JerkyGunner's page

Watch and Learn Pathfinder Agent feat - This feat does nothing. You already gain this as a benefit of the dedication feat without having to spend a reaction or see an ally using the skill.

Any word on this from Paizo folks? Do we just ignore the feat exists or are there plans for a modified version?

Remember Your Training is another archetype feat that mentions the same bonus already granted by the Dedication.

FWIW, we've been using a house-ruled alchemist with Deadmanwalking's changes and I think they're a very good set of tweaks.

You can find them here. They've fixed a lot of the problems we found with the class initially.

Resurrecting this as I'm curious how your changes have played out in practice.

Any feedback from the player/s?

I'm also wondering if you use any other house rules that you're able to share.

Got a question about the alchemist's Perpetual Infusions.

The way I'm reading it the alchemist can pick any level 1 alchemical item rather than being restricted to a list.

The problem with that is the ability reads "At 11th they increase these to the 3rd level versions, and at 17th level they increase them again to the 11th level versions." Most of the alchemical items don't follow this leveling rate, unfortunately (poisons, various elixirs, antidotes, antiplagues etc.)

What's your recommendation on how to handle that?

Hey Deadmanwalking, have you made any notable changes to any of the APG material?

Just an update from my end: got another alchemist player and he and my original one are feeling much better about the class using all your changes.

Hope the holidays are treating you well!

What are your thoughts on/experiences with talismans?

Are you finding your players make use of them or do they just ignore them completely?

Have you changed them in any way to better suit your table?

The Bomber's Eye Elixir is described as follows:

Bomber’s Eye Elixir: The lesser version ignores 2 points of circumstance penalty, the greater version gives the user weapon specialization with bombs, or greater weapon specialization if they already have weapon specialization. Both last one hour.

Does the greater version also get the 2 point reduction for circumstance penalty? As it's worded the greater one only seems to get the weapon specialisation but I think that's wrong.

Added some improvements to the Warpriest Doctrine for Clerics. Still not entirely happy with the nature of them, but they'll do for now.

At level 15 you've given warpriests Expert proficiency with heavy armour but I'm not seeing them be Trained in heavy armour before then.

Is there something you are looking for specifically, or think I should take a look at?

No, just curious as I enjoy reading your changes :)

Any post-APG changes, Samurai?

DMW, do you have any thoughts on the Signature Spell class feature of spontaneous casters? I get the feeling it limits what they can do and I'm not sure if I want to do away with it, tweak it, or just leave it as is.

What do you think?

Alchemist Changes I like your approach, I have a different one. I used yours for a while though, and they work, I just wanted to try something with much less text to give my players.

Interested in sharing them? In the interest of comparing the two. I'm using a different rule to DMW's but I'm thinking of changing. Would like to see another alternative if it's proving successful - especially if it's less wordy.

I also added (or, to some degree, re-added from the playtest) an item for adding to spell attack rolls. It's pretty bare bones, as I feel like my item design is one of my weakest areas in PF2 rules, but it's probably okay. I may adjust levels of the higher level versions up slightly and add once per day spells of some sort. I'm thinking about it.

Perhaps it can also help improve the spell DC of the caster. Make it more useful in general as spell attack rolls won't affect everything.

Added the missing Tanessen Towder for Tomorrow Must Burn.

Looks like the 6th Floor map is missing doors. Apart from that - thanks for sharing!

I felt the weakness rules seemed tailored to the Alchemist and Wizards only getting 1 or 2 points of splash damage, and that was then increased in some creatures by 10 or 20 points by the weakness rules. That seemed very artificial and strange to me, that a candle flame added the same amount as a fireball to a target with Fire Weakness 20. So Fire Weakness 20 now adds up to 20 points, to a max of doubling the attack's damage. (If I had my way, Weakness would probably simply double the damage suffered, no max, but I'm trying to retain the RAW at least a little bit, and this way some creatures can be stronger or weaker than others by having a higher or lower Weakness rating.)

With my revised splash damage rules being 1 step lower than the main target damage, now Weakness can be based on the attack's damage rather than a flat amount whenever it is hit with any damage of that type. Bombs and splash spells like Acid Splash can now do a bit of damage to both the main target and those in the splash area, especially when that damage is doubled due to a weakness.

That was my thought as well. I also like the fact it allows for varying degrees of weakness and seems relatively well balanced as is.

