| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Volvo: Boxy but good
Thanks for this!Shadow Jumper's Tunic: Good for anyone, but better for a Shadowdancer. More love for Prestige Classes.I practically begged my fellow designers to try to sneak in some prestige class support as an on-theme experiment. Of the list, the only one that I wrote was the ranged chicanery equipment trick. My hope is that the options that made it in will get enough love that customers will be open to more prestige class support in the future, because currently that isn't a very nested area. In 3PP, there's a strong generalization among game designers that prestige class content won't sell to players, so I was curious to see if that would hold true if Paizo published some support. The comments I've seen so far have been interesting.
Don't thank me, Andrew Marlowe wrote it!
Thanks for this!Don't thank me, Andrew Marlowe wrote it!Alex thanks for the nod, but your suggestion to include prestige class support was a good one and I'm thrilled it seems to have payed off.
Yes, that was what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to say. But help for Shadowdancers is great. Especially with Unchained Rogues as an option. :)
I think the nudge toward making the CRB prestige class designs workable may have carried over to Heroes of the Streets. I hear that it has a functional "Arcane Archer" Magus archetype. I don't think there was any way to "patch" that one the way you could with the Arcane Trickster.
I think the nudge toward making the CRB prestige class designs workable may have carried over to Heroes of the Streets. I hear that it has a functional "Arcane Archer" Magus archetype. I don't think there was any way to "patch" that one the way you could with the Arcane Trickster.
Yes and no. Owen's wanted a functional bow-magus to be in the game for some time now; I think that it functions as arcane archer support is a happy coincidence for him. (We talked shop about it at either PaizoCon or GenCon. I can't remember which.)
But as long as people continue to react positively to it (and as long as I keep getting Paizo writing credits and allows them to live through development) I'll continue to do what I can to support prestige classes. Even if its just a small nudge here or a neat feat there. :-)
I think the nudge toward making the CRB prestige class designs workable may have carried over to Heroes of the Streets. I hear that it has a functional "Arcane Archer" Magus archetype. I don't think there was any way to "patch" that one the way you could with the Arcane Trickster.Yes and no. Owen's wanted a functional bow-magus to be in the game for some time now; I think that it functions as arcane archer support is a happy coincidence for him. (We talked shop about it at either PaizoCon or GenCon. I can't remember which.)
Hmmm. I think you are suggesting that this could be a good class to transition to the Arcane Archer prestige class. A similar build is possible with a Myrmidarch, but it is kind of an awkward fit. Now I am even more intrigued by the Eldritch Archer.
But as long as people continue to react positively to it (and as long as I keep getting Paizo writing credits and allows them to live through development) I'll continue to do what I can to support prestige classes. Even if its just a small nudge here or a neat feat there. :-)
Great! I know that I'm not the only one who would love to get more use out of the Prestige Classes chapter of the CRB.
A certain podcast critiqued the lack of a color boarder on many of the pages, but I have to say that I really like the cleaner look. Also, I sometimes like to print out individual pages of the PDFs to keep with my PFS characters, and this style will use less ink and definitely look better when printed in black and white.
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly part of the design goal of the eldritch archer is to allow a bow-armed martial-focused spell caster beginning at 1st level (as the standard magus allows with melee weapons), without invalidating the arcane archer PrC (as the magus doesn't invalidate the eldritch knight).
(as the magus doesn't invalidate the eldritch knight).
|
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(as the magus doesn't invalidate the eldritch knight).
The eldritch knight has a greater BAB, can be used with a range of class combinations, has greater spellcasting if you come into it as a 9-level caster (a fighter 1/wizard 5/ek 5, for example, has 5th level spells, a 10th level magus just has 4th), and if you really want to you can take it as a single-class magus just to boost your bab.
There are lots of reasons not to choose to play the ftr/wiz/ek, but it still does things a magus of the same level can't.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope the majority of this book gets PFS-legalized. There is so much good stuff here!
In particular, I really like the Admodean Advocate cleric archetype. It screams flavor! (And remember that clerics of Asmodeus *are* legal in PFS as long as they are Lawful Neutral.)
(as the magus doesn't invalidate the eldritch knight).The eldritch knight has a greater BAB, can be used with a range of class combinations, has greater spellcasting if you come into it as a 9-level caster (a fighter 1/wizard 5/ek 5, for example, has 5th level spells, a 10th level magus just has 4th), and if you really want to you can take it as a single-class magus just to boost your bab.
