Bulette

Bullette Point's page

Organized Play Member. 46 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Try a mixture of both pathfinder and the saga rules. First, use the classes in the Saga books but remove the bonus feats classes recieved from levels (not counting the 1st level ones). The talent system is really well done and to remove it would be a waste.

Secondly, you'll have to go through and see which feats from Saga and which from pathfinder are compatible mechanically. If you need to, tone down some from Saga or beef up the pathfinder. You will have to playtest some changes.

Combat will be the most difficult to balance to your liking. You can keep the damage ranges from Saga's weapons and remove the damage track while using pathfinder hit point ranges. Combat will be potentially dangerous but when you're shooting blasters and fighting with lightsabers, dangerous comes with the territory.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Change the archetypes to base them on attributes. A wis based fighter would be a kensai. A cha based fighter would be a bravo.

Let's try and keep 4th edition out of Pathfinder.


zagnabbit wrote:

@Bullette Point

Spontaneous casting is not a problem; as a GM I prefer it for design ;as a player for simplicity. With the Oracle you get some great stuff; the trade off is a curse which is like a flaw that becomes an inconvenience in game that gets old for RP. With tongues everyone learns Aklo or whatever by lvl 4. With Haunted it becomes a constant schtick of moving chairs which is old by lvl 6. Blindness is cool but it just means you suck at range; this always goes with the battle heavy armor gag which makes you a monster by lvl8.

I do agree with the problems of curses; I think they should have been extremely minor (smaller buffs for smaller negatives) OR be removed completely. However, the concepts between the oracle and the sorcerer are the same. Both are 'born' with power that was their choice, limited spell lists, and the way they cast spells. The only real difference is that of arcane and divine based spells.

Part of the problem with clerics lies with min/maxing rather than exploring the class in a roleplaying setting. You certainly have the ability to use medium armor but does that fit with the character concept? Perhaps try to find a very different and interesting concept that allows for a different experience. Try not to force yourself to always pick the same 'overpowered' spells or be forced into the 4th edition mentality of only combat matters.


zagnabbit wrote:

@Leo 1925

I remember the 3.5 Druid. Yet somehow in practice the PF version seems even more abusive to the other classes. I was lumping on the save bit with the Oracle, honestly I think the Oracle is fine but I'll echo another posters sentiment that the curses seem to be forgotten by level 4 or 5 as an inconvenience; especially haunted and tongues. I've yet to see lame taken.

I'd like to point out I like the Gunslinger class, I don't like the gun rules. A WIS based fighter able to pull off crazy movie stunts is cool. I don't have a problem with guns, just the weird mechanics. I find I dislike I lots of things about the weapon rules in general and the odd need to make guns either awesome or sucktastic is just a worse case scenario.

I'd agree with the concept of the oracle: a sorcerer version of the cleric. If people don't like the oracle they should also disagree with the sorcerer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fatespinner wrote:

#2 - Alchemist: I just don't get this class. You hurl bombs at stuff. Okay, that's cool. And you maybe cast some primarily self-only buffs on the side. Yeah, you might make some helpful infusions for the party, but this class mostly buffs itself and blows things up. Mostly I see people taking a dip in this class for the extra tentacle attack it allows and then being a fighter and/or barbarian the rest of the way... which is a ridiculous visual, IMO.

This is a GM problem, not a player one. The GM has a final say over what a player can and cannot do. As a GM I would not have allowed it unless certain concessions where made by the player: such as not allowing that discovery till Alchemist 3 or higher, have the player look into finding the discovery, and/or try and find a 'reason' for that new 'arm'.

As for least favorite classes:

1. Summoner - I do not like the class because it could have been worked into some kind of archetype of the wizard instead of being its own.

2. Bard - I think the bard just needs to be reworked. Instead of the basic performances, it should have been a system like the alchemist discovery or rogue feats.

3. Prestige Classes - Yes, I know that it is not really a class but I feel that the 'basic' prestiage classes in the Core Rulebook and APG should be removed completely. Instead the current notion that prestige classes being determined within an individual campaign or focus (like the Living Monolith, etc.) should be embraced.


Toughest monster to fight? A cult of shoggoths who could summon albino penguins. At least until Cthulhu showed up.


