So...I haven't posted here in...what, years? I think it's been at least one year. Maybe two. There are many reasons for that, but none of them matter. I remember the strong discussions that were had on these boards, and I was hoping to get some feedback on a topic that's been perplexing me, lately.
How do you, as players and GMs, like to handle magic items awarded in your games? This is kind of a three-part question, though, so I'll write each part individually, below. Do you prefer your items to have charges, or to grant passive/at-will bonuses?
1.) As a GM, what kind of magic items do you usually award to your players (consumables, weapons, wands, etc.), and how often do you usually award them magic items? Do you prefer your items to have charges, or to grant passive/at-will bonuses?
2.) As a player, what kind of magic items do you LIKE being awarded with (consumables, weapons, wands, etc.)? And how often do you like gaining new magic items?
3.) Would you prefer unique magic items that have a story/history to them (I.E. A sword forged by an ancient dwarven smith that can cleave through stone as if it were paper), or magic items with definitive rules that are easier to understand (+1 keen vicious longsword).
There is no right answer to any of these questions. I'm just looking to collect information, as I'm working on a blog post regarding this topic, and it's become a bit of an annoyance since I don't really know how the people at large feel about it.
I just picked up the Mythic Adventures PDF, and was going through it when I wondered: would mythic be a strong aid for an E6/E7 game? One of the issues I've seen with E6/E7 is that, after 15-20 additional feats or so, there isn't much room for growth and expansion. Understandably, the goal of E6/E7 is to keep players in the "sweet spot" of 3.5/PF, letting them be powerful but keeping them mortal.
But would Adding 1-3 Mythic tiers after the 7 levels (not through xp) affect the game in a terrible way? Characters would retain their lower BABs, saves, spells, etc., but would effectively gain access to new, superior abilities. This obviously makes them more powerful, but I'm wondering if it completely breaks the game in the same way as allowing higher level spells and magic items.
Just a thought that came to mind, and a proposition to the masses. What do you think? Can mythic be an appropriate aid to E6/E7? Or would it make things just a bit too broken for that style of play?
I've been taking a look at my homebrew base classes lately, revising them and tweaking them here and there, and I decided that it might be nice to share them with everyone. I've put them out before, one at a time, but this will be the first time I post all of them at once.
Just a note: this is not necessarily a "read and critique" thread. I'm posting 6 classes, and to ask for feedback on all of them would be more than asking too much. This is just me deciding to share what I've put together with everyone.
Love them. Hate them. Use them or don't. Steal shamelessly (lord knows I have).
NOTE 1: I wouldn't consider any of these classes to be "complete." They still need playtesting to varying degrees. The most-playtested would likely be the Engineer, with the least being the Rogue.
NOTE 2: Google Drive appears to mess with the art, removing colors. If you download the file, however, it does not have this same problem.
Revised Core Classes
These are my revised versions of some core classes: The Bard, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.
Bard (Link)
This one wasn't really designed to fix any perceived flaws in the class (aside from versatile performance) so much as it was an intent to fix the flavor and overall design of the class. I never liked the idea of the bard actually performing during combat with instruments and the like, and always thought their spontaneous casting felt a bit off and un-earned. This version of the bard is more of an inspired artist than a performer, but still fulfills a lot of the bard's traditional role.
Fighter (Link)
The intent of this revision was to add some spice and variety to the traditional fighter, and maybe add a little oomph. I really like the fighter as a concept class, but I've always felt that it was a little dull. Every fighter feels the same, and this class is an attempt to add some much-needed spice to the good-old flavor.
Monk (Link)
This one...well, let's just admit it. This one was HEAVILY influenced by Ashiel's Revised Monk. You could call it a rip-off, and I wouldn't blame you. It's essentially a ground-up psionic rebuild of the class (using Dreamscarred Press's Psionics Unleashed rules). New flurry rules. New Wis-to-AC rules. New superspeed rules. It's all in there, making what I believe to be a must more balanced and interesting class.
Rogue (Link)
Four words. Skill Tricks and Guile. This rogue is extremely similar to the core rulebook rogue, but gains a point system called Guile (similar to grit) which it can spend on Skill Tricks (which are essentially ripped off from Kirth Gersen's own rogue, in Kirthfinder), basically transforming this rogue into a variant spellcaster. People have complained a lot about the rogue's weakness. Like most other "this class is weak" debates, my answer is versatility, which is what I try to bring to this variation of the rogue.
Also included are the alternate stealth rules proposed by the Paizo staff on the blog.
Homebrew Base Classes
These classes are all my own, and were designed to fill niches that, I felt, weren't covered by the traditional rules. They are: The Engineer and Sentinel.
Engineer (Link)
People are always clamoring for an artificer, or some kind of technology-based class. This was my attempt at assuaging some of that demand. The class is built around a special item the engineer possesses, known as the Omni-Tool, which gains functions as the class increases in level. He also gains a large number of gadgets which he can use, as well as a walking automaton to help him fight his battles.
Sentinel (Link)
When the Magus was announced, and the first playtest hit the internet, one of the first comments was "this should have a full base attack bonus!" Of course, the Magus does not have that full BAB, and Paizo has not come out with an answer to that request (though many third party publishers have). So I decided to take a whack at it, and the result was the Sentinel. Its initial build is a bit of an arcane paladin, but with its own twist. It inflicts penalties on single opponents, and can cast arcane spells in medium (and potentially heavy) armor. Overall, it is designed to take on the big bads of the game, and make them a bit easier to kill.
--
I hope you all enjoy! And if you don't, then please, be constructive below. I'm always looking to improve my work, and feedback from viewers like you is a big part of that.
I recently picked up Dragon's Demand, and was planning on starting a new campaign using it in the coming weeks. And, seeing as how the module is supposed to get a party to level 7, I thought "Hey! This would be a great opportunity to use E7!"
Essentially, Dragon's Demand would get the party to the point where they're "serious adventurers" with a serious mission under their belt, and they would then be able to do things like join a league of heroes or travel the globe from there, letting power come from a more narratively focused point of view from there on out, rather than a numerical point of view.
So, in the spirit of such an idea, I would like to know:
What, if at all, is the definitive E7 ruleset?
