Warmage 1/Divine Disiple 10/Divine Savant 1/Prestige Paladin 4/ Archmage 4
You know ever spell (divine and arcane), Cast like a Sorc, and can full attack and cast a spell in the same round.
Druid 10/Planar Shepard 10
You are immortal and you can wildshape into all Angles/Devils.
So would it be overpowered to allow a Slayer to get SA damage without flanking or flat-footing a Favored Target? Maybe change it to something other than "Sneak Attack" and only give the damage when a target is a Favored Target. Those who are immune to precision damage or have concealment cant be affected the same as SA. That would allow for a viable "Sneak Attack" Archer build, which would be the only real concept that would appeal to me with a class like this.
Craft Cheese wrote:
This is my thought too. Being able to BUILD a counterspell specialist is very interesting. It should take a bit of more investment however just as Craft suggest. An exploit chain combined with the feat investment for Spell Parry I think makes it very balanced. After all. You are talking a big investment for taking care of ONE type of enemy.
3 exploits (as an example)
With the same investment I could max out an obsene DC on Save or Suck spells and it works on every enemy type. In fact it does so better. Unlike countering spells... your are knocking that spellcaster out of the fight completely. Or the Barbarian. Or the Genie. Or whatever else. A counterspelling specialist that bounces spells back at the caster would simply be a fun and extreamly specialized caster that would be very effective against one enemy type.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
1. A or C. They are both equaly easy to use. B is a hot mess.2. C would be the most balanced.
3. A would be the most fun. It allows for more customization.
Option A: Yes the optimizers are going to use heavy crit weapons. So what. I fail to see how that's any different then any other option in Pathfinder. Optimizers will always pick the optimal choice. The only way you stop them is to give no choices... thats boring and effectivly what C does. With option C it doesn't really matter what you use as a weapon because they are all the same. You might as well use a butter knife or a broom. Come to think of it that might be quite humerous.
What about possibly adding a greater version that did what the original did. If I recall you could use Dispel Magic if you had it memorized and it gave you a bonus on the check. I was very interested myself in creating a couterspell specialist. I hope this exploit gets looked at.
I like the class as is. The revision is a hundred times better. A few points I would like to make.
1. I understand being MAD is a balancing factor but I think it’s a bit too much. Needing 4 of the 6 stats... I would take it down to 3. Please consider using Wisdom or CHA for all his abilities to cut down on being TOO MAD.
2. I love the Sacred Weapon feature. I hope you don’t decide to clip it because of knee jerk reactions from the boards. At most I would normalize the crit range while using the Sacred Weapon damage chart. Other than that it seems great. I love that you gain this buff for any weapon you have weapon focus with. It really gives the player a reason to pick an under used weapon for RP reasons and keeps people from picking a deity based on their favored weapon. Great decision. Over all I hope Sacred Weapon doesn't change.
3. While it is pretty heavy on the Swift Actions I think this is a balancing factor. You have to pick and choose what buff you want to use and when. I’m not sure why people are freaking out over swift action self buffing and offensive spells... there isn't a huge list of offensive spells a 6th level cleric caster can brag about. I’m ok with the number of Swift Actions as a balancing factor if that’s the intent and consider the swift action casting to be balanced as is.
4. Sacred Weapon should be increased to the same duration as Sacred Armor. I really hate that certain buffs are tied to alignment... giving people even more incentive to choose alignment based on game mechanics over Role Play seems to be a bad idea. A generic set of weapon/armor buffs would be better imo.
5. I believe his Class Skills to be too robust. I would cut Knowledge (engineering), and Survival. Possibly Handle Animal, Ride, Diplomacy, and intimidate also. 2 Skill points seems a bit low but is fine.
6. LOVE the full BAB when using the Sacred Weapon. I have seen people complain that it makes the Warpriest a full BAB in all but name but they are wrong. It doesn't affect your CMB/CMD, nor does it meet Feat prereqs. It simply gives you a bonus to hit and an extra attack. I hope the full BAB progression for Sacred Weapon doesn't change.
