|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
My situation is probably a little different compared to most fans of the PACG. When it was announce, I was very interested in it and got in on the initial playtest. My wife and I really liked it, but when it came out money was a little tight. One of our friends got a copy and we played with them, so it continued to be no rush to get our own copy. Then even after our friends lost interest in the game, we filled the void with the S&S playtest. Throughout the release of the first set, seeing all of the issues with rules and printing, we kind of felt like we dodged a bullet with not getting RotR and probably never will pick it up at this point. With promises of more consistent printing, tighter rules, organized play, and some really fun mechanics, S&S is looking to be a much better set to get into.
Anyway, to the question at hand, ever since the initial playtest I've loved Lem. I really like the versatility of being able to reliably use both arcane and divine spells. I continued to play him when we were playing with our friends, but when the S&S playtest stated, I fell in love with Damiel. But since there is no Alchemist deck yet, it is Bard all the way for me.
My wife, likewise, started playing Merisiel during the initial playtest and has been using her ever since, even in the S&S playtest, so we'll be getting the Rogue deck for her.
I might get an extra deck or two so that we'll have some other character options and so we can let other people try out organized play before committing to buying their own decks, depending on how much money I can get when I sell a bit of my anime/video game collection off to pay for the game. I'm leaning towards the Cleric and/or Fighter decks if I do get extras. May eventually try to get one of each just to have them and to be able to play the OP scenarios with lots of different characters, depending on how fun they are.
And yeah, we're planning on using the character decks for organized play. We don't have any organized play for the RPG at my local store, but I'm not letting that stop us from having OP for the card game. I bugged the store owner to make sure he got registered on the Retailer Locator and I'm going to get registered to run the sessions myself. Hopefully the OP system works really well and maybe I can get more people to play at the store other than me, my wife and one or two friends.
I also sent Mike an email over the weekend based on this post from Vic to express my interest in being a Venture Officer for the PACG in my area and requesting a little more information on if there might be some differences responsibility wise compared to the RPG officers. I also haven't gotten a response, but It was just two days ago when I sent mine. It would be nice to know if it at least made it to its destination. Thank you for all of your hard work and I can't wait for more information to come out about the card game OP!
Yeah, I don't know when we'll see APG classes as class decks. Considering that a lot of the inspiration for the non-iconic characters in those decks came from the NPC Codex, and that none of the APG classes are represented in that book, I don't know if they'd have enough characters to base the alternates off of. That goes double for the Advanced Class Guide classes. I'd really like to have an Alchemist deck, though.
The main iconic characters all come out when the character class they represent is made and those are the characters that are used in the main card game sets, not any characters new to the RPG adventure paths the set is based on. Since the oracle class has been out since the Advanced Player's Guide, Pathfinder's iconic oracle has been out for a while. Her name is Alahazra and she is a Flame oracle.
Vic Wertz wrote:
The press release here explains how retailers can sign up for the program.
How long does it usually take for a store to be approved on the Retailers page? My local store (Curious Games, Alamogordo, NM) signed up a week ago, but they haven't been added to the page yet. I've been waiting to make sure they are able to get in on the organized play before I have them order class decks for me and my wife, and before I put in to be made a Regional Coordinator (card game only, for now).
Also, I noticed that there are two sections for New York on the page and North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, and Nevada are not in proper alphabetical order. Figured I'd mention it since that's the section I keep staring at when I try to find my local store.
"An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
I think you're misreading this line. There is no "spikes" and "shield", there is only the "spiked shield". They are a single weapon and a single armor (for the purposes of enhancements). From how you're talking, it looks like you're identifying "spikes" as the weapon part and "shield" as the armor part. You cannot put frost on armor, only on a weapon. But I think you probably understand that.
I think you're more likely thinking that you actually have two different shield bashes: spiked and traditional blunt bash. This is not true. You only have the spiked shield's bash. When the line says "an enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash with it" they are talking about the armor magic enhancement not applying to the one and only shield bash you can make with a spiked shield, as this line is part of the armor entry for the shield. When you start enhancing a shield (regular or spiked) as a weapon and as a piece of armor, it essentially becomes two different items in one. You pay for the weapon enhancement and the armor enhancement independently.
I hope that makes sense.
This is just an assumption, but I would think nothing would really keep you from running two different cleric characters using the same deck. It would likely just require bookkeeping. Just be sure to keep deck lists of each of your clerics separately, disassemble the deck of one when you're using the other, and you should be fine.
On that note, has there been any discussion about if we'll be getting PDF character sheets of all 28 characters that will be released within the class decks? I understand that the four characters in each deck is one of the main draws for the products (outside of being required for organized play) and giving those characters' stats away for free may not be desirable, but I really love using the print-out character sheets, having the handy deck list and not having to mark up the original cards and such.
