I've fiddled with the Swashbuckler's movement enhancer to make it better and more appropriate for, well, a Swashbuckler.
I'm liking it.
That is very cool.
I was reading a discussion about letting higher level fighter types move more and make a full attack. There were some great ideas, but short of such a major change, I love the idea of introducing feats/talents/abilities that do that where most appropriate.
I can think of no better place than the Swashbuckler; and yours fits right in with other Panache powered abilities.
|
Thanks! That was definitely the idea.
In fact, if you look carefully you'll see I've added such abilities to every class that doesn't get spellcasting (Barbarian's version is quite minor, but still there...I count Kineticist as a spellcaster for this purpose). This is a specific design choice on my part.
Swashbuckler gets the best version, but only when they spend Panache (though the one I gave to Rogue/Slayer/Vigilante is a close second in many ways). They have one of the worse versions if they don't spend the Panache, though, which I quite like.
I've also, of course, added a generally applicable Feat that adds Pounce. It's intentionally pricey, though.
Things I really like:
Ditching the official Charmed Life as a swift action, and getting a static [always-on] bonus to the player's choice in a consistent way.
Getting all martials [?] a pseudo-pounce.
Adding more skill options for class skills, and increasing the points for most of the 2 + Int classes to be 4 + Int
Suggestions:
Retitle Whip Slinger (Since you are really using a sling, Sling Whipper would be an improvement if you can't come up with anything better [and it fits alphabetically under Sling when looking at a feat list]).
Vital Strike: clarify if you are really multiplying the dice damage by your factor (which can be really swingy), or multiplying the number of dice (I like rolling extra dice to get consistent averages, and this is how i read the original feat), and whether you are including the static bonuses (like Mythic Vital Strike does) [I assume not...].
"Slayer: Slayers who receive Trap Sense replace that feature with Danger Sense (similar to Rogues and Barbarians changes). The slayer retains Disable Device as a class skill and retains the trapfinding rogue ability." Your original text has "Slayers who receive it" where you have not yet defined the "it" [and I was trying to find a prior paragraph instead of reading further...]
Two-Weapon Warrior: not receiving Doublestrike is quite a nerf. You may want to mention that Dual Strike from the Weapon Master's Handbook is available if you take the feat Weapon Trick (selecting the Two-Weapon option) [if you do still permit this, and your player is willing to take all the pre-req's].
|
|
Things I really like:
Thanks. :)
Ditching the official Charmed Life as a swift action, and getting a static [always-on] bonus to the player's choice in a consistent way.
I'm obviously a huge fan of this one as well. It's a lot of fun thematically and should be a solid call mechanically as well.
Getting all martials [?] a pseudo-pounce.
Everyone without spells (and I count Kineticists as having spells for this purpose) gets some sort of enhanced mobility option. Whether it qualifies as pseudo-pounce varies by Class. All classes can also get actual Pounce as a Feat (albeit one with strenuous requirements). I think the combination works out well.
Adding more skill options for class skills, and increasing the points for most of the 2 + Int classes to be 4 + Int
Yup. The only people who still have 2+Int skills are full casters and Summoners (who have prosthetic skill points in their Eidolons). This is very intentional.
Suggestions:
Retitle Whip Slinger (Since you are really using a sling, Sling Whipper would be an improvement if you can't come up with anything better [and it fits alphabetically under Sling when looking at a feat list]).
Eh. I'm not in this to retitle feats. It would just confuse the issue anyway. I mean, it's a real Feat whose effects I am simply modifying.
Vital Strike: clarify if you are really multiplying the dice damage by your factor (which can be really swingy), or multiplying the number of dice (I like rolling extra dice to get consistent averages, and this is how i read the original feat), and whether you are including the static bonuses (like Mythic Vital Strike does) [I assume not...].
No, the intent is simply that the Vital Strike Feat does what the whole Feat tree dose officially. I'll look into cleaning up the language.
"Slayer: Slayers who receive Trap Sense replace that feature with Danger Sense (similar to Rogues and Barbarians changes). The slayer retains Disable Device as a class skill and retains the trapfinding rogue ability." Your original text has "Slayers who receive it" where you have not yet defined the "it" [and I was trying to find a prior paragraph instead of reading further...]
I'll look into a language cleanup here, too. That said, the intent is not that all Slayers get Danger Sense or Disable Device, it's that the Trapfinding Talent gives Danger Sense to them instead of Trap Sense.
