The Rake

Anarakius's page

17 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


Davido1000 wrote:
I've been thinking about something like this myself except the 3 action variant was a 5ft bubble of shield around you giving others inside it the bonus as well.

That's actually pretty cool! Haven't thought about that one but I love the thematic around it, and it improves team work which is always fun.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Way too strong imo ( especially while quickened ).


Hmmm, yes, possibly.

Yeah, the 1 action is finely balanced with regular shield raise shield. But the 2-action VS for +2 is straight up mechanically worse, it's there for its magical flexibility and the occasional chance you want a further +1 instead of striding/stepping away, if that's ever better for your caster/gish. The 3 for 3 is the most strange since as you mention no other effect has it, but is it weird because of that (which is a perceived problem, not necessarily a real problem) or because of internal math?

Anyway, for the 2 and 3 action version you need somatic and material components, which means it requires a free hand and has the manipulate trait, for whatever that brings such as Attacks of Opportunity.

Thus it isn't that easy to +3 and wield a 2H, in fact you can only do it while quickened and you can't even attack, only grip, which would be almost totally useless. That said, it's good you brought this to attention since Somatic doesn't require you to lose your grip AFAIK, so the 2-2 action could allow some abuse. A quick fix should be to ask for a M component from the 2-action upward so it'd make interacting with a 2H nearly useless, which I guess is the right thing to do balance-wise.

Finally, requiring some sort of tax, such as a feat or something in-between like a perk bonus (a la dungeon couch perks system) should be valid and less WILD.

beowulf99 wrote:
Instead of messing with the AC bonus, which is tough to do in PF2's tight math, why not increase it's hardness when used to shield block? Each extra action could increase the hardness by 5, similar to heightening. (...)

That's also very valid and cool! My only problem with shield cantrip reaction is that it breaks it for 10 minutes and that hurts how I envision my fiction, which has mages and gishs flinging barriers during the whole fight. I get why they went that way, I just don't like it. I'll probably brew something along the lines of giving further shields castings during the same combat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, there's already precedent for multi-action spells but seems like they didn't want to fully commit, maybe because it would increase complexity for mainstream gamers.

Since PF2 came out I though the shield cantrip would be a good candidate for such mechanism, but I never found any brew related to it.

1 action (V) = +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn
2 actions (VS) = +2 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn
3 actions (VSM) = +3 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn

So, what do you number crunching lawyers think of it. Yay? Yes, but? Nay, because? NO, TOO WILD?!

I also feel there's possibly something missing regarding reactions. I think Staggered could work as either of the forms you proposed, and if you don't mind me adding I think you could maybe use something with the flat-check mechanism as an option as well, like a 50% of missing your reaction, on a yes or no condition.

Ardent on the other hand raises a few concerns. Not so much on how some classes gives specific reactions as these are concomitant and not concurrent IMO. I'd be more concerned with how some features profit more from reactions. For example the Champion has some really powerful reactions from pretty much all of it's causes, and multiple of those reactions will be exponentially better than what other most classes may profit from.

Not saying it couldn't work, but it's the one where you'd have to put more effort into making it balanced, which may not be possible or not worth it. Personally I'd drop it; or at least cap it as only 1 extra reaction, and/or maybe further cap it by limiting the sort of reactions you could take.

What would you say you'd have to add or change to produce these conditions?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:

I am not one of thenobledrake's players. I am however in my forties, and I am firmly of the opinion that "feeling bad" is a bad thing to be doing in my leisure time. And any rule designed to evoke that is a bad rule. This is not an opinion limited to teenagers.

[i]EDIT: You cannot balance out feeling bad with feeling good. Feeling good is what should be happening all the time. It is the point of playing the game!

Cool, but I was just using the concept and the words that were used as counter-arguments, as I don't actually believe them. Like I said, I don't really perceive it as a feels-bad any more than receiving double damage or rolling a 1 on your damage roll, etc.

