Spell dancer is tough to play at low levels; not enough AC. You're a glass cannon, even more so than most magi.
A Magus doesn't get medium armor normally until 7th; a spell dancer has access to all the same armor that a standard magus of the same level does, unless he burned a feat to get better proficiency. They'll both probably start out wearing chain shirts, but since a spell dancer build will probably go the dervish route, he'll be getting more DEX bonus to his AC.
So if you're in a situation where you're denied your DEX, then yes - you're probably in trouble - but not really that much worse-off than the standard STR-based Magus.
By 7th, you should have a set of Elven Chain (with a +1 if possible). With Dance of Avoidance kicking in (which you get to keep with Elven Chain), you should be looking at an unbuffed AC of 23, or a 27 with Shield up.
[edit]
That is what the racial archetypes are really for, they are there to give more options and more flavor to people who actually like some kind of cool background or story to tell which doesn't involve every aspect of the min/max of this game.
This is one of the reasons I actually like the Spell Dancer; it doesn't sacrifice all that much effectiveness and adds some interesting flavor. For example, my Spell Dancer is on his 'walkabout' from an Elven school of magic in Katapesh, trying to learn more about "the Dance" through his travels and adventures.
|
What do you mean "practically invisible?" Any goblin who maxes out stealth is "practically invisible."
A goblin how maxes out stealth isn't practically invisible. IF he doesn't have cover/concealment and/or is being observed.. No stealth for Goblin.
Sabator grants Imp Invisibility for 1 hour per level. Cept True Seeing pierces through that like a wet paper sack.
So.. you use the level 12 ability of the mutagen.. HIPS /anywhere/ regardless of lighting conditions.
Oh.. but scent? Block Aroma Tremorsense? Flight Blindsense/Sight? Dampen Presence.
You cannot be seen, smelt, tremored, or echolocated.. Nondetection for any other magical methods to detect you.. and bam. Totally invisible. All day long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do racial archetypes mechanically suck? No, most of them are pretty good. Where racial archetypes fall flat is that they represent a retrogression in Pathfinder design philosophy.
What do I mean by this? Well, take a look at the Arcane Archer prestige class. In the First printing of the Core Rulebook, it was restricted to elves and half-elves only because of tradition. When the Advanced Player's Guide came out, the Dwarven Defender, also a DMG staple alongside the Arcane Archer, was completely designed into the Stalwart Defense and lost its racial restriction. Several years later, the Arcane Archer's racial restriction was errata'd out of existence.
Why did this happen? Presumably because options in a Core rulebook do not need to be restricted to a single type of character.
This is all well and good, but then the Advanced Race Guide comes out, and what does it do? Restricts a whole bunch of options to a specific race! Now, the feats aren't really a bad thing, but the awkwardness comes in when we consider racial archetypes and racial spells. Why can't an elf teach a gnome those tricks? If they did, why can't the gnome spread the knowledge around even more? Where's the bottleneck?
In my opinion, the only archetype in the entire book that makes sense being restricted to a single race is the Caravan Sniper fighter archetype for the drow because it gives a strong mechanical reason why the archetype is drow-only, the archetype is completely based around the drow spell-like ability mechanic. All of the other archetypes should be available to anyone.
I think the Advanced Race Guide would have been a better book if all of Chapter One was dedicated to the book's races (like the Advanced Player's Guide), Chapter Two was dedicated to class archetypes that were available to everyone but listed recommended races, Chapter Three was new feats, Chapter Four was new Spells, Chapter Five was magic items, and then Chapter Six was the Race Builder. I understand why the book was constructed in the way it is, but overall the restrictions feel out of place alongside other changes made to the d20 system by Paizo.
Here's a quick list of some archetypes that don't make sense suffering restrictions, in my opinion.
» Buccaneer (Human Gunslinger) Only humans can be pirates? Did anyone tell the Tengu in the Skulls and Shackles AP?
» Wild Child (Human Druid) Only human can be Tarzan?
» Stonelord (Human Paladin) I get the dwarven connection to stone, but don't you think that this makes even more sense for Oreads?
» (Half-Elf Witch) I can never remember this archetype's name, but it gets the most generic abilities ever! And it falls squarely into the category of archetypes everyone wanted, and the fluff regarding why it is half-elven only is terrible. A changeling with a spellbook as her familiar makes far more sense than a half-elf with a pretty necklace.
