|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
My personal preference:
1. The Combat Stamina feat has an additional prerequisite of "Fighter 1".
Without #2, you're just encouraging a single level dip in Fighter. With #2, it buffs the entire Fighter class as a whole.
I'm half-tempted to make it a free feat for level 1 Fighters, or possibly a replacement of their 1st Bonus Feat.
Yup. My exact thoughts. An Unchained Fighter would have been neat, but honestly all I wanted was a way to make Combat Feats more useful *just* for Fighters. I now get that option :D Background Skills + Stamina for Fighters only, and the Fighter gets a nice improvement that puts it back on par with a lot of other classes.
I am happy.
No... as I said, that's what the feat does at it's core. It *also* gives additional options with all the RPG-line combat feats and how they can interact with Stamina.
So if you take the feat (assuming it's open to non-fighters) and have ZERO combat feats, then yes, its utility is less. For fighters, who have a ton of combat feats, it becomes quite useful.
Honestly, it's still a great improvement (if you restrict it to the Fighter). At it's core, the ability allows you to use your Stamina (which refreshes with a small rest, in minutes) to improve your attack rolls after they are rolled (before you hit/miss). That alone helps make the Fighter a more reliable combatant, especially once AC has been narrowed down.
All of the other uses are just extra options. Some help with damage, some saves, some allies... honestly, giving a "fighter-only boost" to all the combat feats is *exactly* what I wanted.
It's not huge. It didn't need to be. It's a small improvement that makes the class feel worthwhile. I love it.
The Summoner was absolutely a Tier One class, at least in my mind. Granted, I've had more than a few in my games, so I've had a good amount of players on all ends of the spectrum. It's just a very easy class to make broken things with. With a Wizard or Cleric, it takes some effort, but it's much easier with the Summoner.
For what it's worth: I love the Unchained Summoner. It does two things:
1. Adjusts the Spells to be more in line with other classes.
James Jacobs wrote:
As the guy that runs the AoN, I second this. If you use my site or the d20pfsrd a lot, then you're going to get the most value out of a big book of setting material, since that is the one thing that neither site has a lot of (d20pfsrd not at all, and my site just in the flavor of other items/feats/"things").
By the rules, the Rage part of the Barbarian is just for the new Barbarian... *but* I personally apply the rules to any class that uses Rage in my own home games. I expect a lot of GMs that use the Unchained Barbarian would do the same.
PFS, I'm not sure on. We'll be seeing their own rules for it soon I imagine.
As the title says: assuming you are the GM, which Unchained Rules will always see a place in your games? I'm curious which ones people seem to value the most.
Personally, my own list:
For what it's worth, I've been toying with the idea of an API that hooks into the database behind the Archives of Nethys. That said, while I've become fairly proficient with C# and ASP, I've never touched an API thus far.
If an experienced developer wanted to work with me on getting one setup, and was happy being extremely patient with my time constraints, then that is something worth looking into. :)
AP SPOILERS BELOW
Yes, my reading does seem a bit harsher at first. I did want to make sure that the PCs would still get enough wealth to account for the usual "wealth by level" table though. As it turns out, my interpretation still gives them plenty to work with.
The AP expects the PCs to go from 4th to 5th level on the open seas, before the Rock. That's an increase of 4,500 gp each, or 18,000 gp in total for the average four person party. This means that, assuming they give the crew 1 plunder for every 1 they keep, that they'll need to acquire 36 points of plunder.
This also assumes they would go to Senghor to sell it (but really, why wouldn't you? It's not far, a metropolis, and you just don't do piracy in their waters, easy enough), and I'm still low-balling it. Assuming bare minimum sale price of 1,000 gp per plunder, and that they won't be able to sell anything else from anywhere (considering all the officers they attack have magical armor and even the crew has some masterwork gear, they'll get lots more after a few ship battles).
Before the Rock (and expected level 5), it's fair to assume the PCs have had a few ship battles, maybe a village battle, and probably the "Famished Mane" and "No Honor Among Thieves".
Each Ship Battle: Kurstav, Dowager Queen, Sanbalot. Each ship can (assuming not much damage, which is easy to avoid) be sold for half its worth in Plunder, or 5 Plunder each with these guys. In total, they also carry 7 points of Plunder on board.
