Pseudos's page

The Hellfire bombs discovery indicates there shouldn't be a bomb die size penalty for negative energy damage.
Two ideas (fleshing out) based off of Amaneunsis' suggestions:

Either automatically:

A Reanimator’s bombs deal negative energy damage. Splash damage is equal to the reanimator's base bomb damage. (Splash damage to squares not directly adjacent to the bomb target, such as those caused by the explosive bombs discovery, take minimum damage) The Reanimator's bombs count as channeling negative energy for all feats requiring or modifying it. Those not directly hit may attempt a Will save for half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the reanimator’s level + the reanimator’s Intelligence modifier.

This ability otherwise functions as and replaces the standard alchemist bomb class feature.

Maybe replace the 4th level discovery with Command Undead. (the feat)

Or give the following discovery in place of the 4th level discovery:

Necrotic bombs Alchemist discovery:

When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it inflict negative energy damage. Necrotic bombs deal 1d4 points of Negative energy damage, plus 1d4 points of negative energy damage for every odd-numbered level, instead of 1d6. Any creature in splash range also full damage. This ability counts as channel energy for any feats requiring or effecting it, such as Command Undead.

For undead powers, I'd base if off the Master Chymist's prestige class advanced mutagen abilities, like Draconic Mutagen. It takes some powers from form of the Dragon I, a 6th level spell, so we can borrow powers from Undead anatomy III.

Draconic mutagen gives:
cosmetic changes
resist energy 20
a one-off ability per change for 8d8 of said energy type (same as a CR~11 dragon)
Requires 16th level
Requires advanced or feral mutagen

So, based on our model, a sample would be
Damphiric Mutagen:
cosmetic changes, maybe heal from negative energy while in mutagen form
Grants resist cold 20
a one-off ability, from a ~CR11 undead, like a negative energy ray attack, or negative levels.
replaces 16th level discovery
Ignores prerequisite

i.e.
Damphiric Mutagen: When the reanimator assumes her mutagenic form, she gains undead-like features— pale skin, sunken eyes, and so on, resembling a damphir. The reanimator gains resistance 20 to cold. The reanimator gains a ray attack at close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) firing four rays plus one ray per 4 levels beyond 16, dealing 4d6 points of negative energy damage each. She may use her ray attack once per transformation into her mutagenic form.

I used a ray attack to maintain distance, scaled it off scorching ray.
Let me know what you think.

Posting one more time for finality:
I like all the spell choices now, and feel they fit well. (I would allow Blindness/Deafness in its entirety, but eh)
I still don't agree with radiation as type, though I do like the immunity, same reasons as before.

And it only glows blue when passing through a medium rather denser than air, although a brief skim of the Wikipedia article on Cherenkov radiation showed that the topic is actually pretty complicated.

Now I can say I learned something today; thank you

Hm...

I don't like what is essentially bleed damage of 1d6-1 'per action taken'. Per turn, that still doesn't seem fair, even for exotic. Let's look at some similar examples:
The ripsaw glaive, which takes a move action to activate, a full-round to rearm, and does +2 damage for a number of rounds equal to your strength modifier. Exotic.
Elven Branched spear, who's description is remarkably similar to what you describe, save the blade isn't re-attachable. It gets a +2 to damage for attacks of opportunity, and is martial for elves, otherwise exotic. Very similar to the ripsaw glaive.

Potential properties:
Most spears deal 1d8 damage, seems reasonable. (basically free)
Most spears have x3 critical, seems reasonable. (1 point)
Many spears have brace, likely since your description is against larger foes. (1 point)
About half have reach; this is up for debate, but seems reasonable. (1 point)
The only major weapon that deals bleed damage is the quadrens, an exotic light weapon that does a whopping 1 bleed on a critical hit.

Some notes:
I made a system for custom weapons, would be happy to provide on request.
Having a mechanic like what you described undoubtedly makes the weapon exotic, as all our examples are.
Martial is three or fewer points, (not happening) exotic is five or fewer; with x3crit, brace, and reach, this gives you 2 points of mechanic.

I have two ideas:

Devil'shead spear: Exotic, Two-handed, 1d8, x3 critical, brace, reach. The tip of the spear is detachable, and is made to separate when embedded in the flesh of a creature. The blade may be replaced as a move action, or a quick action with the rapid reload feat. (no way you can replace 3 of them in a round on a two-handed weapon) On a successful critical hit, attack of opportunity, a hit readied against a charge, or when the creature is flanked, flat-footed, or otherwise denied it's dexterity bonus to AC, the tip separates, becoming lodged in the flesh of the target, increasing the weapon's base damage to 1d8+1d4. (this is so the extra d4 is multiplied by a x3 for your critical, x2 if braced, or x6 is a critical brace!) The Devil'shead spear deals 1d4 damage and gains the fragile quality until the tip is replaced. Additionally, a creature beginning its turn with the tip lodged in its flesh takes half the wielder's strength bonus in bleed damage. A creature with multiple tips in it's flesh takes damage from each. The barb can be removed with a DC15 heal check, reduced to 1 bleed per round by healing as much damage as the original hit caused, (not negated as the barb is still in there) or violently removed as a move action, causing twice as much bleed damage unless the creature makes a DC 15 fort save, in which case it only takes regular bleed damage.

Alternatively, the barb could simply deal 1d4 when embedded. (but it makes sense a stronger creature could embed it deeper)

With explanations, that's a wall of text, so I've reprinted here with concision:

Devil'shead spear: Exotic, Two-handed, 1d8, x3 critical, brace, reach.
The tip of the Devil'shead spear is detachable, and is made to embed in the flesh of a creature.
On a successful critical hit, attack of opportunity, a hit readied against a charge, or when the target is flanked, flat-footed, or otherwise denied it's dexterity bonus to AC, the tip embeds in the flesh of the target, increasing the weapon's base damage to 1d8+1d4.
The blade may be replaced as a move action, or a quick action with the rapid reload feat.
A creature with a Devil'shead spear tip embedded in its flesh takes bleed damage equal to half the embedder's strength bonus. Multiple embedded tips stack bleed damage.
The tip can be removed with a DC15 heal check, reduced to 1 bleed by healing as much damage as the embedding hit caused, or violently removed as a move action dealing double bleed damage. (DC 15 fort for half)

Let me know what you think.