7. And finally the Blessings. To be honest they are the only underwhelming part of the class. A Minor and Major effect only. I would have liked to see at least 3 abilities (1, 5, 10 maybe). On top of that the actual abilities for the most part are pretty dull other than the Battle Companion abilities (which I like). Over all I think they are the only weak portion of the class and I would like to see them improved or dropped in favor of getting 1 cleric domain.
Final Note: I really like the look of this class. All of my points are minor gripes. If nothing changed from now till print this would still be my favorite class of the new ones (though Shaman is close!).
I will try and Playtest as soon as I can and see if my thoughts are still the same.
As others have stated... Play a Hybrid
Fun and effective from 1st to 20th. Or if you really want a full caster that is good from 1st on...
Seriously. There are more classes that are fun at any level then are not. I can think of only a few that have the issues you describe.
Gunslinger - It doesn't fit RP wise in most of my games and I dislike having to balance vs a Full BAB ranged attacker that hits Touch AC. No thanks.
The Archtype of Monk that focuses on CM attacks (Trip, Grapple, ect). I banned it the second I saw it. Being focused on grapple is a lose lose situation in my book. Either it works and wrecks the encounter... or it doesn't and the monk is a waste of space. Its like a caster that focuses on Save or Die spells... It really sucks to win or lose an encounter in the first round of combat.
Other than that I ban little. I haven't used 3rd Party but I would be willing to look at it on a case by case basis. I love Summoner but would probably avoid the Master Summoner (Far too much paperwork and upkeep). The same for the archtype that has a zerg of small Eidolons. The Sythesist is fine in my book seeing as I feel it to be a weaker option then a straight Summoner.
I liked it using the Cleric list but the druid list will do I suppose.
Over all I love the class other than it being extreamly MAD. It is already a melee caster type to begin with. Having all three mental stats be important is a bit much. I would have all hexs, DCs, and spells work off one mental stat (Cha or Int imo). Wis has nothing to do with either parent class so I dont see the draw.
I would suggest setting her down with the Core book on a day before the game and trying to help her create a character. By explaining the character creation process it should give her a big clue as to how complicated the game can be. This will either make her more interested or turn her off from the game entirely. When my wife wanted to join a game I jumped at the opportunity and tried to set down with her to create a character. It took all of 10 minutes before she realized how out of her element this game was and she has never asked to join a game since (That being about 10 years). If your roomate does get more interested then dont get discouraged. This can be a positive thing. One it gives you and your roomate a common hobby. Another positive point is the rarity of female gamers in pen and paper. Having a female perspective when it comes to RP and adventure can be a great boon for any game.
I wouldn't turn her away. New gamers are a good thing. Its easier then you think to run 5 players vs 4. Its when you get to 6+ players that the game starts to break down. I would try it out and see what happens.
So I haven't built alot of straight casters unless I was a DM and they only needed to last a single combat or so. If a Blaster is feat intensive but a "God" caster isnt... can you make a caster that is good at both? Have one or two spell levels devoted to blasting and the rest of your spells for CC and buffing? Has anyone come up with a "I can do it all!" build yet? I assume it would have to be a Blaster wizard or possibly a Witch.
Me and a friend considered a Spellslinger Wizard 1/Witch 19 with a blasty parton. A +5 Gun would net you +5 DC on all your witch spells.
I always play pretty light with the alignment in my game unless it has a mechanical benefit/drawback I need to worry about. The only time it even matters is if you are a Paladin or you are the target of a smite.
1. Alignment should be a gradual change unless they do something unspeakable... like sell their soul to a devil or go on a mass murder of innocents or something.
2. People(DMs and posters here) tend to focus on the evil acts and ignore all the good things the player has done. As pointed out. If your playing a normal adventurer then you have dont alot of good things and will continue to do so. Even if you kill every surrendered evil villian you come across I dout it would change your alignment considering all the good you do.
