|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I don't believe that you are meant to get both bonuses, although there is certainly some ambiguity in the wordings that leave some interpretation when we get into unusual cases. The rules appear to assume that the recipient of the spell is a small or medium creature. I believe the bonuses listed in the spell are meant to supersede those in the polymorphism rules.
I believe that your liminal sprite would be able to sleep in the places you suggest.
Einhander: you should make this a shield bonus, other wise it stacks with the bucker's shield bonus and becomes better than any shield in the game.
Subtle Cut: The wording should be more like "The fighter gains a +1 bonus on damage rolls with melee weapons" but that is probably too good.
Blind Fighting: I like this one, but compared to the first two choices I would never choose it because it will not often come up in battle. Especially not for the first few levels of play. With einhander and subtle cut, they will help in every single combat.
Feint Attack: The wording needs to be improved. A simpler wording might be "Any time the fighter attempts to feint an enemy, she can make an attack roll instead of making a Bluff check."
Occam's Duelist: I wish I knew how that would affect the game, but I don't .
Weapon Finesse: With this ability and several others, you mustmustmust change the wording to "The fighter gains [feat name] as a bonus feat." Otherwise, she doesn't have that feat for the purpose of qualifying for other feats.
Horde Breaker: Same as weapon finesse, unless you want this to stack with Combat Reflexes.
Shield-bearer: If you want to grant the Improved Shield Bash feat, then please state that.
Rapid Fire: So a 1st level fighter can crank and load a heavy crossbow as a free action? Perhaps change the wording to that she gains the Rapid Reload feat but doesn't have to choose one type of weapon.
Juggernaut: Anytime it would benefit her is vague. I suppose that includes which combat maneuvers she can perform against larger enemies, her CMB and CMD, using weapons of a larger size category, a +4 bonus to Intimidate checks, carrying capacity is doubled (which stacks with pack mule), and her reach with weapons is probably doubled. Did you mean to grant all of these things?
Expert Tactician: I like the fist part, but not the second.
Professional Wrestler: You haven't granted the feat, so she will still need to take Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple if she wants to qualify for some of those advanced grappling feats.
Shield Specialization: She adds her shield bonus to touch AC instead of what? Instead of her normal AC? How about "The fighter can apply her shield bonus to her touch AC. She does not gain this bonus when she is immobilized or unconscious."
Stand Still: Did you know that this is the name of a combat feat in the core rule book that functions very similarly?
Whirlwind: I see the potential for a lot of abuse here, particularly with Juggernaut and a one level dip into the class.
Hunter: The name of this one doesn't thematically fit the benefit, and the benefit is weak compared to many others.
Giant Slayer: I'm glad you provided a link, but you should also mention the source.
Monkey Grip: Does this stack with Juggernaut? There might already be a feat for this. Not sure.
Phalanx Combat: An ability with phalanx in the name should probably have to do with fighting as a group. Also, the ability that is gained is just the secondary ability of the Combat Reflexes feat.
Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Quick Draw: Just grant the feat.
Unarmed Attack: Is it a slam attack or an unarmed strike? They follow different rules and you have made this ambiguous.
Two-Weapon Fighting: You simultaneously granted three feats and eliminated all potential two-weapon fighting attack penalties.
That's all I have time for now.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
People may disagree with this, and feel that there is one true answer, and they're probably right. But I'd rather that the one true answer should be answered properly by both, and not differently by one or the other, and knowing the situation on both sides of the spectrum further helps provide the one true answer that people are usually searching for.
I'd like to think thatthat most people do use both to varying degrees. I think that wraithstrike is asking which way you lean when a conflict arises between the two.
Oops. I would want both.
I would go with Cryad's suggestion and make this an elaborate archetype. Keep just about every class feature, but reflavor them from arcane magic to nature magic.
Rename arcane pool, make it Wis, and change the weapon properties.
Rename magus arcana, homebrew a dozen or so new ones, and create a list of acceptable magus arcanas.
Bonus feats is probably fine the way it is, but I suppose you could bend it with the ranger's combat styles.