Maybe to preserve the value of the characters within the decks (and to cut down on the number of files you'd need to create), a single PDF character sheet can be released for each class deck which would include the deck list, but everything else would be blank with space to write in skills, powers, and cards list. Just a thought.
Hi Vic. One quick question before I start pestering my local store owner to sign up on the retail page and have him order a class deck for me and my wife:
Is there a minimum number of players required to play OP scenarios?
We might be able to get a friend to play with us most days, but a lot of the times it might just be me and my wife. It would also be nice if I can be available to replay the game with other people, even if it's just me and one other person after I've already played it with my wife and hopefully get more people in my area interested in the game. I've considered trying to get into RPG organized play, but with the 4 character minimum I just don't know if I'd be able to play very often in my area where war mini games like 40K are dominant. The possibility that there might be a similar minimum in the card game's OP is the only thing keeping me from wanting to jump right in, right out of the gate.
I asked a much more specific rules question about throwing shields, but it never got any replies. I have bad luck with that sometimes. This thread has some talk that is relevant to my current character concept, though. Especially when talk of quickdraw throwing shields and blinkback belts are talked about since my character will be relying on these.
Personally, I think having the "on his or her back" part shouldn't be taken literally. Is that really the only place you can stow a shield when you're not using it? If it isn't, what mechanics of a quickdraw shield make it so that specific shield can only be quickly stowed on your back. Regardless, even if "only your back" is a real restriction, part of a blinkback belt is on your lower back, so you should be able to attach a quickdraw throwing shield to your blinkback belt as a free action and then throw it as a free action as long as you have the quickdraw feat.
Note that I'm not trying to get unlimited free action thrown attacks. I just want to be able to use the shield just like most other thrown weapons.
Anyone have any thoughts on my linked question?
If your GM is okay with it, I'd recommend using the playtest version of the Investigator and updating it to the final version when the Advanced Class Guide comes out in a little over a month from now. A blog preview has revealed the final versions of Studied Combat and Studied Strike which can make him a pretty decent melee combatant. And as far as skills go, with 6 skill points per level and Intelligence as a primary stat, he can easily have over ten skill points per level to work with, he has all knowledges as class skills and can use Inspiration (an extra 1d6) with any trained knowledge skill for free. He also has a load of other good skills and tricks to work with. It's really looking to be a very nice class.
Otherwise, I'll throw another vote into the Archaeologist Bard pool.
Personally, I would say unless you have a gaming budget that can handle getting both without reservations, go ahead and wait for Skull & Shackles to come and get that first. The first set is still great and if you're still hungry for more after playing Skull & Shackles, definitely get the first set when you can. Just a few things to keep in mind:
-The new set is likely to come out the gate with some more refined rules and can potentially be better put together after learning from the first game.
-The new set will support organized play if that's something you're interested in, but it doesn't look like the old set will be incorporated into that system in any way.
-The new set has a pirate theme complete with ships and guns. The old set on the other hand is more standard fantasy so one or the other might be more suited to your tastes.
-If you're a completist, it may be difficult or nearly impossible to get all of the promo cards for the old set at this point without paying a pretty penny for them while with the new set you can start fresh and do everything you can to get them all.
-All of the chapters of the old set are out NOW. Although they are increasing the release speed with the new set, you'll still be waiting a month for each new chapter. Depending on how much you like the game and how often you are able to play it, having a complete set available to you can be a very good thing to have.
Isn't another issue with having a large spell library that it literally starts to become a Library? A spellbook has 100 pages. It takes one page per spell level to record a spell. A wizard start off knowing all 0-level spells (which still take up one page each) and 3+INT first level spells. Assuming a 20 Intelligence, a first level wizard already has 30 of his 100 pages used up. Then he gets two spells each level by normal advancement. Assuming you take the highest spell level possible each level, a wizard will fill his first spell book at level 11 and will have 2 and a half spell books worth of spells at level 20, just with normal level advancement. If a wizard wanted to know every wizard spell (just in the RPG line, minus the ARG), I came up with 3078 pages worth of spells. That's 31 spellbooks. Each spellbook is only 3 lbs., so that's just 93 lbs. total, which isn't a big deal if you use Bags of Holding, but it does cause a major hit to a Handy Haversack's capacity. I suppose you could use traveling spellbooks instead. They hold half the spells but only weight 1 lb. each, so that would be 62 lbs. worth of spellbooks which is a bit more manageable in a Handy Haversack.
