|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, as I lay Casper to rest, I'm looking into the retraining rules as laid out in the guide. Am I correctly assuming that I have to keep the same equipment? If so, that really hurts as a lot of the gear was designed for his style and personality (sleep arrows for non lethal ranged combat, a crap ton of oils and potions to be prepared against the many foes he had read about, a scythe because he's a farmer during his downtime (it was also his weapon for his trip build, but I feel that I'm allowed to be both thematic and effective)).
I was considering in "transferring" his chronicles to another character idea that I have on the shelf so the playtime isn't completely wasted, but now I don't know what I'm exactly allowed to rebuild... Typically these things get banned before I get to actually play them, so this is new to me.
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Creates terrain that blocks charging for starters.So. That isn't even in the argument for game breaking or not making a GM's time interesting. Changing the environment in order to create obstacles is part of the back and forth between characters and their enemies.
When you have entire scenarios whose final boss tactic is charging the fact that you can trivialize it without a save is pretty annoying. Wind wall was another early one that I've seen negate encounters.
|
The solution to this is to outright ban all Arcane classes, all Occult classes, Alchemists, Druids, Archer builds, and anything that gets any sort of pet, (except maybe, maybe Mount). Additionally, all Combat Maneuvers.This is pretty much it. And one of the reasons I haven't GM'd hardly anything for PFS since November of 2016.
I'm a huge fan of PCs and a huge fan of players getting to enjoy their character's abilities. But I'm also a storyteller. And part of telling stories in roleplaying games, is experiencing the encounters. When all the hard work I put into those encounters to help tell a riveting tail goes for naught, because players constantly build characters that can't be hit, kill in one shot, and...
That's not a solution at all, and I suspect you know it.
But this has very little to do with the Lore Warden.
|
When you have entire scenarios whose final boss tactic is charging the fact that you can trivialize it without a save is pretty annoying. Wind wall was another early one that I've seen negate encounters.Creates terrain that blocks charging for starters.So. That isn't even in the argument for game breaking or not making a GM's time interesting. Changing the environment in order to create obstacles is part of the back and forth between characters and their enemies.
Ok, I haven't experienced much of season 8, but from season zero through 7 (of which ive GMd ir played all of them) I can count three encounters where charging is a specific tactic, and maybe only a handful or two others where it's the best option. Even so, charging is so situational and negating that as an option hardly shuts down an enemy of all options.
|
The solution to this is to outright ban all Arcane classes, all Occult classes, Alchemists, Druids, Archer builds, and anything that gets any sort of pet, (except maybe, maybe Mount). Additionally, all Combat Maneuvers.This is pretty much it. And one of the reasons I haven't GM'd hardly anything for PFS since November of 2016.
I'm a huge fan of PCs and a huge fan of players getting to enjoy their character's abilities. But I'm also a storyteller. And part of telling stories in roleplaying games, is experiencing the encounters. When all the hard work I put into those encounters to help tell a riveting tail goes for naught, because players constantly build characters that can't be hit, kill in one shot, and...
That's not a solution at all, and I suspect you know it.
But this has very little to do with the Lore Warden.
I will agree that overall, the idea of the DM being able to have fun at the table has little to do with the Lore Warden changes, but I'm confused to your response. Did I neglect to mention something in that list?
Obviously, I am not advocating removing of these classes/build, but, if the goal is to allow DMs to experience encounters, there are really three solutions.
1.) fudge everything so that no one's abilities and choices matter,
2.) blanket disallow just about everything that isn't a beat stick Fighter or Commoner, or
3.) target the things that pretty overwhelmingly cause the issue of eradicating or bypassing the encounters, or what makes the circumstances of those encounters pertinent.
|
|
Ok, I haven't experienced much of season 8, but from season zero through 7 (of which ive GMd ir played all of them) I can count three encounters where charging is a specific tactic, and maybe only a handful or two others where it's the best option. Even so, charging is so situational and negating that as an option hardly shuts down an enemy of all options.
It doesn't have to be specifically listed tactics of charging, as much as that enemies do not have listed abilities to do anything pertinent/worthwhile at range. Charging might be the only viable way for a group of enemies to close, and if someone lays down a Grease spell in the bottleneck, it can very easily turn a challenging (well what was intended to be a challenging), encounter into a cake walk.
Grease cuts movement speed in half automatically, no save, no check, unless you simply stand still. The DC 10 Acrobatics check is fairly easy, for a high Dex, light or no Armored foe, but pretty devastating to just about everyone else, and a poor roll can basically rob you of not only your mobility, but your Move Actions repeatedly. Additionally, any damage you take while in the Grease area automatically makes you make another check.
