1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SheepishEidolon wrote: I'd go for a modular system like Pathfinder Unchained - so everyone can pick what they like. Having spent some more time thinking about it, I would like to express my agreement with this sentiment. Make the core rules as clear and concise as possible. Then add the rest (like implementing the feat tax Elephant in the Room system, or adding rules for Called Shots and Stamina Points) as separate, optional rule-sets. That way groups can easily personalize their games to suit their preferred styles.
Also, what level of contribution are you looking for? People to actually do the work of rewriting, revising, reorganizing, or editing changes and submitting them directly, or are you just seeking general advice as the project progresses?

Based solely on your listed goals, I think you are definitely on the right track. I recently considered undertaking my own Pathfinder 1.5 project, but this sounds so close to what I hoped to do that I may hold off on that.
I agree with each of your goals. I don't think Pathfinder needs a complete overhaul. The existing framework is good. It just needs to be refined. Small changes should address most issues. Not all, but most. Coupled with clarified content, a reliable keyword system and glossary (I assume this would be included in "improved labeling"), and consistent organization and writing, nearly all the major issues should be eliminated right then and there. For example, I have seen the words "foe" and "opponent" and "enemy" used interchangeably, and while it is pretty obvious they mean the same thing, there is no reason to risk confusion by changing terms all the time.
I cannot understate how important it is to have a "living" document for this sort of project. It allows contributors to directly identify and address issues without needing to constantly release errata and FAQ documents that half of people will not ever see. Keep all the rules in one place, fix them as necessary. Plus with the freedom of not needing to worry about page count, things can be made as detailed as they need to be. In such a situation being redundant and having the same rules in multiple locations isn't a big deal, because it doesn't matter how long the document is in the end.
Better balance, simplified content, and condensed content are all good areas of focus, though I suspect it may be difficult to get a general consensus on such things. For example, you will have plenty of people like me who believe some classes are poorly balanced, like the Paladin, and others who disagree entirely. Another example is the Elephant in the Room feat tax system which, while I understand the intention, I find to be a bit too excessive for my tastes. I have found that the different styles of play from table to table greatly change people's ideas of what is good and what needs to be fixed. I am not entirely sure how best to handle such differences in opinion either.
Backwards compatibility is a must as well. My goal was to make changes so minimal that rule conversion wouldn't even be necessary. It remains to be seen how easy such an ideal will be, but I don't think it is impossible by any means.
I will be keeping an eye on this project. I have seen a few other Pathfinder 1.5 projects which either don't have any details or did not give me a sense of professionalism. I think you are doing a good job setting expectations and a fundamental set of goals before jumping headlong into such a big project. Figure out how to undertake things first, then go step by step from there.
I recently reworked a few Pathfinder rules (poisons, firearms, gunslinger class, paladin class, ranger class, shifter class, sword saint samurai archetype, as well as making my own custom artificer class with a few archetypes as well as a new cavalier/samurai order). I have thoroughly enjoyed making subtle changes to the rules on each of those projects, and at least my own gaming group gave high praise. I can only hope your project goes smoothly as well. I look forward to seeing your progress.

I feel that Refining Touch makes up for the lower BAB and adds a lot of combat versatility on its own. It allows you to tailor your equipment each day and at a certain point you can change stuff around on a whim. Mix and match weapon properties or enhancement bonuses as your heart desires.
I also feel that the class puts a decent focus on Intelligence, enough to make that bonus comparable to UMD as a class skill, or greater. And the half level to using wands and such essentially covers that area doesn’t it? Doesn’t need to be a UMD specialist or anything I don’t think, necessarily.
There are artificer techniques for getting the Sunder feats and also techniques for getting essentially spell-like abilities for mending items, so that line of play is possible if you build into it.
Can always come up with more artificer techniques that do more things, but I worry about trying to pack too much of everything in all at once.
As for the skill unlocks, some of that is baked into the class features, at least for Craft it is. Maybe not so much for the others you mentioned, but like I said I worry about trying to just cram a little bit of everything in all at once.
Goth Guru wrote: You seem to be trying to avoid magic too much. I would prefer Someone who creates devices with magical power. That was essentially my goal in creating the Magical Engineer. Someone who is a caster for all intents and purposes, but flavored as a mundane craftsman.
I haven't added a spell list for the Magical Engineer quite yet. I need to go through the spells at some point and figure out which ones would be suited to the archetype and which would not.
Was going to take most of the options available to this artificer.
Goth Guru wrote: That would explain how no one else can use them and how their clockwork cohort could somehow see. I am not entirely sure what you mean here be the clockwork cohort?

