Magical public transit. Teleportation terminals, a public flying carpet schedule, hippogriff rickshaws...
A theater house that uses illusionary special effects, magically transforms its actors in lieu of disguises, etc. Maybe it uses "pre-recorded" illusions or divination devices to broadcast performances throughout the city, or record then for "repeat performances" so that there's always something playing even when the actors need a break?
DM: "You're in the market square. Make a Perception check."
Me: *rolls mediocre check*
DM: "A cutpurse has stolen your gold! You see him dart off through the crowd!"
Me: "I didn't have any gold."
Me:"I spent it all last time, remember? I'm a druid, I can live off Survival checks."
DM:"So... what did you have?"
Me:"Uhh... I collected some moss?"
DM:"A cutpurse has stolen your pouch of moss! You see him dart off through the crowd."
Me:"Okay." *beat* "Boy, is he in for a surprise."
DM:"Aren't you gonna chase him down?"
Me:"For a pouch of moss? Why would I bother?"
Is there a reason the Skald only gets certain types of Perform skills as class skills? Adding Sing to the list is nice, but they still don't get one that would work with a warhorn. And if this is a more martially-inclined performer, having them play a string instrument while they try to swing a sword looks awfully strange.
Can a character cast spells while raging? General consensus is that they can't. It certainly seems reasonable for a skald to do his spellcasting before he starts singing, but if he's using the Magus list, most of his spells are going to be the kind of thing you want to cast during combat-- the same time you want Raging Song active.
Further, if the song makes every other character in the group rage (and imparts the same restrictions) then all other "fightcasters" in the group (bards, inquisitors, battle clerics, etc.) have the same dilemma. Letting everybody choose round by round whether the song affects them is a much-needed update, but it still feels like the skald himself is being pulled in two directions. Can the skald himself choose not to be affected and still maintain the song? What if nobody chooses to be affected?
EDIT: Ninja'd pretty darn hard.
It seems like both Warpriests AND Priests will have to work to distinguish themselves from the already-existing classes.
For Priests, the challenge isn't just to distinguish it from the cleric and oracle, but also from the wizard and sorcerer. Personally, I think a new spell list seems like the best way to implement it. It isn't deity-specific (though deity-specific spells could be a major part of it), it solves the problem of a 1/2-BAB class having spells like Divine Favor and nothing to do with them, and even if the Priest does end up wearing armor and shrugging off the penalties, there's still a compelling reason to play a priest instead of a cleric.
As for what would be on a priest's spell list? Well, it seems like a priest should get domains, so domain spells obviously. An assortment of deity-specific spells would also be nice, so that a deity normally chosen by battle clerics (Gorum, I'm looking at you) would still hold appeal to a priest. I'd also like to see priest focus on AoE spells-- maybe something like the paladin's Rally Point spell, but with various different effects to appeal to different ideologies. Shelyn's "rally point" may grant a Charisma bonus to good creatures that pass through it, while Abadar's forces non-lawful creature to make a Will save or be staggered, and Urgathoa's rally point deals negative energy damage (and thus heals undead). Maybe at higher levels, the the radius of the point increases. There could be quite a lot of design space for spells like this, which would make a priest a battlefield controller in a way that a cleric or wizard can't really be.
Before I start, I have to admit that I haven't read the ACG yet and so I don't know exactly what the Bloodrager does. I think my argument holds up regardless though.
It seems like the main argument for the Bloodrager having spells is that Pathfinder doesn't have a full-BAB, arcane 4/9-caster despite there being two such divine casters. My question is, why is it that people want one in the first place?
I admit, I wanted one too for a while. But the truth is, I didn't want one because I thought it would be a fun class to play-- I wanted one because the OCD in me looked at the class lineup and saw an empty void. I didn't want to PLAY this martial arcanist, I just wanted him to EXIST so that the selection of classes didn't feel "lopsided".
Is that really a good enough reason? The only real functional difference between arcane and divine spells is that divine spells typically expect a code of conduct or alignment restriction, while arcane spells impose a spell failure chance if you're wearing armor. Which is the bigger drawback for a full-BAB combat caster? Arcane. So doesn't it make sense that there WOULDN'T be a full-BAB arcane caster?
