Several faculty abilities, including almost the entire Obliteration faculty, rely on "weapons formed with your gear array." I know swarm strike is already a strong melee option, but it feels odd to have a choice that is directly non-compatible with so much of the rest of the class. Regeneration and discorporation are the only two faculties that don't have at least one ability reliant on wielding a gear array weapon.
On the one hand, I really feel like Swarm Strike should count as a gear-array weapon for the purposes of faculty abilities, if not other knacks, but that might be too strong. It also kind of circumvents Eldritch Nanites giving up major gear forms, so that's worth considering. Maybe giving up one of your limited knack choices is a viable buyback cost? I'm not sure.
Basically, I want to know if "swarm strike != gear array weapon" was an intentional decision/balance choice, or if that's a potential errata. Good to know either way for official play, but will probably at least try it in home games to see if it's unreasonable or not.
Ok, like Lessah, I've got this profile for temporary character applications (this is Stalchild)
I had it finished, then lost it to a time-out, so I need to re-fill the data. Short term synopsis: Elven Symbiat named Ken'ariel, built to focus on Mind, with some telekinesis. Applying for the 'skill' position, though I feel the term is a little vague- he's got the core 'rogue' skills (although some are not class skills- the only way to get Dis. Device on your list is as a Charlatan Hedgewitch), and works out a lot like a bard.
I'm going to re-type the info tonight or tomorrow, but I figured I'd at least confirm interest.
I don't see it on the list, so I assume the 'expanded' book isn't approved? I would love to make a symbiotic knight armorist, or a dual-channeler soul weaver.
If not, I've still got some ideas: A hedgewitch built to be a blind druid (black/green traditions, focus on plant control and healing), a symbiat built to be a Jedi-type mage-warrior, or a full-blown Archmage style Incanter, mastering a bunch of different magics.
Since it seems a few other people like the full-caster niche, I'll build either the armorist or the symbiat for the Warrior role, once I get an answer.
I thought I'd give a crack at these, since I was looking for a way to represent Fallen who may not have chosen to focus on their 'darker side' quite as much as those who advance purely in the base class.
Obviously, requires the Thunderscape campaign setting to use effectively, but I don't mind promoting a product I've been (very) happy with. Now, if only they'd release that next class option book...
I don't mind you "pushing" your suggestion. I've been fiddling with a "transformative" modification, but it's difficult to make it balanced and "convincing" without going too much into magic territory (and remember, this homebrew is designed to create new base weapons, not magical enhancements. And advanced technology isn't too much of a priority either, though it can represented to a good extent).
Actually, I'm thinking it might be cool to sort of divide off some of the mods as specifically being 'advanced tech,' or the like. Not suggesting you do that here, just that, since my home campaign is set in a different tech age than the base PF/Golarion assumption, having some mods be 'high tech' stuff could be interesting- maybe adjusting the cost/availability of some mods/craft points. But, that's probably its own separate project.
Hmm... Other off-my-head ideas. What about a mod for ranged weapons that lets you throw alchemical items farther, like a sling that throws alchemist fire? Or would it be simpler to just use alchemical ammunition for that?
As for 'alternate damage,' that sounds like it might be a good thing- it'd be a 0-point mod, though. Or did you mean you'd increase the cost of additional damage types? Because I'm not sure that's worth more than one. Would the different damage types be modded differently? Because if so, that's more or less exactly what I've been asking for. If not, then it's still good for dealing with specific DR, which is a minor benefit (which, as a 0-point mod, sounds about right).
The defining characteristic of a double weapon is that it has two separate "ends" that can be used independently or simultaneously, via TWF. Being a two-handed weapon is incidental.
There is no point in restricting double weapons to two-handed weapons. The number of attacks, enhancement cost and TWF penalties you can make are all still the same, anyway... It's only marginally better than wielding two equal weapons (and that small advantage is balanced by the additional craft point cost) After all, even if you use the same hand to wield both ends of the weapon, one of those ends will be an off-hand attack anyway.
It'd be even more pointless if I were to add another modification that does basically the same thing but for light/one-handed weapons.
Double weapons are innately balanced by the fact that you have to spend twice as much gold to enhance them and, in this case, the fact that both ends of that weapon have 1 fewer craft points.
Yang's "gun-gauntlets" (or whatever they are called) can be well-represented by double weapons, even though each one only occupies 1 hand. There is no need to make things needlessly complicated by adding a separate modification that serves the same purpose.
I understand your reasoning re:double weapons. I gave it some more thought, and can picture the image better now (visualization of an idea is almost always key for me) re: Kenshin's sword, Yang's gauntlets, and even why you wouldn't use it for Ivy's sword.
My only complaint as-is re: the extendable property is that it ends up with mod points being wasted on one form or the other (improved whip and entangle either can't be taken, or only work/matter half the time). I think I'd still argue for a transforming weapon mod, so as to allow for a little more diversity between 'modes,' but I don't want to keep pushing it (especially since, it being a home-brew system, I can just try it out in my own games).
Either way, I can still make use of the double/extended property to make another RWBY weapon: Blake's whip/sword/gun thing!
