I would use pathfinder's version of psionics, a.k.a. psychic magic, over anything else, if and when it comes out.
I was immediately thinking more that the artificer would have, or at least have an option to have, a sort of automaton creature which would add functions as the character leveled. Kind of like a more restricted list of evolution points similar to the summoner.
and MMCJawa wouldn't an Artificer be less summoner and more Rogue or Ranger (what with the traps and techno-tricks and what not, and the skills needed, oh the skills . . .)
OK, I think I understand where you were coming from now. Something like and Iron Kingdoms Warjack? Or a clock/steampunk mecha pilot? Or am I waaay of target?
Am I the only remaining fan of Avatar the last Air Bender (Way to kill the franchise Night!!) who wants to see a Monk/Witch hybrid where all the Hexes are tied to the elements (four options at each break, for element chosen at creation)?
and MMCJawa wouldn't an Artificer be less summoner and more Rogue or Ranger (what with the traps and techno-tricks and what not, and the skills needed, oh the skills . . .)
I'm a fan of the series, but I'm not sure a Monk/Witch combo is necessarily the way I'd mechanically represent bending. It's certainly an interesting idea though!
Just the first thing that popped into my head. I'd most likely do it with a set of scaling spell=like abilities appropriate to the element and tied to something akin to a feat-tree (but not feats per se)
Just the first thing that popped into my head. I'd most likely do it with a set of scaling spell=like abilities appropriate to the element and tied to something akin to a feat-tree (but not feats per se)Am I the only remaining fan of Avatar the last Air Bender (Way to kill the franchise Night!!) who wants to see a Monk/Witch hybrid where all the Hexes are tied to the elements (four options at each break, for element chosen at creation)?
and MMCJawa wouldn't an Artificer be less summoner and more Rogue or Ranger (what with the traps and techno-tricks and what not, and the skills needed, oh the skills . . .)
I'm a fan of the series, but I'm not sure a Monk/Witch combo is necessarily the way I'd mechanically represent bending. It's certainly an interesting idea though!
This might be another example of a way you could express the Monk/Sorcerer combo I described a page or two ago, someone who expressly uses magic through physical expression. I'm not sure if I agree with witch, only because "hexes" implies infinite usage, and while benders could use their abilities for extended periods, they couldn't use it infinitely. I'd personally go more along sorcerer, since they get more spells per day than the average caster.
OK, I think I understand where you were coming from now. Something like and Iron Kingdoms Warjack? Or a clock/steampunk mecha pilot? Or am I waaay of target?I was immediately thinking more that the artificer would have, or at least have an option to have, a sort of automaton creature which would add functions as the character leveled. Kind of like a more restricted list of evolution points similar to the summoner.
and MMCJawa wouldn't an Artificer be less summoner and more Rogue or Ranger (what with the traps and techno-tricks and what not, and the skills needed, oh the skills . . .)
Not familiar enough with the Warjacks to comment, but basically I could imagine (like druids) you would have too main options.
You get a robot like companion, and each time you level you get to add a certain number of things you could add to it (thicker armor, extra sensors, different appendages, faster treads, etc)
Alternatively, you get to augment your own weapons or armor instead, so say improve your gun so it fires farther, or add shocking properties to your armor.
It's Pathfinder "Kool-Aid", taste better then third party "Kool-Aid".
I want to see some of the prestige classes revamped into core classes. Mystic thurge and arcane archer both fit into the concept of combining 2 classes while having their own unfulfilled niche. Shadow dancer is another fan favorite in my group that I would love to see an official 20 level progression version.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd like, personally, would be some kind of "transformative" warrior. Not a "shapeshifter" like a druid or that ranger archetype, but more like the Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog (For those that never saw the show, think Power Rangers in Medieval Ireland). Summon magical armor and stuff.
|
What I'd like, personally, would be some kind of "transformative" warrior. Not a "shapeshifter" like a druid or that ranger archetype, but more like the Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog (For those that never saw the show, think Power Rangers in Medieval Ireland). Summon magical armor and stuff.
Hurray for awesome childhoods!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh! Oooh! Ooh!
