|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm looking to assemble a list of the best homebrew classes people have put together for Pathfinder. Just looking for classes here, not archetypes.
This Warlock Reimagining looks pretty good.
Since I cannot edit the opening post, I will keep a running list as good stuff is posted,
So far as I can tell, staves are only worth picking up if you want a consumable L1 spell at CL6+, or a L2 spell at CL17+, and that's using a staff like its a wand.
Is there a point in Pathfinder where Staves justify the cost?
I know that people used to really like staves back in 3.5, but back then they had 50 charges rather than 10, and they cost 15/16 the price (a bit cheaper).
I also know that wands only go up to 4th. Is it really worth putting the higher level spells in a staff?
My guess is that it's arcane, but with much being so naturey I wasn't 100% sure.
For instance, looking at the dryad, on the one hand, the SLAs are CHA based (Arcane) but on the other hand most of the SLAs come from the druid & ranger lists(Divine), but a couple come from arcanist sorcerer wizard (Arcane again).
I would imagine they are all divine or all arcane, but I was wondering which one it was.
My guess is arcane.
Since the question didn't get addressed in the original thread (and wasn't related to that thread itself), and I am curious to hear a bit more on this particular question/point, I thought I would re-post the question here, in the hopes that it will be addressed.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts and responses from over the weekend. Guys, we know that tempers and emotions can run high, especially in discussions concerning rules and mechanics. Please remember that the person you're talking to is still an actual person on the other side of the screen. It may have been missed, but we have revised our Community Guidelines recently, and I invite you to read them over if you haven't yet. In situations like this, it's probably best to remove yourself from the situation, get away from the keyboard and take a breather, and send us an email (email@example.com) if you think a thread requires moderator attention.
So, in the thread Which Foes Are Not Stupid Enough to Attack the Casters First, Wrath stated that he doesn't have much respect for the idea that the DPR Formula is a good measure of character power, for a variety of reasons (How often are you managing to full-attack, DPR beyond the opponent's HP isn't helping you unless its enough to kill it in less actions, you may have more/reliable access to sneak attack, etc)
After some discussion, we/I came up with some ideas of other metrics that could prove more useful.
Average Number of Rounds to defeat a CR Appropriate Opponent: DPR/Average CR HP (this one is pretty easy).
These are the ones I'm starting this thread about
% to remove CR Appropriate Opponent in
I'm sure I could figure out what formula I would need to calculate those things EVENTUALLY, but I didn't do so well in statistics and probability, and I acknowledge that advanced math is not my area of expertise.
So I thought I would ask here if anyone could help come up with formulas (or a spreadsheet, if the formula is really complex) to determine these things.
If you have any ideas on other useful statistics, or ways to make any of these formulas be more accurate, that would be much appreciated. :)
So, over in Monstrous Mount (Feat) I asked why you would take the Monstrous Mount feat rather than just using Leadership to ride a Griffon that's actually a Griffon, rather than some sort of Pseudo-Griffon thing, that looks like a griffon and has some griffon abilities, but isn't even a magical beast.
Some people seemed really offended at the idea of using leadership at all, because of the fact that it's so good. But It's good for everyone; so I have a hard time seeing what the problem is (except in very large groups, where having so many combatants would make things run very slow).
So I thought I would start a general discussion topic about it.
What's the big deal?
The way I see it, around level 7, the PCs get to build/recruit a bunch of supporting characters to round out the cast, so to speak, and cover any obvious weaknesses the party has, and I as GM, just take into account that the party now consists of 4 level 7 characters and 4 level 5 characters when I determine the difficulty of the encounters to throw at them.
I've not had it break my campaigns, or anything like that, it's not like they're getting unlimited wishes or any such shenanigans, they've just recruited a few more PCs. So now I get to throw scarier crap at them. Maybe they get to take on a dragon at a lower level. Maybe a small group of enemies is now a large group. Maybe I raise the levels of some badass NPCs, to make them extra scary, because now the players won't all just die.
As a player: Do my builds basically always include leadership? Sure. Cohorts are fun. I get to have a sidekick, or kickass mount/pet. Everyone else can take one too; and I can't even fathom why they wouldn't want to (to repeat myself, cohorts are fun, and cool, and round out party flaws, and make the party more awesome).