Be patient, I work nights and sometimes I'm working instead of trolling (like the motor, not the creature) the forums.

On Fire Seeds: Fire seeds isn't on theme imo; it is an OP spell if you're willing to get into touch range, or say, trivialize a whole encounter with multiple casts of it, put them in a bag, throw the bag at an enemy, and boom. (they're banned by house rule) I could have been clearer about what I meant, my apologies.

On Contagious Flame: I'm glad you like contagious flame.

On flavor: You can shoot a fireball if you put it on the list as it is: you're fire can burn green with radioactivity, and it hurts creatures with resistance to fire, which I'm sure will be surprising to them.

On Power balance and my suggestion: But is it more OP than animal or healing domain? In my mind, no.
The essential mechanic lets you mitigate fire resistance and deal non radiation type radiation damage. This is necessary.
The secondary mechanic gives you resistance to said type of damage; the chances of this coming up are very limited, exception being your own spell damage. The ability could be reworded to allow you to gain resistance 1/level against radiation damage, as well as a bonus on Fort saves to resist radiation of 1/level. Simple mechanics, but it could work. What do you think?

On damage type conversions: The archetype for druids lets you change fire into cold at level 9; I believe the boreal sorcerer bloodline also adds a cold fireball to the spell list, and there are probably others. Fire as cold isn't too farfetched; it's all adding/subtracting energy. Additionally, it's 1:1, not switch on the fly.

Detonate lets you deal higher damage than usual (d8s) while damaging yourself, damage that is partially mitigated by your radiation resistance. It's a decent combo.

Fire seeds isn't great, if you like it okay, but it's not good. Contagious flame, like radiation, can spread to targets after they are hit for 3 rounds. Good DOT.

Both of these options are incredibly on theme.

A wizard's arcane school and a domain are NOT equal in power; an admixture domain would be out of line, and out of theme for the cleric. Furthermore, you can't bypass elemental resistances, you can get around them, very important difference, especially if you're a cleric and do not have knowledge arcane to know enemy resistances. There are plenty of creatures with resistances to all 4 elements.

You did not mention any type of magitech theme, one does not automatically beget the other. If your GM WANTS to do all that work, sure, but it seems unnecessary.

By changing fire to radiation, you are bypassing many, many creature's resistance to fire, and not much else; additionally very few if any creatures have resistance to radiation. Consider instead:

Nuclear fires: Your fires burn deeper than most. Whenever you cast a spell that deals fire damage, that spell may overcome 1 point of fire resistance per level. Additionally, you gain resistance 1/level against radiation damage.

Simple, elegant, lets you burn demons, but not OP instantly.

For your domain spells, I would replace 4th with Detonate for the radioactive symmetry; same thing for 6th with contagious flame. The rest seem okay.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I apologize if this has been posed before, but in this system, no creature, without the use of abilities like Flurry of Blows, can make more than 3 attacks per round.

How have you found that this affects the threat posed be creatures that normally get many more attacks per round? (IE: Larger dragons can make 6 melee attacks per round: Bite, 2 claws, 2 wings & tail)

Other than that one question, I really like this system and am already looking for an opportunity to try it out!

I can actually answer this one. If you read the google doc on the original post:

Creatures can make more than 3 attacks per round as a triple action.

@Bob_Loblaw

To be clear, there are only 2 steps.
1. Roll 2d12. Reroll if both are 12.
2. If Die2<=Die1, use Die1+1, otherwise use Die1.
That's it. It's die1 or die1+1.

@ForksOfSpite
With the phrase 'elegant solution!' I now understand what you meant, sorry about that.

For those logically inclined, I actually came up with an algorithm to let you turn any dice into evenly weighted distributions for other numbers, using a minimum number of rolls, at the cost of additional rerolls. (a generalized solution if you will)
Wall of text incoming.

I am a logician, not a statistician, so my terms may be off.
For dice 'D' rolling between between one and 'd', to get an even distribution in a desired range of numbers with result 'A' between 1 and 'r':
1. Determine the minimum whole number of dice 'N' such that r<=d^N, or N>=Log base d of r. The number of outcomes, d^N, is 'X'. (you can use a larger N if you wish)
2. Determine the unique number rolled Y;
Y=D1 + d*(D2-1) + d^2*(D3-1) + d^3*(D4-1) + d^4(D5-1) ... etc.
(generally y=1, for each Dx: Y+=d^x*(Dx-1) )
This number is unique for the set of dice we're using, so we have even distribution. Note that 1<=Y<=X.
3. Determine the range of numbers that are usable/unusable to keep even distribution. The increment, I, is the whole number of X/r; the remainder is our unusable space, U.
4. For every increment I our Y is, add one to A. The U highest numbers result in a reroll. (Simply, if Y<=X-U, A=RoundDown(Y/I), otherwise reroll) We have an answer! It's just not remotely elegant...
5. (epilogue) To minimize the number of rerolls, we want to minimize U; in step 1, instead of finding the minimum N, consider minimizing D^N%R against the difference between the current and minimum N. (% 'modulus' is remainder)

Let's do some examples:

Our example:
Die size 12 rolling between one and 12, for numbers between 1 and 13
D=12, d = 12, r = 13.
1. 13<=12^2=144; N=2, X=144
2. D1=3, D2=6; so Y=3+12*(6-1)=3+12*5=3+60=63=Y.
3. 144/13 rounded down is 11=I, remainder U=1
4. so D1=12, D2=12 needs rerolled, and each 11 possibilities we increment 1. Our Answer, A, if not {12,12}, =RoundDown((D1+12*(d2-1))/11) That's terribly complicated though!
5. U is 1, we are already optimized
For two dice, we can easily make a table, note patterns, and extrapolate. In this case, I noticed we had the D1 +1s showing up for each possibly in D1. I therefore moved the increments to the top of each column, and simplified the formula.