What do arcane spells do that divine spells don't do? Not much. The only real difference there is that arcane spells can't heal effectively, and divine spells are awkward at blasting. Does a full-BAB character want to cast blasts? Not really-- that's what he carries a sword and bow for. Does he want to heal? He's a melee-capable character, and that means he's taking damage, so yes. If you're a martial first and caster a distant second, what spells do you really want to cast? Self-buffs. Both arcane and divine have that base well and truly covered. So what does this martial arcanist gain from being arcane instead of divine?
More importantly, what does PATHFINDER gain from an arcane fighter, other than the ability to say that it has one?
Like I said, I haven't seen a Bloodrager in action, so I can't really comment on whether or not it needs spells. But to those of you who DO comment, I would just ask you to consider the Bloodrager's own merits and how its spells complement its other functions-- not just because you want to slot it into an imaginary hole in Pathfinder's class system.
I have to say, I'm actually pretty torn as to which I'd prefer to see. There's solid arguments every which way, but after writing them all out, I think I'm leaning towards warpriest.
-If the Warpriest has 4 levels of spellcasting, it'll basically be the "Paladin of any alignment" that we've all been hoping to see someday.
-The cleric spell list is full of enough save-or-suffer and summon spells that I suspect a warpriest would have its own, trimmed down spell list, likely including a few extra deity-specific gems.
-Favored weapons is a very flavorful part of the cleric rules that most players like to acknowledge but can't effectively focus on unless they picked their deity for the proficency. A warpriest would be the ideal candidate for favored-weapon-specific class abilities.
-The cleric, inquisitor, and paladin are all already martially-inclined divine charatcers. There isn't much a warpriest could do that one of these classes couldn't.
-The game doesn't have a 1/2 BAB, d6HD divine caster.
-The archetype of a pacifistic holy man who doesn't touch a weapon is long ingrained in our ideas of what "holy men" are.
-If the priest uses the cleric spell list (and it most likely would) then there's nothing a priest could do that a cleric who minmaxed for Wisdom couldn't do.
-The oracle has already showed us what happens when you take an existing class's spell list and graft it onto a different class. Most oracles I've seen struggle to find spells that they as spontaneous casters want from the cleric's list of situational cures and utility spells. The cleric list was written under the assumption that its spells were for a prepared caster. If the priest is a spontaneous caster, he'll have the same issues as the oracle. If not, then why is it a whole new class?
-While blasting is often considered a sub-par option for a spellcaster, wizards and sorcerers have plenty of support for it as a valid option. Divine spellcasters don't get any good blasts unless they're non-good enough to cast Inflict spells, and many GMs and parties expect divine casters to be holy, not unholy, which means one of teh major things the wizard and sorcerer have over the cleric would still be denied the priest.
-One of the cleric's biggest advantages over the wizard, by contrast, is the durability and combat capability, balanced by a wizard's more robust spell list. The priest, by contrast, fails to impress compared to the wizard unless the class feature it trades its armor proficiency for is a good one indeed.
I agree that I think the current batch of iconics played it "too close to the chalk" as it were, and it would be nice for a new set of iconics (if there will be some) to show more of what each class CAN be, not just the most basic implementation.
Given the current batch of iconics, however, it seems Paizo's stance is clear. They've given us the standard baseline for each class and that's likely what they'll keep giving us.
Personally, the PFSRD kind of cuts down a lot of the work in flipping through books. Hell...I hate looking up stuff even when I know the book and section. The current rules books are often not the friendliest in design. I pretty much now always double-check rules online.
Not everybody in my group has a laptop to bring to the gaming sessions. Questions that arise on the fly usually can be dealt with by SRD, but character creation and leveling up really can't if we only have one computer between the five of us.
