|
Maybe this is the wrong section, but I want to discuss Ultimate Combat without discussing the playtest so much, and hopefully have the Dev's see it.
So far I've bought most of the pathfinder line, largely out of loyalty, and the faith that the books will have things I'll want to use and will have a use for.
Ultimate Combat looks like it may be the first book I opt out of. I may get it, but it's the first pathfinder book I've even been skeptical of.
Everyone's focusing on the playtest of the 3 classes currently available, but the types of archetypes I want to see (that would easily belong in Ultimate Combat) aren't the ones presented. While a cowboy, a ninja, and a samurai are cool, they aren't things I need in my games, and will see marginal amounts of use.
So I thought I'd mention what types of things I'll be looking for from Ultimate Combat, and the presence or absence of these things largely determines the worth of the book to me.
Archetype:
Cavalier: Light or No armor, lose the horse - Put the focus on the honour bound dueling gentleman.
Fighter: Some kind of Swashbuckler-esque archetype maybe. Think 3 musketeers.
Gunslinger: A weapon independent class based around Grit - for melee Grit characters.
Monk: A no-ki pool, no supernatural abilities monk - Give me an over-the-top Jackie Chan. Full BAB on Combat Maneuvers, and free combat maneuver feats would be awesome.
Monk: Elemental Monks - Fire, Water, Earth, Air - Think Avatar the last airbender type stuff.
Ranger: A 'free hand fighter' combat style.
Ranger: A Musket combat style.
Ranger: A dual pistol combat style.
Rogue: A firearm focused rogue archetype. - maybe a sniper type.
Feats/Abilities:
Some love for all the 'free hand fighter' type builds, and some ways to make Sword + Board more appealing as well.
Skills:
The DCs for various cinematic over the top type combat maneuvers. (But please don't bring back Complete Scoundrel skill tricks or irritating feat taxes to even attempt them - I want to see widespread use of these things)
- Using walls for backflips.
- Prince of Persia style Wall-running.
- Rules for climbing on top of big creatures (KQ had something like this)
- Rules for jumping over characters.
- Swinging from chandaliers and aiming direction, and the DCs for them.
Any other over the top uses of skills you can think of that would be cinematic, particularly if it could be used in combat.
Gear:
- Boomerangs that come back if they don't hit anything.
- War Fans (ignore this one if that was in APG, I dont have it in front of me)
General:
- Support for the type of firearms that you shoot and then put away for a sword or other melee weapon. (That means if the guns are hard to use or hard to get, and need to be the character's main weapon, it's less useful to me).
And one comment about the content released so far:
The guns presented for the gunslinger are no good to me to use because:
- Exotic Weapon: People won't waste an exotic weapon feat on a weapon unless they're built around that weapon.
- Price: the 1000 gold price makes it a horrible overpriced weapon, especially as a common backup.
- Quality: The difficulty to obtain a firearm and the difficulty to use it (waste a feat) compared to the quality of the weapon itself (you're better off with the quiet crossbows in most cases, which are way cheaper and simple weapons) makes it a nonviable option that I can't see players taking, let alone being justified in the type of game I'd like to run.
I don't care for revolver wielding cowboys being the only ones with guns - I'd much rather see three musketeers or pirates of the caribbean types: Melee characters all around having a firearm that they get as a just-in-case ranged weapon.
Thanks for reading: I'm interested in any Dev Input, as well as comments from other Pathfinder players on what they'd want to see in a book called "Ultimate Combat".
+1
and a firearms list/stats for ship with naval rules will sounds good for me too.
Cavalier: Light or No armor, lose the horse - Put the focus on the honour bound dueling gentleman.
What is wrong with playing a fighter as a dueling gentleman? Or simply a cavalier without a mount, in light armor?
Monk: Full BAB on Combat Maneuvers, and free combat maneuver feats would be awesome.
The monk already gets that in core. What do you think Maneuver Training and the Bonus Feats do?
many fire-arm archetypes
I don't see the point really. Paizo made known their intent to largely exclude fire-arms from their Golarion setting. The gunslinger is the fire-arm uber-class, and all other classes can take the feats needed to use firearms effectively. Why would you need more than that?
A weapon independent class based around Grit - for melee Grit characters.