Blake's Sword (Double Weapon)
This weapon is complex and versatile, just like its wielder
- Main Weapon (sword)
[1d8 / 19-20 / S / Melee] [Disarm/Trip]
Template: Melee Exotic One-handed Slashing Weapon [1d6 / 19-20/x2 / S / Melee]
Modifications: Improved Damage (2cp), Extendable (whip-like) (1cp), Trip (0 cp), Double (1cp), Monk (2cp), Finesse (1cp)
- Secondary Weapon (pistol)
[1d8 / 20x2 / P / 60 ft]
Template: Ranged Exotic One-handed Piercing Weapon [1d6 / 20x2 / P / 60 ft]
Modifications: Double (1cp), Monk (2cp), Improved Dmg (2cp), Improved Reload (1cp), Gunpowder Weapon (0cp), Deadly (0cp)
...can you tell I like that show yet? And this system!
I've never seen her use that whip to actually hit someone, so I don't think it's necessary to use the Improved Whip mod here anyway. If you want that (without investing the feats, which is still an option I suppose), I think the Monk mod could be replaced on both parts- she strikes me more as a 'ninja' character. I think her second 'sword' is just a combat sheath. I don't think that's worth adding a bunch of features to, so I'd probably leave it as the one from d20PFSRD.
I think the defining characteristic of double weapons is that they can be used to TWF, and are enhanced as two weapons. If you do not intend the weapon to be used with TWF, it should have its own property. I'd also suggest that light or one-handed weapons should not be double weapons in this light since the game generally expects TWF to require two hands.
There's an odd bit of balance with a non-TWF version, though. On the one hand, having a weapon that is enhanced singly and can shift between two modes with a grip change is probably worth more than 1 craft point because of the increased versatility. On the other, if you can't TWF enhancing two weapons is expensive, so users will probably mainly use one mode/side.
Agreed. I'm not sure what to price it at, but I'd rather restrict 'double' to a two-handed weapon, and figure out something else for multiple forms. If one point is too cheap, I think two would do it- an exotic weapon that is essentially 2 martial weapons, or a martial weapon that is 2 simple weapons.
As for enchantment, it might have to be further broken down, as changing from, say, a greatsword to a scythe is a relatively minor change (I can't think of any enchantments that wouldn't just carry over between forms), changing a saber into a pistol would have two very different outcomes. Maybe have enchanting it affect both forms for 1.5x its normal cost, and allow non-compatible enchantments to be traded for equivalent costs (such as trading distant for keen), but if it can be applied to both (like flaming), then it must apply to both. For unusual abilities (I know there was one in 3.5 that cost 1 for melee, but 3 for ranged), the difference becomes available credit for equivalent cost.
Soon, all of RWBY's weapons will be build-able if we continue down this path.
Like I said at the end, it could work, if you're O.K. with the bookkeeping, it just makes for a slightly grittier outcome than without that part. Which, when combined with the durability that this ruleset adds, just means it's slightly more likely for combatants to get knocked out before they reach a critical health level- any time your non-lethal damage is higher than your HP, you pass out until that is no longer the case. Maybe allow a Fort save each round equal to the difference in order to remain conscious.
Oddly, I'm considering my own houserule HP variant to achieve that exact result. It wouldn't be compatible with this (I think), so I won't hijack/clutter your thread.
Aside from that, once shields and/or parrying is added to the equation, the actual survivability of any character that can do it (assuming weapon/natural weapon parries are a thing) goes up again.
I was also planning to include that half the damage prevented by this DR (but not special DR such as cold iron/silver/magic) is taken as non-lethal damage.
This is also true if you attack using non-lethal damage. Half of that non-lethal damage prevented still gets through. Giving a guy in plate an awful smashing can still knock him out, even if it doesn't wound him. Disabling heavy armour troops becomes a lot more viable than outright killing them.
That fact sounds like it might be moving in the wrong direction for everyone that isn't wearing heavy armor, though. The heavy guy is durable, but now more 'vulnerable' in that he doesn't soak all of the damage. That works. For medium/light armor, the DR is suddenly less relevant, meaning that their lowered AC doesn't get as good of a trade-off. Low AC people would still be largely unaffected, since they probably weren't wearing a lot of armor anyway. The high AC track is still probably the best, since it keeps you the furthest away from actually taking damage. On top of that, everyone is now tracking non-lethal damage. Which means more book-keeping, but that might not be a problem for you. It does mean, though, that characters are now much more likely to pass out before death, which at least adds a bigger gradient than the current "1hp, totally fine, stub my toe, now I'm dead" scenario.
I feel like these are not a race that would survive long, deep sense or no. Blindness is a rather crippling ability when in a hostile environment (hell, it's hard enough for people IRL, where we've at least got some accommodations for it, and no one (hopefully) is trying to kill and/or eat you). Blindsense is probably better, since then they can probably detect enemies above them (there are bats, ropers, cave fishers, and a lot more nasty things that hang out in the top of caverns). Remember that tremorsense travels through the ground, so it would only detect things on the ceiling if the entire perimeter of the tunnel were 60 feet or less (so, about 15 ft wide, and 15 ft high). Of course, unless it's blindsight (which, to some degree, entirely negates being blind within a given range), they are still going to treat everything as if it has concealment (they know the location of the creature, nothing else), and are denied their dex to AC against everything.
'CRB Blind Says wrote:
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character.
Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
I'm fairly certain that the only part of this condition that can be reasonably overcome with time is the need for Acrobatics to move. Maybe the penalties to AC and strength or dex based skills.
