pretty sure that I'd run out of ideas long before completing 147 different effects.  So, yeah, no.

I've also been bouncing around some ideas for more character options for the other base classes, along the same lines as the recent elemental adept material.  We'll see if anything results from that.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on February 08, 2012, 12:21:08 AM
Well, the class was designed entirely with melee combat in mind, so I hadn't given any thought to throwing or ranged weapons.  However, I have absolutely no problems with a ranged variant in which it vanishes at the end of the round in which it is let go.  Let me give it some thought before I errata anything.

Of course. The thought is interesting, though, and combining it with, say, Bloodstorm Blade could result in a few shenanigans... Of the good type.


Quote
The reason behind it being a light weapon is that I lifted the rules text for it from flamedancer.  I don't see a real reason that it would matter that greatly, though your point about two-handing it is interesting.  If there is a good reason for it to not be a light weapon, let me hear it.

Simply put... DR. Now, I know that you're thinking "Oh, they aren't subject to DR", but...


That's only the energy types. Natural Balance, and the others that deal non-energy, non-untyped damage deal stuff that IS affected by DR. Let those spellshape attacks, and those alone, gain the ability to be weilded as one handed weapons, also allowing them to be used two handed in the process. Up the damage output a bit for using something that doesn't ignore DR, just to be nice.


Quote
From the lamen rules:

Quote from: Lamens and Spellforge Weapons
The properties of a lamen apply only to spellshape attacks that are shaped normally.  A spellshape champion who channels her spellshape attacks through a sword, for instance, would receive no benefits from a lamen.  However, spellforge warsmiths and flamedancers benefit from lamens normally, as their abilities note that the weapons they create are subject to effects that would modify their spellshape attacks.

As such, only your weapon would benefit.  The idea about defensive abilities is an interesting one, though I'm unsure of how to implement it without having to map a different defensive ability onto each offensive ability a lamen could have.

Hm. A simple way would to add to it "Some lamens are of a defensive focus instead of an offensive one. If you shape a formula that grants an AC bonus to yourself or another character, increase that bonus by the Enhancement bonus of the lamen.  Spellforge Warsmiths may add the effects of Lamens to their Spellforge Armor and Shields. Much like offensive Lamens, defensive Lamens may have various abilities that are, for the most part, similar to normal magical armor enhancements. The ones recommended are as follows."

Then follow that with a decent number of enhancements, mostly cloned from normal 3.5.


Quote
In other news, I've come up with a few ideas for Fleeting Image, though--amusingly--almost none of them involve actually creating images.  Mostly, it's deceit and suchlike--though I'm very amused by one formula, which calls for a Will save against disbelieving in your own existence.  The 9th-level formula, incidentally, might end up being a rip-off and a cop-out--essentially a shadow conjuration for formulae that lets you mimic any other formula if your target fails their Will save.

Hm.... Perhaps a little bit of real illusions? Maybe something like Figment of Light, from Brilliant Dawn? I think a defensive/subtle circle is an interesting idea. After all, not all magic is blowing shit up.


Also, consider making the spellshape attack create a silent image, increasing in power as you level, and letting all formulae affect that. That'd be lulzy.

Quote
After looking at it briefly, I think I'm actually going to abandon the prismatic circle idea.  It's just...too much.  It would effectively be seven new circles in one, and I'm pretty sure that I'd run out of ideas long before completing 147 different effects.  So, yeah, no.

An excellent response. Prismatics are eeeevvvviiiillll...


Except for Zelretch. Eh's a pretty cool guy.
 
Quote
I've also been bouncing around some ideas for more character options for the other base classes, along the same lines as the recent elemental adept material.  We'll see if anything results from that.

Hm... Maybe something like the Bladebound (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/bladebound) Magus archetype from Pathfinder for the Spellshape Champion?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 08, 2012, 10:36:01 AM
Of course. The thought is interesting, though, and combining it with, say, Bloodstorm Blade could result in a few shenanigans... Of the good type.

True, though it was rather the point of the class that a squishy ranged fighter would be able to progress into melee combat.  Still, I'll weigh the idea.

Simply put... DR. Now, I know that you're thinking "Oh, they aren't subject to DR", but...

That's only the energy types. Natural Balance, and the others that deal non-energy, non-untyped damage deal stuff that IS affected by DR. Let those spellshape attacks, and those alone, gain the ability to be weilded as one handed weapons, also allowing them to be used two handed in the process. Up the damage output a bit for using something that doesn't ignore DR, just to be nice.

I'm thinking I'll just switch spellforge weapons in general to one-handed weapons, then make sure to note that you're always proficient with them.  As one-handed weapons, you will be able to two-hand them by definition--giving up your shield and the class features associated with it in the process.  Besides, the only extra damage would be from Power Attack.

In terms of DR, those circles already deal--on average--one extra point of damage per die.  Given that the attack itself will scale up to six dice, plus extra dice from formulae, and you're already going to make up much of the difference.  Especially given that forging the same spellshape attack into two pieces of equipment lets you just ignore DR entirely.

Hm. A simple way would to add to it "Some lamens are of a defensive focus instead of an offensive one. If you shape a formula that grants an AC bonus to yourself or another character, increase that bonus by the Enhancement bonus of the lamen.  Spellforge Warsmiths may add the effects of Lamens to their Spellforge Armor and Shields. Much like offensive Lamens, defensive Lamens may have various abilities that are, for the most part, similar to normal magical armor enhancements. The ones recommended are as follows."

Then follow that with a decent number of enhancements, mostly cloned from normal 3.5.

Again, I'll think about it, though you already get the ability to make a retaliatory touch attack whenever a foe misses you, a deflection bonus to AC equal to your spellshaping ability modifier, immunity to an energy type or damage reduction, and spell resistance.  That's a decent bit of defense.


Other tweaks that I'll be making to the spellforge warsmith:

These were always intended to be the case, but--reading through it again--I realized that they didn't come through properly.


----


Hm.... Perhaps a little bit of real illusions? Maybe something like Figment of Light, from Brilliant Dawn? I think a defensive/subtle circle is an interesting idea. After all, not all magic is blowing shit up.

Also, consider making the spellshape attack create a silent image, increasing in power as you level, and letting all formulae affect that. That'd be lulzy.

Well, almost every effect is based off of an existing illusion spell, and a good number of them are "traditional" illusions.  However, the spellshape attack is remaining an attack--as I've said before, I don't want to break the standard form.  Especially with the complications involved in an at-will silent image that scales up to (presumably) major image or so--much less one that can be obtained by anyone with a single feat.

Hm... Maybe something like the Bladebound (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus/archetypes/paizo---magus-archetypes/bladebound) Magus archetype from Pathfinder for the Spellshape Champion?

Quite possibly, yes.


----


In other other news--and I'm not sure where this came from--there may be an upcoming revision to the lavamancer.  I spontaneously stopped liking the pool of magma as the core mechanic for everything, and I've ceased to like the form that Surging Eruption ended up taking.  So, yeah.



----

Update: Changes have been posted to the online versions of the lavamancer and the spellforge warsmith.  PDFs should be updated later today or tomorrow.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 09, 2012, 10:51:26 PM
New PDFs are up.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on February 10, 2012, 05:30:27 PM
Where did you get the art for the cover of the book?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 10, 2012, 06:12:02 PM
So, a year and a half ago, I started playing D&D.  I grew very attached to my character--a bard/dragon disciple/crusader--and, at one point, commented online that it would be pretty cool if any art majors at my school were interested in drawing him for me.

Well, my uncle saw it.  My uncle, who has painted several pictures that are currently hanging in my parents' house.

So, he ended up going through several drafts.  A sketch, which I used to help him with a color guide, the cover of Codex I, then the final draft--the cover of Codex II.

He died this past summer.  I'm never using any other avatar on a D&D board again.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on February 10, 2012, 07:45:48 PM
All respects to your dead uncle.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 20, 2012, 01:39:40 AM
So, apparently, I put far too much work into making the PDFs look like actual sourcebooks.  To the extent that they've been removed from MediaFire because they were believed to violate the Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy.

I'll be putting all other stuff on hold while I try to figure out how to get them back online without running into this problem again.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 20, 2012, 11:16:12 AM
Wow, that's something. Good luck sorting this trouble out. I'd hate to see this work disappear.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on February 20, 2012, 11:18:34 AM
I know a number of people on minmax have their own websites, why don't you ask around and see if anyone is willing to post them for you?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 20, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Wow, that's something. Good luck sorting this trouble out. I'd hate to see this work disappear.

Well, nothing's disappearing--everything's up on the boards, and I still have a copy of everything on my computer.  Including most of the older versions.  Sometimes, I open up the first draft and laugh at myself.

I know a number of people on minmax have their own websites, why don't you ask around and see if anyone is willing to post them for you?

I have several ideas that I'm going to poke at later this week, when I'm not up to my neck in work.  I'll keep that one in mind, though.  My willy-nilly approach to editing and re-posting the PDFs might prove to be a bit of an issue, depending on the setup.

I suspect that a large part of this is a misunderstanding, since I did obsessively edit the documents to look like actual sourcebooks.  So, it might be possible to just throw things back up onto MediaFire, with proper notation declaring them as user-created content.  I'm going to be checking that later tonight.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: veekie on February 20, 2012, 12:27:54 PM
They're paranoid about copyrighted material lately, what with the Megaupload case. Somebody just reports things to be an ass and they'd drop it first, and ask later.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 20, 2012, 09:21:45 PM
Well, I've re-posted both PDFs, adding a description to each one that clearly states that they are player-created content.  Hopefully, it won't happen again.

Fixed a small typo in the Codex I formula lists, in which Dragging Tide was called Inextolerable Tide.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 22, 2012, 11:14:45 PM
So, the PDFs are staying up thus far.  Huzzah!

The fact that I haven't had much time has kept me from actually looking at Fleeting Image again.  This has a decent amount to do with my still-vague grasp on illusions, coupled with a certain level of intimidation factor.  I have, however, been toying a bit with character options to write after I finally get Fleeting Image done.  I'm planning on two more ACFs for every base class, as well as feats designed with specific base classes in mind.  For example, there is probably going to be a spellshape champion feat chain that ends up letting you full attack as a part of shaping a formula.

In terms of actual things that have happened, I've been doing a lot of one-shots with friends recently, and it came to light that the dragonheart adept was just silly.  It got way too much AC too quickly, had too many maneuvers and formulae, and just had way too much going for it.  The notion came up that it may have been head-and-shoulders above any other spellshaper class.

So, I've restricted your options for secondary disciplines, removed its stances, removed the Charisma bonus to AC, and lowered its formulae/maneuvers known by 4.  We'll see how it plays now.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 28, 2012, 05:47:03 PM
So, I've actually reached the point with some of the new Spellshape Champion options that it looks like they'll go up before Fleeting Image does.  There's also going to be some Spellshape Champion errata going up at the same time.  To give you an idea of what's coming, here's a quick, poorly-worded summary.



Update 2/29/12: New PDFs posted, including some errata, clarifications, and typo fixes.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 01, 2012, 02:00:10 PM
The new spellshape champion options are up.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 19, 2012, 07:41:12 PM
Guess what I finally did? (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4073.0)

Edit: Also pushed some errata.  New codex PDFs are up.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on March 19, 2012, 11:04:02 PM
You... win.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 20, 2012, 12:08:45 AM
I shall take that as a good thing!

In other news, my "New Material To Do" list has been getting longer.  In addition to writing the character options for the other four base classes, it looks like I'll be trotting out three new races, racial substitution levels for them, some new feats, some prestige classes, and possibly elementals with innate spellshaping abilities.  We'll see when these things hit the table.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 20, 2012, 07:12:15 PM
The elementals beat everything else to the table. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4090.0)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 20, 2012, 08:05:54 PM
Spellshaping: Do all 4 HD Elemental Shapers know those formulae, or is that just the typical list known?


Air Elemental Shaper
The Claw attack bonus should be +8, not +6 (3 BaB, 5 Dex).

Quote from: Inner Tempest
Creatures caught in the storm can otherwise act normally, but must succeed on a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to cast a spell.  Creatures caught in the storm take a -4 penalty to Dexterity and a -2 penalty on attack rolls.
Why not just say they are entangled as long as they are caught?


Earth Elemental Shaper
As a singular natural attack, the slam should gain 1.5*Str bonus to damage, so +7 instead of +5.

Ooh, tanky. And simple, as earth is often portrayed. No complaints here.


Fire Elemental Shaper
Burning Touch should indicate that it is a touch attack in the stat block (ie: "+6 melee touch"). Well, I suppose it doesn't absolutely have to, but other creatures that perform actual touch attacks (not incorporeal touches, but those are a very specific kind of natural weapon usually, I think) have it indicated as such. Although, they doesn't often have "touch" in the weapon's name. Still, it can't hurt.


Water Elemental Shaper
As a singular natural attack, the slam should gain 1.5*Str bonus to damage, so +4 instead of +3.


Paraelemental Shapers
Quote from: Chill
   Chill (Ex): An ice paraelemental shaper's claw attack deals slashing damage plus cold damage from the paraelemental's freezing body.  Creatures hitting an ice paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take cold damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
Quote from: Heat
  Heat (Ex): A magma paraelemental shaper's slam attack deals bludgeoning damage plus fire damage from the paraelemental's molten body.  Creatures hitting a magma paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
Quote from: Acid
   Acid (Ex): An ooze paraelemental shaper's slam attack deal bludgeoning damage plus acid damage from the corrosive muck that forms the paraelemental's body.  Creatures hitting an ooze paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed strikes take acid damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
How much cold/fire/acid damage is that? What if it's in the middle of the elemental's turn after it channeled a spellshape?


Magma Paraelemental Shaper
As a singular natural attack, the slam should gain 1.5*Str bonus to damage, so +4 instead of +3.

Quote from: Hardening
  Hardening (Ex): If a magma paraelemental shaper takes damage equal to half of its full normal hit points from water or cold damage within 1 minute, its body hardens into volcanic rock.  This hardening lasts for 5 rounds, after which the creature returns to its fluid form.  While hardened, the magma paraelemental shaper's statistics change as follows:
...
   It gains the solid subtype and the associated traits (including hardness 8 and bonus hit points based on its size, if the paraelemental is Medium or larger).
What if the increased hit points cause the total water/cold damage taken to be less than half its new hp total? Or is that part of what you meant by "full normal hit points"? Or is that just an utterly irrelevant question because it's a one-time triggered effect, and thus only cares about the elemental's hp when the effect triggers (which is before it would gain more hp)?
   Also, what happens if it takes 1/2 its total hp in water/cold damage again while already hardened? It can't exactly lose the fluid subtype and gain the solid subtype again, but does its +4 Str, -2 Dex, and +2 nat armor stack again? Probably not because it would a modifier from the same source.


Ooze Paraelemental Shaper
The slam attack is listed as 1d6 in the normal attack, and 1d8 in the full attack. As a singular natural attack, it should gain 1.5*Str bonus to damage, so +4 instead of +3.

Quote from: Corrosive Body
   Finally, the grime of an ooze paraelemental shaper's body pollutes any water it touches.  An ooze paraelemental shaper can spoil 1 gallon of water (or other water-based liquids) per round, but the paraelemental must remain in contact with the liquid for 1 full round in order to do so.  Creatures made of water and creatures with the water subtype are unaffected by this ability.
Does this immunity apply only to the last part of Corrosive Body or to the entire ability?


Smoke Paraelemental Shaper
See Fire Elemental about indicating that Burning Touch is a touch attack.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 20, 2012, 09:19:51 PM
Spellshaping: Do all 4 HD Elemental Shapers know those formulae, or is that just the typical list known?

Not quite sure yet.  I'm going to actually properly define their advancement later this week (including sizes larger than Medium!), so I'll probably figure it out as a part of that.  Given that all elemental shapers start at 4 Hit Dice, though, I'm inclined to say that this is what they all start with.


Air Elemental Shaper
The Claw attack bonus should be +8, not +6 (3 BaB, 5 Dex).

Quote from: Inner Tempest
Creatures caught in the storm can otherwise act normally, but must succeed on a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to cast a spell.  Creatures caught in the storm take a -4 penalty to Dexterity and a -2 penalty on attack rolls.
Why not just say they are entangled as long as they are caught?


Earth Elemental Shaper
As a singular natural attack, the slam should gain 1.5*Str bonus to damage, so +7 instead of +5.

Ooh, tanky. And simple, as earth is often portrayed. No complaints here.


Fire Elemental Shaper
Burning Touch should indicate that it is a touch attack in the stat block (ie: "+6 melee touch"). Well, I suppose it doesn't absolutely have to, but other creatures that perform actual touch attacks (not incorporeal touches, but those are a very specific kind of natural weapon usually, I think) have it indicated as such. Although, they doesn't often have "touch" in the weapon's name. Still, it can't hurt.


Water Elemental Shaper
As a singular natural attack, the slam should gain 1.5*Str bonus to damage, so +4 instead of +3.

Fixed.


Paraelemental Shapers
Quote from: Chill
   Chill (Ex): An ice paraelemental shaper's claw attack deals slashing damage plus cold damage from the paraelemental's freezing body.  Creatures hitting an ice paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take cold damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
Quote from: Heat
  Heat (Ex): A magma paraelemental shaper's slam attack deals bludgeoning damage plus fire damage from the paraelemental's molten body.  Creatures hitting a magma paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
Quote from: Acid
   Acid (Ex): An ooze paraelemental shaper's slam attack deal bludgeoning damage plus acid damage from the corrosive muck that forms the paraelemental's body.  Creatures hitting an ooze paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed strikes take acid damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
How much cold/fire/acid damage is that? What if it's in the middle of the elemental's turn after it channeled a spellshape?

The amount of damage is listed in the statblocks, as with the MM1 fire elemental.  I'm not sure what your second question is asking.


Magma Paraelemental Shaper
As a singular natural attack, the slam should gain 1.5*Str bonus to damage, so +4 instead of +3.

Fixed.

Quote from: Hardening
  Hardening (Ex): If a magma paraelemental shaper takes damage equal to half of its full normal hit points from water or cold damage within 1 minute, its body hardens into volcanic rock.  This hardening lasts for 5 rounds, after which the creature returns to its fluid form.  While hardened, the magma paraelemental shaper's statistics change as follows:
...
   It gains the solid subtype and the associated traits (including hardness 8 and bonus hit points based on its size, if the paraelemental is Medium or larger).
What if the increased hit points cause the total water/cold damage taken to be less than half its new hp total? Or is that part of what you meant by "full normal hit points"? Or is that just an utterly irrelevant question because it's a one-time triggered effect, and thus only cares about the elemental's hp when the effect triggers (which is before it would gain more hp)?
   Also, what happens if it takes 1/2 its total hp in water/cold damage again while already hardened? It can't exactly lose the fluid subtype and gain the solid subtype again, but does its +4 Str, -2 Dex, and +2 nat armor stack again? Probably not because it would a modifier from the same source.

Yes, that is the intention of the "full normal hit points" clause.  And, no, you can't harden a second time--as you said, they would be modifiers from the same source.


Ooze Paraelemental Shaper
The slam attack is listed as 1d6 in the normal attack, and 1d8 in the full attack. As a singular natural attack, it should gain 1.5*Str bonus to damage, so +4 instead of +3.

Quote from: Corrosive Body
   Finally, the grime of an ooze paraelemental shaper's body pollutes any water it touches.  An ooze paraelemental shaper can spoil 1 gallon of water (or other water-based liquids) per round, but the paraelemental must remain in contact with the liquid for 1 full round in order to do so.  Creatures made of water and creatures with the water subtype are unaffected by this ability.
Does this immunity apply only to the last part of Corrosive Body or to the entire ability?


Smoke Paraelemental Shaper
See Fire Elemental about indicating that Burning Touch is a touch attack.

Fixed and clarified.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 20, 2012, 09:28:22 PM
Paraelemental Shapers
Quote from: Chill
   Chill (Ex): An ice paraelemental shaper's claw attack deals slashing damage plus cold damage from the paraelemental's freezing body.  Creatures hitting an ice paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take cold damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
Quote from: Heat
  Heat (Ex): A magma paraelemental shaper's slam attack deals bludgeoning damage plus fire damage from the paraelemental's molten body.  Creatures hitting a magma paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
Quote from: Acid
   Acid (Ex): An ooze paraelemental shaper's slam attack deal bludgeoning damage plus acid damage from the corrosive muck that forms the paraelemental's body.  Creatures hitting an ooze paraelemental shaper with natural weapons or unarmed strikes take acid damage as though hit by the paraelemental's attack.
How much cold/fire/acid damage is that? What if it's in the middle of the elemental's turn after it channeled a spellshape?

The amount of damage is listed in the statblocks, as with the MM1 fire elemental.  I'm not sure what your second question is asking.

Once you've channeled a spellshape, the type of damage your attacks deal changes for the turn. So, if, say the magma para channels the fire spellshape, he now deals 1d6+4+1d6 fire damage with his slam, instead of just 1d6 (plus 1d6+4 bludgeoning which is not fire damage and thus irrelevant for Heat). Would a natural attack against him now deal 1d6 or 2d6+4 to the attacker? Similarly, if he channels rockslam (the bludgeoning one) instead, it's now all bludgeoning damage, no fire at all on the slam so no damage from Heat.

(The latter bit about no fire damage is assuming I'm understanding the Spellshape Channeling ability correctly about how it interacts with bonus damage and extra sources on an attack and stuff, but I'm probably not. The point still stands in general because there are other effects that do the same thing, even if that specific ability doesn't.)

Edit: In all the confusion, I forgot to mention, great stuff as always, can't wait to see more, etc. Thanks for all the effort you put into this.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 20, 2012, 09:30:09 PM
Hrm.  I hadn't thought about that.  I think the solution is going to be "as if hit by the X's normal attack."  Keyword here being "normal."

Edit: That was, indeed, the solution.  Incidentally, advancement for elemental shapers has been defined, and they now increase in size.

Edit: In all the confusion, I forgot to mention, great stuff as always, can't wait to see more, etc. Thanks for all the effort you put into this.

 :D  Glad to hear that it's being so well-received!  And don't worry about more material--I currently have a five-to-six page to-do list.


Edit Again: So, for an asinine few hours there, it was possible to have a 20 HD Huge elemental shaper with access to 9th-level formulae...at CR 11.  FIXED THAT.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 21, 2012, 09:22:16 PM
Earth's advancement says a second slam touch attack. You might also want to mention that the Str bonus to the slams of Large+ elemental shapers drops to 1x instead of 1.5x (since they now have more than one attack), to avoid confusion.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 21, 2012, 10:19:08 PM
The "slam touch attack" has been fixed.  I'm not sure that defining the Strength bonus to damage is strictly necessary, given that it only gets 1.5x its Strength because of the rules in the first place.  At the point at which you're advancing it, I'd assume that you know how and why such things work.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on March 25, 2012, 07:52:28 PM
Hm. I'm considering 'brewing a prestige class for this. If I post it over  at GitP, want me to link to it here?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 25, 2012, 08:39:05 PM
Sure!  Just toss a link into this thread and I'll add it to the Index.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 26, 2012, 12:49:41 PM
New impulse mage options have been added. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=852.msg57778#msg57778)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 26, 2012, 01:03:24 PM
Yay, there's more!

Arcane Meditation: Impulse Mages can use light armor without interfering with their spellshapes. Should the speed boost not also apply while in light armor?
For the reflection effect, I need to check this, but I think you can voluntarily miss with an attack. As such (assuming I'm correct), the reflected effect's caster could choose to miss, thus making the reflection kind of moot. Maybe have the Impulse Mage make the attack roll instead? If it didn't also cost an immediate action, this ability could wind up as a fun "tennis with the boss" situation.

Dark Impulses: Impulse Mages choose 5 circles to use, not 4.
Woot! Hexblade's Curse (the good version) and those fluffy Shadowcaster goodies!

Impulsive Jaunt (and Impulsive Dodge/Tactics/etc.): Is this movement supposed to be teleportation? Or is it forced but otherwise normal movement, like being Bull Rushed?

Impulsive Voyage: This used to be a spell belonging to Nybor, right?
Since it functions like teleport, does that mean you can affect multiple creatures with a single use based on your caster level?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 26, 2012, 01:08:37 PM
Arcane Meditation: Impulse Mages can use light armor without interfering with their spellshapes. Should the speed boost not also apply while in light armor?

Fixed.

For the reflection effect, I need to check this, but I think you can voluntarily miss with an attack. As such (assuming I'm correct), the reflected effect's caster could choose to miss, thus making the reflection kind of moot. Maybe have the Impulse Mage make the attack roll instead? If it didn't also cost an immediate action, this ability could wind up as a fun "tennis with the boss" situation.

Well, it's based off of an existing ACF in Complete Mage, so I assume that it's valid.  And, yes, you can Dead Man Volley with Ganon.


Dark Impulses: Impulse Mages choose 5 circles to use, not 4.
Woot! Hexblade's Curse (the good version) and those fluffy Shadowcaster goodies!

Fixed.  Also, yup.


Impulsive Jaunt (and Impulsive Dodge/Tactics/etc.): Is this movement supposed to be teleportation? Or is it forced but otherwise normal movement, like being Bull Rushed?

It's supposed to be teleportation.  Should I be toying with the wording?

Impulsive Voyage: This used to be a spell belonging to Nybor, right?
Since it functions like teleport, does that mean you can affect multiple creatures with a single use based on your caster level?

Yeah, Nybor's spells tend to amuse me.  I cleaned it up so that you can send "one other" creature that you touch, closing the "multiple creatures" loophole.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 26, 2012, 01:38:18 PM
Nah, you just need to say that it's teleportation (which you have; the version I read just said "move"). However, now you need to change unoccupied to occupied (unless you only want to teleport into spaces that are a bit too friendly with your party-mates... or the wall). Do you have to teleport exactly 5/10/15 feet, or can you teleport less?

Impulsive Jaunt will be very annoying for anyone trying to sleep. Enough with sleepwalking, try sleepteleporting! Just make sure you don't leave any doors open, or you could wind up across town by the time you wake up! You might want to put an "off" switch in there somewhere.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 26, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
That was a silly typo.  It has been fixed.  Similarly, Impulsive Dodge and Impulsive Tactics now allow you to move "up to" 10 or 15 feet.  Though, since you don't have control over Impulsive Jaunt, it currently has the throttle stuck at full.

In terms of sleep teleportation, I've allowed you to suppress it as a full-round action.  However, the other feats now require that it be active for them to function.

Though I do really, really like the idea of just randomly teleporting around while you're asleep.  Fortunately, you can still do it if you really want to, since you don't have to suppress it while you sleep.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 27, 2012, 11:34:35 PM
"Elemental adept?  Is that...you?  What happened?"
"I got revised..."
"Revised?"
"A lot..."
"Should I be calling Homebrew Services?"
"No, no!  It's nothing like that.  He...he loves me."
"Elemental adept, would you just listen to yourself?"
"SHUT UP, IMPULSE MAGE!  YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE!"
"Now, listen..."
"NO, YOU LISTEN!  WHAT DONQUIXOTE AND I HAVE IS MAGICAL!  DON'T YOU DARE TRY AND SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT!"


...that...is not what I expected to type.  Either way, revisions have been posted.  Also, new PDFs.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on March 27, 2012, 11:36:43 PM
"Elemental adept?  Is that...you?  What happened?"
"I got revised..."
"Revised?"
"A lot..."
"Should I be calling Homebrew Services?"
"No, no!  It's nothing like that.  He...he loves me."
"Elemental adept, would you just listen to yourself?"
"SHUT UP, IMPULSE MAGE!  YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE!"
"Now, listen..."
"NO, YOU LISTEN!  WHAT DONQUIXOTE AND I HAVE IS MAGICAL!  DON'T YOU DARE TRY AND SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT!"


...that...is not what I expected to type.  Either way, revisions have been posted.  Also, new PDFs.

If I had room in my sig...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 27, 2012, 11:51:01 PM
I should probably edit that out before I damn myself to hell even more.

Also, classy: Noticing a one-word stylistic typo and deciding to recompile the PDF, post it, and change all the links.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on March 28, 2012, 03:31:43 PM
Well, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12972643#post12972643)'s the PrC I mentioned working on. It'll need to be tweaked a bit, I'm sure, but... It's a start.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 28, 2012, 04:23:54 PM
DonQuixote, please stop posting things so late at night. You make it very hard for me to keep a decent bedtime.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 28, 2012, 11:52:24 PM
Well, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12972643#post12972643)'s the PrC I mentioned working on. It'll need to be tweaked a bit, I'm sure, but... It's a start.

Just saw this!  I've added it to the Index, and I'll look over it when I have the chance.  Unfortunately, I have a paper due tomorrow...and I sort of spent most of today writing a race.

DonQuixote, please stop posting things so late at night. You make it very hard for me to keep a decent bedtime.

Boy, I wish I could.


INCIDENTALLY.  New race went up.  Spellsoul Armor.  For everyone who ever wanted to be a floating breastplate.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 29, 2012, 12:09:25 AM
So, the point has been raised by two friends that spellshapers deal too much damage.  To what extent should I tone down the extra damage from formulae, and how should I tweak Spellshape Focus and Greater Spellshape focus to compensate?

Edit: So, what I'm thinking is that I'll change Spellshape Focus to require shaper level 3rd, Greater Spellshape Focus to require shaper level 12th, and impose a cap of one die per formula level on all extra damage on formulae.  At 17th level, shaping a 9th-level formula would then be a maximum of 14d6 plus the formula's effects, plus an additional 2d6 if you have both feats.

Seem legitimate?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on March 29, 2012, 01:48:06 AM
Just saw this!  I've added it to the Index, and I'll look over it when I have the chance.  Unfortunately, I have a paper due tomorrow...and I sort of spent most of today writing a race.

RelevantVersionOfIKnowThatFeelBro.gif


As for the damage, I'd say not much for formulae, and the changes to Spellshape Focus would work fine.


See, it's BLASTING.  Blasting that allows SR or DR.

Not exactly powerful, especially at higher levels. Let it have it's damage.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 29, 2012, 01:55:30 AM
Hrm, okay.  The general consensus online seems to be that the damage isn't that problematic, so I'm going to tentatively make those feat changes--which probably has the biggest impact at 1st level, since you can no longer start out dealing 2d6 damage from 60 feet--and call it a day.  Edit: Also, I'll probably remove the bonus damage on 1st-level formulae, since that could be part of the problem.  Now that I think about it....someone with access to the Searing Flame circle could theoretically deal 4d6+1 damage at 1st level.

Probably tomorrow, since the fact that I'm posting right now means that I still haven't started that paper.


Edit Again: So, after a brief amount of discussion with one of the friends in question--the first time I'd actually gotten to talk to one of them about it--I realized another potential part of the problem.  I always play elemental adepts.  And I always have high Charisma.

Spellshape Attunement, you're on the chopping block as soon as I figure out what to replace you with.



Edit Edit Edit: So, some errata is going to be pushed as soon as I have time to throw the PDFs together.  Here's a summary:

Classes:
Feats:
Formulae:
Items:

With that, I think it will no longer be possible to deal 5d6+7 damage in one round at level 2.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 29, 2012, 03:43:44 PM
Errata went up.

There was totally something else I was going to say, suggest, or talk about...but I'm so sleep-deprived that I forgot what it was.

Edit: Changed the elemental shapers slightly, giving the normal elementals two more circles each.  Now, elementals and paraelementals all get access to the same number of circles.

Additionally, I changed how elemental shaper companions work.  They now prepare from your formulae known, but can't prepare formulae you've already prepared.  Yeah.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on March 30, 2012, 02:23:25 PM
just a question on spellheart items.

Do I misread something or for 2500 gp you get a +1 Magic Weapon that converts all your damage to force damage? (spellheart weapon with 1st level Unseen Impetus formula)


Edit: Also does the rule preventing you from enchanting spellheart items, also prevents you from attaching crystals?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 30, 2012, 06:14:44 PM
just a question on spellheart items.

Do I misread something or for 2500 gp you get a +1 Magic Weapon that converts all your damage to force damage? (spellheart weapon with 1st level Unseen Impetus formula)

...apparently.

Hrm.

How problematic is this?  Bear in mind that the weapon is technically not a [Force] effect--it deals damage as though it were a kinetic blast attack, but it's only actually treated as being a kinetic blast for the purposes of shaping formulae.  Arguably, then, it doesn't automatically ignore incorporeal miss chance.  That's how I'd rule, anyway.

Also, attacks with the weapon are subject to spell resistance (when dealing force damage with it, anyway), and you can't enchant it by conventional means.  So, there's some trade-off, here.

Edit: Also does the rule preventing you from enchanting spellheart items, also prevents you from attaching crystals?

Again, hrm.  Technically, it only says that they can't be enchanted in the normal way.  They are then called out as being treated as magical weapons for all other purposes, so I guess you can go to town.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 30, 2012, 06:23:32 PM
I'm not sure there even is, technically, such a thing as "force damage". I think it's just what the community commonly uses to refer to the damage caused by force effects, which is untyped.

Edit: Time to look at the Elemental Adept again.

Spellshaping: Does this mean that if you dip a single level of Elemental Adept, you can't even shape from the opposed circle with your other spellshaping classes?

Devoted Adept: Can this (or at least the CL boost) apply to your associated spellshapes, too, so you don't have to remember about the extra +/- 1-2 CLs when you shape a major versus when you use a spellshape atatck normally?

Elemental Travel: You get this at level 13. Unless there's something kooky about the spell I don't know, why not just make this at will? Anything that'll have at least 13 uses per day is close enough already.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 30, 2012, 06:59:57 PM
I'm not sure there even is, technically, such a thing as "force damage". I think it's just what the community commonly uses to refer to the damage caused by force effects, which is untyped.

A good number of spells refer to "force damage," while others refer to "untyped damage."  For some reason, FORCE is a thing.

Spellshaping: Does this mean that if you dip a single level of Elemental Adept, you can't even shape from the opposed circle with your other spellshaping classes?

Hrm, I think I'll go in and note that the restrictions apply only to formulae known as an elemental adept.  Also makes that whole "half of all formulae you know must belong to one of your elemental circles."  Incidentally, I'm going to be changing the "half of all formulae" clause so that it applies only to your overall formulae, rather than your formulae of each formula level, since that otherwise leads to wonkiness with replacing formulae.

Devoted Adept: Can this (or at least the CL boost) apply to your associated spellshapes, too, so you don't have to remember about the extra +/- 1-2 CLs when you shape a major versus when you use a spellshape atatck normally?

Things that I didn't think about when writing the class: The fact that increasing your shaper level increases your damage.  Yeah, I'll have that apply to spellshape attacks as well.

Elemental Travel: You get this at level 13. Unless there's something kooky about the spell I don't know, why not just make this at will? Anything that'll have at least 13 uses per day is close enough already.

Because I am a silly, silly person.  That'll be changed to at will, yeah.


Edit: These have been changed.  Enjoy the new PDF!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on March 31, 2012, 11:51:39 PM
OOh! Idea for a Circle!


Summoning! Spellshape attack summons a weak creature, stronger stuff gets called by formulae.


Alternatively, spellshape attack spawns a tentacle with limited range to attack.


Basically, something eldritch abomination theme.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 01, 2012, 12:08:27 AM
Yeah, the problem with the spellshape attack summoning a creature would be that it runs into my issue with non-standard spellshape attacks.  It'd basically have to be the D&D equivalent of a Spark Elemental (http://www.coolstuffinc.com/images/Products/mtg%20art/Fifth%20Dawn/Spark_Elemental.jpg), at which point the actual summoning nature is entirely flavorful.  Not that that's a problem, just that it runs into...

...the issue of duration.  See, summoning is generally predicated around the idea of having stuff that sticks around.  The basic spellshape attack can't be normal summoning, since you get that at-will and my God, the complications.  If we define formulae as summoning more powerful creatures, we have to look at how the basic summoning works and ow my head.

On another point, there are a handful of problems related to what sort of creatures you summon.  In the end, I'd probably have to define all the possible creatures to avoid running into various issues with people who don't have every 3.5 book ever printed.  I'm already worse about referencing non-core material than I'd like to be.

In the end, this feels more like something that should be a class ability than something that should be a complete circle on its own.  That's what ended up happening (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=986.msg6191#msg6191) to the idea of a circle based on transformation.

Could go well with that "dark pact" spellshaping class that's been bouncing around in my head.  You gain the ability to summon different kinds of infernal entities.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on April 01, 2012, 11:20:02 AM
Well, who said anything about summoning whole creatures? (Besides the guy who suggested this.)

I'm thinking calling in tentacles and stuff like that would be real fun, especially if calling the tentacles allows you to treat them as Spellshape attacks...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 01, 2012, 02:46:13 PM
The problem with summoning spellshape attacks is that it screws up the way that the system works.

Again, this is something that's far more likely to see the light of day as a set of class features, rather than as a circle.

Plus, given the actual flavor for spellshaping--which is coming together in my head, finally--having Far Realm powers makes very little sense.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on April 01, 2012, 03:38:30 PM
Fine, how about an Arcane circle? Meaning you are throwing around Dispels and the like, with high level Formulae doing stuff like throwing full-out Mordekainen's Disjunctions around?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 01, 2012, 03:46:48 PM
Well, first of all, no spellshaper will ever have access to Mordenkainen's disjunction, because that is a terrible spell that should never exist.

The Arcane circle idea runs into the problem that most of its abilities won't actually be blast-tastic.  I do, however, actually have plans for this sort of thing.  One of the spellsage ACFs is basically going to be a "master of the arcane" shtick.  Stuff like the rebuke spell and command magic abilities, but also stuff that functions like antimagic ray.

So, yeah, class featured, again.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on April 01, 2012, 03:56:05 PM
Awww...

But if I remember correctly, there are blasty dispels...

And I meant to type Reaving Dispel. Really.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 01, 2012, 08:55:02 PM
I mean, I'm already fairly committed to the spellsage ACF, so that's definitely going through.

The other problem is finding twenty-one unique effects for the "arcane" circle.  We have dispelling, greater dispelling, and reaving dispelling...which are all completely useless against foes without spells present.

I just think it'll be far too much work for far too little payout, especially since I literally have no ideas for it.  Plus, those kinds of effects aren't things that I find to be particularly compelling.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on April 01, 2012, 09:38:47 PM
I hope you're adding in Counterspells with that ACF, because I like the idea of an adept that just flicks a finger to deflect a spell away from himself, or being able to play tennis with enemy mages.

I might actually make a dispelling/counterspelling/enabling circle myself, if it is OK with you; ideas include Antimagic Fields, redirecting a spell aimed at yourself, a formula that adds damage when used on a creature with any SLAs or Su abilities, and finally... Invoke Magic! (an Evocation spell from LoM that allows you to cast spells in an Antimagic field by essentially channeling magic. It is awesome.)

The circle aura would probably either give a bonus to SR penetration checks or to saves vs. spells.

Because, rarity of one's foes does not mean that you should not exist. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122533)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 01, 2012, 09:56:00 PM
Be my guest!

Edit: Though the Astral Essence aura already gives you a bonus on SR penetration checks.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on April 02, 2012, 12:29:59 AM
Something to note: The PrC's don't say if they give weapon or armor proficiencies.

Thought you should know.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 02, 2012, 12:34:19 AM
Well, neither Tome of Battle nor Tome of Magic lists proficiencies unless you gain them, so--since none of the prestige classes are intended to give you any new proficiencies--I didn't feel that the header needed to be present.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 02, 2012, 02:06:28 PM
Incidentally, new spellsage options (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=853.msg60157#msg60157).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on April 02, 2012, 02:25:36 PM
Quote
Sage: S-A-G-E.  Sage.
Haw haw. How very droll.

Shame that the feats are so very incompatible with the various ACFs. Arcane Talent, for instance, doesn't work with either of the ACFs presented in the same article.

Arcane Mastery needs to change the wording on the counter effect, or provide a greater version at higher levels. Dispel Magic caps out at a +10 bonus, so you'll be kind of ineffective after that.
   That's an awful lot of Int mod per day abilities to keep track of.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 02, 2012, 02:56:01 PM
Changed most of the Int modifier/day abilities to three or four times per day, for bookkeeping ease.  Also added to the counterspell ability: "and the maximum bonus on your dispel check is +20 (instead of +10)."  Fixed that same problem in the Impulse Mage options and the Sublime Shaper.  Technically, I should go into Spellshape Paragon (Codex II) and update that one, too, but that will happen later (today).

In terms of the feats and incompatibility, part of my problem is finding unique, spellsage-oriented effects.  The other classes tended to build off of class features...but the spellsage really only has two class features: scaling bonus to saves and spell-like abilities.

I had a lot of trouble coming up with ideas for spellsage options, so I went with my gut.  Also note that a stoichen elemental adept cannot benefit from any of the [Companion] feats, and a Temporal Impulses impulse mage can't teleport around the battlefield.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on April 02, 2012, 03:28:24 PM
I just found it particularly weird that the feat based on casting (Arcane Talent) spells didn't work with the ACF based on casting spells slightly differently (Divine Gift). The rest make sense: A Stoichen isn't a companion, a Temporal Impulse Mage doesn't teleport, etc.. But a Divine Gift Spellsage is still casting spells, just from a different list, and an Arcane Master Spellsage still casts a whole bunch of spells, just in a more limited manner (although I can easily see that bit being too much of a stretch).

It's a shame the Spellsage doesn't have a couple more class features. It feels just a bit bare with only 2 real class features other than spellshaping (Int to saves and a bunch of spells).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 02, 2012, 06:22:27 PM
First off, cambians (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4346.msg60239#msg60239) have been added.  Because I hate doing things in the order that I planned on doing them, apparently.

I just found it particularly weird that the feat based on casting (Arcane Talent) spells didn't work with the ACF based on casting spells slightly differently (Divine Gift). The rest make sense: A Stoichen isn't a companion, a Temporal Impulse Mage doesn't teleport, etc.. But a Divine Gift Spellsage is still casting spells, just from a different list, and an Arcane Master Spellsage still casts a whole bunch of spells, just in a more limited manner (although I can easily see that bit being too much of a stretch).

Divine Gift is something that I'm trying to wrestle with, in terms of Arcane Talent.  There's probably a way to give more uses, but...I'm not quite sure how to word it.

It's a shame the Spellsage doesn't have a couple more class features. It feels just a bit bare with only 2 real class features other than spellshaping (Int to saves and a bunch of spells).

Right, but those spells can be selected from the entire sorcerer/wizard list, giving you a high level of customization and...well, it feels pretty potent.  I probably am going to end up throwing more class features at them soon, if only to make it easier for me to write the Living Spellshape racial substitution levels.


Edit: I can't think of a single blasted class feature to add.  I don't want to add a familiar, since spellshape champions already get that, and there are few other iconic abilities that I can think of.  On top of that, my gut reaction--that one spell-like ability of each spell level is pretty decent in terms of a class's features--seems to have been borne out by the evidence that I've seen.

I also had some ideas for the Living Spellshape spellsage, but they didn't scream "Living Spellshape spellsage" so much as they did "Living Spellshape spellshaper."  Which isn't really enough, so I scrapped them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 02, 2012, 07:06:41 PM
Incidentally, the "About Spellshaping" thread now contains a rough transcription of my current "To-Do" list.  I say "rough" because not everything is included--ideas that are still fairly vague, or that I'm not yet entirely sure about, are conspicuously absent from this version of the list.

Edit: Touched up Arcane Talent so that it should work with Divine Gift.  I think this wording accommodates for the weirdness, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on April 03, 2012, 11:07:48 AM
A little question about sculpt spellshape.

What happens when you sculpt a formula that creates an effect around someone you hit. Flattening Gale for example.
If you sculpt it would it create a column around each person tha fails his reflex save?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 03, 2012, 11:33:31 AM
Currently, yes, the formula would create a separate effect around each affected creature.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 03, 2012, 07:36:50 PM
Incidentally, another race (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4370.0).  Living spellshapes: for all your magical ooze needs.

A lot of credit on this one goes to my roommate, who's been building an ooze race for her own homebrew system.  The Primitive Vision and Amorphous Body abilities are pretty much entirely stolen her ooze race.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on April 03, 2012, 11:28:18 PM
I like it!  I especially like the Living Spell familiar option.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 04, 2012, 12:47:55 AM
I like it!  I especially like the Living Spell familiar option.

I figured that pretty much everyone would be able to agree on oozes with ooze familiars that can also summon oozes.


Also, whoa.  I finally got around to explaining what spellshaping actually is. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4373.0)  Wasn't expecting to do that tonight.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on April 04, 2012, 01:20:38 AM
Also, I just want to say that I've been slowly looking at things here and there and so far I really really like the system that you have built.  I don't understand it all quite yet, but I like what I've seen just the same.  Enough that your Spellshaping Codices are in the "homebrew I really like" section of my extended signature.   :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on April 04, 2012, 01:37:39 AM
In the living spellshape race's alternate spellsage levels. In the 3rd level you add Living Spellshape Familiar. In the table Honed Mind doesn't appear as it should since in the text you say Familiar doesn't replace anything.

Just to clarify.
You loose a total of 8 formula's known for all those features?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 04, 2012, 01:42:20 AM
Also, I just want to say that I've been slowly looking at things here and there and so far I really really like the system that you have built.  I don't understand it all quite yet, but I like what I've seen just the same.  Enough that your Spellshaping Codices are in the "homebrew I really like" section of my extended signature.   :)

 :D  I'm honored!

In the living spellshape race's alternate spellsage levels. In the 3rd level you add Living Spellshape Familiar. In the table Honed Mind doesn't appear as it should since in the text you say Familiar doesn't replace anything.

Just to clarify.
You loose a total of 8 formula's known for all those features?

Herp-a-derp, forgot that Honed Mind was at that level.

And you lose a formula at 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th levels.  Total of nine formulae.  On the other hand, you'll still know 25 formulae at 20th level.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on April 05, 2012, 05:34:42 PM
Thing about the Living Spell familiar: Is Spell Immunity suppressable?

If it is, then good.


If it isn't, the guy who summons a Living Mass CLW is going to be upset.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 05, 2012, 05:44:41 PM
....Hum.

>.>

<.<

What are you talking about?  Spell Immunity has always been suppressible!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on April 08, 2012, 06:42:11 AM
Hey! I love your work! It's brilliant! Long-time lurker, I registered to comment new stuff and hopefully help you improve your work a bit.

Firstly, Arcane Mastery ACF is a bit weak, especially first ability. Compare it to Invoking Sage who picked Magic Insight invocation (dragon magic). Arcane master can use detect magic just few times per day. Invoking Sage has unlimited detect magic as well component-free identify item. Who is better? I'd rather have ML-based arcane sight instead of detect magic (with intelligence modifier per day limitation), because even unlimited detect magic would be a lackluster compared to Magic Insight invocation.

Secondly, more abilities of this path are looking weak, when they are compared to their counterparts obtained by normal spellsage, spellsage with divine gift or invoking spellsage (especially 14th and 20th level).

How domains of Divine Gift ability interacts with Devotion feats?

Phantasmal Blast is much more limited than other spellshape attacks. Constructs and undeads are frequent enemies and no other spellshape attack has such limited scope.

Thank you very much for your wonderful creations :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 08, 2012, 03:06:00 PM
Arcane Mastery is designed for fighting mages.  Sure, invoking sage might have more possible applications, but--as one of my players demonstrated last night--an antimagic ray cast during a surprise round can more or less change the entire nature of the encounter.

The rules on domains and devotion feats specify cleric in their description, so, no.  Domains received through the Divine Gift alternative class feature cannot be traded out for devotion feats.

Yes, phantasmal blast is more limited.  However, so are illusions.  Undead and constructs are, last I checked, immune to phantasms and patterns--making most of your abilities that would affect them useless in any case.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on April 09, 2012, 03:48:57 AM
Arcane Mastery is designed for fighting mages.  Sure, invoking sage might have more possible applications, but--as one of my players demonstrated last night--an antimagic ray cast during a surprise round can more or less change the entire nature of the encounter.

Let me explain myself - this patch isn't worthless. It has few powerful and unique effects, as antimagic ray or  spell resistance. But some of its abilities (2nd level, 14th level and 20th level) are weaker than appropraite abilities of other ACFs and standard spellsage.

The rules on domains and devotion feats specify cleric in their description, so, no.  Domains received through the Divine Gift alternative class feature cannot be traded out for devotion feats.

Thanks for clarification!

Yes, phantasmal blast is more limited.  However, so are illusions.  Undead and constructs are, last I checked, immune to phantasms and patterns--making most of your abilities that would affect them useless in any case.

Yes, they are, but limiting Fleeting Image spellshape attack to nonlethal damage reduces one's ability to deal with such creatures even more. No other circle is so specialized.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 09, 2012, 10:30:11 AM
Let me explain myself - this patch isn't worthless. It has few powerful and unique effects, as antimagic ray or  spell resistance. But some of its abilities (2nd level, 14th level and 20th level) are weaker than appropraite abilities of other ACFs and standard spellsage.

I'll give it another look, but I'm generally of the opinion that not every level needs to be equally powerful, so long as the build as a whole has interesting components.  We'll see, though!

Yes, they are, but limiting Fleeting Image spellshape attack to nonlethal damage reduces one's ability to deal with such creatures even more. No other circle is so specialized.

Right, but--unlike a beguiler--no spellshaper is restricted to only Fleeting Image formulae.  Specializing in illusions means that your specialization will be useless against things not subject to illusions.  However, you'll still--at the very least--have the spellshape attacks from your other circles.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on April 09, 2012, 01:23:41 PM
I'll give it another look, but I'm generally of the opinion that not every level needs to be equally powerful, so long as the build as a whole has interesting components.  We'll see, though!

You know, a quick and dirty solution is to let arcane mastery spellsage use these abilities at will. Less bookeeping and as I proved, they aren't gamebreaking at their level.


Right, but--unlike a beguiler--no spellshaper is restricted to only Fleeting Image formulae.  Specializing in illusions means that your specialization will be useless against things not subject to illusions.  However, you'll still--at the very least--have the spellshape attacks from your other circles.

Okay, I got it. Still not happy ;)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 09, 2012, 07:20:27 PM
I had actually already decided to move detect magic and arcane sight to at-will, based on various points that have been coming up in a current game.  So, that's done.  The 20th-level ability has been upped to a number of times per day equal to your Intelligence modifier.

I'm not going to switch everything to at-will for the very simple reason that you shouldn't always be able to instantly win against spellcasters.  Plus, I don't want the choice between standard spellsage and Arcane Mastery to tilt too far in favor of the ACF.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on April 10, 2012, 02:27:58 AM
Thanks for adjusting this ACF!

On the other hand, do you know such item as ring of spellbattle (MIC or CA, but short description can be also found in first post HERE (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19908470/Ring_of_spell_battle_to_roll_or_not_to_the_d20&post_num=6)). It has quite unique and powerful ability, maybe it could be nice addition to the last ability of arcane path instead of true seeing?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 10, 2012, 02:37:40 AM
I mean, spellbattle just lets you counter (which you can already do) or change the spell's target.  It also lets you know about all spellcasting within 60 feet, but so does a combined greater arcane sight and true seeing.  Not worth the change, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on April 10, 2012, 08:02:11 AM
Nope, there is a difference between ring of spellbattle and greater arcane sight.  The latter gives you only information about active spells, the former about spells being cast. This means that you are allowed to identify all spells even when casting concealed. True sight do not penetrate walls or skill tricks or simple cloaks.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 10, 2012, 11:19:49 AM
I mean, I would also assume that spell-battle doesn't let you penetrate walls, since--last I checked--the assumption is that effects require line of effect.

It's also worth noting that quickened true-seeing would be a tenth-level spell slot, while quickened greater arcane sight would be an eleventh-level spell slot.  You're doing both at once.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 11, 2012, 06:14:01 PM
Stoichen and spellsoul armor racial feats are up, and I'm toying with some other ideas for racial feats.  Probably won't be too many of these, but I really, really wanted to let stoichen be descended from Paracelsus' elementals.

Incidentally, the erdom, salamander, sylph, and undine are totally going to be among the spellshaping monsters that get written, under the header "Primeval Elementals."  The only one of those that isn't one of Paracelsus' elementals is the erdom, and that's because "gnome" was taken.  ("Salamander" is technically also taken, but I'm going to deal with that by defining the Monster Manual salamanders as imperfect descendents of the original elemental salamander.)

New material is going to be generally slow for the next couple of weeks, though. End of the semester and finals. So it goes.


Edit: Also changed the living spellshape slightly, since it's supposed to actually be blind.  Also futzed around with its ability score adjustments to compensate more for its size.


Edit Edit: Played around with the blindness some more, since I realized that normal blindness left the living spellshapes completely immune to all illusions forever.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 12, 2012, 06:36:16 AM
Fixed an oversight that allowed you to simultaneously benefit from multiple lamens.  New Codex II PDF has the errata.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on April 12, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
You seem to be correct on this subject. Thanks for explanation!

Personally I love Living Armor race. All of their racial feats are fine for me with one exception: Mithral-Forged Body feat is strictly better than Alloy-Forged Body one. For the price of one point of Armor, Mithral-Forged Body offers a) light armor (ability to cast without ASF in light armor is far more often than casting in medium armor), b) -1 ACP (far better than -3 offered by Alloy-Forged Body) and higher Dexterity mod. Is  Alloy-Forged Body feat a bit redundant?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 12, 2012, 05:38:34 PM
The solution!

Base: +8 armor, +1 Dex, -5 armor check, 35% arcane spell failure
Alloy: +6 armor, +3 Dex, -4 armor check, 25% arcane spell failure
Mithral: +4 armor, +5 Dex, -3 armor check, 20% arcane spell failure

The armor bonus, combined with the maximum Dexterity bonus, adds up to +9 for each armor type.  And mithral no longer increases your base land speed, so it isn't quite as obvious a choice.  The existence of both feats is intended to allow you to choose medium or light armor, just as a normal character would.  And, hopefully, this leaves them more or less equal.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on April 12, 2012, 10:38:53 PM
Having them all equal in armor bonus is a good step. 
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on April 13, 2012, 03:59:55 PM
The armor bonus, combined with the maximum Dexterity bonus, adds up to +9 for each armor type. 

Well done.

Do armor feats normally affect Dragonborn Spellsoul Armors, who lost their living armor ability due to the ritual of rebirth?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 13, 2012, 04:04:16 PM
Given that your race is no longer "Spellsoul armor," I'd imagine you don't qualify for them.

Also, you look very strange, since you still don't have legs, yet you can no longer levitate.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on April 13, 2012, 06:47:59 PM
Dragonborn is only a template. You're still a Spellsoul Armor, you just don't have any of the Spellsoul Armor racial traits. Since the armor feats don't actually require you to have the Living Armor ability, you can take them all the same. Gonna have to look at the wording to see if they actually give you any benefit, though. It's the same situation as Adamantine/Mithral Body Dragonforged (er, Dragonborn Warforged).

If this isn't what you want, DonQuixote, there's a really easy fix. Just explicitly require the racial ability that the feats are modifying as a prerequisite for those feats. Why the Warforged Body feats aren't like that I'll never know. It's like defensive programming 101 or something.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 13, 2012, 07:38:23 PM
I could swear that dragonborn warforged didn't actually get to benefit from the feats...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on April 13, 2012, 09:50:27 PM
They lose their racial bonus feats (poor humans), but nothing stops them from being members of their original race.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 14, 2012, 03:14:40 AM
...by the gods, you're right.  It even specifies that you still count as a member of your original race for the purpose of meeting prerequisites.

Well, guess I'll implement that fix, then!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on April 14, 2012, 04:08:26 AM
Thanks for clarification! It's a small detail, but very important in my build ;)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 24, 2012, 06:30:29 PM
New Codex I PDF, containing some typo fixes.  More importantly, some errata that lets a spellshape champion use her weapon for the somatic components of her formulae.  Yeah...that wasn't the case before.  Oops.

I am, incidentally, entirely alive and not dead at all.  The recent drought has a lot to do with a horrendous history research paper that I've been having to work on.  The to-do list still stands, and new material will resume once I have time!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 07, 2012, 06:45:28 PM
Masked ones got racial feats.  I'm actually kind of terrified of a masked one savant with Dissembling Visage, Unmasking, and Mask of Domination.  It would certainly be an interesting villain.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on May 08, 2012, 12:51:47 AM
Or hilarious. (http://quizilla.teennick.com/user_images/M/MS/MSI/MSIRUKACULLEN/1299987597_2001_full.jpeg)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 08, 2012, 12:55:57 AM
Can't say I know the reference.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on May 08, 2012, 01:08:34 AM
The Character is Tobi, from Naruto.