Two-Weapon Warrior: not receiving Doublestrike is quite a nerf. You may want to mention that Dual Strike from the Weapon Master's Handbook is available if you take the feat Weapon Trick (selecting the Two-Weapon option) [if you do still permit this, and your player is willing to take all the pre-req's].
Actually, check my Two-Weapon Fighting House Rule. The reason the Two-Weapon Warrior doesn't get it is that it's a base rule assumption regarding two-weapon fighting.
EDIT: Language cleaned up. Have a look at it and see what you think.
I had forgotten about Whip-Slinger as an actual Paizo feat that has nothing to do with whips. I would recommend including something like "This is in addition to the normal benefits of the Whip-Slinger feat." [since I assume you didn't replace those benefits]
Your opening section on Slayer certainly is more clear now.
And your Vital Strike verbiage is much simpler and lets the martials roll a fistful of dice, always fun :)
I also just noticed you killed off Sacred Geometry. That's a nice simplification to the game.
And upon a re-read, I see what you did in killing off the level 9 Doublestrike - it is just added in to the Twin Blades at level 5 in your rules. Very nice.
Best regards,
Joe
|
|
I had forgotten about Whip-Slinger as an actual Paizo feat that has nothing to do with whips. I would recommend including something like "This is in addition to the normal benefits of the Whip-Slinger feat." [since I assume you didn't replace those benefits]
You're quite right, I did not. Language cleaned up to clarify.
Your opening section on Slayer certainly is more clear now.
Excellent. Thanks. :)
And your Vital Strike verbiage is much simpler and lets the martials roll a fistful of dice, always fun :)
Also excellent, and thank you again.
I also just noticed you killed off Sacred Geometry. That's a nice simplification to the game.
I rather thought so. :)
And upon a re-read, I see what you did in killing off the level 9 Doublestrike - it is just added in to the Twin Blades at level 5 in your rules. Very nice.
That was definitely the intent, yeah. I think it worked out nicely.
Best regards,
Joe
And the same to you. :)
|
|
So, Shifter stuff added. I'm not happy with the 17th level ability and may well replace it, and the whole thing is pretty preliminary, so input is particularly appreciated.
Additional Ultimate Wilderness stuff forthcoming.
|
|
Shifter stuff updated a lot. I'm much happier with it now, though it's a bit wordy.
Also, I've added more reasonable cold and heat danger rules (I was hoping those would be in UW but no such luck), since by the official ones I and everyone I know would be dead repeatedly (I live in Montana and spend time outside, heck I've gone winter camping)...and I'm running a Reign of Winter game, so the Cold rules are suddenly super relevant to my life.
On ability scores:
I've had similar issues. I don't want players to feel like they can't play a certain race with a certain class.
Now...I just let them choose their scores. Three odd, three even, total modifier of +6. A maximum of 16 in an ability they have a penalty in, a minimum of 5 and a max of 20 in one they have a bonus in.
Then it's just a matter of expressing how unusual and rare 18's and 20's are, and how extremely unlikely it is that your three odd scored are also your three highest.
I've found that focusing on a character's weaknesses, rather than their strengths, helps keep players from going too crazy with the system.
On crossbows and slings:
Historically, bows have superior range and stopping power over everything save firearms.
I've been playing around a lot with the rugged and often difficult environments that so many adventures take place in. You want to swing that claymore around in the jungle? You want to fire a volley of arrows in this cramped underground tunnel? Good luck.
So far, it's manifested as an expansion of the difficult terrain and squeezing rules, and it really favors smaller, more compact weapons. Characters are pulling out their shortswors and throwing axes more and more, which really gives the game a gritty, desperate feel while also being realistic and balanced.
If you want to make other weapons more viable *and* be super epic and over-the-top *and* keep things as realistic as possible, it's going to get muddy. But you seem to have done fairly well in that direction.
|
|
On ability scores:
I've had similar issues. I don't want players to feel like they can't play a certain race with a certain class.
Now...I just let them choose their scores. Three odd, three even, total modifier of +6. A maximum of 16 in an ability they have a penalty in, a minimum of 5 and a max of 20 in one they have a bonus in.
Then it's just a matter of expressing how unusual and rare 18's and 20's are, and how extremely unlikely it is that your three odd scored are also your three highest.
I've found that focusing on a character's weaknesses, rather than their strengths, helps keep players from going too crazy with the system.
