Ricardo Pennacchia's page

But nothing prevents the exploiter wizard from selecting the School Understanding exploit.

So go low dex? Doesn't 2 twf need high dex?

Slayers can bypass the Dex requirement for TWF, in the same way as the ranger class.

There has been a lot of discussion in these forums about the rogue, which includes ways to make an effective character. It might be worth taking a look at the optimization guides available here.
Additionally, there is a really extensive thread about rogue builds here.
Yep, it's a lot of reading, but might be worth looking as well; the rogue is not an easy class to work with in Pathfinder, so every piece of advice can be useful for you to make a character that can be fun, flavorful and effective (by effective I mean a character that can contribute to the party in combat situations).

Maybe what is really needed in PF is a consolidation of the rules set, not a full revision (although some parts - i'm looking at you, rogue - DO need revision).

Daring Champion also gives up Heavy Armor Proficiency, so they would not stack.

Not the appropriate board, but maybe you could houserule that if you give up Medium Armor Proficiency the archetypes can stack? =P

EDIT: In addition to the Heavy Armor Proficiency, you know...

Consider this Cavalier archetype as well.

Ok, Ross... Now it's when I bow to your expertise... =P

Star Wars SAGA may have some useful concepts about the matter, since there were no magic items in the system. For instance, instead of 1 ability point every 4 levels, you received 2 ability points, that should be applied in diferent scores (1 to STR, and 1 to CON, as an example).

I do remember that Star Wars SAGA RPG had a similar mechanics. Might be worth checking it.

You can use a 'wound' system similar to the 'Earthdawn' roleplaying system.

You define threshold for damage per hit. Everytime you get more damage than your threshold you get a wound in addition to the damage. If the damage dont ecxeed your threshold everything is fine and you only get damage. Every wound is a -1 penalty to dice rolls.

The threshold can be CON, 10+lvl, ..

A wound is healed with a healing spell in addtion to the damage.

We tested this in the past with D&D3 and it worked good. You only count wounds and use penalties. That is not much paperwork.

Try it if everyone in your group wants more realism.

I would suggest a threshold of CON + 2 x BAB, so it could benefit martials a good deal.

Suggestion for rogue fix: The rogue can add his/her sneak attack dice roll to Combat Maneuver checks.

6)Replace Bravery with something useful or just apply it to all Will saves removing the need for 4

Maybe you mean something like

Check the Dragonstar RPG (from Fantasy Flight, 3.5 compatible); it presents an interesting choice of dualistic religion.

The rogue has NO bonuses to hit in his class...no smite, weapon bond, favored enemy, weapon training or weapon spec. He will never catch a devoted martial character.

And it's here where rogue talents are mostly lacking and/or unhelpful.

If no caster, you can always buy a ward and use it with Use Magic Device.

Sorry to tell you that, but Ye Olde Magic Shoppe is not a standard in all campaigns...

Let's see a build that compliments the group better that couldn't be done better by another class. I haven't seen such a build so far (although some have come close).

Hmmm... Do you mind to point out which builds accomplished that? I'm honestly interested on the matter...

Regarding rogues and Combat Maneuvers, i realize the best options are those that make use of skill checks instead of CMB (since the rogue doesn't have access to anything resembling the monk's Maneuver Training). Keeping that in mind, the maneuver options that fit early in such description are Feint and Steal (Disarm becomes an option when the rogue can select the Weapon Catcher advanced talent). Dirty Trick is really flavorful (as well as Trip, IMHO), but it will, indeed, be less reliable, which is really sad. Critical Focus and correlates only become available at BAB 9+, which means lvl 12 for a single-classed rogue.

@Sub-Zero: I don't know if trying to "out-damage" the martials is a realistic goal for the rogue, with the present rules. As i said, my build was devised to grant the character plenty of options to contribute in combat. As you pointed out, the overall damage will be pretty lower, but the rogue won't depend on a very specific set of conditions in order to be able to contribute. Competing with the martial classes for damage output can be one huge source of frustration, IMHO.

P.S: One thing that i would ask you, folks, to enlighten me, is the preference of Offensive Defense rogue talent over Beffudling Strike... I could understand if someone chooses to pick them both, but, as far as i could see, the later IS better than the former... Am i missing something?

I call forth this thread from the mists of the (recent) past (XD), so i can bring my suggestion to discuss (honestly, i'm not trying to steal anyone's thread, i'm just interested in making the feat Combat Expertise more like a real option, an less of a mandatory annoyance).
I had this idea while reading the Swashbuckler Playtest discussion, and for my surprise, i found that the parry ability of the swashbuckler could be hindered (!!!!) by the use of Combat Expertise. Well, that makes no sense to me. As a practitoner of a martial art (amateur level, truth be told), one thing that i figured out in combat training, is that when you fight defensively, you're more focused in (let's put this way) attacking your opponents' attacks, instead of your opponent itself. Which means that you're not hindering your offensive capability on purpose to be able to defend yourself, but you're directing most of your offensive capability against your opponents' attacks.

So, in short, here's my suggestion to rewrite Combat Expertise:

I humbly look forward to see your thoughts and your oppinion about my suggestion, fellows... :)

Yes.

