Axiem's page

Thanks for that. I both love and hate that basic rules can still be easily overlooked after playing this game for pushing 15 years, lol.

Intimidate to Demoralize causes the Shaken effect, which is a fear type effect.

Does this stack with the penalty from Aura of Despair, which is also a fear type effect?

"Fear" isn't a specifically listed bonus type, and these are different sources, but it kind of feels like they shouldn't stack. The despair aura seems to be a lesser version of shaken.

Thoughts?

That refers to if something forcibly changes your alignment, like a Helm of Opposite Alignment or something like that. In that case, it restores them to the alignment before the magic effected them.

If a character preforms an action while under mind control, it doesn't automatically change their alignment because natural alignment changes are purely a roleplay result and are supposed to be base on how a player acts. If you're forcing a player to act out of character, then you can't really say that they became evil because you forced them to do it.

Well, it's actually the next section of the Atonement spell that is specifically about magical alignment changes, though they are similarly pretty easily reversed. It specifically is saying evil acts you are compelled to do, which would include any charms/compulsions... And the Lilitu's profane wish specifically is a supernatural ability that changes alignment when you wish off her.

I'm not seeing anything to back up the idea that they need to be 100% aware of their actions... For example, if a Paladin picked up a cursed berzerking sword, and murdered hundreds of children, I feel like they would lose their class abilities until they atone...

First, evil acts explicitly don't count if mind magic forces you to do it. Evil must be a choice so she didn't actual commit evil if she's compelled to do it.

Are you sure about that? The text for the Atonement spell seems to indicate otherwise:

"If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you."

The party ended up using an Atonement spell to return her to CG. For the time being, Nocticula is going to allow her to continue using the profane bonuses, because it suits her machinations (and the player in question is planning to take the beyond morality mythic ability next level anyway)

There is a somewhat long discussion of this issue in the GM reference thread for Midnight Isles, so may want to read over that. I would say that the other party members, who I assume are mostly good if not LG, would likely kick her out of the party. Even if she sticks around for the end of book 4. When they return to the material plane, she would be pushed out immediately by the Crusade and Church of Iomedae. Having the character around is too dangerous to everyone. Iomedae would likely demand that the PC atone or will demand that they dump her as a show of true Righteousness.

Well, full disclosure: The players all somehow missed the memo about like the entire point of this campaign, and they are all more neutral and morally ambiguous... It's definitely made the campaign interesting, and we've had this running theme of them becoming more and more good and righteous, in response to being screwed over by the demons. What started as just trying to survive the demon assault turned into settling the score, then the power grab of running an army/city, but somewhere along the way it got personal, and in redeeming Arueshalae they all kind of were getting into this whole "Heroes" thing.

And I feel like, atonement-wise, this PC has a pretty clear path: Her "Evil act" was something she was compelled to do, that just had a contingency of changing her alignment, and then the profane ascension just made sense given the situation... So I may have Iomedae just purge it with an atonement, *if* they succeed on trial #2. The Wizard has already hit her with a Mythic Geas to compel her to seek redemption...

So, one of my players took Nocticula's profane ascension.

The Lilitu managed to charm and convince her to beg for a wish, in order to bring a righteous hero low (As her profane wish alters alignment.) So, minor victory for her there, before she was torn to shreds... But, then that PC had no qualms about accepting Nocticula's blessing.

So, how should I run the interaction with Iomedae and that PC in book 5 now? Anyone else have a similar scenario? The PC in question is actually a little behind on loot, and she isn't a huge power gamer, so the buff isn't too imbalancing on her. I'm just unsure how to run the Iomedae stuff with this caveat, lol.

