|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Aside from making feats that scale with base attack bonus, I feel this doesn't really reevaluate feats in any meaningful way. They don't address what I believe as the flaws with the feat system and how they relate to martials. I'm not certain of the math behind them. Though, I do like Readying Stance.
Caltrops might work.
TRUMP PLAY'S SHIELD BONUS
COMPARISON WITH PISTOLERO
i have issue with determining what card was drawn mid combat, but the rest seems fine.
What do you mean? What issue do you have?
Everyone always whines about the saves and the ki point expenditures and other downsides but conveniently dismiss major strengths. When my player whined that the unchained monk had less attacks, I had to explain to him three times how the unchained monk actually has the same number of attacks for almost his entire career AND has a way better chance of hitting AND will do more damage.
Card origami was what I was pictured when I wrote that ability! Hm, I'm debating on what to do with Card Trick (create difficult terrain).
Angry Ghost wrote:
I'm glad you like it and look forward to hearing how it goes. I must admit, I got worried that the archetype got a bit bloated, but I felt most of the replacements made sense.
(Fixed the typo, Ciaran Barnes. Thanks!)
Entryhazard hit the nail on the head. I don't change pool names lightly -- it's something I criticize often when reviewing magus archetypes. However, grit already has a precedent for renaming the ability and ACG has a side bar specifically for explaining how renamed grit mechanics work, including mentioning luck. Lumping the proficiency change with Deadly Dealer might not have been good form, I might change that. I lumped them together because it felt like it made sense from an organizational standpoint.
I would have liked a skill bonus or something to do with Profession (gambler), but that didn't feel appropriate for deeds. I am considering writing a cardslinger's book. Bardic performances with using Sleight of Hand to do card tricks would be fun.
Making this a gunslinger archetype is an interesting but also somewhat problematic choice, because many of these features should in fact be supernatural abilities. I get that you want this archetype to remain mundane (in accordance with the original gunslinger), but I would think that a gunslinger archetype with a supernatural touch doesn't hurt.
This is an awkward subject that even Sean K Reynolds brought up once on his blog. The line between extraordinary and supernatural abilities blurs when characters get sufficiently fantastical. And with the rare mechanical exception of antimagic, the distinction doesn't really matter. But maybe my description leaned too heavily in supernatural territory? I wanted this to be extraordinary because there's already supernatural cardslinger archetypes and grit/panache are extraordinary.
Not really unless you get an archetype that swaps out flurry or you want to TWF with a non-monk weapon.
Flurry gives a monk the TWF feats at the level he could pick them up. You can't get them before the monk gets them in flurry of blows.
What makes flurry of blows good is that it's better than TWF. That's even more true with the unchained monk.
A harrow deck has 54 cards and costs 100 gp, so that's about 1.85 gp per card. A little over the cost of a bullet and a dose of black powder. However, it's much cheaper than alchemical cartridges. And you have the option of using normal cards or random stuff with Throw Anything when you want to conserve ammo.
I went ahead and made Card Sharp not reducible by Signature Deed and similar effects.
My Self wrote:
A harrow card costs about 1.85 gp, which is more expensive than a bullet+powder, but also much cheaper than an alchemical cartridge. Since cards aren't cheap and they lack the benefit of touch AC, I tried to make the replacement deeds stronger and synergize with one another. For example, the Luck of the Draw deed makes all other random-card deeds better by allowing you to hold a randomly drawn card in your hand. An early draft of Card Sharp let you target touch, but I ultimately decided with burst damage. I thought a deed like that would be more fun.
Try using normal playing cards when you want to save money and don't want to waste luck on mooks and such. A normal deck of cards only costs 1gp. You want to carry a cheap deck anyway for using deeds like Trump Play and Card Trick (create difficult terrain).
Cards have the same range as a pistol (20 ft). Distance Thrower is a pretty decent feat. There's a surprising number of options for increasing thrown weapon range.