If you're wanting to make a 'degenerated underground race,' I'd say start with the Morlocks (Bestiary 1, pg 209). The descriptive text does say degenerate humans, but if you want elven degeneration to be distinct, maybe some stat shuffling or an alternate ability is appropriate.
If you're really set on something blind, and don't want to give them full blindsight, consider giving them an 'active' version that works like echolocation. Basically, they can 'see' out to whatever range as a free action on their turn (note that they can see even invisible things, though stealth is still a factor), but are still totally blind when not using the ability.
Yes, I did design the guidelines to tend toward medium defense for classes that can easily wear heavy armour without penalty.
Oh, I'm definitely only using Spheres of Power. No normal spells except as rituals (casting time in minutes).
Also, doesn't 3 + 1/4 cap at 8?
Yes. Yes it does.
>.> Who said I could do math?
EDIT: Probably should use your fraction for that one, then. I like the aesthetic of final numbers being 5, 10, and 15. That would be an increase at, what, every 3 levels?
Level 5.
High AC guy now has a base AC of 19 (or 18, with your numbers) (we assume he hasn't upgraded his dex to 16 yet). At this point, there are more methods available for boosting defense, so we'll give him +1~+3 above that to account for amulets, dodge, or whatever he's invested in at this point. He can probably afford a better choice of armor now, so let's go with a +2 chain shirt for simplicity's sake. His AC is now between 20 and 22, which sounds about right for this level, and he's got 6 or 7 DR/-. Again, sounds good to me.
Med AC guy is now at 15 AC. He's got the same defense boosters available, so we'll say he's between 16 and 18. His armor now swings widely based on which class out of your list he is. If he's a heavy armor type, he'll be turtled up in some +2 Plate Armor. A medium armored character is probably wearing +2 breastplate. His DR is somewhere between 9 and 12, which is still blocking a significant portion of the damage at that level, as only monsters with 2-handed weapons or heavy primary nat. attacks can penetrate that plate mail without a crit.
Low AC guy is still matched with Med AC guy (or ahead by 1, with your numbers). He's still not got any significant DR, probably 3 or 4. He may have swapped his leather for some bracers to get rid of that 10% ASF if he's willing to put it up. Casters are squishy. Nothing new there.
Thoughts so far: This is pretty close to the end of an E6 game, and the numbers look pretty manageable here. Heavy armor characters are easy to hit, but you'd better be hitting pretty hard to penetrate, or slinging spells. High defense characters are probably wearing light armor, and are comparatively much harder to hit, although they are going to be hit pretty often if the Monster Stats by CR is right (25-50% of the time). The DR tends to make these hits somewhat less crippling, though. Low AC characters are still much better off staying out of direct combat, which is probably how it should be.
I will say, this does look like it'll fit just fine in an E6 game, though it does seem to heavily favor high-damage swings over multiple smaller ones. Vital strike suddenly becomes a more viable combat style. Not sure if the numbers will continue to balance at high level play, but as that's irrelevant to your campaign, I think you're good to go.
My experience with building high level characters is somewhat lacking, and there are a lot more potential build results, so I probably won't do the higher levels, unless I get bored after dinner or someone really wants me to. I'm betting that the DR becomes less relevant (both due to the increasing prevalence of energy attacks, and the scalar nature of the number progression between AC/DR and damage), and that Dex-boosting (the only easy way to add to AC) becomes much more so.
Alright, let's go over this thing and see if we can work out some appropriate numbers.
Because armour no longer adds to AC and natural armour adds half to AC, the amount of AC missing at first level may be from around 0 (unarmoured wizard, not expected to have much AC anyway) to about 6 (cheap heavy armour).
+5 full plate and +5 natural armour loses 16 AC and gains that much DR. We don't want highly resistant characters to also be hard to hit. It needs to be a tradeoff.
Clearly, a +20 defense at 20th level is too much. 15 might be appropriate for a highly defensive character. There's also the issue of being unable to get AC bonuses at first level aside from with shields.
Let's see what happens if we...
High Defense: 4 + 1/2 level, starts at +4 and ends at +14
Medium Defense: 3 + 3/8 level, starts at +3 and ends at +10
Low Defense: 2 + 1/4 level, starts at +2 and ends at +7
Multiclassed defense would be fractional.
Hmm. I'm too damned tired. :I
For the sake of easier math, I'd go with 5 + 1/2 (total 15, increases at every even lvl when rounding down), 3 + 1/4 (total 10, increases at e.o.e. level), and 1 + 1/5 (total 5, increases at lvls 5, 10, 15, and 20). Tiny numerical difference, but it feels more in line with how other incremental bonuses go. Multiclassing fractions would still be a little weird though. I assume you only get the initial bonus once? Or maybe mixed multiclassers always use the medium base, plus w/e their fractional bonuses are? We'll come back to that.
So, assuming they're naked, let's look at the AC of three characters, one high, one medium, and one low, at the basic incremental levels, combined with what will be available with your system. We'll assume High AC has a dex mod of +2, med has +1, and low has +3, to simulate the value variance of importance between classes as you've divided them above.
Lvl 1
High AC guy starts with an AC of 17. Not a lot of ways to boost AC at this point. Dodge, I suppose. A shield could add +2, but since those might be changed under this system, we'll ignore it for now). Since most lvl 1 characters can't afford anything more expensive than chain mail, this is not too bad. We'll give him studded leather, since most of your classes would probably start with that. They actually come out ahead of a normal game, with their AC being 2 points higher than it would otherwise be (or 1 point ahead, with your numbers. Not that big of a change). He also gets 3 DR/-. That is a significant increase in survivability, but level one could probably use a reduction in insta-death, so we'll call it good.