Medium/heavy armor might be tricky, since divine spell's aren't affected by armor. For flavor purposes, you could go two ways. Either keep with light armor for the ranger feel, or grant armor proficiencies but do the druid non-metal thing. Either way, it's less of a boon for divine casters. Either ignore the difference, or throw in a small benefit.
Fighter training could be left alone, or could be dropped and ignored because ranger combat style already allows prereqs to be ignored.
Greater spell access doesn't really do anything for divine casters that pick new spells every day.
The spell list could be a pretty big undertaking, although you could just do what the hunter does - which is all spells on the druid and ranger lists.
Base speed and land speed are the same thing - in most cases. Base land speed should probably only used to differentiate from the speed of other movement types. So whatever the eidolon's normal movement rate is, it should be able to fly at the same speed. But the details are very important: a spell like haste would increase the speed of all movement types (including fly), but expeditious retreat would not increase fly speed due to specific wording in the spell's description.
I will fill in the blanks here, and assume caster level 3 and that these spells are activated by a command word.
I get a total price 22,950 GP for the first item. I don't know how to calculate the larger shadow thing. If you see it as a drawback, I guess you could drop the cost of prestidigitation and drop the cost to 18,900 GP but that's just a ballpark. If you give it charges per day you can get the price down further.
I see the point that the OP to trying to make, but there is quite a bit that is not being taken to account. Which is to say that I agree, but not to te same degree.
If we are comparing a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter, you're not including the mountain of feats, any of the class features, 20 times the skill points, expensive non-magical equipment (strength bow, MW bonuses, special materials), or any other advantages gained through adventuring (such as a castle, an army, or a dragon the fighter might be riding around on). If the fighter worked through a few feat chains and has made some good choices, the benefits should be meaningful.
If your players want to play a barbarian, definitely use the unchained version. One problem the barbarian has had for many years is that when he drops out of rage, he runs the risk of losing enough hit points to outright die. There is also the temporary increase to ability scores that can be complicated for new players. Unchained fixes both of the these problems. I could take or leave all the other options, but the unchained version of rage is something that is long overdue.
Although the fighter didn't officially have a rewrite in the unchained book, there are the Stamina and Combat Tricks Optional Rules that can be given to them for free. **Still does not "fix" the complaints with the class**, but at least having a point pool gives the player a little something extra to do during a fight. Unless you want something more complex or a completely new class, just use Stamina and give them 2 extra skill points.
Hm. Is suppose I said it was arcane. Perhaps because the alchemist can copy spells from a wizard's spellbook, perhaps because I wanted to be able to summarize the gist of the class in just a couple of words in the thread subject line. If your point is that they don't cast spells and that the rules never state that he is an arcane caster, then fine. Neither is my ritualist "divine". However, an alchemist is certainly more arcane than he is divine - if we had to fall on one side of the fence or the other.
Captain Zimri wrote:
I wish my GM would use this. I'd like to feel that there is actually a benefit to making a compelling case to an NPC or coming up with a clever solution, as opposed to having the same odds with minimal thought or effort. Maybe he does it but makes no mention. I'll never know. The only downside I can think of to advantage/disadvantage or simply a +2/-2 is that some players just aren't as good at roleplaying, puzzle solving, etc. and this could possibly feel like a benefit that is not available to them. Even if that is so, I think such a reward is worth giving out, and that a less-eloquent player should still receive the reward for trying.
Serpent Lash seems good, but if you're using weapon finesse and combat maneuvers, you'll probably be wanting agile maneuvers as well. That's suddenly three feats. It's sad that whip mastery is a good feat, because it's just allowing the whip to act like the other 99% of weapons.
What about combat expertise and either imp disarm or imp trip. Better? Worse? These are the feats he first thought of.
A guy in a game that is starting up soon wants to play a bard, which is just about the antithesis of him. Anyhow, I mentioned the bard's whip proficiency and now he can't shut up about it. He wants to trip and disarm, but I'm not sure how much time he'll actually spend doing so. What would be one or two goods feats to become better with the whip (in a general way), but not neccessarily specialized?
