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

Golden-Esque's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 764 posts (5,031 including aliases). 38 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 Pathfinder Society characters. 4 aliases.

1 to 50 of 852 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
I AM expecting Vigilante support in this as well.

Seven months before Ultimate Intrigue is released?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

I'll readily admit that I am not familiar with every other pathfinder compatible product out there. Having said that I do do research and encourage my authors to research what others have done on a similar topic.

For example,Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Samsarans comes out next month. Both myself and one of the principle authors on the book made sure to read Everyman Game's Samsarans book.

Aw, shucks! Thanks guys. :D

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Base Class
As written, the stalker has no real identity for itself outside of its specializations. There aren't enough base mechanics in the class that are common to the vigilante concept as a whole in order to give the class a meaningful identity. Sorcerers have diverse bloodlines and an a customizable list of spells, but they're all united by the fact that they cast spells spontaneously based upon their lineage. Stalkers need something like that, and through the presence of the [ X ] Appearance abilities, it seems like the attempt is to make the vigilante (i.e. not just the stalker) the king of the first round of combat. This is a cool niche, but if that's the design intent, it needs to be a niche that is explored at 1st Level, because at 1st level you're just a X [class] without Y [class feature].

Class Skills: The most common response that I heard about the vigilante was, "What?! X isn't a class skill for you?!" The reason is that the vigilante is trying to evoke the Super Hero trope currently, but there are a LOT of different Super Heroes with different tropes. For example, I wanted to play an action man as my warlock (meaning I could climb up stuff and case people and the like), but none of those skills were class skills for me.

Social Talents: These are cool; an excellent Round 2 addition to the class overall. With that said, based on designer commentary I think these abilities might be too heavily valued by the designers (most are extremely situational based on the fact that they're all out of combat abilities and most only apply in the social identity). Of all of them, social grace is by far the most powerful social talent, and I don't think that its likely that anyone will pass up on it. A +4 bonus is likely too good at low levels and might need to be dialed back to +2 in order to be on-par with other, similar abilities.

X Appearance: See my comments about the base class. These abilities are all cool, but the limited opportunity keeps them from being overtly powerful. (You can't spam conditions like a swashbuckler can, for instance.) Furthermore, these abilities are hurt in their usefulness by the lack of a strong definition for what it means to be "unaware." Currently, the GM decides if the vigilante is aware or not, and what eventually happens is that the GM is damned if he gives the vigilante his special bonus too easily (they are all VERY powerful) and damned if he is more restrictive. This ability is poised to cause many arguments at the table and if not addressed, there will likely be an FAQ with a few hundred up votes within a month of Ultimate Intrigue's release.

Vengeance Strike: I love this ability, but not as a capstone. The entire "study my enemy" mechanic is very vigilante, especially Batman. This is a capstone that deserves to be a class feature, and with a little bit of elbow grease it could very easily become that "unifying mechanic" that the vigilante needs in order to become a unified class. But as a capstone, it is unused potential.

Every time I sat down to play with an avenger (or ran for an avenger), he either was knocked unconscious. (Note: In fairness, one of those times was in The Confirmation, which ends with the group of 1st level PCs fighting a minotaur.) This is due to the major defensive discrepancies between the avenger and other full BAB classes at 1st level. The avenger lacks the Hit Points of his comrade; at 1st level, he's a minimum of 2 points behind, and that number grows as his level increases. Also, he lacks the heavy armor of the cavalier, fighter, or paladin, the preemptive offense of the barbarian or bloodrager, or the general defenses of the brawler or monk.

This was by far the most successful specialization that I saw in play. It was very close to the Unchained Rogue in power, and acted in many ways as a more offensively bent version of the rogue class, with the ninja fitting snuggly between the two of them. In my experience, offering rogue talents to the stalker was a bit of a moot point because by and large, the stalker has the most powerful vigilante talents; few players I played with even batted an eye at them. That said, I don't think all of the talents should be tossed; many like fast stealth are useful to the vigilante's theme.

I had the most experience with this specialization, seeing as I played it, and as a result I have many thoughts on it, which I'm going to summarize briefly. First, talent-based spellcasting is NOT a fun mechanic. All of the currently warlock talents are not strong enough to contend with the versatility that an entire new level of arcanist spellcasting brings, and many of the talents are rendered redundant by the ability to use a few spell trigger items. This isn't saying that those talents are worthless; many are quite fun, but they simply can't compete with spellcasting. And in the long run, making them compete with spellcasting leaves the warlock without any decent class features of its own. By and large, the warlock seems to be designed like the arcaniist; nothing but new spells at even levels and minor, limited use-abilities at odd levels. The problem with using this same formula for the warlock is that 6th-level spellcasting is inherently weaker than 9th-level spellcasting, and the warlock lacks any major specialization-defining abilities such as a bard's bardic performance or a magus's spell combat, or arcane pool. On that note, the arcanist may have the best spell knowledge of any 6th-level spellcaster, but with fewer spells per day (the magus can churn them out all day long with spell recall) and a lack of anything else to do, the warlock is not a particularly enjoyable class to play, especially considering that you have three non-spellcasting talents to play with by 14th level; compared to any other 6th-level spellcasting class, that's simply appalling. Finally, the warlock lacks any real niche. The bard buffs. The magus deals damage. The summoner summons. What is the warlock supposed to do? He lacks the spell progression of the arcanist that allows him to be relevant in his flexibility and he lacks abilities such as spell combat or summon monster that allow him to hold a stride with 9th-level spellcasters in an area of expertise. More than any other class, the warlock needs work.

In terms of his spellcasting, the zealot has the same problems as the warlock and for the same reasons, so I won't relist them here. In addition, the zealot's divine power ability is an all-new mechanic for a specialization of a broader class that doesn't actually bring anything new or exciting to the table. Case in point, how many times have we seen an abyssal option that grants claws? (This'll be the third.) There are some very good ideas here, however, such as the source of your power altering your spell list, and the idea of source-specific talents is a good one, but overall the talent-based spellcasting is going to keep the number of talents that the zealot gets down to three (until 16th level, when he gets a surge of available talents). Also, every zealot is going to take smite. All of them.

