I'm excited, too! But I think I'm even more excited about the upcoming playtest for the new set. Trying out the new classes and new versions of old characters and seeing how the card game is going to handle guns? Can't wait!
And no, I don't think subscribers are the last to get the product. I'm told that my local game store owner wasn't able to get Adventure 2 in stock until mid-November. Hope it doesn't take him that long to get Adventure 3....
Yeah, since I'm playing a Magus in a Mythic game right now, I had to pick this up when it went on sale. But it makes me a little sad that a lot of the spells that I really want to get Mythic versions of are from the APG: Ball Lightning, Firefall, Sirocco.... Is a follow-up book (or two or three) in development for the spells in the rest of the hardcover books?
Yep, sounds like you have a good grasp on it now. In most cases, if a skill is listed for a check, a pure stat is also listed. But if you want to use a boon that only adds to a specific skill and you don't have that, you would need to use the skill "untrained" (roll a d4) to use the boon for the check. In most cases, a lot of characters would be better off just using the stat if there are blessing available.
I think the most common use of the d4 rule is with attack spells. They usually list that you use the Arcane or Divine skill + some extra dice for your combat check. If characters don't have that skill, they can still use the spell using the d4 rule and then banishing the spell.
And yeah, playing the game can be a bit of a learning process. My group messed up pretty heavily against Iesha Foxglove in the second scenario of Adventure 2, but now I know better for the next time I play it and for when similar situations pop up.
My group played this scenario last night and Iesha caused a LOT of confusion. Luckily, after reading this thread and a few others, most of the questions we had are now cleared up and we can make sure to not make any further mistakes later in the game. But there are a few things that still seem a little off about his card.
First, the immunity to the mental and poison traits. Is this mainly just here as a formality to keep her in line with other undead? I can see some mental effects maybe helping with some of the checks against her or helping to just bypass her all together, but poison? Are there any poison trait cards that could be used against her in the first place? The only ones I've seen all work off of combat checks, which you can't use against Iesha.
Second, is this:
So with all that in mind, it appears that beating Iesha for her ability to reduce the Skinsaw Man's difficulty check would only happen in a very specific circumstance. You'd have to encounter the Skinsaw Man, temporarily close all other locations except one, beat him so he runs to that location, manage to have Kyra draw the Haunt in that location deck, roll high enough to summon Iesha, beat Iesha, pull the Skinsaw Man to the top of the location deck that you're currently at, and then have a blessing/ally allowing you to explore again to encounter him.
If you have to work so hard to actually get a real defeat on Iesha in the first place, it seems kind of lame that you can't even get the full reward for doing so. Maybe if the reward was reworded to something like this:
"If you find him, you may move to that location and set him aside;"
"If the Skinsaw Man is encountered by the end of your next turn, the difficulty of all checks against him is decreased by 5."
You would have the choice to trade one or two of your item slots for spell slots, if you wish, when you rebuild the deck. So if you have both check marks for the ability, you can either take your normal full number of items and zero or 1 spell from your card feat. Or you can lower your item count by one to take an extra spell or by two to take two extra spells.
And yes, that would be the easiest, but that would give her 7 unique abilities, more than any other character's role in the game, so I'm not so sure about that. And not having that extra card could hurt her versatility which is one of the goals of this role. I'd probably take about the [ ] +3 sneak attack and the "bury instead of banish" ability if I went with the "scroll" ability.
The intention was to give her a little bit of arcane magic casting, just as Harsk can with Divine spells. With the Arcane: Charisma +1 skill she can cast arcane spells and use her d6 Charisma stat for any arcane checks associated with the spell, it won't be banished after casting, and she can recharge it.
The "bury instead of banishing" ability is also useful for Divine-only spells that she might acquire and use. She could then continue to use a nice Divine spell once per scenario or hand it over to a Divine caster in the party. There might be a few other cards which she can get use out of that ability, too.
That is an interesting idea. I was trying to think of a way for her to get more spells in her deck. Maybe something like this:
[ ] After each scenario, you may substitute 1 ([ ] or 2) item card(s) in your deck for a spell card when rebuilding your character deck.
I don't know what I would take away in place of that ability, though.
I had an idea for a new Role for Merisiel, everyone's favorite Elf Rogue. Here are a new set of Powers to reflect a rogue who specializes in dabbling in magic and using magic devices. I don't know if Tinkerer is the best name for it, but it's the best name I could come up with. There wasn't an existing archetype that I could find in the RPG line of rule books (the stuff on the PRD) that fit, so I just made up my own name for it.... Actually, just looked again and there is the Eldritch Raider racial archetype for the Gillmen, but I don't know if the name really fits (not to mention being an archetype from a non-elf race). Anyway, here is what I came up with. What do you think?
HAND SIZE 5 [ ] 6 [ ] 7
PROFICIENT WITH Light Armors [ ] Weapons
You may evade your encounter.
If you are the only character at your location, you may recharge a card to add 1d6 ([ ] +1) ([ ] +2) ([ ] +3) to your combat check or discard it to add an additional 1d6.