Mudfoot wrote: It's a full-BAB martial with decent skills and saves and a sackload of crafting. I may be misunderstanding what you mean by this, but it is actually a 3/4 BAB class not a full-BAB class.
Mudfoot wrote: Might be a bit one-dimensional in actual games because he relies so much on the kit he can make, but that's all essentially mundane (he has no inherent way to use magic things - no UMD, for example - even if he made them himself). I guess I am not sure why this would be an issue any more than a fighter being unable to use UMD? I see this artificer as trading a bit of the fighter's martial prowess for crafting prowess, which gives more out of combat versatility I would think.
However, as I have not yet had the chance to play-test it in a real module or campaign, I also cannot say you are wrong. I added an artificer technique called "Magical Theorist" which essentially opens the door to using UMD to a degree. Would you consider that to compensate for the problem you pointed out?
Mudfoot wrote: You need to define the duration of Professional Opinion. Very good catch. Fixed. Thanks for pointing that one out.
And thanks for your feedback in general too.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Goth Guru wrote: I was thinking of homebrewing a Medieval Engineer. I will read what you did and see if you filled the need.
Update, I do not have access to your google docs.
Apologies. I do not know why that would be the case. It seemed to work on Reddit. Well, I was working on it off and on so maybe it got messed up. Anyways, here is another link that should work as far as I can tell.
Artificer Class plus Archetypes.
Also, at the request of a good friend of mine, I added a fourth archetype which focuses more on bombs called the Demolitionist, as well as a new artificer technique which is functionally just the alchemist's Vestigial Arm discovery, but reflavored.
I also revised the whole document several times. I think I am pretty happy with its current form, but I welcome feedback.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Tried posting this once already but accidentally did it on the second edition forum. Whoops. Anyways, long story short. I have been home-brewing some stuff. Came across the artificer class from earlier editions. Wanted to try my hand at porting it to Pathfinder.
I looked through three or four versions other people made, but while I really liked elements of each, none of them fully fit the idea of the class that I had in my head. I went ahead and created my own, mostly as a fun side project.
Thought it might be fun to post my version (and three archetypes called the clockwork tinkerer, chemical scientist, and magical engineer) for people to look over and provide feedback. I feel pretty good about what I have, though without play-testing it is hard to say for sure.
For transparency, I took inspiration for some of the class abilities from multiple first party classes as well as the artificer classes on D20PFSRD by Adamant Entertainment, Eberron Pathfinder, and Elghinn Lightbringer's Stonehelm Emporium on Pathfidner Community.
Here is the link: Artificer.
If anyone bothers to take the time to read it, let me know what you think.
Yeah you make a good point about HD and ranks on Sense Motive. So, I guess a Pegasus gets Sense Motive as a class skill as a special thing then. Only explanation I can think of since your math works perfectly by making it so.

Diego Rossi wrote:
1)It seems to have 13 skill points, like it had intelligence 12.
2) No. Not included in the cohort abilities. The rules on page 297 are for creating monsters, not cohorts.
3) It increases a stat every 4 HD, and gains a feat every 2 HD. That is valid regardless of how you get the HD.
Then you get what the class gives.
4) I think so, but check what penaltis it will gets to its fly skill.
1. I calculate 11 skill ranks. But it should only get 8 right?
It has a +5 to fly, which is a class skill. A large creature takes a -2 penalty to fly. So it would need to be 2 (dex) + 2 (ranks) + 3 (class skill) -2 (large) to get a 5. It would need 1 (wis) + 3 (ranks) + 3 (class skill) + 4 (racial) to get +11 perception. Finally 6 ranks to get a +7 sense motive. Right? So 11 total ranks. But how? Magical beasts get 2 + int each hit die and a Pegasus has a zero int modifier and 4 HD. How does it get the rest?
2. Okay. I had seen other posts on Reddit and other forums where people said monster cohorts did in fact get this stat adjustments (and that they don’t really make up for the weakness inherent to choosing a monster cohort) but wasn’t sure if there was an explicit rule that said one way or the other.
3. Okay. Good to know.
4. Id probably bump up its ranks in fly however much I needed to compensate. Would only be looking at light armor anyways I think.