Are the rules for spellbooks something that is commonly hand-waved or is there some magic unlimited page spellbook that I don't know about? If these rules are followed, the Glove of Storing/Quick Study in combat arcanist trick wouldn't be that powerful unless every spell you would need for every combat situation is in one spell book.
Jessica Price wrote:
Hmmm, maybe in Pathfinder Unchained, then?
It'd also be nice if simplified/better rules for magic item creation is part of one of these books, especially when it comes to Staves.
For all those people who screamed "Cheese!" for hours on end at Paragon Surge + Expanded Arcana, well, that option is now part of arcanist core. Yay.
Um, no? Paragon Surge + Expanded Arcana lets you learn ANY sorcerer spell, or even two if you want lower level spells. An arcanist with Quick Study still has to know the spell to switch it out with one she has prapared. So unless her spell book has every single wizard spell in the game, it's not the same.
I really would have liked to see Charisma modifier used for exploit AND spell DCs, but keeping the bonus spells and casting requirement (must have at least 10 + spell level ability score to cast a spell) as Intelligence. It would have made more sense to me thematically that way, learning the magic with book smarts but the strength of the spells come from within, and it probably would have shut up people screaming that the class is overpowered. Then you might have had a bunch of people scream that the class was ruined or something, so who knows. I'd rather just trust the professional developers.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing the final version of the class.
Man, I'm really hoping that Mogmurch and a certain piece of goblin equipment of defending and attacking will both be retail promos. I really need to support my local store as much as I can and those are the only promos that I remember really liking a lot (other than Ranzak, which I'm fine downloading or buying on here for $4). If not, I may need to start a subscription with the character add-on deck just for the promos and sell the extra decks on eBay at cost or something.
And what exactly is a "July retailer kit promo card"? My store owner didn't know about Free RPG Day and I forgot to tell him about it soon enough so I missed out on a free physical copy of Ranzak. If the July retailer kit is something I might still have time to tell him about, that would be nice, especially if that's how you get Mogmurch. Did I mention that I REALLY want Mogmurch?
There would still be a place of the Gunslinger, in my option, but things would need to be looked at closely and a few things would need to be re-worked for the class. The Deadeye, Quick Clear, and Expert Loading deeds would all be 100% pointless with this change. Also, Gun Training's misfire reduction would be invalidated. On a pure power point of view, adding Dexterity to damage would be one of the only things the Gunslinger would have going for it. Even with that, you'd still probably be better off going Fighter and taking Firearms as your first weapon training and taking weapon focus/specialization in your preferred gun.
Now, for balancing the class after these changes, Ultimate Options: Grit and Gunslingers and products like it can help with providing replacement deeds for the ones that are now useless, though some of them will also have the assumption of misfires and attacking touch AC. For Gun Training, I would say they should have a static bonus to attack rolls for the guns taken with the ability. Kind of ripping off Weapon Training should be fine:
Gun Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a gunslinger can select one specific type of firearm (such as an axe musket, blunderbuss, musket, or pistol). She gains a bonus equal to her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls when firing that type of firearm. She also gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls with that type of firearm.
Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), the gunslinger picks up another type of firearm, gaining these bonuses for those types as well. In addition, the bonuses to attack rolls with firearm types previously selected increase by +1 each.
You might also consider them letting their gunslinger levels counting as fighter levels for the purposes of feat prerequisites.
And I almost forgot, with this change Early Firearms are much weaker. Their range increments are pathetic. Not only would a bow be a no-brainer in comparison, even crossbows would be a better choice. If you made this change, you should probably use all Advanced Firearms or firearm stats from a different book that doesn't assume that they hit at touch AC.
Well, first off, if you want to retrain Crane Style because the errata made it not work with your character concept/build as well as it did originally, then you should work with your GM to see if you can get a free retrain due to errata.
However, if that isn't an option, you mostly did the cost right. The only thing I see that you missed is that going from monk to fighter is considered to have retraining synergy so it takes 5 days instead of 7:
10 gp x 4 (level) x 17 (days) = 680 gp
You might want to consider Empyreal Sorcerer/Qinggong Monk (both from Ultimate Magic). You'll only need Wisdom for casting and most of your abilities. Monk will get you a small boost in skill points, BAB, and HD and make all of your saves good. You'll add Wisdom to your AC and get bonus AC increases. Most of the monk abilities that you don't really like or don't fit your character can be replaced with extra spell-like abilities or other fun stuff. If third party material is allowed, the Talented Monk can make this combo even better, letting you take your ki pool earlier and makes the ki powers selectable much more often. Good stuff.
I'm currently building a Captain America-style character for a campaign set on Earth during World War II in which a plainer rift brings the races and creatures of fantasy into our world. As part of my character's story, he actually becomes the inspiration for the Captain America comics. He'll be using a Light Mithral Quickdraw Throwing Shield and a Blinkback Belt to pull off being a good shield thrower.