While it's a little bit harder to make it work, coating an enemies weapon can likewise just end the encounter, especially if they only come with one or are pretty well built around one type of weapon.
|
Coming late to this discussion so please forgive me.
Lets start off with that I have not seen the book and have no idea what kind of changes they made to the Archetype.
I only have one character that is a Lore Warden and only took one level to help my Wayang Alchemist (Grenadier) with an extra feat (Precise shot), access to martial weapons and to fit in with him being part of a guerrilla force.
Do the changes really mess things up for him at that level or just use this as a chance to retain it into something else? (Not planning on getting the book just for one Archetype)
|
|
Ok, I haven't experienced much of season 8, but from season zero through 7 (of which ive GMd ir played all of them) I can count three encounters where charging is a specific tactic, and maybe only a handful or two others where it's the best option. Even so, charging is so situational and negating that as an option hardly shuts down an enemy of all options.It doesn't have to be specifically listed tactics of charging, as much as that enemies do not have listed abilities to do anything pertinent/worthwhile at range. Charging might be the only viable way for a group of enemies to close, and if someone lays down a Grease spell in the bottleneck, it can very easily turn a challenging (well what was intended to be a challenging), encounter into a cake walk.
Grease cuts movement speed in half automatically, no save, no check, unless you simply stand still. The DC 10 Acrobatics check is fairly easy, for a high Dex, light or no Armored foe, but pretty devastating to just about everyone else, and a poor roll can basically rob you of not only your mobility, but your Move Actions repeatedly. Additionally, any damage you take while in the Grease area automatically makes you make another check.
While it's a little bit harder to make it work, coating an enemies weapon can likewise just end the encounter, especially if they only come with one or are pretty well built around one type of weapon.
My copious experience says otherwise. A savvy GM and tactician can find ways for NPCs to be effective when the best tactic is removed.
Removing a tactic from the toolbox isn't what I'm referring to. I still get to enjoy pitting the npcs against the characters. I still have agency as a GM to do things.
|
Seeing that it is not chained vs. unchained LW there probably will be no grandfathering. There is only one Lore Warden and history is they always use the latest printed version. I have a feeling some didn't like that it outshined the Brawler as the master of maneuvers. I have some demi-humans with one level of LW, just to get a combat feat I wanted at 3rd level instead of 5th. Didn't need the armor so might as well get the extra skill points. Seems convoluted why they didn't just make Combat Expertise be the 2nd bonus feat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing that it is not chained vs. unchained LW there probably will be no grandfathering. There is only one Lore Warden and history is they always use the latest printed version.
There are two Ringleader Bard archetypes (one in UI and one in AG), and they've gone out of their way to make both of them PFS legal per Additional Resources. That's what I want for Lore Warden. If folks want the new one, great! Let them have it. But keep the old one as well.
I have a feeling some didn't like that it outshined the Brawler as the master of maneuvers.
I too detected an undercurrent of someone didn't like the LW and had the opportunity to 'fix' it. But if it's difficult to read tone in email and forum posts, it must be doubly difficult to read it in actual published material. So I could easily be misreading the tone.
Seeing that it is not chained vs. unchained LW there probably will be no grandfathering. There is only one Lore Warden and history is they always use the latest printed version.There are two Ringleader Bard archetypes (one in UI and one in AG), and they've gone out of their way to make both of them PFS legal per Additional Resources. That's what I want for Lore Warden. If folks want the new one, great! Let them have it. But keep the old one as well.
I have a feeling some didn't like that it outshined the Brawler as the master of maneuvers.I too detected an undercurrent of someone didn't like the LW and had the opportunity to 'fix' it. But if it's difficult to read tone in email and forum posts, it must be doubly difficult to read it in actual published material. So I could easily be misreading the tone.
There also two different Pact Wizard archetypes too.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lore warden's been on the radar of at least one former Pathfinder Design Team member for a while. SKR may no longer be part of the team, but we can't know how anyone else at Paizo felt about it.
So... yeah. See overpowered* archetype, reprint overpowered archetype, fix overpowered archetype. I don't get why you're all talking about this like there's a conspiracy and an agenda, when what you're describing is the repair process.