So why does leadership seem to be so upsetting to some people?
So; Ultimate Campaign Downtime Spell Research Rules (and the ones in the GM's Guide).
Part of their purpose is that I can research spells from other lists, correct? If I want my Cleric to know Blood Money, or my Wizard to Know Resurrection, for whatever reason, this system should cover it, yes? Just add it to the list in the same spell level and move on?
Why does it not seem like people use the spell research rules (Downtime variant or default) for their character build if they want an off-list spell, and instead you see all sorts of other methods instead, such as rings of spell knowledge?
Also, are there any interesting things regarding the spell research rules that are not immediately obvious which I may not know?
So; I've been pondering the effects of being a large creature, and I have one bit I'm still curious about (mostly because I saw someone mention it as an advantage, and I thought it would be a disadvantage).
(Assuming none of the other benefits or drawbacks of large size)
This to me sounds much more negative than positive.
Am I missing something?
So, I have been toying with the idea of taking a stab at making a Pathfinder 3pp for the past couple weeks (and working away at it a bit), and I went to mock up a cover.
I Couldn't find a copy of the logo in any sort of non-ugly resolution. (One that isn't so blurry)
Is there one readily available already?
I've started mocking one up in Photoshop, Basically tracing over the existing one using the fonts and stuff; but I don't know what font the subheader is.
If I could figure out what font was used in the subheader I can finish this myself, but I would also happily accept a link to a vector image or Ultra HD Png.
If I were to grab a campaign setting book (or series of books) (I don't care what system it's for, it could be rules-less, even) to run a middle earth game, what are my best options?
Same question, Young Kingdoms/Elric
I recently went to build a bunch of races (like, 15+) using the ARG Rules, and realized that the ARG would not cut it for my purposes; (it's too limiting, and doesn't have anything equivalentto a number of the options I went looking for for the races I was trying to build - not to mention that it has some systemic problems and badly balanced options.)
That said, I'm familiar with a wide variety of race creation system options in Pathfinder.
I have some issues with all of them; but most of them have some merits as well. Since I am not currently satisfied with them, I am putting something custom together; and I thought it would be good if I could hear people's thoughts on the various systems, good & bad. (So I can take that into consideration, and so I am less likely to include something bad or cut out something good).
Race Creation Cookbook
Advanced Race Guide
Immortals Handbook Challenging Challenge Ratings
I like this. It was originally designed for 3.5, so some of the things it covers are no longer useful - such as using its values to calculate quikly CR, or build classes - it could be updated to do so, but that would require a great deal of work. However, the abilities it spells out are still well priced in relation to eachother; and it can be used to build races. The number of points available for race building would have to be determined by building the Core Book Races with it and seeing how many points they take - it includes the 3.5 PHB Races, so you would just have to add in the changes. I will likely look to this for point costs a lot, as the guys involved did some serious statistical and numerical analyses on the system and how it works, in addition to a bunch of playtesting to make sure they got the numbers right.
Grim Tales Creature Creation
If I recall correctly this was an expanded/updated Challenging Challenge Ratings. I used to have it; but I can't find my PDF, and DTRPG no longer has it. :/
Looking for any settings that people think are really good for Pathfinder, besides Golarion. I'm looking either for stuff that is designed for Pathfinder, or stuff that is Rules Agnostic, which I can use with any system, (but would still makes sense if run with Pathfinder).
I picked up Obsidian Twilight and it wasn't quite my cup of tea. It had some good stuff in it that I may use elsewhere though. NeoExodus looks interesting.
Does anyone have any other suggestions?
If it comes in hard copy, or has a large amount of content, that's a bonus.
It's been a while since I was into the pathfinder scene, and while its fairly easy to keep up with the Paizo products (particularly if focused on hardcovers) it can be harder to keep up with the 3pp.
So, for people who have been keeping up with things; What are the best 3pp available for character options?
But I am interested in hearing about the better 3pp Player Options. I remember being largely disappointed with my first foray into 3pp character options (C7's Tome of Secrets).
That being said; what are the "best options" (most worth buying, most fun, most interesting ideas, most well balanced) that are out there?
Particularly Classes and Archetypes, though if something really stands out in terms of feats and spells and whatnot, feel free to mention that as well.
I've heard good things about Path of War, and Psionics Unleashed by Dreamscarred Press.