The question that I'm coming up with while putting together the build is this: What is my weapon's type when interacting with feats like Weapon Focus and abilities that rely specific weapon types or weapon groups?
If I take Weapon Focus (throwing shield), will that also give a +1 to attack with my shield bash with the throwing shield? If I take Weapon Focus (light shield), will that give a +1 to attack when I'm throwing the shield? If the answer to these questions is No, can I take Weapon Focus (light throwing shield) to get the bonus to both?
Similarly, if I get benefits from weapons in the Close weapon group which includes light shields, would those benefits also apply when I'm throwing the shield? If I get benefits from weapons in the Thrown weapon group which includes throwing shields, would those benefits also apply to shield bash attacks?
I can see this ruled either way. On one hand, throwing shield is an add-on feature, adding +50 gp to the cost of whatever shield you're adding it to, so it is essentially the same weapon. On the other hand, it has its own proficiency level and the text specifically calls out that shield spikes do not apply to thrown attacks, supporting that the throw and the bash are separate weapons, almost like a strange double weapon that isn't quite a double weapon. I'm really hoping the shield bash and the throw would not need to be enchanted separately....
Any thoughts or rules support one way or the other on this issue?
Agreed. Besides, the main reason I really loved him was because he's a goblin alchemist and I was playing as Damiel so he was like my little sidekick/apprentice. However, his ability was also pretty nice and fun to use, as the promos should be. I look forward to seeing the final version of him and the rest of the game.
Man, I wish there was a third form of Alternate Alchemy, but there is not. At least not in the Advanced Options - Alchemists' Discoveries book. And it's called Metamorphosis, not Transmutation.
And yes, Spagyric Devices are very awesome.
On an unrelated note, is Talented Ranger still on schedule to be released by the end of the month? I'm making a Captain America style shield user with the Talented Monk for an upcoming game, but I'm taking a dip in Ranger for skills and armor/shield proficiencies. It'd be nice to get a little more out of the dip since track and wild empathy are near useless with only one level in Ranger and there might be something better than one level of Favored Enemy/Ranger's Focus for the character to take, too. Can't wait to see it!
Ditto, it'd still be nice to have eventually.
Restating my vote for Talented Magus since the count has started over.
Keep in mind that those cure, inflict, or class features, unlike sneak attacks can be AOE effects as well. And using them is far less conditional than getting sneak attack damage.
Yes, if you could only utilize fickle attack for sneak attack damage, it would be conditional, but it applies to all weapon and alchemical item damage dice.
Do you think Fickle Attack would apply to ranged touch spells where sneak attack can be added to the damage? Probably not.
I would say it'd be a GM call. Personally, I'd say no. There are times when rays are considered to be treated like weapons (like in the opening text for Weapon Focus), but since the ability specifically calls out weapons and alchemical items when damage dealing alchemical items are typically already considered weapons in a similar way, I'd say those are the only types of "weapons" other than traditional manufactured weapons that this ability is meant to work with.
Wow, that's a somewhat lame ability for Mythic. The Trickster's Fickle Attack path ability is much better. But you do have to be 3rd-tier to take it (oh, looks like Life Current is a 3rd-tier ability, too, so yeah):
Fickle Attack (Ex): Whenever you roll damage for a melee or ranged attack with a weapon or alchemical item, you can treat any natural 1s on the damage dice as if they were the highest possible number on those dice. You can select this ability up to three times. The second time you select it, treat 1s and 2s as the highest value. The third time, treat 1s, 2s, and 3s as the highest value.
Sadly, I have not gotten around to playing Skyrim yet. I have, however, played South Park: The Stick of Truth, which makes this archetype very amusing to me in a very wrong way.
Anyway, here are my thoughts:
-What kind of action is Dragon Shout? I would assume standard action, but it doesn't seem to specify.
-Dragon Shout doesn't have as much progression as flurry of blows. The main thing that flurry of blows has going for it is more and more attacks as you level. There isn't really anything equivalent to that here. I think a good way to increase the power of the Dragon Shout would be to increase the size of its cone. At 8th level (when a normal monk's flurry is treated as Improved Two-Weapon Fighting), increase the cone to 30 ft. At 15th level (when a normal monk's flurry is treated as Greater Two-Weapon Fighting), increase the cone to 50 or 60 ft.
-Sonic damage seems really out of place under the "at least 1 point of ki" improvements. Other than this, the Dragon Shout seems to be some kind of supernatural-yet-physical force, like everyone in its range is being punched by ki fists or something. I'd think it would be much more fitting to have it as part of the energy damage section of spending a ki point. "...instead of bludgeoning. At 10th level, he may also choose sonic damage."
