Faun Chirurgeon

drakkonflye's page

Organized Play Member. 93 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Time Mage archetype as well, while you're at it.

Saw this as well (yes, I DO own a copy of Dark Archive ;-P), and again very nice, but still 1/2 or even 1/3 of what I envision a full class would be. Both archetypes seem like minor versions of a full class, as if Paizo HAS an idea in mind for a chronomancer class, but is testing the waters by offering these archetypes first, then reverse engineering the class itself. This line of thinking has also got me wanting Timescape setting, like MCU's Time Police headquarters, or a certain city in the center of the planar multiverse we can't mention due to copyright infringement, where time-related beings and entities (and maybe gods?) oversee the timeline and make sure nobody messes with it, which of course there are those who most certainly DO mess with it (chro9nomancer being just one of those).

As I sit here writing this, I see a campaign unfolding before me revolving around this entire concept...

Man, I would LOVE to to be part of buidling that


drakkonflye wrote:
Chronomancer...
You may want to take a look at the Chronoskimmer archetype.

I did, and to me, it's a good start, bot not what I wanted. This archetype reads like most of the 1/2 class archetypes out there, covering the basics of personal magic, but not fully fleshed out. For me, the chronomancer should be able to do more than hop through a few seconds of time one way or another, but also "borrow" things from the timeline, or maybe have some minor summons ability to pull creatures out of time (mostly a variant of summon monster/nature's ally/etc.)

Just my thoughts on it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Before I decide to buy the pocket edition of the core 2E rule book, can anyone tell me if it will be the latest update? If it is not, I would rather wait until they DO update it. Thank you


Chronomancer: someone with time based magic who can call weapons and armor from the time stream for limited periods. Make him a mid-range caster with decent skills who can alter time to make a hit a miss, or a miss a hit, or alter a saving throw "by a few seconds". As for conjuring items, think of it as a "need it on the fly" where he "borrows" something from the time stream for a few moments (level based duration?), maybe even more powerful items as he progresses (magical and specific material?), and time-related spell abilities such as haste, slow, timestop, etc, that affect only him, and can affect others at higher levels, but as focus spells instead of full magic. One ability I can think of would be to be able to call duplicates of himself like he was pulling himself out of the time stream from different minutes. Another idea would be a sort of "do over" where he might rewind an instance (say a combat round?) as if it didn't happen, but yeah, this could lead to issues of redoing rounds that don't go in his favor unless limits are put in place. Still, it would be interesting to see what Paizo could do with this


Personally, I also think kinetic aura should be part of the base chassis and should allow the kineticist to Gather Element as a free action if their aura is active.

Make it a two action feat, so Gather Element to activate Kinetic Aura would be three actions, but it would last for the full combat unless the kineticist gets knocked out. Change kinetic aura impulse feats so they require an active aura to use instead of being one action less to use if an aura is active (and reduce the base action costs on them to begin with), and have only one kinetic aura impulse feat able to be active at a time instead of snuffing out the aura by switching them.

Honestly though, there's really not a lot of kineticist aura feats right now to make it worthwhile to follow this path. Doing this would just speed up a kineticist recovering from Overflow, unless Overflow would also suppress the aura (Flat save to maintain, or maybe an action to Sustain?), but let's be realistic, there are WAY too many feats with the Overflow tag with no real reason to have it. I'm on the side that Overflow should be an upgrade to an affect, like bonus damage or increased area, etc., at the cost of losing your elemental "focus". If Overflow was reconfigured, THEN I could see the aura being suppressed by "overdoing" it


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Any chance of seeing pocket editions of these books in the future? As much as I love my hardcovers, they are quite a bit to lug around when I am traveling to a game instead of hosting it


Man oh man, the wait between chapters is driving me crazy! What a wonderful storyteller! SO eager for the next part


Love this character! Thank you for this truly awesome story


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ly'ualdre wrote:

So, having just given the playtest document a cursory glance, here are a few of my first impressions on the classes:

** spoiler omitted **...

I want a tome implement, and a chime/gong/bell implement, so I can run a "bell, book, and candle" witchwife thaumaturge with cat familiar and a penchant for plants and animal talismans, one that lets the locals think she's a witch when in truth she's more of an investigator of the unknown who makes it her job to deal with the things that go bump in the night and that come from Beyond to prey upon those she's oathbound to protect, even as they fear and scorn her.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well *I* figured it out, child, and rare it is to be gifted with such a presence ;-)
Seriously though, love these tales, and looking forward to hearing more about Azure Leopard and Jatembe and everything. Mwangi Expanse can't come soon enough!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:


I am also amused to think of a tiny fey eidolon as the spellcaster and the summoner as the martial role, but that would be a big switch.

Sprites are going to become a playable class in the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide due out in march 2021, according to Amazon


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dubious Scholar wrote:

I think the lack of evolution options is the single most universal complaint right now. Some people are thinking to solve this by going back to the 1e system and oh god no, for reasons you've already gone over.

We do need to see more things like other special attacks via evolutions, or sidegrades to allow different tactics. A combat reaction would be valuable to have available (all the core martials except Rogue have an AoO variant available, and Rogue gets Opportune Backstab). I'd want to be able to add more traits to the unarmed attacks (grapple is the big missing one). But for the most part, evolutions should be limited strictly to things like combat activities and special attacks (Sudden Charge, breath weapons, etc) or major sidegrades to base functionality (amphibious, flight, major senses like tremorsense, etc). They absolutely should not affect statistics (because that would become mandatory-ish under 2e math) or physical form (having to buy arms to then buy claws and s&#~ can stay in 1e).

I think the idea of bonus evolution feats every so often may be valuable to consider, depending...

The issue here is again, the Eidolon is not a class feature, but the entire class as it is currently written. We might as well call it the Eidolon class instead of Summoner. The Eidolon could use more abilities, yes, but the reality is it still leaves the Summoner just sitting in the back row "boosting" the Eidolon when IMO at least, they should be working in concert as a team. I would like to see more Tandem feats where they complement each other instead of the Summoner just sending in the Eidolon and using their limited actions to Boost, Reinforce, and Call Eidolon back when things get too tough.

