Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Caedwyr's page

2,742 posts (2,744 including aliases). 6 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,742 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
See though, that is crazy logic in PFS

No, it really isn't.

If you're fighting 1st level Druids with +3 to hit and 2d6+1 damage, you don't power attack. Maybe you swing for nonlethal at -4.

If you're against two balors, you bring out the dazing maximized chain lightnings or whatever cheese you have.

A response that is commiserate to the challenge before you and that gives other's a chance to contribute is far more enjoyable than ending the fight before it begins so there is no risk to the party.

This strikes me as a situation where some view combat as war that should be won as quickly and decisively as possible with minimal risk taken while others view combat as a sport where you want an enjoyable bit of competition and suspense as to who might win. Neither is wrong, but they are different playstyles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Possible errata required:

Petrifern, Petrify (Ex) ability wrote:


A petrifern can petrify itself as a standard action in order to defend itself from predators. When it does so, the petrifern's natural armor bonus to AC increases by 5, it gains resistance 10 to cold and fire, and it can take 20 on Stealth checks to appear as a sprout or fallen tree branch.

While petrified, the petrifern can't move or take any actions. A petrifern can remain petrified indefinitely, and can cease its petrification as a standard action.

The two bolded sections contradict each other and do not seem to be written in a way that a plain-English reading of the text could infer that one is an exception to the other. This text needs something else to make it more clear that the only action a Petrifen can take while petrified is a standard action to end the petrification.


Keep in mind that when using informal language (which shows up in a lot of rules text in pathfinder) arrow could just as easily refer to the shape such as → and not a physical weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

The GM shouldn't be spluttering.

A key skill of a DM is to know your party.

This does create a situation where it is difficult for new GMs to take on the role since it requires such in depth knowledge of how the game mechanics work and how they can influence the story. I know from personal experience how off-putting that can be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They have also historically done almost no marketing/advertising at all, at least on the sites I visit. Which is a shame, since their stuff is so high quality and deserves to be enjoyed by as many people as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Firewarrior44 wrote:

Related to Caedwyr's querry could the social duels subsystem be used to mundanely convince the evil necromancer to not murder the party?

How extensive is that subsystem?

Very clever: You have correctly predicted some of the advice in one of the sections (after a successful Diplomacy, potentially using influence, relationships, verbal duels, or even a full-scale social conflict to convince her).

Thanks for the extra info Mark.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Eric Hinkle wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Quote:

  • Diplomacy is not mind control.

People thought Diplomacy was mind control?

-Skeld

Edit: Next thing you'll be telling me that people think charm person is mind control!

This is something I'd like to know. Just how limits does the Diplomacy skill and the charm person spell have, according to UI?

I'll take Diplomacy.

The basic points are that just because someone is friendly or helpful, doesn't mean they're going to change their own behaviours. Evil necromancer queen might like you a lot, so she turns you into a free-willed undead instead of killing you and animating you as a zombie. Nice woman.

Also, the ability to make requests without annoying the subject doesn't mean they have to do what you ask, just that the act of asking them hasn't pissed them off, and they'll consider your request in a positive way. Even so, asking evil necromancer queen not to kill the rest of your party, pretty please with a cherry on the top, might be at odds with her sworn oath to kill every living thing in the country, so... well, shucks, you're a wight, how about we make your friends all wight, too?

That's a solid and concise summary, though I'd say that the full description is more on the side of explaining ways to make things happen over time, have the diplomacied character suggest a compromise, etc (mostly since it has more words in it to explain, not because of any shortcoming in the summary).

Would it be accurate then to summarize the advice as constraining the outcomes of the skill system for diplomacy within the mundane and not extending into the fantastic? It sounds from the description above, that silver-tongued tricksters have to rely on magic or supernatural power sources now and cannot achieve the same effect through incredible skill. This is also more consistent with the rest of the skill system and the types of outcomes it allows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And then, even worse after having a user-unfriendly initial introduction to the site, the new customer is met with ridicule and hostility from the board veterans.


Freehold DM wrote:
Sorry, but the ninja, as well as the samurai, are too deeply rooted in 2nd ed OA (semi)nonsense for the two to ever be completely divorced. A simple name change isn't going to do it. You're going to need to build a time machine and convince gygax and Co to build a less eurocentric world their first time out.

Why does this apply to the ninja/samurai but not the monk?


