Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Millech the Hump

rainzax's page

1,728 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 2 wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,728 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I am still interested in ideas to buff the non-animal version of Hunter's Bond.

Anybody got any cool homebrew?

I like your "+x to hit with a readied action" idea.

The only thing I don't like about these proposals is that they are based off skill checks.

To me, the "rogue" concept is about versatility. And from that follows that the proposals above that are based on skills should be optional (rogue talents or part of archetypes), while the other ones should be general. That way I can spend my 8 skill points how I like and not miss out on anything no matter how I do.

My 2cp again.

This looks cool. Excited for print.

To build on Malwing's ask, any way those that order both print and pdf who have formerly purchased PC (or LH) could secure a discount? If not I'll probably just get the print edition.

Also, any spoilers to the changes you have made to Morale Checks or Antagonize Checks?

Ssalarn wrote:
Since the Rogue is short 5 BAB for full initiation under the system, I was figuring when I had the time I'd do a quick archetype for him that traded the Talents gained at 2,6,10,14, and 18 and granted full initiation, plus maybe a couple little perks related to sparking with skills (assuming you go with the reactive version and not the XP based one).

This sounds like a cool idea

Yes. If you haven't played Council of Thieves that is.

Hello gamers,

I am recruiting for an ongoing Council of Thieves (Act II) game for those interested in playing live table top once-a-month for 7 hours (10am-5pm) on a Sunday.

Send me a PM if interested!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
A wee bit melodramatic, no?


I did not have a character who was negatively affected by the errata.

But I can understand others' frustration on exactly how the errata was handled. I'd say about half of the changes were fair, the other half were overly punitive, as if Paizo wanted to erase a page in their history altogether (despite folks - some admittedly overzealous - being invested in it). That many options, instead of being brought down a notch were brought down several notches seems to me a lazy design decision. Like removing the squeaky wheel instead of applying some oil to it. To me, the errata represents a lot of lost opportunities to come up with creative solutions. Add to that the fact that Paizo holds the "it's up to the DM to balance things" line while turning around and creating the reason this thread ought be made.

Have some respect for the dead, eh?

That is already in the book.

Requirements: 5 ranks Bluff, 5 ranks Disguise
Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nobility), Perception, Perform, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Stealth
Skill Ranks: 6 per tier
Hit Points: 3 per tier
Good Save: Will

1- Dual Identity, Seamless Guise, Social Talents (choose two)
2- Social Talent
3- Social Talent
4- Social Talent
5- Social Talent

Social Talent Tier Requirement:
Any Guise (5th)
Everyman (3rd)
Feign Innocence (1st)
Great Renown (2nd)
Immediate Change (3rd)
Incredible Renown (3rd)
Instant Recognition (4th)
Loyal Aid (1st)
Many Guises (1st)
Quick Change (1st)
Renown (1st)
Safe House (2nd)
Social Grace (1st)
Subjective Truth (2nd)

Recovery Surges


An initiator may only recover her maneuvers a number of times per day equal to her Constitution bonus (minimum 1) plus initiation modifier (minimum 1). She may exceed this limit by accepting fatigue until the next time she rests. She regains all her recovery surges after a full nights rest.

In order to use a recovery surge, the initiator may use her initiator class ability (Stalker's +4 dodge bonus, Warder's Defensive Focus, Warlord's Gambits) to recover all of her prepared maneuvers, or may take a move action to recover a number of maneuvers equal to her initiation modifier (minimum 1).

If she possesses no levels in an initiating class, she may use a recovery surge to recover a number of maneuvers equal to her Constitution bonus (minimum 1) as a standard action.


A limitation and a boost in one

Too slow in my book.

Then during a fight your first level initiator goes "1-2-3 and I'm out guys"...


possibly you are unfamiliar with a probable outcome of expressing critique of PoW material...

Your three suggestions are appreciated! But I'm not sure if they are the solution I am looking for. The "vancian" initiator is an interesting idea but to me falls short on the flavor (it's a little too premeditated). The per-maneuver daily cap is a good limitation but introduces a lot of additional bookkeeping. And the "no recovery until all expended" idea is just a little too wonky for actual execution. Maybe with more tinkering some parts of one or more of these ideas can be transmuted into a satisfactory one?

