I would like to throw my voice in saying that taking away Sneak Attack is a poor move- our testing feedback actually felt that the investigator was incredibly weak in combat at level 1-2, and needed Sneak Attack SOONER. If a class made of two classes each with 1d6/2levels DOESN'T get something similar as a combat ability, I'm sad. Unless it gets something very similar but more tied into studying a specific target, it's gonna go from one of my favorite classes to one that will only get used as an NPC.
This was a class that had me pretty confused from the get go, especially as this name is already used for a type of druid with a specific animal totem. Then, we call it an oracle/witch hybrid. But it prepares spells from the cleric list with an hour of meditation an based of their Wis, from the entire list, like a cleric or druid. Sure, it has a familiar and hexes which are witchy, but the only oracle flavor I see at all is that the "spirits" are named for Oracle mysteries- which makes me wonder if it's not meant to be just another way for oracular mysteries to "manifest" or grant power to agents, and is the most interesting piece of this I see so far. I'd definitely like to see some changes, if nothing else but to bring this away from being the tri-fusion it feels like currently. Maybe make it spontaneous, or a "prepared spontaneity" at least, like the Arcanist? Or just change over the Spirits from being Mysteries to Patrons or Domains instead and drop the oracular bits all together (though I get the thematic tie of oracles speaking with spirits).
This was one of my first and biggest peeves when reading through the playtest packet with my husband. The name is more appropriate for the ranger class itself than this thing. In fact, this name and knowing ranger was involved in the hybrid left me expecting something closer to how the SLAYER came out. I expected favored enemy or at least combat styles to be involved. As it is, I see literally 0% ranger in this thing, and only see an inquisitor+druid. The teamwork feats, the tracking, the aspects feeling more like judgements... don't get me wrong, I actually like the concept of this a lot, but the name and "false advertising" of druid+hunter did NOT lead up to this expectation, leaving a lot of disappointment. We've already started calling it a "Wild Stalker" instead.
The lack of range support is also a huge bone in my craw as it's the #1 thing I associate with hunters- again, a problem brought about by the name, for me. The proficiency block in general is sort of a trainwreck for me. Why the druid-restrictions-but-not? The weapon selections in particular are very odd, as was previously pointed out- needs more bows and spears, and less scythes and sickles.
James Jacobs wrote:
Thank you SO MUCH for answering these concerns!! I can hardly get my players to wait until I have my physical copy as it is, haha! So waiting for book 3 wasn't really an option, but at the same time, they are huuuuuuuuuuuuge into the story side of things, so I had a moment frozen in terror as I saw the long range implications of some of these things, but didn't know how tweak-able they were. The sibling idea is a fantastic fix which hadn't occurred to me, so thanks for that, as well as your comments under the cut, which saved an entire character concept for our healer.
I appreciate the input, and that's similar to the solution I had initially come up with, but it would be far more useful if I could have feedback/input/suggestions from another GM who could address the concerns expressed under the cut. This elf situation is honestly the least of the issues that has arisen from my players' initial choices.
The point here, Tangent, is that I'm the GM, and I'm trying to figure out how to make these traits work for what my players want to do. I'm assuming that 114, being the minimum that can be achieved on the random starting age chart, is equivalent to a 16 year old human, being the minimum that can be achieved on the random starting age chart. That's beside the point, though.
These traits have significant story value built into them, that is used throughout the adventure. Without having the full adventure available, I don't know what the impact of this or that minor tweak would be. It's something that's never really come up before, as in the past traits have always been more or less "you all meet in a tavern" tailored more specifically for the adventure path, which is pretty easily re-skinnable to tailor to different background or character ideas. In this case, since these traits "grow" with you, and tie to events beyond the scope of even the first book, I can't be sure that choices we make at the outset won't need to twist something that happens down the line.
Actually, the Worldwound is over 100 years old and the First Mendevian Crusade was launched 91 years prior to the current events in the Worldwound. So it is entirely possible for an elf to be a Riftwarden Orphan. And their being orphaned might have happened while they were in their early teens-equivalent (thus 40-50 years ago even) rather than as an infant. You can always adjust thing to suit your characters.