Gilman the Dog wrote:

When my inspiration is lacking and I'm losing my players, I tend to throw in quirky stuff, improvise things not in the rules at all but sound like fun. I threw in a store that sold magic carpets once (with the deluxe model having the option - for more gold of course - to be flameproof with a heavy crossbow mounted on the back). None of this had anything to do with the adventure, and the PC's at that point already had a few (short term) means of flying. But it got them very involved, talking to each other about how large a carpet to buy and whether or not to get it fireproofed. One of the more practical, min-maxing characters thought it was a waste and refused to contribute (a point not forgotten by the players to this day). It was fun, it got them off their Blackberries, and it got things moving again.

Are fireproofed magic carpets that somehow unfold with a crossbow mounted on them in the rules? No. But this is fantasy. Anything possible, spark the imagination, that kinda s*%4. It works for me, anyway. I get stifled sometimes by the rules. Don't get me wrong, the game needs a framework, but sometimes it needs a departure, too.

This may not seem feasible in a planned adventure path, but maybe you're feeling too straightjacketed by the way the adventure is supposed to go. Players aren't the only ones allowed to go off the rails for a while.

This is the kind of stuff I love to throw at those kind of players: they hate non-combat encounters and being forced to roleplay.


If you're the GM, just throw fewer combats at them. Let them face off against diplomatic or trap based challenges. Force them to use their other stats, have a chase, and so on. There's a number of different options you can go with.


Let's end this thread right here. According to the Inner Sea World Guide, "Although severe, the Hellknights are not an evil group. There are ertainly numberous evil members - particularly amoung the upper echelons of power - but the majority of the members are lawful neutral, with members of all lawful alignments filling out the ranks of each order." (pg 266)

A Hellknight venerates law and justice. They are called Hellknights partly because of the imposing armor they wear. Paladins CAN be Hellknights. To those who believe otherwise, you need to talk to Paizo.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Not every game is about going off and fighting things.

No, but D&D/PF overwhelmingly IS about those things. There are hundreds of pages of rules detailing how to kill things, poison them, burn them to death, or shoot them with arrows. There's like one page of half-rules on how to interact with them socially.

If instead of going off and fighting things, you'd rather intercept secret codes, seduce femmes fatales, and maybe foil plans to nuke New York -- then the James Bond 007 game is about 437 trillion times better than D&D/PF. If you'd rather hack computer systems, pull off impossible heists, and blackmail dragons, then Shadowrun is far, far superior to D&D/PF. If you want to kill monsters and take their stuff, then D&D/PF still rules.

Caineach wrote:
And you don't have to resort to overexagerated examples.
Are you kidding? I've actually DONE that. Only we didn't even bother stating levels, so my example is understated, if anything.

You can go through entire sessions in Pathfinder without combat. Combat is only one part of the system. There is not alot about the role playing section in the rules because players (and the GM) will conduct that on their own. A huge problem with a large number of players now is that combat is the only way they can see a solution to their problems or become so bogged down with it that they cannot see its limitations.


Mutants and Masterminds released a book (I believe in 2010) called "Mecha and Manga" that pretty much allows the player to create most of the genres of anime. The entire system of M&M is built to deal with a large range of different powers and concepts.


kid america wrote:

Not to be a dick but here is what I would like to see ... the folks at Paizo take their time with the Advanced Race Guide.

It is very disappointing to see so many two and three reviews for Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat. I am one of the disappointed three star Ultimate Magic hardcover owners. Which in turn has made me gun-shy about purchasing Ultimate Combat.

I understand there is the need to keep money coming in every month to pay the bills. But I am also a consumer who is speaking with their wallet. If you don't produce products at a certain quality level, you don't get my money.

Underdeveloped, underperforming and luke warm products are not what Paizo needs, what Paizo is known for, or what Pathfinder players and followers want. It was a problem at Wizards of the Coast with 3.5, and I would hate to see it happen so early on in Paizo's Pathfinder line.

To the folks at Paizo perhaps take a couple big steps back and take a good third and forth look at the Advanced Race Guide as it continues to develop. Maybe even bring in an outside consultant to review and give feedback on the project. Sometimes those on the inside are too close to the project to see the big picture, to see what is missing, underdeveloped, or needs more polishing on a product. Another suggestion would be to read through the Advanced Race Guide Messageboard posts from players (your consumers).

Don't get me wrong I love the Pathfinder game system and play it two to four times per month. But three underperforming products in a row starts to leave players (consumers) hesitating and wondering whether to invest more money in Paizo products.