Also a totally valid way to go! A number of my players like point-buy though, as do I, so doing a limited version of that seemed better for my needs specifically.
On crossbows and slings:
Historically, bows have superior range and stopping power over everything save firearms.
That's not entirely true. Crossbows had easily as much stopping power as bows, just a much lower rate of fire. But yeah, bows were the best available weapon for quite a long time there.
I've been playing around a lot with the rugged and often difficult environments that so many adventures take place in. You want to swing that claymore around in the jungle? You want to fire a volley of arrows in this cramped underground tunnel? Good luck.
So far, it's manifested as an expansion of the difficult terrain and squeezing rules, and it really favors smaller, more compact weapons. Characters are pulling out their shortswors and throwing axes more and more, which really gives the game a gritty, desperate feel while also being realistic and balanced.
I'm really not aiming for gritty when I go Pathfinder. Not mostly anyway. That version definitely sounds workable if that's what you're aiming for though. Personally, I think I'd find it a bit fiddly, but that's a personal preference thing more than anything.
If you want to make other weapons more viable *and* be super epic and over-the-top *and* keep things as realistic as possible, it's going to get muddy. But you seem to have done fairly well in that direction.
I admit, my priority is pretty much to make them viable. Both realism and 'making things epic' are secondary considerations at best. Realism in particular definitely features, but it's a tertiary consideration after both making all three categories of weapon viable and keeping things relatively simple. Making Halflings actually excellent slingers is also in there.
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment! Commentary and critique is always super welcome.
...A number of my players like point-buy though, as do I, so doing a limited version of that seemed better for my needs specifically...
Point-buy appealed to me initially, because it is always balanced and always fair.
But I came to see that a character with extremely high and low scores was at no significant advantage over a more well-rounded character, so paying a premium on your best numbers didn't sit right with me.If you consider a +1 or a -1 to be equal, regardless of how many you stack on top of each other, then using a total modifier method is just a more flexible point-buy.
...That's not entirely true. Crossbows had easily as much stopping power as bows, just a much lower rate of fire. But yeah, bows were the best available weapon for quite a long time there...
Sure. My point was, they were the best. So, to an extent, it makes sense for them to be the best within the game.
...I'm really not aiming for gritty when I go Pathfinder. Not mostly anyway. That version definitely sounds workable if that's what you're aiming for though. Personally, I think I'd find it a bit fiddly, but that's a personal preference thing more than anything...
Eh. It's just applying the attack penalties for squeezing to difficult terrain, with light weapons levying a lesser penalty and two-handed weapons suffering a greater one. The -2/-4/-6 has been fairly easy to deal with, especially since most players just opt to avoid the worst penalties all together.
I admit, my priority is pretty much to make them viable. Both realism and 'making things epic' are secondary considerations at best. Realism in particular definitely features, but it's a tertiary consideration after both making all three categories of weapon viable and keeping things relatively simple. Making Halflings actually excellent slingers is also in there.
If you really want to make all three weapons equal, I think it would be easiest to take a look at the core mechanics of ranged combat and rework it from the ground up.
The issues are damage, reload speed, and range.I just feel like there's probably a more streamlined or fundamental way of balancing things out.
The advantage of the sling is in impromptu ammunition, the weapon's small size, and...I haven't really been able to confirm this, but I *believe* it may actually have more stopping power than a bow. At least in some instances.
The advantage in a crossbow is...pretty much just ease of use. You didn't have to be a trained archer to kill a man with a crossbow. Pretty simple point-and-click design. But that only helps your typical lordling trying to equip a regiment of peasants, not your professional adventurer. And...maybe it should be that way? There is no reason that an accomplished warrior would choose to train withe a crossbow over a bow, as I understand it.
I think there's some value in a weapon that doesn't require you to spend Feats and other resources to be decent with it; I've always thought thrown weapons needed a bit of a boost, so I've been allowing players to use Str or Dex when attacking with them, and for them to benefit from Power Attack or Deadly Aim, etc. A bow is still better, but at least it can be a semi-valid option in some situations without your character being entirely dedicated to it.
But like I said, if you really wanted, you could just extend the range of slings, allow bonus damage to crossbows, and give everyone Rapid Reload for free. Then everything would just be a bow.
|
|
Point-buy appealed to me initially, because it is always balanced and always fair.
But I came to see that a character with extremely high and low scores was at no significant advantage over a more well-rounded character, so paying a premium on your best numbers didn't sit right with me.