I do agree, of course, that the whole point of playing the game is to have a net positive feeling(and frankly shouldn't even be implied I thought otherwise), my interpretation being that bad rolls/situations, or "downs", are there to make the "ups" more meaningful and create suspense. That is, "feels-bad" is not an argument. It's subjective, it's opinion without fact and we could draw different conclusions even if we believed the same thing.

Things like "feat x or y abuses this", "this class feature becomes redundant if this happens", "this nerfs the players and buffs npcs because of this or that", is what I'd find more useful when discussing rules.


All said, having given up the house ruling at hand for now, I don't mind going back and forth over past words, specially if the goal is to discuss new ways to make it possible instead of simply shutting down the idea. Otherwise It just feels like it's just battling my avatar's words for the sake of discussion, which while I don't personally mind, I fear it's counterproductive for this board.

Henro wrote:
In practice, it's been a fairly minor but nice boost. Since you only benefit from it for 1 round, you can't really leverage the fact that the penalty is applied to multiple creatures...

Yes I believe it's true, which Is what I expected the -1/+1 action to work if I were to use it. Like you said, it's only for 1 round and you can't really leverage its implications devoid of context.

If it works for you great, but I'm just mentioning because the basis of what you said to my ruling, the feel-bad symptom, can just as likely be applied to your ruling, if not worse.

"Damn, I rolled 19 but that creature rolled 20 and I still get to get flat-footed despite rolling high!" and etcetera

The flat-footed could be similar to a raise shield/ parry action, and I'm not sure, but I'd consider taking 3 attacks against a flat-footed target at +2/-3/-8 at least equivalent to 4 at 0/-5/-10/-10. The thing is that under your system you can be punished even if you don't roll bad, which I'd grade a step higher in the feels-bad department.

Not only that, but it HEAVILY interacts with the rogue class as at least these features interrelate with the flat-footed (FF) condition:

Ruffian gains a critical specialization against FF
Sneak Attack deals precision damage to FF targets
Surprise Attack - a slighty nerf, since it makes this ability a bit redundant if you crit
Deny Advantage - how it interacts?
Weapon Tricks - adds critical specialization
Debilitation Strike - debuffs with a free action
Master Strike - paralyzation with a free action
Magical Trickster Feat - sneak damage to spell
Twist the Knife Feat - deal persistent bleed damage
Leave an Opening Feat - creates AoO window
Feeling Shot Feat - grounds flying enemy
Dispeling Slice - counteracts active spells

This is a clear buff to the rogue over the other classes under your system, and this was a quick search, so there's possibly more ways this changes the balance between classes and/or other creatures.

Again, if you are happy with it great! But hopefully you and your group understands your method changes the balance of the game in an explicit, non-subjective way.

Hey, thanks for sharing this. I'm about to dm my campaign so I'm still some time away from using it, but I don't see any reason not to. I don't have anything to add in terms of feedback, it's short and to the point and helps to make the world more colourful, so it's helpful already :)

Say, you mentioned other changes you made and things you changes based on the crpg, do you happen to have it accessible or plan to share these as well?

Cool, I heard and I've decided to drop it for now, at least until I get a better grip of the system at later levels.

Nevertheless, I can't help but think the whole "feel bad" argument is pure negativity bias, forgetting the whole "feel good" side of it. Statistically it's party neutral, you get as many bad as you get good, and shouldn't give any more of a bad-feel than missing 3 attacks in a row, or taking double damage and getting fatigued.

thenobledrake wrote:
Only because you are confusing two things as being the same, or even similar.

Hmm, no, I think I quite get it. I'm not disputing the statistics, which isn't an issue for me, nor your opinion on the intensity of the repercussions of that ruling over a combat - which, again, is your opinion not fact. I'm disputing your alleged authority over what constitutes a 'proper' frequency for this ruling to be considered, which for you is conveniently both too rare to be balanced and too recurring...for your tastes?

Like I said, the actual frequency is not my main concern, and even with you misreading my 'a step once in a blue moon' like I meant for the whole thing, or even if I was as inept you paint me to be, it would still be besides the point.