*"Overpowered" being the perception of the writers/developers/etc. involved, not an incontrovertible statement of authority. Don't @ me, I don't care.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's also important to realize that Paizo's way of doing this is essentially opportunistic. They didn't set out to write the Adventurer's Guide so they could fix the LW. They were going to reprint a bunch of books about important factions that had been out of print for ages. That was a good opportunity to fix the LW.
Fixing full casters would require reprinting half a dozen hardcovers at once and changing several hundred spells and feats. It's just a much more intractable problem.
So they fix what they can, not necessarily what needed fixing most. Still better than making everything abandonware.
(And yeah, I'm not sure I like the fix, but I could see the original problem.)
|
|
I think it's also important to realize that Paizo's way of doing this is essentially opportunistic. They didn't set out to write the Adventurer's Guide so they could fix the LW. They were going to reprint a bunch of books about important factions that had been out of print for ages. That was a good opportunity to fix the LW.
Fixing full casters would require reprinting half a dozen hardcovers at once and changing several hundred spells and feats. It's just a much more intractable problem.
So they fix what they can, not necessarily what needed fixing most. Still better than making everything abandonware.
(And yeah, I'm not sure I like the fix, but I could see the original problem.)
The problem with such an approach is taking from something (in this case, martials) yet again while doing nothing to address the other concern. If things happen enough times to a given type of character, push-back should not only be expected, but it should be consulted FIRST before attempting such a revision.
Sure, there'd be noise, but I'm reasonably certain that the signal (don't f' with the only decent knowledge/maneuver fighter archetype) would have made it through intact.
|
|
Lore warden's been on the radar of at least one former Pathfinder Design Team member for a while. SKR may no longer be part of the team, but we can't know how anyone else at Paizo felt about it.
While I agree that the bonus to CMB the old Lore Warden had was too high, probably twice what they should have been, I don't really agree with much of what SKR was saying about the other abilities. Maybe the part about trading bravery 1 for a feat. But most of those abilities have drawbacks or require investment that tend to make them pretty mediocre. And that was back when dirty fighting didn't exist, there weren't options for making bravery a good ability, and every fighter archetype that trades out armor training didn't have to compete with advanced armor training. I just find it funny that they made some of the other abilities worse along with the CMB bonus at a time when the un-archetyped fighter has never been better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's also important to realize that Paizo's way of doing this is essentially opportunistic. They didn't set out to write the Adventurer's Guide so they could fix the LW. They were going to reprint a bunch of books about important factions that had been out of print for ages. That was a good opportunity to fix the LW.
Fixing full casters would require reprinting half a dozen hardcovers at once and changing several hundred spells and feats. It's just a much more intractable problem.
So they fix what they can, not necessarily what needed fixing most. Still better than making everything abandonware.
(And yeah, I'm not sure I like the fix, but I could see the original problem.)
The problem with such an approach is taking from something (in this case, martials) yet again while doing nothing to address the other concern. If things happen enough times to a given type of character, push-back should not only be expected, but it should be consulted FIRST before attempting such a revision.
Sure, there'd be noise, but I'm reasonably certain that the signal (don't f' with the only decent knowledge/maneuver fighter archetype) would have made it through intact.
Which Golarion-based faction are all members of the base wizard class assumed to be part of? Which factions are the source of all the problematic spells?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that was back when dirty fighting didn't exist, there weren't options for making bravery a good ability, and every fighter archetype that trades out armor training didn't have to compete with advanced armor training. I just find it funny that they made some of the other abilities worse along with the CMB bonus at a time when the un-archetyped fighter has never been better.
This was, to my mind, the best argument for keeping the lore warden mostly as-is. To borrow from other games' lingo, the metagame has changed, and fighter class features are worth more than they were in 2013.
(Imagine trying to write new fighter archetypes these days, though, knowing that the messageboards are going to relentlessly abuse your work because it doesn't live up to all the Player Companion options. Not exciting.)
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the only decent knowledge/maneuver fighter archetype
I think it still is. It's just not as overwhelmingly effective at it.
But I've been told that I'm not allowed to play non-scimitar/rapier magi in PFS, because I'm ruining things by not being optimized enough. So maybe PFS is only for The Best Builds. :/
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it still is. It's just not as overwhelmingly effective at it.But I've been told that I'm not allowed to play non-scimitar/rapier magi in PFS, because I'm ruining things by not being optimized enough. So maybe PFS is only for The Best Builds. :/
I'd respectfully disagree.
It often *feels* like that, because a vocal and connected minority of the vast numbers of Society players make their concerns known over the forums and in local play.