If you consider a +1 or a -1 to be equal, regardless of how many you stack on top of each other, then using a total modifier method is just a more flexible point-buy.
For the record, I disagree with all +s and -s being equally valuable, but I'd rather not get into a long discussion of that in this thread, so I'll leave it at that.
Sure. My point was, they were the best. So, to an extent, it makes sense for them to be the best within the game.
Oh, it makes sense. I just don't consider it super fun.
Eh. It's just applying the attack penalties for squeezing to difficult terrain, with light weapons levying a lesser penalty and two-handed weapons suffering a greater one. The -2/-4/-6 has been fairly easy to deal with, especially since most players just opt to avoid the worst penalties all together.
Adding more bonuses and penalties to Pathfinder absolutely makes me feel like the rules are being extra fiddly. But like I said, that's very much a personal preference thing.
If you really want to make all three weapons equal, I think it would be easiest to take a look at the core mechanics of ranged combat and rework it from the ground up.
The issues are damage, reload speed, and range.
I just feel like there's probably a more streamlined or fundamental way of balancing things out.
The advantage of the sling is in impromptu ammunition, the weapon's small size, and...I haven't really been able to confirm this, but I *believe* it may actually have more stopping power than a bow. At least in some instances.
The advantage in a crossbow is...pretty much just ease of use. You didn't have to be a trained archer to kill a man with a crossbow. Pretty simple point-and-click design. But that only helps your typical lordling trying to equip a regiment of peasants, not your professional adventurer. And...maybe it should be that way? There is no reason that an accomplished warrior would choose to train withe a crossbow over a bow, as I understand it.
I think there's some value in a weapon that doesn't require you to spend Feats and other resources to be decent with it; I've always thought thrown weapons needed a bit of a boost, so I've been allowing players to use Str or Dex when attacking with them, and for them to benefit from Power Attack or Deadly Aim, etc. A bow is still better, but at least it can be a semi-valid option in some situations without your character being entirely dedicated to it.
But like I said, if you really wanted, you could just extend the range of slings, allow bonus damage to crossbows, and give everyone Rapid Reload for free. Then everything would just be a bow.
I'm not aiming for perfect equality and certainly not aiming for them to be mechanically identical. What I'm aiming for is for all to feel different and work differently enough that weapon choice matters while nevertheless being reasonably viable options PCs will actually take.
I think I've done a decent job of achieving that.
|
|
Very minor Swashbuckler tweak basically to help out the Wildstrider Archetype.
Commentary is, as always, very welcome.
I really like the charisma for will saves and the natural armor thing.
The intimidate change is interesting. How does intimidating prowess work?
The CMB and CMD changes for small creatures is weird. (IMO) A more reasonable change would be waiving the penalty for maneuvers that use weapons. Thematically, how does being able to weild a rapier with finesse help with smashing into someone and making them go flying (Bull Rush)?
|
|
I really like the charisma for will saves and the natural armor thing.
Thanks. :)
The intimidate change is interesting. How does intimidating prowess work?
Intimidating Prowess works how it always has, but becomes a bit more niche in eho takes it. See, my house rules allow you to use either Str or Cha for Intimidate, but Intimidating Prowess lets you use both. That's still an advantage, and a significant one for many Paladins, Bloodragers, Str-based Oracles, and similar characters. Heck, given the Cha to Will Saves thing, in my games it's even a good Feat for some Fighters.
|
|
So, a slight modification was made to the Feyspeaker Druid Archetype (as I looked it over due to one of my players wanting to be one), and more importantly I added a new Advanced Weapon Training option to Fighters.
Document found here as usual.
|
|
Huh, missed this bit:
The CMB and CMD changes for small creatures is weird. (IMO) A more reasonable change would be waiving the penalty for maneuvers that use weapons. Thematically, how does being able to weild a rapier with finesse help with smashing into someone and making them go flying (Bull Rush)?
Bull Rush is admittedly a little weird, but bear in mind that, in my House Rules, Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers have been combined into a single Feat, so having it be weapon only maneuvers also wouldn't make a lot of sense.
And for everything except maybe Bull Rush I feel like the logic is sound, by grabbing Weapon Finesse you've learned to compensate for your smaller size and use it to your advantage. Indeed, it makes very little sense for smaller foes to take penalties to Dirty Trick, Trip, or the like in the first place, IMO. This version is a compromise of sorts, and one that seems to work okay.