Yes, the Worldwound opened up in 4606, and as it is currently 4713 that makes the Worldwound 107- but the minimum starting age of an elf is 114, which is 7 years too old to have been orphaned to folks lost into the Worldwound less than a month after they were born. Yes, there are relatively minor ways to tweak this for a fix, but considering some of the other issues I've run into as referenced under the spoiler, I'm afraid to make changes without knowing WHAT I'd impact.
Some of these traits seem to have certain assumptions built in- like the Riftwarden Orphan trait won't be taken by an elf (your parents disappeared in the Worldwound when you were a few months old, but an elf wouldn't be an adult now if the Worldwound existed when he was a few months old)
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE A PLAYER:
Page 55 mentions in book 3 the Child of the Crusades will find a stash of gear his parents left behind-- are they assumed to be dead?
Page 55 also mentions that the Touched By Divinity character will discover they are the child of their god-- is it assumed Shelyn ISN'T who's chosen (Since she's the Eternal Maiden, and I'm pretty sure we'd know if she'd fallen in love with a mortal?) or are they not the LITERAL child of their god? Also, wouldn't this have some racial implications? (I'm thinking Aasimar at the least...)
I mean, these things may not be a huge deal to those who don't deal much in their back story, but we were using the background generator from the Ultimate Campaign and have already fleshed out some pretty detailed histories- These things seem like some pretty major retcons if not taken into consideration from the beginning.
Honestly, I have to say, my group would have been APPALLED at how you handled this. Absolutely, utterly appalled.
How DARE you handle such an important scene over EMAIL?! We all would have wanted to be a part of it, and probably participate in the impromptu funeral-- if not figure out how to pool our money for a raise dead of some sort!
But then, we're heavy role players. I'm sure someone out there is wondering why you didn't just grab a fresh stat block, or even just continue with the one you had, after calling a new, surprisingly similar companion.
Viorian Dekanti's tactics say that she uses Power Attack and Vital Strike when not making a full attack, but she doesn't have Power Attack. Also, her attack and damage for her shield bash seem to be missing the +3 for being in the close weapon group, which she has weapon training in. Lastly, she is listed as using a Composite Longbow with a +10 Str mod, but doesn't have a 10 Str mod, even while wearing the belt of physical might, nor is she taking an attack penalty for doing so.
A concern I have that I'm surprised no one's brought up yet (though I do share just about every concern that HAS been mentioned) is how would you gain additional spells with your mark? It functions as a familiar... so I can have my markings commune with another familiar, or use a scroll and do a ritual where "the scroll is burned and its ashes used to create a special brew or powder that is consumed by the familiar"?
To repeat some thing that have already been said, though: "Scoundrel" seems an inappropriate name, the 'avatar' seems over complicated with no actual benefit, and the Fey Hex feature is obnoxiously restrictive.
I do pretty strongly associate fey and the RK (I blame Kingmaker), and the name initially got me excited, but the actual archetype itself was nothing but a let-down. The flavor was a strong inspirational theme to build a vanilla witch around, though. There's just nothing this archetype offers that makes it worth the trade-off, to me.
I'd agree on the formatting, but I've seen a perfectly formatted bad or bland magic item, next to a poorly formatted interesting item. At first I used formatting as a guide for the good design, but because of the above good formatting is no guarantee that the item is something of quality.
Aye, I'm hardly saying I'd never vote for a poorly formatted item, just that I'm harsher on them. If I'm "meh" about both (which has been the VAST majority, for me), the correctly formatted one is the one I'll give a pass.