+1
gun stuff
Honestly, I'm happy with the way Paizo approaches this. You can houserule 100gp guns with proficiency gained as a trait if you want. The real rules should follow something akin to balance and sense.
Honestly, I'm happy with the way Paizo approaches this. You can houserule 100gp guns with proficiency gained as a trait if you want. The real rules should follow something akin to balance and sense.
I don't know about sense - but where is the balance in letting a gun cost 1000 gp and a single shot cost 10 gp? I simply don't see it...
|
I'm holding out for the Dex modifier adds to damage feat or class ability. It's one of the few things keeping PF from being the perfect game in my book.
Yes, I know there are a million workarounds. One of my PCs uses the "Shadow Blade" feat from the 3.5 ToB, another uses the Swashbuckler from the 3.5 Complete Warrior, but I'd love to see a more elegant solution in a PF book that is PFS legal, and something I can easily point a newb towards.
"You want to play a duelist or combat rogue? Start with this feat, then take whatever build you want!"
Ultimate Combat looks like it may be the first book I opt out of. I may get it, but it's the first pathfinder book I've even been skeptical of.
Everyone's focusing on the playtest of the 3 classes currently available, but the types of archetypes I want to see (that would easily belong in Ultimate Combat) aren't the ones presented. While a cowboy, a ninja, and a samurai are cool, they aren't things I need in my games, and will see marginal amounts of use.
+1
What I want from Ultimate Combat is material I can use in my Pathfinder game. You know, the one with paladins and wizards and magic and castles and dungeons and dragons! I don't mind a bit if Paizo wants to publish cowboys, ninjas, astronauts, firemen, cavemen, international men of mystery, and sharecroppers, but I don't need them in any Pathfinder or D&D (excepting OA) game I've played.
Ultimate Combat looks like it may be the first book I opt out of. I may get it, but it's the first pathfinder book I've even been skeptical of.
Everyone's focusing on the playtest of the 3 classes currently available, but the types of archetypes I want to see (that would easily belong in Ultimate Combat) aren't the ones presented. While a cowboy, a ninja, and a samurai are cool, they aren't things I need in my games, and will see marginal amounts of use.
+1
What I want from Ultimate Combat is material I can use in my Pathfinder game. You know, the one with paladins and wizards and magic and castles and dungeons and dragons! I don't mind a bit if Paizo wants to publish cowboys, ninjas, astronauts, firemen, cavemen, international men of mystery, and sharecroppers, but I don't need them in any Pathfinder or D&D (excepting OA) game I've played.
-1
I agree with your sentiment - but from what I've read on Ultimate Combat, it will deliver just that. 60+ archetypes, 100s of feats. What are you worried about?
|
|
What is wrong with playing a fighter as a dueling gentleman? Or simply a cavalier without a mount, in light armor?
Nothing's stopping me, the character will just be kindof crappy if I'm avoiding a large chunk of what the class was designed for. Like if my cleric doesn't use channel energy, or if my rogue is str and con based. I can do it, it's just a terrible idea.
I don't see the point really. Paizo made known their intent to largely exclude fire-arms from their Golarion setting. The gunslinger is the fire-arm uber-class, and all other classes can take the feats needed to use firearms effectively. Why would you need more than that?
That's great for golarion. I was under the impression the core rulebooks were to be setting neutral. If I'm running a setting without them it's easy to not use them. If they want to exclude them from Golarion, there's no reason that the prices need to be the same in the setting as the core book which is supposed to be setting neutral. they could include a sidebar saying how much more they cost in golarion, or include the golarion prices in a golarion book.
Honestly, I'm happy with the way Paizo approaches this. You can houserule 100gp guns with proficiency gained as a trait if you want. The real rules should follow something akin to balance and sense.
I'm not seeing the balance and sense as is other than making them exorbitantly expensive for fluff reasons. Mechanically, the firearms are not good weapons for the cost in feats or in gold.
I want the option to have guns for characters who aren't all about guns. For characters who do some other stuff too. (or who mainly do other stuff)
What I want from Ultimate Combat is material I can use in my Pathfinder game. You know, the one with paladins and wizards and magic and castles and dungeons and dragons! I don't mind a bit if Paizo wants to publish cowboys, ninjas, astronauts, firemen, cavemen, international men of mystery, and sharecroppers, but I don't need them in any Pathfinder or D&D (excepting OA) game I've played.