Yes.
YES!

Lol... My reaction while checking the Arcanist revision was more like

wow.

WOW.

WOW!

But i absolutely agree... Now the arcanist is a REALLY catching, interesting concept, all is left to do is checking its balance and adjusting it, if needed.

Just a thought... It wouldn't be better if Combat Expertise reduced your attacks' damage instead of your to-hit chance?

Can't believe this discussion is still going on, but here is the skinny.

Lol... Yeah, i found myself intrigued as well about it, sort of "what the blazes is this animal companions' discussion is doing here in the Skald Discussion?"

I'd like to congratulate everyone on surpassing the swashbuckler thread in posts.

Yay!!! XD

Well, i guess it will help to get the devs' attention. The warpriest really needs it, IMHO.

Well, there is even a precedent for this: the Lore Warden fighter archetype. So i can see the brawler being able to get bonus feats without need of the prerequisites, just like the monk.

I propose the following changes to the skald:

Drop spellcasting
d12 hit dice
Full Bab
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Give them Bardic Performance
Change Rage Song to a type of bardic performance than only skalds can do (and allies can benefit from if they choose).
Change Spell Kenning to a special type of bardic performance as well. The Perform DC would be 20 + spell level. If successful, they can cast any spell from any class as a spell like ability once a day. (Twice at 11th level and thrice at 17th level.) The maximum spell is equal to the skald level divided by 4 (for 6th level spells at level 16).
I think that will be an awesome class to play.

Although i doubt the developers will adopt this approach for the skald, i see it as a good concept of barbarian warchief archetype (only removing the Spell Kenning, IMHO).

The other problem is that if you try to make this a 4-level caster class with the bard list.... well they already have the Bloodrager in this book, which is a 4-level arcane casting barbarian.

You got a point, but the bloodrager makes use of the magus spell list. And then you would have two arcane counterparts to the "cleric-based" (somewhat, at least) paladin, and the (somewhat) "druid-based" ranger.

Ricardo Pennacchia wrote:

Well, i'm pretty sure is too late for that suggestion, but maybe the skald would fit better in the concept of the bloodrager: full BAB, d10 Hit Die, 4 levels of spells taken from the Bard spell list (up to 4th level spells).

How about d12 hit die and no spells?

The answer for your question is simple: just play a barbarian. My intention here is trying to contribute to the discussion about the skald.

Well, i'm pretty sure is too late for that suggestion, but maybe the skald would fit better in the concept of the bloodrager: full BAB, d10 Hit Die, 4 levels of spells taken from the Bard spell list (up to 4th level spells).

Sub_Zero wrote:

I'm a little confused by the build you have. You spent a lot of feats dedicated to full attacks, and a lot of feats dedicated getting only a single attack.

Maybe because he wants to be able to do both?

Exactly... The point of this build is providing you more options and opportunities to use sneak attack, either you're flanking or not, adding versatility to your character.

So, after reading this thread, and doing some research (updated Rogue Edolon's guide to Rogues was invaluable here), i kinda figured out the following basic build, that makes use of the Scout Rogue archetype and includes two levels of Lore Warden Fighter archetype (which you can check here):

This build is not completely filled, as you can see (open Rogue Talents at Character levels 6 and 10, no specific race, no selected traits, no ties with specific weapon), in order to allow more customization. It can even be combined with the Sniper Rogue archetype, for more opportunities to use Sneak Attack. The Lore Warden Fighter archetype is neat, since it replaces Combat Expertise for Bravery, even if you don't qualify for the feat (i.e, Int 12-). Hope it can be helpful.

P.S: My first successful attempt to use a spoiler in a post. Yay!!!! =D

Because he can already do that and we are trying to avoid the boring?

What I don't get is why people aren't say, "Why take barbarian when you can take this and be a self buffing barbarian."

Honestly how about we move away from the mundane simple idea and move into making him something actually different?

You know, actually i like the concept. Maybe if, at some level, the bloodrager could be able to cast a damaging spell as a move action while raging? Maybe number of times per day equal to 3 + Cha mod?

Just my 2 cents.

Just my 2 cents.

Since the arcanist taps into the core of magic, it would seem appropriate to give the class some ability similar to Words of Power, in terms of game mechanics.

Seeing this thread i remember fondly of the Gnome Artificer prestige class of Forgotten Realms 3.0 ed. It was really flavorful, and i think it would work nicely as an inspiration and starting point for a full 20-level class.

Additionaly, the longbow is a relatively recent weapon: it showed up at the end of 15th Century, during the Hundred Years War. Until then, the shortbow was the only bow available, and compared to crossbows, the shortbow really lacked punch, while composite bows were found only in Asia and not really widespread.

As for the number of attacks, i thought about an advanced feat (requirement: BAB +8) that reduces de difference betwen iteractive attacks: the first time you get this feat, it raises your attack bonuses from +8/+3 to +8/+4/+0 (yes, it grants a third attack with +0 adjustement), and additional picks reduces even further (to +8/+5/+2, then to +8/+6/+4); you can even limit the amount of additional repicks allowed (although i think it would be really cool for martial characters to get 3 attacks at full bonus in the end).

