Arkhios's page

So, we've been wondering, my friend and myself, whether the AP is written so that there's enough downtime to pursue crafting both mundane and magical items?

Could someone please shed some light on this matter, preferably spoiler-free otherwise, so we might decide whether we should try to get any relevant feats or not.

Planar Extremist says in its' Planar Bond feature that if they choose to have an eidolon, it "must be of a subtype whose alignment exactly matches the alignment of the planar extremist".

Because an Angel subtype can be any good, can I choose an Angel Eidolon for a Lawful Good Planar Extremist, or does it absolutely have to be an Archon (Lawful Good only)?
Addendum:
If the eidolon must be an Archon, what happens to the subtype's additional evolution point, since Planar Bond says that the eidolon never gains an evolution pool?
Do I still get to add one free evolution for the Archon eidolon (limited to the 1-point evolution list) or is the Archon eidolon shafted sideways and simply doesn't gain an improvement at 4th level while the other 3 extreme alignment subtypes (Azata, Devil, and Demon) gain resistance 10 to two appropriate energy types?

Sorry if this is considered a thread necromancy, but I was wondering the very same question myself after a few years' hiatus from Pathfinder.

I think this question warrants a FAQ answer, if it haven't been answered yet (at least to my knowledge it hasn't).

However, I would tend to agree with Major_Blackhart. It doesn't change the mechanics any more than just delaying at which Rage feature is gained. But, an official answer would be nice nonetheless.

I'd advice combine the wound threshold (and W&V) with Armor as damage reduction, as with the Defense system, getting hit with the same bonuses as normal becomes eventually trivial. Adding a little more edge on the math might be tedious, but if you fancy your game as realistic as possible, I strongly believe it's worth every penalty. To get it even more interesting, consider called shots too. With Defense being a lot lower than AC, called shot penalties are not that bad. Again, all this results in more math, but then again, it might be fun in the end.

I should do more research on the Savage Technologist... it keeps coming up.

Here, it's from Technology Guide, and luckily available through Pathfinder Reference Document :)

To me it bothers more that the current concept of favored class has little if any of the former meaning left. I understand it's now more of an individual choice, and in truth there is nothing wrong with that. But is that really favored class in a sense of his or her background elements or more of a favorite class due to his or her decisions; there is a difference. It's a minor difference I admit, but it's still a difference. For someone like me, stuck in these silly old-school aspects and sentiments (pardon me being a bit semantic here), calling such an ability favored class is actually a bit confusing, since it used to mean the preconceptual background element for every race. By all means, I do encourage individuality, but don't do it in expense of stripping your heritage (or whatever serves the purpose) away.

Now, the system allowing all races to have any favored classes would make more sense if those racial bonuses were at least unique to each race, and not, for example the case with dwarves and half-orcs gaining exactly the same bonus for being a barbarian (= extra rage rounds per level). That's just lazy design. I'd like to see more compelling pull to choose ones race over another because of what they could have that others don't. I'm talking about the concept of racial archetypes, but brought more into the background than in actual changed class features in favor of that.

But let's go back to the original post. I like how you visualized the possibility an android could become and present his barbarian nature. With or without Empathy feat, an android barbarian would indeed be great and interesting to play, and I must admit I had never thought about what would happen to rage powers if you couldn't gain the morale bonuses. Actually, to make it even better for an android without the feat, you could make a Savage Technologist, which doesn't lose AC while raging, and still gets some pretty neat abilities while raging -- In addition to rage powers. And you could even take the feat afterwards. Maybe as a way to play out the character's organic development (if he didn't know at first he had the ability to rage, for example)

I actually think think that the opposite view makes more sense in this discussion. By getting away from the idea that certain races are better at certain things we focus more on characters as individuals, and we don't burden them with a bunch of "well, all elves/dwarves/half-orcs are just good at this thing" preconceptions.

I don't want to call it a prejudice, but by determining your favored class based on your race we are pigeonholing certain races into certain areas. 3.5 gave half-orcs barbarian as a favored class, but why would that make sense for a half-orc raised in a human population? Or who was adopted by a wizard? Or who was part of a smaller, ethnic community in a big city? Yet you were penalized if you wanted to make a fighter/rogue half-orc because you had to satisfy their level requirements.