What level have you gotten to in Mythic? The campaign I'm in we were at 12th level and 4th Mythic Tier. IT wasn't really any fun for the DM or the players as it was becoming rocket tag with us players tending to get the jump on the NPCs or monsters. We dropped mythic after we hit 13th level and have played a few sessions and combat seems like a challenge again. Right when I was getting burned out on Pathfinder, mainly due to mythic sucking so bad in our game, the last session was at the end of book 4. Looked like a total party wipe going against Demon goddess daughter Hep. 5 people in our party, 3 people down (way down) and it was me (Magus) and the Ranger. I was down 40 HP so the next time she hit, I was down. I was able to vanish and she laughed and turned toward the Ranger. I had put vorpal on my blackblade at the start of combat and it was our only chance to win. So when she turned to kill the ranger and moved out of my threatened square, on my AoO, I rolled a freakin' 20 and lopped her head off! Talk about pure dice roll luck but in character i KNEW I was going to walk away with her head!

In Wrath, the PCs are currently at the final boss fight of Book 3, and we all feel like the campaign is just tipping into the realm of getting good. We've actually been a bit bored with all the clunkiness of the army rules and the rebuilding Drezen downtime stuff.

In my previous game (A heavily modified castle Ravenloft game, that went FAR beyond the scope of that module) They ended up Mythic Tier 10, and character level 25 (Using the Jesse's Pathfinder Epic-Level rules) That was following a complaint from my players that I run too many low-level games. I actually really prefer GMing low-level, due to all the complexities things like greater invis, flight, etc etc add. Also I am not a fan of the rocket tag effect.

So, I totally get where you're coming from. The GM just needs to utilize tools to mitigate that. I feel like a lot of it comes from how they execute the encounter, and the old 3.5 "Dungeonscape" supplement is my go-to reference to help me run a combat in a challenging way. There is a section near the end that describes how to stage an encounter, so I'll paraphrase:

Give each monster an archetype based on it's role in that encounter - the book has loads of examples for this, I can list them later when I am at home if you're interested. Then, analyze the fight with a "test party." This becomes easier if you keep good notes on the PC tactics in other fights. Know your wizards go-to spells, know their trump cards, know all their common tactics - and execute the fight in your head using those tactics, then ask yourself what you can do to mitigate that strategy. Whether it's just adding a template, or relocating monsters, using some buffs or changing tactics - or even adding a new monster.

Also, make the fight dynamic: So you have a burst caster, and there's three bruisers protecting him. You could nuke him from ranged, BUT there's a support caster keeping a steady string of magic defenses in the way. And there's no time to deal with her, as there's a hail of arrows coming from the other corner of the room. To make matters worse, three rounds later, assassins come to reinforce from behind, and cripple your mage or healer!

That fight will be a lot more challenging than an NPC wizard, 3 bugbears, a cleric, and 2 rangers who all happen to be within charging distance, and in a room that fits within a fireball range.

The other thing about mythic is pulling no punches - and this requires the GM to spend more prep time than usual reading and understanding the full deadly scope of tactics an enemy can bring to the table. The Xanthir Vang fight is a perfect example of this. I full expect several of my PCs to die in this upcoming fight. Vang knows EVERYTHING about them. To make matters worse, they have attacked his lair then retreated already, so he will be as prepared as he can be when they finally meet him.

Now, another key thing is pacing, and feeling mythic. It's totally okay for mythic players to go a few encounters without breaking a sweat. In fact, I think that enhances the story you're trying to tell. They're Hercules - paltry goons are not a threat. Big bads are a threat. I think Wrath does an excellent job of seeding plenty of mythic enemies in that kind of fall into the middle ground of not being hugely important, but still being mythic.

Another important thing is forcing them to expend resources, and making it matter. This is important even in non-mythic high level games, for spellcasters. The GM simply cannot let players rest whenever they want. Even if players have access to all kinds of magic to help, you've got to do something to hinder that (Even though Mythic heroes get recuperate, and can recharge super fast.) If you don't hit them with some unexpected encounters and ambushes - if every fight is on their terms - then they might as well just have infinite mythic power. Which again goes back to pulling no punches. A great tool for this is the myriad of recurring villains Wrath has. The whole adventure, players are angering powerful demons with powerful connections and resources. It makes complete sense to have assassins on their tail, who again know and exploit any weakness with cruel cunning. I cannot wait to hound my players with Xanthir Vang if they manage to best him and survive. With all of his god complex and notions of vanity, he will be driven mad unless he manages to crush them.