What else is really good?
What the title says. Looking for ideas for what tweaks would make PFRPG more closely emulate the feel from old JRPGs, such as Tales of Phantasia, Breath of Fire 3/4, Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Legend of Mana, Final Fantasy 4,5,6,(and maybe Tactics).
I'm not looking to perfectly emulate any one of these games, but to just draw inspiration from them to give a pathfinder campaign a different feel.
And I'm looking for any suggestions people might have to make Pathfinder do that better. This can be alterations to the options available, the GM content, or the ruleset. I'm particularly interested in hearing any ruleset tweaks people think would help.
Off the top of my head I've got:
Since the Paizo boards don't allow you to edit posts, I'm going to link to a google doc now, which I might edit if I see anything good to add to it or if I flesh it out later on my own:
So, I started a thread yesterday Blue Dragon: Desert Thirst Damage? where I asked about the effects Desert Thirst would have on creatures, if any.
The conclusion was that it has no effect on creatures.
One (or more) of three reasons were given, depending on who you ask:
Magic Rules wrote:
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. a burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.
So, there's a statement that it can't effect creatures with total cover from the point of origin, and another that says its effects don't extend around corners. I'm going to take those two statements and use them to infer that it also doesn't affect objects with full cover from the Point of Origin.
Now, in this case, it's obvious that it's supposed to affect potions in glass containers since they're explicitly called out, however, the glass should be giving the potion full cover, so why exactly would it effect potions?
1. Does glass not block line of effect?
I'm interested in hearing any points or arguments anyone has for these questions.
Desert Thirst (Su) wrote:
A blue dragon can cast create water at will (CL equals its HD). Alternatively, it can destroy an equal amount of liquid in a 10-foot burst. Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed. The save DC is Charisma-based.
So, say a Blue Dragon uses his 10 foot burst against a wildshaped druid attacking him. What is the effect on the druid?
Nothing in there says it doesn't effect creatures; however it doesn't spell out the mechanical effect that happens to creatures, but it reads as a save or die effect for most creatures. RAW, I am reading that a creature has a Will or all of the fluids in his body are destroyed. Is that correct?
Am I missing an errata or something, or is that actually how that works? Because Save or die effects aren't usually AoEs, and they usually don't also force saves or destroy a ton of the character's magic items as well.
I made a thread about this a while back (here).
Here were my original targets:
I am interested in hearing about any optimized (ideally tier 3) options people have to approach this. I'm not necessarily against going all or mostly Monk, but I don't consider it to be important to the goal.
Here are the options that I know of:
Did I miss any other avenues?
Which ones are mechanically good?
I saw a recent locked thread (didn't end up participating) and the premise made me decide to make this thread:
I don't want an Edition War here, nor a Flame War. I'm hoping for a constructive discussion.
Personally I would love to see a new Pathfinder, but only if it were done well. First off, I would want the new edition of pathfinder to be like the new edition of most RPGs, not like D&D. For instance, if I pick up a setting designed for RuneQuest 4th ed, and try to run it in RQ6, It will still work fine without me having to redesign monsters or encounters or anything. It should still be obviously the same game, just revised.
The way I see it, the various adventure paths and stuff they've published thus far is all stuff people are going to want to continue to use (and APs are the biggest sell of PF, from my understanding - which makes sense as all of the ones I have read have been excellent), so it should be built to still support their existing stuff, even if the existing stuff doesn't perfectly match an updated design paradigm.
Here are some of the big things I wish were different:
At this point, my home games all have many houserules that significantly change the game, many of which are designed to address common problems with the system that come up again and again. I would like to see many of these things fixed in an updated Core Rules.
So that's me. If they were to make a replacement Pathfinder Core (and update the design philosophy of the game in new books), what would you wish to have done differently?
If I am building a character, and I keep up with the numbers in the bestiary, how would I measure up to other player characters?
Let's say, for the sake of discussion; An optimized Summoner, an Unoptimized Summoner, a Run of the Mill Archery Ranger, an unoptimized bard, and an Unoptimized Monk.
I imagine I would be behind the two summoners, but beyone that I have no idea.
Has anyone already run the numbers for these things?
This is a question-thread, more than anything else.
