|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
Yup! Although that's the name of a prestige class, so we can't really use it in a generic sort of way...And of course Harrower! Or as the name of a core class, that would be lunacy. ;)
Cleric and druid never bugged me for being culture-specific, as I wanted a western-fantasy setting. For the same reason, Monk drives me insane to this day. I ALWAYS picture the guys from Holy Grail doing flying-kicks and hitting people with books when I have a monk player.
Fish also have a tendency to swallows coins, magical rings, and such. I hope this is taken into account as design moves forward. Part of me also wants to go old-school, but it should really be PRPG. I just got a great idea for "% chance to catch fish" and "% chance for fish-treasure". Could work it as: Bounty of the Sea
DC 10 - Rare catch. +10gp this week.
Obviously like the Bards Performance, the Profession skill will be integral to this build.
Well, when I hear "fishmonger," I immediately get the image of a 16th century London burger, newly elevated to the aristocracy. (Since, thanks to fishmongery, my forbear was elevated to the nobility by King Henry VIII.) If noble was a prestige class, I'd want to build fishmonger as an obvious lead-in base class. I think this could be a good capstone. The speak-with-fish ability could be granted at 1st level, with the wish effect in the capstone.
I'm torn whether the class is more effective as a joke in the following ways: 1) Played straight-up. Is really just a glorified NPC class with little combat usefulness. All class abilities would be tied to buying, gutting, and selling fish. 2) Ridiculous. Silly abilities like being immune to stench effects, or having a stench aura, using fish-knives as weapons, etc. 3) Somewhere in the middle.
I actually enjoy using Gestalt classes in games with limited numbers of players. Typically if I'm running a game with 2 players, or 1 player and myself as DMPC, I will allow gestalt classes. This accomplishes a few things without overloading PCs with levels/magic items: 1) Fills the 4 iconic roles, or at least most of them depending on choices. A party of 2 at least has a chance to get through any type of challenge. 2) Increases available healing so that the player who wants to fight can fight and then heal the party later. 3) Toughens up characters. The wizard player doesn't have to worry about not having 3 players to protect him, he has d10 hit points. 4) Prolongs adventuring day (always good) - characters still have economy of actions, but much more daily resources.
I think "unintentionally" is meant as a catch all for out-of-character intent. Say a player casts the spell, then reaches into his pack for a potion the next round. They forgot they had the spell, so they discharged it. Depends on how strict your DM is about remembering/reminding about active effects. Now, a particularly picky DM could argue that if you are tripped, the natural inclination is to brace against the fall and therefore you would likely lose a touch spell in this case (or if you are grappled/pushed). Kind of harsh, but would be effective in a game with experienced players.
I'll start off with the class description: The smell carries down dark alleys, through crowded market streets, through the hovels of the poor and tinted glass windows of kings alike. The sickly-sweet mix of commerce and offal. This is the harbinger of the fishmonger. Though few desire to ply this trade, those that do so do it from necessity; for all the world craves fish, and who but the fishmonger will dispense it? The fishmonger is both worshipped and spat upon on any given day. When the fish arrives fresh to market, all manner of people clamber for this rich bounty. But by days end the baskets of heads, doll's eyes gaping widly, and the piles of bones and guts create a pocket of inactivity in even the busiest marketplace.
Look, it's your game. You can call the class anything you please. "Fishmonger". (And, hey, when you say 'Fishmonger', people have a STRONG visual.) People will still play "Fishmongers of Fire" and, after six months, people playing Pathfinder will make whatever mental contortions they need, in order for "Fishmonger" to make sense as a 'exemplar of a domain'. But it'll be an uphill fight. Same with "Oracle". Check out the recently opened Fishmonger Design Thread! No ill-will intended.
Post ideas here for the all-new Fishmonger core class. A few things to keep in mind:
Hmmm... Herald or Seer are the ones I like most on that list. Agreed, "herald" has an appropriate divine/regal overtone while also carrying the meaning of representative. Saying you are a "Herald of [thing]" does carry some meaning - you are bringing and spreading that [thing] to the world. I can see how Incarnate may carry a fixed power conotation, you either are Incarnate or you are not. It's still a cool name, though. It may have as many problems as Oracle, but the isn't confusing when applied to more than one category. In regards to some of the other terms, specifically Paragon and Examplar, Paizo has to be careful not to choose words that already have use in the D&D lexicon. "Paragon" reads "racial class" or "4th Edition", for example. In response to James' comments: By no means do I mean to harp on this...a couple posts shouldn't be construed as me shouting hate at the Oracle. I think what is dividing some of the anti-Oraclists (???) is the use of two terms out of antiquity: Oracle + Hercules. Oracle does actually have a loose image when used generally (the 'spirit-communer' is apt) but when attached to Greek antiquity it means something VERY specific (Delphi anyone?) and unfortunately using Hercules as an example strengthened that connection in my mind, and apparently others. It doesn't sound confusing to say "I be Bloodfist the Mighty, the Oracle of Strength!" It does sound confusing to say "Hercules is an Oracle..." Doesn't matter what comes next, because the reader already has a dichotomy. I do think that this conversation is interesting, and I hope it continues for the benefit of the community. I don't think it is hostile, and if Paizo wants to check in occasionally for inspiration or a few laughs, that's great too!
