JAMRenaissance's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber. 370 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.




2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Someone on A Pathfinder 2nd Edition FB group I frequent mentioned a while back the idea of converting the Bloodrager class to Pathfinder 2nd, and I went "I think it already exists. It's just Barbarian w/ Moment of Clarity and a Spellcasting Dedication"

Yeah... that opened a rabbit hole for me.

So, here's the first version of what became a guide to trying to make a Bloodrager. The biggest thing is figuring out which spells you can and can't cast based on being in a Rage and how many hands you have free.

I also wrote some sample builds, but, in full disclosure, I don't see myself as much of an optimizer, and I'm specifically much better at modeling an idea. I literally went "This would be cool!", and began doing research. If there are points of optimization I can include, feel free to let me know. They are also linked inside of the guide.

"Barbarians Are Already Bloodragers!" aka "The Bloodrager 2E Spell List"

Samples I created. I tried to vary the Instincts, the spellcasting traditions, and how many spells are focus spells vs spell slot spells.

Goblin Dragon Instinct Flames Oracle

Goblin Dragon Instinct Flames Oracle (Free Archetype)

Human Animal Instinct Aberrant Sorcerer Monk

Human Animal Instinct Aberrant Sorcerer Monk (Free Archetype)

Dwarf Giant Instinct Magus Psychic

Dwarf Giant Instinct Magus Psychic (Free Archetype)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

"Hot Take": Optimization and Tactics are substitutes for each other in Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

That is a shift from Pathfinder 1st Edition. P1E had more "trap" options while also sporting more "best in class" feats and a multiclass system very conducive to maximizing pure power levels. On the other side, the fluidity of movement as well as the streamlined set of bonuses and penalties make tactical combat a considerably stronger option in Pathfinder 2nd than in Pathfinder 1st; simply put, it is easy for any character to assist an ally in attacks, heal an ally, debuff an enemy for an ally, etc., depending on what you do. Optimization was easy in Pathfinder 1st, while using tactics was hard.

The Adventure Paths appear designed to assume a certain level of tactics. It can be expected that a monster will have "bigger numbers" than a PC; tactics drag these "bigger numbers" down to a manageable size. Optimization, on the other hand, reduce this discrepancy by making the PC numbers bigger rather than making the monster numbers smaller. This leads to the "substitution" theory; both are means to get to the same point.

Some often deride optimization; I'm "old school" enough to think of "characters" and not "builds", as an example. Moreover, the design of Pathfinder 2nd makes attempts at optimization rather obvious; you know it when you see the flick mace, shadow signet or any other item in which you can tell someone dug through the crates to find the things that gives the biggest numbers. It is easier to see this as the latest iteration of "ROLEplaying vs ROLLplaying".

With that said, I am personally grappling with whether or not this is a genuinely fair comparison. While I feel a sense of loving nostalgia at the idea of "Stranger Things", TTRPGs have been around for a minute now, and the audience for the games has thankfully changed. If I were still the target audience, as a nearly 50 year old man, this hobby that I love would have long ago gone out of business. We have new people in the hobby, many of whom came from playing video games. If I'm playing a video game, I'm making a character designed to beat the game. To rephrase, the second a controller enters your hand, you stop creating a "character" and start creating a "build". Is it really that unfair to be surprised people come up with "builds" rather than "characters"? Don't get me wrong... I will continue to clown any graduate of Jeziver's School For Gifted Humans, that incredible gnome orphanage that finds parentless humans and trains them to be Fighters with a free archetype of Champion... some level of grace could stand to be given in anything less obvious than that, no?

Moreover, and these are the quiet parts we don't want to admit... tactics involve working with OTHER PEOPLE. Some gamers don't really want to do that, and many gamers don't know HOW to. Interpersonal dynamics can be hard, particularly given the frequency with which we may find ourselves gaming with someone who is not a "friend" per se. Moreover, you have to know HOW to use tactics. As I mentioned above, traditionally tactics aren't a big thing; you ran up to the other team and start swinging. It's hard to admit that you don't know how to "play the game well", but until you learn the nuances of Recalling Knowledge, Athletics, Aid, Flanking, Concealment, Intimidation, etc.. you actually /DON'T/ know how to play well. For many of us, we can learn to ask our fellow players to flank for us or to withdraw from combat if they are getting surrounded... or we can get a weapon with the Fatal trait and try to deal with our problems ourselves. I know I have to be careful to not deride those that chose the latter option, because , even if it is not one I would espouse, it is a very understandable one.

