|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
As stated earlier. The required CHA modifier for this to be even slightly reasonable is too high. For it to work you can't lower the Caster Level to 1. You have to use your full Caster Level...
Siphon Spell (Su): When the arcanist uses the greater spell disruption exploit, she can siphon some of the power of the targeted spell to restore her arcane reservoir. If the caster level of the spell is equal to or higher than that of the arcanist, and she exceeds the DC of the dispel check by 5 or more, she adds 1 point to her arcane reservoir. If she exceeds this check by 10 or more, she instead adds 2 points to her arcane reservoir.
2 Exploits... 1st and 7th
You basically give up your 1st and 7th Exploit for the ability to cast summon monster as a standard action (plus the move action to sack the spell) and the 1 minute per caster level. Because it cost 1 point per spell level its too expensive to use your normal pool. You will have to sack the spell slot you could have used to just cast the spell in the first place. So you get for 2 exploits...
1 min/CL summon monster as a standard action when you sack a spell(same as a cleric sacking spells for heals)
While this is strong its at the cost of 1/5 of your exploits. As an arcanist you have less spells to begin with. Also... Because you get a new level of Summon Monster at every odd level but dont gain that level of spell casting till your next even level your having to sack several spells or you loose one of your normal pool each summons. Compare this too a Master Summoner. He has 5 + Cha mod in summons in addition to his normal casting.
9th level casting vs 6th level casting, but if you want to churn out the summoning power of a Summoner your not going to do alot of casting. Not to mention you can only have one at a time while the Master Summoner can flood the field.
Its a toss up really. A strong Archetype but it doesn't really replace the appeal of a Summoner imo.
The real win evolutions are Pounce, Improved Damage, Reach, Pull/Push and Bite.
Problem: The summoned creature must conform to any limitations of the evolution. This means a lot of your best High level Devils/Demons/Angels cant benefit from some of these. Pounce needs a Quadruped for instance.
No T-Rex with Pounce and Claws... Limbs are a 2 point evolution which you cant get.
So I tried to place all the feats as I would probably take them. Here are a few things I noticed...
1. You really dont start rolling until Level 5 when you get Dex to Damage and Crossbow Mastery. I went Light Crossbow with Two weapon Fighting.
H: Rapid Reload (Light Crossbow)
1d8 + Dex on a 19-20/X3 is pretty sick. At 20th with a 20 Starting Dex, you could potentially max it out at a 36 dex or so. With +5 Keen Crossbows thats...
+38 to hit
26/26/26/21/21/16/16/11 (Touch AC within 80ft )
Its the only "Archer" type with Dex to damage... well other than an actual Gunslinger of course. I think it makes it super competitive with the other big ranged classes (Zen Monk, Fighter Archer, Ranger, ect).
The Hooded Champion Archetype is also very interesting... I am knocking around a few ideas on ways to tweak it.
I fixed it. It seems someone decided to troll my guide. I do plan to update it with all the new traits and suggestions. I have just been out of town the past 6 months or so. Now that I'm back I should be getting it updated before long. Thanks again for all the suggestions and comments. I will post a new thread when I get it updated.
So, how does it change if you get 1 point in 5 attributes of your choice each 4 levels? You can switch which attribute doesn't get a point each time if you like.
It doesn't. Caster's aren't powerful because they are SAD. Attributes have very little to do with it. Its the casting that makes them what they are.
Messing with the way attributes are gained doesn't change that.
This really looks amazing. It makes me want to try out a custom campaign with no prepared casters. It would cut down on arcane power by making casters more specialized. Something like...
No Wizard or Sorcerer. Possibly even change the Druid/Cleric/Oracle to be more specialized spontaneous casters as well. It would limit the power of the classes some. They would at the very least drop to low Tier 2 classes if not Tier 3. And it would add a ton of depth if given as much love as your beguiler has gotten. Each could be rivals of different "Schools" of magic.
Anyone else think this would be a cool campaign world?
Im sorry... at what point did I say that investing in social skills and Cha would do nothing for that person? At what point did I say that all social situations should be hand waved and up to the person's actual ability to communicate?
The OP said the fighter and Monk didnt feel they could CONTRIBUTE to out of combat situations. Not take them over or be the face... but actually make a difference. My respose was simply this... Anyone with well developed backstory and a DM who wants to get everyone envolved will be fine. Will they be making all the social roles? No. But can they contribute to the story and the conversation... sure. Can they gather information by actually talking to people... yes. Will they get as much info as the guy with a maxed out GatherInfo skill. No... but they can still figure stuff out and add to the group. Can the DM incorporate the backstory of any character into the plot and make that player fill invested. Absolutely.
My favorite character was a low INT Barbarian(3.5 before the buffs). He didnt have a ton of social skills, but I RP'ed his low INT and had a blast with him. I never felt like I couldn't contribute even though I lacked a huge pool of skills or earth altering spells and abilities. I played him from 1st to 26th level. He along with 2 other long lasting characters became the focal point of the story... A Barbarian, a Fighter and a Monk actually now that I think about it.
