The difference between ranger,paladin and so-called fighter-mage is that the ranger and paldin are not just fighter with divine spell lists. Yes,they have spell and if combine with 3.5 splat books that may be very powerful. But Ranger is also a hunter, a tracker, a Nemesis and paladin is the symbol of good and justice. What about a fighter-mage?
Honestly I would like to see more fluff and themes tied to class instead of "one who can cast arcane spell and fight", "one who can cast spell without prepared and fight", "one can choose whatever spell but with limited selection"...etc.
(I'm also very concern about the templar option in advanced phb, it sounds like "I want the paladin's cool power but don't want to be LG" kind of thing.Please... just don't do that.)
Owner - Game Knight
|
Arcane bond (an item, of course, say a sword?) just begs to be lent to a gish class. Limiting it only to weapons, giving something similar to the granted power of the rune domain, and tossing in 3/4 bab.
For spellcasting I'd say use the 'ol bardic spell progression. Focus the spell selection differently, and there you go.
I could also see full bab, with up to 4th level spells, but the thing is: if your point is a martial character with supplemental spellcasting abilities, a paladin/ranger ripoff isn't going to do it--the spells are basically just an afterthought of the class. It's nice and all, but when the ranger gets out his mistletoe and starts to speak in tongues while hand-jiving, nobody is really afraid. At least the bard poses a little more threat in that avenue.
|
The difference between ranger,paladin and so-called fighter-mage is that the ranger and paldin are not just fighter with divine spell lists. Yes,they have spell and if combine with 3.5 splat books that may be very powerful. But Ranger is also a hunter, a tracker, a Nemesis and paladin is the symbol of good and justice. What about a fighter-mage?
Honestly I would like to see more fluff and themes tied to class instead of "one who can cast arcane spell and fight", "one who can cast spell without prepared and fight", "one can choose whatever spell but with limited selection"...etc.(I'm also very concern about the templar option in advanced phb, it sounds like "I want the paladin's cool power but don't want to be LG" kind of thing.Please... just don't do that.)
You don't think a sword-swinger infusing arcane energy into every attack is enough of a concept on its own? Again, we're not asking for just a magic-user who has martial abilities. We're asking for a fighter who uses interwoven swordplay and magical energy. That's every bit as solid of a niche as a "symbol of good and justice." But it sounds like you like classes to be really, really defined from a role-playing perspective, and I definitely prefer them to be as open-ended as possible from that perspective so I can make my own character however I want.
Also, the paladin's powers without lawful good? What's wrong with that? That sounds awesome. The paladin's a great class... a great class that has never appealed to me, ever, because of its role-playing limitations. I know it sounds like I'm complaining about that a lot, but I think the fighter, wizard, sorcerer, ranger, cleric, etc., are all incredibly open-ended, and that's the sort of thing I like to see. The paladin's mechanics are great and I don't think they necessarily have to correspond to the archetype of the LG chivalrous knight of justice and godliness, so why limit them to that? You can still choose a lawful good alignment and play that character without limiting everyone to having to do that.
You don't think a sword-swinger infusing arcane energy into every attack is enough of a concept on its own? Again, we're not asking for just a magic-user who has martial abilities. We're asking for a fighter who uses interwoven swordplay and magical energy.
Okay, so how do you want to express it? Is he a caster with some martial abilities, or is he a fighter with some arcane abilities. Because it really sounds like you want to be able to have both be equal and it just can't work that way. I know, I know, what about the cleric? The game has a long tradition, dating all the way back to the Red Box which is where I first started playing, that arcane magic and armor don't mix. So I guess the question then becomes, do you want to stick with tradition or do you want a wizard that is really just a cleric with the serial numbers filled off.
|
|
I could also see full bab, with up to 4th level spells, but the thing is: if your point is a martial character with supplemental spellcasting abilities, a paladin/ranger ripoff isn't going to do it--the spells are basically just an afterthought of the class. It's nice and all, but when the ranger gets out his mistletoe and starts to speak in tongues while hand-jiving, nobody is really afraid. At least the bard poses a little more threat in that avenue.
I agree, and that's why I'm hesitant to show too much support for a character that doesn't develop spell-casting until 4th or 5th-level. That, depending on how it's written could still be a really compelling class, but it kind of feels like a fighter for four levels that then starts prestiging into eldritch knight and just skips the levels of wizard.
Really, though, I think people are using the ranger and paladin reference point because those are classes that have some limited form of spell-casting and full BAB and other interesting, relevant talents and abilities, and nobody believes either class is overpowered. I don't think anyone's really suggesting that Paizo should just copy one of those two classes and change its spell list to arcane. I think they're just saying "look, those guys aren't overpowered, this guy doesn't have to be, either!"
|
|
Okay, so how do you want to express it? Is he a caster with some martial abilities, or is he a fighter with some arcane abilities. Because it really sounds like you want to be able to have both be equal and it jsut can't work that way.