For most of the second half of the series, he was the comic relief minion.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 08, 2012, 01:37:29 AM
Ahhh.  Yeah, I was just thinking about the sort of villain who has minions carry his mask around in a box so that he's never in danger, then ends up possessing a trusted NPC for the last few sessions.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on May 15, 2012, 03:00:52 AM
My mate from gaming group pointed out, that the living armor race is incredibly powerful. Especially their immunity to trip attacks makes them unstoppable opponents for many lockdown builds. Moreover, they cannot be hurled by Unseen Impetus or Setting Sun throws.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 23, 2012, 01:43:48 AM
Sorry for the long delay before a reply, but it's been a crazy week and I'm just starting to settle down.

Now, in terms of lockdown builds...I don't feel particularly strongly on that one.  If we get some more voices in here, I'll concede the point, but I've never actually heard of a DM throwing a lockdown build against a party.  The question on whether or not you can use Setting Sun or Unseen Impetus throws actually has a lot to do with interpretation, as those say that you "resolve the throw as a trip attempt."  I would allow them to be thrown, as you are simply using the trip attempt rules, rather than actually tripping the target.

I haven't actually had any time to write new material recently, but I do have a contest entry for a prestige class contest that has ended.  I should be able to post it before the end of the week, so look for that.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on May 23, 2012, 10:02:44 AM
I don't see immunity to being tripped as an issue, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 25, 2012, 06:27:33 PM
Have a prestige class. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5290.0)

(Not entirely new, as I wrote it for a prestige class contest, but it hadn't actually been posted with the spellshaping stuff until now.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on May 25, 2012, 10:00:48 PM
Gee, more Searing Flame love? Seems like a disproportionate amount of classes have a fire theme, although that might just be me.

Ashen Eyes: Didn't you already do this idea with the Hand of Death's Chill's Frostsight, except better?

I don't understand why the vow requires you to forsake heavy armor. Between proficiency with all martial weapons and Spellshape Channeling, it implies a combative bent that should fit with it. You'll still probably be suffering ASF for it, unless you already spent took the time and effort to get class features to negate that. Besides, with a d6 hit die and an explicit inability to make the usual ranged spell shape attacks, you're going to be pretty vulnerable.

The scrying stuff is fun, and I suppose pretty darn necessary. Since you can't actually see that far, you could be easily walking into an obvious ambush if you don't look ahead for it.

Other than that, you're an Oracle of the Stars without the circle options or the luck manipulation. Doesn't feel all that impressive to me.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 25, 2012, 10:49:51 PM
Gee, more Searing Flame love? Seems like a disproportionate amount of classes have a fire theme, although that might just be me.

Yeah, it's a problem.  Thing is, I have more fire-related ideas than anything else.  They're the things that interest me.  You have the ideas that you have, and there's not much you can do about it.  *Shrug*

Ashen Eyes: Didn't you already do this idea with the Hand of Death's Chill's Frostsight, except better?

It's actually closer to the Living Spellshape vision.  Thing is, I really wanted to play up the blind oracle angle, but I also didn't just want to give you blindsight at level six.  I chose to have you slowly develop your vision, as it is now.

I don't understand why the vow requires you to forsake heavy armor. Between proficiency with all martial weapons and Spellshape Channeling, it implies a combative bent that should fit with it. You'll still probably be suffering ASF for it, unless you already spent took the time and effort to get class features to negate that. Besides, with a d6 hit die and an explicit inability to make the usual ranged spell shape attacks, you're going to be pretty vulnerable.

The original conception was of a lightly-armored oracle darting through combat.  I suppose an insight bonus to AC could well be in order.

The scrying stuff is fun, and I suppose pretty darn necessary. Since you can't actually see that far, you could be easily walking into an obvious ambush if you don't look ahead for it.

It's also most of where the idea for the class came from.  I started thinking about actual pyromancy, which led to this.

Other than that, you're an Oracle of the Stars without the circle options or the luck manipulation. Doesn't feel all that impressive to me.

Hrmm.  I shall give it some thought, then possibly re-build.  I actually find the ashbound oracle to be a much more attractive class than the oracle of the stars, but that might be because of my aforementioned elemental predilections.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on June 01, 2012, 02:39:27 AM
So, it's been kinda bugging me for a while, but...


Why do second level formulae all require you have a formula from that circle? Second, at least, should be able to be gotten with dips.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 01, 2012, 02:45:06 PM
Why do second level formulae all require you have a formula from that circle? Second, at least, should be able to be gotten with dips.

*Shrug*  This is just a point of philosophy on which we disagree.  Dabbling gets you 1st-level formulae, but anything more advanced than that takes commitment.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 05, 2012, 06:18:45 AM
So, I expected that, over the summer, I'd have a lot of free time to work on the spellshapers.  I projected finishing my to-do list by the beginning of August, and that I'd have the third PDF finished by the time I headed back for my last year of college.

I'm having to re-evaluate this time scale.  I'm working for a PR firm, which is taking up a decent amount of my time during the week.  I'm still playing D&D Thursday nights--we're doing the D&D Next playtest this week--which also eats up a sizeable chunk of time.  On top of that, being home means that I'm exposed to all manner of distractions.  I can finally play Skyward Sword, for example.  For another example, I'm currently in the middle of finally watching Neon Genesis Evangelion.

Finally, I was having issues with some of the new material even when I did have time.  The Anchorite character options are tough, since one of them needs to replace the auras--meaning a new effect for every circle.  I've done some poking at it, but it's still pretty daunting.  If you take a daunting task, then factor in less free time and a myriad of distractions, you end up with a lot of difficulty in getting things done.

I am not, however, abandoning the spellshapers by any means.  I'm planning to review and heavily modify the Ashbound Oracle sometime in the vaguely near future, as editing will take less work and time than actually writing from scratch.  Hopefully, that will start getting my head back in the game and I'll be able to get to work on that to-do list.  I apologize for the delay in new material, and thank you all for your patience.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on June 05, 2012, 10:43:15 AM
Finally watching NGE? Good, it's a classic.

Notice anything about my avatar? :cool

And I'm excited to hear about a new PDF; in honor of it coming out, I will make... a prestige class!

Probably mixing spellshaping with Warlocks (Eldritch Blast as a spellshape attack? WIN. Full stop.), or maybe with some other piece of homebrew that I have sitting around, gathering dust.

In other words... if I get it to you before you start working on everything, would you by any chance be willing to include it as official content?

I know, I overstepped my bounds! Please, not with the hose, not with the hose!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 07, 2012, 11:34:35 PM
Finished it in two days.  I've watched the first two movies of Rebuild, and I'm not sure that I like where things are going at the end of You Can (Not) Advance.  I vastly preferred where things went in the anime, but I'm willing to withhold judgment until You Can (Not) Redo.

Yeah, the prestige class can quite readily go into the list of official stuff, after I give it a cursory once-over.  I'll just be happy to have new things present--I'm really distressed with how much I've slowed down.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on June 08, 2012, 12:10:24 AM
You've written 2 sourcebooks by yourself; you are allowed to slow down.

Seriously, you are on the list of the most prolific homebrewers I've ever encountered the work of: the only other people I can think of who are anywhere near as prolific within one given system are Realms of Chaos (Xenotheurgy) and sirpercival (Rituals).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on June 08, 2012, 03:46:37 AM
*Shrug*  This is just a point of philosophy on which we disagree.  Dabbling gets you 1st-level formulae, but anything more advanced than that takes commitment.

Understandable.


Also, there should be a feat allowing you to deal nonlethal damage with spellshape attacks/formulae. Because, really.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on June 08, 2012, 11:31:17 AM
I made a little ACF for Savant which turns her into spellshaping variant of the beguiler. Sorry for clunky wording.


Savvy Trickster
Some savants, instead of academic lore, gather wisdom of rogues and other scoundrels.

   Class: Savant.
   Level: 1st.
   Replaces: You do not gain the Savant's Knowledge and Scholar's Cantrips class features.

   Benefit: At first level you treat Appraise, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Speak Language, Spot, Swim and Tumble as class skills. In addition, you receive trapfinding (as rogue).

At 5th level, your formulae become more effective when shaped against an unwary foe. All of following abilities affects only opponents which are denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether they actually has a Dexterity bonus or not).

At 5th level, you gain a +1 bonus to the save DC of any shaped formulae.

At 8th level, you gain a +2 bonus on rolls made to overcome the spell resistance.

At 11th level, you deal additional two dices of of damage with a spellshape attack.

At 14th level, your bonus to DC increase to +2.

At 17th level, you automatically overcome spell resistance of any foe.

At 20th level, the number of additional dices of damage of a spellshape attack increases to five.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 08, 2012, 01:27:45 PM
You've written 2 sourcebooks by yourself; you are allowed to slow down.

Seriously, you are on the list of the most prolific homebrewers I've ever encountered the work of: the only other people I can think of who are anywhere near as prolific within one given system are Realms of Chaos (Xenotheurgy) and sirpercival (Rituals).

Yes, but I have a to-do list that I have not done.  This fills me with guilt.  Plus, from what I've seen thus far, I'm going to be jumping ship to D&D Next when it's released, so I want to make sure that I wrap up my 3.5 homebrew properly.


Also, there should be a feat allowing you to deal nonlethal damage with spellshape attacks/formulae. Because, really.

A good point.  I should start compiling a list of minor, but useful, feats to add.  This shall be at the top.


I made a little ACF for Savant which turns her into spellshaping variant of the beguiler. Sorry for clunky wording.


Savvy Trickster
Some savants, instead of academic lore, gather wisdom of rogues and other scoundrels.

(Snip)

Thing is, I'm not actually sure how this related to the theme of gathering knowledge.  Sure, you can say that they "gather wisdom of rogues and other scoundrels," but the thing about savants is that they obsessively collect knowledge.  As a savant advances, she mechanically gains more and more knowledge about foes, allowing her to take advantage of different bonuses.  Instead, you here just get more martially powerful.

The thing about the savant is that it is intended as a tactical class with a support-based chassis.  One of my planned savant ACFs trades the savant's knowledge for a bardic music analogue--instead of focusing on knowing everything about the world, you're focused on learning everything about the past.  Much of historical knowledge comes from tales and songs that have been passed down, so your quest for knowledge inevitably leads you to possess a large repertoire of songs.

Even aside from the thematic concerns, the scaling on the savvy trickster is a bit much.  Given that you can turn invisible as a swift action, getting five extra dice of damage is a lot.  At that level, that's doubling the damage dealt by your base spellshape attack.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on June 08, 2012, 01:46:17 PM
Of course, numbers could be adjusted and you can easily tune down this ability by 2 dices. Moreover, at 20th level invisibility due to the abundance of true sight, blindsight, blindsense, mindsight, tremorsense and last but not least see invisibility is not that useful, but I got your point.

I decided to create such ACF, because there are no dedicated skill monkey spellshaper. Divine casters got cloistered cleric and archivist, arcane could go beguiler, but spellshapers? They got nothing in this vein. In my opinion the most crucial point of this ACF is expanding skill list and adding skill points. Whole cloaked casting idea of mine is kinda boring (but still useful, I suppose).

And thanks for very quick answer :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on June 08, 2012, 01:53:57 PM
If you want a skillmonkey spellshaper off the Savant chassis, how about a spellshaping Indianna Jones type "archaeologist"?
Seeker of (historical) knowledge? Check.
Good excuse to have trapfinding and lots of skills? Check.
Open to more than just combat-related class features? Check.
What I wonder, though, is if it wouldn't mesh better mechanically with the Impulse Mage instead.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on June 08, 2012, 01:57:29 PM
If you want a skillmonkey spellshaper off the Savant chassis, how about a spellshaping Indianna Jones type "archaeologist"?

You are brilliant genius, sir.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on June 08, 2012, 02:22:34 PM
Savant's Still Mind says it comes at 4th, but the table says 6th.

Savant's Knowledge: Clarity should reduce the miss chance that you and your allies suffer on attacks against the subjects, not their miss chance (which, used as a general term like that, would either be completely meaningless or be a buff to your enemies).

Edit: Savant's Knowledge (in the general description) mentions improving when you beat the DC by 5+, but all of the abilities' boosts are at 10+.

Is the limitation of using Savant's Knowledge actually supposed to be once ever per creature? You'd think it would be once per encounter or once per day or something. I know you don't meet that many recurring villains, but it would be a shame to lose one of your class features at level 20 because you used it already at level 3.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 08, 2012, 06:35:01 PM
If you want a skillmonkey spellshaper off the Savant chassis, how about a spellshaping Indianna Jones type "archaeologist"?
Seeker of (historical) knowledge? Check.
Good excuse to have trapfinding and lots of skills? Check.
Open to more than just combat-related class features? Check.
What I wonder, though, is if it wouldn't mesh better mechanically with the Impulse Mage instead.

That would, indeed, be a much better approach for a skill-monkey savant.  Though I also agree that it might make more sense for an impulse mage.

Savant's Still Mind says it comes at 4th, but the table says 6th.

Savant's Knowledge: Clarity should reduce the miss chance that you and your allies suffer on attacks against the subjects, not their miss chance (which, used as a general term like that, would either be completely meaningless or be a buff to your enemies).

Edit: Savant's Knowledge (in the general description) mentions improving when you beat the DC by 5+, but all of the abilities' boosts are at 10+.

Is the limitation of using Savant's Knowledge actually supposed to be once ever per creature? You'd think it would be once per encounter or once per day or something. I know you don't meet that many recurring villains, but it would be a shame to lose one of your class features at level 20 because you used it already at level 3.

The flaws of basing my wording off of other, pre-existing things.  I'll fix it this weekend--I'm technically at work right now.  Don't tell my boss.  Edit: This has been done online.  Haven't had a chance to change the PDF yet.


Incidentally, for those who are wondering, this (http://3shades.deviantart.com/art/Matthias-Hellfire-302902100) is what an epic-level hellbred Elemental Adept / Lavamancer / Spellforge Warsmith / Devoted Exemplar looks like.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 11, 2012, 01:49:19 PM
In terms of re-approaching the ashbound oracle, what if the gaze attack were traded for an AC bonus, the base attack bonus were increased to full, and you could use Fire Sight for a number of rounds per day equal to twice your shaper level?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 14, 2012, 02:31:35 PM
Feat ideas

Armored Shaper [Fighter]
Prerequisite: Strength 13, Shaper Level 1st
Benefit: You have learned to make the exacting gestures that spellshaping requires despite hindrance from armor. Choose a spellshaping class in which you have levels. You suffer no failure chance for shaping a formula granted by that class in light armor or wielding a shield. Medium and heavy armor still impose their normal failure chances.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you ignore the failure chance for one heavier category of armor. Once you can ignore the chance of failure for all armor categories, you can no longer take this feat.
Special: If you already can ignore the failure chance for some category of armor, you gain the ability to ignore the failure chance from the next heaviest category of armor, as if you had taken this feat before.
Special: A Fighter may select this feat as a bonus feat.

Blended Teachings
Prerequisite: Shaper level 3rd, ability to ignore the failure chance for shaping in armor a formula granted by a particular class
Benefit: You have learned to combine the forms and styles granted by your spellshaping training. Any class feature or feat that allows you to ignore the failure chance for shaping a formula in armor for a particular class's formulae instead applies to formulae granted by any class.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on June 14, 2012, 02:40:43 PM
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you ignore the failure chance for one heavier category of armor. Once you can ignore the chance of failure for any armor category, you can no longer take this feat.

Isn't the 3rd sentence a direct contradiction of the first two? If you meant that you can't take the feat any more once you already ignore the spell failure of all possible armor, then I don't see why that's even there since taking the feat again would be moot regardless.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 14, 2012, 08:09:33 PM
I should change it to "All armor categories". I meant "any" to meant "any of them, regardless of which."
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on June 15, 2012, 12:50:56 PM
Finally watching NGE? Good, it's a classic.

Notice anything about my avatar? :cool

And I'm excited to hear about a new PDF; in honor of it coming out, I will make... a prestige class!

Probably mixing spellshaping with Warlocks (Eldritch Blast as a spellshape attack? WIN. Full stop.), or maybe with some other piece of homebrew that I have sitting around, gathering dust.

In other words... if I get it to you before you start working on everything, would you by any chance be willing to include it as official content?

I know, I overstepped my bounds! Please, not with the hose, not with the hose!

You know, with my laptop being non-com, I'll just post my ideas for you to peruse, so that you can hopefully get some inspiration from at least one of them.

-A PrC for the Spellshape Champion: The Orion's Bow.
Advances Blustering Gale and Natural Balance; focuses around channeling BG and NB Formulae through arrows, eventually being able to make their bow into a temporary Lamen, Multishot BG formulae, and make special arrows with NB powers.

-A general PrC for Brilliant Dawn and Crushing Stone: The Desert Walker
Advances the above two Circles, gives a Burrow speed, the ability to walk normally, and Fast Healing while on sand, the ability to convert stone into sand (makes Crushing Stone maneuvers deal slashing/piercing damage), and a way to extend/strengthen their Brilliant Dawn when in a desert. Capstone could be, I don't know, creating an area of desert around themselves that appears as they stay in one place, drying up wells, withering plants, increasing temperatures, you know, the usual.

-Prince of Persia: The Prc. Let's call it the Prince of Time.
Prc focused on Eternal Moment and Unseen Impetus; uses Unseen Impetus stuff to maneuver around like a BOSS (stuff like an Ex Balancing Lorecall (essentially makes epic Balance uses accessible to a low level character.)), and other quick movement abilities (steal stuff from the Swiftblade, and go from there.)

-A feat that let's you use Reserve feats as spellshape attacks for the purpose of shaping Formulae. Just because.

-?Something? That gives you the option to "charge" your spellshape attack, a la Megaman/Metroid.

I'll post more when I have time.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 18, 2012, 06:43:23 PM
I'll fix it this weekend--I'm technically at work right now.  Don't tell my boss.  Edit: This has been done online.  Haven't had a chance to change the PDF yet.

So, my schedule's been crazy lately, what with having an entire client dumped on me unexpectedly.  The PDF is going to be updated as soon as I find time to do it.

Feat ideas

Armored Shaper [Fighter]
Prerequisite: Strength 13, Shaper Level 1st
Benefit: You have learned to make the exacting gestures that spellshaping requires despite hindrance from armor. Choose a spellshaping class in which you have levels. You suffer no failure chance for shaping a formula granted by that class in light armor or wielding a shield. Medium and heavy armor still impose their normal failure chances.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you ignore the failure chance for one heavier category of armor. Once you can ignore the chance of failure for all armor categories, you can no longer take this feat.
Special: If you already can ignore the failure chance for some category of armor, you gain the ability to ignore the failure chance from the next heaviest category of armor, as if you had taken this feat before.
Special: A Fighter may select this feat as a bonus feat.

Blended Teachings
Prerequisite: Shaper level 3rd, ability to ignore the failure chance for shaping in armor a formula granted by a particular class
Benefit: You have learned to combine the forms and styles granted by your spellshaping training. Any class feature or feat that allows you to ignore the failure chance for shaping a formula in armor for a particular class's formulae instead applies to formulae granted by any class.

I'm sort of edgy about opening up armored spellshaping across the board, since it's kind of the spellshape champion's thing.  Bear in mind, most classes can already shape in light armor--I think the only exception is the spellsage.

The second feat, combined with a one-level dip in spellshape champion, renders the first feat somewhat redundant.  Sure, it's a one-level dip, but it's the difference between spending two feats to get to heavy armor and spending only one.  Plus, that one-level dip also gives you weapon proficiencies.

I know that, generally, wearing heavy armor isn't actually that big of an advantage over wearing light armor, but I still--for some reason--like the distinction.  I'll wrestle with the ideas.  I know my knee-jerk reaction on this one is somewhat unreasonable.


You know, with my laptop being non-com, I'll just post my ideas for you to peruse, so that you can hopefully get some inspiration from at least one of them.

-A PrC for the Spellshape Champion: The Orion's Bow.
Advances Blustering Gale and Natural Balance; focuses around channeling BG and NB Formulae through arrows, eventually being able to make their bow into a temporary Lamen, Multishot BG formulae, and make special arrows with NB powers.

-A general PrC for Brilliant Dawn and Crushing Stone: The Desert Walker
Advances the above two Circles, gives a Burrow speed, the ability to walk normally, and Fast Healing while on sand, the ability to convert stone into sand (makes Crushing Stone maneuvers deal slashing/piercing damage), and a way to extend/strengthen their Brilliant Dawn when in a desert. Capstone could be, I don't know, creating an area of desert around themselves that appears as they stay in one place, drying up wells, withering plants, increasing temperatures, you know, the usual.

-Prince of Persia: The Prc. Let's call it the Prince of Time.
Prc focused on Eternal Moment and Unseen Impetus; uses Unseen Impetus stuff to maneuver around like a BOSS (stuff like an Ex Balancing Lorecall (essentially makes epic Balance uses accessible to a low level character.)), and other quick movement abilities (steal stuff from the Swiftblade, and go from there.)

-A feat that let's you use Reserve feats as spellshape attacks for the purpose of shaping Formulae. Just because.

-?Something? That gives you the option to "charge" your spellshape attack, a la Megaman/Metroid.

I'll post more when I have time.

Intriguing ideas.  I will point out, in terms of the Orion's Bow, that I am--technically--planning a ranged-weapon-based spellshaping base class.  Maybe I should tackle that next instead of my to-do list.  Might get me out of this rut--though, unfortunately, the frustrating nature of the anchorite is far from the only thing stymieing my progress at the moment.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on June 19, 2012, 12:41:01 AM
Perhaps change Blended Teachings to let you apply a single class's armored shaping to only one other class? So, if you for some reason were a Spellshape Champion/Spellsage/Elemental Adept, you could shape EITHER your Spellsage or your Elemental Adept formulae in heavy armor, but you'd have to take the feat a second time to do both?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on June 19, 2012, 02:47:23 AM
Send me the notes for what you are planning for the Anchorite, and I'll do them for you.

I mean, how hard could it be?

Hmm...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on June 19, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
Can illusions created by Illusory Legion formula attack on their own or only perform attacks of opportunity?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on June 19, 2012, 08:47:27 AM
Feat ideas

Armored Shaper [Fighter]
Prerequisite: Strength 13, Shaper Level 1st
Benefit: You have learned to make the exacting gestures that spellshaping requires despite hindrance from armor. Choose a spellshaping class in which you have levels. You suffer no failure chance for shaping a formula granted by that class in light armor or wielding a shield. Medium and heavy armor still impose their normal failure chances.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you ignore the failure chance for one heavier category of armor. Once you can ignore the chance of failure for all armor categories, you can no longer take this feat.
Special: If you already can ignore the failure chance for some category of armor, you gain the ability to ignore the failure chance from the next heaviest category of armor, as if you had taken this feat before.
Special: A Fighter may select this feat as a bonus feat.

Blended Teachings
Prerequisite: Shaper level 3rd, ability to ignore the failure chance for shaping in armor a formula granted by a particular class
Benefit: You have learned to combine the forms and styles granted by your spellshaping training. Any class feature or feat that allows you to ignore the failure chance for shaping a formula in armor for a particular class's formulae instead applies to formulae granted by any class.

I'm sort of edgy about opening up armored spellshaping across the board, since it's kind of the spellshape champion's thing.  Bear in mind, most classes can already shape in light armor--I think the only exception is the spellsage.

The second feat, combined with a one-level dip in spellshape champion, renders the first feat somewhat redundant.  Sure, it's a one-level dip, but it's the difference between spending two feats to get to heavy armor and spending only one.  Plus, that one-level dip also gives you weapon proficiencies.

I know that, generally, wearing heavy armor isn't actually that big of an advantage over wearing light armor, but I still--for some reason--like the distinction.  I'll wrestle with the ideas.  I know my knee-jerk reaction on this one is somewhat unreasonable.

You can already do this with 2 feats and a 1 level dip (Martial Study + Martial Study/Stance + Edgewalker Knight 1), so it's not like it's an option that hasn't been available before.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 19, 2012, 03:33:04 PM
Perhaps change Blended Teachings to let you apply a single class's armored shaping to only one other class? So, if you for some reason were a Spellshape Champion/Spellsage/Elemental Adept, you could shape EITHER your Spellsage or your Elemental Adept formulae in heavy armor, but you'd have to take the feat a second time to do both?

That would make a great deal more sense, and would be in keeping with the general way such feats work.

You can already do this with 2 feats and a 1 level dip (Martial Study + Martial Study/Stance + Edgewalker Knight 1), so it's not like it's an option that hasn't been available before.

As I said, I know that my gut reaction here is silly and unreasonable.  In the end, I'll almost certainly allow some sort of feat of this kind.

Send me the notes for what you are planning for the Anchorite, and I'll do them for you.

I mean, how hard could it be?

Hmm...

I don't actually have any notes--the entire problem I'm having is that I can't figure out a decent way to replace the auras.  Whatever the replacement is, it has to fit into some kind of on/off format, divided by circle.  Otherwise, the recovery mechanic breaks.

Can illusions created by Illusory Legion formula attack on their own or only perform attacks of opportunity?

The illusions can only perform attacks of opportunity.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on June 19, 2012, 03:47:12 PM
Send me the notes for what you are planning for the Anchorite, and I'll do them for you.

I mean, how hard could it be?

Hmm...

I don't actually have any notes--the entire problem I'm having is that I can't figure out a decent way to replace the auras.  Whatever the replacement is, it has to fit into some kind of on/off format, divided by circle.  Otherwise, the recovery mechanic breaks.

The recovery mechanic already breaks (softly) if you remove the spellshape auras alone. If you're getting rid of them and replacing them with something else, just do a similar replacement with the swift action full circle component of the recovery. Or dump that component entirely.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 19, 2012, 03:53:11 PM
The recovery mechanic already breaks (softly) if you remove the spellshape auras alone. If you're getting rid of them and replacing them with something else, just do a similar replacement with the swift action full circle component of the recovery. Or dump that component entirely.

Well, the current plan is to pull an Indiana Jones and swap the statue for a bag of sand.  My various ideas have all hinged on being a similar structure to the auras, but achieving different things.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on June 19, 2012, 03:59:11 PM
... you know that didn't work in the movie, right?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on June 19, 2012, 04:11:52 PM
I have an idea related to Ioun stones...

Why? Because they are awesome.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 19, 2012, 05:45:03 PM
... you know that didn't work in the movie, right?

Yes.  It's the perfect analogy, really.  My attempts to do so resulted in a giant boulder of confusion and uncertainty.  I'm still running.


I have an idea related to Ioun stones...

Why? Because they are awesome.

Oh dear.  For some reason, this worries me.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on June 21, 2012, 01:29:44 AM
OHHEY ALMOST FORGOT TO SAY THIS.


Don, I wound up making a little class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242337) on the Giantitp forums that uses Spellshaping in one Archetype (of currently 4, soon to be five). Magician one, specifically. Figured I should mention it to you.  :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on June 27, 2012, 12:38:31 AM
I just want to say that... wow, this looks amazing. I haven't had a chance to look it over that much yet, but what a great idea! And it is presented very well, and looks quite interesting and, at least at first glance, balanced (unlike that poorly thought-out abomination the Arcane Swordsage... ). Bravo!  :clap I definitely want to check this out, and use something from it in the future (as an NPC or PC).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 27, 2012, 04:58:07 PM
So, I swear that I'm going to update the Codex II PDF.  I'm just still getting used to this level of work--I know, I've been saying that for weeks.  I think that, after getting that done, I'm going to have to just out-and-out declare that I'm taking a break.  Not that I'm stopping, mind you, but that I don't feel that I'll be able to get anything of real substance pushed out for at least a month.


OHHEY ALMOST FORGOT TO SAY THIS.


Don, I wound up making a little class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242337) on the Giantitp forums that uses Spellshaping in one Archetype (of currently 4, soon to be five). Magician one, specifically. Figured I should mention it to you.  :P

It shall be added to the index!


I just want to say that... wow, this looks amazing. I haven't had a chance to look it over that much yet, but what a great idea! And it is presented very well, and looks quite interesting and, at least at first glance, balanced (unlike that poorly thought-out abomination the Arcane Swordsage... ). Bravo!  :clap I definitely want to check this out, and use something from it in the future (as an NPC or PC).

Many thanks, sir!  This project far outstripped my own expectations, but there it is.  I had fun writing it, and people will hopefully have fun using it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 02, 2012, 01:59:21 PM
Modified the Dragonheart Adept and the Sublime Shaper to break their insane dipping capacity.

Edit: Also made the changes to the ashbound oracle that I had mentioned on the previous page.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on July 04, 2012, 03:41:58 AM
There is a lot of interesting prestige classes in older DnD supplements. Obviously, they aren't compatible with spellshapers. Because of that, I decided to convert one of my beloved classes - Walker in the Waste from Sandstorm. The adaptation was very quick and easy, but do you consider this prestige class as balanced and comparable to your creations? I post only adapted/clarified abilities to avoid copyright issues.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 08, 2012, 07:53:06 PM
Looks like a fairly straightforward conversion to me, but why do you get the template without its normal level adjustment?  I assume that there's a reason they left the LA on the original class.

Edit: Just looked at the level adjustment on Dry Lich.  It's +5?  Jeebus.  Yeah, I'd also say that dropping it is not horribly broken in this case.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 08, 2012, 08:15:26 PM
Looks like a fairly straightforward conversion to me, but why do you get the template without its normal level adjustment?  I assume that there's a reason they left the LA on the original class.

Edit: Just looked at the level adjustment on Dry Lich.  It's +5?  Jeebus.  Yeah, I'd also say that dropping it is not horribly broken in this case.

Also, most people interpret as you don't get the LA in the original class.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 11, 2012, 11:04:08 AM
Just letting you know, several people have expressed interest in playing spellshapers in High Arcana (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=114.0).  So you'll likely get some feedback.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 11, 2012, 11:15:35 AM
Just letting you know, several people have expressed interest in playing spellshapers in High Arcana (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=114.0).  So you'll likely get some feedback.

I'm one of them.

Here's some feedback: Stop making cool looking base classes, I can't pick one because too many look awesome.   :shakefist
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 11, 2012, 02:05:04 PM
Just letting you know, several people have expressed interest in playing spellshapers in High Arcana (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=114.0).  So you'll likely get some feedback.

Huzzah, feedback!  Actually, judging from my reaction to the flurry of posts this morning, feedback might get me back in the saddle.  So, double huzzah!


I'm one of them.

Here's some feedback: Stop making cool looking base classes, I can't pick one because too many look awesome.   :shakefist

Well, I think I'm mostly done writing new base classes.  I have two more concepts to try, but--other than that--my To-Do list consists entirely of ACFs, feats, prestige classes, and monsters.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 11, 2012, 02:19:10 PM
Just letting you know, several people have expressed interest in playing spellshapers in High Arcana (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=114.0).  So you'll likely get some feedback.

I'm one of them.
If you couldn't tell from all my comments and questions... I'm another. :P

I added an ACF for my Shield Guardian monster class to let it stack when determining your Spellshaper level. My character is here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6054.msg89315#msg89315), with a link to the monster class, if you're interested.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 11, 2012, 02:34:07 PM
I think my favorite part is that, if you get to a high enough level, you'll be able to turn people into wolves by shooting lightning from your eyes.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 11, 2012, 04:59:29 PM
Just got off of my lunch break.  Instead of, you know, eating food or anything, I ended up writing out the mechanics for the ranged weapon equivalent to the spellshape champion.  Ranged weapons and thrown weapons, to be precise.

I'll post it as soon as I fill out all the fluff.  Currently, everything that isn't mechanical simply reads "STUFF."  But, rest assured, it'll be up soon.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 11, 2012, 06:40:03 PM
Well, I can't say that I expected that (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6075.0) to take as little time as it did, but there you are.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 11, 2012, 06:45:40 PM
Next gestalt game I'll have to seriously consider playing a Spellshot Marksman // Sniper (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2759.0).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 11, 2012, 06:59:06 PM
My God.  Even ignoring the sniper's 16th-level "range increments no longer exist" ability, your range increment with a heavy repeating crossbow would be 780 feet, assuming that you took Far Shot.  That means that you could make shots of over a mile.

Between that and Command Projectile (and a Charisma modifier of 16,857), you could fire a bolt around the world in roughly twenty-eight hours.  The bolt would be going 886.36 (repeating) miles per hour.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 11, 2012, 10:03:01 PM
Incidentally, I think I've now applied all the errata that was pending, including things discussed earlier today in the individual threads.  New PDFs, accordingly.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 12, 2012, 12:04:48 PM
I really like the spellshot marksman, it's nice to have some support for ranged combat, and it lets you have a gun that shoots people with time. (Or the sun, or the moon, or their own imagination...)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 13, 2012, 10:48:31 AM
So far Anchorite 10 is the only way to have more than one aura at a time.  I understand the thought process behind that, but it really puts a damper on multiclassing into Ardent Soulshaper. 
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 13, 2012, 11:02:51 AM
So far Anchorite 10 is the only way to have more than one aura at a time.  I understand the thought process behind that, but it really puts a damper on multiclassing into Ardent Soulshaper.
Isn't there a feat that can grant you an aura? Or does that still limit you to only having one at a time?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 13, 2012, 11:05:11 AM
So far Anchorite 10 is the only way to have more than one aura at a time.  I understand the thought process behind that, but it really puts a damper on multiclassing into Ardent Soulshaper.

Technically, a 16th-level shaman of the elements (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=851.msg28281#msg28281) can project two at a time.

I'm also slightly confused as to what any of that has to do with Ardent Soulshaper.  Ardent Soulshaper doesn't require that you be able to project more than one aura at once, nor does it give you any special benefits from being able to do so.

Isn't there a feat that can grant you an aura? Or does that still limit you to only having one at a time?

Still limits you to one at a time.  Having more than one at once is the anchorite's thing.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 13, 2012, 11:06:56 AM
I'm also slightly confused as to what any of that has to do with Ardent Soulshaper.  Ardent Soulshaper doesn't require that you be able to project more than one aura at once, nor does it give you any special benefits from being able to do so.

I think he's saying he'd like to both project 2 auras at the same time, and multiclass into ardent soulshaper.  Which he can't do until after level 10.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 13, 2012, 11:09:28 AM
So far Anchorite 10 is the only way to have more than one aura at a time.  I understand the thought process behind that, but it really puts a damper on multiclassing into Ardent Soulshaper.
Isn't there a feat that can grant you an aura? Or does that still limit you to only having one at a time?

It still limits you to one at a time.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 13, 2012, 11:39:44 AM
I'm also slightly confused as to what any of that has to do with Ardent Soulshaper.  Ardent Soulshaper doesn't require that you be able to project more than one aura at once, nor does it give you any special benefits from being able to do so.

I think he's saying he'd like to both project 2 auras at the same time, and multiclass into ardent soulshaper.  Which he can't do until after level 10.

Exactly, since auras are the Ardent Soulshaper's shtick and all.   :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 13, 2012, 01:10:20 PM
I could swear someone else brought this up earlier, but I can't quite recall.  Could have been a friend bringing it up in conversation.

Thing is, Anchorite/Ardent Soulshaper is actually intended to force this very decision.  You're giving up multiple auras in exchange for essentially making the party into a group of legion devils.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 13, 2012, 02:01:58 PM
I can understand that.  I just don't like making the decision, especially since the first two levels of Ardent Spellshaper aren't amazing (which is fine, third level on is awesome and the first two levels aren't useless by any means).  :p

On another note, the Anchorite in general doesn't seem to have much support.  There's one set of Racial ACFs, one prestige class, and that's it for Anchorite specific stuff.  I don't have any ideas for what to add, but I feel like it could use some more love.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 13, 2012, 02:24:50 PM
Yeah, I actually have plans for alternative class features for the anchorite and the savant, I just got bogged down in terms of actually writing them.  I haven't figured out any feat ideas yet, sadly.  Rest assured, however, that I am definitely intending more support for the two Codex II base classes.

I'll note, though, that I tend to shy away from base-class-specific prestige classes.  There are some that follow thematically, but I try to avoid anything that prevents, say, a spellsage from becoming an elemental channeler.  Ardent soulshaper can be entered from pretty much any base class, with moderate feat investment.  While anchorites can certainly enter into it easily--and have good thematic tie-ins--I wouldn't necessarily consider it an "anchorite" prestige class.  After all, the only time I've played one, I was an elemental adept.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 13, 2012, 02:37:53 PM
Yeah, I noticed that it wasn't an Anchorite prestige class but my views are skewed based off of options that are limited due to a) other player's in the pbp and b) my general preferences for classes.  I have it narrowed down to Anchorite and Elemental Adept and the Elemental Adept would take a lot of investment to get the Nature's Balance aura.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 13, 2012, 02:49:58 PM
Brainstorms! Note that the only reason to be an "anchorite" is for the auras, which you can get with a feat, so they aren't anchorite-only.

An Anchorite/Incarnum prc that lets you (a) boost the power of your spellshape attack & auras with essentia, and (b) lets you project the benefits of your soulmelds as an aura.

An Anchorite/Binder prc that can project different auras based on what vestiges they bind.  Maybe restrict the available vestiges to cut down on writing new auras.

A prc where the Anchorite binds with a particular aura, giving up access to all others, and grants that aura sentience and some semblance of autonomy.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 13, 2012, 06:32:55 PM
So, I tend to avoid prestige classes that combine with non-SRD material, with the notable exception of the Tome of Battle, primarily because I don't want to drag in too many other books.  I am generally of the opinion that homebrew--especially something as large as this--shouldn't also require a complete book collection.  I consider the number of classes that reference spells and abilities in non-core books to be the biggest failing of this subsystem.

That said, of course, I will poke at the first two ideas, just with a slightly longer stick than usual.  It doesn't help matters that the incarnum system isn't intuitive for me--though Hanako has made great strides in helping me understand it--and that I have a rather large issue with binders.  (In case you're wondering, my issue is that I get too attached to individual vestiges and can't bring myself to stop binding Amon.)

The third one is an interesting idea, especially given that--by the anchorite fluff--taking levels in such a class would mean that the character was actually turning away from the goal of the anchorite class.  Instead of seeking greater understanding of the self and all the different facets thereof, one chooses to focus entirely on one aspect of the soul and magnify it.  Possibly harming oneself in the process...and definitely making enlightenment far more difficult.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 13, 2012, 11:19:34 PM
So, I tend to avoid prestige classes that combine with non-SRD material, with the notable exception of the Tome of Battle, primarily because I don't want to drag in too many other books.  I am generally of the opinion that homebrew--especially something as large as this--shouldn't also require a complete book collection.  I consider the number of classes that reference spells and abilities in non-core books to be the biggest failing of this subsystem.

That said, of course, I will poke at the first two ideas, just with a slightly longer stick than usual.  It doesn't help matters that the incarnum system isn't intuitive for me--though Hanako has made great strides in helping me understand it--and that I have a rather large issue with binders.  (In case you're wondering, my issue is that I get too attached to individual vestiges and can't bring myself to stop binding Amon.)

The third one is an interesting idea, especially given that--by the anchorite fluff--taking levels in such a class would mean that the character was actually turning away from the goal of the anchorite class.  Instead of seeking greater understanding of the self and all the different facets thereof, one chooses to focus entirely on one aspect of the soul and magnify it.  Possibly harming oneself in the process...and definitely making enlightenment far more difficult.

I know incarnum inside & out, and I love binders.  If you want, I can write the first two.  ;)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 14, 2012, 12:12:43 AM
Go ahead, if you are so inclined!  I never object to other people writing stuff.  If anything, it will get me more exposure...  :plotting
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 14, 2012, 12:56:21 AM
I'm also slightly confused as to what any of that has to do with Ardent Soulshaper.  Ardent Soulshaper doesn't require that you be able to project more than one aura at once, nor does it give you any special benefits from being able to do so.

I think he's saying he'd like to both project 2 auras at the same time, and multiclass into ardent soulshaper.  Which he can't do until after level 10.

Exactly, since auras are the Ardent Soulshaper's shtick and all.   :P
Having just read the Ardent Soulshaper for the first time, I just have to say... Wow... Now I want to roll up one of these, and RP him as a zen-like communist. :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 14, 2012, 03:37:01 AM
And, for whatever reason, my brain decided to interpret that idea as far more sinister (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ixdHQj3O4) than I think you meant it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 14, 2012, 12:34:56 PM
And, for whatever reason, my brain decided to interpret that idea as far more sinister (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ixdHQj3O4) than I think you meant it.

Related to that, guess what I'm planning for an elder evil in a game I'm running?  :smirk
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 14, 2012, 02:39:34 PM
I am filled with approval.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 15, 2012, 01:26:12 PM
Actually, I'm gonna throw two elder evils at them at once. Phyrexia and something inspired by SCP-610 (http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-610). It's going to be Metal vs. Meat. They're so screwed.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 15, 2012, 02:02:59 PM
I'll be honest, I don't see a "vs." here.  From what I know, 610 sounds like exactly the sort of thing that the Phyrexians would tame and use.  Remember, they aren't made entirely of metal, but also of compleated flesh.  And 610 sounds like the perfect way to begin compleation of the unwilling.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 15, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Why not add a third? Of dead things and corpses? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240044)

It ain't gonna be compleated, let me tell you that...

Hell, I need to write up my 3+ Elder Evil concepts.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 16, 2012, 08:56:12 AM
Question.  How/where should I post those two prestige classes?  Should I:

(a) PM you/post here/otherwise convey to you the info, so you can edit & post;
(b) Post myself, in a thread on this forum, and you will edit as necessary using your scrumtrelescent mod powers;
(c) Post myself elsewhere, like on the main homebrew forum, and you will suggest edits while critiquing and then link to the finished product?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 16, 2012, 12:15:28 PM
Next question.  Here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6072.msg91284#msg91284), Garryl suggested that since spellshape attacks are SLAs, DR does not apply to them, and so it doesn't matter if one does piercing, one does bludgeoning, etc.  I think you probably meant for DR to apply.  Is that correct?  If so, you may want to clarify that somewhere in the rules (or point me toward where it is already clarified, since we can't find it).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 16, 2012, 01:14:26 PM
Question.  How/where should I post those two prestige classes?  Should I:

(a) PM you/post here/otherwise convey to you the info, so you can edit & post;
(b) Post myself, in a thread on this forum, and you will edit as necessary using your scrumtrelescent mod powers;
(c) Post myself elsewhere, like on the main homebrew forum, and you will suggest edits while critiquing and then link to the finished product?

I'll be honest, I don't have a real preference here.  Post it in whatever way is easiest and most convenient for you.  Thus far, all of the spellshaping homebrew that isn't by me has been posted on GitP, and I've linked over to it in the Index.  Post it in general homebrew, post it in this subforum, post it wherever.

Technically, I think board policy prevents me from using my mod powers to actually edit your posts, even though mod powers allow me to do that.  So, you may get random messages from me about sentence structure, formatting, and what have you.

Next question.  Here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6072.msg91284#msg91284), Garryl suggested that since spellshape attacks are SLAs, DR does not apply to them, and so it doesn't matter if one does piercing, one does bludgeoning, etc.  I think you probably meant for DR to apply.  Is that correct?  If so, you may want to clarify that somewhere in the rules (or point me toward where it is already clarified, since we can't find it).

Wait, wait.  Spells and spell-like abilities that deal types of weapon damage aren't normally subject to DR?  That's...that's asinine.  The intention was for DR to apply, since I assume that's how logic worked.  After work today, I'll go back to the relevant spellshape attacks and note that they are subject to damage reduction.  Hell, I already note that they count as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction, so it should be relatively easy to slip in there.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 16, 2012, 01:20:34 PM
I'll be honest, I don't see a "vs." here.  From what I know, 610 sounds like exactly the sort of thing that the Phyrexians would tame and use.  Remember, they aren't made entirely of metal, but also of compleated flesh.  And 610 sounds like the perfect way to begin compleation of the unwilling.
Well, it's actually going to be more 'inspired' by 610, I'm also going to include some elements from a couple of flash games I play. Two of the raids from WarMetal Tyrant (http://www.kongregate.com/games/synapticon/tyrant) (Specifically Blightbloom  (http://images.wikia.com/warmetal/images/4/4c/TRaidBlightbloom.jpg) and Miasma (http://images.wikia.com/warmetal/images/4/45/TRaidMiasma.jpg)), as well as The Breach (http://www.kongregate.com/games/BerzerkStudio/the-breach). I'm also going to take quite a few of the features from Ragnorra.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 16, 2012, 01:26:16 PM
Next question.  Here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6072.msg91284#msg91284), Garryl suggested that since spellshape attacks are SLAs, DR does not apply to them, and so it doesn't matter if one does piercing, one does bludgeoning, etc.  I think you probably meant for DR to apply.  Is that correct?  If so, you may want to clarify that somewhere in the rules (or point me toward where it is already clarified, since we can't find it).

Wait, wait.  Spells and spell-like abilities that deal types of weapon damage aren't normally subject to DR?  That's...that's asinine.  The intention was for DR to apply, since I assume that's how logic worked.  After work today, I'll go back to the relevant spellshape attacks and note that they are subject to damage reduction.  Hell, I already note that they count as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction, so it should be relatively easy to slip in there.

Yup. Asinine, but true.

Quote from: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction
The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

Psionic powers were "errataed" in CPsi to also be subject to damage reduction where applicable, but nothing of the sort exists for spells or SLAs. Aside from that, pretty much only mundane weapon attacks are subject to DR.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: TheGeometer on July 16, 2012, 01:52:46 PM
Psionic powers were "errataed" in CPsi to also be subject to damage reduction where applicable, but nothing of the sort exists for spells or SLAs. Aside from that, pretty much only mundane weapon attacks are subject to DR.

I was just browsing the thread when I found this, and realized that my Residuum system uses SLAs that do not specifically mention DR being applicable. So thanks, you just helped more than one magic system with that post.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 16, 2012, 02:47:16 PM
Question.  How/where should I post those two prestige classes?  Should I:

(a) PM you/post here/otherwise convey to you the info, so you can edit & post;
(b) Post myself, in a thread on this forum, and you will edit as necessary using your scrumtrelescent mod powers;
(c) Post myself elsewhere, like on the main homebrew forum, and you will suggest edits while critiquing and then link to the finished product?

I'll be honest, I don't have a real preference here.  Post it in whatever way is easiest and most convenient for you.  Thus far, all of the spellshaping homebrew that isn't by me has been posted on GitP, and I've linked over to it in the Index.  Post it in general homebrew, post it in this subforum, post it wherever.

Technically, I think board policy prevents me from using my mod powers to actually edit your posts, even though mod powers allow me to do that.  So, you may get random messages from me about sentence structure, formatting, and what have you.

Hmm.... I think what I'll do is make a single thread on this board for my contributions to spellshaping and just post everything I write in there.  And you can link to stuff in the index as appropriate.

I'm just warning you, I'm already cogitating about how to combine Spellshaping with Rituals.  It will happen.

Quote
Next question.  Here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6072.msg91284#msg91284), Garryl suggested that since spellshape attacks are SLAs, DR does not apply to them, and so it doesn't matter if one does piercing, one does bludgeoning, etc.  I think you probably meant for DR to apply.  Is that correct?  If so, you may want to clarify that somewhere in the rules (or point me toward where it is already clarified, since we can't find it).

Wait, wait.  Spells and spell-like abilities that deal types of weapon damage aren't normally subject to DR?  That's...that's asinine.  The intention was for DR to apply, since I assume that's how logic worked.  After work today, I'll go back to the relevant spellshape attacks and note that they are subject to damage reduction.  Hell, I already note that they count as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction, so it should be relatively easy to slip in there.
Sweet.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 16, 2012, 02:57:19 PM
I'm just warning you, I'm already cogitating about how to combine Spellshaping with Rituals.  It will happen.

I'm surprised it hasn't already.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 17, 2012, 12:41:03 PM
Posted the Azure Ascetic... except for the flavor stuff at the end.  I kind of suck at writing that stuff, and would love DonQ's input.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 17, 2012, 01:02:15 PM
Posted the Azure Ascetic... except for the flavor stuff at the end.  I kind of suck at writing that stuff, and would love DonQ's input.

Hey, me too! Maybe we should form a club.

Azure Ascetic

Interesting stuff, but my gut says OP for reasons I'm still puzzling out. Maybe it's the mass sharing of soulmelds with Soulmeld Projection? (Does that ability include chakra binds? If so, does it include the cutting-off of magic item slots?) I dunno.

Improved Spellshape Infusion can give a lot of essentia. Spellshapers generally have more readied formulae than martial adepts have maneuvers, and have an easier time recovering them, too. Using this ability once per round for a whole fight isn't that hard, even if you're blowing mid-high level formulae on it. 4-7 extra essentia is a lot.

Greater Aura Investment needs to clarify the shaper level boost. I originally read it as granting a +1/essentia boost to your formule, but on rereading it, I think it's actually just the flat +1 that ability gives to the essentia capacity. It's supposed to be a bonus equal to the essentia invested, right? If so, it should be clarified.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 17, 2012, 02:37:56 PM
Didn't have time to actually errata the spellshape attack stuff last night, and I don't really want to change the posts without also changing the PDFs.  I just know I'll forget.

I'll be honest, I don't see a "vs." here.  From what I know, 610 sounds like exactly the sort of thing that the Phyrexians would tame and use.  Remember, they aren't made entirely of metal, but also of compleated flesh.  And 610 sounds like the perfect way to begin compleation of the unwilling.
Well, it's actually going to be more 'inspired' by 610, I'm also going to include some elements from a couple of flash games I play. Two of the raids from WarMetal Tyrant (http://www.kongregate.com/games/synapticon/tyrant) (Specifically Blightbloom  (http://images.wikia.com/warmetal/images/4/4c/TRaidBlightbloom.jpg) and Miasma (http://images.wikia.com/warmetal/images/4/45/TRaidMiasma.jpg)), as well as The Breach (http://www.kongregate.com/games/BerzerkStudio/the-breach). I'm also going to take quite a few of the features from Ragnorra.

I weep (http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/daily/stf/stf143_phyrexianUnlife.jpg) for your players.

Posted the Azure Ascetic... except for the flavor stuff at the end.  I kind of suck at writing that stuff, and would love DonQ's input.

I shall check it out later this evening, when I have access to Magic of Incarnum.  Just warning you that I also suck at that flavor stuff.  Codex II would have come out at least a month earlier if it weren't for that.



Oh hey.  Finally got one of those anchorite ACFs up.  Aspected Meditant.  This was the one that was breaking my brain, since I knew what I wanted.  It just, you know, required coming up with three different effects per circle, two of which needed to scale up as you level.  I'd like to get all eyes possible on this one, since I'm terrified that I broke all balance forever with it.

Edit: Already sneakily changed it.  Scaling makes a bit more sense at 1st, 8th, and 15th, as opposed to 1st, 7th, and 13th.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 17, 2012, 03:12:27 PM
Spellshape Monk? Cool.
Just to confirm, the extra abilities on the aspects are by CLASS level, not SHAPER level, right?

Crushing Stone: Odd that fortification should switch to this from Roaring Tide. Make sure to borrow the wording, too, so idiots like me don't take it to mean you only take 90%/70%/50% of the damage dealt by a critical hit (or, worse, take 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 less damage from any critical hit). Also, until 7th level, is strictly inferior to Fleeting Image (10% chance to negate all of every attack vs. 10% chance to negate part of a large but rare attack).

Deteriorating Corrosion: Danger, Will Robinson! Permanent destruction of magic items and other treasure?

Devouring Shadow: Unlike all others, this one is initially useful for out of combat. All the others are only useful in combat at lower levels.
   Does the fatigue stack with itself?

Glimmering Moon: Does the shaken/frightening stack with itself?

Perfect Freeze: Can you choose not to ice up the place? Freezing the ground around you every round can be a pain while with allies, for instance.

Roaring Tide: Any reason you didn't just grant Evasion/Improved Evasion, instead going with this alternate mechanic that obviates the need for saving throws?

Searing Flame: Should be fly speed equal to your land speed, not last speed. Also, the 13th level ability is kinda sucky, especially compared to Blustering Gale (strictly better), and more so since you're in an ACF that removes your ranged ability so you definitely need real flight.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 17, 2012, 03:40:31 PM
Issued minor tweaks to address most of your points.  It is notable that I haven't actually defined yet whether these scale with your class level or with your shaper level.  Until you asked, I had just assumed that they'd scale with shaper level, but I'm no longer sure.  On the one hand, I really like giving you the option of taking prestige classes without losing your main gimmick.  On the other hand, I can definitely see the argument for restricting these a bit more, since they are--I think--noticeably more powerful than auras.  Give me a few hours to decide.

Crushing Stone's wording was changed and it was switched to 25%, 50%, 75%.  I moved Fortification here since I wanted the Crushing Stone aspects to be about becoming as hard as a rock, whereas the Roaring Tide stuff is mostly about being fluid and semi-solid.

Deteriorating Corrosion now just makes weapons and armor weaker by means of penalties, which last only until the end of the encounter.

I'm not sure if the first comment on Devouring Shadow is actually a problem.  Is it?  I'm always nervous about fast healing.
Fatigue doesn't stack

Fear doesn't stack.

Perfect Freeze now says that you "can choose to" freeze the area within 10 feet of you.  This also means that larger anchorites don't end up with a useless aspect, should they choose to use it.

For the Roaring Tide one, I wanted to mimic the "Liquid Body" ability that showed up on the Waterveiled Assassin.  This also means that, if you have Evasion/Improved Evasion from another source, you are so beyond good.

Searing Flame's final was simplified to just a flight speed, and the typo was fixed.  While I wanted to give each circle entirely different things for their aspects, I realized midway through trying to come up with a new Searing Flame ability that, as usual, flight required that you have Blustering Gale.  As you pointed out, your lack of ranged capabilities means that you need real flight somehow...and I saw no reason not to give you two options on that front.  I might even go back and change the Blustering Gale aspect, given that they can already fly through formulae.  Not sure yet.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 17, 2012, 04:30:06 PM
Scaling by shaper would definitely be too strong. The effects are more powerful than the auras, and are definitely too powerful to give away completely for a 1 level dip. A small bonus for many creatures is nice, but that total bonus condensed onto a single creature is very strong (compare Prayer vs. Divine Power, and see which one people gripe about DMMing).

Waterveiled Assassin? I'm not familiar with that class. Did I miss it?

Deteriorating Corrosion could probably use a slight boost at 15th, now, but it's okay the way it is.

The only reason I brought up Devouring Shadow's Fast Healing is because it's an ability whose primary use is outside of combat, whereas every other circle's 1st level effect is just about only useful inside of combat. It's not over powered or anything by a wide margin (there's a spammable Natural Balance formula that provides healing, and Dragon Shamans have given fast healing to the whole party at level 1 since forever). It's just a case of one of these things being not like the others.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 17, 2012, 04:39:12 PM
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.  It is now noted that they scale with anchorite level, not shaper level.  I left the save DCs based on shaper level, though--if you want to take levels in a prestige class after you get the ability, I'm not one to stop you.

Waterveiled Assassin is the water elemental Avatar of Elemental Evil from Monster Manual IV.  I stole its Liquid Body ability for my water elemental rewrite, and it felt appropriate here.

I'll think of a slight change for Deteriorating Corrosion.  Not sure what, but something.

Fast healing is one of those weird ones.  I think of it as being linked to combat, as it recovers hit points.  While fast healing 1 is only one hit point a round, you also have maybe ten or so hit points.  I can also see that you'd recover most of your hit points out of combat, though.  Hrm.  I'll probably leave it as-is, since it feels like a nice fit to me.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 17, 2012, 05:57:08 PM
Interesting stuff, but my gut says OP for reasons I'm still puzzling out. Maybe it's the mass sharing of soulmelds with Soulmeld Projection? (Does that ability include chakra binds? If so, does it include the cutting-off of magic item slots?) I dunno.
I'll clarify that you don't get the chakra binds, just the base effect.

Quote
Improved Spellshape Infusion can give a lot of essentia. Spellshapers generally have more readied formulae than martial adepts have maneuvers, and have an easier time recovering them, too. Using this ability once per round for a whole fight isn't that hard, even if you're blowing mid-high level formulae on it. 4-7 extra essentia is a lot.
I'll drop it to half formula level instead.

Quote
Greater Aura Investment needs to clarify the shaper level boost. I originally read it as granting a +1/essentia boost to your formule, but on rereading it, I think it's actually just the flat +1 that ability gives to the essentia capacity. It's supposed to be a bonus equal to the essentia invested, right? If so, it should be clarified.
That I think is actually one of the most poorly-worded class features I've ever written, at the very least by crap-density.  I'll try again.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 18, 2012, 01:22:18 AM
Posted the errata to the spellshape attacks.  Damage reduction is now always a thing.

Based wholly on my meager understanding of incarnum, Azure Ascetic looks interesting.  I have to agree with pretty much every point Garryl's raised, mind you.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 18, 2012, 08:47:15 AM
Soulmeld Projection: How much essentia is effectively invested in the projected soulmeld when determining the bonuses it grants? It's not actually shaping the soulmeld for everyone else, it's just granting the benefits of it, right? So it should grant the benefits of however much essentia you have invested, then?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 18, 2012, 11:42:04 AM
Based wholly on my meager understanding of incarnum, Azure Ascetic looks interesting.  I have to agree with pretty much every point Garryl's raised, mind you.