We don't always plan how long a session is going to last either, so sometimes we level up and discover that there's time for another few encounters. We also like to make leveling up a group activity, as we discuss options for new feats and spells with each other and get a feel for each character's strengths and weaknesses. This can't always be done in advance or on our own time, and it certainly can't be done if we're all fighting over books because the Grippli Eldritch Heritage Vivisectionist Alchemist needs three books just to figure out what he gets this level, the Gnome Qinggong Zen Archer is regretting his choice and wants to find something to multiclass into, and the Dwarf Fighter needs every book because he doesn't qualify for Greater Weapon Focus yet and he wants to find a feat he likes.
Arcane Blast is probably best suited for the rogue/wizard multiclass-- I've seen quite a few characters attempt to use wizard spells to render an enemy flat-footed and then Sneak Attack with a Ray of Frost.
The trouble is, if you have enough sneak attack dice for it to be worth it AND enough wizard levels to cast the usual flat-footed spells (Grease, Blur, Invisibility) AND still have spell slots left over to pour into Arcane Blast, then the guy next to you who picked one class and stuck with it has been making you look bad for about half the campaign. Also the rogue's biggest drawback is his low BAB, which is made worse by multiclassing with wizard.
It could work in a gestalt campaign, where you can gain spell slots and sneak attack dice without sacrificing either, but it's still definitely a build you go for because it sounds cool, not because it's optimized.
The Arcane Cannon Arm also looks like a reference to Trigun. I'm not really sure about how to figure out prices for items (nor am I concerned with doing so for a homebrew weapon I daydream up on the fly) but here's my best shot.
The Onyx Lash
What books don't I use?
I always use the APG, but sometimes I don't use UC or UM. The ARG is also more bookkeeping than it's worth.
It's not that there's anything I dislike in any specific book, but I really dislike when a person's character was built from four or five different books, so when we have a rules question regarding one of that character's feats or spells we have to search through three or four books to find the rule in question. And when they level up, it takes forever because their class is in this book but their archetype is in that book but the next feat they want is in the other book and GAAAAHHHH!
Next campaign I run: you can use the CRB and one other Paizo book of your choice. You want to be a Gunslinger? Fine, but pick a core race and make it work with CRB and UC feats only. You want to be a Dhampir? Fine, pick a core class. You want to cast Paragon Surge? Fine, but the new feat you learn can't be Expanded Arcana because that's in the APG.
You don't get your 1.5xStr bonus with an ECB because you're not adding your Strength to damage at all anymore-- you're adding Dex to damage, and Weapon Finesse doesn't let you add 1.5xDex for going two-handed.
If you don't use Weapon Finesse, then your Str bonus acts normally, of course.
Personally, my biggest problem with the curve blade is that there's no picture of it in the CRB. Is it like a thinner scimitar, or a long katana that tapers more to a point, or what? My initial mental image was of a sharpened question mark. Which is either absurd or awesome.
To the OP: If the character in question is a cleric of Desna, he's probably not the party damage dealer. He'll probably spend most of his time casting spells anyway-- the weapon in his hand is only there so he has a threatened area with which to flank.
For a cleric of Desna, the advantages to a starknife are:
I suggested this exact scenario a while back and was also roundly disparaged for it. My main difference was that I slowed the spell progression of 3/4-BAB full casters like clerics so their spell progressions and BAB exactly matched that of bards. This also meant that only sorcerers, wizards, and witches even got 7-9th level spell slots.
The biggest argument I got (beyond "you've obviously never played high level and you probably shouldn't with that kind of attitude") was that if you implemented such a change, nobody would choose to play as a "nerfed" class. It's a fair point-- how would you feel if you could see all those spells in the rulebook that you're just not allowed to play? It's the same issue with Evil Clerics-- there are the evil patron deities right there in the CRB, there's the cleric spell list and evil spells are on it, there's the rule that says you can Channel Negative Energy and spont-cast Inflict, and it all looks like it'd be fun to stat up and take for a test drive... but you can't. Not because it's against the rules, but because your GM and the other players don't want you to.
If Pathfinder had been published this way, with only 6th-level spells and wizards being the true kings of metamagic thanks to their souped-up spell slots, I'm sure people would enjoy it. But to have 9th-level spells exist but be off limits? That's a psychological punch that it'll be hard to get players behind.