Thanks for the extra insight. The description of the Interjection games class systems always makes them seem very complex, but they almost always work out to be much simpler when one has all the information on the paper infront of oneself.


This sounds like a very interesting alternative to the Kineticist? Between the two, which do you prefer?


Yoshu Uhsoy wrote:
Anzyr I am guessing you are a power gamer?

Actually, I think he's a GM.


Athaleon wrote:

I'm not talking about dissociating CHA from NPC interactions, in fact I've argued the opposite on this site before.

I'm talking about the complaint about how a mechanic (Rage cycling) ruins immersion and verisimilitude. Saying "it ruins immersion to have players make their Barbarians turn Rage off and on every turn" means you can't separate the mechanic from the RP. From a purely in-character perspective the Barbarian isn't behaving any differently than normal, or expected.

It depends of course, how you flavour rage in game. If you treat rage as a battle trance, then at higher levels the ability to rage cycle could be flavoured as gaining a greater mastery over the battle concentration and allowing the barbarian to more easily slip in and out of their battle trance. Rand in the Wheel of Time books goes through a development like this as he gains greater mastery of the "void" concentration technique through the stories.


Ashiel wrote:

Of course, most of it is still just numbers but at least now they suck significantly less than before. Aratrok and my friend Shinta both remarked that they didn't sound that much better but at least if you could pick up an NPC cohort or something as a companion option that'd be cool. EDIT: I'm inclined to agree. It's still pretty much worse than an actual ranger from 7th level+ but maybe if you can take a warrior squire or something that gets the benefits of your weapon/armor training abilities that'd be pretty cool.

At least warrior's bond actually lets you rally and lead folks, or bounce around with a mini-fighter or mount in heavy armor. The loss of spellcasting still isn't worth the +4/+8 but it's at least not the death sentence that is fighters and puts them closer to barbarians in terms of magic resistance.

I still feel like armor training for favored terrain is a bum deal though, so that should probably be tweaked. I can't think of how to make armor training anywhere near as amazing as favored terrain but maybe if we drop some DR onto it as well in addition to it we can begin to heal.

EDIT: It's frustrating that they still don't have much in the way of options since we tossed all their spells. Ehhh, this allergy to magic thing is really holding them back.

You could look at allowing the fighter to pick up different weapon and armor properties at set breakpoint levels in the FE/FT mold that they can apply to their weapons/armor free. Either + equivalencies or from a pre-curated list. Flavour it as the fighter gaining increasing mastery over their equipment granting them the ability to get more out of it.

Or you could have the different breakpoints grant additional equipment tricks to borrow another subsystem.


DarthLang wrote:

I was wondering what exactly Walker among evil protects me from. I was wondering if I should pick it in my wrath of the righteous campaign.

Walker Among Evil
Your purity always remains a blessing, even when you're surrounded by creatures that despise it.

Prerequisites: 5 or more Hit Dice, good alignment.

Benefit: You can alter the essence of your being to lessen the effects of spells designed to harm good creatures. When affected by spells and effects that behave differently according to alignment (such as unholy word or protection from good), you can choose whether you are considered good or neutral. This ability does not actually change your alignment or fool divinations, nor does it permit you to overcome alignment requirements for the use of magic items, class abilities, and so on.

The effect seems to also allow you to change DR X/Evil to just DR X/--. That could be useful in some campaigns.


Imbicatus wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I imagine it's because a lot of the inspiration for the class came from Avatar's water benders, of which not a single one can breath water.

Or the Furycrafters in Codex Alera, none of which can breath water. Or Marvel's Iceman, who can't breath water.

I can't think of anyone in Fiction or pop culture who can manipulate water who can also breath water, unless they got that ability racially.

Actually, water furycrafters are shown several times to use their water furycraft to allow them to breathe under the water (by making an air pocket).


WormysQueue wrote:

Thanks but TOZ already gave me a link to it :)

And you actually made me curious, so it stands on my to-read-list as of now.

Scavion's link is a more recent version I think. TOZ's link is to the discussion/design thread for Kirthfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Take a look at Cerulean Seas for how electrical attacks are modified underwater. It has pretty comprehensive rules.