What are the ins and outs? How much experience does it cost to buy a feat? Are there normally other purchasable abilities, or just feats? How does CR normally fluctuate as feats are earned?
I just want to know how all of this works, so I'm going into this with an entire tool set, not a box that has whatever tools I could remember to bring with me from 3.5's E6.
Apologies if this belongs in the Suggestions/Homebrew forum, but I'm looking specifically for advice on this topic.
I'm planning on running a small game with a couple of friends soon, and I wanted to make a couple of changes. One of these changes is removing full attacks from the game (while adding a stunt system to keep things interesting).
I'm planning on effectively giving everyone vital strike for free at appropriate levels, and I think my stunts will create enough variety and power that characters won't feel too weak against enemies.
However, I'm not sure what to do about monsters. Certain monsters (pouncing tigers, dragons) rely pretty heavily on the number of natural attacks they have when engaged in combat. How do I remove this factor while still maintaining their ferocity? In addition, I feel like it kind of ruins the fluff a bit if a tiger that's leaping at you only plans on using its teeth as a weapon.
Note that most enemies, aside from major foes, will likely not utilize the stunt system, as it would be rather difficult to keep track of it for larger masses of foes. This would lower their power if they also cannot use full attacks.
So what do I do with the monsters? Should they just keep full-attacks with natural weapons? Or should I do something else?
Thanks, and again, apologies if this is in the wrong forum.
So I've been working on this alternate spell system for a little while, and while I have most of the ideas well-processed, there's still a few spots where I'm having trouble.
It's called Signature Spells, and it goes a little like this...
Signature Spells
In the standard spell system for pathfinder, characters utilize spell lists composing of up to hundreds of spells, all pre-designed and pre-arranged for their convenience. Alternately, thanks to the Words of Power system, characters are able to create a wider variety of spells by combining differing effects for various bonuses. The Signature spell system hopes to literally combine these systems into one overarching concept.
In terms of flavor, characters that use this system normally utilize the basic building blocks of magic when preparing or spontaneously casting spells. Rather than memorize spells, a wizard or witch might craft metaphysical constructs or matrices that represent her spells. A cleric, rather than praying for specific spells, might simply envision the effects she would like when she prepares her spells, and the wordspells prepared would represent the manifestation of these desired effects. Signature spells themselves represent exceptionally focused spells born of heavily-researched formulae, a deity’s will, or perhaps the power of a character’s ancestors.
In the Signature spell system, characters normally utilize the Words of Power spell system. They do not cast pre-built spells such as magic missile or fireball, but rather combine the building blocks of magic in order to cast spells. They all begin as wordcasters, and cast wordspells as-directed in the Words of Power rules located in Ultimate Magic.
However, in this system, spellcasters also gain access to special “signature spells” which they can cast in addition to their wordspells. For several spellcasters, such as clerics or sorcerers, this is already built into their class in the form of domain spells, bloodline spells, or some other form of spells that they would normally be able to cast in spite of the Words of Power system. For some classes, however, the system differs.
Classes gain signature spells in the following ways, based on class:
Cleric: A cleric’s domain spells are considered signature spells for the purpose of this system. If a cleric selects an archetype that removes her domain spells, then she no longer gains access to signature spells.
Oracle: An oracle’s mystery spells are considered signature spells for the purpose of this system. If an oracle selects an archetype that removes her bloodline spells, then she no longer gains access to signature spells.
Sorcerer: A sorcerer’s bloodline spells are considered signature spells for the purpose of this system. If a sorcerer selects an archetype that removes her bloodline spells, then she no longer gains access to signature spells.
Summoner: At 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 17th level, the summoner may select a single signature spell in place of a word he would learn at that level. Signature spells for the summoner must be on the summoner’s spell list, and must be of the Conjuration school.
Witch: A witch’s patron spells are considered signature spells for the purpose of this system. If a witch selects an archetype that removes her patron, then she no longer gains access to signature spells.
Wizard: At every even level except 20, a wizard gains access to a single signature spell and adds it to his spellbook. This replaces one of the two spells he would normally learn upon gaining that level. A wizard’s signature spells must be of a level which he can cast, and must be selected from his specialty school. A universalist wizard’s signature spells may be from any school, but must be one level lower than the highest level spell he can cast. If a wizard selects an archetype that removes his arcane school, he does not gain access to signature spells.
--
As you can hopefully see, the intent here was to allow characters access to signature spells without increasing the number of spells they would otherwise know. Summoners and wizards must add these spells within the boundaries of the spells they would normally learn at a given level, rather than adding them to their spell list in addition to the spells they would normally learn.
You will also likely notice that there are several classes missing from the above list. These are classes wherein I need help. The above classes made their signature spell assignment relatively easy through pre-established systems or ideas. However, the rest of the spellcasters lack an easy-cheat way to assign signature spells (a wizard's school, a summoner's innate connection to the conjuration school). In addition, druids, paladins, and rangers present a particular problem in that they are divine casters. They do not "learn" spells, like other casters. They simply have access to a whole list, so there's no easy replacement system to use.
So, I ask you, the people of the Paizo messageboards, to help me out here. I need to figure out a way to grant these missing classes signature spells. If you have any ideas, please post them.
The classes currently missing signature spell assignment are as-follows: Alchemist, Bard, Druid, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin, and Ranger.
Hey there! I finally made another Carpe DM video. This time, instead of being about something big and all-inclusive, I decided I just wanted to talk about dragons.
I'm pretty sure the answer to this question is "no," but I thought I'd ask anyway. Do caster levels from separate classes stack for the purpose of spell strength if the classes use the same type of magic?
I.E. A sorcerer 5/Wizard 5 casts fireball from his wizard list. Would his caster level be treated as 5 (because his wizard CL is 5), or 10 (because he possesses a total of 10 arcane caster levels)?
Again, pretty sure I know the answer, but thought I'd ask anyway.
So...we went into Thistletop in order to kill Nualia. We were level 3, which is the appropriate level in order to delve deep into the dungeon.
Well, we delved into the dungeon, and got through the glaive-pit combo trap. Then, Nualia appeared, her Yeth hound howled, and overall, we got smashed by Nualia and 3 of our five-man party died.