Moot point though, as I won't be adding it anyway. Maybe not for the reasons brought by you or the others, but for reasons risen through the dialogue.

Henro wrote:

I give people who crit initiative the benefit of other creatures being flat-footed against them until those creatures act.

Giving the flat-footed condition crossed my mind as well, but it's such a specific condition that may interact with other rules and abilities in way more unforeseen ways than generic actions. For example, it kinda steps a bit into the rogue's surprise attack ability.

I don't know if you realize how much more impacting is giving a negative condition to multiple creatures simply because one individual rolled a critical on the other side. Being on the bad end of that critical is definitely more 'feels-bad' than one action. It also raises questions like what if more than one person or side crit?

Unless you mean that only your PCs benefits from this rule, which is a big buff and a different thing to discuss.

Finally had a chance to read it properly and reply. Thank you both! It has already been very helpful.

I'll totally play the "Varn was my move" from rostsland and "Drelev is my move" from Issia. But what is still bugging me is that the "pcs move" isn't totally neutral and are also a rostland move, even if they take a much less influential approach than Varn's. What would be Issia's new move?

I wouldn't think the Surtovas mostly, assuming the "everybody knows its a plot but is playing along", would leave things to chance and wouldn't try to swing things their favor. Even if Venture fix some of these and one could play up their offers it still may sound like a bribe the PCs won't take. Well, pcs are always the exception so I can work with that I guess.

I figure I'm more concerned because one of my players will be playing a half-orc ex-docker from Issia that became an insurgent due to poor conditions (and an insurgency ploy from the swordlords) and burned down a few ships before fleeing to Rostland. Imagine their faces when they see an ex-docker become a hot shot in the south. Still, I'll still try to refrain from 'Issian's bad Rostland good' mentality, and try to come with some good and bad from all sides.

But I digress...

Regarding the charter per se. It seems my option 3 (no legitimacy at all) is the de facto option. I can play the fact that it's a gentleman's agreement only. Still, it seems like something that could bite the swordlords in the ass if found out by the other houses/crown...

Concerning the titles, it seems my suspicions were true and only a mechanical gimmick. Nevertheless it's weird to use it since a barony evokes a vassalage system, and even if it would be different in Golarion, this was not established in the books. Easy fix anyway, people will just call them Lords (or whatever their claim is) if they want to be on their good side or they will call them usurpers, barbarians, etc if they don't care about them. Eventually they can defend their claim to be Kings or Queens.

-It remains a mystery when and where in the books Restov cut ties with the pc's kingdom, IF it actually happens. Should a good soul have this knowledge, please tell us so :)

Edit: I've been thinking that maybe the PCs party are a second wave to the stolen lands. Maybe the Issians DID make a move, and the first wave (sent maybe a month or a few weeks or so before the pcs)were perhaps an Issian-heavy group, or maybe a mix of both, and maybe the Swordlords ambushed and killed them (even their owns to cover it up, to add INTRIGUE), and the pcs are really a wildcard they are willing to endure because all their cards are in Varn's. When things go woosh they may redirect their attentions to the greenbelt and the rest is history.

Alternatively, there could be a whole rival party gimmick going on. I just fear that it may get things too complicated. I'm really curious if the 11th anniversary will have the rival party thing from the crpg. Anyone else done this with success?

You gave the general notion of alarm and a few subjective what-ifs. I also simply extended the treatment you gave me, if it was more than you meant then it was not my intention. BUT I'm really willing for us to dial it back, specially since your second post is a HUGE improvement over the first.

thenobledrake wrote:
If your 3 actions for the turn would be Stride, Raise a Shield, and Strike and you only get 2 actions because you rolled a 1 - you're giving up the Strike, or Raising a shield, since giving up that Stride would likely prevent both the other actions from happening. Alternatively, you could roll a 20 and gain either a Strike at -5 or the ability to use a 2-action attack when normally you would have to choose between Raising your Shield and using that action.