Here are some suggestions that will solve most of the problems that I listed above:

Class Skills: Drop class skills from the specialization list; we've seen that mechanic time and again and it infringes upon the vast, "personal choice" concept that the vigilante has going for it. Instead, give all vigilantes a small number of skills baseline and then allow them to pick their own list of class skills from there, like an expert. The current vigilante has 16 class skills baseline, so if you give them Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Intimidate, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth plus 10 skills of the vigilante's choice, you end up with the same number of class skills, save a few lines from each of the specializations, allow people to make the vigilante that perfectly matches their imagination (which is part of the Super Hero vantasy), and actually trim back the number of class skills that the class has overall.

Vengeance Strike & [X] Appearance: This is an awesome ability and it should be available at 1st level, scaled and split apart the vigilante's carrier in a manner similar to favored enemy. (1 round of study at 1st, 2 at 5th, 3 at 10th, and so on). Furthermore, the appearance abilities could be tied to round(s) of vengeance strike, which would give the entire chain of abilities an interesting dynamic, especially of applying an appearance ability cost a number of rounds of study. It would give vengeance strike a tactical dynamic that would allow the vigilante to react differently in different situations.

General Specializations: These (particularly the base abilities) need to be balanced against other base classes in addition to one another. Currently, all of the specializations are balanced with the expectations that you're worse then your counterpart classes at low levels and "catch up" at higher levels. (You don't really ever catch up as a warlock or zealot, however.)

Avenger: The hit point discrepancy needs adjusting, at least somewhat. At Level 1, the avenger is undeniably behind every other d10 Hit Die class, in part because Pathfinder ties the d10 Hit Die to full base attack bonus. In addition, the avenger needs options that don't amount to, "I'm a fighter with skills!" and it could use options that don't restrict themselves to, "Make it rain bonus feats." Signature weapon would be better off as a general vigilante talent, because just about EVERY Super Hero has a signature weapon. That signature weapon is a large part of how they inspire fear into their enemies. (For example, you know you're screwed if you see Cap's shield, Batman's batarangs, Static Shock's lightning blasts, and so on.)

Stalker: A good number of the stalker talents need to be made into general vigilante options; the big ones are the Disguise and Stealth-based rogue talents. As a whole, however, the stalker is almost surgically comparable to other skillful 3/4 BAB characters (namely the rogue and ninja). In my opinion, this is the specialization that the others need to be held to.

Warlock: The warlock needs to have something cool and unique to do at Level 1; something that defines how the specialization is supposed to play, such as how summon monster sets the niche of the summoner or spell combat for the magus. I would suggest making mystic bolt baseline; it is unique enough to be a draw of the class (which is what we saw during the playtest) without being too powerful. And yes, mystic bolt is not exceptionally powerful; people flocked to it becasie it fills a conceptual niche that has been absent thus far from the game. (The character who can make magical attacks as he would a weapon at will, all day, without limit.) If the rest of the warlock's talents focused on altering or improving mystic bolt or making it interact with spells, then we'd have the foundations of a very cool, unique spellcaster.

Zealot: The divine power mechanic is cool, but ultimately it is bound to eat up a lot of the zealot's page count. What's worse, the current mechanic uses new mechanics to do existing things. (I.e. abyssal claws again). Personally, I think that allowing the zealot to pick a cleric domain at 1st level, then adding that domain's spells up to 6th level to his spells known would make a plenty cool mechanic; no other Charisma-based divine class gets a domain baseline and no 6th-level spellcasting class gets domain spells. Furthermore, you could include the option to use the hunter spell list of the zealot chooses the animal domain, the plain domain, or a druid animal/terrain domain.

Looking forward to seeing the final class as well as a formal, "This is what we got from the playtest," thread in the future. Great job on a successful playtest, gentlemen!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
James Risner wrote:

When thrown, you are not wielding as a one handed weapon.

Keep in mind, there is table variance on this with the "no" side being very passionate and the "yes" side being more well it could be read that way.

So ultimately it is an Ask your GM question.

You are wielding a thrown weapon as a one handed or light weapon, or else you could not use two weapon fighting with thrown weapons.

I'm aware of Mark's answer, considering that he's quoting a question that I originally poised. (This very question, as a matter of fact.)

There are a couple of reasons that I chose to make this thread any way, despite getting a designer's feedback. They are as follows:

1) I wanted to be able to further extrapolate on the rule, but didn't want to clutter the Advanced Class Guide errata thread with said extrapolations (or the subsequent conversations that were bound to follow).

2) The character in question is my 8th-level PFS flying blade swashbuckler, and regardless of whether the question is ruled in my favor or not, I'd like to see an official answer through official channels. Even if Mark ruled with me, I would have done this because I don't want to have to deal with table variance on my PFS character.

3) I believe that game design is not a democracy, but minds can change when presented with solid, rational thoughts and ideas. We've seen this happen on several other FAQs made throughout the year, so I decided to make this thread, present my case, and see what happened.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Avoron wrote:
It just requires you to select a light or one-handed slashing weapon and use it one-handed.

Depends on your RAW interpretation.

Mine, is that it is not a melee one-handed weapon and you are not using it as a melee one-handed weapon when throwing the weapon.

A thrown weapon is not a melee one-handed weapon, yes. But here's some more info:

1) You can pick Weapon Focus (dagger) and use it to satisfy the requirements of the post-errata Slashing Grace. The dagger is categorized as a light slashing melee weapon.

2) When you throw a dagger as a ranged attack, it doesn't stop qualifying for Weapon Focus and it doesn't stop satisfying the prerequisites of Slashing Grace. A dagger doesn't stop being a dagger because you're throwing it.

3) When you throw a dagger, you're still wielding it in one -hand as a one-handed weapon. Ranged weapons make this distinction too, such as the fact that a pistol needs one hand to shoot or a bow needs two hands.

4) Slashing Grace's Dex to Damage benefit doesn't have any wordage that implies that it cares whether the the damage roll is a melee damage roll or a ranged damage roll. Feats exist that do care, and Slashing Grace does not.

5) Slashing Grace also doesn't state that you need to make a melee attack with the chosen weapon. It specifically states that only melee weapons can be selected, but the dagger is a melee weapon with the ability to be used as a ranged weapon.

25 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sort of surprised that this never came up sooner considering that the rules question that I'm about to ask is a valid question pre-ACG Errata, but I'd like an answer on this for my flying blade swashbuckler.

The question is simple: "If I have Slashing Grace with a light or one-handed melee weapon, can I substitute my Dexterity modifier for my Strength modifier when making thrown weapon attacks with my chosen weapon?