I thought that the last few books were great for a number of different perspectives. There were options for both the player AND the GM. A large number of negative reviews only centered on the player perspective which is a lackluster way to approach it.


Venomblade wrote:
You could always make it a kidnapping. The big powerful NPC wants to deal with the thief personally. Then the party has a new quest to rescue their friend!

Although an assassin could be 'fair', I do think that this option (kidnapping) or just plain stealing the book back would be the better choice.

Always going with the 'avoid death' should not be used in every encounter/situation. Golarion can be a dangerous place and players should know that. Do not let them get too over confidant.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Bullette Point wrote:
Have you thought about an RP section? I would like to hear how you would do a character with the dump stats every time you make a magus.

Its an optimization guide. Dump stats are sadly a fact of life when optimizing, since you're looking to tweak the character for performance, not necessarily roleplaying.

Thats not to say that the guide isn't useful for non-fully optimized builds; it was a great resource when I was recently statting up a new magus... I just knew that since I wanted to have a 14 charisma and good diplomacy, I'd be taking a performance hit for it.

Isn't Pathfinder a role playing game?


Have you thought about an RP section? I would like to hear how you would do a character with the dump stats every time you make a magus.


You can always use feats to get you there while keeping the weapon style to a backup weapon.


It's a great class but I only wish it had more in common with the 2nd edition rogue archetype. The charlatan had the ability to 'appear' as any of the other classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

Sword canes are for style and class. Carrying around something a bit more sophisticated than an average weapon.

I LOVE the idea of sword canes... but Pathfinder dropped the ball on them.

The MAIN characters who would use it... would be bards and Rogues. Those trying to blend with high society... or get weapons where they aren't supposed to.

However they need to take a Feat to use it. FAIL. The Sword Cane isn't worth a feat. Feats are way too valuable.

I was able to convince my DM that Sword Canes and Rapiers are essentially the same weapon. Same fighting style.. just a weaker and hidden blade. Now, we've house rule-added "This weapon shares a proficiency with Rapier"

Now the weapon is usable.

The problem is that there are a large number of people who do not care for the roleplaying aspect of such a weapon. Rather they generally only care about the min/max aspect of the game.


I like both classes for the number of differences they lend to the table. Wizards tend to be looked at as your classic book-carrying weakling while the Sorcerer is the charismatic-carrying weakling. Power gamers to tend to push that image but both can be extremely complex.

The biggest reason for this is the large number of schools anf focused schools for the wizard and the various bloodlines for the sorcerer. A Necromancer can certainly be different from a Conjurer. A Celestral Sorcerer will be completely different from another Sorcerer with the Arcane or Destiny bloodline.

In Ultimate Combat there is the Spellslinger who can take a completely different approach with spells than your normal wizard.


My favorite backup weapons are Bluff and Stealth.

When I cannot use those I reach for a dagger or gauntlet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Instead of the kensai, you could go with the Myrmidarch who can use Ranged Spellstrike.


Hellknights are 'strongly skewed towards LN' from the Inner Sea World Guide so Paladins can certainly work with them. We have to remember that there are also many different orders of Hellknights. A Paladin may have something to say about the Order of the God Claw and their dogma with LE deties or with the majority of the orders centered in Chelix.

On the ranger hand, you could see one being a hellknight. The Order of the Pike itself hunts down various monsters, for example. A DM could adjust the armor feature to include some kind of medium armor instead of the plate. OR the ranger could prefer not to use the plate armor.


There are a large number of games that use the features listed. There are also a large number of different Fire Emblem games that feature different stories and characters and it wasn't the first to use a caravan, relationships, or the hero rising to power nor will it be the last.

I did think the rock/paper/scissors mechanic to Fire Emblem has always been pretty weak. Other strategy/rpg games like FEDA, Shining Force, FFT, Ogre Battle, Disgaea, and so on outclass it.

On side note: when are we going to get an Adventure Path that spans generations?


Well a conjurer can certainly bring a lot of versitility to a party with a wide range of different spells. Many of these spells will be not be availible to the summoner. There are also the types of conjurers (from APG) to consider too.

The summoner, on the other hand, can create a very useful eidolon or a large amount of cannon fodder.


You have to remember labor costs involved.


You could really use any of the Orders for the character. Can you give any insight into your character? It may help with determining an acceptable Order for him.

