The Gold Sovereign wrote:
Maybe it will be the only archetype that allows you to sneak attack elementals, proteans and aeons.
James Jacobs wrote:
I used this exact same notion for my homebrew back in 2001. Female Neutral Death deity as all the other campaign settings were evil death deities. Pharasma is from your homebrew but renamed isn't she?
Mark Moreland wrote:
That is super excellent. I love those books and now this is a must-buy.
But I wonder Mark, if it is meant to be a sister book to the three damned and CotR, why was it not given a title that has an in-world equivalent artifact, like the rumoured Concordance of Rivals? It's current title makes it sound more like a gazetteer on the First World.
My advice is to check out the feat Shield Brace from the Armor Master's Handbook.
Combine this with any spear and you get a good Phalanx Fighter without needing the fighter archetype. I suggest the Longspear for reach goodness.
To complement this, add the feat Phalanx Formation from Melee Tactics Toolbox and maybe Improved Shield Bash or just Improved Unarmed Strike for foes up close.
I've been wanting to have a good approximation of the phalanx for years, and I wasn't entirely happy until Shield Brace came into being.
If you find anything else that works better, post it! I'd love to hear other ideas as well.
Jeffrey Swank wrote:
I got in just in time to up my pledge to get both players guides then!
I am very confused about the dual strike ability of the two-weapon trick. It requires improved vital strike as a pre-requisite.
The goal of dual strike (as far as I can tell) is to gain more damage from the single standard action when you're unable to TWF effectively with a full attack action.
However, improved vital strike provides the same function. So why have the pre-requisite that gives the same functionality as the ability gained? It seams like a large feat tax for no benefit (as you'll need both vital strike and improved vital strike).
Unless the two attacks from dual strike can be combined with improved vital strike. But it doesn't look like they can.
Can someone (possibly the feat designer) shed some light on why the pre-requisite is required or if I've missed a vital point?
Richard Pett wrote:
I guess I'll have to review Dance of the Damned then!
Richard, your adventures have been some of my favourites all the way back to The Styes and more recently, the excellent Dance of the Damned.
Plus I love the modularity of FGG's Lost Lands. Razor Coast has been fully integrated into my homebrew and I am scheming for the perfect city to soon become The Blight.
Very much looking forward to this.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
I couldn't see if finesse training had been address in Unchained Cunning, hence my query.
OK, so humour me for a moment. If DEX to damage is worth a feat, and slayers can get to level 14 by only taking feats as talents (finesse slayer, weapon training, ranger combat style I, II and III, combat trick and feat), then perhaps finesse training could be a slayer talent?
Now I agree with you that giving it in full is OP. I was thinking something along the lines of:
Finesse Training (ex):
The slayer can select any one type of weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse (such as rapiers or daggers). Once this choice is made, it cannot be changed. Whenever he makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, he adds his Dexterity modifier instead of his Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the slayer from adding his Strength modifier to the damage roll, he does not add his Dexterity modifier. The slayer can must have the Finesse Slayer talent and be at least 3rd level before selecting this talent. He can select this talent again at 11th level and 18th level.
What do you think?
Also, I was looking through the Ultimate Intrigue playtest and couldn't see the ability Mark Seifter proposed. Do you know what it was called?
I third this. The fey alternate racial traits in Heroes of the Wild were amazing. I would love shadow alternate racial traits in this book.
I agree pretty much with Kudaku.
Angels and Fiends were fantastic because they had an entire book dedicated to one race with heaps of crunch and fluff.
After setting the bar with Angels and Fiends, everyone was expecting the same treatment for other half-human races.
But with Night we got mostly Vampires when everyone wanted Dhampirs. If the variant Dhampir races had been omitted, I think it would have gotten even worse reviews.
Moon was pretty good, but introducing a new race has it's issues as well.
With Elements there wasn't enough crunch for each race for a Player Companion line. Angels and Fiends could get away with more fluff because they were only one race. But with Elements, I think people wanted the same amount of crunch for EACH of the five races that Tieflings and Aasimar got. Obviously that was never going to happen in a 32 page book. But I would have been immensely happy if Elements was mostly crunch (say 4-5 pages per race) and then just the bit on the City of Brass and an overview of the planes for fluff.
In a post above I asked for options for other races which kind of contradicts what I have said here. That's because I'm not sure if Wayangs and Fetchlings have enough excitement to hold their own book. However, I would love to be proven wrong and have the entire book just for actual shadow races that is as good as Angels and Fiends.
BTW, I adore the Blood of series. Much like I love other series (XXX Tactics Toolbox and hopefully Streets is as good as Heroes of the Wild). So I'm very much looking forward to this after an extended break since Blood of the Elements
I really enjoyed the ACG when it came out (LOVE the Slayer and really want to play a Hunter amongst others), but I was waiting for the second printing due to the errors (both Ecclesitheurge and Bolt Ace were super interesting, but I held off until they were 'complete').
Now the ACG errata is out, I can't wait to buy a copy of the ACG and get into all these idea's I want to play.
With the generally positive reception to Unchained (I am using almost half the book in regular gaming) OA at the moment, coupled with the open process and admission to the ACG's original errors, my confidence in future books is increasing.
I actually agree with Morzadian. I won't go point for point, but a clarification on if the new rogue abilities are universal with other classes who have access to the ability with the same name (e.g. sneak attack for Slayer, Nature Fang Druid, Snakebite Striker etc). Or if (like I hear that the new unchained Barbarian's Uncanny Dodge vs. the unchained Rogue's uncanny dodge are different), there will now be slightly different variations of abilities that have exactly the same name.
@chbgraphicarts I note you would agree with the latter, but a clarification would be nice all the same.
Additionally, is trap sense upgraded to danger sense for all classes that have access to it? (e.g. Slayer through a talent and Investigator).
Both sneak attack and trap/danger sense are actually off-topic. So back on topic, it seems perfectly fine that finesse training only applies to one weapon at 3rd 11th and 19th.
Fubbles the Baby Cow wrote:
I'm a rare poster but constant reader of both these boards and EZG's website, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
I have yet to be proven wrong by EZG, and my two favourite purchases due to his reviews are magnificent - The Expanded Spell-less Ranger and Companions of the Firmament.
Keep it up Endzeitgeist!
I've always liked the image of the spear and shield as well. Roman hoplites and the Greek phalanx have always been cool to me.
I used the Talented Fighter from Rogue/Super Genius Games to cherry pick the best from the Phalanx Soldier and Polearm Master archetypes and it worked really well.
By level 2 I could have a fighter wielding a longspear in one hand and shield in the other AND as an immediate action 'choke up' the spear to threaten 5 ft at -4 penatly (which reduces to -3 at 6, -2 at 12 etc).
I fully agree with DeathQuaker.
When JJ kept mentioning the class names must have real world equivalents, I thought it was a brilliant idea! I always hated the 3.5 classes like "hexblade", "factotum" and "dragon shaman". Really crappy names.
BUT THEN, Paizo decides to change they're mind. Bloodrager and Warpriest are the worst.
My favs from DQ's list
Bloodrager: Berserker. Yes, VERY barbarian-esk but so is arcanist and wizard. Bloodrager is crap.
Warpriest: Templar. Evokes the EXACT right image. Warpriest then begins the bloat of Warlord, Warlock, Warmage, Warwar etc that 4e succumbed to. Blech.
The others have alright or GREAT names. The best is Shaman, Swashbuckler and Slayer.
I hear Paizo won't budge on the names which is a real shame.