Race grants changes to attributes, and those changes often influence choices in class (halflings are more likely to be rogues because of the stealth bonuses, whereas dwarves increases to constitution and wisdom make them powerful monks and clerics). 3.5 punished you for building multiclass characters who didn't fit the preconceptions of their race by forcing you to build in ways that made no logical sense. After all, a reformed half-orc burglar who enlists in the army may have 1 level of rogue, but why would he gain more levels of rogue if he's been actively getting away from that life and training in favor of becoming a fighter?

All of this is true, I agree. But, in a fantasy world, set in an era very much alike to our world's middle-age-to-renaissance, people grow and live by traditions. I didn't want to go back allowing only one favored class per race, I just would rather them have more thematic set of favored classes.

It is like you said: for a half-orc raised in human (or otherwise civilized) community, it wouldn't make much sense for a half-orc steer towards barbarism. But since all half-orcs share a few things in common, among with their bestial looks and weapon proficiencies, it would make sense if a half-orcs at least gained as their favored classes some of the more martial classes, like barbarian, fighter, ranger and perhaps even slayer (now that there are more than Core classes).
Likewise with dwarves, their core rulebook description tells us that dwarves are very tradition-bound, and most are quite disciplined and pious, so it wouldn't be far-fetched to allow them cleric, fighter, monk and paladin as their favored classes.
I could go on with all the races, but I don't see why, because I really can't change how things are. However, what I meant, was that each race could have more than one favored class, not just one, but definitely not all of them, available. Furthermore, I'd rather see favored class bonuses granted only for those classes preset for each race. If you wanted to create dwarf barbarian, then go ahead, nothing isn't stopping you, you'll just have to kiss goodbye to favored class bonus altogether, because barbarism just isn't in dwarven nature.

That way favored class (and race!) selection would actually mean something, rather than being just extra candy from which to choose your best cookie-cutter choice, so to speak.
I don't see what's the point in allowing both dwarves and half-orcs get the same favored class bonus for barbarians, for example.

In fact, I see the favored class options as an additional background thing which may or may not give an extra edge, rather than just represent your individual focus on something.

Mind you that this race/class combination stems from the very roots of D&D. It's not some MMO-generation's illusion. In the first editions, a race DID define the class, sometimes vice versa. It's not a 'new thing'. You played an elf if you wanted to be magic user, or a dwarf if you wanted a heavily armored fighter, or the like. Can't remember the specifics, but it's there, in the history of our games.

Anyway, to be honest, Pathfinder took a wrong turn on the entire racial favored class issue. As some of you guys might not be familiar with 3.5 D&D it might be fair to explain my point (of view). In 3.5, a favored class was very defining aspect of character creation. Most races had only one class with which they were naturally drawn towards to, and with which they would be better in a way. For Dwarves, it would be fighter. In 3.5 you could make any combination from any race, but favored class mattered if or when you multiclassed. A dwarf wizard could multiclass into fighter easily, without suffering penalties to gaining experience. a dwarf wizard, on the other hand, multiclassing into a rogue would, because dwarves in general were usually fighters. Other class traditions were unorthodox. Not impossible,just rare.

From that perspective, the point is in those racial traditions. Certain races were good at certain careers, period. I'm fine with the new system with not slowing down the experience gain if you multiclassed in an unorthodox way. But I would rather not give favored class bonus benefits for all classes, but only a select few.

Considering that in wounds&vigor -system Wounds represent the constitution bonus to hit points (and lack of them in Vigor) as well as negative Hit Points, I'd go with having wound threshold penalties apply to vigor alone, and, in the case of Disabled, the character would remain Disabled from 0 Vigor to negative Con modifier into your Wounds total, since in W&V you don't have negative Vigor value. But the penalties still do affect negative hit point total, so it would apply to Wounds as well.

So yeah, 1) for me too.

I agree with Game Master Moose, and would rather go by the option B) on how Ninja's Edge should work. Since original ninja was technically a rogue more focused on ki mysticism and assassination tactics, it would make most sense that ninja could get a higher edge only on skills that are related to that spectrum of expertise. I might add Craft (alchemy) because of Poison Use (or craft (poisons) if necessary to specify, I'm not sure).

Sorry for necroing an old thread, but since Spellscar Drifter actually seems to be legal for PFS, it would be nice to know somewhat official ruling for this. Like, if there is a precedent case for a similar feature.