» Treesinger (Elf Druid) This is another archetype that everyone wanted, the iconic plant druid. Why is it elf only? I get elves are closer to nature, but gnomes are fey. Wouldn't that make then even more qualified for this archetype? And again, a plant druid is something that got ignored from Ultimate Magic AND Ultimate Combat that confused a lot of people.
Oh.Great, people can't see you. How much of your combat efficacy does that do away with?You chose to be a gnome in the first place. How much of your combat efficacy does that do away with?
to quote the dungeon bastard "gnomes...really!?!"
|
|
Just because the stat doesn't line up, doesn't make it /not/ helpful.
But obviously what you are suppose to do is play human, racial heritage that stuff out.
But with dhampir's there is three things that kill them for me to play as a wizard
1) Positive kills them. (This kills them for me every time)
2) Like said, stats don't line up
3) The favored class bonus. Wizards don't get much negative energy spells. So.. wtf is up with this?
Lemme also go back to the Sabator here..
Combat efficiency, you are probably looking for DPR more than really CE. Cause seriously, lets just put this into perspective here.
You just took an arrow with 10d6 points of sneak attack damage. You are now bleeding 10 hp a round. And you just suffered ability damage. Where do you attack?
Cruromancer, for example, which is a good archetype IMO, is for dhampir. They don't make good wizards! +2 DEX, +2 CHA, -2 CON? Not helpful.
I don't have my book on me and most websites are blocked here at work, but I want to say that Blood of the Night(or whatever it was called) gives some better options.
While some archetypes really do crap out, some are definitely better.
Feral Gnasher. Builds a completely different barbarian and actually gives the tiny little terrors of greenness a great archetype. Impromptu Armadment gives any improvised weapon user a crucial advantage. The ability to pick up your weapons (and anything that can fit in one hand, like gold and gems) for free. Improvised weapons not your thing? The whole lockjaw angle works wonders with animal fury and hive totem. with animal fury, you can bite someone, grab gives you free grapple attempt, animal fury gives you second attack. It doubles your damage quite nicely :)
Prankster While mock isnt very good, it replaces a really bad ability and can also be used in combat. Its similar to fear and stacks with it. Punchline is great as hedious laughter is a great debuff and you can use it multiple times (think of a disabling spell usable 15+ times a day at 6th level?). Swap is a real gem as slight of hand is so much easier to boost then CMB (especially for a small, strength dumped gnome). Steal that weapon hanging on its belt and replace it with a toothpick? Replace that wand of CLW with a wand of fireball? It has uses :)
Swarm Fighter Is pretty good for a dex based fighter (after the first hump), especially at mid levels (and especially if you have someone else with teamwork feats, otherwise thats useless :P) Strangly enough you get to keep armor training...
Stonelord Paladin Really is vastly different than a standard paladin. Instead of high damaging smite, decent saves (if you have a high cha), spells, some cha based abilities and a lackluster capstone, you gain 13 immunities (by level 20), a different smite ability at lower levels (agreed that its weaker mid/high, but great at low levels) granting you the ability to deal with constructs, a very mobile defensive stance (the one mercy you get removes fatigue), argubaly the best pet in the game and good AC/DR. While vastly different, I would not argue weaker, just build it like a tanky barbarian/fighter hybird rather than a support/uber damage dealer with casting on the side. Even without Divine Grace, hardy, steel soul, glory of old and primary will saves will make you quite resistant.
Fell Rider coupled with the hobgoblins natural ability to intimidate, this can create one of the better intimidators around and its mount is no slouch either. At level 4, expect something like 15+Cha intimidate without feats or traits or anything. Order of the cockatrice and 1 level dip of thug is also quite strong.
Alchemists have some good ones :) Fire bomber is... Good. Bonus on bomb splashes, convert bombs to fire damage and gain early (and potionable!) elemental body (greater fire body sucks). Plus goblins get great bonus discoveries. Obviously dont take this onto the plane of fire or against fire immune heavy campaigns.
Saboteur Complex bombs is nice (allowing you to do some otherwise impossible things) and hide in plain sight is good as well. makes a decent bomber/scouter. At level 20, he becomes as good as the ninja at sneaking. Id say about equal to vanilla alchemist.
Bushwacker pairs nicely with the Pistolero for some great bonus damage on pistol shots (think sneak attacker with pistols).
Wild Caller trades versatility for a more focused and stronger eidolon because of all the extra evolutions you can give it (+10 evolutions by level 20). Losing SM for SNA sucks, but it is ment to be focused mostly on the eidolon :P I think it is very strong.