It's been a while since I looked, and I've been out of the pathfinder scene for about a year (trying other games, doing less GMing, and gaming less regularly than I used to).
Are there any digital tools to automate the creation/advancement of a monster, or NPC?
How about ways to speed up combat?
Part 2 of my question is somewhat houserules or 3rd party publisher-y.
I've been pondering a new PFRPG campaign, but I would like to cut down on the prep-time, and make combat run faster, if I can.
So, some of you know me, I spend more time on the Paizo boards than anywhere else on the internet, but I don't post as often as some others do.
Anyways, I had an idea for something that could be helpful in my own games, and I thought I would try to gauge interest in making such a thing for others as well.
I wanted an option comparable to D&D's Dungeon tiles in terms of how it looks, but something that's less time consuming to set up. My basic premise was Dungeon Geomorphs for use in tactical combat. So I made a few, at 300 DPI. Since my current game is in the style of Kingmaker, the examples are hex tiles, and they're forest tiles.
So I thought I would come and ask some of my favorite gamers what their opinions on the idea were.
If you could swing by my new Blog and drop me some comments/answer the poll with a couple clicks, it would be a huge help.
I just started a campaign last weekend, it's been quite a while since I've DMed a game (at least a year and a half) and I'm feeling rusty.
Can I get some tips/pointers on some good combat tactics to run?
There are only a few REALLY noteworthy houserules we're using, which might influence tactics strategies:
1. You can go your move speed with a full attack.
2. You only provoke AoOs on Combat Maneuvers if they fail.
3. AoOs are less deadly (Unarmed Strike or Combat Maneuvers only - and these things don't provoke when done as a AoO, no full-blown AoO weapon attacks), BUT everyone and their mother has Combat Reflexes.
Can other GMs give some examples of any notably fun/challenging encounters/tactics you've run in your games?
Also interested in cool/fun environments/maps for a combat.
What it says in the title.
List something/some things that take too long and are therefore tedious/annoying. Feel free to discuss previous examples if the thread as well, but make sure we know which thing you're talking about - if you have suggestions to make the thing less annoying, I'm sure we'd love to hear it.
1. Building Characters: Requires lots of cross-referencing, lots of the options are crap, and herolab costs a fortune and still doesn't have everything (I don't know anyone who uses it; it would cost me hundreds of dollars or hundreds of hours of my own work before I would consider it a good solution to building characters).
I (as someone who prefers to GM using humanoid opponents) find this particularly frustrating/tedious. I do make use of the NPC Codex and a few other collections of NPCs though, and they really help.
2. Designing Monsters: I feel like the rules are too fuzzy, and as a result, after I've built the monster I start looking for comparison points to existing monsters and adjusting things up or down. It's just annoyingly slow.
3. Designing Interesting Fights. From terrain, to which monsters/NPCs to use, to what tactics the enemies should use, to what loot to give out, I find this takes a really long time as GM Prep.
4. Looking up rules (if you're not using d20PFSRD (Better Layout) or Archives of Nethys (Covers More Pathfinder Stuff).
What have you guys got?
I'm running a kingdom building game, the players are level 4, one of them is a high strength cavalier who us enjoyoing the crap out of spirited charge and a lance and rideby attack.
However, he can basically one-shot any CR appropriate thing I've thrown at him thus far.
I find myself curious though:
Is it the same as for monsters? Can I gauge player character power using the monster guidelines?
Has anyone run any stats they can point me to that calculate the "Spine" of player stats?
Has anyone toyed with this?
Reasons to Change It
So in my upcoming game this weekend, with a new party, nobody has healing as a thing. We have a Chevalier Cavalier, a Tactician Fighter, a Sorcerer, a Beastmaster Ranger, and a Bard who will have buffs, but isn't taking cure spells.
I was thinking I would like things to be a little easier for them than if they have to just keep buying wands of cure light wounds.
Here's what I have in mind. Tell me what you think, and maybe give me some advice on how to price it (in case the party ever ends up trying to sell it).
I was thinking of pricing it at ~1500 - ~3000 when full. I know it's on the low side, but I want them to not have to rely on a ton of disposable cure light wounds wands.
The idea is that it will give them a bit of out of combat healing, a bit of in-combat healing, and the wizard can use occasional leftover wizard spells per day to charge it if they have time.