Med AC guy starts at 14. Considering that some of your normally high AC classes, like Paladin or Fighter, are here, at first it looks like they are getting a little shafted. However, a lot of these classes will be wearing medium or heavy armor, so let's give them some chain mail. His AC is about 4 points down, but this variant is about making armor wearers more durable, not evasive. He is now rocking 6 DR/-. This is huge at level one, as most mooks are going to have a hard time penetrating that without a crit (except maybe orcs, but they are terrifying melee machines at this stage of the game).
Low AC guy is exactly as hard to hit as Medium, with AC 14. Seeing as how these are the unarmored classes, however, they are probably not wearing anything tougher than leather to avoid ACP. That puts them as 1 point lower than normal (or the same, if your base numbers are used), but with an additional 2 DR/-. I'd say that's about a wash, survivability-wise.
You mentioned Spheres of Power before. I'd recommend enforcing that as the only casting available with this system, or else banning/modding AC buffs, since things like Mage Armor would significantly affect the balance here.
Overall thoughts so far: Everyone is harder to kill at this level, which I see as a good thing. The only case that worries me is low levels and heavy armor, since at this level monsters rarely deal more than 5 damage per hit.
In the interest of avoiding a wall of text (well, a bigger one anyway), I'm going to cover the other levels in another post.
To me, the diference between a Double weapon and a Extendable one is that in the first, there are differents bits of metal hitting the enemy in each weapon end (e.g.: kenshin's reverse katana can't hit with the sharp side and the blunt side at the same time, though it's possible to vary them mid attack. But they are different parts of the blade. Ivy's weapon hits the enemy with the same parts all the time. The difference is that in the whip mode, each "fragment" of the blade is further apart from the other, but the surface of impact is the same.
I guess that makes sense. I think my issue is that double weapons are normally always 2-handed weapons: you need to use a separate hand for each end, with each end being the equivalent of a light weapon. So, if a double weapon is smaller than two-handed, it seems to me that you would need to change the grip in order to use it properly.
Also, when looking at Ivy's weapon, the same edge is always hitting, but the weapon stats are very different in its two forms- grappling or entangling with the whip makes total sense, but neither of those would work while it's a short sword, so you're either wasting build points on half of the weapon, or sacrificing some variety of utility. I'm thinking that either the 'extendable' mod should work like the double one, where each mode is upgraded separately (but the weapon would only have one enchant-able facet, unlike double weapons), or that using 'double' on any size smaller than two-handed would require some form of grip change. It also avoids the issue of dual-wielding two double weapons.
The only major problem I'm having right now is that it isn't possible to build a longbow... I suppose having crit 20/x2 will have to do for now. I might fix that later, when I revise ranged weapons.
Personally, I think giving ranged weapons the same distinctions as melee (better threat, crit, or dmg) is just fine. Maybe drop the range difference? Or have reload time be a variant factor as well?
That, or reduce the cost of Improved Crit/Threat. Maybe only +2 for changing a 20/x2 to something else, +3 for additional steps, and +4 to add both? Ranged can't get 19-20/x3 without being exotic (and no room for any mods further than that), but I feel like that's OK.
Also, I support removing the requirement for dmg types on Improved Crit/Threat, since we aren't doing the same for Improved Dmg for bludgeoning, as it makes it much cheaper to build a dmg-efficient slashing or piercing weapon (the crits have a larger impact on builds than die size, IME).
Also, a case for transformative weapon: I want to make Ragna's sword/scythe from Blazblue. Short version, I want to switch between what is effectively a greatsword, and a scythe. If we use Transformative (as opposed to double), I can effectively have two 2-handed weapons, but can only use 1 on any given round, and switch based on whether I want big dmg spikes, or something more consistent.
Or, I suppose I could use your extendable property and just make the 'scythe' have reach. Hmm...
Well, "Double" weapons are more for when the same weapon has 2 separate edges or function. Like a sword with two blades, or a rifle with a bayonet, etc. In the case of Ivy's Valentine, both "modes" of the weapon use the same blade. (unlike, say, the Gun Gauntlet or Kenshi's reverse katana).
See, I think of Kenshin's sword as being a single blade, which he generally just flips over if he's going to use the other side. He can't rightly TWF with it, so I figured a similar application would work. Either way, since this system is meant more for the crunchy side of things, it seems like a simple enough work-around (the only question it brings up is how to price the weapon for enchantment purposes. Not really sure how the Meteor Hammer works in this scenario either, so I'd say "however you rule that."
'Lemmy' wrote:
Well, a more advanced firearm would probably have "Improved Reload" and/or "Improved Ammo Capacity". The automatic crank (which doesn't necessarily have to be an actual crank, BTW. It might just as well be just another name for a different rule for firearms) doesn't shorten the time necessary to reload the weapon.
While these rules allow players and GMs to create their weapons, it's still made with a mostly medieval/renaissance setting in mind. It won't work very well for a campaign that includes machine guns.
Yeah, no machine guns here. Thunderscape is meant to be a steampunk setting, where most firearms are still in the wheel-lock and powder states, which fits the extended reload time much better than otherwise.