[ ] Add 2 ([ ] 4) to your check to acquire ([ ] or recharge) a boon with the Magic trait.
[ ] When you would banish a boon with the Magic trait from your hand, bury it instead.
[ ] You gain the skill Arcane: Charisma +1.
[ ] When you play a blessing to add to your Charisma check, add d12 instead of the normal die.
Yeah, I understand that. But unless you gain enough card feats in the adventure path to fill up all of the character's check boxes, Light Armor will likely be nearly useless permanently. It would only come into play when I might gain a piece of armor and use it in the same scenario. And that's if it has a bonus for characters proficient with light armor. I remember speaking out against Lem's armor proficiency during the playtest (granted that was before there was a difference between light and heavy). I'm a little sad, since I still feel that it's a wasted feat for the most part, but I'm happy that just about all of my other problems with him were fixed in some way. Thanks again for listening.
I am currently playing as Lem who is also the character I primarily used during the playtest. I love his flexibility. Recently I've been salivating over his Role card (Virtuoso). Letting him use his inspiration ability on himself is something that I pushed for during playtest and I'm really happy that it made it into the final cut. I just wish I didn't have to wait until February to get it! Ahh, the wait is killing me.
Anyway, to the actual question in the subject line, I really don't care much about armor and I don't know if I'll ever use a card feat to get the one armor slot he has access to. I'm worried that by the end of Chapter 3, I may be forced to take Proficient With Light Armors as a power feat which will probably be a complete waste. So I was wondering, if characters gain access to all four of their basic power feats in the first 3 chapters, is it okay to just not use one of those power feats and save it until you get your role card?
I do see that on page 19, it says that if you have no unchecked feats of the type you're gaining, you don't gain a feat. So I'm thinking that by the current rules as written, saving a power feat for your role card isn't allowed. But is there anything wrong with it? Either as a house rule or even changing the rules to allow it, is there anything wrong with being a power feat behind for a few scenarios until you can actually get one you'd like to have?
What does everyone think? And is anyone else out there just itching to get their role cards, too?
PS: Or maybe I'm worrying about nothing. Would a developer be willing to chime in and let us know if we do gain 4 power feats within the first three chapters? Or if anyone out there might have a copy of chapter 3 already somehow?
Yes, and if I knew about the words on page 11, I might have edited them better. But then again, if I did know about that part of page 11, I then would have had to first question, what would be the line that should be deleted? The one on page 11 or the one on page 16. I didn't make the game, so I don't know which line takes priority.
I think your suggestion is ok, but note that you've put a mention that "the character must already have an appropriate skill to make the check". This is not actually the case. You can always choose to roll 1d4 for a check (e.g. Valeros can always attempt an Arcane check, he just rolls 1d4).
Flat the Impaler wrote:
Aside from being partially incorrect ("the character must already have an appropriate skill to make the check" contradicts the rule that you can roll 1d4 if you don't have a skill), it's basically just a more verbose wording of the original.
Thank you both for your replies, but this particular statement that you both called out in my "rewriting" was actually not changed at all from the original. It was always there and it still there with the implementation of the current FAQs. So from my reading, page 11 and page 16 are currently in direct conflict. If page 11 is correct, then sure, just take that statement out of my rewording. I only had it in there because it was in the original. I guess this brings up a new issue all together?
And yes, I suppose that getting the highest die from the check is a little overpowered. I don't mind it and hopefully the rest of the group won't either. They've been complaining a little that the game is too easy sometimes anyway.
When I started playing the game I interpreted the rules as saying that whenever you use a blessing you always add a die or dice to the check of the same type as the associated skill for the check you are making. However, with the new rewording in an FAQ entry about wands, it becomes a little less clear:
I'm thinking, based on logic, that the rule still defaults to always adding dice of the same type as the base skill die, if applicable. Meaning if you are using a skill for your check, you add whatever your die is for that skill, but if you aren't using a skill, such as with some wands, you add whatever die the wand uses. But the new wording can also be taken out of context, disregarding the original wording, and interpreted so that you can use whatever die is applicable to the situation. This would include adding the die of a higher type such as the die a weapon adds if it is higher.
I did look through other threads and it seems like we should still always default to the skill die type first, if possible. So, for example, I am currently playing with Lem and the weapon he has is a heavy crossbow. He gets 1d8 +1 for Dexterity and the weapon adds 1d10. If a blessing is played on him, he must add a second d8 and cannot choose to add a d10 instead. Is this correct? I just want to make sure since our group is currently just adding whatever the highest die is for the check. I'm not the owner of the game and everyone thinks being about to add extras of your best die makes sense. And again, the new wording makes me re-think it. If you should always use your skill die when possible, I'd like to suggest a new rewording for the rule:
"The die or dice added are the same type as the base skill that the character is using for the check; the character must already have an appropriate skill to make the check. If the character is not using a skill for the check, such as a character using certain wands which use a flat set of dice, the die or dice added are of the same type as what is used on the card."
Personally, I find the "defined by the situation" verbiage to be kind of confusing. What is the reason for it being in there? Does my wording work just as well?