This is one of my recent homebrew classes, which is essentially a divine variant of the arcane alchemist. The basic form will look familiar to anyone familiar with the alchemist class, but there are some new additions as well.
The ritualist has a ritual book, which is used to create spells in a bottle. Very much like the alchemist. I have never been 100% thrilled about that class's spell list, so I want to spend time working on this one. It's been rough.
With a blending of the bomb and lay on hands class features, the ritualist has vessels. These heal damage to creatures of a similar alignment and harm those of opposing alignments.
A ritualist learns devotions as she gains levels. She can grant her new abilities or alter the ways her other class features work. Some take cues from the alchemist's discoveries, but others can be selected only if deity has the appropriate domain.
THE RITUALIST. Take a gander.
I like the floating islands theme. You might want a central portion of the planet to remain - one that is inhospitable and dangerous. There could be caverns and magma and demons here to serve as an "underworld" or "hell". No one in their right mind would travel here, but it can serve the plot at high levels. Maybe it's corny, but this is also an opportunity to explore air travel, even if it is primitive and dangerous. Ships, flying beasts, elves with wings, etc. there should be a bunch of flying monsters in this world too.
I ran one campaign with my own variant on this years ago. Everything received a dodge bonus equal to 1/2 it's BAB that didn't stack with armor. I did not continue the practice, because basically the result was that combat took longer, and I had to recalculate every monster's AC. The bonus makes sense, but I don't feel it added to enough to the gaming experience.
The first was lost years ago, the second I remember nothing about, and the next two are on my profile page. But this time around, I went in with some new ideas.
-Each fighter chooses a mental ability score that he favors, as part of the combat style feature. This plays part in many class features and also fuels a point pool.
-Armor training and weapon training are gone, and has been replaced with a feature called master-at-arms. No attack bonuses to be found here though. Some of the bonuses will be familiar, but there is another part that is inspired by the brawler's close weapon mastery.
-A new ability called size up gives him his bonuses to attack and defense against an opponent whose capabilities he has determined.
-Half of the bonus feats have been replaced with martial versatility (with small changes).
The next two abilities come from the "role" section of the fighter's description. Most of you will recognize it:
Surviving such sorties themselves: I have a new feature called survivor! A concept I have wanted to implement for a long time. Fighter should stubbornly drag themselves out of bad situations. As they gain levels, these defensive abilities get better.
Controlling the flow of battle: I have a new feature called flow of battle! Using the point pool, he creates areas (radius, cone, line) on the battle field that target enemy's CMD instead of saving throws.
Finally, a late addition to the mix, a feature called warlord. Not thrilled about it, but I wanted a 10th and 20th level capstone.
Anyhow, it's completely untested and a few of the features are are further out there. So... Critique away.
I think Kujaju is asking if it would imbalance things if all unarmed feats, items, class features, etc. also applied to improvised attacks. Basically that improvised attacks count as unarmed attacks. For example, if a high level monk is carrying a pair of trees/chairs/bodies/statues then he could could flurry of blows with them and use his increased damage die and other abilities.
Improved fighting is not an effective combat style, just something that might come up due to story situations. I don't think there is a way to abuse such an idea, but someone else might be able to think of a way.
I have a cloistered cleric archetype I have retooled with a number of times. I imagine I have the same issues with it as you. The general goal is less martial and more skills. Divine wizard and all. That can be accomplished rather simply in a bare bones way I suppose, but I want to do it by adding something interesting, and not by causing spell casting to suffer. The most recent incarnation I wrote gave them a modified version of the investigator's inspiration ability. I like that as a start, but I haven't been able to really finish it.
Lawrence, this is the homebrew forum. People write new material because they want to. And while I believe that your suggestion could have merit, we can also take a look at Paizo's 43 classes and see that many of them are unneccessary by your criteria.