What's the reasoning behind the change to Weakness?

The effect is smaller as you level up but it's quite a nerf to early levels when fighting certain creatures. It also negatively impacts alchemists.

Not sure if I like it or not but I'd like to hear your reasons for using it.

We don't use Stamina in our game, and I haven't heard anything massively positive or negative about it (no "this problem needs fixing" issues, nor "This fixes a lot of problems in the RAW PF2"). The ability to regain all your Stamina points in a 10 minute rest with 1 Resolve point seems like a version of the D&D5e short rest but without using Hit Dice. I don't see any issues in using my rules...

No issues in particular, was just curious as to your take on it since I tend to agree with almost all of your rule changes.

I've personally removed the Steel Your Resolve feat that lets you take an action to recover half your Stamina points since it's so overpowered it almost feels feat tax-ey using the system.

I've also decided that any magical healing can heal both health and stamina as this addresses the issue of typical casters losing a fair bit of their power using this system. RAW healing can only recover HP and not SP but as you can imagine that would make something like a divine cleric less effective. So magic healing > mundane healing now.

Don't want this to turn into a discussion of the system but was just curious about your take.

Thanks for clarifying the Jousting and Charge thing!

Your changes to the lance are a bit unclear.

The Charge entry states that it replaces the Jousting trait, but you then go on to clarify the Jousting trait even though the lance is the only weapon in the game with that trait.

Btw, can I get your opinion/thoughts on the Stamina system from the GMG? Bit of a deviation but maybe relevant considering your many changes.

A question on the heightening of the magic weapon spell. Does it simply increase the weapon potency when it heightens or does the striking also increase?

The latter seems like it would make it a lot better but curious as to how you would balance it.

I'll agree about them being much better. I honestly think their current state in your house rules is pretty good and I'm hoping over the next few sessions we'll see how the alchemist performs in my party.

Will give feedback if I think any is warranted.

JerkyGunner wrote:

Oh I misunderstood the wording, then. I thought you were halving the vanilla splash damage (2 splash damage for a moderate acid flask). Now I see that you roll the main damage and then apply half of that as splash damage to all splash targets.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. Yes, I think that looks like a pretty nice buff. Will try it out.

Let me know how it goes, and if you could, what do you think of the possible idea of bombs acting as mini-fireballs, doing full damage in the entire area of effect (or just against a single target if the Bomber chooses to eliminate the area), with targets making a saving throw instead of the Alchemist making an attack roll?

I think that would make them A LOT more powerful by default, probably too much so. There's a high-level feat that lets that happen and I think it makes sense being locked behind that.

Something else I've noticed: there doesn't seem to be somewhere for alchemists to keep track of their infused reagents. I might be missing it but if not it would be good to have a field to put that as it's their equivalent of their daily spell slots.

Oh I misunderstood the wording, then. I thought you were halving the vanilla splash damage (2 splash damage for a moderate acid flask). Now I see that you roll the main damage and then apply half of that as splash damage to all splash targets.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. Yes, I think that looks like a pretty nice buff. Will try it out.

I don't really understand what you did with the splash damage. "it does not change according to the attack roll", does that mean it always does 1/2 the bomb's main target damage in the area unless the attack was a crit fail? I can see that.

But you say it still hasn't helped the alchemist's damage enough? Are you using the "Int bonus for bomb's attack rolls instead of Dex," and he has the free "Powerful Alchemy feat" at level 1? Is there anyone helping to flank and make the target flat-footed to aid him in his attack rolls? The ability to remove the splash damage as a Bomber means it's safe for allies to help pin down a target and not get splashed. Is he running out of bombs, or having some other issues? Without knowing more, I'm not really eager to just increase his power without more guidelines. Is he leveling up his bombs as he increases in character levels?

The splash is always the regular damage, rather than one step lower than the main target. Your version has it simply be one step lower. So basically I'm running them with all your house rules but their splash damage remains as effective as it does in the core rules.

Flanking the enemy doesn't help because only characters within melee range would benefit from it being flat-footed (pg 476 of CRB).

I'm using all your other suggested rules for Alchemists and I've given the player a few suggestions regarding how he might want to optimise his playstyle to feel more effective.

Hopefully that helps the situation but in all honesty at this point I think it may be situational and optimal use of his bombs rather than the class continuing to be underpowered. For example, I pointed out the importance of having a backup weapon since his options once he ran out of bombs were a sling and a dagger (he's at -1 Str).