Okay, fine. So we dealt with that, rolled up new characters, and went down once more. Nualia was gone, apparently fleeing elsewhere with her hound. But we went through some double-doors and our paladin (one of our new characters) died in 2 rounds. They resisted our channel energy attempts, dodged our fireballs (necklace), and the only way we were able to kill ONE of them (replaced by the spawn from the paladin's body) was with a magic missile.
The point I'm getting at is...this was a regular encounter. It was a group of shadows. Nothing special. No boss status. It was a standard encounter. A standard CR 6 encounter with a party of level 3 characters. Against Shadows...one of the ONLY creatures that can kill with strength damage. And they swarmed our paladin. And killed him. In 2 turns.
In our first encounter of the day.
Is this right? Is this an appropriate difficulty level? Apparently, the final boss of this dungeon is CR 7. WHAT?
Please, I'd like to know what the hell is going on. Is this right? Because we're seriously considering dropping the campaign if this is the kind of thing we can expect.
Now don't get me wrong. I understand the concept of a challenging encounter. However, this just seems over the top and ridiculous.
Again, is this right? Is this what we can expect for the rest of the game? Because, if Yes, then I think this game is done and we're moving on.
Thank you for your patronage. Remember: Shop smart. Shop S-Mart!
...Groovy,
-Chris
NOTE: The quality of this video might be a little less than the quality of the first 2 episodes. I rendered it twice, in order to "bleep" some naughty words (it was brought to my attention that CHILDREN watch this show).
Episode 2 of my new youtube series: Carpe DM, is now available for you viewing pleasure (or pain, I don't really care which). Like the title says, it's part 2 of my What makes a Good DM series, wherein I discuss my personal feelings toward what makes a solid Dungeon Master.
Hey amigos and amigettes. I've started a youtube series about RPGs on my channel, NerdTypeZ! I'm calling it Carpe DM.
The general idea is that it'll be a lightly-edited series wherein I discuss different topics within the overall scope of Tabletop RPGs. I hope to post a new video 1-2 times each week.
Today's inaugural video is part 1 of a question I've seen fairly often on these boards and others:
What makes a good DM?
I encourage you to check it out and please give me your feedback. Hopefully, you enjoy what you see!
I noticed the prices of the Adventure Paths seem to have gone up a few dollars. Is this a permanent increase? Is it due to inflation, or increased quality, or something else?
So, I hate the current weapon proficiency system. And while I do love what some people have done with the concept of altering weapon proficiency (Kirth's proficiency system, Weapon Proficiency as a skill), I've been toying with the idea of just using weapon groups.
I recall that Unearthed Arcana had a Weapon Group system, wherein classes got proficiency with a set number of weapon groups instead of proficiencies with "simple" and "martial" weapons. I always liked that idea, and considering that Pathfinder already has weapon groups for the Fighter, I thought...why not?
Essentially, my idea is to take the concept from Unearthed Arcana, except replace all weapon proficiency feats with this one:
Weapon Proficiency
You gain proficiency with a group of similar weapons, and can use them without penalty.
Benefit: Select one weapon group with which you do not have proficiency. You gain proficiency with all of the weapons in that weapon group.
Normal: You take a -4 on all attack rolls when wielding a weapon with which you do not have proficiency.
Thoughts? I think it would work fine with a standard campaign, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of others.
Our group recently started Rise of the Runelords, and we had our second session today. Well, after quite a bit of sitting around town, doing some minor things but otherwise going a bit stir-crazy, we met Shalelu, who told us about the various goblin tribes around town.
We were supposed to stick around town, maintaining a presence as the town heroes. But...I mean, there are three goblin tribes in the area. How could we resist not going out there and slaughtering them? So our first move, we decide, is to go take out the Licktoads in the marshes.
One of our players is a GM who is currently running his other group through Jade Regent, and he just happened to have the first book on him...which just so happens to contain the Licktoad camp. So our GM gives the encounter a quick once-over, and we proceed to head out and, at level 1, take out the entire Licktoad camp. That was over 25 goblins, slain by a Hellknight-in-training, a not-Harsk dwarven ranger, a spelldancer magus, a brutish half-orc rogue, a halfling cleric of Desna, and a male Witch who INSISTS he's a Warlock (ME!). Much blood was shed, and many rockets were fired from goblin hands, but eventually we were victorious, taking home the gold, the magic arrows, and around 900 xp each. Also, we lit the whole damn thing on fire so that no one else could take over the encampment.
Did we completely remove an entire encounter from Jade Regent, should we attempt it at a later date? Maybe. Was it worth it? Hell yes.
We have yet to return to Sandpoint, but I have the feeling that we'll be double-heroes. Plus, there was a piggy at the camp that we took home. I think I'll take him home, name him, and then feed him to the people in a feast celebrating our victory.
I've been reading a lot of Iron Heroes lately, and really enjoy a lot of what the system has to offer. One of the things I'm debating right now is adopting the Iron Heroes Armor and Defense systems into my homebrew pathfinder game.
For those unversed, here are the basics:
Defense:
In Iron Heroes, characters use "defense," instead of Armor Class. The reason for this is purely thematic, as armor does not provide a bonus in Iron Heroes. Instead, a character's defense is equal to 10 + any passive bonuses they gain (natural armor, shield, size, etc.) + any active bonuses they gain (dex, dodge, class defense bonus).
Classes, similarly to d20 modern, gain a class defense bonus, representing their natural ability to dodge, parry, and deflect attacks. This bonus starts at +0 to +1 and ends at +15 to +17.
A character caught flat-footed loses their entire active defense bonus to AC.
Armor:
In Iron Heroes, Armor does not provide a bonus to defense. Instead, it absorbs damage, granting a variable amount of damage reduction against attacks, bypassed by magic (for example, it would grant DR 1d6/magic).
Keep in mind that Iron Heroes does not use magic items at all, so if one were to adapt the defense/armor system from it to a game like pathfinder, certain alterations would have to be made to the amount of defense gained via class bonus and what magic armor does, exactly.
In addition, Iron Heroes states flat-out that most heroes do not use more than light armor, unless they specialize in it, so adapting such a system might require certain thematic caveats as well.
Proposition: Essentially, my idea would be rather simple.