On the other side, it should not be surprising to someone that is focused on a "build" that their cries of "OMG! The game is a MEET GRINDR!!!" may get a response of "Well, how are you playing it?" The game, in my opinion, is really NOT designed to focus on optimization; it's designed for you to work together. You can focus on creating a "character", because, unlike Pathfinder 1st Edition, it is a LOT easier to create something that fits your vision that Doesn't Suck, because the number of trap options are less. The /MINIMUM/ optimization needed in Pathfinder 2e is basically "put the most resources into the thing you do the most"; you should typically be good from there. As such, it is VERY reasonable, when one complains about the difficulty of the game, to not have a conversation about the character creation choices made and to instead have a conversation about the actions used at a given time. Yes, this is a more complicated and difficult conversation, but it is a part of learning how to play the game /WELL/. Before declaring the game bad/wrong/overpowered, we've got to be able to ask about the decisions that led one down that path. You may actually NOT know how to play the game well yet.

Most fights in Pathfinder 1E/5e/3.5 are won during character creation. Fights in Pathfinder 2nd Edition are won during gameplay. However, you can still win a lot during character creation in 2E, and we end up with a constant push and pull to balance these things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hello all!

I wrote A Thing! Monks don't have subclasses per se, and are often not seen as having much of a strength, since fighters specializing in Brawling hit more accurately than a Monk. I did a breakdown of the class looking at it from the standpoint of having three de facto subclasses - Ki Discipline, Stance Discipline, and Weapon Discipline - and a rather specific focus unique to the class - master of action economy. I also sought to organize things into an easy reference, grouping like feats together, listing available weapons for feats, etc.. I hope you all find it interesting and/or helpful! Please let me know if there are things to add/fix/etc..

JAM's Monk "Subclass" & Action Economy Breakdown


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey all,

I'm running a campaign using the Free Archetype variant but without the limitation of needing to complete three feats before taking a new Dedication. Philosophically, there are very few basic Dedication feats that are so powerful as to mess up the balance as compared to a 4th or 6th level feat of a class.

What are the potential pitfalls of allowing this? I'm modelling super hero characters, so the freedom of being able to take Martial Artist or Acrobatics Dedication and then stopping has proven helpful.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey all,

I have a "corner case" to run by folks. I want to combine a full Crane Style chain with Linnorm Style via Combat Style Master. However, because of the wording of Linnorm Style, I'm uncertain if what I want to do works.

I would like to use Crane Style on defense. Assuming someone has tried to attack my character, I would want to switch to Linnorm Style on offense. At the end of my turn, I'd switch back to Crane Style.

The difficulty is that the verbiage of Linnorm Style has most of the effect AFTER it says "When using this style". That would imply that you must be /IN/ Linnorm Style at the time of the attack to get the Wisdom bonus to damage.

How would things work?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Simply put, is Martial Flexibility worth losing a level of spellcasting, particularly in a class that gets extra "building block" feats to flex off of like Warpriest?

Follow up: Does going Sacred Fist instead of standard Warpriest make a difference?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd like for my "math to be checked".

OK, because you can attach any number of free actions to an action, this means that you should be able to do a free action during an immediate action. So, if I have Combat Style Master, Crane Wing, and Snake Style, I could end my turn in Snake Style after fighting defensively, activate the Snake Style immediate action if I'm attacked off of my turn, and then as a free action switch to Crane Wing for the +8 bonus on the next attack.