Cerulean Seas, Chapter 6: Magic of the Sea wrote:
Electricity Energy Effects: Electricity is a common element under the ocean, though it assumes a much different form than it does on land. On land, electricity is known for its bright crackling arcs of lightning. While these are not unheard of in an undersea setting, the fact is that the oceans rarely get hit with lightning. The surface water of the sea does not typically heat up enough to cause the positive charge needed for lightning to occur. When it does occur, it is almost always near shore. After lightning hits the water, it disperses in a great and terrible electrical sphere that is as deadly as it is undetectable. The picture this paints of underwater electricity is more commonly exemplified by the electric eel. Instead of flashy and sweeping arcs, electricity is known for its invisible spheres of damage. The lightning bolt of the sea, electrical surge, is actually a small sphere of electricity that travels towards the target, rather than a continuous arc. Aside from a trail of dead plankton and the occasional bubble of steam, this effect is relatively quiet and undetectable compared to its drylander equivalent.
Cerulean Seas, Chapter 6: Magic of the Sea - Electrical Surge wrote:

ELECTRICAL SURGE

School evocation [electricity]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3, witch 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a few scales from an electric eel)
Range 120 ft.
Area 120-ft. line
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
You release a pulse of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area. The pulse begins at your fingertips, and moves forward at lightning speed to the end of the area. While the end effect is the same as its surface equivalent "lightning bolt," the source of the damage is basically a five foot diameter sphere of electricity traveling through the extent of the area very quickly rather than a continuous stream of electrical energy arcing from the caster to the target.

The electrical surge can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the pulse may continue beyond the barrier if the spell's range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does. Out of water, this spell has a range of touch, with an area of "creature touched".

Based off these two, if you wanted to modify electrical spells in the water when they haven't been designed for the environment, you could make them touch ranged spheres rather than their normal effect.


Most Robin Hood stories also end with Robin Hood leading a rebellion to return the rightful king from his usurper brother.


If you want some good material for underwater adventuring, I'd recommend checking out Cerulean Seas by Alluria Publishing. It has lots of undersea magic, some new equipment, weapons, armor, and magic items as well as rules for underwater combat and hazards. If you are planning on doing much underwater/water proximal adventuring or are looking for some really cool ideas I'd recommend checking it out.


So, here's a question while we are on the topic of honour and paladins. In Pathfinder, is the honour in the paladin code internal honor or external honor? Does the type of honor the paladin must follow depend on if they get their powers from a deity or from a concept? How does the existence of divination powers affect the type of honor?

Or in other words, if a paladin commits a sin, but no one is around, does anyone hear the sound?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking as a person with less GM experience, I would prefer to have the CR of dragons/outsiders etc reflect their actual capabilities and be consistent in how they are applied compared to other creatures/NPCs. This would make it easier to use them in encounters that I design because it doesn't have a hidden assumption that they are going to be used as a solo monster.

If you want to make it easier for a GM to use as a solo monster, maybe a general rule or template could be designed to help turn a creature/NPC into an appropriate solo monster fight. The PF system already has problems in encounter design for solo fights. Enemies are either too powerful and wipe the floor with the players if they aren't holding the idiot ball, or they are overwhelmed by the action economy.

If you look at how other games treat solo enemy fights, they normally have padded HP, more actions, and attacks/moves that put pressure on the entire party, but not high enough damage/threat that they can one-shot party members. Then again, many games also make their solo enemies hold the idiot ball and not use their abilities to the fullest. Personally, I've always found encounters that involve multiple enemies, terrain, and hazards to be much more interesting and satisfying.

For enemies that normally come in groups, I can see a potential problem in the other direction. Solo they are weaker than normal, but group synergy can raise their threat level above what multiple monsters/npcs would normally provide. I'm guessing you have some sort of adjustment factor to the CR calculations, but if you don't, a tool such as this would make it much easier for GMs to design encounters and have the expected difficulty levels.


Snowlilly wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
If the Efreeti's Wish SLA is HD dependent, when does the Efreeti lose access to it when they are Enervated or Level Drained?

Negative levels do not remove spells, SLAs, etc.

The simulacrum is not suffering from negative levels. It is a lower HD creature.

You still run into this bit of text:

PRD wrote:
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Of course, if we go to Spell-like Abilities we find the following:

PRD Bestiary Universal Monster Rules wrote:
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature's caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier.

Where the bolded text says quite explicitly that lowering caster level doesn't impact the ability of the creature to cast the spells, but it also provides good evidence for Anzyr's argument that abilities not explicitly tied to HD are not modified by Simulacrum.