I'm not saying no guns (obviously), just that the way they're being done makes them not a viable option unless you're a cowboy (and I'd rather have pirates in my games than cowboys).
I don't know about sense - but where is the balance in letting a gun cost 1000 gp and a single shot cost 10 gp? I simply don't see it...
Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit about lowering crime levels. something along the lines of "If bullets cost $5000 people wouldn't say 'that's awful' when someone gets shot, they'd say 'damn he must have done something bad'".
A level 5 character can comfortably afford a gun. More so than a mithril or adamantine weapon. That is also the level where I'm comfortable with an NPC possibly owning a gun. The last thing I want to see is level 1 characters running around with guns.
If the firearms are affordable for a starting character, then everybody would have one at level 1. The "attack touch AC" thing is just really good at all levels; particularly at level 1 where a lot depends on the dice roll.
At level 5 to 10 a gun even makes sense for a character that does NOT take the proficiency feats. Why? Because taking -4 to your attack is great if it means you need to hit a touch AC of 13 instead of a full AC of 21.[/i]
|
|
Well, I guess agree to disagree LoreKeeper. I'd say it's still not worth the money at those levels.
I'm okay with level 1 and two characters owning guns. Maybe not with the Touch AC bonus, but who knows. AC boosts from armor are smaller at early levels anyways.
But if I want to have firearms in my campaign, I'll want them as competitive weapon choices for price, damage, and utility, and I'll want nonmagic items to be priced as nonmagic items. (right now I can trade three of these things for a ship). If I'm including them I'll want them to be as attainable as other weapons of their utility.
So that said, I would want to see firearms as an option for *most* of the existing classes, in one way or another - especially the ones that get all martial weapons.
Well, okay then. What do you propose is a fair price and cost?
I don't think firearms should be less than exotic weapons; they are as "out there" as it gets in a fantasy setting. But maybe it is enough to create a trait that grants access to firearm proficiency. I think a sensible cost would be 400gp, but that the firearm is always masterwork.
I'm not sure if there are other feats that you'd like to roll-into-one to make the barrier of entry lower.
Paizo consciously makes the choice to keep the barrier of entry high. Suitable for a fantasy setting like Golarion. Then again, I think the kind of gun-setting you have in mind is more 1800 - pirate ships with cannons and swashbuckling heroes with (real) guns. Or perhaps more steam-punk. And in that case, yes, the gun mechanics presented to us up to now are not suitable. You will have to roll your own. The firearms portrayed in Pathfinder are still the first generation guns that were a lot less reliable and useful.
|
|
Well, okay then. What do you propose is a fair price and cost?
I don't think firearms should be less than exotic weapons; they are as "out there" as it gets in a fantasy setting. But maybe it is enough to create a trait that grants access to firearm proficiency. I think a sensible cost would be 400gp, but that the firearm is always masterwork.
I'm not sure if there are other feats that you'd like to roll-into-one to make the barrier of entry lower.
I get that Paizo wants them to have exotic flavor. But for them to be exotic weapons (and thus require an exotic weapon feat) they should be more powerful, or don't make them more powerful, but make them martial or even simple weapons.
And I think the price should be around 100 (150 would be a bit high) for a nonMWk firearm, and an MWK firearm should halve the malfunction rate. (using the current flintlock stats.)Paizo consciously makes the choice to keep the barrier of entry high. Suitable for a fantasy setting like Golarion. Then again, I think the kind of gun-setting you have in mind is more 1800 - pirate ships with cannons and swashbuckling heroes with (real) guns. Or perhaps more steam-punk. And in that case, yes, the gun mechanics presented to us up to now are not suitable. You will have to roll your own. The firearms portrayed in Pathfinder are still the first generation guns that were a lot less reliable and useful.
I'm thinking about 1600s-1700s pirates with guns and cannons and swashbuckling heroes. I don't mind having the firearms take like /two full rounds/ to load, and having rapid reload shorten it to 1 full round. (Not steampunk) - and what they have now are very unreliable versions of guns from the year 1800 or so (american civil war era) with flintlocks and revolvers (They're flintlock, not matchlock, and they dont have a firing tray that you pour gunpowder on to ignite), and then they have a class that's mid 1800s from the old west.