If your playgroup wants to play it like that, I have no doubt it would work just fine. I can't imagine there's any monster or encounter out there that becomes unsolvable without those spells-- if there is, there really shouldn't be. Just talk it over with them first before you spring it on them.
And if you make it to level 17, let us know how it works out for you!
I'm a little worried about the fact that he regains panache on a crit. Gunslingers have to do it with a firearm-- all of which only crit on a 20 without help. A Swashbuckler could dual-wield rapiers and end up with more panache than he knows what to do with.
Also, the Sword Master style only applies to "finneseable" weapons, which means the spiked chain, but not the longsword. Are you sure you want to call it "Sword Master"?
A while back, somebody here was asking about a "superdungeon" campaign, and how a party could resupply or find solace without leaving a dungeon.
I brought up the "Demon Doors" from the Fable series of games. They're basically stone doors with giant faces carved in, that will only open if you do a small quest for them or otherwise meet their demands.
The idea was that the superdungeon would be "populated" by benevolent (or at least ambivalent) statuary that can be negotiated with to provide supplies or information. Perhaps certain stone doors can be convinced not to let monsters in, or various relief carvings function as magical "vending machines" that sell potions?
Any dungeon that contained a few of these would eventually have the PCs looking forward to finding statuary-- so the inevitable Gargoyle attack would come completely out of the blue. MWAHAHAHAHA!
In my experience it's usually failed saves. I've seen one rogue fail against a Haunt in RotRL. I"ve seen another botch a trap disarming, then fail the Reflex save versus the damage... but make the Fort save versus massive damage. Kind of funny, since he failed at the things rogues are supposed to be good at, yet succeeded where at the one he should have been most likely to fail.
Actually, "death by trap" is probably pretty common, since it's the situation the rogue is most likely to get overconfident in...
In the real world, various populations don't get out of hand because they compete with each other for food and resources. If the wolf population gets too high, the rabbits get hunted to extinction, and then the wolves starve.
Vampires at least are smart enough to recognize that every spawn is potential competition and fewer villagers to go around. Thus they probably avoid siring more spawn unless they need the additional numbers (assuming a vampire can choose between creating a spawn and simply drinking a corpse dry).
Shadows and other less intelligent undead presumably have other forces at work. True, they can't starve to death, but they must have some sort of "resource" that they compete over. Perhaps there's a limited amount of negative energy on this plane, and thus a hard limit on the total amount of undead there can be at any one time? Perhaps evil clerics casting Inflict spells are actually increasing the frequency of undead rising?
TriOmegaZero, The Mafia and street gangs aren't "thieves' guilds" as they usually appear in fiction, though there are key similarities.
Street gangs are usually more like "Assault and Battery Guilds" or "Drug Merchants' Guilds" instead of true Thieves' Guilds. They operate more like militias who don't recognize the government's claim on "their territory", and the main reason to join one is to protect yourself from the other. If the Jets know you're a Shark, they'll hate you all the more but they're less likely to actually mug you because they know you've got friends who'll reciprocate. Any theft they commit is just a side effect of having already beaten you up anyway.
The Mafia is a closer fit, but it still looks more like "a group of friends who share illegal hobbies" or sometimes it's one guy (the Don) and a crowd of underlings and henchmen. While they definitely steal more than street gangs, they usually do it with embezzlement and intimidation tactics backed up by the occasional "cement shoe shine".
Thieves' Guilds, as portrayed in fiction, are focused on the art of burglarization. Their goal isn't just to rob you, but to keep you from ever finding out WHO robbed you. Lockpicks, felt-soled shoes, the whole nine yards. That, as an organization, can't really exist because:
1) The threat of punishment for betrayal doesn't hold water. The treacherous thief has already learned how to burglarize undetected, so his guildmates won't be able to pin it on him. And since the higher-ups explicity AREN'T coldblooded killers like in a street gang or Mafia, their punishment won't be severe enough to scare potential traitors into loyalty.