Thrown weapons expert. Could just be an archetype of the swashbuckler, but would be nice to have some good mechanics for that.
What I'd like, personally, would be some kind of "transformative" warrior. Not a "shapeshifter" like a druid or that ranger archetype, but more like the Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog (For those that never saw the show, think Power Rangers in Medieval Ireland). Summon magical armor and stuff.Hurray for awesome childhoods!
I miss that show...now I want to find my old vhs of it to show my nephew.
|
Wish list....
A better use for low-level domain/bloodline/mystery powers for use at higher levels.
Other ways to get armor training, mainly to offset the speed restriction
Better defining difference between prepared and spontaneos casting
Archetypes that totally take the spell casting ability to grant stronger class abilities, for example "What class abilities would make for for a sorcerer keeping the current BAB but loosing the ability to cast spells?" Another bloodline or two? Lay on hands? Channel Energy?
What I'd like, personally, would be some kind of "transformative" warrior. Not a "shapeshifter" like a druid or that ranger archetype, but more like the Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog (For those that never saw the show, think Power Rangers in Medieval Ireland). Summon magical armor and stuff.
But not the Big Bad Beetle Borgs?
1) Psychic Magic, especially if it allows for a class like the Soulknife and Aegis (my favorite DSP classes).
2) A mystic theurge that doesn't suck until they get somewhat good in late game.
What I'd like, personally, would be some kind of "transformative" warrior. Not a "shapeshifter" like a druid or that ranger archetype, but more like the Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog (For those that never saw the show, think Power Rangers in Medieval Ireland). Summon magical armor and stuff.But not the Big Bad Beetle Borgs?
only if they can get class levels from a ghost
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still pulling for one (or more) tech-based classes. Possibly with an Android for their iconic, because thinking about Iron gods has got me in the mood for an Android Iconic.
1. The Warpriest is supposed to be a Cleric/Fighter hybrid. Which is exactly what I always thought the Paladin was supposed to be (and then a whole bunch of alignment bull comes out of nowhere (not from the Cleric, he just has to follow his god; not from the Fighter, he doesn't care)). I really think they should have just made the Warpriest (or whatever they were going to call it) first, and THEN simply referred to any and all LG Warpriests as "Paladins". So I'm hoping the Warpriest gets to be what the Paladin should have been in the first place:
a full BAB divine spellcasting class (of no more or less spellcasting ability than the Ranger) just without the nature bent with no more behavioral restrictions than what logic dictates (and no, logic does not dictate that only LG and CE deities have figured out the secret of imbuing a follower with just enough divine mojo to help them out with the mundane fighting they're expected to be doing but not so much divine mojo that they can no longer be good at said mundane fighting).
2. Just a pet peeve, but the Swashbuckler better be proficient with Bucklers; it's in their name.
3. In 3.5, the Ranger, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Paladin all had pets that they either started out with or would eventually get. They had to have these extra stat blocks and followers. They didn't have a choice to NOT have these creatures. Later books would add in options to let players of these classes get rid of the pet in favor of something they might actually enjoy instead.
When Pathfinder started, these five classes automatically (before archetypes were even released) had the option to use a pet or not a pet (though I will say the Wizard's alternative wasn't quite as good as the others'). Then the APG came out and we got the Cavalier, a Knight-like class similar to the Paladin but replacing the supernatural divine stuff with more mundane options (Tactical feats, Order abilities, Challenges).
You can play a supernatural Knight with a mount or without. We can play a mundane Knight with a mount. Why not without a mount, too?
You see, even when it was just the CR and the APG (before the Ultimates), there were those of us who were really sold on the Cavalier (an alignment-less, albeit mundane/not-spellcasting alternative to the Paladin, yes, Rationality, please). But we were not sold on the Cavalier's mount. We didn't want the pet. We didn't want the extra stat block. It was now optional for all these other classes that used to HAVE to have a pet, why can't it be optional here?
Then Ultimate Combat comes out and it's the perfect opportunity to sub out all the mount and mount-related class abilities for something else. Except, the only combination that does this is a Luring Cavalier combined with the Musketeer, a combination that requires the use of guns (and by extension, that the player want to use a gun and that the GM of said player being okay with guns as well).