This way, building a gun more advanced than that requires more investment.
'Lemmy' wrote:
Anyway, thank you for the feedback! :)
No problem! Thank you for a simple, flexible solution to designing much more interesting weapons.
While I'm here, I also had an idea for how to adjust proficiency, since my home game will be using this system exclusively over those in the other books.
All classes are proficient with Simple weapon templates. Any class that would be proficient with all martial weapons, is proficient with all martial templates. Any other class gets to pick a number of martial base templates based on their BAB. 1/2=0, 3/4=1, Full=2.
Monks get proficiency with any template that has the 'monk' mod.
Templates are separated by base damage, size, and proficiency category, so 'simple/light/piercing' is separate from 'simple/light/bludgeoning' or 'simple/one-handed/piercing.'
MWP grants 1 more base template, whereas EWP grants proficiency with a specific weapon/mods combination, to make it more of a 'signature weapon' thing.
That should work... Though she does use the same blade instead of two different ends of the same weapon...
Hmmm... I might add an "extendable" modification, which allows the weapon to change its reach... Gotta think about how to price that one...
I only put it together this way based on your gun gauntlets being built as double weapons- since it's a double light weapon, I just figured you could only use one 'end' at a time, and only wield it in one hand.
If you're going to do the 'extendable' thing, you may as well make it a 'transforming' type and allow some action (I'd say make it the same as meteor hammer- one free action at the beginning of the turn) to switch between two forms of the weapon. Probably price it the same way as double.
Although, that does bring up the phrasing of your current 'double' mod-
Double wrote:
Each end of a double weapon counts as a light or one-handed weapon of the same category (simple, martial or exotic) and range (melee or ranged).
This sounds like you shouldn't be able to mix a melee weapon with a ranged one (which is why I had suggested the hybrid mod upthread, before you added the sample weapons). Since you posted an example otherwise, I'd probably remove the "and range (melee or ranged)" part of that line.
As for pricing, the only time I think of it as being all that relevant is for the poor lvl 1 characters who have to stretch their meager budgets across weapons, armor, and supplies.
EDIT: Oh, and another clarification question. For your automatic crank mod, it says
Crank (Automatic) wrote:
This ability functions exactly like the Crank (Manual) modification, but the cranking and reload of the weapon is done automatically.
Does that include hands necessary for reload/reload time? Balance-wise, I would assume so, but mentally it's harder to parse the idea of an auto-loader taking a full-round action to load. Or is it intended to only automate the draw (like a spring-loaded catch), and it still takes such-and-such time to actually get the bolt/bullet/etc. in to place?
I will say, I think my home campaigns will assume that auto-crank bludgeoning weapons are now 'pistols,' crank piercing weapons are crossbows, string bludgeons are slingshots, and string pierce-rs are bows. Fits right at home in the Thunderscape setting and rules.
Question- you mentioned pricing in the Crank and String mods, but I don't see anything relating to an actual price of the final weapon anywhere in the document- any recommendations?
I'm not sure if I missed it the first time, but there is now a duplicate ability- concealed and discreet do the exact same thing. Either work as names, as does 'subtle,' but one should probably be removed.
Also, let me say again how much I love this system. It lets me build almost anything I can think of-including Ivy's sword from Soul Caliber
Valentine (double weapon)
This simple-looking short sword is anything but, extending into a deadly bladed whip with the flick of a wrist (a.k.a, changing grip)
Good concept. Really nice option for players who aren't afraid to get dirty with some mechanics.
Do you think gunpowder weapon might not be a bit too good? With your system, I can make a gunpowder weapon that is a free action to reload with some extra goodies and that's still a martial weapon. Since the touch AC doesn't even have the one range increment limitation that the current variety does, I can't figure out why I'd pick anything else. In terms of being able to cheese encounters that they have no right to beat, I've seen gunslingers even outdo well-played casters; demigod monster has huge saves, huge SR, and a touch AC a gunslinger can't miss. What do you think about having gunpowder weapons ignore X amount of AC from armor/natural armor with a suitable crafting cost attached?
This. I have never had a problem with the flavor of guns in my campaigns, but I do not like how PF handles them mechanically. Which is why I mentioned above that, at least for me, that particular mod is not going to be available to my players.
But, outside my home games, I'm going to agree with Pandora that gunpowder weaponis too good. I think it should either A) only apply to the first range increment, B)have an increased craft cost, or C) both.
The only thing I can see there is that 6 flaws would, on a melee weapon, would mean reducing a 2-handed weapon's damage to nothing, since it doesn't have range or reload times to affect.
But then, maybe there are some other flaw options that would make that viable. -2 penalty to attacks?
Weapon flaws that could add extra craft points? My only current ideas are essentially reversing some of the current mods- increasing reload times, or reducing damage die size. I'd probably only give 1 point for each downgrade, even for the dmg one, and limit the number of times it can be done (2 or 3) to eke out some more combos
Heavy Shotgun (Exotic Two-Handed Piercing Ranged Weapon w/ Improved Critical Multiplier, Improved Damage Dice x2, Adt'l Dmg Type (Bludgeoning), Ammo Clip, extended reload time, reduced range x2) Add gunpowder weapon if your campaign runs that way.
comes out to 6 points (2d6 x3, bludgeoning/piercing, 30ft range, 3 shots before reload). This may be too much, not really sure.