Most of my experience, though, has been for 'flavour' (despite the constant commentary that it's all about power) and it hurts a bit every time 'flavour' is trampled over in the name of 'balance', when it doesn't seem to do anything to promote said 'balance'.
Perhaps what we need is the hypothetical 'Unchained/Educated' Fighter (with more skills, more knowledge access?) in this particular case?
|
|
But I've been told that I'm not allowed to play non-scimitar/rapier magi in PFS, because I'm ruining things by not being optimized enough. So maybe PFS is only for The Best Builds. :/
You are playing with the wrong people.
If you bring a completely ineffective character to the table, that's not great. (I did recommend to a fifth-level gunslinger recently that Precise Shot is probably something that he ought to pick up next time he gets a feat.) But you only need to be basically competent. If the other people are demanding that you be fully optimized, then you should only play with them if that's the kind of game that you want to play. (I would not enjoy that game myself, either as player or GM.)
If they are ruining things for you, that's just as valid a consideration as it is if you're ruining things for them....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The change didn't ruin the flavor of the archetype. It just seriously devalued the mechanical benefit of dipping. The flavor is still there though.
The problem is that they demand serious mechanical sacrifices for that flavor now. And, sure, you could decide to do that... but you get punished, in a sense, for choosing to go with that flavor.
Maybe it was too good before. The maneuver problem could have been addressed by simply reducing the maneuver bonuses, rather than a broad-based class nerf.
(I'm also nervous to think about what happened to the Cypermage; I think it didn't change, but I have been afraid to look too closely. And, I'm not really happy with what they did to the Enlightened Bloodrager. I'm learning that one should in general not take archetypes out of Campaign Setting or Player Companion books, because you can't count on them staying what you thought they were.)
|
|
As a GM, the updates have been a pretty solid round of fixes to things that were too powerful.
Lore Warden's fate is unfortunate but not grossly so unless you were a Lore Warden dipper.
You make it sound like anyone who isn't "pure" lore warden is some kind of munchkin.
Lore Warden has been around for 7 years. It is, imho, quite unreasonable to say that an option that has been available for 7 years should all of a sudden be regarded as egregiously overpowered and meriting the nerf hammer.
But were you really using Combat Expertise for combat expertise in the first place?
The text is still pretty favorable. You just lose an extra bonus feat and don't get to use the defensive fighting aspects of Combat Expertise.
The mega nerf here is one feat which I get makes a HUGE difference in terms of builds but the ability to access those feats without 13 int is pretty decent and until last year Lore Warden was the only way to do it but in the end its probably not entirely build-shattering
The Lore Warden has never been able to access feats without the 13 int. They only gain the COmbat expertise even if they don't meet pre requisites, there is no statement that, that effect applies to any feat after you recieved Combat expertise so if people have played in that way they would already need a full rebuild.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The change didn't ruin the flavor of the archetype. It just seriously devalued the mechanical benefit of dipping. The flavor is still there though.The problem is that they demand serious mechanical sacrifices for that flavor now. And, sure, you could decide to do that... but you get punished, in a sense, for choosing to go with that flavor.
Maybe it was too good before. The maneuver problem could have been addressed by simply reducing the maneuver bonuses, rather than a broad-based class nerf.
(I'm also nervous to think about what happened to the Cypermage; I think it didn't change, but I have been afraid to look too closely. And, I'm not really happy with what they did to the Enlightened Bloodrager. I'm learning that one should in general not take archetypes out of Campaign Setting or Player Companion books, because you can't count on them staying what you thought they were.)
Hey, after reading many of the issues people are having with how to rebuild, I completely empathize and sympathize with them over how comprehensive this change was. Even without dipping, this can radically change feat progressions based on how the whole combat expertise thing was handled in the new version of the archetype.
I just think it is high hyperbole to say that the archetype is no longer a viable choice and no longer has flavor. Those are two completely erroneous statements.
It is a drastic change though, so I can understand the hurt feelings over it.
|
_HRF.jpg)
Having only one character who is effected by things and not so much, truthfully it works well for Akim the Crafty either way. Grandfathered, I get to keep the Combat expertise feat I have used in the past.. cause when you're a squishy fighter/rogue you need on occasion to go.. 'Nope. I don't want you to hit me Mr. +16 to hit on attack' (which I've seen at 7th level.. nothing like doing -4 to hit ME AND a dodge bonus to hit.. in those omens where you've bitten more than you can chew...)