Die size 3 rolling between one and 3, for number between 1 and 13
D=3, d=3, r=13.
1.13<3^3; N=3, X=27
2. D1=2, D2=3, D3=1; so Y=2+3*(3-1)+3^2*(1-1)=2+3*2+3^2*0=2+3*2+9*0=2+6=8=Y
3. 27/13 rounded down is 2=I, remainder U=1
4. So if {3,3,3} reroll, otherwise A=RoundDown(Y=D1+3*(D2-1)+3^2*(D3-1)

Let's do an actual useful application; maybe you're a barbarian wielding a greataxe, and got to session without a d12. You can avoid the bell curve of 2d6 using 2d6 by:
1. roll 2d6
2. divide D2 by 3, round up; A= d1*d2.
There are numerous ways to solve the above problem, and making a table help identify solutions.

Let me know if you have any questions.

With the minor correction that the {12,12} result gives 13 rather than 14, this algorithm works giving 13 a slightly higher probability than the others.

Re-rolling {12,12} corrects back to perfect probability: 143 total outcomes and assigns 11 of them to each number from 1..13.

You are rewording exactly what I have already said in my original post. (before the edit) The alternate method of getting from 1-13 to 1-26 is potentially better, but it feels like your post is trying to pass of my work as your own. My edit was pretty fast as well; if you take a long time preparing a post, don't forget to preview it to see if someone has posted or edited in your absence, rending yours redundant.

We can get REALLY close to how you want this to work (143/144):
1. Roll 2d12, we need to know which is which. Reroll if both are 12.
2. If the second die is less than or equal to the first die, add one to the first die for your result, otherwise use the first die.

A roll of double twelve would give 14; reroll in this case for perfect probability, or stay at 13 for a good estimate.

I even made a table for you. Green is the first die, blue the second.

EDIT: for 1-26:
1. Roll 3d12, we need to know which are which. Reroll if dice one and two are twelve.
2. If the second die is less than or equal to the first die, add one to the first die for step 3, otherwise use the first die for step 3.
3. Double what you have; if the third die is even, subtract 1.

Just found this thread, this is amazing. Thinking about going and making maps with enemy placements for all of the game levels of goodness. I love me some souls. Phenomenal adaptation.

To answer your question:

so far, you've done:
1. Asylum, Undead burg to gargoyles, undead burg to 'too close' Capra demon, depths, blightown, Sen's fortress, Anor Londo.
2. Darkroot main entrance and side, back entrance and through door, best wuff. (mushroom parent needs buff IMO)
3. Painted world.
4. Izalath through to the end.

things we still need:
Undead asylum revisit
Catacombs all the way to tomb of Giants/Nito
Duke's archives all the way to crystal caves/Seath
The great hollow/ash lake.
valley of drakes and new Londo Ruins to 4 kings (12 kings lol)
Kiln of the first flame to Gwyn
DLC

Suggested order:

Technically Duke's archives to crystal cave/Seath is easier than Izalath, but since you've done that already, I'd do it next.

After, Catacombs to Nito next since it's theme blends into what comes after. (plus you're stuck with a TP to the lord vessel after 4 kings anyway)

Embrace the darkness with New Londo ruins with the detour to valley of drakes before back to new Londo ruins, ending with 4 kings.

Undead asylum revisit, which is Stay Demon and Black knights; doing it just before kiln of the first flame to use the same black knights. I think it fits better before duke's archives, but you'd have to update the black knight stat block.

Though it kind of ends the game, Kiln of the first flame and Gwyn. IMO the rest fits better after.

After Gwyn, do great hollow/ash lake.

Next is the DLC; (don't forget the giant gold golem) most of it is straightforward, but I would go to Artorias, then to Manus, then return up for Ciaran and finally Kalameet. Can't think of a better way to end then the black dragon.

Sorry if I went overboard, I am legitimately excited.

EDIT: I would put Gwendoline after Gwyn before Great Hollow/Ash lake.

Because it works like TWF, it gets broken down into one act, but it counts as your cast for the turn. In order to continue casting spells, one would have to Quicken.

In your rules document, you do not state that you can only cast once per turn, since casting is not an attack action.

their ability to move and cast twice in a round has been cut down to a choice of casting twice while stationary or to maintain tactical defense

You yourself state you can cast twice in a round, not mentioning quicken.

If we add haste,

My example of an additional cast used haste; are you saying the additional action gained from haste can't be used as I see fit? If this is the case, what is your ruling for haste?

Please enlighten me, why would the Magus be limited to casting a quickened spell?

This is nice, and I'm currently running it by my players to see if it's something they'd be interested in using. My only point of differentiation would be to handle natural attacks differently. (Option to treat them as normal weapons, made at the start of the turn, with Multiattack acting as TWF, and 'improved multiattack' as Improved TWF)

I'm curious to know how the Magus' Spell combat works in this system. As written it would convert to a tripple action that would allow the offhand spell to be cast, (potentially with spellstrike's additional free attack) then one primary, and two secondary attacks made with the main hand. By contrast, a unarmed strike warpriest could cast a spell as a double action, then make two primary TWF attacks as a single action. Suddenly spell combat doesn't seem so special; it's either even or in favor of the warpriest, exception being the warpriest has a TWF as a feat.

