I like the mystery element and the interesting ties to House Rogarvia. The chance to go kill some uppity nobles is something that every player can appreciate and the suggested threat of dragon-based vengeance on those who spite or fight them is an interesting twist.
This definitely has my vote. I'd say one of the best entries for round two.
I simply don't understand how you could find the wording unclear. The spell has a will save. The will save negates the effect of the spell. If the target passes the will save, the spell doesn't occur so the "automatically" doesn't apply. The reason the Devs ruled the FAQ wasn't necessary was because this is exactly how it is intended to work and how it does work. No amount of language mangling will make that any different.
I understand wanting to clear up confusing wordings and rules, but this is just ridiculous. There is no ambiguity here.
I'm saying the same mechanic that grit uses has existed for well over a year and half. The flavour is different but the idea is the same. You don't like the flavour, fine. Define it differently. The mechanic is sound and works well within the class. Nothing you have said changes that.
I'm not sure why you quoted my statement on killstealing. You have said nothing to counter my point nor has anything you said lent credence to your statements.
I thought hero points were an interesting mechanic, but not for every game. I don't long for a day that hero points are returned, but I certainly don't discount mechanics I don't like as "bad" or "broken".
No one was ever in doubt that we play very different games. The issue is not the games we play. You built this thread to propose changes to a class that you state is broken. I'm countering those statements with facts. Until you can actually provide evidence to back up your claims, your arguments boil down to "I don't like grit or the gunslinger so I'm changing it".
Thats totally fine. You're allowed to make whatever changes you like. That doesn't mean the class is broken or the mechanic doesn't work.
Ok. Lets start off by clarifying a few things.
There is no such thing as "killstealing" in pathfinder. Lets agree to stop referring to it as that. It implies there is some bonus to landing the killing blow. There isn't. It simply doesn't matter.
Having a list of abilities with a tally beside them is simply far more work than having a single resource pool. The introduction of an eraser does not change the reality that having a list of abilities with uses per day is far more to keep track of than a single pool. Don't want to erase things? get a piece of scrap paper and just scratch out and re-tally the number
Moving on to grit.
First off. There is more than one way to regain grit. Dramatic maneuvers and Critical hits also regain grit for the gunslinger. Do these encourage metagaming? What if someone builds a character designed to crit often? Dramatic Maneuvers are entirely at the discretion of the DM so thats hardly game breaking. If anything, dramatic maneuvers can be used to encourage and reward roleplay, the very thing that suffers because of grit according to you. There are multiple methods that the gunslinger can regain grit, only one of them that requires any sort of metagaming.
Second, the mechanic for regaining grit has been around in Pathfinder for some time now. The Hungry Ghost Monk has been out for a year and half and uses the same mechanic for regaining Ki. There are some good and fun builds that keep the Ki pool of the Hungry Ghost Monk quite full and rely entirely on getting the killing blow. The builds in question won't function the same way for the gunslinger, so he's already behind on resource generation (vs an archetype, not a base class).
Moving on, orchestrating kills can be very difficult so long as the fights are difficult for the players. Fights are not obligated to favour the players. Monsters getting low on HPs? They can withdraw to deny the gunslinger access to their touch AC. At that point, the gunslinger is required to spend Ki to gain the killing blow. No net gain there. The Grit pool requires resource management, but also helps to balance the class. Assigning per day uses to abilities removes that element of balance.
Another problem is that as players, you almost always have no way of knowing a creatures current HP. If the GM is giving you that information, metagaming is already involved. At that point, you can remove that by not telling players that information or requiring players make perception or heal checks to determine that information. That eats up Action economy of the party and reduces the desire to metagame some. Another option is adjusting fights to change the HP of creatures. Not all creatures need have the same HP value. Players have no way of knowing, without making a check or casting status on them, to know how creatures are doing. Even if you don't make these changes, the party must, by consensus, sacrifice action economy-- an implied resource-- to improve the resources of a single party member. This is not always going to be a fair, easy, or reasonable action. In a vaccuum yes, but play does not occur in a vaccuum, even organized play.