Even a low charisma character can make a great Braggart.


lastgrasp wrote:

Thanks James for clearing that up. Maybe spain analogy will show up in the south american. Sorta like long forgotten Conquistador from the past. ;-)

So Iobaria the Russian analogy?

OR we could see an El Cid period of Spain.


Laurefindel wrote:
Bullette Point wrote:
There really is no need to change the class. Rather, you should focus on roleplaying to present the feel as the classic version of a knight. If you can find it, look at the 2nd edition Paladin's Handbook.

You are correct off course. Going farther, you could play a rogue and fluff-it up to a knight.

Exactly my point, the player needs to create the character and give him meaning through roleplaying. You should not need Paizo's hand to walk you through being a paladin. The basics are already there in the core rulebook. All you need to do is insert the personality.


There really is no need to change the class. Rather, you should focus on roleplaying to present the feel as the classic version of a knight. If you can find it, look at the 2nd edition Paladin's Handbook.


From the spoiled information so far, the gunslinger is fine. No, the class should not have been a monk with guns or be forced to have shot on the run. Remember the the class is a variant of the fighter who focuses on groups of different firearms rather than other weapons.


It sounds like the Dragoon is more in lines with a lancer of the period rather the firearm based version.

Anything interesting about some of the rogue archetypes?


What about the Charlatan? Is it similiar to the 2nd edition one?

How about the chameleon? Only a stealthed based assassin or is he actually fun like the 3.5 version?

Lastly, did the Holy Gun paladins get some love?


I would say that it would depend on the siege weapon. A catapult or cannon would probally not be able to sneak attack but something like a scorpion or ballista could, given circumstances.


If it is used by a government, state, or local authority then it is a form of execution and not considered evil.


The charlatan from 2ed is back. Wonderful times ahead.


Stewart Perkins wrote:

Another trait I'm contemplating.... A gunslinger style trait.

I know it's sort of steps on the toes of the gunslinger here, but...

  • Pistoleer: You begin play with a pirate weapon, a pistol. This is effectively the same as a gunslingers starting gun, being battered (broken for anyone who isn't you) and only worth 2d10gp if sold. You also start with 5 shots (and equivelant powder)

Too good?

You could just use the existing traits. They can help establish the character. Any of the social traits can work. A pirate who came from lost nobility or with a hellknight ancestry would be interesting. Any of the traits should only cover a part of a character's background that may not be directly related to the story.

Campaign traits are the exception but these really only exist to tie the character to that campaign. Otherwise, a non-trait description will work.


All but the universalist schools are fine as they are. It's not a question of whether or not one school is strictly better than any other, but more of a question of relevance. Yes, the divination (foresight) school will always be useful in a large number of situations. However, every other school is extremely useful in their given areas.

The only exception is the universalist. The 'school' is weaker because of its lack of the extra spell. There are a number of ways that the school could be expanded or 'fixed'. Perhaps the ability to learn a spell for free every level without having to reading/study/create it. Maybe a 3 + Int modifier ability to change a prepared spell (level 2 or lower). I'm sure there are a number of suitable ways.


Could you ask the player why he wants to be a necromancer and a death domain cleric? If you do that and ask for a background you will most likely find your answer.


Gorbacz wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Panzer Dragoon!

What is the meaning of this post?

I love those games. What made you say this about the blog post?

Because I love those games too, and I sure hope this book helps me build one.

That or a FFIV Dragoon.

You would be better off with the beast master. The dragoon fighter archetype would deal with light cavalry related skills and a gun (probally the blunderbuss).


Humans are fine mechanically. I prefer their racials to any other race except for certain exceptions.

If players do not want to be humans, then that is the player's choice. Humans in Golarians are extremely varied, much more so than any other race. We have Chelixians and Varisians. It's up to the individual player to make the character (and that word is important) interesting. You do not really need a dwarf's hatred, an elf's immunities, or a halfling's fearlessness to make a compelling human character.


I would like to see a revised take on Illumians. I always liked the background but felt they could have deserved more.


Where's the love for the Inquisitors?


The Tea Set will certainly be too powerful.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
In addition, there actually is mention of monstrous player characters in the Core Rulebook. I don't have the book on me, but I'll look it up later.