With haste or additional actions per turn, the magus could potentially use unarmed strike TWF, same as the warpriest, with secondary attacks, so nothing changes. (to say nothing of the warpriest's better damage potential in such an attack)

I see three options to deal with this:
1. Nothing. The magus loses a lot of his ability. (I don't like this one)
2. When using the triple action spell combat, let the magus make two primary attacks, one secondary attack with his main hand. (this seems more in line with getting an extra action through Magus-ery, and is the middle-power route)
3. Reduce spellstrike to a double action, and allow only a single attack primary attack. It still lets the magus get his additional attack in, and allows him the same tactical benefit of other martial classes in this system.
3B. If we add haste, the magus can now perform spell combat twice; he gets two spells (each with a potential free main hand attack via spellstrike) a primary, and a secondary attack.
You could disallow this by treating spellstrike like cleave: you only allow single action attacks for the rest of the turn, or cast a second spell.

I like option 3B, as it is more haste friendly and tactical. What are your opinions?

I'm going to keep a watchful eye on this thread in the hopes of growth and document improvements.

From Bladed Brush: "When wielding a glaive, you can treat it... for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon"
From slashing Grace: "Choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon"
The problem here is that you can't pick glaive with slashing grace as it isn't a light or one-handed slashing weapon; you can treat it like one when you're wielding it, but that doesn't mean all glaives as a kind of weapon, just this one in your hand. IF Bladed Brush read "you can treat glaives..." it would work; it does not.

There's a second argument that can be made to why this doesn't work. Bladed brush's "as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand" doesn't effect slashing grace not working "any time another hand is otherwise occupied", and occupied here includes holding something. (like that glaive you're holding) You cant use your off hand for grace because it's holding your glaive. (obligatory joke about trying to 'say grace'(pray) with a glaive in your hands)

Power attack has nothing to do with your strength score past needing a 13.

IF you mean do you get 1.5*dex damage with the glaive if the above worked, the answer is no, you get +dexterity to damage. When wielding that glaive it's only a one-handed slashing weapon (which would benefit from wielding in two hands to add 1.5*str damage) for feats and class abilities requiring such a weapon. The ability to deal more strength damage in one hand in this case is neither a feat nor a class ability.

However, there is hope! The unchained rogue's 3rd level Finesse training ability doeswork with Bladed brush where slashing grace does not.

Hi there. Let's try to be less blunt that Cyrad. If this is a personal (yours or someone else's who's playing an eldritch archer) race for a homebrew campaign, you should say that.

I don't mind your wall of text, but Cyrad's right. Use a word-like program to save as pdf, then save that to a Dropbox. Dropbox lets you post updates to links instantly, and is your friend. Suddenly realize a nasty typo? Fix it without a repost.

I don't care about custom race lore, I read for mechanics. It comes of as furry stuff from the 'organs' sentence, which doesn't bother me, but consider not posting that bit here. I get where you're coming from with the increased armor cost: Unusually shaped races have to pay twice as much, but bats are kind-of-unusually shaped. I'd keep all clothing as 25% more to simplify things though.

If you're using the race builder, please make sure your custom race gets 11 rp worth of abilities. Listen to Cyrad.

As to the racial weapons, don't be so quick to replace regular weapons with better versions. Even If that crossbow requires all 4 limbs to fire, giving it a 20 ammo clip is overkill. While you say it is not a repeating crossbow, how is it different other than it's better?

The exploding Adam West-o-rang would read more easily if each eye were a minor ring of spell storing that only allowed fireball. Alternatively it would be more powerful, customizable, and cheaper to have it act like a wand of fireball, as each crafter could chose what caster level they wanted to create their fireball at, but that's your call.
Cyrad is right here too in that combining both fireballs as one spell activation item would make it much more expensive. Double damage should be expensive, not free. if you're dead set on free, keep your 6th level spells prerequisite, but destroy the item if you use both at once.
If you want fireball to function as a sixth level spell for higher level exploding Christopher Nolan-o-rangs, you'd need to treat it as a custom staff.
This is starting to sound neat.

Going to mention the vanilla Cacodaemon here. That thing is not CR 2. Early level fire wiz couldn't damage it, rogue-type couldn't take the hits. After the fourth total party wipe the fighter got lucky.

Hmm... I feel like adaptive enchantment leads to a lot more salvaged gear in a campaign, and for a reasonable price at higher levels, which I honestly like, but some may not.

I think that fast adaptation should be a limited temporary thing that functions for the Mongrel Order Knight for free, to be more situationally useful. Even wish isn't 40k. That, and having 4,000 plat vanish out of my bag magically seems a stretch.
Something like 'for a number of rounds equal to twice his hit dice, a Mongrel Order knight may change up to 5 total levels of enchantment on any armor, shield, or weapon he wields while he wields it.'

The rest of the abilities seem fine, though under normal circumstances Gird armor is not useful. Still neat though.

In the picture they do not remotely look like light weapons, they are metal to the shoulder, so its a stretch that they'd be one handed, which I'm going with.

One handed, blocking (specifically stacks to a +2 if dual wield)
1d6 pierce/bludgeoning, *3crit
Balanced like sawtoothed sabres to avoid two weapon fighting full penalty for dual wield(-2-2 if wielded as set)
Cannot be disarmed like locked gauntlet
+2 to cmd against sundering

I too made a system for this kind of thing but its more complex than what you're looking for. you can find it here if you want

Okay, going through things in order again:

From what I've seen, which includes a fair bit of opinion and speculation, religious studies including both very good and very evil don't fit into the world of Golarion, which I'm admittedly not very familiar with. It could might also be a generally touchy subject in some places, so is just best avoided from a company's perspective; all I really know though is I like it.

Yeah, with the formatting it helps if you export it as a pdf, then link the pdf copy so everyone sees the same thing. I was once linked this when I forgot to do so.

Light armor and shields is what I would think too for someone so specialized.

There's nothing wrong with the Arcanist's casting, and I didn't mean to imply there was. I'm not used to seeing it yet, and my group's dedicated caster doesn't much care for him, and uses the sorcerer/oracle's casting type instead. If you like what the Arcanist does, you should use his spell casting system like you are.

Oh! Variant channeling like that! I had forgotten it existed. It may be easier to use the regular channeling rules in your write-up and reference the variant channeling rules.