3. Who cares if it does. RP your character the way you want. If the DM says your Evil then so be it. When you turn around and do good things (open an orphanage or something) and the DM is surprised just let him know that you dont consider the character evil and will RP him as you see fit.
As a DM I wont change someone's alignment unless they commit blatant evil acts on a consistant basis. And I will warn them ahead of time... usually more than once. As for killing surrendered enemies... this isnt real life. Its fantasy. I would say its a neutral to slightly evil act that would barely register either way.
The Boz wrote:
Funny thing about inherent bonuses: they don't stack with themselves, but the price increase is linear. Why is it so?
One of my few House Rules. I allow them to stack simply because the cost of 5 +1 stat books is equal to that of a +5 book. RAW my players used to never use a book under a +4 stat increase because it was wasted if they found a better book. Now they can use that +2 stat book and the +3 stat book they find a few months later and they stack.
Other than that I dont have any other house rules about stacking inherent bonuses. They cap at +5 unless you take a bloodline that gives you a bonus of +6. The books stack but they do not stack with wishes or bloodlines.
You can use Spell Strike with any weapon. Its Spell Combat you cant use in conjunction with a 2H weapon. Katana and Bastard Sword are both considered 1H weapons as long as you have the Exotic Prof. You could use either because of that. Because they can be used in one hand it was assumed that you could use both hands to attack and then remove your off hand from your weapon (Free action) use spell combat, return your hand to weapon (Free action) and then use spell strike. However it was clarified that you must have your hand free during the entire full round action for spell combat to be used. This means you have to weild the Katana or Bastard Sword with one hand. That eliminates the whole point of using those weapons... other than them being cool.
I tried looking up the FAQ but Im at work and dont have access to all my links. It might have just been a Dev response in the forums because its not in the FAQ under Ultimate Magic.
Either way it doesn't change the fact that a Simitar is the best weapon to use for a Magus. And shockmagus has very little to do with your weapon of choice. That has to do with a specific Trait and Intensify Spell. A very sound choice I agree. But not exactly broken. Its what... an average of 35 extra damage a round at 10th level. I suppose you could go super cheesy and dip Sorc for the Orc Bloodline that would add +10 damage at 10th. But at that point you have an issue of the player building a cheesy character... not the weapon choice.
I just hate the limited choices offered to a Magus when it comes to weapon choice. I would much rather be a STR based Magus and give up the extra AC from using Deverish Dance... but the benefit of using a Katana or Bastard Sword(Using a Light 1 handed weapon in two hands) is wasted because your off hand has to be empty for the entire round. If you could use a 2h weapon I could see two equal paths for a magus
Dex build - Deverish dance gives you added AC and makes you less MAD.
Str Build - Less AC, more MAD, and it cost you a exotic weapon feat but you get to add 1.5 Str to your attacks.
It would be a good path either way. But as it stands the STR build is subpar. Because Deverish Dance only works with Simitar... it limits a Magus to one weapon choice. I know this has been harped on before but Deverish Dance should not be limited to only Simitar. It should be all light and 1-handed weapons imo.
I dont see the point either way.
With the recent FAQ's on Spell Combat and such it has made using anything other than a Simitar pointless. Deverish dance is basicly the only optimized path for a Magus now. The STR build Magus is dead because you cant use two hands and still cast a spell. Pretty lame because I never liked the Deverish builds.
Ignore my post if you care nothing about optimization... but then you wouldn't care about using a feat to get an exotic weapon if you didnt care about optimization.
Prophesied: Your coming was foretold in prophecy, and people familiar with your legend regard you with awe and fear. Thats awsome RP.
Reincarnated: You lived a previous life as someone—or something—else. For you, life and death are a cycle, and you have no fear of death. Again. Full of possible rp flavor.
Hunter's Blood: Your from a family of Undead hunters. How friggin cool is that. Your Van Helsing. Undead not only know of your family name but fear it too. Thats just awsome sauce in a undead themed game.