I would like see this an arch type of a gunslinger.
Fighter: Some kind of Swashbuckler-esque archetype maybe. Think 3 musketeers.
They use guns and then put them away in favor of swords. They are also more 'you have impeded my honor have at you' and not at all balls-to-the-wall. I don't think they'd work well as an archetype of gunslinger. Possibly cavalier (no horse, and light armor).
I was hoping that Ultimate Combat would focus on some new combat options or ideas. It sounds instead like it's more combat options devoted to character creation and advancement. After the APG, there's so many feats, skills, classes, etc., that all those choices are overwhelming.
Here's an idea of what I'm thinking about. Way back, in 2nd edition for AD&D, they had a 'combat & tactics' rulebook. One option I thought was pretty neat was a rules subset for dueling, which the DM could drag out and use for important antagonists.
What I'm saying is that my hope was 'Ultimate Combat' would actually be about combat and ways to make it more interesting, but it sounds from what I'm hearing that it's about more character creation options.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was hoping that Ultimate Combat would focus on some new combat options or ideas. It sounds instead like it's more combat options devoted to character creation and advancement. After the APG, there's so many feats, skills, classes, etc., that all those choices are overwhelming.
Here's an idea of what I'm thinking about. Way back, in 2nd edition for AD&D, they had a 'combat & tactics' rulebook. One option I thought was pretty neat was a rules subset for dueling, which the DM could drag out and use for important antagonists.
What I'm saying is that my hope was 'Ultimate Combat' would actually be about combat and ways to make it more interesting, but it sounds from what I'm hearing that it's about more character creation options.
+1 - That's a little like what I mentioned about skill DCs.
Rules that would help my game that we don't have (at least that I haven't seen)
- Wargaming Rules - Simplified like say, warmachine, but clearly D20 based - rules for using existing creatures/npcs. Feel free to do the conversion to the wargame aspect for me and sell me the monsters/NPCs as well. For covering battles with 30+Combatants. Make sure it's ranks optional in case we need some goblins using guerilla warfare. - Should read like d20 Combat Simplified.
- 3D Combat rules for aerial combat / aquatic combat.
- Naval Combat - Cover the ships and the cannons, DCs involved in boarding an enemy ship
- Siege weapons and rules for laying siege to fortresses.
- Fighting a beast from atop its back (Thank you KQ)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
My Wishlist for Ultimate Combat: (Some have been mentioned already)
- Rules for fighting in strange situations (Flying, Underwater, Free-Fall, Swinging from ropes, etc.)
- Rules for squad and army scale combat
- Rules for storming castles, commandeering ships, etc.
- Rules allowing fighting types to interact more with huge monsters and advantages for doing so(e.g. The fighter climbs up on the dragon...)
- More archetypes, especially those that replace class features like spellcasting and ki with other stuff (I love the Skirmish Ranger in APG).
- Alternatives for mounted classes that don't want/can't use a mount.
- A system like grit for all non-casters
- Feats specifically for archetypes
- More class feats (e.g. must be Barbarian 8 to take it)
- More Combat Maneuvers
- Movement Maneuvers (Running on walls, Sliding down Staircases, etc.)
- Out-of-combat uses for Base Attack Bonus and feats/options with high BAB requirements
- Alternatives to the full attack
- Abilities for Fighter/Barb/etc. which challenge enemy Fort/Refl/Will saves
- More options for mounted characters
Wishlist:
- A way to make a boxing character out of many classes excluding monk, so I can get away from orient characters. (Fighter, rogue, barb, alchemist I'm thinking)
-Alteratives for some of the classes to make them more fun to play sorta like the grit mechanic in the form of archtypes.
-New ways to use current skills. I don't ever want to see new skills though unless without a lot of good reason.
-Alternatives to cavalier's mounts, rangers pets/hunting party, and paladin mount/sword boons.
-New weapons, specifically hammers, chained throwing spears, and tonfa/elbowblades
-the archtypes in RPG Superstar, some of them are very nice
and I suppose most of the stuff listed above.
|
|
Options to replace the full attack seem good.