Thanks in advance!

So, I asked this before in Society Unchained blog, but apparently the question got trampled beneath one of those pesky arguments, and ended up ignored(?)

I had a question about whether Drunken Brute archetype is applicable to Unchained Barbarian or not. The above-mentioned blog post said that Unchained barbarian can take any archetypes which doesn't affect how rage works. I took it that this would forbid all those which specifically replace rage with alternative functions entirely. Drunken Brute doesn't do that, but instead adds a side mechanic to the default Rage ability.

Raging Drunk (Ex): While raging, the drunken brute can drink a potion, or a tankard of ale or similar quantity of alcohol, as a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A potion has its normal effect, while an alcoholic drink allows the barbarian to maintain her rage that round without expending a round of rage for the day (instead of the alcohol's normal effects). For each alcoholic drink consumed while raging, the barbarian is nauseated for 1 round when her rage expires, in addition to the normal fatigue that follows a rage. Tireless rage does not negate this nauseated condition but the internal fortitude rage power does. This ability replaces fast movement.

Given that Unchained Rage still requires rage rounds to be spent each round, it would seem that yes, you can take Drunken Brute, but the afore-mentioned restriction led me to wonder if not, after all. I'd like to know for sure.

Pardon me if this has been answered elsewhere, but can an Unchained Barbarian take Drunken Brute archetype, since the archetype doesn't exactly change Rage ability itself, but only makes a side mechanism for it?

Xallis and Navia wrote:

For real though. As a Summoner player, I'm downright giddy at the shot for a rebuild in a new, more flavorful version of the class.

I what way is the new summoner more flavourful? Effectively you now have a more straight jacketed Eidolon with pre chosen evolutions and a fairly small pool of optional choices. You could already do pretty much the same thing with the original version by picking similar evolutions. Nothing required you to choose a multi attacking pouncing quadraped it was just the most obvious mechanically effective melee combatant.

I believe the flavourfulness is exactly that. Instead of evolving an eidolon into an "aberration" with any and all of the possible cookie-cutter bits resulting in an almost incomprehensible creature, you start to evolve the eidolon from a flavourful creature that is recognizable as something specific.

John Compton wrote:

Arkhios wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe you need to keep the levels.

This would indeed seem to be the logical answer, yet I'd like to know for sure. Ping John Compton or anyone :)

Please see the blog's fourth paragraph. You can switch any levels in a class to its unchained equivalent at no cost. To use what appears to be your earlier example, you could switch a barbarian 2/rogue 7 into an unchained barbarian 2/unchained rogue 7 or just convert one of the classes. You could not, however, turn the character into a barbarian 5/unchained rogue 4 or an unchained rogue 1/druid 8--at least not without expending the necessary Prestige Points.

to go off of this, can a character be a core barbarian and unchained rogue? i have a 1 bbn/ 9 rogue i'm curious about.

Ofcourse, you are entitled but not enforced to rebuild any or all of your respective levels from each classes which gained an unchained version (though you can't have core AND unchained version of the same class on a single character)

limited rebuild to anyone with one or more levels in these classes, allowing those characters to switch any levels in the four classes to their unchained version at no cost.

So any one of the following would apply:

Arkhios wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe you need to keep the levels.

This would indeed seem to be the logical answer, yet I'd like to know for sure. Ping John Compton or anyone :)

Please see the blog's fourth paragraph. You can switch any levels in a class to its unchained equivalent at no cost. To use what appears to be your earlier example, you could switch a barbarian 2/rogue 7 into an unchained barbarian 2/unchained rogue 7 or just convert one of the classes. You could not, however, turn the character into a barbarian 5/unchained rogue 4 or an unchained rogue 1/druid 8--at least not without expending the necessary Prestige Points.

Thank you for a swift reply! That was exactly what I meant, I understood the (nitpicked) fifth paragraph, just wanted a minor clarification on the part whether you could adjust the levels since a character had classes that both got changed and would apply the rebuild rules.

Clarification approved and no hard feelings for not getting a cheesy complete rebuild :P

I believe you need to keep the levels.

This would indeed seem to be the logical answer, yet I'd like to know for sure. Ping John Compton or anyone :)

Awesome! Won't be missing the APG summoner to be honest. Never had one, but had the "privilege" of playing through a series of PFS scenarios with one, and it was utterly horrible to witness, especially me having a character that should've been quite effective in dealing damage and still being severely underpowered compared to summoner's eidolon alone.