Quoted for relevance, with the post-errata modifications:

Slashing Grace wrote:

You can stab your enemies with your sword or another slashing weapon.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Benefit: Choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

Some relevant points:

1) When I throw a melee weapon as a ranged attack, I'm still wielding it in one-hand. If I wasn't, then Two-Weapon Fighting wouldn't work with said thrown weapons. Additionally, the Two-Handed Thrower feat (from Ultimate Combat) notes that thrown weapons can be thrown with one or two hands normally. (You just don't get any bonuses to Strength when throwing a weapon with two hands without the feat.)

2) Slashing Grace does not specify the type of damage rolls that it affects, only that it substitutes Dexterity for Strength. There is precedent for feats that function with melee damage rolls and ranged damage rolls, respectively, the most famous of which being the Power Attack and Deadly Aim feats. Slashing Grace does not specify either, so it should function whenever I would normally add my Strength modifier to my damage roll with my chosen weapon.

Another note worth considering is that allowing Slashing Grace to apply to thrown weapon damage rolls does not make Slashing Grace any more powerful than the current king of Dex-to-Ranged-Damage, the gunslinger. The gunslinger easily targets touch AC, has a generally better range with her attacks than most thrown weapons do without serious class option and feat investment, and the gunslinger isn't barred from Two-Weapon Fighting with her pistols (should she choose them with gun training), meaning that she has anywhere from 1 to 6 extra attacks on the swashbuckler. (Six is assuming that she is using the double-barreled pistol as her weapon.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If no one else has noticed, the errata document is posted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I do severely doubt it, though. It seems far too coincidental that Occult is being pushed out before Gen Con similarly to ACG last year. I know they're probably paying extra attention to it to make sure there's not a repeat debacle, but there's only so much staff, and new books make more money than errata, so my bet's all the attention is on that.

You realize that Paizo ALWAYS has a new release for GenCon, right? Nothing's ever been "pushed out," the Q3 book is literally scheduled every year to be released during GenCon, going back all the way to the Playtest Document for the Core Rulebook, which premiered at GenCon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Moreland wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:

Nice backstory, Mark!

So here's the million-dollar question: have YOU decided what Yoon's original given name was and is it going into the Vic's Vault of Paizo Secrets? ;-)

I don't think Vic is the one managing that vault, though if he is, it's even safer than you imagine, because no one else knows about it.

Vic's forum avatar is Abadar; who else would manage the vault? Lisa's too busy running an entire NATION on Pathfinder Online. ;-)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
Having looked at the Vigilante class, it seems to me that it lacks something special, the gimmick that defines the class (like Magus's Spell Strike and spell combat, warpriests fervour, barbarians rage, etc.). Don't know what it could be, but it seems to me that the whole class is about striking from the shadows, so perhaps a nice bonus against any opponent that is flatfooted? This would encourage ambushes from the shadows, and perhaps other talents could enhance that.

I've been saying that it should be the capstone, vengeance strike. Something like this:

Vengeance Strike (Ex): wrote:

At 1st level, a vigilante can spend a standard action to study a target that is unaware of him (or does not see him as a threat). After studying a target, the vigilante can, in the next round, declare the he is making a vengeance strike against the target as an attack action. When making a vengeance strike, the vigilante can gain a +4 circumstance bonus on his vengeance strike's attack roll, add +3d6 points of precision damage to his vengeance strike's damage roll, or treat his vengeance strike's die roll as if it were 2 higher for the purpose of determining if the attack hit or if it threatens a critical hit (maximum 20).

At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, a vigilante can continue to spend 1 additional standard action studying a target, up to a maximum of 5 standard actions at 20th level. Each round of study can be spent in a different way, but each round of study must be allocated before the attack roll is made. A vengeance strike must be declared within 1 round of studying a target and all rounds of study are expended when the vigilante declares a vengeance strike.

As a bonus, here are some ideas for universal vigilante talents to go along with this mechanic:

Vigilante Talent Ideas wrote:

Flexible Vengeance (Ex): A vigilante who selects this talent can declare his vengeance strike as part of an attack action or a full attack action. When making a vengeance strike as a full attack action, the vigilante can apply all of his rounds of study on a single attack or split them between multiple attacks, if he is able to make multiple attacks during a full attack. All attacks that the vigilante applies his vengeance strike to must be applied against a target that he studied with his vengeance strike ability. The vigilante must have a base attack bonus of at least +6 in order to select this talent.

Wide Study: When a vigilante with this talent uses his vengeance strike ability to study a target, he can choose to study an area of potential opponents instead of a single individual. When using this ability, the vigilante can study an area of up to 10 feet per vigilante level he possesses, allowing him to apply his rounds of study within the studied area. When he makes his vengeance strike, the vigilante can apply his rounds of study on attacks made against any opponent that he studied for at least 1 round that was within his vengeance strike.

The basic idea for this modified vengeance strike (as well as as the talents) is the opening scene of the Batman Animated Series. You know that Batman has been studied those two thugs since they started running, and he uses his vengeance strike to effortlessly knock them down. Having a mechanic like this for the class would open a LOT of doors for the universal vigilante talents, such as:

  • A talent that allowed the vigilante to add different options for her vengeance strike, like dealing bleed damage instead of precision damage (Jack the Ripper) .
  • An option to allow a vengeance strike to be made as part of the action of casting a spell, such as by adding a +1 bonus to the save DC of the vigilante's spells per round of study.
  • An ability that grants the vigilante a dodge bonus to AC instead of an offensive bonus.

    There is a LOT of cool stuff that could be done with this mechanic, and as written it is too awesome (and too niche-defining) to be allowed to sit as the capstone.

  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Erik Mona wrote:
    Ashram wrote:
    Still betting money that it will officially come out AT GenCon.
    How much money are you betting, and can I get in on that action?

    This one time, at the PaizoCon 2015 store...

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Logan Bonner wrote:
    Yeah, possibly. One thing I've been looking for in the playtest is whether anyone does an interesting build that finds a use for those spells while building the rest of the class without taking more spells (like picking a set of combat buff spells and using those). I don't think that's happened, though.

    Obviously I'm not in every single warlock playtester's heads, but here are a few thoughts:

    1) The arcanist spellcasting mechanic doesn't lend itself to a small set of combat buff spells. It lends itself to versatility by virtue of the whole "casts spontaneously, but prepares spells known" mechanic. Because of this, grabbing more spells (and by extension, more spell levels) feels like the correct way to play the class.