Here's one I picked up from
Shooting down flying enemies
Unfortunately, ALOT of this stuff (like you mention, shooting things down from the air) IS covered by the core rules, e.g. the Fly skill vs. taking damage. Unfortunately, the Core Rules just isn`t all that superstar in many regards (like taking damage while flying being a static DC easily auto-pass by mid-tier creatures). So in many cases it`s more a case of should-be Errata. And then we see the Gunslinger having UBER shootdown ability which incomprehensibly COMPLETELY BYPASSES the existing mechanic (Fly check) for doing so... Something in between the two extremes, and applicable to ALL in-flight damage, would seem to improve the game as a whole ALOT more, yet because that may well call for Errata, rather than new material to go into a new book, seems like it may fall to the side.
I'd like to see this addressed.
I'd like to see the steal maneuver combined with sleight of hand to steal things stealthily as an official thing. Like this.
Unify mechanics that are to accomplish almost the same thing. I dont mind overriding the original rule so long as the new one is a better mechanic.
|
|
I'm glad to hear it. :)
The things I was hearing for Ultimate combat weren't quite what I would want from such a book, and well, how are you to know what sorts of things we'd want if we don't tell you? :)
I want rules for weird combat situations, and rules for swashbucklery. My games, all of them, involve a great deal of buckles who need to be swashed. Even in land campaigns I try to run them that way - it's just more fun. If you guys could make that easier for me, then my games will be all the better for it. :)
That's actually why the firearm rules kindof disappoint me, they just don't support the buckling of swashes. I want to see the firearms that you draw, fire once, and put away until the end of combat, unless you have a round where you have nothing better to do than reload your gun. But I hear that there will be firearms with a more reasonable price range and accessibility as an optional thing. I hope they're both cheaper and don't require the exotic feat.
Oh. From what I recall, the stealth rules could use some polishing as well - there are a number of threads on this board that address what the problems of it are.
I'd very much like this book to be one of the best I buy in the upcoming year. Hopefully more great suggestions will pop up in this thread. I'll be sure to mention anything relevant that I think of. :)
I with Darkholme - on weird situations
I would like to see some way of using swinging from chandeliers or the rigging being part of an attack....enemy gets an attack of opportunity you get -4 to hit add your acrobatics to the attack roll + free bull rush or something of the alike.
Rules to run a Tournament - and an example of how one would work in a magical world.
Pit Fighting and Coliseums.
Just one thing Darkholme - War Boomerangs don't come back... the returning ones were toys or for hunting birds. In fact the way a fighting boomerang was made - you could use it in melee as a club.
|
|
Rules to run a Tournament - and an example of how one would work in a magical world.
Pit Fighting and Coliseums.
Just one thing Darkholme - War Boomerangs don't come back... the returning ones were toys or for hunting birds. In fact the way a fighting boomerang was made - you could use it in melee as a club.
I know. I was just spoiled by the Complete X book in 3.5 with returning boomerangs. (adventurer or warrior). I wouldn't mind a bladed one as well. Give me the boomerang for hunting birds. :) I'll use it to try to take down the flying wizard. If I miss, I get my boomerang back!
quick draw+hunting boomerang+BAB 6 - throwing multiple boomerangs in a round, which come back if they miss.
They may do less damage, but I think I'm okay with it.
I wouldn't mind bladed boomerangs either.
*I'd really like to see some rules for handling large combats.* There have been countless times where a combat had 50+ people, and frankly it's a nightmare to GM, and a bore to play.
A feat to add dex to dmg with light weapons and unarmed strikes
Archtypes for unarmed and/or unarmored combat
Feats that would make light weapons just as good as twohanded weapons
Like the idea of "elemental monks" like the "Avatar Last airbender"(the show not the movie).
I heard something about called shots will you need feats use them?
Rules to run a Tournament - and an example of how one would work in a magical world.
Pit Fighting and Coliseums.
Just one thing Darkholme - War Boomerangs don't come back... the returning ones were toys or for hunting birds. In fact the way a fighting boomerang was made - you could use it in melee as a club.
I know. I was just spoiled by the Complete X book in 3.5 with returning boomerangs. (adventurer or warrior). I wouldn't mind a bladed one as well. Give me the boomerang for hunting birds. :) I'll use it to try to take down the flying wizard. If I miss, I get my boomerang back!
quick draw+hunting boomerang+BAB 6 - throwing multiple boomerangs in a round, which come back if they miss.
