Ironic Hero's page

A party like that should be able to end fights fast enough that it won't matter much, and as mentioned above, you can always use wands out of combat to take care of whatever injuries you do sustain.

As many have have already stated, the lack of a rule does not an opposing rule make. The rules don't state that my sorcerer can't make any creature he wants die by looking at it funny as a free action, but I still doubt my GM would allow it.
That being said, if you could devise a viable method for someone to actually unjam their weapon without a free hand, and describe it to your GM, you might have a better chance of him allowing it, albeit probably with a skill check of some sort.

Jotungrip wrote:

The weapon must be appropriately sized for her, and it is treated as one-handed when determining the effect of Power Attack, Strength bonus to damage, and the like.

In my opinion, Backswing falls within the "and the like", or even the specific the "Strength bonus to damage". As such, RAW is against it.

Good catch. I'm not very familiar with Titan Mauler, and assumed it worked like wielding a lance one-handed while mounted.

RAW, yes. RAI, probably not. Really, it boils down to GM ruling.

Oh, you can throw in your extract of Enlarge Person to make it 2d6 + 12, without sneak attack.

Synthesist Summoner 1/Vivisectionist Alchemist 1/Barbarian 1

Biped eidolon; ability increase (str) and improved damage (claws) as evolutions, with improved natural attack as eidolon feat.

Add power attack, and assuming a raging, mutagened full attack, you get two claws at 1d8 + 10 (+1d6 if a sneak attack)

This is off the top of my head, and I'm sure it can be improved.

williamoak wrote:

I'm getting the impression that this is just a way to convince people that sneak attack was better.

No. Not at all. It was a shot at giving something different, within the same vein, but something that people wanted.

Personally, I would rather keep a version of studied strike. I think it is interesting.

I am leaning toward these three options right now.

1) Make it a move action to start, and keep it so you can only use it on the same target once every 24 hours. Increase the duration to Int modifier.

2) Keep it a standard, and remove the 24 hour prohibition. Increase the duration to Int modifier.

3) Go back to sneak attack with a 1/3 level increase (to a maximum of 6d6 at 18th).

Comments, questionnaire, and playtest feedback all told us that the sneak attack progression it had in the last iteration was too much. It was fairly universal. So there is where we are sitting right now.

I must say I prefer option 2. I would be perfectly happy waiting for quick study, as long as I can keep beating on the same enemy.

That being said, I implore you to give serious consideration to the idea of utilizing studied combat to apply debilitating conditions. I'm sure you can gather from this thread how much this concept excites the community, while staying true to my impression of the investigator's role, both mechanically and in flavor.

Lastly, I'd like to echo the question of why cognatogen is not an available alchemist discovery. Was this intentional, or merely an oversight?

Thanks in advance for considering my input.

You are correct in terms of how spirited charge works. It multiplies damage, not just weapon damage.

However, your power attack calculation seems to be off. I know that your lance allows you to use double your str mod on damage, but that doesn't mean it doubles power attack damage (this may be the case, but that was not mentioned). Additionally, if you are a lvl 11 fighter, you base power attack should be -3/+6.

Perhaps have spells count as a number of d20 rolls equal to the spell level?

I've wanted to try out a whip-based Fighter (Lore Warden) / Magus (Kensai) for a while. Use a whirlwind attack to trip all enemies within 15', greater trip and improved whip mastery to then hit all within 10' that fell (with combat reflexes and superior reflexes you should have plenty of AoOs to spare) and still get a Spellstrike with 15' range on top of it. Also, Dex and Int are basically all you need.

They may add their Constitution modifier as a bonus to Reflex, and Will saves if it is higher.

I would suggest changing the wording of Lord of Battle. I'm under the impression that you may use Con in place of Dex or Wis, but I could easily see it being interpreted as being in addition. Either way it could use some clarification.

If you're going to specialize in summoning, I suggest at least looking at the Groveborn (Verdant) bloodline. Lush Summoning will help keep your summons alive longer.

AoO: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (7) + 5 = 12
Damage: 1d8 + 6 ⇒ (1) + 6 = 7

Actually, replacing Bard spells with a limited selection of Rogue Talents was one of my first ideas. Also, I think you may be onto something with the Inquisitor as a Paladin variant.