I don't understand how you could be getting that impression. I think I, and several others in this thread, have said over and over again that what we're after is a fighter who infuses arcane energy into his attacks and has some limited self-buffs. Nobody wants a full-caster with the full range of arcane powers and abilities that a wizard has, who also wears armour and knows how to handle a weapon. Nobody has suggested that at all.
Are these not your words?Okay, so how do you want to express it? Is he a caster with some martial abilities, or is he a fighter with some arcane abilities. Because it really sounds like you want to be able to have both be equal and it just can't work that way.I don't understand how you could be getting that impression....Nobody wants a full-caster with the full range of arcane powers and abilities that a wizard has, who also wears armour and knows how to handle a weapon. Nobody has suggested that at all.
You don't think a sword-swinger infusing arcane energy into every attack is enough of a concept on its own? Again, we're not asking for just a magic-user who has martial abilities. We're asking for a fighter who uses interwoven swordplay and magical energy.
|
Okay, so how do you want to express it? Is he a caster with some martial abilities, or is he a fighter with some arcane abilities. Because it really sounds like you want to be able to have both be equal and it jsut can't work that way.I don't understand how you could be getting that impression. I think I, and several others in this thread, have said over and over again that what we're after is a fighter who infuses arcane energy into his attacks and has some limited self-buffs. Nobody wants a full-caster with the full range of arcane powers and abilities that a wizard has, who also wears armour and knows how to handle a weapon. Nobody has suggested that at all.
And yet everyone including James Jacobs is only hearing(or reading) FUll MAGIC AND FULL FIGHTER. Which is not what has ever been asked for. Just a good combo class that fits the mold and is different then the Bard who for several reasons already pointed out doesn't work. I don't want to have to take UMD to cast combat spells.
|
|
Okay, so how do you want to express it? Is he a caster with some martial abilities, or is he a fighter with some arcane abilities. Because it really sounds like you want to be able to have both be equal and it jsut can't work that way.I don't understand how you could be getting that impression. I think I, and several others in this thread, have said over and over again that what we're after is a fighter who infuses arcane energy into his attacks and has some limited self-buffs. Nobody wants a full-caster with the full range of arcane powers and abilities that a wizard has, who also wears armour and knows how to handle a weapon. Nobody has suggested that at all.
I think that what Drachesturm is really asking is for clarification on how you see this proceeding? How much arcane power should this proposed gish class have? Because the Gish in 3.5, the actual Gish, was just a multiclassed fighter/wizard with a feat, not any special class. What I think you are proposing could easily be done in a similar way by taking Arcane Armor Training and Arcane strike as feats.
I think at mid and high levels pathfinder supports the fighter mage pretty well. I am currently playing a sorc 5/dragon disciple 5 who chose his primary stat as strength. Mind you our group house rulled that claws are not limited for the sorceror bloodlines and can be used at will. Personally I think pathfinder did a diservice to the ability by making it limited times per day. I didnt mind it with the other like abilities (the touch or ranged touch attacks) because casters already do these things, so no additional resourced needed to be diverted to them. But for claws, those are a normal melee attack, something a caster normally does not do. In order to make them worth something, you have to devote stats, and feats to them. Which is why I think they shouldnt be as limited as they are.
With that change I've had alot of fun with this particular character. It doesnt fight as hard as the party's fighter, but I was expecting that. What is cool is I have a solid AC when buffed, and can hit pretty well. My favorite tactic so far is nailing the big bad with an enervation and then wading into melee with him. I also often start combat with haste which helps pretty much the whole party. I think that is what alot of the more reasonable people are looking for in a fighter mage (i too dislike the term gish). A character that has descent fighting ability, and can cast a limited selection of spells to help them out in that fighting. The problem with the DD or eldritch knight is it doesnt really start to perform well untill you get to the DD class. It is one of the reasons I prefer base classes to prestige classes. People tend to spend alot of time at low level. I think every sign points to 1-6 being alot more common playtime then 6-12 and alot more then 13-20. In which case providing an option (the sword mage) with a prestige class doesnt really work. Since you dont get the feel of the fighter mage untill very late in your game and wont keep it for very long.
In terms of power, basically what I would want is something that casts much like a bard or perhaps a bit slower progression, but with a slightly more offensive spell list. And trade the classic bard abilites (songs and bardic knowledge) for a slightly heavier martial feel. (full bab and more armor/weapon profficiencies) Basically take the eldritch knight and translate it into a full base class and i would be satisfied.