But also, this kind of brings up the question, is it really that bad or overpowered to just add dice of the highest value which is already part of the roll? It would definitely simplify the rule and eliminate a lot of confusion, but maybe that's just me.
Interesting concept. It's nice that something more unique seems to be on the horizon for the class. I look forward to seeing it. But something I noticed with the class that doesn't seem to have been brought up before: Why doesn't the arcanist have Use Magic Device as a class skill? With the change in concept, this seems even more relevant, like something that should really come natural to a member of this class.
I really like the spell casting system of the Arcanist, but I am not really keen on the Blood Focus system. It feels a little overly complicated and weird. I’d like to propose an alternative, if I may be so bold:
Arcane Heritage (Su): At 1st level, the arcanist learns to harness the power of the magic in her blood to push the boundaries of her magic. The arcanist must select one school of magic (which may be Elemental or Focused schools: APG) and one sorcerer bloodline. Once selected, these choices cannot be changed. Whenever the arcanist casts a spell of her chosen school, she can bolster the spell as a free action. This adds 1 to the spell’s caster level and DC. The arcanist can use this ability a number of times per day equal to her Inelegance modifier (minimum 1) and cannot expend more than one use on a given casting of a spell.
Arcane Advancement: at 4th level and every four levels thereafter, an arcanist expands her understanding of her arcane power, gaining a bonus feat or new ability in addition to the feats gained from normal advancement. At such an opportunity, she can choose a metamagic feat, an item creation feat, Eschew Materials, Spell Mastery (the arcanist counts as a wizard for the purposes of this feat), or a feat from her bloodline’s list of bonus feats. The arcanist must still meet all prerequisites for the bonus feat, including caster level minimums.
An arcanist may also use an arcane advancement to gain a power from her bloodline or arcane school or to select an arcane discovery (Ultimate Magic). The arcanist is treated as having a sorcerer and wizard level equal to her arcanist level -3 to determine what abilities she can select. Otherwise, the arcanist has an effective sorcerer and wizard level equal to her arcanist level when determining the strength of these abilities and substitutes her intelligence in place of her Charisma when determining any variables for bloodline powers gained.
These two entries would replace the Blood Focus, Scribe Scroll and Bonus Feats entries. It doesn’t provide as much of a new mechanic as Blood Focus, but I think it’s better that way. Just use established abilities without worrying about a new point system to keep track of. School Supremacy would need its wording changed a little, to something like “Whenever she uses her arcane heritage to bolster a spell of her selected school,” but I’m not a real big fan of that ability either.
I was going back and forth a bit with how many “advancements” the arcanist should get. This is on the lower end with five total. Sorry if anyone else has suggested something similar. I just think this gives the class more customization and hopefully keeps from invalidating the sorcerer or wizard any more than the class may already do.
Yeah, Swashbuckler under the Bonus Feats section also says, "Swashbuckler levels are considered fighter levels for the purpose of meeting combat feat prerequisites."
Personally, I think there should just be some kind of blanket rule saying that hybrid classes count as their alternate classes for prerequisites and such, especially with the multiclass restrictions.
I'd be reluctant to give away Improved Critical for free, when the rapier already has such a generous range. +2 to confirm critical hits would be more fair as well as potentially more powerful.
That sounds good to me. I just wrote something quick based on the current weapon training the swashbuckler gets. Personally, I think just the Dex to damage and increased bonuses are enough without anything else extra.
I haven't read all of the posts in this thread yet, but I wanted to give my first impression of the swashbuckler since it was one of the classes I was looking forward to most. I like the idea of a swashbuckler being a mix between the fighter and gunslinger. I felt that it could be the best Dex based melee fighting class in the game. But a few things didn't quite meet my expectation. Sorry if some or most of these things have already been touched on.
The first issue I had is the weapons the class uses. There are a few exotic weapons that I feel really fit the flavor and style of the class: Whip, Bolas, and Net. It'd be nice if the swashbuckler got proficiency in these weapons. And that brings me to the fact that I really don't like how the class is pigeonholed into using light or one-handed piercing weapons for most of its abilities. Being restricted to light and one-handed weapons I can totally see, but always having to use piercing weapons doesn't really fit with me. Picturing a swashbuckler in my mind, I can see him slashing about with a scimitar style sword or bopping someone on the head with a sap or blunt improvised weapon.
Panache is about what I expected. Although I wasn't a big fan of the Grit/Deed mechanic when it first came out do to its "everyone gets the same stuff" nature, it grew on me and it gives room for 3PP to "fix" it. Again, my main issue with these would be that you have to be wielding a piercing weapon to use a lot of the abilities.
I agree with the few posts that I did read that Weapon Finesse should just be given (the real feat) at first level. The rest of the Swashbuckler Finesse ability is fine at second level, just calling it Sure Handed (Ex) or something and get rid of the piercing requirement.
Then there is the Swashbuckler Weapon Training. I was really hoping there would be something like Gun Training for melee weapons. Something like this:
Signature Weapon (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a swashbuckler can select a specific type of light or one-handed melee weapon. She may use her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier on damage rolls when using this weapon. Furthermore, she gains the benefit of Improved Critical feat when wielding weapons of this type.
Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), the swashbuckler picks another type of weapon, gaining these bonuses to that type as well. She also gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with each weapon she previously selected for this ability.
Only other comment I have is that it would have been nice to have a Dirty Trick special ability for the class. Maybe as a Deed that lets it get them off faster and easier. I look forward to seeing how this and the other classes evolve.
I never thought the weapon group and special attack bonus (full BAB) system was confusing at all. Maybe you're too stuck on the base monk's mechanics? The first interpretation is correct, and then some. You use the special attack bonus for ANY action using the weapon, to include standard action attacks, full-round attacks, attacks of opportunity, combat maneuvers using such a weapon, etc. Pretty much anything using the weapon which uses your BAB in some way substitutes the 3/4 BAB for the special full BAB.
I actually disagree with it being quite clear. If you look at my original post, I'm curious about the distinction between "you may attempt to acquire" a boon as opposed to "you must try to defeat" a bane. To me, "you may" implies optional in that sentence, but perhaps it's just worded that way because the boon is a positive thing?
Yes, you don't have to try to acquire it, but I thought your question was what happens when you don't try to acquire it; if the boon is banished or if you can shuffle it back in the location deck. In that case, it is clear in the rules I quoted:
"If you encounter a boon while exploring a location, you may attempt a check to acquire the card. If you succeed at the check, put the card in your hand; if you fail, or choose not to attempt the check, banish the card."
If you attempt to acquire the boon and fail or if you just don't try to acquire it, the boon is banished either way.
...say for example a nice magic weapon that Valeros would love when I'm playing Ezren - can I opt to not attempt the check at all, thus avoiding the card being banished?
Unfortunately, no. On page 15 of the rules under Check to Acquire, it is very clear:
"If you encounter a boon while exploring a location, you may attempt a check to acquire the card. If you succeed at the check, put the card in your hand; if you fail, or choose not to attempt the check, banish the card."
But typically, there would be no harm in Ezren going ahead and trying to acquire the item himself and either trying to give the card to Valeros during the game or trading afterwords.
Do most magic weapons still have the option to use a magic check, arcane or divine, to acquire? They did in the playtest, but the only examples of magic weapons I can find right now (as I don't have a copy of the game yet and am just going by images online) are goblin magic items which only have the Strength/Melee check, but that might just be because they're goblin weapons.
Ah, I missed that part of the Unfettered Kata, though it seems something of a failing that it is tied up with the unarmored defense bonuses, especially improved unarmed strike. I thought that the goal of the product was to pull apart things like uarmed combat and the unarmored defenses.
I had to search hard to find it my first time going through the PDF. Having a homebrew artificer in my party made it very important for my unarmed strikes to count as manufactured weapons. But yeah, I would probably prefer for Unfettered Kata to be split into two talents (one for unarmored defense and one for the unarmed strike feat and ability) instead of one edge.
Rereading your earlier post, I think I will touch on a few things:
The core rules monk has a line expicately stating the monk's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons for effects that enhance attacks, but the talented monk doesnt. So in the core rules monk with 2 natural attacks (like 2 claws, or a bite and a sting) has 3 natural attacks and qualifies for multi attack.
I've never heard this interpretation and personally do not read it the same way. It's "treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." I wouldn't read that as letting it count as a natural attack to meet prerequisites for feats, but as long as you and your GM are in agreement, I guess it's fine.
A monk normally cannot flurry with natural attacks, but with feral combat training, he can, making a flurry worth of unarmed strikes, and then natural attacks, potentially combining with multi attack.
This is not the case. Feral Combat Training lets you use your chosen natural weapon as part of your flurry, not in addition to your flurry. Taking Fighting Style (Natural) has the same effect. There is no ability that I know of that lets you preform secondary natural attacks with your flurry of blows. FAQ entry. I would think that this is also the case with the talented version of flurry of blows. The way I see it is that a flurry is a specific kind of full-attack, so secondary attacks cannot be added to it. It would be nice if it was more clear, though.
But again, at your table, whatever the players and GM agree upon goes.
The core rules monk has a line expicately stating the monk's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons for effects that enhance attacks, but the talented monk doesnt.
The ability to treat unarmed strikes as both manufactured and natural weapons is part of the Unfettered Kata edge.
I was going to speak my opinion on a few other things, but with most of them I'm not 100% sure how they were meant to work myself, for both the core and the talented monk.
Peter Stewart wrote:
Mythic Spellpower - gain 2 points of mythic power that can be used only to power mythic spells. Can be taken three times. Guess that means extra mythic power is gone.... OH WAIT. NO IT ISN'T! THIS ABILITY IS WORSE IN EVERY ****ING WAY THAN EXTRA MYTHIC POWER (WHICH YOU CAN TAKE AT TIER 1). WTF? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Generic Villain wrote:
Actually, you can only take Extra Mythic Power once. It's a feat. If taken multiple times, it's effects do not stack unless it says so. I know that most of the normal "Extra" feats can be taken multiple times, but this feat includes no such text. Not only that, but Extra Mythic Power is a Mythic Feat. You can only take a grand total of 5 Mythic Feats EVER. Maybe there are other feats that are more important to you. Mythic Spellpower is a Path Ability. At Tier 3 and onward, you have have 8 opportunities to take it up to three time. It may be limited, but it's far more available. Now I don't know if the Mythic "Extra" feats intentionally left off the "can be taken multiple times" clause, but it kind of makes since for those feats to be limited to only once.