    2) Aside from mystic bolt and bombs, the warlock has no talents that really promote a combat style of gameplay. Defensive talents like elemental battle armor, bond of blood, or educated defense are no more effective for the warlock vigilante then they are the spellcasting vigilante. Because mystic bolt damage is low and the current arcane striker mechanic doesn't stack energy damage for the purpose of overcoming resistances, mystic bolt isn't reliable enough to be considered the warlock's primary strategy in combat.

    3) The vigilante lacks a mechanic to make self-buffing worthwhile. (Example: the warpriest has the fervor mechanic that allows him to self-buff a limited number of times per day without eating up all of the vigilante's actions.) Generally speaking, the sorcerer/wizard/arcanist buffs by using high impact spells that benefit many allies rather than just herself. (Example: haste.)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    theGlitch wrote:
    Sajuuk, Turtle of Creation wrote:
    gharlane wrote:
    Brandon Hodge wrote:

    If you want to be that guy who hoists aloft the skull of your god's most revered saint while blasting your enemies with power, wades through combat with a blessed and smoking censer to grant your allies new power, or draw from the holiness of a tattered shroud emblazoned with the scorched image of your deity to protect yourself from harm, this is the class for you!
    So we finally have a class that let's us purge the xenos while praising the God Emperor?
    BRB, off to go write some bad crossover fanfiction where the church of Aroden is actually worshipping the God Emperor of Mankind.
    Well... I DO play an android swashbuckler in WotR that comes not from "Androffa", but from 25th century Sol system, which was attacked by Chtulhu and his starspawn. Azlant was inhabited by the descendant of the survivor of the ARK crash. Aroden IS the Emperor God of Mankind, and his "disappearence" is actually a punishment by the other gods because he used His divine powers to trap Chtulhu in a black hole (not that it really stopped it).

    Sucks for Cthulhu. In the awesome Esoteric Planes chapter, black holes are gateways to the Negative Energy Plane.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Endzeitgeist wrote:
    Reviewed first on, then submitted to Nerdtrek and GMS magazine and posted here, on OBS and's shop.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Imbicatus wrote:
    Why would you want to weaken the Avenger's Assault Training? It is already full BAB with EVERY weapon, limiting to weapon focus only is a step back, even with free weapon focus at first level.

    I have seven characters in Pathfinder Society. None of them use more than one weapon, maybe two tops. As a result, I don't see this restriction as a huge deal. In addition, being really good with a limited number of weapons is also another measure of making sure that the avenger doesn't step on the fighter's toes too hard and it reinforces the avenger as having a "signature" fighting style, which almost all of his other talents support. And if you want to be good with multiple weapons, you're not barred from doing that. You just need to spend feats to unlock those additional weapons for your fighting style.

    10 people marked this as a favorite.

    I think that the Divine Power ability could be simplified a lot if instead of outsider races, the vigilante was imbued with a domain, and different talents required different domains (or subdomains based upon their domain). That would leave them a lot more flexible and making adding new talents less of a nightmare. (As written, if you wanted to add a Div divine power, you'd need an entire set of all-new zealot talents to go with it.)

    For example, say a powerful demon lord wants to sponsor a vigilante. He chooses one of his domains and that domain becomes the source of the vigilante's power. The vigilante adds that domain's domain spells (up to 6th level) to his list of domain spells known and gains that domain's domain powers. In the long run, that would likely save a LOT of wordage for the zealot class and would make the addition of new domain powers easier.

    In addition, you could add the choice of allowing a vigilante to choose an animal or terrain domain instead of a cleric domain (as a druid), and if the vigilante chooses Animal, Plant, or an animal or terrain domain, they can use the hunter spell list (druid + ranger) instead of the inquisitor spell list to determine their spells known. That way you could have a guardian animal spirit or a spirit of nature or something as the source of your divine power. (CAPTAIN PLANET VIGILANTES!!!!) End it by saying that any animal domain counts as the Animal Domain for talent prerequisites and any terrain domain counts as the Plant Domain for terrain prerequisites.

    In this manner, the vigilante still gets something unique and cool (Charisma-based spellcasting that is backed by a specific deity, plus getting to be the only 6th-level spellcaster that adds domain spells to her list of spells known), but its also something that's a lot easier to expand from a freelancer standpoint and also doesn't give an entirely new submechanic to one specialization.

    14 people marked this as a favorite.
    Milo v3 wrote:
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    It works with a lot more stuff now. For instance, your l15 warlock can pick back up 1d6+3 of that damage from arcane striker now working (before it didn't), and he's one level away from a large jump (arcane striker rises by 1d6+1 damage at 16).
    My character didn't have the feats or talents to spare for arcane strike so not really an option.

    I have been trying to write an elegantly worded thread for the past three hours that basically says the same thing as Milo. Warlocks and zealots are taxed heavily for their ability to cast spells.

    There seems to be this romanticized idea that the vigilante doesn't need to pick up additional spellcasting talents if it doesn't want to, but that ignores the fact that every other 6-level spellcasting class in the game gets additional bonuses (no matter how small) at the same time that they receive their next spell level. The only example that I could find to the contrary is the bard.

    Another part of the problem comes form social talents. Don't get me wrong, I love them. Great idea and will ultimately be better as new talents are added to the list. But that said, all of the social talents effectively comprise of those "weak abilities" that other 6th-level spellcasters gain as they level up. The ability to gain a +4 bonus on Diplomacy or Intimidate checks in a specific city is cool, but it is not a strong ability. It is not something that makes up for loosing out on vigilante talents.

    As written, the stalker has a significantly more powerful base ability than all of the other specializations, especially with its buff. At 1st level, +1 to hit, 1st level spells, and +2.5 damage to attacks (average of d4) are fairly well balanced. But at Level 4, that paradigm shifts to +1 to hit (BAB +4 compared to +3), 1st-level spells, and +5 damage. Then at level 8, it further shifts to +2 to hit, 1st level spells, and +10 damage. This gap keeps getting wider as the vigilantes level up. Here are some more things to consider:

    — Most 6th-level spellcasters gain 3rd-level spell slots at 7th level. The vigilante can't take the talent to unlock those spells until 8th level.

    — Most 6th-level spellcasters gain 5th level spell slots at 13th level. The vigilante can't take the talent to unlock those spells until 10th level.

    So ultimately, a warlock or zealot's talent selection looks like this:

    Level 2: Any
    Level 4: 2nd-level spells
    Level 6: Any
    Level 8: 3rd level spells
    Level 10: 4th level spells
    Level 12: Any
    Level 14: 5th level spells
    Level 16: 6th level spells.

