Crave's page

Is this product related in any way to the pathfinder alpha RPG? Is this a monster manual equivalent, or no?

Stop giving clerics things. They already have as many spells/day as a wizard, a better HD, 3/4 BAB, two good saves, no ASF, and more versatility because of dual domains....The proposed changes make them like wizards, only better.

We'd like to propose a change, or the added versatility of the cleric to accommodate a d4 hit die, 4 + skill per level, low BAB priest that has the same amount of spells per day as the sorcerer. A change like that, I believe, is what the members on the boards are looking for. Not so much to "add" to the cleric so much as we are looking to strip away the armor and give them more options with skills and spells.

Have you looked at the SRD under Variant Rules - Classes?

Near memorized them! I love these rules, and they're so close to what (I believe) needs to be done. Unfortunately its only so close. Many of these variants are too small to notice, or not worth the sacrifice. But this is the direction I believe Paizo should take. The idea that the "True20" books offer is great, and it works for its purpose. But True20 strips away the class system to nothing, which while works for many campaigns does not work for D&D. I'm hoping the Paizo classes will simply open up the options so much so that when a player takes a level in "Rogue", they can be a thief, a black widow assassin or a studied acrobat (ala indiana jones). Ranger's should be able to encompass anything from "Legolas" to "Batman". Wizards should be everything from "Necromancers" to "Summoner", clerics should accommodate light cloth priest and acolytes to the plate donning clerics we see in all the books today.

I feel these rules simply need to be written into the class instead of variants. The classes are simply too restricting as they stand, they should open themselves up to all definitions and concepts at a basic level without being as specific as a prestige class.

I know the name "Paladin" almost always means good. The "Paladin" class I think we need is more of a "Zealot" class. Personally, i think that the paladin should be a prestige class, after all, it only makes sense that one trains to become a warrior of light, instead of being one out of the gates.

I just feel the classes are too specialized. Versatility, options and some specialization is optimal for a first level character. I'm in the boat of people that think that there should really only be 3 classes (the generic ones printed in Unearthed Arcana), but its a thought worth considering before the particularly specialized classes are released in book form.

Count me as one vote in. If classes are to be added, I'd also request a few "High in Demand" Classes, like a "Alchemist" or "Engineer" class, or a "Spell warrior" class.

One of the major changes that I agree with is adding versatility to classes. Paladins of a few alignments, Rangers with more options then "Bow" or "2 swords", fighters with more then just feats. A lot of the classes are aligned I believe too closely to there classes.

The classes need Versatility. Taking your first level in paladin should be any where from "Freedom fighter of Kord", "Magic Protector of Boccob" or "Death night of Nerul" (to use the greyhawk deities). Rangers are hunters, so everything from "Batman", an urban track, to "Vampire hunter D", a mercenary for higher who specializes in Undead, should be written into the class.

The cleric and wizard I believe are close to the "Versatility" we need, with the rogue's special abilities being closer.

I hope this request goes heard across the board, its important that these classes are capable of doing of what many players want to do. A wizard of abjuration and a wizard of necromancy should feel as fall apart thematically and mechanically as humanly possible. Any suggestions on this?

I've heard of Iron kingdoms, but the price of the book always scarred me off.

I thought I'd recommend it here and now, seeing the alpha run through. The main book may not need it, but perhaps in a future/side book. I'm not a fan of sci fi in my campaign setting either. I don't like psionics and the like, nor mind flayers or "Brain eating" enemies.

But Renaissance weapon fire arms remind me of pirates, steam punk and alchemy, things grounded in fantasy. I thought it'd be an interesting thing to discuss, and while it may not be necessary in core books, I think it'd be nice to include eventually.

We'll, just out of curiosity, I'd like to post this up for discussion.
Here is the current rendition of the "Renaissance Weapon Fire Arm":

Pages 144 -> 145
Exotic Weapons: (Firearms)

One Handed Ranged Weapon:
Pistol / Cost: 250 GP / DMG (S: 1d8) (M: 1d10) / Crit: x3
Range: 50 ft / Weight / 3 lb / Damage Type: Piercing

Two Handed Ranged Weapon:
Musket / Cost: 500 GP / DMG (S: 1d10) (M: 1d12) / Crit: x3
Range: 150 ft / Weight / 10 lb / Damage Type: Piercing

Both the musket and the pistol require gun powder. For 15 pounds worth of gun powder (20 pounds in weight) cost 250 gp. in a "water resistant horn" it holds 2 pounds worth, weighs 2 pounds, and cost 35 gp. If gun powder gets wet, its not use able.