I'd prefer something more like "Avatar" or "Champion" or "Paragon", or others. Yeah. I want something that you can say "[Example] of [thing]!" and have everyone go "Oh, he must be really good at [thing]!" and not "So he tells the future of [thing]?" Incarnate sounds intense. "I am FIRE INCARNATE!" Yeah, I like the ring of that.
@Broddigan: I stand corrected on the damage. I was going by the small size as the base damage for a greatclub. Another point of interest, it is the DM's decision whether you lsoe a class feature or not when you polymorph (in the subschool description) which could include weapon proficiencies. He would obviously need proficiency with greatclubs anyway as they are martial. So assuming he is using an oversized weapon without proficiency, it would be at least -8 to hit (-6 with a feat for oversized weapons).
You need to distinguish between an attack and a successful attack or hit. You may make unlimited touch attacks but as soon as you are successful, the spell is discharged unless it allows for multiples hits. For example, you cast inflict serious wounds and try to touch the enemy fighter. You could theoretically miss him 100 times in a row without losing the spell and then succeed with a hit and the spell would still affect the target.
His club shouldn't increase in size when he wild shapes, it should merge into his body or remain the same size. If he actually owns a Huge club, it should deal 3d6+Str damage (6d6 with shillelagh). If he really wants a 12th level character to walk around with a non-magical weapon for most of the day, allow him his choice. It's a very specific build with a few big downsides.
... Book of Nine Swords was "broken" (I would personally maybe use "goofy as hell" and "seriously, if I wanted this, I'd play 4e" myself, but hardly "broken"), etc.That's how I'd say it. What is this new habit of rewording peoples' posts? Did I miss something in the last 4 months? (Not that I disagree, by the way. "Goofy" is a perfect word.) As to your earlier concept of flippy-rolly-mages (can we go back to calling arcane spellcasters mages, please?) when I did that to one of my own characters, I shook my head and thought "That is patently ridiculous." And that's coming from someone who played a 50ft. fast archer who would walk past running opponents and shoot them from the front... Seriously though, the dive/duck/dip/dive/dodge/cast spells nonsense is just that. Hitting something with a sword is one thing. Stopping time itself and having seconds left over to root through your backpack for lunch is another.
That doesn't mean that "high level wizard >> high level fighter" is a sacred cow, but changing that paradigm would be fairly radical; if you kill too many sacred cows, you might end up with something like 4e (which grognards usually dislike for it's "non-D&D-ness"). Most haughty wizards deserve a Conan-style comeuppance.
Not to mention all the cool class abilities, spells, and magic items that now do precisely nothing because you are already immune. Sure it frees up resources, but less to look forward to.
Thought I would post this here as a handy reference for potential GMs of this drow-themed campaign. As drow have spell resistance as a humanoid race, take note of the following: A creature with spell resistance must lower their spell resistance as a standard action in order to accept a spell cast onto them. Raising the resistance again is an automatic free action at the start of the next turn. See here. A creature casting a spell targetted on themselves is not subject to these rules. See here. Thus, a drow spellcaster may cast spells on themselves freely. Any spellcaster casting a spell on a drow (even a drow cleric casting a healing spell) must roll against spell resistance unless the target has lower their spell resistance. Side Note: Does this further demean the use of healing spells by drow?
That was my first instinct as well, but nowhere in the rules does it say so. Really is a shame. Maybe that will be my next house rule.
A healthy amount of skepticism is always a good thing. Have you actually had a group like that? I think the last time I had a table like that was when both my younger brothers started their first game. "You're a fighter, you're a cleric." In some ways I miss that. I hate it when players nitpick a small error on the part of the DM because they remembered it and are therefore better than you. After they get my "Do you know how much information I manage?" tirade, I usually set-up a game for them to run. Ugh. Rant over.
I freely admit that the 3.5 wizard is even more powerful than the 3.5 fighter, of course.Righto, which brings us to the main point. Evidently that state of affairs is considered both reasonable and proper by the majority on the Paizo boards -- which would account for the vast tide of anger at any perceived "nerf" to the full casting classes, the comments that the Book of Nine Swords was "broken" (I would personally maybe use "slightly silly" and "monstrously repetitive," myself, but hardly "broken"), etc. You know I'm sick to death of agreeing with you? ;) Of course, when I tell people they can't use Psionics or Bo9S at my table because it "doesn't fit" they usually want some kind of thesis-level mathematical argument, which misses the point entirely.