If I take the leadership feat to gain a Pegasus as a Monster Cohort, how do I go about properly advancing that creature?
1. I am having issues figuring out the correct skill ranks for the normal Pegasus. It should have 8 ranks but I’m not getting that number due to how many ranks must be in Sense Motive as it isn’t a Magical Beast class skill.
2. Adding PC levels comes with the stat adjustments of (+4, +4, +2, +2, 0, -2) correct? This just happens whenever a PC class is added to a NPC creature?
3. Does my Pegasus gain Ability Score Increases every four levels or extra feats from leveling like a PC would? I assume not since I have no idea how the progression would work, other than perhaps using the class levels as the character levels.
4. Does the Pegasus gain the armor proficiencies of the PC class so it can have barding without needing to take a feat to wear armor?
Thanks for your help in advance. I’ve never used Leadership before. Not looking for optimization, but I definitely want accuracy.
glass wrote: And comanding an animal companion is a swift action, which is more of a cost for a Hunter than a Druid, but still allows both to full attack. I thought it was a free action? Is it different for a Hunter?

In regards to party make up there is a Human Fighter 5 / Evangelist of Erastil 1, an Elf Alchemist 6, an Elf Wizard (Exploiter) 6, and the Human Hunter 6.
The Fighter and the Alchemist players have actually told me they actively hold back in combat on their own to keep things more interesting. The Fighter is an archer and he has specifically decided not to take feats like Weapon Specialization, Manyshot, and multiclassed to keep his BAB lower to prevent iterative attacks for another level. The alchemist didn’t purposefully inhibit his build, but he has specifically not used bombs for a while now to keep his damage low. The Wizard player has spent the last few combats casting Haste or Magic Missile or Fireball. Standard wizard stuff for the most part. He likes being the “demigod character” so he doesn’t care if fights have no challenge. And the Hunter is pretty optimized best I can tell, and the biggest problem I and the other two players have is that the character just sort of lacks “character” of you know what I mean. He’s basically just a stat block for killing monsters.
It’s those two players that I want to be able to challenge, but I don’t want to just scale everything to be uber powerful and end up causing a TPK since they have taken measures to not optimize themselves.
I guess my main questions or concerns are as follows:
1. Does the free trip happen any time the AC gets a bite attack? So, within Haste, twice per round, on attacks of opportunity, vengeance strike? Can he just trip a target in the middle of its full attack?
2. Does flanking really apply to trip attempts? Is there any way to boost my guys’ CMD to combat his absurd CMB bonus?
3. Does the AC have no secondary natural attacks (just bite and 2 claws both primary) so does Multiattack do literally nothing for it at all?
4. Does it really take basically no action for the PC to control and direct his AC during combat? He can basically just get two free full turns?

I am running a group of four through Rise of the Runelords. We are halfway through Book Two and everything is at 6th level. One of the PCs in the group, a human hunter with a panther companion (small cat), has made challenging the party in combat very difficult. I have had to start resorting to advanced templates just to keep some tension.
Basically, the PC took Combat Expertise, Outflank, Pack Flanking, Paired Opportunist, Toughness, and Improved Spell Sharing. The animal companion gets ALL of the teamwork feats for FREE in addition to its own Combat Reflexes, Toughness, and Dodge. The animal companion's stats are Str 21, Dex 21, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, and Cha 6. The PC took "Eye for Talent" to boost the companion's Str by +2.
The way things always go down is that the two of them close on a target and the AC makes its attacks. It gets a free trip on its bite (if hasted it apparently gets two bits and therefore two trip attempts), and since they flank from basically any squares against the same target they always get the +4 bonus to flanking (which also applies to the trip attempt I guess). Once the creature is tripped, they then get a +8 (flanking and prone) on all of their subsequent attacks. And when the creature tries to get back up, it provokes from both of them, at that +8 bonus to hit, and when it attacks someone the AC gets Vengeance Strike on it as well (which also gets a free trip attempt?).
I am really struggling with how to handle this combo. I can't just randomly start throwing in oozes, and elementals, and swarms in every encounter or else they will start saying I am purposefully trying to target them. And I can't just give all the enemies potions of fly for the same reason. But with the ludicrous bonuses the AC gets (its only a +9 normally, but the Hunter can cast magic Fang for a +1, hunter aspect on Strength for another +1, flanking for a +4, so the attacks at a +15 minimum, and then something like +19 after the trip) I don't know how to combat things without just hard countering the character.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to handle this situation without just making every enemy some crazy creature type that is immune to flanking or trip? Like I said, I am running Rise of the Runelords, so i can't just change all the encounters. Any help would be awesome. Thanks!