They may do less damage, but I think I'm okay with it.
I wouldn't mind bladed boomerangs either.
*I'd really like to see some rules for handling large combats.* There have been countless times where a combat had 50+ people, and frankly it's a nightmare to GM, and a bore to play.
Ahh like the Feral Kid in Mad Max 2....
I kind of have some half formed minion rules..... all minions get 1 hit point per hit die.... all damage spells cast against minions do 1 point per damage die..
Translating that into a 50 on 50 battle.... I would roll to hit 5 times for each group of 10 and they would do average damage...
Its fairly vague and airy fairy but it is a quick resolution.
|
|
Please, give us a lot of boomerangs! And rules for pit fights, jousts, archery contests and stuff like that!
You know, I've read your post every day for six days, and I can't decide if that's an unusually high level of enthusiasm about trivial things, or if you're being sarcastic and insulting.
I'm going to assume you intend the latter, as I'm not sure mechanics for pit fights are needed, though jousts and archery contests might fit in somewhere. I also don't know what you could need "a lot of boomerangs!" for. I can only see a couple viable options for boomerangs:
1. The one in APG.
2. The one for hunting. It would be handy for flying targets, particularly frail ones, and if you miss, you can try again next round.
3. A bladed boomerang - admittably inspired by avatar the last airbender, it doubles as a hatchet, and seriously hurts if you hit someone.
Copied from another thread, not my idea. I want this so bad. IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO FIX THE FIGHTER.
Martial Academy:
You have attended a war college or fighter school.
Prerequisites: This feat can be selected at first level if you are selecting fighter as your first class.
Benefit: Your fighter class has 4 + Int modifier skill ranks per level. Add 3 skills of your choice to the list of class skills. One of those skills must be a Knowledge skill.
Normal: A fighter has 2 + Int modifier skill ranks per level.
Special: You may select a specific martial academy if allowed by the GM. A fighter may select this feat as his first level bonus feat and can not be exchanged for a different feat.
The idea about a regular grit based fighter would be awesome, too.
|
Please, give us a lot of boomerangs! And rules for pit fights, jousts, archery contests and stuff like that!You know, I've read your post every day for six days, and I can't decide if that's an unusually high level of enthusiasm about trivial things, or if you're being sarcastic and insulting.
I'm going to assume you intend the latter, as I'm not sure mechanics for pit fights are needed, though jousts and archery contests might fit in somewhere. I also don't know what you could need "a lot of boomerangs!" for. I can only see a couple viable options for boomerangs:
1. The one in APG.
2. The one for hunting. It would be handy for flying targets, particularly frail ones, and if you miss, you can try again next round.
3. A bladed boomerang - admittably inspired by avatar the last airbender, it doubles as a hatchet, and seriously hurts if you hit someone.
I'm sorry if I sounded sarcastic, that was not my intention. Honestly, I get excited with trivial things a lot, all the time. I'm the kind of guy who buys a car based in the number of useless stuff that comes on it.
I believe that pit fights and gladitorial games as a whole could use some specific rules, like ways to win the crowd and the benefits of it.
About the boomerangs, I'm a huge fan of comic books characters like Captain Boomerang, who has a lot of special boomerangs with different effects, so I'd like to see rules for one that, lets say, can be filled with acid or alchemist's fire, and breaks on impact.
|
|
Please, give us a lot of boomerangs! And rules for pit fights, jousts, archery contests and stuff like that!You know, I've read your post every day for six days, and I can't decide if that's an unusually high level of enthusiasm about trivial things, or if you're being sarcastic and insulting.
I'm going to assume you intend the latter, as I'm not sure mechanics for pit fights are needed, though jousts and archery contests might fit in somewhere. I also don't know what you could need "a lot of boomerangs!" for. I can only see a couple viable options for boomerangs:
1. The one in APG.
2. The one for hunting. It would be handy for flying targets, particularly frail ones, and if you miss, you can try again next round.
3. A bladed boomerang - admittably inspired by avatar the last airbender, it doubles as a hatchet, and seriously hurts if you hit someone.I'm sorry if I sounded sarcastic, that was not my intention. Honestly, I get excited with trivial things a lot, all the time. I'm the kind of guy who buys a car based in the number of useless stuff that comes on it.