As you can see I like the RP flavored traits alot. They all provide decent boons but really you take any of these 3 for the built in backstory. From a mechanical standpoint... Dangerously Curious. UDM is just too good. For any class that doesn't have UDM this is a free +4 to UDM when you take into account it adding the in class bonus.
If someone comes to the boards asking about feats as the original poster suggested... he is asking for mechanical advice. Not roleplaying advice.
You dont take your car to a mechanic and expect him to give it a fresh coat of paint... he is working on engine... not making it look pretty. From what I have seen, if someone comes asking for help with their backstory or character concept they usually get good advice from an RP standpoint. But if you come asking about mechanics then why should you expect someone to post about anthing other than the mechanics.
I dont understand why people on here a community that should theoretically be trying to grow makes everyone that does not build the perfect monster character when asking for advice gets told your wrong this is a better way to do it... so what if I want to be a halfling wizard with a great maul... and want to know what feats would make it more fun, stop telling me to play a @$##ing summoner!!!!
When I joined my first game of Pen and Paper D&D they asked me what I wanted to do. I had very little grasp on what did and didn't work. I decided I wanted to be a Sorceror who used a Harpoon attached to a chain... and use Shocking Grasp. The concept sounded great to me. The group wanted me to have fun and helped me build it. One guy spoke up saying "You know that will be hard to be very effective.", but the rest of the group told him to be quite and let me have fun.
I proceeded with my Sorceror and Harpoon. It was horrid. I never hit. No one told me what spells to take so I just had shocking grasp and a few other offensive spells. No shield or buffing. I had to close in combat range and had a horrible BAB. I usually ended up below 0 HP having done little to no good during combat. I think the Harpoon/Shocking Grasp thing worked once or twice total... and that was probably the DM being nice.
When i suggest someone rethink a concept to be more mechanicly sound... its to avoid having the same experience I did the first time I played. "Let him play what he wants" almost turned me off from Pen and Paper RPGs all together. I wish I had listened to that one guy who spoke up. Now Im that guy.
Elves in WOW are a dark purple. Not tall sexy white people. As far as the rest... if anything, the Horde are potrayed in a much better light then alliance. The Horde are not "Evil". They tend to be more level headed then the over zealous Alliance. They are also insanely more popular. Thrall might as well be the mascot for the whole WOW world.
I agree with AD. Seems alot to do about nothing. If the author states he had no racial motivations then why cant you take him for his word. Honeslty there are too many real racial issues in this world for us to go search for hidden racial undertones that may or may not be there in a work of fiction. If you go looking for racial injustice in every single circumstance (innocent or otherwise) then it can cause people to simply roll their eyes when a real instance of racisim is brought up... because its said about everything.
I think it wouldn't have mattered what color orcs where... someone would get offended one way or the other because of some "perceived" slight. Its just silly.
Im not sure why. I didn't say all defense lawyers. I said "Scumbag" defense lawyers... its a common character type seen in movies, books, TV shows, ect. I fully understand that most lawyers are in fact not bad people and just have a stereotype attached to their proffession. However that stereotype is seen in most forms of fiction including Pen and Paper adventures. There are quite a few FICTIONAL Lawyers that would be considered evil.
The Morphling wrote:
I agree. Some examples below.
Torturing small animals.
All of these are LEGAL (at least in some areas). None of these are a cause to simply kill someone. All of them would cause someone to probably ping Evil. These are exactly why a Paladin cant simply detect and start swinging.
I agree that there is more then one way to play a Paladin. We play the whole thing pretty loose. And we usually require several repeated acts one way or the other for a character to change alignment or for a Paladin to fall. And they have to be blatant acts against their alignment. I purposefully add NPC's that buck the trend in my games. Lawful Evil is a perfect alignment for this. Evil that follows the rules can be incredibly frustrating for a party. Expecially if they are openly evil and dismiss the party or what they can do to him.