Do you know why there will never, never, never, never, be a gish in Pathfinder? Because Githyanki are not open content, that's why!
Where can I find this runeblade? I've been working on a prestige class with that exact same name for one of my current games, in which I play a character pretty much exactly like what you described, deriving powers from runes, and using them for melee purposes
Book of Experimental Might
http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/m/malhavocPress/paizoPublishing/v5748btpy8 60b&source=search
|
|
Basically the duskblade got his cake and could eat it too. He got a huge number of spells and some of his spells (polar ray) where far more powerful then a 5th level spell slot. On top of that full bab and full armor selection and the ability to cast in light and medium armors.
Still his small spell selection and focus on just doing big damage and nothing else made him feel like a one trick pony, however it was a good trick.
This just isn't an accurate picture of the duskblade. The duskblade at 20th-level knows five 1st-level spells, and four spells at each spell level between 2nd and 5th, for a total of 21 non-cantrip spells at 20th-level, compared with a sorcerer who knows 34 non-cantrip spells, ranging up to 9th-level in power, not to mention the list the duskblade can choose from is a tiny, tiny fraction of the size of the sorcerer's and is absolutely (as you mentioned) a one-trick pony list... which is fine because that's what makes sense for a class like this.
Yes, the duskblade gets polar ray as a 5th-level spell, but you know what? He or she can't cast 5th-level spells until 17th-level. As an 8th-level spell, the sorcerer is quite happily casting Polar Ray at 16th-level and the wizard has it at 15th. My point is two-fold here. First of all, I'm not complaining. The duskblade's spell selection and ability to cast should be smaller and weaker than a wizard or sorcerer's. Second of all, however, claiming that he or she's over-powered and then citing elements of his or her spell-casting that are worse than a sorcerer's doesn't make any sense. If the duskblade got polar ray as a 4th-level spell and could cast it 13th-level, I'd absolutely agree with you. That would be over-powered, and he or she shouldn't be able to cast any big, splashy wizard or sorcerer spells before a wizard or sorcerer could do it. But what harm does giving the class polar ray a level or two later than proper arcane casters do?
I see your point: giving the duskblade only up to 5th-level spells is meaningless if you turn 8th-level spells into 5th-level for him or her, but I think given how spread-out the class's spell level developments are, it was not only an okay decision but really, really good design to cheat the 5th-level cap in a few choice places. They honestly didn't do it very often. They chose a few splashy spells and let him or her have them access to them at 17th-level. That was just throwing the class a bone because of how limited and specialized the spell list is.
As far as the spells-per-day, the duskblade got a ton, but you realize why, right? A fighter gets a ton of feats and gets to use them all the time, every time he or she hits. Power attack every round? Sure! Cleave this turn, next turn, and every turn after? Why not? The duskblade doesn't have all those bonus feats. Instead, the duskblade channels spells through each attack. Could you imagine a 3rd-level fighter who could only use power attack four times per day, and if the attack missed it still wasted one of those usages? Well, that's what the duskblade is all about. At 3rd-level, the duskblade gets four spells to channel and a missed attack still wastes the spell. The duskblade, as a concept, wouldn't work without all those extra spells-per-day. It just wouldn't. That's a balancing factor, not an example of how over-powered the class is. If the sorcerer got as many spells-per-day as a duskblade does, it would be over-powered, sure, but given the duskblade's spell list and fighting tactics, it couldn't be further from being a problem to give the class so many spells each day.
For example, I play a 6th-level duskblade in a game right now, and we're a low-action game where we maybe participate in one or two fights per game session, at most, and I run out of spells before the end of those fights all the time. I love the character and I love the class, and I admit that some of the fights we do are well above the curve for typical D&D fights at this level, but I still think it relevantly illustrates that the class really isn't in the wrong for having so many spells-per-day.
Yes, you're right, the duskblade has full BAB and can wear heavy armour and all that, but, you know, he's a fighting class. So that makes sense. And he or she doesn't have any of the bonus feats or class features of a fighter. Instead, the class has really, really stunted spell-casting and some other synergistic abilities that fit its flavour better. The duskblade isn't better than the fighter, he or she just shares some strengths with the fighter and then also has some different strengths to bring the two up to a similar level.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
wow, apparently I've more time at work then Crimson Jester ;-)
Ahem.
I think there are three 'levels' of caster to look at with a base armoured mage (spellthane).
