|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
logan grayble wrote:
A straight up combination of Gunslinger and Alchemist would require a lot of compromises. Assuming that by "gun focused" you mean it has a grit pool and deeds, what would you be giving up from Alchemist? You'd probably need to give up a little more than just your Poison Resistance if you catch my drift.
The Mutagen, as others suggested, seem to be a decent trade for deeds... as well as any firearm-related class feature.
Echo Vining wrote:
I had a player just straight-up multiclass alchemist and gunslinger. He primarily played it like an old-west bartender, all his extracts were whiskey.
You... basically brought up the reason I asked for an archetype: I hate multiclassing with a passion.
and the Steel Hound for the Investigator...and the Savage Technologist for the Barbarian...
and the Musketeer for the Swashbuckler...
and the Trophy Hunter for the Ranger...
doc the grey wrote:
Wait until you get to the "Centaurs hate horseshoes" part :P
Sure, I can have a regular Alchemist (or an archetypical Grenadier) using a pistol or musket with the Explosive Missile discovery, but...
Did Paizo release a bonafide archetype that relies a lot of the use of firearms?
(I'm asking because 1) that sounds like a no-brainer for a class that uses bombs, 2) many other classes got firearm-focused archetypes... and 3) maybe I missed it...)
Gars DarkLover wrote:
Any info on the (Most Wanted) Centaur Cavalier Archetype?
-You're considered mounted for the purpose of charging, handling lances and having the Mounted Combat feat. Ride is substituted for Acrobatics. - You deal more damage with your hooves.
- You move faster and can ignore difficult terrains for a short while.
- You can make an overrun attempt against every opponent in a single line of charging.
OK, finally got my hands on this ^_^
The bad (let's get this out of the way first and foremost)
- Could have used more traits, items, archetypes and so on...
- No associated monster; That's a little missed opportunity here. I could have seen a variant centaur (aquatic, zebra, unicorn, nightmare), an ape-based Charau-Ka variant (the current ones are mandrill-based) a two-headed cyclops, a derro failed experiment, a gillman-merfolk crossbreed, a new scorpion-like vermin and a labyrith-insane template for Minotaur victims.
(I feel like 2 pages, one for more stuff and one for a monster, could have been added for each monster.)
- Lack of chieftain figures; the Charau-Ka, Cyclopes, Derros, Gillmen, Minotaurs and Strix don't have an entry that defines a tribe's leader... unless some of them are and that I misread. I know that many of us have a different take of what classes make a tribe's leader, but to me, some of them seem to not fit with the monsters. For instance, a Charau-Ka ranger or hunter would work, but the Trickster makes it an odd choice. BTW, I left out the Ogrekin for a reason: it's a template using base races , not an "actual" race.
- Little errors here and there. Bah... it happens... and an errata can be done.
- The title hides the Charau-Ka on the cover. Come on, couldn't you made it a little lower on the page :P ? Ok, fine you get the logo-less cover at the end, but still...
That's... pretty much it really.
Overall great book ^_^
Too bad you can't layer Animal Ally on top of it :P
John Compton wrote:
You're right that most of these creatures are ones that appear in setting-neutral books already. One of the particularly compelling reasons why many of these creatures appear in Inner Sea Monster Codex is that each has a particularly deep, fun, and exciting role that it plays on Golarion. Strix and gillmen appear in the Advanced Race Guide, yes, but they're also key players in their respective regions and have helped to shape history and politics in parts of Avistan and the Inner Sea. Cyclopes and derro predate the Pathfinder Campaign Setting line, yet one was a key species across several ages of Golarion's history, and the other is well worth examining more closely to understand their role beneath noteworthy cities. Each of these creatures hits a lot of those same buttons (of why this setting-neutral creature is great on Golarion), shows up in substantial numbers, and also triggered some serious cool factor responses while we were brainstorming the list.
I see, you're going with with region-specific ideas. I understand... not that I was disagreeing with it anyway :P
John Compton wrote:
And even for those using these creatures in other campaign settings, the write-ups can inspire GMs to incorporate these monsters, the additional character options, and the fully detailed stat blocks into other worlds in compelling ways.
Bah... pretty sure that no one had trouble with that in the past XD
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Well, that could work too, but... it's still weird that they are making a Golarion-exclusive Monster Codex... with monsters that aren't necessarily Golarion-exclusive.
- Gillmen and Strix? Sure, as stated that they started as exclusive races in APs and the World Guide, even if they were made mainstream with the ARG.