-I find it a little strange that you can only demoralize one target damaged by the dragon shout, but you can trip or bull rush all targets. The trip or bull rush to all targets is the only thing that makes me a little hesitant to suggest the increased cone size of the Dragon Shout.
I think that's all I have right now. It has some rough edges, but I think it's an interesting idea.
So I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to throw my opinion out there since magic crafting is something near and dear to my heart. I can see the stance of either position, but my stance is that it should let you pick any craft or profession skill and that it will work for any magic item you create. There are two major reasons behind my stance:
First, I think that the feat is otherwise mechanically extremely weak. A +2 to a craft or profession skill and the ability to take a feat that you won't even be able to fully utilize after taking it? That's pretty bad. Letting any craft or profession to essentially work as Spellcraft for a non-caster for these two feats, after they are selected later, sounds much more in line with the power of a feat. Without access to spells, the feat is restrictive enough as it is.
Second, I just think it's much for flavorful that way. There was a thread about this feat a while ago in which someone wrote an example of how someone with Profession (Hairdresser) and Master Craftsman could make magical armor.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I would like to see someone cook a magic carpet. The result wouldn't be nice.
I actually see Profession (Cook) as one of the easiest skills to rationalize for Master Craftsman. You cook up a set of amazing magical stews, stirring the item within it, layer upon layer, until the magic takes. A cloth wondrous item would be especially easy to make with this process.
Naturally? No. They already have Spellcraft for that. If they take the Master Craftsman feat, though, yes, they can.
3. If you don't think spellcasters should also be allowed to do that, why would you let anyone else do it without explicit wording saying the rules for item crafting were being changed?
I would let anyone do it (including spellcasters if they really want to) because they took a feat and it's a total crap feat if the one selected skill cannot be used for any magic item crafting.
But hey, this is just my opinion in the end. And I think the lack of FAQ, errata, or any other explicit official ruling from the developers is evidence that they want this to stay in the realm of GM ruling (besides, you typically have to work with your GM if you plan to do magic item crafting in a campaign). Since magic crafting feats aren't allowed in PFS, an official ruling probably isn't a high priority anyway.
Nice to see the final version of Ranzak after seeing him during the Skull & Shackles. Sadly, I asking my local store owner if he was doing Free RPG Day and he said he didn't even know about it. I went ahead and made sure he ordered a copy of the base set for me, though. Is there any chance that Ranzak might go out to local game stores with the base set? Regardless, I'm glad that the PDF is available.
Speaking of the PDF, it looks like there is an error in Ranzak's Cards List. It has him with a base of 1 item card, but it looks like it should be 4 as the first Card Feat brings him to 5. Also, I was wondering, is plunder explained in the physical release of Ranzak? If someone wants to use the feat: "When you close a location, add a plunder card from the box to your hand." How would they use that in Rise of the Runelords if someone wants to play with Ranzak right now? Or should it just be recommended to use the Wrecker role if you're not playing in Skull & Shackles?
I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder game in a World of Warcraft setting. My wife and I are hosting the weekly game sessions at our home every Friday and last week no one brought over any minis (it was the first time having it at our place, we just moved into our new house). It wasn't a big deal for our GM and most of the players, most of the time. I used to play with my GM in another game and we never used a combat mat for that. But this is a large group (6 PCs and 2 minions) so there is a lot to keep track of. So to make sure we always have tokens to use, and so I have them for future use with other games, I'm planning to pick up some Pathfinder Pawn collections.
I want to get most of my stuff from my local game store, but the owner will have to special order them and they will take longer than a week to come in. For now, the Hastings in my town has some pawns in stock so I'm going to pick some up after work today. I've already decided on getting the Bestiary 2 Box (Bestiary 3 was the only other with-bases set they had), but they also had three Adventure Path collections in stock last time I checked:
In addition to the Bestiary 2 Box, I only want to get one of these from Hastings and want to make sure they will be helpful in the current game. We are playing during Cataclysm, but the Adventure Path pawns are mainly going to hopefully give the PCs some good choices to represent their characters (I really wish they still had the NPC Codex Pawns). Here is what the party is made up of right now:
Goblin (male) Alchemist, specializing in bombs, traps, and magic items
The 6th PC was killed last week and the player hasn't decided what to make to replace his tauren fighter with yet. Anyone have any recommendations? It would be greatly appreciated. If anyone wants to recommend any other pawn collections (other than Bestiary 1 and NPC Codex) that I should have special ordered that would also be welcomed. Thank you!