Is that correct? It does involve fighting defensively even when not using Crane Style, just in case you do decide to switch to Crane Style...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys,

After taking a break from Pathfinder for a bit, I'm joining a group with some old friends where I was told "All books are available". This isn't a heavy-optimization crew, but there is quite a bit one could do with "all books", so I decided to try one of my favorite concepts that I never got a chance to execute - the support sensei. We're on a 15 point buy. I'm running with a combination Human Sensei/Drunken Master/Monk of the Lotus on a 15 point buy. I'm a bit concerned about offensive capabilities, but I also don't want to take too much away from the concept, which is another iteration of the "non-magic magic user", basically. The big thing is that I want the monk to be able to contribute. I only analyzed through level 12, since, well, mosHere's what the progression looks like thus far:

Stats: STR: 10, DEX: 13, CON: 14, INT: 10, WIS: 17, CHA: 10

1st Lvl: AC Bonus, Unarmed Strike, Monk Bonus Feat (Dodge), Touch of Serenity, Advice (Inspire Courage), Feat: Psychic Sensitivity, Feat: Empath

2nd Lvl: Insightful Strike, Root Chakra (DC 11; DR # open chakras/-)

3rd Lvl: Drunken Ki (standard ki uses plus 5 ft. step w/o provoking), Manuever Training, Advice (Inspire Competence), Feat: Snake Style

4th Lvl: Ki Pool (standard uses), Qinggong Power (True Strike), Sacral Chakra (DC 13; Fly speed base movement, Cloud Step rules)

5th Lvl: Qinggong Power (Barkskin), Drunken Strength, Feat: Chakra Initiate

6th: Mystic Wisdom (1 ally), Naval Chakra (DC 16, 2d8 energy in 30' cone ignoring resistance/protection/immunity)

7th: Qinggong Power (Gaseous Form), Feat: Truth In Wine

8th: Heart Chakra (DC 20, Heal 1d8 + 2 * # of open chakras)

9th: Advice (Inspire Greatness), Feat: Teleportation Mastery

10th: Mystic Wisdom (All allies, plus access to and share Monk Moves abilities)

11th: Drunken Courage (Immune to fear), Feat: Deep Drinker

12th: Touch of Surrender (6 ki upon finishing blow to Charm Monster with no save)

Thoughts? There's a few ways that popped in my head to enhance things (subbing feat stuff for the Snake Style chain, Multiclassing a level of Empyreal Tattooed Sorcerer, then taking Spectrum Sight).

Thoughts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

... really, that's it.

I've been playing around with varying houserules to try to recreate what I see from the big major genres in "television" fantasy (LotR, CotT, GoT). The general idea I've seen is that those are all "low level" settings. I would argue that the characters are actually closer to midlevel - spellcasting is simply not as powerful and it is a low magic world. So it's not that the characters in Game of Thrones are level six or so (umm... Melisandre casts Raise Dead and Summon Monster VI, while Ja'qen seems to be at least 10th level if not 12th between Assassinate and Master Disguise), but that magic isn't quite as powerful.

The exact details of how the limiting occurs is irrelevant for the question. The question is one of why there is such an immediate reaction to limiting spellcasters in the first place.

So... wassupwitdat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Technically, it addressed a custom world where magic and science are at odds in a way that weakened dimensional barriers... but it grew into my attempt to address martial caster disparity.

I'm looking for a critique so I can be proactive with my game. I'm running my players through Hell's Vengeance, converting the game as I go. I've gotten PCs through 4th level and NPCs through 8th; things have been fine thus far, but I am curious as to what challenges I may need to address once I get into the third book in the series.

So, with that said, the modifications for the world of Tycon, TyFinder, can be found here. Thanks in advance for any insight!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey all,

I'm working on a tech-based class for a homegrown game I'm running. As background, the idea of the world is that it is at the end of a magical age and moving to a technology one, where certain gods (Moradin, Laduger, Boccob, and Mystra) have embraced the future while others cling to the past. Finally a new god, The God of Numbers is emerging. A friend of mine that designed this world created a specific cleric to the God of Numbers, what I later called the Divine Engineer, which is a guy that was meant to combine spells with tech devices. As I took over the world for my campaign, I began abstracting the idea of a Da Vinci-style character to match my (slightly modified) Alchemist in this world - Alchemists are masters of chemistry and biology, while the new class would be masters of physics and engineering. I'm trying to keep it as much as possible to either "things that would be energy based" or "things that would follow as extensions of normal physics laws. Again, there's meant to be a whole "science vs magic" thing going with this world.