So just to be clear, I don't think you necessarily need to change anything :) only thing I've done is revert to standard splash rules where the full splash damage is done in any scenario except for a critical failure. This also removes your change to Calculated Splash.

Some feedback on the change to allow Finesse weapons to use Dex as damage: I'm not 100% convinced on my opinion but I'm currently not a huge fan.

I like to consider flavour and balance when taking these things into account when possible and I think the flavour of having Finesse weapons increase their damage using Dex is covered by the Precision damage type.

So, aside from the fact it does make Dex slightly more powerful, I think it doesn't fully satisfy me on both sides of the argument.

Re: Entangled as a condition we're continuing to use it and see how it goes as it may not be as overpowered as I thought (at least at my table).

I will note that I made a change to your rule on bombs whereby you have the splash damage be one step lower than whatever the normal damage is. I removed that and splash damage does not change according to the success of the roll (apart from doing none on a critical failure). The alchemist continues to struggle for efficacy at times so this change doesn't help the situation for us.

Don't seem to be able to edit my previous post so I'll mention something else.

It doesn't seem possible to assign more than one trait to armour. However, something like a Chain Shirt is both flexible and noisy, so ideally more than one can be chosen.

Small problem I've come across when using the Stamina system. There doesn't seem to be a field to add additional sources of HP (for example, from feats).

I'm currently doing it by editing the Ancestry HP field but wondering if there's a solution.

Not sure if this is the place to point out bugs or if you have a dedicated mode of communication for that.

I'm working on an animal companion and the HP calculation is working out incorrectly because it's taking the character's Constitution score rather than the minion's.

EDIT: I'll also take the opportunity to ask if there's a simple way to update once you make alterations to your master sheet?

Thanks a ton for adding the Stamina option! Unfortunately my Fighter also has Toughness as a feat so I'm temporarily putting those into the Temp HP.

He also has the Barbarian Dedication so I have to add that on top when he Rages :)

Will be thrilled if you find space to add a misc bonus to HP but already great that there's the Stamina option.

Also a big fan of the Party Tracker and will start using that too.

Definitely interested in Stamina if that's at all possible.

We don't have an Alchemist in the party, so it hasn't been tried in game yet. I just wanted Entangled to be more useful for lots of effects. I also increased the ability of bombs, if you noticed. The main target takes full damage on a hit, double on a crit hit, and half on a miss. The splash damage is 1 step less than the main target suffers, so full damage from a crit hit, 1/2 damage from a hit, and no damage from a miss.

I'm interested in what you think of Magic Weapon's changes. Do you think it should just be capped at +1 striking for a 3rd level spell, or also include levels 5 and 7 varieties too? It...

The changes to the bombs are good ones and we've found them to help give the Alchemist more of an impact than he has as a baseline.

The change to Tanglefoots seems like a step -too- much. I think Clumsy might be too powerful and something like flat-footed might be better. Not sure if you've gotten further feedback on this.

Still thinking about the Magic Weapon option, since both options you mentioned are suitable. Might go for the one that just gives one step of Heightening and stop there.

My intention was for that it means that at the basic level 1 spell, it adds the normal effects (+1 attack and Striking) to a non-magical weapon.

For a 3rd level spell slot, it adds that +1 Striking to an already magical weapon (Say it is already a +1 weapon, it becomes +2 to attack and adds 1 die of damage. If it is already a +1 Striking weapon, it becomes a +2 on attacks and +2 dice of damage.) Those bonuses can only add up to a +3 Striking weapon maximum, the max in the book. So if it is already +3 Striking, it has no effect.

Optionally, for a 5th level spell slot, it adds +2 Striking to a weapon (Still +3 Striking total max). For a 7th level spell slot, it turns a non-magical weapon into a +3 striking weapon for the duration of the spell, or increases an already magical weapon to +3 striking for 1 minute. I left those options open by just saying +2 spell levels to Heighten Magic Weapon, and left it up to you whether you want to allow it to be cast at 5th and 7th levels, or just cap it at 3rd level and +1 attack and damage dice to an already magical weapon.

Thanks for clarifying. Another question related to balance - how have you found the new Tanglefoot bags after you added that Entangled condition? It seems like they went from "not that great" to "wow this is really good" with that change. Does it feel balanced in your games?

Samurai, could you clarify the wording on the Magic Weapon spell change.