Organizing the party to benefit the gunslinger also suggests that the party is consistently dominating fights. If this is the case it is because the players are (a) very good at max-mining or (b) the encounters are not challenging enough. It could easily be both. The risk of prolonging a challenging encounter so that one player can benefit is not nearly beneficial enough in the long run to justify the risk. After all, wounded creatures can kill just as easily as healthy ones.
I'm going to quote a friend of mine directly on the last bit, because he summed it up far better than I ever could:
I still fail to see how killstealing for grit is broken, promotes metagaming more than any other mechanic currently present (Steal ki! circa 2010!) or otherwise upsets play. This is all theory. Has anyone actually had an experience where a gunslinger was changing the way the other players acted in combat or, god forbid, organized the party into a giant grit generator factory?"
Again, it all comes down to a basic problem I have with the class. They took a very simple concept and added a bunch of unneeded complicated mechanics because of a number of poor choices made at the initial design phase.
And again, you've yet to describe how Grit, a single resource is more complicated than a significant number of times per day abilities.
Grit gives players the flexibility to play the class how they want and on a case by case basis. It keeps the class interesting and balanced while still allowing players to have their own distinct flavour of gunslinger.
And again, that becomes a player and group issue, not a mechanic issue. So far all you have done is outline that a GM may need to keep an eye out to make sure his group is Meta-gaming too much. But that could be said with any mechanic, not just Grit. Also, if the creature is knocked out, that is essentially already dead (unless it has regen that hasn't been disabled) and the gunslinger wouldn't get the killing blow there.
The issue here is not that the mechanic doesn't work well, but that you don't like it. Which is fine. You don't have to like everything Paizo puts out. That doesn't make it a bad mechanic. You don't like it, so don't use it. No one is forcing you to use it or to allow it in games you run.
And you still haven't explained how your method is less bookkeeping than the current single resource pool.
Why does it matter who gets the killing blow? There isn't any benefit and if it encourages Team work to have the Gunslinger finish off monsters, why is that bad? Where is the rule that says "Players must not attack a monster that another player has killed"? If you have a group working to make sure the ginslinger always has a good amount of grit in his pool why is that a bad thing? The only problem I can see is if the Gunslinger is actively harming the party to replenish his grit, and thats a player issue, not a mechanic issue.
How is that any less bookkeeping than a single resource as opposed to one checklist for every ability? Yes its no different from Spellcasting. However, that doesn't mean its less to keep track of. Single pool of resources to track vs list of per days to track.
Change 4: Get rid of grit. Deeds are received like rogue talents. Deeds requiring grit are either made times per day, equal to "X" modifier (probably wisdom) or removed. Grit is a mechanic that encourages kill stealing, creates to much bookkeeping, and doesn't fit at the table. Let it go.
How does removing a central and singular resource pool and replacing it with individual abilities with individual uses reduce complexity? If anything it adds more bookkeeping and complexity to the class.
My own thoughts on Grit aside (I like the idea of it), I don't see how this does anything to make the class require less bookkeeping.
Wow, where to start.
Almost every class is situational. With a fighter, that situation is almost anything outside of combat. Need someone to talk your way out of a situation? Paladin or Ranger will (likely) be better. Paladin's have higher charisma (or should) and Rangers have far more skills to play with. Need to up your own Combat abilities to adjust for a difficult situation? Ranger and Paladin have spells to take care of that. Sure a wizard could probably cast more varied and powerful spells. The difference is that the Ranger and the Paladin have spells that are designed to augment their own abilities and skill sets. Is what the group fighting on Team Evil(evil outsider, dragon or Undead)? Paladins will wreck that s**t. They will just go to town and make it a goo pile. Fighters will look on in awe. Thats what the Paladin was designed to do. They can also help out combatants by spot healing, removing status ailments and pointing out when something is inherently evil very quickly.
Can a fighter track like a ranger? Nope. Can a fighter take advantage of terrains and enemy types to deal more damage? Nope. Should a GM let the ranger know what types of terrain will be most common and what enemy types will be most common? The GM doesn't have to, but in my opinion they sure should. That information is not game breaking and allows players to make smart decisions. If they have a list and choose to ignore it, that's their problem.