To me, this should be more of a tag team thing. After all, if they are telepathically linked, they should be able to do more in tandem than just Stride or Strike, and they can't even do THAT well given the Summoner's limited combat capabilities. Maybe give the Summoner light armor at least so they can better defend themselves, and how about a feat like Tandem Strike where the Summoner gets to deal precision damage to a foe when flanking with their Eidolon (and ONLY when flanking with the Eidolon)? Just as an example...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Bestiary/monster version of things like Constrict.
That's one thing we all have to take into consideration here: According to some data I have, summoner is a class whose high concept is extremely attractive to brand new to RPG players (or it was in PF1), but then the complexity of building them caused some issues. That wasn't immediately obvious to an options junkie of a player like me who just wants to make lots of different decisions at every step, but whatever the final method of building winds up being, it needs to be simple but powerful, allowing as much depth as well as narrative customization and variety of options for your eidolon's story, thematics, and visuals as we can without too much complexity.

I am so, so, SO liking the concept of playing a Summoner Synthesist who's Eidolon is actually his alter ego, a Devotion Phantom who manifests any time the Summoner is overwhelmed with choices he can't or is afraid to make, where he takes a back seat and let's the Eidolon take over. I can even picture the Eidolon as having his appearance, only amplified to being the "perfect" being and physically augmented, sort of the "I wish I was this" persona. I can even see when the two of them are separate beings, the Eidolon acts as his subconscious, arguing with the Summoner's choices and playing devil's advocate and sounding a lot like the Summoner's parents (and other ancestors). Those spells, though...

Sorry, but I am on the "give them one spell per level even if it is only a Summon spell" bandwagon

Need more Conduit spells and more Tandem feats, really. I know you have the Inquisitor on the back burner to reintroduce at some future time; wouldn't it make sense to let the Summoner and his Eidolon have access to some of those future "teamwork" feats now since they ARE a team?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did, and if I understand how you mean (that the Familiar is actually a creature created by the pact, otherwise I'm not sure what the different is) then I would prefer for the familiar to be a regular spirit- the important thing to me is that it has it's own personality and agenda, I don't want the Witches familiar to be something completely mastered by the...

No, not an agent created by the pact, but a servitor of the Patron acting as its emissary and sent to forge an alliance with the Witch. The Familiar acts as the Witch's mentor and a vessel for the Patron's power, but it definitely has its own personality. Someone compared the Familiar to Sabrina's cat Salem, and I assume they meant the Sabrina the Teenage Witch series, but I would be more inclined to compare it to the Salem of the Netflix Sabrina; it's a supernatural being that takes the form of this animal but is far more intelligent, sent to the Witch by some mysterious Patron to guide her in her studies. It might choose to be her friend, might be spying on her for the Patron, might even BE the Patron taking an unassuming form to use the Witch to further its own goals. Anyway you look at it, this Familiar is not your standard Familiar and should be more supernatural in its own nature. Hence why I suggested is be treated more like a Summoned creature than a normal Familiar


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I prefer that the familiar comes from the Patron as an independent entity, and I want it to be your spellbook, it's a really cool idea and I don't want to see it disappear for balance reasons, I would rather they just implemented some kind of mechanic to adjust how quickly you can get it back, or give it some benefit to make it sufficiently tough to survive adventuring (but not stupid decisions)

I actually really like the fortune/misfortune idea- they get a reroll when attacked or have to make a saving throw, so for instance, they can still die, but they have a much better chance of surviving.

I could also imagine a model where they just have a special rule that lets you bring them back if they do die much faster than the week of downtime- maybe a few hours of meditation? maybe it's a special ritual?

Did you see my post earlier suggesting the Familiar be more of a supernatural creature acting as the vessel of the patron? I suggested it should have some limited powers of its own based on the Patron, and be something the Witch Summons when she makes the pact (mostly background flavor, but makes it clear the Familiar is a Summoned creature instead of a normal Familiar). If it dies, she can bring it back the next day as part of her morning preparations with a special ritual using components to do so based on highest spell level. I also suggested she should be able to Banish the Familiar at will as a free action, so she can take it out of danger immediately, but it takes a one minute ritual to Summon it back, so that Familiar is out of the fight, but at least its not dead.


Oh, forgot one thing: my DM ruled that the level one "gift" she got for being Haunted was she was immune to the Silence spell since the curse was a supernatural effect and the "spirits" making all that noise around her couldn't be Silenced; yay, can't be stopped from using verbal components for spells, but DAMNED when the rest of my group was able to hide from that dragon and little ol' me sat there trying to be still while sounding like the world's largest wind chimes.

Maybe for P2 she could use the Abate Curse feat I suggested to quiet the spirits, but Abate Curse should mean if you turn it off, you can't use any of the gifts it gives you either. You should have to take the bad with the good, but I DO like the idea of using an action to "suppress" the negative effects for one round like the currently written Major Curse effect for the Flames Mystery (spend an action to quiet the poltergeist for one round so you can act without interference)

And I will shut up now and wait for someone to tear my ideas apart ;-P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and regarding bringing back some of the old curses:

For Haunted, we applied a -5 penalty to the Oracle's Move Silently skill, and her DC to maintain Concentration when someone attempted to disrupt her castings increased by 5 due to the voices around her trying to distract her. The first time we had an Oracle in P1, it was my character, a Vistani fortune teller Oracle/Harrower who wore her money as jewelry all over her person, bracelets, earrings, rings, chain belts, necklaces, etc., and the "spirits" that guided her fortunes were always playing with the jewelry to get her attention, and playing tricks on her by moving items around when she got too near them (more than one time she "accidentally" sat on the floor instead of the chair). Although this came in handy when for effect once when she spoke an omen and tossed her cards to have them fly around her in a whirlwind (a thematic effect of her casting Blade Barrier around herself).

Basically, Haunted should mean you have an unfriendly poltergeist attached to you and it follows you every where, feeding on your power. As you get stronger, so does it, but you learn to "cope" with it by channeling its energies into something useful.