Of course, if you dropped the flaws, one of the dmg improvements, and the bludgeoning, it's still 2d4 x3 against touch AC within 90 ft, with 3 shots. Which sounds too strong. I'm thinking ammo clip may need an increased cost when used with the gunpowder mod.
Oh, and I was thinking on Crank- either make it 0 craft points, to put it in line with the other ranged types, or make each crank add 1/2 your strength modifier, minimum 1. The first sort of establishes three distinct ranged types; gunpowder, string, or cranked. The other adds a decently higher amount of flat damage, but it's essentially only to one or two attacks in a fight.
For Crank, I took it straight out of Thunderscape. I'm ok with that being the limit of the damage bonus, but I think I'd make it multiply with Vital Strike and the lot, as that would allow for a more 'sniper-y' feel. Thunderscape also encourages a switch-hitting approach, so I'm expecting a lot of 'shoot once, fully cranked, then drop weapon to engage melee.'
It also works a little better in games using the revised action economy (3 winches a round)
As for Hybrid, I'd say -2 sounds like a reasonable change. The only reason I'd set it so high was because you're armed with a weapon that essentially grants the ability to make attacks of opportunity while wielding a ranged weapon. It's not any different from taking Improved Unarmed Strike, so I wasn't sure how to value the cost of a feat. I'm relatively new to designing specific mechanics (as opposed to cobbling together old ones into a functional state).
I'm beginning a Thunderscape campaign soon, and so I want to expand on this to include some of those elements as modular features, too (also of note: guns don't target touch AC, so my suggestions should be viewed in that light)
Crank: You can increase the tension on a loaded weapon by tightening the winch as a move action, imposing a +1 damage bonus to your next attack roll with the weapon. This damage bonus stacks up to four times, at a cost of one move action per +1 of damage bonus. The weapon can be loaded and winched in advance with no harm to the weapon or danger of misfire.
Special: A weapon with this modification cannot have the String Weapon or Gunpowder Weapon modifications
Requirements: Ranged weapon. Craft Points: 2
Hidden: This weapon is easily concealed, granting a +4 bonus on Sleight of Hand checks to conceal it.
Requirements: Light weapon Craft Points: 0*
Scattershot: You may fire both 'ends' of a ranged double weapon as a single attack, either dealing 1 additional die of damage (dmg uses smallest die size available (2d4, 3d4, etc.)) against one target, or 1 less die of damage, but against 2 adjacent targets, but with a -4 to-hit against each target.
Requirements: Ranged weapon, Double weapon Craft points: 3
This one is for making more advanced firearms
Ammo Clip: You may fire this weapon 3 times before reloading.
Each time you reload, this count resets
Special: You may take this mod multiple times. Each time, increase the number of times you can fire between reloads by 3.
Requirements: Ranged weapon Craft points: 1
And one to make sword-pistols (or bayonet rifles)
Hybrid: This weapon was designed for both melee and ranged use, generally by affixing one to the other. Choose a simple weapon template of the same size as the base weapon. This weapon can be used as either form, but the second form takes a -4 penalty to attack rolls.
Special: Modifications can be added to either weapon, but they are counted together.
Requirements: None Craft Points: 2
Not really sure if these craft points are fair... suggestions?
I was also considering trying to work in an option that would allow a weapon to use the wielder's unarmed strike damage, but I don't know if that should be a mod, or its own weapon template, or what.
Silliness aside, I'm still not seeing a niche that the Cryptic can fill that other classes can't: maybe I'll try to put together a build, and see if it clicks together.
I think that's the catch right there- it's not really a unique niche, per se, but a blend of niches that isn't covered very well outside of multi-classing, and done so with at least a few mechanical options that aren't found anywhere else (afaik, anyways).
But then, I also feel like there aren't any 'new' niches, just new approaches to old ones, some better, some worse.
P.S., for Grammaton, your best bet is using Extra Insight to pick up multiple DP debuff options (Binding, Explosive, and Disruptive, especially), and just make a lot of people's day very sad. I'm not sure if the intent was for gun usage to overwrite the normal limitation of 1 DP/rnd, or if it modifies the range, but I've tried it a few ways (keep the 1/round limitation, but make it a rider like the Brutal Disruptor's ability seems to be the most evenly balanced- although I'd love to dual-pistol barrage those debuffs all over the place).
My play experience with them is somewhat limited, but I do know that it's been fun so far.
Yeah, the class doesn't do a lot of damage, but the level of utility the class has (both in and out of combat) makes sure you never feel useless. I feel like a rogue, except A) my contributions matter more consistently, and B) it's a lot harder to shut me down, or do my job better than me.
I think the best way to look at the Cryptic is as a psionic Arcane Trickster.
The main strengths, as I can see, are de-buffing via binding pattern at 4th level; a large number of powers dedicated to defense, evasion, and non-detection; scouting via stealth-based instights and powers; versatility through Scribe Tattoo (basically, psionic scrolls); and advanced trap manipulation (seriously. Puts rangers and rogues to shame). Additional insights can add some more effects to your Disrupt Pattern, or provide a rather large variety of utility (especially at high levels: short invisibility, teleporting, reforming pattern)
Damage isn't really a priority for this class, tossing out high-DC, multi-round entangles is. (the higher your int, the better). Accuracy is easy (in regards to de-buffing), since Disrupt Pattern is a ranged touch attack.
