Cozzymandias's page

Hi all! I'm currently working on a pathfinder infinite product, the Wanderer's Guide, which will contain optional rules, magic items, archetypes, and a class, all based around adventurers who follow the road wherever it takes them. I've been posting my archetypes on reddit as I complete them, but now that I have a good handful that have already had one editing pass, I thought I'd post them here and get some more feedback, since this has been a good place to get really in-depth thoughts in the past.

Without beating around the bush, here's the link, if you're interested: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GVtrR6ihfbVpnc3dejXctIBTVEMwgsni/view?usp= sharing

If you need more enticement, a brief elevator pitch for each archetype included so far:
- The Arsenal, a weapon-swapping archetype for those who want to be a weapon porcupine without using ABP or be Dante from Devil May Cry
- The Monster Gourmand, a top-down archetype inspired by the manga Delicious in Dungeon which also offers an alternative to treat wounds for out-of-combat healing
- The Justicar, an aggressive divine archetype that offers big smites for those who miss their PF1e or 5e Paladin
- The Elemental Savant, an archetype that allows you to focus on specific energy damage types, band-aiding my complaints with the elemental sorcerer and expanding those options to martials
- The Wildspeaker, another top-down archetype inspired by things like Ghost of Tsushima's wind mechanic, which allows characters to cast flavorful divination spells a few times per day

I appreciate any thoughts!

It felt like a very second tier class that someone plays purely because the y like the concept, but would actively avoided by anyone looking for optimal play.

This is kinda true of every post-CRB class afaik, and I have a hard time believing it's not intentional on the part of the designers. It seems like their goal is that the classes powergamers seek out tend to be the core classes, which for the most part have a much wider thematic range of characters they can support. The idea being, I think, that people who want a specific concept can play the appropriate class, and people who want power still have a range of concepts to choose from, thus creating the biggest range of character concepts for the biggest range of playstyles.

Whether they go to far on this is up for debate, but IMO it's definitely deliberate to an extent.

Still, I wish there were no spells that required deities. I'd take it if the spells gave deity bonuses but to completely invalidate a spell on an already limited list just because of deity absence rubs me the wrong way, at least in context with the Oracle.

There is one spell that which gives me hope: Divine Armageddon. It still gates out casters with no deity but it's a step forward for true neutral deities.

I really wish there was a rule on a "generic version" of all the deity-based spells, for characters without a deity. It's possible to work around for sure, but there are still *so many* high-level divine spells that require a deity, and its a real issue for oracles and like, divine sorcs/witches/summoners. What I ended up doing when I played a diabolic sorcerer during the playtest was using the effects for Asmodeus since that was the source of my character's power despite not actually worshipping him, but it's an annoying workaround to have to deal with.

I played a flames oracle blaster with sorcerer MC (for extra slots and dangerous sorcery) to level 20 with no deity, and never had any issues just upcasting lower-level blasts in place of deity-specific spells. That said, blaster casters are a divisive topic on here (and in fairness I think I was helped by my GM tending to prefer lots of minions for high-difficulty fights over like a PL+4 boss), so YMMV.

I think the way to go might be to make Flashing Parry/Counter more similar to the TWF Parry feats. I mean right now if you were melee why wouldn't you want to use Flashing Counter every time you can, unless you were about to die? Free extra attack why your attacked in melee? Yes please. Wait you mean I can also make the target miss? Oh and there a feat where I get additional reactions and +2 to attack with reactions?

That's just too good. It might be smoother to have Flashing Parry as the retort it is now. A Parry Stance which is no retort but + AC while inside, and Flashing Counter trigger on a crit failure against you with the option to spend Grit and counter as it is now.

That's more inline with current melee characters, Gunslinger as ranged should be fine.

While its true that flashing counter is much better than the existing dueling riposte/twin riposte, that was an intentional choice because those two feats are, frankly, terrible. Compared to other reactions that allow for an attack like AOO and paladin reactions, their trigger will almost never come up, AND you have to have used dueling/twin parry the turn before. So I designed flashing counter in line with AOO and friends rather than dueling riposte.

This to me, and maybe it's a bit harsh, is a rather boring rotation of events because there's no variability in it really at all. You're literally treadmilling your abilities so that you can get access to your actions.

That's a good point, so much so that I think its probably worth making potentially major changes to account for it.

Personally, I like being focused on reactions because it has an inherent interactivity since you have to decide which enemy attack/ability to use your reaction on (and the argument that it's stepping on swash's toes is kinda moot since they've apparently been removed from the final version). So I'm going to instead try to adjust the way Grit is used, rather than how its gained.

Having grit have a passive bonus like panache is definitely a good idea, but in addition to that I have another idea that might help: having spending grit be optional. Basically, grit actions would have a base version that you can use as long as you have grit but which doesn't consume it, and then they would have an additional effect if you choose to spend grit when you use the action. This allows more player agency and choice in deciding whether to keep grit for the passive buff and to potentially use >1 grit action in your turn, or whether to spend it to gain the additional effect.