Hmm..now that I think of it, I like the notion of taking the spirit's noise effect and for one round abating it by channeling it as a sonic attack somewhere else ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


How about "Casting a Revelation spell when your curse is at its worst gives you Doomed 1 if you are at your moderate curse and Doomed 2 when you're at your extreme curse."

Yes, THIS I can get behind, Doomed X where X is the stage of the curse. Maybe Stunned for the rest of the round as well unless the Oracle succeeds at a flat check to "shake it off" as well?

Regarding the curses, I agree the curse should be always on, like before, but I am also one of those who thinks the curse should grow stronger as the Oracle gains power. Make Revelation spells Focus spells like everyone else has, pool and all, and instead as the Oracle grows in power, the curse gets stronger in stages, from minor, to lesser, to moderate, to greater, to extreme, or something like that. Instead of the Major Curse and Extreme Curse abilities and the Advanced Revelation, Greater Revelation, and Blaze of Revelation feats as written, why not just have the curse grow stronger in stages and each stage gives the Oracle access to a new Revelation spell, as well as unique abilities tied to the curse. Then maybe a Lessen Curse feat that allows the Oracle to spend a focus point to reduce the effects of the curse by one stage (can not be reduced below Minor) and increases Focus pool by one, and another to Abate Curse that allows the Oracle to reduce the curse to minor or even turn if off completely for one minute at the cost of one Focus point, and increase the Focus pool by one. I would also like to see a Share Burden feat that allows the Oracle to "bestow" part of the curse to another character, with a save where Success bestows one stage and reduces the Oracle's curse on herself by one, and a Critical Success by reduces it by two levels and gives the target two levels of the curse, and a critical failure effects the Oracle as if she overcast (Stunned and Doomed, for example).

Yes, this would mean the curse if always on, and always at its highest point unless they spend Focus points to reduce it. This also means they have to choose, spend a Focus point to cast that spell? Or reduce the curse effects?

And yes, this is a throwback to how it was in P1, and yeah, the way the curses are written now, the extreme version is major suck without some balance in what good comes out of it, but considering you wouldn't be under the effect of the extreme curse until higher levels when you can actually deal with it, maybe not so bad after all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm...the one thing that bothers me the most about all this discussion is everyone is treating the witch's Familiar as just another Familiar like anyone else would have, even if it DOES get a few more benefits. However, this is no ordinary Familiar. It is a vessel of power bestowed upon the witch by her Patron to act as the emissary of said Patron, so wouldn't it make more sense if the Familiar itself were more of a supernatural creature than merely being an augmented animal?

If it IS more of a supernatural creature, why not take a notion from the 1E Summoner and make the Familiar something the witch initially summons to her when she forges the pact with her Patron and remains with her at all times, but she can dismiss it as a reaction or free action to keep it from being endangered, and can Summon it back to her with a 1 minute ritual. If it dies, then she can't Summon it again until the next time she prepares spells, and then must perform a ritual with material components equal to the cost of her highest level spell (as if she bought a scroll) to appease her Patron so the Familiar may be "allowed" to return to her.

I also think the Familiar should have other abilities, weaknesses, or resistances based on the nature of the Patron, but for that, we need to determine how much influence the Patron has first, but let's leave THAT discussion in the other threads. I'll just say as an example, a Patron of Fire should give the Familiar damage resistance to fire that improves as the witch levels up, and maybe add one die of damage (varied by level?) to the witch's fire spells as long as she remains in contact with her Familiar.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if anyone else sees it, but I see a Magaambyan-themed adventure path coming down the line at some point. All this exposition, plus the previous stories, makes me think someone is planning something big to bring the Mwangi and lower Garund into the limelight, and it's about time.


Saedar wrote:

I imagine that divine sorcerers would be viewed similarly to oracles: extreme distrust and likely violence.

Iconic Oracle

Annnnnddd....ninja

I am so looking forward to what the new Oracles will be like. It's a pity they didn't make the cut this time, but glad to know we WILL be seeing them soon. Love Alahazra; every picture I see of her, she looks fierce and very confident


2 people marked this as a favorite.

love the story, and the "it was kind of pretty" notion of the fire, but mostly love the artwork and that s**-eating grin on Fumbus' face LOL
Very well done, James,. I am now seeing goblins as very playable PC characters


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I LOVE that cocky grin of his. Kinda says, "yeah, I can take you". Or in his case, "what you gonna do? kill me? yeah..been there, done that, got better, try again"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to say I am loving these short stories, new rules or not. Keep them coming, James. In the meantime, I'll start looking for other things you've written ;-)


Mathmuse wrote:


The results look clean and clear.

FEAR Spell 1
Emotion, Enchantment, Fear, Mental
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 30 feet; Targets one creature
Duration by frightened magnitude
Saving Throw Will (S frightened 1 CS unaffected F frightened 2 CF frightened 3 and fleeing for 1 round)
You plant fear in the target. It becomes frightened and possibly fleeing with magnitude based on its Will save.

FIREBALL Spell 3
Evocation, Fire
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst
Saving Throw Reflex (S half damage CS unaffected F full damage CF double damage)
A burst of fire explodes, dealing 6d6 fire damage. Creatures in the area take a multiple of that damage based on their Reflex saves.
Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 2d6.

The keyword "basic" is not necessary and would only add to the jargon to memorize.

YES YES YES!!! Best idea yet; simple, easy to read, and keeps the word count minimized. All you need is a simple paragraph at the beginning of the Spells section to identify the abbreviations (S, CS, F CF)


Oh, and my game had only three players with me as the GM; human bard, human paladin, and half-elf cleric. The bard loved using inspire courage and telekinetic projectile in combo, the paladin made good use of shield block and retributive strike, and the cleric liked using his whip to trip foes, then smack them down, but he absolutely HATED the three action use of heal ONLY healing/inflicting damage equal to his ability score modifier, which was 2 points in his case. Did we misread the damage part of the three-action ability?

"You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot aura. This has the same effect as the two-action version, but it targets all living and undead creatures in the burst and reduces the amount of healing or damage to your spellcasting ability modifier."

First of all, this is very awkward wording since he says it has the same effect as the previous step, but t hen it changes the damage; the player found this wording very confusing and we argued about how much damage it meant. Second, wouldn't it make more sense if the damage at least increased by the level of the caster?