I have also seen Rogues/Bards/Wizards with a crap ton of skills/spells that could contribute outside of combat, but they sat in the corner playing words with friends until the combat started. I never said that Fighters/Monks had the same advatages that other classes have when it comes to social situations... and honestly if they wanted to be a face or the social guru... then they should look at another class. But if all the want is to be a part of the story when not in combat... that is easly solved by a little creative thinking.
And If I was in a game that resolved all social situations with a skill role I think I would fall asleep. Those skills are all well and good but if Your DM (or you) require a skill role to get anything done in a social situation then you are missing out on half the fun of a Pen and Paper RPG. Are there mechanical issues with Fighter or Rogue or Monk... Possibly, but thats not what the OP asked about. They dont need help in the one thing not tracked by Pathfinder... the ability to come up with an interesting character and then roleplay said character.
My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better.
I must be confused. When did Pathfinder add a "Roleplaying" stat? Do fighters dump RP to raise STR now?
I dont see the issue. To the original poster: The issue isn't the classes. Its the players playing the classes. They seem to have prepared for combat, but failed to create interesting concepts to RP when they aren't swinging a sword or kicking someone. I have had entire games revolve around the fighter(The focal point for the "out of combat" portion of the game).
Here is an Idea: Have them write a backstory. Where do they come from. Where are their families. Why did they decide to adventure. What are their goals. Do they have any enemies. What do they fear the most. Likes/Dislikes/Quirks/Issues/ect. Then incorperate that stuff into the plot. That should keep them from feeling "useless".
I think the sweet spot is around level 22 to 26... Which doesn't really require you to have an Epic level handbook. Six levels past 20 gives you plenty of time to enjoy your capstone and to flesh out your character by giving him additional levels from another class.
I have only reached epic level twice and have been playing pen and paper games for over a decade... that doesn't stike me as a huge hole that needs filled. There are rules in place for 20+ gameplay even if they aren't fleshed out. Add in Mythic play and you have everything you really need.
Now a Divine book on the other hand, would be great. A book of all the Deities stated out... if for no other reason then to give my groups something to debate("God A could totally take out God B in a fight!").
I meant more that if you put the party against roughly appropriate encounters, a somewhat high level summoner would never meet something to add to his lists, simply because the summon lists lag in CRs. The SMIX list includes nothing above 14, IIRC.
Well that depends on whether the check to add the creature upon meeting it or if he could add it later when he can cast an appropriatly high enough level of summons. So lets say he fights a Dretch at 3rd level. If he can make the check once he hits 5th level (SM III) then its all good. If he has to make the check as the encounter unfolds then yes... it screws him up pretty bad. As long as the requirement is only "ecountered it AT ANY TIME in the past" then it should be fine.
It sounds interesting... sort of like Pokemon lol. I would suggest having a way for the summoner to research a summons similiar to how you would research creating a new spell. Have it take time + gold. This allows the summoner to go for a specific creature he might want to use but has yet to meet. Several appropriate knowledge rolls plus access to a library of some sort should be required as well. This gives him something to do during downtime also.
Just an Idea. I would be interested to hear how it turns out and see any nailed down ruleset you use. Good luck.
Anyone got thoughts on artifact creation? Asking mainly from a DM / NPC perspective not a player one.
Good lord people. He is asking for a RP reason for why its hard to create Major/Minor Artifacts and yet still explains why certain NPC's can create them.
I would say you have several options.
1) Divine/Abysal/Infernal help - Divine blessing or a pact with the underworld could give you the temporary power to create an artifact. Baba Yaga for instance has the ability to travel between different realms. She could have made a pact with an other-worldly creature gaining the insite/power to create artifacts.
2) Spontanious - I know in 3.5 there was always the small %chance that an item would be created as a cursed item or as an artifact. Call it a fluke or a rare alignment of different circumstances that created said item. This can explain how a single item was created. It doesn't help so much with NPC's that have created several though... thats a little too unlikely.
3) Forgotten rites - As you already stated. It could be a lost art that could be re-discovered.
I personally rule that there has to be a soul involved. This usually means you have to have help from either a divine source or a Other-Worldly scource. A Deity can send the soul of a follower who wishes to return to the material plane in order to do good... even if it is as a weapon. A demon/devil can invest a soul he has taken in return for your soul upon death... or any other number of demonic deals you can think up. An abomination from a plane of chaos might forge a soul from the chaos and embue it into the item... but warping the purpose in the process to seed its agenda. Or you could find an old rite that requires you to sacrifice a person upon creation of the item. (Stabing the victim through the midsection when tempering the blade sorta stuff).
Suffice to say... Its not an easy task. Most are evil or risky. And unless the DM (You) are into it then the task can be all but impossible for even the most powerful of casters and crafters. Thats how I do it anyways.
I would have to agree with the opinion that the rules (both RAW and RAI)support the ability to Scry and Fry. I dont like it and can see why others want to infer some hidden ruling because they dont like it... but the description is pretty clear. It would take a re-wording of teleport... not a clarification.