Nothing else, not the Samurai alternaclass nor the Iaijutsu Master archetype so neatly gets rid of the offending class abilities.
Then the Advanced Race Guide comes out. It will feature ways to make new races. Including Large size races. Including Large size quadrupedal races (such as the Centaur). These races cannot benefit from the Cavalier's mount (they're Large size, they're either simply too big or they're too big and have a body shape that can't ride a mount). This was the perfect opportunity to correct this oversight (at least for the Large size races this book was going to make available if not for all the races across the board). This oversight was not corrected.
The offending class abilities of the Cavalier are:
Mount, Cavalier's Charge (in that it only applies while mounted), Expert Trainer, Mighty Charge, and Supreme Charge.
And while we're at it, the Samurai's are:
Mount, and Mounted Archer.
These abilities need to be retconned so that they are optional as a baseline. Not just archetyped. What do I mean? Well, remember the Luring Cavalier/Musketeer Combo I mentioned that neatly excises all the Mount stuff. Well, if the Advanced Class Guide comes out with a new archetype for non-mounted Cavaliers, then what if I don't want a Mount and am uncomfortable with firearms, but do like the idea of the Luring Cavalier still? Since the archetypes are mutually exclusive (both replacing the same abilities), I'm still just as screwed as ever.
The Paladin's Mount isn't his class ability, his Divine Bond is his class ability (and then it may or may not take the form of a Mount). All of his archetypes reference that ability.
The Cavalier should have the same freedom. It shouldn't be "the base class (which has a mount), all these archetypes (which still have a mount), one highly specific archetype combination (the Luring Cavalier/Musketeer, which doesn't have a mount), and one other archetype sitting all by his lonesome (which doesn't have a mount)".
It should be "the base class (which can have a mount or not) and all these archetypes (which can have a mount or not)".
4. The Witch's Familiar. See #3.
I don't remember seeing one cat or bat or toad in Hansel & Gretel. Or was the Hulk supposed to be Jean Grey's familiar?
5. The Wizard either gets a Familiar or a Bonded Object. There are already a few archetypes that do away with these. Therefore, this has much less priority than my other issues, but it'd still be nice to see some more archetypes that replace Wizard's Bond.
6. The Monk is the go-to class for being a Monk. The Monk's special Monk weapons are specifically for him. The Unarmed Fighter archetype from Ultimate Combat is specifically the archetype of the Fighter meant to give up using weapons in favor of his unarmed strikes. He's the Fighter who does not want to use weapons. And the Monk's special Monk weapons are specifically for him.
So why in Rationality's name is the Unarmed Fighter more proficient with a category of weapon he isn't even supposed to be wanting to use than the class for which the category of weapon was made in the first place?
Oh, my, yes, this needs to be addressed.
7. The Bard is the guy who uses his special talent for music to evoke magic. The Archaeologist archetype for the Bard is the class who gets rid of all the music stuff so that players can play an arcane spellcasting, skillful, competent at fighting without the music that, for them, an adventurer shouldn't even be employing (it just ruins the image).
The Archaeologist's spells still all have a V component and he can't take Silent Spell. This is in keeping with the image of the Bard that the Archaeologist is supposed to be breaking from. It is entirely not in keeping with the Archaeologist's image.
This needs to be addressed.
8. They said they weren't going to make a hard and fast build sequence for making classes the way they did for races in the ARG. Fine, but can we still get some kind of guide for the approximate "weight" of certain class features.
Specifically in reference to the Monk.
I want to know what they actually think an "Alignment: Any lawful" restriction is worth. What is a full BAB worth? These are the sorts of changes that Monk homebrewers have been making for over a decade on d20 RPG sites all over the Internet. Even if this sort of thing isn't what the design team means when they say "Monk", by now, they at least have to recognize that this is what we mean, what we're hoping for and why we continually badger them for a change when we're consistently disappointed.