I can probably also cut down on the number of class feats that are grit actions; there's probably a good number of them that could stand to just be flourishes instead.

Probably gonna wait for a few more responses to roll in before I start discussing stuff, but one thing that already seems to be a pretty common thought:

I definitely agree that Lightning Draw was somewhat more flavorful than Drifter's Gambit, and it took me quite a lot of brainstorming to come up with something I was happy with for Drifter's Gambit in the first place. However, I just could not come up with a solution for Lightning Draw that was elegant and balanced--the more I thought about it, the more of a problem it was that you couldn't refresh Grit during combat at level 1, and the delay solution that was floated was a lot of awkward bookkeeping IMO since you'd be bouncing around in initiative every single combat.

With that said, I'm more happy with the thematicness and gameplay loop on the class paths with drifter's gambit than other folks seem to be. The Drifter gets to take the bullet and shoot back while incentivizing using high-power, multi-action attacks that might otherwise not be used due to the chance of missing, the Ronin gets to charge through the pain while helping with their positioning, particularly vs ranged combatants which is otherwise kind of rough for them, and the Outlaw gets to do a dirty trick while setting up their various payoffs for negative conditions (although I do agree that particular one is a little awkward).

Version 2.0 is done!

I would of course appreciate feedback on both the changes and the new stuff--For those who have been following this thread, there's a page listing all the changes at the back of the document so you don't have to reread the whole thing.

Some notes on this version: While I'm very happy with the changes to the grit economy, I'm not entirely pleased with the higher-level feats. There are a lot of feats shared with existing classes because they seemed appropriate, and not as many new ones as I'd like; There are also almost no high-level retorts. I'd appreciate suggestions in those areas so that I can fill them out some more.

Also, the In the Nick of Time feat is VERY experimental and there's not really anything existing like it, so it may not fit with everyone's table, but its super cool and thematic so I threw it in anyway.

Also, as far as my next draft goes--

Would there be an interest in my posting my second draft here? It seems like this is a pretty popular idea, so I think its worth my editing it and doing the last 10 levels.

Additionally, while I was writing it it occurred to me that I should maybe include the animal companion feat line, since the "A man and his dog" and the "A man and his horse" tropes are both pretty core to the genre I'm shooting for here. Do people think this is a good idea? My only concern is it might have a butterfly effect on balance in allowing two powerful moves per turn, since so many of the stronger grit actions are 2 actions.

Wow, I didn't expect this kind of response! A lot of this is fantastic feedback since this is my first homebrew for PF2 so I don't have a perfect grasp of the balance yet.

Some thoughts on people's suggestions:

Regarding Lightning Draw, what if it conferred Slowed 1 for 1 round on you when you use it? That way it's not breaking the action economy so much as giving you a first round action upon rolling initiative rather than waiting your turn.

I REALLY like this idea--it seems pretty clear from people's feedback that lightning draw is overtuned (although I'm still not sure why, since as far as I can tell it boils down to 1 free attack per combat, which is less mileage than I saw my party's fighter get out of AoO at level 1). I think I'm definitely stealing this for my next version of this class.

Everyone else has generally my same thoughts on the mechanics of the class, so I'll address the items.[...]

Thanks for this, weapon balance is probably one of the aspects I have the least handle on so this is super helpful.

Grit is too easy to get!

This seems to be a pretty prevalent opinion, and I'm curious why that is? On my reading of the swashbuckler, it seems like the actions they use to get grit are usually things you'd be spending your third action on instead of an attack anyway, and they'd likely also be getting Panache every turn--and furthermore Panache grants some pretty strong passive buffs while you have it, which Grit doesn't do. Perhaps it would be more balanced if retorts only restored grit if the action is successful? This might also help bring Lightning Draw more in line, since it would mean you only start the combat with grit if the attack hits.

[...]but it's worth mentioning that I do agree that Warrior-Poet shouldn't just grant a straight skill increase.

I agree, I just couldn't come up with something better when I was writing this first draft. I like your idea, and might go with something similar.

I found some of the ideas re: the Drifter class pretty cool, and threw together my take on it over on the homebrew forum if any of y'all are interested

There's been an idea going around the forums for a couple weeks of a Drifter class which combines the fantasy of gunslingers, samurai movies, and other themes into a single grit-based class. I found this idea pretty inspiring, so I decided to try my hand at putting it together as a sort of reverse-playtest-swashbuckler that uses special reactions to gain grit, then spends it to use various special attacks.

Only the first 10 levels so far because feats take forever to right, and I think the balance of some of the feats might be a little on the high end at the moment, but overall I'm happy enough with it to look for feedback.

Also, I decided to take the path of least resistance on guns and just make them essentially advanced-weapon crossbows instead of something fancier, since they aren't realllly the focus of the class.

The full class is here, thanks for taking a look!

In fact with one of the paths within the archetype, you can choose your halcyon spells from *any* list, which is definitely worth the reduction in max spell level.