I like the idea of manifesting your own divine self, it fits with the theme of the class, and gives context for your description. My mechanical concern is the spell resistance; it tends to be overpowered, especially at 30. Don't feel obligated to change it from just me though.

I'll take a look at the devotions and get back to you today or tomorrow.

Edit: appears the link is dead. Suffice to say dropbox on ipad with a word document makes everything completely unreadable.

Yeah, let's consider a comparison of what you're proposing.
Fighting defensively -4 hit +2 AC
Combat Expertise -1 hit +1 Dodge AC(1) to -6 hit +6 dodge AC(20 full BAB)

If you double the bonus from combat expertise, you've giving an additional 5-30% miss chance, (meaning a total of 60% miss chance from shield w/ fighting defensively at lvl 20) instead of the 5% RAW difference between the two? What about that seems like a good idea? You've swapped one go-to min-max for another WORSE one; just forget that light shields exist and move on, problem solv-... er, avoided.

And no, limiting the bonus to matching the shield bonus won't work because ENCHANTMENTS. if you don't allow the enchantment bonus, what have you really done? +1 ac situationally?

If you have to do something you could give an additional ONE dodge bonus when using combat expertise with a light shield/buckler. I'll still go with the heavy shield and be awkward at dinner parties.

This is probably better suited to the Rules Questions forum.

However, the problem here is that you are assuming the Skill Unlock is based on the Alternate Crafting rules. Based on the "5 Ranks" ability, that is NOT the Alternate Crafting Rules.. that is based on the CRB standard rules... presumably, then, so are the others.

You are correct and I am well aware that skill unlocks assume standard rules, and not the alternative. I say directly "The issue is that rank 15's ability conflicts with the alternate crafting progress", so I am well aware of the issue and am seeking a homebrew solution, since I know the RAW intention was not the alternate system. I omitted ranks 5's entry as being an issue because the doubling of a check is easy to switch from a day to a week, and I'm okay with the doubling of a check period.

What I'm not okay with is a 10* faster craft(scaling the week's progress to a day results in a 5* faster craft which stacks with the 2* from level 5), which is why I posed the question seeking a happy medium.

Do you have anything to put forth on that subject? Is the 10* faster craft not a big deal? Do you have an idea to better balance it?

First off, thematically I like where you've gone here. Not a niche another class is currently filling being a knowledge seeking diviner. Not something I see in vanilla pathfinder (and for a reason) but I really like.

On the format, you can make the table: Eccliasiast wider, which will make things like "base attack bonus"'s spacing better. Make the other table a bit smaller, again it will fit better. Nothing else worth nit-picking about.

Mechanics, in no particular order:

I think you should give the eclesiast use magic device based on where he/she comes from; being interested in all religion surely means you need to read scrolls and use magic devices?

I don't understand why you aren't giving any armor or shield proficiency; the only reason to do that would be for arcane spell failure, which I'm not seeing. You're making someone who has no bonus feats eat multiple feats to get medium armor, and more for a shield? I'd multiclass a level of fighter rather than eat 3 feats; is there a reason you did this?

It's weird that you chose arcanist casting, but I guess it works.

Mechanically, your channel energy dice are weird. Is there a reason you did them this way? advancing from d4s to d6s may seem like you're getting something, but hides a basically dead progression level for the d4s. You've got two good options: The more natural progression would be 1/2 d4 /level, for a max of 10d4, average 25, high 40, or 5d6, average 17.5, high 30. Neither is great, but considering you do other things with the channel, the d4s would be okay. Please use d4s.

Normally you'd need to limit the healing/harming of channel based on alignment; Because of the theme of the class you're going with (at least how I interpreted it) you may not need to. If this is the case, you need to specifically note that the eclesiast's channel may heal or harm regardless of alignment.

I do not like the capstone ability at all, it seems everywhere and nowhere. Can you tell us where you're coming from with it?

I'll go through the devotions once I understand where you're coming from/going to on the things above.

Nothing really needs said about double weapons; normally it's exotic, it's not here. Another does not translate example is the scythe, which needs to be exotic to get past the OPTG rule with its two improved criticals.

I'll give you two different die types is weird.

I've played with ways to get the cost to behave, and so far this is the best way. You can't hire an npc because no npc can actually craft a weapon that high or knows how to (npc level 5 max, skill focus, masterwork tools, other crafting feat for a +2, 20 int, is 5+3+3+2+2+5=+20, which means the merchant could consistently craft a dc 30 exotic 2 w/ 5 grades. You don't really find random non-magic npcs higher than 5. Just like eastern weapons can be controlled, so too could knowledge and therefor access to these. Also, Karl Marx... do you mean Kestral? (I chuckled)

The scaling does result in an overall martial damage increase; if that isn't your cup of tea, there's a version without the scaling, the link is near the beginning of the document beside version number.

The 7str wizard can't actually wield his quarterstaff at all; there's no penalty, he CANNOT use it effectively in combat. It's a double weapon, he could wield one end (a one-handed weapon by my rules) in two hands to reduce the strength requirement by 2 to 8, but his 7 cannot wield it. Maybe wizard man should have picked a knife... which he would have to wield in two hands.

Yes, everyone had to go through the chart (or rather I convert a weapon they pick from Pathfinder). I started a full conversion list, but four hours in I didn't care.

If you can't deal with the weapon dice, this system isn't for you. It's the only way to balance damage dice out with higher tiers.

Clarification:
The unchained rogue does not gain the ability to deal dex damage at level one, rather level three.
Creating your own feats is a fine way to work around problems, I'd suggest letting the 1.5*damage apply to finesse weapons; it's an edge case and power-wise it should be fine, its even okay in RAW for rogues now.
The unchained rogue can deal 1.5*dex damage with something like an elven curve blade (two-handed finesse), as the text reads 'Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll.' This is in contrast to deadly agility's rule (admittedly homebrew), which specifically stops dex at 1.0, even for two-handed weapons. Slashing grace doesn't allow it either, since it only applies to one-handed slashing, but the unchained rogue's ability does, so you should too.