I believe that pit fights and gladitorial games as a whole could use some specific rules, like ways to win the crowd and the benefits of it.
About the boomerangs, I'm a huge fan of comic books characters like Captain Boomerang, who has a lot of special boomerangs with different effects, so I'd like to see rules for one that, lets say, can be filled with acid or alchemist's fire, and breaks on impact.
No worries. just wasn't sure where you were ging with that post. :)
Oh, and if we could see Dex replacing Strength for damage in finesse weapons in some form or the other, similar to Dervish Dance, that'd be great.
I'd really like to see alot of martial feats for the different monk archetypes. I'm currently on a Drunk Monk binge and here is what I have come up with.
Drunken Stagger
Your drunken steps fool enemies around you, allowing you to move past their blows and stumble erratically through them.
Prerequisites: drunken ki class feature
Benefit: As long as you have one drunken ki point in reserve, you gain a +2 dodge bonus. In addition, you may charge without moving in a straight line towards your target.
Normal: When charging, you have to move in a straight, unimpeded line towards your opponent.
Special: This feat is available as a bonus feat for the monk at level 6
|
|
Archetypes and Feats
- A Monk with a more Mundane approach, and no Ki Pool.
- A monk with support for natural weapons.
- A monk with Sorcerer Bloodline type abilities, and maybe a spells like a paladin or so instead of ki abilities.
- Spell-less paladin.
- Paladin with Ki Pool.
- Ninja without Ki Pool - maybe spell points.
- Fighter with Monklike AC Bonus instead of armor proficiency.
- A Monk with a more Mundane approach, and no Ki Pool.
- A monk with support for natural weapons.
- A monk with Sorcerer Bloodline type abilities, and maybe a spells like a paladin or so instead of ki abilities.
- Spell-less paladin.
- Paladin with Ki Pool.
- Ninja without Ki Pool - maybe spell points.
- Fighter with Monklike AC Bonus instead of armor proficiency.
There is already a spellless paladin in the APG
|
|
There is already a spellless paladin in the APG- A Monk with a more Mundane approach, and no Ki Pool.
- A monk with support for natural weapons.
- A monk with Sorcerer Bloodline type abilities, and maybe a spells like a paladin or so instead of ki abilities.
- Spell-less paladin.
- Paladin with Ki Pool.
- Ninja without Ki Pool - maybe spell points.
- Fighter with Monklike AC Bonus instead of armor proficiency.
Hmm. so there is.. I've missed that on every read through I've done on that section since I got the book months ago. lol.
|
|
Cross compatible skill uses:
If I have Profession Locksmith, Or craft Traps, or Knowledge Engineering, Why can't I use them in the appropriate situation instead of disable device?
For that matter: Why Can't I use my Know: Engineering to build things? Maybe with a -2 or something.
Just a thought. It's always kindof bugged me.
Smaller archetypes: I really like archetypes that can be mixed together. Archetypes that only swap out one or two abilities are far superior to me than those that swap out many, unless absolutely necessary, because I like having the highly customizeable classes that come from combining sever archetypes together.
|
|
Fighter Archetype:
Unarmed Fighter
Lose: Martial Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Training 2, Weapon Training 4
Gain: Unarmed Strike - As a monk of 3/4 your level (Minimum 1).
Unarmored Fighter
Lose: Armor Training, Armor Mastery, Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency, Tower Shield Proficiency
Gain: Good Reflex Save, Monk-like AC Progression (Int Based, works with shields (but not tower shields)).
Feat:
Versatile Training
You have received some formal education which improve your skills.
Prerequisites: Int 13 or higher.
Benefit: Choose one of your classes. That class has 2 additional skill ranks per level. Add 3 skills of your choice to the list of class skills. One of those skills must be a Knowledge skill. Any new skill points are added retroactively if applicable.
Normal: The class has however many ranks per level as normally mentioned.
Special: This feat may be chosen multiple times. Its benefits do not stack. Instead, each time it is taken it applies to a different class.
Special: This feat can be chosen as a bonus feat in any list, and can not be exchanged for a different feat.
Not sure if someone already said it... a device to reload one-handed crossbows with one hand.
If not realistic, maybe a magic one.
|
|
Not sure if someone already said it... a device to reload one-handed crossbows with one hand.