Lawyers, Bankers, Nobles, Merchants... they can all have a power base, be evil, and never break a single law (forclose on the poor after taxing them too much, Defending criminals they know are guilty and using scape goat laws to get them free, Over chargeing for needed goods because they have a monopoly, ect). I also tend to throw Neutral or even good creatures in front of a party that are usually always evil. A band of neutral goblins, a LG Worg, a roaming band of CN Gnolls. It causes my party to really have to stop and think before they decide to act.
Granted we also allow the alternate alignment Paladins (LG, CG, CE, LE) so most of the paladins we have are usually CG to avoid these issues. Not to mention it allows for almost every god to have their own paladin order.
I was in only one Epic Campaign and we only made it to like level 26 or so. To be honest... we where pretty crazy at level 20. Level 26 really didn't take it that much farther. The DM was pretty good at controlling the game and presenting a challenge though. It worked for us. But again... we only made it to 26 before Real Life caused our group to split up.
lol I dont see why. Your taking the Monk class. Nothing says you have to describe your monk as a monk. Nothing says you have to be an mystery man from the east wearing robes. You can easily be a disiplined martial woodsman as a Zen Monk.
Skills: Knowledge(Nature) and Survival can be picked up through traits. Other than that they share similiar skills.
Armor: Instead of wearing leather armor, you can wear woodsman cloths and furs.
Animal Companion: Eldritch Heritage (Sylvan) nets you a Animal Companion at -5 your level. You can take Boon Companion to up it to an acceptable level. Note: You would need DM approval to take the Sylvan Bloodline as it is a "Mutated" version of a Bloodline. Its pretty normal to allow though outside of PFS.
Now you have a Nature merc who has the animal companion and all. He is still a crazy good archer. He also has some of the best survivability you can muster for an archer. Either way. Its just a suggestion. :)
Try playing a character that can fill multiple roles. Something you can mix it up when you bored. A Switch Hitter Ranger, or a Druid would be good. You can focus on spell casting and then on melee.
If its not the mechanics that get you bored but the story... I played an assassin once with a Hat of Disguise. He never went anywhere as the same person. He has max ranks in Disguise and used makeup plus the hat to give himself a different persona in each town he traveled to. He was litterally never the same. He wore a silver medalion in his hat/beard/whatever that let his party know it was him.
That would let you "Act Out" different people but keep the same character. If you dont want to be an Assassin... work with your DM... maybe your a Bard who is a Royal Spy going from place to place.
A Drow who grows up in the Underdark under his good aligned weaponmaster father, rebels against his evil society, runs away into the wilds, leaves the Underdark and befriends a motley crew of characters and proceeds to kill a 1000 orcs or something like that... Rediculous story.
You make an effective Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger that Duel Weilds and doesn't use sneak attack. The official version was horrid.
P.S. Artemis Entreri was so much better. Build/stat wise he should have won every fight. On top of that he was a much more interesting personality and had a better story. He should have been the main character.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Whether its 45% or 1%... it doesn't really matter. The precedent was set for discounted spells a long time ago with bard. That was my point. Its nothing new or special. Do they get more... sure. Debating if that is a good thing or bad thing is pointless. The original question was about wands. My point is that wands of "discounted" spells could be made way back in 3.0 and it has never really caused an issue imo.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Now your really getting off topic but I probably baited that response... so my bad. Whether the Summoner if overpowered or not based on his spellcasting has nothing to do with the topic(Personally I find them to be just fine as is). Wands of dicounted spells was the original question. My point was that it has little impact as long as they are used by the summoner and not for some cheesy gold scheme.
Yes the Summoner gets more spells at a lower level. I agree that they should have been a 9th level caster with a limited spell list.
1. Why do they get the spells they get? They are a utility spell caster. All of their spells dont have to be about summoning. They are specialized in Conjuration and Enchantment as another poster stated.