Cyrad actually commented this to me on a similar occasion, so even though I am not he, I can say:
Slashing grace is poorly designed; it can be taken without a BAB, and only applies to one one-handed slashing weapon, and is convoluted due to the piercing bit. Deadly agility on the other hand requires BAB 1 and applies to pretty much everything weapon finesse applies to. Simpler, easier, doesn't require weapon focus, more balanced.

Deadly agility reads:
'You have learned how to use your agility to greater purpose in battle.

Prerequisite(s): Weapon Finesse, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit(s): You may add your Dexterity modifier in place of your Strength modifier when wielding a light weapon or a weapon that gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat (such as the rapier) when determining additional damage inflicted upon a successful attack.

This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is not reduced for off-hand weapons.'

Whereas pathfinder's solution, slashing grace reads:
'Prerequisite(s): Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.'

Let's go through what you id in order.
You want a two-handed weapon that is Martial, and deals more damage. We can do that.
you want:
1. Improved damage
2. Oversized
3. Powerful Critical

Which means the base damage of the weapon would be 3d4, with a x3 crit and reach, and not the bad reach where you don't threaten close to you, but full reach. 18 required strength though, so if you aren't a Strength build forget about it.

Cost (as noted in the opening section 'Determine Cost') is base*modifiers(you do not add them)*grade. so 4*2.0*2.0*2.0*3=96gp. Fair for an oversize weapon.
Weight ('Determining Weight') base*modifiers, so 4*2.0*1.25=10 lbs.
If you think it would be better if determining cost and weight was at the back, I can move it.

On to your other questions:
The reason that base damage is minimal is because most martial Pathfinder weapons have improved damage on them to start.

Double may only be applied to one-handed weapons to keep damage in line with Pathfinder's base. I.e. a two-bladed sword in pathfinder does 1d8/1d8, and is exotic. Here, the exact same sword could be made as a martial with Double, Improved damage, Improved Critical. Letting it be applied to large weapons would increase the damage die one step, breaking damage AND Scaling balance.

While two-handed weapons do less 'dice' of damage at martial tier, they do increased damage overall, so the 1.0 average damage you lose between 1d4+1d6(DWCO) and 2d6(Pathfinder) should be made up for in most cases. This is the strange bit in the system I can't fix; if you've got ideas tell me.

The reason Table 2.2, the damage die table, is the way it is is to avoid cheese. Regularly, the damage progression for non-d10 is:
d2->d3->d4->d6->d8->2d6->3d6->4d6->6d6->8d6-> 12d6
Dnd/Pathfinder's theme is every damage up should be 1.5*as mush as the previous, which is very broken for a system like this. For Example a dc40 craft check could produce a greatsword with 3 damage upgrades and 2 oversize; the required strength is 24, which is quite doable with magic items. Here for a medium character the damage would be 4d6, while the other system would be 12d6.

My Weapon die damage system has a few rules how I calculated it:
The average damage goes up by 0.5 for two steps, 1.0 for two steps, 1.5 for two steps, ect.
Determining dice for that damage can only use two types of dice and they must be next to one another (d4 d6) of (d6 d8).
Additionally, the number of dice may never be reduced from the previous.

Using this system, Table 2.2 was the only possible result. If you have a better Idea how to balance this, I'm all ears.

You may be right about the Extra Exotic feats. I'm playtesting right now, so I'm trying to find out. I was trying to balance the reward out for martial characters who have a lot of feats and limit higher access at earlier levels, but didn't mean to over-penalize people.

Please let me know what your thoughts are.

@Legowaffles
You absolutely can do that; I try to close as many of the loopholes as I can; the worst cheese you can pull with a weapon right now I already know about, and am okay with.

Ninja update:
Cost lowered almost universally.
Re-arranged a table
made it clearer that Strength rating isn't multiplied in cost.

More modifications are needed, if anybody has some serious suggestions, please post them.

Looks good, been down the mythic adventures road, we don't go to Ravenholm. Three things:
+2 to attributes every 4 levels seems weird when you could do +1 every 2; We did this a few years back but ultimately settled on +1 to the save of your choice every even level not divisible by four.

You're the second person I've heard recently say they allow Power attack and Deadly aim for free; going to try it, and a few rerolls for mythic-style characters.

Pathfinder unchained allows everyone to get two background skill points every level for free.

P.s. Did you just favorite your own post?

New update with new PDF links:
Dynamic Weapons and Crafting Overhaul 2.3
and now with only the crafting system:
Dynamic Crafting Overhaul 2.3

Changelog:
Weapon scaling is now static, as a result
Removed Brutish modification
Removed Nimble modification
Changed two-handed scaling to be 2.0*Str 0.5*Dex
Fixed a Table X.X
Removed redundant descriptions
Changed the format again
Changed forward to about
Introduced side version without the weapons system

Thanks to Bandw2 for inspiring deep thought to fix outlying issues and new side version. Thanks to LazarX for inspiring redundant text deletion.

I had a quick and dirty system that worked and nothing else. My players understood it, the people here did not. Less frivolity, less text. Still not understanding; I put in examples and a walk-through guide, and it looks a lot better now. No one complains about its understandability, now its too long to be worth a read.

Given that there's 3 systems (damage progression, new scaling, weapon crafting) I should be allowed 6 pages by your reckoning (you gave two pages first). I have 5 if I cut down to the nitty-gritty. The magic weapons system in pathfinder is 5 pages by itself, and that's one system. I'm doing just fine.

First off, welcome to the thread, and thank you for commenting.

I considered a lot of ways to introduce Str/Dex scaling, and after much debate I alighted on the method in the document. Your suggestion is a refreshing alternative to those that don't want to increase damage by ~45% across the board. Here are my original reasons:

• I didn't want to introduce complexity you need a calculator for to use general weapons.
  