We shouldn't have to pick! A true superstar would have both ;)
Frankly, I AM taking formatting into consideration-and I think everyone should. For one thing, submitters were practically handed the proper format on a silver platter. If you can't follow it, it's pretty well laziness. For another, even if the proper format required referencing other extant items from the PRD or the like, it's not that hard! Using the proper formatting shows professionalism, and since the prize is, well, a shot at being a professional, I almost don't care if someone's invented the best item in the world, if that person can't be bothered to present it correctly. If an entrant can't be bothered to put in a tiny bit of effort to match standards, frankly that entrant doesn't deserve to win the chance to write a module.
Honestly, if I see an entry that doesn't have the proper format, it has to absolutely blow my mind, or I automatically vote for the opponent.
Ross Byers wrote:
Just for clarification, "does not conform to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" would include not following template; ie not including weight or slot at all (not just "Weight --" but there is absolutely no weight/slot/etc mentioned), not listing requirements (It's a wonderous item, it automatically requires Craft Wonderous Item, and you have to list that), and so on, correct?
You contradict yourself a bit there. The exact case for this character I'd like to build IS in fact "my grandfather was a human." This makes him 3/4 elf. Building a new 'mostly elf' race isn't an option, as I'm looking to run him in PFS, and I'm not entirely pleased with that idea anyway, because it DOES sound like building the 75%elf as a race, which isn't a thing (I forget where precisely I saw mentioned that semi-percentages just wouldn't be messed with, you were either "half" or not). Going the elf-statistically-with-humanesque-options might be the way to go here.
I have two questions here, both super relevant to my character idea, but from two vastly different angles.
The first being a PFS legality clarification-- the ARG racial archetypes are legal ONLY for those races, which, if I'm understanding it correctly, means a half-elf couldn't be a spelldancer, for example, because it is full elf specific? Or does "Elf Blood: Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race." squeak them in?
From a more fluff-but-still-incredibly-important-to-me question, which would the offspring of a Half-Elf and an Elf be, mechanically? Half-Elf or Elf? I know Three-Quarters-Elf is ludicrous, but which side of the fence would he fall on? Is that enough to push him into "close enough" elf territory? Is one human in an otherwise long line of elves enough to 'taint' the rest of the bloodline to half-elfdom forever? Flipside for humans with an elven one-night-stand. Where's the cut-off point to transition from one race to the other?
After one session with our level 13, mythic 1 group, which I took hero points away from once they ascended, I've got a little more to say on the matter.
While the two points DO overlap SOME, it's not all, and not immediate. The biggest things my players lamented was the loss of the ability to take an extra standard action, spending 2 hero points to shake off massive damage at -1 and stable, and the flexibility of "other things with DM approval"-- their favorite being spending a point to force a monster to reroll a threatened critical.
The extra turn would be even better than an extra standard action, sure, but you can't do it whenever you want, it's a set alternative initiative, and you don't get that immediately, either. Also, as I understand it, Amazing Initiative is going to be significantly altered.
Another solution I may try is to have their Hero Points "transform" into Mythic Power, allow the heroic feats to apply to their Mythic Power, and let one resource pool cover the power of both. On the other hand, this will take away the viability of the +1d6 use of the Mythic Power, since +8 or even +4 is often better than the gamble on the dice.
Pendin Fust wrote:
Am I wrong in reading that as "add mythic rank equal to half the base CR"?
Rebuilding with the Mythic subtype would make a 14 class level character mythic 6, yielding something in the neighborhood of CR 19 unless I'm understanding this less than I think I do. That's far too high a jump for use in the AP.
More feasible to make him an actual Archmage as a player would, but that carries with it the weakness (and he's already got one). Not sure I want to stack that on him.
May wind up just putting a different template on him (Invincible, perhaps).
I was applying a few Mythic Templates to ROTRL (anniversary version) enemies for our group's play testing. I've run into a bit of confusion on the intended use for the templates. The big culprit here is the "Arcane" and "Divine" templates. At first I thought they were meant to buff up creatures who cast arcane or divine spells... yet the template GRANTS the ability to do so.
So if I were to, say, add the Arcane template to a level 14 or so transmuter, would they gain additional spell slots per day? Gain some spells as SLAs? Miss out on that ability entirely? Or am I simply using the template completely wrong?