Village Raid: The PCs can gain 2 points of Plunder here. 1 for the goods, 1 for the people.
Famished Mane: The ship, like the others, is worth 5 Plunder. There's an additional 1 point of Plunder in the hold.
No Honor Among Thieves: Huge catch here. A warship like the Devil's Pallor is worth 25,000 gp! That's 12 Plunder for sale. The Sea Chanty is worth another 5, and they have 3 Plunder on board both ships. 20 Plunder from this one event!
So with not even all of the available Events prior to the Rock, the PCs can gain 50 Plunder. With my reading, the crew would get 25, and the PCs could sell the other 25 for 25,000 gp (at *least*). That's more than needed to get them above the wealth by level threshold, especially if you add in the sale of other equipment and non-plunder treasure found. If we were going with the other assumption, the crew may only have taken 5-7 Plunder. We'll say the PCs still and keep 44 Plunder for themselves. 44,000 gp, or 11,000 gp each. That's enough to take them from 4th level gold all the way to 6th level gold.
And yes, this also assumes they have enough crew to always skeleton each ship (not hard) and that they aren't keeping any ship for themselves (not necessary).
When selling plunder, it seems like most of the people (including myself) on here assumed that the line "the PCs should simply deduct 1 point of plunder from their total each time they attempt to sell plunder." meant that each time the PCs went to a port and sold 1+ plunder, they would subtract 1.
Some had issues with this, as the share system seemed to break down depending on when they went into port. If they go into port with 20 plunder, spend 19 days to sell 19 of it and give 1 away, then all they've lost is one. Alternatively, if they sell 5 at one port, 5 at another, and 5 at a third, then they're giving up 3 plunder (one per port).
On a re-read, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps this has been misinterpreted. It says that they should deduct one plunder "each time they attempt to sell plunder".
Each attempt to sell plunder is made on a daily basis, selling 1 per day. Could it possibly mean that the PCs should be giving 1 plunder to the crew everytime they sell 1 for themselves?
This seems like a lot (50% of plunder), but makes some degree of sense. If the crew has 20 people and the PCs have 4 officers, then share-wise, the officers are still getting a much larger share of the plunder. Assuming a full 1,000 gp for plunder, the crew is getting 50 gp each while the PCs are getting 250 gp each.
This also helps account for the first issue mentioned above. It no longer matters if the PCs are stopping frequently or infrequently, they give up 1 plunder to the crew everytime they sell 1 of their own.
Does this make sense? Seem too harsh? I'm not sure how much the AP accounts for the PCs and plunder, but it feels more fair that the crew gets 1 plunder for every 1 the PCs keep for themselves.
Again, this is a case of game mechanics differing from rule life. Young = smaller. Adult for humans = 16. Younger than 16 thus equals Small.
It's really not much more complex than that, I'd think. Does it make perfect sense? No, not really, humans generally hit Medium earlier. But it's a game, so Young decreases size. -shrug-
I get why they did it, even if other GMs would rule that Val is Medium (I did in my game).
Haha, I've been getting myself back into a place where I only need to worry about updates once a month now, and am pretty much there. :)
Brinebeast, I still have those on my mind. I'm holding off on including anything like that yet until I'm confident I have the time. There's still lots of work I want to get done, so no ETA yet, but they are on my list.
We're diving into Book 2 soon of S&S, and I had originally set my mind on converting everything to Fire as she Bears. As I begin conversion and realize the daunting task I've set upon myself, I began to wonder if the original ship rules are really so horrible.
I initially read that some had poor experiences with them, that they were very cut and dry, only one person really got to do anything, etc. I'd be interesting in hearing more details. Namely, are they so bad that the large amount of effort in converting everything to FaSB is worth it? Or are they bad, but not so bad that it's worth taking the extra time?
Would really appreciate any input in this. :) Thanks!
Why is Val Baine Small? I thought she was human. I don't find any rules in Ultimate Campaign/Young Characters saying young characters are one size category smaller; did I miss the rule, or is this some house rule by the maker of the Iron Gods Pawns?