Well, yes. That's the point, isn't? The issue is that you think taking or not taking one of those is MASSIVE. Sure it might be more impactful than I notice, but I don't think MASSIVE is really true. Not in a game with random rolls where things are always changing drastically already. A less random game, sure, it would probably be the case.

thenobledrake wrote:
Initiative is not a thing which every participant is rolling frequently enough for the good rolls and the bad rolls to balance themselves out - one initiative roll applies for the entire combat, which makes any added on results of that roll feel far more potent than if it were just a normal roll.
thenobledrake wrote:
And the odds of someone rolling a 1 or a 20 on initiative is not actually "once in a blue moon"

Seems a bit contradictory, or at least a blurry line. Seems more like an opinion than something inexorable.

thenobledrake wrote:
And like most rules that reward a random high roll, this favors the opposition more so than it does the PCs - since NPCs are assumed to feature in one encounter and then die, losing an action is a smaller issue despite it impacting survival rate. And since NPCs tend to hit quite hard to make up for their assumed brief lives, getting an extra action is of greater benefit.

That's the most important question raised so far: is rolling a 1 and taking 2 actions more or less impactful than acting 4? Which would be more powerful? Even if your answer seems anecdotal it's a good question that'll give some thought.

thenobledrake wrote:
ut woe be the party so unlucky as to start an encounter grouped up within reach of a dragon that roll a natural 20 on initiative and got to use it's breath weapon and Draconic Frenzy in the same turn.

How many dragons are you encountering?? o_O

Still, I think this conversation established that taking two 2-actions is probably bad.

thenobledrake wrote:
One of the most useful things you can do for a house-ruling GM is point out that it could be viewed as a negative addition to the game from the perspective of a player.

Sure, and that's why I'm here. One just has to remember that a brew you dislike isn't the same as a brew that is badly designed. There are hundreds of rulings that were a thing in systems past, or could be a thing now but didn't make the cut because of a current trend in the play testing community, and that people wouldn't even blink about here because it's so different from what they expect for their tastes.


thenobledrake wrote:

(...) Would exit table if GM insisted on using this house rule.

Thanks for the reply I guess, but you are being overly dramatic. I get that you don't like it, but saying generic things like "MASSIVE" bonus without giving examples sounds hyperbolic and alarmist.

thenobledrake wrote:
And anyone rolling a natural 1 is going to go last, which already feels bad, and then also not have their full allotment of actions, and that can result in a player feeling like they shouldn't even bother to participate

If you are playing with children/teens, maybe I guess? Feeling good/gaining an advantage when you roll a nat 20 and feeling "bad"/taking punishment when you roll a 1 is the whole point of a crit system IMO.

I mean, yeah, rolling a 1 sure would feel bad, but is throwing a tantrum and going "whats the point in participating anymore" really appropriated for a healthy person/adult just because it's taking 2 actions instead of 3 for ONE turn maybe once or twice in a campaign? I don't know, kinda dramatic.

What are you giving up or gaining really? One attack at -10? A step once in a blue moon? Sure, it could have impact, but so is taking double damage, and that's the point of rolling dice.

Now, if you were to say something like "casting these or these 2-action spells in a row would be too much of a killer combo, even it were to happen very very rarely", then sure! yeah, lemme revise it so now you can only perform the extra action after you performed your 3 actions, or maybe it only happens after everybody get their turn, or maybe its a reaction, or so and so.

thenobledrake wrote:
Plus, unlike the rolls which the game actually does have critical/failure results assigned to (...)

This sounds like an unnecessary nab when you realize this is the homebrew/house rules section where people discuss things that the game doesn't actually have. Again, thanks for the effort, I just hoped it could be helpful.

Any unforeseen consequences if when rolling for initiative:

Nat 20: One extra action for the first turn
Nat 01: One fewer action for the first turn

Seems generic enough so it doesn't step in any of the classes abilities and it uses part of the already existing crit subsystem.

Krugus wrote:
At my table we are changing Hero Points into Hero Cards.