And yes, the DM must balance the encounters to the players, naturally, but he must also balance the players to the other players. Now these two aren't mutually exclusive nor does focusing on the first automatically take care of the second. And though I appreciate the suggestion, it won't work for me as I have a few old school players who are not interested in using maneuvers whatsoever.

I'm looking for a more sweeping change that I can somehow apply to all initiating classes (as well as core classes that take the maneuver-granting feats) that closes the infinity loop and limits other shenanigans (for example, even though I think "Skill Check vs Attack/Saves/AC" is bad design for PF, I'm willing to give it a reluctant pass on a limited basis). Ideally I'd like these classes to stand alongside my (house rule buffed) core martial classes with roughly equal contribution potential.

Not a wash.

Situation 1: Undesirable items are sold at half price, replacements crafted at discount.

Situation 2: Undesirable items are sold at half price, replacements acquired at full to double price.

This is the Acquisition check, organized by price, DC, and time:


Acquisition Check

100 (DC 20) 1d6 weeks
5,250 (DC 25) 2d6 weeks
31,000 (DC 30) 3d6 weeks
120,000 (DC 35) 4d6 weeks
440,000 (DC 40) 5d6 weeks
x20 (+10) +2d6

Player may use an appropriate skill (Appraise, Diplomacy, Local, Merchant, Nobility). Check may be attempted once per week for a particular item. A player may add +1 to the check for each +10% they are willing to pay extra (max +10). For each 5 the check succeeds subtract 1 die worth of weeks time (minimum 1 day). Natural 1 cannot re-roll for a number of weeks (roll time).


I feel the Crafter's advantage of being able get items at a discounted rate is still pretty significant.

Thanks for the settlement and kingdom info. I think my version of the CRB has left out the "a new check... in 1 week" sentence. I double-checked and I'm not seeing it. Anyhow, I settled on weeks because it makes sense to me.

I think you are misunderstanding my common/uncommon/rare naming convention. The rare items are essentially any other magic item in the game, not represented by the base value (75%) and not represented by the store shelf slots (random). Just as a crafter is free to craft any item whatsoever, and the reason I posted this in the homebrew section, I want my players to have a system in place that uses non-craft skills to acquire items above and beyond what the CRB allows.

That said, do you think having a single DC with a mechanic to pay up to twice the market cost to acquire a "rare" item is fair? >link<

How many feats is DR, Flight, Firebreathing, Healing, Staggering, True-Seeing, and Astral-Projecting worth? Even considering the downside of having to take them sequentially.

Is having the powers of a dragon for a limited time worth 7 feats?

Do you think a simple patch to restricting recovery is possible? (as opposed to a maneuver-by-maneuver patch)? If your Monk or Scarlet could only use those maneuvers a limited number of times per day, would that change your opinion about how "broken" they were?

The difference between X times-per-day and X encounters-per-day is that within the context of a single encounter, an initiator could use his recovery methods as many times as he liked until the encounter "ended" - admittedly leaving the question about when "ended" happens. It is also easier to count.

I'm kind of hoping nobody pops in here and accuses me of hating martials...

I actually like the recovery methods of the stalker, warder and warlord. But I think limiting recovery somehow is a way to cut the classes off from some of their infamous exploits.

I wanted to avoid X times per day and instead introduce X encounters per day. But that may too slippery a definition as well.

Oh I love randomness too (Thanks for the link!). You just described the "common" (75%) and "uncommon" (roll random) items as proposed.

All I really did was allow for items above and beyond these two groups to be accessible by creating the "rare" category. I might be caving to player entitlement, sure, but I figure, especially for a metropolis, and a buyer willing to pay up to twice the market value, almost any item could be acquired given enough time (and knowing the right "guy"). This still puts the advantage in the crafter's court, if mitigating the distance a little.

How often do you allow your PCs to use the generator? Once a day? week? session?

I assume you mean your "fighter" can only prepare a certain amount of maneuvers per day, sealing the "slot" like a Wizard choosing a spell, but may recover those selected maneuvers (using a standard action) as often as he likes? Do I got that right?

If so, that doesn't really close the infinity loop. Which may or may not be what you are trying to do.