Well since Mythic versions of feats have prereqs of the regular version of the feat, you'd have to have it anyway. So it doesn't "overwrite" or let you retrain, since if you lost it you'd no longer qualify for it.
Well surely! But I can't give feedback on what I don't see, and it's stunting my playtest results since my cleric can't take anything, was part of my point here. So far my over all impression is that surely we'll get another pass at the playtest before the thing 'goes live' so to speak, because so many aspects are so lacking or non-functional.
The limited scope of the current mythic feats was a glaring problem when my group started gaining mythic to playtest. We're running RotRL with a group of 5, and started gaining mythic in book 5. The Paladin jumped on Mythic Power Attack, the Rogue was a no-brainer for Mythic Weapon Finesse, the Eldritch Knight took M. Arcane Strike, the Monk was at a loss for a bit before taking M. Dodge, and I... I was stuck. The only thing my cleric EVER WILL qualify for, from the currently available feats, are Mythic Paragon and Mythic Spells. I have literally no other options, other than taking feats I don't want the normal version of, just to force qualification for mythic feats. And that's a very bad thing. Especially since, realizing my problem... The others looked through... and each of them only had ONE other feat they could choose, other than the "freebie for everyone" Mythic Paragon. This is a VERY bad place for the mythic feats to be. Granted, my group has a bias against the +2 to 2 skills feats as it is, (we NEVER want both, and always wind up taking Skill Focus in the one we actually care about instead) so all of those options were immediately out the window.
Rating the feats we DID take, though... M. Weapon Finesse and M. Arcane Strike were the level of awesome we were expecting. M. Power Attack and M. Dodge were "ok, but not as strong as I'd like". M. Vital Strike was not yet chosen but seemed somewhere between M. Weapon Finesse and M. Power Attack. Mythic Spells as a feat just seemed ODD since I should be getting that from Heirophant anyway? I can see it for blend classes (Magus Marshal that takes Mythic Spells via feats makes complete sense to me) but having it be the only feat my Heirophant Cleric qualifies for? Just plain weird.
I definitely see a need for more feat options not just for clerics, but spell casters in general. Having seen how most mythic feats simply modify existing ones, I was expecting to see things such as: Quicken Channel- no longer costs 2 uses, or Metamagic feats that allow you to spend mythic power to apply the metamagic without preparing it ahead of time/increasing the casting time, or a way to split spells to affect multiple targets at once, and things along that line.
Adding those 2 bane types onto my pseudo-sunblade makes it +8. So between the extra damage and size change not functioning exactly the same, and the sunlight power, it sounds like it's +10 enhancement worth already.Which honestly sounds like more proof you can't change specific weapons.
Well there's sort of an ability to do the shortsword-bastard sword thing.
The kicker here is that a short sword is light, and that a bastard sword isn't exactly one size larger. Basically if I were GMing I'd tell the player to just make an 'imitation' by using the weapon and material of choice, and then adding +2 enhancement, Holy, and Impact. Sure, it's 2d6 instead of +2 attack and damage, and you lose the ability to cast sunlight, but specific weapons are just that- specific. If you want something different, you're going to get something different.
The party is asking me to reprise a character I've played before, due to the party build and theme that are going on. He's been a cavalier, a paladin, and a multiclass of the two. Key point being- the horse is an integral part of the character(if I run him paladin, he'll be taking Boon Companion at level 5 when the mount shows up).
Other than the heat issues, is it a stupid idea to bring a horse to this AP? Will there be a lot of underground areas, etc? For example, I know if I had a mount in RotRL he'd be just about worthless, between the haunted house, the clock towers, and all the underground areas.