Which kind of leads to this question I originally came here to ask, a clarification if you will - the thread is already a "TL;DR" so if it's been answered already, please could someone linkify :)

I have a character that is a multiclass barbarian/rogue, Full Core to the core (no archetypes whatsoever). Now, do I get to rebuild all of those levels to new composition of levels as I see fit (possibly even dropping out one or the other class entirely), or do I have to keep the levels I have of each classes separately: barbarian 2/rogue 7?

You know, I was just wondering whether channel energy turned into a ray counts as a weapon or spell, since you can take weapon focus for rays, and thus combined with Divine Favor, would it benefit from bonus damage as well? the spell says specifically it doesn't add damage to spells, only to weapons.
But if you can weapon focus on rays... does or does it not qualify?

I'm about to run this scenario come this sunday, and I have a small, albeit quite remarkable question:

I'm about to host this one today, and I was wondering, whether I should add some level of difficulty since the group has a gunslinger.

Just a minor detail, but I couldn't resist: It's Valsin, not Valasin. Check out your resources, mate ;)

Other than that, this was the most descriptive piece of information on Osprey I found on a short notice, and it filled my needs for the time being. Nice work.

No no, a rope would be.

Absolutely nothing, except my own weirdness of trying to reason rules I'm reading with out-of-game-concepts, so carry on :P

Case Closed.

Fine, be rules lawyer. It seems you failed to see that I tried explain my point by ways *outside* of the rules text, by simple contexts that someone who's not rules savvy as us gamers would understand it, conceptually. And I must disagree on one thing. Sure, special practice translates to weapon proficiency, but using an item unintended as a weapon, as a weapon would be an improvised weapon, unlike an item that's intentionally made as a weapon.

That's semantics, armor spikes are *intended* to be weapons. Everyone could hurt someone with them, lethally. Rope, on the other hand, does need some special practice to hurt someone with, and even then hardly lethal (suffocating is another thing entirely). Be reasonable, and try not read everything in the rules as if it was the bible. In fact, no one should read the bible as written either.

Well, that snowball became an avalanche quickly.
Question was about whether or not I can remove armor spikes and/or add new ones. Even a child would realize that armor spikes are WEAPONS, they're sharp appendages protruding from an armor, they "just might" hurt a little, if punched with them. By definition, weapons hurt people. Now, by that logic, as they are WEAPONS you treat them as weapons - separately from their parental armor in which they have been added to; including special materials and enchantments, and ofcourse whether they are masterwork or crude quality.

Now the question in hand, I believe it has been answered by consensus and that's enough for me, you can replace existing spikes, by selling the former and buying new ones for full price (that was never the issue) but not add several spikes of different materials. And to be honest, that makes sense. To add spikes to an armor, that should leave some marks to it, and having more than one set would potentially even weaken the armor's functionalities.

About the added cost to your armor, to me it strikes only as that the armor and spikes combined would be valued as one item (this matters especially in Pathfinder Society, because Fame limits how expensive items you can own; in my case +1 stoneplate with +1 furious obsidian spikes would cost 11,175 gp; that's just under the limit of 27 Fame)

I have a character that's specialized in fighting with spiked armor (also in grapple, and he's a dwarf, ofcourse! ...Some of you might recognize Thibbledorf Pwent's influence there.)

Anyway, I was wondering if it's possible to replace existing armor spikes from an existing armor without having to remake the whole armor again.

Currently he has +1 Stoneplate with +1 Furious Obsidian Spikes (anti rust monster weaponry; dwarves should know those pests well enough to hate them!) And obviously I wouldn't want to sell the whole crap just to remake it because I wanted (possibly) adamantine spikes.

Another question is, is it possible to have more than one set of armor spikes in one armor?

look outside the box for change. What does a talent mean? ;)
Skill in something.
Now for the Wild aspect? A kineticist is the least spellcaster of all occult classes, ergo those few "spells" or more specifically, spell-like abilities are the only psychic abilities he has manifested albeit not being a spellcaster otherwise, hence he has a wild talent with some psychic abilities.