I did make those fixes, hopefully they helped.

Soulmeld Projection: How much essentia is effectively invested in the projected soulmeld when determining the bonuses it grants? It's not actually shaping the soulmeld for everyone else, it's just granting the benefits of it, right? So it should grant the benefits of however much essentia you have invested, then?

Correct, that was the intention.  Is that too much?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 18, 2012, 12:05:38 PM
No, it should be fine. A little on the strong side with good choices, but it's a class feature so it should be useful. I just wanted the clarification.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 18, 2012, 12:14:04 PM
Sweet.  Any other beef with the class?  Does it still seem OP, with the edits I made?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 18, 2012, 03:21:44 PM
Got up the other anchorite ACF.  Everyone likes animal companions, right?  Good.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 18, 2012, 03:52:18 PM
Scales with shaper level. A good dip, especially for a supermount build. Not ridiculously good, though, but nice. Definitely better than what you give up at the level you get the ACFs. Since it scales with shaper level, not class level, you get the full effect of the feature at level 3 of Anchorite, despite the fact that you lose abilities at higher levels. This ACF is actually more powerful the fewer Anchorite levels (and the more spellshaping PrC levels) you take.

What happens if you pick up actual Druid/Ranger levels? Do you get a second animal companion? Do you add your full Druid levels (in addition to the +1/2 level for nonshaping classes) to your shaper level for the companion?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 18, 2012, 03:54:40 PM
Hrm, good points.  I'll probably just switch it to class level, since it's replacing class-level-dependent abilities.

In terms of what happens if you pick up actual Druid/Ranger levels...what happens if a Ranger takes Druid levels?  That.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 18, 2012, 04:02:03 PM
Hrm, good points.  I'll probably just switch it to class level, since it's replacing class-level-dependent abilities.

In terms of what happens if you pick up actual Druid/Ranger levels...what happens if a Ranger takes Druid levels?  That.

One companion, effective levels stack. Which makes perfect sense if it's class level-based, but by shaper level it means that 3 levels in Anchorite makes your Druid levels count as 1.5 levels each.

If you want to do it by shaper level for some reason, or if you want to tie it more deeply to the class itself, take a look at the Domeskipper (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2535.0), which is a martial adept class that uses its animal companion as part of its recharge mechanic.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 18, 2012, 04:17:50 PM
Having swapped the companion over to being based on class level, that shouldn't be a problem any more.  One companion, levels stack.

Domeskipper is interesting.  I'll keep it in mind for the other base class idea knocking around in my head.  While I don't want to tie the companion too tightly to the anchorite base mechanics--it is, after all, an alternative class feature--the other idea would certainly make sense with this sort of thing.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 18, 2012, 04:30:21 PM
Incidentally, a balance question for anyone who wants to answer it: Exactly how powerful is item creation?  It's pretty much never come up in the games I've played in, which tend to use spontaneous item generation, inexplicably convenient "finds" that the players pick out between sessions, or Bauglir's spirit point system (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4776.msg67831#msg67831).  All restricted to the Wealth By Level table, of course.

One of the ACFs I was toying with for the savant involved giving it Use Magic Device as a class skill, the ability to take item creation feats as though it had a caster level, and the artificer's Item Creation ability.  To me, this doesn't seem like much--a fun toy for a different approach to "obsessively collecting knowledge."  And, since this ACF would not include a craft reserve, I figured that it wouldn't break wealth.  I just know that the artificer is a pretty damned powerful class, and I want to avoid implementing something with the potential of breaking a game.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 18, 2012, 06:41:18 PM
That would not be too unbalanced.

And, you know what? I was pretty much making the Aspects you have as an ACF for the Anchorite.

As an ACF for the Anchorite.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 18, 2012, 06:52:13 PM
That would not be too unbalanced.

Okay, then the Tinkering Savant shall be written!

And, you know what? I was pretty much making the Aspects you have as an ACF for the Anchorite.

As an ACF for the Anchorite.

They're a pretty logical progression from what the anchorite is.  In fact, truth be told, I like the spellshape aspects better as the core anchorite mechanic.  I love spellshape auras, don't get me wrong, but the aspects just feel...right for the anchorite.  If I ever do a complete revision of the Codices, I'll probably end up swapping them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 18, 2012, 08:47:06 PM
I'll second that notion. Having the spellshape aspects as a class feature and the spellshape auras as a general thing accessible to anyone (which they are) also lets you shift the primary source of spellshape auras from the Anchorite class to the circles themselves. Just make sure you add a PrC that works with the spellshape aspects to go alongside everything that uses spellshape auras.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 18, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
Well, do bear in mind that I said "if" I ever do a complete revision of the Codices.  Given my backlog and my track record for coming up with new ideas, I have no idea how long it would take me to get to a point at which I felt ready to overhaul everything.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 18, 2012, 11:05:23 PM
Possible bug in the Circle Focus feat? It requires you to know a formula to select the feat, but does not have any qualifiers on which circle you can select. You can take the feat for a circle from which you know no formulae under the current wording.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 19, 2012, 01:12:30 AM
You know, given that the Spell Focus feat doesn't even require you to be capable of casting spells, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 19, 2012, 08:46:13 AM
Are you also cool with taking Spellshape Aura for a circle you don't know any formulae (or even the spellshape) from? Again, the current wording leaves it open since you only need Circle Focus. Not necessarily a problem, just seems like it may be unintended.
Also, Mastered Formula does not require you to know the mastered formula. I don't know if it's intended or not, so I'm just bringing it up before I forget.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 19, 2012, 11:30:14 AM
Hrm, those are bigger problems.  I'll look at changing the wording this afternoon.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 19, 2012, 11:43:05 AM
Hey DonQ, any other issues with Azure Ascetic?  If not, I'll move on to the next one.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 19, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
Are you also cool with taking Spellshape Aura for a circle you don't know any formulae (or even the spellshape) from? Again, the current wording leaves it open since you only need Circle Focus. Not necessarily a problem, just seems like it may be unintended.
Also, Mastered Formula does not require you to know the mastered formula. I don't know if it's intended or not, so I'm just bringing it up before I forget.

Fixed these things on the online copies and in my internal documents.  I can't actually access my PDF editing software right now--I have to reroute my internet connection through my college's servers to do so--but I'll get the new PDFs up tonight.

Edit: Session ran late.  Make that tomorrow evening.

Hey DonQ, any other issues with Azure Ascetic?  If not, I'll move on to the next one.

As Grand Moff Tarkin would say, "You may fire when ready."
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 19, 2012, 07:11:19 PM
Part of me thinks that spellshapers should be able to take reserve feats, and then get the ability to Shape Formula with them.

If you want, I could make a 5 level PrC based around this idea...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 20, 2012, 02:52:42 PM
Got two savant ACFs up.  I'll update the PDF with the feat changes from yesterday as soon as I get home from work.

Part of me thinks that spellshapers should be able to take reserve feats, and then get the ability to Shape Formula with them.

If you want, I could make a 5 level PrC based around this idea...

I'm not actually entirely sure how this would work, but feel fee to take a crack at the idea!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on July 20, 2012, 02:57:24 PM
Got two savant ACFs up.  I'll update the PDF with the feat changes from yesterday as soon as I get home from work.

What a cool update! Now we have a class which could qualify to the Singer of Storms PrC without multiclassing :) Thanks!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 20, 2012, 07:04:23 PM
God help me, I figured out how to make prismatic formulae a thing.  Granted, the class feature that explains how they work is six paragraphs long, but they work.  I think.

Prestige class, hoooo!

(This is probably a terrible idea.)

Edit: I will say, as I look at what I've come up with thus far, that the most hilarious epic build for a spellshaper would be Impulse Mage 10/Unnamed Prismatic Prestige 10/Chaos Shaper 10.  What are you even doing at that point?  Randomly occurring formulae, cumulative percentage chance of STUFF happening, and a 1d8 roll every time you hit someone to find out what you hit them with.  Bonus points if you take those random teleportation impulse mage feats.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 20, 2012, 09:13:26 PM
I'm contemplating making a Paraelemental Adept (Smoke)/ Darkened One (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=878.msg5328#msg5328) possibly Master Reshaper.  That would be interesting....
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 20, 2012, 10:00:54 PM
I'm contemplating making a Paraelemental Adept (Smoke)/ Darkened One (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=878.msg5328#msg5328) possibly Master Reshaper.  That would be interesting....

In the grimdark darkness of the grim, there is only darkness.


New PDFs!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 20, 2012, 11:51:28 PM
 :P  I decided that was too complicated so I'm not doing it.

What's the action for the Elemental Breath feat in the Elemental Adept Web Enhancement section?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 21, 2012, 04:40:12 AM
Breath weapons are always standard actions, aren't they?

Edit: Well, either way, it was meant to be a standard action.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 21, 2012, 01:09:07 PM
Quote from: SRD
Using a breath weapon is typically a standard action.

Usually, but not always.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 21, 2012, 01:27:44 PM
I will say, as I look at what I've come up with thus far, that the most hilarious epic build for a spellshaper would be Impulse Mage 10/Unnamed Prismatic Prestige 10/Chaos Shaper 10.  What are you even doing at that point?  Randomly occurring formulae, cumulative percentage chance of STUFF happening, and a 1d8 roll every time you hit someone to find out what you hit them with.  Bonus points if you take those random teleportation impulse mage feats.
Because knowing what you're character will actually do is overrated.  :whistle
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 21, 2012, 01:56:05 PM
Hah! If you don't have a plan, no-one can know your plan!

And then they can't plan to counter your plan, because the plan that they are planning to plan a counter for has not, in and of itself, been planned.

Yes, you will achieve the subtle dichotomy between plan and not-plan, a sort of mu-plan or null-plan, if you think about it.

Has plan ceased to be a word for you? Because if it has, the plan I planned for to eradicate plan from your vocabulary was planned out perfectly.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 21, 2012, 05:58:18 PM
On the subject of builds...


Please. I've got a rough build for a Pixie Impulse Mage lain out. She's the storngest.  :P

Now all I need is a feat for nonlethal spellshaping, and...  :evillaugh
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 21, 2012, 06:26:28 PM
Just reshape things to the Illsuion circle, and you're set.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 21, 2012, 06:35:08 PM
But they won't be ice attacks then...  :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 21, 2012, 07:08:31 PM
Eh, just make them think that they are ice attacks.

You are an illusionist, after all.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 22, 2012, 02:22:02 AM
Feat for nonlethal spellshaping is on my list of "Things that should be," which I had forgotten about entirely--it was rather eclipsed by the "New Material To-Do" list, which shouldn't actually be a separate list.  Tomorrow, said feat shall exist--even if the rest of the list doesn't.

In other news, I've written up all the rules stuff for the opalescent initiate.  It shall be posted as soon as the fluff is complete!  I should warn the audience, however, that playing an opalescent initiate will require more bookkeeping than most spellshapers do.  This has a lot to do with how prismatic formuale work.  It is unfortunate, but probably not crippling.  You basically just have to write down what formulae make up each individual prismatic formula.

That's probably vague and confusing.  Here, have two sneak peeks that will make matters more clear:

(click to show/hide)

So, yeah.  This will be a thing soon.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 22, 2012, 04:43:43 AM
Ooh! Shiny!


If you want, I can share the reason I suggested the convert-to-nonlethal feat...  :plotting
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 22, 2012, 01:08:49 PM
Because Cirno is useless?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 22, 2012, 03:41:25 PM
Two new feats, one for nonlethal spellshaping and one for shaping formulae in armor.  Haven't come up with an analogue to Bauglir's "Blended Teachings" idea, mainly because I can't figure out an elegant way to make it work.

Now, to find other ways to avoid writing the opalescent initiate's fluff...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 22, 2012, 04:13:12 PM
Because Cirno is useless?

No. Because this subsystem is now about Touhou (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GtAad-dMS8).
I was waiting so long to do that... ;_;

With regards to the feat...


Remember that a nonlethal Fireblast is still Fire Damage. You apply all effects for Fire damage first, then the nonlethal part.

So if you hit something that's got weakness to fire, you still double it. Since it only specifies the reducing... That might need to be added.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 22, 2012, 04:28:37 PM
I can't tell if that's a correction of my current clause, or you telling me how nonlethal damage actually works.  I was looking at the Nonlethal Substitution feat, which treats nonlethal damage and energy damage as mutually exclusive things.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 22, 2012, 04:56:41 PM
I can't tell if that's a correction of my current clause, or you telling me how nonlethal damage actually works.  I was looking at the Nonlethal Substitution feat, which treats nonlethal damage and energy damage as mutually exclusive things.
That doesn't really make sense... Nonlethal damage isn't really its own damage type, is it? Like Fire/Piercing/etc? It's just a less lethal form of some other kind of damage... or so I thought.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 22, 2012, 06:09:18 PM
Hrm.  To avoid confusion, I changed the relevant clause to this:

Quote
The damage dealt by a spellshape attack or formula modified by this feat is still treated as if it were damage of the type normally dealt by the spellshape attack or formula, and is subject to any abilities or effects normally.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 22, 2012, 06:46:49 PM
Nonlethal actually is a completely different type of damage...

Just like Vile damage is; they aren't modifiers to a given type of damage, they are their own thing.

Now, that clause is totally fine, and awesome.

But remember, nonlethal Substitution on a Fireball let's you deal the full nonlethal to a Fire Elemental; does it make sense?

No. But dems da rulez, mann.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 22, 2012, 09:29:19 PM
Nonlethal actually is a completely different type of damage...

Just like Vile damage is; they aren't modifiers to a given type of damage, they are their own thing.

Now, that clause is totally fine, and awesome.

But remember, nonlethal Substitution on a Fireball let's you deal the full nonlethal to a Fire Elemental; does it make sense?

No. But dems da rulez, mann.


Huh. Seems I was incorrect. Apologies. :embarrassed


That's stupid, though. Just flat out stupid.  :shakefist


Eh. Just like most of WotC's rulings.  :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 22, 2012, 10:13:51 PM
Yeah, that really is odd, because brown mold in the DMG does explicitly say that it's 'nonlethal cold damage'. Wierd.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 22, 2012, 10:20:29 PM
I would point out that Wizards of the Coast can be horribly inconsistent, but they're not even consistent about being inconsistent.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 22, 2012, 11:54:12 PM
They aren't as bad as some writers I could name (McCracken comes to mind...)

I really feel like I haven't been doing anything to aid the GLORIOUS SPELLSHAPING DIRECTIVE, so if you want to off-load anything onto me, I'm all for it.

My homebrewing urges are getting harder to put off each and every day.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 23, 2012, 05:06:16 PM
Chromatic initiate is up.

I really feel like I haven't been doing anything to aid the GLORIOUS SPELLSHAPING DIRECTIVE, so if you want to off-load anything onto me, I'm all for it.

My homebrewing urges are getting harder to put off each and every day.

I'm honestly not sure at the moment.  I'll let you know as soon as I have stuff to offload.  It's just that, right now, I have so few ideas--most of which I have very specific ideas about--that I'm loathe to let go of any of them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 23, 2012, 05:14:32 PM
Hey Amechra, I'll pass one of my ideas to you -- wanna write a spellshaping vestige?  You can use these (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070119a) as guidelines...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 23, 2012, 05:21:55 PM
Squee!

Is there anything in Prismatic Formulae that stops you form combining different kinds of formulae or using ones that don't make sense being carried on a spellshape attack? I don't see anything stopping you from taking minor formulae or standalone major formulae, but it does make it so they'd all be carried onto your prismatic spellshape attack as part of the prismatic formula.
   Wow, you could do some crazy things like this. Sharing personal buffs at the cost of a small bit of damage is just the tip of the iceberg (or fireball, or lightning bolt, or planar rift, or poison cloud, or sonic boom, or corrosive spray, or two at once).

Interesting. Iridescent Curse functions sort of like a minor formula, but as it isn't a formula it only follows the SLA rules, not the formula rules. Among other things, you can have multiple instances of it active at once. As if one of them wasn't going to be hard enough to keep track of already.

Please define "walking speed" in Hypnotic Hues. Also, you can probably see them, too, so you'll have to save against it as well most likely.

For Chromatic Veil, see Iridescent Curse, but in reverse. Also, what's Prismatic Mist?

Opalescent Body seems more like a capstone ability than 9th level. Immunity to 3 energy types and 4 nasty debuffs is strong. The kind of strong that makes a high point to leave the class on.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 23, 2012, 05:33:33 PM
Squee!

I've been getting that a lot from people who'd seen it pre-fluff.

Is there anything in Prismatic Formulae that stops you form combining different kinds of formulae or using ones that don't make sense being carried on a spellshape attack? I don't see anything stopping you from taking minor formulae or standalone major formulae, but it does make it so they'd all be carried onto your prismatic spellshape attack as part of the prismatic formula.
   Wow, you could do some crazy things like this. Sharing personal buffs at the cost of a small bit of damage is just the tip of the iceberg (or fireball, or lightning bolt, or planar rift, or poison cloud, or sonic boom, or corrosive spray, or two at once).

There is, actually.  First paragraph, third sentence: "Only major formulae that modify spellshape attacks can be combined into a prismatic formula."

Interesting. Iridescent Curse functions sort of like a minor formula, but as it isn't a formula it only follows the SLA rules, not the formula rules. Among other things, you can have multiple instances of it active at once. As if one of them wasn't going to be hard enough to keep track of already.

Actually, there's actually nothing that prevents you from having multiple instances of minor formulae active at once.  That rule applies only to major formulae.  Good luck keeping track of them, though!

Please define "walking speed" in Hypnotic Hues. Also, you can probably see them, too, so you'll have to save against it as well most likely.

Hrm.  I pulled it from a hypnotic effect somewhere that left it undefined.  I'll define that, yeah.  I'll also prevent you from having to save against your own colors.

For Chromatic Veil, see Iridescent Curse, but in reverse. Also, what's Prismatic Mist?

Same answer for iridescent curse.  And prismatic mist is an area prismatic spell from Player's Handbook II.  It's fairly low-powered compared to things like, say, prismatic wall, which is why I found it to be acceptable for this purpose.

Opalescent Body seems more like a capstone ability than 9th level. Immunity to 3 energy types and 4 nasty debuffs is strong. The kind of strong that makes a high point to leave the class on.

A good point.  I'll bump it up to 10th level and come up with something new for 9th level.

(In case it wasn't obvious, those immunities are precisely what you need to run through a prismatic wall without caring about anything except for the plane shift.  A small homage to the time my hellbred chased Vecna through two prismatic spheres.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 23, 2012, 06:24:23 PM
Doy, reading fail.

Wait, minor formulae can have multiples? I did not know that.

Could you please put a reference (PHB2, or "found in Player's Handbook 2", or something like that) with the mention of Prismatic Mist so it's obvious where it's from?

When you roll twice for Prismatic Blast (8), do you deal damage once as both damage types or double damage (once for each damage type). What happens if you roll the same hue twice? What happens if you reroll 8 twice?

Question regarding prismatic blast and the Force (violet) hue. When is it determined whether or not the spellshape is a Force effect, and thus whether or not it has a 50% chance of not affecting incorporeal creatures? What happens if you get two hues (one of which is violet and one of which is another hue) when you're attacking an incorporeal creature (does the 50% ineffectiveness chance apply to the aspect containing the non-force component)?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 23, 2012, 06:43:23 PM
Wait, minor formulae can have multiples? I did not know that.

The "only one instance" restriction was added after the system was originally written, and it was primarily added to avoid throwing up copies of powerful, long-duration formulae.  Durations actually posed the main problem of converting the maneuver system to magic--if things lasted too long, you'd always have them recovered long before their durations ran out.  The general rule of most formulae durations maxing out at 5 rounds was calculated with respect to the impulse mage recovery mechanic.  The numbers on the impulse mage's formulae prepared have changed since then, so it might not work out as well as it once did...but that's where it came from.

I never bothered extending the one-instance restriction to minor formulae, as few of them are powerful, long-duration debuffs.  And, looking at it now.  I figure that there's no reason to punish people who want to focus on buffing or minor debuffing.  Even iridescent curse, powerful as it may be, is fairly inconsistent.  You might end up penalizing Charisma and Strength on a wizard.

Could you please put a reference (PHB2, or "found in Player's Handbook 2", or something like that) with the mention of Prismatic Mist so it's obvious where it's from?

It was before: "or be affected by the prismatic mist effect associated with the color that is currently dominant (see page 121 of Player's Handbook II)."

It is now: "or be affected by the prismatic mist (see page 121 of Player's Handbook II) effect associated with the color that is currently dominant."

When you roll twice for Prismatic Blast (8), do you deal damage once as both damage types or double damage (once for each damage type). What happens if you roll the same hue twice? What happens if you reroll 8 twice?

The intention is for you to deal damage once, half of which is each damage type.  I'll try to come up with wording that makes this more clear.

As far as rolling the same hue twice goes, rolling an 8 is defined as "Hit by two colors." From this, we can assume that you would reroll until you have two different colors.  This is stolen from the prismatic spells, so it would work however those work.

We do know that you ignore any "8" results, so you'd presumably just reroll those anyway.  I read "ignore" as "treat the roll as not having been made."

Question regarding prismatic blast and the Force (violet) hue. When is it determined whether or not the spellshape is a Force effect, and thus whether or not it has a 50% chance of not affecting incorporeal creatures? What happens if you get two hues (one of which is violet and one of which is another hue) when you're attacking an incorporeal creature (does the 50% ineffectiveness chance apply to the aspect containing the non-force component)?

Hrm.  Currently, the color roll occurs after a creature is struck, so the whole "Force effects ignore incorporeal miss chance" thing is a moot point.  However, with that in mind, force damage isn't really much different from untyped damage.  Let me think about ways to deal with this.

I stole the damage types from rainbow beam in the Spell CompendiumI swapped in untyped in place of sonic.  Maybe it would be best to set indigo as sonic and violet as untyped, ending this problem entirely.  Edit: I am stupid, that is not what happened.  So, in the Spell Compendium, the damage type for green is listed as "Poison."  Which isn't a damage type.  So, I substituted "Untyped (Prevented by immunity to poison)" for green.  I suppose that just swapping violet to untyped would still be different from "Untyped (Prevented by immunity to poison)," so I might just do that.  Doesn't feel quite different enough, though...

I'll keep thinking.



Edit Again: Opalescent Body was moved to 10th level, replaced by Prismatic Surge.  Prismatic Mastery was renamed to Chromatic Mastery.  I think the only things left to do are:


Edit the Third: Prismatic Surge is far too powerful.  Time to figure out something else with which to replace it...


Edit the Fourth: Clarified the "roll again" business, changed the damaged dealt by violet to untyped, and replaced Prismatic Surge with Chromatic Wall.  Jubilation!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 23, 2012, 10:08:03 PM
I think I'll do that vestige... when I have time, and when we don't have thunder and lightning striking all around.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 23, 2012, 10:14:43 PM
What happens when you shape Chromatic Wall through the space a creature already occupies?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 23, 2012, 10:16:53 PM
Every die at the table explodes, the rulebooks catch fire, and the miniatures melt into slag.

That, or the wall fails to materialize.  Only time and sneaky editing will tell.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 23, 2012, 10:33:59 PM
Wow... what a crazy class! :P Too much work to play it, though... and too much randomness for my taste.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 23, 2012, 10:36:31 PM
Yeah, as I said, it requires more bookkeeping than most spellshapers.  On the other hand, for those willing to do it, I'm pretty sure it would be a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 24, 2012, 02:03:17 AM
It isn't random enough.

We need a truly random class, damn it!

One that rerolls it's HP at the beginning of each turn!

AC becomes an opposed roll!

All your ability score modifiers are replaced by this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/variableModifiers.htm)! And then after calculating all your stuff, all rolls will also be run through that dice throwing!

All spells you cast automatically are affected as if you were in a Wild Magic area, using this table (http://www.traykon.com/pdf/The_Net_Libram_of_Random_Magical_Effects.pdf)!

Everyone kills you when you have to roll 50+ dice every round! Half of which dick everyone over!

And did I mention that, every time you attack, are attacked, cast a spell, activate a magical item, roll a d20 die that isn't rolling on the random effects table to see if you get dicked over, or are included in the area of effect of a spell or effect, you roll on this table? (http://www.traykon.com/pdf/The_Net_Libram_of_Random_Magical_Effects.pdf) (there is a 1:10000 chance that any violent action that you undertake will cause a supernova. Fuck yes. Also, this means you have to roll on the table twice whenever you cast a spell, or 3+ times if the spell has an attack roll...)

OK, I could actually see that being kinda funny for a one-shot if you had a computerized roller, but still...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 24, 2012, 02:12:08 AM
Hanako wrote a die rolling program for the Catenative Doomsday Dice Cascader (http://www.mspaintadventures.com/extras/ps000020.html).  I think that needs to be worked in.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 24, 2012, 09:30:51 AM
<Madness>
You know... now that you mention it, I remember a really old game (2nd Edition, when we made up more rules than we looked up) where I played a tinker gnome alchemist. The DM thought this was hilarious, and made up a bunch of tables to determine what happened whenver I tried to make something. Most of what happened was just ridiculous (flowers growing out of peoples' hair, etc), but there were a few spectacular effects (not quite Supernova, but like that, usually beneficial to the party).

We also had great fun constantly elaborating on his backstory. One part I remember was that one of his relatives had created something called a Leaping Netflinger. It was supposed to be a harvesting machine, but had turned out to be an insanely dangerous automaton instead.The idea was that it would cut grain with a bunch of scythes that swung out of it, and then catch it in nets that swept in and out of the machine, all at dizzying speeds. And for some reason, it moved by hopping around like a giant rabbit. Instead, what happened was that it jumped around throwing nets on people and then stabbing them to death with its razor-sharp scythes. It escaped into the forest, and became a wandering monster and thing of local legend.  Part of my character's motivation in adventuring was to one day capture it and redeem his family name somewhat. :D
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 24, 2012, 10:23:22 AM
Quote
A chromatic wall set to materialize in a space occupied by a creature is disrupted, and the formula shaped into it is expended with no effect.
Maybe let the creatures in the wall's space make a Reflex save and/or move to the nearest space not occupied by the wall or something? I'd hate to lose a turn's worth of actions due to an invisible creature I wasn't aware of... or a fly. (Spaces are 5' squares. Very small creatures occupy spaces, even if the physical space that they take up within them is very small. Very small insects are Fine creatures.)

By the way, how does the chromatic wall interact with objects (including terrain)? Can the wall project through solid objects, like variations in the height of the terrain, or floors and ceilings, or actual walls? How about passing through an arrow slit? If an unattended object passes through the wall, is it completely unaffected (current wording only uses "creatures")?

Can the wall extend from a point within 30' to a point outside your line of sight? The wall may not be shapeable, but how can it be oriented?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 24, 2012, 01:28:32 PM
Maybe let the creatures in the wall's space make a Reflex save and/or move to the nearest space not occupied by the wall or something? I'd hate to lose a turn's worth of actions due to an invisible creature I wasn't aware of... or a fly. (Spaces are 5' squares. Very small creatures occupy spaces, even if the physical space that they take up within them is very small. Very small insects are Fine creatures.)

Done.

By the way, how does the chromatic wall interact with objects (including terrain)? Can the wall project through solid objects, like variations in the height of the terrain, or floors and ceilings, or actual walls? How about passing through an arrow slit? If an unattended object passes through the wall, is it completely unaffected (current wording only uses "creatures")?

Relevant changes to the wall description:

Quote
The wall can be made smaller and can be shaped to accommodate variations in surrounding terrain, but it is not otherwise shapeable.  The wall must begin within 30 feet of your location, but can extend beyond that distance.  The wall cannot extend through solid objects and is immobile once created.

Additionally, objects passing through it are now affected.

Can the wall extend from a point within 30' to a point outside your line of sight? The wall may not be shapeable, but how can it be oriented?

The wall can technically be extended outside your line of sight, yes.  The wall can be oriented in whatever ways a wall spell could normally be oriented.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 24, 2012, 06:17:21 PM
How does Summon Elemental Monolith work for a Paraelemental Adept?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 24, 2012, 06:30:59 PM
...oh, goddamnit.  I forgot that the paraelemental monoliths were only ever published in Dragon Magazine.  (Issue 347, if you're curious.)

So, there are two ways we could go here.

Option number one: When using the ability, you choose one of the two elements that together make up your paraelemental combination.  For example, a magma-devoted paraelemental adept could summon an earth elemental monolith or a fire elemental monolith.

Option number two: Use these. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=3912.0)

I should really put something in the actual paraelemental adept write-up that clarifies this, but I'm torn.  On the one hand, I vastly prefer option two.  On the other, I don't like bringing in non-spellshaping homebrew, as it involves too much cross-referencing.  The entire reason that I wrote the elemental shapers was so that I could have an elemental companion that used my revised elementals.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 24, 2012, 07:03:24 PM
Go with option two.  It's YOUR homebrew being referenced, anybody who has an issue with that is just plain being lazy.  In fact, make all of the Elemental Adept class features reference it, I like it!  Also, your paraelementals look way more interesting than the ones in Manual of the Planes.  In fact, ALL of the elementals look more interesting.

I swear if you don't decide you want to reference that material I'm just going to request it in the PBP I'm making an Elemental Adept for anyway.   :P


Side note: You've made it very very hard for me to come up with elemental circle combinations that I like.   :p
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 24, 2012, 07:39:08 PM
I mean, you can already get elemental shapers as elemental companions (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4090.new#new), and they're basically slightly modified versions of my elemental revisions.  That, I feel, is the most important substitution...which is the entire reason I wrote up elemental shapers at all.

As far as other uses go, though...
(click to show/hide)

Incidentally, I've been using a magma paraelemental shaper as my companion in a campaign in which I'm currently playing.  The little guy is adorable, though has only been used in combat once, what with us spending most of our time on a ship.  He'd burn right through the deck, poor guy.  However, he has been used in a non-offensive capacity, making use of his Magma Body ability to create a trail of hardened rock (non-difficult terrain) on a sandy beach (difficult terrain) while we were attempting to run from a dragon.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 24, 2012, 08:20:02 PM
If you're not going to make them mandatory, perhaps make a mention about them somewhere?  I didn't even know that you had done an Elementals Redux with a separate spellshaping option until you linked it.

I've become enamored with the Crushing Stone circle.  I just wish that I could combine it with Shocking Current without being a Fire Elemental Adept.  I actually contemplated a Magma paraelemental until I saw that it was considered a fire elemental and not earth for the purposes of class abilities.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 24, 2012, 10:59:05 PM
I've noticed a discrepancy and I'm not sure if it is on purpose.

Elemental Shapers:

   Devotion (Ex): An elemental companion of an elemental adept is so devoted to its master that it gains a +4 morale bonus on Will saves against enchantment spells and effects.  In addition, the companion gains a dodge bonus to AC equal to 1/4 its master's shaper level.


Elemental Adept:

   Devotion (Ex): An elemental companion of a 3rd-level elemental adept is so devoted to its master that it gains a +4 morale bonus on Will saves against enchantment spells and effects.  This devotion also improves the elemental’s defenses, granting it an enhancement bonus to its Armor Class equal to ¼ its master’s shaper level.

Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 10:20:51 AM
Hrm.  I'm honestly not sure how that happened.  Should I change the shapers to an enhancement bonus or the base companion to a dodge bonus?

Also, I'll think about ways to reference the elemental redux.  Not sure how to do it unobtrusively, but I'll try.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 25, 2012, 12:30:19 PM
You could just make it a Web Enhancement as elemental companion rules for elemental adepts?

Also, I just realized why I had never seen the Elemental Shapers before you linked them.  They aren't in the Index.

Edit: I'm not sure which would make more sense.  Dodge bonus is easier to justify than enhancment in the long run but dodge bonus on an earth elemental seems odd.

Also, I've got a question I've been pondering.  When an elemental changes shape due to the Change Size feat do they gain the abilities of a larger sized elemental or only change stats/space/reach?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 25, 2012, 01:01:07 PM
If having an elemental shaper as a companion is an option for Elemental Adepts, it should be written into the class (probably as an ACF), definitely not hidden among the monster listings. I don't however, think they should be an option for the same reasons you originally were worried about (having a second spellshaping character). Even if the elemental is effectively lower level and has weaker spellshaping, and even if they lack the range on spellshape attacks (being forced to attack in melee instead of shaping at range), they're still a second set of actions, buffs (double up on major formulae), and crowd control (non-spellshape formulae are still as useful as ever), all while being about as competent a beatstick as a normal animal companion.

Either way, add those elemental shapers to the index. Spellshaping monsters for the win!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 01:16:02 PM
Wow.  I can't believe that I forgot to add them to the Index.  So much egg on my face, you could make an omelette.  They've been added.

And I'm thinking you're right, Garryl.  I'm probably going to drop the elemental shapers as elemental companions, but I'm not deleting that post quite yet.  First, I'm going to bite the bullet and figure out a way to just have the elemental adept use my revised elementals...and I need some of the wording in that post for other changes that would have to be made in order to deal with that.

I think that what's going to happen is that--God help me--I'm going to add more pages to Codex I.  I absolutely hate doing this, since it's a huge pain to do, but I'm going to do it.  I'll repost the elemental revisions here, add them to Codex I, and then just tie damn well everything to them.  In doing so, I'll also be changing the baseline Devotion ability to a dodge bonus.

This is going to be a fairly large amount of work to do, so it probably won't happen until tomorrow at the earliest.

This will also address some of the weirdness with the paraelemental adept, since I'll just end up defining the paraelemental companions entirely, rather than just tying them to counting as (not entirely logical) elementals for the purposes of advancement.

On Change Size, the intention has always been to just change stats and size.  As I said, it functions as enlarge person or reduce person for all purposes not specified.  Granted, since I'm making my elemental revisions baseline, I'll have to change the feat to more closely mirror the version for elemental shapers, but you can already see how that will work by just looking at the elemental shaper version.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 25, 2012, 01:35:10 PM
I must ask this, with great temerity...

Is there a chance that at some point, in the distant future, that the entirety of Spellshaping will be available as a massive Tome, to plop onto a table in front of the eyes of your horrified party-mates, before they realize that it is all made of pure glory.

And lo, there would be much rejoicing.

I would do it for you, if only you would grant me the most holy access to the Word Documents of Wonder.

Hell, I could probably wrangle up some art for the purpose; maybe some nice woodcuts...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 02:02:13 PM
Damn!  Someone finally asked!

So, the short answer is "Yes."  The slightly-not-as-short answer is "Yes, with unfortunate implications."

What, you want the long answer?

So, once I add my revised elementals and finish my current to-do list--which consists of one base class, racial feats for three races, feats geared specifically towards the anchorite and the savant, two prestige classes, and about sixteen monsters--a reckoning will come.  During this reckoning, I will scour my brain for anything that has been forgotten.  Any ideas that remain unwritten.

If I find that there is nothing more to write, I will then go over all the material, revising it.  The anchorite will be switched to spellshape aspects, the magic items introduced in Codex I will be changed such that they are crafted with the Craft Spellshape Items feat, and a myriad of other changes will be made.  I suspect that some existing alternative class features might be abolished or made unrecognizable during this process.  During this revision process, I'm also going to be going over spellshaping material written by other people, vetting it, and editing it for inclusion.  I'll probably try to work closely with the original creators on this one, and credit will be given on that "Credits" page that exists at the front of every codex.

Once this revision is complete, the revised materials will be combined into a single PDF:

Now, I mentioned unfortunate implications.  And such implications do, in fact, exist.  Because I'm only going to feel ready to build this monstrosity when I also feel that I am done writing spellshaping material.  So...the revised, compiled Codices of Spellshaping will really represent the entirety of spellshaping, since I may not write any more after it is complete.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 25, 2012, 02:14:01 PM
I'll wait to see what you do with the Elementals and Paraelementals.  I like the idea of Paraelementals gaining the own abilities instead of just being tied to others. 

What's the next base class you have to work on?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 02:19:06 PM
Well, the elementals and paraelementals are basically going to work like their current Elemental Shaper equivalents do.  I might actually flat-out replace the Elemental Body ability with something, since my revised elementals already have a lot of those benefits as baseline abilities.  I don't yet know what, though.

In terms of the last base class idea, I haven't figured it out entirely yet, and it's actually the lowest priority item on the to-do list.  On Giant in the Playground, someone suggested a spellshaper that gains its abilities through demonic pacts or something similar.  So I want to play around with that a bit, but I haven't figured out exactly where to go.  Part of the problem is that I try to avoid alignment-restricted base classes.  It might end up being tossed, but I'm not going to decide that until I work through all the things above it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 25, 2012, 02:29:33 PM
Part of what made me choose my element for my elemental adept was the earth elemental as opposed to others that I could have gotten with a focus on Crushing Stone.  I'll wait to see what you come up with.   :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 25, 2012, 02:34:08 PM
Do you want me to take a swing at it?

I'm thinking something kinda like Infernals from Exalted; they are essentially taught how to wield their powers through Elder Evils, but aren't policed too heavily.

Think of it less as "hurr hurr, i summon demon, make him give me stuff." and more "OK, so I fell for it that one time. Jeez."

I would have them get the ability to mess with the elemental make-up of their Spell-shape attacks, kinda like an Eldritch Blast (actually, I could just steal from there), nefarious Pact-making stuff, and finally a place for my Disintegration energy Spellshape Attack (essentially, it is untyped... and if you die from it, you are completely disintegrated.)

Also, chance for wings and tentacles and other freakish things (common, Spellshape natural attacks. You know you want them.)

Sound like a deal, friend?

(Extends a clawed, noxious smelling hand.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 25, 2012, 02:35:14 PM
And I'm thinking you're right, Garryl.  I'm probably going to drop the elemental shapers as elemental companions, but I'm not deleting that post quite yet.  First, I'm going to bite the bullet and figure out a way to just have the elemental adept use my revised elementals...and I need some of the wording in that post for other changes that would have to be made in order to deal with that.

Elemental Leadership
Prerequisites: Elemental Companion, shaper level 6th
Benefits: You attract a throng of minor elementals, ready to serve you. This functions as the leadership feat, except that all followers you attract must be of the Elemental type, or be Outsiders with one of the Fire, Air, Water, or Earth subtypes. Treat Air, Earth, Fire, and Water Elementals and related paraelementals as characters of a level equal to their CR for the purpose of determining how many of them you can attract as followers.
   In addition, you can choose to attract an Elemental Shaper in place of your Elemental Companion. The Elemental Shaper functions as described below (put your big fat ACF's text here).
Special: You can benefit from only one of Leadership, Elemental Leadership, or Undead Leadership at any given time. Elemental Leadership counts as the Leadership feat for the purpose of interacting with other feats and options (including qualifying for them).
Special: You gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score for the purpose of attracting followers with the exact same elemental subtype(s) as your elemental Companion. You suffer a -2 penalty to your Leadership score for the purpose of attracting followers with elemental subtypes that oppose each of your Elemental Companion's elemental subtypes (Air opposes Earth, Fire opposes Water).

Cool, no? Probably better to split it into two feats in a chain (one for the follower elementals, then another for converting the companion to a shaper) if it's still too much, since everyone knows exactly how balanced Leadership is, right?

Well, the elementals and paraelementals are basically going to work like their current Elemental Shaper equivalents do.  I might actually flat-out replace the Elemental Body ability with something, since my revised elementals already have a lot of those benefits as baseline abilities.  I don't yet know what, though.

In terms of the last base class idea, I haven't figured it out entirely yet, and it's actually the lowest priority item on the to-do list.  On Giant in the Playground, someone suggested a spellshaper that gains its abilities through demonic pacts or something similar.  So I want to play around with that a bit, but I haven't figured out exactly where to go.  Part of the problem is that I try to avoid alignment-restricted base classes.  It might end up being tossed, but I'm not going to decide that until I work through all the things above it.

Pacts don't have to be only with demons and devils and fey. Angels, Archons, Inevitables, and Slaads (maybe not Slaads) can work just as well. Plus, see the Binder class. If that isn't alignment-free pact-making, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 25, 2012, 02:41:47 PM
Speaking of Spellshaping + Binding, DonQ are you going to include any of the stuff written by other people?  Or is that for a spellshaping splatbook?  :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 04:27:54 PM
Do you want me to take a swing at it?

I'm thinking something kinda like Infernals from Exalted; they are essentially taught how to wield their powers through Elder Evils, but aren't policed too heavily.

Think of it less as "hurr hurr, i summon demon, make him give me stuff." and more "OK, so I fell for it that one time. Jeez."

I would have them get the ability to mess with the elemental make-up of their Spell-shape attacks, kinda like an Eldritch Blast (actually, I could just steal from there), nefarious Pact-making stuff, and finally a place for my Disintegration energy Spellshape Attack (essentially, it is untyped... and if you die from it, you are completely disintegrated.)

Also, chance for wings and tentacles and other freakish things (common, Spellshape natural attacks. You know you want them.)

Sound like a deal, friend?

(Extends a clawed, noxious smelling hand.)

I'm certainly not going to stop you from taking a crack at it.  As I've said, it's pretty low on my list of priorities.  Though I would advise you to bear Garryl's thoughts in mind:

Pacts don't have to be only with demons and devils and fey. Angels, Archons, Inevitables, and Slaads (maybe not Slaads) can work just as well. Plus, see the Binder class. If that isn't alignment-free pact-making, I don't know what is.

Which really sort of clean up most of the pact-making issues.  I've also written up an angelic/fiendish companion progression for a paladin rewrite that I was planning at one point, so let me know if you want the base creature statblock and the progressions.



Speaking of Garryl...

Elemental Leadership
Prerequisites: Elemental Companion, shaper level 6th
Benefits: You attract a throng of minor elementals, ready to serve you. This functions as the leadership feat, except that all followers you attract must be of the Elemental type, or be Outsiders with one of the Fire, Air, Water, or Earth subtypes. Treat Air, Earth, Fire, and Water Elementals and related paraelementals as characters of a level equal to their CR for the purpose of determining how many of them you can attract as followers.
   In addition, you can choose to attract an Elemental Shaper in place of your Elemental Companion. The Elemental Shaper functions as described below (put your big fat ACF's text here).
Special: You can benefit from only one of Leadership, Elemental Leadership, or Undead Leadership at any given time. Elemental Leadership counts as the Leadership feat for the purpose of interacting with other feats and options (including qualifying for them).
Special: You gain a +2 bonus to your leadership score for the purpose of attracting followers with the exact same elemental subtype(s) as your elemental Companion. You suffer a -2 penalty to your Leadership score for the purpose of attracting followers with elemental subtypes that oppose each of your Elemental Companion's elemental subtypes (Air opposes Earth, Fire opposes Water).

Cool, no? Probably better to split it into two feats in a chain (one for the follower elementals, then another for converting the companion to a shaper) if it's still too much, since everyone knows exactly how balanced Leadership is, right?

Pretty damned cool, yes.  Even though I'm already planning the integration of my revised elementals into Codex I, this just screams to me as something I want to do.  I'll probably split it into two feats, though.  With some decent prerequisites.



Speaking of Spellshaping + Binding, DonQ are you going to include any of the stuff written by other people?  Or is that for a spellshaping splatbook?  :P

During the revision process, I'm also going to be going over spellshaping material written by other people, vetting it, and editing it for inclusion.  I'll probably try to work closely with the original creators on this one, and credit will be given on that 'Credits' page that exists at the front of every codex.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 25, 2012, 04:57:12 PM
Oh, don't worry, I know about all the different things that you can make a pact with...

Actually, a Slaad pact would be hilarious as hell.

Everyone else gives a thematic set of formulae, while Slaad give you...

Well, did you see my post about UTTER RANDOMNESS? :D

Kidding, kidding; though my write-up will have a rather unorthodox way of using Formulae (that's how I've done every single ToB base class I've ever written, and some people think that at least one of them is excellent, so...)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 05:38:51 PM
Part of what made me choose my element for my elemental adept was the earth elemental as opposed to others that I could have gotten with a focus on Crushing Stone.  I'll wait to see what you come up with.   :)

Here's what the write-up looks like thus far:

(click to show/hide)

So, not much has changed--I've really just been clarifying things and double-checking so that everything works with the fluid and solid subtypes.  The brackets include the information on paraelementals, which won't be in Codex I--but will be updated online.

Incidentally, that undecided 5th-level ability is almost certainly going to be non-element specific.  It's much easier to deal with the companions if they get the same benefits.  Let's face it, my revised elementals are already different enough--and it's hard to come up with simple ways for them to more fully embody their respective elements.  For the same reason, I'm probably going to axe the Elemental Perfection feat.  I hope I'll be able to come up with something to replace it...but we can only hope, at this point.



Oh, don't worry, I know about all the different things that you can make a pact with...

Actually, a Slaad pact would be hilarious as hell.

Everyone else gives a thematic set of formulae, while Slaad give you...

Well, did you see my post about UTTER RANDOMNESS? :D

Kidding, kidding; though my write-up will have a rather unorthodox way of using Formulae (that's how I've done every single ToB base class I've ever written, and some people think that at least one of them is excellent, so...)

The "unorthodox" way of using formulae makes me twitchy, but I'm not going to reject it until I see it.  Mind if I ask which classes you're talking about?

Also, though such things are pretty common in fantasy, let's stay away from pacts with elementals and dragons.  Don't want to step on any toes, after all.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 25, 2012, 05:41:11 PM
Hey, I think I've asked this before, but I'll ask again -- are you planning on doing the quasielementals?  Pretty pls?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 25, 2012, 05:51:12 PM
Well, I was referring to stuff like the Nord's Blade (won't use; kinda complicated, and very powerful; doesn't fit too well with pacts, anyway).

I was actually thinking that the pact would give you a set of packets, with a sort of theme to them; in essence, each packet consists of a couple of Major Formulae and a couple of Minor Formulae. Once you've used "up" a packet (i.e., you've used up around the slots that were allotted to that packet), you lose that packet until you use up another packet or two.

Or maybe I'll just go ahead and make it a normal Spellshaper, but with a focus towards summoning (think of it; a twisted Natural Balance where it summons Demons/Angels/Aberrations, while buffing their attacks with Minor Formulae, while he himself supplies the artillery.)

EDIT: Maybe combo that with the battlefield control to get someone who is trying to "bless" the area fights take place in; so first difficult terrain and other similar things are ignored by allies, and then give them bonuses while in those areas... think Zerg and creep. Angelic creep.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 06:01:29 PM
Hey, I think I've asked this before, but I'll ask again -- are you planning on doing the quasielementals?  Pretty pls?

Chronicle of the Homebrewers, Page 725.

"...and, then, with but a single question, sirpercival caused DonQuixote to stop writing homebrew and disappear.  Forever."

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 06:02:25 PM
Well, I was referring to stuff like the Nord's Blade (won't use; kinda complicated, and very powerful; doesn't fit too well with pacts, anyway).

I was actually thinking that the pact would give you a set of packets, with a sort of theme to them; in essence, each packet consists of a couple of Major Formulae and a couple of Minor Formulae. Once you've used "up" a packet (i.e., you've used up around the slots that were allotted to that packet), you lose that packet until you use up another packet or two.

Or maybe I'll just go ahead and make it a normal Spellshaper, but with a focus towards summoning (think of it; a twisted Natural Balance where it summons Demons/Angels/Aberrations, while buffing their attacks with Minor Formulae, while he himself supplies the artillery.)

EDIT: Maybe combo that with the battlefield control to get someone who is trying to "bless" the area fights take place in; so first difficult terrain and other similar things are ignored by allies, and then give them bonuses while in those areas... think Zerg and creep. Angelic creep.

Interesting.  I'd say go ahead.  We can always tweak things later, if they horribly offend my sensibilities.  Like quasielementals...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on July 25, 2012, 06:20:51 PM
 :bigeyes don't stop writing i would be so saaaaaad



Why do they strike you so?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 06:36:17 PM
My reaction was more to the monumental task involved in writing the quasielemental adept.  I'd have to write a positive energy circle, first of all.  Then I'd have to write statblocks for eight new types of elementals.  Then, I'd have to figure out a third circle for each quasielemental combination--kind of difficult for things like ash, mineral, and vacuum.  And then we get to the shenanigans of figuring out certain class features.

It would just be a mess.  Add to that the fact that I don't really like the whole idea of positive and negative energy as elements, and you wind up with me fleeing from the idea.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 25, 2012, 06:56:47 PM
Aww, I liked the elements gaining specific abilities.  Oh well, it's understandable.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 25, 2012, 07:14:41 PM
I liked it, too, but the revised elementals already have most of the abilities that I could think of.  That was rather part of my goal in writing them.

I have yet to come up with a satisfactory replacement, though, so they might end up coming back.  The only halfway decent thing I've thought of is giving the elemental companions mettle, but that's boring--and possibly too good.

If I do end up coming back to element-specific abilities, they'll probably come out to:


...damn it, this is going to happen now, isn't it?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 25, 2012, 08:37:50 PM
It probably is. 

Side note: Magma's ability will make it way more useful as a traveling companion, I approve.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 26, 2012, 01:11:12 AM
Incidentally, on a vaguely related note, one of my friends got a word filter installed on Chrome recently.  He almost didn't realize that it had filtered me.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 26, 2012, 02:13:24 AM
 :lmao
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 26, 2012, 02:31:09 AM
I think it says something about my tastes in entertainment that I had to go back to your original post in order to find what was off.  :rolleyes
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 27, 2012, 12:57:11 AM
Swapped over the revised elementals and updated the base elemental adept accordingly.  Onwards to bringing over the revised paraelementals!

Incidentally, I'm going to update the Codex I PDF before I get around to revising the paraelemental adept material.  Primarily because I still haven't figured out Ice Body and Smoke Body.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 27, 2012, 12:59:49 AM
Idea! Why not make a teleporting/planeshifing PrC? That way, you don't need to make an entire circle, and there's no need for a spellshape attack.

...

In fact...


Excuse me, I'm now working on something.... I think the base ECL for it will be 7, allowing...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 27, 2012, 02:09:13 AM
Idea! Why not make a teleporting/planeshifing PrC? That way, you don't need to make an entire circle, and there's no need for a spellshape attack.

...

In fact...


Excuse me, I'm now working on something.... I think the base ECL for it will be 7, allowing...

...wait, ECL?  Suddenly, vaguely worried...


Incidentally, the porting of things into the Codex I PDF is taking about as much time as I figured it would.  Don't hold your breath for a pre-Sunday release--though stranger things have happened.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 27, 2012, 02:37:53 AM
Solid and Fluid are referenced in the elemental descriptions but you aren't explaining them in the intro posts for some reason?

Good luck with Ice Body and Smoke Body.  I'm not sure what abilities would be appropriate.   :???
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 27, 2012, 02:44:34 AM
...wait, ECL?  Suddenly, vaguely worried...

Don't be. Typically, a PrC is aimed to be entered after ECL 5, having all prereqs obtained by then. This is going to be intended to have all prereqs done at level 7, so people can enter it at level 8. That way, I can save myself some trouble and just write the teleportation formulae from level 4-9, saving me some balance problems and that hassle.

Quote
Incidentally, the porting of things into the Codex I PDF is taking about as much time as I figured it would.  Don't hold your breath for a pre-Sunday release--though stranger things have happened.

Aw.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 27, 2012, 11:28:28 AM
Solid and Fluid are referenced in the elemental descriptions but you aren't explaining them in the intro posts for some reason?

They're in the Index now.  I'm trying to follow the same format as in the PDF, which lists Solid and Fluid before any of the creatures.  I may have to reconsider this.

Good luck with Ice Body and Smoke Body.  I'm not sure what abilities would be appropriate.   :???

Well, figuring out things like that is what my hour-and-a-half commute is for.

Don't be. Typically, a PrC is aimed to be entered after ECL 5, having all prereqs obtained by then. This is going to be intended to have all prereqs done at level 7, so people can enter it at level 8. That way, I can save myself some trouble and just write the teleportation formulae from level 4-9, saving me some balance problems and that hassle.

Ahhh.  When I hear "ECL," I tend to think of players playing monsters.  (As opposed to monsters monsting players.)

Aw.

Yeah, this is the downside of making pretty PDFs in Microsoft Word.  Pulling everything together takes time.  And, unlike other things, I won't be able to work on the PDF during my lunch break, so it's unlikely that I'll have time to format the tables and enter everything into the PDF before Sunday.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 27, 2012, 11:33:22 AM
Ice: Melt, becoming fluid instead of solid for some time?
Smoke: Leave behind a trail of fumes that functions as a wall of smoke (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20031017a) spell?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 27, 2012, 11:40:50 AM
Ohhh, the Ice one sounds interesting.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 27, 2012, 12:17:16 PM
Question: A solid elemental changes size due to the Change Size feat.  Does it gain/lose bonus hit points?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 27, 2012, 01:11:30 PM
Ice: Melt, becoming fluid instead of solid for some time?
Smoke: Leave behind a trail of fumes that functions as a wall of smoke (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20031017a) spell?

Intriguing.  I'll keep these in mind, given that I didn't have any ideas during the morning drive today.  Of course, we still have the afternoon one, so something might occur to me then.

Ohhh, the Ice one sounds interesting.

The ice one does sound interesting, but we'll have to see.  I'm trying to avoid having the Elemental Body definitions take up too many lines--that's part of why I completely nixed the molten squares on fire and magma companions.  Plus, I had this great idea:

(click to show/hide)

Question: A solid elemental changes size due to the Change Size feat.  Does it gain/lose bonus hit points?

Yup.  The bonus hit points of a creature with the solid subtype are based on its size, rather than being defined separately for each different statblock.

Undoubtedly, this ruling will come back to bite me in the ass.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 27, 2012, 02:00:45 PM
Question: A solid elemental changes size due to the Change Size feat.  Does it gain/lose bonus hit points?

Yup.  The bonus hit points of a creature with the solid subtype are based on its size, rather than being defined separately for each different statblock.

Undoubtedly, this ruling will come back to bite me in the ass.

If it is something you think might bite you in the ass you could just put something like "Elementals with Solid Traits continue to gain bonus hitpoints as a creature of their base size (Medium)" in the feats.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 27, 2012, 02:09:44 PM
Well, I don't actually think it will be a problem.  The only weirdness I can actually see is if shrinking would kill the elemental, in which case why would you choose to shrink?

Edit: Even though I haven't figured out Ice Body or Smoke Body, I updated the paraelemental adept post, just because I felt like screwing over ice and smoke paraelemental adepts who are trying to remain current.  Bwahaha!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 27, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
It'll cause extra bookkeeping, but I guess that's okay.

Hooray, now I can finally try and decide if I want an Earth Elemental or a Magma Elemental.  Hmmmm...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 27, 2012, 06:18:11 PM
Quote
   Advancement (Ex):  At 9th level, in addition to the increases to Constitution, Intelligence, and Charisma gained by all elemental companions, an ice, magma, or ooze companion gains +2 Dexterity
   At 15th level, in addition to the increases to Constitution and Charisma gained by all elemental companions, an ice, magma, or ooze companion gains +4 Dexterity.
   At 19th level, in addition to the increases to Intelligence and Charisma gained by all elemental companions, an ice, magma, or ooze companion gains +2 Dexterity.

Elemental companions never gain a Charisma bonus in the Elemental Companion writeup
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 27, 2012, 06:25:14 PM
It'll cause extra bookkeeping, but I guess that's okay.

Hooray, now I can finally try and decide if I want an Earth Elemental or a Magma Elemental.  Hmmmm...

My stance on extra bookkeeping is that, if it's an option, it's not a problem.  A base class that requires piles of bookkeeping is problematic to me.  A prestige class that does is not as much of a problem, as it represents part of the player's cost in taking that prestige class.  Same thing with a feat designed for a player's companion creature.  By no means do you have to give your earth or ice companion the Change Size feat.  It's a nice ability, but I don't think that not having the feat will make your build entirely worthless.

Besides, you already have to keep track of the changes to Armor Class and attack bonuses.  This doesn't take much more effort.

Elemental companions never gain a Charisma bonus in the Elemental Companion writeup

So, last night, I posted the updated Elemental Companion writeup online, then started editing it into the PDF.  When doing so, I realized that they had to receive that Charisma bonus in order for air and fire elementals to maintain their Armor Class.  So, I changed it in the Word document and thought that I changed it online.

Apparently, I didn't, but I have now!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 27, 2012, 06:28:40 PM
With all these changes it's a good thing I haven't tried to build my companion yet.   :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 27, 2012, 06:33:30 PM
Yeah, I have to rebuild Parvus Vesuvius for next week's session.  Fortunately, the new Magma Body ability means that Pliny won't have to continue to keep it in the Gem of Elemental Retreat.  (Though I'm still going to keep said gem, just in case.)

However, other than me figuring out what Ice Body and Smoke Body will do, I think I'm done messing with the elemental companion progressions.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on July 27, 2012, 06:41:07 PM
Smoke Body: Something related to Belkers.