Dasrak wrote: 1. No; two weapon fighting penalties only apply if you decide to take an extra attack with your off-hand weapon. The bonus attack from Spiked Destroyer comes from a completely different source and does not trigger this penalty.
2. Both are main-hand weapons with your full strength bonus and full power attack bonus. Armor Spikes explicitly state you can choose to make attacks with them as a main-hand weapon or as an off-hand weapon. There is nothing requiring you to treat them as an off-hand weapon in this situation, so you can treat them as a main-hand weapon for the purpose of this attack.
3. You can choose to enhance your shield as both a shield and a weapon, but you must pay for each enhancement separately. For instance if you want a +1 enhancement bonus to attack/damage and a +1 enhancement bonus to AC then you will need to pay 3000 gp, as a +1 enhancement bonus for weapons costs 2000 gp and a +1 enhancement bonus for shield and armor cost 1000 gp. The same is true for the armor spikes and armor. You will also need the Improved Shield Bash feat, as otherwise the shield bonus to AC is lost for the remainder of the round any time you perform a shield bash.
4. Yes and yes. There is nothing that would prevent you from doing this. The swift action is limited to once per turn, but otherwise there's no limit and this can apply to all attacks with your shield.
5. Yes, you'd end up bull rushing them while they're still prone. Attacks of opportunity resolve before the action that triggered them. After your attack of opportunity occurs the triggering action completes... and in this case, that action is to stand up.
There are indeed a lot of intricate rules interactions here, and this is an area where you will find subtle differences in interpretation. Run things past your GM if you're uncertain, because they are the final authority at your table.
Thanks for that quick response. Very helpful answers all around. I will certainly talk things over with my GM to make sure we both understand how things work.

This is my first time posting on the Paizo forums, so I hope this is the correct place for this question.
Basically, I am interested in a Siegebreaker Fighter build (with a dip into Ranger or Slayer to grab Shield Slam early). However, I am really confused on some aspects of the build and I don't know if I am understanding them correctly. This build is currently for a third level character (Seigebreaker Fighter 1 / Ranger 2)
Spiked Destroyer
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/spiked-destroyer-combat/
Heavy Spiked Shield
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/spiked-shiel d-heavy-or-light/
Spiked Armor
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/weapon-descriptions/spiked-armor /
Shield Slam
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-slam-combat/
I plan on using a heavy spiked shield as my main hand weapon. I know that the description says it is an off-hand weapon, but I assume that it does not HAVE to be used as such as long as I am not wielding a sword or something. I would also be wearing spiked armor, which I could choose to attack with as an actual off-hand weapon. My feats would be Improved Shield Bash, Shield Slam, Spiked Destroyer, and Power Attack. Here are my questions about the way this build works.
1. If I choose to use my swift action attack from Spiked Destroyer (after using Shield Slam to get the free Bull Rush) to get a free attack with my spiked armor, would I have to take the penalties from Two-Weapon Fighting since it is an off-hand weapon and I would have attacked with my shield already as my main hand? Or does Spiked Destroyer function a bit differently?
2. What Strength bonus would I add to my shield and to my spiked armor? Would it be my full bonus on the shield as a main hand weapon and half my bonus on the armor as an off-hand weapon? And this would apply the same way for Power Attack?
3. My spiked heavy shield and my spiked armor would both be doing 1d6 points of damage (I am a medium sized creature). And I have to choose to enhance my shield either as a shield or as a weapon. I cannot gain both the AC bonus and the attack/damage bonus at the same time, correct? Is this the same case for the spiked armor?
4. I can do iterative attacks with my spiked heavy shield so long as I do not move more than 5 feet with my Bull Rush attempts, and I can use Shield Slam to make a free Bull Rush attempt on every single one of these attacks? I can only make a swift action attack with the armor once per round though.
5. If I use Shield Slam and knock an opponent prone, when they try to stand up and provoke, if I hit them again with the attack of opportunity, can I Bull Rush them and knock them prone once more before they even stand up? Or would I just Bull Rush them while they were prone?
I am just trying to wrap my head around how this character concept would work. There are a lot of instances were the rules seem to interact in complex ways, which might actually be quite simple and are just going over my head for some reason. But I want to get a handle on these things so that I am not bogging down sessions trying to figure out what I can or cannot do.
Thanks in advance for any help!
|