There are lots of reasons not to choose to play the ftr/wiz/ek, but it still does things a magus of the same level can't.
Before the magus came out I'd seen a fair bit of them. Afterwards.. not so much. Extra BAB is nice and all but the action economy is absurdly better on a magus. An EK can both fight and cast but there aren't a lot of opportunities to do both in a round. The magus manages to combine them.
They have a smaller variety of weapons but that list includes the best one for them. (They had their own pew reserved in the temple of saranrae until fencing grace...)
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually seen some devastating magus 7/eldritch knight x builds. It keeps you in medium armor, but you can gain additional magus arcane with feats if you need them and end up with a lot more bab and some more hp. And while m7/ek 10 is only a concern in high level campaigns, combining spell combat, spell strike, and spell critical is amazing. :)
They look like they do the same thing so probably wouldn't stack.
For the curious, this has now been added to the Additional Resources section of PFS.
I am curious, so thanks for the heads up. :)
Edit: It looks like my favorite stuff was approved. I'm pleasantly surprised.
awwww... too late for the con though. The party probably appreciates the iron will though...
For the curious, this has now been added to the Additional Resources section of PFS."and Wasp Familiar feats are not legal for play"
Aww :(
That is no surprise if you think about it.
While it is an absolutely awesome and flavorfull feat, it gives you a familiar with a +4 initiative boost for the price of one feat. Compared to all other options, that is a bit too cheap and powerful.There might be a chance this appears on some boons in the future though.
For the curious, this has now been added to the Additional Resources section of PFS."and Wasp Familiar feats are not legal for play"
Aww :(
This just makes me very happy I don't play PFS.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are already familiars that give +4 for no feat at all
They still require you to have the familiar class feature. This one gives you the class feature, plus just about the best (non-Improved) familiar possible, for the cost of one feat.
The Familiar Bond line takes three feats to accomplish the same thing - and the scorpion can't even fly.
So, I'm sad it didn't make it... but not terribly surprised, in retrospect.
Page 2 says "Rogues are the quintessential dirty fighters, and for good reason: their sneak attacks can be deadly, and they can acquire the poison use class feature by selecting the appropriate rogue talent."
My question is... which rogue talent is that? The only one I've found so far is an advanced rogue talent from Rogue Glory by Drop Dead Studios. Since the DTT is by Paizo, I can't imagine they're referring to a third-party product, so I must be missing something. Can anyone point me to what it is?
(Asked on Facebook's Pathfinder RPG group, but I figure I might get a better answer here.)
Page 2 says "Rogues are the quintessential dirty fighters, and for good reason: their sneak attacks can be deadly, and they can acquire the poison use class feature by selecting the appropriate rogue talent."
My question is... which rogue talent is that? The only one I've found so far is an advanced rogue talent from Rogue Glory by Drop Dead Studios. Since the DTT is by Paizo, I can't imagine they're referring to a third-party product, so I must be missing something. Can anyone point me to what it is?
(Asked on Facebook's Pathfinder RPG group, but I figure I might get a better answer here.)
Seems like an error to me, as you're correct; rogues can't take poison use as a rogue talent. (Only slayers can.) Poison use is sort of unfairly tied up in the fact that the game currently balances it against trapfinding, and two separate archetypes (the poisoner and the ninja alternate class) grant it as a feature.
Poison use is sort of unfairly tied up in the fact that the game currently balances it against trapfinding, and two separate archetypes (the poisoner and the ninja alternate class) grant it as a feature.
The spy archetype also grants it, but at 3rd level. Unfortunately, this character is in an urban campaign, limited to core rules for classes (but not archetypes or anything else), and is the only 'sneaky' character in a balanced party. So, I need to keep trapfinding and can't take any archetypes that replace it. Which is the reason why I was looking for whatever rogue talent was being referred to. Poison isn't a *great* thing in-game, but it fits the character concept. I guess I'll just have to stick with assassin (if the DM removes the evil aspects of it).
Poison use is sort of unfairly tied up in the fact that the game currently balances it against trapfinding, and two separate archetypes (the poisoner and the ninja alternate class) grant it as a feature.The spy archetype also grants it, but at 3rd level. Unfortunately, this character is in an urban campaign, limited to core rules for classes (but not archetypes or anything else), and is the only 'sneaky' character in a balanced party. So, I need to keep trapfinding and can't take any archetypes that replace it. Which is the reason why I was looking for whatever rogue talent was being referred to. Poison isn't a *great* thing in-game, but it fits the character concept. I guess I'll just have to stick with assassin (if the DM removes the evil aspects of it).