Ice Body: Generate icicles from their flesh? Gain natural armor spikes?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 27, 2012, 06:46:56 PM
I'm amused.  My entire decision about whether or not to be devoted to Earth or to Magma is going to be entirely determined by if I think the Earth Elemental or the Magma Elemental is more awesome.

Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 27, 2012, 07:14:51 PM
After taking a break and looking through all of Frostburn, I reached a decision for Ice Body.

Any creature that takes cold damage from the paraelemental's claw attacks or chill ability must make a Fortitude save or become fatigued for 1d4 rounds.  While fatigued in this way, a creature also takes a -10 foot penalty to all its speeds.  This effect does not cause a creature that is already fatigued to become exhausted.

The idea behind this iteration of the Elemental Body abilities is that I don't actually want to grant brand-new capabilities to the companions.  I want to tweak things that they already have or make small changes.

Still undecided on Smoke Body.  I've toyed with the belker idea, but haven't yet settled.  Smoke paraelementals already have a nice effect on their attacks, after all.

Edit: I've decided that Smoke Body will not be the belker claws effect.  I'm going to put that on the revised version of the Elemental Perfection companion feat, instead.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 28, 2012, 03:43:53 PM
Finally decided on Smoke Body!  Any creature within 5 feet of the paraelemental takes a -2 penalty on its saves and to its AC.  Sort of fits with the fact that smoke-devoted paraelemental adepts get access to Devouring Shadow.

In terms of PDF porting progress, I've finished the first three elementals.  Organizing the tables is...weird, since my page and font sizes aren't actually the same as, say, the Monster Manual.  Plus, I have seven categories for each elemental, rather than six.  It's a little messier than I'd like, but still fairly coherent.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 28, 2012, 03:57:59 PM
The smoke elemental ability sounds good to me.

You've done the bonus hp from size for the Earth Elemental wrong, but you got it right for the Ice Paraelemental.   
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 28, 2012, 04:56:32 PM
On...all the earth elemental sizes?  Or just some?

Edit: Medium and Monolith were the only ones that I saw as incorrect.  Fixed them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 28, 2012, 05:06:17 PM
Medium (well, and small but they don't get bonus hp) was the only one I was looking at.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 28, 2012, 07:13:32 PM
Quote
Earthbreaker
Crushing Stone (Major) [Earth]
Level: Elemental adept 2, impulse mage 2, spellsage 2, spellshape champion 2
Prerequisite: One Crushing Stone formula
Shaping Action: 1 standard action
Range: Rockslam attack
Target: One creature
Area: 10-foot-radius spread, centered on target
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex negates
Spell Resistance: As spellshape

As a part of shaping this formula, you make a rockslam attack that deals an extra 2d8 points of damage.  If it hits, the ground fractures and cracks in a 10-foot-radius spread centered on your target, becoming difficult terrain.  In addition, your target must make a Fortitude save or be immobilized for 1 round.  Though the immobilization ends after 1 round, the difficult terrain is permanent and does not move with the target.
   If your target is in the air when affected by this formula, no difficult terrain is created.  However, you still deal extra damage, and your target must still make a Fortitude save or be immobilized.

I assume that it's supposed to be Fortitude?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 28, 2012, 07:16:27 PM
...yes.  Yes, it is.

Good thing I'm already editing the Codex I PDF!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 28, 2012, 07:27:14 PM
Good thing I'm making an elemental adept and make notes about everything.  :p
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 29, 2012, 05:10:24 AM
Bam.  New PDF, chock full of elemental and paraelemental goodness.


Now, I just need to write a new version of the Elemental Perfection feat, and we're golden.  But, for now, I zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Edit: Though I didn't really fall asleep while typing this, I did fall asleep on my Monster Manual.  I woke up with my face stuck to the Fire Elemental statblocks.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 29, 2012, 01:04:33 PM
Glad to hear things are getting updated so smoothly.   :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on July 29, 2012, 02:46:41 PM
Just to put this out in the open, since somebody mentioned quasielementals, I've got a few more suggestions. Quasiparaelementals, to add negative or positive energy to the paraelementals. Metaelementals, to add alignments as fundamental forces of the universe to elementals. Metaparelementals. Metaquasielementals. Metaquasiparaelementals.

I apologize for nothing.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 29, 2012, 02:49:31 PM
....I'll get you next time, Bauglir.  Next time.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 30, 2012, 03:17:47 PM
Don't forget the necromental template, from Libris Mortis. Fun times.  :evillaugh
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 30, 2012, 03:20:04 PM
Working on the PrC idea. Not having ideas for flavor abilities- I think most of the power will come from the formulae I'm writing up. I'm thinking "Baleful Translocation" to start...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 30, 2012, 03:28:13 PM
Don't forget the necromental template, from Libris Mortis. Fun times.  :evillaugh
And the excremental! Don't forget that lovely gem!  :love
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 30, 2012, 03:44:34 PM
Don't forget the necromental template, from Libris Mortis. Fun times.  :evillaugh

Actually, the necromental template still works.  Just change the natural armor increase to a +2 profane bonus to AC and remove the "Charisma score changes to 1" bit.  Otherwise, your fluid elementals will be very confused.

And the excremental! Don't forget that lovely gem!  :love

I'm...going to hope that this isn't what I think it is.


Working on the PrC idea. Not having ideas for flavor abilities- I think most of the power will come from the formulae I'm writing up. I'm thinking "Baleful Translocation" to start...

I look forward to finding out where this is going.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 30, 2012, 03:49:17 PM
I look forward to finding out where this is going.


Oh, that's simple. Wherever the hell it wants to.  :lol
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 30, 2012, 03:51:02 PM
Oh God.  You're writing a Carmen Sandiego prestige class.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 30, 2012, 03:53:53 PM
Oh God.  You're writing a Carmen Sandiego prestige class.

Nah. Teleportation and dimensional stuff, man. It's what's missing.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on July 30, 2012, 04:12:04 PM
And the excremental! Don't forget that lovely gem!  :love

I'm...going to hope that this isn't what I think it is.
Oh yes! Found only in the nether regions of the Elemental Plane of Flesh (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53869)! Just change the type on this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2949455#post2949455).  :evillaugh
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 30, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
Nah. Teleportation and dimensional stuff, man. It's what's missing.

Interesting.  There are technically bits of teleportation and dimensional travel strewn around the place, but nothing focused on it.  Let's see where you go with this one.


Oh yes! Found only in the nether regions of the Elemental Plane of Flesh (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53869)! Just change the type on this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2949455#post2949455).  :evillaugh

There are not enough ways for me to say no.  I just.  Oh God.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 30, 2012, 05:41:01 PM
Nah. Teleportation and dimensional stuff, man. It's what's missing.

Interesting.  There are technically bits of teleportation and dimensional travel strewn around the place, but nothing focused on it.  Let's see where you go with this one.

Yeah. Just working out wording on some formulae right now, since I finished the meat of the class (Read: all but skills/HD/Reqs).




EDIT: What would you consider formulae that are similar to Counters? Minor or Major? Because Minor makes sense, using the Swift for the next round, but....
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 30, 2012, 05:43:15 PM
Thus far, the only formulae that have been immediate actions were minor formulae.  Eternal Moment has a few of those lying around.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 30, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
Thus far, the only formulae that have been immediate actions were minor formulae.  Eternal Moment has a few of those lying around.

Good to know.


What's the ruling on the Enhanced Magic planar trait and spellshapes? Do they gain the benefits of the equivilant metashaping feats?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 30, 2012, 06:48:50 PM
Er...sure?

I mean, given that the spells that are enhanced vary by plane, you'd have to come up with a list of every formula that a given Enhanced Magic plane would modify.  And I must admit very little experience with planar traits.

But, unless someone gives me a reason that this is a horrible idea, I see no reason to rule against it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 30, 2012, 07:01:34 PM
Er...sure?

I mean, given that the spells that are enhanced vary by plane, you'd have to come up with a list of every formula that a given Enhanced Magic plane would modify.  And I must admit very little experience with planar traits.

But, unless someone gives me a reason that this is a horrible idea, I see no reason to rule against it.


*Sigh*


Enhanced magic usually just affects a descriptor of spells. So the Plane of Fire enhances [Fire] spells, the plane of Shadow [Shadow], ect.

A blanket "If a formula is shaped on a plane with the Enhanced Magic trait and has the appropriate descriptor, it gains the benefit of the equivilant Metashaping feat, possibly exceeding the normal limit on the sum of formula level and degrees of metashaping. Furthermore, if a formula is shaped on a plane with the Impeded Magic trait and has the appropriate descriptor, the shaper must succeed on a Spellcraft check, as though it were a spell of the same level."


Simple enough to do.


This is somewhat relevant to what I'm doing.  :plotting
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 30, 2012, 07:12:35 PM
Enhanced magic usually just affects a descriptor of spells. So the Plane of Fire enhances [Fire] spells, the plane of Shadow [Shadow], ect.

Ahh, gotcha.  I was working off of the SRD description of the trait, since I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that left the Prime Material.  This makes a lot more sense.

A blanket "If a formula is shaped on a plane with the Enhanced Magic trait and has the appropriate descriptor, it gains the benefit of the equivilant Metashaping feat, possibly exceeding the normal limit on the sum of formula level and degrees of metashaping. Furthermore, if a formula is shaped on a plane with the Impeded Magic trait and has the appropriate descriptor, the shaper must succeed on a Spellcraft check, as though it were a spell of the same level."

Sounds good to me.  I'll note that the clause on Impeded Magic is unnecessary, since the planar traits are listed as affecting "spells and spell-like abilities."  Guess what formulae are?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 30, 2012, 07:20:52 PM
Ahh, gotcha.  I was working off of the SRD description of the trait, since I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that left the Prime Material.  This makes a lot more sense.

Yeah, it's something that should be mentioned. I like me some planar manifest zones.  :P

Quote
Sounds good to me.  I'll note that the clause on Impeded Magic is unnecessary, since the planar traits are listed as affecting "spells and spell-like abilities."  Guess what formulae are?

Derp.  :banghead

Oh well.  :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on July 30, 2012, 10:22:25 PM
Don't forget the necromental template, from Libris Mortis. Fun times.  :evillaugh

Actually, the necromental template still works.  Just change the natural armor increase to a +2 profane bonus to AC and remove the "Charisma score changes to 1" bit.  Otherwise, your fluid elementals will be very confused.

I was actually more thinking about the cascading prefixes that had been discussed. I'm sure that with sufficient thought, you could mix almost all of the concepts in D&D into one insane incarnation.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 30, 2012, 11:26:50 PM
I'm not sure if you could HAVE a necromental of a quasielemental, though.  Depending on the quasielemental, it'd either be redundant or self-destructive.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 12:01:49 AM
Bauglir just damned us all.  Film at eleven.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 31, 2012, 01:35:31 AM
Bauglir just damned us all.  Film at eleven.

When can we expect results? 
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 01:56:39 AM
Well, I'm currently at 26/48...but my sister's going to be here for the latter half of the week.  So we'll see.

Bauglir damned us all by suggesting that the solution to my conflicted emotions about out-of-combat magic for spellshapers could be solved by means of skill tricks.  Which now means that I'm coming up with three out-of-combat spell-like abilities for each circle, which will be gated with prerequisites and purchased with skill points.

The actual mechanics are stealing borrowing heavily from some of Hanako's homebrew, and basically pan out as follows.  When you first purchase the lowest-level ability--which will require that you know the spellshape attack from the relevant circle--you can use it once per day.  Once you purchase the mid-level ability--which will require that you know at least two formulae from the relevant circle and have a shaper level of at least 7th--you'll be able to use that once per day and the lowest-level ability three times per day.  When you finally purchase the highest-level ability--which will require that you know at least four formulae from the relevant circle and have a shaper level of at least 13th--you'll be able to use that ability once per day, the mid-level ability three times per day, and the lowest-level ability at-will.  Obviously, you'll have to have the lowest-level ability in order to purchase the mid-level ability, and you'll have to have the mid-level ability in order to purchase the highest-level ability.

I'm trying like hell to only give things that wouldn't be primarily used in combat, but I'm almost certain that some will, technically, have in-combat usage.  For example, I'm planning on giving Searing Flame a version of the control flames power, which is cool for the whole controlling fire thing...but can technically be used to control fire onto people.  At the same time, controlling fire is so much of a thing that they should be able to do that I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Edit: Having said all that, I'm also toying with distributing the out-of-combat abilities through feats, rather than skill points.  Taking one feat would grant you access to a single circle's set of abilities...but you'd have to meet the prerequisites in order to use the higher-level ones, as well as to get the extra daily uses of the lower-level ones.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 31, 2012, 02:25:59 AM
So... Sorta like PF's Equipment Trick (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/equipment-trick-combat) feat? Where you get access to a bunch of abilities, if you have the right feat/skills?



Also, 13 formulae thought out for the teleport-themed PrC I'm working on. Should I go for a few more, or just finish those, format it, and post it?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 31, 2012, 02:37:30 AM
Well, I'm currently at 26/48...but my sister's going to be here for the latter half of the week.  So we'll see.

Bauglir damned us all by suggesting that the solution to my conflicted emotions about out-of-combat magic for spellshapers could be solved by means of skill tricks.  Which now means that I'm coming up with three out-of-combat spell-like abilities for each circle, which will be gated with prerequisites and purchased with skill points.

The actual mechanics are stealing borrowing heavily from some of Hanako's homebrew, and basically pan out as follows.  When you first purchase the lowest-level ability--which will require that you know the spellshape attack from the relevant circle--you can use it once per day.  Once you purchase the mid-level ability--which will require that you know at least two formulae from the relevant circle and have a shaper level of at least 7th--you'll be able to use that once per day and the lowest-level ability three times per day.  When you finally purchase the highest-level ability--which will require that you know at least four formulae from the relevant circle and have a shaper level of at least 13th--you'll be able to use that ability once per day, the mid-level ability three times per day, and the lowest-level ability at-will.  Obviously, you'll have to have the lowest-level ability in order to purchase the mid-level ability, and you'll have to have the mid-level ability in order to purchase the highest-level ability.

I'm trying like hell to only give things that wouldn't be primarily used in combat, but I'm almost certain that some will, technically, have in-combat usage.  For example, I'm planning on giving Searing Flame a version of the control flames power, which is cool for the whole controlling fire thing...but can technically be used to control fire onto people.  At the same time, controlling fire is so much of a thing that they should be able to do that I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Edit: Having said all that, I'm also toying with distributing the out-of-combat abilities through feats, rather than skill points.  Taking one feat would grant you access to a single circle's set of abilities...but you'd have to meet the prerequisites in order to use the higher-level ones, as well as to get the extra daily uses of the lower-level ones.

I like the idea, like it a lot.  I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.   :D
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 03:23:41 AM
So... Sorta like PF's Equipment Trick (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/equipment-trick-combat) feat? Where you get access to a bunch of abilities, if you have the right feat/skills?

Probably not.  The more that I think about it, the more that I prefer the skill trick setup.  It just means that I'm going to have to avoid anything too game-changing.  Which is actually what I want to do anyway, so that works out nicely.

Also, 13 formulae thought out for the teleport-themed PrC I'm working on. Should I go for a few more, or just finish those, format it, and post it?

Well, you're eight formulae short of standard circle size, but--given that it's a prestige class, rather than a standard circle--I don't think that's actually a problem.  Go with your gut.

I like the idea, like it a lot.  I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.   :D

Let's just hope I can pull it off without breaking anything.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 31, 2012, 04:18:32 AM
Probably not.  The more that I think about it, the more that I prefer the skill trick setup.  It just means that I'm going to have to avoid anything too game-changing.  Which is actually what I want to do anyway, so that works out nicely.

Eh. It was something to point out.

Quote
Well, you're eight formulae short of standard circle size, but--given that it's a prestige class, rather than a standard circle--I don't think that's actually a problem.  Go with your gut.

And gut says go with advice. :/


 :P


I'll clean it up a bit and post it over on Giantitp.




EDIT: Noticed something in Searing Flame's thread. Searing Blast (a Minor formula) has a shaping time of 1 standard. That... Might need to be fixed.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 01:27:07 PM
EDIT: Noticed something in Searing Flame's thread. Searing Blast (a Minor formula) has a shaping time of 1 standard. That... Might need to be fixed.

My shame knows no end.  Doubly so since I always make fun of Tome of Battle for having made the same mistake on Searing Blade.

It shall be fixed!

Edit: While I haven't fixed that one yet--I prefer to do Codex changes when I can change the PDFs at the same time--I did finally work out a new Elemental Perfection for elemental companions.  I also added a new companion feat that makes Engulf-based builds actually viable.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 06:10:28 PM
Hrm.  Through a long and involved process, I started considering replacing the elemental adept capstone.  An elemental adept already has an elemental companion and the ability to summon elementals--giving you "another elemental, but bigger!" just seems kind of...lackluster now.

Thoughts on this?  It might be too much, but I figured that dread necromancers get to go lich at level 20.  The primary difference is that you need to kill the elemental adept on a specific plane, rather than killing him and then finding his favorite toy.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 31, 2012, 07:42:47 PM
I agree that it is underwhelming, especially since you can use Elemental Magic to cast Summon Elemental Monolith.

I like the ability as well.


If you do this perhaps have Call the Elements let you summon a Greater elemental at 20th level too? 
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 31, 2012, 08:15:10 PM
Here's a question. 

A first level Elemental Adept picks Earth as his element, and thus gains +1 shaper level to spellshape attacks.
Rockslam uses Shaper level for BAB.  Is his effective BAB for Rockslam 1 for being first level or is it 2?

Edit: Also, how do you determine which spellshape attacks/ formulae are spell-like abilities and which ones aren't?

Edit again: Things that add caster level to spell-like abilities won't actually have any effect on formulae will they since formulae reference Shaper Level instead of Caster Level?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 09:39:40 PM
Here's a question. 

A first level Elemental Adept picks Earth as his element, and thus gains +1 shaper level to spellshape attacks.
Rockslam uses Shaper level for BAB.  Is his effective BAB for Rockslam 1 for being first level or is it 2?

Trick question.  An elemental adept doesn't get a +1 shaper level to his chosen circle until level 5.

At which point, to my chagrin, he's treated as having a +6 base attack bonus.  I'll need to figure out how to fix this.

Edit: Also, how do you determine which spellshape attacks/ formulae are spell-like abilities and which ones aren't?

Another trick question.  All spellshape attacks and arcane formulae are spell-like abilities.

In terms of spell resistance, the individual spellshape attack will say if it is not subject to spell resistance.  Whether or not a formula is subject to spell resistance is covered in the "Spell Resistance" section of the formula description.  If the "Spell Resistance" section says "As spellshape," then the formula's subjectivity to spell resistance is rolled into the spellshape attack that it modifies.  For instance, fireblast is subject to spell resistance.  As such, a Searing Flame formula that modifies a fireblast attack is subject to spell resistance...in that it has no effect if the fireblast attack fails to overcome spell resistance.  You'd never roll spell resistance twice, though.

Edit again: Things that add caster level to spell-like abilities won't actually have any effect on formulae will they since formulae reference Shaper Level instead of Caster Level?

Correct, except with regards to spell resistance.  As described under "Shaper Level" in the spellshaping rules:

Quote from: Rules of Spellshaping
As described under Spellshape Attacks, the Spell Penetration feat and other effects that improve caster level checks to overcome spell resistance apply to spellshape attacks and arcane formulae.  However, effects that would improve your caster level do not increase your shaper level for any pupose other than overcoming spell resistance.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 31, 2012, 11:17:17 PM
I await your ruling on how the bonus shaper level intersacts with spellshape attacks.

If all formulae are spell-like abilities, why does the rules of spellshaping say this.
Quote
Arcane formulae, by contrast, are involved spell-like or supernatural effects that are temporarily expended after use.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 11:23:08 PM
I await your ruling on how the bonus shaper level intersacts with spellshape attacks.

The intention is that the base attack bonus substitution with lashing zephyr, rockslam, thornspike, and surging jet should not exceed your character level.

If all formulae are spell-like abilities, why does the rules of spellshaping say this.
Quote
Arcane formulae, by contrast, are involved spell-like or supernatural effects that are temporarily expended after use.

Because impulse mages have an 11th-level class feature.  I'll clarify this during the overhaul and revision.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 31, 2012, 11:27:31 PM
So put a line to the effect that the bonus shaper level does not allow your effective base attack bonus for the purposes of spellshape attacks to exceed your character level, or that it does not get calculated into spellshape effective base attack bonuses.  That should take care of that.

Aren't you glad that I go over my characters with a fine toothed comb?   :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 11:30:28 PM
[old man groan]I'm going to have to put that line into each one of those spellshape attacks...[/old man groan]

I'm also trying to figure out an elegant wording on this one, so don't expect anything immediately.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 31, 2012, 11:35:30 PM
[old man groan]I'm going to have to put that line into each one of those spellshape attacks...[/old man groan]

I'm also trying to figure out an elegant wording on this one, so don't expect anything immediately.

Yeah you probably are, just in case any other Shaper Level bonuses come up.

Understandable.  I've adjusted my character to follow your ruling so I don't need an immediate change, but I'm glad I thought to ask about it instead of just deciding things would work the way that was most favorable.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on July 31, 2012, 11:36:12 PM
...


"you may use your shaper level in place of your base attack bonus on attack rolls with lashing zephyr (but not when determining how many attacks you can make), up to a maximum of your Hit Dice."


There. Simple, elegant, and effective.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on July 31, 2012, 11:57:46 PM
Aww, you're going to kill my extra attacks too?   :p
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 31, 2012, 11:58:15 PM
...


"you may use your shaper level in place of your base attack bonus on attack rolls with lashing zephyr (but not when determining how many attacks you can make), up to a maximum of your Hit Dice."


There. Simple, elegant, and effective.

Oh, wow.  Work really has been frying my brain this week.

Aww, you're going to kill my extra attacks too?   :p

That clause was always there, actually.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 01, 2012, 12:02:33 AM
Hmm, apparently I fail at reading comprehension. 

Edit: How's progress on the revamped Elemental Perfection feat coming by the way?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 01, 2012, 01:10:38 AM
Clearly, you missed that bit today when I posted it.

Also, new Codex I PDF is incoming.  T-minus a few minutes.

Edit: And, new PDF is live!  So, too, are the changes to the elemental adept and the relevant spellshape attacks.  And the Searing Blast fix.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 01, 2012, 02:14:42 AM
Posted where?  It isn't on the Elemental Adept page...

Edit: I am just blind today...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on August 01, 2012, 04:36:25 AM
Random suggestion: a PrC focused on spamming lower level formulae and simple spellshape attacks, trading off access to higher level ones for the ability to use multiple low-level ones at once.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 01, 2012, 10:45:54 AM
Hm, strange interaction there - there's a slight incentive to multiclass for 2 levels, since your class feature will then apply to your attack rolls. Probably outweighed by slowed formulae known progression and other spellshape attacks, but still. You might phrase it as, "Your base shaper level," if you want to create that term, or else just, "Your shaper level, as calculated purely from class levels (with no other modifications, such as an Elemental Adept's Devoted Adept ability)".
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 01, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
Random suggestion: a PrC focused on spamming lower level formulae and simple spellshape attacks, trading off access to higher level ones for the ability to use multiple low-level ones at once.

I'm kind of leery of this one, but I'll think about it.  As I've said elsewhere, I'm not really enamored of the idea of messing with formula progressions.  But I'll consider it!

Hm, strange interaction there - there's a slight incentive to multiclass for 2 levels, since your class feature will then apply to your attack rolls. Probably outweighed by slowed formulae known progression and other spellshape attacks, but still. You might phrase it as, "Your base shaper level," if you want to create that term, or else just, "Your shaper level, as calculated purely from class levels (with no other modifications, such as an Elemental Adept's Devoted Adept ability)".

I wouldn't exactly call it an incentive--your attack bonus still won't be greater than your character level.  That's like saying that a warblade has an incentive to multiclass into barbarian because it won't lower his base attack bonus.

At least, that's how I see it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 01, 2012, 11:09:38 AM
Wait, when did the physical spellshapes start messing with your BaB? Didn't they used to just give a bonus (1/2 your SL, I think) to your attack rolls?

Edit: Shouldn't a character with a high BaB be more accurate than a low BaB character? That's still the case with the touch spellshapes, regardless of SL, why should it be different with the physical ones?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 01, 2012, 12:13:24 PM
I think the major reason is that that sort of bonus can get out of hand quickly, resulting in medium BAB shapers having better-than-full-BAB, effectively. Using shaper level instead guarantees level appropriate values.

I wouldn't exactly call it an incentive--your attack bonus still won't be greater than your character level.  That's like saying that a warblade has an incentive to multiclass into barbarian because it won't lower his base attack bonus.

At least, that's how I see it.
That's fair, I suppose,  but there is a slight difference. In this case, it allows you to utilize a resource you weren't able to before - that isn't true in the case of the warblade and barbarian. It's only a very slight resource, since it affects only one school, but it's the sort of bleeding-edge optimization you get in builds trying to push tier 3s and lower to their limits.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 01, 2012, 02:00:50 PM
Wait, when did the physical spellshapes start messing with your BaB? Didn't they used to just give a bonus (1/2 your SL, I think) to your attack rolls?

Edit: Shouldn't a character with a high BaB be more accurate than a low BaB character? That's still the case with the touch spellshapes, regardless of SL, why should it be different with the physical ones?

Yeah, my original method of dealing with it was to give you a bonus equal to 1/2 your shaper level on attack rolls with that spellshape attack.  As Bauglir pointed out at the time, though, this meant that, if your base attack bonus was medium or higher, you ended up being more accurate than a full-BAB class.  For example, a twentieth-level earth-devoted elemental adept would have an attack bonus of 26 + Dexterity + any other modifiers.

My solution to this shenanigannery was to just have you use shaper level in place of base attack bonus.  However, as you've pointed out, this has its own problems in terms of classes with different base attack bonuses being equally accurate.

I'm not really happy with the "use shaper level in place of base attack bonus" solution, but I also recognize that outdoing full-BAB classes in the attack bonus department is kind of a kick in the balls.  I'll try to come up with a better solution to this one.


That's fair, I suppose,  but there is a slight difference. In this case, it allows you to utilize a resource you weren't able to before - that isn't true in the case of the warblade and barbarian. It's only a very slight resource, since it affects only one school, but it's the sort of bleeding-edge optimization you get in builds trying to push tier 3s and lower to their limits.

Given that only the attack bonus is restricted to character level, I don't really see it as being any more of an issue than it would have been before.  Multiclassing for two levels will still leave you with a lower shaper level than continued progression--it just won't impact your attack bonus any more.

And, to tell the truth, I don't have a problem with bleeding-edge optimization letting you get a slightly higher attack bonus.  Optimization is always going to exist, and the potential for varied and interesting builds is, in my mind, a strength, not a weakness.  I don't think that +1 attack bonus is going to push anything into game-breaking territory, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 01, 2012, 02:19:32 PM
That's pretty reasonable, it just seemed like kind of a strange interaction result.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 01, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
Wait, when did the physical spellshapes start messing with your BaB? Didn't they used to just give a bonus (1/2 your SL, I think) to your attack rolls?

Edit: Shouldn't a character with a high BaB be more accurate than a low BaB character? That's still the case with the touch spellshapes, regardless of SL, why should it be different with the physical ones?

Yeah, my original method of dealing with it was to give you a bonus equal to 1/2 your shaper level on attack rolls with that spellshape attack.  As Bauglir pointed out at the time, though, this meant that, if your base attack bonus was medium or higher, you ended up being more accurate than a full-BAB class.  For example, a twentieth-level earth-devoted elemental adept would have an attack bonus of 26 + Dexterity + any other modifiers.

My solution to this shenanigannery was to just have you use shaper level in place of base attack bonus.  However, as you've pointed out, this has its own problems in terms of classes with different base attack bonuses being equally accurate.

I'm not really happy with the "use shaper level in place of base attack bonus" solution, but I also recognize that outdoing full-BAB classes in the attack bonus department is kind of a kick in the balls.  I'll try to come up with a better solution to this one.

Touch attacks with poor BaB are still more likely to hit than a regular full BaB attack against almost every opponent in the book (incorporeal creatures, Wilders, and VoP Monks are just about the only exceptions, since even very dodgy enemies usually have a few points of armor or natural armor bonuses). Beware of making a double standard about accuracy.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 01, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Touch attacks with poor BaB are still more likely to hit than a regular full BaB attack against almost every opponent in the book (incorporeal creatures, Wilders, and VoP Monks are just about the only exceptions, since even very dodgy enemies usually have a few points of armor or natural armor bonuses). Beware of making a double standard about accuracy.

Hrm.  So you think I should just go back to the 1/2 shaper level bonus?

I'll admit, I like that model a lot more.


Edit: On the topic of reverting things to their earlier forms, I'm seriously considering dropping that "reprepare formulae 1/encounter as a swift action," or else changing it such that it expends all your formulae, rather than recovering them.  As it is, it basically lets players bypass most recovery mechanics.

I'm actually leaning towards that second option, now that I think about it.  It would allow you to adapt to certain situations--such as swapping out something for Embrace of the Air if it turns out that the enemy is flying--while still carrying something of a penalty.


Edit Again: Holy crap, Embrace of the Air doesn't let you fly in armor.  I must have forgotten to change this when I wrote the spellshape champion.  I mean, unless I intended to punch an entire class in the balls, but I don't think I did.

I'll fix this tonight.


Edit A Third Time: Definitely going to go with the second option on the swift action swapping of formulae.  It will still be an option, but doing so will leave all of your formulae expended.

This will have to be slightly tweaked for the dragonheart adept and the sublime shaper.  One usage of swift action swap will only let you swap maneuvers or formulae, but will only leave that type of ability expended.  Since these classes primarily recover abilities by swapping a maneuver for a formula, I feel that it would be too crippling for them to lose everything.  Sure, they could slowly full attack their way back up, but it would be a slow and painful process.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 01, 2012, 10:15:11 PM
Okay, I've applied these changes to the Codex I materials online, and I've printed the relevant PDF pages so that I can update that, too.  However, I'm going to move on to updating the Codex II online materials and the Web Enhancement things, so I'll be throwing up the two PDFs simultaneously later tonight.

Edit: Applied the swift action recovery to the Codex II base classes and the web enhancement ones.  I decided to just have dragonheart adept and sublime shaper bite the bullet like everyone else.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 01, 2012, 10:39:31 PM
So formulae can be swapped as a swift action without being recovered and the "weapon" attack spellshapes now gain a bonus equal to 1/2 shaper level to attack instead of a BAB change.  Any other changes?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 01, 2012, 11:17:07 PM
Spellshape champion and spellshot marksman now note that they do not gain any bonuses to their attack rolls from channeled spellshape attacks, to prevent shenanigans.

Embrace of the Air now allows you to fly while wearing armor.

Also, do note that the swift action now actively expends all of your formulae, rather than just "not recovering" them.  The only ones that didn't get hit with these are the spellsage, who never had the swift action in the first place, and the impulse mage, for whom "all formulae are expended" translates into "restart the repressed and occurring process" anyway.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on August 01, 2012, 11:56:09 PM
So my little quickly written change has no use. :/


Meh. :P


Anyway, a question.


What feats would you say should be required for the teleportation PrC I'm working on? Something fluffy, I'd say, since there's plenty of power for it already, and it should have a tax...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 02, 2012, 12:16:45 AM
What feats would you say should be required for the teleportation PrC I'm working on? Something fluffy, I'd say, since there's plenty of power for it already, and it should have a tax...

Man, it is so tempting to say Mobility.

But if you want a two-feat tax, go with Shaper's Stride.  It itself requires Sculpt Spellshape, but the teleportation effect it gives you seems far from irrelevant.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on August 02, 2012, 12:52:07 AM
Stride works. Here you go (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251466).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 02, 2012, 02:16:08 AM
Regarding the accuracy double-standard - remember that the normal attacks typically have a die size one higher, and ignore SR. They already have advantages to compete with near-automatic hits, even though I agree that they need some sort of to-hit bonus to keep up (since those advantages don't mean anything if you flub the attack roll routinely).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 02, 2012, 08:18:13 PM
Stride works. Here you go (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251466).

I have to call this one out as a beautiful piece of work.  The Translocation Formulae never would have occurred to me, and you pulled the whole thing off gracefully.

Three cheers!

Regarding the accuracy double-standard - remember that the normal attacks typically have a die size one higher, and ignore SR. They already have advantages to compete with near-automatic hits, even though I agree that they need some sort of to-hit bonus to keep up (since those advantages don't mean anything if you flub the attack roll routinely).

To be fair, I think that the "die size one higher" is actually compensating for the "subject to damage reduction" thing.  At least, that's how I thought about it when I wrote them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 03, 2012, 05:18:33 PM
Preview time!

I've been toying more with incantations--the out-of-combat powers.  Unlike formulae, with require only somatic components, incantations will require only verbal components.  There will be three incantations per circle--one least incantation, one lesser incantation, and one greater incantation.  Their behavior and use will be codified, as they'll be defined as one of the types of spellshaping powers.

I moved back to feat-based acquisition, as it's just easier to deal with.  This may change by release, but I'm pretty comfortable with it at the moment.  The feat will contain a brief reiteration of how incantations work, just to clarify it, but the incantations themselves will not be described within the feat.  (In the revised PDF, they'll be placed at the beginning of the circle's entry, alongside spellshape attacks and auras.  Incidentally, auras are also going to be renamed to "numena"--singular "numen.")

I have the feat right here.  The name may well change, since it is as stupid as my names usually are.

(click to show/hide)


I also have, for your reviewing pleasure, the first draft of one circle's incantations.  Nobody will be surprised to know that the circle in question is Searing Flame.  As I've said, this is just my first draft--I may well change my mind on things, and I am more than willing to listen to suggestions.  This is more or less just to give you all an idea of what I'm trying to do here.

(click to show/hide)

I haven't yet decided on whether or not to name the individual incantations.  On the one hand, it would be nice.  On the other hand, 48 names.  And you all know by now that I am terrible at names.

Incidentally, I've come up with 37 of the effects.  Eleven more before I can begin writing everything!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 03, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
I like the concept.   :)

For determining uses per day/ incantation level do you use your shaper level as a whole or shaper level for that specific circle?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 03, 2012, 05:28:38 PM
Some names, if you decide you want them.

Feat: Spellshape Incanter
SF Least: Induce Pyre
SF Lesser: Quench Pyre
SF Greater: Pyrewalking

Edit: Shouldn't Learn Incantation have the clause that lets you take it multiple times?
Also, any reason these abilities are on a daily basis, unlike other formulae that are all per encounter?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 03, 2012, 05:34:52 PM
I like the concept.   :)

For determining uses per day/ incantation level do you use your shaper level as a whole or shaper level for that specific circle?

I'm not sure on this one yet.  I'd like it to be based off of your shaper level for that particular circle, but that's not actually a defined thing.  It might end up being based on your highest shaper level that derived from a spellshaper class with which you have access to the specific circle.

Some names, if you decide you want them.

Feat: Spellshape Incanter
SF Least: Induce Pyre
SF Lesser: Quench Pyre
SF Greater: Pyrewalking

Definitely the new name for the feat.  I like where you're going with the incantation names, but I'm not entirely sure if I want them to all build on a theme like that.  While it works well for Searing Flame, some of them are less...linear.  Such as Brilliant Dawn and Deteriorating Corrosion.

I'm definitely using the names for now, though.  If I end up being able to run that kind of theme with every circle's incantations, I probably will.  It feels fun.

Edit: Also, since I forgot to include it in the feat the first time I posted it, do note that, yes, you can take the feat multiple times, each time gaining the ability to use the incantations associated with a different circle to which you have access.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 04:57:40 PM
I still need to come up with a Least and Lesser for Eternal Moment, a Lesser for Perfect Freeze, a Greater for Screeching Roc, a Lesser and Greater for Shocking Current, and a Greater for Unseen Impetus.  I'm combing everything I can for ideas, so it hopefully won't be much longer until I can write it all up.

In the meantime, previews for the other three elemental circles.  As before, these are not set in stone.  If something's a terrible idea, say so and I will change it.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hanako Tachibana on August 06, 2012, 05:16:42 PM
Did you intend for the Least Blustering Gale incantation to be called "Induce Pyre?"
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 05:17:59 PM
....my shame is eternal.  Fixed.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 06, 2012, 07:46:30 PM
Body of Stone just feels meh to me.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 09:27:41 PM
Yeah, I wasn't too happy with it, either.  The problem is that, in order to avoid the same sort of slump that I hit with the Aspected Meditant, I'm trying to keep everyone in the loop about what's going on.  The Aspected Meditant slump hit me hard precisely because I was trying to come up with 48 effects without any feedback or suggestions.

However, my writing process normally goes a little something like this:

I'm inserting the information feed between steps 1 and 2, which means I don't get to the "remove stupid ideas."  In the normal run of things, I won't remove a bad idea until I've come up with at least one idea for every "slot"--just to have things filling space.

It's a bad habit, and one that really doesn't lend itself to this sort of open writing process.  I'll work on being better about it.

(Incidentally, Body of Stone has been replaced by Whispers of Stone.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 06, 2012, 10:28:29 PM
Looks good. Crushing Stone's divinatory qualities aren't what you'd expect from the circle of rock, but it works quite well.

Quote
If the subject moves, the snesor follows at a speed of up to 150 feet.

Small typo in Wave Sight.

Don't incantations need effective spell or formula levels?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 10:36:51 PM
Looks good. Crushing Stone's divinatory qualities aren't what you'd expect from the circle of rock, but it works quite well.

[overdramatic fluff]The land is old, Garryl.  It is older than you can know.  It has seen much, and heard more.  Who are you to question its wisdom?[/overdramatic fluff]

Quote
If the subject moves, the snesor follows at a speed of up to 150 feet.

Small typo in Wave Sight.

Like this!  You question the truth of the ancient snesor?  The snesor has been snesing sneses since before you were snesed!

Fixed.

Don't incantations need effective spell or formula levels?

My current plan is to have their effective spell levels be equal to 1/2 your shaper level (maximum 9).  This was going to be defined in their rules description...

...which I haven't written yet...

...so, yeah.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 06, 2012, 10:47:46 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that you're keeping us in the loop.  I wasn't complaining, just giving non-helpful feedback.

I'm not sure how I feel about Crushing Stone being all divinationy.  It isn't a bad way to go, it just probably has something to do with me being all meh about divination.  I was hoping for gaining the Solid type and smashing things I guess.   :P


The fixed percentage on Will of Stone feels kind of arbitrary.  Especially when I can this happening when you can use it at-will:
1. Try to make a door
2. Fail percentage chance, door won't move
3. Try to make a door that moves.
etc....
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 10:57:55 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that you're keeping us in the loop.  I wasn't complaining, just giving non-helpful feedback.

And I appreciate it!  I just tend to overexplain myself so that people understand where I'm coming from.

I'm not sure how I feel about Crushing Stone being all divinationy.  It isn't a bad way to go, it just probably has something to do with me being all meh about divination.  I was hoping for gaining the Solid type and smashing things I guess.   :P

Well, the incantations are aimed at being non-combat things.  Solid subtype really only has benefits in terms of combat, and smashing stuff wouldn't really be a very interesting high-level effect.

Divination actually fits very well of my conception of earth, since I tend to view earth as being based in brute force and wisdom.  Air is based in speed and freedom, fire is based in passion and impulse, and water is based in penetration and secrecy.  These may or may not be influenced by my experience with Magic: the Gathering.

Granted, I'm just throwing in what seems like it can fit.  Feel free to suggest away!

The fixed percentage on Will of Stone feels kind of arbitrary.  Especially when I can this happening when you can use it at-will:
1. Try to make a door
2. Fail percentage chance, door won't move
3. Try to make a door that moves.
etc....

I'm...unsure of where I stand on this one.  While you could totally keep trying to make the door work, that would take time--and time is a resource.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 06, 2012, 11:03:23 PM
The fluff of Earth = Divination completely makes sense.  I just personally don't use divination.  Since you're not making this little sub-system specifically for the single character I've made using your homebrew, don't worry about it too much.     :p

For the chance to fail, perhaps one that scales?  So we'd have 30% (or whatever) when you get it.  Then when you get the Lesser ability reduce it to 15%, and when you get the Greater reduce it to 0%.  I don't see much of a balance problem at being able to make moving items out of stone without a chance for failure at 13th level.

Edit: In fact, that leads me to a new question.  At 13th level you could manipulate 130 cubic feet.  Could you make a tunnel?  A room with a door and stone furniture built into the ground? Could you surround yourself (or someone else) with solid stone?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 11:08:03 PM
Eh, I decided to just go with removing the failure chance.  Mainly because it feels wrong for you to be less likely to fail when you have more uses per day.

Edit: Funny thing about 130 cubic feet.  That's only slightly over five feet on each side.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 06, 2012, 11:17:10 PM
Edit: Funny thing about 130 cubic feet.  That's only slightly over five feet on each side.

That doesn't matter when you can do it at will. 

Just replace "someone else" with "dwarves" and my questions still stand.   :p
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 11:25:32 PM
I suppose that, with enough time, you could technically build a fortress.

...have I made a terrible mistake?  I mean, it does take until 13th level for it to be at-will...and, even then, that's six seconds per 5-foot-cube of fortress....and given that ice castle is a 7th level spell...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 06, 2012, 11:32:29 PM
I suppose that, with enough time, you could technically build a fortress.

...have I made a terrible mistake?  I mean, it does take until 13th level for it to be at-will...and, even then, that's six seconds per 5-foot-cube of fortress....and given that ice castle is a 7th level spell...

I have no idea if it is overpowered, I just want you to see the possible implications.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 06, 2012, 11:37:04 PM
I'm not sure if you could draw stone out like that, is the thing.  I'm not sure at all.

I tend to view it as shaping the stone that is touched...but that's admittedly pretty vague.

However, if the general consensus ends up being that it's not broken, I don't actually have any philosophical problem with you being able to build with it.  It's an interesting use.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 07, 2012, 12:17:05 AM
Heck no it's not overpowered to be able to manipulate stone at 13th level. Come on... Look at Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, Fabricate, etc. Those are all way more "broken" than this, and I don't really think most DMs would have a problem with those, either, unless you decided to break the crap out of wealth by level with them, or something. And even if you do that, it means you're not out saving the Princess, or whatever. So there is a trade-off. As in real life, Time is more valuable than Money, and this becomes even more true the more powerful you are. ;)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 07, 2012, 02:42:39 AM
Heck no it's not overpowered to be able to manipulate stone at 13th level. Come on... Look at Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, Fabricate, etc. Those are all way more "broken" than this, and I don't really think most DMs would have a problem with those, either, unless you decided to break the crap out of wealth by level with them, or something. And even if you do that, it means you're not out saving the Princess, or whatever. So there is a trade-off. As in real life, Time is more valuable than Money, and this becomes even more true the more powerful you are. ;)

Fair enough!  I shall stop worrying, then.

Also, Bauglir...you beautiful bastard (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6515.0).  I really can only approve.



Edit: Didn't see this until just now.

Also, any reason these abilities are on a daily basis, unlike other formulae that are all per encounter?

While I--rather obviously--like the idea of not having to track uses per day in combat, I also do recognize the trope of having to draw on some sort of resource to use magic.  Incantations are more complicated effects, which require the ability to tap into certain powers.

For the mechanics side of things, there's no good "encounter" analogue for out-of-combat abilities.  I could say every hour or every so many minutes, but that can be weird to track.  Plus, I actually do like the idea of having to manage some sort of daily resource.  Being able to use an incantation at a given time doesn't actually have much of a bearing on how combat plays out, so I feel comfortable giving them a daily tracking.

Finally, the scaling uses fit really well into the concept of mastering your powers in a way that formulae don't quite pull off.  Sure, you gain the ability to use higher-level formulae...but, in-game, that's just a slightly bigger fireball.  If you pick up an incantation, however, you very visibly become more competent with the powers of that circle.

Incidentally, I stole borrowed adapted all most much of the incantation system from Hanako's work.  Credit goes to her on the structure of this one.



Edit Again: I have four incantations left to figure out.

Hopefully, I'll be able to knock these out quickly, at which point I'd binge-write them all up.  I don't know if I'll be able to get any previews up today, but there will be something new by the end of the week.



Edit 33⅓ - The Final Insult: Down to two incantations left to figure out--the greater incantations for Screeching Roc and Unseen Impetus.  We'll see what comes up.



Edit IV - A New Hope: So, I have now come up with ideas for all the incantations.  I'll start writing them up tonight, and will hopefully have them ready before the end of the weekend.

I'll note now that I'm not entirely sure how much I like some of the effects, but I also know my own fallibility.  Going to leave this one up to peer review--if people also dislike the ones that I dislike, they'll be replaced.  If people dislike ones that I like, those will be replaced, too.  But if people like ones that I dislike, they'll be left as-is.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on August 11, 2012, 02:18:17 AM
Heh. Seems like a plan.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 12, 2012, 02:14:05 AM
Incantations are up!

As a great witch once said, "When they are alive, you can enjoy watching them struggle.  When they are dead, you can enjoy tearing out their guts."  So, get to tearing!

Edit: I'm also toying with the idea of a variant feat that would let martial adepts take incantations, with each of the nine disciplines being associated with a particular set of incantations.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 12, 2012, 02:37:59 AM
The Astral Essence ones have some bolding issues.

As for balance, Nothing pops out at me as particularly horrible or amazing, but I'll take another look when I'm less tired.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 12, 2012, 02:54:41 AM
Fixed the bolding issues.

Edit: Another idea I'm toying with, for the system revision and recompilation...exactly how bad of an idea would it be to give most spellshaping classes one free set of incantations?  I say "most" because I was thinking that the spellsage would eventually get the set of incantations for every circle to which it has access.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on August 12, 2012, 04:41:54 AM
How bad of an idea would it be to give most spellshaping classes one free set of incantations?

I really don't know. I would be quite a power bump, because of gaining some utility for free. On the other hand, incantations are very cool.

I say "most" because I was thinking that the spellsage would eventually get the set of incantations for every circle to which it has access.

The spellsage is quite strong. Equivalent of seven feats would make him even stronger.

I'd rather give incantations for free to the Anchorite (he needs it), Spellshape Paragon ACF, add the Spellshape Incanter feat to the savant's bonus feats list and give the Impulse Mage ability to receive each day Spellshape Incanter tied to random known circle.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 12, 2012, 05:31:11 AM
I really don't know. I would be quite a power bump, because of gaining some utility for free. On the other hand, incantations are very cool.

Yeah, that's pretty much the exact struggle I'm dealing with.

The spellsage is quite strong. Equivalent of seven feats would make him even stronger.

I'd rather give incantations for free to the Anchorite (he needs it), Spellshape Paragon ACF, add the Spellshape Incanter feat to the savant's bonus feats list and give the Impulse Mage ability to receive each day Spellshape Incanter tied to random known circle.

The spellsage is going to be completely rewritten in the revision.  Ground-up.  Same with the impulse mage.

I'm not exactly sure how the anchorite "needs" incantations.  With the swap to aspected meditant, it's going to be a pretty solid chassis.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on August 12, 2012, 06:14:16 AM

The spellsage is going to be completely rewritten in the revision.  Ground-up.  Same with the impulse mage.

My reaction was exactly as Zappa's song: "No not now (http://radio-vienna.blogspot.com/2012/04/frank-zappa-ship-arriving-too-late-to.html)". I'm in the middle of campaign with my crazy cool Invoking Battle Spellsage and, with forthcoming revision, he'll became obsolete. Aww. On the other hand, I'm longing to see revised versions.

I'm not exactly sure how the anchorite "needs" incantations.  With the swap to aspected meditant, it's going to be a pretty solid chassis.

Good point, but easier access to incantations fulfills anchorite's theme.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 12, 2012, 10:21:40 AM
I expect most of these issues will be with the original spells rather than their implementations as invocations. I'm still gonna bug you about it. If you took the time to write it all out, I'm also going to expect you to fix their problems.
... Speaking of which, was there any reason you didn't just say "as the xyz spell, except as noted," especially for the ones you didn't make any major changes to?

Tethered Dimension (Rope Trick): I don't suppose you feel like clarifying how dangerous extradimensional spaces inside extradimensional spaces can be given that you're rewriting this and all?
Dimensional Speech (Sending): Small typo. "Creature within which" should be "with".
Dimensionwalking (Plane Shift): I never noticed it before, but I think Plane Shift technically only works from the Material Plane.

Command Air (Control Air)
Air Form (Gaseous Form)
Air Stride (Wind Walk)

Control Illumination (Control Light)
Illuminate Soul (Break Enchantment): Bestow Curse is available at multiple levels even in core. The example seems to use the Sor/Wiz version (level 4), and should clarify as such.
Illuminating Gaze (True Seeing ++)

Will of Stone (Stone Shape): Reflex save or something for creatures caught in the stone you just shaped around their lower bodies?
Speech of Stone (Stone Tell)
Whispers of Stone (Discern Location)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 12, 2012, 11:57:47 AM
I expect most of these issues will be with the original spells rather than their implementations as invocations. I'm still gonna bug you about it. If you took the time to write it all out, I'm also going to expect you to fix their problems.

Changes made.

... Speaking of which, was there any reason you didn't just say "as the xyz spell, except as noted," especially for the ones you didn't make any major changes to?

Primarily for ease of use.  I really don't like sending people all over the place, when I can avoid it.  I also suspect that they're going to end up being slowly tweaked and altered until they resemble the original spells less and less.



My reaction was exactly as Zappa's song: "No not now (http://radio-vienna.blogspot.com/2012/04/frank-zappa-ship-arriving-too-late-to.html)". I'm in the middle of campaign with my crazy cool Invoking Battle Spellsage and, with forthcoming revision, he'll became obsolete. Aww. On the other hand, I'm longing to see revised versions.

I didn't say that they'd be done soon.  And I'm going to try to have similar archetypes and ACFs in place, so things shouldn't pan out too badly.

Good point, but easier access to incantations fulfills anchorite's theme.

The anchorite would actually, to my mind, be weird to deal with getting incantations, since you won't be able to select from all the circles you'll eventually know.  But I'll mess around when I'm revising.



Edit: Upon reflection, I think that I'm only going to give free incantations to base classes or alternative class features that are based on specialization.  Elemental adepts will get the incantation associated with their chosen elements (and something will be figured out for paraelemental adepts), impulse mages with the Darker Impulses alternative class feature will get some number of the relevant incantations, and spellshape champions with the Spellshape Paragon alternative class feature will get the incantation associated with their chosen circles.  I'm also thinking of writing other ACFs that would lock you into specific circle selections, so those will also get incantations if they see the light of day.

In general, my plans for changes to base classes are as follows:

Bear in mind, these are just the basic ideas that I have before starting the revision.  More changes may--and probably will--be put in the works once I start actually reviewing the material.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 13, 2012, 11:53:02 AM
I like the fact that you're revamping the base classes.  However, be wary of giving the Paraelemental Adept another circle.  Yes, the Elemental Adept has four and the Paraelemental Adept has three but the Elemental Adept only gains bonuses with two of his where the Parelemental Adept gets bonuses to ALL.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 01:56:46 PM
Well, given that the elemental adept will technically have five circles in the revision, it gets a bit trickier.  An earth adept, for instance, would have Crushing Stone, Deteriorating Corrosion, and Screeching Roc as his elemental circles, and would retain access to Roaring Tide and Searing Flame.  Whereas a paraelemental adept doesn't retain any of his non-chosen circles, and thus only gets the granted circles.

I'm thinking that I might have to re-examine the way bonuses are set up.  The easiest way would be to just give the bonuses to the element's primary circle, but that gets tricky with the paraelemental adept.  And while I could just give the paraelemental adept bonuses to the two "elemental" circles--for instance, Crushing Stone and Searing Flame for a magma adept--that makes less sense for ice and ooze.

More thought will be put into this before I move forward on anything.  As I said, those are just the ideas that I've had before actually starting the revision process.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 13, 2012, 04:48:23 PM
I didn't realize Elemental Adepts were getting access to more circles.  That will make things more difficult when it comes to formula choices, with four circles I had a really hard time getting everything sorted out.

Then again, I guess you don't have to take formulae from every circle you have access to.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 05:25:05 PM
I didn't realize Elemental Adepts were getting access to more circles.  That will make things more difficult when it comes to formula choices, with four circles I had a really hard time getting everything sorted out.

Then again, I guess you don't have to take formulae from every circle you have access to.

Well, the current plan is basically to fold Choice of the Devoted into the base class, removing the "choice" component in the process.  Air adepts get Blustering Gale, Shocking Current, and Unseen Impetus; earth adepts get Crushing Stone, Deteriorating Corrosion, and Screeching Roc; fire adepts get Searing Flame, Brilliant Dawn, and Shocking Current; and water adepts get Roaring Tide, Deteriorating Corrosion, and Perfect Freeze.

I'm actually not entirely married to this one--it's going to make paraelemental adepts hell to deal with, for instance, and also messes up a couple of other things that I'm not sure I want messed.  I may instead end up folding Choice of the Devoted into the base class and retaining the "choice" component.  Either way, though, it feels silly for Choice of the Devoted to actually be an alternative class feature.

Upon reflection, I'm really leaning more towards that second choice.  This also may call into question the additional circles for the other classes, which were added to balance the fact that the elemental adept was going to now have access to five circles.

I'm also not sure whether I'm going to completely remove the teleportation component of Elemental Travel, or just nerf it somewhat.  Thing is, with the current Alpha builds of the impulse mage and the spellsage, the elemental adept and the savant are going to have nearly twice as many dead levels as the other spellshapers.  I already decided that I was going to address this in the savant revision, so I'm questioning what to do with elemental adept.  My main qualm here is that I have spent a lot more time on the elemental adept than on any other base class--except possibly the spellshape champion--and I'm nervous about giving it too much love.  At the same time, I don't want to overcompensate for my own predilections by leaving the class behind the others.

One thing I am thinking of doing is dropping the elemental adept's Hit Die from d10 to d8.  They don't really need those hit points, what with the elemental companion and all.  The only reason that the class even has a d10 Hit Die is that, originally, it was widely considered to be drastically weaker than the impulse mage and the spellsage.  I'm not sure that's really the case any more.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 13, 2012, 05:33:20 PM
Give my elemental adept all the love.   :P

Folding the choice into the main class description instead of tacked on as an ACF is probably the best way to go.  That way you won't have to adjust everything around it to compensate, and Paraelemental Adepts are fine as they are in my honest opinion.

Elemental Travel needs a planar function, otherwise an Elemental Adept brought back through Elemental Rebirth is stuck on his elemental plane.  I'm not sure how necessary the rest of it is balance wise.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 05:43:14 PM
Elemental Travel needs a planar function, otherwise an Elemental Adept brought back through Elemental Rebirth is stuck on his elemental plane.  I'm not sure how necessary the rest of it is balance wise.

Oh, it was always going to keep the planar function.  I had just been considering--as described in the summary earlier--removing the other portion of the ability.  Thing is, a 1/day plane shift to or from a specific plane isn't bad by any means, but it may not be useful in every campaign.  In some games, it could be absolutely useless.

I am definitely thinking that I'll put a tether on the "travel" portion of the ability, should I choose to keep it.  It's a bit excessive as it is now.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on August 13, 2012, 06:10:12 PM
Hey DonQ, any way I can convince you to let DhAs get the dragonblood subtype at 1st level instead of later on?  DfAs do, as do many other homebrew draconic-themed classes (such as my Idealists and VennDygrem's Dragon Shaman fix).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on August 13, 2012, 06:32:25 PM
The only problem I can see with that is that it's a sizeable chunk of Lesser Apotheosis at 10th level, though they'd still be getting enough other things (such as elemental subtypes- though some are better than others; Earth/Air subtypes pretty much get hosed, for instance, while fire/cold get immunities and water can at the very least breathe underwater. I suppose Air gets its flight maneuverability improved to Perfect, too, technically speaking). And Level 1's also pretty well-packed.

Overall, though, gaining the dragonblood subtype's not a huge boost all on its own, besides qualifying you for feats and/or items.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 09:41:47 PM
Yeah, I think I'm going to go with VennDygrem on this one.  Thing is, it's mostly a fluff-based subtype gain--I don't really see much to be gained by getting it at 1st level, and it fits the flavor much more at 10th level.

I may change my mind.  The dragonheart adept and the sublime shaper are also, technically, going to get a revision pass--don't know if I'll actually change anything, but I'll at least look--since they're going to be included in the Appendix on spellshapers and martial adepts.  Said appendix will also include things like a variant that lets martial adepts take incantations.  Possibly other things.  Who knows?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on August 13, 2012, 10:46:46 PM
Well, I'd prefer if they got it at level 1, since it would help me in SirP's game, and it also makes sense with the Draconic abilities they're beginning to gain. However, I was just playing Devil's Advocate, explaining where I could see contention to the idea.

So all I did was spell my own doom! :o
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2012, 10:49:56 PM
Well, I'll be honest, that was just me seeing an excuse to be lazy when you were opposed.  I'll give it an actual look at this point.