Kineticist is, in my honest opinion, the most weapon or pseudo-weapon oriented of the occult classes. How much would it really hurt giving them full BAB and 1d10 HD, really. FTB could be redesigned to grant enhancement bonus (though, as I see it, it seems to scale at reasonable levels compared to magic weapons, so it could have been intended to replace the need for enhancement magic items (mind you, it's a minimum caster level 3 to create a basic +1 enhanced weapon, and increases by every 3 levels!)).
Seriously, they have *at-will* damage dealing ability which requires an *attack roll* not force a saving roll, and it seems intentionally powerful to act as their "weapon" of choice in all respects, melee or ranged, why restrict it to mediocre output?
I don't see it would be necessary to make all blasts target touch AC, remember how insane firearms are? We don't want another now do we? Sure, the how Blasts scale by 1d6+1 per odd levels + Con seems pretty heavy, but I think it's that way to get into somewhat equal amounts of damage compared to weapon users. Though, I must add that maybe Kinetic Blade should be tuned a bit, perhaps not applying constitution instead of strength to damage?

PS. please, just get over that 3.X fossilized assumption that 2+int skill ranks is enough for most classes; let it be at minimum 4+int, thanks!
EDIT:
PPS. I'd like to allow all ranged blasts to target touch, with 3/4 BAB as suggested before, and pseudo full BAB with Kinetic Blade to target normal AC, except for kinetic fire blast and the like.
it's generally a lot easier to target Touch so ranged blasts won't need that much base attack bonus, when compared to attacks that target the normal AC, which can easily climb to ridiculously high.

keerawa wrote:

750 gold worth of diamond dust so that the friendly local caster can cast stoneskin or most of a level-drain repairing restoration on you.

I don't believe this is an option, though I could be mistaken. Everything purchased with PA is considered to have a value of 0gp, and you can only purchase a single item. A speck of dust...

On the other hand, this would be nice in a variety of ways, so I'd love to be wrong (for once).

The item purchased with 2 PP has 0 gp value only for selling purposes. That means you can't sell the item for gold. Other than that, the item functions as it would if you bought it with gold. That includes diamond dusts or whatever that has a buying value equal to that 750 gp.

Starglim wrote:

DrakeRoberts wrote:

How does that boon work if your faction didn't make it into season 6?

** spoiler omitted **

We used our old factions for it.

AFAIK, you should've used the new factions. The scenario happens to tell the story of how and why the old factions are reforming to what they are now, so it's only appropriate to use the new ones from that point forward.

If you didn't, well, then it should be the faction to which your character chose for his or her new faction after the scenario.

I think anytime you can use level 1 retraining also qualifies as "newly created".

This is what got me thinking about it in the first place.

I'm aware this might be slightly pedantic; technically all that a character - PFS-wise - needs to be a character is to have "active" Society number for that character. That being said, as much as I'd like to believe that said 0 to 3 xp "Fresh Toon" would be newly created, actually having been played by myself in a module makes it otherwise, even if I rebuilt it from scratch afterwards. It would still be that same character numbered as XXXX-YY.

then again...

The boon mentioned in my OP, on the other hand, lacks the thing that most other similar boons have: it doesn't state that the copy of the said chronicle would have to be the first chronicle sheet or among his or her first chronicle sheets before adding any further chronicles. In a way, the character still is newly created, albeit having been played once already (just once, mind you!)

I can totally understand the both possible ways to interpret this, but there can only be one correct interpretation. Which one, that is the main question.

I just received a chronicle with which I may give a bonus trait for a newly created character.

Specifically it says:

-spoiler-. You may designate one newly created PC under your Pathfinder Society number -spoiler-. This additional training grants that PC one -spoiler- bonus trait. You must include a copy of this chronicle sheet with a new PC's records, though that PC gains no additional boons, equipment, or wealth from this Chronicle Sheet.

So, what is the definition of a newly created character, as per written. Does it mean:

That, whether they come from yourself or from your deity, has absolutely zero effect on whether they stack or not.

Saying they're untyped is wrong, because the type is Wisdom modifier.

Wisdom modifier (a.k.a. bonus) doesn't stack with itself, period.

The deflection bonus from sacred fist's AC bonus and it's equivalent monk AC bonus do stack, however like you said. Still their levels do not stack per se, so that your monk levels do not count as sacred fist levels and vice versa for the extra bonus.

Order by which you advance in the game:

When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order.

1. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made.
2. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level.
3. Third, integrate all of the level's class abilities and then roll for additional hit points.
4. Finally, add new skills and feats.

For more information on when you gain new feats and ability score increases, see Table: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses.

And, you might want to check the section for Generating Character:

Step 1—Determine Ability Scores

Step 2—Pick Your Race

Step 3—Pick Your Class

Step 4—Pick Skills and Select Feats

Step 5—Buy Equipment

Step 6—Finishing Details

PS. It's Aasimar, not "Asamar" ;P

there's one more "but" to your reasoning with flurry of blows. Sacred Fist gains it too, and it says it works just like the monk ability. This left me to wonder whether it does, in fact, stack levels after all. Reason for which I'm concerned with that, is: when would character with monk and sacred fist levels receive the extra flurry attacks. Monk gets the second at 8th level and third at 15th, iirc. By RAW I read it that Sacred Fist would get them too, at said levels.

Unarmed damage not stacking I can deal with, but flurry of blows I'm puzzled with.

Not to mention the AC shenanigans. Personally it feels "wrong" to me. Even if by RAW it might stack. I hardly believe it was the intent.

Actually, just realised that Ex. or Su. has nothing to do with the type of them. They don't define bonus type, only how the abilities function. If they did, there would be bonus types called extraordinary bonus or supernatural bonus.

Basically 3 questions, but third one is being, at least partly, discussed in another thread, and the first two I just lack the Forum-Fu to find a mention of:

1) Do monk and sacred fist levels stack for purpose of the unarmed strike damage?

2) Do monk and sacred fist levels stack for purpose of flurry of blows?

3) Does Monk & Sacred Fist Wisdom Bonus to AC from both classes stack with each other, essentially granting Wisdom modifier TWICE? Granted, Monk's ability is (Ex) and Sacred Fist's equivalent is (Su), so it would seem that they do stack, but I feel it's not supposed to. Feels more like rules-abuse.

Arkhios wrote:

Never really thought about them stacking two times, but that would be just wrong. FAQued.

I reckon the level by level bonuses do stack, however, since they are different bonus types. Not sure though whether the levels will stack for progression. Probably not.

Also a little off-topic, but, does monk and sacred fist levels stack to determine unarmed damage and at which levels flurry of blows improve?

There's nothing wrong with this at all.

I believe you misunderstood. The whole idea of getting wisdom twice is just "wrong". Basically, when your wisdom modifier improves by relevant amount, you'll be getting that improvement twice all the way. That's going to result in huge difference in AC. For example, at lvl 12, you can easily get wisdom to 24 to 26, that's +7 or +8, twice +14 or +16 only from Wisdom. I really don't believe that's what they intended.

Never really thought about them stacking two times, but that would be just wrong. FAQued.

I reckon the level by level bonuses do stack, however, since they are different bonus types. Not sure though whether the levels will stack for progression. Probably not.

Also a little off-topic, but, does monk and sacred fist levels stack to determine unarmed damage and at which levels flurry of blows improve?

The biggest opportunity when a gunslinger might want to sell his or her initial battered gun is when he or she finds a significantly better gun. From PFS perspective that might or might not be when you get access or enough fame for a pepperbox, for example and you chose a battered pistol. I'm not going quote the texts, you can do it yourself, but pepperbox is by far much better. (and a lot cooler, to boot!)

That said, I admit crossbows are not quite as hard to acquire, but the gun isn't masterwork to begin with. It's essentially 300g extra, and if you chose that heavy repeater that would be 700gp worth of equipment for free, AT FIRST LEVEL. Now, selling that isn't grounds-breaking at higher levels, but if you could get your final weapon of choice already at first level, why would you?

Yeah, indeed. Can't say how I forgot the battered notion from the usual free firearm. Obviously that's a must, since if you could just sell that masterwork reapeating heavy crossbow at first level, that'd be a bit too much. On the contrary to firearm, however, I'd almost say that Bolt Ace shouldn't be able to sell it even for a half price. Better yet if not at all. But yes, a battered crossbow of any kind that functions as masterwork in your hands, and broken for anyone else, or something.