At a first glance it seems good, but you should look to prevent some deeds from benefitting from the Signature Deed feat. Especially Card Sharp as it is is particularly effective as deals damage even on a miss so being able to always hit for free may be excessively strong
That's a good point. Maybe I should make that not reducible or not have it deal damage on a miss.
Eldritch Scion needs rewritten from the ground up. It's a mess of an archetype. I've seen someone make a good rework but I can't seem to find it. I'd honestly make the Eldritch Scion something like this:
Spellcasting: As a bard. All magus class features use Charisma instead of Intelligence.
Bloodline: Gain a bloodrager bloodline. Whenever you cast a spell, you're treated as bloodraging for 2 rounds for the purpose of gaining benefits of bloodline powers.
Eldritch Recall: When regaining spells, you can meditate upon one spell known for 1 hour. Until the next time you regain spells, applying metamagic to this spell does not increase the casting time. In addition, when you cast that spell, you can spend points from your arcane pool as a swift action to cast the spell without expending a spell slot. This costs a number of points equal to the spell's level. At 11th level, the cost decreases to 1/2 spell level (minimum 1). This replaces spell recall and improved spell recall.
Bloodline Spells: At 7th, 9th, 11th, and 13th levels, you gain a bonus spell known from your bloodline. You can use eldritch recall on bloodline spells without meditating ahead of time. This replaces spell knowledge.
Eldritch Revelation: At 19th level, by referencing a magus or wizard spell book, you can meditate upon any magus or wizard spell to gain the benefits of Eldritch Recall. Until you regain spells, you treat this spell as part of your spell list and list of spells known. This replaces greater spell access.
I'm not sure how to answer your questions.
I roll up items when the party browses the marketplace. Any item 10k or higher needs to be purchased at an auction or from a specialized dealer. The best approach is hiring a broker.
If they want to find something specific, they can roll an Appraise, Knowledge (local), Diplomacy, or Profession (merchant) check to find it. A DC 15 + CL check, with some adjustments
The community had dissatisfaction with the quality of the Advanced Class Guide's supplementary material. Many people felt shocked when the errata did more than simply fix it. Worse is that the errata gave some content even more poorly worded, ambiguous rules text. The technical writing and design decisions with supplementary content leaves much to be desired in recent products. Many customers felt like they bought a broken product, and when the company fixed the product a year later, they broke it in a different way.
I understand. I'm an MS in computer science. I'm all for house rules scalable with existing and future published content. But there's times where you want to compromise that for game design integrity. Much like how you generally should not have your web app's data model query the database for all columns of a table. Sure, it makes the app less scalable, but it also makes the app much more secure and leads to better design practices overall.
It makes a better designed, balanced, and more thematic ability if the class feature restricted to skills such as Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, and Swim. It makes sense, the listed skills would not be broken if taken 10 on, and it synergizes with the fighter's negation of armor check penalties.
Classes are more than that, too.
I do admit that the burn damaging you doesn't make much sense to me. Even if I wanted to make a class feature all about hurting yourself to empower your attacks, I'd implement it better than taking a special type of nonlethal damage that breaks all of the rules of how damage works. I'd probably house rule out the damage or make it so it reduces your maximum hit points instead of causing incurable damage. That requires less book keeping and makes burn not so crippling when you're low on hit points.
Classes are more than math and DPR. Way more.
Without very clear language (or a change to the archetype itself, which starts to get cumbersome for any sort of homebrew), the Cavern Sniper can take 10 on Intimidate during combat, but not on Stealth. That doesn't make a bit of sense.
Once again, you illustrate why letting all class skills apply would be a bad idea. Taking 10 varies in value depending on the skill. It's good on Knowledge checks, but nothing too powerful because it doesn't give you much advantage over other units in encounters. Taking 10 on Intimidate would be absolutely broken because it can inflict fear effects at-will and there's options for building an entire character around that. Again, not using a static list allows a player to easily abuse it to create a broken character by picking the right archetypes and traits to modify their class skill list.