Edit: Yeah, sure, why not.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on August 13, 2012, 10:56:38 PM
Thing is, it's mostly a flavor thing. There are hardly any mechanical benefits. Much like the Earth subtype, or Augmented (Whatever).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 13, 2012, 11:18:53 PM
Thing is, it's mostly a flavor thing. There are hardly any mechanical benefits. Much like the Earth subtype, or Augmented (Whatever).

It can allow you to get some feats/ prestige classes.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on August 14, 2012, 01:12:33 AM
There are really very few feats or prestige classes it truly qualifies you for, in the grand scheme of things. Most of the things it qualifies you for, you already get through DhA levels anyway (such as the dragon wings or dragon tail feats), and if your DM won't let you retrain those feats later on when you get the abilities from the class, then you're out of luck.

Besides, if a DfA or similar class can access any of those things at early levels, I don't see why a DhA shouldn't.

Just my two-cents.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 01:15:55 AM
Well, as I tried to hint three hours ago, I already changed it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on August 14, 2012, 07:09:30 AM
Yay!  Mechanical coherency!  Lol.  My players shall thank you ;)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 14, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
There are really very few feats or prestige classes it truly qualifies you for, in the grand scheme of things. Most of the things it qualifies you for, you already get through DhA levels anyway (such as the dragon wings or dragon tail feats), and if your DM won't let you retrain those feats later on when you get the abilities from the class, then you're out of luck.

Besides, if a DfA or similar class can access any of those things at early levels, I don't see why a DhA shouldn't.

Just my two-cents.

I didn't say it could do a lot, just that it could qualify you for something.   :p
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 02:04:13 PM
There are really very few feats or prestige classes it truly qualifies you for, in the grand scheme of things. Most of the things it qualifies you for, you already get through DhA levels anyway (such as the dragon wings or dragon tail feats), and if your DM won't let you retrain those feats later on when you get the abilities from the class, then you're out of luck.

Besides, if a DfA or similar class can access any of those things at early levels, I don't see why a DhA shouldn't.

Just my two-cents.

I didn't say it could do a lot, just that it could qualify you for something.   :p

True, but--as VennDygrem pointed out--there's very little brokenness in getting it early.  Especially since the Exhaled Barrier feat won't work with formulae, which would have been the most concerning combo.  Entangling Exhalation is still somewhat concerning, but I'm going to roll with it unless it proves to actually be truly problematic.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 14, 2012, 02:08:21 PM
There are really very few feats or prestige classes it truly qualifies you for, in the grand scheme of things. Most of the things it qualifies you for, you already get through DhA levels anyway (such as the dragon wings or dragon tail feats), and if your DM won't let you retrain those feats later on when you get the abilities from the class, then you're out of luck.

Besides, if a DfA or similar class can access any of those things at early levels, I don't see why a DhA shouldn't.

Just my two-cents.

I didn't say it could do a lot, just that it could qualify you for something.   :p

True, but--as VennDygrem pointed out--there's very little brokenness in getting it early.  Especially since the Exhaled Barrier feat won't work with formulae, which would have been the most concerning combo.  Entangling Exhalation is still somewhat concerning, but I'm going to roll with it unless it proves to actually be truly problematic.
All you need for Entangling Exhalation is a breath weapon, right? So that's not really an issue.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 14, 2012, 02:09:00 PM
There are really very few feats or prestige classes it truly qualifies you for, in the grand scheme of things. Most of the things it qualifies you for, you already get through DhA levels anyway (such as the dragon wings or dragon tail feats), and if your DM won't let you retrain those feats later on when you get the abilities from the class, then you're out of luck.

Besides, if a DfA or similar class can access any of those things at early levels, I don't see why a DhA shouldn't.

Just my two-cents.

I didn't say it could do a lot, just that it could qualify you for something.   :p

True, but--as VennDygrem pointed out--there's very little brokenness in getting it early.  Especially since the Exhaled Barrier feat won't work with formulae, which would have been the most concerning combo.  Entangling Exhalation is still somewhat concerning, but I'm going to roll with it unless it proves to actually be truly problematic.

You misunderstand me.  I'm 100% for getting it at first level, I was just making a point.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 02:16:38 PM
All you need for Entangling Exhalation is a breath weapon, right? So that's not really an issue.

A breath weapon and the dragonblood subtype.

You misunderstand me.  I'm 100% for getting it at first level, I was just making a point.

Fair enough!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on August 14, 2012, 04:56:12 PM
I don't think it's really anything of concern. Assuming a DhA wants to use Entangling Exhalation, they're using a single breath attack without using a major formula (they can obviously still manage any minor formulae), though I honestly don't think it's any more powerful than most 1st level major formulae. The only difference is they don't need to recover entangling exhalation. However,  they still need to wait 1d4 rounds to use their bw again. It pretty much evens out.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 05:09:51 PM
...hrm.  My original interpretation of how the feat would work didn't actually preclude you from using it with major formulae.  It just says that you make the choice when you use your breath weapon.  Exhaled Barrier doesn't work because it specifically calls out that it just deals the damage normally dealt by your breath weapon--with no loophole into which you can insert formulae.  Entangling Exhalation, however, just notes that your breath weapon deals half its normal damage and entangles creatures in its area.

I'm going to go with the "Can't let you combine that with major formulae, Star Fox!" ruling, for the sake of my sanity.  I just hadn't realized that there was a case to be made there.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 07:22:20 PM
Trying like hell to come up with a new name for spellshape champion.  God, I'm bad at naming things.

To give you an idea of how bad I am at naming, the candidate currently in the lead is "thaumahos" (plural "thaumahoi"), a portmanteau of the Greek words for "miracle" (thauma) and "gladiator" (monomahos).

Any suggestions for this one?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on August 14, 2012, 07:26:22 PM
Trying like hell to come up with a new name for spellshape champion.  God, I'm bad at naming things.

To give you an idea of how bad I am at naming, the candidate currently in the lead is "thaumahos" (plural "thaumahoi"), a portmanteau of the Greek words for "miracle" (thauma) and "gladiator" (monomahos).

Any suggestions for this one?

Formulon, though that sounds more like some kind of monster.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 07:45:58 PM
"Fear the wrath of the formulon!"

(click to show/hide)

 :P

Anyway, I think I can see how you got there--"formula" and "myrmidon"--but "formulon" does sound kind of weird.  I'll throw it into the pile of things to consider, but no promises.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 14, 2012, 07:46:58 PM
Trying like hell to come up with a new name for spellshape champion.  God, I'm bad at naming things.

To give you an idea of how bad I am at naming, the candidate currently in the lead is "thaumahos" (plural "thaumahoi"), a portmanteau of the Greek words for "miracle" (thauma) and "gladiator" (monomahos).

Any suggestions for this one?

Formulon, though that sounds more like some kind of monster.

It makes me think of Voltron.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on August 14, 2012, 10:16:10 PM
Hmm, I was away from book at the time, I thought it was a special standard action or something. My bad.

Regardless, why do you need to rename Spellshape Champion? Just for something more unique to the class?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 10:18:11 PM
Because I dislike the name, and assumed that everyone else thought it was equally bad.

Is this not the case?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on August 14, 2012, 10:21:52 PM
It's not terrible...


(You know you like Thaumarai)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 14, 2012, 10:36:28 PM
If people don't actually dislike spellshape champion that much, I'll probably go the lazy route and leave it as-is.

(Thaumurai is the best.)

Edit: Mild errata to Rite of Return.  Rather than "I expect energy draining to play a pivotal role in my demise," the example of an acceptable set of circumstances now reads: "I expect large quantities of cheese to play a pivotal role in my demise."
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on August 15, 2012, 09:49:17 AM
I love Thaumurai as a name...

Though if you want a less silly name, how about Spellform Knight?

Or Archanomach Champion?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 15, 2012, 09:53:12 AM
Arcanomach Champion sounds more like a PrC. I'm thinking melee based time manipulation.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 15, 2012, 06:49:30 PM
Arcanomach Champion sounds more like a PrC. I'm thinking melee based time manipulation.

...well, I guess I know one of the new prestige classes I'm going to write...

Also, I've finished the revised skeletons for impulse mage, savant, and spellsage.  Those are the only ones that are getting overhauled enough to deserve new skeletons.  I'm not sure whether I'm going to start writing the revised versions now, or whether I'm going to figure out everything I need to do for the revision before sitting down and writing it out.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on August 15, 2012, 06:53:07 PM
Do it piecemeal so it doesn't seem so daunting.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 15, 2012, 06:55:42 PM
Do it piecemeal so it doesn't seem so daunting.

+1
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 15, 2012, 07:17:22 PM
Seems like a solid idea.  I'll still have to do all the relevant alternative class features, racial substitution levels, and feats at the same time, so nothing ends up disjoined.

Also, just so everyone knows--not that this is particularly surprising--but these changes are not going to be put into the Codex I and Codex II PDFs.  Since the goal is to aggregate everything into one revised PDF, I really don't want to go through the pain and hassle of updating the old ones, too.

This does carry the advantage that, if you're currently playing a character, you don't have to rewrite the character sheet.  The old PDFs will remain available until I have completed the behemoth, so they'll remain available as a resource for the current builds.

If your elemental adept is still using a smite ability, though, you should probably update her sheet.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 15, 2012, 11:14:54 PM
Sounds like a plan.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on August 15, 2012, 11:15:16 PM
What if she's multiclassed into Paladin, for reasons? ;)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 15, 2012, 11:17:29 PM
What if she's multiclassed into Paladin, for reasons? ;)

Bah.  You know perfectly well I was referring to the original form of the Wrath of Elements ability.

My God, the first version of the spellshapers was so...different.

Edit: Okay, so, I've sketched out all the changes I have to make for the Stoichen, Elemental Adept, and all the alternative class features and feats therein.  I'm starting here because they have some of the fewest changes to do.  I'll start writing tomorrow night.

The only thing that I have for you tonight is some mild Eye of Flame errata, clarifying how the sensor works.  Technically, most of this is in the description of divination (scrying) spells, but it's nice to have it on paper.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 18, 2012, 01:52:46 PM
So what are the requirements to use a Spellheart item? For example, if I'm playing a multi-classed spellshaper, and buy a Spellheart item with a 3rd level formula in it, but my shaper level is only 3, can I use the formula in the item? What if I am not even a spellshaper?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 18, 2012, 03:50:47 PM
Finally finished perusing the remaining incantations. Didn't see any problems, except that this makes spellshaping too damn cool.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 18, 2012, 04:01:01 PM
So what are the requirements to use a Spellheart item? For example, if I'm playing a multi-classed spellshaper, and buy a Spellheart item with a 3rd level formula in it, but my shaper level is only 3, can I use the formula in the item? What if I am not even a spellshaper?
Based on a similar question I had a while ago with Crown of Searing Flames-style items*, these should all work just fine. The Spellheart item description takes care of the stuff that most classes specify (recovery method for instance, which is a non-thing for these) and sets the SL and DC, as far as I can tell. The gp cost should keep them from being used casually before they're level-appropriate abilities to have, I think. I'm no DonQuixote, so this obviously not an official reply, but just an educated guess.

*The answer I got was that you could learn something even if it was too high level for you to learn normally, because the wording bypasses the normal formula-learning rules. Again, the gp cost should keep it balanced - I was only able to do this because of a +4 LA putting my wealth far ahead of my shaper level.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 18, 2012, 04:52:19 PM
Finally finished perusing the remaining incantations. Didn't see any problems, except that this makes spellshaping too damn cool.

I apologize for nothing.

Well, except for the time I nearly knocked out my girlfriend's tooth.  I apologize for that.

So what are the requirements to use a Spellheart item? For example, if I'm playing a multi-classed spellshaper, and buy a Spellheart item with a 3rd level formula in it, but my shaper level is only 3, can I use the formula in the item? What if I am not even a spellshaper?
Based on a similar question I had a while ago with Crown of Searing Flames-style items*, these should all work just fine. The Spellheart item description takes care of the stuff that most classes specify (recovery method for instance, which is a non-thing for these) and sets the SL and DC, as far as I can tell. The gp cost should keep them from being used casually before they're level-appropriate abilities to have, I think. I'm no DonQuixote, so this obviously not an official reply, but just an educated guess.

*The answer I got was that you could learn something even if it was too high level for you to learn normally, because the wording bypasses the normal formula-learning rules. Again, the gp cost should keep it balanced - I was only able to do this because of a +4 LA putting my wealth far ahead of my shaper level.

This is correct.  Spellheart Weapons are actually intended primarily so that non-spellshapers can stab with magic.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 18, 2012, 11:06:09 PM
This is correct.  Spellheart Weapons are actually intended primarily so that non-spellshapers can stab with magic.
Iiiinteresting... Thanks. :D

Edit: More questions: So if I'm a spellshaper, and I have a spellheart weapon, can I use my own formulae through that weapon while channeling its spellshape attack? So let's say I have a spellheart weapon with a 1st level Searing Flames formula in it (let's say Smoking Cloud). I also know some other Searing Flames formulae, like Impact. Can I shape Impact through my spellheart weapon while channeling my fireblast spellshape attack (derived from the weapon) through it?

To be more specific, my character is a dragonheart adept who can't yet normally channel spellshape attacks through his weapons. So this could potentially give him the ability to shape formula through a spellshape attack while his breath weapon is recharging.

Since the spellshape weapon gives me knowledge of a formula from that circle, and access to the circle's spellshape attack, I could also use it to fulfill the prerequisites of learning other formulae, like say from a Crown of Searing Flames, right?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 18, 2012, 11:54:13 PM
Edit: More questions: So if I'm a spellshaper, and I have a spellheart weapon, can I use my own formulae through that weapon while channeling its spellshape attack? So let's say I have a spellheart weapon with a 1st level Searing Flames formula in it (let's say Smoking Cloud). I also know some other Searing Flames formulae, like Impact. Can I shape Impact through my spellheart weapon while channeling my fireblast spellshape attack (derived from the weapon) through it?

Yes.

To be more specific, my character is a dragonheart adept who can't yet normally channel spellshape attacks through his weapons. So this could potentially give him the ability to shape formula through a spellshape attack while his breath weapon is recharging.

Hoh-ho!  Cunning.  Note that this also lets elemental adepts take advantage of that 3/4 base attack bonus, if they want a melee build.  Not necessarily optimized, but the mace-wielding shaman is possible.

Since the spellshape weapon gives me knowledge of a formula from that circle, and access to the circle's spellshape attack, I could also use it to fulfill the prerequisites of learning other formulae, like say from a Crown of Searing Flames, right?

Nope.  The spellheart items let you shape the formulae "as if" you knew them normally.  It doesn't actually grant you knowledge of the spellshape attack or formula, so no dice.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 19, 2012, 11:40:50 AM
So I've looked through the incantations, and I've got a couple of thoughts. Mostly, some of them seem counter to the project's stated goals, and may be clearly better than other choices. In particular:

Corrosive Touch has an ability that's specifically useful in combat, which is odd considering the goal. While the level you get it at means you'll rarely be encountering non-magical armor on any foes you care about, it might be a good idea to remove that use just to make it fit the concept of incantations better.

Rite of Return provides a get out of death free card under limited circumstances. That's fine, but it's also a combat buff since it means you suffer no consequences from a death. You might add a 1 minute delay between death and resurrection to resolve this, since that should take you out of combat and still allow you to return in a timely fashion from a character's perspective.

Invade Mind doesn't go against the goals, it's just insanely good. This is a consequence of modify memory, but you might want to institute a limit on how often it can be used on a single target since the optimal first use is to implant a memory of yourself being hired to perform some magical healing or enchanting service on your target (making every further use of this ability expected and thereby making everyone you can get to fail a single Will save your eternal mind slave).

Fortify Mind provides an excellent combat buff in the form of immunity to mind-affecting effects. Since its duration is 24 hours, I'm not giving it a pass on being non-combat like Illuminating Gaze. You may wish to remove that immunity and leave just the immunity to divinations, which isn't nearly as impressive in combat.

Freedom of the Storm provides another combat buff staple, in the form of freedom of movement. Again, this option clearly stands out for the combat optimizer. You might encourage its uses primarily in non-combat situations by making each use of free movement require a standard action before proceeding (so you could use a standard action to automatically escape a grapple, or allow your next move action to proceed normally underwater, and so on).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 19, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
So, I have applied the revisions to the stoichen, elemental adept, and everything in-between.  There may be slight confusion around the wording of Shaman of the Elements, which now talks about numena, but I'll just tell you now that "numen" is the new name for "spellshape aura."  I'm going to move the information on individual numena to their specific circles fairly soon (it's the next thing on the list), and I'll be adding the rules on numena to the central rules chapter as soon as I've typed that up.



Corrosive Touch has an ability that's specifically useful in combat, which is odd considering the goal. While the level you get it at means you'll rarely be encountering non-magical armor on any foes you care about, it might be a good idea to remove that use just to make it fit the concept of incantations better.

I'm not going to do anything to this one quite yet, as I'd much rather just find a different effect.  I don't really like the fact that all the Deteriorating Corrosion incantations are focused on destroying things--I just couldn't think of anything else for acid.  I'll poke around for something different.

Rite of Return provides a get out of death free card under limited circumstances. That's fine, but it's also a combat buff since it means you suffer no consequences from a death. You might add a 1 minute delay between death and resurrection to resolve this, since that should take you out of combat and still allow you to return in a timely fashion from a character's perspective.

A one-minute waiting time has been added.  Beware the spawncampers.

Invade Mind doesn't go against the goals, it's just insanely good. This is a consequence of modify memory, but you might want to institute a limit on how often it can be used on a single target since the optimal first use is to implant a memory of yourself being hired to perform some magical healing or enchanting service on your target (making every further use of this ability expected and thereby making everyone you can get to fail a single Will save your eternal mind slave).

Hrm.  I'd like to figure out a way to handle this other than just imposing a hard cap on how many times you can mess with one person.  But wouldn't you have to add a new memory of being hired each time?  I don't care if I remember hiring a guy to heal my broken leg--I'm going to start getting suspicious if he's healing me three times a day.

Fortify Mind provides an excellent combat buff in the form of immunity to mind-affecting effects. Since its duration is 24 hours, I'm not giving it a pass on being non-combat like Illuminating Gaze. You may wish to remove that immunity and leave just the immunity to divinations, which isn't nearly as impressive in combat.

Done and done.

Freedom of the Storm provides another combat buff staple, in the form of freedom of movement. Again, this option clearly stands out for the combat optimizer. You might encourage its uses primarily in non-combat situations by making each use of free movement require a standard action before proceeding (so you could use a standard action to automatically escape a grapple, or allow your next move action to proceed normally underwater, and so on).

This is another one I might end up just replacing, since it has fewer utility uses than combat uses.  I'll poke around here, too.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 19, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
Nope.  The spellheart items let you shape the formulae "as if" you knew them normally.  It doesn't actually grant you knowledge of the spellshape attack or formula, so no dice.
Bah, isn't that kind of splitting hairs? "As if" usually means "it works exactly like X, except where specified otherwise". 

And anyway, what's the harm in letting this qualify you for things? It would let someone pick up a few spellshape formulas via items and feats without actually dipping into the classes that grant them, which is certainly possible with standard magic items. I don't see what the harm is. You can already do this via feats, I know, but why not items? After all, you've already put more restrictions on the items like the Crown of Searing Flames than the original ToB items had, anyway.

Anyway, I think you should specifically say it doesn't count towards meeting prereqs if you don't want it to. Otherwise, it is ambiguous at best as written.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 19, 2012, 02:39:21 PM
Elemental Adept changes: Three associated circles (you decided to choose your second associated circle, I approve), automatic incantation access for your element, and then adjusted ACFs.

Did I miss anything?

Also, do you gain the spellshape attack for the associated circle that you didn't pick?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 19, 2012, 02:55:47 PM
For Corrosive Touch's replacement, maybe some sort of divination triggered by getting hopped up on acid fumes?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 19, 2012, 03:05:20 PM
I apologize. I looked for an answer to this, as I suspect it has already been asked, but couldn't find one. How often can a formula gained from an item (Crown of Searing Flames, or Spellheart armor) be used outside of combat? I expect this works like the related Tome of Battle items, but I don't actually know how those work outside of combat, either...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 19, 2012, 05:40:46 PM
Bah, isn't that kind of splitting hairs? "As if" usually means "it works exactly like X, except where specified otherwise".

Actually, in this case, not really.  You can shape them as if you knew them normally.  It discusses the shaping of formulae, not the knowledge of them. 

And anyway, what's the harm in letting this qualify you for things? It would let someone pick up a few spellshape formulas via items and feats without actually dipping into the classes that grant them, which is certainly possible with standard magic items. I don't see what the harm is. You can already do this via feats, I know, but why not items? After all, you've already put more restrictions on the items like the Crown of Searing Flames than the original ToB items had, anyway.

Thing is, I'm actually not a fan of being able to qualify for things using magic items.  In my mind, qualification for feats and prestige classes should be based off of your character's capabilities, not the capabilities of their magic items.  I'm just...irked by the idea.

The reason that the {Equipment} of {Circle} items are more restricted than their Tome of Battle equivalents is twofold.

The first reason is that, unlike maneuvers, many formulae require that you have access to a specific attack form.  You can initiate Stone Dragon maneuvers and Shadow Hand maneuvers with the same sword, but a Crushing Stone-centered spellshaper who picks up a Devouring Shadow formula may not be able to shape it.  To avoid weird situations like that, I chose to impose more restrictions.

The second reason is that, despite my initial plans, spellshapers are more powerful than martial adepts.  It's not a difference on the scale of fighter vs. wizard, but it's there.  Restrictions allow me to slightly muzzle things.

It is worth noting, of course, that I just started a system-wide revision, so changes may be applied.  Especially since I've lately found myself disliking the model currently offered by spellshaping scrolls and {Equipment} of {Circle} items.

Anyway, I think you should specifically say it doesn't count towards meeting prereqs if you don't want it to. Otherwise, it is ambiguous at best as written.

It shall be done!  (When I get there in the revision.)

I apologize. I looked for an answer to this, as I suspect it has already been asked, but couldn't find one. How often can a formula gained from an item (Crown of Searing Flames, or Spellheart armor) be used outside of combat? I expect this works like the related Tome of Battle items, but I don't actually know how those work outside of combat, either...

Actually, the {Equipment} of {Circle} items flat-out grant you the knowledge of the formula in question for as long as you wear them.  You prepare it and shape it normally, so you can shape that formula as often as you could shape any other.



Elemental Adept changes: Three associated circles (you decided to choose your second associated circle, I approve), automatic incantation access for your element, and then adjusted ACFs.

Did I miss anything?

Blessing of the Elements was moved to 18th level, while Master's Adaptation was added at 19th level.  It is no longer the case that a 17th-level elemental adept is filled with existential uncertainty about the next two levels in his class.

Also, do you gain the spellshape attack for the associated circle that you didn't pick?

You do not.  I completely changed the wording on the elemental adept's "spellshape attacks" entry, bringing it in line with the standard.  You gain access to the spellshape attacks associated with the circles to which you have access.

This was done for two reasons.  First, since you now choose from two secondary circles, I couldn't just tell you which attack you got based on your chosen element.  Secondly, the old wording had you learning the spellshape attack from the element opposing your chosen element--even though you didn't have access to that circle.  This change removes that silliness, while preventing new silliness.  Having two spellshape attacks from circles to which you don't have access felt weird to me.



For Corrosive Touch's replacement, maybe some sort of divination triggered by getting hopped up on acid fumes?

Not a bad idea.  Let's see what I find.



So, slight changes to the plan!  Rather than moving numena to their circles first, I'm going to rewrite the Rules of Spellshaping section before anything else.  Then, I'll be moving numena and incantations to their appropriate circles.  Which brings us to a point of uncertainty.  There are now several different types of abilities--four, in fact--and I'm trying to figure out how to organize them.  My gut instinct was:

(click to show/hide)

Does that look like it works?  I'm also trying to figure out whether I should include an incantation list in the style of the existing formula list.  Thing is, you learn them so differently that I'm not sure if it makes sense.

Anyway, general game plan is:
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 19, 2012, 05:47:32 PM
Thanks for your answers. Sorry to keep bugging you but... what about using the Spellheart items outside of combat? Those are normally only 1x/encounter, but how long does it take for it to refresh outside of an encounter? I am considering using one for a utility-type of power (the one that lets you see in the dark, I forget the name), and it will almost certainly come up.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 19, 2012, 05:49:23 PM
I'm going to say that falls under the "End of Encounter" rules on formula recovery.

Quote
In the case of a long, drawn-out series of fights, or if a spellshaper is out of combat entirely, assume that if a character makes no attacks of any kind, shapes no new formulae, and is not targeted by any enemy attacks for 1 full minute, he can recover all expended formulae.  If a character can’t avoid attacking or being attacked for 1 minute, he can’t automatically recover his formulae and must use special actions to do so instead.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 19, 2012, 11:15:23 PM
I'm going to say that falls under the "End of Encounter" rules on formula recovery.

Quote
In the case of a long, drawn-out series of fights, or if a spellshaper is out of combat entirely, assume that if a character makes no attacks of any kind, shapes no new formulae, and is not targeted by any enemy attacks for 1 full minute, he can recover all expended formulae.  If a character can’t avoid attacking or being attacked for 1 minute, he can’t automatically recover his formulae and must use special actions to do so instead.
That's great. So if I take the one that gives fast healing 1 for the whole party, that's fast healing for 5 out of every 10 rounds out of combat. As a bonus, it also gives immunity to poison and disease, and +1 to a couple of things (AC and saves?). I'd say that's a damn good buy for 1500 gp. :D
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 19, 2012, 11:21:13 PM
Well, not exactly immunity, if I recall correctly.  Delaying, certainly.

And now you've gone and worried me over abuse of that price tag.  Is that too low of a cost?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 19, 2012, 11:26:58 PM
You might impose a soft cap on the number of uses of Invade Mind in the form of the following clause at the end: "Each time you use this incantation on a particular target, that target's memories inevitably get more muddled and confused to an outside viewer, as they're shuffled around and modified. A creature gets a +2 bonus on its saving throw for each use of this incantation it has previously failed its saving throw against, whether from a particular spellshaper or not."

You could just implant a memory of your being hired as a "physician" to cast preventative restorations and other protections to ensure "optimal health" or something else that would make you a legitimate long-term companion. The best targets for these sorts of shenanigans would probably be able to afford it (though they would probably have a good Will save and effective guards as well, in all fairness).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 19, 2012, 11:58:01 PM
You might impose a soft cap on the number of uses of Invade Mind in the form of the following clause at the end: "Each time you use this incantation on a particular target, that target's memories inevitably get more muddled and confused to an outside viewer, as they're shuffled around and modified. A creature gets a +2 bonus on its saving throw for each use of this incantation it has previously failed its saving throw against, whether from a particular spellshaper or not."

Added.

You could just implant a memory of your being hired as a "physician" to cast preventative restorations and other protections to ensure "optimal health" or something else that would make you a legitimate long-term companion. The best targets for these sorts of shenanigans would probably be able to afford it (though they would probably have a good Will save and effective guards as well, in all fairness).

See, that's the sort of cunning interplay between DM and player that can make for great sessions.  Especially with the new bonus on saving throws, I think I'm going to let it lie.



The first third of the rules chapter has been updated for the revised spellshapers.  The only things that haven't been updated are the Formula Description section and the Learning Formulae section.  Not much has changed in either of those.  Though I will eventually be revising them, I want to get the base classes done, first.

Incidentally, I got all the numena and incantations into their respective circles.  Huzzah, centralization of information!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 20, 2012, 12:19:01 AM
You might impose a soft cap on the number of uses of Invade Mind in the form of the following clause at the end: "Each time you use this incantation on a particular target, that target's memories inevitably get more muddled and confused to an outside viewer, as they're shuffled around and modified. A creature gets a +2 bonus on its saving throw for each use of this incantation it has previously failed its saving throw against, whether from a particular spellshaper or not."

This would mean that if you have someone you trust able to Invade Mind you, you can essentially immunize yourself against that specific invocation. I'm not sure if that's really stupid or really awesome. Probably the latter, although I doubt you intended it that way.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on August 20, 2012, 12:20:17 AM
Well, not exactly immunity, if I recall correctly.  Delaying, certainly.

And now you've gone and worried me over abuse of that price tag.  Is that too low of a cost?
Well, it's the same price as two wands of Lesser Vigor (1000 hit points of healing), or two belts of healing (54 healing per day). As another comparison, it's half the cost of a Crown of White Ravens, which can also provide (practically) unlimited healing, if the DM will let you use Crusader's Strike while "sparring", etc. So it's pretty cheap, but maybe not too overpowered.

If anything is to blame here, I think perhaps it is that Astral Essence formula. As much as I hate to say it (as I plan to use it...), it might be too good for 1st level.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 20, 2012, 12:24:44 AM
Well, it's the same price as two wands of Lesser Vigor (1000 hit points of healing), or two belts of healing (54 healing per day). As another comparison, it's half the cost of a Crown of White Ravens, which can also provide (practically) unlimited healing, if the DM will let you use Crusader's Strike while "sparring", etc. So it's pretty cheap, but maybe not too overpowered.

If anything is to blame here, I think perhaps it is that Astral Essence formula. As much as I hate to say it (as I plan to use it...), it might be too good for 1st level.

Hrm.  I'll look at changing that when I get to the circle revisions.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 20, 2012, 12:36:56 PM
You might impose a soft cap on the number of uses of Invade Mind in the form of the following clause at the end: "Each time you use this incantation on a particular target, that target's memories inevitably get more muddled and confused to an outside viewer, as they're shuffled around and modified. A creature gets a +2 bonus on its saving throw for each use of this incantation it has previously failed its saving throw against, whether from a particular spellshaper or not."

This would mean that if you have someone you trust able to Invade Mind you, you can essentially immunize yourself against that specific invocation. I'm not sure if that's really stupid or really awesome. Probably the latter, although I doubt you intended it that way.
That was actually an intended side-effect, but it's subtle enough and requires enough trust that it's actually something that won't come up in game often with NPCs. Though it might need a clause about not being able to use it on yourself.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 20, 2012, 12:59:54 PM
That was actually an intended side-effect, but it's subtle enough and requires enough trust that it's actually something that won't come up in game often with NPCs. Though it might need a clause about not being able to use it on yourself.

I dunno, the idea of taking the incantation to protect yourself from its own effects isn't actually that bad of a consequence.

Plus, I must admit that I love the deliciously depressing idea of a spellshaper who, having lived a life filled with despair, slowly modifies his memories, bit by bit, until he's fooled himself into thinking that he's happy.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on August 20, 2012, 02:34:08 PM
Is it OK if I call Invade Mind Golden Years Tarnished Black or Glories that Never Were?

Just because that one ability replicates my favorite charm tree in Exalted.

Love.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 20, 2012, 04:01:08 PM
Is it OK if I call Invade Mind Golden Years Tarnished Black or Glories that Never Were?

Just because that one ability replicates my favorite charm tree in Exalted.

Love.

Er, sure?  I can't say that I know much about Exalted--except for what I'm able to pick up from Sean's stories--but you can call things whatever you like.



So, I swapped the order in which spellshaping powers are presented.  It now goes:
I think that works, but if I've horribly offended anyone, let me know.

I've also figured out most of the caymir and anchorite revisions.  While I'll be supplying the anchorite with its third ACF during this revision, I'm not going to write new feats until I get to the Feat revision.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 20, 2012, 10:17:02 PM
Revisions up for caymir, anchorites, and spellshape champions.

The 1/day speak with animals that caymir had has been replaced by a wonky ability that lets you use Wild Empathy to gain the ability to speak with one animal.  I feel it makes more sense flavor-wise, and it lets you build connections with specific animals.  I suspect it's a wash, in terms of balance.

Anchorite is now officially monk-mode.  The old version is available as the Numinous Anchorite ACF, which replaced Aspected Meditant.  Meanwhile, the new Wild Ascetic ACF lets you play a spellshaping druid.  Well, druid-monk, but who's counting?

Caymir anchorites lost their 1st-level substitution.  Everything else stayed.  They're still pretty decent trades for energy resistance.

Spellshape champions had very few changes--I killed Mage-Warrior's Steed and gave Spellshape Paragons the ability to shape their chosen circle's incantations.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on August 21, 2012, 05:08:39 AM
Meanwhile, the new Wild Ascetic ACF lets you play a spellshaping druid.
Very, very cool change. Shameful that wild ascetic anchorite cannot pick Glimmering Moon circle. For me it doesn't make sense flavor-wise, because lycanthropy and madness are quite 'druidic'.

I killed Mage-Warrior's Steed.
Why?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 21, 2012, 11:20:36 AM
Very, very cool change. Shameful that wild ascetic anchorite cannot pick Glimmering Moon circle. For me it doesn't make sense flavor-wise, because lycanthropy and madness are quite 'druidic'.

A good point.  My folly has been corrected.

Why?

Well, I never liked the ACF to begin with.  It felt like a rush job, and not a very interesting one at that.  Given the nature of the revisions, only the spellshape champion and the spellsage would be left with four ACFs, anyway.  I figured that I would just cut them down to three each, then write one more ACF for the anchorite, the impulse mage, and the savant.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 21, 2012, 11:31:50 AM
I'm liking what I'm seeing so far.   :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 21, 2012, 05:08:15 PM
Living spellshape and spellsage changes are up!

Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 21, 2012, 08:17:38 PM
As a heads up, Turn/Rebuke Undead is a definite step up in power for the Divine Gift ACF. The spell list change might make it a wash, but Turn/Rebuke attempts are used as fuel for so many awesome things that I feel like it might be a little too awesome a benefit. This is just sort of a hunch, so probably more opinions should be given.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 21, 2012, 09:06:46 PM
Hrm.  Any more opinions?  I really like those replacements, but I don't want to horribly unbalance anything.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 22, 2012, 12:20:58 AM
Everyone wanted impulse mages to be more random, right?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 22, 2012, 12:29:26 AM
Hrm.  Any more opinions?  I really like those replacements, but I don't want to horribly unbalance anything.

I can't think of anything specifically overpowered when it comes to non-DMM turn undead powered feats but I've never done any real optimization with them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on August 22, 2012, 02:09:41 AM
It's not that it's terribly overpowered on its own (about the best thing you can do is fuel Devotion feats), but it's definitely a step up from detect magic.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 22, 2012, 08:50:44 AM
Impulsive Tactics should have Impulsive Jaunt as a prerequisite, since it only functions while that feat is active.
Impulsive Voyage should have 500 feet of Abrupt Step as a prerequisite (or, at the very least, the Abrupt Step ability), since it only functions through using that resource.

Edit: I'm concerned about Impulsive Surge. It requires significant overhead (tracking uses per day and rounds remaining aren't a problem, but determining which attribute it applies to each round and recalculating each round is a killer), but gives a paltry bonus (At level 1, it's a +1 bonus, which is barely worth tracking). Further, it's a competence bonus, so by mid levels it will likely overlap with some of your existing bonuses some of the time.

1: Remove the typing. I don't see why it shouldn't stack. (And besides, competence? I'd have expected luck.)
2: Increase the bonus to be something worth tracking. That means a minimum of +3 or +4. Barbarian Rage is a consistent and dependable +2 to a wide range of statistics. This may be only a small part of a class (as opposed to the majority of it), but it's more limited at any given time and randomized to boot. Any bonuses it grants should be worth the effort spent worrying about them.

Also, you don't have to scale up the bonuses to crazy high values if you start with a higher baseline. You could just as easily make it apply to multiple attributes at once, and/or offer more attributes it could apply to when you do so.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 22, 2012, 02:27:47 PM
Impulsive Tactics should have Impulsive Jaunt as a prerequisite, since it only functions while that feat is active.
Impulsive Voyage should have 500 feet of Abrupt Step as a prerequisite (or, at the very least, the Abrupt Step ability), since it only functions through using that resource.

Done and done.  I guess I sort of assumed that having a prerequisite that required the other prerequisite was enough, but I suspect there are shenanigans that can break such assumptions.  Similarly, with Impulsive Voyage, I assumed that an impulse mage would have a Charisma score of at least 18 by 16th level, but--again--I wouldn't be surprised if something could break that.

Edit: I'm concerned about Impulsive Surge. It requires significant overhead (tracking uses per day and rounds remaining aren't a problem, but determining which attribute it applies to each round and recalculating each round is a killer), but gives a paltry bonus (At level 1, it's a +1 bonus, which is barely worth tracking). Further, it's a competence bonus, so by mid levels it will likely overlap with some of your existing bonuses some of the time.

1: Remove the typing. I don't see why it shouldn't stack. (And besides, competence? I'd have expected luck.)
2: Increase the bonus to be something worth tracking. That means a minimum of +3 or +4. Barbarian Rage is a consistent and dependable +2 to a wide range of statistics. This may be only a small part of a class (as opposed to the majority of it), but it's more limited at any given time and randomized to boot. Any bonuses it grants should be worth the effort spent worrying about them.

Also, you don't have to scale up the bonuses to crazy high values if you start with a higher baseline. You could just as easily make it apply to multiple attributes at once, and/or offer more attributes it could apply to when you do so.

Well, I removed the typing for now, but I think you're right.  The ability seemed fun and random when I wrote it, but it does look like kind of a pain in the ass now.  I'm thinking I'll drop the random component, which seems to be the main problem, and switch it to +2 to formula save DCs, +2 on saving throws, -2 to Armor Class.  The bonuses will scale up to +3 at 11th level, and to +4 at 20th level.

I'll probably need to revise Trance Mage as a result, but that's honestly less important than having a core class that works.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 22, 2012, 02:41:24 PM
Aw. I kinda liked the random rage thing idea. Maybe as an ACF?
Just hulking up to get more powerful formulae doesn't feel very impulsey to me. Maybe let you reshuffle your occurred formulae a few times per day or something? I know you want something fun to go alongside your formulae at level 1, though, so that might not be quite enough. /shrug
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 22, 2012, 02:50:02 PM
Aw. I kinda liked the random rage thing idea. Maybe as an ACF?

Yeah, I kind of do, too.  I think I read too much into "requiring significant overhead" as the main problem.  Scratch the last idea, we'll keep something random.

I'm not yet sure what, of course, but something.  Today's the last day of my internship, so I'll have a lot of time in the coming weeks to ponder the new face of impulsive surge.

Just hulking up to get more powerful formulae doesn't feel very impulsey to me. Maybe let you reshuffle your occurred formulae a few times per day or something? I know you want something fun to go alongside your formulae at level 1, though, so that might not be quite enough. /shrug

Well, technically, impulse mages already have a limited capacity to reshuffle their occurred formulae  Like pretty much everyone, they can take a swift action once per encounter to change their prepared formulae.  Everyone else expends all of their prepared formulae when they do this, but--given the impulse mage mechanic--I figured it was just easier to reshuffle.  It's basically what would happen, anyway.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 22, 2012, 02:55:40 PM
Well, technically, impulse mages already have a limited capacity to reshuffle their occurred formulae  Like pretty much everyone, they can take a swift action once per encounter to change their prepared formulae.  Everyone else expends all of their prepared formulae when they do this, but--given the impulse mage mechanic--I figured it was just easier to reshuffle.  It's basically what would happen, anyway.

I thought you got rid of that?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 22, 2012, 03:05:10 PM
I decided not to flat-out remove it, since there are some more situational formulae.  Look at the Crushing Stone formulae that let you knock a flying creature to the ground.  You won't want to bother with those unless you think you're going to be facing a flyer--but, if you're surprised, it's nice to be able to adapt.

What I did was change them.  Before the change, repreparing your formulae during combat allowed you to recover them, in line with the rulings I've heard for Adaptive Style.  That was what ended up being a problem--you could circumvent your class's recovery mechanic once per encounter, meaning that you might never have to deal with it at all.  Now, however, repreparing your formulae leaves them all expended.  You can still adapt to changes, but it requires interaction with your recovery mechanic.  This is less of a problem for certain classes--a spellshape champion can reprepare her formulae and then immediately recover them all with a move action.  On the other hand, an elemental adept has to take a swift action on his next turn and can't shape any formulae that round.  The difficulty of recovery for an anchorite is variable, depending on how the prepared formulae are distributed.

Since an impulse mage automatically reshuffles her formulae whenever there are no more repressed formulae that can occur to her, it wasn't really worth changing--expending all of an impulse mage's formulae is effectively the same thing as reshuffling them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 22, 2012, 03:46:35 PM
Minor tweak I came up with, based on the fact that four attributes give us six combinations.  Thoughts?

(click to show/hide)

Edit: Oh, I also replaced the Freedom of the Storm incantation with Wrath of the Storm.  For those adventurers who are worried about the government listening in on their phone calls.

Edit Edit: Also replaced Corrosive Touch with Corrosive Investiture.  An interesting ability that is only a combat buff if your DM is (for some reason) attacking you with non-magical metal weapons after 7th level.  Are there DMs that do that?  I honestly don't know--I've usually moved on to either magical or non-metal weapons by that point.

Edit Edit Edit: Went with the version of Impulsive Surge that is spoilered above.  Now, to figure out the new savant ACF and masked one savant racial substitution levels.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on August 25, 2012, 12:37:40 PM
Soulbound Companion Anchorite should have the Handle Animal skill added to skill list (maybe Ride too).

Is the fine art of riding forbidden to spellshapers? Because any of base classes have this skill as class skill.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 26, 2012, 01:15:23 AM
Soulbound Companion Anchorite should have the Handle Animal skill added to skill list (maybe Ride too).

Done.  It's now a 1st level ACF, to add the class skills early.

Is the fine art of riding forbidden to spellshapers? Because any of base classes have this skill as class skill.

Well, spellshapers already have pretty big skill lists for magic-users.  I figured Ride doesn't come up terribly often.  It's also one of the skills that I frequently forget about the existence of.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on August 26, 2012, 08:21:43 AM

Done.  It's now a 1st level ACF, to add the class skills early.

Big thanks! This change would drastically improve my PC.

Well, spellshapers already have pretty big skill lists for magic-users.  I figured Ride doesn't come up terribly often.  It's also one of the skills that I frequently forget about the existence of.
Yes, it's true, but actually a Spellshape Champion with his knight-like feel could also get it.

After playing as an Anchorite for a while, I have few thoughts about equality of numens. First of all, I understand that complete balance is both impossible and unnecessary. On the other hand, the Crushing Stone numen quickly becomes very obsolete. DR 1/- for entire party is nice at first level, but DR 5/- at 20th level is likely ignorable.

The Natural Balance numen is a completely different case. Fast Healing 2 at first level is a bit too strong. I recommend to tune in down to Fast Healing 1. It would be still miraculous out-of-battle heal, but less powerful as the passive healing during an encounter.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 27, 2012, 03:54:10 AM
Big thanks! This change would drastically improve my PC.

I live to serve.

Yes, it's true, but actually a Spellshape Champion with his knight-like feel could also get it.

Not a bad point.  I'll consider it.

After playing as an Anchorite for a while, I have few thoughts about equality of numens. First of all, I understand that complete balance is both impossible and unnecessary. On the other hand, the Crushing Stone numen quickly becomes very obsolete. DR 1/- for entire party is nice at first level, but DR 5/- at 20th level is likely ignorable.

The Natural Balance numen is a completely different case. Fast Healing 2 at first level is a bit too strong. I recommend to tune in down to Fast Healing 1. It would be still miraculous out-of-battle heal, but less powerful as the passive healing during an encounter.

Changed 'em both.  Natural Balance now starts at fast healing 1, increasing by one for every five shaper levels you have, maxing out at fast healing 5 at 20th level.  Crushing Stone still starts at DR 1/-, but it increases by 1 for every two shaper levels you have, hitting DR 11/- at 20th level.  I wish there were a way to scale it just to DR 10/-, but such is life.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 27, 2012, 07:33:38 AM
DR 2/-, increasing by 2 every 5 levels gives DR 10/- at level 20. It also keeps the every 5 levels scaling factor that most other numens have.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 27, 2012, 01:23:30 PM
Truly, you are a genius.  The change has been applied.


Oh, and just so everyone knows, the savant revisions are still in the pipes.  It's just been a wacky week of not being on my medication.


8/30/12: So, I finally figured out the new savant alternative class feature.  Once I figure out the masked one substitution levels, it'll all go up.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on September 01, 2012, 03:08:00 AM
...Don, I just had a terrible idea. Want me to work it out and post it somewhere? It's a small, non-standard circle, that focuses mostly on defensive buffs.


I'm thinking Champion ACF to get access, or maybe a feat or two...


EDIT: Ooh, I thought about how to do it better. Argent Bulwark will break new ground with this stuff, I think...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 01, 2012, 02:29:33 PM
Savant and Masked One changes!



...Don, I just had a terrible idea. Want me to work it out and post it somewhere? It's a small, non-standard circle, that focuses mostly on defensive buffs.


I'm thinking Champion ACF to get access, or maybe a feat or two...

I'd go with a feat with a BAB requirement.  That way, a defensive-minded anchorite can pick it up and be DEFENDER MONK.  And, since it won't count as one of the chosen circles, you don't even have to write an aspect for it!

Also, at this rate, you're going to force me to add a "Lesser Circles" section at the end of the Arcane Circles chapter.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on September 01, 2012, 03:19:01 PM
I'd go with a feat with a BAB requirement.  That way, a defensive-minded anchorite can pick it up and be DEFENDER MONK.  And, since it won't count as one of the chosen circles, you don't even have to write an aspect for it!

Also, at this rate, you're going to force me to add a "Lesser Circles" section at the end of the Arcane Circles chapter.


Eh. My idea has changed. Simply put: Formulae and Maneuvers are very similar.

I'll get a handful of proof-of-concept abilities set up.  Just need a term for it...



EDIT: Thinking about it... That variant of the idea is stupid, and I should probably just go with the lesser Circle. I'll call it a Semi-Circle, I suppose.  :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 01, 2012, 03:21:35 PM
Bladeshaping?

Also, this sounds like something that may end up in Appendix I: Martial Adepts and Spellshapers.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on September 01, 2012, 03:22:52 PM
Nah. After thinking about it, I'll just go with a lesser Circle for it, calling it a Semi-Circle.  :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on September 02, 2012, 08:27:57 AM
All changes are great :) but the Chronarch bothers me a lot. The idea is undoubtedly very interesting, but abilities are quite disappointing. He exchanges two circles for bunch of perks, which are useful, but not original or flashy. The Chronarch needs desperately some cool active ability (as curse of Dark Impulses Impulse Mage) to make up for lost circles.

Moreover, he cannot learn new formula at second level, because he learns all possible first level formulae at first level.

Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 02, 2012, 11:54:39 AM
All changes are great :) but the Chronarch bothers me a lot. The idea is undoubtedly very interesting, but abilities are quite disappointing. He exchanges two circles for bunch of perks, which are useful, but not original or flashy. The Chronarch needs desperately some cool active ability (as curse of Dark Impulses Impulse Mage) to make up for lost circles.

Well, I would say that the regeneration capstone is pretty darn flashy.  You are right, though.  I've been struggling with trying to figure out a cool ability, but it's pretty difficult to do that with TIME without being broken.

Moreover, he cannot learn new formula at second level, because he learns all possible first level formulae at first level.

Once again, my idiocy shows through!

The plan for today is to work at these ideas, then start the feat revision.  May Vecna have mercy on my soul.

12:11 PM: Replaced the silly initiative bonus with a "jumps through time" deal.  Also noted that the chronarch doesn't learn a new formula at 2nd level.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on September 02, 2012, 02:05:16 PM
12:11 PM: Replaced the silly initiative bonus with a "jumps through time" deal.  Also noted that the chronarch doesn't learn a new formula at 2nd level.

Yay, limited to self time hop! Maybe cut duration and change the activation to immediate action, it would become better defensive ability.

Actually, stealing from psionics is a very good idea. How about Elemental Adept ACF called primal adept or something with access to eternal time, astral essence and unseen hand circles with Astral Construct instead of elemental companion and few other psi-like goodies? ;)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 02, 2012, 03:09:49 PM
Yay, limited to self time hop! Maybe cut duration and change the activation to immediate action, it would become better defensive ability.

Thing is, savants are an intelligence-based class very strongly themed around knowledge.  The time travel ability is more of an anticipation defense than an "oh shit" button.  An "Agh oh God get me out" ability makes sense for a more spontaneous character type, but a class that is based around tactical knowledge and planning should have defenses that play that way, as well.

Actually, stealing from psionics is a very good idea. How about Elemental Adept ACF called primal adept or something with access to eternal time, astral essence and unseen hand circles with Astral Construct instead of elemental companion and few other psi-like goodies? ;)

So, anyone who knows me personally knows that I have a very complicated relationship with psionics.  To whit: I'll pillage it for mechanics when appropriate, but I very strongly dislike the flavor.  Very strongly.  No campaign that I have ever run has included psionics in the setting--not because I think that it's more broken than spellcasting, but because I simply do not want it as an aspect of the world.  I will allow players to use psionic materials if they wish, but they must reflavor it as arcane magic that simply uses a different mechanic.  Astral constructs must always be described as if they were summoned creatures, psycrystals must be reflavored as some sort of item familiar (while not being an actual item familiar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm)), and the whole "everything is crystals" muck gets tossed out the window.

There will never be any psionic-themed spellshaping material.  While I may, on occasion, get wording or ideas from psionic powers or class features, spellshaping will always be arcane.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on September 02, 2012, 04:05:58 PM
....Why, upon reading the Chronarch ACF, do I have the desire to say "Hellloooooo STONEHENGE!", and spec for Intimidate?

 :P
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 02, 2012, 04:14:08 PM
I can't tell you.  Have you tried looking at it with 3D glasses?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on September 02, 2012, 04:16:00 PM
I can't tell you.  Have you tried looking at it with 3D glasses?

Hm. Might work.

The old, two colored kind, or the newer sort?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 02, 2012, 05:03:15 PM
Two-colored kind, obviously.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: pppp on September 03, 2012, 01:59:20 AM
Thing is, savants are an intelligence-based class very strongly themed around knowledge.  The time travel ability is more of an anticipation defense than an "oh shit" button.  An "Agh oh God get me out" ability makes sense for a more spontaneous character type, but a class that is based around tactical knowledge and planning should have defenses that play that way, as well.

I think that event tactical-based character have access to immediate actions (warblades and their counters, wizards and immediate action spells). Moreover, usefulness of standard action self-only time hop is quite vague. First one is to disappear when things go tough and cease fighting totally. Okay, no problem with that, but at later levels everyone would have access to much better escape buttons. Second one is to tactically disappear to gain some advantage and this use is not so great even at low levels. You spend your very valuable standard action (this means no attacking) and disappear. In the meantime enemies can easily focus on rest of your team. If this ability was immediate action, as conjurer's Abrupt Jaunt, at least one of the enemies would lost his attack or special ability.

If you want to keep standard action activation time, at least give this ability better scaling and at higher level usable on objects and eventually enemies.



So, anyone who knows me personally knows that I have a very complicated relationship with psionics.  To whit: I'll pillage it for mechanics when appropriate, but I very strongly dislike the flavor.  Very strongly.

Sounds like very complicated relationship. Thanks for clarification.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Sohala on September 03, 2012, 06:29:12 PM
Just curious, but why did you make it so Spellshape Incanter only scaled to level 13, instead of taking it to 19 (following the six level spacing)?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 04, 2012, 12:54:26 PM
I think that event tactical-based character have access to immediate actions (warblades and their counters, wizards and immediate action spells). Moreover, usefulness of standard action self-only time hop is quite vague. First one is to disappear when things go tough and cease fighting totally. Okay, no problem with that, but at later levels everyone would have access to much better escape buttons. Second one is to tactically disappear to gain some advantage and this use is not so great even at low levels. You spend your very valuable standard action (this means no attacking) and disappear. In the meantime enemies can easily focus on rest of your team. If this ability was immediate action, as conjurer's Abrupt Jaunt, at least one of the enemies would lost his attack or special ability.

If you want to keep standard action activation time, at least give this ability better scaling and at higher level usable on objects and eventually enemies.

I think I'm actually going to go with what Bauglir suggested over chat last night.  As a part of the standard action to jump forward through time, you'll be able to ready an action (up to a standard action), which will go off when you reenter the time stream.  I'm still trying to figure out wording for this one.



Just curious, but why did you make it so Spellshape Incanter only scaled to level 13, instead of taking it to 19 (following the six level spacing)?

There are two reasons here.  The first is that Hanako's Akashic Magic system--from which I stole the scaling--has only three levels.  The second is that I really wanted to feel like I could give out interesting and powerful utility abilities.  Getting the lesser incantations at-will and the greater incantations 3/day would be a bit much, I feel, especially since you'd also be getting a new tier of master incantations.

Since the incantations themselves aren't the main focus of a spellshaping character, I don't really see a problem with this.  When I write the epic rules for spellshapers--which I apparently should do, according to some sources--I'll scale things such that you get lesser incantations at will and greater incantations 3/day at 21st level, and greater incantations at will at 30th level.



9/4/12, 8:20 PM: Well, I changed the chronarch's time hop ability.  It now lets you ready an action that goes off as soon as you return to the time stream, without changing your initiative count or affecting your other actions in that round.

I'm also bouncing around feat ideas for the anchorite, the savant, cambians, caymir, and living spellshapes.  The anchorite feats are mostly settled, but the savant is giving me some difficulty.  Similarly, I think that cambians are going to get feats based off of the four humors--after all, that's where they got their names--but I'm struggling with caymir and living spellshapes.  We'll have to see.

Today is also a fairly significant day for me, in general.  Two years ago, I played in my first D&D session ever.  I was a 1st-level human bard, and I had absolutely no idea what I was doing.  At all.  In my confusion, I somehow ended up getting a kiss from the girl of my dreams.  That night indirectly led to the writing of the spellshaping system, and rather more directly led to my current state of bemused happiness.

Happy anniversary, darling.  I swear, I'll fix the ashbound oracle for you by the end of the week.

8:39 PM: Secrets of the Ash added to the ashbound oracle.  It now grants additional formulae known from any circle to which you have access, rather than just Searing Flame.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 09, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
So, I'm going to need a few weeks to get re-adjusted to college scheduling.  I only have classes three days a week, but I have massive amounts of reading to do.  I didn't exactly show myself to advantage last year, so I really need to put my back into it before graduation.  Fortunately, I think the current stage of revisions is such that, as long as you remember to swap "numen" for "spellshape aura," nothing's actually broken.  I think everything's still playable.

Once I finish writing and compiling feats, I'm going to wrap up the core rule rewrite, which will involve detailing the formula and incantation descriptions.  As a part of this, "Shaping Action" will become "Shaping Time".  I'll also be introducing core rules for epic spellshapers--God help me.

After that, I'm going to take a brief fluff break, revising the fluff for the six races and the six base classes.  Spellshape champion is the biggest offender, since it talks about half-elves for no good reason, but I also want to clean up the Masked One fluff.

Once that's done, I'll be on to circle revisions.  I'm not expecting to rewrite every formula--not by any means.  There are a few that need attention, though.  Such as that Devouring Shadow one that leaves your target helpless.  Coup de grace is bad.

After revising the circles, I'll move on to prestige classes.  During this time, I'll be cleaning up what exists and possibly detonating a few of the currently extant options.  I'll also, presumably, be writing a few new ones.  Moreover, I'm going to be working fairly closely with those of you who have written spellshaping material in order to make sure that what goes in the BIG DAMN PDF accurately reflects your desires.  I primarily expect to be changing around wording and expanding fluff entries, but I'm going to be running the changes past you, anyway.

Prestige classes will lead to items.  I don't anticipate making many changes here, though I will be altering the wondrous items such that they can be created with the Craft Spellshape Items feat.  I might also mess with how Spellshaping Scrolls work.  Man, I wish I had a better name for those.

Finally, monsters.  There won't be any actual changes to the elementals--I'm comfortable with those--but I have a list of monsters that I was thinking of including, so we'll see if I actually have the willpower to write them out.  I honestly have no idea how much energy I'll have at this point, so I might end up going with the path of least resistance here.

Then come the appendices!  Appendix One: Martial Adepts and Spellshapers will contain the Dragonheart Adept and the Sublime Shaper.  In addition, there will be a variant feat that allows martial adepts to learn incantations, with specific disciplines being tied to specific circles.  There may be other things here, but I don't yet know.

Appendix Two: Variant Spellshaper Classes will be the home of the Flamespeaker and the Spellshot Marksman.  The Flamespeaker is going to have to undergo some fairly significant revisions, since a lot has happened since the last time that I touched it, but I think the Marksman is good to go as-is.  I don't think there will be anything else in this appendix.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on September 09, 2012, 02:51:28 PM
Awesome!

