Jack Thorn's page

With the update to Ultimate Campaign, Brothels have actually been renamed to "Dance Hall", presumably to make them more PG or some such nonsense. Dance Halls have the same stats as Brothels and any references to Brothels in the UC rules (such as Theaters, the Drug Den event, etc) are essentially typos and should say Dance Hall instead. I'd look for the "official" source on this but I'm too tired right now :p

Thanks for the clarification. After I posted, I went back in and looked for a stand-in bldg type and suspected that the Dance Hall was a reskinned Brothel. Thanks for the confirmation!

First, I just want to say that this is great stuff. I was truly afraid I was going to have to either stay with the older Kingmaker rules or start tracking by hand. Thank you for all the hard work.

I think I found an error: it appears that the city building: watchtower is not contributing to the overall city defense stat.

Also, I realize it is missing in UC (or at least from the prd's UC entries), but the "Brothel" building is referenced a number of times (in the discounted entry for multiple buildings):

Brothel (4 BP; must be adjacent to 1 house): A place to
pay for companionship of any sort. Economy +1, Loyalty +2;
Unrest +1.

Again, thanks for all the excellent work!

- jack

I think the main reason to make it a Ranger archetype is for the combination of Full BAB and lots of skill points. The swashbuckler is a swordsmen, yes, but he's always a swordsmen that can do a million other things well. Ranks in Acrobatics, Climb, Swim, Knowledge (Local), Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive, just off the top of my head, are all part of the idea (well, okay, Diplomacy may be optional). Hard to do that with a Fighter, easy to do with even an average intelligence Ranger.

Rogue or Bard, I think, would still fit better. In terms of pure combat, the fighter will out, every time. If you want the dashing hero, a Bard or Rogue is optimal for this concept.

Edit: Really, the more I think about it, this just screams Bard.
Edit: The Daredevil archetype would fit nicely. That is very swashbuckler-esque. See "Agile."

Agile (Ex): A daredevil adds half her class level (minimum 1) on Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, and Escape Artist checks. This ability replaces bardic knowledge.

I'm confused. Why is this a ranger based variant? If it were me, I would tell them to make a fighter and either dip Gunslinger or pickup the amateur gunslinger feat (and other such) along the way. The swashbuckler is a swordsman / hero, first, as far as the traditional archetype goes (film, books, etc). Your swashbuckler-playing-player should follow suit. The fighter gets so many feats he could easily achieve such a feat. I've not looked through all the variant fighter archetypes, but I think the mobile fighter is in keeping with the spirit of the swashbuckler. Think shipped-based piratey type Errol-Flynn combat or Three Musketeers, lots of movement there.

In a different direction, I think a rogue would be a good fit for this concept. I believe, with the proper talents / feats, it would make perfect sense. And I think rogue would synergizes well with the flavor of the charismatic swashbuckler.

Or perhaps a Bard... the swashbuckler tended to be a performer at heart (show-offy and what-not). I've not looked through the Bard variants or the performance feats, but mayhaps that is the way to go.

Anyway. Just my two cents.

Edit: Sorry, I left my ultimate point out, which is -- I don't think you need to build a homebrew class to make a concept work. I think the concept works just fine through the regular / available classes. Moreso, actually, than a homebrew class.

p. 100 Enfiladating Fire - how can a foe be flanked by only 1 ally? Should this be 2 or more?

I could be wrong, but I assumed that the whole point of this feat IS to flank with a ranged weapon and a qualifying ally. So, if Bob is standing next to GoblinJoe and John is firing at him, John gets to apply the flanking bonus because he is taking advantage of Bob's ability to distract GoblinJoe.

This is a teamwork feat, after-all. So both Bob and John have "worked" this kind of ploy together, etc etc etc.

I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I cannot seem to find it anywhere, so...

The Cleric: Crusader archetype grants Bonus feats in place of Domain and Spell Casting ability, allowing for "a bonus feat at 1st level, then again at 5th level and every five levels thereafter (to a maximum of six at 20th level)."