If not realistic, maybe a magic one.
That's kindof cool.
Alt. Monks
- Ki becomes spells.
- Ki Becomes some fighter feats & monk levels stack with fighter levels for qualifying for them.
- Rogue Talents, like with the Skirmisher.
On the topic of Alt. Skill uses,
Disable device would be the catch-all, but the other skills that overlap could apply in the right situation.
I wouldn't mind seeing the ability to use know(engineering) to build mechanical things, or mechanical traps, or things with difficult structural integrity (like bridges). Or Survival to build wilderness traps (like in the movie Pathfinder) - Covered up spiked pit traps with sharpened wooden stake spikes, Rigs where a branch swings around and impales you, etc.
I'd like to see the overlaps apply better. Preferably officially.
The Grit system is one of the coolest things I have ever seen, rules wise, in an rpg. I know hero points from APG kind of go into that territory, but I really want to see a Grit-like system extended to all classes. A mechanic that BEGS players to do amazingly cool things is something that every character should have.
This goes hand in hand with Darkholme's suggestion for new lists of DCs for skills that peg down numbers for really cinematic and cool uses of skills. Heck, even a system of suggested combos of skill checks to do really cool actions would be awesome:
Acrobatics + Swim to do a backflip into a swan dive off a ledge into water.
Acrobatics + Climb to do a wall run followed by leaping off onto a higher ledge.
Climb + Perception to shoot a bow while hanging upside down from a tree or rope.
Regardless, just a mechanical basis for doing awesomely heroic things and a system for rewarding attempts to do so would be a great step forward for Pathfinder, as well as making it even more unique in its playstyle.
I would like to see an Archetype for a mounted infantryman in the Style of the Australian Light Horse or the European Dragoons.
That is: Musket and pistol armed, lightly armoured highly mobile infantry.
I would like the (Dragoon/light horseman) Archetype adapted for 4 different character classes - The fighter, Ranger, gunslinger and Cavalier - to demonstrate the flexibility of a concept.
|
|
I'm holding out for the Dex modifier adds to damage feat or class ability. It's one of the few things keeping PF from being the perfect game in my book.
Yes, I know there are a million workarounds. One of my PCs uses the "Shadow Blade" feat from the 3.5 ToB, another uses the Swashbuckler from the 3.5 Complete Warrior, but I'd love to see a more elegant solution in a PF book that is PFS legal, and something I can easily point a newb towards.
"You want to play a duelist or combat rogue? Start with this feat, then take whatever build you want!"
pretty sure this feat already exists..... called dervish dance... has a couple restrictions but you should look it up on the SRD.
|
|
I'd like to see the option of building gear independent characters.
Characters who can hold their own with no expensive magic gear, who still match their CR.
I dont need fancy tricks or options, just some nice ways to shore up the numbers for NPCs so I can have Player Party of adventurers A fight NPC Party of adventurers B and give them Treasure By encounter instead of suggested NPC Gear, and have the NPCs not be weak. Then the players won't get inordinately wealthy fighting armies of humans or elves, or a mages guild, or a thieves' guild, or what have you.
I'd like it to match the 3 xp tracks.
So I could make a 7th level wizard with 1750 in gear (slow track) who is on par power wise with a 7th level wizard with 2600 in gear(medium) who is on par with a 7th level wizard with 3900 in gear(fast) who is on par with the 7th level wizard with 6000 in gear by the rules in Core.
|
|
I should not that I don't mean like 4e. I very much want to avoid a situation where the NPC has a flaming holy sword which is just a regular sword when the players get it, or magic items that are mundane to the players. I just want to be able to shore up the numbers.
Combat classes would get scaling to hit and damage bonuses and AC, and maybe a save bonus (possibly smaller based on the track, as higher track will have more expensive items to make up the difference), wizards would get some scaled saves, and maybe some extra spells per day of low levels (since they wont have wands), etc. And a few of the common types of defensive magic items that have boring abilities, like a save bonus, or bracers of armor, etc, worked in at appropriate levels.
I'd like to see feat trees for specific weapons. Similar to the Fighter archetypes in APG but expanded to specialties like swords, axes, hammers, flails, whips (especially whips) so that characters with a certain weapon can feel more different than other fighters with different weapon types.
+100