Is there just one level of heightening that takes it straight to +3? Are there multiple steps, with the first going to +2 and then to +3? Does it also give the weapon improved striking effects?

Well, I usually just announce the latest changes in a new post, and when there are enough changes, I update the version number. The current version is 1.51. I changed to 1.5 when the official errata came out, and added all official changes in green. Previously, I just had a list of the "known errata" (from designer videos or forum replies) listed at the end of the document.

If I just changed the latest change's text to red or something, people would probably ask "why is this line/section red?" And I don't know what is new since the last version they saw, only the latest changes I've made. And how would I color it if I removed something that was in the changes before? Ideally I would be able to create a change log so people could see what changed from one version to the next, but I have only kept partial track (I still have the last copy of the last of each major version change, such as 1.43, version 1.3, etc) and creating a full change log would be a big headache. I'll give it some thought though.

A changelog would be a good compromise, I think. Doesn't need to start from the beginning, even just starting one up from now might be helpful.

Samurai, really enjoying the changes you're making and have applied some to my own campaign.

Would it be possible to highlight your most recent additions to the document with every update? Perhaps have them in a different colour to make them easier to spot.

Would adding full BAB help or is that still too small of an impact to matter?

Is there a reason for its loss of effectiveness after level 5? Maybe there's something else I can add/change to compensate.

I've gone with something simpler and, to be honest, I'd like to get your opinions on it since I'm fairly new to the game.

The only thing I've changed is that for the purposes of Sneak Attack, a rogue is considered to be flanking her target regardless of her position long as there is at least one other ally in melee combat with her target.

I'd like your opinions on whether that sounds too powerful or perhaps not powerful enough.

I'll be honest, my group are all very new to the game and this is my first game outside play-by-post so this has very little testing.

The reasoning for not having it be unlimited was that outside of combat they'd simply use this over and over again unless they felt there was a time factor, which I wanted to avoid. I do very much like the idea of limiting it to 1/2 max HP rather than the number I came up with; I think it's fair and will probably change it to that.

Thanks for the input!

EDIT: I'm also adding the following two rules:

- Monks have a hit die of d10 (up from d8) and full BAB.
- Rogues are considered to be flanking an enemy regardless of her position in relation to other allies in melee with the enemy, provided there is at least one other ally in melee with her target.

The aim of which is to try and boost these two classes to the point they're no longer a step beneath other classes.

Also changing the rule that gives fighters more skill points to say the following, so it applies to any non-Intelligence based class with 2 skill points:

Clerics, fighters, paladins, summoners and sorcerers gain 4 + Int skill ranks per level, up from 2 + Int.

These are the rules I'm using in my game. I understand some of them may have been mentioned above so I won't really explain everything unless it looks like it needs it.

General
No experience points; players level at the GM’s discretion.
When leveling up, the character can choose to roll for HP or take the average.
Ignore encumbrance unless characters try to carry an exaggerated amount of gear.
Ammunition, spell components, food, and water are not tracked unless it is important to the adventure.

Feats
Every character gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.
If they meet the prerequisites, every character gains Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Combat Expertise as bonus feats.

Classes
Fighters gain 4 + Int skill ranks per level, up from 2 + Int.
The bonus from the fighter’s Bravery class ability also applies to Intimidate checks performed against the fighter.
If a class ability states that the character may use her bonus on a skill in place of her bonus in other skills (such as the Bard's Versatile Performance or the Vivisectionist Alchemist's Cruel Anatomist), she may immediately reassign the skill points previously assigned on the associated skills being substituted.

Skills
Every character starts with one extra skill point in a Craft, Profession, or Perform skill of their choice.
Perception is a class skill for all classes.
Aid Another is no longer it’s own roll. If you choose to aid someone else’s skill roll, simply say so and that player gets a +2 to their result.

Spells
New spell called cure minor wounds, a cleric (or any other class with cure light wounds as a 1st level spell) orison that heals 1hp per cast up to a maximum of the target’s Con modifier + level. - This might be the contentious one, I added this because I didn't want my group to feel they needed a designated healer to be effective. It's not really a boost to their in-combat abilities, more of a way to heal up efficiently to the point that they can retreat if they need to or just give themselves some time while out of combat.

Also a valid interpretation. I'd say that would be a version of Subsumation.

Indeed, he wouldn't be mistaken as any other creature, but would otherwise be fairly similar.