It sounds like a low level campaign you have going.... Consider that low levels are kinda like investing for a wizard... paying dues for all the nastiness they are at later levels. Playing a low level wizard requires a bit of humility and sucking up or manipulating those big dumb fighters into buying you the time you need. If you dont have an investment mentality a wizard at low levels is prolly not a good choice. Maybe start him at a higher level if DM allows. Or maybe try 4th edition... I play it once a week and find it fun in a more casual kinda game. When a wizard takes down a group of raging orcs with a well-placed colour spray the fighter is usually pretty grateful. and why should I have to spend 2-4 rounds before i can do anything to contribute? name any other class that is required to sit on thier A** for half the fight before they can participate? This leads to two problems. The character is ineffectual for most of the fight, and then the character isn't much use if theres a second fight later on. So to use your perspective the wizard is a one trick pony. Sword and board fighter versus archers up a 100ft murderhole. Not a fun battle for the fighter, who basically repeats "I take cover" for 10 rounds, or "I deal 1d8 (+Str if rich and smart) damage with my longbow". By the time a melee character can become a half-decent archer, the wizard is whipping off 5x the damage from 5x the range. And then there's the fight when the enemy sorcerer casts hold person until the fighter fails his save and then has his friends wail on him with coup de grace. That's a good one. How about the barbarian that rages and then is stuck on the other side of a collapsed bridge? Or when the rogue has any target further than 30ft away? Or when the paladin uses his single smite attack and the wizard kills his target with an area effect spell? Or when the monk fights anything but a board?
I always raise an eyebrow when people hold up AD&D as an example of game balance, ignoring spells like Polymorph Other, Shapechange, Gate, Polymorph Any Object, etc. which were just as broken (or maybe more so!) than their 3.5 counterparts.It's a matter of preference; do you like long, sloggy fights at high levels, or do you prefer rocket launcher tag? My personal preference is strongly towards the latter. I like the idea that if I get off my Spell of Ultimate Doom, the fight ends instantly -- but if I fail, I'm sword fodder within an 18th of a second. Full agreement as well. I hate to sound like a broken record when it comes to casters, but I reiterate: casting time and down-sides. I don't see myself running too many games using Pathfinder spells. I like death magic to kill and polymorph to, well, poly-morph. I see myself using a 3.0 spell-list with increased casting times, difficult concentration, and severe downsides for many spells. I may get rid of XP penalties, though.
I'd disagree that it is meant to be a tank (as a dragon class it could even have d12, but it doesn't). The class is meant as a nouveau-bard, a back-up melee character who can fill in for a warrior in most situations with the added benefit of auras that affect the whole party. Bumping up to full BAB is a big change. In my games the Dragon Shaman was notorious for showing up the other core classes. Keeping it line with the cleric seems appropriate - it won't outshine the fighter, and it won't be more useful than a full cleric, but it fits nicely in the middle. In the long run, 1 hp per level on average is not as huge a change as a full BAB.
Even the Luck feats in Complete Scoundrel allowed one to reroll a good deal of types. And the Eberron Action Points as expanded in Unearthed Arcana allowed you to do crazy things like acquire or improve feats for a round. In one game I went even further and allowed them to make extra attacks, re-cast spells, or do crazy stuff without a roll ("I use an action point to jump on top of the wheel-barrow, kick it free, ride it down the hill to fling myself over the wall sword-first at the hill giant!")
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration. None of the abilities you listed require "patience" (read: multiple rounds to activate) or "concentration" (read: can be interrupted by distraction). As a DM I might listen to the argument that Combat Expertise requires Intelligence as a prerequisite and thus requires concentration, but I would be inclined to rule that is not how the rule reads. Examples of things that would not work would be: Spellcasting - requires concentration.
My read of the raptorans is that they are "human-like" outsiders that migrated to [setting] and slowly adapted to their new climate. I think you could allow the +2 to any stat of the human-based races and not have a problem, basically trading a feat and skill points to fly later on. I think you could reduce the Acrobatics bonus to maybe +4 to bring it in line with other racial bonuses. You're probably correct about not having a Perception bonus. I've never had players clamboring to play a raptoran, and I don't think they would with the above changes, which means its probably reasonable.
To the OP: If you want to go beyond inferiority/superiority, you could get into whether adventurers fill gender-stereotypes. Are men more likely to be wizards and females sorcerers? Is a male Cleric of Iomedae treated like he has a submissive personality? How about a female Cleric of Zon-Kuthon? All interesting questions you could integrate into the roleplay of your campaign world. After all, we are meant to use Golarion as our own world and make it interesting in the way we want.
I agree with your assessment of the paladin compared to other classes, and the need to stress good over evil. The D&D order is that Good beings are powerful, while Evil ones are numerous. So the world should have many blackguards, but they aren't as powerful as paladins. So a blackguard class should still have some restrictions, but not simply be an "anti-paladin" in terms of abilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