Also, does spell level no longer apply to saving throws against spells? I would think a higher level spell would still be harder to save against than a low level one.


A little question about the Advanced Alchemy ability for alchemist: It says he can spend 1 Resonance point to create a batch of items with the infused trait, but can he choose NOT to spend that point to create items without them being infused? Or it is mandatory for him to spend the point and they must be infused?

To me, this makes a slight difference since if he doesn't need to infuse it at the time of creation, then I would expect the item to last indefinitely since it becomes a "normal" spend-the-Resonance-when-used item, right?

As for his bombs, I would think using a Spell Pool would make more sense than burning up Resonance for them, but again, it would still limit the number of bombs he could throw since Spell Pools are limited and there are no additional feats to grant more points for different bombs since they all fall under the same alchemical items list. I think it might be better to give him an ability to make a flat check when he uses his ability for Quick Alchemy to avoid spending Resonance instead of waiting until he runs out, and just increase the DC by 1 or 2 each time. If he fails, he burns the Resonance; on a critical fail, he uses double the Resonance, which is more likely to happen when he pushes his luck. Just a thought.

And speaking of Spell Pools, can anyone explain to me why the Cleric's Spell Pool and Channel are dependent on his Charisma when every other class that gets a Spell Pool has it dependent on their key ability (except Paladin, who also uses Charisma)?


Bardarok wrote:
Personally I am excited about this. I think it will work a lot better for many character types than traditional multi classing did. It's a shame that you can't do a total career change though, that might be worth adding in as an option in addition to the archetypes.

What Jason said: "If these archetypes work, you can expect to see one for each class in the final version of the game"

So yeah, if the playtest is a go on these, there WILL be one for every class, not just the four mentioned in the blog

EDIT: My bad is someone else already said this; by the time I read these things, the pages are already flooded with responses and I just can't keep up :-(


Yachiru5490 wrote:
Okay, reading through this blog, there are some questions that I have... (etc., etc., etc.)

Just wanted to say, these are some AWESOME questions!!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Ikos wrote:


I will say, without knowing exactly how big ranged increments are or how much penalty they impose in 2e, TWF (or at least, agile weapons) seem like the go to with the 2e ranger. Going down to -0/-3/-6, and eventually -0/-2/-4 with iterative attacks seems quite powerful, especially if you can get some form of haste, such that you have a greater chance of making use of that third attack.

Agreed!

Yeah, but level 17 for the next reduction? I don't know, but to me that seems like an awfully long wait, especially when the average party only plays to level 16 if doing an adventure path.


I do like the idea of spontaneous casting for combat purposes, and for the hunter is makes sense to know a small selection of buff and healing spells that she can cast on the fly to aid her animal companion. I do not think she really needs access to heavy-hitter spells like flame strike and ice storm; the concept of the hunter is a tag-team with the companion, not "wipe the enemy out before we engage them" tactics. If the concern is having to battle multiple foes at once, then I would suggest better defensive spells to protect both hunter and companion, and feast that allow attacks to target multiple foes like Rapid Shot, Multishot, Cleave, Great Cleave, and so on. I do NOT think the hunter should have spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally unless you want her to be a broken class. I personally think that was one of the issues with the Summoner: he should have had spontaneous Summon Monster instead of the SLA, even if it meant limiting him to SM6, but at least in HIS case he doesn't have the combat prowess the hunter does. As it is, the hunter should be focused on working with her companion, not summoning in more forces. One concern is if the companion dies, the hunter loses half her abilities. I've previously suggested some sort of Lay Hands of Life Channel ability the hunter can use on her companion. Might I also suggest a type of Breath of Life akin to the Channeled Revival feat that works off this healing ability? Just a thought.


Weslocke wrote:

I have been playtesting a ranged hunter build this evening. That is why I took so long to respond. The ranged hunter (7th) in the test had no problem at all handling APL+2 encounters solo with much less effort than one would expect. It could quite easily achieve an opening attack total of +16 before activating its Deadly aim and Rapid Shot feats when working in concert with its animal companion. With deadly aim and str bonuses it could deal d8+d6+10 dmg per shot with its Composite (+4) Flaming Longbow +1. I will post on my experience in the playtest forum tomorrow.

It is more than capable as is. In fact, my playtesters are of the opinion that this class is already too capable.

Again I ask, could you present your build as you playtested it for reference purposes, please? I am having a hard time trying to figure out how a level 7 hunter with a BAB of +5 can get a +16 attack bonus BEFORE applying Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot. Likewise, I only see d8 (arrow) + d6 (fire) +9 (Str +4, Deadly Aim +4, bow +1) to damage, so where's the extra +1 coming from? Not criticizing, mind you; I just want to see what the build looks like to better understand why you feel the class is already "too capable", as it seems the majority of posters, myself included, have found it to be a pretty weak combatant.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I believe SKR said that this class is more of a beastlord than a hunter.

Don't get so hung up on the name.

I don't know, but I still feel if they're going to make this a beastlord or beastmaster class, then they really should consider giving her the ability to share senses with her companion a la Beastmaster.


Weslocke wrote:

My concerns are that our melee based hunter used in the playtest repeatedly stole the show before this revision. Now my player who was interested in the class feels that it is simply too good.

I would honestly like to know how the hunter was able to steal the show, no sarcasm implied. I would like to see what classes you were using, and what was the hunter's build like. In our own playtest, I ran a hunter with a wolf companion, level 6 group, and took teamwork and other feats meant to take advantage of the wolf's Trip ability. With only a 3/4 BAB, the -4 firing into melee penalty hurt my bow use, and although I had a +9 attack with a bastard sword (half-elf with ancestral arms, Str 18, +1 sword), I still missed more than half the time if I used my Combat Expertise feat unless I managed to get flanking with my wolf (most enemy ACs were between 15 and 20, which is not unusual for CR 6 combatants). The party duelist hit mush more often and was a more effective combatant, and the party shaman was easily a more effective caster. Plus, my wolf took a heavy beating every time and I blew off most of a wand of cure light wounds in just two sessions trying to keep him alive.