The basic direction of the system would be taking defense and armor whole-hog from Iron Heroes, and lowering the amount given by class bonuses to something that takes into account magic items such as rings of protection and amulets of natural armor (maybe having the highest bonus granted be around the +15 mark).
An easy way to integrate it is to create 3 defense progressions, similar to the Base Attack Bonus progressions. The lowest (essentially delegated to full casters) could start at +0 and increase over time to +5 (every 4 levels is easy). The medium progression would increase at the same rate as the low BAB (+0 to +10) and could apply to Barbarians, Bards, Gunslingers, Paladins, Rangers, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magi and Summoners (potentially also to full divine casters, though I think that’s a matter of taste and flavor). The high progression could follow the medium BAB progression (+0 to +15) and apply to fighters, monks (I could see this replacing their normal AC bonus), rogues, and cavaliers.
Armor effectively gives damage reduction based on its bonus, rounded down to the nearest die size (so chain shirt would grand 1d4, breastplate 1d6, and full plate 1d8), and it's bypassed by magic or adamantine. This DR stacks with other damage reductions, as written in the Armor as DR section of Ultimate Combat.
I would also include the Iron Heroes rule regarding armor that medium armor reduces your speed by ¼, and heavy reduces it by half. This discourages exploitation of heavy armor with high class defense bonuses.
Magic armor grants a passive bonus to defense (armor bonus) equal to the enhancement bonus, and the DR is now bypassed only by adamantine. Adamantine armor is bypassed only by magic. Magical adamantine armor is DR/-.
Obviously, I’m not totally sure how balanced this would all be. I can definitely see issues at low levels, where you would have a very low defense, though that might be mitigated by the DR. But I definitely like the idea, and it makes possible character concepts that would otherwise be impossible, such as effective unarmored fighters (such as gladiators, or oily comic-book Spartans, or robed blademasters). In addition, I think it could help to mitigate some of the weaknesses of certain classes (rogues are a bit too squishy for their own good, and denying the ENTIRE active defense when flat-footed severely helps with sneak attacks.
What does the populace think? Is it balanced? Would it function well, or make pathfinder totally broked? I’d love to hear. I’ll probably write something a bit more official up and post it later, if people are interested.
Hey there folks! I'm back! And this time, I brought a bard!
But why? For all the folks out there clamouring for monk fixes and rogue fixes and fighter and wizard and gunslinger fixes, why the bard? The bard's not broken, is it? It doesn't have some glaring fault or failing, right?
Well, yeah. The bard, as it exists in the Core Rulebook, is a pretty solid class. However, it's not really what I'm looking for in a bard, so I decided to use it as a template and make a new one.
My problems with the bard are as follows:
Bardic Performance just feels wrong to me. I just can't picture a character busting out a lute and playing an inspiring ballad while his allies are cutting things to pieces (or being cut to pieces) when he could be doing other, much more useful and interesting things.
Versatile Performance is effectively useless and misleading. The skills it grants you are almost all skills that the bard is going to invest points in anyway, effectively making you waste skill points as you go. Additionally, the skills covered by each performance often overlap, meaning that the ability is effectively self-defeating.
The bard is one of the least-customizeable classes in the game. All of its performances are set in stone without archetypes, and its spells are spontaneous, meaning its list is incredibly short. For a class that's supposed to be about surprises and vibrancy, it's kind of dull.
So, I changed the class...
...in the following ways:
Inspiration Pool: An idea half-stolen from the 3.5 factotum, the bard can use the inspiration pool to gain temporary class abilities, such as Sneak Attack or Smite Evil, bringing a whole new meaning to "Jack of all Trades".
Spells: The bard now uses a spellbook and prepares its spells ahead of time, still using its Charisma modifier as its casting stat.
Versatile Performance: Gone. Moving on.
Muses: Replacing performances is the concept of muses. Effectively performances with the "performance" fluff removed, they're fueled by the inspiration pool in a manner similar to the bardic music of 3.5, lasting a number of rounds equal to the bard's level+1 after you activate them.
Divine Inspiration: A new capstone tops off this bard, giving the bard a +2 bonus on Charisma, as well as the ability to take 20 with any skill check as a standard action.
In essence, I tried to make a more neutral bard that focuses less on dancing or playing music to buff their allies, and more on the concept of inspiration and being inspired by the world/people around you, and then using those muses to improve yourself and your allies.
The class is in google doc form. Feedback, both positive and negative, is encouraged. May I just ask, though, that if you have something negative to say, make it constructive criticism. "You suck" should always be followed by "here's why" and "here's how you can fix it". This is effectively an Alpha build of the class, and I'm always looking to improve my work.
I've been thinking about this for a while. Are the extra spells/day and the ability to cast them spontaneously really such an advantage to sorcerers/oracles that they get so many disadvantages when compared to prepared casters?
.
..
I mean, come on:
Very limited spells known.
Extended casting time when using metamagic feats.
and, of course...
Late spell progression (2nd-level spells at 4th level, instead of 3rd).
Is this trade off really worth it? Would it be so bad if spontaneous full casters got the same progression as prepared full casters?
I was glancing through the document today, and noted that while the Guardian, Marshal and Trickster have an "additional x" path ability, allowing an extra tier 1 ability, the Archmage, Champion, and Hierophant do not.
Just wondering why this might be. Are Archmage Arcanas, Champion Strikes and Hierophant Surges considered too powerful for a character to have 2? If so, what makes them better than the Guardian Calls, Marshal Orders and Trickster Attacks?
Any and all consideration and discussion is most appreciated.
This is not a "Why Fighters Suck" thread. I don't think fighters suck, at all. I thing they are actually quite powerful (when compared to other martial characters. I do recognize the power divide between martial and magic). My big problem with the fighter is that it's...boring. The barbarian has rage and rage powers, the cavalier has challenge, tactician and some cool order abilities, and even the ranger gets spells, a potential animal companion and some cool variable abilities. And while I have made certain adjustments in my home game to the class, I'm planning on writing a re-tooled fighter for the Homebrew boards here, and I wanted more than just my opinion.
So, I come to you, the people of the Paizo messageboards and ask:
How would you change the fighter to make it a more interesting class? I don't need/want exact mechanical breakdowns, just ideas.