Centaurs, Cyclopes, Girtablilus, Ogrekins and Derros however? They... all appeared in Bestiaries already, withtou being in Golarion books prior to it, not to mention that some of them are rather iconic to the standard game.
Like I said, that's not a bad thing, but you have to admit that it doesn't "follow" the same rules as other Golarion products. Granted, rules are made to be broken, but still...
Oh BTW, I use the term "exclusive" simply to differenciate things from the general rulebooks and Golarion books, this isn't used as a prejorative word... at all, just to be clear ;)
Kalashtars, Shifters, Changelings and Warforged were exclusive to Eberron, for instance.
I do not want to sound rude or anything, but...
any reason why this booklet is "exclusive" to the Campaign Setting instead of being 50% of an upcoming 2nd Monster Codex for the general rules?
Aside from the Charau-ka, all other monsters were presented in Bestiaries and the Advanced Race Guide (strix, gillmen), so to me, the exclusivity seems a little... odd... even if it's "not that hard" to adapt these to your liking.
If all 10 races were described solely in APs or other Golarion-related books, I would have understood... but I've seen derros, centaurs and cyclops in other general books... UNLESS some of the races presented DID start as Golarion-exclusive before being brought to the mainstream game.
I'll buy that Day 1 for sure, but I felt that I needed to ask :P
The Steel Hound archetype is the investigator's archetype that focuses on firearms, but I've never heard of an alchemist's archetype that uses firearms though...
Intelligent Item Special Purpose Item Dedicated Powers: why no 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th and / or 9th-level spell option?
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
You trade spells for spell-like abilities. You swap your spell list by the Kitsune's spell-like abilities.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
True, but the Tails offer you SLAs, so...
Sorcerer or Oracle using that archetype is possibly the best way to get all 9 tails.
Let's say you want to play an oracle and must select a curse, which one is the least damaging for you, mecanically?
I keep thinking that the Tongues curse doesn't hamper you... at all. By 10th level, you're... pretty much clear. Why? Because if your allies want to warn you, you understand them. You can't answer back unless they understand you, but... let's face it, what's so complicated for the other players to invest 2 skill points to learn your selected language anyway?
That's my opinion though. What's yours?
Yep, the sad truth :( A few monsters are still under WotC's control... rightfully so whether you like it or not. I mean, it was THEIR decision to make their system available to everyone, but also THEIR decision to make some elements exclusive to them as well.
If you ask me, the omittion of the Displacer Beast is questionnable. Beholders and Mind Flayers have been used as manjor antagonists in the past D&D adventures, but a six-legged panther with tentacles???
Ok... NPCs follow a "rule" based on their wealth, as in that a NPC has a specific amount of GPs to spend to be at the current CR listed.
What if I want to make them richer than usual, thus making them stronger than usual?
Is there a rule of thumb about that, like "+1 CR for every extra 10,000 GP" or something?
I do remember seeing NPcs with the following [paraphrased] note: "[This NPC] has stronger gear than usual, thus is considered 1 CR higher." However, they don't specify what items make that NPC better than usual.
Milo v3 wrote:
Paizo didn't make psionic material because DSP already has a monopoly on that market and it would be stupid for them to try and take it. Most the psionic rules are upon the OGL and can be taken by anyone, only things that aren't are basically from Complete Psionic... which no one wanted in the first place.
I agree that Complete Psionic was a major letdown...
However, I don't think that Paizo "let" DP publish psionic materials. I see it that DP just wanted to convert the whole thing for PF and did it. Paizo? I could have sworn that I've read an answer saying that they didn't have plans for psionics... at all...
You could say that DP beat them to it, but I say that Paizo never intended to make psionic materials. Beside... good luck including THIS into Golarion.
It was easy for WotC's Eberron due to Sarlona and the Kalashtars, but in Golarion? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure...
"Occult" is very easy, because the world's cultures make it so. Same goes with alchemy, eidolons and firearms. Psionics however? No idea where to even introduce them if it was the case.
Then again people... Occult Adventures has the Kineticist... that can become a telekineticist with blasts, flying and even a "mind blade" using the Kinetic Blade talent.
Wait, even the rules???
I thought Paizo said that they couldn't make psionic material due to being under WotC's control or something.
Neal Litherland wrote:
Android PCs have been pretty popular, and I love the idea of being allowed to play one. A lot of the gamers I've spoken to, however, feel that androids should only be allowed to take levels of certain classes. That's why, for this week's Table Talk installment, I decided to set forth the details of my idea for an android barbarian.
I'm not gonna go into the mecanical details, but only from a concept view here.
Androids should be able to take any classes their wish. They just need a good... reason to explain certain features.