Honestly, I could definitely see why some people would prefer to make the hunter a spontaneous caster; if I hadn't bought the wand, I would have had to use all my spell slots for cure spells to heal my companion. Yes, you can argue that if it dies, I can try to summon a new one after 24 hours, or that having the druid spell list means I can gain access to Reincarnate (at level 10!), but I would really prefer to keep it alive since NOT having the companion actually cripples this class. Heck, even the summoner has something to fall back on if he can't use his eidolon. Without his companion, the hunter becomes a druid with only half the effective skill level. Being able to wield martial weapons and wear metal armor doesn't really make up for that, sorry.


Weslocke wrote:
My players and I are now of the opinion that this class gets too much.

Compared to what, exactly?

Weslocke wrote:
Metal armor access, all martial weapons, druid spells to sixth level, free teamwork feats, plunder the rangers spell list, free precise shot, rangers tracking and woodland stride, and all coupled with the best animal companion in the game?

Currently, the hunter does NOT have access to any ranger spells, only druid, and honestly, the only reason I can see for having the druid spell list is to give the hunter access to level 5 and 6 spells. Since the class is designed to be a combat team melee class, the ranger spell list is much more suitable, not that it matters much as the hunter will probably have to fill out her slots with mostly cure spells anyways since there is STILL no effective way for her to heal her companion otherwise.

Keep in mind the "free precise strike" ONLY works in tandem with the hunter's animal companion; she does not get to apply it against any other ally, which prompts her to still take Precise Strike to avoid the -4 penalty to fire into melee when her other allies are there, and in turn makes the Precise Companion feature redundant. Yes, Sean, I see what you guys are trying for, but let's be honest, unless the hunter is the ONLY melee PC (and that would be a strain to put the 3/4 BAB combatant as the only melee PC in the group), you will ALWAYS have allies rushing into melee after the first or second shot and still end up needing Precise Shot. Better to give a bonus combat style feat and let the hunter take Precise Shot IF she plans to go the route of the archer.

As for the teamwork feats, I, for one, would much rather have a limited combat style feature like the ranger and maybe gain a combat style feat at level 4, 10, and 16, instead of gaining a teamwork feat every three levels. Yes, I do like having access to the teamwork feats as they are the theme of the class, but I would be just as happy to gain them every 4 levels instead of every 3 and have access to combat styles in the interim.

Weslocke wrote:
Playtesting will tell, but my player who was playtesting a Hunter has now lost all interest in it.

Any why would that be when so little change has actually been done to this class? Does he find it weak? Or does he honestly think it to be too strong? And with comparison to what? Just saying he's lost interest in playing doesn't help the devs with the rebuild; tell them what the reasons are so they have something to work with before they release the final product.

Oh, and regarding animal focus: Yay for the minutes per level update, which I'm sure is meant to be non-consecutive, one-minute intervals, but for the people espousing that a "permanent +2 to Strength" for the animal companion makes this update so much better, let me point out that any "permanent" bonus still doesn't mean much if the companion dies in the first round of combat. I would still much rather have a Lay Hands or Life Channel ability usable only on the animal companion X times per day.


Craft Cheese wrote:

Templates that change the creature type (like celestial and fiendish) don't cause the creature's BAB, HD, and saves to change unless the template specifies otherwise. They're really only changed in type to gain associated immunities and for the purposes of interacting with effects.

As for BAB, the Eidolon does effectively have 3/4 BAB: It's got "full BAB" but doesn't get a new hit die each time the summoner levels. Making it have 3/4 BAB means it'd effectively have 9/16 BAB.

Yeah, I'm aware of all this; I'm just trying to find a way to make the class more playable even though I'm pretty sure my GM will never allow the class in his game no matter how much I try to "fix" the things he (and apparently others, from what he reads on the boards) has the most issue with. I'm just concerned the Hunter might go the way of the Summoner regarding the companion as compared to the eidolon and then we get another "unplayable" class. Here's hoping the play tests for the Hunter can make a more-balanced class, and then maybe, just maybe, someone can go back and fix the Summoner using the Hunter as a guideline.

Having played the druid/ranger dual-class sloooowww progression, I really look forward to seeing the final results of the Hunter and hope it will be acceptable to my GM...but then again, he has issues with companion creatures and summonings in general, so it probably won't.


Craft Cheese wrote:


I disagree: There are archetypes for the Summoner that weaken (or even give up) the Eidolon in exchange for improving the Summon Monster ability.

The consensus on these archetypes, more or less, is that they're bad deals. The "problem" with the Summoner is in the Eidolon, and IMO it's not actually a problem; It just does what melee/skill monkey classes should be able to do, but can't.

Yeah, my GM keeps bringing up the Eidolon as the broken aspect of the class and that's why he won't allow the class in his game. Myself, I have a couple house rules, such as the Eidolon does NOT get a full BAB (well, NEARLY full, that is), but uses the Summoner's 3/4 BAB. I seriously think it SHOULD be using the animal companion's BAB, but I think the eidolon was meant to be more combative and that's why it has a stronger BAB. The other problem with the eidolon is the d10 Hit Dice it gets as opposed to the Animal Companion's d8 because it's an "outsider", but technically so are summoned animals and they don't get d10 HD, just a template tacked on to the base stats ("celestial" or "fiendish").

This brings us back to the Hunter's animal companion: Would giving it a d10 HD as opposed to a d8 HD, as if some sort of "advanced" version of the base animal, make it too powerful? From what I'm reading, the general consensus seems to be to make the Hunter's companion more like the Summoner's eidolon, and yet those are some of the arguments as to why the Summoner's eidolon is too strong compared to standard PCs. The overall idea is for the companion to aid the Hunter as a constant ally, not take the Hunter's place in the battlefield like the eidolon (currently) does with the Summoner. I would suggest that if you want to make the Hunter's companion more combat-effective than a druid's, then either improve the Hit Die or improve the BAB, but not both. My preference would be increased HD; it doesn't really need to hit harder as much as it needs to survive longer.


Oh, and in case anyone wonders, yes, I have been recently play testing the hunter as is with a wolf as my animal companion.