As stated in my own thread here, I am in need of help with archetypes for Bards, Inquisitors, and Paladins that remove spells, in the same vein as the Ranger's Skirmisher archetype. Are you up to it?

Simply taking feats like Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus will have a pretty good impact.

Especially considering the optional rule that allows someone with Weapon Focus to choose your result out of two effects (three with Greater). I have used this optional rule, and it works wonderfully in both the crit deck and the fumble deck.

I've been focusing mostly on Bards so far, and feel that the best route is to pump Bardic Performance. Ideas I have started to play with include more versatility, more rounds, and Performance Meta-Effects, a la Cheapy. Thoughts?

You can play a Monk/Barbarian if you pick Meanad(from Dreamscarred Press) as a race. Power Rage Flurry!

>.>
<.<

With Pounce!

Take the Sohei archetype and RageLanceFlurryPounce!

I have to agree with Cheapy. While most of the basic principles behind alchemy weren't based on the modern scientific method, modern chemistry developed directly out of alchemy. Incidentally, being that science is simply knowledge of the physical world developed through observation, no recorded human history predates science.

@LazarX: I realize that the Trapper Archetype replaces spells, however, I will be using Maxximilius's version of the Trapper Archetype, as I would like to allow the two to overlap. Also, Alchemists represent scientific advancement in this campaign setting, not magic.

@Thorkull: The Alchemists take care of healing. Also, potions will be much cheaper.

I'd like to continue. I'm just waiting on my turn in combat. If you'd like me to make my post beforehand, please let me know.

I'm developing a campaign setting in which the only spellcasters are Sorcerers, with only one of each bloodline in existence at any time. The Sorcerers of the world have established a tyrannical ruler-ship over the populace, and will be the primary villains of the campaign. As such, all spellcasting classes will be off-limits to PCs. However, I would like to still allow Bards, Inquisitors, Paladins, and Rangers. All Rangers will have the Skirmisher archetype, so as to allow them without spellcasting. I would like help in developing similar archetypes for Bards, Inquisitors, and Paladins, so that the classes are still viable, albeit lacking spellcasting capabilities. Developing class archetypes is not my strong suit, so any thoughts/suggestions, no matter how bizarre, are welcome.

Note: Alchemists are not considered spellcasters for this purpose and will be completely allowed.

In short, Robespierre, while using a critical miss system is clearly BadWrongFun, if you insist upon implementing one, the Critical Fumble deck is a great way to go.

In addition to something similar to what Dosgamer presented, I would suggest including encounters that allowed you to deal with large groups of mooks without taking them head-on. Examples include capturing a significant post, such as a high ridge providing nice cover, or creating an artificial bottleneck. They could station their own troops in such locations to deal with the bulk of the opposing army in the background of the game, while the PCs dealt with the commanding officers. You could also send them to destroy provisions, cut off a supply line, sabotage siege weapons, etc.

It depends quite a bit on the system of government, the current political situation, and the most popular philosophies among the society. For instance, bards, paladins, and even cavaliers would work well for the stereotypical medieval fantasy setting. Wizards would work well, particularly in some sort of counsel in any society primarily focused on cleverness. Clerics are the obvious choice for a theocracy whereas barbarians or druids would easily fit into a more tribal society. It all boils down to the specifics.

Aristocrat

Oath-breaker is interesting. You give up the ability to cast most of your spells to blast consistently, albeit not very fantastically, and gain an extra hex, as well as gaining Major/Grand hexes two levels earlier. This means you can pick up 2 more grand hexes. Whereas normally you could have a maximum of three, you can take 5 by 20.

The blasting isn't fantastic in a strict, damage dealing sense, but Cursed Blast is pretty wonderful, especially with the increased hex versatility.

Can you apply Gestalt to Gestalt? I'd say he's definitely got a lot of Monk, Ninja, and Inquisitor levels, as well as some Alchemist and Bard, at the very least.

Batman is a level 20 Batman.

Ok I might be blind, but where exactly is your Luck Bonus coming from? I don't see the source...

Oh, and you can't put the Dueling enhancement on a Flail (must be a weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse)

The answer to both questions is one and the same. There are two weapon enhancements called "Dueling". The one you are familiar with, from APG, and one from Pathfinder Society Field Guide.