Honestly,

I prefer to allow all three ways, depending on the summoner. I like this as it gives the most variety and makes summoners different from each other. From your original example, I'd be fine with any of these, I'd just make the Summoner's player pick how his synthesis works at first level and he can't change it (similar to how you can only pick base forms at 1st level).

A) Subsumation : The summoner's body is subsumed into the eidelon. He looks like the eidelon. He has to spend an evolution point for arms. This has the advantage that he could be mistaken for a monster rather than a summoner (thus providing some protection from those not in the know to use this against him).

B) Merging : The summoner's body merges with the eidelon's. He takes on the appearance of a lamia type creature, eidelon from the waist down, human from the waist up. He doesn't have to pay for the arms evolution, but it's pretty obvious he's a summoner.

C) Armored : The summoner's body stays bipedal, but it looks like he's wearing a suit of armor, or like he's a monstrous humanoid. The base form is irrelevant with regards to shape, and he doesn't have to spend extra points for arms. The base shape only affects the physical stats he has while merged.

Interesting; I always imagined the synthesist's relationship with his eidolon as looking like someone inside a slightly transparent creature.

Basically, you can clearly make out the summoner, but you can also clearly make out the image of the eidolon; it's almost super-imposed over the summoner's image. Not exactly a clean description but that's how I imagined it.

Fair enough, nice to have a little leeway. I think I'll be going with it as described in my first post as it does seem to be the logical way of doing it based on my image of how the synthesist works.

I'd still like to hear other GMs chime in; how would you rule it in a situation like this?

If the eidolon is of the Serpentine form and you take the Limbs (Arms) evolution, am I right in thinking that will simply bring the eidolon up to two arms, which would mean for a synthesist to have an eidolon of a Serpentine form they -have- to take that evolution at 1st level or else it causes problems with attacks etc?

As a more tangible example, a player has done just that and plans to model his eidolon on the marilith, but after the first Limbs (Arms) he's given himself Multi-Weapon Fighting. I'm ruling that the eidolon still only has two arms at this point and another evolution would be required before the feat can be taken.

Thoughts?

1) How about the damage penalties? Are you guys still considering those as, at least, an optional part of the rule?

2) There was talk earlier of the rending ability, for example, causing injury. Is there a list of certain abilities or spells that would cause injury as opposed to normal damage?

I'm very interested in adopting this style of HP in my game but I'm finding it hard to collect all the information discussed in the thread.

Is there a post that sums everything up? If there is and I missed it I do apologise. If there isn't then a summary post would be an excellent idea. It would also help others to be able to ask questions (of which I have a few but would rather wait for a summary first) without having to look through the whole thread.

So, it seems the Synthesist is causing a few hiccups when it comes to rule interpretation and I've tried to do as much research as I can on these questions but haven't found answers for all of them so I figured I'd post them all here at once.

1) Do I have to spend evolution points to gain weapon proficiencies that I already have as the summoner?
2) How does healing work for the eidolon's temp hp?
3) For granted feats (i.e. Multiattack), does the eidolon still get that?
4) If I'm, say, a halfling with 20 feet speed...would I use the 40 of a quadraped eidolon? And if I had a climb or fly speed, would I still be able to use it?

These are all questions asked by one of my players and I'd love a bit of input from some GMs more experienced than myself.

Now, for the question of healing the temporary HP, this is an answer I found somewhere else on the boards here and is probably what I'll stick with unless someone can come up with a better one:

"Actually, the way I read it, you gain the eidolon's hp as temporary hp. When these temporary hp are depleted, the eidolon is shunted back home. However, from my understanding, the eidolon doesn't actually take damage. It can't be targeted separately, so it can't be turned to stone, or take damage in any way. Next time you summon it, it should still be at full health.

I guess that's how you replenish your temporary hp. Resummoning. Is that too strong?"

I'll be running it over on Myth Weavers, where I'm also running Rise of the Runelords and a campaign set in Falcon's Hollow.

Woah...that right there is just a bowl of pure awesome sauce.

Wasn't sure how it would turn out with Steve Prescott doing the covers when I heard that but holy crap did that just blow me away.

Dare I say this is better than the WAR ones I've seen so far... I don't know of he'll be so consistent with the sexiness of his covers but if this is anything to go by, I can't wait!

Definitely interested, would be nice to see your opinions on music matching this adventure path too.