Please be constructive. This is meant to be a positive thread about improving a class, not complaining about its faults.
Hey there, folks. This is going to be the first of 4-5 threads about re-working and re-tweaking certain classes in the Pathfinder RPG. Now, before I even begin on the subject, let me make something clear. I don't hate these classes. This is just my attempt at re-working classes that I feel don't fit their initial concept, flavor, or those that just feel...boring.
To start us off, let's talk about the Gunslinger. Now, I love the concept of the gunslinger. I've always been one to integrate firearms into my campaigns, and I really liked a lot of the ideas presented in Paizo's gunslinger. However, the general execution, I felt, left something to be desired. While the Deadeye, Dead Shot, and Targeting abilities might be awesome, the fact that every single gunslinger you meet along the way will all have the same exact abilities bothered me. One of the hallmarks of the Pathfinder system, I feel, over previous editions of the 3.X generation of games is the sheer customizability of the character. Whether it's rogue talents or the sorcerer's bloodline, each character has abilities that widely shape his/her progression over time. The extent of the gunslinger's customizability is that of Gun Training, which is pretty weak (flavor-wise, not mechanically), and doesn't really impact the progression of the gunslinger all that much.
Additionally, I felt that the firearm rules were over-thought and rather ridiculous. The concept of attacking an enemy's touch AC seemed to flavor the rest of the rules in a negative way. It almost felt like an excuse to have overly-destructive misfire rules, terrible range increments and over-the-top prices that put them on par with some mid-range magic items.
So, in that respect, I've composed a document that presents another take on the gunslinger, as well as another take on firearm rules.
If you want to avoid the huge amount of text below, here's the link to the document (presented via google docs): The Gunslinger v4.2
Included changes:
Grit: Restoring grit is the same as before, save that you no longer exclusively need to be using a firearm.
Gun Training: It no longer gives you a +1 on attack rolls, but so long as you take an hour to clean and oil your guns, their misfire chance is lowered by 1. Also, with the new gun prices, you gain gun training at 1st level.
Gunsmith: This ability has been removed, as firearms are of a much lower price, and thus it is unnecessary. I have included it as an optional ability, however, if you choose to have expensive firearms in your game.
Deeds: Unlike the UC gunslinger, in which deeds were essentially "micro-class abilities", you now select them from a pool, in a similar manner to rogue talents. Many of the gunslinger's deeds have been included in this list, as well as several deeds from the gunslinger's many archetypes, along with other, more original abilities. Note that the Targeting and Evasive deeds are re-allocated as straight class abilities.
Nimble: Nimble has been re-assigned to a deed.
Bonus Feats: Instead of gaining bonus feats at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th level, he gains combat style feats (in a similar vein to the ranger) at 2nd level and every 4 levels thereafter. He can select Sniping, Two-weapon combat or Swashbuckling as his style.
True Grit: True Grit is now one of 3 "legendary deeds" that the gunslinger can choose at 20th level.
In addition to the changes to existing class abilities, this version of the gunslinger also gains new class abilities:
Slinger's Training: At 1st level, the gunslinger gains either Pistol Whip or Quick Clear, both of which have been transformed into feats, and can perform additional actions with them by spending grit.
Modifications: This is the big change. The short of it is that gunslingers can modify their firearms as they increase in level, increasing damage, decreasing misfire chance, or even giving it a special utility function like a grappling hook or bola launcher.
On top of all that, I've included several archetypes. Some of these are re-interpretations of archetypes that already exist, while others are wholly original (please note that if I didn't include an archetype, I likely included some of its abilities into the gunslinger's deed pool):
Buccaneer: Essentially a straight port from the Advanced Race Guide, this archetype is all about sailing on the high seas, and is jam-packed with flavor.
Dragoon: Unlike the spear-wielding fighters, these dragoons are dedicated to using scatterguns, and gain a series of abilities that improve the usefulness of such weapons.
Gun Tank: Originally in Ultimate Combat, the Gun Tank specializes in wearing heavy armor, especially when fighting enemies who also use firearms.
Gunwright: An original archetype that specializes in the crafting and customization of firearms. At higher levels, you might not even recognize the weapons they're using as guns.
Mysterious Stranger: Originally in Ultimate Combat, the Mysterious Stranger relies on his luck and his force of personality, rather than his skill with a weapon.
Sniper: A re-labeling of the Musket Master from Ultimate Combat, this archetype focuses on two-handed firearms and long-range.
Vaquero: Sometimes, a gunslinger just needs a friend. In this original archetype, the gunslinger sacrifices his knowledge of how to manipulate and customize firearms for either a faithful hound or steed companion.
And finally, this document includes some changes to the firearm rules:
"The Touch AC Rule": This rule has been omitted, effectively replaced with an exploding dice rule.
Misfires: While misfires (and explosions) still exist, a couple of precautions have been put in place to make sure they don't ruin your day.
Range: The range of firearms have been increased overall, allowing them to compete with other ranged weapons.
Scatter: The scatter rules have been simplified, so that weapons with the scatter property fire in a cone the same size as their weapon's range increment.
Burst: Certain firearms in this document are fully automatic. Thus, I've included a "burst" rule to emulate that kind of attack.
Firearm Selection: Certain firearms (dagger pistol, sword-cane pistol, culverin, double hackbut, fire lance, axe musket, warhammer musket, pepperbox rifle) have been removed, while others have been re-named. Still others have been added, including the heavy repeater, the magazine pistol, and the lever-action rifle. An entire third era of firearms (modern) has been included, as well, along with rules for creating futuristic energy weapons.
Bayonets: Certain firearms, such as the dagger pistol or the axe musket have been replaced with a series of bayonets that can be affixed to the end of a firearm.
Additional Equipment: Extra accessories have been included, such as bullet belts, a gun stand, and magazines for more advanced firearms.
And...that's it.
Here's the link to the document (presented via google docs): The Gunslinger v4.2
I received a $10 gift certificate at Paizocon, for use in the Paizo store here on the site. I attempted to use it today when trying to purchase a pdf (inputting the given code into the "promotional code" section) and was disappointed when it told me that the code was invalid. Is this a normal problem? Did I input the code in the wrong section?
For clarification, I tried twice, inputting the code both with and without spaces. Both times, the site informed me that the code was invalid.