Well that is a few of the ones I know. Enough anyways to disprove the original posters question. I heartily disagree with it!
Prankster swaps the wizards wand of CLW with a wand of fireball.
Wizard "Dont worry buddy! Ill save you!" pulls out wand of fireball and casts it on badly injured teammate. BOOOM!
Wizard: D8
You get the idea ;)
What? NO. They're awesome and cool.
You got Tarzan and wandering kung fu guys, gadget wielding gunslingers, and midgets that ride wolves into battle. I don't know what planet all those things suck on.
I liked them so much I tried my hand at making some myself.
Another thing for Stonelord, a Celestial Earth Elemental will be better than your average Celestial Horse. But if you don't like the Stonelord, that is your call.
The earth elemental totally sux. It starts with 13hp if I remember right and remains that way for some levels. The next version, medium size, again is totally squishy for the levels you have it.
Perhaps it may be better in the endgame, but really how often does that come to play?I liked the stonelord, don't get me wrong. But at the lower levels the earth elemental is completely useless.
argubaly the best pet in the game
Perhaps I'm just reading it wrong but every threat here on the boards stated that you get the elemental with the celestial template. But no additional powers, no additional hp just a weak elemental that isn't even high enough to really benefit from being celestial when you first get it. Because it has 2 or 3 HD and the celestial template doesn't get DR and resistances until 5HD.
Or are you all only looking at the level 20 version?
Do racial archetypes mechanically suck? No, most of them are pretty good. Where racial archetypes fall flat is that they represent a retrogression in Pathfinder design philosophy.
What do I mean by this? Well, take a look at the Arcane Archer prestige class. In the First printing of the Core Rulebook, it was restricted to elves and half-elves only because of tradition. When the Advanced Player's Guide came out, the Dwarven Defender, also a DMG staple alongside the Arcane Archer, was completely designed into the Stalwart Defense and lost its racial restriction. Several years later, the Arcane Archer's racial restriction was errata'd out of existence.
Why did this happen? Presumably because options in a Core rulebook do not need to be restricted to a single type of character.
This is all well and good, but then the Advanced Race Guide comes out, and what does it do? Restricts a whole bunch of options to a specific race! Now, the feats aren't really a bad thing, but the awkwardness comes in when we consider racial archetypes and racial spells. Why can't an elf teach a gnome those tricks? If they did, why can't the gnome spread the knowledge around even more? Where's the bottleneck?
In my opinion, the only archetype in the entire book that makes sense being restricted to a single race is the Caravan Sniper fighter archetype for the drow because it gives a strong mechanical reason why the archetype is drow-only, the archetype is completely based around the drow spell-like ability mechanic. All of the other archetypes should be available to anyone.
I think the Advanced Race Guide would have been a better book if all of Chapter One was dedicated to the book's races (like the Advanced Player's Guide), Chapter Two was dedicated to class archetypes that were available to everyone but listed recommended races, Chapter Three was new feats, Chapter Four was new Spells, Chapter Five was magic items, and then Chapter Six was the Race Builder. I understand why the book was constructed in the way it is, but...
The spells in this section are common to spellcasting members of the race. Sometimes they only target members of the race, but often they are just the race’s well guarded secrets; members of other races can learn to cast them with GM permission.
Play however you and your DM decide is most fun.
Another thing for Stonelord, a Celestial Earth Elemental will be better than your average Celestial Horse. But if you don't like the Stonelord, that is your call.The earth elemental totally sux. It starts with 13hp if I remember right and remains that way for some levels. The next version, medium size, again is totally squishy for the levels you have it.
Perhaps it may be better in the endgame, but really how often does that come to play?I liked the stonelord, don't get me wrong. But at the lower levels the earth elemental is completely useless.
argubaly the best pet in the gamePerhaps I'm just reading it wrong but every threat here on the boards stated that you get the elemental with the celestial template. But no additional powers, no additional hp just a weak elemental that isn't even high enough to really benefit from being celestial when you first get it. Because it has 2 or 3 HD and the celestial template doesn't get DR and resistances until 5HD.
Or are you all only looking at the level 20 version?
The Stonelord gains the earth elemental as a paladin who gains his like a druid of his level.