Ask your GM if you can take Poison Use as a rogue talent. You never know; she might say yes!
|
Can someone help me understand what Befuddling Initiative is even supposed to do?
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.
The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin.
You treat each opponent that begins a surprise round flat-footed as being flat-footed until its action in the first full round of combat, even if it acts on the surprise round.
So basically this feat duplicates a rule from the CRB that already exists?
The way I see it is this:
Normally, your opponents FF condition is removed as soon as she acts.
With Befuddling Initiative three bonuses occur:
1. You LOSE initiative and your opponent doesn't get to act in the surprise round. In this scenario, your opponent is FF to your surprise round attack AND your first round attack even though she went before you in the first normal round (and normally should have the FF condition removed as soon as she acts).
2. You WIN initiative and your opponent acts in the surprise round, but remains FF until the opponent gets to act in the first round of combat. In this scenario, you get your surprise round attack AND full attack from the first round against a FF opponent.
3. You LOSE initiative and your opponent acts in the surprise round, but remains FF until the opponent gets to act in the first round of combat. In this scenario, your opponent is STILL FF to your surprise round attack even though she went before you (and normally should have the FF condition removed as soon as she acts).
Can someone help me understand what Befuddling Initiative is even supposed to do?
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.The Surprise Round: If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin.You treat each opponent that begins a surprise round flat-footed as being flat-footed until its action in the first full round of combat, even if it acts on the surprise round.So basically this feat duplicates a rule from the CRB that already exists?
Mythraine is correct.
Essentially, if you act in the surprise round and lose initiative to one or more opponents, those opponents that acted before you are no longer flat-footed against any attacks that you make against them in that same surprise round.
With Befuddling Initiative, your opponents are ALWAYS flat-footed against your attacks during a surprise round, even if they've acted before you. Essentially, this means that a rogue can still sneak attack an opponent during a surprise round regardless of when she acts during that surprise round. (Since sneak attack is the big ability that cares about the flat-footed condition.)
|
|
The way I see it is this:
Normally, your opponents FF condition is removed as soon as she acts.
Except that's apparently not what the CRB says.
With Befuddling Initiative, your opponents are ALWAYS flat-footed against your attacks during a surprise round, even if they've acted before you. Essentially, this means that a rogue can still sneak attack an opponent during a surprise round regardless of when she acts during that surprise round. (Since sneak attack is the big ability that cares about the flat-footed condition.)
Again, the CRB seems to be pretty clear that you're ALWAYS flat-footed until your first turn in a regular round, and then goes on to fairly clearly state that the surprise round happens before regular rounds begin.
Hence my confusion.
|
The way I see it is this:
Normally, your opponents FF condition is removed as soon as she acts.
Except that's apparently not what the CRB says.
With Befuddling Initiative, your opponents are ALWAYS flat-footed against your attacks during a surprise round, even if they've acted before you. Essentially, this means that a rogue can still sneak attack an opponent during a surprise round regardless of when she acts during that surprise round. (Since sneak attack is the big ability that cares about the flat-footed condition.)Again, the CRB seems to be pretty clear that you're ALWAYS flat-footed until your first turn in a regular round, and then goes on to fairly clearly state that the surprise round happens before regular rounds begin.
Hence my confusion.
That is an interesting, and not necessarily wrong, interpretation. I have never seen it run that way. It has always been run, in my experience, that as soon you act, either in the surprise round or later, you are no longer flat footed.
Ask your GM if you can take Poison Use as a rogue talent. You never know; she might say yes!
'cause that's too easy/makes too much sense! Heh.
Actually, I found another quote when I settled down to read the DTT. My initial quote was from the 'focus characters' section just after the table of contents. Page 6 (Contact and Injury Poisons) says, in the Advanced Tactics section (bottom of the first column):
Rogues and slayers have the option to gain poison use through rogue and slayer talents, respectively.
It IS true that Slayers have access to Poison Use as a Slayer Talent, but that's not the case for Rogues. Rogues don't even have access to the Slayer Talent list (like they do for ninja tricks), which is another thing that doesn't make sense to me, seeing as rogue is one of the slayer's 'parent' classes (and slayers DO have access to the rogue talent list). But I asked about that on the ACG discussion thread.
I know you're one of the authors, Alexander. I'm just wondering who authored those two comments, because maybe they can point me to what I'm missing.