    In the course of 16 levels, a warlock or zealot who wants to be good at casting spells gets THREE vigilante talents. In your PFS career, you get THREE talents. If you go mystic bolt, then you get arcane striker (to make up for the damage nerf) and mystic bolt, then you get nothing for 8 levels. This is why the whole "I can take the talent multiple times to pick more energy types," point is a moot one; where do you have the talent budget to pick multiple mystic bolt talents?

    The worst point of all is the one that the vigilante doesn't HAVE to take spellcasting. That's like saying that an archer fighter doesn't have to take Precise Shot or Manyshot; you pretty much have to. All of the warlock and vigilante talents are fun and cool, but there is nothing in either specialization that can keep you viable as a party member if you choose to ignore spellcasting. This is a talent tax, pure and simple. And its a tax that the vigilante class already pays as a whole because at every odd level, it gains a social talent, which is a non-power based ability. Those talents are essentially the "extra use of judgment" per day or the "increase to bardic knowledge" of the vigilante class.

    To put it into perspective, the current design would be like giving the stalker d4 hidden strike and then making them spend 5 of their 10 talents scaling that abilit to full 10d4.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Ah! You gave the warlock's familiar a social identity! Someone read my feedback! :D

    You gentlemen really outdid yourself on the social talents. They're all very cool and helpful. I think the vigilante could make due with some more talents that didn't lean so heavily on the renown social talent, but overall great stuff. I like that the vigilante can actually make for a more effective social character early on.

    I like the zealot's divine power sources from a quick read, although there definitely need to be more in the final cut; its looking like this might be the divine equivalent to the bloodrager, which is exciting. You might want to consider a "clandestine" divine power or something, however, for players who are still looking for that "secret cultist" feel.

    Warlock still looks pretty empty in regards to how many talents it has available to it and I suspect that zealot is in a similar boat as a result of most of its old talents getting scrapped for specialization-specific options. This could be problematic for the class's post-Ultimate Intrigue design. For example, if Owen decides that he REALLY wants to see a Daemonic Divine Power (because who WOULDN'T want to be empowered by the Four Horsemen). In addition to having to create a new divine power, he'd also have to create a slew of new zealot-specific talents to compliment the Daemonic Divine Power because it wouldn't be able to choose any of the Abyssal or Infernal zealot talents because those all have specific, divine power prerequisites.

    Its also weird that the fey divine power alters the spell list, but not the spells known. Even if you have a different set of powers, the fey zealot is behind one spell per level when compared to the other three divine powers. A simple solution would be to tie the zealot spell list to the divine power for all divine powers. Maybe celestial could be cleric + paladin, abyssal and infernal could be cleric + antipaladin, fey could be druid + ranger, then that "clandestine" one that I mentioned could be inquisitor. Overall, that concept of varying spell lists is super cool and could help GMs make it even MORE difficult for PCs to guess what, exactly, they're fighting when they go head-to-head with a zealot.

    Also, it would be nice for some of those other class features to come back. Zealots with warpriest blessings make too much sense to me, personally.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Eric Hinkle wrote:

    I like it quite a bit, and just did a review for it. The Chivalric Harbinger is an especially great idea!

    Thanks, I'll pass this along to Justin! He'll be pleased; the Chivalric Harbinger is his baby. He slaved over that archetype for several days before he was happy enough with it to move onto the next one.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Silkinsane wrote:
    There was a 3.5 Book called the Draconomicon that had a ton of things you could craft from Draconic remains. I am not sure if the content is open game but I highly suggest it for anyone who plans on doing a lot with dragons. It is an excellent book and I still use it as most of it translates easily over to Pathfinder.

    That's an awesome book. Justin uses it ALL the time; instead of finding things like random sacks of gold coins, we'll fine dragon bones and teeth scattered all around. Players get excited for them because in the Draconomicon, you can actually make some pretty wicked stuff out of dragon teeth.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kcinlive wrote:

    Neat! I'm definitely adding this to my short list of things to buy. Just need more money...

    What's next for the Legendary Class line?



    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    After having theorycrafted the specialization that I ultimately played and then playing in a game with two vigilantes, I have some feedback on the mechanical design of the class.

    Class Skills:
    The most common comment that Jbt and I had while we were playing our characters in Rise of the Goblin Guild was a half-hearted, "I can't do this even though my character is modeled after X Super Hero. I just don't get that class skill. The vigilante class is VERY broad in terms of its niche and its roll; its the first class to allow characters to opt into things like full BAB or 6th-level spellcasting, and that's really cool; the flexibility is my favorite part of the class. Why not extend that flexibility to the class skills of the vigilante? The social identity is fluffed as basically being an expert, so why not allow vigilantes to determine their own list of class skills like an expert does? (For those who don't know, an expert can pick any 10 skills as her class skills.) For the vigilante, say something like this:

    A vigilante's class skills are Bluff (Cha), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Perform (Cha), and Sleight of Hand (Dex). In addition, a vigilante also adds 10 additional skills to her list of class skills. She must select all Knowledge skills individually.

    This way, you get the flexible class the ability to be flexible with its skills while also maintaining the design goal: the character who is a polite, working-class member of society "by day." But what she is by night is completely determined by which skills she chooses to be proficient in.

    Weapon and Armor Proficiency:
    As written, my warlock couldn't cast spells while wearing light or medium armor, so I completely ignored my ability to do with this class.

    Personally, I think that the vigilante SHOULD have some ability to cast arcane spells in armor; specifically light armor, similar to a bard. To that end, I think that Medium Armor Proficiency should be removed from the vigilante and a note about how the vigilante can cast spells in light armor should be added to the class baseline; that way, if you choose to do other arcane spellcasting specializations that ability doesn't need to be reprinted over and over again.

    For the avenger, medium armor proficiency should be added back as a base ability to the specialization. Let the avenger be the exception.

    Dual Identity:
    I think the designers are vastly overestimating how much this ability is worth to the vigilante. As written, it is an incredibly passive ability that isn't something that the vigilante can "do" so much as something that it "does," if that makes sense. For example, the ability to radiate an aura of good is something that a cleric of Sarenrae "does," she doesn't "do" it. For example, the fact that a cleric radiates an aura of good doesn't matter unless an NPC or player casts detect good, at which case it matters. Likewise, the ability to have two separate identities doesn't really matter unless an NPC or player attempts to use a divination spell or effect. In both situations, the GM has to go out of her way to mention that those abilities are relevant; "Hey players, roll Spellcraft! Success? See that cleric of Razmir? He TOTALLY just cast detect good on you!"