Granted, this is for Monster Advancement, but I imagine the same logic applies. The Young template decreases size by one step. Halflings (small) are always likened to being child sized, it makes sense that a 12/13 year old girl would still be in Small range.
The following new releases have been added to the Archives.
No problem :) Whether you agree with the whole interaction between magic and water or not, it makes thematic sense in the setting. Glitterdust, for example, is a common invisibility-exposure method at early levels, and all that really does is make a bunch of glitter fall down in an area, covering any invisible people underneath.
The underwater 'bubble' fits with the same logic, and is easy to do with the rules. You're easier to spot, and have reduced concealment. This came up in my own game recently actually: I also ruled that the user could still have a Stealth bonus, albeit with half the normal bonus that Invisibility would convey.
So still useful, just not as such.
It doesn't work as effectively at all. From the Core Rulebook, Environment section on Aquatic Terrain:
"Invisibility: An invisible creature displaces water and leaves a visible, body-shaped “bubble” where the water was displaced. The creature still has concealment (20% miss chance), but not total concealment (50% miss chance)."
Ah, yeah. The headshot was the only part that isn't an easy fix. What I did with those:
1. Delete the original headshot.
That's about it. Green looks awesome! :D
Your assumption is entirely accurate. No where does it state that "living creatures" lose all immunities. Quite the contrary, plenty of "living creatures" like outsiders and dragons have a host of immunities.
All the bloodline ability does is let spells/effects that only work on living creatures now work on constructs. That's it. All construct defenses are still intact.
Sorry I haven't been able to put up more of these lately guys, real life attacked me. That said, I *did* get a rough template together, which includes spots for both Mara's Eye and the Chinese fonts. I hope it helps!
As a request, if you use this to make more, please share them here (with translations and such) :D
Hi all! I have a couple of players in my Iron Gods game who made brother (well, half) characters, and have had an interesting parallel develop that they want to explore further. They aren't sure on the best mechanics (mostly feats) to do so. Any advice would be more than welcome!
Eli Bailey: Human, Alchemist 2. PBS, Precise Shot so far, plus the usual Alchemist tricks. Likes bombs. Has taken an interest in ranged tech, and is thinking of a dip in Gunslinger (probably Techslinger archetype) for techno-gun training.
Both of them are about to hit 3rd level, and looking for advice on Feats/other class options. Eli is looking at a blend of technology and alchemy, with more of a focus on alchemy and ranged combat. Wren is looking at a blend of technology and arcane magic, with a focus on still being kind of rogue-y and melee stuff (shocking grasp!).
Thanks in advance for any suggestions!
The Archives of Nethys automatically displays only the most recent version, whenever something is detected as a duplicate. In this case, both versions of Juju are logged in the database, but only the Faiths & Philosophies version (the source in blue font) is shown.
If there was an errata or FAQ that indicated both should be distinct and different versions though, I'd be interested in seeing that. It was my impression that the F&P one was a specific change to correct an earlier inaccuracy about the possibility of "good" undead (something I think James Jacobs commented on). Can't be certain tho.
I use a similar setup to the one posted earlier, digital. Cost is not that much. TV was $400-500 if I recall. Uses plexiglass with some spacers to keep out most dust/hair. MapTools is hosted on one computer, the player monitor joins from a second instance.
Been running this way since Legacy of Fire. Can't go back to marker and mat. Being able to track stats/statuses/hp on tokens is so much easier then the previous methods. :D The learning curve is a bit high, as GM-JZ mentioned, but not impassable. The Pathfinder Framework makes things *much* easier.
After years of doing it this way, I now have a nice collection of token images for monsters/NPCs from half a dozen APs and four Bestiaries, so grabbing a monster on the fly is simple. The latest framework also knows how to parse a statblock, so I can just copy one in from the Archives of Nethys, it converts that into the token stats, and away I go.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I'd be happy to hear suggestions sometime on improving the design if you have some ideas (nethys at archivesofnethys dot com) Thanks so much for the compliments! :D
The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
This actually happens when errata is put out and I haven't updated my database with the new data yet. The Bestiary 3 errata is something I planned to get to this week, now that the rest of my books are caught up. For now though, I've at least made the update to the Jiang-Shi, so it should have the correct data now.