So - I do think it requires an adjustment of GM style to properly run Mythic. It also requires a lot more attention to detail, and tracking of resources. It's definitely much more work for the GM, and the players as well. I've had great success with it, and my players have all loved it.

A full attack is a full-round action, so any movement in the round is a during the full-round action. Full Attack says the only movement allowed is a 5-foot step, and fleet charge's movement is clearly not a 5-foot step. If you take Fleet Warrior however, you're allowed to move up to your speed during your full attack action, which would allow you to couple Fleet Charge and Full Attack.

Gotcha, we're on the same page now. I've never considered that, but that actually makes a lot of sense, and I feel like it's more balanced with the other options.

I may start using this interpretation. I still feel like it caters heavily to Mythic vital strike builds, though. I suppose that's karma for vital strike being otherwise overlooked, lol.

Well, naturally the Crystal Tiara is a must have.

This is a good idea, I think. We're on book 6 now, and my party has rarely remembered to make use of their summonable Merchant.

I modified Fleet Charge to be the following: The character takes a Move Action. Before, during, or after the Move, the character gets to make an attack as part of the Move Action. The character will still have a Swift and a Standard Action available when using Fleet Charge.

I'm of mixed opinion on this one... So, your denying them the full attack, but they keep the Swift. If they dual path, they could take sudden strike, and then go the route of Mythic vital strike ( with the standard & the Mythic init bonus standard...). Also consider, when they fleet charge, they typically move first, or they don't use the move action at all. The function is to get them into melee and get a full attack still, so... I feel like the base fleet charge kind of inherently uses both move and Swift, by either incorporating a move before, or by rendering the move wasted once they're in swinging range.

I feel like letting them keep the full atk ( because several swings should miss anyway) and costing the Swift is more "expensive" to their potential damage output. Swift actions are the currency of Mythic.

Also consider, this allows them to still fleet charge after using a defensive immediate skill like mirror dodge. Normally they're making a tough trade off decision.

Unless your intention was to make fleet charge more powerful, then you're fine. It seems more like an unintentional buff, though, when you consider that Mythic vital strike is effectively a full round attack action, with a better hit chance. Unless they're avoiding the vital strike chain (but its super strong with Mythic rules)

We might be talking about different things: I mean pounce as in how the feline monsters have it (move + full attack). Not like a Monk with spring attack.

The way I rule fleet charge is it must be used before or after your full attack, and the movement from fleet charge never counts as a "five foot step" for the purpose of avoiding AoOs, and players MUST move when using fleet charge, otherwise there is really no purpose in sudden attack even existing, lol.

So, they either get a nice gap closer, that you really can't use in melee without it costing you AoOs, or they get a good attack that will hit pretty consistently, but they lose out on the round 1 full attack.

Another way to keep fleet charge from being too powerful, is to not stage every encounter from charge range, lol. I know a lot of GMs who do that, and it used to be a habit of mine. Also remember with fleet charge, it's just their base move, not their normal charge distance. I've had someone mess that up.

And don't forget that they errata'd Wild Arcana/Inspired Spell quite some time ago, turning them into standard actions. That helped, too.

Very good point that I forgot to mention! I actually house-ruled that very early before the official errata came out, but it makes much more sense working the way it states in the errata.

@Captain: I will say in my experience martial characters get a lot of love. (Which is fine, I think) They basically get pounce with fleet charge. I had a Warrior with the two handed weapon archetype, that could dish out some pretty wild damage at max level due to how Mythic power attack interacts with the archetype class abilities.