I'm currently playing an alchemist and I also noticed this line in the bomb ability after seeing this thread. The FAQ does contradict the wording of the bomb feature. Logically, it might make that much sense for the +1 damage from point-blank shot to apply to splash damage, but bombs do come from a supernatural ability. I mean, does an extra point of "precision" based damage break logic any more than the precise bombs discovery?
I like the wording of bomb splash damage being "always equal to the bomb's minimum damage." It can give splash damage a nice amount of damage, especially if you are under the effects of a bard's Inspire Courage or other damage boosting effects. If this was rewritten to exclude point-blank shot, it would either be a bit awkward (keeping it mostly the same but writing in an exception for point-blank shot), or drop the bomb's potential splash damage a bit (rewriting it to just being number of dice plus intelligence modifier).
Personally, I think the exception should be written for bombs in the FAQ. As I said, this is a special supernatural ability and if the alchemist can gain the ability to manipulate the splash damage of his bombs in ways like what precise bombs does, I doesn't see a problem with point-blank shot making that splash damage a little more potent at shorter ranges.
Might be easier and more thematically appropriate to make this an Inquisitor or Oracle archetype.
On that note, have you looked at the warpriest from ACG?
Any of those might work well, too. Although the theme my friend expressed to me was specific to being a cleric forsaking his god. An inquisitor or warpriest can probably be similarly flavored. Warpriest would probably be easiest. Swap medium/heavy armor and shield proficiency for firearm proficiency and force Focus Weapon to be a firearm and most of the work is done. Then ditch blessings and maybe some other abilities for gunslinger stuff similar to how I ditched domains for the cleric in this archetype.... I actually won't be too surprised if a firearm based warpriest is part of the final ACG, though it probably won't have the same god-forsaking flavor.
Why take gunslinger when you can be a 9-level spellcaster with one of the best healing abilities in the game while having all the best features of the gunslinger class?
I don't really have anything to say to that other than what I've already said. Personally, I think it's still worth playing a gunslinger even if this archetype is available. Being able to focus more on dexterity, not having to divide focus between being a good shooter and a good caster, having better defensive abilities, and I like having good skills. To me, spells does not make up for that. I've considered making him lose channel energy or at least weakening it, but I really do think losing all of his domain power is an even trade. It's a little hard to judge, though since there aren't any archetypes (at least in the RPG line) that drop both domains.
Gun training, bonus feats, deeds and full casting? That's much better than an actual cleric. It's better than an Eldritch Knight.
Yeah, gun training is really nice, but remember that you have to choose between bonus feats and deeds every fourth level starting at 3rd. You don't get both. Personally, I think losing domain bonus spells and their associated slots alone is a HUGE trade off. Just look at the Crusader archetype. All it gives up is one spell slot from each spell level and he gains the same number of bonus feats as the forsaken gun (if he chooses to not get any deeds after first level). Granted they're from a specific list for the Crusader, but it also lets him take fighter feats and most of them are ones such a character would want to take anyway. He also gets a nice(ish) little ability (I think it's kind of lame that it has to stay a touch spell for what it costs) and he gets to keep both of his domains.
Domains can be very powerful (or at least provide a lot of benefit). For example, with the Animal domain a cleric gets a fully functional animal companion with the same strength of a ranger's, but is able to choose any animal from the druid list. Also, all but one of the domain spells are spells that do not appear on the cleric list. I'd say each of these bonus spell slots are equivalent in power to a feat, if not more powerful. It's kind of like taking a special version of the Expanded Arcana, but for prepared casters and provides an additional spell slot on top of getting access to a new spell.
Also, being a firearm user is very feat intensive. A forsaken gun would have to put most of his feats into gun use if he wants to be good at it. Rapid Reload, Point Blank Shot, and Precise Shot are just about required. Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, Dodge, Mobility, and Deft Shootist are really good to have. A forsaken gun would be a full caster, but won't have much room for caster feats if he wants to be a good shooter.
At least base the grit points on charisma instead of wisdom!
I don't think that would change all that much for the class since a cleric would want to have a decent Charisma for channel energy anyway. I also just don't think it works that well flavor wise.
And ghost touch is melee only, so you're clonking ghosts with your barrel as an improvised weapon?
Interesting. I went into the Core Rulebook section of the PRD to review ghost touch for the ability and I didn't notice that it wasn't on the chart for ranged weapon abilities. There is nothing in the description of the ability noting that it only works for melee weapons. I checked the Ultimate Equipment entry for the ability after you said something and it says, "This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons and ammunition." I find that to be kind of odd that ammunition is included. If ammunition can be ghost touch, I don't see why you can't just make a ranged weapon ghost touch. Weird. Anyway, I could probably word it differently to make the ability still work, something like "the ammunition fired from the firearm is treated as ghost touch" or something, but I'm thinking I'll just ditch the ability all together and just make this a pure multiclass archetype. It was just my attempt to at least throw SOMETHING original in there, but I don't think anything like that is really necessary for my friend's needs.