1) Full caster level average BAB, d8 HD, 9th level spells reduced spells known cast, few, if any, bonuses (Battle Sorcerer, Wilder, we'll stick Complete Arcane's Warmage and PHB II Beguiler as well)
2) Full caster level, average BAB, d8 HD, 6th level spells known, some deviation. (Bard, my aformentioned classes, Psychic Warrior, Arcana Evolved's Mage Blade, PHB II Duckblade*)
3) Reduced caster level** Good BAB, d10 HP 4th level spells known, special effects (Complete Arcane Hexblade [writer's suggested corrections] Advanced Player's Manual's Thaneblade)
Now for Pathfinder, the mark is level 20 Figher X/Mage X/Eldrich Knight 10
1) vs. Fighter 1/Sorcerer 9/EK 10 - BAB is a wash, both get 9th level spells, caster level advantage battle sorcerer. Both in CL and in getting spells from first level on. (assuming that the BatSor gets all the bloodline perks too)Approx 97 HP for the EK 90-110 for the BatSorc (depending on favoured class distribution)
2) vs. Fighter 5/Sorcerer5/EK 10 - BAB goes to the EK (+17 v +15) EK gets 7th level spells but a CL of only 14 vs 20 for the spellthane. Average 105 HP for EK, 90-110 for the thaneblade, as above
3) vs same as 2. BAB goes to thaneblade (+20 vs +17) Caster level is a wash (between 10-17 depending on the system for the thaneblade, 14 for the EK) Spells known 7th for the EK vs 4th for the thaneblade, HP 115-135 vs 105, advantage thaneblade.
One and two reward the caster with spells from the get-go, the 1/9/10 is going to rely on class features to pull ahead, else there's only the 4th attack and a slight edge in HP. Against thaneblade type 2, the multiclass may seem to lag, but it pays off in the end with the higher level spells.
Thaneblade 3 needs the 'special effects' that Heathenson was talking about in his post to balance out, IMNSHO.
As to spells known/spell list, it is going to vary from build to build. The psychic warrior is known for its BYOB (bring your own buffs) approach, while the duskblade is known for its direct damage and limited buffs. The Mage Blade, meshing with AE's different system, knows a bunch of 'simple spells' But stuff like 'Flesh to plush' require a feat cost.
|
|
Are these not your words?
They are my words, although I didn't boldize the word "just." However, and I'm trying really hard not to be rude when I say this, but those words seem to me to answer the question you posed directly after I wrote them. Again, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm just legitimately confused.
For the record, the "again, we're not asking for just a magic-user who has martial abilities. We're asking for a fighter who uses interwoven swordplay and magical energy" sentences meant to me--and apologies if I wasn't as clear and concise as I intended--"we want a fighter with some arcane abilities."
At which point you asked "is he a caster with some martial abilities, or is he a fighter with some arcane abilities," which I thought I had just answered, so I reiterated with "what we're after is a fighter who infuses arcane energy into his attacks and has some limited self-buffs," which, again, meant to me "we want a fighter with some arcane abilities."
Simultaneously, I responded to your "because it really sounds like you want to be able to have both be equal and it just can't work that way" with my follow-up of "nobody wants a full-caster with the full range of arcane powers and abilities that a wizard has, who also wears armour and knows how to handle a weapon. Nobody has suggested that at all." I still believe that to be a true statement. I was confused by your confusion because I thought I (and others) had answered your concerns before you raised them.
I'm sorry for the headaches I've caused all-around! (:
|
|
Benn, I think the confuse came from the word "just." Please bear with me as I explain. By saying you don want just something, like you did in this case, it implies that you do want that but you also want more than that. For example: "I don't want just pizza. I want breadsticks and a salad." Therefore I can see how many people reading your statement and others like it would get the idea that you did want a full spell progeression and a full BAB and other abilities. Sadly the English language is rather ineloquant and lends itself to misunderstanding.
Basically the duskblade got his cake and could eat it too. He got a huge number of spells and some of his spells (polar ray) where far more powerful then a 5th level spell slot. On top of that full bab and full armor selection and the ability to cast in light and medium armors.Still his small spell selection and focus on just doing big damage and nothing else made him feel like a one trick pony, however it was a good trick.
There is lots of precedent for the limited spell casters having spells dropped in spell level to fit their progression. Paladin, Ranger and Bard Spell lists all have this. And while polar ray down to a 5th level spell slot is a big drop, to be honest, the spell is caster level dependant in terms of power not spell level. Especially in 3.5. It was a single ray doing 1d6 per level. You can do that as a friggan 3rd level spell. Cone of cold is arguable better at 5. I think they were actually corecting the level of polar ray as opposed to giving it as a boon to the duskblade.
Quick response to Benn Roe.
I actually rather like warrior/wizard combination classes, a lot. So, don't take my post as a direct challenge to what your asking for, I fully support adding a gish base class to the game.
However, I dislike the duskblade, and yes I thought it went to far with the huge number of spells per day, and some of those spells where higher level spells arbitrarily given to a lower level spell slot.