2) The organization is too secret to recruit new members. Up-and-coming thieves would be unlikely to accept an invitation because they've never heard of the Thieves' Guild-- they'd see the recruiter as a lone conman with a tall tale trying to swindle his way into a cut of the take. And if the Guild expects to maintain its secrecy, it can't offer membership to any thief it hasn't had a chance to properly investigate... and any aspiring thief the Guild is able to actually locate and pin crimes on probably isn't good enough to join.
3) If the organization isn't secret, then its members will inevitably either be caught or be forced to pay off law enforcers (which cuts into their profits).
Honestly, the whole idea of a thieves' guild never made any sense to me at all. You're talking about a business organization composed entirely of people whose only defining characteristic is their willingness to flout the property rights of others. It's only a matter of time before such an organization cannibalizes itself as members start stealing from each other. You can't suggest that they won't, because you've BUILT THE ENTIRE GUILD out of people who WILL steal things from other people. If Tom the Thief didn't listen to the king, the sheriff, or his knights when they told him everybody else's wealth is off-limits, why will he listen to you when you tell him that yours is?
The farthest I can stretch my disbelief to is that a circle of friends might take up theft as a hobby and share stories of their heists with each other. Maybe they'd share leads on promising marks, or buy stolen goods off of each other, and if they caught wind of someone else stealing stuff they might invite him to joint heir little social club, but they could never hope to actually operate as a guild that has active members in multiple cities/towns/villages and confers benefits onto its members.
I guess a lawful thief could be a member of such a group of thieving friends, but honestly that sounds more NG or CG to me.
The ranger is supposed to be the wilderness survivalist, right?
Archery comes from hunting wild game, and TWF comes from hacking through the underbrush with machetes.
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
Dungeons and Dragons Online pulled off something like that-- their Warforged regained hit points through a "Repair" skill instead of the Heal skill and used "repair kits" instead of healing potions. (I don't remember if Cure spells worked on them or not). The end result made Warforged kind of a hassle to play, since you either needed to play in an all-Warforged group, be your own healer, or hope plenty of repair kits dropped. And when repair kits dropped for a group that didn't have a Warforged in it, it was basically vendor trash.
I definitely hear what you mean, and on some level I agree, but when those kind of options aren't horribly imbalanced, they're just mroe hassle than they're worth-- even when you're not playing as one.
As for what I'd want from a construct race, I'd want a race that embraces the possibility of being safely disassembled and reassembled.
-Modular limbs with weapons or shields in place of hands (makes disarming impossible, but can't switch weapons in combat).
-Can "detach their head" and function for a time as a Tiny construct with various pros and cons (similar to a Penanggalen from the Bestiary 3)
-Can be "made masterwork" (this could imply just about anything).
-Perhaps some kind of steampunk punch-card system gives them hot-swappable bonus feats or Knowledge skill bonuses.
Actually, modularity would be the major draw for me. To be able to take an hour to switch out my load-out would give a construct race something that truly made it feel like a construct, and set it apart from the other races without having to completely rewrite how healing works.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Given how often adventurers find themselves in dungeons, I've frequently gotten the impression that dungeons are simply a natural-occuring phenomenon in Golarion, and that there isn't a single square foot of land there that isn't directly over a cavern, crypt, catacomb, underground passageway, future sinkhole, or the like.
The local civilization doesn't "do anything about it" for the same reason they don't vote on whether or not the Sun is allowed to rise and set.
There have been several attempts to being casters and martials more in line with each other, or at least to keep full-casters from breaking the game across their knee like so much dry tinder once they get into late-game. So, here's my attempt at it, presented for your approval (or disdain).
The Rules Changes:
1. 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells no longer exist.
2. Clerics, druids, and oracles-- who currently get 3/4 BAB and a few other martial options-- have their spell progression adjusted to match bards and inquisitors.
3. Wizards, sorcerers, and witches-- who have 1/2 BAB and no real function outside of spellcasting, keep their current spell progression. They now gain their highest level spells at level 11 or 12. Optionally, they still gain slots for 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells, but can only use the slots to cast metamagically-enhanced spells.