Should I lean toward the cavalier version, or the paladin version? Party comp so far is looking like Inquisitor of Sarenrae, Cleric of Sarenrae or Oracle, and a Wishcrafter Sorcerer.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Is your framework still in the works, Evil Lincoln? I'm currently trying to work on things to ease play with my brother and our Runelords game. Having started the campaign by using a shared drawing in google drive where we each used a picture to represent ourselves moved around on the maps as yanked from the PDF, I'm excited to be working with a system that's actually designed for this. However, coding makes my think pan hurt. I've managed to make good use of things with the Fort Rannick maps on an LCD TV hooked up to the laptop, so I've got the vision blocking/mapping parts more or less down, it's the macros that make my brain explode, so I was looking for ways to automate my monster attacks.
That was probably really ramble-y. I appologize D:
My thoughts exactly... I don't understand the kind of logic that thinks trading paltry damage is a better strategy than smiting the demon with the creature that penetrates its defenses and being done with it. It's not about DEFENDING, that is not what DR is for. It's about vulnerability. The holy righteousness of a being of pure good penetrating the evil's core and purifying it... or the vile corruption twisting the life force of the good creature.
As an aside, one thing a lot of people are forgetting in this argument when it comes down to combat with good/evil outsiders like this, is that celestials, many of them, tend to have something in their favor that no fiend does- the ability to heal themselves.
Any chance of form-fillable versions? It doesn't need to do math for me, but we have a group that plays online, so having a print out seems a little silly since I'm going to be sitting at my computer anyway. I'd also like to be able to put it on a tablet or similar and save erasing holes in my paper, and so on. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd find this very useful.
Oliver McShade wrote:
I'm much more in favor of this than yet another AC-- personally I count CMD as a form of AC, too. At that point we might as well go 4e D&D and attack your reflex defense!
I can understand why the Musketeer fans are trying to make gunslinger be it- the whole "I never miss" gun specialist when melee and bows are still the dominant combat style. I can see why they would like the ability to use grit to still hit touch AC beyond their first range increment for Musketeers.
Corsairs... eh, I understand your point of the multi-class concept there, but then again, if they focus on making Gunslinger the "wild west" feel they inundated it with, in my opinion, they should be building off a rogue framework, rather than a fighter, anyway, so the corsair could be easily an alternate build off of that framework.
Personally, despite being the one who suggested the "Sharp Shooter" rebuild in the first place, I'm against it. I'm much more in favor of getting them to drop those alternate things and focus on making a rogue for the wild west.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Biggest problem of course being that one of the biggest problems of the class is that the part we're not allowed to test isn't working...
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
I think this is a better direction than where they were originally going, but still not quite perfect. Personally, I favor the idea of giving guns a base higher miss fire chance, that with gun training with a SPECIFIC fire arm is reduced over time. Like say, a base 5 miss fire, and then gun training reduces it by an additional one per rank, resulting in only a pure fumble possibly affecting you at 20. Because fumbles should still suck. Even modern guns miss fire when you REALLY screw up. This better reflects the danger inherent in early guns, and the expertise that separates gunslingers from any fighter with a gun.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Alas. Nipped in the bud.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Which is right along the lines of what I said. They need to fall back and punt on this class, right down to the name, because the name is forcing flavor. As it stands right now, no, a musketeer is not this class. And imo, that's fine, just make musketeer a build option or prestige class for fighter, and let the gunslinger do its thing, rather than trying to make it be what it isn't. OR, make the new class "sharp shooter" which can encompass everything from the wild west gunslinger to the musketeer to the corsair with a pistol and blade to the sniper who never gets in melee.
A lot of the dissension is coming from people trying to build two different classes. Some are building sharp shooters that can be gunslingers or musketeers or what have you, while some are building gunslingers that they're forcing on options that don't work just to get "two hander" alternative builds.
I think what it comes down to at the moment is that right now, they're double dipping armor piercing modeling. It has high damage and a huge crit multiplier-higher than any other PF weapon- Because when it DOES hit, the armor's not reducing its damage by much (high damage) and when it hits somewhere the armor's not affecting, you take the full force of the blow (high crit multiplier). Why do we have to be able to bypass armor to apply our damage that reflects the results of hitting an armored body? Just give it a nice crit range and forget that whole touch AC attack crap. That would reflect that it's easier to get through the armor, and just make your hits count for more rather than making you hit ALL THE TIME.