It seems like one of those classes that requires you to approach the game a bit differently than the 'standard' methods, since you're kind of an odd conglomerate of archaeologist bard, walking detector, and possibly trap user (which is actually not a bad idea with this class, since Fold Trap lets you place them effectively mid-combat. Depends on how traps are utilized in your campaign, I suppose).
The archetypes also provide even more variety, as Brutal Disruptor can change the cryptic into a rather effective melee dmg dealer, Grammaton makes for one of my favorite gun-users, and the others provide more new approaches to the game (I've not tested all of these out personally, so I can't vouch for all of them).
TL;DR- The class doesn't play like any other that I've seen, but it's a lot of fun, and quite effective.
If 3rd party material is available, check out the Arbiter in the Thunderscape setting book- it's a sword/shield user that invests in Intelligence for strategies, which can be used to make both an excellent tank and scout. No spells, but probably one of the best no-magic, high-utility classes I've seen, and, other than the kite shield (basically part-way between a heavy shield and tower shield), nothing about the class is tied to the mechanics of Thunderscape, and could be easily ported over.
Question regarding the Awakened Blade and the Pathwalker.
If a pathwalker enters the Awakened Blade prc and gets Hypercognitive Focus, does he get to regain his psionic focus that he just spent to recover his maneuvers? Between this, Deep Focus, and Psionic Meditation (all guaranteed for this prc) it seems like the Pathwalker/Awakened Blade would more or less always be psionically focused.
Hypercognitive Focus (Ex): At 6th level, an
awakened blade’s mind is able to anticipate his
needs and subconsciously works to further his
effectiveness. Whenever the character recovers one
or more maneuvers, he may regain psionic focus
as a free action as part of his maneuver recovery.
He may only do this one time in a given round.
Alternately, the character may expend his psionic
focus when manifesting a psionic power and recover
an expended maneuver.
EDIT: I saw that my first question has been answered by the expanded Systems and Use doc. This one still stands, though.
How would Vital Strike interact with Splitting Bolt
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm reasonably sure that, in both cases, you would resolve the feat/ability as normal (Dead Shot or Vital Strike), and then resolve the two extra attacks from Splitting Bolt (against your other target(s)) as if they were basic, unmodified attacks at your highest successful roll (for Dead Shot) or your original attack roll. No extra dmg dice, no extra rolls, etc.
The relevant line from Splitting Bolt:
Splitting Bolt wrote:
Neither the attack roll nor the damage of the smaller bolts can be affected by any special abilities of the wielder or crossbow.
Alternatively, for Dead Shot, it could be ruled that the secondary attacks from Splitting Bolt use the first successful attack roll, regardless of whether or not subsequent rolls are higher.
I don't think the question was about if Dead Shot/Vital Strike can be combined... if so, the answer is no.
Skills: A steelsoul monk gains Disable Device, Fly, Knowledge (Engineering), and Knowledge (Arcana) as class skills, and loses Escape Artist and Stealth as class skills.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A steelsoul monk is proficient with light armor. A steelsoul monk may still use his Flurry of Blows and Fast Movement abilities while wearing armor he is proficient with. This replaces AC Bonus.
Way of the Steel Fist:The steelsoul monk's arms, legs, and body are reinforced with powerful metal plates. The steelsoul monk gains a natural slam attack that inflicts 1d10 damage (for a Medium monk, or 1d8 for a Small monk). This slam attack applies 1 1/2 times the steelsoul monk’s Strength bonus to damage rolls. Magical weapon enhancements and abilities may be added to the monk’s slam attack as if it were a weapon. (Unlike other natural attacks, a steelsoul monk’s slam attack may be used to make multiple attacks per round if the steelsoul monk’s base attack is high enough. If multiple attacks are made in this manner, any of the steelsoul monk’s other natural attacks count as secondary attacks.) This ability counts as a golemoid's combat specialization (juggernaut) for the purpose of feat prerequisites. This ability replaces Unarmed Strike.
True Golemoid: The steelsoul monk gains a minor manite implant at 1st level. His steam reserve is equal to his Wisdom modifier + 1/2 his class level. He develops more implants just as a golemoid does, as per Table: Shining Knight and Mechanized Ranger Implants. A steelsoul monk may not take any implants that would be treated as gunner implants. This ability replaces the monk's ki powers and stunning fist abilities
Steam Mastery (Su): In addition to using steam points to power his various implants, a steelsoul monk can also spend a steam point to do any of the following:
- Cast detect magic as a spell-like ability, using the steelsoul monk's class level as his caster level. This is a standard action.
- Release a burst of steam from his body as a swift action, granting the monk a +2 deflection bonus to Armor Class until the beginning of his next turn.
- Gain a +4 morale bonus to his attack rolls or Strength checks to break inanimate objects, and ignores the first 5 points of hardness when breaking objects. This is a swift action.
- Release a burst of steam from his feet as a free action, allowing him to make any Acrobatics check to jump as if from a running start.