As a counter I was a fan of the hexblade, whose spells where additions to the class and not it's main feature. Oddly I always though the Seul Arcanamach (a very little know gish whose focus was on fighting wizards and magical beings with dispels) would be a fantastic idea for a base gish class for pathfinder.
The duskblade, however, seems to be ultimately one of the reasons so many people started to complain about too many overpowered classes. This in-turn lead to a big division in the community as a whole, and I know of many people who would like to forget the class was ever made.
|
|
Benn, I think the confuse came from the word "just." Please bear with me as I explain. By saying you don want just something, like you did in this case, it implies that you do want that but you also want more than that. For example: "I don't want just pizza. I want breadsticks and a salad." Therefore I can see how many people reading your statement and others like it would get the idea that you did want a full spell progeression and a full BAB and other abilities. Sadly the English language is rather ineloquant and lends itself to misunderstanding.
Fair enough! I can see that. What I meant by the word "just" was that the concept of "a magic-user who has martial abilities" wasn't specific enough, not that it wasn't powerful enough.
|
|
However, I dislike the duskblade, and yes I thought it went to far with the huge number of spells per day, and some of those spells where higher level spells arbitrarily given to a lower level spell slot.
As a counter I was a fan of the hexblade, whose spells where additions to the class and not it's main feature. Oddly I always though the Seul Arcanamach (a very little know gish whose focus was on fighting wizards and magical beings with dispels) would be a fantastic idea for a base gish class for pathfinder.
The duskblade, however, seems to be ultimately one of the reasons so many people started to complain about too many overpowered classes. This in-turn lead to a big division in the community as a whole, and I know of many people who would like to forget the class was ever made.
I can see not being a fan of the duskblade, for sure, though I think calling it over-powered is a huge stretch, for the reasons I outlined above. As someone who consistently plays a duskblade, I can honestly say that I rarely feel like I outshine the members of my party, and I've never, ever, ever taken the place of a full caster in a party make-up. I think the duskblade can easily take the place of a fighter, but so can a barbarian or a crusader or a paladin. Similarly, a sorcerer or a dread necromancer or a warmage or a beguiler can reasonably fill the wizard's slot in the party (though none are as versatile, I agree). The point shouldn't ever be that you can't fill the role of a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, or a cleric, but that you can't fill the role of any two or more of those. A party with a duskblade instead of a fighter loses nothing, in my opinion, but it still needs a mage. And I think that's completely fine.
I'm sorry that people read the duskblade and hung up their D&D hats, but ultimately, I think anyone who did that hasn't had much experience playing a duskblade. Sure, they're over-powered when totally optimized, but I feel like that's true of most classes. That's not a class deficiency, that's a player deficiency. Either get the other players to start optimizing more, or ask the optimizer to tone it down to balance the game. There are advantages and disadvantages to having a system as flexible as this one! The duskblade looks a lot more powerful on paper because some of the design decisions don't make sense unless you test-drive it yourself and realize exactly what it's trying to do.
I also love the hexblade as a class, but it's hardly a replacement for the duskblade. They're not really trying to do similar things at all. Yes, they're both melee combatants that use arcane energy, but that's where the similarities end. I love the hexblade, but it doesn't fill the niche I'm asking about.
And while polar ray down to a 5th level spell slot is a big drop, to be honest, the spell is caster level dependant in terms of power not spell level. Especially in 3.5. It was a single ray doing 1d6 per level. You can do that as a friggan 3rd level spell. Cone of cold is arguable better at 5. I think they were actually corecting the level of polar ray as opposed to giving it as a boon to the duskblade.You do remember that unlike a 3rd level spell it was not capped at 10 nor 15 dice for damage. That's the main reason for having it at a higher level. than 3rd or 5th.
I am aware of that aspect of spell casting. I just think it is no where near justification for an 8th level ray spell. Should it be part of the equation? Absolutely, but as the SOLE indicator, that is a poor design descision. Why do you think paizo added the dex damage? That is one of a very few spells that was actually buffed in pathfinder, where lots others (rightfully so) were toned down.
Might I lend a suggestion then. (Directed at Benn)
Why not start an open project, right here on the message boards, for an unofficial, to hopefully be adopted as official base gish-like class, fo pathfinder.
It would not be one persons idea per-say, but a collection of ideas and design philosophies from multiple individuals. The goal would be to develop it to the point that Paizo's adopts it as a full on class, releasing a free pdf made up of a cleaned up finalized version as a design, and of course released as fully pathfinder society compatible.
What do you say (Liza, Eric, Jason) would you all support a community project like that.