I personally have never had to deal with this DM'ing any of my groups. Im guessing my casters are just to nice to pull such stunts. If it did come up I would house rule that you had to have actually been to a location before you could teleport there. But thats all it would be. A House rule.
I dont use Save or Die spells. I avoid using Save or Suck spells that keep a player from playing (Hold person is an example) unless its a quick combat (2-3 rounds).
Other than that I just make sure I dont use spells that would keep others from having fun. Its a kind of a broad answer but there it is. I am there to make sure the group is having fun. Throwing AOE and CC over and over would probably keep the group from having fun.
Its a delicate balance between "Challenging" and "Frustrating"
And while you find the Current Wildshape weak, look at all the crying and nashing of teeth over the Sythesist Summoner (who in reality is weaker then a straight summoner or Master Summoner).
It has a more 3.5 flavor shifting mechanic and people scream to the high heavens... and its still a static form that cant change like 3.5 Wildshape, Syth Summoners only get 6th level casting and no animal companion. Yet you see more nerf theads over them than any other class. Can you imagine the threads if Druid still had 3.5 wildshape.
Nathanael Love wrote:
The fact that druids are the weakest they have ever been now and have been given the short end of the stick on Archetypes (Paizo's replacement for PrCs that's supposed to let you play any concept) is sad-- instead of "Bear Druud" and "Dinosaur Druud" that basically get weakened versions of the core abilities why can't Druid have Archetypes like Summoner and Alchemist have gotten?
This has been an issue for Druids since 3.0. There where very few (good) prc's for Druid then either. I think it has alot to do with the fact they are good at everything. Its hard to balance a good archetype/PrC for Druid. It is either weak (Bear Shaman) or insanely good (Planar Shepard). It was the same in 3.5. There where very few PrC's released at all... and most of those where terrible.
I do miss Planar Shepard though! Such a beautifully broken PrC lol. The ability to wildshape into any Angle or Demon/Devil. Absolutly brilliant fun. My one Planar Shepard had to be retired once he was able to wildshape into one of the Archons (cant remember the exact one... Trumpet maybe?). Either way. One of the things Planar shepard added was they got all Extrodinary and SUPERNATURAL abilities. You got the spellcasting of whatever you changed into. So broken. Druid HOLY WORD for the win lol!
LOL... exactly. Nathanael you realize that alot of the crazy stuff from 3.5 has been taken out on purpose right? CODzilla, Batman, ect. World shattering builds are out there but are not promoted here like say... briliantgamolagist forums do.
Druid in its current form is balanced. And you miss the point of Wildshape and SNA if all you use it for is a stat boost and unicorns.
Such a rediculous premise. Did Druids get the nerf... Yes. Wildshape was changed to conform with the new Polymorph rules in PF (It nerfed arcane casters too). They also nerfed several of the buffs and SNA.
Its still one of the best friggin classes in the game.
9`th level spell casting (Automaticly makes it better then most)
And on top of all that...
Wildshape - even nerfed its one of the most versitile abilities in the game. The fact you can gain almost any movement type or vision is insanely good. Add in all the other abilities you can get not to mention the great sneaking and scouting... Its still awsome.
As far as their spell list. Its a great one. They get Offensive spells that a cleric lacks, they have have the heals a wiz/sorc lack, and they still get some great utility and CC spells. If I had to rank spell list I would do so as follows... Wiz/Sorc > Witch > Druid > Cleric > Everything else.
I dont like the Wildshape change. But I certainly understand WHY they made the change. It was insane before. Now its just REALLY good. Add in the Pet, 9th Level spells, armored casting, and D8 HP and you really have no reason to complain. It has no weakness. Its good at everything.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Depends on your Patron. For instance Cold (I think its cold) get some very nice spells to mix with Spellslinger.
Edit: Its Winter. They get Cone of Cold and Polar Ray.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Exactly this. Improved Familiar should be renamed "Improved Action-Economy". UDM and Wands give you two actions a round... Action Economy is King. Loosing Initiative sucks (If Action Economy is King then Initiative is his Queen) but getting the extra actions is worth it.
I AM BAT... errr INQUISITMAN!
Seriously though. Inquisitor seems like a good choice. I like them more as a Van Helsing type character in Carrion Crown... but the Bat Man route as a "Dark Knight" works. :)
Theory craft answer - No. They don’t have access to some of the most game breaking spells in the game like Wizards or Clerics (Wish/Miracle).
Actual Game Play Answer - Maybe. They are a 3/4 BAB, Full Caster, with a Super Pet and Wildshape. They have it all.
Personally I don’t think they are overpowered. They are Versatile. They can fill almost any role... but not every role at once. They have to specialize. Which means they take up a role just like any other class... they just have more options as to what that role will be.
Its obvious that he lacks the system mastery to pull off a Syth Summoner without you having to audit his character every level. Its not his fault. Its a complicated class. If you aren't comfortable doing so then I would suggest asking him to roll a different class.
You could also suggest just using a normal Summoner. They dont meld with their Eidolon and are much easier to learn... and this will allow you both to become more familiar witht the class before you jump into Synth Summoner.
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.