• My less math inclined players didn't have a good time with non-1/2 scalars; 1/2 was already stretching it for one of them. (my check to make sure it could be understood was to have him read it; he understood half scalars)
  

You're right that damage from attributes was increased by about 50%, or in the case of the two-handed weapon, about 66% (with a mod).

Introducing Scalars as you have suggested reduces melee damage almost universally from RAW Pathfinder. You may be unaware that scalar total cannot increase, only move, exception for two-handed weapons which go up by 0.5.
Examples:
Barbarian, level 8, two-handed weapon. 26str when raging, 14 dex. Nothing changes between Pathfinder and your scalars, which is fine.

Rogue, level 8, two light weapons. 14 Str 22dex. In Pathfinder, she deals +0 fro Str, and +6 from Dex for +6; Your suggestion she deals +0 from Str, +4.5Dex(round down) for +4. Much less okay. Unchained rogue can deal full dex, but still.

You have found a real issue that exits. I'm considering removing the ability to change scaling at all, and reducing two-handed weapon scaling to 2.25, or 2.0str 0.5dex. The origonal intention was to reward both dexterity and strength based playstyles, not make min-max Hell. We're doing playtests right now, it should become apparent.

As far as keeping total damage about the same as it is now, it would work if you wanted to deal parcels of a hitpoint of damage. That's more work that I'm willing to do on paper. If that's what you're interested in I could write it up.

I am currently doing a split of the content, since weapon damage and weapon customization don't much effect one another.

Not sure if this belongs in homebrew, but:

Pathfinder unchained gives the ability to take the feat: Signature skill(Craft), which gives the following abilities:

"5 Ranks: When determining your weekly progress, double the result of your Craft check before multiplying the result by the item’s DC.

10 Ranks: You do not ruin any of your raw materials unless you fail a check by 10 or more.

15 Ranks: When you determine your progress, the result of your check is how much work you complete each day in silver pieces.

20 Ranks: You can craft magic armor, magic weapons, magic rings, and wondrous items that fall under your category of Craft using the normal Craft rules."

The issue is that rank 15's ability conflicts with the alternate crafting progress, where your check per day is in GP, compared to the original's silver pieces/week. The conversion thing to do would be to multiply your check by five (stacking with 5th's double for a 10x multiplier), which seems greatly unbalanced. You could ignore level 15's ability entirely, but that doesn't seem right either.

I'm looking for a happy median, what should I do?

Updated pdf here.I've been doing some work trying to separate The two systems, and I'm about done, but I need advice:

I'm trying to balance the length of time it takes to craft items, and I've hit a few issue.

Below are some crafting examples: a person crafts a DC of item making the appropriate check, then takes the most expensive augments they can. Cost is calculated and weighed against the progress they make per day to give the total number of days required to craft.

dc15 r2 base* 2 *2.0 *2.0 = 8*base vs 2/day = 4*base
dc30 r5 base* 5 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0=160*base vs 16/day = 10*base
dc45 r8 base* 8 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 = 2048*base vs 128/day = 16*base
dc60 r11 base*11 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *2.0 *1.5 *2.0 *2.0 = 16896*base vs 1000/day = 17*base

Crafting a dc15 weapon takes 4 days for a lite weapon, 12 days for a one-handed, and 24 days for a two-handed. This is much too slow.

Crafting a dc60 weapon takes 17 days for a lite weapon, 51 days for a one-handed, and 102 days for a two-handed. This is about the right speed.

I'm using unchained's progress per day and capping it at 1000gp/day, but I need a way to make lower tier faster keeping about the same for high tier. Any thoughts?

Since you're basically firing force arrows, and not actual arrows for this ability, why not let it act as though it had brilliant energy if its healing a target on top of flat-footed? No reason to make beefily armored characters less easy to heal.

Also on what Cyrad said consider limiting targets to being within 30 feet of one another, as mass cure spells are.

Edit: Ranged touch attack... Nevermind...

Rather than continuing to come out with more and more classes, a core rewrite called Pathfinder 1.2 or something that's broken into a few volumes would be helpful, each with updated content for full understand-ability and reasonable power re-balance. Basically a re-organised re-release that's a chance to update, and give the once-over to everything released so far.
-Book I: Starting and Races
Starting themes/Ability scores/Sheets (character, race, ect)
Everything races, every race, race builder(make breath weapons not suck), ect.
-Book II: Classes
Every class, every relevant archetype and alternate class. Looking at you unchained ninja, vivisectionist, Titan mauler, ect.
prestige classes(a good sampling w/updates)
-Book III: Backgrounds, Skills and Feats
Skills (including background skills)
Background generator and traits
Feats, my god the feats
-Book IV:
How combat works, Every action that can be taken in combat, examples of play
General Rules
Alternate rules
-Book V:
Equipment: Update of ultimate equipment
-Book VI:
Spells

The GM guide and Bestiaries probably don't need re-releases, but hey, why not?

Basically it would be nice to have new Hard copies/pdfs that were less spread out that were rules updates. Not looking for 5e oversimplification.

Edit: Took too long typing that. Basically what Cyrad said, but more than core.

Maybe, but we'll have to see how things play out at level 4 or so; level one and two can be edgy anyway. The only thing I'm really worried about is the lower spell damage in comparison, but our wizard doesn't seem to mind.

If I do need to lower damage I suppose I could do an adaptation from what I have now without the damage rewrite. I'll probably do that anyway here in a few weeks when I'm free again. I do not see a way to reduce overall damage and keep the damage rewrite at the moment. 1.5x melee damage is a burden to put on casters, and I don't want to rewrite more systems.

The group likely the heavy damage feel, but iterative attacks haven't hit yet, low level ect. The game feels a different in a lot of aspects, i.e. the fighter's feats that improve damage by two are de-powered, spell damage is not as effective as it was, but its not a bad feeling, at least so far. We're meeting again here not this but next Friday, so I'll post more after.

Just got back to my dwelling, very busy weekend.

Yes, tried it with freshly rolled characters, unchained barb, warpriest, unchained rogue, Ranger/fighter (custom), and a wizard.