1, 5, 10, 15, 20 = 5

I assume that there should be a bonus feat at 3rd, or that there are a maximum of five bonus feats (I am leaning towards another bonus at 3rd). Has there been any comment on this?

How does your group like to do it?

Do you draw the dungeon before game night? Or do you draw-as-you-explore? Does your GM draw the whole map out and lay it out, relying on the players to ignore the details? Or do you draw each section and lay them out as you go along?

Do you use map tiles? Do you worry about the map tiles not matching the environment?

I'm just curious. And a little bored.

- jack

Dear James,

Do you prefer point buy or dice rolling? If points, how many? If dice, what method?

Just curious!

Jack

Jack Thorn wrote:

James,

Is Aroden the inhabitant living on The Hermitage? That would be fun. :)

- Jack

Nope.

Aroden is dead.

But that would be fun, eh?

James,

Is Aroden the inhabitant living on The Hermitage? That would be fun. :)

- Jack

I was wondering, how often do you (as GM) attack / kill your players' mounts? Or, how often do you (as a player) have your mount attacked by GM run meanies?

My group has been hesitant to use mounts because of the general impression that mounts die quickly / easily and, I suspect, because they think I'm out to get them (they might be right on this last one).

As an ancillary question, one which is hard to really answer given its vague / open-ended nature, how often *should* a mount get killed and / or eaten by a mob? Do you GMs find that you prefer to ignore mounts? Or is mount-buying something your players do nightly (or more)?

Thanks,
Jack

Mostly interested which Pathfinder minis are used in Kingmaker, but a list of which ones are used in which Society, AP, and regular modules would be helpful too.

I was hunting around for a list as well, but found none... guess you'll have to do it. I eagerly await the results of your research.

:-D

Those only apply to Strength checks and Strength skills, not CMB checks and melee attacks, which is what they should also receive.

I would tend to agree that [edit: the Strength bonus] should extend to combat, since martial combat could be considered a feat of strength (depending on the fighting style, weapon, etc.) That concession aside, my point is that the cleric is able to demonstrate a godly, though short-lived, strength... just not early on in his career.

:-) no you are right, it is much better and thematic to have a bunch of priests unable to practice or participate in what they preach. :-)

That's a bit hyperbolic. Moreover, it's just wrong. The "selflessness" of the preacher is core to any benevolent faith. The empowerment of the warrior who fights in the name of the preacher or faith, for instance, would belong very much to any martial faith. For the manipulative and minion hoarding zealot, empowering others to fight (and die) in the name of the deity makes perfect sense.

And clerics of the strength domain do get to practice what they preach, just not until level eight. ;)

I still couldn't find where it says the beginning of the next turn in PF

page 178, under the heading The Combat Round, third paragraph:

Can someone explain to me why a Cleric with the Strength domain can't even use the Strength Surge ability on himself effectively?

I've read through the arguments made here and am surprised that nobody proffered up a more simple, less rules-y explanation. The ability reads "you can touch a creature to give it great strength" (p. 47). Some have argued that the cleric can't use this ability on himself combat-wise. Others have claimed that this is an oversight. And the thread has somewhat branched off the rules argument concerning duration and initiative rank.

I would like to suggest, however, that the power plays out exactly as intended. Rather than looking at this and asking why it doesn't buff the cleric him- or herself, ask what is implied by an ability that operates only on some other creature. Clerics are not merely avatar-like manifestations of their gods. Rather, they are the conduits of their gods. It would behoove a god to spread his power in order to attract converts and keep the flock faithful. The cleric bestowing gifts of strength upon the laypersons he or she "preaches" to is "spreading" the "word" of his or her god. I think, in this way, the ability makes sense.

Furthermore, the cleric of a strength-domain God does get his own self-buff ability at 8th level (p.47). It would be a redundancy to have a lesser and greater version of a similar benefit. If it was intended to be used as a self-buff, the Cleric would have been given a scaling domain power instead.

Just my two cents.