I'm playing a dwarf switch hitter ranger in RotRL, with the dungeon rover and skirmisher archetypes.
I'm not really feeling the loss. I guess if I had Instant Enemy wands (and the bazillion gold to spare) it would be appreciated, but Skill Sage and Ranger's Counsel has saved our bacon in the wilds and mountains once or twice, so that was cool. The Combat tricks are so-so, but I found Hobbling Strike quite useful at certain points to limit how many enemies get to the front line at once.
The map of Kalsgard in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings book is waaaayy too large a scale for the 75k people living there.
The city is almost 6 miles wide and 4 miles north-south. That's probably a better scale for 900k+ people. So, use that as a base for your city?
Actually, that's a perfectly fine size for a city that size, especially since apartment complexes and high rises aren't really a thing yet. There's about 85,000 people where I live and the city's basically a 6 mile diameter circle, so 6 by 4 is definitely not a stretch for 75,000 at all.
As for everyone who's commented on things like driving the concept of time home, random encounters, making it near impossible to find specific NPCs and other things that make metropoli notably different from normal cities you've been awesome. Keep up the good work!
For everyone who's been giving examples of large cities and their likelihood of being broken down into districts, not quite what I was looking for but I do appreciate the effort! There's still plenty that helps out indirectly from these comments.
My city (Nottingham) is 10 times more populous than Kalsgard, but smaller. It's not high rises either, mostly 2-storey Victorian terraced houses. These actually have lower density than when first constructed, as mostly these have families of 4-5 instead of 10-15. Cities founded in medieval times tend to be super dense.
There's a 3pp archetype (herbalist) that uses Wis for alchemy and replaces the fluff of calcinators and alembics with foraging wolfsbane and belladonna, which feels more Shoanti to me, but yours is a pretty sweet character anyway.
Only thing build wise I'd recommend is keep Int (or Wis) relatively low and still use strength and an earthbreaker as a primary tactic, Shoanti still gotta smash orc/ogre/bulette skulls in.
Make noises up, with a weird voice/accent/inflection if possible. It's what I do for each monster language, eventually you'll have repeating sounds that could be words and eventually, based on context, you'll ascribe meaning to those words and probably remember them; if not, players won't notice.
Alternatively, seconding Rennaivx, on one game, our oracle had the tongues curse and spoke only in French during fights. Another character spoke celestial, and the player spoke French, so translated. I have been known to do dwarven as Russian with a Scottish accent.
Maybe shift up the language depending on spell. Enchantment spells are in sylvan, evocations in the relevant Elemental language, spells with the evil descriptor are in abyssal/infernal.
Pin-point Targeting and Improved Precise Shot is a joyous combo, as monsters have defence from either arbitrarily high levels of natural armour or a seemingly random miss chance. Unfortunately, Pin-point Targeting doesn't stack with vital strike.
My lvl 10 dwarf "switch-hitter" ranger used this combo against a dragon with blur in the 2nd range increment and couldn't miss; whereas the (granted, level 8) NPC rangers with the standard "shoot ALL the arrows" approach couldn't hit.
I only did around 15 damage a turn (it wasn't a favoured enemy); but 10% of a boss's HP per turn isn't to be snubbed, even if it's not gonna win the DPR Olympics.
A rogue wielding a longspear or a 1-handed weapon in two hands will be fine, or dip a level in fighter for proficiencies, boost to fort saves and a feat. Conan is often posited as a human brute rogue x/fighter 1 or 2.
If you are human, pop your bonus feat down into Iron Will, take a trait to boost Will and/or Fort and you should be fine for normal play. You've got the stats to qualify for Combat Expertise (or whatever the dirty fighting feat that almost replaces it is called) and Improved Dirty Fighting and Improved Feint, which are awesome for rogues.
Multiclassing rogues can take Accomplished Sneak Attacker to keep the Sneak Attack dice up.
People knock it, but I've found that Vital Strike is really good, as iterative attacks from non-full BAB classes against the arbitrary amount of natural armour CR appropriate monsters are given at level 11+ feel like they whiff 90% of the time or you spend half your life moving into flanking and wouldn't be full-attacking anyway.
I prefer Glory Rogue from Drop Dead Studios to Unchained, but if you can convince your GM to add debilitating strike to the Glory Rogue, then you are laughing at being an awesome martial debuffer and damage dealer.
I was so disappointed with the unchained rogue's dex focus - debilitating injury is the only thing that keeps it from never being used at my table (everyone gets skill unlocks). The lack of options just frustrated me; so I went with debilitating injury and added it on to the Glory Rogue; for maximum martial debuffing.