That means 5 hd (what an animal companion gets at that level) and I assume those are d10, not d8 but I might be wrong, and additional 2 Natural Armor Bonus and +1 str/con. You also gain 3 feats (debatable weather you are locked into power attack and imp bull rush or not) plus you get the celestial template at level 5 instead of 11th so +5 elemental resistances and 1/day smite. Plus it starts at 6 int instead of 2 or 3.Then it improves at level 8, 11, 14, 17 and 20 instead of just 4 or 7. Is it miles ahead of the regular companions? Probably not but it is still good. And tanky, like the stonelord.
The Stonelord gains the earth elemental as a paladin who gains his like a druid of his level.
That means 5 hd (what an animal companion gets at that level) and I assume those are d10, not d8 but I might be wrong, and additional 2 Natural Armor Bonus and +1 str/con. You also gain 3 feats (debatable weather you are locked into power attack and imp bull rush or not) plus you get the celestial template at level 5 instead of 11th so +5 elemental resistances and 1/day smite. Plus it starts at 6 int instead of 2 or 3.
Then it improves at level 8, 11, 14, 17 and 20 instead of just 4 or 7. Is it miles ahead of the regular companions? Probably not but it is still good. And tanky, like the stonelord.
Let's not forget how nice of a scout that little guy is.
Play however you and your DM decide is most fun.
I do.
Doesn't help all of those poor people in Pathfinder Society.
|
@Alexander Augunas: I hear what you are saying about the Racial Archetypes. I personally would allow anything that is half-human to take racial heritage, Oreads to take Dwarf Blood and be counted as if they also had Racial Heritage Dwarf, and anything connected to another race (Like elf and drow) to take racial heritage for the other race. These are houserules, but most of the racial archetypes that are allowed in society, at least the ones I like to play, are best for one race.
@Umbranas: Gobo Horde is right about the elemental being an animal companion and it scales better than a lot of companions, and earth glide makes him a great scout, like xexys said. But again, if you don't like the flavor or features of an archetype, fine that's your call. I can see why you may not like stonelord.
|
Sky Druid looks kinda of fun. Anyone tried it out yet?
I'll be getting a race boon for GMing at GenCon that will let me play one of the elemental races in PFS, so I was looking at this for a sylph. My main problem is that I don't know druids well enough to know what to do with it. I was actually planning to start a thread asking for advice.
I've been enjoying playing a gnome prankster bard. It's one of those archetypes that keeps the core class abilities intact (Inspire Courage, Inspire Competence, Bardic Knowledge, spellcasting), but trades out some lesser used stuff for something flavorful and at least slightly useful (give up fascination and suggestion to be able to debuff enemies in battle by making fun of them).
By 7th, you should have a set of Elven Chain (with a +1 if possible). With Dance of Avoidance kicking in (which you get to keep with Elven Chain), you should be looking at an unbuffed AC of 23, or a 27 with Shield up.Why would you get Elven Chain instead of plain old mithral chainmail? They have the exact same stats, except the Elven Chain costs 1000g more.
Mithral chainmail is still considered medium armor for purposes of proficiency. Elven Chain states explicitly that it counts as light armor even for proficiency purposes.
soooo I just realized that scarred witch doctor and winter witch could stack, since winter witch doesn't say it modifies their familiar, of course that could have been errata'd.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
@Umbranas: Gobo Horde is right about the elemental being an animal companion and it scales better than a lot of companions, and earth glide makes him a great scout, like xexys said. But again, if you don't like the flavor or features of an archetype, fine that's your call. I can see why you may not like stonelord.
There have been several threads about the stone lord and his companion and all of them came to the conclusion that the earth elemental is just the one from the bestiary + celestial template. So I'm curious how you and gobo horde come to the conclusion that they get to skale as an AC.
As much as I'd like what you say to be true, I see no support for it in the rules text.
|
|
Which ones did you pick?
*rudely inserts himself into the conversation despite not being addressed*
For a PC I've idly statted up for Reign of Winter (who I'll probably never get to play thanks to being a GM...), I chose burning hands, resist energy, fireball, telekinetic charge, telekinesis, disintegrate, reverse gravity, polymorph any object, and disjunction. Different campaigns and character concepts will obviously call for different picks.