A friend told me that he was puzzled why this was a gunslinger archetype if its focus is not about guns.
I must admit it was a good point. It could've just been a better archetype for fighter -- even though fighter has Crossbow Master already. (Imho, Crossbow Master is nowhere as good as Bolt Ace)

I did point out that proficiency issue, didn't I? :)

Me too, and in fact, I recommend that all like-minded readers would give your own suggestions how to fix this. Who knows, maybe it really wasn't thought about and someone gets his or her suggestion through?.

There's one big flaw that I doubt no-one else has noticed, and that is the fact that Bolt Ace's fluff-text says "…there is a class of gunslingers that never soil their hands with powder or feel the sting of gun smoke.", yet they still do get proficiency with firearms, the gunsmith class feature and they lose guntraining, replacing it with crossbow training. The latter I'm ok with, but the first problem I just can't comprehend with. What does this archetype do anything with gun proficiency and gunsmithing when the rest of the archetype is all about crossbows? I mean, come on, some consistency, please?

Just a few suggestions to replace the proficiency and gunsmith features:

The Bolt Ace could get a free masterwork crossbow of any type when they begin their career, and instead maybe receive proficiency with ALL types of crossbows. Including exotic crossbows.

And if that's not enough to satisfy balance, give free rapid reload for the chosen type of crossbow you picked as your free masterwork crossbow.

Feel free to mark this for FAQ, or if there's already a thread addressing the issue, let me know.
I'll admit it might just as well be an editing mistake, something being forgotten from the final book.

Landon Wrinkler pretty much covered my thoughts already (thanks!)

Anyway, I feel compelled to repeat: "If you don't like it, don't play it". You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but you can't assume that everyone else would change their opinions to match yours.

If something bothers you as a GM, then by all means, ban it in your home games, but please, when it comes to public games, like PFS, it might be best to keep your opinions to yourself and let others play as they wish, as much as you might disagree with their decisions.

The one major thing that bugs me is this: why the majority of you critizers feel the compelling urge to always compare one class with another already existing class, *even* if the new ones were hybrids from them? Can't you just go with the thought that *maybe* this game and these classes weren't designed to satisfy some sort of mechanical balance between the classes, but to fulfill certain concepts (=ideas of a particular kind of heroes or heroines)

And on a personal note, I for one, do find Arcanist a great class greatly because of their spellcasting ability, the arcanist exploits are just a bonus I could well live without. For over 12 years of this game I've been waiting for that kind of approach on how spellcasting should work. Sure, you are limited to those spells you know and maybe learn afterwards, but that you could always prepare a set of spells you think you'll need for a day and then cast them, spontaneously in this game's terminology, as you wish, without having to fear you ran out that one spell which you would've wanted to use for another and maybe yet another time during the same day, all without sacrificing a potential utility from the other spells you could cast, even if you chose not to.
Although this change might seem so small, it actually will have HUGE impact in the game.

As for the Hunter, from purely conceptual perspective, they do have their own place, if you just would open your mind a little more and give space to your imagination over those odd thoughts "that everything must fit within the same boundaries already given to us".

Just the other day I had this idea if I could combine Thassilonian Specialist and either Egorian Academy Infernal Binder (or Mage of the Veil), both from Inner Sea Primer, Cheliax and Qadira specific, respectively.

Technically, by rules as written, they do stack by the fact that Thassilonian Specialist leaves the school powers unchanged, where as you still are a specialist of said school. Technically school powers are separate class features, right?

However, Those archetypes above alter the normal school powers much like Focused Schools do. Now, I do understand that Thassilonian Specialists are *specialists* on their own right on their focused area and thus that alone might prevent from having two archetypes, even if they, by RAW, stack.

I think it would be worthwhile to add a note whether Thassilonian Specialist can take any other archetypes at all or not. I know that in lorewise they shouldn't be able to stack with anything else, but the little archetype-tinkerer in me disagrees and tells me that I could do that, despite the lore and flavor, because the rules are what they are about how archetypes stack.

This left me to wonder if we'll actually see a pregen with an archetype, at last (not sure if there is one other already, though).

After all, there was this one archetype for Skald coming up, The herald of the horn in the Advanced Class Guide preview: Skald.

Would be great, in my honest opinion.

Even though people talk about bonuses or penalties, they both belong to the same group of 'modifiers' which, iirc, are equal in respect to rules.

Thus a fighter taking a serious blow on his strength score (e.g. from Ray of Enfeeblement) would indeed become crushed under the weight of his gear.