Using Spheres of Power with either Addictive casting, Draining casting or Painful magic drawbacks might work; plus the advantage of removing a lot of narrative destroying spells (or at least putting them behind talent investment) would allow the DM to maintain the gritty feel for longer.
A dex-based fighter uses their reflexes and hand-eye-coordination to respond quickly to openings their enemy gives them, whereas a strength based fighter creates their own openings by swatting weapons out of the way or body checking opponents?
On a side note, I personally wish ALL weapons used dex to hit (hand eye coordination and reacting to an opening) and str for damage (speed/power of stab/slash/smash/draw), but that's just my opinion.
That's just what martials need, more MADness...
Yeah seriously. I like the idea of Dex-based accuracy and damage with certain types of weapons, but as an option and not a requirement.
For me, its all or nothing. It's weird that there are 4 feat/chains to get dex to damage with increasingly wide ranges of weapons (scimitars, all slashing, all piercing and one handed if certain other conditions are met) and none to get dex to damage with bows, which use dex to attack as standard (I am aware of level 5+ gunslingers and bolt aces allowing crossbow dex to damage). It kind of blurs the line about what stats are supposed to represent (accuracy vs brute force).
Although, again I would totally like everyone and everything to be MAD.
On a side note, I personally wish ALL weapons used dex to hit (hand eye coordination and reacting to an opening) and str for damage (speed/power of stab/slash/smash/draw), but that's just my opinion.
That's just what martials need, more MADness...
Yeah, but ideally everyone should be MAD. Like, Cha modifies DCs, Int modifies spells known (no class would be able to know all spells, but its be like "int+2*level" for wizards and clerics and "level + int" for sorcerers and oracles), and Wis modifies number of spell slots - something like that. I'm fed up with the disparity between MAD and SAD classes, and rather than trying to have a "x to y" type feat chain for everything that end up just making SAD casters even more SAD, just make everyone and everything MAD.
Personally, I was delighted to see the rogue debilitating strike options; adding some debuff options to the rogue is an absolutely great idea.
However, I was less than impressed with the rogue's finesse ability. It effectively further undermines the non twf finesse rogue builds and provides another example of martials only being allowed to specialise in one or two weapon types. For my current emerald spire game, I allowed the rogue to utilise a mixture of unchained rogue and rogue glory by drop dead studios, which is an awesome product.
On a side note, I personally wish ALL weapons used dex to hit (hand eye coordination and reacting to an opening) and str for damage (speed/power of stab/slash/smash/draw), but that's just my opinion.
I do like the unchained summoner, as I didn't like that eidolons existed as only extensions of their owner and where unlike anything in the multiverse. It feels more now like they are an allied creature with their own place in the world.
Monk, I would have dropped the fort save and kept the will as mind and speed has always seemed more important than hardiness. But I didn't really care about the class anymore, as the brawler now exists and is everything I'd ever wanted in a hand to hand fighter.
The barbarian is really easy now, and doesn't require a second character sheet. It's missing the +2 Fort Save buff that it should have maintained, and the design team really should have had a sidebar about how to officially convert all rages go the new system and to what extent these stack.
However, my favourites so far are the action economy, automatic bonus progression and the limited magic (although with scaling dcs). Makes mages more linear, as weak spells stay weak unless invested in using reagents or metamagic (although I would still probably use spheres of power in any future homebrew campaign).
In my experience, guides are written as a Optimiser's wet-dream, in a world where you have infinite money and time, a magic marketplace at your door and always have the perfect spell prepared.
If you start off with 175gp and get a Longbow, Longsword or Bastard Sword, Armoured Coat or Studded Leather, you'll be golden.
Your first paycheck can go on upgrading your armour.
Evidence - I'm currently playing Rise of the Runelords with a LG Dwarf Ranger with the Dungeon Rover and Skirmisher archetypes, roughly using treantmonk's switch hitter as a guide, and am loving my grumpy little guy.
My starting equipment was Dwarven Waraxe, Studded leather, Buckler, Light crossbow. Then lots of misc equipment that suited his background as a prospector and would-be merchant.
I got through the first book with pretty much that equipment, although I think I upgraded to a breastplate mid-way through. I was the primary tank in the second half of that book, because our barbarian spent most of the time under enchantment effects.
I've made a few "sub-optimal" choices (swapped out spells, no animal companion, vital strike tree), but I feel like (with my specific party makeup in that campaign) they have actually helped the party more.