So, hypothetically... if I was planning on writing a spellshaping Vestige and a PrC or two to mix pact magic & spellshaping, when would you need that finished by, to fit with your timeline?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 09, 2012, 05:56:24 PM
I'm not even going to pretend to give dates for things, since I have no idea how long anything is going to take me.  Here's the rough breakdown:


There are a few things that mention "Any X that should be in the X chapter".  This is to differentiate between things that should more properly belong in one of the appendices.  It now looks like there will be three appendices, incidentally:


Basically, I'm going to make most of the stuff in the main body of the book as Core-friendly as possible.  I'm thinking that the spellshaper/initiator prestige classes will actually be moved to Appendix Two, while things like the Azure Ascetic will go in Appendix Three.  Martial Adepts get their own appendix primarily because of the mechanical similarities.  Binding/Incarnum/Shadowcasting/Whatever Else will go in Appendix Three.

Incidentally, the reason that I'm trying to establish the PDF organization while revising the online material is to prevent myself from falling into the trap of having very well-organized posts, but a very difficult-to-navigate PDF.  Right now, the only thing that's giving me trouble is The-Mage-King's proposed "semi-circle."  No idea where I'll put that.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on September 09, 2012, 06:52:56 PM
Yay, plans!   :D
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 12, 2012, 07:31:10 PM
Rewrote the Masked One fluff, to keep it consistent with certain things.

I've also finally finished coming up with feat ideas.  Those will presumably be written this weekend or some other time when I don't have to read an entire Shakespeare play in one night.

While you wait, you should totally check out Hanako's Akashic Magic (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=136.0) subsystem, now that she's finally gotten around to posting it.  It's pretty much awesome in every way.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 13, 2012, 01:33:27 PM
Feats are up!

As a part of the massive feat compilation event, I have removed the feat posts from base class and race threads.  This means that everything is now all over the place and I don't know what to do.  I shall figure this out later, when I have finished running around like a chicken with my head cut off.

Edit: A little bit of cleaning up around the place.  Organization and what have you.  I'll probably clean up the spellshape champion fluff, eye everything to make sure that there's nothing egregiously wrong, then bundle up Chapter 3: Classes.  That'll probably be followed by the Introduction, then a cleaned up Chapter 4: Character Options.  Finally, we'll get around to Chapter 5: The Art of Spellshaping.  After I've done all that...it'll be time for circle revisions.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on September 13, 2012, 11:01:17 PM
Awesome, Don!


Feel free to toss any of the stuff I've done for this in. Just credit me for my awesomeness.

:P


And yeah. Hit a block with my second Semi-Circle (as I call it).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 14, 2012, 09:15:15 AM
Well, I haven't gotten to the prestige classes yet, but I was planning on putting the Translocation Adept in with the rest of the "main" prestige classes--with its semi-circle listed after the class description--and the Shaper of the Way in the "Martial Adepts and Spellshaping" appendix, which is also where I'm going to be moving the Edgewalker Knight and the Flamedancer.

On a related note, I have started compiling a Credits page for the revision.  The Credits pages in Codex I and Codex II, while appropriate at the time, don't really cover where we'll be with the revision.  This is what I have thus far for the "design" portion.  Note that I may end up rebranding the entries to more approximately rip off evoke the feeling of a 3.5 sourcebook.

(click to show/hide)

The "Design Team" entry refers to anyone who's actively written spellshaping material or significantly contributed to it.  Garryl, for instance, is on there because he's more or less responsible for the system not falling on its ass, while Hanako's there for all the ideas that I steal from her.

The "Consulting" entry is for everyone else who has provided suggestions or feedback.  I went through both threads for that one, pulling every name that posted meaningful feedback or commentary.

I should probably compile a list of playtesters, too.  Which is going to require actually reading all the posts in the spellshaping threads, as well as scanning the play-by-post boards.  (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-effort.gif)



On the Semi-Circle front, how many of those do you anticipate writing?  This is more of an organizational question than anything else, since they're...unusual, from a rules perspective.  They're different enough that I don't think that they should be treated like the sixteen full circles, but I still have to figure out where to put them in the actual book.  Translocation formulae are easy--those will just be listed after the Translocation Adept's class features--but a feat-gated Semi-Circle is going to take some maneuvering.

I'm thinking that the Semi-Circles may end up being in the same appendix as the Flamespeaker and the Spellshot Marksman, with that being rebranded from "Variant Spellshaper Classes" to "Variant Spellshaping Material."  That's probably going to be the easiest way for me to handle this one, since it allows me to keep writing the main text without worrying about defining full circles and Semi-Circles separately.  It also gives you more time to actually write them up, so there's that, too.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on September 14, 2012, 10:10:35 AM
Wow, I am in the credits! Twice! You can remove gparali, he is me.

I haven't managed to playtest your Spellshapers yet but there is someone in the GitP who wants to have a Spellshaper-only pbp game. I will put the link here in case someone wants to join. There are only a couple of people expessing interest for now.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255008 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255008)

I also applied for a sandbox game. If the Dm accepts me I will be playing an Impulse Mage(going for Darkened One)//Malefactor focused on debuffing. If I get in I will be sure to tell you how it goes.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on September 14, 2012, 11:42:13 AM
Well, I haven't gotten to the prestige classes yet, but I was planning on putting the Translocation Adept in with the rest of the "main" prestige classes--with its semi-circle listed after the class description--and the Shaper of the Way in the "Martial Adepts and Spellshaping" appendix, which is also where I'm going to be moving the Edgewalker Knight and the Flamedancer.

Seems reasonable. Note that I kinda was stuck with the lame name fo Shaper of the Way because.... I'm bad at naming things.  :P


Quote
(click to show/hide)

The "Design Team" entry refers to anyone who's actively written spellshaping material or significantly contributed to it.  Garryl, for instance, is on there because he's more or less responsible for the system not falling on its ass, while Hanako's there for all the ideas that I steal from her.

The "Consulting" entry is for everyone else who has provided suggestions or feedback.  I went through both threads for that one, pulling every name that posted meaningful feedback or commentary.

I should probably compile a list of playtesters, too.  Which is going to require actually reading all the posts in the spellshaping threads, as well as scanning the play-by-post boards.  (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-effort.gif)

I iz usefuls!


 :P


Got someone playing a Spellshaper in a game I'm running on Giantitp. Since it's also serving as a testbed for my Sentai class...

Quote
On the Semi-Circle front, how many of those do you anticipate writing?  This is more of an organizational question than anything else, since they're...unusual, from a rules perspective.  They're different enough that I don't think that they should be treated like the sixteen full circles, but I still have to figure out where to put them in the actual book.  Translocation formulae are easy--those will just be listed after the Translocation Adept's class features--but a feat-gated Semi-Circle is going to take some maneuvering.

In the words of a wise man....

I HAVE NO IDEA! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36lSzUMBJnc&feature=player_detailpage#t=179s)

Quote
I'm thinking that the Semi-Circles may end up being in the same appendix as the Flamespeaker and the Spellshot Marksman, with that being rebranded from "Variant Spellshaper Classes" to "Variant Spellshaping Material."  That's probably going to be the easiest way for me to handle this one, since it allows me to keep writing the main text without worrying about defining full circles and Semi-Circles separately.  It also gives you more time to actually write them up, so there's that, too.


Probably for the best. :/
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 14, 2012, 12:52:54 PM
Wow, I am in the credits! Twice! You can remove gparali, he is me.

Herf derf.  Gonna fix that...

I haven't managed to playtest your Spellshapers yet but there is someone in the GitP who wants to have a Spellshaper-only pbp game. I will put the link here in case someone wants to join. There are only a couple of people expessing interest for now.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255008 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255008)

I also applied for a sandbox game. If the Dm accepts me I will be playing an Impulse Mage(going for Darkened One)//Malefactor focused on debuffing. If I get in I will be sure to tell you how it goes.

Hoh-hoh!  Thanks for the heads up--I'll have to keep an eye on these.







Seems reasonable. Note that I kinda was stuck with the lame name fo Shaper of the Way because.... I'm bad at naming things.  :P

I know your pain on that one.  Shaper of the Way isn't really all that bad, though--it's a good generic name for the generic theurge class.  I think it suits it.


I iz usefuls!


 :P


Got someone playing a Spellshaper in a game I'm running on Giantitp. Since it's also serving as a testbed for my Sentai class...

Indeed, usefuls is one of your many qualities!  Incidentally, I'll have to start spying on this player.

Quote
I'm thinking that the Semi-Circles may end up being in the same appendix as the Flamespeaker and the Spellshot Marksman, with that being rebranded from "Variant Spellshaper Classes" to "Variant Spellshaping Material."  That's probably going to be the easiest way for me to handle this one, since it allows me to keep writing the main text without worrying about defining full circles and Semi-Circles separately.  It also gives you more time to actually write them up, so there's that, too.

Probably for the best. :/

"Appendix One: Variant Spellshaping Material" is basically where I'm going to put the more specific or unusual things that doesn't necessarily fit in the simple text.  Think of it as the equivalent of Complete Arcane or Complete Mage--interesting additions, but not strictly necessary for playing the basic character concept.

The flamespeaker, for instance, is a very focused concept.  It wouldn't really sit well with me as one of the generic base classes because you can't really take it in too many directions.  By contrast, the spellshot marksman is literally a variant class--it was built off of the same basic chassis as the spellshape champion.  Having both listed among the base classes would feel a little redundant, and the spellshape champion fills a more common niche.

I'm actually hoping to be able to come up with a rich body of material for the various appendices, as I view them as expansions, not afterthoughts.  The primary reason for "Appendix Three: Other Traditions and Spellshaping" is that there are very interesting things that can be done by combining spellshaping and things like incarnum, binding, shadowcasting, and truenaming nothing else ever.  However, there may well be players who don't have access to certain books, and it would feel weird to have a bunch of material that can't be used.

The only reason that martial adepts get their own appendix outside of "Other Traditions and Spellshaping" is that the mechanical similarities have led to a unique sort of combination, which probably won't be possible with other subsystems.  In addition, there are certain ideas that I have that will be pretty specific to martial adepts, which will be easier to manage if I have their material listed separately.







On an entirely unrelated note, I'm thinking of slightly altering the format I use for alternative class features.  So many of the spellshaper ACFs offer multiple class features...and they're all currently jumbled together.  I was thinking of moving to something more like this:

(click to show/hide)

See, with such a simple change, how much clarity I am able to add?  What do you think, everyone?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on September 14, 2012, 08:51:39 PM
I like the new formatting!

And, considering that I'm in the credits, I feel the urge to write something for spellshaping.

If I can think of something partially elemental...

Wait, hold up. Brilliant idea!

No, that won't work...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: radmelon on September 15, 2012, 01:18:29 AM
Wow, I feel somewhat honored to be mentioned, as I've done little more than lurk here since I first found this (astounding) project. I should note that the campaign I'm running IRL at the moment has no small amount of spellshaping in the setting, although none of the players are playing spellshapers.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Sohala on September 15, 2012, 01:49:38 AM
I should probably compile a list of playtesters, too.  Which is going to require actually reading all the posts in the spellshaping threads, as well as scanning the play-by-post boards.  (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-effort.gif)
I will be playing your Dragonheart Adept, 1-20 (that capstone), in The Open Sea (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=121.0). I also plan to take a single level of Sublime Shaper for another character, but there is a few levels to go; it is more for a better base than swordsage, but I have high hopes for Figment of Light, while Devouring Shadow's negative damage will provide healing for some undead minions.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on September 16, 2012, 07:58:05 AM
There are several of us playtesting in the High Arcana game. I'll be playing a Dragonheart Adept (along with the two levels of Oslecamo's Choker monster class). Originally I wanted to pair it with Impulse Mage for double-blasting most rounds, and rarely running out of formulae to shape, but DhA was far too tempting.

I know Phaedrus is also playing something with DhA, and Nanshork is playing an Elemental Adept on the same team as my Choker DhA.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 17, 2012, 01:18:19 PM
Threw everyone who posted into the budding "Playtesters" section of the credits, then ran around for a bit and changed the format of most of the alternative class features.  Time to overhaul the descriptive text for the base classes...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on September 17, 2012, 02:36:36 PM
Yay for Jewish holidays!

Anyway, I do have to say... I playtested some stuff before Tome II came out, and... yeah.

None of what I can say would be relevant now.

EDIT: I'll be posting something... interesting though, in a bit.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on September 17, 2012, 02:44:49 PM
Glad to see progress is being made swiftly.  Too tired to actually look at anything.  I'm in the middle of physically moving about fifty servers all by myself...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 17, 2012, 03:18:43 PM
Yay for Jewish holidays!

Anyway, I do have to say... I playtested some stuff before Tome II came out, and... yeah.

None of what I can say would be relevant now.

Some things could still be relevant, depending on what they were.  Some formulae from the first iteration have persisted, and only lately have I noticed a few problems there.

EDIT: I'll be posting something... interesting though, in a bit.

This fills me with equal parts anticipation and alarm.



Glad to see progress is being made swiftly.  Too tired to actually look at anything.  I'm in the middle of physically moving about fifty servers all by myself...

Nothing really changed today.  All I did was mess with the formatting of the ACFs so that those that grant several class features actually do so explicitly.  Rather than having four or five abilities that are just lumped together into one mess, they're listed as separate class features.

Also, yeesh, that's a lot of servers to move.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on September 17, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
Alright, I was building a Darkened One, and I noticed a couple things.

Namely, that when you are pursuing that kind of path (I was a Spellsage, race not important, since it was a homebrew race for my DM's homebrew setting), you tend to not have a lot of low-level Glimmering Moon formulae that are very enticing.

I basically ended up spending half of the first fight invisible, after the zombies that we were fighting chewed through my mirror images.

And I was kinda limited in what I could do, because I had to route my formulae through moonflare, which I could do once an encounter.

The race I was playing (and which an ally was playing as well) healed from negative energy, which was a good thing.

But that was more of a building error on my part (I forgot how much my DM loves the undead :shrug)

But that game fell apart because no one could make it to subsequent sessions.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on September 17, 2012, 04:34:10 PM
Yes, yes it is.

Oh, and progress is being made towards a "final" polished product.  Good editing is important!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 24, 2012, 04:08:22 PM
Brushed over the class fluff--mainly removing that half-elf business that spellshape champions had going on--and set up the classes portal.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 25, 2012, 01:50:51 PM
Okay, we have chapter portals for everything before the actual Rules of Spellshaping chapter, which is the first one I haven't finished revising.  Huzzah!




Edit: As a part of avoiding revising the rules, I have gone through and enumerated the formulae that I feel need work.  There are currently 32 formulae that I'm planning to flat-out remove, seven of which may be reconsidered and just heavily altered.

A lot of this pruning is working off of two basic principles.  First, I'm going to try to remove all effects that render a creature helpless.  Secondly, I'm going to detach certain effects from spellshape attacks.  Wildfire, for example, is a formula that actually kind of makes more sense if you just conjure the damn fire.

I'm also going to be cleaning up relics from before certain circles were written.  Brilliant Dawn has two illusion effects from before Fleeting Image, while Shocking Current has some sonic effects that predate Screeching Roc.

Finally, I'm hoping to tighten up the thematic connections between a circle's formulae.  I'm looking at Glimmering Moon here--though it's not the only offender.



In addition, I've been looking at the prestige classes with an equally censorious eye.  I'm seriously considering dropping Archmage of the Tower Conclave and Catechumen.  While it is traditional to let spellcasting mix with everything, I don't feel that these classes are particularly valuable.  I'm similarly thinking of dropping Spiritspeaker Adept, Unseen Master, Wildheart Mage, and Woodspeaker, since they don't really seem like concepts that I've successfully managed to flesh out properly.  I'm also planning to write new prestige classes, so don't panic over the removals.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on October 08, 2012, 09:29:05 AM
Triple posting to reassure everyone watching the thread that, no, I haven't forgotten about the revisions.  My workload has just been somewhat...intense of late.  I'm on break next week, though, so I should be able to wrap up the revisions of the actual spellshaping rules.  Hopefully, I'll also have time to start on the circles.

If you have any issues with specific formulae, now would be the time to mention them.  Alternatively, if there are formulae that you just couldn't bear to live without, you should probably mention those, too.

I don't expect to be changing any of the incantations or numena.  The incantations were done recently enough that they all fit my thematic conceptions, while the numena all fit the general mechanics that I want them to.  Similarly, the simplicity of the spellshape attacks means that they probably won't see many changes, though I'm probably going to standardize the range on caustic spray and withering hand.  I do hope to keep the touch attack option on the latter, since it fits so well with certain necromantic archetypes.
Title: Re: Base Class - Spellshape Champion
Post by: Qumi on October 11, 2012, 02:42:42 AM
I find this class way overpowered.

It has:

Full BAB
Highest Hit Die
2 good saves
lots of skills

Spellshape channeling is no liability. It gives you free extra damage. Similarly to sneak attack, but with no conditions. Manevours and Duskblade ability are similar, but they require to have only 1 attack (full attack for Duskblade on higher levels)

Daunting presence is nothing more than free stance Iron guard glare, however, you do not have to choose between your numen and this. Basically, you get free Stance Mastery of Warblade, but limited to 2 stances (which are both very good).

Champion's resolves bonus to AC is simply too big. The class already has good saves and great hit dice.

There's more, but I don't have time now... anyway... this class is not only way more powerful than any tanky class I saw, but also is very good at dealing damage and crowd control. It's too good in too many fields.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on October 11, 2012, 03:34:33 PM
I find this class way overpowered.

It has:

Full BAB
Highest Hit Die
2 good saves
lots of skills

Well, the base attack bonus isn't really going anywhere.  I've always been flabbergasted by melee-centric classes without a full attack bonus--the worst offender being the Incarnate.

The Hit Die could be dropped to d10s, but I'd have to adjust some other things.  Plus, it messes with part of the intended functionality of shaper's focus.

I could lower one of the saves, but--again--I'm not exactly sure of the extent to which two good saves is horribly broken.  Monk has three good saves, and I've never heard anyone call it overpowered.

In terms of skill points, I will never build a non-Intelligence based class that has fewer than four skill points per level.  Characters should be able to do things other than just combat without being masterminds.  With four skill points, you can Concentrate, Hide, Jump, and Sense Motive.  Not exactly breaking the bank, here.

Spellshape channeling is no liability. It gives you free extra damage. Similarly to sneak attack, but with no conditions. Manevours and Duskblade ability are similar, but they require to have only 1 attack (full attack for Duskblade on higher levels)

Actually, formulae also must be made with only a single attack, so you're operating on the same level as a martial adept.  Simply channeling a spellshape attack and doing nothing else only changes the damage type of your attack.

Daunting presence is nothing more than free stance Iron guard glare, however, you do not have to choose between your numen and this. Basically, you get free Stance Mastery of Warblade, but limited to 2 stances (which are both very good).

Well, if you have a numen at all, you either spent a feat on it or you took an alternative class feature that restricts you to using only one circle.  I don't actually think that the interplay between the two abilities is truly problematic.

The penalty from daunting presence itself could be dropped to a -2, but I'm still not sure it's a problem.  Enemies are aware of it, so they can choose to just attack you rather than the ally in question--suffering no penalty if they do so.

Champion's resolves bonus to AC is simply too big. The class already has good saves and great hit dice.

Well, part of the interplay of Shaper's Focus is that, to an extent, you want to be taking some damage--but not too much.  A spellshape champion who normally has slightly below average AC takes some damage, which grants him a bonus to his shaper level.  His AC goes up, though, meaning that he eventually gets hit less.  The increasing defense allows you to use your hit points as a bit of a resource--an aspect of the design that would suffer if the Hit Die were to be lowered.

There's more, but I don't have time now... anyway... this class is not only way more powerful than any tanky class I saw, but also is very good at dealing damage and crowd control. It's too good in too many fields.

Basically, if I understand your objections, your problem with the class is that it can tank efficiently without necessarily being built around it.  Having seen the class played a bit, I can say that it did not seem to stand head-and-shoulders above the other player characters.  He was on the front line, distracting the enemy, while still remaining relevant in terms of fighting it.  This was always the intent--I do not agree with a design philosophy in which a character must choose between tanking and dealing damage.



I'm not necessarily saying that the class is not overpowered--I don't trust my sense of balance anywhere near enough to make statements like that.  However, I'm not going to throw everything to the side based on one person's statements.

What do other people think about these points?  Is the spellshape champion too good, or are these elements a necessary part of its functionality?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on October 11, 2012, 03:53:06 PM
I don't trust myself in maters of balance, but it doesn't seem broken. It doesn't have something that makes me prefer it over other classes. I don't say that it can't be broken but then again nearly all classes can.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on October 11, 2012, 04:37:54 PM
Even if it is head and shoulders above other tanking classes, that isn't saying much.  Other than crusader, tanking classes are notoriously weak.  So what if this is a class that can actually succeed at a role that most other classes fail at?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on October 11, 2012, 05:31:17 PM
Even if it is head and shoulders above other tanking classes, that isn't saying much.  Other than crusader, tanking classes are notoriously weak.  So what if this is a class that can actually succeed at a role that most other classes fail at?

+1
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on October 13, 2012, 06:29:57 AM
I have a question about Unseen Impetus.

How do the Formulae interact with feats?

Ex:
Violent Displacement + Improved trip
or
Hammering Force + improved Bullrush + Shock trooper


Edit: Also can a Sublime Shaper use his strikes (empowering, heightening etc) on the same formula?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Dulcinea on October 21, 2012, 05:43:13 PM
In terms of the Spellshape Champion's balance, I can't say much about it in comparison to classes in general, but compared to other spellshapers, it seems balanced.  Having played it several times, it has the distinct disadvantage of NOT getting to deal damage through touch attacks, which most of the other classes can do, which I feel tends to restrict the damage output at least a little and also focuses the character (since you have to pour a lot more resources into improving your attack).  Granted, full BAB helps with that, but I don't think it negates it by any means.  Saves are nice, but, well, they are pretty dependent on your DM, and most classes have 1-2 good saves.  Skills don't really overpower a character; they just tend to make it more useful out-of-combat (which is really nice!)

Anyways.  Just my two cents'.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on October 31, 2012, 01:27:29 AM
The Spellsage text says this:

Quote
You can prepare all six of your known formulae at 1st level

While the table lists 4 prepared formula at 1st level.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 01, 2012, 01:18:41 PM
The Spellsage text says this:

Quote
You can prepare all six of your known formulae at 1st level

While the table lists 4 prepared formula at 1st level.

Fixed.  The rules text for formulae known, formulae prepared, and other not-actually-class-features can sometimes lag behind actual changes, since I tend not to think about those entries as things that exist.  Thanks for pointing it out.





So, it's looking like the revision is going to remain on pause until the winter, when it will briefly unpause during my semester break.  I know that I said that I would get work done during my fall break, but I ended up being so stressed and tired that I barely had the energy to clean.  People who know me well know exactly how dire that is.  Pretty goddamn dire, for those of you who were wondering.

I'm currently stuck in the revision of the rules, but at a weird place.  I've actually done the first third, which means that I'm on the "Formula and Incantation Descriptions" and "Acquiring Spellshaping Powers" sections...which are mostly a copy-paste job.  I'm having trouble finding the time or energy for even that, however...especially in light of what comes after that.

The "Epic Spellshapers" section.

While I could duck out of writing it, I did say that I was going to, and there seems to have been some slight interest at some point.  Plus, the actual class progressions aren't that hard--I've already figured them all out.  I've also figured out how incantations will scale, decided on the non-existence of epic formulae, and hashed out all of the other basics.  I have not, however, written any epic feats, and that's the one that's going to kill me.  As I've said, I have little time or energy, so learning how epic material is "balanced"--I'm not even going to pretend that it really is, but it at least nominally is--will be a task in and of itself.

I've come up with a "Circle Access" feat to let epic spellshapers learn formulae from multiple circles, elected to make that Elemental Leadership idea into an epic elemental adept feat, and decided on epic versions for Circle Focus and Spellshape Focus...and that's about it.  The lack of epic formulae means that I'm going to have to write a bunch of metashaping feats to offer some form of advancement, and that's just a whole can of worms that I'm afraid to even think about opening.

As a result of this general discomfort, I'm going to be moving the Epic Spellshapers material into the Appendix for Variant Spellshaping Material, just to save the headache for later.  While this won't actually get the revision moving again any time soon--my inertia is too great, as is my current workload--it will mean that things will move faster when I start up again.  Granted, they might stall again when I get to the appendix, but I'd much rather be stalled after revising the rules, formulae, prestige classes, and items.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on November 01, 2012, 09:31:24 PM
Take all the time you need, I'm just glad to see that you're still around.   :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on November 03, 2012, 06:33:11 PM
I was just looking at the items, and I noticed that the Empowering Surge property could be written as "the extra damage die from the Empowering property is multiplied on a critical hit". The standard energy burst properties need to be written out specifically, since they deal extra d10s on crits instead of just d6s, but the lamen property just adds more of the same damage die size.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 05, 2012, 12:58:12 AM
Wrote another circle, now with healing powers and laying on of hands (note: there is only laying on of hands if you are an Anchorite, and it's really more of a punching motion).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on November 05, 2012, 01:13:11 AM
I dislike the base spellshape attack. It's useless as a weapon against most foes, and in most parties is at will healing at no cost. Even non-shapers can get it for a single feat at first level, and I am just not comfortable with that.

Typo under Numen ("an affected creature gains heals 3 hit points").

Anchorite's delayed damage pool's effect of damaging you is worded oddly, and results in (for n equal to the amount of damage in the pool) you taking n(n+1)/2 damage to empty it fully one point at a time.

Not even touching the formulas tonight. Too tired.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 05, 2012, 01:27:39 AM
It's intended to be useless as a weapon, and to be at-will healing at no cost. At level 1, the cost is entirely in opportunities to choose other options (which seems significant enough to me). Beyond that, it rapidly decreases in difficulty to accomplish with other mechanisms, none of which have proven overpowered. Still, I suppose it's worthy of consideration - I'm just unsure how I could make it work appropriately with general spellshaping mechanics while still healing, and not limiting it to a maximum of 1/2 total hit points or some other non-full hp limit (both are mandatory for the concept).

Will fix that.

I'll try to reword the delayed damage pool. Ideally, you should take 1 point of damage and then immediately heal 1 point of damage (or whoever you are touching should heal it).

EDIT: Yeah, both the typo and the Anchorite thing were holdovers from previous versions that didn't get updated in revision. Woops!
SECOND EDIT: Keep in mind, you can achieve slightly less efficient low-level healing without spellshaping levels by dumping 2 feats into learning Renew from Natural Balance, and a proper spellshaper can just learn the formula. It's slower, generally requiring 2 rounds to this spellshape attack's 1, but it's out of combat healing anyway.
THIRD EDIT: Also, Seal Wounds was written under the assumption that immediate action minor formulae are unprecedented, and I'm already violating so much precedent that I didn't want to bother. If that's not true, I'll update it to the Close Wounds export it was always meant to be.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on November 05, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
Eh, I'm kinda weird about unlimited healing out of combat. I don't really like it at levels 1-4, but I'm in favor of practically handing it out at level 5+ (when I run one-shots, for example, I just give my players a free, unlimited wand of CLW). For reference, level 5 is when DMM Persist Mass Lesser Vigor comes online. So, for example, if you wanted to change it to having the first 1d6 always deal damage, and the extra d6s at 5th and every 4 levels thereafter being that healing positive energy, I wouldn't say boo (well, I probably would at first glance until I thought about it and realized how it actually worked out).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 05, 2012, 10:47:03 AM
Problem being, when you get your first extra one, you (on average) do nothing, and have to specify which die is which. That seems like a really weird dynamic to introduce.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 07, 2012, 12:54:01 PM
I was just looking at the items, and I noticed that the Empowering Surge property could be written as "the extra damage die from the Empowering property is multiplied on a critical hit". The standard energy burst properties need to be written out specifically, since they deal extra d10s on crits instead of just d6s, but the lamen property just adds more of the same damage die size.

So it can.  I've added it to my notes for the item revision.

Wrote another circle, now with healing powers and laying on of hands (note: there is only laying on of hands if you are an Anchorite, and it's really more of a punching motion).

I don't have anywhere near the time to look at this right now, but it's on my radar.  Given the inherent weirdness of what you and Garryl are discussing, it may well end up in the Variant Spellshaping Material appendix, but I'm not sure yet.  Part of my uncertainty on this point is that I really want to jump back on the system revision as soon as possible, and it will almost certainly be easier to find the energy for diving straight into things that I already know, rather than reading a new circle and being confused by what balance is.

I am probably going to be nixing the Natural Balance healing formulae to account for this development, though.

Edit: Holy crap, after adding the healing-related Natural Balance formulae to my "axe or rebuild" list, I'm sitting at thirteen Natural Balance formulae that will be dropped or heavily altered.  The closest runner-up to that is Shocking Current, which has eight formulae on the chopping block.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 07, 2012, 03:19:13 PM
Yeah, go with that plan. Revisions first.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 09, 2012, 10:15:18 PM
I finally cracked the code on how Microsoft Word actually works, so I spent a lot of today fussing around with formatting.  I'm happy to say that compiling the PDF for the revision will be much easier and faster than the process of preparing Codex I or Codex II.  By a significant margin.

The revision will also look significantly classier.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 15, 2012, 06:02:23 PM
So, I've been continuing to set up the formatting of this document--everything is going to be so much easier this time around, what with alternating page information, outline mode, and cross-referencing--and I've imported all the completed revisions into the document.  Putting me halfway through the rules chapter.

As a part of formatting, I tested the setup for circles, which is working beautifully.  This did, however, mean that I had to import a circle!  I went with Searing Flame, since--in case you hadn't noticed--I like fire.  Consequently, Searing Flame has received its revision pass!  It...didn't actually entail much.  Blast Wave is now just an area effect, rather than being attached to fireblast.  Same thing with Wildfire.  I also tweaked the numen slightly, so it now mentions "weaponlike effects" instead of "damaging spells with a single target."  Cleaner, and less open to abuse.

Incidentally, Searing Flame takes up five pages in the new format.  By contrast, it took up six pages in Codex I--which didn't include numena or incantations.  Hooray for space efficiency!

Next thing on my plate is to finish up the "Formula and Incantation Descriptions" and "Acquiring Spellshaping Powers" sections of Chapter 5.  After that, it'll be on to Chapter 6 and the rest of the circle revisions.  The circles will be revised in this order:
(click to show/hide)

If your favorite circle wasn't on that list, that just means that it doesn't have any formulae that I feel a burning need to revise.  Any changes to such a circle will most likely be merely cosmetic.

What changes will be made to the other circles?  Only the spoiler can say!
(click to show/hide)

Now, these changes are taken directly from my notes, and thus feature a lot of highly technical verbiage.  "Axe" means that the formula will be destroyed and erased from existence, to be replaced by something new.  "Rebuild" means that I like parts of the concept, but am unhappy with the current implementation.  Expect something similar, but somewhat different.  "Clean up" means that I think things could use some tightening up, but don't expect to pour much original thinking into changing the formula.  "Detach" simply means that I don't think the effect should be delivered by a single-target attack.  Everything else should be fairly self-explanatory.

Obviously, there's a disclaimer here.  I might later decide that I am happy with certain things as they are, and I might just as easily decide to change things not mentioned here.  These are just the things that stood out to me on a quick pass of all the formulae.

I will not be offering a prediction of time on this one.  That would just be asking for trouble.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on November 15, 2012, 06:18:14 PM
Remove Buer? Is that code for axing healing effects?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 15, 2012, 06:19:53 PM
Specifically, removing the weird quasi-immunity to diseases and poisons that those formulae currently grant.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on November 15, 2012, 06:28:05 PM
I'm glad things are progressing well.   :D

Let us (me) know if there's anything else we (I) can do! 
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 17, 2012, 02:53:25 AM
Finished the changes to "Formula and Incantation Descriptions."  Almost done revising the rules chapter, and then it will actually be time to get back to revising things that people actually look at!

11/17/12, 7:01 PM EST: Rules chapter completed.  Going to import the circles without revisions into the document, then start revising circles as I import them.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 24, 2012, 06:29:51 PM
So, Astral Essence has been revised and transferred to the new document.  In addition to the stated changes, I added the full reminder text for cowering to Heavenly Awe, since it makes things cleaner overall.

I'm hoping to start the Perfect Freeze revision later tonight, since that one's also fairly simple.  That does contain the first flat-out replacement of a formula, so we'll see whether I'm able to breeze through it.

More importantly!  I've given you the list of my proposed revisions.  However, I have something to ask of you, dear readers.  I've trumpeted before about letting me know if there are any formulae that bug me.  That one's still on the table, of course--you bringing things to my attention is always the best way for progress to be made--but that isn't what brings me here today.  No, this is far more important.

The Natural Balance circle has thirteen formulae designated "Axe" or "Axe or rebuild."  That's more than half the circle--hell, it's one formula short of being two-thirds!  This circle is being gutted like a fish, and I quite frankly don't know how to fill the void.  Don't worry, I'm not axing the entire circle--Natural Balance occupies a conceptual space that I consider important.  Instead, I'm asking for suggestions.  What should Natural Balance be?  Mechanical suggestions are greatly desired, of course, but even thematic ideas would be useful!

For reference, we're losing:
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)

Obviously, if no suggestions are forthcoming, I'll figure out something to give Natural Balance.  I just figured that, since I'm stumped, I might as well bring more competent minds into the process.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on November 24, 2012, 08:10:43 PM
Quote from: DonQuixote
I'm asking for suggestions.  What should Natural Balance be?

[brainstorm]
One way to start, what is left?

(click to show/hide)

Typing those out I noticed a common theme among the formulae that didn't get axed. They are all very clearly and directly plant related. They tie in closely to the thornspike attack, while those being axed do so loosely, if at all.

So do you want Natural Balance to be less "the Druidy circle" and more "the "wood element" circle"?

Some fairly random ideas:

I like summoning and I thought it was cool that NB had spellshaping summoning. If summoning animals is not where you want to go, how about summoning plants? Either actual plant type creatures (which would require digging through sourcebooks looking for appropriate ones or homebrewing them) or astral construct esque creatures flavoured as tangles of animated vines ala the manifestation of thornspike?

More poison of different levels: I was a little surprised that Nature's Venom wasn't part of a "cycle" of poison effects with lower or higher die sizes or possibly hitting different stats.

More buff effects with planty flavor ala Mantle of Thorns: Maybe a Barkskin effect or something similar?[/brainstorm]
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on November 24, 2012, 08:34:37 PM
Ohhh, I like the Wood Element circle idea.  I like it a lot, especially since Wood is an actual Element in the cosmology. 

Also, I take it this means Surging Spirit is being considered an official canon circle?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 24, 2012, 11:16:36 PM
Typing those out I noticed a common theme among the formulae that didn't get axed. They are all very clearly and directly plant related. They tie in closely to the thornspike attack, while those being axed do so loosely, if at all.

So do you want Natural Balance to be less "the Druidy circle" and more "the "wood element" circle"?

Well, here's the problem.  As I said, Natural Balance occupies a conceptual space that I consider important.  That conceptual space is nature in general, rather than just wood.  The fact that it is the "druid-y circle" is the very reason that I consider it to be worth keeping around.  If it were to get to the point that Natural Balance were to become a "wood element" circle, I'd be tempted to drop it.

I like summoning and I thought it was cool that NB had spellshaping summoning. If summoning animals is not where you want to go, how about summoning plants? Either actual plant type creatures (which would require digging through sourcebooks looking for appropriate ones or homebrewing them) or astral construct esque creatures flavoured as tangles of animated vines ala the manifestation of thornspike?

Hrm.  I can look into keeping summoning in some fashion.  I just don't like the implementation of the "Call" cycle of formulae.

More poison of different levels: I was a little surprised that Nature's Venom wasn't part of a "cycle" of poison effects with lower or higher die sizes or possibly hitting different stats.

In general, each circle that can deal ability damage targets a single ability score.  Ability damage is an off-focus for Natural Balance, so it was getting one formula that could do it, while not making it a focus of the circle.

I'll toy with this one, though.  I don't want to make poison too much of a thing, though.

More buff effects with planty flavor ala Mantle of Thorns: Maybe a Barkskin effect or something similar?

Hrm.  Again, not focusing too much on planty flavor, since I don't want a wood elemental circle.  I think that's sort of what I was getting at with the "of the Wild" cycle, but enhancement bonuses aren't really a good idea for formulae.



Ohhh, I like the Wood Element circle idea.  I like it a lot, especially since Wood is an actual Element in the cosmology.

Depends on your cosmology.  The Elemental Plane of Wood is actually only listed as a variant plane in the appendix of the Manual of the Planes.  I, for one, leave it out.

Also, I take it this means Surging Spirit is being considered an official canon circle?

It's probably going to go in the first Appendix.  Either way, though, Natural Balance basically ended up being a half-assed attempt at a healing circle.  I'd really like to clean it up into something more than that.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on November 25, 2012, 12:53:36 AM
Ok, so my takeaways from looking at the formulae that didn't get changed were totally off base.

The question then is, if you are going for a Druid flavor circle, why did most of the Druid stuff, as opposed to the stuff that hewed closely to the spellshape attack get targeted for axing?

What didn't you like about the "call" cycle formulae if it wasn't that they were summoning animals? If you're going to have a druid theme, summon nature's ally really ought to be in there.

Alternative ideas: Shapeshifting. Maybe a formula or two that echo the "Bite of the Were[creature]" line of spells? That could be a replacement for the "of the wild" cycle.

A "wall of thorns" type effect? Maybe along the lines of "make a thornspike attack that deals +Xd8 damage. If it hits, thick impassable briars sprout in an Xft radius around the target. These briars impair movement [to some degree]."
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 25, 2012, 01:00:33 AM
The question then is, if you are going for a Druid flavor circle, why did most of the Druid stuff, as opposed to the stuff that hewed closely to the spellshape attack get targeted for axing?

Because those were the ones that either bothered me mechanically or conflicted with something else.

What didn't you like about the "call" cycle formulae if it wasn't that they were summoning animals? If you're going to have a druid theme, summon nature's ally really ought to be in there.

I don't really like the mechanical implementation.  I'm toying with some ideas that I like a lot more.  Basically, rather than pulling something out of a Monster Manual, we'll be dealing with something that's statted in-formula.

Alternative ideas: Shapeshifting. Maybe a formula or two that echo the "Bite of the Were[creature]" line of spells? That could be a replacement for the "of the wild" cycle.

Full-on shapeshifting got folded into the Wild Ascetic ACF, but I could definitely toy with some partial shifting, especially if it can be given to allies instead of just yourself.  Good, good...

A "wall of thorns" type effect? Maybe along the lines of "make a thornspike attack that deals +Xd8 damage. If it hits, thick impassable briars sprout in an Xft radius around the target. These briars impair movement [to some degree]."

Well, you generally don't want to create walls on subjects, but a wall of thorns is definitely a good place to start.  Hrmmmmm...

There are currently seven potential formulae floating around my head, so there's definite progress.  Three summonings, three partial shapeshifts, and the wall of thorns.  I'm thinking that a heavily altered version of Touch of Lycanthropy (currently Glimmering Moon) could make a fun replacement for Awakened Wood, so that'd put us at five more ideas to generate.



11/25/12, 1:46 AM EST: Revised Perfect Freeze.  Frozen Haze is now larger, deals a smidge more damage, imposes more of a penalty on attack rolls, and is not attached to a frostray attack.  Forced Hibernation has been replaced with Frost Armor.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on November 25, 2012, 01:05:23 PM
A baleful polymorph sort of effect? Make it 7th or 8th level and allow a save each round to avoid continuing to be a bunny, perhaps? Or else make the effect gradual over 5 rounds so that complete uselessness is a 1 round condition at the end.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 25, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
That's similar to what I was thinking for the 9th-level formula.  The idea was extra damage on thornspike, and then your target has to make a Will save at the beginning of their turn each round.  On a successful save, nothing happens.  On a failed save, they take 2 points of Intelligence damage and turn into an animal until the beginning of their next turn.  While they're an animal, you control their actions.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on November 25, 2012, 04:16:49 PM
I can't find an image to link (or, well, I tried, but the servers were down when I tried to grab the URLs), but have you ever heard of Thorn Elves?

They're a thing in the Earthdawn setting where, to avoid eldritch monstrosities, a bunch of elves grew thorns under their skin.

So... maybe something like that? Where you can grow stuff out of you to give bonuses on saves? (Maybe have some armor spikes too?)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 25, 2012, 10:59:49 PM
Well, elves are never a good reason to do anything, but I take your point.  I think that the whole "growing thorns" thing is already covered by Mantle of Thorns and Poisonous Mantle, though.

Also, I forgot that I also wanted to axe Transfixing Spike.  Means I still have a few ideas to generate, but we're actually getting somewhere.  Natural Balance has gone from the last circle to be revised to being the next circle to be revised.

I should probably write that research paper that's due tomorrow first, though.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on November 25, 2012, 11:05:28 PM
Well, elves are never a good reason to do anything, but I take your point.  I think that the whole "growing thorns" thing is already covered by Mantle of Thorns and Poisonous Mantle, though.

Also, I forgot that I also wanted to axe Transfixing Spike.  Means I still have a few ideas to generate, but we're actually getting somewhere.  Natural Balance has gone from the last circle to be revised to being the next circle to be revised.

I should probably write that research paper that's due tomorrow first, though.


Yes, yes you should.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 27, 2012, 07:49:43 PM
I've been toying with new setups for the summoning formulae and the buffing formulae.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

If you understand these things any better than I do, please point out all the horrible things I'm doing wrong.

Now, to come up with concepts for those last two formulae...a 1st-level and a 3rd-level...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on November 28, 2012, 05:43:24 PM
Feral Summons: The bite attack should probably be full str, since it's a primary attack (has to be since it's the only attack). Attack bonus to AC ratio means more attacks miss at lower levels so making it full str won't push the average damage above what you want it to be.

Maybe Weapon Finesse since dex will be higher than str (that's pretty standard for animals with high dex.)

I don't know if it's outside what you want the formulae to do, but maybe consider options for customizing the summons ala the "menu abilities" that astral constructs get.

I think you may be overcompensating with the move action tax. Other summon abilities don't require that (and there are ways to get them as standard actions) and let you have several summons running around at the same time for no penalty. Summoning is supposed to be powerful in that way.

I think the built in limitation of only being allowed one of each formula at a time, is a significant drawback compared to other summoning abilities and makes up for the advantage of never running out of spell slots or PP.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 28, 2012, 08:17:08 PM
Feral Summons: The bite attack should probably be full str, since it's a primary attack (has to be since it's the only attack). Attack bonus to AC ratio means more attacks miss at lower levels so making it full str won't push the average damage above what you want it to be.

Fair enough.  I'll tweak that, then.

Maybe Weapon Finesse since dex will be higher than str (that's pretty standard for animals with high dex.)

The high Dexterity scores are primarily there for survivability, not finesse.  I mean, I could technically swap the way that Strength and Dexterity are calculated, but I figured that tying down the damage to the formula was a better idea.

I don't know if it's outside what you want the formulae to do, but maybe consider options for customizing the summons ala the "menu abilities" that astral constructs get.

The Summons formulae are already going to be more complex than most formulae.  While I'm not opposed to customizable summoning, it wouldn't feel right to give that level of interactivity to only one circle.

I think you may be overcompensating with the move action tax. Other summon abilities don't require that (and there are ways to get them as standard actions) and let you have several summons running around at the same time for no penalty. Summoning is supposed to be powerful in that way.

I think the built in limitation of only being allowed one of each formula at a time, is a significant drawback compared to other summoning abilities and makes up for the advantage of never running out of spell slots or PP.

Thing is, the Summons formulae aren't being balanced against other summoning abilities, they're being balanced around the rest of spellshaping.  In almost all cases, a formula that creates something that you control requires a move action to exert that control.  So, there's the issue of consistency--and, before you pull some examples from circles that haven't yet been revised, I'm going to be pushing this one across the board.

More importantly, omitting that move action requirement allows the Summons formulae to deal massive amounts of damage with only slight investment.  I do not agree with the idea that summoning should be more powerful than other options, so summoning formulae will always be balanced against any other type of formula.  Even with the move action requirement, I'm fairly certain that the Summons formulae will make Natural Balance one of the highest-priority circles for damage-centric builds.  If it weren't for the fact that Wildfire and Predatory Summons end up doing around the same damage at 20th level, I might wonder if Natural Balance might edge out Searing Flame for the highest-priority slot.

I was going to make a comment about Predatory Summons being arguably better than Wildfire, due to the prevalence of fire resistance and immunity, but I think it ends up as a wash, what with DR being what it is.  SR and AC probably work out the same way.  (Incidentally, I forgot to note it, but the natural attacks of the Summons creatures will count as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on November 28, 2012, 08:58:39 PM
Quote
The high Dexterity scores are primarily there for survivability, not finesse.  I mean, I could technically swap the way that Strength and Dexterity are calculated, but I figured that tying down the damage to the formula was a better idea.

Giving weapon finesse as a bonus feat would give dex to hit but not to damage. I mostly suggest it because that's how most (possibly all) published animals with higher dex than str are set up.

Quote
The Summons formulae are already going to be more complex than most formulae.  While I'm not opposed to customizable summoning, it wouldn't feel right to give that level of interactivity to only one circle.

That's a good point. Summons already give more versatility than most effects so additional customization would just aggravate things.

On that note, do you know what you want to do with the appearance of the summon? Things like whether it can have limbs cappable of opening doors and such could be important.

Quote
Thing is, the Summons formulae aren't being balanced against other summoning abilities, they're being balanced around the rest of spellshaping.  In almost all cases, a formula that creates something that you control requires a move action to exert that control.  So, there's the issue of consistency--and, before you pull some examples from circles that haven't yet been revised, I'm going to be pushing this one across the board.

More importantly, omitting that move action requirement allows the Summons formulae to deal massive amounts of damage with only slight investment.  I do not agree with the idea that summoning should be more powerful than other options, so summoning formulae will always be balanced against any other type of formula.  Even with the move action requirement, I'm fairly certain that the Summons formulae will make Natural Balance one of the highest-priority circles for damage-centric builds.  If it weren't for the fact that Wildfire and Predatory Summons end up doing around the same damage at 20th level, I might wonder if Natural Balance might edge out Searing Flame for the highest-priority slot.

I was going to make a comment about Predatory Summons being arguably better than Wildfire, due to the prevalence of fire resistance and immunity, but I think it ends up as a wash, what with DR being what it is.  SR and AC probably work out the same way.  (Incidentally, I forgot to note it, but the natural attacks of the Summons creatures will count as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR.)

It's a valid point that there's no good reason for summoning to be more powerful than other magical effects. The move action thing seems like a good way of holding down that power.

Summons do have a few disadvantages that things like a blast of fire don't, though. You can't blind fire with glitterdust, or kill it with AoOs or lock it down with solid fog etc. Damage output may be exceptional in theory but there's a lot more that can go wrong for a summon than a straight damage effect.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 28, 2012, 10:55:31 PM
Giving weapon finesse as a bonus feat would give dex to hit but not to damage. I mostly suggest it because that's how most (possibly all) published animals with higher dex than str are set up.

Hrm.  Might be worth it, then.  I'll bop it around a bit.

On that note, do you know what you want to do with the appearance of the summon? Things like whether it can have limbs cappable of opening doors and such could be important.

I was going to go with the "usually pick animals from the terrain and climate they're most familiar with" approach, like the Shapeshift class feature.  They're all intended as general animals, though.  Wolves, bears, et cetera.  Generally not door-friendly things, with the possible exception of some bears.

It's a valid point that there's no good reason for summoning to be more powerful than other magical effects. The move action thing seems like a good way of holding down that power.

Summons do have a few disadvantages that things like a blast of fire don't, though. You can't blind fire with glitterdust, or kill it with AoOs or lock it down with solid fog etc. Damage output may be exceptional in theory but there's a lot more that can go wrong for a summon than a straight damage effect.

There's probably a bit of leeway both ways.  Minimum damage rolls on the animals' attacks will be higher than minimum damage rolls for the fire.  The animals can make attacks of opportunity--the move action lets you control them for the round.  And so on.  I won't be able to get everything functionally identical without making the animal into an animal-shaped puddle of fire, or the fire into a fire-puddle-shaped animal.  And that would be silly.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on November 29, 2012, 01:13:45 AM
Quote
I was going to go with the "usually pick animals from the terrain and climate they're most familiar with" approach, like the Shapeshift class feature.  They're all intended as general animals, though.  Wolves, bears, et cetera.  Generally not door-friendly things, with the possible exception of some bears.

The terrain the spellshaper is most familiar with? Could they write into their backstory that they're from a tropical region and summon apes?

Also, is the intent for the summoned creature to be an animal, in that it has animal intelligence, must be handled via the skill unless you can talk to it, etc? If so, that would cut down on having your summoned ape open a trapped chest for you, or having it throw alchemical splash weapons or things like that.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 29, 2012, 03:14:02 PM
The terrain the spellshaper is most familiar with? Could they write into their backstory that they're from a tropical region and summon apes?

Technically, yes, but the ape would function exactly like a bear or tiger.

Also, is the intent for the summoned creature to be an animal, in that it has animal intelligence, must be handled via the skill unless you can talk to it, etc? If so, that would cut down on having your summoned ape open a trapped chest for you, or having it throw alchemical splash weapons or things like that.

The goal is that the summon creatures will be animals.  I'm not sure on handling via the skill, since the "handling" is already covered by the move action.  It's actually really tempting to make them completely mindless--having the formula create them, rather than summon them--so that they can't do anything except fight.

They will have no fine manipulators and will be incapable of opening doors, wielding weapons, and the like.  I guess I'm going to have to explicitly write that in.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on November 29, 2012, 03:46:01 PM
Making them mindless might be a mistake since then a player could argue that the spellshaper gets to precisely control their actions, meaning they could get them to do any of the various out of combat utility things easily.

If you want to have the summoning formulae not have any out of combat utility you could accomplish that by saying something like "the animal arrives spoiling for a fight and, if not immediately directed to attack an enemy, will attack the nearest creature." That would let out every sort of out of combat utility including using them to trigger traps by walking down a corridor (well, an enterprising player could summon the animal at the far end of the corridor, thus causing it to run toward the party to attack and setting off traps that way but that would at least carry some element of risk.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 29, 2012, 05:15:26 PM
Making them mindless might be a mistake since then a player could argue that the spellshaper gets to precisely control their actions, meaning they could get them to do any of the various out of combat utility things easily.

Good point.  Int 3 it is!

If you want to have the summoning formulae not have any out of combat utility you could accomplish that by saying something like "the animal arrives spoiling for a fight and, if not immediately directed to attack an enemy, will attack the nearest creature." That would let out every sort of out of combat utility including using them to trigger traps by walking down a corridor (well, an enterprising player could summon the animal at the far end of the corridor, thus causing it to run toward the party to attack and setting off traps that way but that would at least carry some element of risk.)

Well, it's not so much that I want to ban out-of-combat utility--I've actually really enjoyed it when players have come up with inventive uses for formulae.  It's more that I don't want one formula to have different applications depending on where you're from.  The guy who likes summoning wolves should be able to use them in exactly the same way as Pongo uses his apes.  Ideally, the formula should always do the exact same thing.  You might use that thing in different ways, but that should be a question of toying with what you already have, rather than adding new capacities.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on November 29, 2012, 06:20:55 PM
Don't have it summon an animal then, have it summon a spirit or a manifestation of spellshaping or whatever and give it a specific form, say a quadruped, so that it can't do things like open doors.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 29, 2012, 06:37:34 PM
Any reason it can't be given a specifically quadrupedal form while also being an animal?  As I've always conceived of it, you're not calling the animal from somewhere--it's created by the magic.  It's just an animal that's created by the magic.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on November 29, 2012, 07:56:50 PM
Any reason it can't be given a specifically quadrupedal form while also being an animal?  As I've always conceived of it, you're not calling the animal from somewhere--it's created by the magic.  It's just an animal that's created by the magic.

Because I'm attempting to bypass the whole "what if I summon an ape/other tool using animal" thing.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on November 29, 2012, 11:31:16 PM
Even if you limit it to quadrapedal animals you'll end up with some yahoo trying to summon a giant raccoon or selling you on how a moose can work door handles with its lips (this is actually true) or something.

I might be inclined to just not worry about it. Anyone who has their heart set on it will figure out a way to wangle door opening or tool using or whatever no matter what their background and anyone who doesn't won't feel the loss.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on November 30, 2012, 07:31:18 AM
Even if you limit it to quadrapedal animals you'll end up with some yahoo trying to summon a giant raccoon or selling you on how a moose can work door handles with its lips (this is actually true) or something.

I might be inclined to just not worry about it. Anyone who has their heart set on it will figure out a way to wangle door opening or tool using or whatever no matter what their background and anyone who doesn't won't feel the loss.

Meese can open doors with their lips.

Meese.

Goddamn.

I just.

...yeah, that...


....



....not going to worry about it, then.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 05, 2012, 09:56:04 AM
Sorry for the continued delay.  I have all the ideas in my shorthand document, it's just been a busy few weeks.  End of the semester and all that.  Two papers due this coming Monday, another paper the week after, and finals mingled around somewhere in there.

I'd like to say that I'll finish revising all the circles over my winter break, but I also know that I'll have things that need to be done.  I do hope to finish Natural Balance before break starts, so there's always that hope.

Also, something that I forgot to write into the rules chapter that I need to go back and correct later today: dismissing a formula is a free action.  Dismissing effects as a standard action has always bothered me.



12/5/12, 10:01 AM EST: Added that, both to the online post and to my document.  Now, to go over things with a comb and make sure that things that should be dismissible are.

Other tweaks I'm toying with:
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on December 05, 2012, 10:08:45 AM
I think you can just say that bonus damage inherits damage typing unless otherwise stated.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: littha on December 05, 2012, 11:20:13 PM
Even if you limit it to quadrapedal animals you'll end up with some yahoo trying to summon a giant raccoon or selling you on how a moose can work door handles with its lips (this is actually true) or something.

I might be inclined to just not worry about it. Anyone who has their heart set on it will figure out a way to wangle door opening or tool using or whatever no matter what their background and anyone who doesn't won't feel the loss.

Meese can open doors with their lips.

Meese.

Goddamn.

I just.

...yeah, that...


....



....not going to worry about it, then.

Plural of Moose is Moose. Like Sheep.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on December 05, 2012, 11:49:53 PM
And unlike Mouse. Whose plural is meeses.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 11, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
So, I've finally finished the pre-finals week hell, so I'm planning to get cracking on the actual rewrite of Natural Balance.

First, however, I have received...news.  Yes, the message for why the PDFs were taken down all those months ago has finally reached me.

I seem to have gotten in the crossfire of a Mediafire purge...serving several musicians.  What.  I don't think that the Codices ever violated the copyright of Guns 'n' Roses, Michael Jackson, the Gorillaz, or any number of other musicians...but, apparently, someone disagreed!

Note that the PDFs haven't been taken down since then, so we should be fine.  I was simply amused at the sheer insanity of it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on December 11, 2012, 08:21:46 PM
That's...pretty weird.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on December 12, 2012, 08:50:32 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if some copyright trolls had automated the process - the current climate presumes guilty until proven innocent, after all, and there's very little in the way of consequences for wrongly accusing somebody. Also, randomly accusing people until the site becomes too inconvenient to be worth it is a good way of getting it shut down if the law can't or won't do it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on December 13, 2012, 01:27:54 AM
And unlike Mouse. Whose plural is meeses.

Said the Scotsman to the Mountie: "If that be a moose, I dinnae want ta see a rat!"

I seem to have gotten in the crossfire of a Mediafire purge...serving several musicians.  What.  I don't think that the Codices ever violated the copyright of Guns 'n' Roses, Michael Jackson, the Gorillaz, or any number of other musicians...but, apparently, someone disagreed!

You should totally name one of the new Natural Balance formulae "Welcome to the Jungle"
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 13, 2012, 06:30:46 PM
You should totally name one of the new Natural Balance formulae "Welcome to the Jungle"

...tempting.  I can't think of any effects that would work for it, but...tempting.  I mean, I did already name an entire circle with a Touhou reference.

In actual progress news, I should be able to find time to start the write-up after this weekend.  I had to take a final yesterday, with an oral examination tomorrow, but--after I turn in a paper on Sunday night--I'll be completely free until Friday.  So I'll hopefully be able to find the energy to get off my ass and write up the circle.

While I'd like to be able to promise that I'll finish all of the circles over winter break, I'm not so much of a fool.  I'm graduating from college this spring, so I'm probably going to be spending a decent amount of time applying for jobs.  I'll get work done when I can, but the actual future course of my life is considered by some to be vaguely important, so it'll probably get priority.

More delays, yadda yadda.  Man, remember when I couldn't actually control my inspiration and was spending class periods writing classes instead of taking notes?  That was terrible for my grades, but at least I got things done on time.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 15, 2012, 06:55:14 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 17, 2012, 10:53:31 PM
Since the lack of responses to the formulae I posted in this thread clearly implies that there was absolutely nothing at all wrong with those formulae, the revised Natural Balance is up.