Also, based on the wording, it's unclear (to me, at least) if you can use Mythic Spellpower to cast the augmented version of a mythic spell for free. It doesn't say you get 2 extra points of mythic power to just use for mythic spells. It says you can cast a mythic spell twice per day without spending ANY mythic power. An augmented version of a mythic spell is still a mythic spell, right? I don't know if that's intended or not, but it can be taken that way.
EDIT: Sorry, I see now you were taking about the Universal Path Ability called Extra Mythic Power. And I see that there is also a Universal Path Ability to get more Mythic Feats.... That's kind of confusing to have two things named the same. So I guess the above possibility is my only arguing point now.... Oh well.
Anyway, I'm still reading through the book. That was just something that caught my eye that I remembered from Peter's rant. I really like it so far, although it really does make swift/immediate actions a very hot commodity. I imagine making some very hard choices as to how you use it each turn.
Marc Radle wrote:
My apologies, but I'm not sure I understand the 'does the spirit Companion treat as a familiar or animal companion?' question ...
I think the questions is "can the spirit companion be treated as a familiar or animal companion, such as for the purposes of feats and such?"
I really need to get around to buying this. I'm not a huge fan of prepared casting, especially divine prepared casting. I fell in love with the oracle and will probably never play another cleric as a PC. This seems like it can have the same effect for the druid (though I've never played a druid before in the first place). I also really liked the Spell-less Ranger.... Ahhh, screw it! It's only $4! I'm going to "Add to Cart" right now!
How do game stores get these demo packs? I haven't been to my FLGS yet this week (it's only open Fri-Sun) so I don't know if they might have already gotten it. But if they haven't or if others' game stores don't have it, is there somewhere we can point our FLGS owners to so they can request a demo?
After doing the playtest, my wife and I are still on the fence about getting the game ourselves, but I'd definitely help demo it to try to drum up interest in others. And who knows, playing the game with "real" cards might actually increase out chances of buying it (my wife hated the print-and-play cards).
Revised Focused Elemental Fist Talent:
Focused Elemental Fist (Su)*: Choose one energy type: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. The monk receives Elemental Fist as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites, but can only use it to deal damage of his chosen type. A monk may attempt an elemental fist a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, the monk increases the damage of his Elemental Fist by 1d6 (2d6 at 5th level, 3d6 at 10th level, and so on). If the monk already has the standard Elemental Fist feat from another source or later gains it, the damage from this talent is added to his standard Elemental Fist damage when using the chosen energy type. The monk does not, however, gain any additional attempts per day. For example, a fifth level monk with the Elemental Fist, Focused Elemental Fist (fire), and Improved Elemental Fist talents will do 4d6 damage with a fire type elemental fist attack, 2d6 damage when using any other energy type, and have 5 attempts total.
Sorry for the triple post. Was just re-reading it a few times and thought some things could be a little more clear or worded better. Like making sure that it's spelled out that you can only pick one of the energy types that are part of the standard Elemental Fist feat. So no, you can't take Focused Elemental Fist to deal sonic damage.... Though now that I think about it, that kind of sounds like it could be a cool talent, too! Ahhhh, your work with the Talented Monk has brought on so many ideas! Thank you again.
I went ahead and did a draft of such a talent:
Focused Elemental Fist (Su)*: Choose one energy type. The monk receives Elemental Fist as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites, but can only do damage of his chosen type. A monk may attempt an elemental fist a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, the monk increases the damage of his Elemental Fist by 1d6 (2d6 at 5th level, 3d6 at 10th level, and so on). If the monk already has the standard Elemental Fist feat from another source or later gains it, the damage from this talent is added to his standard Elemental Fist damage when using the chosen energy type. The monk does not, however, gain any additional attempts per day. For example, a fifth level monk with the Elemental Fist, Focused Elemental Fist (fire), and Improved Elemental Fist talents will do 4d6 damage with a fire type elemental fist, 2d6 damage with any other energy type, and have 5 attempts total.
What do you think?
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
I actually had the same confusion. Thank you for the answer.
This actually got me to thinking, though. Do you think it would be reasonable to have a single talent that combined the benefits of the Elemental Fist and Improved Elemental Fist talents, but restricted it to a single chosen energy type? I just think it would work really well with the Elemental Ki Power talent and help with the theme and flavor since it would seem kind of weird (for me, at least) for a Fire Monk to freely use cold elemental fists, but not be able to gain any water elemental ki powers.
Thank you for another awesome PDF.