Thanks for the comments. Sorry if it sounds like I'm just dismissing most of your criticism. I'm just trying to explain my reasoning behind why I made the archetype the way I did.
A cleric that does not worship a deity still must devote themselves to a faith.
I think you're giving the term "faith" a bit of a too specific definition.
"While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction."
I can see justice as being a very common theme for a forsaken gun, or revenge.
And how does a foresaken gun get those archetypes if they don't have gun training to trade for pistol/musket training? If you gave them pistol/musket training, that would make this archetype overpowered and eliminate the reasons for taking the gunslinger class at all.
The forsaken gun does get gun training. It's right after the bonus feat line and before the special line. I still see plenty of reasons to still take the gunslinger class: Full BAB. Better skills. Martial weapons. Good reflex instead of will. Nimble to make up for only having light armor. Getting all of the Deeds. Bonus feats (in addition to deeds instead of choosing between them) for something that tends to require a LOT of feats. And, just not wanting to be a divine caster.
The archetype seems okay. Just to be clear, the foresake gun can only take musket master or pistolero if it's a guns everywhere campaign, right?
No, a forsaken gun can take the Musket Master or Pistolero archetype regardless of tech level of the campaign. Maybe I should add something like, "A forsaken gun may also, regardless of setting, qualify for...."
However, the idea of a cleric that forsakes his deity and divinity yet still retains his cleric class abilities doesn't jive with me. I could understand if he rejected his god in favor of another or decided to turn towards a non-deity-specific faith. But I cannot see any divine power granting spells to an atheist cleric.
You can already have an "atheist" cleric. A cleric is never required to follow a deity in any way. This isn't about a cleric forsaking his god and retaining his cleric class abilities. This is about a follower of a god, on his way to becoming a true cleric (game mechanics wise), but forsaking his god before he would have been granted the power from them personally. The forsaken gun still have the basic knowledge of what he would have become, but instead of following a god, his personal convictions and values are still great enough to gain most of his divine powers. What the actual source of that power is? That'd be up to the player and GM if "just because" isn't good enough. Maybe it's just from within: his remaining morals, his resolve to protect others, his desires to crush those who have wronged him, etc. Maybe it comes from the souls of his old town, including those of his wife and children, who were killed and not saved by his old god and now grant him divine power to try to prevent such wrongs from happening again.
For an archetype about being a cleric gunslinger who diverted his faith into his gun instead of a god, I don't really see much in the way of abilities that convey that theme. I'd much rather see a gunslinger cleric have its own unique abilities rather than taking them from the gunslinger. For example instead of giving him the quick clear deed, how about an ability themed around putting faith in his gun to not misfire?
Yeah, this was a pretty lazy archetype. I just wanted to make a simple multiclass archetype that would fit the flavor my friend was looking for and prevent him from having to make a real multiclass cleric/gunslinger character. Thank you for your thoughts. I might try to make a more unique archetype at some point.
I am not sure about the Ghost Shot ability, though. Maybe give that to him at about level 8 (when he would be getting his second domain power).
Funny you say that. I actually originally had Ghost Shot come in at 8th level, but then I changed it after writing the Divine Focus line, fearing that if a Forsaken Gun when incorporeal from a spell or other effect that he might be left without his focus (gun) and unable to use his channel energy and DF spells. However, after a quick skim of cleric spells, I can't find any that he can use to make himself incorporeal before 8th level anyway. The only spell I found at all was Dust Form. Are there any spells or effects that I'm missing which this might be an issue for? Regardless, I think I probably will put Ghost Shot back as an 8th level ability. Thanks for your feedback!
Edit: And yes, looks like that song was used for a Dark Souls II commercial. Hearing it on my friends phone was actually my first time hearing it.
The other night after our weekly Pathfinder game, my friend and GM for the current campain was listening to music on his phone. A song called "The Preacher" by Jamie N. Commons came on and he said that it makes him want to be a cleric/gunslinger who has rejected his god the next time he's able to play as a player. So below is my attempt at making that concept work as a cleric archetype. Most of it is pretty simple, just removing the cleric domains and replacing them with gunslinger abilities. Please let me know what you think. Is it too much for what is given up? Or is it too little? Are there any more flavorful abilities that can be be added or switched out? Thanks for reading.