So, in conclusion I agree that you are correct and that level draining/enervating a monster doesn't prevent them from using their SLAs. It would remove the ability to cast a spell however if the caster level dropped below the required CL to cast the spell. These rule interactions just make creating simulacrums of creatures with lots of non-level/HD dependent SLAs the better choice in many situations. I would suggest that it still leaves the Simulacrum spell pretty much unplayable outside of a GM adjudicated plot device. To make it more usable, it either needs to be modified for both player and GM use, or it needs to be marked similar to artifacts where they are not part of the systems considered open to everyone.


On the more interesting part of the discussion, how would people rewrite Simulacrum so it is actually useable as written in a game without distorting everything?

One of the ideas I've seen is to have spells like Simulacrum, planar binding, create undead, animate dead, planar ally and similar add options to the Leadership rules and run everything under the Leadership system.

Under such a system, Simulacrum would still need to be rewritten to better define what it does and what a half-powered version entails with respect to things that are not explicitly linked to HD. The more complete solution would be to link more things in bestiary stat blocks to HD so the game would give a meaningful response to things like level drain or other effects that play with character level on enemies that don't have any class levels.


If the Efreeti's Wish SLA is HD dependent, when does the Efreeti lose access to it when they are Enervated or Level Drained?


Ashiel wrote:


The most common undead that have urges aren't really a moral issue. Ghouls eat dead things and they prefer them well dead and rotting. Vampires need kill no one. Wights and mummies have no hungers.

So, Ghouls = pak'ma'ra? The suggestion of the text in the bestiary is that they are canabilistic as well as carrion eaters/prefer their meat aged. However, the canabilistic portion is rarely the part that gets called out in discussions and instead the focus tends to be on the carrion eater portion. I'm not really going anywhere with this, I just thought it was an interesting observation of how these types of discussions normally go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From my experience with technical writing where it is important to eliminate ambiguity, writing less is often the best approach. It takes more work but you can frequently find a way to communicate a concept or meaning using fewer words with less ambiguity.

Even within the legal community, there is a movement to eliminate legalese as it is difficult to understand and frequently creates additional ambiguity which in turns requires additional text to eliminate.


Aralicia wrote:
cablop wrote:
Bad players still do good fighters, bad players make the worst casters ever.

Here's rundown of a level 1 fighter made by a player I know :

Human Fighter 1
Attributes : 20 Dex, no other score above 12
Feats : Exotic Weapon Proficiency (hand crossbow), Two Weapon Fighting, Dodge
Notable Gear : 2x hand crossbow, leather armor, no melee weapon.

Typical Combat Tactic (what the player usually did):
- First round : fire two bolt (+4/+4, 1d4 damage each). If he's unlucky, he's got an ally in mele, and he's firing at +0.
- Second round : sheathe the first crossbow, reload the second
- Third round : sheathe the second crossbow, draw the first crossbow
- Fourth round : reload the first crossbow, draw the second
- Fifth round : repeat first round

This isn't even a joke. It's an actual character who's been played for multiple games.
Bad players can make terrible fighters.

The sad thing is, conceptually this type of fighter should be able to work with the feats and gear selected. A guy who is lightly armored and mobile and who fights with two hand cross-bows seems right out of a Van Hellsing/League of Extraordinary Gentlemen story. The feats are the obvious ones a new player would select to realize the concept.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How do stealth, lighting, and concealment rules work?

How do ride and charge rules and all the various feats/subsystems work together?


Hi Lee,

This is a happy surprise. Thanks for the response.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I do a lot of technical writing at work and frequently the phrasings with the most clarity actually use substantially less words to so. It does require someone with skills in technical writing.


@Ashiel: Going straight to an accusation of lying is a very strong and antagonistic move. You'd be better off saying "you appear to be mistaken here". It doesn't make any claims to the poster's motive and honesty. The accusations of lying can come out later once the poster has revealed more of their motives/argument techniques and you can actually catch them in a deliberate falsehood.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
A lot of the stuff may be allowable in a strictly RAW manner, but there's a ton of stuff that is RAW-legal that any GM who is even halfway competent isn't going to allow.

Okay, then that is saying that there is lots of material in the game which will trip up any new GM and thus newer players/GMs should either find another game or expect to have lots of problems until they have stepped on all the landmines.


