I think that the best way to make this class shine is to bring in some of the spells from the Duskblade in 3.5. Spells that can be cast as an swift action that arent huge blasting or control spells, but are a way to really mess up the guy adjacent to you.
Consider letting the EK dip into those spells and I think that will probably solve your problem.
Umm...no...
Are you unfamiliar with the 3 swift actions that the EK ALREADY needs?!? You wanna add a 4th to it then? What the class needs is something akin to spell channeling and to have their capstone work or AS/AAT work as a free action...maybe even both so the EK can toss in some quickened spells so they don't get even more gimped over the straight wizard.
You really shouldn't use arcane strike or armor training every round because it uses up those actions. Besides, Arcane strike can be omitted just by casting magic weapon, or by having a decent sword that wouldnt benefit from the ability. The only SA that they NEED is arcane armor training, but that you can also do away with if you use mithril armors and convince the DM to allow you to bring in the twilight armor ability. That would take the spell failure of mithril bplate down to 0. So, given that there are two fairly easy fixes for the other things that use SAs, a spell list that has more fast casting spells would be the greatest benefit.
Use Improved Crit and use an Elven Curveblade. It might not have the highest damage, but when you can Crit 30% of the time, it makes things interesting.
I had one character plan where my elven was going to eventually have a +4 corrosive burst, shocking burst, icy burst curveblade, attacking with a Attack bonus of 41. Results of a charge & crit would be Sprited Charge+Crit+PA+Vital Strike: MIN: 61, AVG: 136, MAX: 212
That's without an ointment (or whatever) of leadblade, or enlarge person.
I think that the best way to make this class shine is to bring in some of the spells from the Duskblade in 3.5. Spells that can be cast as an swift action that arent huge blasting or control spells, but are a way to really mess up the guy adjacent to you.
Consider letting the EK dip into those spells and I think that will probably solve your problem.
Primarily the first 3. Might end up being a dwarf monk and halfling cavalier, but I like these a lot.
The switch hitter follows treantmonk's ranger guide almost word for word. I'll warn you first and foremost that your #1 priority should be bumping your AC. My switch hitter is almost 11th level, his AC is only 23, and thats with +2 breastplate, ring of prot +3, his dex is a 14. The only person with lower AC than me is the barbarian, and only when theyre raging. Next level he's putting basically all his available money into +3 mithril full plate and will finally have decent ac for a while.
The spell leadblade is your bestest friend in the whole wide world. Combinging that with a greatsword (+1), power attack, and a high strength (22), it can really mess up whatever is within hitting range; my damage record for one round is 108.
I built this one and managed to play it for a while. Note: I never applied the APG to this one, he's due for a rebuilt, I'm only presenting the hightlights.
How about you use modern day earth, say that on 12/21/2012 the barriers holding magic from the world shatter, and as magic reasserts itself on the world it sweeps along ley lines and shatters unnatural things in its path: pure metals, glass, processed or treated wood, etc; and ushers in a plague that very quickly kills everyone over the age of 10. Simultaneously, the barriers between our world and atlantis, tir-na-nog, atlantis, etc; all break and large numbers of the various non human races are inserted into our world.
Have the years fast forward by maybe a decade or three and you have a chaotic land with fragmented and newly forming kingdoms and an influx of magic ready to be tamed.
At the very least it would make maps really really easy to make... turn the modern cities to dust and replace them with medieval sized towns or cities in roughly the same locations and you're fairly well set. the only thing left is to figure out where you want the kingdom lines to lay. Of course, to get really creative, keep the most ancient buildings that we have intact, saying that because they were made of stone and so ancient they were unaffected, then you can build up your story amid the bustle of revived ruins in the middle of the dust of recent history.
Bard/Arcane Archer: Imbue arrow doesn't really apply to too much, but the other class abilities, skills, and proficiencies do rather accent each other very well. You'd wind up with a very good debuffer who can easily hold his own in combat.
Monk Sorcerer: Itsa me! Mario! Doesnt need many levels of sorc, but would certainly take elemental bloodline (fire) and be sure to know enlarge person.
I have a bad habit of making spare characters. Every week or so I'll make a new one. Sometimes they're an optimized character, sometimes they're just for kicks and giggles. Below are some of them. Let me know what you think, or what ideas you've had.
Jayne: A switch hit human ranger (thank you treantmonk) uses a bow until the fight reaches charge distance, then wades in with a greatsword. Lawful neutral, but has a bit of a mean streak when it concerns criminals.