Creative Director
|
In it's defense, the arcane archer was a great reflection on the attunement of elven blood to the practise of magic. On the flip side, I never saw any complaints about the fact that Dwarven Defender was restricted to dwarves, because the class concept and execution was so "dwarflike"
Instead of removing the unique qualities of this class, consider creating other race-themed classes which exemplify the unique racial qualities the way Arcane Archer and Dwarven Defender did.
That's more of a campaign specific thing though... elves being good at archery. Dwarven defender should probably not be limited to dwarves either, to tell the truth. Anyway, removing the race restrictions doesn't meany you CAN'T have elven arcane archers... and there can certainly be text in the prestige class writeup that says "most arcane archers are elves." But it's unnecessary limiting a requirement otherwise.
|
Creative Director
|
And yet everyone including James Jacobs is only hearing(or reading) FUll MAGIC AND FULL FIGHTER. Which is not what has ever been asked for. Just a good combo class that fits the mold and is different then the Bard who for several reasons already pointed out doesn't work. I don't want to have to take UMD to cast combat spells.
Actually, this is completely incorrect. I came in here thinking folks wanted a full magic/full combat class but when some folks said they basically wanted something like an arcane ranger, I agreed that'd be a good class but that we don't have any plans for a class like that yet. getting defesnive and panicking won't help anything. Rest assured that I do indeed understand that some folks on this thread are asking for something less over-the-top than a full magic/full combat class. I hear you.
Although everytime someone calls the concept a "gish" it becomes harder and harder to hear you... that word sucks. :-P
|
|
Might I lend a suggestion then. (Directed at Benn)
Why not start an open project, right here on the message boards, for an unofficial, to hopefully be adopted as official base gish-like class, fo pathfinder.
It would not be one persons idea per-say, but a collection of ideas and design philosophies from multiple individuals. The goal would be to develop it to the point that Paizo's adopts it as a full on class, releasing a free pdf made up of a cleaned up finalized version as a design, and of course released as fully pathfinder society compatible.
What do you say (Liza, Eric, Jason) would you all support a community project like that.
I like that idea a lot, but I can't see Paizo being interested, since they seem to hold base classes with such high regard and would probably want to oversee the design process fully themselves before releasing it to the public for detailing. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd be thrilled if anyone from Paizo responds to your idea with an affirmative, so I'm keeping my eyes peeled! It just seems unlikely.
Thanks either way for being so thoughtful with regard to my problem, and for not taking our disagreements on duskblades personally. It's always refreshing to come across people who can disagree without feeling threatened.
|
Creative Director
|
Might I lend a suggestion then. (Directed at Benn)
Why not start an open project, right here on the message boards, for an unofficial, to hopefully be adopted as official base gish-like class, fo pathfinder.
It would not be one persons idea per-say, but a collection of ideas and design philosophies from multiple individuals. The goal would be to develop it to the point that Paizo's adopts it as a full on class, releasing a free pdf made up of a cleaned up finalized version as a design, and of course released as fully pathfinder society compatible.
What do you say (Liza, Eric, Jason) would you all support a community project like that.
A class-by-committee is a fine idea. I'm skeptical that design-by-committee can actual work, though, and would be more interested in seeing how a project like this pans out than I would be in seeing the final results of the design process, actually.
In any event, this isn't really a design route that Paizo's interested in taking. We made the Pathfinder rules completely open so that anyone could do just this if they wanted, and could create expansions that they wanted to see created and even sell them for profit. If someone creates something truly awesome we might adapt it/adopt it into a book, but we don't have time to dedicate much participation in such a project or review/approve final results.
Feel free to try out a project like this, is what I'm saying, but beyond maybe some idle feedback on the boards from a Paizo staffer we don't really have the resources or the desire to take part in this officially. After all... if/when we DO decide to do a class like this we're more likely to build it completely in house and then put it up for playtesting like we're doing with the new base classes. That's what we pay folks to do, after all.
I removed some ... unproductive posts.
Might I lend a suggestion then. (Directed at Benn)
Why not start an open project, right here on the message boards, for an unofficial, to hopefully be adopted as official base gish-like class, fo pathfinder.
It would not be one persons idea per-say, but a collection of ideas and design philosophies from multiple individuals. The goal would be to develop it to the point that Paizo's adopts it as a full on class, releasing a free pdf made up of a cleaned up finalized version as a design, and of course released as fully pathfinder society compatible.
What do you say (Liza, Eric, Jason) would you all support a community project like that.
A class-by-committee is a fine idea. I'm skeptical that design-by-committee can actual work, though, and would be more interested in seeing how a project like this pans out than I would be in seeing the final results of the design process, actually.
In any event, this isn't really a design route that Paizo's interested in taking. We made the Pathfinder rules completely open so that anyone could do just this if they wanted, and could create expansions that they wanted to see created and even sell them for profit. If someone creates something truly awesome we might adapt it/adopt it into a book, but we don't have time to dedicate much participation in such a project or review/approve final results.