So, with this as an idea and a lot of inspiration from Ultimate Intrigue and the integration of "superheroes", this abstracted idea of a Divine Engineer became the Futurist, or "Leonardo da Vinci as an Action Hero". From there, Divine Engineer became an archetype, with others for Armored Technologist (Iron Man), Clockwork Constructionist (your T.O. Morrow / Will Magnus types), Firearms Empath (Deadshot) and Tech Burglar (Ant-Man).

I'd like thoughts in general about the idea, as well as ideas for higher level Innovations. I petered out in my ideas around level 11.

So, here is The Futurist


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm creating an NPC character that is a 10th level combination of Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, and Sleuth Investigator. The character happened to fit a concept that worked with a combo or Gunslinger and Sleuth Invesitgator, at which point I decided to play around with a concept that combined the Grit, Panache, and Luck pools.

What would be a recommended combo of the three classes if I'm looking at ten levels total?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Combat Stamina is usually associated with Fighters, but has anyone done an analysis on how it can help other martial classes, specifically the Monk?

In my campaign I made Combat Stamina something that that "pure mundanes" (rogues, ninjas, etc.) could buy at Level 3 and the less powerful martials (fighter, monk, samurai, slayer, swashbuckler... basically, any martial other than a paladin, ranger, or barbarian) got for free.

What I noticed is that it helps Monks... a LOT. Simply being able to bypass INT requirements is a HUGE boon, but it does make almost every feat a Monk needs MUCH better, either lowering costs to use them, negating penalties, allowing you to use your abilities AFTER the roll, etc..

Basically, it seems like a nice fix for the martials as a whole, not just the Fighter. Anyone else using Combat Stamina with the other martials with success?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

It seems like the Ki Metabolism should be something of a game changer for an Unchained Monk. Assuming her crew was okay with stopping for a couple of hours if needed, it SHOULD allow an Unchained Monk a lot more flexibility in her abilities, particularly Ki Guardian and Insightful Wisdom. The conversation I imagine in my head is this:

"Hey, guys... you know how I just spent half my key getting everyone to dodge that Ballista Bolt trap? I think I need to lay down for a little bit, if that's okay."

"Well, given that we are now ALIVE, sure."

I don't see much talk of that, though. Realistically, is that too much to ask?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey all,

My newest guide is now ready for public consumption. I wrote the Master of Many Styles Guide to prepare for its usage in the Hybrid Archetyping Guide. Basically, no single archetype can raise up a Monk as much as Zen Archer... but perhaps if we combine two or three....

So here it is: JAM’s Hybrid Archetype Guide: The Monk

Give me thoughts! Thanks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

This is written in the errata:

Quote:


Perfect Strike: Can I use this feat with unarmed strikes?
As written, you can only use the feat with the specific weapons mentioned in the feat description.

So why does the feat have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, if you can't actually use it with unarmed strikes? Because the feat is intended to be a cool thing that monks can do, and monks get IUS automatically (barring an archetype that replaces that feat), so having IUS as a prerequisite means it's easy for monks to learn Perfect Strike but more difficult for other classes. The prerequisite could have been "monk level X," but that would mean that only monks could take the feat (prohibiting even other martial arts classes or archetypes).

Note that the zen archer archetype allows you to use the feat with a bow, which means there's a precedent for creating an unarmed-combat archetype that modifies the feat for use with other weapons.

If it is meant to be a monk thing, why is the weapon list so small?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hello,

I made a thread named "Master of Many Styles Guide" over in the Advice section and I'd like to get the title changed to "The Beginner's Guide to the NEW Master of Many Styles". How does one go about doing that? Thanks!


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I did some work for Icy Turbo's Guide to picking archetypes (the thread for which can be found right here), specifically the Monk Archetypes. As part of that, I began trying to review the Master of Many Styles, and realized that the archetype is so different and so mechanics-heavy that it may need its own seperate guide.