If I ever give them downtime, they will be able to leave with 50 Charges at no further cost to them.
Holy Symbol of Healing Energy.
Lets pretend you could make a familiar using the eidolon rules. Or for that matter, an animal companion.
Any ideas on what hurdles might come up, or how many EPs you should assign to keep it on par with familiars or on par with animal companions?
Lets throw improved familiars in the mix as well, for good measure.
So here's my idea.
Say a player wanted to play as a character created using the Eidolon rules, or something similar.
Sort of a "Build your own Character" with a heavy slant towards building monsters.
How many points would you need to give him to build with, and what sorts of things would you need to change to make it work?
I'm considering two possible houserules, and wanted some feedback on what could be a problem if they are introduced.
1. Caster Levels from multiple sources stack, but you can't gain more than one caster level from a given character level.
Purpose: Make multiclass casters a bit less painful. A Sorcerer 10 Oracle 10 with this houserule still has caster level 20, though he's only got lower level spells in either list.
2. Spell Save DCs are calculated at 10+1/2 Caster Level+Ability Score.
Purpose: Make low level spells less of a waste of paper, and make them something that people might occasionally cast sometime.
I haven't tested either of these, and haven't given them any in-depth analysis, this is just something I thought of while unable to sleep for the past hour.
So I've been thinking about making Melee Combatants more mobile;
Has anyone tried allowing a melee character to move their speed as part of a full attack?
So a character could move and attack, or attack and move, or attack move attack move attack move attack?
Would it be so gamebreaking to allow them to do so? I think they could use the boost, and I can't see how it would cause any problems, assuming you allowed the same for monsters.
It would give the melee types a bit of a boost to keep up with casters at high levels, and I'd think it would make combat more interesting, but I can't think of a downside.
Can anyone else see a problem here?
So, say I have a summoned monster with DR X/Good; and then I have a character ability that gives my summoned creatures DR Y/Adamantine.
I read something that makes me think I've been misunderstanding how DR Worked, so here I am asking.
Does that mean the summoned creature has DRX/Good, and once its been bypassed the remaining damage has DRY/Adamantine (Like I thought) or does it mean the creature has DRX+Y/Good or Adamantine (Like I've just been told) or DRX+Y/Good & Adamantine or the much crappier DR XorY/Good or Adamantine or DR XorY/Good & Adamantine?
So we started a thread about Feats that Shouldn't Be.
One of the users in the thread, "The Boz" Posted a number of feat revisions up there, and wasn't getting any feedback about them, so I'm starting this thread to discuss his ideas, and for people to comment, suggest, or propose changes of their own.
Here is his document.
Feats that Shouldn't Be could either be rewritten into better feats, or removed and added as core mechanics anyone can do, or what have you.
Let's have it! :)
So I'm building a Cleric/Synthesist character, and I'm wondering whether I should just grab Synthesist 1 for a couple small spells, and a neat set of power armor, or if it's worthwhile multiclassing further.
Both classes are casters, yes, but the spells I'll be taking either way are mostly support abilities.
I'm thinking of making a character who is magicky & priesty, but excels in Melee Combat, particularly against undead &/or evil outsiders.
3.x stuff is allowed, and I'm considering some feats/alternate class features from there, including Spirited Charge and Swapping out Channel Energy for Smite Evil + Aura of Courage as Paladin.
So, A friend of mine will be starting up game in a few weeks, and from what I understand, the scope will be a 1-12 campaign or so.
He's said he'll be running us through modules, one of which will be the 3.5 Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. He's also said he intends to have us start Expedition to Castle Ravenloft before we're the suggested level on the back, and that we should go nuts and use whatever sources we want; he's giving us free reign.
That said, I'm looking for suggestions on character builds. Here are the things I'd like to accomplish:
As mentioned, he's fine with any source (that includes 3.5 stuff, if someone has a really good suggestion that happens to be from 3.5). Presumably that includes 3pp stuff as well. If the build is too ridiculous he may change his mind, but I want to be a highly awesome guy.
While I'm looking for suggestions, I do have a few ideas that could be fun:
I'm willing to go to some degrees of broken here, as well, but I don't want to be a one trick pony, only useful if some weird exploit works.
Because I like these gripey lists (they fill me with ideas for houserules for my games);
What are some feats that shouldn't be?