I would be most grateful if this problem could be resolved.
Hello. I'm attending Paizocon, and intend on bringing my camera in order to film footage for my channel. This includes general footage around the show floor as well as several seminars which I plan to attend.
My question is: Is this okay? And if it is, what exactly is the filming policy at the convention?
I am mostly interested in filming the seminars. So if nothing else, I'd like to know the policy on filming them.
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
4 people marked this as a favorite.
And I'm finally back with the not-really-long-awaited version 4.2 of my Engineer Base Class.
For those of you who haven't kept up so far, here's what you're looking at:
Medium BAB, Ref and Will Saves, and 6+Int skill points.
A menagerie of abilities, ranging from a nifty omni-tool that can perform multiple different functions to a set of gadgets that allow you to swim, fly, and BLOW SH*T UP!
The potential to fire laser beams or throw grenades.
A handy-dandy robot to fight at your side, complete with special tricks and upgrades.
A pair of fun archetypes: The Artificer and the Tek-Warrior--to take your engineer in a whole new direction!
However, for those who know the drill, here's my major changes from version 4.1.
Gadgeteer's level has been reduced to 2, and the number of gadgets you can have now scales with your level.
Singularity has been modified to fit the new upgrade system given to the automaton.
The automaton no longer gains functions, and construction points have been replaced with a simpler upgrade system.
Automatons now operate on the "Trick" mechanic, like animal companions, using Craft (Clockwork) as their major skill.
Automatons gain the "Sapient Construct" ability at 20th level, automatically giving them 12 intelligence.
The "builds" have been changed to the following: Humanoid, Quadruped, and Vehicle. The Vehicle build possesses a specific set of rules on how to use it.
The Tek-Warrior has been added as an archetype, replacing the Automaton, Share Function, and Exoskeleton with a special customizable weapon and armor.
Now, I've been coming out with these updates pretty rapidly for a while. This version, v4.2, is intended to be the definitive edition of the Engineer for a while, until I get some real playtest data in that tells me what this class is really capable of. Besides, I've got other stuff I have to work on.
...And we're back! A while ago, I put out my base class: The Engineer, v 4.0. Now, after collecting some playtest data, as well as giving the class some time to settle (I was very excited about it when I put it out, and needed time to see its flaws), I'm back with version 4.1! If you're familiar with the last version of this class, you'll find this one a bit weaker. 4.0 was a little front-loaded, and had some pretty nasty powers from the get-go. I tried to alleviate that here.
For those of you new to the show, however, here's the basic rundown of what you're looking at:
d8 HD, medium BAB, Good Ref and Will saves, and 6 skill points/level.
A construct companion known as an Automaton that can be upgraded using construction points. At high levels he can wear it as a suit of armor.
A special tool known as the Omni-Tool, which gains functions as the engineer increases in level. Functions range from emulated weapons to damage-soaking overshields.
Customized armor, granting things like DR or emergency healing.
The ability to create a number of nifty gadgets, which range from a cloaking stealth suit to clockwork servants and spies.
For those of you searching for an artificer substitute, I have included the Artificer archetype, full of magic-crafting goodness!
...And more!
And, as always, here's your handy-dandy pdf, readable and downloadable via google docs: The Engineer v4.1
As always, constructive criticism and all forms of feedback (especially playtest data) are much appreciated.
I seem to recall that Paizo had PDFs of each iconic character's stat blocks available on this site before. I'd like to look over them and, unfortunately, am unable to locate the PDFs. If someone could direct me to their locations, I would be most appreciative.
So a little over a week ago, I put out the Engineer v3.1. Thanks to feedback and some playtest data I was collecting, I came to the conclusion that the whole damn class needed to be hit with the "Fix-It!" hammer. It wasn't necessarily bad, per se, but the whole thing was a little...dry. And there was definitely room for improvement in many areas.
So that's what I did! And now we're back, with new abilities and an overall-cooler feel, methinks. Hopefully, you will, too! Here's the basic rundown of what you're looking at:
d8 HD, medium BAB, Good Ref and Will saves, and 6 skill points/level.
A construct companion known as an Automaton that can be upgraded using construction points. At high levels he can wear it as a suit of armor.
A special tool known as the Omni-Tool, which gains functions as the engineer increases in level. Functions range from emulated weapons to damage-soaking overshields.
Customized armor, granting things like DR or emergency healing.
The ability to create a number of nifty gadgets, which range from a cloaking stealth suit to clockwork servants and spies.
For those of you searching for an artificer substitute, I have included the Artificer archetype, full of magic-crafting goodness!
...And more!
And, as always, here's your handy-dandy pdf, readable and downloadable via google docs: The Engineer v4.0
For those of you who have been keeping up since the beginning, I suggest you read this copy thoroughly. There are some MAJOR changes in how the class functions in comparison to earlier editions.
As always, constructive criticism and all forms of feedback (especially playtest data) are much appreciated.
So after a long while, I finally got back to working on my custom base classes. The first on the list of update-y goodness is the Engineer, my super-science tinkerer class.
Here's a basic rundown on what the class can do:
d8 HD, medium BAB, Good Ref and Will saves, and 6 skill points/level.
A construct companion known as an Automaton. At high levels he can wear it as a suit of armor.
A special tool known as the Omni-Tool, which gains functions as the engineer increases in level. Functions range from emulated weapons to death rays and damage-soaking overshields.
Customized armor, granting things like DR or emergency healing.
The ability to throw together random junk in order to create temporary mundane and magic items.
...And more!
For your convenience, I've assembled the whole thing in a handy-dandy pdf, which you can read and download through google docs: The Engineer v3.1
Constructive criticism, praise, and all forms of feedback are appreciated!
We started a new tradition at our table not too long ago. Whenever we have a character death, we burn the character sheet and have a mock funeral (last night, we burned 5 character sheets as I TPK'd the group with a Phase Spider).
What sorts of odd or amusing traditions do you have at your table?
I can understand the standard scatter quality applying to a blunderbuss, with its horn-shaped barrel and all. However, I'm working on a campaign setting right now that has access to advanced firearms, and just allowing shotguns and double-barreled shotguns to fire in a cone doesn't make any sense.