Build: Caleb, Half-Elf Hunter 6, NG Medium humanoid (elf, human)
Str 18, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 10
Base Atk +4; CMB +8 (+10 trip); CMD 21 (23 vs. trip)
Skills Climb +10, Handle Animal +5, Heal +7, Intimidate +4, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +6, Knowledge (geography) +6, Knowledge (nature) +6, Perception +13, Spellcraft +5, Stealth +11, Survival +11 (+14 to track), Swim +10
Feats: Combat Expertise, Coordinated Maneuvers, Improved Trip, Quick Draw, Tandem Trip
Traits: forlorn, reactionary; Alternate Racial Trait: Ancestral Arms (bastard sword)
Gear: Wand of CLW; +2 Ironwood Chain shirt, +1 Keen Bastard sword, Composite longbow (Str +4), Ring of protection +1
Hunter Spells (usually) Prepared:
2nd —bull's strength, barkskin x2, lockjaw
1st —aspect o/t falcon, longstrider, magic fang x2, speak w/animals
0 —guidance, know direction, stabilize, purify food/drink, create water

Animal Companion:
Whisper, Male Wolf, N Medium animal
Str 15, Dex 17, Con 15, Int 3, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +4; CMB +6; CMD 19 (23 vs. trip)
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Improved Natural Attack (bite), Power Attack
Tricks: Attack, Defend, Down, Fetch, Heel, Hunting, Other: Flank, Seek, Stay, Track
Skills: Acrobatics +7 (+15 jump), Perception +7, Stealth +7, Survival +2
---

Our fist couple fights involved water-based encounters, so I didn't get to use my animal companion as effectively as I would have liked, and that sort of hurt my hunter as most of his feats were geared towards fighting in tandem with the wolf. Our third encounter was land-based, but I made the mistake of thinking Combat Maneuvers needed flanking and sacrificed the +2 to the wolf's Trip ability in favor of gaining us both a +2 to attack. Wasn't so bad, but I rolled horribly for my own attacks and while the wolf DID hit twice, I misread Tandem Trip and didn't realize the wolf gets TWO chances to trip whether I'm attempting to trip or not just for me having the feat. Live and learn, right?

Fortunately, we played these characters a second time, and my team got to see more battle together. My trick with the hunter is to start with the bow in hand, attacking with ranged while closing since I only get one attack anyways. As hunter and wolf close, I Quick Draw my sword and get into melee with my wolf either flanking or battling beside me. If there's no chance or too low a chance to Trip, then we flank; if it's possible to Trip, then we're adjacent. It seemed to work well, but a 3/4 BAB meant I missed more often than hit despite having a +9 bonus to melee (I tended to roll mid-range and lower more often than high; bad dice day for me), and although my wold had a 21 AC (Barkskin), he took a heavy beating a lot of times as he seemed to be the better target (with my ring, armor, Dex, barkskin, and Combat Expertise, I had a pretty decent AC), and my wand is mostly spent trying to heal the wolf. That's one thing the hunter could use is a way to heal his animal companion without having to use up his limited spell slots for Cure spells.
First session, we tried Animal Focus as written, but that meant I could only use it once, period, as everything we've done has only been in one day, and the one fight he used it in lasted only 4 rounds. Not cool.
Second session, we tried 1 minute/level in non-consecutive one-minute intervals and it was MUCH more effective, letting me switch as needed between Dex buff, Str buff, climb skill, and faster movement during a rather long battle, and be able to do it again later when we went up against the bosses and didn't hurt the game at all, although I DID overlook that when the hunter invokes the ability, his animal companion gets it as well. Overall, I like this ability and really thinks it to be MUCH more effective with longer durations.
Overall, I like the concept of the Hunter, but he needs more effective combat-oriented spells and some way to heal his companion, like maybe a Lay on Hands or spontaneous Cure spells that only affect the companion. Something akin to the Summoner/Eidolon Life Link might be nice, but I really don't like Life Link as it is currently written (having to wait until the companion reaches zero or less hit points to use would suck), and I REALLY do not want the Hunter to become a divine Summoner. I would much rather have the hunter be able to transfer hit points to his companion as a standard action touch ability that transfers up to his level in hit points usable 3+ Wis modifier times per day.


Joyd wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Joyd wrote:

Maybe this is dumb, but what do people think about giving the Hunter a spontaneous spell conversion list, like Clerics can spontaneously convert to Cure (or Inflict, if you're a necromancer or you make bad decisions) spells and Druids can convert to SNA?

One of the hallmarks of the Druid list is that it has piles of incredibly situational stuff, but it's not totally wrong to sometimes prepare some of those things if you have some idea that they might be useful, because you can always just make it an SNA spell instead, and SNA has property that it's widely useful in many situations. Similarly, casting cure spells with your slots as a cleric isn't exciting, it's a rare day where nobody gets hurt, so it's always something to do with your slots.

I was thinking that Hunters could have a conversion list that specifically focuses on their animal companions. It might involve creating some new spells, since there aren't interesting and generally applicable spells that benefit animals at every spell level, but it would let rangers prep the more situational druid spells more often without them going to waste so much.

I think they should just get a crazy summon nature's ally progression:

1 converts to SNA 1
2 converts to SNA 2
3 converts to SNA 3 or [4 starting at level 8 for two 3rd level spells prepared or one 4th level spell]
4 converts to SNA 5 or [6 starting at level 12 for two 4th level spells prepared or one 5th level spell]
5 converts to SNA 7
6 converts to SNA 8 or [9 starting at level 18 for two 6th level spells prepared]

Then let nature's allies share teamwork feats with the Hunter and his pet.

That's pretty neat. If they don't do that, one idea for an archetype might be a hunter that trades the animal companion for the Summoner's Summon Monster SLA, but for SNA instead, and the archetype is allowed to share teamwork feats and the Animal Focus boosts with anything summoned with SNA.

No no no no NO!!!