I can't say that I've done a full pass at it, because there are a lot of idiosyncrasies to the archetype. Specifically, in order to max out the power of the archetype, you need to be able to go deeply into the Feat Chains for the Styles, and balancing prerequisites and the like is not a small thing.

I have made it through a first pass of rating the various styles in specific reference to how well they fit as part of the Master of Many Styles. It is NOT a formal Style Guide per se, as the MoMS has a number of quirks that make certain styles better for it than any other character. The biggest example is something like Jabbing Style, which is a powerful Style on its own, but is less effective for a MoMS due to the lack of Flurry of Blows.

The first pass at the Style Ratings and the like can be found right here. My next task is analyzing how best to implement the style. For example,

  • Is it worth it to go for two Styles at Level One, particularly when the only Styles that one can take this way at first level are Snapping Turtle Style, Panther Style (if human), Cudgeler Style (if human), and Crane Style (if human)?
  • Which styles have prerequisites that are commonly shared, thus making it easier to go up the Feat Chain?
  • Which Styles have complementary abilities, generalizing the possible things the Style can do as Offensive To-Hit, Offensive Damage, Additional Attacks, Additional Defense, and Other Bonuses (such as Marid Style's increased Reach, or Overslug Styles 10' steps)?

What are people's thoughts on the Style Ratings? Are these good questions to take the time to analyze? Is there anything else I should think of? Any thoughts on formatting (as it is kind of in "brain dump" mode right now).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys,

I decided to create my own version of the Vigilante for use in my campaign (the same one with Divine Engineers). It is based loosely on Rangers with the Secret Identity portions of the Vigilante playtest and an aggressive Skill Unlocks system. It was inspired by the Green Arrow / Batman / Daredevil idea of a character being pushed to the point that they develop a separate "persona" in which they find themselves able to do things they couldn't previously do. As is mentioned in the opening to the Arrow TV Show, you find yourself becoming "someone else". I was also hoping to tack on enough cool-yet-"superheroey" abilities that it would be differentiated from a more standard Fighter.

So, if you guys don't mind, give me thoughts on my Homebrew Vigilante.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys,

A while back I asked about feedback to create a divinely inspired spellcaster that specialized in building things. I finished the class a while back, but had to put the campaign I was running on hold. I'm getting ready to restart, so now is as good of a time to get feedback.

As mentioned above, the class is meant to be a divinely inspired inventor. For those that follow comic books, you are Forge as a cleric. Unfortunately, the sorts of spells that really work best with this aren't the most powerful or versatile in the world, so the class is augmented to give control over devices/equipment with their channeling, combat applications for it's intelligence, and the ability to apply their intelligence in more practical ways.

Finally, as an aside, the campaign this is written for has NO prepared spellcasters, and in general lowered the power levels. There are no Tier One classes, and only a couple of Tier Two. I'm ok if the class is "weak" as compared to a standard cleric. The question would be whether it was weak or strong next to a Hunter or Inquisitor.

So, here's the Divine Engineer.

Hit me with thoughts!

PS - I use varying actors/actresses for my NPCs, and my Iconic Divine Engineer is "played" by Miayim Bialek of Big Bang Theory fame... hence her picture with the class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys,

One of the nuances for the campaign I'm doing is that the world exists at a time where technology is really starting to take the place of magic. In this "transition period", the idea of a character class that is divinely inspired to create new things came up. I'm working on a spell list for this sort of "Divine Engineer"; what spells would make sense for someone whose God gives them the ability to analyze and create things? I need some ideas...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm cutting all Prepared Spellcasting in my campaign, so Wizards, Clerics, and the like are simply gone, and other classes with prepared spellcasting are modified so that they don't have prepared spells. I feel comfortable that most of the "roles" needed by the prepared spellcasters are covered, but I didn't feel totally comfortable that the idea of a "Spellcaster of a God" was adequately covered by the Oracle. As such, I wrote up an archetype called the Divinely Inspired Oracle, which is meant to be an Oracle that gets powers from their diety.

In this archetype, the Oracle loses the Oracle's Curse, Oracle's Mystery, and Spontaneous Cure/Inflict spells.