I figure using the abstraction "encounter" as it is understood by the material itself can provide a parameter. Kind of like the notion of 4E healing surges. But different in that the initiator can prepare maneuvers without limitation, but only recover them in the context of a limited number of encounters. If that kinda makes sense.

Why no CON?

Here is the googledoc draft for my common, uncommon, and rare items:

The Marketplace

I'm still deciding how to handle my uncommon items...

Devilkiller wrote:
In a recent game one of my PCs grappled a foe but then got Repositioned into flank by him. The resulting full attack worth of sneak attacks...

Nice. Bastard.

I am thinking of allowing Alchemists to automatically share their Infusions (without taking the discovery), counting against their normal extract limit.

The catch being they create a minor addiction for level 1-2 extracts, a moderate addiction for level 3-4 extracts, and a major addiction for level 5-6 extracts. Choosing the Infusion discovery removes the addictive qualities.


I have done away with Experience Points in my game, and as such, Prestige Points have more or less come to replace them. I am running Fame and Prestige straight out of the book (despite how this thread began), so far with a single exception: "Arcane Study" replaced by "Divine Prayer" (using Cleric list instead of Wizard list plus no ability damage).

Anybody else got some cool uses for Prestige?

What would you say if I changed "dogs" to "undead"?

Soft Limit

1) After X encounters per day, the martial adept's number of maneuvers prepared lowers by one until he rests 8 hours.
2) This lowering (by one) continues for each additional encounter beyond X.
3) X = initiation modifier.

What is going to make my character's contribution to the party both mechanically and narratively interesting?


BMC turns a metropolitan community's minor and medium items into a flat 75%, and you roll up 3d8 other items that are available as well. I presume these major items are 100%.

Also, lately, I have been wondering lately what to do with items that don't land in the 3d8. Are these items simply unavailable forever? For a week? For a day?

I would have the Chakras available at 1/3/5/7/9/11/13. Because that is when characters get feats.

Also, as ki is an extremely limited resource, being careful in selecting how much is required to power this set of abilities is important.

May I suggest: "As a standard action, the monk may expend an amount of ki up to the highest chakra he has learned how to open. Starting with the first round, each round he may open a single chakra as a free action, gaining it's benefits immediately. On the second round and each round thereafter, he must expand one point of ki to keep previously opened chakras open as well as to open a new one. Chakras may only be opened in ascending order. The highest chakra he can open is equal to the ki he initially expended in activating this ability. His chakras close when he ceases expending ki to keep them open."

This is good feedback.

I will respond to #2 by saying that the "versatility" of spells is for the most part divorced from the actual creation of spells. The difference here is between classes. Unlike a Wizard, a Sorcerer cannot "rebuild their character on a daily basis." While I said "for the most part," what this rewrite seems to be doing is to shorten feat chains by having a handful of primary feats and a lot more secondary feats whole only prerequisite is the primary feat. Bushes instead of trees, if you will. So, this partially mitigates the concern as well.

As to #1, while I agree with your analysis of feats in the pathfinder system, I do not think that what is being homebrewed here sidesteps that. Many of the feats here "give you new things to do." Especially the stances and the secondary feats. And, as these are being designed around staying competitive with iterative attacks, not only do many of them provide you with new things to do, but new combinations to make, each taking up only half the round (standard or move). Also what you are seeing is just the skeleton.

As to #3, do you think that Spheres of Power constitutes "bloat" as well? These are not new feats - these are replacement feats for the old feats. So, I don't see this bit of feedback as being relevant.

As to #4, we'll just have to wait and see...

Why stop at minutes then? Rounds!

Good point about MC I forgot about that. I suppose you are right.

I think the weeks > days > hours > minutes progression, even for MF points, is way too fast.

Maybe continuous halving instead?

Also I would just make A Hundred Hobbies have the Master Craftsman prerequisite and allow a single craft skill to be used for the purposes of qualifying caster level (equivalently) for any item, but the proper craft skill must be rolled. If craft were a trained only skill (a house rule of mine), this ability would allow craft checks to be made untrained as well. As written I think it's too good.

By similar logic oughtn't you separate thrown weapons from projectile weapons?