Roaring Tide is next on the list, for those of you who are counting.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on December 19, 2012, 05:22:21 AM
The new NB looks good to me, at least. I like the shapeshifting and summoning formulae. Good take on those abilities.

The one thing I'm not sure about is Animalistic Fury. Is that a new formula? In any case, it's listed as level 1 but it has a "one NB formula" prerequisite. I don't recall seeing a lv 1 formula with that prereq before. Also, 4 damage/turn seems awfully harsh for the benefit it provides. I don't see a lv1 character being able to take that damage for even 1 turn safely.

Maybe make the damage non lethal and make it a bit smaller. Maybe 2 or 1d4.

EDIT: Rereading the circle it occurs to me that maybe Fury was intended as an offensive power. If that's so, my above issues do not apply.

EDIT: And now for something completely different: An exceptionally random question:

Do the elemental circles allow their practitioners to create said element? Specifically, if a Spellshaper with Blustering Gale was trapped in an air tight room, could they produce air to keep from suffocating?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 19, 2012, 09:20:02 PM
The new NB looks good to me, at least. I like the shapeshifting and summoning formulae. Good take on those abilities.

The one thing I'm not sure about is Animalistic Fury. Is that a new formula? In any case, it's listed as level 1 but it has a "one NB formula" prerequisite. I don't recall seeing a lv 1 formula with that prereq before. Also, 4 damage/turn seems awfully harsh for the benefit it provides. I don't see a lv1 character being able to take that damage for even 1 turn safely.

Maybe make the damage non lethal and make it a bit smaller. Maybe 2 or 1d4.

EDIT: Rereading the circle it occurs to me that maybe Fury was intended as an offensive power. If that's so, my above issues do not apply.

The prerequisite is a mistake, and has to do with me having copied the templating from a different formula.

Animalistic Fury is designed to be usable as either an offensive formula or as a buff, depending on whether or not the subject can take the damage.  Four damage as a swift action is a bit much at 1st level, though, so I think I'm going to move it over to 1d4.  Technically, the combat bonuses might outweigh the damage that you're doing at that point, so I'm open to suggestions on that one.

EDIT: And now for something completely different: An exceptionally random question:

Do the elemental circles allow their practitioners to create said element? Specifically, if a Spellshaper with Blustering Gale was trapped in an air tight room, could they produce air to keep from suffocating?

As written, there is no ability to allow this.  You can't use spellshape attacks for this purpose, since they are generally stated to disappear after the attack is made, in order to avoid having to track boulders lying around on the battlefield.  I've been known to allow the use of fireblast to start fires and surging jet to extinguish them, but that's about it.  The issue with using, say, lashing zephyr to breathe in a vacuum is that the wind is powerful enough to deal slashing damage, which would probably be bad for your lungs.

In terms of actually receiving a separate ability to create air, earth, fire, or water, it would feel weird to me for the four elemental circles to be special in that way.  Especially since creating earth would necessitate a permanent effect, which means that it would have to be tracked somehow, which becomes fairly complicated fairly quickly.  While their least incantations could be changed to just "create element," that would feel like a low blow for Blustering Gale, which would have a very situational incantation indeed...especially since we'd be talking about an air-creating ability that requires verbal components.

In terms of thematics, an eighth-level elemental adept can technically use the elemental magic class feature to emulate create water, produce flame, and whatever equivalents might exist for air and earth.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on December 19, 2012, 09:43:44 PM
By the way, I'm going to have someone playing a Dragonheart Adept this coming semester.

I will keep you posted.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 19, 2012, 11:16:59 PM
By the way, I'm going to have someone playing a Dragonheart Adept this coming semester.

I will keep you posted.

Fancy stuff.  Don't know when the Dragonheart Adept revision will hit, since I no longer have any idea how long any revisions will take, but I'll try to remember to save a copy of the existing version of the class so that your player doesn't have to completely rebuild his character when the revision hits.

In other news, I formatted Natural Balance into the master document and removed all references to damage type in the "make a single [SPELLSHAPEATTACK] attack that deals an extra [NUMBER]d6 points of damage" lines, in order to be consistent across circles.  I could have gone the other way, but typing out "an extra [NUMBER]d6 points of damage, half of which is [DAMAGETYPE] and the other half of which is [DAMAGETYPE]" every time would have driven me insane.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on December 19, 2012, 11:34:12 PM
By the way, I'm going to have someone playing a Dragonheart Adept this coming semester.

I will keep you posted.

Fancy stuff.  Don't know when the Dragonheart Adept revision will hit, since I no longer have any idea how long any revisions will take, but I'll try to remember to save a copy of the existing version of the class so that your player doesn't have to completely rebuild his character when the revision hits.

In other news, I formatted Natural Balance into the master document and removed all references to damage type in the "make a single [SPELLSHAPEATTACK] attack that deals an extra [NUMBER]d6 points of damage" lines, in order to be consistent across circles.  I could have gone the other way, but typing out "an extra [NUMBER]d6 points of damage, half of which is [DAMAGETYPE] and the other half of which is [DAMAGETYPE]" every time would have driven me insane.

And that would not have played nice with alternative spellshape attacks granted by various PrCs and other methods of using formulae with other circles' spellshape attacks, too.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 29, 2013, 12:06:58 AM
LIFE!  GIVE MY CREATION....LIFE!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on January 29, 2013, 12:16:58 AM
Speaking of life, I found my notes for a positive energy-based circle in the 1001 ideas thread.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 29, 2013, 12:30:52 AM
Speaking of life, I found my notes for a positive energy-based circle in the 1001 ideas thread.

...I walked right into that.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on January 29, 2013, 12:49:33 AM
BLAST. I'll have competition now. Competition that probably deals damage, since I seem to recall that you objected to mine.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on January 29, 2013, 01:14:56 AM
My notes were rather sparse. This was about 6 months ago, and DonQuixote's made a few changes in regards to healing formulae that I haven't taken into account (mostly because they started after I stopped working on this).

Implacable Life, a positive energy-based circle for spellshaping.

Note: This is a circle about positive energy, not light.
(click to show/hide)

TODO: Replace positive energy damage with Cancerous damage (positive energy amalgamed with untyped damage from disease)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on January 31, 2013, 06:24:06 PM
Yeah, I'm still not sure where positive energy fits into spellshaping.  I'll probably use these notes when looking over Surging Spirit, since they seem to be very different approaches.  Dunno what we'll end up with.

I'm planning to start looking at Roaring Tide revisions later tonight, but we'll see how much time I end up having.  It is my final semester at college, and the mountains of work keep getting higher.

Incidentally, if people enjoy snooping, here's the link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8plh3kdaer0xohy/Complete%20Codex.docx) to the .docx file that I'm using for the revision.  I do not believe you are capable of editing the online file--if you find a way to, please let me know so that I can switch to using a different file.  It's not that I don't trust you guys, but I really want to make sure that nobody is capable of accidentally deleting anything.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 01, 2013, 05:58:26 PM
DQ, I know how you're crazy about typos. There's one in the index thread, under skills, for Know (arcana). It says "practies" instead of "practices" (missing a 'c').
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Agrippa on February 03, 2013, 03:32:17 AM
I love the spellshaping system of yours, especially the spellsage. Would you mind if I converted any of it at all. The basic sub system will remain intact though. I'll be using this system (http://www.basicfantasy.org/) for the basic chasis but I'll stick firmly to the spellshaping rules.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 04, 2013, 06:37:41 PM
DQ, I know how you're crazy about typos. There's one in the index thread, under skills, for Know (arcana). It says "practies" instead of "practices" (missing a 'c').

Fixed.  Oddly enough, it wasn't in the revisions document, so I guess I'm doing something during this whole process.



I love the spellshaping system of yours, especially the spellsage. Would you mind if I converted any of it at all. The basic sub system will remain intact though. I'll be using this system (http://www.basicfantasy.org/) for the basic chasis but I'll stick firmly to the spellshaping rules.

Bear in mind that spellshaping does use the Tome of Battle mechanics.  I don't know the legal specifics of your system, but I noticed that the print version can be purchased.  If converting a Wizards of the Coast product into your system would present any issues, I would prefer that you not convert spellshaping.  I don't want to deal with any backlash if you encounter difficulties resulting from the similarities.

Other than that, I don't really have a problem with it, so long as it is made clear that it is a conversion that you have performed.  I don't really have any interest in picking up another system, so I won't participate in any part of the conversion.  Any questions that players of your conversion would have are yours to answer, not mine.  I can tell you what a circle is supposed to do, but actual formula functionality is your job to figure out.  I take no ownership of anything that you do with the material--the conversion is your project, not mine.

Also, do realize that spellshaping is currently about halfway through being revised.  The circles left to be revised are: Brilliant Dawn, Crushing Stone, Deteriorating Corrosion, Devouring Shadow, Glimmering Moon, Roaring Tide, Shocking Current, and Unseen Impetus.  Most prestige classes will receive significant overhauls in the revision, and the "alternate" base classes may do so, as well.

Edit: On reflection, even if you have no fears about reprisal from converting the Tome of Battle rules, I do not want people paying for spellshaping.  While I do not actively have any problems with an online conversion--either on the forums or in PDF form--I strongly object to the inclusion of spellshaping material in any collection that is available for purchase.  Again: You may convert anything that you want, but you may not sell it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Agrippa on February 04, 2013, 10:50:41 PM
It's not a system I made, just one I found a while ago. I won't post this up at the Basic Fantasy Role Playing Game download site or forums. The spellshpaing conversion is strictly for personal use.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 05, 2013, 09:00:15 AM
Well, go right ahead, then!  I was mainly cautious about getting involved in ownership issues and getting slapped on the wrist.

In other news, high-level water effects are hard to come up with.  There are only so many ways you can do "it creates a wave!"  I now understand how Aquaman's writers feel.

Finally, a question generated by Giant in the Playground: When gaining a new chosen circle, should the anchorite be able to exchange known formulae for formulae from the new circle of the same level or lower?  If so, how many formulae should it be able to exchange?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: The-Mage-King on February 06, 2013, 08:13:44 PM
In other news, high-level water effects are hard to come up with.  There are only so many ways you can do "it creates a wave!"  I now understand how Aquaman's writers feel.

Include stuff thematically appropriate for water- purification, disintegration, ect. Stuff like wiping away buffs/debuffs or poisons.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: veekie on February 06, 2013, 09:25:44 PM
Liquefaction, poison, acid and just about any kind of chemical attack would also fit, as would changes of shape and state.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 06, 2013, 09:47:15 PM
Finally, a question generated by Giant in the Playground: When gaining a new chosen circle, should the anchorite be able to exchange known formulae for formulae from the new circle of the same level or lower?  If so, how many formulae should it be able to exchange?

Depends how accessible you want the new circles to be. Unlike with psionics, where powers have no prerequisites, spellshaping requires you to focus on a path and devote significant resources to it to gain access to the upper echelons of power. As an inheritor of the Ardent's mantle access mechanics, the Anchorite will need a way to resolve this issue.

Without any sort of free trading, you'll be stuck to either give up momentary power (higher level maneuvers) for breadth of options (full access to the new circle). With the way formulae known works, and looking at the growing gap between the number known and the number prepared, this loss of power actually disappears after several levels, resulting in a temporary cost for a permanent benefit. As such, a character leveling naturally through gameplay is discouraged from using new circles, while one created as a high level Anchorite faces little to no penalty for access to a greater slew of options.

So, the question is, how accessible and usable do you want the new circles to be? Is the addition of circles supposed to be a full-fledged expansion of options? It it just a minor boost with new numen/incantation/aspect options?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: littha on February 06, 2013, 09:50:11 PM
Liquefaction, poison, acid and just about any kind of chemical attack would also fit, as would changes of shape and state.

Acid is earth though
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: veekie on February 07, 2013, 01:34:41 PM
But it is also a liquid, and thus in water as well.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 07, 2013, 01:53:52 PM
I'm pretty sure the "water" circle is mostly just water, not all liquids. Otherwise, it would have things like lava, and we can't have that.

Some ideas for Roaring Tide:
- Wall of water. You already have parting water, raising water, and creating water, this is just an extension of that.
- Jets of water to knock people up/aside, possibly remaining in certain spaces over several rounds.
- Water bubble. Sort of like the Globe of Invulnerability, Defenestrating Sphere, and Resilient Sphere spells, but with water.
- Bloodbending. Control bodily fluids to make a creature act as you direct, or just deal massive internal damage.
- Drought. Evaporate liquids, possibly even those inside a living creature. See the Blight spell and the Blue Dragon's ability.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on February 07, 2013, 04:37:19 PM
If you want to go with the idea of water rather than just physical water, anti magic effects fit with a fluff of "damping" the magic.

You could also do a "perfect defense" type thing as a high level minor formula fluffed as flowing around an attack.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 11, 2013, 12:32:29 PM
Finally, a question generated by Giant in the Playground: When gaining a new chosen circle, should the anchorite be able to exchange known formulae for formulae from the new circle of the same level or lower?  If so, how many formulae should it be able to exchange?

Depends how accessible you want the new circles to be. Unlike with psionics, where powers have no prerequisites, spellshaping requires you to focus on a path and devote significant resources to it to gain access to the upper echelons of power. As an inheritor of the Ardent's mantle access mechanics, the Anchorite will need a way to resolve this issue.

Without any sort of free trading, you'll be stuck to either give up momentary power (higher level maneuvers) for breadth of options (full access to the new circle). With the way formulae known works, and looking at the growing gap between the number known and the number prepared, this loss of power actually disappears after several levels, resulting in a temporary cost for a permanent benefit. As such, a character leveling naturally through gameplay is discouraged from using new circles, while one created as a high level Anchorite faces little to no penalty for access to a greater slew of options.

So, the question is, how accessible and usable do you want the new circles to be? Is the addition of circles supposed to be a full-fledged expansion of options? It it just a minor boost with new numen/incantation/aspect options?

Hrm.  I do want it to actually be an expansion of options, but I don't want it to completely eclipse your earlier development.  I don't want being created as a high level character to provide you with a significant difference in terms of options.  Time to figure out a decent trading setup.



Include stuff thematically appropriate for water- purification, disintegration, ect. Stuff like wiping away buffs/debuffs or poisons.
Liquefaction, poison, acid and just about any kind of chemical attack would also fit, as would changes of shape and state.
I'm pretty sure the "water" circle is mostly just water, not all liquids. Otherwise, it would have things like lava, and we can't have that.

Some ideas for Roaring Tide:
- Wall of water. You already have parting water, raising water, and creating water, this is just an extension of that.
- Jets of water to knock people up/aside, possibly remaining in certain spaces over several rounds.
- Water bubble. Sort of like the Globe of Invulnerability, Defenestrating Sphere, and Resilient Sphere spells, but with water.
- Bloodbending. Control bodily fluids to make a creature act as you direct, or just deal massive internal damage.
- Drought. Evaporate liquids, possibly even those inside a living creature. See the Blight spell and the Blue Dragon's ability.

If you want to go with the idea of water rather than just physical water, anti magic effects fit with a fluff of "damping" the magic.

You could also do a "perfect defense" type thing as a high level minor formula fluffed as flowing around an attack.

It's a virtual deluge of ideas!  (Hanako, put down that bottle.)

Anyway, I'm going to toy with some of these.  We already have some of the purification elements with Cleansing Waters and Cleansing Stream, so hooray for parallel thinking.  Exactly how bad of an idea would an antimagic ray-type formula be?  I was thinking 7th- or 8th-level, since having your capstone formula prevent you from affecting the creature with other formulae would be saddening.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 12, 2013, 02:37:56 AM
Anyway, I'm going to toy with some of these.  We already have some of the purification elements with Cleansing Waters and Cleansing Stream, so hooray for parallel thinking.  Exactly how bad of an idea would an antimagic ray-type formula be?  I was thinking 7th- or 8th-level, since having your capstone formula prevent you from affecting the creature with other formulae would be saddening.
Fluff it as some type of constant flow over the creature, which can be broken out of. Maybe it's attuned to that creature's "unique magical aura" or something, to explain why you can still do magic to the target.

Mechanically, it functions like antimagic ray (thus allowing you to continue affecting it with other formulae, by my understanding of the rules for that spell), except it's SR: No (because of the spellshape attack it rides), and the save becomes None. Allow a grapple check or escape artist check of some kind, or some type of save, as an action of whatever type feels appropriate, to break free, thereby shifting the action burden onto the target. This would almost certainly be a 9th level version, though. Even in the 9th level case, I'd probably make the action cost to escape Swift or Move; anything pricier than that probably kicks a little too much ass.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 12, 2013, 05:53:02 AM
Mechanically, it functions like antimagic ray (thus allowing you to continue affecting it with other formulae, by my understanding of the rules for that spell)

Nope.  Antimagic ray prevents targets from using or being affected by spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.  When Hanako used it on the big bad of the first Adilnis campaign, they basically had to rely on Felyx to chop the bastard apart.

except it's SR: No (because of the spellshape attack it rides), and the save becomes None. Allow a grapple check or escape artist check of some kind, or some type of save, as an action of whatever type feels appropriate, to break free, thereby shifting the action burden onto the target. This would almost certainly be a 9th level version, though. Even in the 9th level case, I'd probably make the action cost to escape Swift or Move; anything pricier than that probably kicks a little too much ass.

Any reason to not just give the effect a save?  Five rounds of not being able to use or be affected by magic isn't exactly combat-ending because of that second half.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 12, 2013, 12:04:23 PM
Oh, hey, you're right. Personally, I still like the idea of the target having a way of ending it - it's not a game-ender for every encounter, and there are some it's useless in, but there are definitely encounters where it does shut things down. A save is a bad way to go about it because it's so all-or-nothing, and in particular a Will save is likely one of the best saves for a target you actually want this to work on, but allowing an action to overcome the effect means there's a cost associated with avoiding the thing that prevents you from using your signature abilities (say, if you're a wizard), and allows you multiple chances so that a bad roll doesn't fuck you over for the entire combat.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 12, 2013, 12:53:04 PM
I'll poke at it, I guess.  One of my issues it that making it a grapple means that I'd need to figure out how to make it actually competitive with large grapplers without making it inescapable.  Plus, as a grapple, it would also shut down non-magical actions--meaning that, in addition to losing its spells and breath weapon, the dragon can't full attack, either.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 12, 2013, 01:45:38 PM
How about (pick and choose, mix and match)...
- A series of opposed CL checks or dispel checks to suppress items in use and spells currently affecting the subject.
- A counterspell attempt against each spell/SLA/similar used.
- Rather than negating everything, just damp it. Reduced CL, minimum variable numeric effects, reduced bonuses granted, etc.
... instead of an all-or-nothing AMF.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 12, 2013, 03:04:16 PM
How about (pick and choose, mix and match)...
- A series of opposed CL checks or dispel checks to suppress items in use and spells currently affecting the subject.
- A counterspell attempt against each spell/SLA/similar used.
- Rather than negating everything, just damp it. Reduced CL, minimum variable numeric effects, reduced bonuses granted, etc.
... instead of an all-or-nothing AMF.

Too late!

(click to show/hide)

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 12, 2013, 03:17:55 PM
Ah, clever way of doing the grapple check. Since the drowning effect can't last long enough to actually require Con checks unless the target has Con 2 or less, due to the way the hold breath rules work, is it there to interfere with potential verbal shenanigans that currently escape me?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 12, 2013, 05:22:44 PM
That's more so that pinning does something other than forcing them to succeed at two grapple checks to escape.  But, yeah, it also would prevent command word activation of magic items they aren't actually wearing or carrying, if such a thing is possible.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 12, 2013, 05:32:39 PM
That's more so that pinning does something other than forcing them to succeed at two grapple checks to escape.  But, yeah, it also would prevent command word activation of magic items they aren't actually wearing or carrying, if such a thing is possible.

You can already do that by pinning.
Quote
At your opponent’s option, you may also be unable to speak.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 12, 2013, 05:56:48 PM
That's more so that pinning does something other than forcing them to succeed at two grapple checks to escape.  But, yeah, it also would prevent command word activation of magic items they aren't actually wearing or carrying, if such a thing is possible.

You can already do that by pinning.
Quote
At your opponent’s option, you may also be unable to speak.

...huh.  Well, is there any reason not to leave it in?

Also, any problems anyone sees with the proposed form?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 12, 2013, 09:35:58 PM
That's more so that pinning does something other than forcing them to succeed at two grapple checks to escape.  But, yeah, it also would prevent command word activation of magic items they aren't actually wearing or carrying, if such a thing is possible.

You can already do that by pinning.
Quote
At your opponent’s option, you may also be unable to speak.

...huh.  Well, is there any reason not to leave it in?

Also, any problems anyone sees with the proposed form?

Only because it effectively doesn't do anything, but looks like it should do something, thus causing confusion. Unless we're all missing something?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 12, 2013, 09:38:02 PM
Nah, apparently it doesn't do anything.  I didn't know that about pinning.

Guess I'll remove that line, then.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 17, 2013, 06:16:02 PM
I actually finished revising a circle (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=870.0) again?  I...I'm not sure I believe it.  It...it's been so long...

Incidentally, this puts us at eight of sixteen circles revised.  So...just another indeterminate period of time before I get on to the prestige classes!

(Also, please tell me exactly how horrible the changes are.  Water Pulse and Billowing Fog were detached from surging jet, Rainstorm was replaced with Refresh, Siphon Life's Water was replaced with Fluid Barrier, Tidal Burst was transformed into Roaring Geyser, Drain Fluids was replaced with Tidal Ebb, and Fist of the Geyser was replaced with Binding Currents.  Also, surging jet now deals bludgeoning damage and a bunch of things were renamed.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on February 18, 2013, 12:24:32 AM
Changes look solid to me. I especially like Fluid Barrier. Nice melding of defensive and offensive utility there.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 18, 2013, 01:33:59 AM
You should be more consistent about whether the bull rush-like effects specify the exact distance moved, or if it's as normal for bull rushing (except for not having to move with the pushed subject). If you're using bull rush mechanics, you'll also need effective sizes for all the effects, or just the ability to ignore the size restriction. Might also want to specify some sort of order (even if it's only "whatever's most beneficial, after resolving the Strength check results") that creatures are pushed for the mass bull rushes. The fact that some formulae have fixed modifiers and others have variable ones is another point of inconsistency.

As it's based on Cleansing Water, you can't remove conditions and spells from your allies unless you are also subject to them.

Cleansing Water swaps between referring to selecting a condition and removing an effect.

Dessicate and Parch should act differently on creatures that don't drink water or use it in their bodies, no?

Flowing Shroud should specify that the water doesn't need to move with the pushed subjects.

For Fluid Barrier, I'd add that attacks from opposite sides of the wall have cover, too (and possibly also concealment).

Patina of Rust should not affect non-metallic (and otherwise rustproof) armor, no?

Roaring Geyser seems relatively high damage for a major formula.
- 1d8/level baseline, Fort half
- Spell-like but not based on Surging Jet, so no DR. Bludgeoning, so no resistances.
- An extra 0d8 (opponent wins) to 10d8 (you get a nat 20, opponent has a +0 modifier and rolls a 1) damage from the push. With the formula's +30 modifier, even a Storm Giant (+14 Str, +8 size, +4 Imp Bull Rush) is likely taking extra damage. (Actually, he takes 1d8 109/400 of the time, 2d8 80/400, 3d8 55/400, 4d8 30/400, and 5d8 6/400, averaging 1.46d8 extra damage from pushing.)
That said, I may just be thinking a bit conservatively about what's appropriate or not. I don't really remember what my "appropriate damage by level" baseline was back when I really thought hard about that.

Comparing Water Pulse to Grease and similar effects (and I'm pretty sure there's another similar effect in another circle at level 1 anyways), it seems odd to have the size-based +/-4s on the saving throws.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 18, 2013, 12:23:07 PM
Garryl, have I mentioned that I love you?  I'll get on the more in-depth stuff when I have time to look at it in more detail, but quick fixes:

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Use of "may" in Cleansing Water means that you can technically shape it when not subject to any conditions...which, while useless, makes Cleansing Stream more intuitive.

Removed the +/- bonuses on Water Pulse.

Edit: Flowing Barrier now provides both cover and concealment to creatures on either side of the wall against attacks launched from the other side.

Edit Again: Desiccate and Parch: "Undead, constructs, creatures that do not need to drink water, and creatures without bodily fluids are immune to the effect of this formula."

Patina of Rust now fails to affect non-metallic or rustproof armor.

Edit the Third: Standardized all the bull rushing to use the same wording and mechanics.  Everything now notes that it bull rushes creatures "regardless of size."  Everything has a fixed modifier, and everything specifies how much it moves things.  This should fix Fluid Barrier's thing, since it now works like the others.  I'm not sure how to specify the order of bull rushing, since the spells that do similar things don't specify in any way.  I would assume they'd all be rushed simultaneously?

Roaring Geyser now deals 1d8 additional damage per 10 feet, so a slight decrease there.  I'll go into the spellshaping rules later and fix it so that it's subject to DR.  I assumed that one die per level with a save for half was consistent with normal damage/level considerations, but I can tweak it if it's too high.



Incidentally, it turns out that anchorites already had the option to exchange two previously-known formulae when getting a new chosen circle, so...apparently I thought of that before it was drawn to my attention?

Also, tweaked Heighten Formula so that it now adds damage normally to 1st-level formulae.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on February 18, 2013, 02:09:11 PM
Garryl, have I mentioned that I love you?  I'll get on the more in-depth stuff when I have time to look at it in more detail, but quick fixes:

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Use of "may" in Cleansing Water means that you can technically shape it when not subject to any conditions...which, while useless, makes Cleansing Stream more intuitive.

No dice on Cleansing Stream. You still can't choose conditions and spells that you yourself are not personally subject to, and thus can't remove them from your allies. The important part is that for Cleansing Water, you can only choose a condition affecting you, or a spell effect affecting you (curses, interestingly enough, you can cancel without being affected by them). Since Cleansing Stream works as Cleansing Water, you can still only choose and remove conditions and spells from your allies that you are affected by. Also, the new wording prevents you from cancelling curses on your allies.

Try this: "This formula functions like the Cleansing Water formula, except that it also affects all allied creatures within 60 feet of you.  For each such creature, you may choose a different adverse condition, targeted spell effect, or curse that that creature is subject to to end."

Quote
Edit the Third: Standardized all the bull rushing to use the same wording and mechanics.  Everything now notes that it bull rushes creatures "regardless of size."  Everything has a fixed modifier, and everything specifies how much it moves things.  This should fix Fluid Barrier's thing, since it now works like the others.  I'm not sure how to specify the order of bull rushing, since the spells that do similar things don't specify in any way.  I would assume they'd all be rushed simultaneously?

Probably, yeah. Simultaneously makes the most sense, and it's probably the way it should work regardless if you don't say anything. I'm not sure of the exact thought processes I was thinking where I didn't think of that.

Simultaneously still isn't perfect, though, as it doesn't really explain what happens (or when/where) if two pushed creatures provoke AoOs from each others movement. Kind of a corner case, though.

Quote
Roaring Geyser now deals 1d8 additional damage per 10 feet, so a slight decrease there.  I'll go into the spellshaping rules later and fix it so that it's subject to DR.  I assumed that one die per level with a save for half was consistent with normal damage/level considerations, but I can tweak it if it's too high.

No problems with the 1d8/level, even with no DR/resistances. It's tossing that on top of what is probably 50% extra damage from movement. And I hadn't even considered the extra from whatever AoOs the forced movement provokes.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 18, 2013, 06:18:32 PM
Cleansing Stream updated accordingly, and Cleansing Water tweaked to specify a "curse currently affecting you".

Can you...make an attack of opportunity while being bull rushed?  I...don't know what to say about that.

Roaring Geyser set at 10d8 damage, changed to a Reflex save.  Since it now only deals extra damage for every 10 feet moved, that caps you at 15d8--roughly appropriate for a 7th-level ability, I think.

Edit: I don't have anywhere good in the rules chapter to put a "Formulae, spellshape attacks, and other spellshaping abilities that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage do not automatically overcome a creature's damage reduction" clause.  And I really don't want to add another section just for that, especially since I find the contrary to be so counter-intuitive.

I'll ruminate on it.  For the record, my intent is always that bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing effects aren't subject to spell resistance, but are subject to damage reduction.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on February 26, 2013, 10:45:59 AM
Hey, any future plans on more support for the Flamespeaker, through feats and such? For instance, how the other class that changes their spellshape attacks into melee attacks gets the feat to add their spellahaping ability mod to damage with their spellshape strikes.

Not that there aren't already plenty of general purpose feats, but most of the other, already established classes get custom stuff.

Again, I'm sure it's not high priority, but it's the first "Pyro" class that gets things right the most for me. :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 26, 2013, 02:12:33 PM
Hey, any future plans on more support for the Flamespeaker, through feats and such? For instance, how the other class that changes their spellshape attacks into melee attacks gets the feat to add their spellahaping ability mod to damage with their spellshape strikes.

Not that there aren't already plenty of general purpose feats, but most of the other, already established classes get custom stuff.

Again, I'm sure it's not high priority, but it's the first "Pyro" class that gets things right the most for me. :)

The short answer is: "Yes."

The Flamespeaker is being categorized as an appendix class, rather than a core class.  It's being included in Appendix I: Variant Spellshaping material, alongside the Spellshot Marksman.  It's a bit more specific than I like the base classes to be, but I really like it.

It will be revised, as the other base classes were, and it will be receiving feats.  I don't yet know if there will be alternative class features, and it will not have racial substitution levels.  One possible ACF would be a ranged version.

Part of the revision will allow me to redefine some things.  For instance, I might define the touch attack as a spellshape strike, allowing it to benefit from that anchorite feat.  I'll probably also be adding access to the Searing Flame incantations, replacing a few of the class abilities.

In terms of feats, I'm thinking of a progression, similar to that of the spellshape champion, that effectively lets you Dervish Dance with your touch attack and formulae.  Probably a few other things, but I haven't quite gotten there yet.

The current order of revisions is:

So, a little bit of a wait, but I'll get there.



Speaking of revisions, I've revised Crushing Stone!

Changes:

There may be other changes, but, if so, I forgot to write down that I made them.

Devouring Shadow is next.



Speaking of Devouring Shadow, I'm planning to replace a 1st-level formula, a 5th-level formula, and a 7th-level formula.

I was toying with the idea of minor formulae at 1st and 5th that would give you 5 and 25 temporary hit points--not stacking with themselves, obviously.  Fastest recovery of formulae will let you shape a given formula every other turn, so, at best, you'd be negating an average of 2.5 damage per turn and 12.5 damage per turn.  Too much?  Not enough?

For 7th level, I was thinking of going in a different direction.  I've decided to tweak the 4th-level Infect formula to have "disease" conditions defined in-formula, allowing them to function more effectively within the conventions of formulae, rather than having them use actual diseases, which would seem weirdly timed when compared with your other abilities.  Since I need a new 7th-level formula, I was then thinking of having a minor formula that imposed two or more of the diseases on your target, with the capacity to spread between enemies.  Thoughts on this one?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 26, 2013, 07:23:15 PM
A thought has just occurred to me, regarding my fumbling attempts at a partial spellshaper. When I finish revisions to untie it from its absurdly specific mechanical and fluff niche, would calculating its shaper level as though it had no spellshaping levels at all render it better-suited to the system's assumptions? 1/2 shaper level instead of 3/4, I mean. I've been thinking that 3/4 might even be too good for a class that can potentially lob 2 or 3 major formulae per round, and if I can do something that puts it back in line with the rest of the system, all the better.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on February 26, 2013, 09:46:58 PM
The following is not officially recognized!

A thought has just occurred to me, regarding my fumbling attempts at a partial spellshaper. When I finish revisions to untie it from its absurdly specific mechanical and fluff niche, would calculating its shaper level as though it had no spellshaping levels at all render it better-suited to the system's assumptions? 1/2 shaper level instead of 3/4, I mean. I've been thinking that 3/4 might even be too good for a class that can potentially lob 2 or 3 major formulae per round, and if I can do something that puts it back in line with the rest of the system, all the better.

I think you might want to take a long, hard look at the "lob 2 or 3 major formulae per round" business, in terms of balancing the idea.  Note that, at the point at which you're at 1/2 shaper level, it takes you four levels to get access to a new circle of formulae.  You'll also never do more than three dice of damage with a spellshape attack, and the save DCs of your formulae are going to be laughable.  At the point at which you're treated as not having any spellshaping levels at all, you might as well just make a Fighter that can only take spellshaping feats for its bonus feats.

I think that anything that tries to shoehorn partial spellshapers into being in line with the rest of the material is going to be an exercise in frustration for you.  It really would be much easier to have your players alternate levels: one level in a chosen spellshaping base class, followed by one level in a chosen non-spellshaping base class, then back and forth.  It gets you the effect of partial without spiraling downwards into madness.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on February 26, 2013, 09:52:48 PM
I'll think on it. The ultimate goal is to have a mount take over the action cost of shaping your formulae, so I'll need to work around that no matter what I do. There are possibly some tweaks to the wording that can be introduced.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: ariasderros on March 01, 2013, 12:45:16 PM
Question:
Why are Lamen so expensive?
I can see why you'd want them to be a bit more expensive than enhancing weapons, what with weapons also having material costs (Masterwork + Base item), and with how much more you can get out of a Lamen than you can a weapon.
But (Bonus2 X 3,000)gp seems excessive.
Most specifically, 300,000gp for +10 seems excessive.

Why not just have a base cost of 500-1,000gp for the item itself, then have the enhancement cost follow the same formula as weapons (Bonus2 X 2,000)gp?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 01, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
Probably because they're enhancing attacks that are already pretty good by themselves. Spellshape attacks are usually touch attacks, and they work at range and deal a good amount of base damage to begin with.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 01, 2013, 02:00:39 PM
Question:
Why are Lamen so expensive?

Probably because they're enhancing attacks that are already pretty good by themselves. Spellshape attacks are usually touch attacks, and they work at range and deal a good amount of base damage to begin with.

Garryl got it.  I originally came up with the damage values by attempting to balance them against analogous melee weapons.  Lamen were added later, so I made them more expensive than weapon enhancements so that spellshape attacks wouldn't totally outpace weapons.  In other words, they're more of a luxury item than magic weapons: a spellshaper without a lamen is far more effective than a melee character without a magic weapon.

I'll also note that lamen do have a 500 gp base cost for the item itself.

If these values seem problematic, I can always attack them when I get to the item revision.



Speaking of revisions, I've revised Crushing Stone!

Changes:
  • 1st Level - Animated Stone replaced with Aegis of Stone.
  • 2nd Level - Earthbreaker cleaned up.
  • 5th Level - Swallowing Earth detached from rockslam.
  • 9th Level - Wrath of Stone replaced with Wrack the Earth.

There may be other changes, but, if so, I forgot to write down that I made them.

Devouring Shadow is next.



Speaking of Devouring Shadow, I'm planning to replace a 1st-level formula, a 5th-level formula, and a 7th-level formula.

I was toying with the idea of minor formulae at 1st and 5th that would give you 5 and 25 temporary hit points--not stacking with themselves, obviously.  Fastest recovery of formulae will let you shape a given formula every other turn, so, at best, you'd be negating an average of 2.5 damage per turn and 12.5 damage per turn.  Too much?  Not enough?

For 7th level, I was thinking of going in a different direction.  I've decided to tweak the 4th-level Infect formula to have "disease" conditions defined in-formula, allowing them to function more effectively within the conventions of formulae, rather than having them use actual diseases, which would seem weirdly timed when compared with your other abilities.  Since I need a new 7th-level formula, I was then thinking of having a minor formula that imposed two or more of the diseases on your target, with the capacity to spread between enemies.  Thoughts on this one?

Any thoughts on these?  They sort of got swallowed by a few things, and I'm genuinely curious as to what people think about the Devouring Shadow ideas.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: ariasderros on March 01, 2013, 02:21:03 PM
If these values seem problematic, I can always attack them when I get to the item revision.

I'm mostly looking at how quickly that formula spirals. 3,500 for the +1, I can get behind. 75,500 for a +5 has already passed what I'd look at as reasonable. 300,500 for the +10 is ridiculous, considering that the WBL for L20 is only just over 1/2 that.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 01, 2013, 03:07:50 PM
I'm mostly looking at how quickly that formula spirals. 3,500 for the +1, I can get behind. 75,500 for a +5 has already passed what I'd look at as reasonable. 300,500 for the +10 is ridiculous, considering that the WBL for L20 is only just over 1/2 that.

(Since the wealth table lists 760,000 gp for level 20, I'll assume you meant "just over 2x that.")

You may have a point.  A magic weapon clocks in at 200,000 plus item cost, while magic armor hits 100,000 plus item cost.  A lamen currently costs as much as a set of one magical weapon and one suit of magical armor.  My thinking was that those spellshapers who would be using lamens probably wouldn't be sinking as much of their wealth into armor, but that might not be realistic.

What about dropping it down to a 2,500 multiplier, rather than 3,000?  Costs become 3,000 gp for +1, 63,000 gp for +5, and 250,500 for +10.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: ariasderros on March 01, 2013, 03:56:01 PM
(Since the wealth table lists 760,000 gp for level 20, I'll assume you meant "just over 2x that.")
:facepalm

Quote
What about dropping it down to a 2,500 multiplier, rather than 3,000?  Costs become 3,000 gp for +1, 63,000 gp for +5, and 250,500 for +10.
That seems a lot more reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on March 04, 2013, 04:40:12 PM
Tinkering Savant
This ACF seems to be based on the Artificer's crafting ability, but uses class level to determine caster level. This is a pretty big penalty to anyone multiclassing with this class rather than going single-classed progression. Have you thought of changing it to be more multiclassing friendly?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 04, 2013, 06:46:46 PM
That seems a lot more reasonable to me.

I've put it in my notes for the item pass.  It shall be done!

This ACF seems to be based on the Artificer's crafting ability, but uses class level to determine caster level.

So does the Artificer.

This is a pretty big penalty to anyone multiclassing with this class rather than going single-classed progression. Have you thought of changing it to be more multiclassing friendly?

I mean, it's replacing a class feature that improves with class level, and it's based on an ability that runs off of class level.  I somehow get the feeling that, if it ran off of shaper level, tinkering savant would a bit too powerful for multiclass characters.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on March 04, 2013, 07:16:57 PM

This ACF seems to be based on the Artificer's crafting ability, but uses class level to determine caster level.

So does the Artificer.
Oh... having never played one, for some reason I thought theirs was based on UMD ranks...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 04, 2013, 10:06:43 PM
So, a funny thing was pointed out to me today on the way to the Roman forum.  There's nothing that stops a spellshaper who's not a spellshape champion from picking up a spellheart weapon and pretending to have spellshape channeling.  It never actually says "However, a character who possesses knowledge of other arcane formulae but does not possess the spellshape channeling class feature cannot shape those formulae through attacks with a spellheart weapon."

Said text will be added appropriately when I get to the items revision.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on March 04, 2013, 10:36:36 PM
So, a funny thing was pointed out to me today on the way to the Roman forum.  There's nothing that stops a spellshaper who's not a spellshape champion from picking up a spellheart weapon and pretending to have spellshape channeling.  It never actually says "However, a character who possesses knowledge of other arcane formulae but does not possess the spellshape channeling class feature cannot shape those formulae through attacks with a spellheart weapon."

Said text will be added appropriately when I get to the items revision.
I thought that was intentional... I mentioned buying one of those for a dragonheart adept character several months ago specifically for that (so I could channel his spellshape attack through it while his breath weapon was recharging), and you said something like "Oh yeah, that's a cute trick". :P (Said character didn't yet have enough levels to channel his spellshape attacks, though dragonheart adepts do eventually get that ability.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 04, 2013, 10:44:08 PM
Wasn't the ability to channel the spellshape with formulae the whole point? How else is a non-spellshaper going to use whatever formula is stored in the weapon?

Besides, I thought Spellshape Channeling (as opposed to normal spellshape attacks) was supposed to be a disadvantage for Spellshape Champions, to balance out their excellent chassis.

Edit: In fact, channeling the formula through the weapon as the ONLY way to use the formula of a Spellheart Weapon.

Er, nevermind, I see the issue. You're not stopping channeling the stored formula, you're stopping the channeling of other known formulae.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 04, 2013, 10:45:38 PM
So, a funny thing was pointed out to me today on the way to the Roman forum.  There's nothing that stops a spellshaper who's not a spellshape champion from picking up a spellheart weapon and pretending to have spellshape channeling.  It never actually says "However, a character who possesses knowledge of other arcane formulae but does not possess the spellshape channeling class feature cannot shape those formulae through attacks with a spellheart weapon."

Said text will be added appropriately when I get to the items revision.
I thought that was intentional... I mentioned buying one of those for a dragonheart adept character several months ago specifically for that (so I could channel his spellshape attack through it while his breath weapon was recharging), and you said something like "Oh yeah, that's a cute trick". :P (Said character didn't yet have enough levels to channel his spellshape attacks, though dragonheart adepts do eventually get that ability.)

Huh.  Probably didn't blip on my radar since the adept eventually gets the ability to do so.

I mean, I'm not doing the item revision any time soon, so I can toss the idea around a bit.  It just feels...silly, though.  I mean, a one-level dip in spellshape champion with the correct circle selection will let you channel a spellshape attack anyway.  One level isn't much to ask, I feel.

Wasn't the ability to channel the spellshape with formulae the whole point? How else is a non-spellshaper going to use whatever formula is stored in the weapon?

Yes.  The issue is that a spellshaper who isn't a spellshape champion can use it to channel their formulae.  Note that the proposed text fix just prevents people from shaping formulae that they know from outside the weapon.

It's not necessarily a broken loophole.  Just one that itches.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on March 04, 2013, 10:53:32 PM
Ah, OK, I see what you're saying... I misunderstood at first.

The spellheart weapon is intended to let characters other than spellshape champions gain the ability to channel their spellshape attacks through the weapon. It is also intended to let them channel the Formula stored in the weapon through the weapon while doing this. It is NOT intended to let them channel other Formula, that they know from sources other than the weapon, through the weapon.

Got it. :P


So... I think SirP asked you how you'd price a Spellheart "weapon" that was actually like an Amulet of Mighty Fists, and so let you channel your spellshape attacks through your natural weapons instead of a manufactured one. Thoughts on that?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 04, 2013, 11:07:46 PM
The spellheart weapon is intended to let characters other than spellshape champions gain the ability to channel their spellshape attacks through the weapon.

Nope:

When wielding a spellheart weapon, a character can command it to manifest its magical nature as a free action once per round, causing it to function as though it were channeling the spellshape attack associated with its imbued formula (see spellshape champion (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=854.msg5273#msg5273), page 24 of The Codex of Spellshaping: The Twelve Circles).  While the item's magical nature is manifested, the weapon's wielder can shape any formula imbued in the spellheart weapon as if she knew it normally and were channeling it through her attack.

It only lets you channel the spellshape attack associated with the formula imbued in the weapon.  Whether or not you know that spellshape attack.  If you know a spellshape attack other than the one associated with the formula imbued in the weapon, you cannot channel that spellshape attack through the weapon.

Clearly, I need to reword things to make them more clear.   :P

It is also intended to let them channel the Formula stored in the weapon through the weapon while doing this. It is NOT intended to let them channel other Formula, that they know from sources other than the weapon, through the weapon.

Got it. :P

Correct.  Spellheart items are intended for non-spellshapers to be able to shape a formula on a weapon attack.  It's also a sword that can be fire or whatever instead of normal damage.

So... I think SirP asked you how you'd price a Spellheart "weapon" that was actually like an Amulet of Mighty Fists, and so let you channel your spellshape attacks through your natural weapons instead of a manufactured one. Thoughts on that?

Well, I did

math

and arrived at a table of values for the thing, based on how spellheart weapons are priced in relation to normal magic weapons, then applying that logic to the amulet of mighty fists.  I sent it to him in a private message, but I can scrounge it up.  Should I just post it in the campaign OOC?

(I have the thread up in another tab.  I've been watching you, phaedrusxy.  Oh, have I been watching you.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: sirpercival on March 04, 2013, 11:10:52 PM
Formula Level   Cost
1st   7,500 gp
2nd   9,000 gp
3rd   30,000 gp
4th   33,000 gp
5th   67,500 gp
6th   73,500 gp
7th   120,000 gp
8th   132,000 gp
9th   187,500 gp
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 04, 2013, 11:20:56 PM
See, this is one of the problems with rapid conversations. By the time I edit my post, someone's already responded.

Wasn't the ability to channel the spellshape with formulae the whole point? How else is a non-spellshaper going to use whatever formula is stored in the weapon?

Besides, I thought Spellshape Channeling (as opposed to normal spellshape attacks) was supposed to be a disadvantage for Spellshape Champions, to balance out their excellent chassis.

Edit: In fact, channeling the formula through the weapon as the ONLY way to use the formula of a Spellheart Weapon.

Er, nevermind, I see the issue. You're not stopping channeling the stored formula, you're stopping the channeling of other known formulae.

With regards to what I was saying about Spellshape Channeling seemingly being a disadvantage, is freely accessible spellshape channeling an issue? Other than level 1-3 Dragonheart Adepts, but that feels more like a failing of the class at low levels than an unfairly large benefit from the weapons.

On a related note, no love for ranged spellheart weapons and full-channeling Spellshot Marksmen? By referencing only Spellshape Channeling, it only works with melee weapons (even though spellheart weapons are not otherwise restricted).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on March 04, 2013, 11:25:18 PM
The spellheart weapon is intended to let characters other than spellshape champions gain the ability to channel their spellshape attacks through the weapon.

Nope:

When wielding a spellheart weapon, a character can command it to manifest its magical nature as a free action once per round, causing it to function as though it were channeling the spellshape attack associated with its imbued formula (see spellshape champion (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=854.msg5273#msg5273), page 24 of The Codex of Spellshaping: The Twelve Circles).  While the item's magical nature is manifested, the weapon's wielder can shape any formula imbued in the spellheart weapon as if she knew it normally and were channeling it through her attack.

It only lets you channel the spellshape attack associated with the formula imbued in the weapon.  Whether or not you know that spellshape attack.  If you know a spellshape attack other than the one associated with the formula imbued in the weapon, you cannot channel that spellshape attack through the weapon.

Clearly, I need to reword things to make them more clear.   :P
Huh. So what shaper level does it use to determine the damage for the spellshape attack? Whatever the item was created at, regardless of the wielder's? Or the wielder's (since it says "as if you knew it normally")?

Quote
(I have the thread up in another tab.  I've been watching you, phaedrusxy.  Oh, have I been watching you.)
Glad I have an audience. ;)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 04, 2013, 11:38:18 PM
See, this is one of the problems with rapid conversations. By the time I edit my post, someone's already responded.

Sorry, Garryl.  We still love you!

With regards to what I was saying about Spellshape Channeling seemingly being a disadvantage, is freely accessible spellshape channeling an issue? Other than level 1-3 Dragonheart Adepts, but that feels more like a failing of the class at low levels than an unfairly large benefit from the weapons.

It's more that part of the reason to play a spellshape champion is being the "stab you with magic" guy.  At least, that's the intent.  That you would want to play the class because you get to stab people with magic.  If people are playing spellshape champion without wanting to stab with magic, I feel that something, somewhere, has gone wrong.

(Editor's Note: "Stabbing with magic" includes all possible methods of offensive attacks, including, but not limited to, "bashing with magic," "slashing with magic," "poking with magic," "skewering with magic," "the comfy chair with magic," "gently caressing with magic," "in a box with magic," "with a fox with magic," "in a house with magic," and "with a mouse with magic.")

Since the class mainly exists to fulfill the desire for a "stab you with magic" option, I figure that it's a bit problematic to let other people do so.  Mechanically, probably not an issue.  Balance-wise, probably not an issue.  But they're the magic-stabbers, and it feels weird to just hand that out.

In terms of dragonheart adepts, it might be worth just switching them to always having that ability when I get to Appendix II.  Any real reason not to?

On a related note, no love for ranged spellheart weapons and full-channeling Spellshot Marksmen? By referencing only Spellshape Channeling, it only works with melee weapons (even though spellheart weapons are not otherwise restricted).

Oh, yeah, I should probably fix that, too.  Consider them to officially work that way.  If I can't get the wording smoothed out without referencing the spellshot marksman, I'll move them into Appendix I, but I'll still update them at the same time as the rest of the items.



Huh. So what shaper level does it use to determine the damage for the spellshape attack? Whatever the item was created at, regardless of the wielder's? Or the wielder's (since it says "as if you knew it normally")?

Did I really never--

The shaper level of a formula used from a spellheart item is equal to the minimum shaper level required to learn that formula.  If a formula from a spellheart item allows a saving throw, the DC is equal to 10 + the formula's level + the user's highest mental ability modifier or 10 + the formula's level + the item's enhancement bonus, whichever is higher.

--oh.  Guess I did.

(That isn't meant to be as sarcastic as you might read it to be.  I actually had to go check, since that's the sort of asinine thing that I'd accidentally leave out.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 04, 2013, 11:54:24 PM
Formula Level   Cost
1st   7,500 gp
2nd   9,000 gp
3rd   30,000 gp
4th   33,000 gp
5th   67,500 gp
6th   73,500 gp
7th   120,000 gp
8th   132,000 gp
9th   187,500 gp

Those values seem... funky. And not the good kind. In particular, going from a 3rd-level formula to a 4th-level formula costs 4000g on a weapon, but only 3000g on the more expensive amulet?

Scratch that. ALL the spellheart item costs seem funky. If you separate things out into an enhancement bonus cost (the cost of a normal magic item with the same enhancement bonus) and a formula cost, you get the following.

LevelWeaponArmor
1 (+1)500 (+2000)500 (+1000)
2 (+1)1000 (+2000)1000 (+1000)
3 (+2)3000 (+8000)1500 (+4000)
4 (+2)7000 (+8000)7000 (+4000)
5 (+3)10000 (+18000)10000 (+9000)
6 (+3)15000 (+18000)30000 (+9000)
7 (+4)25000 (+32000)25000 (+16000)
8 (+4)32000 (+32000)32000 (+16000)
9 (+5)45000 (+50000)35000 (+25000)

They're the same at levels 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. The rest of them (levels 3, 6, and 9) I can't account for except for typos and math errors (weapon 3 is 2x armor 3, armor 6 is 2x weapon 6, and weapon 9 is +10k over armor 9). The formula cost also increases inconsistently; the change between one level and the next increases and decreases erratically. IIRC, these were the same in the original warheart items.

Here's what I would suggest instead. Tweak to your liking. It's just a simple, formulaic progression. I'd probably drop it a little bit to make sure the formula component costs less than the ToB items that give you one formula at a time from a given school, but also let you change it each time you use the item (3k for up to 3rd, 15k for up to 6th, and 45k for up to 9th). Mind you, unlike those items, spellheart items don't require you to meet the prerequisites, do they? That's also a consideration.

LevelWeaponArmorFormula Cost (included in weapons and armor)
1 (+1)25001500500
2 (+1)300020001000
3 (+2)1100070003000
4 (+2)14000100006000
5 (+3)280001900010000
6 (+3)330002400015000
7 (+4)530003700021000
8 (+4)600004400028000
9 (+5)860005100036000
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 05, 2013, 12:19:10 AM
I'll...probably use something like that, yeah.  I can't remember the actual costing process for spellheart items, but something tells me that it involved darkness, sleep deprivation, crying, and a fervent wish for absinthe.  And I don't even drink.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 05, 2013, 12:24:05 AM
I'll...probably use something like that, yeah.  I can't remember the actual costing process for spellheart items, but something tells me that it involved darkness, sleep deprivation, crying, and a fervent wish for absinthe.  And I don't even drink.

Copy/paste (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5580531), amirite?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 05, 2013, 05:18:32 AM

Copy/paste (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5580531), amirite?


Right...but I remember being offended by the costing...and planning to change it.

Hanako!  Where's my absinthe?  And fetch me the ring and the rainstorm!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 05, 2013, 05:23:39 AM
Damn.  She's asleep.

*PitterpatterpitterpatterpitterpatterCRACKATHOOM*

...it's just not the same!
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 12, 2013, 04:29:02 PM
So, uh, ignoring the insanity of my last two posts, I seem to have actually revised Devouring Shadow (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=864.0).


Anything get horribly screwed up by these changes?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on March 12, 2013, 04:45:49 PM
So, uh, ignoring the insanity of my last two posts, I seem to have actually revised Devouring Shadow (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=864.0).

  • Terrorize has been replaced with False Vitality, which gives you a number of temporary hit points equal to your shaper level.
  • Infect has been switched from actual diseases to disease-like effects, defined in-formula.
  • Wracking Pain has been replaced with Ward of Retribution, which forces attackers to make Fortitude saves or take damage equal to the damage they inflict upon you.
  • Petrifying Gaze has been replaced with Pox, which allows you to combine two disease effects from Infect and makes them contagious.

Anything get horribly screwed up by these changes?

As if we'd ever do that.  :P

I never read Devouring Shadow in depth so I can't attest the rest of your post.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on March 12, 2013, 05:01:08 PM
So, uh, ignoring the insanity of my last two posts, I seem to have actually revised Devouring Shadow (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=864.0).

  • Terrorize has been replaced with False Vitality, which gives you a number of temporary hit points equal to your shaper level.
  • Infect has been switched from actual diseases to disease-like effects, defined in-formula.
  • Wracking Pain has been replaced with Ward of Retribution, which forces attackers to make Fortitude saves or take damage equal to the damage they inflict upon you.
  • Petrifying Gaze has been replaced with Pox, which allows you to combine two disease effects from Infect and makes them contagious.

Anything get horribly screwed up by these changes?
I will definitely look over the changes, as that's one Circle which I'd considered for my latest character, but passed on. No time for the next couple of days, though.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 14, 2013, 06:09:19 PM
As if we'd ever do that.  :P

It's moments like that that really prove to me that I really should post when sleep-deprived.  Unfortunately, I get my best work done then.

It's strange, though.  I could have sworn I decided to change the pricing when I imported that stuff.



I will definitely look over the changes, as that's one Circle which I'd considered for my latest character, but passed on. No time for the next couple of days, though.

No rush.  I'm having a bad week myself, so I understand how it is.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: phaedrusxy on March 15, 2013, 11:20:06 PM
So, uh, ignoring the insanity of my last two posts, I seem to have actually revised Devouring Shadow (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=864.0).

  • Terrorize has been replaced with False Vitality, which gives you a number of temporary hit points equal to your shaper level.
  • Infect has been switched from actual diseases to disease-like effects, defined in-formula.
  • Wracking Pain has been replaced with Ward of Retribution, which forces attackers to make Fortitude saves or take damage equal to the damage they inflict upon you.
  • Petrifying Gaze has been replaced with Pox, which allows you to combine two disease effects from Infect and makes them contagious.

Anything get horribly screwed up by these changes?
I like the changes, but why are the durations on the quasi-diseases so crappy? They're minor penalties, allow a save to resist, and immunity to disease makes you immune to them. Why not make them last 24 hours or something?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 16, 2013, 12:00:06 AM
I like the changes, but why are the durations on the quasi-diseases so crappy? They're minor penalties, allow a save to resist, and immunity to disease makes you immune to them. Why not make them last 24 hours or something?

Well, it is just a swift action to add them to an attack.  That said, I don't see any reason not to bump up their durations.

I'm a bit...leery of twenty-four hours, though.  I know that later formulae give things like negative levels that last that long, but it feels weird to actually write it out.  Part of how I've been trying to balance the whole "magic at will" thing is shortening durations.  Yes, it is more or less entirely arbitrary in this case.

Would you object to 5 round and 8 round durations, rather than twenty-four hours, or does that still fall flat?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on March 16, 2013, 01:44:04 AM
Why not tie it to the ability damage?

So they keep the penalties as long as the ability damage is left, but they are removed as soon as they are removed?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 16, 2013, 01:48:25 AM
Hrm.  I...like it.  Let me toy around with it a little.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 16, 2013, 04:24:13 AM
Why not tie it to the ability damage?

So they keep the penalties as long as the ability damage is left, but they are removed as soon as they are removed?

Is there any good way to track ability damage like that? For example:

I take penalties from effect 1 that causes 3 Strength damage. Then, later on, I take 5 Strength damage from another source. Then I get hit with a Lesser Restoration spell that heals 4 Strength damage. Do I still suffer the penalties?

I take penalties from effect 1 that causes 3 Strength damage. Then, later on, I take penalties from effect 2 that causes 3 Strength damage. Then I get hit with a Lesser Restoration spell that heals 4 Strength damage. Do I still suffer the penalties? From which effect? Both? Neither?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 16, 2013, 04:47:28 AM
I've got it. Let's introduce -1/-1 counters
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 16, 2013, 05:51:19 AM
Why not tie it to the ability damage?

So they keep the penalties as long as the ability damage is left, but they are removed as soon as they are removed?