THIS is one of the biggest problems with the Summoner, and one of the reasons why so many GMs, my own included, have banned the Summoner class from any games. The Summoner should NEVER have gotten SM as a spell-like ability, and especially not in a manner that breaks the rules. IF it was meant to have SM as a SLA, then it should still act as the spell, standard to cast and 1 sec/level duration, and not the current, hideously broken manner it now is. If anything, Summoner should have gotten spontaneous SM by sacrificing a spell much as a druid does for SNA. Add to that a full BAB and d10 hit die for the eidolon, and we have a broken class with a companion that deals heavier damage per round than the party fighter, and now you want the Hunter to go in THAT direction as well? Make him a divine version of Summoner? Yeah, the class is weak, and yes, I can see a need for improvement, but if you make him like the Summoner, you'll just get yet another class that nobody wants in their campaigns because it's "broken and too powerful".
I really don't think the Hunter's animal companion necessarily needs to be more powerful than the druid's animal companion- it really doesn't. What it DOES need is a stronger link to the Hunter more akin to a familiar's link. One feature I would like to see is the Hunter being able to mentally "ride" his companion by mind-linking with it and being able to use it's senses; see what it sees, hear what it hears, etc. For example, something like the witch's Beast Eye hex.
Yeah, I'm thinking old school here, but when I first heard about this class, I was hoping for something like the old Beastmaster movies/TV show. From what I've seen so far, you're off to a good start, and while I think the CONCEPT behind the Summoner is a good reference point, don't go down that venue, please, as the Summoner already needs a revamp itself (and we probably won't see that until the next printing of the APG).


A bat's claw attacks would be from its feet, something not impossible since it can fly, and it can hover with a DC 15 Fly check. A werebat would gain Fly as a class skill being a winged monster, although that doesn't mean he'd have ranks in it, and it's claws would deal damage as per size as shown in the Bestiary under natural attacks by size. Likewise, I prefer to have all lycanthropes gain claw and bite attacks in hybrid form dealing damage as per their size, with natural attacks as per animal form when in animal form. Yes, combine this with the ability to wield manufactured weapons and armor while in hybrid form, and a hybrid were is doubly dangerous. However, I also disagree with the book's statement that equipment melds with the new form; I don't think it should, and if the hybrid form is one size larger or smaller than the base form, then said were would be hampered by his equipment as per wielding weapons and armor of an inappropriate size until he drops it, so relying upon natural weapons and armor might not be a bad thing after all.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Don't know where else to ask this, but since this thread linked to the FAQ...

Since weapon specialization can be used for spells as noted in the FAQ, would a sorcerer or wizard who wishes to take weapon specialization (ray) still have to take 4 levels of fighter to get it? Or does using the feat for spells create an exception to the norm? Have to ask b/c I have a player running a sorcerer asking about spells and combat feats and I just know he's going to ask.


Thank you for the feedback, Stubs, but I would really prefer not to go to an outside source for answers, mainly because I don't have the money or inclination to invest in them. What I'm mainly looking for is either some official rulings, or at least other GM feedback on how others handled similar situations. I've learned recently that there is no longer a size restriction on grappling, although I'm still searching for clarification on that, so yes, a Medium ooze CAN grapple a Medium character, albeit with penalties. The main question is how does someone grapple something with the amorphous quality? Should there be a penalty to do so? Or would it just not be possible without some sort of way to contain said creature? Again, I'm just looking for other suggestions until something official comes out. We each have our own way of doing things; I'm just trying to be fair to my players...
At least for now ;-P


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry if this has been answered, but I'm not finding what I need, so...
Recently, I set my players up against a few gray oozes, and several issues came up, mainly stemming from the nature of oozes. First, while oozes are considered amorphous creatures, there is no set description for that quality other than what is listed in the stats for a gibbering mouther. Hopefully Bestiary 2 will change that, but for now, can a character actually grapple an amorphous creature? If so, should there be a penalty to do so, like trying to grapple an opponent larger than himself would apply? If an amorphous creature attempts to grab an opponent, is it still restricted by its own size since it can essentially change its form to envelop its opponent?

For the purpose of this battle, I ruled that being amorphous, the ooze could ignore the "only able to use this ability on creatures up to one size smaller) limit to allow it to grab and essentially engulf an opponent of its own size or smaller. My players, for the most part, agreed with me on this (one player didn't like it, but that's mainly because he had the lowest AC and was more likely to be hit). I'm debating upon if it should be able to engulf up to one size larger, but since "engulf" implies full immersion on the part of the target, larger creatures might not be able to be fully engulfed. Then again, an amorphous creature can also spread itself out pretty thin, so may be able to engulf up to one size larger than itself by doing so. For now, I'm going with "up to its own size" since that also implies it can only engulf one such opponent at a time, unlike the gelatinous cube which specifically states that it can engulf "as many as it can", which to me is unique to the cube (although an ooze might be able to engulf two opponents of one size smaller than itself, four of two sizes smaller, etc.)

I think there should be a specific listing for the amorphous quality defining what properties that gives the creature, especially since not just oozes are likely to have that quality (gaseous and water-based creatures would have it as well). Also, shouldn't ALL oozes have the engulf special attack instead of grab? I envision an ooze striking with a pseudopod is more likely to latch onto an opponent and spread over it rather than wrap a tendril around it and hold on with a "limb".

Any thoughts or clarifications on this? If there are specific rules postings, I would appreciate page numbers and/or links if you have them. My players also check these boards frequently, and will want to see for themselves if there is any "official" ruling on this.


RE: Attacks of opportunity against stirges: While the stirge is "effectively grappling its prey", its attack is not a grapple itself, and creatures using natural weapons to attack are considered armed so normally don't provoke attacks of opportunity when attacking. This is not the same as unarmed attacks: natural weapons are considered weapons, not unarmed, and creatures with natural weapons are considered trained in their use. Likewise, moving into a threatened square does not provoke an attack of opportunity unless the occupant of that square has taken a ready action to attack anything entering that square, which does not actually give the occupant an AoO, but allows him/her to use an initiative action to strike before his/her foe does. A couple of my players use this action a LOT when going up against foes they know little about.

RE: SNA: You want effective? Try summoning spiders: They can cast a web as a ranged touch attack that entangles and effectively immobilizes an opponent, at least for one round (often longer) unless said opponent can make a Strength or Escape check to get out of it. Had my druid delaying ghouls this way to give the party a chance to take them down and avoid being paralyzed by the ghouls' attacks. It's especially effective when you have multiple spiders gang up on one opponent.