ARISTOCRATIC CHARM / COMMAND / IMPROVED CHARM
MOVE ALLY / ASSAULT
DREAD MY NAME
AURA OF EMINENCE
I don't think this would be helpful for the standard-type games I have played in primarily over the years, but I've wanted to run a game for a long time now that use your "All For One", "Short and Sweet", and "Rogue's Gallery" points. It would take place in Sigil, the city of doors, and the characters for the most part are special agents working for an agency that handles problems with doors. They would be called on when the wrong monsters come through a door, restricted doors spontaneously open in public areas, one way doors become two way (or vice verse), dangerous doors need to be shut, or problems arise on the other side of a door. Maybe the Lady of Pain simply has a favor to ask and needs some people of action to handle it. Each character could also have relationships or ties with the factions, so a player might have multiple characters to choose from depending on the nature of the adventure.
I don't think any of us know exactly what IHIYC meant by real gamers, but if I were to look for a possible positive intent to those words, it would be that a "real gamer" tries to follow plot clues laid out by the GM offers and try to follow the trail. I would call that a player being a good sport, and it keeps the GM from feeling the need to railroad the players. RPGS like PF are meant to be a co-operative effort with both tactical and storytelling elements (among others), and there should be give and take on both sides of the GM screen.
Of course, I could be wrong about that. Perhaps IHIYC meant to offend.
Expert Acrobat (Ex): An acrobat adds 1/2 her level as a bonus to Acrobatics and Climb skill checks (minimum 1). When she deliberately falls any distance, she can subtract her level from the amount of falling damage she takes.
This ability replaces trapfinding.
Agile Movement (Ex): At 3rd level an acrobat gains a +1 dodge bonus to herAC against attacks of opportunity. At 6th level and every three levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +1.
This ability replaces trap sense or danger sense.
I knew the number of classes was high, but 44 seemed like BS. So, I went and counted... Jeez. I only got to 43 though.
At our table we use all Paizo material, as long as it has been in print. We generally steer away from digital only stuff. Sometimes there is a reason to exclude something for the flavor of the campaign. For example, we are playing S&S and the GM asked that we use core races only. This was to avoid certain characters starting with swim speeds and such.
In the past when I ran a game I have limited it to material from the books that I actually physically owned. However, other stuff would probably be allowed if you showed it to me first. Today, most of my books are just collecting dust so I'm not sure how I would handle it.
You have grasped the intent of my idea, although I want there to be a lot more maneuvers than there are now. Some would allow use skills, but allow combat specific options. maybe some don't have a skill option. Like the example I mentioned before, using Intimidate to "bullrush" someone away from you. Or, using BAB and Cha. It is a pipe dream to want combat maneuvers to feel like a fun or meaningful option in a fight?
You also raise a good concern. I suppose one advantage of using BAB / caster level is that it requires no investment of skill points, so in a sense it's free. Perhaps the rules governing skill vs BAB/CL can have some caveats like those you suggest. One idea I've had is that you don't provoke if your BAB is higher than the targets. That would give a perk to the full BAB guys that is not given to those with a lot of skills.
I have an idea I've been thinking about for a few years that would greatly expand combat maneuvers they wouldn't all be based on bab, str, and dex. Instead it would depend on the maneuver and use. A counter spell maneuver would use caster level instead of bab. Feint would use bab and Cha OR bluff skill bonus. A bull rush like maneuver where you scare the target back a couple of steps would function like feint but with intimidate. There would be a con based one to hold you ground and take abuse for a round. A dex based one to be dodgy, like total defense or acrobatics but more interactive.
Anyways, I know these are all very vague but I want characters to have appealing combat options outside of full attack and cast spell.
BRAINS WITH BRAWN
Some players are way too anxious to use every single capability their character has. For example, if you are talking to an NPC for info, they could see that as an opportunity to roll a knowledge check instead. You want the opportunity to speak to the NPC, hopefully gaining some info pertaining to your quest. That player sees an opportunity and throws the die. It drives me crazy. One I have encountered is when I have a bunch of cure spells left, but a player is just dying to role a UMD check to gain 1d8+1 hit points instead. I could go on. Anyhow, I hope that you find a group that enjoys some of your favorite facets of gaming.