    But scrying magic is different; it is typically done miles, if not hundreds of miles, away. If an enemy fails to scry on you, you don't necessarily know that your ability did anything. Despite how cool the concept is, this ability isn't powerful enough to warrant the significance that its given at Level One. Dual Identity is not smite evil; it is not rage and it is not inspiration or bardic performance. If you wanted to make an Amateur Vigilante feat, it would be TOTALLY balanced, because Dual Identity is definitely worth a feat at most.

    This ability also doesn't really capture the whole point of having a secret identity. This ability treats the vigilante as sort of an alternate identity; a heroic mask that you point on. But psychologically, vigilantes are very much the opposite. Dexter Morgan wakes up in the morning a serial killer and he spends several minutes, "Putting his civilian face on," so to speak. Batman does the same thing; Bruce has all of Batman's martial training and abilities at the drop of a dime, but he's often got to center himself to act NORMAL. Another great example is when, at the end of Iron Man, Tony Stark is asked what he knows about Iron Man? He doesn't say, "I become Iron Man." He says, "I am Iron Man." To this regard, instead of having two separate alignments, your "true" alignment should be your vigilante alignment while your "civilian" alignment should be something that is socially acceptable for whatever social situation you're in. Your civilian alignment should mask your vigilante alignment.

    Finally, dual identity takes too long to activate. A rogue with the Quick Disguise rogue talent can assume a disguise that requires, "minor details," as a full-round action as early as Level 2. That's fair for the vigilante as well. If you want the vigilante to need time to "change," then "taking off the social identity," should be a full-round action if you're wearing your costume under your clothes (which maybe others can detect with Perception as if your costume were a concealed item) while putting your costume on if its stashed somewhere else takes 1 minute. Meanwhile "putting on the social identity" should take a five minutes, as written. It is harder to mentally balance yourself then it is to descend into the vigilante persona.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Defend the Ward has had the following update:

    "Defend the Ward: As a move action, you switch places with one ally within 30 feet without provoking attacks of opportunity. If you target an ally that is being grappled, you become grappled instead. This ability is a teleportation effect. After using this ability, it becomes expended for 5 rounds."

    So basically, you teleport right into another creature's hands. (Or stomach, if its being swallowed whole.)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Luthorne wrote:
    Background generation has existed since Pact Magic Unbound: Volume 2, and is still in the Grimoire of Lost Soul's playtest. Alexander Augunas has already said he doesn't intend to include mythic support since relatively few people utilize mythic in the first place, and he doesn't like mythic much much in the first place.

    I don't care much for mythic at the moment, true, but I certainly want to provide the option for mythic pact magic for people who do use the system. Despite my preferences, I feel that it is more important for a new system like Pact Magic to fit completely within the realm of what Paizo publishes to make it feel more inclusive to Pathfinder as a whole.

    That's why you have spirits like Catha of Codex in the Grimoire, who play with the words of power rules. I don't use those rules in my games (and would likely trade that ability for her Vestigial Companion every time I bound her as a result), but I still like that the option is available within Pact Magic for people who don't share my opinion.

    Hope that clears things up a bit.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    the xiao wrote:

    I am not part of the kickstarter, but please add support for:

    -background generation from Ultimate Campaign

    We did that in Volume 2, so it'll be returning in the Grimoire.

    -simple class template for monsters in Monster Codex

    This will not be included; we're saving it for the Weird Bestiary. In my opinion, it makes more sense to be in a monster book then in this book.

    -variant multiclassing from Pathfinder Unchained

    This will not be in the Grimoire of Lost Souls, but on July 15th I'm releasing an Everyman Gaming, LLC product called Everyman Unchained: Skills and Options. Everyman Unchained: Skills and Options will include Variant Multiclasses for the Technician (Age of Electrotech), the Mystic (Amora Game's LIC), and the Occultist (Grimoire version, but Volume 1 should be enough to use it).

    In short, you will be able to have this before the Grimoire itself is released.

    -some Mythic support

    This will be in the Pact Magic book that we do after the Grimoire. I don't have a name for it yet, but it is going to focus heavily on alternate pact magic systems, including animism, possession pacts, and mythic rules for pact magic. Mythic was originally going to be in the Grimoire, but there simply wasn't enough room to do it justice here.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Protoman wrote:

    I'd guess whichever one the player/vigilante feels is his actual alignment and beliefs. So probably the vigilante identity one if one's gonna bother going against the norm (social identity) to do what one believes in or whatever it is they actually want to do.

    Evil villain and Neutral political advisor to the king? Should be judged as an evil in the end in Pharasma's Boneyard.

    Which almost makes it sound like the vigilante should be judged based upon his vigilante identity rather than his social identity.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Since this class is supposed to be Batman, I'll go ahead and say it: I don't like the idea that Bruce Wayne suddenly looses his 20+ years of martial combat experience just because he's not wearing the bat suit and "isn't in the right mentality" for it or whatever.

    Simplifying the mechanic down to you having two identities that are independent from each other for the purpose of scrying and the like would be more than enough, in my opinion.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    FLite wrote:
    Alexander Augunas wrote:

    I'm also willing to bet that by the time the final class is released, if something ends up not working without some special modifications to the rules, the PFS team will add house rules to make the ability worthwhile.

    John and Mike are pretty baller like that, so let's not split hairs over whether or not you'll have the time to use these abilities in PFS. That's a society problem and not a vigilante problem.

    Actually, no, they really aren't. I mean, they are awesome, and I like them, but they don't do house rules.

    How PFS handles firearms is a house rule. (You need the gunsmithing feature to purchase a firearm.)

    The Day Job mechanic is a house rule. (it is assumed core for PFS, but the closest that it has ever come to being printed in the Pathfinder RPG core rules is as a gp-only version of the capital system in Ultimate Campaign.)

    Fame and Prestige (specifically the ability tying purchasing power to it) is a house rule. (One that partially got lifted for Ultimate Campaign, but it still counts.)

    The lack of crafting (and the alchemist, investigator, and gunslinger's subsequent breaking of that rule) are both house rules.

