Talk:Epic Path: Difference between revisions

From Epic Path
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__


* consider getting rid of touch AC and flat-footed AC as distinct numbers!!!! OMG!
* consider altering prowler's encroaching jolt to 'inflicts flat-footed'
:* instead, touch attacks are made at +4 to hit against normal AC, and always hit on a 16+ on the die
We're going to need to look at this a bit harder... it will mean clothie BAB's will need to be much more in-line with other BAB's...  If there's no alternative AC to target, then all the BAB's need to be relatively the same.
:* flat-footed always inflicts a -4 to AC, ManOff and ManDef.
::* consider altering prowler's encroaching jolt to 'inflicts flat-footed'


* negative bab; favored class dictates full attack
* negative bab; favored class dictates full attack
Line 17: Line 13:
:* create a "circle 0" and update the various mana burning rules for it.
:* create a "circle 0" and update the various mana burning rules for it.


* deflection bonus comes from any magic on the shield, replacing the 'shield enhancement bonus'. does not stack with other deflection bonuses, such as rings of protection.  
* deflection bonus is the sum of a shield's base AC plus any magic on the shield, replacing the 'shield AC' and 'shield enhancement bonus' types. does not stack with other deflection bonuses, such as rings of protection.  
* armor bonus comes from armor
if we merged 'shield bonus to AC' and deflection bonus into a single bonus, I assume that would mean shields could give a deflection bonus between +1 (un-enchanted buckler) and +13 (+9 enchanted tower shield), and would apply to AC, touch, and ff AC.  By contrast, ring of protection could only give +1 to +9 (also applying to all 3 AC's).  Is this how you envisioned this working?


as a note, by getting rid of 'shield enhancement bonus', we've effectively cut up to 9 points of AC out of the top end of possible ACs (formerly, +9 tower shield and +9 ring of prot = 22 AC)... we /could/ put some of this back into shields by letting the magic deflection bonus range go above +9 (say, up to +14? that would make a +14 tower shield = 18 AC).  A +14 heavy shield would cap at 16 AC, while a ring of protection would cap at +9.  Regardless of whether we do this, we'll still probably need to review monster to-hits against our projected best AC.


yes, this is true. however, we should use this design space as part of the 'Base AC' class redesign pass.  if that doesn't use it up, we could put some more AC into the base armor and shield numbers. plate mail and a tower shield should be BEASTLY, magic or not. but that's after the magic items pass. :)
* metamagic rods (become wands) - you must have the feat to use it. However, fewer or no limits on times per day or level of spell affected. Just removes the spell slot increase of the metamagic feat. Enhances the feat instead of replacing it
 
* the SSL cert expires May 5, 2019, so we should get that fixed.
 
* remove implements; change implement bonus to a class feature, granted to low bab casters when they are wielding any rod, staff, or wand.
* metamagic rods - you must have the feat to use it. However, fewer or no limits on times per day or level of spell affected. Just removes the spell slot increase of the metamagic feat. Enhances the feat instead of replacing it
* want to discuss bonus types again
* want to discuss bonus types again
:* shield enhancement bonus stacks with armor enhancement bonus -- inconsistency; should rename shield enhance
:* shield enhancement bonus stacks with armor enhancement bonus -- inconsistency; should rename shield enhance
Line 34: Line 23:
:* other stacking armor types from magic items: natural, dodge, deflection -- do we really need all these?
:* other stacking armor types from magic items: natural, dodge, deflection -- do we really need all these?
:* would like to go through the major numbers of the game (skills, ac, to-hits, damage, etc.) and list out each possible bonus type, their max bonus (for each type) and get a sense of our ranges.
:* would like to go through the major numbers of the game (skills, ac, to-hits, damage, etc.) and list out each possible bonus type, their max bonus (for each type) and get a sense of our ranges.
* if you already know the spell, the first time in a day you read a scroll does not delete the scroll. Scrolls cant take metamagic, or be mana-burned
after some thought, we really shouldn't allow scrolls to be used for mana-burning.  1st level scrolls cost 50gp each, and at 10th+ levels, this is practically free, which means infinite mana burning for every spell, if someone chooses to go that route.  Even rogues shouldn't get this. (Rogues probably shouldn't get mana burning at all, IMO, even if they take the caster talents.  It's a caster thing; if you really want it, multi-class into a caster/demi-caster.)
reluctantly concur. I sort of love the 'scrolls are sorcerer ammo' thing, but the rings of wizardry and divinity i'm struggling to work out make the point moot.  more caster item goodies!  the casters are going to have so many awesome toys to pick from they'll be screaming!  as a note on those rings: I saw a cryptic note that the price model I was thinking about might require a change in the back end? is this accurate, or should I resume fumbling at it?
you need to do the first item first (oddly enough).  A lot of the 'main' information is only taken from the first item of the family, so if it's missing, you'll get errors.


re: the ring of wizardry (and similar items), one thought I had was, what if it just gives several 1st level spell slots (say 1 to 9, or even 1 to 18)? They'd primarily be useful for mana-burning, but you could also use them to get more 1st level spells, if that's your thing...  Might be more elegant than just "if you mana burn x spells, you get 1 spell free", which feels very mechanical to me, and overly mathy.


* integrate hustle rules on the [[Types of Movement]] page onto the [[Environmental Effects]] page.
* integrate hustle rules on the [[Types of Movement]] page onto the [[Environmental Effects]] page.

Revision as of 12:59, 2 May 2019

Retrieved from "https://www.epicpath.org/index.php?title=Talk:Epic_Path&oldid=119594"