That's pretty cool! I'm always finding new things to do with hero points, and cards are always more intuitive and fun.

Not sure if you are looking for feedback, but I'll just throw some opinions that crossed my mind so take it as you will:

-At first I thought it a bit too restrictive and too context sensitive as to where and when to use the cards. Then I get it that you balanced it around the fact that players are supposed to use it on each other. Then again I don't know how balanced is that and there seems to be a large discrepancy between using HC on yourself (discarded) and on others (reusable), I feel there should be a middle ground in there.
-The common/uncommon/rare tipology is boring and too videogamey. It may work for items and equipment lists but it doesn't fit the theme of heroic actions. Just call heroic cards for the uncommon and epic/legendary cards for the rare kind, or something like that.
-The common category is nearly pointless. If there's only 1 common card and it's always dealt to the players, just make it a rule that you may turn in all your cards to activate the basic heroic stabilize action. If its an issue, just give 3 hero cards instead of 2.
-Not a critique, but more like an incentive: I think we could squeeze a few more card types in there, even if to justify making the whole card system.
-Producing rare cards is maybe a bit too complex, subjected to multiple steps and unpredictability. Personally i'd prefer if they were simply slipped in amongst the regular version and you would be lucky to draw them. They should ofc be rare still, and probably only one of a kind

-Chain Reaction is too complex
-The Quickening works, but maybe it just gives 1 extra action?
-Some of the card names are a bit too memey and/or don't deliver the "gravitas" expected from heroic efforts or for something you'd publish for others to read. I think names like "defiance","grit",etc are maybe generic, but solid.
-Bad side effects for heroic efforts is borderline bad design IMO. I think it's preferable to dial back its positive effects than giving any bads, save for some careful exceptions. Rares shouldn't give bad effects at all. That makes cards simpler as well.
-ME ME fatigued side effect is particular harmful. Fatigued until you take a long rest in exchange for 1 max dice effect is extremely contextual on an already very contextual system. I think the "high risk, high reward" gimmick is valid, but it has no place in a system designed for heroic effort, not heroic gamble.

Phew, I think that's it. Keep working on it and it may become really solid. I can help too, if you feel inclined.

Hello good folks! I'll be DM'ing the kingmaker campaign soon (we gave up waiting on the 11th anniversary edition) and I've been deep diving into the campaign and all the lore I could read and digest, plus I've digged the forums for all the help I could find and I'll be using some of the most popular mods around. I know that the topic at hand isn't exactly new, but maybe I missed something or maybe I hoped I could drawn from the updated collective mind of the community.

Like many before me, I can't get myself around the fact that the political aspect of the campaign is really...downplayed, to say the least. That's ok though, I can and will buff it up on my own. What I can't understand - and i'm afraid that if I change something in that regard It might have repercussions down the path - is the legality of the charter that grants settling rights to the PCs and how the new settlement ties to brevoy.

Dialing it back a little: The first charter has problems of its own. How rostland, through the agency of the swordlords (or so I get), sanctions an unknown, inexperienced group upon an extremely crucial political venture. Sure, ok, its not the only enterprise (drelev, varn), but its still important. Really, why wouldn't rostland send its own pro-rostland agents, or at least ensure that the pc's aren't anti-rostland, or who knows, maybe even remotely actually help them out and actually fulfill their planned agenda instead of gambling with their nation and resources. There's no mention of any background check, the campaign traits don't give any good political reasonability, they just entrust this super important task like they are the innkeeper of a rundown tavern... But sure, ok, let's turn off suspension of disbelief for a second and say its all in the name of good 'ol rpg adventuring, i can work around that with my PCs.

Now, back in track. The group proved competent and now receives a colonization charter. Its ok because I worked with my pcs to make it believable they would (even if the book doesn't enforce that). Now that's what I don't get, and maybe I haven't read through well. They - or the ruler - becomes a baron. Which makes the newland a barony, which makes them subjected to brevoy's crown. Is that it?