In return, the Oracle chooses two domains of her deity, and gains the Domain Powers of the deity and the Domain Spells as bonus spells. They also gain the ability to channel positive energy if their deity is a good deity, and channel negative energy if their deity is Neutral or Evil.

How does this Divinely Inspired Oracle stack up against the regular Oracle? Again... the idea of a Cleric is totally removed from the game, so the comparison is really meant to be one spontaneous caster versus another.

Does this balance well?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys,

Archery is far and above the most powerful method of ranged attack, and often is better than standard melee attack. Given that I am debuffing guns a bit in my campaign (they are all musket-type weapons, which practically means you can't shoot a single gun more often than every other round), I need to bring down archery just a touch. As a first go-round solution, I am considering saying that you can only use Feats to enhance one aspect of archery at a time: Damage, Fire Rate, or Accuracy. So you can use Rapid/Many Shot, but not at the same time as Deadly Aim or Precise Shot, as an example.
This doesn't feel like a harsh nerfing, but I would like to get some thoughts from outside of my campaign on bringing Archery more in line with other forms of combat.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys,

I'm balancing out the power levels for my campaign using the philosophy that Martial/Utility characters are better at doing martial/utility things than a Magic User is without Magic. As a result, I've added things like Pathfinder Unchained's Signature Skills and Combat Stamina to the Utility/Martial characters.

With that in mind, I'm considering rounding out the adjustments by giving characters without ANY access to magic Mythic levels, while preventing ANY character with intrinsic Magic from having Mythic Abilities. So a Rogue gets Mythic levels, but a Bard does not. In addition, the Hierophant and Archmage paths are simply not available.

The question isn't the direction, but the timing - what level of magic spell is roughly the equivalent of a Mythic Tier?

I'm currently considering Mythic Tiers at levels 8, 11, and 13-20, with the idea being that a Mythic Tier is roughly equivalent to a 4th level spell. Is that a solid comparison?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Does anyone play with Wound Thresholds from Pathfinder Unchained? Are there any thoughts on their viability?

Also, how much does losing Class Levels change how people run casters? It seems like this is one of the rare areas where a Martial is penalized less than a Caster (a -1 to hit is a LOT easier to deal with than a -1 Caster Level)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys,

Let's get this out of the way first - Casters are more powerful than Martials because Magic. There is no way around it; you are moving lines in the sand, but not changing anything.

So with that as the context (and the acceptance that trying to completely get rid of it is a fools' errand), does having a wide selection of magic items available increase or decrease the martial/caster disparity?

In two recent campaigns I played in both GMs outlawed Metamagic Rods. When asked why, there was an immediate "Too Powerful". In playing a Sorcerer, I began to to invest in some Metamagic feats, to which an experienced player (that didn't happen to know about the outlaw of MM Rods) immediately asked why I'd waste Feats on MetaMagic when I could just get a rod? The idea was that a fairly small amount of money could replace the Feat (a very precious resource), so why ever bother with the Feat? The extra effect, though, is that there is one less Feat a Wizard/Sorcerer needs, and THAT is really where the disparity plays out - Wizard and Sorcerers won't need to invest in MM Feats, so that clears the way to invest in something else.

Similarly, I run a comparatively low-magic campaign. The general guidelines I've given my players is "If it's over +1 or about 3000 gp, you have to either find it or build it yourself". To this, my Wizard player immediately asked "Will we have enough downtime to build", which I guaranteed there would be between adventures (and I think this is fair). To this, he invested in a few Crafting Feats and some specific spells that he'd want to use to build things...

... notice a pattern here? Resources that otherwise would go to other things are now having to be redistributed, because you can't just "buy your way" out of it.

I've actually seriously considered similarly lowering the availability of any magic item that can't easily be used by pure martials, including Wands. Why? In character, there are CONSIDERABLY fewer people that can use them, so it makes sense for a spell crafter looking to make money to make things that can be used by the most people, and there are a lot more Fighters than Sorcerers in my campaign. In general, if you can go "Why would you take <X>? You can just buy <Y item>", then I'm thinking <Y Item> needs to be something that you can build.