I always thought it strange that the Rapid Shot feat (for example) applied equally to daggers and shortbows (and crossbows and guns, for that matter).

I ask because, and maybe it's a bad suggestion, you might consider combining them.

Because what is the difference between Quick Strike and Trick Shot really?

Inasfaras utilizing essential naming conventions, what is the difference between "Strike" and "Shot" really that justifies them being classified differently rather than unified?

Also, will you adopt similar verbage for swift and immediate actions?

Malwing wrote:


Prerequisites: BAB +4, Acrobatic Step
Benefit: When using Acrobatic Step you may lower the bonus to AC by 1 to make a space that you have left count as an ally that can be used as a flanking partner. Treat this flanking partner as if it were a copy of yourself for the purposes of activating teamwork feats. This flanking partner cannot make attacks and does not otherwise exist. You may do this as many times as you can lower your bonus to AC.

During your turn? Until the end of the round? Until your next turn?

Spheres of Martiality!

(that's "mar-shee-al-i-tee")...

Not too tender not too tough

For those that purchased both decks, if you had to keep only one, would it be deck 1 or deck 2?

If you must say "both," what compelling reason do you have (aside from "too much use out of the first one needed fresh ideas") for saying so?

Cyrad wrote:
I feel this doesn't really reevaluate feats in any meaningful way. They don't address what I believe as the flaws with the feat system and how they relate to martials.

Can you elaborate?

Zaister wrote:
I could keep Lore for my skill, and rename the Unchained skill...

This is precisely my suggestion, if that wasn't clear.

Another idea, as you already have "one concentration per rank" within your Lore skill, is to have each Unchained Lore topic be a concentration gained from putting a rank in the closest-relevant Knowledge skill.

For Acrobatic and Aggressive Step, may I suggest:

"As a move action, you may move up to your speed to gain a bonus [to X]. For each 5 feet you move, you gain a +1 [to X], up to a maximum bonus of +1 per 4 BAB you possess."

That way just moving 5 feet doesn't garner full bonus - actual mobility is mechanically incentivized.

While you are doing a rewrite, you may want to consider language that somehow incorporates the concept of "movement cost" into you equations. For example, the first diagonal movement through difficult terrain expends 15 feet to actually move 5 feet. Does this count as moving 15 feet or moving 5 feet for purposes of your feats?

So he wants to rewrite a bunch of combat feats.

This is the Homebrew section Larkspire!

I think there is usually room in a gaming group for one selfish player, who, by dint of not being able to generate support for many of his or her suggestions, has to fall in line and go with the group.

Two of them, and they start getting ideas.

As you have removed one of the main "adventuring" functions of Knowledge, consider reclassifying what's left over as "background" skills.

Thus, Lore will be the skill you described.

Everything else is just Knowledge (focus) of some sort.

May I recommend erasing the space between the title and the feats benefits and prereqs, as it'll make it easier to navigate with the eye. (Maintain the spacing as only between feats).

Ciaran Barnes wrote:


I think this feat chain ramps up in power too much, especially considering there is no limit on how often it can be used, and that some of them are usable as a swift action or when an attack is made. Aside from that, I would amend the wording to something like "As a standard action, you can cause an opponent within 30 feet to become shaken for 1 minute. The opponent can make a Will save (DC = 10 + 1/2 your hit dice + your Charisma modifier) to negate this effect. This ability is a fear effect."

Intimidate checks, including demoralize attempts, ramp up by +5 DC if attempted within the same hour.

Unfortunately, the CRB is unclear whether or not this stacks cumulatively (I think it should).

What's interesting is that many of the evil Eidolon types (for the Unchained Summoner) are described as serving a mortal master against their will and ultimately with ulterior motives.

I could see this staged as a CHA check (not a skill) similar to how Charm works. Which wouldn't be outright terrible considering that is the Summoner's casting stat.

I allow crossbows fired with two hands to benefit from -1/+3 ratio Deadly Aim

Another poster in another thread has put forth the idea:

Vigilante > Master Spy
Avenger > Stalwart Defender
Stalker > Shadow Dancer
Warlock/Zealot > Mystic Theurge

1 to 50 of 1,728 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.