The arguments of such a house rule, as I see them:
In Favor Of:
1.Several of the most game-breaking spell effects (Time Stop, Gate, Wish, the majority of instant-death spells) are removed from the game.
2.The cleric, druid, and wizard lists all have plenty of powerful effects at or below 6th level to justify playing those classes (and clerics and druids have plenty of class abilities outside of their spells to focus on).
3.Most, but not all, spells that can bring a dead person back to life are removed, giving death more in-world significance without eliminating the possibility of coming back to life.
4.Martial and hybrid classes become more relevant in comparison.
5.The majority of 7th+ level spells were simply extensions of lower-level spells (Mass Invisibility, Summon Monster VII-IX, Greater Scrying) and were therefore not contributing anything to the game that it didn't already have at lower levels.
1.The most gamebreaking spell effects are also some of the most beloved by a certain portion of the community.
2.The full-casters were built with the assumption of eventually getting high-level spells. Taking those away and giving them nothing in return is a drastic and unwarranted nerf.
3.The monsters in the Bestiary whose CR are high enough to be pitted against a PC who can cast 9th level spells was built under the assumption that it would have to face 9th level spells. The CR of those enemies and the difficulty of endgame in general may need to be completely re-balanced.
4.The majority of 7th+ level spells are simply extensions of lower-level spells, and thus removing them from the game accomplishes nothing. Indeed, losing the Mass versions of several staple spells (including higher-level Cure and Inflict spells) simply adds additional headaches when multiple targets are involved.
5.Most PF campaigns don't even go into higher levels anyway. PFS, for example, stops at level 12, so sorcerers, wizards, and witches would be completely unaffected by these changes while clerics, druids, and oracles lose 5th and 6th level spells for no clear reason.
I'd love to get some feedback here. Any pros or cons I missed? Any favorite spells I'd forgotten? Any anecdotes of your own experiences?
If you find yourself having trouble getting sneak attacks off, I recommend either the Major Magic talent choosing Grease, or simply getting a Wand of Grease and throwing skill ranks in UMD.
And speaking of grease...:
Read more at: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/rendered-lard-recipe/index.h tml?oc=linkback
Priest is wanted, but you can't build a fun 9 level pure caster with the PF cleric list. For most offensive purposes the cleric is a bard speed caster until level 9 when they suddenly start getting wizard peer spells like wall of stone and flamestrike. You can't put that list on a pure caster as is and have it work and fixing the lower levels would mess up item restrictions the way the summoner did.
There's no real reason to expect this new theoretical class to use the Cleric spell list. If it's a new class, it should get its own spell list-- one that helps define what this class does.
After all, the Cleric list has already been co-opted by the Oracle. How many classes do we expect to share one list?
For those saying that the Divine spells lack offensive options, there's the Inflict line and a whole host of Save-or-Suffers, from Command right up to Implosion.
Personally, I think the Priest idea would be cool as a domain-based spont-caster. His list of domain spells forms the backbone of his spells known list, so with the right choice of deity and domains, he could fill a wide variety of roles. Maybe he gets to choose a third domain as his payoff for losing the armor and BAB of a cleric?
Even Oracles struggle a little at low levels working with the Cleric spell list. Unlike the Sorcerer/Wizard list, which was always intended to be the list for both a prepared and a spontaneous caster, the Cleric list was written for the benefit of a class that can prepare any spell on it. Quite a bit of it consists of spells that you wouldn't cast every day even as you're grateful for the ability to prepare them when they're needed.
A "pure caster" divine class would definitely need to have its own list written up from scratch-- maybe taking cues from the Druid, Cleric, Ranger, Inquisitor, and even Bard lists, depending on the flavor.
El Baron de los Banditos wrote:
I really wish there were weapon stats for pitchforks. Alas...
325. The PCs find an uninhabited log cabin in the woods. The cabin's door has been left ajar and nothing of value is inside, but the cabin itself is newly constructed, and contains sleeping accomodations for eight, a fireplace, a desk, and has an ongoing Unseen Servant spell tending to the house. A Spellcraft check reveals that this is a Secure Shelter, cast by another traveling wizard who used it to camp last night and has since moved on. 1d4 hours after the PCs find it, the duration ends and it disappears.