When we say "Monk", we mean "unarmed, unarmored fighter with ki", and let me emphasize the important parts: UNARMED, UNARMORED, FIGHTER, and WITH KI. No, the Martial Artist archetype is not good enough. No, the Unarmed Fighter archetype for the Fighter is not good enough. Yes, if you feel that adding all of that requires some sacrifice, then some sacrifice should be made (I don't agree with that assessment, but I'd rather make the trade than not have the trade available to make in the first place).
...
9. Considering how long the above issues have been going on, and how next to nothing has been done to fix the problem, you know what's really on my "wishlist" for this product?
Hope. <- not typed with a straight face, though the rest of this was
Can I really look forward to this product? I want to. I really do. But considering all the opportunities that have come up to fix these relatively simple problems, and how they've been ignored, consistently ignored, I can't help but have my doubts. Even though I can recognize that this sort of book is exactly the sort of book where changes like this are most appropriate to introduce, it's still coming at the end of so much disappointment.
I want to not facepalm when I see this book in print.
...
10. I'd like a Gish class (full BAB arcane spellcaster of around the Ranger's ability). Unless that's what the Bloodrager is supposed to be, in which case, I'd like either another Gish class or at least an "Urban Barbarian"-equivalent archetype for the Bloodrager.
11. An artificer class
12. An archetype (AT LEAST) for the Hunter that doesn't have a pet.
13. Something like the Warlock from 3.5 for those of us who think that magic, even significant magic, should be something that is always available. Either changing the fundamental nature of spellcasting, but just for the class (like what the Alchemist did) or by adding not just the class and its new form of spellslinging but also the new "spells" that it's slinging (like what the Warlock did in 3.5).
14. And if they were serious about how, if they introduced Psionics into Pathfinder, they would only do so if they used Vancian spellcasting, then I DO NOT want to see Psionics in this book. Spock forbid.
|
Still pulling for one (or more) tech-based classes. Possibly with an Android for their iconic, because thinking about Iron gods has got me in the mood for an Android Iconic.
Unlikely, given that all 10 classes are going to be hybrids of existing classes.
Can't wait until ACG 2, where they will give us hybrids of the hybrids.
Still pulling for one (or more) tech-based classes. Possibly with an Android for their iconic, because thinking about Iron gods has got me in the mood for an Android Iconic.Unlikely, given that all 10 classes are going to be hybrids of existing classes.
Can't wait until ACG 2, where they will give us hybrids of the hybrids.
I have made the argument before that I feel that Magus shouldn't have been a gish (I think Bard or Sorcerer should have had that role but that's a different long argument) but an artificer of some sort. Spell combat doesn't sell the 'using magic to enhance sword fighting angle aside from allowing you to do both in a round, but I think the arcane pool does but to me it leans more towards the realm of quick temporary weapon crafting. If instead of weapon enhancements the magus got imbued construct enhancements on a blackblade-like weapon or object, he's effectively an artificer.
When charged to describe the Magus the thing that comes to mind is his magical relationship with weaponry so the short version of what I'm saying is that I believe that with archetypes Magus can easily be modded into an artificer class.
I agree with a number of things that Tectorman posted. I agree with a few but I wanted to point out what I agree with.
1) I always thought Paladin was the Cleric X Fighter. Warpriest could easily be made by making Paladin flexible with alignment and giving him new abilities based on alignment. But I think that goose has already been cooked so I accept that someone felt the need to make Warpriest. I am however skeptical of it because I was also under the impression that Clerics can make effective melee combatants.
3)4) Cavalier does kind of annoy me in that regard. Pets are entire other character sheets you have to worry about so the option of going petless is appealing but with the Cavalier a lot of his combat prowess is in his pet so it compounds the problem. There is a Player Companion that gives him dogs or birds, which I love but it would be nice to get a hardcover option.
In regards to the Witch's familiar, giving Witch the bonded object option (Also making it store spell her spell list and have a black blade's ego progression) is a quick and easy fix. I do want to put out there that it opens up some design space for new and interesting hexes that interact with the object and opens some concepts like a witch's magic mirror.
Overall I think that Pathfinder, much like D&D, is more into classes as concepts rather than classes as what the do so they will not likely lean towards fewer broad classes over many narrow classes despite doing this less so than D&D. This is how it was when they decided to replace 3.5 rather than reinvent it. I have a preference but this is close enough.