Page 406 (in the Gamemastering section) has the box of "Alternative Races" with the various monster races.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Run, Just Run wrote:


So why do people use them & why did pazio make them a playable race?

This bears repeating: Kobolds are not a PC race.

Any Bestiary Sidebar that says "(monster) Characters" is included for the GM to scratchbuild NPCs. By RAW, there are no PC races in the Bestiary. Please pass this information to anyone else you know laboring under this false assumption.

OR you can ask your DM if you can play one. Why is this important? Because the DM will have the ultimate say with what is and is not available to players when they generate their characters.

Please pass this information to anyone else you know.


Since today is the last day of the 2nd round of the Gunslinger playtest, I present my take on the class.

Hit Dice: D10
Class Skills: Same
Skill Ranks per level: 4 + Int Modifier (I feel as thought the class should be able to perform as many 'deeds' and antics off the combat grid as on it. The original 2 + Int Modifier just did not seem to give that flexibility)

Weapons and Armor Proficiency: Same

BAB: as Rogue, Bard, etc.
Saves: Good (Fort, Reflex); Bad (Will)

Level/Special:

1 / Gunsmith, Grit, Deeds
2 / Deed
3 / Utility Shots
4 / Deed
5 / Gun Focus
6 / Deed
7 / Determination
8 / Deed
9 / Gun Focus 2
10 / Advanced Deeds, Deed
11 / Determination
12 / Deed
13 / Gun Focus 3
14 / Deed
15 / Determination
16 / Deed
17 / Alternative Gun Focus
18 / Deed
19 / Determination
20 / True Grit, Deed

Gunsmith: Same

Grit: 3 + Wis Modifier at first level but no Extra Grit feat. At 10th level and 20th level, the Gunslinger gains an extra 1 + wis modifier to her grit. Recovering grit is the same as in the pdf and with an emphasis on daring acts restoring grit.

Deeds: I believe that deeds should be based on a system similar to rogue feats. The reason is to allow as much flexibility to someone making a gunslinger as possible. Pathfinder is a great system because of the flexibility it offers to players when playing any class and opening up deeds can really help the class for players looking to craft that musketeer, line infantry, grenadier, buccaneer, etc.

At first level, a gunslinger gains the following deeds: Deadeye, Gunslinger's Dodge, Quick Clear, and Hardiness. The first three as the same as in the pdf. Hardiness functions as Endure Elements with a caster level equal to the Gunslinger's and with a grit cost of 1.

Deed List:

Deft Shootist: as pdf

Leaping Shot: as pdf but only requires lvl6

No Name: as pdf but only requires lvl4

Secret Stash: as pdf

Ricochet Shot: as pdf but does not require Bling Fight

Pistol Whip: as pdf

Dead Shot: as pdf and only requires lvl8

Trick Shot: as the Archer's ability from the APG and requires 1 grit point

Evasion: requires a grit point in the pool

Uncanny Dodge: requires a grit point in the pool

Explosive Stash: As a full round action, the gunslinger may ready and throw a splash weapon. This requires 1 grit point.

Bounty: as a Ranger's favored enemy. Requires 1 grit point and lasts 24 hours.

Combat Deed: When a gunslinger chooses this deed, she chooses a number of combat feats up to her Int modifier (minimum 1). As a swift action, the gunslinger may pay 1 grit point and recieve the benefit of one of the feats for 1 minute per Gunslinger level. The gunslinger must meet all requires for the feat. This deed can be chosen multiple times and cannot be chosen for Signature Deed or True Grit.

Charmer: as the rogue talent from APG

Keen Senses: As long as the gunslinger has a grit point, she gains the benefit of the spell.

Close Quarters: As long as the gunslinger has a grit point, she may use this ability. As a full-round action, the gunslinger may attack with a one handed melee weapon using her BAB and then can make a ranged attacked with a one handed firearm. This ranged attack does provoke an attack of opportunity unless the gunslinger possess other deeds or spends 1 grit point.

Alternative Use: The gunslinger can use her pistol, blunderbuss, or musket as a martial weapon. The pistol and blunderbuss count as Light maces and the musket counts as a great club.

Bayonet Training: Allows the addition of a bayonet to a musket, changing the weapon to spear with all the usual benefits (set defense, etc.). The gunslinger, as an immediate action, can spend 1 grit point to attached or detach the bayonet.

