Plognark's page

Rules question for the Plague Bringer Ratfolk Alchemist archetype...

it doesn't seem to be RAW, but I'm wondering if swift alchemy should technically work when applying disease to a weapon using the effects of a plague vial.

Otherwise it always requires a standard action to apply, which seems terribly limiting, especially for higher levels.

Is this just an oversight, am I reading it too literally, or should it always require a standard action?

Just throwing this out there: I actually like the new Magus class, in spite of all the whining and complaining I've seen. But this thread isn't about the magus, it's about the arcane archer.

I like what they did to improve the arcane archer, but it still doesn't stack up compared to some other classes. How would people feel if the bow enchantments that the Arcane Archer got stacked and progressed like the new Magus class? Two of my DM's have already signed off on the idea with a great deal of enthusiasm, so I think it has some serious merit.

My initial thought would be to grant a +1 bonus per two levels (1, 3, 5, 7, 9),let the +1 bonuses stack with magic weapons up till +5 like the Magus, and give a selection of features and powers applicable to bows that can be added in.

Anyone else like this idea?

My group has been testing a low level summoner in our mix, and I've got a few observations or ideas.

I feel the summoner should be 1/2 BAB; their focus seems to be to use their eidolon or summoned critters to fight. Having mid grade BAB doesn't really seem appropriate at all. In fact, it's just weird that they were given a mid grade BAB since their focus is to keep themselves out of combat and use minions at all costs. I mean, that seems to be the very definition of a summoner.

Their SLA to summon critters should stay somewhat buffed. At the least it should keep the 1 minute per level duration, although I do have an alternative below.

The tweaks to the Eidolon seem pretty good, so I don't really have any suggestions there. But again, the summoner should be somewhat weak. They should keep their minions close to protect themselves. This balances out the strength and versatility of the Eidolon by making a vulnerable point and forcing the summoner to sort of think tactically and keep themselves safe.

...

A possible improvement I had considered was that the summoner could burn extra uses of their SLA to improve the summon ability. The available improvements could be boosted at certain level intervals.

For example:

1 use = normal spell

Possibly at Level 5+
+1 uses = normal spell, with enhanced 1 minute duration
+1 uses = faster cast time; standard from full round

Possibly at Level 10+
+2 uses = normal spell, with enhanced 10 minute duration
+2 uses = faster cast time; swift action

Alternately (or in addition to) this could cap the level of summon spell the summoner could pull off. For example, if I boost my SLA summon to a standard action by burning an extra use per day, it also reduces the level of summon spell I can use by 1. If I enhance it with both duration and cast speed knock the spell level down by 2.

So a level 9 summoner, who can cast level 5 summon monster, could cast level 4 as a standard action, or level 4 with an enhanced duration, or level 3 with both standard and enhanced.

At high levels it may be possible to get the summon down to a move or swift action with large adjustments; a move action might be +3 or +4 (costing 4 extra uses and dropping the spell level by 4), and swift might be even higher (if available at all; swift could be a deal breaker, it's just a thought).

I'm not sure how I feel about how many SLA summons can be active at any one time or not. One active at a time may be fine, or again, you could force a summoner to burn extra uses per day to have multiples active. FOr example, if you've got one active, a second requires more energies, so adds +1 use and, again, diminishes the highest level summon spell the summoner can pull off.

...

This is just an off the top of my head idea. The Eidolon seems to have taken too much of the focus for the class, in my mind. They should be good at summoning monsters as well.

There could be plenty of tweaks to it, this just seems like it might keep the summoner flavor going rather than just the "Eidolon pet owner" class.

So, I'm assuming that at least the "core" prestige classes are OGL, being in the DM's guide and all.

Will they get updated? Will there be any prestige classes in the Beta or final release?

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but a quick search didn't seem to find anything.

Found an error, I think. Not sure if anyone mentioned it already.

Under the Ranger combat styles, it mentions that you get a new selection of feats at level Eleven.

However, under the new Ranger progression, you don't get a new combat style feat at level 11, you now get it at level 10.

My group just figured you were supposed to get the feats at ten, so we ran with that, but it's still something to make note of.

Bump time, oh yeah, shake it

Recently I've been trying to push people to think about a variant to the skill system (just like a lot of people). Here's the variant I came up with:

Start with the Paizo Alpha 1.0 system with skill slots.

Players can also pick class skills at the lower cross-class level for a half a skill selection slot.

As players level up, they earn training points. These points are equal to half what the existing skill points are; so a rogue gets 4 per level, a fighter gets 1, etc.