So I'd like some thoughts? How much is the disparity between Martials and Casters something that becomes "baked in" due to the items being available?

Quick side note on one of the more powerful spell options in my paradigm:

Spoiler:
I took over a world that a friend of mine designed. It was meant to be "broken", in that something happened when it was being created and certain elements aren't working right. Specifically, demons and devils (generic versions) have fairly easy portals to getting back and forth (and apparently Angels, given the number of Aasimar that appear), but otherdimensional travel otherwise doesn't work well. Practically speaking, teleportation anywhere more than a few feet becomes risky, with a big-bad teleporting at least a mile away from the PCs and pretty much being blown off as committing suicide due to how risky that kind of jump is. You're taking big chances at the upper limits of Dimension Door, and beyond that is suicidal.

Similarly, summoning spells don't work as well; whatever you summon must be indigenous to the environment you are in, as you're doing comparatively short range teleporting. Summoners, as a class, are not in the game.

This reduced the martial/caster disparity a LOT, and it was totally unintentional. losing the ability to call Something Else That Does Stuff For Me makes a big difference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I like prepared spellcasting as a game mechanic, but it never fit with what I imagine happening in the genre. I can't wrap my mind around Gandalf forgetting a spell after he casts it; it just doesn't work for me. Toss in the power disparity between prepared casters and spontaneous casters (on top of the general "caster vs non-caster"), and I think the best thing is to simply go without the idea of having to prepare spells.

So, in the game I run, there will be a cosmic event where my campaign and a friend's that occurs in the same universe splits into two universes, and I'm going to take that time to remove prepared spellcasting from the game. I'm also taking the time to add a few Advanced Class Guide classes to the game to make up for some of the ones being removed. I'd like to get some thoughts.

One new over-arching mechanic, to begin: In the movies, spellcasters have loads of spells written in books, and I don't want to get rid of that concept. Besides which, there must be a way of passing on these spells, which spontaneous casters wouldn't easily be able to do on the level needed. So, with that in mind, all Spontaneous Casters (except possibly the Bloodrager, who for flavor reasons would not have this ability) get Scribe Scroll as a bonus Feat. In addition, I want to add a mechanic that will allow for the casting of a spell from a written source without erasing the spell (hence all of the spells they'd keep written down). My current base idea is that the caster is functionally performing a ceremony to cast the spell, with a first level spell taking 15 minutes to cast and each successive level doubling the time So, a 2nd level spell takes 30 min., 3rd level is 1 hr, 6th is 1 day, up to a 9th level spell taking a week where all you are doing is casting the spell for eight hours a day each day. This also goes along with those weird ceremonies always shown in movies that the good guys conveniently have time to interrupt.

So, with that in mind, here are the other adjustments:

Removed Classes: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Antipaladin, Summoner (though it went away for other reasons)

Full Caster Classes: Oracle and Sorcerer

Utility Caster Classes: Alchemist (rewritten with a custom archetype that replaces Bombs and Alchemy with the ability to spontaneously create alchemical items on the fly and create specific extracts ala the Spiritualist Investigator), Bard, Hunter (taking the place of Druid in the world), and Magus (Eldritch Scion Archetype Required)

Utility Mundane Classes: Investigator (Sleith or Spiritualist archetype required), Ninja, Rogue

Full Martial Classes: Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk, Paladin (Warrior of the Holy Light Archetype Required, Alignment Restriction shifted to being within one difference from the diety), Ranger (Skirmisher or Trapper Archetypes Required), Samurai, Stalker, Swashbuckler

What other things should I think about? How does this set of things seem to play out?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

That's pretty much it. So many other similar class features allow you to invest Feats to get more of them (Rage Power, Rogue Talent, etc.), and this one is very conspicuous in its absence. It made sense before Unchained, since Ki Powers were a function of an archetype, not a class, and as such not necessarily supported with Feats. However, with Unchained making Ki Powers a class feature, it seems like there should be the equivalent Feat added to the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Hey guys,

I'm playing an Aasimar Monk in a campaign. Is the Aasimar's Daylight ability sufficient to fulfill the prerequisites for Arcane Strike, and, if so, would that apply to Unarmed Strikes?