Yeah, and that's why I asked the question. Just to be clear, does that then mean that style feats selected with Style Master can be used with all weapons from the selected weapon group, but if you select a style feat with any other gained feat, you can only use it with unarmed strike? And if that's the case, how does it work with future feats in the chain? Like say if I used Style Master to gain the base Dragon Style feat and then take Dragon Ferocity as my regular 5th level character feat. Does the "bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls equal to half your Strength bonus" only apply to unarmed strikes in this case, or would it apply to all weapons in the chosen group for the Fighting Style edge since the original style feat applies to all of those weapons?
Sorry to be a pain. I just want to be sure I'm understanding it correctly. I really do love the book.
I just picked this up and I really like what I've read so far. I just had one question about the asterisk* system used with the Fighting Style edge. I noticed that the style feat related talents (Fuse Style, Style Master, etc.) all have an asterisk beside them. Does that mean that it is intended that weapons from groups selected with the Fighting Style edge can be used to apply the effects of style feats? I don't see that explicitly stated anywhere in the file, but if that is the case it would do wonders for my natural weapon tengu monk/inquisitor if my GM allows me to rebuild using these rules. It'd save me from having to take weapon focus (claws) and feral combat training with a very feat starved character.
Thank you for making such a great product. I can't wait to dig deeper into it and eventually get the Talented Fighter and Rogue.
Is it possible for you to recreate your rogue as a ninja?
The problem with that is ninjas don't get Trapfinding.
I think your best bet is to just take two levels in Vivisectionist (Alchemist). You'll get Poison Use and you won't lose any Sneak Attack power for your level. And if you're interested in it, you can even take the Bleeding Attack rogue talent in place of the one Alchemist Discovery you'll gain if none of the Discoveries fit your character.
Although it's probably not an option in PFS, Vishkanya and Drow get Poison Use as racial traits.
The wierd thing about a child being an adept, is that there's no good way to model them becoming the equivalent of a first level PC over time. What happened to those Adepts spells they used to know, like Cure Light Wounds, that aren't on the Wizard spell list?
But you could say that about the retraining rules for whole class levels in general. Retrain your only level in just about any class and you're going to get examples like that. Former cleric can no longer cure. Former oracle is no longer cursed. Former barbarian can no longer go into a rage. Former bard can no longer inspire courage. Former fighter can no longer use the same weapons and armor.... I'm not saying it's a bad thing. That's just how retraining works. You no longer specialize in something so you can learn something new.
Thanks, I'll have to look into those options, though it'd have been nice if there was a Paizo-official option. I was thinking of just changing the adept's spell list and giving it a bonded object option since channeling though a wand tends to be a big part of the Wizard School concept.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Feel free to change it in your campaign.
Are you saying that children at a magic school should be adepts? Or maybe experts with magic based skills taken as class skills? Maybe then getting their first wizard levels after they finish their first year of school? I'm just wondering how you think a young magic school student character would progress in a campaign. I hope I don't seem snide. I'm really just curious and want to know where you're coming from. Thank you.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Yeah, this is one of the only things I don't like about the child rules. I'd really like to play or run a game with an all child party and I'm all fine with only having NPC levels until "adulthood". But the only problem I have is trying to run a Harry Potter Wizard School story. I can actually go with Arya starting as an expert. But Harry Potter is NOT an adept. I wish there was an arcane casting NPC class like the adept. Maybe call it an apprentice or something. If there was a new class like that, I'd be perfectly fine with the rules.
Jessie Scott wrote:
I'm a fan of this archetype, but my DM thinks it's too powerful (has too many other options for what the spell-less ranger gives up from a normal ranger).
I had a similar knee-jerk reaction when I first looked over the class. Especially the fact that this version of the ranger starts getting new class features before the standard ranger gains spell casting. But then I had to remind myself that even before the ranger gets the ability to actually cast spells, he still has the ability to use spell-trigger items (like wands) of any spell on the ranger list which can be very useful. Then you also have to consider that all of the new ranger class features other than the ranger talents have to either be used in one of the ranger's favored terrains or against a favored enemy. Personally, I think it is very balanced with all things considered, especially since the spell-less ranger doesn't have access to the Instant Enemy spell unless he trains UMD. You should talk it over with your GM, bringing up these points and maybe he'll reconsider??
Jessie Scott wrote:
Is there anything you can recommend to bring it more in line to be "balanced" with the Paizo canon classes?
I'd say if you just remove Stealth Attack the class would maybe seem more in line with the standard ranger by your GM's perception if he doesn't reconsider. Unless that's one of the main features you wanted? Otherwise I don't really know what to suggest.
I'm guessing that the Base Set's classes are Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue.
Unless something has changed, the base set should include the iconic characters of those four plus Ranger, Bard and Sorcerer.
I'm very interested to see what has changed in the final game since the forum playtest here, especially for the characters.
I think he gets too many bonus feats( perhaps change this to at 2nd lvl and every 3 lvls after) but more feats to choose from, and some of the cool stuff should require more investment, Categorizer for instance is pretty sweet. A lvl 1 crafter, no matter how good, is still only lvl 1.