Gunslinger's Skill: When a gunslinger chooses this deed, she chooses 2 skills. As long as the gunslinger has a grit point, she can make a skill check untrained and adds her Wis modifier to the roll.

Natural Cunning: When a gunslinger chooses this deed, she chooses a number of class skills equal to her Wis Modifier. When the gunslinger 'takes 10' on one of the choosen skills, she may spend 1 grit point to take a number equal to her Wis Score instead of the 10.

Utility Shots: as pdf.

Gun Focus: When the gunslinger reaches level 5, the gunslinger begins to develop an aptitude for one type of firearm (pistol, musket, or blunderbuss). This aptitude provides a bonus when using the associated type of firearm as the gunslinger grows in level.

First, the gunslinger adds her Dex Modifier to the damage rolls with the associated firearm type. Secondly, the type of firearm will add an additional bonus, based on the type and level of the gunslinger:

Pistol:
At lvl5, the gunslinger adds her Wis Modifier to her Initiative rolls. In addition, the gunslinger gains the Quick Draw feat.

At level 9, the gunslinger may add one of the qualities to one of her pistols: keen, lucky, or reliable. This quality does not stack with other qualities of the gun. In addition, the gunslinger may spend 1 grit point to act in the surprise round, even if she failed to notice foes. The gunslinger counts as flat-footed during this round.

At level 13, the gunslinger may add one of the following qualities to one of her pistols: greater luck, steadfast, or wounding.

Blunderbuss:
At lvl5, the gunslinger adds her Wis Modifier on rolls to confirm critical hits. The gunslinger also has the ability to create a special round for use, the "Dragon's Breath".

Dragon's Breath
When a gunslinger fires a Dragon's Breath round from a firearm with the Scatter quality, she adds an additional 1d4 fire damage to every target hit by the cone. Regardless of the result, the firearm is considered broken. Cost: 30g

At lvl 9, the gunslinger can create more larger calibur bullets and more explosive powder for use with the dragon pistol or blunderbuss. This allows the gunslinger to add her Str modifier to the damage roll with the blunderbuss.

At level 13, I do not know just yet. I have not had enough encounters with the weapon to go this far.

Musket:
At level 5, the gunslinger adds her Wis Modifier to the attack roll. In addition, the gunslinger reduces the Misfire number when using a musket by 1.

At level 9, the gunslinger adds 10 feet to the range of the musket. In addition, as long as the gunslinger has a grit point, increase the damage of the musket by one step.

At level 13, the gunslinger may spend 1 grit point, as a swift action, to ignore up to five points of damage reduction on a creature hit by a ranged attack with a musket. This effect lasts a number of rounds equal to the gunslinger's Wis modifier.

Alternative Gun Focus: At lvl 17, the gunslinger gains the level 5 Gun Focus of a different type of firearm.

Determination: At level 7, the gunslinger chooses one of the following conditions: blinded, cowering, entangled, fascinated, frighened, shaken, sickened, or stunned. The gunslinger reduces all negative modifiers of the condition by 1 (minimum 1). At level 11, 15, and 19, the gunslinger chooses a different condition.

In addition, the gunslinger may spend 1 grit point to negate the effects of fear, exhaustion, or fatigue for 1 round. This grit is spent at the beginning of the round.

Advanced Deeds: The gunslinger adds more deeds to the list of available deeds.

Advanced Deeds:

Signature Deed: as pdf

Stunning Shot: as pdf

Expert Loading: as pdf

Menacing Shot: as pdf

Slinger's Luck: as pdf but only 1 grit point for both costs

Improved uncanny Dodge: requires Uncanny Dodge

Improved Evasion: requires Evasion

Targeting: as pdf but head shot causes blinded for 1 round instead of confusion

Cheat Dead: as pdf

Death's shot: as pdf but requires level 18

Gunslinger's Mobility: as long as the gunslinger has a grit point, she may make a second 5 foot step every turn. The gunslinger has use this extra 5 foot step a number of times a day equal to her Wis Modifier.

Withdrawing Surprise: Once per day, the gunslinger may spend a grit point when she uses a withdrawl action. After the movement, the gunslinger may fire one of her firearms with a -2 penalty.

True Grit: as pdf.

New Feat: Extra Deed.

Why 'she'? I'm just going by the awsome picture that's availible in the pdf. Well, and the gunslinger I've been testing with is a Changling (the one from Carrion Crown). :D