My issue is this.. we replace our 2nd level feat for a 'quasi-feat' (with a promise to get it at 6th level, which Akim will see @ 12th level as he's going 1/2 and 1/2 ) and the next level gets some 'so so' options.. the best of which for him is 'Know your enemy'.
Which requires a standard action
Which lasts 1/2 his fighter levels..
I an playing a feat intensive two weapon wielding feint master.. I'd most likely go straight rogue rather than continue on past 3rd level of Lore Warden as it is.. the 'vibe' doesn't feel the same as the old one.. my 2 cents.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
And that was back when dirty fighting didn't exist, there weren't options for making bravery a good ability, and every fighter archetype that trades out armor training didn't have to compete with advanced armor training. I just find it funny that they made some of the other abilities worse along with the CMB bonus at a time when the un-archetyped fighter has never been better.This was, to my mind, the best argument for keeping the lore warden mostly as-is. To borrow from other games' lingo, the metagame has changed, and fighter class features are worth more than they were in 2013.
(Imagine trying to write new fighter archetypes these days, though, knowing that the messageboards are going to relentlessly abuse your work because it doesn't live up to all the Player Companion options. Not exciting.)
I feel like I always am missing something reading those abilities because they are pretty minor given the hype. And a large fraction of them don't work until the end half of PFS.
|
|
The change didn't ruin the flavor of the archetype. It just seriously devalued the mechanical benefit of dipping. The flavor is still there though.The problem is that they demand serious mechanical sacrifices for that flavor now. And, sure, you could decide to do that... but you get punished, in a sense, for choosing to go with that flavor.
Maybe it was too good before. The maneuver problem could have been addressed by simply reducing the maneuver bonuses, rather than a broad-based class nerf.
(I'm also nervous to think about what happened to the Cypermage; I think it didn't change, but I have been afraid to look too closely. And, I'm not really happy with what they did to the Enlightened Bloodrager. I'm learning that one should in general not take archetypes out of Campaign Setting or Player Companion books, because you can't count on them staying what you thought they were.)
Hey, after reading many of the issues people are having with how to rebuild, I completely empathize and sympathize with them over how comprehensive this change was. Even without dipping, this can radically change feat progressions based on how the whole combat expertise thing was handled in the new version of the archetype.
I just think it is high hyperbole to say that the archetype is no longer a viable choice and no longer has flavor. Those are two completely erroneous statements.
It is a drastic change though, so I can understand the hurt feelings over it.
I think that I would have less issue with this change if they didn't use the words "Swords Secret". It just doesn't sound right to use a scythe while having a bunch of "Swords Secret".
It's petty, I know, but that's honestly what made me hate the change the most. I can suffer the weakened maneuver training and even the ever strange "quasi" feat I trade out two class feature for, but I can't grab a Swords Secret knowing good and well that my character would never use a sword.
|
|
I'm only able to reference what I have, and that's the original source. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Even so, that ruins it even more for me as he is more closely aligned with the Scrolls than the swords. He's a sort of pacifist even (has never done lethal damage to a living foe). He is easy more concerned with knowledge than most martials.
|
|
I don't think if you had arthritis you would go into a physically demanding occupation such as a Fighter over that of a Wizard...
Quipping about that aside all of those are valid reasons, but I was curious why they took their character that route (more so because of the pacifist stance than the scholastic pursuits), I wasn't saying they shouldn't have made him a Lore Warden at all.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
There's the phantom thief for rogue, trades out sneak attack and maybe trap stuff for lots of skill focus and skills stuff.So, going from "Lore Warden" to "Phantom Thief"?
Please forgive my confusion on how that works from a story perspective, since reskinning is not allowed.
Depending on your flavor of Lore Warden, the two are not far apart at all. Gentlemen and ladies who seek the thrill of acts of daring and skill versus warrior-scholars that outsmart their foes and document their deeds.
The reskinning rule does not apply to your back story so long as it doesn't break Golarion canon.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been playing PFS much lately and now I have even less reason to, apparently. I'm not sure what happened to spawn this conversation, but if I showed up to play my Lore Warden this Sunday and was told it was banned, I'd probably just have left.
Granted, Z'thras is still pretty low-level, but I built him mainly because I was often the only player who even took knowledge skills outside arcana and religion, and I wanted a break from playing a bard.
It seems like a lot of the complaints are mainly that the Lore Warden uses tactics that people don't want to deal with, rather than they are super-broken.
Arguing that an entire encounter is broken because charging is being countered is like arguing that the BBEG Wizard is broken because someone brought a countersong-based bard.