    You can call them Organized Play rules if you like, but they're still variations of the core Pathfinder RPG rules, which makes them house rules. It just so happens that PFS's house spans the entire globe. ;-)

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    137ben wrote:
    Alexander Augunas wrote:

    I mean, seriously, this is a martial class (3/4 spellcasting if you take warlock or zealot) that has an ability that LITERALLY does something that no spell can currently do: foil divination effects so hard that they only pop up as "black."
    I haven't studied it carefully, but how is that not something Mind Blank does? Is is just that Dual Identity can do it below 15th level?

    Great question, because its really quite subtle. This is from mind blank. "n the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn't detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all."

    "Any attempts to scry or otherwise locate the vigilante work only if the vigilante is currently in an identity known to the creature attempting to locate him. If he is in an identity unknown to the creature, the spell or effect has no effect, revealing nothing but darkness as if the target was invalid or did not exist."

    The biggest difference isn't a mechanical one; it is something much more subtle. A motivational difference.

    For instance, if Bruce Wayne ran around with a permanent mind blank spell, people might be suspicious. What's he got to hide? Why is he always mind blanked? A permanent mind blank effect isn't cheap, after all. Maybe Bruce WANTS the Joker to scry on him every once and a while when he's feeling suspicious. Dual Identity effectively only allows you to protect what matters (your identity) all the time. Not to mention Dual Identity can't be dispelled, suppressed, and requires absolutely no magical skill whatsoever.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    blackbloodtroll wrote:
    Cyrad wrote:

    I completely agree with Alexander Augunas. I feel Dual Identity is being undervalued.

    I can even see it working really well in PFS scenarios. Most PFS scenarios take place in one location or have you sent from Absalom to another town with plenty of downtime before talking to the next major NPC. You would have plenty of time to gain renown and make use of your social.

    Is it weird, that I cannot remember a single scenario, with "downtime"?

    If you're talking about downtime as it exists in Ultimate Campaign, sure. There's none.

    If you're talking about time that the PCs would normally use to gather information or shop, then a large majority of the scenarios have time to let you do that. I'm also willing to bet that by the time the final class is released, if something ends up not working without some special modifications to the rules, the PFS team will add house rules to make the ability worthwhile.

    John and Mike are pretty baller like that, so let's not split hairs over whether or not you'll have the time to use these abilities in PFS. That's a society problem and not a vigilante problem.

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    thorin001 wrote:
    The whole mechanic seems forced. Also it does not really seem to accomplish anything.

    Except for being a foolproof way to completely thwart divination magic that tries to connect you to your secret identity?

    I mean, seriously, this is a martial class (3/4 spellcasting if you take warlock or zealot) that has an ability that LITERALLY does something that no spell can currently do: foil divination effects so hard that they only pop up as "black." How is that nothing?

    This isn't a class that you're going to be able to drop in Shattered Star and have it work, no. But Kingmaker? Hell's Rebels? Wrath of the Righteous? Those are ALL APs where having a secret identity that no one expected would be super useful.

    From his lair in the City of Locusts, Deskarii slams his fist into his table.
    "What do you MEAN you can't find him?! Work your magic, Abyssal worm! I WANT THE GOLD BARON'S HEAD AND I WANT IT NOW!"

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    A kitsune vigilante is sounding rather hilarious. I can be human or kitusne in my social identity, human or kitsune in my vigilante identity, and eventually, human or kitsune in my mundane identity. Then, I could take Realistic Likeness and be in social, vigilante, or mundane identity in YOUR identity.

    Bring it.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Bardess wrote:
    What about an Amateur Vigilante feat? You wrote that there won't be an Extra Vigilante Talent feat, but something like Spirit Talker, enabling other classes to choose ONE Vigilante talent? Maybe with limitations, like, a fighting class could choose only Avenger talents, and so on...

    I feel like if an Amateur Vigilante feat become a thing, it should probably start by giving you Dual Identity. I think that's good enough to be worth a feat.

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

    Owow! Warlock and Zealot... Owow!

    Now I want an inquisitor archetype using Zealot talents and a Warlock who can use the witch's spell list and have a familiar...
    What about a number of " universal" talents available to all Vigilantes, just as the "universal" hexes for shamans? Choosing rogue/ninja talents as an option, like investigators and slayers, seems fit too.

    We intend to include universal talents, which will likely be focused on the social identity. However, we knew many of those would intermesh with not-yet-written rules that come out in the book, and we wanted more focus on each specialization, so we didn't release them yet. That said, we'd love to hear your ideas for more universal specializations to add to our list, and one of us will probably make a thread specifically for those at some point!

    You get all four of us together for one class this time, for maximum designer interaction!


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    ShepherdGunn wrote:

    OK, I'm at work, so I don't have a chance to dig deep into the character class, but already I've noticed something.

    With the Occult playtest, I was in a similar situation, I gave each class a quick go over, less than ten minutes, as a whole. I think the only class I saw that I wasn't quite sure about was the occultist. It looked complicated and I had a hard time wrapping my head around it, in the quick overview. I will admit, it's shaded my opinion of the occultist ever since. I'll be interested to see what changes in the final version. Perhaps it will overcome my first impression of the class.

    That being said, I looked at the vigilante class, quickly. I'm sorry, but what the...? This class looks way too complicated to introduce in a standard game. It's a rogue like character, that can also be a fighter, or a ninja, or a wizard, or a paladin? I mean, the customization can be cool, I guess, but as a start out the gates "build"? I think it falls flat.

    It looks, so far, like the class is trying to be too much of everything all at once. It's the very definition of power creep when it comes to character classes.

    I'll have to give it a once over later, but the lack of focus to the class really turns me off from it.

    The class has tons of focus. Its the Super Hero class. Avenger is the "martial superhero," stalker is the "rogue superhero," warlock is the "magical superhero," and zealot is the "gods-based superhero."

    For example:
    — Captain America is an Avenger.
    — Batman is a Stalker.
    — Doctor Strange is a Warlock (although he'd be a little bit better if there was an option that meshed Warlock with the Occultist Implement system.)
    — Shazam is the Zealot.

    You don't get to be ALL the things, you only get to be ONE of the things. You pick one specialization and call it a day. So when you're a player / GM, you only ever have to worry about one specialization at a time. Its no more complicated for a GM then, say, a sorcerer is with her bloodlines. The only difference is that the vigilante's "bloodlines" are focused on themes rather than party roles.

    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    Eryx_UK wrote:
    We don't need even more base classes!

    Speak for yourself. I need this class like I need wattamelon rolls.

    Succulent, delicious wattamelon rolls....


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Eric Hinkle wrote:
    That's a lovely cover illustration for this PDF. Who does the kitsune art in your releases?