'Core' Races
Exarch Inquisitor - Dwarf - totally on par
Ancient Lore Keeper Oracle - Elf - totally on par
Spell Dancer Magus - Elf - totally on par
Spellbinder Wizard - Elf - great
Treesinger Druid - Elf - totally on par
Saboteur Alchemist - Gnome - totally on par
Bonded Witch - 1/2Elf - totally on par
Bramble Brewer Alchemist - 1/2Elf - totally on par
Wild Caller Summoner - 1/2Elf - great
Wild Shadow Ranger - 1/2Elf - totally on par
Blood God Disciple Summoner - 1/2Orc - totally on par
Hateful Rager Barbarian -1/2Orc - totally on par
Redeemer Paladin -1/2Orc - great
Skulking Slayer Rogue -1/2Orc - great
Filcher Rogue - Halfling - great
Order of the Paw Cavalier - Halfling - great
Feral Child Druid - Human - great
Imperious Bloodline Sorceror - Human - totally on par
I get that not every Racial Archetype is great, but neither is every non-Racial Archetype (or base Class).
I get that some of what they do might not call out to a specific player, but same thing goes there.
I get that some of the Racial ties seem un-necessarily restrictive, but that isn't a problem with the concept of Racial Archetypes per se,
but just a detail of implementation (some could be multi-Race Archetypes, some could not be Racial Archetypes at all, that doesn't mean that Racial Archetypes as a concept is illegitimate).
I really think people judge Archetypes as a whole too harshly, that they must be the uber-optimizing materia, rather than accepting that just being on par with vanilla classes, expanding some niches but neglecting others, is acceptable design. That can be your criteria for your own characters/games, but many people don't look for that. Certainly for experienced players, they may not feel the need to play on 'easy mode' with an ultra-optimized build.
Every Archetype adds a unique feel to the character while some are best saved for NPCs (Vanilla Crossbowman Archetype) they can still be used.
That has nothing to do with racial archetypes in particular, or even archetypes in general.
Some base classes are just not as powerful by that metric. If you can't stand something not measuring up in total
(much less on 1:1 ability replacement, which isn't the design metric for archetypes)
you will already have a problem with aspects of the core game... So worst case, these are just fitting in with those aspects of the core game.
If you want to ignore those aspects for PCs and NPCs you use, feel free, but the game and it's designers consider them to have a place.
Fitting in with the core game is the definition of good design, if you don't like Pathfinder's core design, maybe it's not the game for you.
It doesn't really matter if something is 'overall' weaker, an option exists because it does what it does.
If you want what it does, then that option helps you do that.
Not to mention so many people seem to assess these things only from a PC perspective, valuing only what they perceive as enhancing their own imaginary ego vehicle, rather than addressing game design as such.
A less powerful archetype can be a great option for an NPC with a more powerful than average class.
Never mind that the question "Do all Racial Archetypes suck?" seems to be clearly answered by just looking at the number of them that don't. Could somebody think a given archetype sucks? Sure. So what? You don't have to use it, just like you don't have to use Skill Focus: Craft(Basketweaving). The idea that everything in the game must be a power-equivalent option for optimizers to deploy is just not reflected in this game's core design. The fact remains that the game's difficultly level is hugely in PCs' favor following standard APL encounter guidelines, and you do not at all need to have every class ability optimally contributing to your "power" to complete the game as envisioned and as exemplified in Paizo APs. If some players need minmax optimized abilities to somehow compensate for their limited gaming wiles, their fear of any possibility of failure, or some other personal weakness, that's their problem, not the game designers.
|
|
Sometimes you have things like Wordcasting vs Normal spells.
Normal spells have AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of these effects.
Wordspells on the other hand have all these effects. And just barely that.
There needs to be more word spells out there.. but honestly, if they would have gone..
"Elemental Bolt - 1st level ability - Does elemental (F,S,A,C, or L) damage of xd6"
You would have imo a great word spell there. Enough of that, the basic point is they replace the spells we know and love. The effects we desire even.
Could somebody think a given archetype sucks? Sure. So what? You don't have to use it, just like you don't have to use Skill Focus: Craft(Basketweaving).
No, its a little more than that. Its not something that you just go "Oh this archetype sucks, but I don't have to use it so I can ignore it."
Sorry, but its not the same as Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving).
Skill focus is skill focus, regardless of the skill used and can be used for many other things.
Lets say you wanted to play a Pirate, a buccaneer in fact. And then the ARG comes out and says "All Buccaneers are human."
Yeah. Why?
This may or may not be a bad archetype, but seriously.. there will never ever be another buccaneer. Its done. If you want to play one, you gotta play this archetype, or figure out how to piece it together yourself to actually play it. So you don't get all the pirate themed abilities you wanted. Cause you made the mistake of not wanting to be human, or wanting something the Archetype replaces.