Simply put, shotguns don't work that way, even when firing buckshot. At maximum, I'd think that the pellets might expand into a 1-foot-diameter spread. I understand that there are certain attachments that can be placed on the end of a barrel to increase said spread, but a shotgun without any such attachment? Not so much. It's never going to get the crazy 20-30 foot cones that the scatter quality promises.
So, my question is, how can we achieve the goal of making more realistic shotguns. Two caveats: Firearms, in my homebrew rules, do not attack touch AC; and most firearms have increased range (60+ feet), the shotgun itself at 40.
My current idea:
The shotgun doubles the amount of damage dice rolled when using buckshot, representing the chance for multiple pellets to hit an enemy.
When firing a slug, the shotgun has a x4 critical multiplier. This is reduced to x2 when using buckshot.
Increase the shotgun's range when firing a slug to 60 feet, matching the pistols. Increase its range when firing buckshot to 40 feet.
Add in an attachment (I don't remember what they're called) to allow a shotgun to fire in a cone as a scatter weapon when firing buckshot.
A critique as well as any suggestions would be extremely helpful. Also, what's the name of the attachment that increases a shotgun's spread? I can't remember.
For a while, I utilized my original Avatar Name: xXxTheBeastxXx, until I decided that I wanted to take my position on the messageboards a little more seriously. At that point, I created my current alias under my name: Christopher Delvo.
My question is...is there any way to set this alias as my standard Avatar Name (not just my default alias), so that titles such as "subscriber" will follow this name?
So, it's December 31. Tomorrow, it shall be 2012, and I just found out that the story I submitted to Wayfinder Magazine was selected! I'm officially a published Author!
In the flavor text for the Clockworks in Bestiary 3 (page 53), in the final paragraph it talks about rumors of merging steam power and magic to create especially powerful clockworks. However, no such "steam-clockwork" is presented, nor is there a "steam-powered" template or anything remotely like that.
So...my question is: Is this referencing something already in print (maybe a creature in one of the Campaign Setting books?)? Or might they be hinting at something in the future? Or mayhaps they're just blue-balling us with potential, unfulfilled promises.
Just wondering. Will we see an Advanced Race Guide: Race Builder beta, or are we going to have to wait until April (or later, judging by release history)to see what the spoils of our feedback will be ?
I was looking over the Skirmisher Ranger today (Archetype in the APG). If you don't know the archetype, the basis is that instead of spells, a skirmisher gains access to a limited number of "Hunter's Tricks" that grant him bonuses a limited number of times per day (drawing off a ki-esque pool) starting at 5th level.
The thing I'm questioning is...why 5th level? Why not 4th, when you would normally get spells, and then every 2 levels after that? Well, looking at the table, I can see that it evens out the normal progression of abilities (preventing the class from getting up to 3 abilities on even levels).
Would it be so wrong to grant an extra trick at 4th level, to make up for the loss of spells (making the progression similar to a fighter, in that it gains one at 4th, 5th, and then every 2 after)?
Just wondering, since I'm contemplating making the skirmisher the basic ranger in my homebrew rules, and calling the spelled ranger a "mystic ranger" archetype or something.
I'm thinking about running a separate race of "lesser" dragons in my campaigns in conjunction with the dragons that currently exist in the Bestiaries. The difference between them is that these dragons are essentially beasts. They have none of the Spell-Like Abilities and have a low intelligence score. The current name is "Dagron", because it makes me smile.
I can easily strip these away from the dragons. That's not the hard part. The hard part is figuring out their CR. I understand that it will be lower, but I'm just not sure how much lower.
Any help the boards would be able to provide would be most appreciated.
I'm running Carrion Crown for my group, and we just started Haunting of Harrowstone. We're having a great time, but I'm wondering about the XP values in the book--specifically concerning research.
Are these values intended to be split amongst the party? Or does everyone get the experience listed. I'm wondering because I've been splitting it, as I would with monster XP, and the amount they're getting is absolutely...well...pitiful. I'm wondering if they're going to be a high enough level before entering Harrowstone itself.
Thanks, in advance, for any help you can give concerning this.
I'm slowly starting a PFRPG-based blog that I'm calling "Behind the Screen". One of my features is something I call "Design Day" wherein every tuesday and thursday I design something--an NPC, a magic item, a feat, a spell, an archetype, a race, etc. And I know that while my mind might be a vast wellspring of knowledge [/modesty], I will eventually run out of ideas.
So...I'd like to build a back-catalogue of interesting...stuff I can design.
And what's a better place to go for ideas than here on the paizo boards? There's thousands of people here, all with ideas of their own. Consider this a "give me ideas for a class I can design" thread, except expanding outward into just about everything.
A buddy of mine and myself are looking into starting a Pathfinder RPG-based podcast. Instead of being about flavor or crunch, we plan for the show to be about Perspective. We'd go over several topics, and discuss how it can be viewed from the perspective of a GM, and the perspective of a Player.
The potential title is "Perception Check".
I'm looking for two things, advertising here...
1) Would there be an audience for such a podcast?
2) What advice, if any, could you give to a couple of guys who have no real experience with this sort of thing?
I recently lurked around in the boards, looking for something interesting to read. I came across a "least favorite classes" thread wherein a lot of the posters commented that their least favorite classes included gunslingers, alchemists, samurai, monks and ninja. Usually, it was accompanied by a "guns and fantasy don't go together" or "it screws with my western fantasy aesthetic" addendum.
This got me thinking. What is my definition of "fantasy"? Pathfinder is a "fantasy" RPG, but what does that mean to me?
Well...to me, fantasy as it relates to my role-playing experience is a vast definition. I've had everything in my games from standard full-plate fighters to gay alchemist snipers (one of my favorite characters to date) to futuristic warriors lost in another time and on another world. In my opinion, PF doesn't really reach far enough with its fantasy. I love the weird and outlandish. People on the boards complain about guns and katanas interfering with their fantasy while I design statistics for Gun-Katanas that I give to half-robotic bug people who fly around on pterodactyls and fight armies of sword-swinging vampire-ghosts that summon aliens to do their bidding! Generic, vanilla fantasy has grown boring to me. I want psychic ogres living in Borderlands-esque piles of trash and discarded airship parts. I'm one of those people who hears that his player wants to play a HALO spartan and thinks "how can I fit that in?" instead of "why is he/she doing this to me?" Granted, most of my games aren't nearly this strange and bizarre, but you get the point. I love anachronisms and mixing cultures. The idea of a western samurai-vampire hunter with a bladed sniper-rifle is one that would feel normal in my games, rather than something "weird" and "against the grain."