I made this chart to help my players understand the nuance of how multiple multiplying effects work on damage, because foebiting and vital strike made math at the table very slow, so hopefully this is useful to someone:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwB3FrQGa5c5N2tjWV9MNFM3MFU/edit?usp=docsl ist_api

(Sorry for the garbage formatting, I'm posting from my phone, lol)

Wrath is now my 2nd Mythic campaign, after employing the rules in my homebrew game. My players are pretty notorious min/maxers as well. I've yet to see the Mythic rules cause too many problems. In my opinion, I think the ability score increases cause more damage than any of the abilities granted by tiers do. Also, the initiative boost tends to cause issues IF players also boost their init via feats/traits. So, if you want to keep the difficulty higher, maybe consider removing those bonuses, or disallowing the +2 ability score boosts to stack, forcing players to spread them among 5 abilities.

It seems like every time I see any complaint thread about Mythic, the detailed explanation reveals they were running some component of the rules wrong. Our first crack at Mythic seemed broken, until I really dug into tracking the players actions/resources.

I see a lot of people allowing Swift actions to happen in place of move actions. I see a lot of people ignoring the interaction between immediate & Swift actions. I see a lot of people forgetting you can't use a free action when it isn't your turn.

A good example is the Mythic Wizard, I see them come up often as a problem:

They get (effectively) either a pearl of power, or a wildcard spell as a swift action. That's not a whole lot more effective than any caster with quicken, or a rod of quicken. And (common error) they cannot also use a quickened spell. Their Swift is used up already. They can take an extra standard, which can't be used for spells (or by extension spell completion items, no pulling out a wand/staff here).

I mean, really I don't see the Mythic Wizard getting a whole lot that the base Wizard doesn't also get access to. And that's pretty much across the board for most classes.

So, don't be petrified by the horror stories. Just be diligent in tracking the action economy better, and player resources. Mythic rules lean heavily on Swift/immediate actions, so keeping those straight is critical. (Note: remember that using an immediate action causes you to lose your following Swift action. I see many people thinking you get one of each)

I hope there's some of these to pick up @ Gencon!

Really? I've never used HeroLab yet, as I'm typically our group's GM. I'll have to check that out!

Thanks for all the info everybody!

As far as I know, we were all just planning to grab iconic character pre-gens. Do they typically have those printed out at the event, or should we bring our own? I'll probably print some out just in case, I suppose. Better safe than goblin food!

@ David We are doing Confirmation Friday, and Horn of Aroden Saturday!

Depending on how the rest of our schedule shakes out, we might jump into a third with generic tickets, but we're also doing True Dungeon in the evenings both of those days.

I've been playing tabletop RPGs with friends for something like 15 years now, but I've never once been to a public game, despite being a pretty avid convention-goer - I'm trying to change that.

A few friends and I are going to GenCon this year, and we bought spots for The Confirmation & Horn of Aroden, but there's a few things that I've had trouble dredging up in my reading about society play. I'm sure I'm just being overly-concerned, but...

First, gencon specific, Should we be concerned at all about getting the three of us at the same game table? I have no idea how that organization works, last year we just peeked into the huge hall it was in, and were totally overwhelmed!

Second, how much of the Golarion lore should I catch up on to effectively roleplay? How roleplay heavy do these events typically run? I'm assuming it's a case-by-case basis, but I don't want to ruin someone's fun by being "that guy that over-RPs", or "that guy that isn't even RP-ing." I know that spectrum well after many years of playing, lol.

I'm sure it's going to be a huge culture shock, but I'm really interested in seeing how other people GM. After years taking turns with the same 3 or 4 people GMing, that is what has me most excited.

Critical Master functions similarly to Maximize Critical.

Critical Master- always confirm threats. Maximize damage. Only works on non-mythic creatures unless you take it twice.

Maximize Critical- still need to confirm threats. Maximize damage. Works on everything and is taken once.

That was my feeling of it, I just wanted to get some confirmation before I lay down the law with my players. I've noticed more and more that Mythic rules aren't inherently "broken," but that my players just haven't double-checked some of the nuanced rules about how everything works...

(Example: Foe-Biting, despite the text making it seem like you just double your damage, the "rule of doubling" still applies, making it function more like an added critical modifier, which just happens to include precision damage.)