For the whole book I got the sense that the PCs would build this third-party sort of neutral land. Why would they be barons? Or is this just a mechanical subtitle (baron, duke, king) for the kingdom rules bearing no regards to the narrative whatsoever?

There's some conundrum here the book raises but don't address:
1)The charter has legitimacy but it was given under the table. Sooner or later as months go by its almost a given the houses and the regent will hear about it and a)enforce their - rightful - dominion upon the newland, maybe even reordering the titles and people in power b) investigate who, how and why this mission happened under their nose and possibly expect amends or dispend punishment c) both or something I haven't thought about
2) The charter has legitimacy and everybody knows about it. (I think venture capital uses this). It's still subjected to the crown and the book doesn't help this at all, because there's a world of power play to happen, and no reason for these powers to actually regognize the PCs unless they all have some VERY GOOD narrative reasons, which would require some noble background or some intrigue adventures set in brevoy to ensure they could remain in charge of the land. Not addressed by the book at all.
3) The charter has nominal but no practical legitimacy or no legitimacy at all. Its just a fancy paper because as soon as they raise their first house they are a kingdom on their own. Not barons, not counts. They are lords, rulers, maybe not kings yet, but not barons either. Unless I really misunderstood how the feudal system works. Maybe its just a memento? A frail attempt from the swordslords to sway the pcs to their side with some sort of honor bound paper? Still, not a safe -let alone smart- move from restov.

Speaking of powers, there's also no mention of any factions that would be interested or caught amidst the formation of the new kingdom. How come for example, there's no mention of the Pathfinder Society? I reckon they would be interested in a new exploration and colonization of the stolen lands. I guess it's due to lack of space. So, has anyone worked up with success inserting faction's in their games? I'm not saying things like the noble houses and the religions, things like the aforementioned PFS. I used to play and gm 7th sea and factions and secret societies were a big thing there, wish I could work with something like that here.


So, to sum it up:

- Any updated take on making the charters and the swordlord's interest in the pc's more believable?

-What's the point and/or the legitimacy of the RRR charter and what are the legal ties that the pc's land will/should have to restov/rostland and the other houses, or more importantly, the regent of brevoy, if any at all? I think the intent is that there's none, but the book sure makes it confusing to understand it.

-I can't seem to find it, but where in the book does it say restov cut ties to the pcs land? I see it allured in the books and here in the forums, but I can't find the exact text.

-Has anyone worked on putting (non-houses/religions)factions in their games? Any good links?

-How many expeditions set to the stolen lands? There's the pc's, drelev's and varn's that i know. I've seen mention of a fourth, but I can't remember if it was from someone else's campaign or if there's something in the books that slipped past me.


Alright, thanks for the feedback!

The biggest "offender" seems to be the Champion's Causes reactions which are pretty powerful indeed and which I totally overlooked. Clearly there's no way for it to work under a conversion gimmick. The easy sollution is to ban champion, which is far from the best sollution.

That said, converting actions wouldn't change the net amount of actions you can take, so abilities that give extra general or unique reactions aren't really in direct competition, specially if you take into account that reactions are subjected to the flow of battle, even if you convert 2 actions into reactions and possibly take 3-5 AOs or shield blocks, it doesn't mean you would actually take them.

Unless we're saying that reactions are more powerful than actions, which I'm not really convinced yet, the exception being a few abilities such as the champion's reactions, and MA without P for sure should be taken into account, although there's precedence for penalty in the rules with the Ready action using your MAP. Maybe something with the flourish tag could solve something...

...Anyway, I get that it's a pretty drastic change even if for purism's sake, but one have to remember that up until now multiple attacks were the realm of martial classes and is now a tactic any class can choose during a turn. But yeah, maybe it's too drastic for now. As marty mcfly could've said: "I guess we're not ready for that, but our kids will love it in PF3".

pi4t wrote:
Your proposal for Dodge would mean that wearing a shield would be much less useful since you can't both raise a shield and Dodge. So effectively you're giving pay of the shield bonus to everyone without having to use a shield.