It is actually possible to create Arkalion according to the game rules. It is not necessary to cheat, as you seem to be implying, to build the character. Now, common house rules and gentleman agreements mean that characters like Arkalion don't normally show up in the game, but again that is like saying Rule 0 absolves Paizo of any responsibility to write worthwhile or balanced material for their game.


A bit of a thread tangent, but Anzyr, you might be interested in checking out Tacticslion's infinity engine for some possible places to go further with Arkalion.

Post 1
Post 2


upsidedownlamp wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
That sounds like a reasonable implementation.
Or retitle it from Favorites to Bookmark?

That would work as well, but I'd suggest changing the symbol on the forums to something that looks more like a bookmark. Otherwise people will see the little + sign and just continue to use it as a +1/agree button (as well as some people using it for the intended purpose).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That sounds like a reasonable implementation.


If you look at how a lot of people use the favourite function, I would suggest that many are using it more as a +1/agree tool than a favourite post I want to keep track of for later tool. From what I've seen on other sites, this is a pretty common adaptation by the forum populations. If there is no other visible reaction button, people will start to use whatever is available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've done it as well in the past. I'm just saying, that on other forums it is something I've observed that gets weaponized when lots of the other ways people can be unpleasant and nasty to each other gets locked down. Also, even if we don't mean it that way, it is very easy for the person to get moderated to take it as others attacking them if they see a moderator post with a huge number of agrees. It contributes to the feeling of being dogpiled. If you want the moderators to be seen as not taking sides in an argument or more of a neutral faction that enforces the spirit of the rules, it has been shown to be better to prevent one side or another from co-opting them or be seen to co-opting. This isn't for some high-minded reason, but rather just what I've seen work best at other forums.


The other big thing you need to prevent, because it helps foster a negative atmosphere, is people piling on in agreement to whatever moderation action is taken. Either prevent people from +'ing a moderation post, or make it an infractable offense for doing so. Otherwise you can very easily get an "I told you so" or a "I win" type atmosphere that further engenders hard feelings. Ideally, when the moderation happens, everyone stops discussing/acting in the way that triggered the moderation. As I've seen mentioned elsewhere, it takes two to have an argument and in a self-policed forum people will just choose to not engage or cross the line in the first place. It takes a while to achieve such a community, but it is very rewarding and tends to allow for an expansion of the audience to people you would never have thought were potential community members.


Thanks for the response. It seems to be the most straightforward way of handling things.


I've previously communicated the below to paizo via another medium, but I think it's worth reposting to the current discussion:

The current moderation approach of deleting all offending posts, is self-defeating and creating more work for the moderation team.

Another quote, about profanity filters

Another community manager wrote:

What’s the reason for the filter? To stop people swearing. The theory is that there’ll be no fun in swearing if the words don’t come out right. In practise, one of the following things happens

  • The users continue swearing constantly, happy in the knowledge that it will be filtered regardless. Your forum becomes ****** full of this kind of ****, and it looks ****** terrible.
  • The users respond to your filter by trying to find the limits of it. Is **** filtered? What about if I spell it with a ph instead of an f? What if I use numbers instead of letters? What if I- etc. You will never beat human ingenuity on this matter.
  • Some users are bright enough to stop swearing, and are simply more creative and passive-aggressive in the ways that they’re awful to each other.

Aside from the fact that swearing is manifestly brilliant, a profanity filter is a software solution to a management problem. If you don’t want people swearing on your forum, tell them that it isn’t allowed. Put it in the rules. Use whatever gradual punishment systems you have in place if they ignore you. Ban them if they persist. If your users won’t do what you ask them to without a software solution, you’re getting something wrong.

What is happening is that people are treating the deletions as a profanity filter, in that they feel free to be as awful to each other as they like, safe in the knowledge that all that will happen is a few posts might get deleted. Even worse, people learn to game the system and figure out ways to get stuff by the moderators, which in turn creates an even more toxic environment.

If instead, the offending posts were flagged in some way, and a visible graduated punishment system (points, jailing, infractions, temp bans, etc) was used to show that the behaviour was not appropriate, experience on other sites shows that this is less work for the moderators in the long run.

To go with this, you would also need a rule to not +1 a moderator's response or comment on the moderation (cheering on, etc) in the thread, or you get the negative dogpiling that can make a community unattractive.