In case you haven't seen it, here is my updated Artificer. I ended up moving Categorizer to level 2 at Cheapy's suggestion. At one point I was considering moving that to level 4 and Systematic Craftsman to level 2, but Cheapy said the level 2 drop for Categorizer would be reasonable and I trust his judgement.
Yes, this class gets a lot of feats, but they're typically not very powerful. Metamagic is not as useful to this Artificer until he starts to get class features that augment them. What kind of extra feat options would you open the class up to? But in comparison, your version of feat progression only amounts to two less feats than mine (7 vs 9) and also the original 3.5 artificer gained 13.5 feats throughout its progression (considering Craft Homunculus as half of Craft Construct).
I would like to see something at either 16, or 19, or both that allows artificer through pure magic force, revive, or give life to living creatures. It makes some sense to me, but its just me. just my 2, erm, 6 cents.
I don't really see that to be necessary. Since he has access to Cleric spells, he can make scrolls of True Resurrection at level 17. Though I would have liked to make an ability for him to restore "life" to destroyed constructs. I just wasn't sure about he mechanics of it. Also, my main goal was to bring over as many of the 3.5 artificer abilities as possible, give them a more Pathfinder feel and functionality, and make him fully INT based, getting rid of the weird faking-spells-to-make-items thing. I mostly felt that he had enough abilities already without throwing something else in there, but if anyone has any tips on how construct resurrection might work, feel free to share.
Goth Guru wrote:
I remember the artificer. The alchemist liquid spells are almost the same, except for the self only part. Replace the bombs with making magic items by soaking in magical suspensions, then replace mutagens with special homoculuses and you have the artificer.
Yeah, this artificer was an alchemist archetype at one point, but it kept moving so far away from the class that I ended up making it a new class itself. I might revisit making an artificer archetype for the alchemist since I've been exposed to Spagyric Devices in SGG's Alchemist book. I would really want to keep bombs, though. The archetype I was working on gave you a caster level and let you take item crafting feats you qualify for in place of any Discovery you want to replace.
Not sure if this has been said, but I think this makes a good replacent for an artificer: Machinesmith.
I haven't had a chance to fully read through that, but it does look interesting. I didn't know I could get the class without buying the PDF. Thanks for the link!
Okay. I have to say that I like the idea, but what you exchange for what you gain is WAY off in this archetype. Look at the archetypes in Ultimate Combat that trade in Slow Fall and look at the options the Qinggong Monk in Ultimate Magic has to take in place of the ability. They trade the ENTIRE slow fall ability with about 1 feat equivalent. You have traded it for getting Abundant Step 6 levels earlier, the ability to use it a number of times per day outside of needing to spend ki, plus as you progress you also gain 5 feats and Uncanny Dodge! I'm not even sure if slow fall is worth the initial Abundant Step adjustment. Abundant Step usually costs 2 ki points. At level 6, you would have 3 + WIS ki. If your Wisdom is between 16 and 19, that would mean you would have 6 or 7 ki points and only be able to use Abundant Step 3 times, and that's blowing all or nearly all of your ki, not having much for other abilities. Your adjustment means that at level 6 you can use Abundant Step AT LEAST 3 times a day without factoring in your WIS. Although with the change of using WIS instead of STR for attack and combat maneuver, your Wisdom would likely be between 16 and 20, so you would likely be able to use the ability 3 to 5 more times. That's a very powerful ability. To tack on the 5 feats and Uncanny Dodge in addition to that from just one ability is just insane. To balance this archetype, I would probably move Abundant Step to level 4 and have it replace the entire ki pool and have the feats and Uncanny Dodge replace all of the abilities linked with the ki pool (meaning ones that you need to spend ki for or have ki in your pool to use). In addition to that, I would probably even have a feat or two replacing bonus feats you usually get.
Hope that didn't come off as too harsh. Like I said, I like the concept, but it is not a balanced archetype in any way whatsoever. If you're not that concerned about balance, then I guess it's fine as long as you are the GM or your GM is like-minded. If I think about it enough and get bored enough, I might try to write a balanced version of the archetype. Otherwise, good luck.
If you have $3 to spend, get Advanced Options: Alchemist's Discoveries by Super Genius Games. They have two options that can fully replace on of the three other Alchemist class features, including Mutagen. One is a little week for player characters going off of the whole lead-to-gold thing. But the other one, Spagyric Devices, is just awesome and will replace Mutagen for any alchemist I play from now on (GM willing). It gives you a pool of gold that you can use to make temporary magic items each morning. Very cool and flavorful ability in my opinion. It alone was worth the price to me.
I would really like to see this as a feature in My Downloads. I typed this up before I searched to see if something similar had already been asked:
What I'd like to see should be pretty simple. To the far right of the page, after the "Date Added To My Downloads" column, add a column that says "Delete (or Hide or Archive) Item" and a little red "X" after each file. After the "X" is clicked and you confirm that you'd like to remove the item, it is taken off of your active list. In addition to this, around were the "Mark All As Downloaded | Mark All As Not Downloaded" links are, there will be a new link that says "Show Deleted (or Hidden or Archived) Items" which will bring up a list of all of your downloads including the ones you have removed. On this page, the "Delete (or Hide or Archive) Item" column would be replaced with "Restore Item" and maybe you'd have a little recycle icon next to the items which have been removed from your active list.