They were going to be true, but turned out not to be, and I failed to revise them.
They may be true someday in the future, which is far from perfect, but all I can manage at the moment.
Eh, nothing in life is perfect. Though NOW I'm curious how it was going to be originally implemented, and why it was changed. But that's just me trying to learn a bit about the process and all that.
I've noticed that most Player Companion's of late have been good about sharing new spells with some of the occult/psychic classes, but none of the spells in this one are usable by any of those new classes. Was this intentional? Several of the spells seem appropriate for a Mesmerist, and a couple of a Psychic, at the very least.
Makes sense, but is unfortunate. I guess some of them are pretty easy to houserule for Psychic and Mesmerist. I have a harder time figuring out a theme for Spiritualist, Occultist, and Medium spells.
|
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sort of thing is never at the feet of freelancers. Even if they don't have access to such material (and in this case they didn't), as the developer going back over spells and making sure they are given to the classes I think makes sense for them is literally part of my job as developer.
I keep a list of all the spell lists, what classes get them, if they are arcane, divine, or psychic, and what spell levels they cover. It helps me make sure I don't forget that bloodragers and shamans have their own spell lists, for example, or that clerics, oracles, and warpriests all share the cleric spell list, but antipaladins, inquisitors, and paladins have their own.
In this case I had to make a decision well after the freelancers were done, but well before Occult Adventures was in print, about whether to try to add occult classes to the spell level description. Some book has to be the first book to do so, and while ideally it'd be this one, given the material and circumstance I had to work with, I decided to push it back one more book rather than risk giving classes spells they shouldn't have.
I make adjustments to what classes freelancers give spells to all the time. Some freelancers are great about that, while others design awesome spells, but tend to just assign them to a single class. Having a unifying vision that's in tune with what the other developers are also doing about what a class spell list should look like is exactly the kind of thing a developer needs to be good at, and one of the reasons Paizo uses developers rather than just passing all freelance turnovers directly to the editors. They already have enough to do. :)
I do believe "Blood of Shadows" offers Poison Use to Rogues as a talent now.Ask your GM if you can take Poison Use as a rogue talent. You never know; she might say yes!'cause that's too easy/makes too much sense! Heh.
Yep, looking at it right now. It's under the Fetchling section, but it's open to everyone. And it only took Paizo seven years to publish it in a non-core book!
This sort of thing is never at the feet of freelancers. Even if they don't have access to such material (and in this case they didn't), as the developer going back over spells and making sure they are given to the classes I think makes sense for them is literally part of my job as developer.
I keep a list of all the spell lists, what classes get them, if they are arcane, divine, or psychic, and what spell levels they cover. It helps me make sure I don't forget that bloodragers and shamans have their own spell lists, for example, or that clerics, oracles, and warpriests all share the cleric spell list, but antipaladins, inquisitors, and paladins have their own.
In this case I had to make a decision well after the freelancers were done, but well before Occult Adventures was in print, about whether to try to add occult classes to the spell level description. Some book has to be the first book to do so, and while ideally it'd be this one, given the material and circumstance I had to work with, I decided to push it back one more book rather than risk giving classes spells they shouldn't have.
I make adjustments to what classes freelancers give spells to all the time. Some freelancers are great about that, while others design awesome spells, but tend to just assign them to a single class. Having a unifying vision that's in tune with what the other developers are also doing about what a class spell list should look like is exactly the kind of thing a developer needs to be good at, and one of the reasons Paizo uses developers rather than just passing all freelance turnovers directly to the editors. They already have enough to do. :)
Interesting insight. Do you have general rules or notes on what spells fit well into what lists? Or do you spend more time looking at what spells a class already has?
I was have a discussion about Mesmerist and the Enigma archetype and it came up that the spell Sense Vitals would be very nice on the class.
In your opinion, would such a spell be appropriate? I don't know if there is hesitation on adding damage-buff spells to the class. It being on the Bard list and being a divination spell makes me think it would fit well, seeing how the class shares a lot of divination spells with the Bard.
Yeah, Sense Vitals heads the list of spells from this volume that I'd like to have seen considered for inclusion on some psychic caster lists.
I really wish the people who submit reviews would come back down to Earth a bit. I appreciate them taking the time and resources to acquire the books for review, but these reviews for the Companion splat books are out of control. Singing the highest praises and gushing about how amazing it is, is just such an over the top reaction. Yes I like the book too, but I'm not planning on having children with it! ;)