That is part of the issue here you know with some of it? You can't just simply ignore it. It took it, it took all of it. That is your pirate themed archetype for gunslinger. Now the creators that be move on to something else, and never touch such a subject again.
|
|
Lets say you wanted to play a Pirate, a buccaneer in fact. And then the ARG comes out and says "All Buccaneers are human."
Yeah. Why?
You keep bringing up buccaneer...I don't think it means what you think it means. "Buccaneer" is not a straight-up synonym for "pirate". "Buccaneer" had a political meaning meaning, basically, "anti-Spanish, and in the market for those who would pay to raid Spanish shipping or settlements". Of all pirates, buccaneers were especially apt to turn privateer. In Golarion, obviously, it never had that specific meaning, but the point is clear: not all pirates are buccaneers, in any setting.
Fortunately, all is not lost for our hypothetical friend who wants to play a class that has a pirate-themed name. The Rogue has a pirate archetype. The Fighter has a corsair archetype. Again, corsair isn't exactly a synonym for pirate, and again that's okay. Not happy with these not being gunslinger archetypes? Well, both Rogues and Fighters can use guns, Rogues can even use grit, and you can always dip standard Gunslinger if that isn't good enough.
|
|
While I'm not saying I disagree with any of your ratings in particular, I'd appreciate it if you didn't simply say, "this is great" without a reason. It doesn't really help much. Asides from that, I appreciate the input.
Spellbinder Wizard This basically gives you much, though not all, of the versatility you get from a bonded object with none of the risks associated with either the bonded object or the familiar. Instead of having to invest resources in protecting your arcane bond and your spellbook from theft and destruction, you only have to spend resources protecting your spellbook. As I pointed out earlier, your bond spells tend to be ones you might want to cast at any time, and might want to cast often enough that scrolls start becoming expensive, but don't want to have prepared at all times: things like damage spells and certain types of utility spells.
Wild Caller Summoner I'm not really familiar enough with eidolon mechanics to comment on the changes to that class feature. But the opinion is fairly prevalent that the summon nature's ally spells are, especially at low levels, superior to the summon monster spells. I'm not sure I agree with that, but if true, then trading out summon monster for summon nature's ally spells is a strong option.
Redeemer Paladin This archetype changes the standard Paladin's code to permit adventuring with Evil allies. The changes to Smite Evil are also presented as optional, so they don't actually weaken the ability any. Monstrous Rapport and Pact of Peace are weaker than Detect Evil and Aura of Resolve, but that's a small price to pay for a less restrictive code.
Skulking Slayer Rogue Using d8s instead of d6s, this archetype will get a truly enormous amount of damage...if they manage to pull off a charging sneak attack. I'd imagine that this tactic works best if the party's helping you, which isn't all that great, but hey, it's a team game. Targets of Cleave and Great Cleave are also subject to Sneak Attack with this archetype, which is something truly wonderful.
Filcher Rogue I disagree that this is "great" in any meaningful sense.
Order of the Paw Cavalier This isn't strictly an archetype, but an optional class feature that only halflings can take; all others have to choose one of the normal Cavalier orders. As for the features, again, not really "great". Canine Ferocity allows the halfling's companion to make Combat Maneuver checks as if it were a horse, that is, it brings a halfling up to par with a human. Giant Slayer's bonus damage is sweet, however, and it multiplies on a critical hit.
Feral Child Druid I really disagree that this is "great". Native Cunning is much, much worse than Wild Shape, and the bonus to summoning that Native Call provides is both too weak and comes too late to make up for it.
|
|
Lets say you wanted to play a Pirate, a buccaneer in fact. And then the ARG comes out and says "All Buccaneers are human."
Yeah. Why?
You keep bringing up buccaneer...I don't think it means what you think it means. "Buccaneer" is not a straight-up synonym for "pirate". "Buccaneer" had a political meaning meaning, basically, "anti-Spanish, and in the market for those who would pay to raid Spanish shipping or settlements". Of all pirates, buccaneers were especially apt to turn privateer. In Golarion, obviously, it never had that specific meaning, but the point is clear: not all pirates are buccaneers, in any setting.
Fortunately, all is not lost for our hypothetical friend who wants to play a class that has a pirate-themed name. The Rogue has a pirate archetype. The Fighter has a corsair archetype. Again, corsair isn't exactly a synonym for pirate, and again that's okay. Not happy with these not being gunslinger archetypes? Well, both Rogues and Fighters can use guns, Rogues can even use grit, and you can always dip standard Gunslinger if that isn't good enough.