Forsaken Gun (Cleric Archetype)
Alignment: A forsaken gun may be of any alignment.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Forsaken guns are proficient with all simple weapons, firearms, and light armor.
Aura: A forsaken gun does not produce a powerful aura.
Domains: A forsaken gun does not gain the abilities associated with any domains. This includes never getting access to the one domain spell slot at each spell level.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A forsaken gun has no restrictions on the spells he can cast based on alignment.
Divine Focus: A forsaken gun must present a firearm in place of a holy (or unholy) symbol when channeling energy or when casting spells which require a divine focus.
Gunsmith: At 1st level, a forsaken gun gains Gunsmithing as a bonus feat. He also gains a battered gun identical to the one gained by the gunslinger.
Grit (Ex): At the start of each day, a forsaken gun gains a number of grit points equal to his Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). These grit points function just as those gained by the gunslinger and can be spent to perform deeds selected from the gunslinger class feature and any other deed gained through feats or magic items.
Ghost Shot (Su): At 1st level, as long as a forsaken gun has at least 1 grit point, any firearm he is touching gains the ghost touch magic weapon special ability. This ability is immediately lost if the forsaken gun lets go of the weapon or if he spends his last point of grit.
Deeds: At 1st level, the forsaken gun selects a single 1st-level deed from the gunslinger deed class feature. At 3rd level and every 4 levels thereafter, a forsaken gun selects an additional deed available to a gunslinger of equal or lower level, or he may select a bonus combat or grit feat.
Bonus Feats: At 3rd level and every 4 levels thereafter, a forsaken gun may select a bonus feat instead of the deed gained at that level. These bonus feats must be combat or grit feats.
Gun Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a forsaken gun gains this feature just as a gunslinger of his level.
Special: Just as a gunslinger, a forsaken gun in a Guns Everywhere setting loses gunsmith and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level. A forsaken gun may also qualify for the Musket Master or Pistolero gunslinger archetype, requiring the forsaken gun to take the indicated deeds at the appropriate levels.
After last week's episode, I was actually wondering if there was any way to do what he did mechanically in Pathfinder:
Game of Thrones Ep 8 Spoiler:
Is there a way to coup de grace a pinned opponent? Any feats or class abilities that can make a pinned opponent helpless so you can then deliver the coup de grace? Anything that can let you maintain a grapple and also deliver a coup de grace, since maintaining a grapple is a standard action and a coup de grace is a full round action? Rapid Grapple comes close, but it's still a move action to maintain the grapple. Though I guess he could choose not to maintain the grapple on his turn after he pins him and then deliver the coup de grace, but then there is still the issue of making his opponent helpless on the previous turn and keeping him helpless on his turn. Pinning Rend almost works in a way, but that would need to be a LOT of bleed damage.... Or am I just overthinking this and all he really did in the show was pin him, then maintain the grapple to do damage for a few turns until he crashed his skull?
Guided Hand is the only feat I know of and it is restricted to divine characters with channel energy and using a deity's favored weapon. It also has a mythic version to add wisdom mod to damage like weapon finesse has. There is also an ability for the Sensei monk archetype. That's all I know about, but there might be some more obscure feats that I don't know about in a setting book.
Considering there are ten new classes, I wish they had more then two of the new iconics on the cover.
The core book introduced 11 iconics and there were only 2 on its cover. Having two iconics on the covers of most of the hardcover books in the RPG line seems to be the standard. The Mythic book is the only one that really breaks this pattern with twice as many, but that seems to be relevant to the theme of mythic. There's also the ARG if you consider the Tengu to be iconic, but as far as I know he's not.
If you're going mythic, there is a 1st-Tier Trickster ability that might work for you:
Assured Drinker (Ex): No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat. You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to retrieve and drink an elixir, extract, or potion.
Very cool list of archetypes! I'm actually hoping that since many classes will now have some of the same or similar abilities that a chunk of these new archetypes might be compatible with multiple classes, like how the Seeker archetype works for both Sorcerers and Oracles.
Probably not very likely, but I can dream....
London Duke wrote:
Personally, I'd say be careful with this assumption. Pragmatic Activator does not say that it makes UMD an intelligence based skill. It says:
"You may use your Intelligence modifier when making Use Magic Device checks instead of your Charisma modifier."
I don't have a copy of the Lorewarden with me because I'm at work and the 3rd party rules archives are blocked here, but if the wording of its feature says something along the lines of "all Intelligence based skills are class skills for the Lorewarden," using Pragmatic Activator to make it a class skill would definitely be debatable, especially if this character might be for PFS. If it's for a home game, you should talk to your GM about it if you haven't already. If he is the type to question rules and builds, it could cause trouble later. I'd personally probably let you get away with it, though.