I'm looking for feats that should be baked in mechanics that are just available by default, feats that suck, feats that are a crappy taxed milestone in order to get to another feat (terrible feat prereqs), that sort of thing.
I'll start this off with:
Weapon Finesse: This should seriously just be a property on the weapons it applies to, period.
SO: Hypothetically, I want to build a Monk.
I don't care which classes are used to accomplish this. But lets say I want my character to be able to do the following:
> Capable of Unarmed &/or Improvised (Jackie Chan Style) Combat.
I have a few ideas, but I'm curious: What are my options?
I may try to merge the two in some ways, to allow the players to found and build up large organizations, such as the pathfinder society, the harpers, the cult of the dragon, the red mantis assassins, etc. I would argue those groups are closer to the playing field of a kingdom, but without all the centralized land, and cities and settlements and whatnot.
Significantly different than "I run a bakery with 25 employees."
Since I'm looking into a new subsystem, I'm doing that thing I do.
What are the problems with the Ultimate Campaign rules?
I'm looking for things that don't make sense, things that are under-priced/over-powered, things that are over-priced/under-powered, and any other complaints people have about the rules.
Bonus points for Critiquing Ultimate Rulership as well.
I've been toying with this idea in my head since the day before yesterday.
- Randomly generated NPC personalities, motivations, and descriptions.
Has anyone tried running a game like this? How did it work out?
I know some games have a full combat system for arguments.
However, I know from personal experience that I'm not a huge fan of how Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate work in Pathfinder. They don't work particularly well, Diplomacy is practically flawless permanent mind control, and I don't like it.
That said, has anyone tried out an alternate system instead of the standard diplomacy/intimidate/bluff skill rules in a pathfinder game? What was it, and how did it work out?
So. I'm wanting to run a game focused on factions within a kingdom or between a couple kingdoms.
I've ferreted out a number of things that *might* be options, but I need help in determining which one will work best for my purposes. I'm not familiar with the contents of all of them.
I would like it if guilds merged the gap between kingdoms and individuals, and could interact with both. I see myself making use of the mass combat rules as best I can as well.
Here are the potential options I see for running organizations:
I'm not that familiar with Ultimate Campaign, and I just picked it up the other day. How would it handle statting out/running/being a member of guilds/factions? Are the rules flexible enough to account for that? A country is basically a very large faction tied to geography, right?
Could I stat out small thieves guilds, the pathfinder society, skyrim's "companions", the harpers, a town's city watch, a town's nobility, a town's merchants, all as kingdoms, in order to have a bunch of factions competing in a city?
What sorts of adjustments would need to be made to make that work, if any?
I know Ultimate Campaign has rules for some things to do with organizations under downtime. does it handle the sorts of conflict I'm thinking of? at a brief lookthrough that didn't seem to be the case, so I thought I would inquire if anyone else has any pointers or suggestions on what my best option is.
I'm wondering if anyone has statted out the kingdoms of golarion (either published or not) using the kingdom rules in kingmaker, in ultimate campaign, or ultimate campaign+rulership.
I would like to see stats for Cheliax, and Andoran, etc. In theory, if players raise a competing kingdom, they could end up warring them, or trying to manipulate them, so stats for the golarion nations would be helpful/cool.
So I'm considering running a Pathfinder game with a focus on guilds;
I don't intend to have the players rely on combat exp to level, I will be classifying other things as challenges and awarding exp, and whatnot;
I'm not overly concerned with WBL for other reasons.
The mass combat rules look like they could serve if a larger fight happens, perhaps tweaking the army size chart for the smaller scale.
I just picked up Ultimate Campaign, it seems to mostly focus on Empires, and the conquest of territory. It seems a little different than what I need. Am I wrong? Will the kingdom rules work for guilds? Am I missing something? What about if I shell out for Ultimate Rulership? Does that cover it?
The thing I find myself wanting to reach for is This Book, or possibly This Book which are admittedly for another game system, but basically the first is designed to allow organizations to be build like they're creatures so you can have conflict between them in game, with game mechanics designed to support it. The second is in that same vein, but for empires, and I thought looking at those two books together and then contrasting to Ultimate Campaign might make it more clear how I should approach houseruling guilds if there are no rules that can handle them.
Are there any good options?