The only alternative that works with the Touch AC idea is if the gun would NEVER crit- you're already doing your full damage potential on any hit, because armor's doing nothing.
Abraham spalding wrote:
But poisoning a bullet wouldn't be poisoning a FIREARM... unless it also specifically says "or ammunition" or something along that line...
I think one of the big problems with the "flavor" issues of the gunslinger is the connotations some people (including the designers!) are carrying along with the WORD gunslinger. To that end, I point out:
A musketeer is NOT a gunslinger.
There, I said it. And I'm not taking it back, and you can't convince me otherwise. What they ARE, however, is a SHARP SHOOTER.
And so's a pistol-wielding, high-noon-showdown gunslinger. And a sniper. And maybe even that pirate with the blunderbuss people are talking about. Maybe if we could change the NAME (to Sharp Shooter), and make the "grit" things (a) have a better name (maybe Focus?), (b) work for all builds rather than just the "gunslinger" and "oh yeah I guess some of these work for rifle-ish things too" and (c) lose more of that "old west" flavor that's trapping everyone, we could actually make some better progress on a class.
Or don't. Just quit trying to make it a "fighter", and including musketeer, and whatnot, make musketeer a class option (like the Urban Ranger build or Swarm Druid, and so on) and just make it the rogue it should be. Wild West gunslingers are mostly bandits, and the ones that aren't are still "Good rogues". They're agile, quick on the draw, and all those other things that typically go with rogue. Make grit more like rogue talents. The touch AC thing wouldn't be such a huge deal if they didn't ALSO get a full fighter's BAB.
In short, quit trying to make it the wrong class archetype. The BEST thing would be to strip down to the bare skeleton of the 3/4 BAB "build", and construct the class more or less from scratch, rather than making it a variant depending on "swap x for y" which is trapping us in some weird places.
I found the whole Touch AC thing REALLY odd. I get to attack a lower AC like a mage but have a fighter's attack bonus?? This is stupid. Why "invent" piercing for guns, when no other weapon has any special mechanic to bypass armor? Just give it a higher crit range and be done with it already! No other projectile (which WOULD be able to pierce armors!) gets to attack touch, why should guns be any different?
Unless you're going to introduce "armor piercing" ranges to all weapons, or reflect it in some way for ALL attacks, don't single out one. Any weapon can find a chink in armor somewhere, or break through it, or cause damage anyway. You know what that is? We call it a HIT in my group!
Agreed on fairly well all points of both Elghinn and Purple Dragon Knight. The suggested "Gun Affinity" sounds much more true to the "feel" of the class, as well as making more sense from a "min/max" point of view- However, I don't know how much sense improving the weapon to the point of an advanced weapon would make. I can turn my pistol into a revolver?
Ignoring the questions in other threads of whether it is too powerful or not, what it does doesn't make sense for how often we get it, especially given the "feel" the rules are supposed to be based on- guns are rare but emerging.
Looking at the progression table... at level 17 I'm bad ass with any fire arm I happen to pick up. WHY?! Shouldn't a person devoted to being amazing at a particular kind of weapon be devoted to ONE of that type of weapon? That feel is reflected in the "battered" condition of the starting weapon, but in 4 levels I can start slinging whatever gun I choose. At level 9, I can now do this with 2 weapon types... so since I spent so long being awesome with my particular pistol, I can pick up a rifle and do extra damage?? I shouldn't necessarily even know how to aim the thing! I haven't even ENCOUNTERED another gun until level 7. So two levels ago I saw one, so now I'm amazing at using it.
If anything, it should be changed to a stacking bonus with one specialized weapon (possibly with an option to apply it to other types rather than stacking) benefit, such as reducing the miss fire chance, or extending the range increment, perhaps. The adding adding Dex damage should be changed to a one-off feat, that requires the Grit feature.