@Crimeo: My guess is that there may or may not be a clearly written wording that explains you do not ever gain the creature type. Pathfinder is written with a lot of ambiguous text that never had the advantage of being reviewed by a technical writer. The polymorph spells are one example of a mess of inconsitencies. Even worse are the Crushing Hand, Stunning Hand, etc series of spells. The text in the book has all sorts of references to previous spells in the series, but there is a whole mess of exceptions and extra addons that are not consistently passed on or continued that makes it almost impossible to figure out all of what each spell is supposed to do.

There has been little to no effort to standardize mechanics wording or to take care to avoid previously defined mechanics keywords (don't ever look at the flavour text for Feats unless you want to open up another whole can of worms). The spell system and much of the game systems exist in a space between extremely detailed, mechanically defined aspects and "it's magic make-believe, who cares about consistency" approach. If you want a more rigorously defined system to allow players to extrapolate what is posssible and make plans from there, then you are going to need to do a lot of house-ruling and planning ahead. The major mechanics in this game do not hold to strict or consistent limits on how they interact or work. It is not a Brandon Sanderson magic system for sure!

Also, these boards are extremely hostile to new players or players without an extensive background in the game or an expansive knowledge of all the unwritten rules. The moderation tends to selectively allow for dogpiling and even name calling in these situations. Expect to be attacked and your questions ignored if you call into question or ask for reasoning/textural support behind common wisdom.


Just pick up or Paizo can print the Talented classes. That would do the trick.


@Anzyr: It looks like the statblock got truncated from the longer version. This one doesn't show the contetns of the various blessed books, etc.


You could make planar binding add some additional recruitment options to those already offered by Leadership. Then, work out with your GM what those additional options are.


@Lemmy: Here are some possible 3pp options that let you play a martial type character a bit differently than the normal builds:

Masquerade Reveler archetype for Barbarians. Gives you more build options and lets you go places with the class you normally can't. Written by Mark Seifter, a paizo employee which might help with your case to your GM.

Swordmaster adds some additional tactics for martial characters and a powerup that isn't as obvious as the Path of War options. It might be more palatable to your GM.

101 New Skill Uses lets non-magical characters do more things with the skills they possess. This opens up things a bit more for the mundane.

Liber Influxus Communis: Book of Collective Influence This features several martial classes with more options that you might find interesting and your GM might permit: Battle Lord, an intelligent leader of others; Metamorph, a partial shapeshifter; Mnemonic, a brainy monk that will copy your moves; Mystic, an elemental bender type monk class; Survivor, a ranger type without spells that makes their allies better and harder to kill - also pretty simple. There are several others in here you might find of interest as well and I'd highly suggest checking out Endzeitgeist's review.

The Maurader is a martial class based around moving all the time. Not too powerful, but plays very differently from most martial builds you see on the forums.

Malefactor is a class that bestows negative luck on those around them. It's a D8 class, but does not get any spells. It plays differently than most of the other martials from what I've seen.

The Luckbringer is the inverse of the malefactor. It manipulates the luck of those around them to cause all sorts of positive effects. It is built on the Time Thief chasis, so it is more of a skirmisher type analogue.

The Animist is another full-BAB nature avenger/ partial shapeshifter type with all sorts of interesting options and a very elegant handling of the class.

Anachronistic Advenures features a range of classes with a high degree of customizability and some superb secondary rules systems. Don't be put off by the fish-out-of-water or planetary romance stylings of these classes. If you file off the fluff, you are still left with a range of cool class options and builds. My review touches on some of my favourite parts of the secondary systems.

I'm sure I'll think of more, but those are a decent start. Let me know what you think might fly with your GM and what types of classes/options you are looking for and I'll try to refine my suggestions.


Just to eliminate another possibility, is only Path of War out, or is it all 3pp? There's some other really good stuff that does things differently than Path of War for martials, but it is non-Paizo material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I saw your review this morning and it made me remember my promise to post my own review. There's a number of subsystems that have been done by others, very well, but even still the ones in this book work well or are complementary to those other sources. Most of the systems are very simple and easy to implement.

I look forward to seeing your review posted over here as well :)


I finally added my review. As I note in the review, while the classes and archetypes are pretty awesome and provide a huge amount of customization, the secondary systems are the real draw of the book for me. Nicely done!

1 to 50 of 2,742 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.