"Page 278—In the Jiang-Shi stat block, change the Melee entry to “Melee 2 claws +9 (1d8+3/19–20 plus grab), bite +9 (1d6+3)”. In the Feats entry, add “Deflect Arrows,” after “Combat Reflexes,” and “Power Attack,” after “Mobility,”."
Still getting the PSD file in a place I want it, but I did add on some functionality for the Mara's Eye font in addition to the Chinese one.
Britteny Solari (White Access)
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Specialist, Pay Grade C5, Rank Second Lieutenant
Book 1, page 50, Area D7
Mara's Eye Version
Sure, I've seen that language plenty of times too. Are you saying you think that second part was a mistake to add in though?
There's basically two ways to interpret this feat.
1. You get to reroll the "did you glitch or not" check (#1 in my OP)
2. You get to reroll the "what is the glitch" check (#2 in my OP)
So you're saying that you think it's #1, and the "even if it is worse" line was just left in because of copy-pasta? I could buy that.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: by the book, there's nothing that says someone with the Technologist feat and experience can't just reference the timeworn table. They can know, on a single page, what all the results of each glitch are.
The whole "You must choose to reroll before determining the specific glitch" is what gets me. They have access to the table, if they roll on it, they will know the specific glitch. Thus, the decision to reroll needs to be made prior to it.
What's the other reroll ability, Jeff? Maybe I could check that out to help narrow this down. There's just two sentences in here that seem to conflict with each other and it bugs me :)
"You must choose to reroll before determining the specific glitch" <-- Doesn't this part mean that you need to choose before any roll to determine the exact glitch is made?
If it was done in secret or by the GM, then why ever bother using it? You'd decide to use it, the GM would roll twice, and only ever use the second roll "must take the second result".
Seems weird no matter which way I look at it.
When your check for using a piece of timeworn technology results in a glitch, you can roll again. You must choose to reroll before determining the specific glitch, and must take the second result, even if it’s worse. When you use timeworn technology, it doesn’t automatically glitch on a natural 1.
As best I understand, when you are using Timeworn technology and hit one of the "triggers" that starts a glitch (item first used after a month of inactivity, for example), you make two rolls:
1. 50% chance to see if a glitch actually occurs
When first reading the above feat, I took "When your check for using a piece of timeworn technology results in a glitch, you can roll again. You must choose to reroll before determining the specific glitch" to mean that you get to reroll that check made on #1. Basically Blind Fight for glitches. If 51+ means a glitch happens and you roll that, then you roll again hoping for non-glitch. This is supported by the "before determining the specific glitch" line.
However, the part after that bugs me: "and must take the second result, even if it’s worse." How could it be worse? On the first roll, it's either not a glitch (feat doesn't apply) or it was a glitch and there's no way for it to be worse (if you roll a glitch again, then you're back where you started). The only way you can get a "worse" result is if you're determining the specific glitch itself...
Anyhow, just kind of confused on this one. Would appreciate any help parsing it out.
Tricks don't exist on the Archives at the moment, though I've entertained the thought of adding them. Going back through all 200+ sourcebooks at the moment looking for new tricks isn't feasible though. Perhaps I'll start it as a group effort at some point :)
Chakat Firepaw wrote:
Were we using Tian more (it may help to say this is for a PBP game), then Chinese as alien may not have worked. As it is, we haven't used Tian since Jade Regent, so it works. Admittedly, it was part Firefly-reference, and part-no one in my group understands Chinese. :)
Mara's Eye is *very* cool. Sorely tempted to replace the current work with that. The main problem I had with a direct a-z translation is I liked the idea that Androffan, like Thassilonian, used more of a rune -> word system then a direct letter based system. At least, that's the impression I get. Chinese/Japanese/other symbol based languages seemed to fit better, with one or two symbols representing one or two words.
Not that I couldn't still do that with Mara's Eye, of course. Will need to ponder.
As for the photoshop files/more of these, I shall put all of those up soon. My weekend is coming up (Sun-Tues) so I'll be posting more then.