I believe the "And deals maximum damage" part of Critical master is unnecessarily redundant, and the major benefit of it is the auto-confirmation of criticals (And that ability seems in-line for power with the rest of the tier 6 skills, anyway).

I've poked around and seen this ability brought up in several topics, but haven't seen a good answer to this question...

For the uninitiated, the ability reads verbatim: "Whenever you roll a critical threat against a non-mythic creature, you automatically confirm the critical hit and deal the maximum amount of damage to that creature. This ability can be selected twice. The second time it is selected, it also applies to mythic creatures."

What exactly does "the maximum amount of damage" mean?

The previous tier has a skill "Maximize Critical" which reads: "Whenever you score a critical hit, the weapon's damage result is always the maximum possible amount you could roll. This doesn't affect other dice added to the damage, such as from sneak attack or the flaming weapon special ability. For example, if you score a critical hit with a longsword (1d8/×2), treat the sword's damage dice as if you had rolled 8 both times, then add any other damage bonuses that you would normally apply to a critical hit."

I'm wondering if the intent of "Maximum Damage" is the same as Maximize Critical's "Maximum possible amount you could roll," which is to say, only applying to weapon damage dice, and not anything additional - or if it literally means your maximum possible damage... Because, if that is the case, does that then apply to a Magus' Spellstrike, essentially giving him a free maximized critical?

I'm of the opinion that 'Critical Master' should function similarly to 'Maximize Critical'... but then Maximize critical becomes redundant, which seems wrong.

Help me, Paizo messageboards, you're my only hope.

You had me at Arcane Reserve James. I like the new direction with the class. Someone who monkies with the raw foundation of magic and allows them to spend a point pool to pull of feat/unique effects. I'm all down for it.

It WOULD be nice to say at higher levels steal spells from other non-standard lists too. *koff Bard/Druid/Cleric*

But I'm just saying.

Also, consider giving this class a zinger.

Quicker Countermagic!

I'd give my kingdom for faster more useful counter magic.

I'll just be over here with my fingers crossed that they pull anything from the 3.5 Noctumancer's Innate Counterspell.

This sounds great, cannot wait to get a look at the reworked class.

I'm hoping the deisgn team takes a look at the Noctumancer Prestige Class from the 3.5 Tome of Magic. Some of it's 'Innate Counterspell' type skills seem to fit in this theme, and the amazing visual/thematic aspects of catching an enemy spell, and using it to fuel a spell you then throw back in their face was a fundamental piece of that PrC (And one I'd love to see more accessible, and to play again).

* The above points are especially relevant when you consider that there are still many archetypal fantasy classes that Pathfinder has yet to explore. Tinkers, warlocks, warlords, herbalists, etc. Furthermore, some of the thematic concepts presented in these hybrid classes would have been much better if presented as new, unique classes with fun new abilities instead of watered-down combinations.

Releasing a book with base classes, does not preclude Paizo from making more classes in another content book later.

The intent of this one has always been mix/hybrid classes that are more or less glorified "multiclass" classes, and I feel that they delivered on that pretty well so far. We'll see what changes by the end of the playtest.

I think a lot of people need to take a step back from the pitchforks and work on being a little more constructive...

These fall a bit short of the Magus currently, yes - but the Magus is a launched and working product.

These are playtests. You can't just do an apples to apples comparison, there's still loads of bugs to work out in how these classes play... that's the purpose of the playtest.

Regurgitating the same complaints as everyone else, without at least sitting down, statting a character up, and rolling through a few-hours long dungeon scrape, doesn't add anything of value... At least try it before you make a judgment.

Some people, 2009: Monk can't hit anything! We don't care for supernatural crap! It's terrbiad!

The same people, 2013: Brawler doesn't have supernatural crap! Brawler can hit something! It's terribad!

Some people just are never content unless they're complaining.

I feel like I really love the method for spellcasting, and the slower spell progression is fine.

The thing I'm not a huge fan of is the level 20 ability - mainly because it's just a binary boost at max level, and most games don't reach max level. I'd prefer some scaling thing you can at least see a bit of in most games.