    Jacob Blackmon. He's credited on the first page on every product.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    One of the take-aways that I'm getting here is more perks that interact with combat mechanics. Is that a correct assumption? When I originally designed the perk system, I tried to divorce it from standard power-based rules so it wouldn't be seen as a flat power-up for PCs.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Lurion Coravoss wrote:

    Second, might you adress the leadership feat by having it give 1-2 extra perks? I say this because some classes like the cleric with the leadership domain gained it as a bonus feat and are now weakened by its loss. If you adressed that in the first pdf I apologise, but I currently lack my copy before me, though rest assured I will check it to make sure tonight

    This is a good idea. I can make that happen.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I was surprised how many people at PaizoCon told me that they wished the Unchained Monk had more available archetypes. Never fear, I'm more than willing to do ALL your work for you. (Well, Game Designing, anyway)!

    Check out Everyman Unchained: Monk Archetypes II[/url if you simply can't get enough unchained monk content!

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    My participation (as well as the topics that I wrote about) have been SO unbelievably hard to sit on!

    But don't worry! If you think that I'm weird for liking foxes as much as I claim to, I think you're still going to ultimately walk away from this particular product feeing more than a bit satisfied. ;-)

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I like the "No FAQ required, here's why" set-up in action. Nice work, PDT!

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Eric Hinkle wrote:
    Alexander Augunas wrote:
    Dietrich von Sachsen wrote:

    Just want to say Alexander, I really enjoyed this book. Nicely written, and a good way to include numerous systems. The Leadership Perks, in particular, my players and I are enjoying.

    My only really niggle - and it's not so much a criticism as a desire for more! - is that, given that each character gets 10 Leadership Perks over the course of their career and can only have one title at once - is that my players and I felt the number of Perks was a little on the small side, especially since we were not using the Relationship system. P

    While I certainly won't be so un-gallant as to expect or demand anything, but any chance that we might see a small supplement with additional perks in the future?

    Again, great work!

    Definitely. This summer I'm planning on releasing Leadership Expansion I, which will feature a Relationship System that is tied back to the Leadership rules. (Particularly your reputation, which has a sizable factor in determining your starting attitude with another person and how quickly you can build relationships.)

    Its also set to feature a LOT of new perks. A LOT. I have ideas for perks of almost every type, plus new types like congregation (perks that only work if your cohorts and followers worship your deity), chivalric (perks that only work if your cohorts and followers belong to your cavalier order), coven (perks that only work if your cohorts and followers build a coven with you), and more.

    Looking forward to this!

    My goal is August 15th, but September might end up being a more reasonable expectation depending upon how my summer goes.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Dietrich von Sachsen wrote:

    Just want to say Alexander, I really enjoyed this book. Nicely written, and a good way to include numerous systems. The Leadership Perks, in particular, my players and I are enjoying.

    My only really niggle - and it's not so much a criticism as a desire for more! - is that, given that each character gets 10 Leadership Perks over the course of their career and can only have one title at once - is that my players and I felt the number of Perks was a little on the small side, especially since we were not using the Relationship system. P

    While I certainly won't be so un-gallant as to expect or demand anything, but any chance that we might see a small supplement with additional perks in the future?

    Again, great work!

    Definitely. This summer I'm planning on releasing Leadership Expansion I, which will feature a Relationship System that is tied back to the Leadership rules. (Particularly your reputation, which has a sizable factor in determining your starting attitude with another person and how quickly you can build relationships.)

    Its also set to feature a LOT of new perks. A LOT. I have ideas for perks of almost every type, plus new types like congregation (perks that only work if your cohorts and followers worship your deity), chivalric (perks that only work if your cohorts and followers belong to your cavalier order), coven (perks that only work if your cohorts and followers build a coven with you), and more.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
    You do not currently need a boon to play a Kitsune.

    I have 5 kitsune characters. I'm aware. :-)

    I want kitsune boons as "character insurance." They're my favorite race, and if in the future I have a hankering to play another kitsune, I want to make sure that any changes to the "Always Available roster" don't prevent me from being able to do what I want.

    In a weird way, I want a few kitsune boons on the side so I don't have to worry about playing other races in the meantime. When I get a toy, I don't particularly like the thought of it possibly getting taken away from me. :(

    EDIT: As a side note, there's no evidence that the current racial availability might change. I'm just ridiculously paranoid is all.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rysky wrote:
    Alexander Augunas wrote:
    Rysky, why did you eat my fries?
    Because they deserved death! And eating fries is how one goes about executing them. At least that's what I do anyway, don't know what weird methods you guys use...

    But I wanted them, and they were mine.

    But you ate them.
    You ate my fries.
    And I cried, but you didn't see me cry.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    My specialty seems to be making Thilo like concepts that he normally hates. :-P

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Oh gods, HeroForge just updated their mini-building service with the ability to add canine faces and fox tails to their miniatures....

    James, will you stop me from blowing my life's savings on millions of kitsune miniatures?

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Joynt Jezebel wrote:
    JiCi wrote:
    Joynt Jezebel wrote:

    Taking the Nine Tailed Mystic Achetype Sorcerer may be a power option if allowed.

    You get your tails for Bloodline Spells not feats. And you still get a bloodline, which you can use to expand the range of beings you can enchant. It could be real powerful.

    True, but the Tails offer you SLAs, so...

    Not sure what you mean.

    If you mean you gain more than you lose, yes, that is the idea.

    As the guy who wrote the archetype, I would disagree.

    You trade your bloodline spells for a Magical Tail feat every time you would have gotten a spell. While you ultimately end up with additional "castings" in the sense that each spell-like ability is usable two times per day, the spell-like abilities from the Magical Tail feat are often lower-level than the bloodline spell you traded for them. For your final one, you're trading a 9th-level spell known for a 5th-level spell-like ability usable 2/day.

    Its a good archetype; it was intended to be. But I don't think you necessarily gain more than you lose. In fact, I would strongly argue that its a fair trade.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    Chess Pwn wrote:
    Is there a FAQ today or not because of PaizoCon?

    There isn't, tangentially because of Paizocon (I'm out sick with con crud, and before that, Stephen and Jason were both out sick, and may still be, so no discussion possible).

    Doesn't mean I'm skipping the other posts before this, but seemed a good one to answer.

    Noooo! I cast remove disease!

    Caster Level Check Result: 1.

    Nevermind, then. Get better soon.

    1 to 50 of 852 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

    ©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.