Best Summoning moment so far: I set up an encounter with an animated two-handed sword flying around the room attacking from above, and the summoner used his SLA to summon in an eagle to grapple the sword. I missed with the AoO (eagles have a very good AC due to size), and the eagle succeeded in its grapple, effectively neutralizing the threat for a couple rounds while the two struggled. Two bad nobody in the room at the time could do enough damage to get past the sword's toughness to destroy it, but the eagle did give another character a chance to grapple the sword and swing it under a falling block trap that DID do the trick.


Clark Whittle wrote:
Above the rules refinement, Paizo is cutting edge as far as getting the best adventure authors in the industry today.

Not just adventure writers: Did you see who the author of their soon-to-be-released Golarion novel 'Winter Witch' is?

None other than Elaine Cunningham, one of the BEST (IMO) Realms and Ravenloft authors I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I am absolutely thrilled that she will be writing novels for Golarion.


Clark Whittle wrote:
Ustalav is my new Ravenloft, so I'm now offically Golarian exclusive for my fantasy RPG fix. :)

I saw the maps for the first release campaign setting, and thought to myself how familiar they were. If this indeed can incorporate my Ravenloft setting, as well as the things I like about the Forgotten Realms, I may actually have to consider selling off my FR books (GASP!!). They're mostly collectng dust right now as it is; never got a complete world picture since they stopped making region books prior to going 4th Ed, and I am SO not going to buy 4th Ed.

On the other hand, there's still a lot of useful material in those books...

I'll have to to wait for Paizo's own region books to come out, I guess.


Some monsters I won't miss for various reasons (had a post I wrote, but the screen switched on me when I went to post it; SO hate when that happens!):
achaierai, delver, ethereal filcher, ethereal marauder, krenshar, phantom fungus, thoqqua, and tojanida.

Some I miss and hope to see in Bestiary II:
gray render, hippogriff (although I think it's been confirmed it will be), tendriculous, alternate lycanthropes or at least a decent template for making them. I would mention the various aquatic races, but something tells me there's a specific reason why those were kept out, like maybe the fact that you're only likely to encounter them IN the water and most adventures take place on land, perhaps? Then again, you're not very likely to see merfolk on land unless they now have the ability to change their tails into legs (why not? Daryl Hannah did it in Splash).

Sadly, we won't see beholder, githyanke, githzerai, or yuan-ti in any future Bestiaries, but that won't stop ME from using them. After all, it's MY game, and I'll do whatever the Hello! I want :-)


James Jacobs wrote:
Hydro wrote:
I still think elementals are too humanoid in nature. They don't feel like "living (fire/water/wind/earth)" at all; they feel more like something a mortal wizard would shape a given elemental into.

Of the 8 elementals illustrated in the Bestiary, only 1 is what I would call "humanoid."

AIR: A weird multilegged bird thing and a tornado type thing.
EARTH: A dog made of rocks and a man made of rocks.
FIRE: A dragon/snake made of fire and a bat made out of smoke.
WATER: A shark made of water and a wave with a distorted face.

So yeah, I'd agree that elementals aren't necessarily humanoid shaped. In that only 12.5% of those we illustrate in the Bestiary are humanoid shaped.

To me, this implies that you could make the elemental resemble whatever form you wish it to be, so long as you maintain the current stats as listed for the creature i.e.- HD, BAB, number of attacks, damage, etc.). If you really want to be a creative GM, sure, give it multipe attacks as per the the form chosen, but then you might as well treat it as an elemental-template version of the base creature (chosen form), or at least drop the dmage by one step for primary attacks, two steps for secondary. I've done it before with firecats (fire-based tigers), it's really not that hard. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing a elemental template for each of the four primary elements simplified like the advanced, young, celestial, and fiendish templates in the bestiary (really big HINT HINT), something better than the ones in the Manual of the Planes (not that those were THAT bad, but not very well balanced IMO).


It was nice to see the chaitrakhan get some play, but I think it would have been better to either have them drawn by the sounds of battle, or just to eliminate the bugbears completely and make them the primary threat. Why would the bugbears be here anyways? From what you described, very few visitors ever come by the manor any more, so what do they stand to gain sitting out in the cold waiting for who knows how long for someone, ANYONE, to show up? Raise the danger level of the elements with some high winds (possibly grounding potential flyers) and bitter cold (still might not bother those resistant or immune to cold, like aasimar) and imclement weather. Nothing like new snowfall to cloak the approach of the frostcats (nice nickname, Sean), and having the eerie howl of a hunter rise above the wind...especially with nightfall fast approaching. Avoid directing the party actions, but still bring out your encounter point; use it as a possible salvation from the impending threat. I would agree with Clark that the chasm itself is more likely to be the encounter point, with the manor becoming the goal, and the drawbridge a secondary challenge to get to it. Of course, you have to convince the party why they need to use the bridge (but don't force them, in fact NEVER force them, to do something; otherwise, they're just more NPC someone else is running).

Yeah, that makes the encounter more of a cliche, but as Clark said, the whole "mad wizard" thing is pretty cliche as well, and sometimes that's what works.


Very nice background story; it really gave me a feel for the world setting. That said, I'm not sure what's going on here. I like the menagerie, but the whole plot is a "right place, right time" thing which a lot of players in my experience really don't care for. It too often becomes the GM leading the players around by the nose, forcing them into one encounter after another in a specific order of events, when they would rather explore their surroundings and see where fate takes them. I'm not sure what to make of the andorwesps; I'm not really sure if they would have been the appropriate round 3 monster to use here. Yes, the managerie is ample feeding ground for them, but the cages and stonework and other accessories could easily have been ample feeding ground for the chymick. For that matter, you have cold climate cages, so why not use the chaitrakhan? Nice nod to the haga, BTW; that was cute :-)

Overall, I really like the theme of a menagerie; an excellent excuse to have any creatures not normally sharing a habitat come together. However, the map is a headache. I like the overall building design, but prefer my map keys to rely more on symbols and less on colors.

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>