Also, the Bloodline / school thing seems pasted-on to me, as well as the bonus feats.

I'd love to see all the class specials scrapped, and replaced with a Arcane version of the Oracle mysteries system.

Axiem wrote:

At a certain point, the argument of "Could have been an archetype" falls apart.

Sorcerer could be a Wizard Archetype.
Rogue could be a fighter Archetype.
Every Base class, in a way, is an archetype from a "blank template" if you will.

Paizo excels at giving players options. That is what this is. New ways to play extremely familiar mechanics.

And they never teased that this book would be anything different. From the first mention, it was going to be hybrids, and I for one do not have any problem with 10 new ways to play old classics. I think it's a great way to stir the pot, and I'm excited to see all the archetypes for these that come up.

I am interested to know what some of you would have seen as "original enough"? A rehash of the Warlock Class? Some Psionic stuff? Those ideas are all actually less original. Say what you will about the recycling of existing mechanics - A lot of these new classes never existed in any system. Would they have been greatly improved by using their own new, convoluted, hard to learn mechanics that would very closely mirror some other existing class?

New means something we haven't seen before, and that couldn't be done within the boundaries of the existing ruleset. For this reason, the arcanist is actually my favorite class from that document.

The majority of the other new classes could be mirrored by existing multiclassing and archetypes to such a degree it's not even funny.

Your last paragraph seem to ridicule those of us who wants original classes by assuming that we are asking for rehashes of already existing rules. We're not.

Well - you say that - but I'd wager that any significant new system would have a pitchfork mob raised over how it invalidates or replaces existing systems. I've seen a lot of people saying they wanted a "non-vancian" spellcaster (Despite words of power already offering a super adjustable spellcasting solution)

At a certain point, you've got to accept that either at some point in tabletop history, in PF, or in a 3rd party solution, everything that's going to be done with the D20 system that's extremely revolutionary IS done already. Paizo just iterates and refines the designs, and does it from a player-centric model that offers gratuitous options.

Also, it's worth noting that while it's a pedantic point, these classes are not something we've seen before, and could not be done "in the existing rules" verbatim. You could do something close, just like you could do something kind of like a Magus, but not exactly precisely what these are.

I think it's kind of intellectually dishonest to say the ACG classes are unoriginal, then hold them up to the APG classes, and say those ARE original.

What's original about the Oracle? Let's build a Spontaneous Cleric.

That's not really groundbreaking, lol. In fact, some of the ACG hybrids are more groundbreaking than that.

At a certain point, the argument of "Could have been an archetype" falls apart.

Sorcerer could be a Wizard Archetype.
Rogue could be a fighter Archetype.
Every Base class, in a way, is an archetype from a "blank template" if you will.

Paizo excels at giving players options. That is what this is. New ways to play extremely familiar mechanics.

And they never teased that this book would be anything different. From the first mention, it was going to be hybrids, and I for one do not have any problem with 10 new ways to play old classics. I think it's a great way to stir the pot, and I'm excited to see all the archetypes for these that come up.

I am interested to know what some of you would have seen as "original enough"? A rehash of the Warlock Class? Some Psionic stuff? Those ideas are all actually less original. Say what you will about the recycling of existing mechanics - A lot of these new classes never existed in any system. Would they have been greatly improved by using their own new, convoluted, hard to learn mechanics that would very closely mirror some other existing class?

The only thing in the Mythic Adventures book that has me scratching my head thus far is the Spellcasting sub-ability within the Intelligent legendary ability you can apply to legendary weapons (Page 172).

-It's unclear whether you can "save" unspent points to use for a level 6-9 spell, or if the intent is to cap them at level 5.

-It's unclear if spells with expensive components are permissible; even capped at 5th level, you could put raise dead on it, then be ahead 5k gold each use... Or permanency, for arcane casters. (OR, if players CAN 'roll-over' the points to get 9th level spells, Wish and Miracle...)