Methuselah: Halfling paladin. Rides around on a wolf stabbing things with a lance. I made this one up for a friend, and she does a really good job having a LG paladin despite that fact that in her view all halflings are chaotic.
Thibedaux: Human monk. This build goes for all out area control. He wields a longspear and uses combat reflexes. Havent gotten a chance to play him yet, but I imagine he'll be able to cover the casters fairly well.
Butler: Scot/Irish human paladin going around with a halberd. The most irreverent Paladin one will ever encounter. He drinks and plays pranks on just about anyone.
Tikki: Halfling Barbarian, raised by dwarves, thinks shes a dwarf. Will go into a rage and attack if you insist that she's a halfling. Uses a battle axe on her enemies, and merciful spiked gauntlets on bar patrons too drunk to take a hint.
Thrass: Half Orc Rogue, works as a bouncer in a bar. Uses his fists until things get ugly, then uses a falchion.
Tyran: Elf fighter rather optimized for using a Curveblade. I played this one for a while when I wasnt too interested in making any depth to the character. Has the best stats I've ever rolled with witnesses: 17, 17, 17, 16, 14, 11.
Valkarie: Halfling Ranger, uses a bow and rides around on a panther mount. CN at best, hates everybody, kills those who endanger her range.
Dakka: Havent played this guy yet, and he requires some DM permission to get the appropriate items, but he's a Human fighter optimized to dual wield hand crossbows. DM is required to allow autoloading hand crossbows.
Duelist: Concept in the works for an open hand fighter/duelist character. The abilities mesh very well and allows you to still have a decent capstone ability.
Mounted rogue: Concept for building a rogue using offensive defense, skirmisher alternate build, and mounted combat. I'm rather waiting to play this one until I can convince someone to play a Dragon Oath Cavalier at the same time.
Caster: Sorc/Dragon disciple build going for as much melee combat performance as possible. As soon as able, will cast Polymorph any object onto himself to apply the half dragon template to himself.
I think that the whole touch attack concept is grossly overpowered. It means that no matter who you are, the gunslinger WILL hit you. There is no way anyone else can possibly come close to duplicating this, and with the damage output and rate of fire of firearms, it makes them on the 'very' side of broken.
Gunslingers are two ability classes. All they need is DEX and WIS. They get enough HP that they can forgo putting a lot into CON, their STR scores don't help them at all with their combat abilities, they don't need skill points so INT is marginalized, only 3 out of 15 skills get a bonus from CHA, so that's a dump stat. No other class has only two critical skills. Making their grit based off of their CHA scores will help make it even out. WIS would be too important due to perception and the will save to be forgone.
The grit system seems to be overly reliant on having a firearm be the only tool of the gunslinger. There seem to be only two grit abilities that do not use firearms in an immediate way (shooting etc) I am reminded of homer simpson using a revolver to open beers and turn on his TV. If you should think 'well duh, its a GUNslinger, GUNS should be required, then why exactly can this same class turn around and use all martial weapons and medium armors? The grit powers need to be more generalized so that you don't have to rely only on one tool (which inherently breaks 5% of the time) to do your class abilities. Creating a list of abilities that is much more far reaching to include abilities that emulate things like a barbarian's raging leap, or the rogue's opportunist will allow people to be more useful in non combat situations that do not require the use of a firearm.
There are basically three types of gun users that can be applied to settings like Pathfinder.
1) the musketeer. A very dexterous and intelligent swordsman who uses muskets when the enemy isnt in sword range. Formally trained and with high social ranks, these types should have d8 hp, lots of skills, class abilities based off of acrobatics, weapon finesse, and fighting with two weapons; and everything but heavy armor proficiency.
2) the frontiersman. A dexterous and wise outdoors-man getting by with his wit and skills with his long ranged rifle. When the enemy closes, they'll pull out a hatchet or shortsword and fight in a melee. Self trained woodsman, these types should have simple and specific weapons, light armor, mid range skills, class abilities based off of hunting, surviving, causing mayhem among the enemy, and woodcraft; and d10s for hitpoints.
3) the cowboy. A very dexterous and intelligent horseman. When he encounters trouble in the wilderness or in town he brutes his way through it with a mix of a gun, knife, and fists. These types should have a bevy of class skills that relate to their horsemanship and martial prowess to include bonus feats, mid level skills, d10s, simple and specific weapons, and light armor.
With the current way that the gunslinger is written, there is no way to play any of those varieties of gunman. There is a complete lack of support for any martial ability that doesn't require the use of a firearm, making this a very inflexible and static class.
I'll come back with something a bit more constructive once I can figure out how to defuse some of the issues noted above.