Feel free to try out a project like this, is what I'm saying, but beyond maybe some idle feedback on the boards from a Paizo staffer we don't really have the resources or the desire to take part in this officially. After all... if/when we DO decide to do a class like this we're more likely to build it completely in house and then put it up for playtesting like we're doing with the new base classes. That's what we pay folks to do, after all.
K, so now I'm getting sort of interested myself. Could this be something like a sticked thread or something along that lines, so people notice it (a lot of the time threads get lost)? And, would it be a bother to say, have someone a Pazio's consider it after a period of time, like if the community agrees on a final design lets say around the time the APG comes out. Then state if they'll adopt it or not based class suitable for PS on the a glance over at that time? Or am I asking for too much? Sorry for putting you on the spot.
|
|
And yet everyone including James Jacobs is only hearing(or reading) FUll MAGIC AND FULL FIGHTER. Which is not what has ever been asked for. Just a good combo class that fits the mold and is different then the Bard who for several reasons already pointed out doesn't work. I don't want to have to take UMD to cast combat spells.Actually, this is completely incorrect. I came in here thinking folks wanted a full magic/full combat class but when some folks said they basically wanted something like an arcane ranger, I agreed that'd be a good class but that we don't have any plans for a class like that yet. getting defesnive and panicking won't help anything. Rest assured that I do indeed understand that some folks on this thread are asking for something less over-the-top than a full magic/full combat class. I hear you.
Although everytime someone calls the concept a "gish" it becomes harder and harder to hear you... that word sucks. :-P
Then I must have misread you and apologize. I was not trying to get defensive but it did seem that the naysayer’s were in fact speaking as if everyone wanted an over the top “tool” of a class or a gestalt class that looks like a pc class. I do not. Never did. I however am not a designer and feel that those of you who are would do a much better and a quicker job then I. I have made or adjusted several PrC’s from time to time, to flesh out and adjust a campaign. But a full fledged class that is both consistent and balanced to the other rules, is something I have yet to tackle. You and Jason’s expertise was in fact what we were asking for. However I understand you have a business to run and in fact that comes first. It must come first. Thank you for taking the time to listen and to give us your opinions. You guys talk to us so often it is hard to remember that other companies do not. I will work on a class and will post it at some point and if anyone feels like giving me pointers that would be welcome.
As an aside I too dislike the term Gish. It is great when it refers to the Githyanki but sucks everywhere else.
I have been trying to use Fighter-Magic user but it doesn't have the same zip :)
|
|
And it's not even broken to have a class with, say, a full nine levels of spellcasting, plus good BAB, HP, and proficiencies, with extra abilities on top of that.
WTF? You have to include exotic weapon proficiency (katana) and trenchcoat armor bonuses as well, just to make sure that calss isn't underpowered.
|
|
[
K, so now I'm getting sort of interested myself. Could this be something like a sticked thread or something along that lines, so people notice it (a lot of the time...
We might talk them into a stickied thread if a lot and I mean a lot of people inquire. Getting something official I think would take a lot more effort. They just have so much on their plate right now. I just don't see it happening and I think James has made it clear it is not something they are interested in at this time.
|
Creative Director
|
K, so now I'm getting sort of interested myself. Could this be something like a sticked thread or something along that lines, so people notice it (a lot of the time threads get lost)? And, would it be a bother to say, have someone a Pazio's consider it after a period of time, like if the community agrees on a final design lets say around the time the APG comes out. Then state if they'll adopt it or not based class suitable for PS on the a glance over at that time? Or am I asking for too much? Sorry for putting you on the spot.
We reserve the "sticky" power for threads that truly need to be on everyone's radar. And a thread like this one isn't something that we think needs to be stickied; too many sticky threads ruin the whole point of sticky threads, after all, and there's nothing about this one that I think puts it above every other thread here. Feel free to continue with the discussion, but since the EARLIEST Paizo'd be able to actually move on releasing a base class like this at this point (assuming we'd want to do so, of course) is in 2011; we've got our schedule for 2010 already more or less nailed down and THAT (and the last bit of 2009) is what we're focusing our design and development and editing on right now.
Folks have made their desires for an arcane warrior type class pretty clear, and it's certainly something we'll be talking about on and off at Paizo for some time to come, but we're not going to drop what we're doing now with APG and the Adventure Path and the other book lines to switch gears to start working or seriously considering this new base class for some time.