2. Why do they get spells at a lower spell level? They gain access to most of their spells at the same CHARACTER level as a Wizard/Sorc would gain them. To accomplish this they have to gain them at an earlier SPELL level. For instance they gain 4th level spells at around the same time a Wizard gains 5th level spells. So their list contains some 5th level spells at a lower level.
3. Why do Summoners get special treatment! They dont. Thats my point. Several other classes have early spell access. They will still gain access to the spells at the same Character level as a 9th lvl caster in most cases.
4. What advantages does this provide? Very little. They will have access at the same time as a straight caster will. Because its in a lower spell level slot it will have a lower spell DC in most cases. Because they are only 6th level casters they have less spell slots to begin with. The only advantage is with Item creation. Wands, scrolls, ect.
How I would deal with this:
Let them take the item creation feats if they want.
1. If they try and sell said item it should sell for what a wand of that spell level sells for... no matter what level the spell usually is.
2. The lower lvl wands should not be available for purchase. Summoners and other hybrids are rare... and crafters are even more rare. Only allow players to purchase wands at the appropriate level a wizard would cast the spell.
3. Let the player enjoy having cheaper wands. Its a boon of the class. As long as he isn't trying to game the system by making money off his wands then he is expending resources and feats to gain a benefit just like a full caster would.
el cuervo wrote:
There is your issue. We learned a LONG time ago. Alchohol and P&P rarely mix. If you want a serious game you need to ban/limit it. For a silly one shot game, beer is fine. It can make for a fun night of everyone hanging out and drinking. But your not going to have a serious game.
Notice how the first 2 hours went smooth... then it started to derail. You can chalk that up to the beer.
This is also not a new thing. As stated earlier... Bards already had early spell access. So do Paladins and Rangers. As far as the new classes go... Inquisitors, Summoners, and Magus have early spell access. 6th level casters generally get access to spells at the same level a full caster would for some spells. The only advantage this provides comes into play when you are looking at scrolls, potions, and wands. Im pretty sure its intended. Or at least accepted.
And I think this is where the division lies. Those that miss Prestige classes never had an issue with this. Either their group didn't mind combining lots of prestige classes... or they had a DM that simply limited the number of classes you could take... or just said no to certain combos. Those that are so anti-prestige class seem to have been the victim of others bringing crazy combo's to the table.
My points on Prestige classes...
1. Archtypes are a poor substitute for prestige classes. They are designed for 1 class. They require you to give up some other core ability of the class. For instance "Whip Guy" as a rogue would give up Trapfinding... but what if your group really needed a trapfinder... no whip for you!
2. Nothing says you have to allow all content. Its not like you have to have one or the other. But for many of us, we enjoyed prestige classes. Unless your worried it will break something then why be against it. Especially if they released one book of prestige classes... its one book. Just dont buy it or allow it at your table. Its that simple.
3. I dont care if they are specific or not. Make them as specific as you want. I can always reword the fluff. I just miss prestige classes. Why they have to be "generic" for the OP is a mistery to me.
- My 2 copper
But despite all the ‘choices” 3.5 fans here are trumpeting, I have almost none. The ‘choices’ really come from “reverse engineering” a new PC for 20 levels.
Well yeah... thats how it worked. You had to plan your character out. There really is no us vs them mentality unless its directed at those who say they miss things from 3.5. Just cause I miss the freedom of prestige classes doesn't mean I dont enjoy what PF has done. I do. I haven't even glanced at 5th ed because I'm happy with PF. The question was do you miss anything... and yeah. I miss prestige classes. Im not even argueing they are the best thing ever. But I enjoyed the bajillion splat books I could flip through.
Meh. Golarion is... ok. Kinda generic. I really dislike how they set up the deities (expecially using lucifer... my Southern Baptist side cringes). The APs are amazing but the settings are just ok. I was just a huge Forgotten Realms junkie and miss the setting. I could transfer everything over to FR but thats alot of work. I get that D&D will probably never be sold but I can wistfully imagine PF AP + FR. Would be epic.