An alchemist isn't skilled enough to use his extra arms fast enough to fight with them in a combo. Just because you have feet doesn't mean you're good enough to punch and kick at the same time.
It takes a human being their whole life to learn how to use their limbs effectively. You grew your extra arms just last week!
Yeah, I admit that the alchemist is thematically a mess. I houseruled alchemists as having extraordinary abilities instead of supernatural abilities. I thought it was ridiculous that alchemy is distinctively not magical and yet they made the alchemist a magical class. It pissed off one of my players because he wanted to play an alchemist that wanted to prove that science can conquer magic.
This ability should be higher level. Even the bard can't take 10 on skills until 5th level -- and those are knowledge skills! The swashbuckler can't take 10 on physical skills until 15th level. Use per level might be okay, though, but I still think it should be at least a 2nd level ability. The fighter already gets a lot of stuff at 1st level, but all they get at 2nd level is a bonus feat.
I must admit that I find this suggestion out of place. While I pictured the fighter as many things and do believe they should have gotten 4+Int skill points per level, I never pictured the fighter as a skill-focused class.
That's precisely why I suggest listing the skills. You can modify your class skills using traits and archetypes, making this ability insanely easy to min-max and abuse, which isn't a good thing when the class isn't meant to be a skill-focused class.
Why go through all this rigamarole rather than just saying "it's flavored as a single punch"?
My player thought the change made the feat really boring. In some ways, the change is a nerf to pummeling style, as well.
Mechanically, it's multiple attacks with exceptions as noted above.
One of my players was upset to see Pummeling Style get completely rewritten by the ACG errata. He got the feat specifically for the flavor of having a "Falcon Punch." So, I came up with this revision that stays true to the original while also better explaining how it works.
Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler’s flurry, or flurry of blows class feature.
Benefit: You can perform a pummeling strike as a full-attack action, making all attacks against a single creature using unarmed strikes. Make all attack rolls before rolling damage, totaling the damage rolls before applying the target’s damage reduction. Weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision damage, and other bonus damage that normally does not multiply on a critical hit apply only once to a pummeling strike. Miss chance from concealment, mirror image, and similar effects apply once, but can thwart all attacks from a pummeling strike as if it were a single attack.
You take a –5 penalty to critical hit confirmation rolls while performing a pummeling strike. For each critical threat beyond the first, this penalty reduces by 1 to a minimum of 0. If one or more attacks score a critical hit, roll damage as if all successful attacks scored a critical hit.
You can go ahead and cast doubt on me as much as you like. However, you don't really have any evidence to support your claim whereas I have pointed out several sources that say otherwise. It's obvious that blindsight and blindsense allow a creature to automatically observe any creature within range and line of sight. The Stealth rules specifically say that you cannot use Stealth while being observed. Therefore, you cannot use Stealth against a creature with Blindsight or Blindsense.
Charon's Little Helper, you're pulling that from D20PFSRD, which separated the glossary definitions of Blindsense and Blindsight from the PRD. The PRD's glossary entry lists Blindsense as a lesser version of Blindsight, so it's obviously the case that the autodetection occurs with Blindsight.
Finally, the Blindsight universal monster rule does say such creatures don't need to do Perception checks to notice creatures, as shown in the below text.
Blindsight (Ex) This ability is similar to blindsense, but is far more discerning. Using nonvisual senses, such as sensitivity to vibrations, keen smell, acute hearing, or echolocation, a creature with blindsight maneuvers and fights as well as a sighted creature. Invisibility, darkness, and most kinds of concealment are irrelevant, though the creature must have line of effect to a creature or object to discern that creature or object. The ability's range is specified in the creature's descriptive text. The creature usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice creatures within this range. Unless noted otherwise, blindsight is continuous, and the creature need do nothing to use it. Some forms of blindsight, however, must be triggered as a free action. If so, this is noted in the creature's description. If a creature must trigger its blindsight ability, the creature gains the benefits of blindsight only during its turn.