I'm level 10, just starting book 4, and currently use a +1 Adaptive Composite Longbow and a +2 Dwarven Longhammer, with Masterwork Cold Iron Armour spikes and a Masterwork Silver Dwarven Boulder Helmet for if stuff gets right up in my grill and I can't 5-ft step.
This is my first post on Pathfinder forums, and my first bit of homebrewing. Well...apart from that dodgy batch of beer while I was at uni.
Ahem.
Anyway, please find my first homebrewed/converted class - The Marshal.
This class is currently just designed, not yet playtested.
Unnecessarily Long Design Notes:
I found myself missing a few classes from other editions of "the world's most successful RPG"; especially the Warlord/Marshal from 4e and 3.5 respectively, so I have been toying around with how to make an effective 'martial buffer' in PF.
The Cavalier is a great start on that sort of thing, but slightly all over the place in terms of role - it has the challenge and mount mechanics that put it in the "Kill Stuff Yourself" camp with the fighter, ranger and barbarian; but the tactician and banner mechanics that erect part of its tent up in the "Help Others Kill Stuff" camp.
I thought I'd make a class that gets mechanics similar to the cavalier, the bard and the paladin - but without the knightly/musical/religious baggage that comes with them. Just a straight up, versatile military commander.
PF loves talents and similar abilities - Barbarians, Rogues, Slayers, Witches, Alchemists, Oracles, Investigators, Maguses (Magi?). All love having them some sweet, sweet talent-ish abilities unlocked once every other level or so.
So, that was the basis of the class - an ability that's a bit like Inspire Courage and a bit like the Paladin's Auras, but always on and also kind of weak, that would be greatly enhanced with the use of talents. Therefore, I came up with a scaling bonus equivalent to other classes' scaling bonuses that wasn't great in and of itself, and a quite a number of talents that interact with class features in different ways, but mostly serve to boost the effectiveness of the Aura of Command.
I didn't like the idea that a talent would be limited to once per day, as that doesn't quite make sense to me for martial characters, but I didn't want powerful abilities to be always-on. So, what's the other thing PF loves? Pools.
PF loves pools so much it's like a California suburb.
Maguses, Investigators, Arcanists, Monks, Ninjas, Gunslingers, Swashbucklers. With the advent of Unchained, I've heard that at least Rogues and maybe even everyone else in the world may be getting a pool.
So, second design feature - a command pool based on level+ Cha mod as default. A lot of classes have 1/2 level (minimum 1) + Stat as their pool, but they mostly only have to help themselves with their pool.
I chose level+stat as the basis of the Marshal because I envisage them as having to really protect and use their allies as a way of interacting with encounters. As giving allies abilities costs points, I thought having - eventually - a large pool would be useful to them.I thought about having a smaller pool, but that recharged on successful conditions (a'la the Swashbuckler) but couldn't work out what the conditions would be.
The third primary class feature comes in the form of the ability to grant actions. Nothing quite matched up with it in PF, but it was a large part of the Warlord class from 4e and the 3.5 Marshal was able to do it as well. If a marshal isn't going to be as effective at hitting a foe, I think it's flavourful and an interesting mechanic to have him direct someone else to do it. I think this gives him versatility by using others' powers to win encounters, if the party is facing a golem, getting the blaster wizard to do something isn't useful, but letting the barbarian with the adamantine greataxe take another swing is a lifesaver.
I did not want this to be the most efficient process in the world, straight-up granting a 1:1 action economy, as I thought that might be abuseable (it still may be, but more on that later). So, I used the diminishing-action-to-activate scale from the Bard's Performances to create a framework for this, eventually leading up to a capstone that makes the Marshal the best for action economy. It is currently abusable by using multiple marshals all giving each other masses of actions, but I think if I add a caveat that a marshal cannot grant another marshal an action, that'd probably fix it a bit.
I've no doubt that some of the talents are broken or unbalanced with others, and certain parties or multi-class options will be exponentially better with a marshal in the party or dip; but my aim has been to keep it in line the power level of other classes that give and receive scaling bonuses.
I think in terms of relative class power, I think -but would welcome input from more proficient gamers than me- it starts as a pretty generic low Tier 4 or Tier 5 character, but as the powers increase and the pool grows, it can probably push to being a high Tier 4 or even a low Tier 3 character because of the ability to make everyone else a bit better.
I would really appreciate feedback from anyone - theorycrafters and (if anyone is awesome enough) playtesters - on whether they think it does what it's supposed to and does it pretty well (but not too well).