This ability replaces ki pool and stunning fist
Medium Armor: At 7th level, a steelsoul monk gains proficiency with medium armor. A steelsoul monk's fast movement bonus is halved while wearing medium armor (even if using the Integrated Armor implant)
Perfection of Design (Ex): At 20th level, the steelsoul monk is virtually indistinguishable from a true golem. He becomes immune to critical hits and mind-affecting effects. He may choose to count as either a construct or as his original type – whichever is more beneficial to him - whenever he encounters an effect that specifically targets one or the other type. This ability replaces perfect self
I think rolling the Golemoid's Steam points into the Monk's ki pool could be one design path, in much the same way I rolled the Seer's pool into the Golemoid - the question then becomes one of a shared resource, and the concomitant flavoring of same - this resulted in a nice tweak for a botanical mystic insight/manite mix for my reskinned Ghoran character, but the class ould be reskinned again an infinite number of ways...
That is actually very close to what I have, though I just went the route of full-on replacing the Unchained Monk's ki pool/power progression with the equivalent of the Mechanized Ranger's steam points and implant progression. I also replaced unarmed strike with the golemoid's basic juggernaut combat specialization (though only for light armor, with med. armor added at 7th, and still being able to flurry/fast movement n armor (half fast movement in med.)).
I also thought the golemoid's capstone fit better, so I swapped that over, too.
My other idea was to essentially add implants as quinggong power choices, using ki instead of steam for power, but I feel like individual implants aren't really on par with the ki powers available.
I think the challenge may be, unless they own a copy of the Thunderscape book, I don't know how well someone would be able to check the balance of my proposal. I'm pretty sure I can't post up the Golemoid's manite implants, which is sort of the core feature that I'm porting over, or the actual progression table (since I'm borrowing it from one of the archetypes in their book), so it may not be possible anyway...
I'm in the early planning stages of a MCA using third-party material... I have no idea what is/is not considered OGL safe, though the product I'm using (Thunderscape- The World of Aden) does have the OGL in it.
Basically, I want to make an Unchained Monk/Golemoid Warrior. Working title is "SteelSoul Monk."
Would that be something that could be added to the wiki (assuming I get it to a point I like)? Or is it primarily for Paizo-only classes?
So, I re-checked the early portions of the thread, but I don't think it was ever answered;
For the Unbound Occultist Archetype, do the monstrous aspects replace constellation aspects (or anything else)? Or are they a free addition? I assume they replace the constellation aspects, as otherwise this archetype becomes almost a straight upgrade (The weaker capstone doesn't really come into play, and I feel like Innate Occultism is a pretty even trade for Spirit Mastery).
Sorry I missed you!
They're supposed to replace constellation aspects, yes. Its still a VERY good trade, mind you, but losing spirit mastery gives this archetype a bit more of a downside at high levels.
Thanks! I wasn't actually the one who asked it originally, but as I was looking into building a bbeg for my campaign, I realized that line was missing from the text. (Orich asked about it back on page 1, and then a whole bunch of other questions happened at once, lol).
So, I re-checked the early portions of the thread, but I don't think it was ever answered;
For the Unbound Occultist Archetype, do the monstrous aspects replace constellation aspects (or anything else)? Or are they a free addition? I assume they replace the constellation aspects, as otherwise this archetype becomes almost a straight upgrade (The weaker capstone doesn't really come into play, and I feel like Innate Occultism is a pretty even trade for Spirit Mastery).
Here is a question for the folks at home: I've heard it said by many players that they don't like the feel of the archetypes that give up spellcasting for spirit binding. The question that no one has answered so far is, "Why?" This goes doubly so for the 6-level spellcasting classes.
What do you think?
Actually, for my home games, I intend to replace divine spellcasting with pact magic. I am also replacing arcane magic with Spheres of Power, which I find to be on a similar power level (flexible, but less so than standard, and with more continued staying power.
That being said, any archetypes that do replace spellcasting with pact magic would simply be making that change much easier on me. But, as my situation is not that of most people's, I can't really comment on why others may have a different preference.
I will say, I was a little disappointed that the Warbinder is no longer compatible with the Lore Warden archetype (it gives up Bravery, which the Warshade archetype does not).
Outside of that, I like everything I've read so far! I would point out the minor editing errors I've found, but I think others on this thread have done a much better job than I can, and at a much faster rate.
Lore Warden is my FAVORITE fighter archetype. And honestly, its REALLY good for what it does. Lore Warden + Warbinder = Everyone's fighter forever. The trade was designed specifically FOR Lore Warden, in fact.
Admittedly, in my home games, basic fighters are more or less banned ('heavily discouraged') because they have so little interesting about them, so I will probably let the combo happen anyway.
I will say, I was a little disappointed that the Warbinder is no longer compatible with the Lore Warden archetype (it gives up Bravery, which the Warshade archetype does not).
Outside of that, I like everything I've read so far! I would point out the minor editing errors I've found, but I think others on this thread have done a much better job than I can, and at a much faster rate.
So, I noticed the Pharaoh document doesn't list what the size of its essence pool is. I assume that it's equal to level, like a normal veilweaver? Or would it be more limited, like some of the stuff in the archetype document?
Umm... The essence pool is listed on the main class table. It gets Vizier essence progression, primarily because it's got a ton of places to put that essence (including all its readied maneuvers).
Woops... I've been spending too much time on the PoW: Expanded docs. I somehow thought that was a Maneuvers thing. Which, in hindsight, wouldn't make sense since that's it's own table in the document...
Ignoring my previous comment, then, it looks awesome so far! I do love the mask option for the bonded item. Cool imagery, and I do love the 'immortal' feel to it.