Those are both things that I can easily houserule... I'm just curious what the design intent is. All in all I have to say it's definitely worth the money, though, my players are loving it so far.

If anyone has any light to shed on that, it'd be appreciated.

One of my players just asked me for a clarification on this same spellcasting ability...

(Note: Personally I houseruled saving points as fine, because they need as many mythic tiers as the spell, and somewhere in the book it notes you should have like 1 mythic tier every 2 character levels, if you play Mythic from level 1... at that point saving does them no good until much higher level, at that point it's going to balance out fine anyway. Also, it would have been trivial to state the max level was 5, but they didn't... I'm inclined to think it's permissible, because they're mythic)

BUT the sticking point we fell across was it given NO limitations on expensive components in spells. It just states pick a spell, get that spell.

I'm debating going with the old "50 times the component cost" rule for spell like abilities in 3.5, but I don't know what the design intent is.

Somehow we totally overlooked Weapon Chords...

They totally solve the issue, while at the same time they seem like a very lame way to solve the issue.

Something about a dude having guns dangle from ropes while he reloads just seems like I would laugh in his face while he fires at me, but it will suffice.

I tend to imagine it like in western movies, after novaing with both pistols you're gonna have to duck behind a water barrel or something to reload for a turn. If you dislike permanent Reloading Hands on the pistols themselves you could try what my GM and I did, we went the Boots of Speed route and created a holster which is a free action to activate and has a limited number of rounds per day to use of Reloading Hands.

That's another alternative I hadn't thought of. I dunno, I was hoping someone would point out something obvious that I overlooked though. It still feels weird to me that there isn't some simple tool (Like a Feat or Class Ability) to make this option more viable.

So I'm GMing for my group, and we've recently picked up a copy of Ultimate Combat. One of my PCs wanted to give the gunslinger a try, and after looking at the pictures and reading up on the Grit system and the Daring Acts, as well as the Archetypes he settled on a Wandering Stranger style because a Daring yet foolish hero seems like he shouldn't be centric around Wisdom.

So he wants to dual wield his pistols, since every art piece in the book shows gunslingers dual wielding pistols - He wants the kick-the-door-in guns-blazing devil-may-care attitude robin-hood type of hero that all the art seems to depict.

Here's the roadblock: As far as we can tell that's not possible. We try as best we can to follow the base rules and use existing methods when we can, so we cooked up this:

If he has Alchemical Cartriges and Rapid Reload that reduces his Standard Action reload time down to a free action: However he needs a free hand in order to load them. Holstering his gun is a move action[As it triggers an Atk of Opp. and Sheathing isn't sped up by quick draw], Drawing them is a free action with quick draw.

So we are at:
Move 1: Holster Gun A
Free : Load Gun B
Move 2: Holster Gun B
Free : Quick Draw Gun A
Free : Load Gun A
Free : Quick Draw Gun B
<Fun fact: Provokes 4 Atks of Opp>

So he's essentially firing twice every other round as opposed to once per round - it all shakes out the same.

Also when he reaches 5th level and higher he will be able to reload his weapon as a free action while firing off his multiple shots - but he won't be capable of that while dual wielding. (At this point wielding only one would provide better damage output...)

The only loophole we've found would be to cast the reloading hands spell on his guns and hire a powerful mage to cast permanency on the enchantment: And even that is a stretch as it's a very powerful spell to have permanent (I'd probably make it part of some difficult quest)

But while permanently having spectral hands reloading the guns would seem cool thematically - it just seems odd that for all the art showing dual-pistol wielding heroes, the rules make it nearly impossible.

I'm just curious if I missed something, or if we need to make a house rule here to allow one-handed reloading. It doesn't seem like it should be this difficult given I see dual-wielding pistol users on pg 4, 9, 242... in fact I don't think I see an image of a gunslinger where they aren't dual wielding. I see other class archetypes with guns splashed in, and they're using muskets - but every gunslinger class picture shows them wielding two pistols. If that's the true flavor of the class, why can't the rules replicate it? I'm at a loss.