Bullets cost 3gp for 10. They weigh 2 pounds.

both weapons require standard actions to reload.

To make the gun work from 1 - 20th level, we need to do a few things. We need to make the gun just as powerful as the bow, but in a different area. We need to make the gun use able at all levels, and we need the offset of the gun work from levels 1 - 20.

The guns drawbacks are: speed, distance and circumstantial abilities.
The guns advantages are: Damage and critical multiplier

Water is a weakness, but considering magical and alchemical properties this can be offset in a few ways. At early prestige class levels, (6 - 12), this could be offset with an alchemical enhanced powder that can cost twice as much, or x3 as much. At these levels, characters have an average of 13 to 88 thousand gold pieces. If it cost 500 gp a larger keg, then your paying about 2 and change gold pieces per fire, with a keg offering about 240 fires of a gun. We are assuming the character is carrying kegs worth of gun powder at this point, because most characters at least have 1 bag of holding by now.

The other thing to consider is weight. The player needs to carry a certian amount of powder, bullets and guns at them at all times. to carry about 10 shots of ammunition, it weighs about 7 pounds. 10 shots can be expended in 1 combat. if they player is also carrying a musket, they are carrying about 14 pounds.

It takes a move action to draw the weapon, a standard action to load, a standard action to fire, and you're left with a move action to twiddle your fingers.

In addition, to be competent with the weapon, you'll need a lot of feats. You need exotic weapon proficiency in one of the weapons, you need point blank shot, you need quick draw, you need rapid reload (if the DM allows you to apply it to a pistol) to reload in a move action as opposed to a standard. That means in one round you can pull out a pistol, fire, and reload to be ready to fire then reload next round. To do all of this, you'll need 3 feats to use it, 4 to use it competently, and 5 to use it with two weapon fighting (for added cool-ness). That means your Human fighter will be able to use it first level, your cross racial character can use it in 2.

And even then you aren't nearly as proficient with the gun as you could be with a bow. The human can take weapon focus, point blank shot and any additional feat to boost their ability with the bow. The gun user just spent just as many feats as the bow user to simply use the weapon, were as the bow user comes out the gates at 1st level simply firing better.

In addition, there's damage. While the gun can do more damage by roll and crit, its not likely to happen as often. Rolling 1d8 means your weapon can do anywhere from 1 - 8 damage, no guarantee. While at earlier levels this is fantastic, at later levels your walking on a crutch. There is no way to increase damage on guns, without magically enhancing them, there is no way to fire more then 1 bullet around per weapon, and you are behind in feats. There is also no prestige class or later level support, and all magical guns have to be built between the DM and the player, because there are no magical guns (that I know of).

So, no matter what happens, at later levels you're taxing yourself by the feat, lack of support, lack of additional damage, and lack of flexibility.

I'd suggest that to make these a standard, more reliable weapon, you put in the following changes:

Exotic Weapons: (Firearms)

One Handed Ranged Weapon:
Pistol / Cost: 250 GP / DMG (S: 1d6) (M: 2d4) / Crit: x3
Range: 50 ft / Weight / 3 lb / Damage Type: Piercing
Special: Takes a move action to reload

Two Handed Ranged Weapon:
Musket / Cost: 500 GP / DMG (S: 2d4) (M: 2d6) / Crit: x3
Range: 150 ft / Weight / 10 lb / Damage Type: Piercing
Special: Takes a standard action to reload

Then, for feats, make "Rapid Reload" standard to pistols as well as crossbows, and have a feat for pistols called "Accuracy", or something similar, that allows the player to add dex to damage. Make the feat accessible at 6th level.

This makes the gun reasonable to use at later levels and makes the pistol as viable an option as a short bow. I think its balanced, and with some more feat, prestige class and special item support, could be built into the Paizo core book. I have a few other ideas on how to balance this, along with many other weapons, but I think I'll put this out to what people think. Does it work? Does it need fixing? or is it the over all flavor of it all?

Feedback both invited and welcomed.

Crave,

I have no issue at all with them, and wouldn't mind seeing them. The only thing is that, with a decent Use Magic Device check, any sort of half-useful attack spell wand is going to be WAY better than a gun -- so why would guns even be invented?