In Character: "This makes Z'thras very sad, very sad indeed. Perhaps we will meet again in the Stars to be Finding. Maybe my Purpose will be needed there, perhaps not. Either way, a grand adventure this was to Z'thras."
Your character can free rebuild to the new version without needing its source once the PRD is updated, if your guy was just to be a fighter with knowledge skills then the new version does that for you just the same.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*scratches head*
Then why did you make him a martial?
Caspian was raised in a small farming village. His dad made sure he new the art well, when to till, when to reap and whatnot. Was even taught to hunt, although after finding out how meat came to the table, he wasn't quite as fond of it since. He doesn't judge others who are willing to take a life for survival, but he refuses to do so himself believing that there must be other methods.
He had deep respect for his father, but it was his mother who showed him how to read. The stories in those tomes are what really motivated him to take up the life of adventure. He remembered the tales of fearsome dragons, taunting devils, and gallant knights the most of course. But he didn't aspire to become the "hero" that the books often portrayed, he wanted to understand what made the dragon's so fearsome. To understand why the devil's taunt us at all. To know why the actions the knights performed were considered gallant. Each new book raised more questions than answers and he must know.
Eventually, he heard of the Society while in town. A group of individuals coming together to understand history and to make allies with strange creatures. It looked like the best way to start his journey. The only problem was that he didn't really have any real skills, not mentioning that he was "blessed" with his father's "good looks" and accent. Long days during harvest made him quite proficient with his scythe, allowing him to make strong low sweeps. He had a fair amount of knowledge, but nothing like the great wizards he had the opportunity to come across. He had not one ounce of magical knowledge to assist him. But it turned out that his determination and ability to be well prepared gave him the edge he needed to join the ranks of the Society.
The adventures are grand, but the library at the lodge is what really sealed the deal.
I chose a martial because it felt right at the time. Also, I really love feats, so Fighter has always had a place in my heart, so seeing a fighter with more than 2+ int for skills got me real excited to make this guy.
|
|
*reads backstory*
Hmmm, knowledgeable, likes books, pacifist martial (likes the feats).
Code Runner Ranger with Underhanded/Menacing Combat Styles?
(Could have sworn we had a full on non-lethal combat style)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*reads backstory*
Hmmm, knowledgeable, likes books, pacifist martial (likes the feats).
Code Runner Ranger with Underhanded/Menacing Combat Styles?
(Could have sworn we had a full on non-lethal combat style)
Really cool archetype (I have another bookworm character that I think would greatly appreciate it), but it looks like I'd lose a lot of my Knowledge class skills. Also, I really don't want him having access to spells... But you have convinced me into not giving up on this guy just yet. I'll scour through my tomes to see if I can find something or a combination of somethings that will satisfy the background Casper has!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*reads backstory*
Hmmm, knowledgeable, likes books, pacifist martial (likes the feats).
Code Runner Ranger with Underhanded/Menacing Combat Styles?
(Could have sworn we had a full on non-lethal combat style)
Really cool archetype (I have another bookworm character that I think would greatly appreciate it), but it looks like I'd lose a lot of my Knowledge class skills. Also, I really don't want him having access to spells... But you have convinced me into not giving up on this guy just yet. I'll scour through my tomes to see if I can find something or a combination of somethings that will satisfy the background Casper has!
Yay!
Forgot to mention the Skirminisher Archetype as well that trades out spells for abilities and tricks (can you have multiple Archetypes in PFS)
And yeah I was trying to think of things with Knowledge skills, but the Ranger is the only thing that came to mind since they can make knowledge checks about their FE untrained.
|
|
I know there are archetypes for ranger that give up spellcasting, those may help.
There's a scholarly monk archetype, gets bardic knowledge, might change the weapon from a full scythe to a smaller sickle type monk weapon but maybe can fit. Just choose all the ki powers that are more normal and less magical.
There's a alternate human racial trait/race trait it trades skilled (yes painful) for getting all knowledge skills as class skills and a +1 to any knowledge that is a class skill via class. This can be very helpful for a guy that wants lots of knowledges but doesn't get them all via class.
sleuth? investigator gives up their alchemy for a luck pool, thus making them non-magical. But it's a very knowledge focus class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, he is human...
Assuming I am able to retrain that race trait, I would be perfectly content with a Code Runner/Skirmisher Ranger with the "Comprehensive Education" alternate race trait.
Thanks for all the great suggestions! It would be grand to at least keep the important parts of my character alive. I will have to purchase Inner Sea Races though... But I suppose I have been putting that off long enough.