Hmm, I don't think so though. Raise shield is 1 action for +2 circumstance defense (unless you're using buckler for some reason), plus possibly shield blocks. Even parry remains with same usefulness since its 1 action, not 2. Its just something I thought could be useful if you really have no other option and want to give a little something to your AC, or if a player takes too much time to take action and instead of skipping their turn empty handed they go into defense/dodge mode for at least something.

Thanks for the reply, but I know what the Ready action is and its not what I'm talking about. The ready action allows you to take one free or 1-action outside of your turn based on a trigger. What I'm saying is converting actions into reactions, so you could possibly take more than one reaction outside your turn, not an action.

Hey! I've skimmed through the abilities and didn't find anything that could be overly abusive as most that are would be behind focus or spell slots paywall, but then again i'm no expert and that's why i'm here :)

I thought it could improve the tactical aspect if you could convert 1 or 2 (but not 3) of your actions into reactions, so you can have 3-1, 2-2 or 1-3 depending on your strategy. Thoughts?


Since we're already here: a 2-action basic action (called dodge, evasive steps, footwork whatever; you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your AC, and maybe Reflex saves? As long as you are not flat-footed? If you become flat-footed you lose it?
(I know the ready action step "trick", just thought there's a place for something like the above).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello all,

Just a "bit" of background: We're running a highly customized pathfinder campaign using a custom world (made with dawn of worlds), low magic and custom classes. It's loosely based on iron kingdoms and the witchfire campaign, which went ridiculously off-tracked according to our DM.

So, there's this big ass godzilla-sized black dragon backing Raelthorne, which was about 300m until I snapped so much that the DM and I settled for 150m size. We just recently found a huge rock of our world's own phlebonium, a meteorite we call mammonite which is one of the few sources of magic in the world (there's no casters). Besides that, Raelthrone is invading the city in a month with a huge army and a dragonzilla backing him up.

Of course, since my character is an inventor and we are really not afraid of clichés, our big plan is, of course, to build a huge airship, put a huge-er canon on it (which we call The Anarak, after our own god of chaos and meteor pepperer),and revive a legion of dead dwarves to fight for us in the ground battle.

Since we just recently came across airships (my genius character build upon his legendary grandfather lost designs), we didn't have any rules for it until then, and since it'll be a small (albeit important) part of our game, we've decided to use a streamlined vehicles "as characters" approach, with vehicles possessing stats (mobility, structure, etc), talents (improvements) and whatnot. Which i'm pretty sure has been used before, and i'd thank if i were to be pointed to such system.

Anyway, since we're building one or more vehicles for our little fleet and they are based on character classes, i was thinking a caster class could fit nicely a glass-canon role so, without further ado, my question is:

*What kind of multiclass combo, spell selection and feat configuration could i pick to cause the most damage with a single spell in a single round? (to flavorful emulate a massive canon)

I'm thinking raw kinetic and/or energy damage. No save or suck/die that the boss dragon is mostly likely to be immune.
I was thinking about disintegrate with maybe a maximize or echo, but i'm pretty sure there you can think of better stuff?

I can work with a non-caster doing that, but the dragon is nasty so the idea is to keep him away.

Since we have 50 pieces of the meteorite (was 100 before kingdom taxes), and each piece will bestow a level upon a vehicle, the leeway for that is great, so i'm thinking 2 level 20 airship and flying fortress. (perhaps a glass-canon and a tanker?)

Besides that, we're green for anything pathfinder and official, cheesy or not, at least class and feat-wise, but artifacts and magic equipment will be hard to use, because: 1) we don't use them 2) the world is low magic 3) it's an airship not a person. Not that it shouldn't be suggested, but it's what mostly likely to be ball-busted by the DM.

Thanks for your time!

P.S.: I'm not really worried with it being overly-optimized, as i'm the only one worried about optimization in the group, and then not by much. So anything we come up with will be faced with a similar challenge. A cheesy airship will be faced by a cheesy dragon and so on. So it's much more about having that cannon/spell/combo being massive and flavorful!