Yes, Paladin and Ranger are situational. Thankfully, combat is not the only aspect of a game. If it were, just have all your players roll fighters and enjoy. Otherwise, the two classes can fill a variety of roles and perform far better than a fighter in those areas.
No, you don't understand!
The Internet: Serious Business.
At 3rd level, a divine scion selects a domain granted by her deity—this domain becomes the divine scion’s chosen specialization in representing her deity. Although most divine scions pick domains that they’ve gained from other classes (such as cleric), they don’t have to do so. Every time a divine scion casts a domain spell from her specialized domain, she heals damage equal to twice the spell’s level.
Do you really need any more than these?
Myself and my group always rolls.
I can't stand point buy for Pathfinder or D&D. To each their own though. I much prefer the choices and challenge that rolling presents.
Thats just my opinion though.
Don't forget that Farmer Bob and Sir Slaughter need to have at least 5 Hit Dice before they can even show up on any Alignment-Radar(with the usual exceptions, like having the Aura class feature).
I was just about to post the link to this very fact. Commoners and low level adventurers can have all the evil thoughts they like. They can murder someone and still will not detect as evil as they are not high enough in HD to give off an aura of evil.
That being established, Farmer bob's evil thoughts will not offend the paladin in anyway unless he voices them within earshot of said paladin.
If the players would have avoided the encounter by sneaking around or hiding would they have gotten full XP?
Encounters, in my opinion, are not linear. Players should be rewarded for overcoming them. Overcoming an encounter is moving past it with the capacity to face new encounters.
Full XP for any of the above would be my call. There is no shame in running away from something just as there is no shame in not picking a fight with something that can eat you whole.
I think the layout and spacing on the newer books is far superior to the older, cramped style. The standards of publishing across the industry largely support this statement.
I get nostalgic about older books as well, but I would never want publishing to go back to that. Designers have learned a great deal since the first printings of D&D, let them use and it benefit from it.
PrCs should be something that is rare and tied to fluff. I loathe the PrC bloat of 3.5 and I would hate to see that occur in Pathfinder. Archetypes allow you to tailor your Core classes to a more specific play style without rendering your character advancement moot until you hit lvl X when you start taking levels in class X.
I'll stop there so this doesn't turn into another PrC vs Archetypes debate, but I think Paizo is keeping PrCs as something that is tied to the setting, and not a way to add mechanical functionality. That is something I am totally ok with, and frankly, I wouldn't want to see a book collecting all those PrCs collected in. They loose a great deal of their meaning if they're just another stat block to play with.
Multiple attacks take too long? Cutting them down I guess could work. Or the players could figure out things before their turn comes around, which would drastically reduce wait time. If the math is determined before hand and all you need to do is roll some dice and add two numbers, I don't see the problem. In almost every game I have played in fighters take very little time to determine what they're doing, whether they're ranged nukes, two handed weapon monsters or two weapon fighters (Although they generally take less time due to most of the rolls coming up as a miss :P).
I see this situation as less of a system problem and more of a "players are not adequately prepared for their turn" problem. Encourage players to have their turn worked out as much as they can and things will flow nicely without the need for neutering the combat system.
Obviously everyone will tweak the rules as they see fit, which is one of the major strengths of the system. Personally, I just don't see the appeal (or the situation that apparently causes the problem) to stripping down combat to such an extent.
Makes perfect sense to me. You can only take a 10 when your character is in no immediate danger and not distracted.
The contact another plane spell clearly states that
Contact with minds far removed from your home plane increases the probability that you will incur a decrease in Intelligence and Charisma due to your brain being overwhelmed, but also increases the chance of the power knowing the answer and answering correctly.
The spell itself takes 10 minutes to prep and lasts as long as you are concentrating on it. During that time you are required to make an intelligence check. Making a check WHILE maintaining the spell is a distracting situation because of the spell description.
Having to concentrate to prevent your mind from being overwhelmed seems pretty clear cut as a significant distraction to me.
Edited for Clarity.
Ooooh ok. Where to start.