The wish I do have is that the remaining base classes fill in voids in concepts.
People want artificer because there isn't a dedicated gadget or construct class. There is a wall there because a dedicated crafter doesn't scream "Adventurer" but I think that a crafting NPC class and a few Magus archetypes would do the trick.
A shape shifting class is a good idea because most shapeshifting comes with a spells you don't necessarily want and a nature theme.
I would love to see a caster Monk or a Full BAB Monk. Both are holes that aren't filled. Monk loses a lot of mysticism by not being more melee than magic making full on Wuxia Monks hard to do and ineffective. I'm also sorely disappointed as to how difficult it is to replicate Ryu using a Monk. Meanwhile a Full BAB Monk would lose some mysticism and just be a typical martial arts action hero.
The best of both worlds would actually be a Magus x Monk. I already make an unarmed STR Magus with style feats to effectively create Sub-Zero but its hard to pull off and only just effective enough.
Or I'd just like unarmed strike to be an option for other classes so I can do it myself with other classes. Make two feats that advance my unarmed strike and I'm good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elemental Bender class. Yeah, yeah, I'm watching Legend of Korra too much. <sigh> It'd still be cool beans.
Elemental Bender class. Yeah, yeah, I'm watching Legend of Korra too much. <sigh> It'd still be cool beans.
You can kinda-sorta do this.
Last year a ran a Japanese themed campaign with elemental gods, the PCs decided to all be benders and came up with an Earth Mystery Oracle, Monk of the Four Winds with Efreeti Style feats, and a Water Elemental Sorceress.
My current Magus almost exclusively uses cold spells just for the flavor.
I planned out a future character with two levels of Sensei Monk and the rest Theologian Cleric with the Fire Domain and the Domain Strike feat.
My only problem is that I'm usually bogged down with abilities/spells I don't want and or roleplay baggage I hate/have to wiggle with.
Oh, don't get me wrong, there are ways to simulate a little bit of bending (although far from what is possible from the two series). I'd just like there to be an official class which can do that. But I guess copyright issues would probably prevent that already.
But if there's a book which could do this, the ACG with its hybrid classes (Monk/Oracle, anyone?) would be the one.
I think the key issue is that its not a melee combatant. Having an elemental caster is easy but neither Monk or Magus make an adequate 'bender' which would be a melee combatant wielding elemental power.
The results is usually too much non-bending magic or not enough bending at all to flavorfully stick.
Tectorman, I think a shorter, more broken up post would work better. Right now, that's sort of coming off as ranty, despite myself agreeing with a number of the points.
Also, I recommend trying to fix some of the problems you see yourself, and then posting them to the homebrew forum!
Also, I recommend trying to fix some of the problems you see yourself, and then posting them to the homebrew forum!
Most people would rather have others do it for them. I know I have some problems doing so myself. I think of something and I attempt to write it up, but then my brain doesn't want to cooperate and expand on it. I have had an idea about converting the classes that cast into using mana points (similar to power points), and going with a mana potion that will replenish a number of points. But I honestly can't think of how to go about doing that and making it not empowering spellcasters too much. I just get tired of the "I used my spells up for the day, now we need to rest".
But that discussion isn't really for this thread, and not sure if I would get anyone replying to help with it.
Also, I recommend trying to fix some of the problems you see yourself, and then posting them to the homebrew forum!Most people would rather have others do it for them. I know I have some problems doing so myself. I think of something and I attempt to write it up, but then my brain doesn't want to cooperate and expand on it. I have had an idea about converting the classes that cast into using mana points (similar to power points), and going with a mana potion that will replenish a number of points. But I honestly can't think of how to go about doing that and making it not empowering spellcasters too much. I just get tired of the "I used my spells up for the day, now we need to rest".
But that discussion isn't really for this thread, and not sure if I would get anyone replying to help with it.
Well, the good thing is that if people discuss what they want, people can point them to works that do exactly what they want.
:)
|
|
Oh, don't get me wrong, there are ways to simulate a little bit of bending (although far from what is possible from the two series). I'd just like there to be an official class which can do that. But I guess copyright issues would probably prevent that already.