Which polearm was it that is basically a scythe with the blade turned pointy-end-out? I know there's a lot of talk about the Scythe in fact being that weapon, or maybe not, but I could've sworn one of the polearms in the book is described as being a farmer's tool.
If you want to flavor this guy as a farmer, I'd definitely avoid Cleric, Inquisitor, or Paladin, since those imply that this guy has a religious organization backing him. Aasimar Fighter is a good option, as is Oracle.
There should be a spell that turns gold pieces into suitable throwing weapons. Not that any adventurer I've ever met would ever cast it...
I like the Sympathy suggestion. I think my spellcasters are going to start casting Symbol spells on coins and then "dropping" them in dungeons (or crowded city boulevards, depending on alignment).
This would probably be one of the chapters in that "non-combat Bestiary" I mentioned earlier. Though a creative author certainly could flesh it out into an entire book of its own...
You don't play with exploding dice because it's powerful, you play because it's FUN.
Exploding dice are basically just another way to crit. Your odds of rolling an 8 on a d8 are 12.5%, which is halfway between an 18-20 and a 19-20 crit range. And if you're rolling 3d8 each attack, your odds of getting an extra d8 are quite good. Sure, it'll be less relevant as time goes by, but if anything that just means it's borderline OP at low levels.
The last time I played a Gunslinger, my GM carried the exploding dice rules over from 3.5. And with most PF firearms doing x4 on a crit, the odds of an exploding die on a crit are solid enough to make firearms incredibly damaging weapons. At one point I dealt 6d8+4 damage to an enemy... at level 2.
I suspect Gunslingers were an attempt at this, seeing as how their deeds let them do things a fighter or ranger can't. Since firearms take so long to reload and reward you for staying close to the target, the idea was (likely) that gunslingers would be the "skirmisher" you're talking about--- constantly repositioning and firing.
Trouble is, Gunslingers are still just volley archers-- they just have to spend more resources getting their reload speed down. I second that I'd like to see a class, or at least archetype, that focuses on ranged combat without relying on Rapid Shot.
224: Zizzo's First tome
The final page in an arcane script. A Read Magic spell reveals it as the Secret Page spell. In fact, the entire book is under the effects of a Secret Page spell, and is actually a wizard's spellbook containing all wizard cantrips plus the following spells: Blink, Cat's Grace, Chill Touch, Comprehend Languages, Dispel Magic, Enlarge Person, Fox's Cunning, Grease, Haste, Lightning Bolt, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, Secret Page, Shocking Grasp, Shrink Item, Spider Climb, and Web.
GMs are encouraged to allow the PCs a Knowledge[Local] check to determine what became of Zizzo.
What I'd like to see is a "non-combat Bestiary". Thinking up puzzle encounters or diplomatic situations to put your players in is hard. harder than, say, cracking open the Bestiary, finding a CR-appropriate monster, and having it attack the PCs.
The NPC Codex was a good start, but what I'd really like is a Codex of environmental hazards, traps, freak natural disasters, couriers bearing bad news, chase scenes, intelligent magic weapons with complex agendas, magical diseases, skill-check challenges, haunts, cursed treasure, and whatever else you can think of-- all CR-rated and accompanied by a list of suggestions as to where and why a group of adventurers might encounter them.
Looks pretty cool, though I would have given them +2 INT instead of +2 CON. Usually playable races get a bonus to one physical and one mental skill, and you did mention "innate cunning".
I'm a little surprised to see that they're Medium and not Large. I had toyed with the idea of making a playable Minotaur race, and I made them Large but gave them "Close-Quarters Combat"-- they don't have natural reach like other Large creatures because they're more accustomed to fighting in tight labyrinth passages. Maybe they reduce the penalties for squeezing into tight spaces?
I absolutely love the idea of a labyrinth as a public works structure, designed like a gladiatorial event or a punishment spectacle. If that were a reality show I'd watch the hell out of it.