A few reasons i can think of.

The first one is pride. Any kind of race that prides itself on a concept will continue to focus on this concept until it's reached completion, or will continue to forward the idea. Lets say Dwarves hated magic, stereotypically so as it is to many fantasy campaign settings. This civilization may have spent its time looking for alternatives, which would lead them to develop gun powder or alchemical items as a substitute to magic.

The second is seclusion. Any country that may have been secluded or separated from the main land can advance at its own pace. This can be astronomically fast or extremely slow, dependent upon the race's attitude. If a race had never discovered magic, its possible they would have turned to science as an alternative.

The third is alternate resource. I've always thought it'd be interesting to live in a world where magic was a practiced science. Consider it like programing or computer use. Many people may know how to use magic for basic things, like casting arcane mark to write down crucial information or prestidigitation to keep their tea warm. However, only practiced magic users will know how to do anything advanced, like fireballs and the like. Just like many users can browse the internet, not everyone can write HTML, Java, or Flash. It may be easier to mass produce things with science/alchemy than it is to produce things with magic. It may simply be a harder field of study, and require dedication, where as a lot of alchemy requires a stone's throw, or a triggers pull to use.

Thats how I reason it in my campaign settings. But, if this doesn't work with the flavor of Pathfinder, I understand.

I haven't seen any threads on this, so I'd like to go out on a whim and ask anyone else if they'd like to see guns as more of a -standard- weapon. I really like the concept of Renaissance fire arms, muskets and the like, or at least high fantasy guns. Is there any way for these to become a bit more standard? Perhaps, opening feats to also apply to Renaissance weapons, creating combat feats for them, or anything of the sort?

I'd really like to see this done. Is anyone else with me on this?

Interesting thoughts everybody.

I have a question for the crowd. Is it the actual chaining that is a problem? -OR- Is it that some of the more common used familiar feats got put in a chain? -OR- Is it that you can only use one combat feat per round?

Or I guess, is it a combination of problems. If we removed one of the above, does the concept work better?

Let me know... I will share my specific thoughts later.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

So everyone's doing a little response to these, so I'll toss one up.

The problem is not chaining, its whats being chained. Certain abilities are simply innate, I'd like to believe, and should be used at all times. The ones that spring to mind with these are Dodge, mobility and Spring attack. Some abilities simply take too long to get there like Rapid shot. The way that these abilities seem to work (thematically) are big attacks to show impressive, over the top abilities. I have to use a rounds worth of actions to fire two arrows, where as the wizard can set off a fireball and kill off a mosh-pit's worth of kobolds. If i have to use 2 rounds to charge up an attack, it should be bigger, stronger, and Impressive.

Thematically, I relate these feats to grant the players to do the following:
Final Fantasy Styled Limit Breaks.
Street Fighter like combos (Hadukens and the like)
Over the top, Fantasy actions (300's Spartans tossing enemies over the head, Legolas running up a giant sized mount and killing everyone on it in abou 12 seconds).

I could toss a couple of feats to show an example as to what I'm trying to see work mechanically, but I'd like it to represent those actions thematically.

Has anyone made the suggestion that perhaps the next feat becomes accessible if the first feat is successful during a full round attack? Say, on a full round attack, you use your first attack to "uppercut", then since the first attack hits, the feat "Down chop" is use able? That way you can chain 3 attacks in a round together, and you can't do it till higher levels. The problem I see with this is that full attack actions will end up becoming very, very powerful, and the feats themselves will become boring since people will use them each time they get a full attack action.

When i fist read the feats i started thinking about characters being able to do the kind of over the top actions you'd see in Anime, Video games and modern Fantasy films. Its interesting, they sound a lot like the per encounter abilities suggested in 4th edition.

I agree that certain feats simply should not become once a round activated abilities, dodge, mobility, and the many bow and arrow feats come to mind. However, these feats, both flavor-wise and mechanically are pretty much necessary to fill the hole of repetition in 3.5. Perhaps these feat chains shouldn't all go to a round by round basis. I can see what these feats are attempting to do thematically working if certain feats were use able as full round actions, and certain chains require 3 feats to be taken, each one using a full action.

I've thought of a lot of possible fixes, but many of them require heavy class and system rehauls. Anyway, this is simply my 2 cents.

(edited for some clarification)

Here here on the index.

What was WOTC thinking?