Well, that's based on a P8 assumption, but it can be somehow adapted for P6.

Thoughts?

Well, leo1925 asked what were the features of universalists in Beta edition, and Cap. Darling just answered the question. I'm not trying to cut you off, honestly. My apologies if it sounded like i did.

@Karuth
Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss homebrew options. Maybe you would open a thread in the Suggestions/Houserule/Homebrew section. But i warn you: in that place dwell a lot of individuals who think wizards should be nothing beyond whining, pebble-throwing commoners.

Wich reinforces my statement that universalists are really intended for multiclassing and nothing else.

@Abraham spalding

Out of curiosity, how often did you use Hand of the Apprentice when playing with this specific character?

Ok, after some extensive reading through the messageboards and the PFSRD (and finding out the almost complete lack of options), i came to some conclusions:

• extra spells per day is specialists' territory (since AD&D 2nd Edition, as a matter of fact). Period.
  
• Although Hand of the Apprentice is useful for gish characters, i still think there should be a more appealing option for those who want to go universalist wizard all the way without multiclassing.
  
• Additionally, i think as annoying the "get X magic item" or "get X PrC" approach. Pathfinder is a system that emphasizes single-classing, and any class that relies in said item or PrC to function properly has some serious design issues.
  
• The universalist wizard is still viable as a pure wizard because of the sorcerer/wizard spell list, but it doesn't keep the class from feeling dull (compared to the specialists wizards, the sorcerer, and the witch, for the record), as if they were still characters from D&D 3.0.

Taking all that into consideration, and taking account of many suggestions and ideas from this thread (and others, as well), my idea to replace the Hand of the Apprentice is the following:

Extensive Scholarship (Ex): You begin play with a number of 1st level spells in your spellbook equal to 6 + Int modifier; at each new wizard level, you can choose 4 additional spells of any spell level or levels that you have access to add to your spellbook.
Additionally, you add half of your wizard level (minimum +1) to all Spellcraft checks.

I think it's unlikely to be unbalanced, since the spells per day are still the same, and it helps the universalist in the crafting department while still being useful when adventuring, without relegating him to the "cohort" status.

Thoughts?

Honestly, I feel no comfort at all with the "get X magic item" approach for a said class to work as intended. Or even "get X PrC" approach, for the record.

My suggestion to the OP? Go specialist, or houserule an option for universalists, because Pathfinder failed with them (and i say this with a sorrowful heart).

Okay, what can the monk do that the barbarian can't?

They can survive... :P

The sad truth is: universalists are intended for multiclassing (mostly gish characters, since they can put good use of Hand of the Apprentice with their greatswords).

If being grappled is a recurrent issue for you, you may consider taking the Still Spell feat; it will greatly expand your choices of what can you do when grappled.

I personally think would be very interesting to use Still Spell with this one, or even this one, specially at lower levels...

Maybe it would be a good idea to create a PDF or DOC archive with the current changes you've implemented and make it available for downloading? I guess it would be very handy for people interested in adopting those changes in their games (myself included, you bet! =P )...

The sheets you mentioned can be found here: Neceros_Character_Sheets.zip

Just took a little bit to find them. ;)

P.S: By the way, i've just downloaded the archive for me as well. Thanks for the tip.

It might work OK if you get ALL the domains (powers and spells) of that deity. And even then, a cleric of Gozreh would be utter rubbish (unless you like Obscuring Mist a lot).

I actually agree about the spell access, but all Domains' powers would be a little extreme, IMHO (i think getting powers of two Domains of choice is still reasonable). And about subdomains' spells: i have the impression that many subdomains just replace something like three spells on average, and that would still limit the cleric's options in a radical way.

Addendum: I'm already working on houserules to make magical healing nice but not necessary, but that seemed like a separate topic.

I'm quite interested on this topic... :)

It seems that, so far, the changes you've made to the monk matched your expectations, Dabbler. Really nice work!
It's my guess that, once you finish the AP, you intend to contact Paizo and show them your "experiment", yes?

What about using Words of Power magic system in a E* campaign?

If you allow me, i'll be a little nosy now... XD
I found this system really interesting, but did you consider somehow using the PC's total Fortitude modifier in the system?

What if the cleric Domains granted bonus thematic feats, in a similar way of sorcerer bloodlines?

Cleric/wizard hybrid, maybe? Using cleric spell list plus dips in wizard/sorcerer spell list... Just a thought...

@Tels: thanks for your argument, mate. I went back in the thread and saw Dabbler's just made it clear quite in the beginning (and I didn't noticed the post, my bad...). So, i guess it would be a good idea to tie the Wis bonus to hit with the Wis bonus to AC, and then we have:

Harmony of Body and Mind (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wis modifier (if any) to AC and CMD, and this bonus increases by 1 at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter, up to a maximum increase of +5 at 20th level. Additionaly, when unarmored and unencumbered, a monk can apply 1 point of Wis bonus (if any) per monk class level on attack rolls made with unarmed strikes or monk weapons (including Flurry of Blows), instead of Str bonus.

Pretty iconic, it matches nicely with the concept of "hale mind in a hale body", i guess... :)