That feels very Meta/Video gaming.
You bring up a very good point, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. Having a character that can morph to fit a situation pleases the strategist in me, but it does seem like it will make me feel more removed from my character, as not much about them will ever be fixed.
Lol. Boat shoes. Shoes in the shape of boats.
Hmm. That made me think about the other side of things. Does a ship that's run aground count as a ship for that feat? Does the ship have to be on water? What about an air ship?
Only thing I like is that they've shot(or attempted to) power gamey builds in the foot.
Power gamers will always find a way. Though in this case, I couldn't imagine any power gamer ever taking this arch2type. You'd have to have some really bad class feat options for those things to look tempting.
It occurs to me that these arch2types could/should probably branch off into trees as well. Pirate is probably a bad example, but imagine there is another desired arch2type called fisherman. He'd want the exact same abilities as Pirate Dedication and Sea Legs, but would want a different ability from Boarding Action, like "Big Fish".
Out of curiosity, is there a reason given that we can change out class feats for other archetype feats, that we actually need classes at all?
Wow. Flashback. I remember thinking something like this way back in the day with 3.0. I figured 4.0 would be a lot like how you suggest. I'm not always the best psychic.
Melkiador: I'm pretty sure any 'class archetypes' will be just like these general 2E archetypes but with a prerequisite that the character must have X number of levels in a class or the class feat being replaced must be a class feat for class Y.
See, though. The terminology is already causing confusion. With these new archetypes around, it's hard to know what you are talking about when someone says "archetype".
Mark Seifter wrote:
But how will the terminology around that work in the future. If we have these feat-based-archetypes and then add on class-based-archetypes later, will they still both be called archetypes? Because they will be using fairly different mechanics and that could get confusing to talk about.
I don't really feel like these should be called "archetypes" though, because of how drastically different they are to the archetypes that the Pathfinder audience has had for so long. I'm afraid it will just lead to bad press and misunderstandings.
Going with the name, I'd just call it a "feat path". Same number of characters as "archetype", without the confusion or bad feels.
The archetype alters bloodline powers. Bloodline mutations replace bloodline powers. They don’t stack for that reason. It’s the same as how you can’t take two different options that alter skills.
And your blood arcanist quote doesn’t really have anything to do with alternate feature stacking. It’s talking about multiple bloodlines from different sources. Like having a level of bloodrager and having a level of sorcerer.
Edit: But that does bring up a backdoor. You could take a level of crossblooded sorcerer and dip a level of compatible bloodrager to pick up the havok for its first level bloodline power.
Feats are abilities though.
Some abilities are not tied to your race, class, or skill—things like particularly quick reflexes that allow you to react to danger more swiftly, the ability to craft magic items, the training to deliver powerful strikes with melee weapons, or the knack for deflecting arrows fired at you. These abilities are represented as feats.
They shouldn't stack.
Bloodline Powers: At 1st, 3rd, 9th, 15th, and 20th levels, a crossblooded sorcerer gains one of the two new bloodline powers available to her at that level. She may instead select a lower-level bloodline power she did not choose in place of one of these higher-level powers.
Bloodline Mutations wrote:
Whenever a bloodrager or a sorcerer gains a new bloodline power, she can swap her bloodline power for a bloodline mutation whose prerequisites she meets.
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the base class as the other alternate feature. For example, a warpriest could not be both a champion of fate and a disenchanter, because both archetypes replace the channel energy class feature with something else.
Note that those levels are the only levels you gain bloodline powers.
Then what about the Rogue Talent option? Would the slayer's bonus apply to something like Demand Attention gained through the Rogue Talent slayer talent? Using the same logic for feats not applying, then the rogue talents wouldn't apply either, as the talent is just giving you another talent, and not itself giving a bonus.
A +8 to strength is only 4 to 6 more damage to hit. Not that big a deal at higher levels. The +4 to hit is the only concern. But you have to consider the huge risk the character takes in drawing a card in the first place. Sure the fighter could get a big boost but he is much more likely to get something unhelpful or even harmful.
Consider that if you rule it a polymorph effect them the target is under a permanent polymorph effect and is immune to further polymorph. And you suffer from issues like, “While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. ”
Polymorph is a bad fit for this effect.
But if we are adding “all” of the effects, then there’s no reason to not apply both tables.
It seems like warpriest could use some errata for its weapon focus. And if it had the errata, it would probably just say that it ignores prerequisites, which would allow the non-proficiency options.
But from a more practical standpoint there are a few options to get your warpriest around this limitation. Humans, half-elfs and half-orcs all have options for getting free whip proficiency. And there are some questionable traits for getting it too.
But the table isn't labeled monster advancement. And the table immediately after size changes, in the same section, lists changes that clearly apply to all creatures when they change size.
PCs aren't mosnters...
I'm pretty sure aether is the one blast that can't "ride the blast".
You can use this wild talent as part of activating a kinetic blast other than telekinetic blast.
The "problem" with the damage is that it's pretty set in stone. There are almost no options outside of the class for increasing it. It has what's known as a high floor and a low ceiling, because it's super easy to make a strong one, but there isn't much you can do to make it any stronger than that. If you were to compare its damage per round to most good archer builds, you'd see that it's damage is on the low side.
But the utility can be super high depending on how creative you are and how far your DM will let you go with abilities like telekinetic haul and finesse.
Also, if you have two reasonable interpretations of a rule and you know that one of those interpretations is intended, you should go with the intended interpretation.
It's like the mauler familiar's size change feature. It says to modify its strength for its size, but doesn't say which table to use. Either choice has equally valid points for and against it, but we know from another of Mark's posts that you are intended to use the polymorph table.
Wizards still have access to their broad prepared casting. A lot of people don't care for it (in which case, go ahead and play a Sorcerer or Arcanist) but for those who do and are willing to go to the effort of making full use of it prepared casting is incredibly powerful.
Off topic, but an arcanist is also a prepared caster. And it's pretty darn good at it, especially with the quick study exploit, which is amazing.
CRB Combat wrote:
If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.
And that's why tripping tends to get looked down on. Flying creatures can get super common and many non-humanoids have 4+ legs or no legs at all.
But if you think you'll still enjoy doing the tripping, when you can do the tripping, then go for it. You'll just have to get used to the idea of not always getting to do the thing you built your character for.
A first level ranger gets to use wands too.
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action
Water probably just is, so doesn’t count as an effect. “Effect” in game terms mostly just means that something else created the thing. I don’t think it has the meaning you’re trying to assign to it here.
CRB Equipment Chapter wrote:
Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories. These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon's use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon's usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).
So, unless stated otherwise, if a weapon isn't simple, martial or exotic, then proficiency doesn't pertain to that weapon. Natural attacks are one of the few other options that state otherwise.