The name is hardly the importance here. It could be called Tiddlywinks. But its powers, abilities, and class features are all geared to being a pirate. (You know, be on a ship, plunder booty and all that) Then the pirate themed archetype has come and gone.
The 'history' lesson of whatever happened in the real world is hardly needed. Cause in the real world, Pirates didn't go fighting dragons, and golems. They didn't have magic or spells or anything like that. Cause /this/ is Golarion.
The point of the matter is
As a gunslinger (Cause you want to actually use guns fully. Rogues can't use grit any better than any other class that isn't a gunslinger.)
The Sniper (Bushwacker) Pirate (Bucanneer) Strange firearm inventor (The Gnome one) and the 'thug' (Gulchgunner) have been made. The thug is a little bit looser, but you are probably not going to see another pirate like archetype or sniper archetype for gunslinger.
And like I said, You can hobcob together using your feats, a sort of pirate if you wanted to, but its not quite the same thing as having an archetype. There are some abilities you just will never get, and it gets expensive to scrap things together to be one. Not GP wise, but feat wise.
but again, Pirate itself is hardly the important thing. The important thing here is once an archtype with a certain theme is made, they are not gonna make another usually.
|
|
The 'history' lesson of whatever happened in the real world is hardly needed. Cause in the real world, Pirates didn't go fighting dragons, and golems. They didn't have magic or spells or anything like that. Cause /this/ is Golarion.
The point I was trying to make, that you seem to have missed, is that not all pirates on Earth were buccaneers, and not all pirates on Golarion need to be buccaneers either. In fact, very few pirates on Golarion will ever be buccaneers, because guns aren't actually that common. But that's in-universe, and you clearly care about players. Fine. I'll stick my neck out and say that not many players will ever be buccaneers either, and would not be bucccaneers even if it were not restricted to humans. Witness the firestorm on these boards when the Skull and Shackles AP and Ultimate Combat were being released; a substantial number of people hated the thought of guns in PF.
The Sniper (Bushwacker) Pirate (Bucanneer) Strange firearm inventor (The Gnome one) and the 'thug' (Gulchgunner) have been made. The thug is a little bit looser, but you are probably not going to see another pirate like archetype or sniper archetype for gunslinger.
Does it matter? You can play a vanilla gunslinger as a pirate perfectly well. You can use a vanilla gunslinger to play any of those character archetypes (as distinct from class archetypes) perfectly well. And if you really, deep in your soul, want access to racial archetypes, talk to your GM about it. The only place you can't do that is in PFS.
Any gunslinger can be a Pirate. The only difference is a Buccaneer is a specific type of Pirate. One that is hard to make otherwise.
Just as a Bushwacker can be any Gunslinger. The only difference is the Archetype represents a specific type.
Et Cetera, Et Cetera. Basically the reason why they are Racial Archetypes is simply because those are the Races that they are based around for the Fluff. You can easily remove the race in a homebrew.
Like a Human Bushwacker will be different from a Kobold Bushwacker. The Human Bushwacker would be more of a Assault Skirmisher and most likely use something like Opening Volley and such. On the other hand the Kobold would take advantage of their Stealth and strike from the shadows with Snipe-Move-Snipe Tactics.
A Human Sniper would most likely be a Musket Master to be able to fire across Human Battlefields while a Kobold Sniper would be a Bushwacker and use a Pistol since they would be firing from tunnels in Cave Walls to Harass invading troops.
Another option for a Sniper of any Race would be a Rogue(Scout, Sniper) this allows them to eventually fire from the Shadows and stay mobile while firing arrows at their target.
|
I do not know about you all but I am quite fond of the Bramble Brewer archetype for Alchemist. The melee Alchemist I had made great use of the archetype especially when I got the blade of her weapon enchanted with a Perma Daylight spell, fast healing every round for hours on end is amazing in/out of combat.
|
Wild Caller Summoner I'm not really familiar enough with eidolon mechanics to comment on the changes to that class feature. But the opinion is fairly prevalent that the summon nature's ally spells are, especially at low levels, superior to the summon monster spells. I'm not sure I agree with that, but if true, then trading out summon monster for summon nature's ally spells is a strong option.
In 3.X, summon nature's ally granted access to elementals 1 spell level sooner, and had some super-effective creatures, like the thoqqua, on the list.
In PF, this is no longer the case (elementals are gained at the same level, and nobody gets to summon thoqqua), and, IMO, SNA is almost always a weaker choice, as the various animals lack the benefits of the templates (smite, DR, resistances), and the extremely few fey on the list have nothing like the hugely versatile number of spell-like abilities available on the summon monster lists.