Is there any good way to track ability damage like that? For example:

I take penalties from effect 1 that causes 3 Strength damage. Then, later on, I take 5 Strength damage from another source. Then I get hit with a Lesser Restoration spell that heals 4 Strength damage. Do I still suffer the penalties?

I take penalties from effect 1 that causes 3 Strength damage. Then, later on, I take penalties from effect 2 that causes 3 Strength damage. Then I get hit with a Lesser Restoration spell that heals 4 Strength damage. Do I still suffer the penalties? From which effect? Both? Neither?

...oh, right.  Yeah.  That...is unclear.  And making just "as long as that ability score is damaged" is probably wide open to abuse.

So, 5 rounds and 8 rounds, then?



I've got it. Let's introduce -1/-1 counters

Don't make me open one of my six mouths and sing the song that ends the Earth.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on March 16, 2013, 12:11:44 PM
Well, you could just make it "until they next would heal ability damage to that ability score", which gets rid of most of those issues...

(Also, you could totally have a PrC that expands on Infect to do that, if you don't want it in the basic ability...)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 16, 2013, 10:45:23 PM
Yeah, but I just realized another problem: If you're immune to ability damage, but not diseases, everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on March 16, 2013, 10:48:27 PM
I... don't know of any situation where that's the case?

Even if something like that comes up, just state that if you are immune to ability damage, you are immune to the penalties as well.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 16, 2013, 11:58:34 PM
For Pox, I would recommend not letting the infection spread repeatedly to creatures that already have it.

I... don't know of any situation where that's the case?

Even if something like that comes up, just state that if you are immune to ability damage, you are immune to the penalties as well.

Creatures with nonabilities are immune to damage to those ability scores. Additionally, the Body Ward spell negates a certain amount of ability damage, as does the Strongheart Vest soulmeld, which potentially prevent you from taking any ability damage from the disease-like effect without providing immunity. So what it would actually be is that if you don't take any ability damage, you don't take any penalties either.

Instead of worrying about tying durations to ability damage, why not just tie it to a regular old disease? As in, do it like the Contagion spell (save or take the ability damage immediately and be infected, dealing ability damage every day thereafter when you fail the save), with the added effect that you take your -2 penalty to attack rolls/AC/saves/whatever until you are cured of the disease? You already have 6 diseases to work with. The names are already done, incubation is irrelevant, ability damage is a flat 2 Str/Dex/Con/etc., and save DC can be a simple 14 to 16 (10+level vs. the minimum save DC that the formula can have under normal ability score minimums). It's more disease-like to use actual disease mechanics, no?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 17, 2013, 09:24:05 AM
For Pox, I would recommend not letting the infection spread repeatedly to creatures that already have it.

Oh, yeah.  That's intended to be the case, so let me come up with some wording for it.

Instead of worrying about tying durations to ability damage, why not just tie it to a regular old disease? As in, do it like the Contagion spell (save or take the ability damage immediately and be infected, dealing ability damage every day thereafter when you fail the save), with the added effect that you take your -2 penalty to attack rolls/AC/saves/whatever until you are cured of the disease? You already have 6 diseases to work with. The names are already done, incubation is irrelevant, ability damage is a flat 2 Str/Dex/Con/etc., and save DC can be a simple 14 to 16 (10+level vs. the minimum save DC that the formula can have under normal ability score minimums). It's more disease-like to use actual disease mechanics, no?

Ehh.  Part of what I wanted to get away from was the easily-recoverable swift action that let you inflict conditions lasting days.  I really am leaning towards 5 rounds and 8 rounds at this point--most combats that I've seen are over by that point, unless you're fighting something that deserves multiple infections.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on March 17, 2013, 11:02:36 AM
For Pox, I would recommend not letting the infection spread repeatedly to creatures that already have it.

Oh, yeah.  That's intended to be the case, so let me come up with some wording for it.

Instead of worrying about tying durations to ability damage, why not just tie it to a regular old disease? As in, do it like the Contagion spell (save or take the ability damage immediately and be infected, dealing ability damage every day thereafter when you fail the save), with the added effect that you take your -2 penalty to attack rolls/AC/saves/whatever until you are cured of the disease? You already have 6 diseases to work with. The names are already done, incubation is irrelevant, ability damage is a flat 2 Str/Dex/Con/etc., and save DC can be a simple 14 to 16 (10+level vs. the minimum save DC that the formula can have under normal ability score minimums). It's more disease-like to use actual disease mechanics, no?

Ehh.  Part of what I wanted to get away from was the easily-recoverable swift action that let you inflict conditions lasting days.  I really am leaning towards 5 rounds and 8 rounds at this point--most combats that I've seen are over by that point, unless you're fighting something that deserves multiple infections.

If you wanted to avoid a long-term condition, why were we even discussing tying the penalties to the ability damage?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 17, 2013, 11:04:42 AM
For Pox, I would recommend not letting the infection spread repeatedly to creatures that already have it.

Oh, yeah.  That's intended to be the case, so let me come up with some wording for it.

Instead of worrying about tying durations to ability damage, why not just tie it to a regular old disease? As in, do it like the Contagion spell (save or take the ability damage immediately and be infected, dealing ability damage every day thereafter when you fail the save), with the added effect that you take your -2 penalty to attack rolls/AC/saves/whatever until you are cured of the disease? You already have 6 diseases to work with. The names are already done, incubation is irrelevant, ability damage is a flat 2 Str/Dex/Con/etc., and save DC can be a simple 14 to 16 (10+level vs. the minimum save DC that the formula can have under normal ability score minimums). It's more disease-like to use actual disease mechanics, no?

Ehh.  Part of what I wanted to get away from was the easily-recoverable swift action that let you inflict conditions lasting days.  I really am leaning towards 5 rounds and 8 rounds at this point--most combats that I've seen are over by that point, unless you're fighting something that deserves multiple infections.

If you wanted to avoid a long-term condition, why were we even discussing tying the penalties to the ability damage?

Well, if I had to guess...probably because I've been awake for far too long at this point, and am currently very easily distracted by shiny objects.

Edit: Is "Whenever an uninfected creature comes within 5 feet of the subject of a Pox, you may force that creature to attempt its own Fortitude save against infection" clear enough for Pox?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on March 27, 2013, 01:41:51 PM
Is the apparent omission of a Combat Shaping feat that eliminates the need to make or grants a bonus on checks made to shape defensively a deliberate choice?

EDIT: I've posted a new base class based on mounted combat. Fucker's 19 pages long, counting the basic mount options, so I don't expect reviews any time soon. Seriously, me, what the hell. It's got options for 5 different mount types, each of which gives you a progression of 4 class features, as well as a section on mount advancement and... just, what the hell.

Anyway, I doubt I've balanced it properly yet, but I wanted it for a campaign in the far future, so it's here now. It's a much revised version of the shitty Magitek Knight I posted elsewhere on the boards, which I'll now proceed to pretend never existed.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Epsilon Rose on April 08, 2013, 11:03:21 PM
Is the apparent omission of a Combat Shaping feat that eliminates the need to make or grants a bonus on checks made to shape defensively a deliberate choice?

EDIT: I've posted a new base class based on mounted combat. Fucker's 19 pages long, counting the basic mount options, so I don't expect reviews any time soon. Seriously, me, what the hell. It's got options for 5 different mount types, each of which gives you a progression of 4 class features, as well as a section on mount advancement and... just, what the hell.

Anyway, I doubt I've balanced it properly yet, but I wanted it for a campaign in the far future, so it's here now. It's a much revised version of the shitty Magitek Knight I posted elsewhere on the boards, which I'll now proceed to pretend never existed.

Hey, I might be playing a Advaitan in a game that's coming up. I've been trying to figure out how I might play it and I think I've noticed some things. That said, I've never played a mount based character before, so I could be wildly mistake, and corrections or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

It seems to me that, for a class based on being a rider, the Advaitan has very little to do with mounted combat. The only things they seem to get are slightly improved maneuverability and the one soul as two abilities. Normally I would think "one soul as two" would be enough, considering how powerful an extra major formula per round is, but it's reliance on spell strike blade and the fact that it costs the same as a quicken seems to cause something of a problem. Spell strike blade's (and the construct mount's spelltriger's) lack of an immunity clause limits the selection of formula you can safely use and the fact that you're using weapon damage instead of a spellshaper attack means you probably doing less damage by mid-to-late levels at closer ranges. One soul as two's second tier abilities costing as much as a quicken also means your not getting much over simply taking the quicken metashaping feat and casting two major formulas in a round (this is especially true of the construct mount's version which basically just casts the formula normally).

Again, I've never made a mounted character before, nor am I the most familiar with melee characters in general, so if I'm missing anything please tell me.

Thank you for your time and sorry for the trouble.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 09, 2013, 12:50:28 AM
That may be true, so I'm going to write out a bunch of background that I hope explains what I was trying to do. In writing the class, I was aiming for a niche that involves a lot of things - spellshaping, melee combat, and mounted combat. What I tried to do was hybridize all of those. In order to use your spellshaping to its greatest effect, you need to be in melee, and you need to be mounted. Your spellshaping makes use of your mount directly, and your class features are primarily geared toward streamlining mounted play (eliminating fiddly, little rolls) and ensuring a durable mount. In my experience, the biggest problem with most mounted combat classes is that you either have a mount that's irrelevant in combat, or you have one that's as good as another character in the party. By making it a fixture for your own abilities and making it difficult to destroy, I'd hoped to create a mount that would remain meaningful without feeling like having a new party member as a class feature.

The class began as an attempt at a "partial spellshaper". I tried a lot of different angles (you can see the original draft as the Magitek Knight (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8788.0)), but I just couldn't get it to work in a balanced way. The second tier One Soul as Two abilities were always intended to be the core of the class, but after a lot of back-and-forths with DonQuixote, it became clear that spellshaping as a system just isn't designed for a stunted progression. So, I decided that I had to move them to a later point and restrict the power of the formula you shape through them in some other way, which I decided would be by using a metashaping degree. You've correctly determined that Quicken was relevant here. I priced it that way because it's a very similar effect - getting a major formula without using your standard action. I have only just now, however, realized that the action requirements to trigger it are so steep as to merit a discount. I hadn't quite realized that you need to attack and use a swift action to get it to work, so you don't actually have the option of dumping out multiple formulae in a round. Likely, as a first try, I'll decrease the cost to degree 2 and swap it and the first tier abilities. I'll need to think about it.

Anyway, all that said, I think the class actually has more mounted combat abilities than most mounted combat classes in 3.5. I don't know about Pathfinder, but everyone else pretty much gets a mount, and that's it. This class gets a mount at level 1 (pretty much unheard of, since a horse is already better than a level 1 character, which mandated all the new creatures), bonus feats that work in conjunction with mounted combat, a way to use your mount's actions to special effect, and three class features specifically dedicated to making your mount work better for you (Improved Mounted Combat, Cavalry Master, and Surefooted Charge). Aside from One Soul as Two, though, they're all pretty generic, I admit.

However, I do totally need to add an immunity clause to Spelltrigger, and add the bonus damage I'd meant to put in there (the ability was always a bit bland). You'd be adding your Intelligence modifier to damage with an attack shaped in that way, which is a nice edge but probably not enough to put it over the top compared to the control or combo options the other mounts allow. I also need to specify that Spellcurse deals its damage after the action is taken, so that it doesn't do anything like interrupt spellcasting, which would make it far and away the most powerful.

It'll be a bit before I can actually make these changes to the class, and when I do, I'll probably add the mount-free ACF that borrows heavily from the Anchorite. But until then, you can consider the following to be errata:

You and your mount are immune to the negative effects of a formula shaped with the Spelltrigger ability.
Whenever your mount shapes a formula on your behalf through your Spelltrigger or Spellbeam abilities, add your Intelligence modifier to the damage dealt by that formula, if any.
Each 2nd tier One Soul as Two ability requires that the level of the formula you shape, plus the degree of any metashaping feats you apply to that formula, plus 2, be equal to or less than 1/2 your shaper level (rounded up).

Thank you for the post! It's pretty helpful.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 09, 2013, 12:04:29 PM
I still exist, just drowning in work at the moment.  I should actually be working now, but I can't focus on what I'm supposed to be doing!

Well, if I had to guess...probably because I've been awake for far too long at this point, and am currently very easily distracted by shiny objects.

Edit: Is "Whenever an uninfected creature comes within 5 feet of the subject of a Pox, you may force that creature to attempt its own Fortitude save against infection" clear enough for Pox?

Nobody ever responded here, so I went ahead and changed Infect and Pox to 5 rounds and 8 rounds.  I also made the "uninfected" change to Pox.  Any other issues with the Devouring Shadow revision?

Is the apparent omission of a Combat Shaping feat that eliminates the need to make or grants a bonus on checks made to shape defensively a deliberate choice?

Deliberate choice.  Melee spellshapers generally have class features to let them ignore attacks of opportunity, and non-melee spellshapers are non-melee.

EDIT: I've posted a new base class based on mounted combat. Fucker's 19 pages long, counting the basic mount options, so I don't expect reviews any time soon. Seriously, me, what the hell. It's got options for 5 different mount types, each of which gives you a progression of 4 class features, as well as a section on mount advancement and... just, what the hell.

Anyway, I doubt I've balanced it properly yet, but I wanted it for a campaign in the far future, so it's here now. It's a much revised version of the shitty Magitek Knight I posted elsewhere on the boards, which I'll now proceed to pretend never existed.

'Kay.  I'll gratuitously ignore it for the time being and let you deal with it.  Any problems it creates are on your head.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 11, 2013, 04:00:13 PM
Aforementioned errata has been incorporated. Immunity clause added to Spelltrigger. I'm not going to add one to Spellbeam because if you can somehow find a way to affect yourself with an area effect that doesn't include your space, you deserve whatever's coming to you. I decided against the bonus damage, having though back to some earlier Spellshaping classes and how that ability proved problematic. It might have been iteratives multiplying that damage, but I figure I might as well shy away from it unless it really seems like they're falling behind. Constructs are supposed to be the straightforward ones, anyway. Also, advaitans need to qualify for their bonus feats now.

Now working on the Spelleater.

EDIT: And it's up.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on April 11, 2013, 06:23:34 PM
Bauglir, can I borrow/steal/shamelessly rip off some of the mount stuff for my mecha?

Your domesticated spider is missing the definition of its poison.

You have some bad italics tags in the Vermin entry of One Soul as Two. Also, the abilities in Plant, Undead, and Vermin are the wrong order (the 9th-level ability is listed first instead of the 5th-level ability).
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on April 11, 2013, 06:24:47 PM
I still exist, just drowning in work at the moment.  I should actually be working now, but I can't focus on what I'm supposed to be doing!

Anything we can do to help?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 11, 2013, 08:37:54 PM
Bauglir, can I borrow/steal/shamelessly rip off some of the mount stuff for my mecha?

Your domesticated spider is missing the definition of its poison.

You have some bad italics tags in the Vermin entry of One Soul as Two. Also, the abilities in Plant, Undead, and Vermin are the wrong order (the 9th-level ability is listed first instead of the 5th-level ability).

Please do steal as much as you like. If an idea's good enough to rip off, that means I've done a good job. Fixed the italic tags, incorrect numbering of the One Soul as Two abilities, and added the poison definition (Con-based, DC 12, 1d3/1d3 Str). Pretty terrible poison, but I don't want it to be anything but an inconvenience since you get access at level 1.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 12, 2013, 06:15:25 AM
I still exist, just drowning in work at the moment.  I should actually be working now, but I can't focus on what I'm supposed to be doing!

Anything we can do to help?

Primarily just be patient with the fact that I'm almost certainly not going to have time to revise anything further until June.  At the earliest.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on April 12, 2013, 08:48:25 AM
Bauglir, can I borrow/steal/shamelessly rip off some of the mount stuff for my mecha?

Your domesticated spider is missing the definition of its poison.

You have some bad italics tags in the Vermin entry of One Soul as Two. Also, the abilities in Plant, Undead, and Vermin are the wrong order (the 9th-level ability is listed first instead of the 5th-level ability).

Please do steal as much as you like. If an idea's good enough to rip off, that means I've done a good job. Fixed the italic tags, incorrect numbering of the One Soul as Two abilities, and added the poison definition (Con-based, DC 12, 1d3/1d3 Str). Pretty terrible poison, but I don't want it to be anything but an inconvenience since you get access at level 1.

Can I steal the statted out monsters? They seem like great things to advance a little and give to weirder cultures (I mean, ooze-riding is utterly rad.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on April 12, 2013, 05:31:24 PM
What's the radius of class-granted numena, such as through Spellshape Champion with the Spellshape Paragon ACF?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 13, 2013, 12:19:37 AM
What's the radius of class-granted numena, such as through Spellshape Champion with the Spellshape Paragon ACF?

As described in the rules under "Projecting Numena":

Quote
When a spellshaper chooses to project a numen, its benefits take effect in a 30-foot radius around her.  For every five shaper levels she possesses, this radius increases by 5 feet.  A spellshaper's numen remains in effect until she dismisses it (a free action), she is rendered unconscious or dead, or she projects another numen in its place.

I assume that you're asking because the Project Numen feat specifies the radius, whereas class features do not.  I tend to present more redundant information in feats than I do in class features, as I am under the impression that feat selection is a more evaluative process than simply accumulating class features.  I could be wrong, of course.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on April 13, 2013, 12:31:09 AM
Thanks. Where is that from, by the way? I was looking for it, but I couldn't find it. I was expecting it to be in it's own section, like how Incantations have their own section linked from the index.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on April 13, 2013, 12:41:02 AM
The rules chapter (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=848.0).  The only reason that Incantations have their own section is that they were originally a supplement, rather than part of the core system.

I'll probably clean up the organization and linking stuff once I have things under control.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on April 13, 2013, 03:36:24 AM
Can I steal the statted out monsters? They seem like great things to advance a little and give to weirder cultures (I mean, ooze-riding is utterly rad.)
Absolutely.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: downzorz on May 01, 2013, 09:15:45 AM
Same Game Testing!
I SGT'd the Spellshaper, and found it to have some mad skillz. I'm through levels 5 and 10. Keep in mind that I'm not really good at this, but I'm trying. I hope it at least gives you some idea about balance points.

The level 5 build:
(click to show/hide)

And the SGT results:
(click to show/hide)

Aaaaand the level 10 build:
(click to show/hide)

Aaaaand the results:
(click to show/hide)

I'll do some more later. I hope this is useful to you in some way.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 03, 2013, 02:45:02 PM
Well, I'm not familiar with the Same Game Test, so I'm guessing at how to parse the results, but what I'm taking away here is that flying needs to be bumped up to a 4th-level formula in order for a level 5 build to play nice with others.  That sound about right?

I'm less sure on what to do about the level 10 build, though I'm thinking it may entail a long, critical look at Binding Gale.  That seems to be far too important to be healthy.

It is worth noting that Forced Hibernation no longer exists.  As part of the current ongoing revision, I'm taking out anything that leaves enemies helpless or could otherwise be considered a save-or-die.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: downzorz on May 06, 2013, 08:21:36 PM
Basically a Same Game Test is used by some people to look at where a class falls on power levels. A class that passes significantly more than 50% of the challenges (like the Spellshaper here) is considered to be "Wizard Level." This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it means that the average challenge of equal EL would not be too challenging to the Spellshaper. You are right about flying, definitely; it was the absolute deciding factor in 5 challenges at level 5. Honestly, the effect of Binding Gale itself wasn't too important; it was used for the damage alone 3 out of 5 times, and Dessicate would work just as well for that (or, for that matter, any of the +7d8 formulae).

http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test)
Here is the home of the Same Game Test that I was using.

Oh, and here is the level 15 test.

The Build:
(click to show/hide)

The Results:
(click to show/hide)

Now here, there are some insights too. Incorporeality is good, but not insurmountably so. You'll notice that in some situations (antimagic, regeneration) we are shut down completely, while in others (especially against large amounts of weak or non-flying enemies) we are the bomb. That level of hyperspecialization is expected at high levels, where a Fighter can't talk his way out of a paper sack, a Rogue can't take a single hit, although a Wizard still does everything well.

What the whole test shows is that this class is solidly Wizard-level. Now, that's a perfectly legitimate balance point, but if you want to tone it down... getting rid of Forced Hibernation and the like is a good start, as is bumping flying up to level 7. Aside from that, it seems that toning down the damage scaling might be good if you want to take the power level down.

I hope I've done something helpful here.

-Downzorz
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Epsilon Rose on May 07, 2013, 01:05:33 PM
Question: Did you remove the healing formulas from Natural Balance? The main formula list shows a few, but a quick search of the Natural Balance page only turns up 'heal' in the numen's description.

If you did remove them, does that mean the only healing formulas are the fast healing ones from Astral Essence?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 07, 2013, 04:37:23 PM
In response to the same game testing, I'm thinking that leveling the extra damage from major formulae might be one option.  Possibly something like:

2nd+1d6
3rd+2d6
4th+3d6
5th+4d6
6th+5d6
7th+6d6
8th+7d6
9th+8d6

While this may seem like a pretty significant damage nerf, note that the spellshape attacks are continuing to scale up to 5d6. That means that you'll be doing 13d6 damage at level 17, without any feats or other damage increases. With the spellshape focus feats and the relevant lamen, a spellshaper would be able to get up to 16d6 damage, plus the effects of whatever formula was actually being shaped. Which, you know, seems like where we actually should be.

It should also be noted, however, that only the spellsage has access to Arcane Knack, and that's making my trigger finger a mite twitchy.  Exactly how many of the tests were influenced by that feature?  Slapping that on the chopping block is a very real possibility, especially if it's having any serious bearing on these results.

Amusingly, Dissipate was already on the chopping block for the Unseen Impetus revision, so this simply reaffirms my decision to axe it.



Question: Did you remove the healing formulas from Natural Balance? The main formula list shows a few, but a quick search of the Natural Balance page only turns up 'heal' in the numen's description.

If you did remove them, does that mean the only healing formulas are the fast healing ones from Astral Essence?

Yes, the healing formulae have been removed from Natural Balance.  I keep forgetting to update the master formula list--I'll try to get that done tonight.

Technically, Devouring Shadow also has a few Crusader's Strike-esque formulae that can recover hit points.  Other than that, though, I think that you're correct.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 07, 2013, 05:44:25 PM
It should be noted that that does mean that it's likely that a character built on dishing out damage will find themselves in a position where it's unambiguously better to full attack than use a major formula. That's probably a good thing, though, since it varies combat up a bit. Basically, if you have at least 2 attacks and at least +3d6 of bonus damage (or at least 3 attacks), you always full attack when you want damage. Only applies against touch AC; the risk of missing against full AC on iteratives is likely too great. That might not be good.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 07, 2013, 07:04:06 PM
That might not be good.

Which part is this referring to?

I'm not sure how I feel about a world in which full attacks end up being unambiguously better than major formulae.  I shall muse upon it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 07, 2013, 07:07:30 PM
The part where touch attackers are much better off full-attacking than regular AC-attackers might not be good. If you're hitting regular AC, you're much better off frontloading all your nice shit onto a single attack, since non-touch AC increases faster than you're likely to be able to keep up without full BAB and significant investment. Iteratives are a pain.

And it's only unambiguous when all you want is damage. Chances are, formulae are still preferable.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Epsilon Rose on May 09, 2013, 01:25:15 AM
While this may seem like a pretty significant damage nerf, note that the spellshape attacks are continuing to scale up to 5d6. That means that you'll be doing 13d6 damage at level 17, without any feats or other damage increases. With the spellshape focus feats and the relevant lamen, a spellshaper would be able to get up to 16d6 damage, plus the effects of whatever formula was actually being shaped. Which, you know, seems like where we actually should be.

If you're considering nerfing base damage, it might be worth noting that lamens are relatively* expensive.


* Relative to magic weapons, to which lamens seem analogous.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on May 09, 2013, 01:34:16 AM
I'm not in favor of the damage nerf. Esp at low levels, spellshapers weren't doing much damage already.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Bauglir on May 09, 2013, 01:11:53 PM
Possibly a nonlinear progression would work well for this, then. 2d6, 4d6, 5d6, 6d6, 7d6, 8d6, 9d6, 10d6, or something like that.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on May 12, 2013, 05:12:14 AM
Reading up on the same game test, it's worth noting that while "wizard level" sounds bad, the level below it is "rogue level" which is below the intended balance point for spellshapers (rogues are tier 4 while this project aims at tier 3.)

In short, somewhat above 50% success (and the average was around 60% ish) is what you're looking for and not a sign of balance problems.

Has anyone run a SGT for other tier 3 classes? Martial Adepts, Beguiler, Factotum, etc?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 12, 2013, 07:24:34 PM
Fair enough.  I'll sit on the damage issue for now, though I may still end up pushing flight back a formula level.

I will point out, though, that the contemplated change would still leave spellshapers a few dice ahead of warlocks.  Obviously, warlocks are below the intended balance point, but they're far from unplayable, and I suspect spellshapers would still stay ahead.  I'd also lower lamen prices to normal weapon costs to compensate for such a change.

For now, though, I'm going to leave damage as-is.  Mind you, I'm in the middle of honors examinations, followed by graduation from college, so I'm not going to be doing anything for a while, anyway.


Edit: If people still have twitchy Same Game Test trigger fingers, I'd say to give the Akashic Records (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=136.0) a good sweep.  In addition to this being an excuse to promote the system, knowing how Akasha scores would actually give me a decent amount of information about how to approach the results.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Epsilon Rose on May 14, 2013, 07:32:10 PM
Edit: If people still have twitchy Same Game Test trigger fingers, I'd say to give the Akashic Records (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=136.0) a good sweep.  In addition to this being an excuse to promote the system, knowing how Akasha scores would actually give me a decent amount of information about how to approach the results.

You know, that's the second time I've seen you mention Akashic Magic, and each time I look at it I can't help but feel I'm missing something. The flavor seems really cool (I wish more people did stuff with the akashic records), but the classes seem rather bare bones and generic or formulaic.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on May 14, 2013, 08:17:28 PM
It's his roomie's system.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on May 15, 2013, 12:58:11 AM
You know, that's the second time I've seen you mention Akashic Magic, and each time I look at it I can't help but feel I'm missing something. The flavor seems really cool (I wish more people did stuff with the akashic records), but the classes seem rather bare bones and generic or formulaic.

I'll be honest, I'm generally of the opinion that base classes shouldn't be too heavy-handed.  Look at, say, the spellsage, or the spellshape champion.  Not terribly pigeon-holey in terms of your actual flavor or direction.  Elemental adept is, admittedly, but that's because I wanted an excuse to be ALL FIRE ALL THE TIME.  I actually consider the versatility and customization of the Akashic base classes is a strength.  Though, if you disagree, I'm sure she'd be happy if you posted your issues so she can figure out how address them.

In-context, though, our games tend to be half-and-half Akasha and Spellshaping, so the two systems sort of sit next to each other in my mind.  Hanako will play a technician, I'll play a spellshaper, and Felyx--our third--will do both.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Hanako Tachibana on May 15, 2013, 01:00:29 AM
You know, that's the second time I've seen you mention Akashic Magic, and each time I look at it I can't help but feel I'm missing something. The flavor seems really cool (I wish more people did stuff with the akashic records), but the classes seem rather bare bones and generic or formulaic.

Tell me your problems!!!  I desire to here them so I can better my work!!!
Really, I mean it.  Nothing can change if people don't tell me what should be changed.
Of course, you should tell me here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=7111.0), so this lovely thread isn't cluttered with non-spellshaping things.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on May 15, 2013, 01:41:53 PM
Typo in Rules of Spellshaping (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=848.0): Shaper Level. "As you attain higher levels, you usually use your low-lvel formulae less often"

You know, that's the second time I've seen you mention Akashic Magic, and each time I look at it I can't help but feel I'm missing something. The flavor seems really cool (I wish more people did stuff with the akashic records), but the classes seem rather bare bones and generic or formulaic.

I'll be honest, I'm generally of the opinion that base classes shouldn't be too heavy-handed.  Look at, say, the spellsage, or the spellshape champion.  Not terribly pigeon-holey in terms of your actual flavor or direction.  Elemental adept is, admittedly, but that's because I wanted an excuse to be ALL FIRE ALL THE TIME.  I actually consider the versatility and customization of the Akashic base classes is a strength.  Though, if you disagree, I'm sure she'd be happy if you posted your issues so she can figure out how address them.

In-context, though, our games tend to be half-and-half Akasha and Spellshaping, so the two systems sort of sit next to each other in my mind.  Hanako will play a technician, I'll play a spellshaper, and Felyx--our third--will do both.

Good classes aren't pigeon-holey for flavor, but they do suggest a character through their mechanics, and the mechanics suggest how they manifest themselves in the game world. Spellshaping classes do that very well. Not that they need to, as the circles themselves have strong enough themes that you could probably make a class with just spellshaping and no other class features and it still wouldn't feel bland in that regard. The Akashic classes don't really have the same visceral feel. The mechanics seem more abstract.

A big part of this, I find, is colourful mechanics. I mean that literally. Mechanics that evoke colourful effects are much easier to visualize and associate with. Really, the visualization bit is the important part, but colour really helps with that. The effects themselves don't necessarily need to produce colour-coded effects themselves, especially if they are related to concepts that are colour-coded from other sources. For example, any sort of illusion evokes blueish mental imagery for me because of playing Magic: The Gathering.
(click to show/hide)

Excessive customization is not necessarily a strength. It dilutes the flavor of a class. An excessively customizable class, like the Akashic classes, won't have a strong in-built concept as a result of that very same customizability. Because two characters that are ostensibly of the same class can be built with almost no abilities in common, the class itself serves has no unifying effect. It becomes very difficult to imagine what a character of that class actually might be. That's just from a flavor standpoint, but I'm not going to address mechanical issues here.

Finally, formatting has a surprisingly large effect. Having space between the descriptions of the different abilities keeps them from just running into each other mentally. Colourful tables and images (when used sparingly; too much is distracting and just gets in the way) also fights against blandness. It's not the be-all and end-all, but it does have a non-trivial effect.

Anyways, that's just off the top of my head when thinking about the differences between the Spellshaping Codices and the Akashic Records. And by "off the top of my head", I mean I've been thinking about this and writing it for over an hour.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on June 05, 2013, 01:21:30 AM
Question about the spellstorm lamen property:

(click to show/hide)

If both attacks hit, do you get the damage of both or only one? If both, do both get formula bonus damage or only one?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on June 05, 2013, 01:41:28 AM
The wording of the Spellstorm lamen property, unlike Haste and the Speed weapon property, triggers off of individual spellshape attacks, not full attacks. Even assuming a modicum of RaI sanity such that it doesn't provide an infinite number of attacks by triggering off of attacks that it, itself, granted (each spellshape attack granting an extra spellshape attack, which grants an extra spellshape attack, which grants...), you'd still be doubling your attacks, and at better attack bonuses, too. With +15/+10/+5 BAB, for example, this property would give you +15/+15/+10/+15/+5/+15. Just replace "Whenever you make a spellshape attack, including attacks made as a part of shaping a formula," with "Whenever you shape a formula that involves making a spellshape attack or you make a full attack that includes at least one spellshape attack,". Note that this does remove the additional attacks on AoOs, standard action attacks, and certain other cases that Haste and Speed weapons don't apply to anyways.

On a related note, Warped Minutes (and Seconds and Instants) don't grant extra attacks anymore, so Spellstorm not stacking with them is meaningless.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on June 10, 2013, 08:12:43 PM
Wark.  The intention was for it to give you a maximum of one extra attack per turn, but not only on a full attack.  And I missed updating it when I removed the attack from the Warped formulae.  Going with your change.

If both attacks hit, do you get the damage of both or only one? If both, do both get formula bonus damage or only one?

If both attacks hit, you deal the damage for both.  However, you only get the extra damage from the formula once.  I'll figure out some wording to clarify this.

(Just moved from the east coast to the midwest and started a new job.  I'll be slowly getting back to activity as I ease into the new life.)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on August 10, 2013, 06:14:46 AM
I notice you have hide as a class skill for some classes, but no class has move silently.  Is there a reason for this?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 13, 2013, 01:39:39 PM
I notice you have hide as a class skill for some classes, but no class has move silently.  Is there a reason for this?

This is a case of hilarious oversight. See, the main reason that classes have Hide as a class skill is that one of the spellshaping prestige classes--I think it's Darkened One--has Hide ranks as a prerequisite. So, I went back and added Hide to class skill lists so that it was possible to qualify for the class. Since--I hope--Move Silently ranks aren't required for any of the spellshaping prestige classes, I never went back and added them. And, since I so rarely play in or DM any groups that attempt to employ stealth, I clean forgot. I'll fix that sometime soon.

As a general update, the reason that I haven't gotten anything done this summer is that I was in a pretty time-consuming internship for a public relations company. In the evenings, when I had free time, I was generally too exhausted to get any work done. Unfortunately for me, but potentially fortunately for spellshaping, they chose not to hire me full time.

Currently on my plate:

Those items recently brought up in the thread are up top because I don't want to have to find them again later. The race things are next because I've been sketching out the world structure for an upcoming campaign and realized that I wanted the races to be a bit more distinct. Finally, we get back to the circle revisions, and then to revising the rest of the codices.

Mind you, I still don't know what my timetable is going to be like for this, since I also need to be sending out job applications.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on August 13, 2013, 01:58:55 PM
I'm glad to hear that the revisions are starting up again, good luck on the job front.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 16, 2013, 05:52:44 PM
Redid the stoichen fluff and physical description, as that's been rattling around in my head for a while. I'll hopefully get to the other stuff soonish.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on August 20, 2013, 04:22:31 AM
Probably another oversight...  but Numinous Anchorites don't have a meditative state and therefore can never recover any formulae as a swift action.

Also, is there any chance of a prestige class that focuses on Eternal Moment popping up?  I've been playing a Chronarch and I've been falling in love with that circle.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on August 20, 2013, 04:47:01 AM
Probably another oversight...  but Numinous Anchorites don't have a meditative state and therefore can never recover any formulae as a swift action.

   Project Numena (Su): At 1st level, you gain the ability to project the numena associated with your chosen circles.  Whenever you gain a new chosen circle, you gain the ability to project the numen associated with that circle.
   At first, you can project only one numen at a time.  Starting at 10th level, you can have two numena active at the same time; at 20th level, you can have three active numena.
   Projecting the numen associated with a given circle allows you to recover formulae from that circle as a swift action, just as if you had adopted the meditative aspect associated with that circle.

Also, is there any chance of a prestige class that focuses on Eternal Moment popping up?  I've been playing a Chronarch and I've been falling in love with that circle.

Not likely. I'm moving away from having circle-specific prestige classes, and may well axe some of the existing ones. Also, time is already hard enough to do properly without breaking things--I used up almost every time-based ability and class feature that I can think of just building the blasted circle.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on August 20, 2013, 05:58:54 AM
Ah.  So, I am blind.

Pity to hear about the prestige classes though.  Also, if you want something else to use, there is the whole "save-point for a round" kinda power.  You activate this power (swift action), try out what you were going to do, and if it would blow up in your face, you undo that round to just after you activated the power.  Probably 8th or 9th level though.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: downzorz on August 27, 2013, 04:17:22 PM
Sculpt Spellshape and Chain Spellshape. I cannot think of very many situations where I would rather use Chain than Sculpt- but Sculpt is a first-degree metashaping feat and Chain is 3rd-degree. I get it as a parallel between Chain and Sculpt Spell, but in this case Sculpt Spellshape is inarguably better. It seems. Unless you have some insight to the contrary?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on August 27, 2013, 05:21:42 PM
Sculpt Spellshape and Chain Spellshape. I cannot think of very many situations where I would rather use Chain than Sculpt- but Sculpt is a first-degree metashaping feat and Chain is 3rd-degree. I get it as a parallel between Chain and Sculpt Spell, but in this case Sculpt Spellshape is inarguably better. It seems. Unless you have some insight to the contrary?

The parallel kinda breaks down, and probably causes the apparent superiority of Sculpt, when you consider the extra changes between the metamagic feats and their metashaping parallels. Sculpt Spell only affects spells that are already area spells, while Sculpt Spellshape turns single-target formulae into area formulae. Chain Spell can be applied to non-damaging spells, either to cast single-target debuffs upon many foes or to share single-target buffs among many allies, but Chain Spellshape is limited to only damaging effects. So, relative to their metamagic equivalents, Sculpt Spellshape is massively buffed yet Chain Spellshape is mildly nerfed, despite them keeping the same costs.

Edit: As for the advantages of Chain over Sculpt, consider that Reflex saves are a lot easier to make than touch attacks are to avoid. Chain also lets you target selectively, rather than affecting everyone within the area, which may come in to play from time to time in chaotic melees. Not too much, though, with Sculpt's varied area options.

Chain should probably get dropped to a degree 2 metashaping feat. Sculpt deserves a degree of 2 or 3, maybe even 4, although that would be pushing it.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on August 27, 2013, 10:23:29 PM
The problem with increasing Sculpt to a +2 or +3 is that Shaper's Stride and other such feats become useless due to such a high cost.  And Stride is a prereq for a prestige class, so messing with that creates it's own problems.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: downzorz on August 27, 2013, 11:29:16 PM
See, the problem is that if you don't make Chain Spellshape less costly than Sculpt there won't really be anyone who takes Chain.

Quote from: Garryl
consider that Reflex saves are a lot easier to make than touch attacks are to avoid.

Yeah, but it's a reflex save for half, and Chain deals half damage anyways. And chain makes the DC's that much lower anyways.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 01, 2013, 01:25:39 AM
Chain should probably get dropped to a degree 2 metashaping feat. Sculpt deserves a degree of 2 or 3, maybe even 4, although that would be pushing it.

Seems like a plan. I just need to figure out the math for

The problem with increasing Sculpt to a +2 or +3 is that Shaper's Stride and other such feats become useless due to such a high cost.  And Stride is a prereq for a prestige class, so messing with that creates it's own problems.

Which I think will be just dropping those metashaping feats down to 1st-degree, but still requiring Sculpt.

Currently:

If Sculpt went to 2nd-degree, those could easily just be dropped to 1st-degree. If Sculpt goes to 3rd-degree, I could actually drop them to not having a degree, but still requiring that it be Sculpted.

Decisions...
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Epsilon Rose on September 02, 2013, 06:15:29 AM
Which I think will be just dropping those metashaping feats down to 1st-degree, but still requiring Sculpt.

Currently:
  • Sculpt + Expand = 1 + 2 = 3
  • Sculpt + Explosive = 1 + 2 = 3
  • Sculpt + Stride = 1 + 2 = 3

If Sculpt went to 2nd-degree, those could easily just be dropped to 1st-degree. If Sculpt goes to 3rd-degree, I could actually drop them to not having a degree, but still requiring that it be Sculpted.

Decisions...

While I'm not necessarily against the idea of stride and co being free, I think there might be a few unintended consequences. Namely Sculpt+expand+explosive+stride=3+0+0+0=3. There's also the issue of the few instant aoe formulas that work with stride explosive and expand without needing sculpt.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 03, 2013, 04:06:44 PM
While I'm not necessarily against the idea of stride and co being free, I think there might be a few unintended consequences. Namely Sculpt+expand+explosive+stride=3+0+0+0=3. There's also the issue of the few instant aoe formulas that work with stride explosive and expand without needing sculpt.

See, this is why I wait to do things until after you guys have had time to process the crazy stuff I say. Should it go to Sculpt as 2nd-degree, the supplementals as 1st-degree? That also does make a bit more sense for the other AoE formulae, since you already have Sculpt as a feat tax to even get the supplemental metashaping feats.

Meanwhile, my primary mindspace activity is trying to come up with a Stoichen feat to replace the various "____ Heritage" feats. I'm not sure why this is of such importance to me, but it is.

After that, I have decided that I will be making cambian into a fey race. Most of the spellshaping races are going to end up being fey, with the exception of masked one, spellsoul armor, and stoichen.

Living spellshape is going to be replaced with some manner of fairy ripoff. Probably Small, rather than Tiny, since it'll be an Int-boosting race.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on September 03, 2013, 04:58:12 PM
Speaking of Stoichen heritage feats, Salamander Heritage should be toned down somewhat. You've got 2-4 feats worth of stuff in there.
- +1d6 fire damage/attack
- A high damage (2d6+1d6) natural attack with reach.
- Improved Grab and Constrict.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 03, 2013, 05:50:47 PM
Speaking of Stoichen heritage feats, Salamander Heritage should be toned down somewhat. You've got 2-4 feats worth of stuff in there.
- +1d6 fire damage/attack
- A high damage (2d6+1d6) natural attack with reach.
- Improved Grab and Constrict.

Well, the current plan is to flat-out replace it, so I'll bear that in mind!

I was thinking a single feat that provided different bonuses to different elemental bloods:

But I haven't figured out the "???" items, or if this is even balanced. It's just been floating around in my head for a day or so.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Epsilon Rose on September 05, 2013, 03:04:24 AM
Living spellshape is going to be replaced with some manner of fairy ripoff. Probably Small, rather than Tiny, since it'll be an Int-boosting race.

Aww. Is there any chance I could convince you to leave them in? I had quite some fun using them to create a pc god of potential/time a while back and it's not often you get to play as an ooze.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on September 05, 2013, 06:47:30 PM
So, my DM is finding the damage I'm spitting out a bit high.  I just hit 9th level, which is a +3d6 bonus to my formulae (+2d6 from heighten, +1d6 from the spellshapes), and I'm wondering if heighten should give +1d6 damage per level, rather than +2d6. 
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on September 12, 2013, 12:25:30 AM
So, my DM is finding the damage I'm spitting out a bit high.  I just hit 9th level, which is a +3d6 bonus to my formulae (+2d6 from heighten, +1d6 from the spellshapes), and I'm wondering if heighten should give +1d6 damage per level, rather than +2d6.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on September 12, 2013, 01:04:43 AM
What's the actual damage you're doing, in total? It's very hard to get a picture of what's being objected to when you're only telling us a fraction of the story.

Heighten only adds +2d6/level below your max, but major formulae normally add about +2d6/formula level anyways, so it mostly just keeps you up to par when you use lower level formulae.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 12, 2013, 10:28:45 AM
Living spellshape is going to be replaced with some manner of fairy ripoff. Probably Small, rather than Tiny, since it'll be an Int-boosting race.

Aww. Is there any chance I could convince you to leave them in? I had quite some fun using them to create a pc god of potential/time a while back and it's not often you get to play as an ooze.

It's not like I'm moving quickly or anything. Besides, even if I do end up removing them from the PDF, I won't delete the thread. They might survive into the Appendix or something, but I realized that I really want more cohesive spellshaping races. Right now, they feel a bit too hodgepodge-y.

So, my DM is finding the damage I'm spitting out a bit high.  I just hit 9th level, which is a +3d6 bonus to my formulae (+2d6 from heighten, +1d6 from the spellshapes), and I'm wondering if heighten should give +1d6 damage per level, rather than +2d6.

Spells tend to scale +1d6 per caster level, and you get a new formula level every two shaper levels, so I figured +2d6 was analogous.

I'm going to echo Garryl's call for actual numbers here, for the same reason.



So, my hopes of getting back down to the grindstone on this have obviously yielded little fruit. It's still my number-one priority for homebrewing, so I'm not going to move onto other projects until it's done. However, I don't have as much free time as I'd like, and the system is functional enough that I don't feel like I'm shafting anything too hard if I take things a little more slowly while I look for a job.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on September 12, 2013, 11:01:56 AM
Job > Spellshaping.  If you have no food or place to live or internet you won't be able to homebrew anyway. :p
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on September 12, 2013, 06:10:27 PM
9th level Chronarch Savant with Heighten Formulae and Spellshape Focus

With no modification, Torpor (a second level formula) does 6d6 (base 3, focus +1, torpor +2).   Add in Heighten for another 6d6, totalling 12d6.  Finally, add on Savant's Knowledge (Foe), for +2d6 (typically), we have a total of 14d6.  Tack on a will save that makes most melee brutes lose, just for fun.

Hammering Force and Counterforce look pretty similar, each doing a total of 12d4 + 2d6.  The bonus effects aren't as impressive here (although Counterforce still hurts).

Recursive Blast does 13d6 damage total, and has a save-or-suck that lasts a round and can get some extra damage from attacks of oppurtunities.

Temporal Displacement does 11d6.

The DM has stated that one of these on their own wouldn't be a problem, but the ease with which I can repeat them, and the sheer quantity, is.  Removing Savant's Knowledge and Spellshape Focus knocks it down to somewhere between 8d6 and 11d6. 

Essentially, due to the length of time that combat lasts, I have an almost-at-will that deals more damage than a wizard's Orb of Fire at the same level.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on September 18, 2013, 07:29:55 PM
Was there any other info needed?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 24, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Heighten may be the problem. Try knocking it down to 1d6 per level raised in your games and ask the DM if that's helping.

If it is, I'll go ahead and canonize it. If it isn't, let's poke around and see what other problems might be on the table.

Other possibilities involve dropping Savant's Knowledge to +X rather than +Xd6.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 24, 2013, 09:59:03 PM
Okay, I finally managed to dredge up the energy to tackle replacing the "____ Heritage" stoichen feats. I've combined them into a single feat that gives a minor numerical increase coupled with a movement adjustment.

Thoughts? I haven't really bothered to write the description or introduction fully--those are just placeholders.

Quote
Stoichen Highblood [Racial]
You have manifested a particularly potent connection to your elemental bloodline.
   Prerequisites: Stoichen
   Benefit: You gain one of the following sets of benefits, depending on your elemental blood.
   Airblooded: You receive a +1 dodge bonus to AC. In addition, your connection to the air allows you to glide, negating damage from a fall from any height and allowing 20 feet of forward travel for every 5 feet of descent.  You glide at a speed of 30 feet with average maneuverability.  Even if your maneuverability improves, you can't hover while gliding.  You can't glide while carrying a medium or heavy load.
   If you become unconscious or helpless while in midair, you instinctively begin to glide.  You descend in a tight corkscrew and take only 1d6 points of falling damage. no matter what the actual distance of the fall.
   Earthblooded: You gain a Climb speed equal to your base land speed. In addition, you gain a number of hit points equal to your current Hit Dice. Each time you gain a Hit Die (such as by gaining a level), you gain 1 additional hit point. If you lose a Hit Die (such as by losing a level), you lose 1 hit point permanently.
   Fireblooded: Your base land speed increases by 10 feet. This benefit stacks with all other speed increases. In addition, unlike most fireblooded stoichen, the flames that flicker from your body are hot to the touch. Your mere touch deals an additional 1d6 points of fire damage, and any metallic weapons you wield also conduct this heat. Dousing or kindling your flames suppresses or resumes this effect.
   Waterblooded: You gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls. In addition, when moving through difficult terrain, your movement speed is doubled, rather than halved, and you can charge or run normally.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on September 24, 2013, 11:28:33 PM
Airblooded is begging for one or two more feats to improve the gliding to proper flight like the Raptoran racial flight and the Dragon Wings feat chain.

Earthblooded could be simplified to "Any changes to the number of Hit Dice you possess commensurately changes the number of additional hit points granted." I know you just took the wording from Improved Toughness, but that wording still irks me slightly. You may also wish to note that the climb speed grants, in and of itself, a +8 racial bonus of Climb checks and the ability to take 10.

My gut says to drop the fire damage from Fireblooded to 1d4 or less. In addition to the fact that it's reactive as well as proactive as enemies take the damage, too, when they directly touch you (such as by hitting you with unarmed or natural attacks), it's also 3.5x the similar attack and AC bonuses (compare to Power Attack or Weapon Focus vs. Weapon Specialization all giving damage bonuses at 2x the quantity of attack bonuses). Further, the boost to your base land speed is probably the most reliably useful of the four movement boosts, improving the movement mode you most often use and boosting all other base land speed-based movement speeds, such as swimming, climbing, and the flight granted by most templates with wings.

Just to nitpick, but your speed isn't halved in difficult terrain, it's just that each square counts as 2 squares (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm). I'm also surprised that you're getting the ability to better move through difficult terrain instead of a swim speed with Waterblooded. That breaks with the patters the other three bloodlines have, giving you an improved version of some sort of basic movement associated with that element. Falling, climbing, walking... shouldn't water be swimming? Or is swimming just overdone? In any case, moving at double speed just feels out of place. Ignoring the speed reduction is fine and in keeping with the flavor of water's fluidity, although it's probably a tiny bit narrow.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on September 25, 2013, 12:17:15 AM
Now I want to make a... something that lets you change your elemental heritage.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 25, 2013, 02:30:11 AM
Airblooded is begging for one or two more feats to improve the gliding to proper flight like the Raptoran racial flight and the Dragon Wings feat chain.

Maybe. We'll see if I want to do something similar for the other bloods--and I might. Earthblooded could easily walk straight up cliff faces, and so on.

Earthblooded could be simplified to "Any changes to the number of Hit Dice you possess commensurately changes the number of additional hit points granted." I know you just took the wording from Improved Toughness, but that wording still irks me slightly. You may also wish to note that the climb speed grants, in and of itself, a +8 racial bonus of Climb checks and the ability to take 10.

Good notes. I'll bear those in mind when finishing the templating.

My gut says to drop the fire damage from Fireblooded to 1d4 or less. In addition to the fact that it's reactive as well as proactive as enemies take the damage, too, when they directly touch you (such as by hitting you with unarmed or natural attacks), it's also 3.5x the similar attack and AC bonuses (compare to Power Attack or Weapon Focus vs. Weapon Specialization all giving damage bonuses at 2x the quantity of attack bonuses). Further, the boost to your base land speed is probably the most reliably useful of the four movement boosts, improving the movement mode you most often use and boosting all other base land speed-based movement speeds, such as swimming, climbing, and the flight granted by most templates with wings.

Probably wise. I just want the fact that you're on fire to, you know, be capable of causing damage. I'll go ahead and drop it down to 1d3 in the templating pass.

Just to nitpick, but your speed isn't halved in difficult terrain, it's just that each square counts as 2 squares (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm). I'm also surprised that you're getting the ability to better move through difficult terrain instead of a swim speed with Waterblooded. That breaks with the patters the other three bloodlines have, giving you an improved version of some sort of basic movement associated with that element. Falling, climbing, walking... shouldn't water be swimming? Or is swimming just overdone? In any case, moving at double speed just feels out of place. Ignoring the speed reduction is fine and in keeping with the flavor of water's fluidity, although it's probably a tiny bit narrow.

You're right, I would need to re-template that to ignoring the effects of difficult terrain and moving at twice speed while in difficult terrain.

As to why not a swim speed...they already get one baseline! I suppose I could just give them a speed increase, but that felt a little like cheating.

Edit: Mind you, I'm not horribly wedded to the idea, so, if anyone has a better one, let's hear it. It wasn't actually originally planned to be a new movement mode for each blood, it just panned out that way. In fact, fireblooded's +10 foot speed thing lines up with the increases to AC, hit points, and so on in the original draft.



Now I want to make a... something that lets you change your elemental heritage.

Well, with the refluffing that occurred, that's basically analogous to changing race, so...anything that could do that would reasonably be able to change your blood.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on November 30, 2013, 11:36:10 AM
Hi, it has been a long time since I checked on this.

Can I ask what is the state of the project?

Are there parts that are complete?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Amechra on December 02, 2013, 09:41:07 AM
There are two sourcebooks that are at the "complete" stage, or, well, at least as complete as homebrew can get.

I think.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on December 02, 2013, 04:51:46 PM
There are two sourcebooks that are at the "complete" stage, or, well, at least as complete as homebrew can get.

I think.

Except he was in the middle of overhauling everything in the last update he gave us.  :p
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 02, 2013, 06:56:10 PM
Yeah, I've had an unproductive few months--compounded by the fact that I've been working on a paladin rewrite for a currently-ongoing campaign. Hopefully, I'm going to finish the Disciple-level prayers for the Law and Evil Testaments this week, maybe get the catechisms done, and then I'm going to try to slide back into working on spellshaping.

What has currently been revised:

Mind you, things that haven't been revised are still functional. I know that I need to replace the Stoichen racial feats, and I think there were some metashaping feats to do? Cambians were going to be made into fey, and Living Spellshapes were going to be replaced with a Small, winged fey race.

I might end up working on prestige classes a bit before getting back to work on circles, since those are easier. I'd prefer not to, but--if I have trouble motivating myself--it might be the best way to make headway.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on December 03, 2013, 05:28:28 AM
Yes I understand. It has just been a while since I checked on this. I am preparing a campaign where I might use it and wanted to know what parts are revised.

Your paladin also sounds interesting. Is he posted somewhere?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on December 03, 2013, 12:26:16 PM
The main thing that has slowed me down in revising spellshaping has really been coming up with new formulae. After coming up with 336 the first time around, it's very hard to find new space that isn't either complicated, not what I want in terms of formulae functionality, or thematically inappropriate for the circle. I'll get there, though.

The paladin is very incomplete at the moment, since I've only written enough to stay ahead of the campaign so Felyx can choose his character options. I'll be posting it when it's completed.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Imban on February 20, 2014, 10:45:28 PM
The links for the PDF versions of the codices are broken. Does anyone have a copy that they could re-upload?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: VennDygrem on March 02, 2014, 09:16:57 PM
Quick question about the Flamespeaker's Lesser Ascension: It says you gain 50% resistance to critical hits. Does this mean you take 50% of the damage from a critical hit, or any bonus damage from a critical hit is reduced by 50%, or that you have a 50% chance to negate a critical hit (like fortification)?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on March 02, 2014, 09:35:13 PM
The links for the PDF versions of the codices are broken. Does anyone have a copy that they could re-upload?

Codex I (https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1zwi02t70m9uq9/The%20Codex%20of%20Spellshaping%20-%20The%20Twelve%20Circles.pdf)

Codex II (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7arqqjv3vhsmibv/The%20Codex%20of%20Spellshaping%20II.pdf)

Most up-to-date document of the Complete Codex (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8plh3kdaer0xohy/Complete%20Codex.docx)

I'll go ahead and update the links elsewhere.

Quick question about the Flamespeaker's Lesser Ascension: It says you gain 50% resistance to critical hits. Does this mean you take 50% of the damage from a critical hit, or any bonus damage from a critical hit is reduced by 50%, or that you have a 50% chance to negate a critical hit (like fortification)?

It's meant to be fortification. The "resistance" wording appears on things like Dread Necromancer.



I swear, someday, I'll have time to work on this again. Currently, though, having just gotten a dog and started a new job, free time is very lacking.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Nanshork on March 02, 2014, 10:27:42 PM
If it helps Venn and I are going to be using your material in the same PbP game.  :)
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: chaos_redefined on March 16, 2014, 04:04:55 AM
A couple of questions that I've noticed...

Unseen Impetus's formula Forceful Propulsion, Violent Displacement, etc... allow you to use "your Charisma or Intelligence modifier, whichever is higher, in place of your Strength modifier."  Is there any reason not to allow wisdom?

Formula Study requires the user to use charisma for the DC, but doesn't specify that they have to have a charisma of 10 + formula level.  Also, can we allow them to use either int, wis or cha, instead of forcing cha?

Still a fan of this.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: Garryl on July 21, 2014, 11:41:12 AM
Hello DonQuixote. I don't know if you're still working on this any more, but I found a small typo in the AC bonus ability of the Disciple of the Circles PrC. The AC bonus ability ends with "and +5 at 20th level", which should be 9th level instead.

Additionally, the dropbox links for the codices are disabled:
Quote
Disabled link
Access to this link has been disabled. Please ask the owner of the shared link to send a new link to access the file or the folder.

Finally, I'm working on a spellshaping racial PrC for a separate project of mine. If I manage to finish the class, would it be alright if I posted the race and class here as additional spellshaping material?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on July 21, 2014, 08:39:26 PM
Unfortunately, since I started working full-time, I haven't had the time, energy, or inspiration to work any more on spellshaping. There are a lot of holes still in it, and a lot of things that need to be cleaned up, but I just haven't felt up to it. While I'd like to finish it, I don't know how realistic it is to assume that I'm suddenly going to be magically capable of doing so.

My group is planning to try out 5E once we actually get the Player's Handbook. If we decide to jump editions, I highly doubt that I'll come back to finish this. If we don't, there's still a chance I will.

Please feel free to post anything you write as additional material. If anyone wants to try jumping on the revision and fleshing things out, I can send you my notes if you PM me.
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: samnemath on July 29, 2014, 06:21:44 AM
That is a pity. Spell shaping is my favorite homebrew project, but completely understandable.

A question, are the formulaes balanced towards a same level spell or a same level maneuver?

By the way, how daes you paladine rewrite is going?


Edit: Also can anyone reupload the pdfs?
Title: Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
Post by: DonQuixote on September 03, 2014, 09:11:26 AM
Files should be reuploaded.

Formulae were sort of...weird, in terms of balance. Generally, the goal was for them to be about the level of a maneuver, but--realistically--they're probably closer in power to an evocation spell of an analogous level.

Paladin rewrite sort of...stalled. I got all of it written that I needed for the player in question to play it.