One place that MIGHT be an interesting place to approach for this material, though, would be Kobold Quarterly. If I recall correctly, Wolfgang's always looking for new Pathfinder articles.
|
|
And it's not even broken to have a class with, say, a full nine levels of spellcasting, plus good BAB, HP, and proficiencies, with extra abilities on top of that.WTF? You have to include exotic weapon proficiency (katana) and trenchcoat armor bonuses as well, just to make sure that class isn't underpowered.
Well then of course you have to adjust the race as well. It has to have regeneration and some form of DR/-.
We might talk them into a stickied thread if a lot and I mean a lot of people inquire. Getting something official I think would take a lot more effort. They just have so much on their plate right now. I just don't see it happening and I think James has made it clear it is not something they are interested in at this time.[
K, so now I'm getting sort of interested myself. Could this be something like a sticked thread or something along that lines, so people notice it (a lot of the time...
I re-read his post and at first it seems like he was saying, we would likely not be interested, but we wouldn't mind it if something good came up. Guess I misunderstood his post, the thing is what this really comes to is a thumbs up or a thumbs down on the idea, and that the class is considered a official class within pathfinder society play.
Perhaps a pipe dream, sorry, but community projects make me personally feel like I own a bit more of that particular game. Like pathfinder is different due to the level of involvement in the very design of the game iself that the players bring and the designers recognize that. Not, to start on fourth edition, but it feels like WOTC just didn't care about the negative reaction, they where to busy making fun of people who where disappointed, and bragging on how kool they were. Sorry 4e fans it just felt that way early on.
The game has a long tradition, dating all the way back to the Red Box which is where I first started playing, that arcane magic and armor don't mix. So I guess the question then becomes, do you want to stick with tradition or do you want a wizard that is really just a cleric with the serial numbers filled off.Incorrect. I'm reading the Players Manual from the red box right now, and it plainly states that elves can both wear any armor and cast magic-user (arcane) spells. The Men & Monsters booklet from the original white box says the same thing. Full-plate-wearing arcane casters have been in the game since the very beginning.
Now look at the Wizard. Do they were armor? The only thing you have proven is that Elves should have a racial trait that lets elves wear armor when casting. Elves aren't a class anymore, any your comparison is like comparing apples and watermelons.
If you really really want an arcane fighter, why not just invoke a feat similar to the cleric's holy warrior variant.
Lose: arcane bond and school/universalist specializations.
Gain: full BAB, add armor proficiency, martial wpn prof, arcane strike and arcane armor training/mastery to the list of wizard bonus feats.
Then you have a full progresssion caster, with albeit lower hitpoints who can fight without taking away too much from either the fighter or the wizard. (If you wanted to nerf them even more, make their effective caster level one or two less in exchange for dropping or reducing the arcane failure chance in hevy armor.) I.e. 5th level warrior mage can cast fire ball but is treated as a fourth level cast for damage dice and DC.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Now look at the Wizard. Do they were armor? The only thing you have proven is that Elves should have a racial trait that lets elves wear armor when casting. Elves aren't a class anymore, any your comparison is like comparing apples and watermelons.
I find your arguement flawed. If we let elves have a racial trait saying they can cast in armour, then why not limit them to fighter/mage/cleric while we're at it? Since that's the way it was.
Actually, wizards can wear armor with a reduced ASF chance, thanks to feats in Pathfinder. The idea behind a spellthane class is to allow him some fighting prowess without sacrificing the caster level.
Now look at the Wizard. Do they were armor? The only thing you have proven is that Elves should have a racial trait that lets elves wear armor when casting. Elves aren't a class anymore, any your comparison is like comparing apples and watermelons.I find your arguement flawed. If we let elves have a racial trait saying they can cast in armour, then why not limit them to fighter/mage/cleric while we're at it? Since that's the way it was.
Actually, wizards can wear armor with a reduced ASF chance, thanks to feats in Pathfinder. The idea behind a spellthane class is to allow him some fighting prowess without sacrificing the caster level.
Actually he (Drachesturm) is still wrong, Bards in second edition could spell cast in elven chain, due to it's lightness, and so could fighter/mages. Also, I may be wrong on this, but I believe also in second edition their was a kit that allowed wizards to use axes and cast in leather as well as elven chain, battle mage or something to the extent.
Edit: It's the militant wizard kit.
The model I prefer for a "mystic warrior" type is more along the lines of the psychic warrior than the bard.
A self-buffing front-line type.
The bard, I think, would better model the old 1e/2e F/M/T (fighter/mage/thief):
Swap out bardic music for the wizard/sorceror spell list. That is, REPLACE the bard list with wiz/sorc list, not add to it.
Swap out bardic knowledge for a sneak attack progression, maybe between 1/2 and 3/4 (i.e. ~+5d6 to +7d6 by level 20). Or, for Trapsense.
Seems a better use of those skills and skill points the bard gets.
I would rather if you all kept me out of this.