My only real issue with this idea is the system of dividing classes into groups based purely on their highest spell levels. The system, as presented, severely gimps Bards, in particular.

That totals +45. It seems a little low, actually. I'm fairly certain I'm missing some feats and traits in there, put it together rather quickly. Add in as you see fit!

Fury's Fall should help.

I really like the idea, and I just might use this in an upcoming campaign, but I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on having an incremental increase to crit range, rather than a bonus to attack.

Could an ordinary human stand up to an ordinary Ur? If so, keep them balanced with the core races. If not, don't restrict yourself. There is an inherent design conflict in the way you have presented this new race, at the very least.

I would suggest making it a bludgeoning only ability, for three reasons. First, the ability could use some restriction. Second, the flavor works very well IMO, especially if you call it "Crushing". Lastly, bludgeoning weapons need some love, badly.

All I can think of is to present the players with a real puzzle box and have them try to solve it, but that could be very frustrating if the players are not inclined to that sort of thing. If that's the case, or if you don't want to go through the trouble of acquiring a puzzle box, I would just stick with skill checks, mostly Disable Device and Knowledge (Engineering).

Improved Initiative is always good, if not great.

I'd say you're both right. They belong in the same class as keyboards, but keyboards should be Sleight of Hand and Disable Device, anyways. Also, I like the idea of more skills to be replaced with performance. As it stands, you can cover all of the bases with four performance types (act, dance, oratory, & percussion), and the fifth instance of Versatile Performance becomes pointless. That is purely from an optimization standpoint, of course.

I also say yes to you making our saves, checks, etc. for us to help with pacing, as long as we still get to make our own choices.

If you want to be lance-focused, I'd go with a halfling (outrider alt trait) Beast Rider / Gendarme. Order of the Sword allows you to add mount's STR mod in addition to your own on a charge.

Gauntlets of Extended Range are the only ones that fit the bill. Typically, bows don't have a limited number of charges in which to grant arrows +2 and keen, or whatever.

Too bad it's not very cost effective to throw magic weapons. If only we get some magic gloves that do for thrown weapons what magic ranged weapons do for ammunition.

Yes, please. It would probably function much like an amulet of mighty fists.

What are the pre-req's for the PrC? That would be a decent starting place.

Does Unraveled Energies use d4s or d6s? Ability description say d4, but the examples say d6.

"We have more to worry about than the militaristic side of the Church. There are 100 archbishops, 1000 bishops, and even more simple priests. Their agents could be anywhere and everywhere. This will be a war of information, as well as might." Asriel moves to stand by Fafhrd, inspecting the clockwork soldier. "I would be delighted to share my knowledge on the matter with you."

I'm assuming it's a Knowledge (Engineering) check, but it's the same bonus regardless.

1d20 + 19 ⇒ (3) + 19 = 22

I love the Strategist. Keep it up.

As with Batman himself, the Joker's abilities and skills vary wildly depending on the iteration. If you choose a specific Joker, it will help the process significantly.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I would be sad to see maneuvers go. They're more imaginitive than stand and hack... But they are sometimes complex.

Maybe under certain conditions on an attack you could let them pick from the maneuver list and add that effect to the attack? It would keep things dynamic.

I could always add it in after they get used to things some. They pick up on things quick, so perhaps after a few sessions I'll expand the actions they can do to include combat maneuvers.

I did the same thing when running a campaign for my younger brother and his friends, all around 10 at the time. Every few sessions, I would introduce new options to them, and then in the next session, I would start having the enemies slowly begin to use the options as well. It worked wonderfully, and they quickly grasped how these mechanics could be used without being overwhelmed. By the time we finished playing, we were using the full rules. Also, I would suggest talking to whichever kids would like to play casters, and figure out what they want to do with their magic (attacks, protection, etc) and help guide them through spell selection.

Thanks for pointing out the Beast Shape thing. I have no idea why I wrote "form". Also, halflings are notorious for being the weakest of the core races. I thought the Natlari were more similar to gnomes, but I might be biased due to them sharing ancestors canonically.

I am fleshing out my homebrew campaign setting and decided to allow my previously NPC exclusive races as playable. This is the current iteration, and I was looking for advice regarding the balance compared to core races, regarding the Artiari and Natlari especially, as they have unique features that I have difficulty determining the power level for.