After you earn eight training points, you can buy yourself a whole new skill slot. You could also spend four to get a half-class skill at the cross class rating, or buy up a half-class skill to full.

For linguistics, we set it so that you learn a new language whenever you'd get a new full class skill.

Early on I wanted to add the INT bonus into the training points, but yesterday as we tested it and rebuilt characters it became clear that that was just going to be too many points. We decided to just leave the bonus skills at first level from a high INT or the human trait, and leave it at that. This also makes increasing the INT stat retroactive for getting new skills, which everyone also liked for both simplicity and general niceness.

...

So we tested it out, and here's what we found:

GOOD:

1) The condensed skills are pretty good. We're still getting used to it, but in some cases it may feel a bit too condensed.

2) Everyone is happy to be done and rid of synergies. They're arbitrary, add insane and pointless extra cross-referencing and math, and promote senseless skill splashing.

3) Tracking the new levels is nice and simple. Everyone was happy with how quickly that went.

4) Open lock needs to be under disable device. Agreement was universal there.

5) The whole training point thing worked well, although the wizards and fighters in the group were kind of bummed, but they agreed that skill monkeys need to stay skill monkeys.

6) People are more likely to snag knowledge skills and put more than a couple of points into them. Everyone liked this, because it gives them a chance to actually learn stuff without having to feed every point into more practical skills. Even professions skills got some love, which surprised me. Typically these were the "half" class skills under the mod I've been proposing, so that actually worked out really well.

...

BAD:

1) Linguistics is still just odd, and doesn't quite feel right. Forgery and decipher script is good, but hammering learning additional languages into that combo skill seems clunky. I'm playing a custom setting with quite a few languages. I don't like the old system at all, but the new one is peculiar too.

2) There are no more specialists. In the past, you used to have one guy who could disable traps or pick locks and stuff. You could get yourself a skill-based niche in the party. My party is rogue-heavy now, and all of a sudden the previous lock-openers are no better than some of the other skill characters in the group. People have lost their niches.

...

Overall it was good, especially the part where I can easily make NPCs now without the hell of past number crunching for skills. This is mainly due to the synergy system, which is now gone.

I'm now a lot more open to the idea of a hybrid system now, or some way of getting the niche specialties back outside of blowing a feat slot.

Even keeping points might be ok, but we just really, really need to make sure synergies stay dead and gone. The loss of the synergy boosts may require some other mechanic to get skills beefed up, for which I don't have any solid proposals yet.

Anyway, that's how our testing went. Overall it was good, still some tweaking and adjusting needed though.

We've also figured that skill tricks would be worth one of the "half" skill slots, to take them into account (equivalent to four training points, or half of a skill slot - one of the CC rated class skills.)

Ok, I'm trying to think up what a 3.Pf "Bard" should be with my proposal.

I'd change the class name to something like Expert. I'm sure there are better names available, but that's all I've got for now.

Obviously the HD would bump to a d8 with the mid-BAB.

Six skill points seems fine to start, but there will be class features to expand on this.

The spells are fine, for now.

Bardic Knowledge is good, although it may need to be renamed.

The big change is in the features Bardic Music, Countersong, and all that stuff.

At this point the Expert could pick their class path based on a Skill or Skill Type.

A Bard would work pretty similar to the original bard. Your skill of choice would be Perform, and you'd follow an inpiration/fascination type path.

A Tactician would use some kind of knowledge of combat; formerly history, but perhaps another is needed. They would gain abilities similar to those of a marshal, all based on checks with their knowledge skill.

A Tinkerer would pick engineering profession and/or craft skills, and be able to spot weaknesses in armor and/or create items of exceptional quality. They may even get Craft magic item type abilities.

An Alchemist could have exception expertise with, well, alchemy, and also be able to make potions, know about poisons, etc.

An Explorer might have some scout tpe features, being able to spot for a party, and have exceptional knowledge of creatures in the wild.

These are just ideas I'm throwing out there on the fly; need more input.

Perhaps every 5th level an Expert could pick a new skill to focus on, expanding their abilities and the bonuses they can confer to allies. Those bonuses won't advance as well as their initial pick, but You could start with an old-school musical bard who also expands some of his knowledge out to history and tactical combat moves.

Does the 1.1 armor training bonus apply if a fighter is using a shield? Suppose a fighter is captured and loses most of his gear, but manages to scrounge up a shield...will he get the armor bonus just using a shield, or does he have to have armor on?

I see the mastery at level 19 applies to both shields and/or armor, which doesn't seem consistent...

And if it does work with shields, it should probably specify that the armor check penalty reduction applies to the total penalty, not both shields and armor.

If not, ignore the second paragraph there ^_^