I think this would be very helpful for managing My Downloads without getting too complicated. I'd like to use it to remove preview and playtest files and the Pathfinder file formats that I don't use (I only use the Lite-Single File versions). Thank you for listening.
If that's the case, how does it work when Oracles add arcane spells to their lists of spells known via Oracle's Curse or Mystery Bonus Spells? Especially in the case of the Haunted curse which is worded as such:
"Add mage hand and ghost sound to your list of spells known. At 5th level, add levitate and minor image to your list of spells known. At 10th level, add telekinesis to your list of spells known. At 15th level, add reverse gravity to your list of spells known."
Compared to New Arcana:
"At 9th level, you can add any one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to your list of spells known. This spell must be of a level that you are capable of casting."
Other than giving an option of which spell to take and the "must be of a level that you are capable of casting," parts it is exactly the same. It doesn't looks like it would work with prepared casters since they just have spell lists, not spells known. But as long as you have a "list of spells known" (like Bards and Oracles) it should work fine no matter if the spell was original on your class spell list, using the Haunted curse as a precedent. That's just my opinion, though and how I see it should work. Of course, the Arcane bloodline was written before EH came out, so if the designers don't want it to work this way there may need to be an errata to the bloodline.
But back on subject, tricks with Paragon Surge and feats like Expanded Arcana and Improved Eldritch Heritage (Arcana) are very interesting. Personally, I wouldn't mind them being used in a game I'd run or play in. It seems like a very creative and fun use of the spell and trying to errata it to not include certain feats that might seem overpowered seems like it would be too complicated.
Don't mean to brag, but Vic just let me know that my 2-player group is in the playtest. (woo-hoo!) I don't know if he's doing all of the notifications now at once or if it's going to be in waves. Anyone else get confirmed for the playtest yet?
I'm really looking forward to this now.
Is there anything I need to put in the e-mail other than FedEx e-mail, forum name, group lead, size of group, and preferred amount to playtest? Stuff like why I'd be a good person to have playtest this and that sort of stuff? I only ask because I sent my local VC an e-mail a few days ago and have yet to get a response.
I sent an email to the VL closest to me Saturday and got a response back Sunday saying he forwarded the request to Paizo. I didn't really give any extra information. It might just depend on the VC/VL how much communication you'll get back? Not sure how the process works since this is my first time trying something like this. Hope my group gets selected!
My wife and I really enjoy deck building games like Thunderstone and Rune Age and also play adventure board games like Runebound and Talisman quite often, so this really appeals to me and will likely appeal to her as well. We have a lot of experience dissecting rules for these kinds of games and knowing what works and doesn't. And I have a deep love of Pathfinder and she's played a few games with me. So would it be perfectly fine for us to sign up as a 2 player group?
Also, the closest FedEx location is about an hour's drive away, which is totally doable (and would give us an excuse to go to a bigger city), but we have a Staples right here in town. Would it be possible to sign up for the playtest, reserve our spot, and wait to see if you'd be willing to print to Staples? Then if you end up getting enough people to get their cards through FedEx, just go ahead and use them instead? Does that make sense?
Anyway, as long as there is an opening for a 2 player group, I'd really like to be part of this either way. I'll just have to talk it over with my wife.
Edit: And one last thing. If we did sign up as a 2 player group, would it still be okay if we playtest a few three or four player games after we finish the obligated 10+ two player sessions? Then maybe provide some feedback on the differences between the group sizes?
How about something like this?
Device Expert: At level 1, a tinkerer adds 1/2 her level to all Use Magic Device skill checks (minimum +1). This ability replaces trapfinding.
Categorizer (Ex): Tinkerers meticulously keep track of their magical and mundane items, always knowing where every item on their person is located at any given time. At 2nd level, a tinkerer never provokes attacks of opportunity when retrieving stored items and any tinkerer who takes the Quick Draw feat may use the benefits of Quick Draw with alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands. This ability replaces the 2nd-level rogue talent.
Trapfinding: At level 4, a tinkerer adds 1/2 her level to perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A tinkerer can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps. This ability replaces Uncanny Dodge.
Device Master (Ex): At level 8, a tinkerer may take 10 on Use Magic Device skill checks even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. This circumvents the usual rule that says you can’t take 10 on UMD checks. This ability replaces Improved Uncanny Dodge.
I'm not sure what you're willing to give up, like how much of the Rogue you would want to keep. Personally, I think that this kind of Rogue should still be able to disable traps, so I kept it in there, though a little later in progression. Could probably think of other little things to add in, but then I'd probably be taking away things like Sneak Attack dice. Like something that might be cool is that at 3rd level and every 4 levels there after the Tinkerer loses the Sneak Attack die at that level to gain the ability to be treated as if they know a spell (or a few spells) for the purposes for magic devices from the Sorcerer spell list. At 3rd level they'd be able to choose level 1 spells or lower, at 7th level 2 spells, and so on. Just a thought.