I hope those slots go up to at least level 6. I mean i find the flavor cool and all but only gaining a level 1 spell with a level 6 feat seems a bit weak specially if compared with basic spellcasting.

They go up to 7th level spells

It's worth noting that all of the archetypes that grant spellcasting in LOWG (red mantis, runescarred, and lion blade) only have basic and expert spellcasting, i.e. only go up to 6th level spells, which imo sets a pretty strong precedent for half-casters to exist later on in the games life as classes.

I seem to recall seeing somewhere one of the devs explaining why MC archetypes seem lackluster at first glance.

I don't have the exact quote, but the gist was that broadly speaking, class features give additional power and feats give additional options. Since an MC archetype is trading feats and not features, they are designed to give additional options but NOT additional power--since you still have full progression in your base class, you should always be on-curve in terms of raw DPR just from that.

This is why, for example, rogue MC sneak attack only goes up to a d6, Barb MC rage damage doesn't scale, etc.--its EXTRA damage on top of what your class already gives, not trading damage (or healing or whatever) from your class for damage from a different class.

There seems to be a lot of discussion about when classes can get weapon proficiency bumps. Can you summarize what level different proficiency bumps come online for each class?

Personally I want an archer bard, so likely a dip in fighter for archery feats anyways (since they seem to be class gated), but will I be behind the non-fighter curve having come from a caster class? When do other martial classes get master proficiency?

Yes, you'll be behind the non-fighter curve. It's impossible to get better than expert proficiency in weapons if your main class is a caster, and they don't get it til level 11 (and you can't get expert in weapons your class doesn't give access to til 12). That said, from what I've seen expert prof with level-appropriate magic weapons will still hit on like an 11-12, and you can make up the difference with buffs/flat-footed/etc, so a gish with caster as the main class can still do ok.

It's worth pointing out that while people are straw-man-ing about asking for pure casters to be as good as martials, this issue applies even to casters who multiclass into a martial class that isn't fighter.

A wizard who takes the barbarian multiclass will do *more damage* with a staff than a cool, thematic barbarian weapon like a greatsword, because not only will they be more likely to hit with it, they don't get weapon specialization damage because they're not expert, so a d8 weapon you're expert in does the same damage as a d12 weapon you're trained in.

It doesn't seem like too much to ask that someone who has put significant resources into being barbarian-y be as effective with thematically appropriate martial weapons than with whatever different sizes of sticks paizo thinks wizards should be able to use.

Did the Rod of Wonder make it into the game?

Yes, it did. Can be used every 1d4 hours, list of effects are unchanged from the playtest afaik. A pretty cool item, I didn't see it when I was flipping through the playtest!

nohar wrote:

i still don't quite understand how xp works in the new system...the playtest rules didn't explain it well to me and since doomsday dawn didn't award xp i never got to see any examples in action...hopefully the final rules will do a better job of making me understand...

I'm a bit confused about it as well. I was hoping Stephen would go into more detail about that, but it got skipped for juicier parts that would be interesting to more players.

It seems weird to me that it only takes 1000xp per level instead of an increasing amount each level.

Assuming it works the same as the playtest, XP is now based not on the actual CR of the encounter but rather the encounters CR relative to APL. So for example a CR 5 encounter would give a level 3 party 400 XP (or whatever) while the same encounter would give a level 7 party 200 XP. this way, you get more XP for punching above your weight, but the amount needed to level up can stay at a nice neat 1000 XP/level.

It's also worth noting that most systems that incorporate failing forward do not have a binary pass/fail system - it's not "succeed vs succeed anyway but at a cost" as many here are suggesting, but rather "succeed vs succeed but at a cost vs totally fail", where failing forward falls largely into the middle category.

That said, most games that use a system like this also have a mechanic in place to prevent "stagnant failures". For example, in PbTA games, on a total failure the GM is directed to take a "hard move" introducing a new, pressing, and dangerous wrinkle to the situation.

To use the example of picking the lock on a door, a total success would be picking the lock, a partial success would be making noise and guards opening the door to fight you, and a total failure might be something like failing entirely to open the door, and being attacked from behind by guards you had previously snuck past.

Another interesting take on Witch hexes might be to have them function similarly to many class abilities from Starfinder, with an at-will effect and then a stronger version of that effect that requires spending a Resolve Point (or in this case a focus point).

Speaking of Starfinder, I'm currently working on converting the system as a whole to use playtest rules (to be updated to the full rules when I have them), and it's surprisingly easy! Almost all the classes have a "choice of feature every even level" chassis that's pretty trivial to map onto class feats, and very few of those features reference numbers much so there's not a huge amount of rewriting to be done.

As much as I agree with the fact that this reading would make it kinda underpowered, I think it definitely does the damage removed (i.e. 1 at level 1), first because that's the way the rules text reads to me and second because that seems to fit the ability's fluff better; you're sharing the pain with the enemy, so you're removing damage from yourself and putting the same damage on them.