We play with max hp (lvl 1 doesn't matter), and a LOT of people still lost consciousness because of the higher damage all around. I have to do a lot more background work, (recalculate pretty much all damage) but everybody seems really enthralled with custom weapons, and at least at low level it doesn't break the game. Even the wizard has knives he throws on strings that do decent damage and decent to hit because he has high dex. Wizard took the hint on comparatively lower damage and prepared effect based spells, letting the melees finish it off. Crossbows have seen some use, but no bows yet, should see some soon with cash injection.

TL;DR
Combat is edgier due to higher damage
More DM work
Wizard damage feels underpowered, he switched to effects. Color Spray!
No bows yet.

It absolutely does, but you cant cast a spell the same round that you deliver the touch attack with Spring attack. The only thing allowed is movement up to your speed and a single melee attack, whereas if you don't use Spring attack you can cast a touch spell as a standard action, move, then make a free touch attack, though you end your turn inside range. Neither case provokes attacks of opportunity.

I don't like the fact you cant cast a touch spell in spring attack and deliver it.

Addressing balance:
1. I don't think the two stored touch attacks is a big deal, especially given my second point:
2. 3 spells in a round is certainly an issue, but one quickened and one standard action with different casters should be fine, please allow it. Since you can have a quickened and a regular, you could get two touch spells in one round anyway, so carrying 2 touch spells into combat could be okay.

Consider the alternative, where you and your familiar cant take advantage of one quickened spell and cant deliver spell touch attacks on the same round: the class seems under-powered.
You've taken 5 levels for a companion that can deliver touch attacks, something that I feel Spring attack should have enabled in the first place. Admittedly the familiar is a little better/takes less damage, and other flavorful options, but these aren't mechanically strong. Giving up 5 levels of wizard powers and having to find and pay for 5 levels of spells isn't mechanically worth it without a little side cheese, that happens max 3 times a day.

To my understanding, you cant cast at all using Spring attack as casting is not a melee attack; interestingly without it you could cast-move-free touch, but you cant move back out of range. With this Familiar master you've found a way to effectively let Spring attack work for casters without sacrificing spells/round, which is great.

I'm not seeing any issues with verbage of mechanics, but to be sure about two fringe cases:

You can go into combat with touch attacks stored on both you and the familiar, and do 2x damage in the first round of pretty much every encounter

You and the familiar can cast 3 spells in any round by casting one spell, one quickened spell, and your familiar casts a quickened spell

As long as both those are intended, I think you're golden.

I wish Spring attack worked differently, but I'm happy its there. In standard play Spring attack doesn't let you move, cast a touch spell and deliver the free touch attack, and then move, you can only do a standard melee attack. Meaning my familiar would need to cast while I do no casting one turn, then move-touch-move the next while I can cast.
This is fine, but none-then-double casting feels awkward. Would that Spring attack was more caster friendly.

Minor revisions:
Added critical explanation,
Minor format change
Craft value in gp rounded up, weight rounded to nearest
Still found here

Was going through tabs today and noticed a change in your pdf, forgive me I Necro'ed too hard, but i wasn't quite two weeks.

Spring attack at level 4 would be interesting if it let a familiar move and cast instead of just melee attack; melee attacking seems out of place. Could you give some context to why spring attack?

Well, I suppose you've actually found a nice loophole with organic non-living vegetable matter poisons, given that you have some to begin with. I'm not sure on official, but I'd rule Belladonna as living, since its poisonous properties are found in its foliage and berries. I wouldn't let you make any special materials, since major creation puts a damper on special metals.

I'd have to say that ash would appear if you burned wood, but would disappear when the spell ended, and poison would disappear similarly.

Considering you need to be level 7 to cast this, I want to let Belladonna slide, but not more expensive poisons or items, as this is surely not what the spell is designed for.

Shared consciousness has a few typos: "He don't need line of sight or line of effect to his familiar", the yous and your in paragraph 2 need changed to he and his. The third paragraph's increment line would better read "but must be spent in 5-minute increments".

As far as capstones I'd want if I pc'ed this class, how about letting the familiar actually talk, even though its not a bird? I know its not much in the way of power, but it sure would be nice for flavor reasons.

Mechanically, so far you Buff ability scores, share casting, share senses, and buff saves.
In line with ability scores, I think a changeable permanent transmutation(or polymorph) would be cool, like letting you change the form of your familiar, or giving a daily changeable buff permanent duration on it, kind of like the alchemist's eternal potion.
In line with shared casting could use a one-off highest level spell, or one spell use that doesn't count towards spells/day.
You've hit the cap on sensors I think, but you could increase how far empathic link goes (even per level).
Personally, I like the talking bit, and the semi-permanent polymorph, but you could technically get a permanency equivalent on your familiar at level 8 this way, and might be overpowered.

Edited to clarify what I meant.

Good choice with the ability score of choice and word revision. Definitely going to try to shove an npc with this into my current campaign; that dragon is adorable.

Looks good! I would change the wording on Augmented familiar to read:

'The familiar of a familiar master gains a cumulative bonus each level, taking the form of:'

Yeah, there are some VERY overpowered combinations:
Alchemist without bombs, with barbarian rage for one (which stacks with mutagens)
Synthesist with no spells, but fighter training.
Rangers with no spellcasting, and fighter training, which stacks with favored enemy.

It's usually a good jumping off point, even if it isn't balanced.

Also remember you've got Pathfinder Unchained's variant multiclassing to help weigh things out.

Options to fix the problem:
1. Say all familiars are Int casters
2. Buff familiars harder; I'm thinking 'augmented familiar' doesn't cap at 10, but 20. This lets a Cha caster have an advantage over an Int caster, as Cha on animals can start at a 12 or more; I'm okay with that.
3. Give familiars Cha progression the same way they have Int progression.

My personal vote is 2, to make the familiar class a little more valuable, and give a casting familiar a little more power.