- A Barbarian's rage could be an overclocking setup.
There's an AI that calls itself a deity and can grant domains and spells. Yeah... if an Artificial Intelligence can be considered religious, pretty sure an android can be a faithful zealot.
- An Oracle's curse could be a malfunction
- A Kineticist's specialization could be a battery.
Everything can be explained via a gadget or setup :P
Creatures that can warp the minds of their victims, including the caller in darkness, thought eater, and the bizarre brain mole
Woaw, woaw, woaw, woaw... time out here...
- Caller in Darkness: psionic incorporeal undead creature made from the soul of a tortured victim.
See the common link here? Yeah... me too...
Aren't psionic creatures, as well as the whole psionic mecanic, WotC's IP? How did Paizo get its hands on that?
Oh, and don't point to Dreamscarred Press and their psionic books. That doesn't count, because these guys at DP are 3rd-parties, unlike Paizo. 3rd-parties MIGHT have an easier time dealing with exclusive stuff, but Paizo, as a 1st-party, cannot.
Good for them if they did, but... to me, that strikes me as shocking O_O
Why are you guys requesting more lycanthropes... when you can make your own pretty easily?
Were-serpents, were-ravens, were-foxes and were-jackals can all be done normally with the template at hand, all you need is the right base animal for it. Furthermore, no lycanthrope has their own set of rules, so... no fret about missing an ability or two.
I dunno, but I feel like it would be a waste of spots to add more lycanthropes in the book when people can already create their own versions.
Were-vermins on the other hand...
On topic... how about "physical manifestations of magic"?
A spellcaster dies, his spirit gets reborned as a living eldritch creature. That would be a nice set of creatures.
Also, I don't know HOW it would be doable, BUT... I'd like Huge, Gargantuan and/or Colossal creatures and/or classes of creatures, but at a low CR, like below CR 12, 10 or even 8. I want to give PCs a challenge against bigger creatures WITHOUT having to wait 10 levels to be a suitable encounter.
I dunno... a new race of giants, a species of sand worms, a group of drakes, name it... Pretty sure you can get Huge, Gargautuan and Colossal creatures without having to go into high-level play.
Barbarian: Mounted Fury
I know that the whip needs a feat or two to threaten reach, same goes with polearms... but if you don't need a feat to threaten reach with a spiked chain, pretty sure you don't need one for the flickmace.
Why would you ever have it in mace form then?
Couple reasons:1) Concealment; having a reach weapon "hidden" is a pretty good strategy to surprise your opponents.
2) Tripping; you can trip, but can your opponents if you fail.
3) TWF; unless you have 2 flickmaces, good TWFing someone with a flickmace and shortsword... when you can't reach the opponent with the sword. Even if it's unraveled, what's the point of the reach quality if you threaten the opponent with the short sword anyway?
4) Disarm; a reach weapon can be disarmed like any other... except that when it does, it lands further away from you than a non-reach weapon.
5) Enhancements; some of them might not work for reach weapons.
6) Feats; see enhancements above.
The reach works like spiked chain: normal reach, but with the ability to hit adjacent opponents.
Think about it: polearms are... kinda stiff; flails and chains are not.
Myth Lord wrote:
You're still harping on that? Dude, if you cannot take it, then just get out already! Geez...
I would guess that a desire for a more interesting Kaiju-fighting vehicle would be sated by converting Dragon Mech material, but that's just a stab in the dark.
The problem is that the Dragonmech rules for mechs... aren't easy to grasp.
- To move, you need a pilot.
In short... it isn't as simple as simply controlling a Gargantuan creature...
Justin Sluder wrote:
Thanks for the info ^_^
Intelligent Item Special Purpose Item Dedicated Powers: why no 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th and / or 9th-level spell option?
Maybe some clarifications here:
I can get an Intelligent Item to cast at will an empowered intensified shocking grasp (4th-level) or an empowered maximized intensified shocking grasp (7th-level)... but not a regular shocking grasp (1st-level).
Furthermore, an Intelligent Item can have a different purpose than the ones suggested, such as "obey your wielder without question", meaning that its wielder could utilize the dedicated power without any kind of restriction.
An example: I could make a female Android magus/techomancer who crafted 4 Intelligent arc pistols, which can fly at a speed of 30 feet... and could cast disintegrate at will... since the purpose could be either "defeat whoever challenges the wielder" or "obey your wielder".
So yeah... the omittion of lower and higher spell levels is weird, because 1) lower levels would be good for low-level characters and 2) higher levels would be good for artifacts and mythic items.