-Replace his pants with a pair that upon him sitting down change their colour to purple, cast prestidigitation on him to change his skin green and cast enlarge person on him.
- Above the door to his tower put a bucket of sovereign glue. When he exits, the glue falls on him and the bucket casts summon swarm on him
- Mix a bit of sovereign glue in with his spellbook ink. Wait until he tries to re-open it. Laugh.
- rig his pillow to cast dawn 30 minutes after he lies down every night.
- Enchant his bed to teleport him into the town square every night.
My rooommate and I came up with dozens, but those are just the ones that came to mind immediately.
If I remember more I'll post them.
This doesn't sound like a balance issue. It sounds like you dislike Composite Bows and the way they function.
Balance is not merely A=B therefore balanced. Its something much more intangible and broad that covers all aspects of the the two(or more) things being compared. Composite bows have their positives and negatives. Crossbows have their positives and negatives. A variety of melee weapons have positive and negatives. Not all weapons are created equal and none of them were necessarily intended to be. As Alorha already showed, the numbers are fine. There was no gross disparity between damage in the comparisons made.
If you have such a problem with these bows, don't allow them in your games (And watch ranged fighters become more and more useless as the game progresses), but don't try scream that they're unbalanced. Absolutely nothing you've shown or said demonstrates that.
My experiences with Warlock always led me to feel that it was a playable class, but hardly broken...
Oh, and they make awesome, dare I say the best, healers!
This pure sarcasm and an inside joke between my friends in my gaming group and is in no way meant to be taken seriously.
It started during an age of worms game when the cleric started taking levels of warlock to help with his UMD. His justification was that it would leave more spells open for damage and help with group DPS. he ended up with 3 levels of cleric and 10+ levels of warlock. The party did not survive the adventure.
Actually, a quick check of the Pathfinder SRD yielded this...
Half-Strength = Strength / 2
But as Goth Guru just said, its simply scaling back the monster according to the rules. Unless I'm mistaken, there are rules for doing just that in either the Bestiary or the Game Mastery Guide.
Simulacra-Spells that rely on DM fiat to adjudicate are bad, spells that rely on the DM to reference the bestiary during the middle of the game are bad, spells that require the DM to modify the bestiary stats are double plus ungood.
The GM is supposed to be the adjudicator for spells such as this. Pathfinder is streamlined. It is hardly game breaking for the GM to have to take a few minutes for a spell that takes significant time and RP investment to throw together the stats.
To blanket label spells that require some thought and work on the part of a GM as bad is ridiculous. If the GM doesn't want to do the work, make the player do it and have the GM check it for accuracy. This is a spell that takes 12 IN GAME HOURS! The other players can RP what's going, or a game break can be taken. This is not a problem spell. Spells that are worded ambiguously and allow for exploiting the mechanical rules are bad. Simulacrum doesn't do either of these.
Also, if you can't rely on your GM to have fun with something akin to a wish spell, he's doing it wrong.
That doesn't seem broken to me. Let the player have the 3 wishes a day. Any decent DM that doesn't have a field day with a character who tries to make a wish factory is the one at fault. How is this very different from Gating in an effriti and dominating it? The creature you replicate is half as powerful as it should be, easy to break and stuck permanently at the level you create it. Not to mention the fact that it takes 12 hours and 500 GP/HD. Spells like this are far from broken. Aside from the high cost and time investment, it absolutely BEGS for the GM to regulate it. Sure mr Player. Have your simulacrum with 3 wishes per day. Just make sure you spend a good amount of time thinking exactly how to word your wish spell. Otherwise, BAM! Unintended consequence.
Personally, I think this comes down to a player and DM issue. If you don't like it don't use it or allow it to be used. Mechanically, I don't see a problem with it.
Im not sure how this is "broken"...
The wording clearly states that simulacrum isn't an exact duplicate of the creature. Its a poor man's copy. Its a sufficiently high level spell with hefty costs and time requirements. It only gets class feats and abilities and isn't capable of progressing or improving. If it dies it costs an arm and a leg to repair or another significant investment to make a new one.
Really, if this is broken, then I'd hate to see how broken the leadership feat is...