But I understand that I'm probably in the minority. So how about everyone else? What is your definition of "Fantasy" as it pertains to RPGs? Are you a standard sword-and-sorcery gamer with noble knights and damsels in distress? Or do you hail from the anime-inspired ultra-epic gameplay side of the fence? Or maybe your style of fantasy is a steampunk-inspired dystopia inhabited with clockwork machines and downtrodden people. Whatever it may be, I'd love to hear.
I started a new game a few weeks ago, level 1, pretty standard stuff (20 point buy). There's a magus, a ranger, a fighter and a samurai. The only one without an 18 in strength is the magus. This has happened a few times. Not just with warriors and strength, but also with wizards and intelligence, sorcerers and charisma, etc.
And I am really getting tired of it. I can't pit standard enemies against these guys. I'm forced to throw things like bugbears against a level 1 party because they just shred everything else. And I do understand that it's a party of warriors, and that they normally shred enemies, but it's happened before with high save DCs and ridiculous rogue ACs.
How do I discourage this kind of character-building? I understand that everyone wants to be effective in combat. But "effective in combat" does not equal "meat grinder with legs." A warrior can be effective with a 14 or 16 at level 1.
Concept: The Arcane Tank. It's a full-BAB 4-level spontaneous caster. It possesses a range of abilities that allow it to be both defensive and offensive.
My goal in designing it was to make a class that people hadn't really seen before. It's not just an "Arcane Paladin" or "Arcane Ranger". It's not a duskblade ripoff (though it does utilize the Quick Cast ability) or a full-BAB magus. Nor is it just a clone of the hexblade or Tejon's Iron Mage. It can both be utilized as a tank and an up-front warrior.
It is in its first version, and still has to be playtested, so I don't expect everything to go smoothly. Hopefully, though, you will all find it interesting enough to give it a go.
It's in a google doc, but is set to share with anyone, so it should work just fine.
I'm designing a campaign world, and as an homage, one of the deities in it is named Kal-El. In other words, yes, Superman is a deity in my world.
I've got everything down except for his favored weapon. I just can't seem to pick anything that really works for him. And so I come to the Paizo boards.
What weapon, in Pathfinder, would Superman use?
And please, no Unarmed Strike. That feels too much like a cop-out.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
EDIT: As an addendum, what do you guys think a Green Lantern deity (named Oa) would have as their favored weapon?
Ever since I started creating my own houserules, I've wondered this. How would an aspiring designer even get their foot in the door? Are there special avenues one must go through to get their work noticed, or is it just talent and luck?
I've listened to/read interviews with designers and developers, and they all have stories about working on this project or that one, and how that became a stepping stone to greater things. But I'm wondering...how exactly did they get on the stepping stone?
In other words, where would one start?
Obviously, I would like the information for my own uses. But I see this as a thread for all aspiring designers wondering the exact same thing.
Is there a "Pathfinder" version of E6? I would assume that the 3.5 variation works just fine, but I'm just wondering if it's been effectively updated to PF.
And any advice on running such a campaign would be great.
Due to a lack of funds on my end, I'm afraid that I have to cancel my subscription to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. I'd like to re-subscribe in the future, once my monetary situation is a little more stable. But until then, if you could take me off the list, it would be great.
Init +5; Senses low-light vision; Perception +7
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 18, touch 13, flat-footed 15 (+5 armor, +3 Dex)
hp 25 (3d8+6)
Fort +3, Ref +8, Will +1; +2 vs. enchantments
Immune sleep
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee
katana +4 (1d8+2/18-20) or
wakizashi +2 (1d6+2/18-20) or
wakizashi +2 (1d6+1/18-20)
dagger +4 (1d4+2/19-20) or
Ranged
longbow +5 (1d8/×3) or
shuriken +5 (1d2+2)
Special Attacks sneak attack +2d6
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Base Atk +2; CMB +4; CMD 17
Feats
Point-Blank Shot, Two-weapon Fighting
Traits
deft dodger, warrior of old
Skills
Acrobatics +9,
Climb +8,
Disable Device +11,
Disguise +3,
Escape Artist +9,
Knowledge (dungeoneering) +1,
Knowledge (local) +4,
Perception +7,
Sleight of Hand +9,
Stealth +11,
Swim +6;
Racial Modifiers
+2 Perception, silent hunter[APG]
Languages
Common, Elven
SQ
ki pool (3 points),
ninja trick (vanishing trick[UC]),
no trace +1,
poison use
Other Gear +1 mithral chain shirt, dagger, dagger, dagger, dagger, dagger, dagger, dagger, katana[UC], longbow with 20 arrows, shuriken (20), wakizashi[UC], wakizashi[UC], belt pouch, climber's kit, everburning torch, grappling hook, masterwork backpack[APG], masterwork thieves' tools, sentry seeds[UI], shinobi shozoku, silk rope (50 ft.), trail rations, waterskin, 27 pp, 8 gp, 24 sp, 10 cp, cloak of resistance +1
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Elven Immunities - Sleep You are immune to magic sleep effects.
Ki Pool (3/day) (Su) You have a ki pool equal to 1/2 your monk level + your Charisma modifier.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in dim light, distinguishing color and detail.
No Trace +1 (Ex) Survival DCs to track you are at +1, gain +1 to Stealth when you are stationary and not acting.
Point-Blank Shot +1 to attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at up to 30 feet.
Poison Use You do not risk poisoning yourself accidentally while poisoning a weapon.
Silent Hunter Reduce Steath penalty for moving by -5, can make Stealth checks while running (at -20 - includes reduced penalty).
Sneak Attack +2d6 Attacks deal extra dam if flank foe or if foe is flat-footed.
Vanishing Trick (Su) As a swift action, the ninja can disappear for 1 round per level. This ability functions as invisibility. Using this ability uses up 1 ki point.
Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Inc.®, and are used under license.