Rangers and animal domain clerics are the only two classes that can get an animal companion that doesn't get fully charged; Paladins, Druids, and Cavaliers get access to the full table, and as such, lose nothing. The rest of the classes (with the exception of the monk) have basically no way to get an improved mount other than buying advanced animals and hoping they can keep them alive. This really puts a downer on those classes that have mounted alternates, specifically the fighter and barbarians. All it takes is one average 5th level fireball to kill a heavy warhorse. All the investment that they put into the horse in terms of feat selection, money, and special abilities wold be as good as wasted.
If youre worried that a two level difference between a maxed out mundane animal and a maxed out ranger companion isnt enough, just remember that the companion still has significant special abilities like multiattack and share spell that wouldnt be present on a mundane mount. Also, rangers can bump up the INT on their companions so gain access to more useful feats, mundane mounts do not have that option. In short, the Ranger mount would be far superior to the mundane mount, but the mundane mount would still be worth it for those who dont get an animal companion.
There is one fairly large drawback to anyone who isn't a ranger or paladin who wants to ride a mount into combat past level 5. It dies. Usually if anything so much as looks at it funny. Horses just dont have any type of staying power. If you shell out the several thousand gp to buy something more exotic, then congratulations, you can ride into combat for maybe another 3 levels before it becomes spellfodder. What I propose is a mundane mount advancement table.
Use the below chart for animal advancement. Allow evasion when the mount has medium armor and light load. When an animal dies, allow replacement of animals at 500gp per level. For advancement, use the same XP chart as the rider, and grant the same XP as the rider.
The below table is basically 15 levels of a druid's animal companion stretched over 20 levels. Rangers have a slight disadvantage at early levels if they are wanting to ride their animal companion, however as the stats for the companion go up faster, and mundane mounts don't get the level adjustment, the disadvantage for the mounted companion doesn't last very long.
Animals adjusted in this way should be able to survive combat handily without turning their riders into juggernauts and don't invalidate the special mounts and animal companions already in the rules.
For the above mentioned exotic animals, start them off at a level roughly equal to their CR.
The above table should also be applicable to non standard mounts like gryphons. Just start them out at a level that equals their CR and you should be good.
Use the below chart for animal advancement. Allow evasion when the mount has medium armor and light load. When an animal dies, allow replacement of animals at 500gp per level. For advancement, use the same XP chart as the rider, and grant the same XP as the rider.
The below table is basically 15 levels of a druid's animal companion stretched over 20 levels. Rangers have a slight disadvantage at early levels if they are wanting to ride their animal companion, however as the stats for the companion go up faster, and mundane mounts don't get the level adjustment, the disadvantage for the mounted companion doesn't last very long.
Animals adjusted in this way should be able to survive combat handily without turning their riders into juggernauts and don't invalidate the special mounts and animal companions already in the rules.
There are two things: Invisibility, and the Invisible Condition. One is magical, the other not necessarily so. Both however grant the same numerical bonuses.
If you are hidden due to concealment, a high stealth check, and someone else's failed perception check, do you enjoy the same numerical benefits as a creature enjoying the Invisible Condition? Meaning: you get +2 on ranged attacks and treat targets as flat footed
You have to actually be invisible to be invisible. He is considered to be hidden though at least until the takes a shot. Once you attack your position is revealed unless you are invisible. The only way to stay hidden in this situation is to snipe which has its own rules.
Being hidden means that you are unseen, that you are visually undetected. Invisible says "Invisible creatures are visually undetectable." The two are one and the same. If they are not, then what is the hidden condition?
The invisible condition states that he need only be visually undetectable to benefit from the condition. Failed perception checks mean they did not visually (or with any other sense) detect him.
Here's the situation that I'm basically asking about:
I've got a ranger hiding in some bushes. Caravan guards fail their perception checks to see him.
He shoots one of them with a bow. For the purposes of this attack, is he considered to have the invisible condition?
What is the functional difference between a successful stealth check to remain hidden and being invisible?
It seems to me that a successful stealth check to remain hidden should result in the invisible condition.
Here's the wording of the invisible condition:
Invisible
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
If you are hidden you are effectively invisible, but only for as long as you have cover or concealment.
If you are actually invisible you don't need cover or concealment because nobody can see you without magical aid.
Thats what I was thinking, but wasn't sure as nowhere does anything state what the effects of being hidden are.
What, if any, are the functional differences between a successful stealth check to hide and being invisible?
It seems to me that a successful stealth check to hide should result in the invisible condition.
Here's the wording of the invisible condition:
Invisible
Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.