You also lose access to some really good evolutions, like magic attacks (DR becomes your bane), weapon training (no 'shiva build'), energy attacks, skilled (UMD), etc.
I usually play Clerics and Druids, and have noticed that, in almost every case, no matter how much an AT 'fits my theme,' it ends up strictly worse than if I'd just played a Cleric or Druid out of the box.
OTOH, if there was a good version of Fiendish Vessel, that healed good targets and damaged/sickened evil targets in the area, I'd be all over that action. :)
Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle is another good one.
Incredibly good Archtype. Good enough to make the oracle one of my favorite classes. I built one around spell perfection (divine power) and form of the dragon III. Guy was an unstoppable melee monster, while also packing high DC AoEs, save or dies, healing, and transportation.
Yeah.
|
|
The 'history' lesson of whatever happened in the real world is hardly needed. Cause in the real world, Pirates didn't go fighting dragons, and golems. They didn't have magic or spells or anything like that. Cause /this/ is Golarion.The point I was trying to make, that you seem to have missed, is that not all pirates on Earth were buccaneers, and not all pirates on Golarion need to be buccaneers either. In fact, very few pirates on Golarion will ever be buccaneers, because guns aren't actually that common. But that's in-universe, and you clearly care about players. Fine. I'll stick my neck out and say that not many players will ever be buccaneers either, and would not be bucccaneers even if it were not restricted to humans. Witness the firestorm on these boards when the Skull and Shackles AP and Ultimate Combat were being released; a substantial number of people hated the thought of guns in PF.
The Sniper (Bushwacker) Pirate (Bucanneer) Strange firearm inventor (The Gnome one) and the 'thug' (Gulchgunner) have been made. The thug is a little bit looser, but you are probably not going to see another pirate like archetype or sniper archetype for gunslinger.Does it matter? You can play a vanilla gunslinger as a pirate perfectly well. You can use a vanilla gunslinger to play any of those character archetypes (as distinct from class archetypes) perfectly well. And if you really, deep in your soul, want access to racial archetypes, talk to your GM about it. The only place you can't do that is in PFS.
Again, you're missing the point here, probably because I'm using gunslinger and that is setting things off in your mind.
Its also more than /just/ racial archetypes being restricted to a specific race as well.
(I find it funny all the people who whine about firearms in PF, since I could make the Ironman and laser beams using the /core/ rule book)
The Point is The bucaneer is the /only/ real pirate themed archetype the gunslinger will get. And if it SUCKS
Again
If it SUCKS
Or is restricted to a particular race, then Too friggen bad. That is 99% certain to be the only pass for that theme for that class. Heck it might even show up in other classes. Thankfully it does.
Now incase you're still a little confused here. Lets go to a different class, because you're hooked on something that is making you miss the point here.
Scroll Master - A Wizard archetype that can fold scrolls into swords and shields. Sounds kinda cool really, but then again.. There is the slight problem that the scroll master SUCKS for that particular class, for what it does, beyond the 10th level ability.
This would have been an awesome thing for a Magus or Bard to have. It really would have. A Magus or bard could have gotten lots of use out of being able to form short swords and shields out of scrolls (even if it is expensive as all can be) but nope. Its firmly rooted into Wizard. a 1/2 bab class.
So if you wanted to be Agent Paper you'd have to be a scroll master to do it. Though that is far more specific character idea than "I want to be a pirate."
Cause if someone says "I want to be a Pirate." or "I want to be a sniper." they would then have to look at the various things available to them. Yes they could be a smuggler.. but that really doesn't have much to a 'pirate' themed character does it?
The buccaneer archetype for bard - Again, Song of Surrender? hilt bash? Very much /not/ what you think of when you think of pirate is it? Heck you could use this one more to make character who goes around capturing criminals more..
Freebooter - Ah finally. A Pirate themed archetype that /finally/ mentions the one thing that really separates a pirate from a bandit. Water. Oh, something that separates itself from being just a guy who likes water, a crew.
Thats the issue with the whole "You don't like X don't use X" is that X might have been the theme you wanted for that class, but now that theme isn't going to come by again for that class.
The Buccaneer Bard is perfect for a true buccaneer as typically they got Coin when bringing in Prisoners alive.
Really the Gunslinger should be named Privateer or Raider.
I find it funny that most of the Classes are fine for Pirates without the need for special Archetypes. All you need is a good skill selection and fighting style.