Seems pretty clear to me. You don't need to perform Perception checks to notice creatures with Blindsense and Blindsight. So Stealth doesn't work.
First off, you can't guarantee you will get the weapon back if it gets stolen, especially when you're less equipped to take them down since you lost your primary weapon.
Secondly, quick clear only fixes broken conditions caused by misfires, and you can't fix a gun that's destroyed. Projectile weapons only have 5 hit points and a hardness of 5, so a stray fireball or even a burning hands can blow up your gun.
And unlike a switch hitter, your class features only work with firearms, which are much more difficult to replace than bows. Even with the Gunsmithing feat, replacing a pistol costs 5 times as much as buying a bow. It's just not worth risking.
Finally, even if I concede your point, misfires still significantly burden the character. Even when I houseruled quick clear as a swift action, misfires were still such a massive frustration for my player that after he endured them for a year, he begged me to make a houserule to eliminate them, even if that meant taking away touch attacks from firearms. He's been happier ever since.
Noticing a visible creature is a DC 0 Perception check. Noticing a creature using Stealth is an opposed check against the creature's Stealth. Blindsight and Blindsense allow you to automatically notice a creature. Therefore, blindsight and blindsense allow you to automatically notice a creature using Stealth.
You also need to begin and end your movement while having concealment or cover in order to use Stealth. Blindsight negates all forms of concealment and allows you to automatically notice any creature for which you have line of sight to. Since you have line of sight to anything less than total cover, you would need total cover in order to use Stealth against a blindsighted creature, even ignoring the fact they don't need to roll in order to notice you.
there's a little thing called quickdraw
No need to be snooty with me. It still takes a move action to stow your weapon, and dropping the gun is risky because firearms are really expensive. And if you don't have Quick Draw, you're worse off switching weapons than using Quick Clear as a standard action.
My point still stands. Misfires completely screw up your action economy and can make your character worthless for at least half a combat. They're not to be taken lightly.
Michael Hallet wrote:
I am quite serious that I would like this FAQd and did not intend for this to be a joke thread. I would prefer all the dex to damage feats be consistent or at least have an explained reasoning behind their differences. A system where people are expected to understand how carry vs. occupy and is TWF vs like TWF are supposed to affect very similar feats is a huge detriment to system mastery and not really good for the game as a whole.
People are reacting this way because:
1) FAQs are meant to petition the design team to clarify vaguely written rules or fix mistakes. You're not actually doing that here. You're just asking them to explain logic that led to their decision. That's not what FAQs are for.
2) The design team specifically said that the scope of Slashing Grace's ruling extends only as far as Slashing Grace. It doesn't change how spell combat works nor how Dervish Dance works.
3) The interaction between Dervish Dance and spell combat has no ambiguity and has been well established over 4 years of organized play. Dervish Dance says you can't carry a weapon in your off-hand. You aren't carrying a weapon in your off-hand when using spell combat, despite the spell being described as an off-hand weapon. Technically, you can still use a claw, a gauntlet, or armor spikes as an off-hand weapon with Dervish Dance. This is intentional.
4) You're suggesting the design team rule that a well written, well balanced 4-year feat should match that of a relatively new feat that was sloppily put together only to get broken with an ambiguously written errata? How could anyone not interpret that as some kind of joke or troll attempt to invalidate PFS characters?
I would love nothing more than to have consistency in Dexterity-to-damage. But bringing Dervish Dance down to Slashing Grace's level is a terrible way to do that. Slashing Grace is a horribly designed feat. Paizo didn't even intend it as a Dex-to-damage option -- they tacked that onto the feat at the last moment because they thought letting a swashbuckler use a slashing weapon wasn't good enough as a whole feat. It was poorly thought out. Even Slashing Grace's errata was poorly thought out. It was ambiguous enough to require an FAQ immediately and it disables the swashbuckler from using Slashing Grace while swinging on a rope, hanging from a chandelier, or other fun swashbucklery things.