But if there's a book which could do this, the ACG with its hybrid classes (Monk/Oracle, anyone?) would be the one.
The 3.5 Warlock seems like it could be skinned, gutted and re-animated as a lurching element bender sort of class. Replace the Eldritch Blast with blasts of air, earth, fire or water, and then have the various invocations cover other 'stunts' like using earth bending to create tremors, or entangle someone in dirt, or air bending to fly, or fire bending to, uh, do whatever firebenders did other than throw flame at people...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Oh, don't get me wrong, there are ways to simulate a little bit of bending (although far from what is possible from the two series). I'd just like there to be an official class which can do that. But I guess copyright issues would probably prevent that already.
But if there's a book which could do this, the ACG with its hybrid classes (Monk/Oracle, anyone?) would be the one.
The 3.5 Warlock seems like it could be skinned, gutted and re-animated as a lurching element bender sort of class. Replace the Eldritch Blast with blasts of air, earth, fire or water, and then have the various invocations cover other 'stunts' like using earth bending to create tremors, or entangle someone in dirt, or air bending to fly, or fire bending to, uh, do whatever firebenders did other than throw flame at people...
Throw lightning at people!
Resist elements!
The 3.5 Warlock seems like it could be skinned, gutted and re-animated as a lurching element bender sort of class. Replace the Eldritch Blast with blasts of air, earth, fire or water, and then have the various invocations cover other 'stunts' like using earth bending to create tremors, or entangle someone in dirt, or air bending to fly, or fire bending to, uh, do whatever firebenders did other than throw flame at people...
Oh, you mean like the Dragonfire Adept?
And in Korra, firebenders can now fly by shooting flame from their hands/feet like Johnny Storm.
They had firebenders that could do that in the original series.
They had firebenders that could do that in the original series.
Firelord Ozai did it when fighting Aang (or is it 1 a?), and I think Zuko did too.
Also, I recommend trying to fix some of the problems you see yourself, and then posting them to the homebrew forum!Most people would rather have others do it for them. I know I have some problems doing so myself. I think of something and I attempt to write it up, but then my brain doesn't want to cooperate and expand on it. I have had an idea about converting the classes that cast into using mana points (similar to power points), and going with a mana potion that will replenish a number of points. But I honestly can't think of how to go about doing that and making it not empowering spellcasters too much. I just get tired of the "I used my spells up for the day, now we need to rest".
But that discussion isn't really for this thread, and not sure if I would get anyone replying to help with it.
Well, the good thing is that if people discuss what they want, people can point them to works that do exactly what they want.
:)
Thank you for that link. My concern was mostly the inclusion of mana potions to restore used spellpoints, and whether that would make the spellcasters too strong or not.
Racial paragon classes, at least for core and some guidelines for making them for other races.t
+10 Trillion
Agreed, But I would also like it to cover the Featured and Uncommon races as well.
I would like to some archetypes or something that would remove the alignment restrictions for some classes ex. a non-lawful monk that still uses ki abilities, .....
Yes, please.
Thank you for that link. My concern was mostly the inclusion of mana potions to restore used spellpoints, and whether that would make the spellcasters too strong or not.Also, I recommend trying to fix some of the problems you see yourself, and then posting them to the homebrew forum!Most people would rather have others do it for them. I know I have some problems doing so myself. I think of something and I attempt to write it up, but then my brain doesn't want to cooperate and expand on it. I have had an idea about converting the classes that cast into using mana points (similar to power points), and going with a mana potion that will replenish a number of points. But I honestly can't think of how to go about doing that and making it not empowering spellcasters too much. I just get tired of the "I used my spells up for the day, now we need to rest".
But that discussion isn't really for this thread, and not sure if I would get anyone replying to help with it.
Well, the good thing is that if people discuss what they want, people can point them to works that do exactly what they want.
:)
Mana potions could give temporary mana points?
Anyways...
Racial paragon classes would be cool.
|
Well, now a Cleric/Fighter hybrid in the vein of the Magus for the Warpriest would be fun and more my speed.
The Paladin has a place outside of the Warpriest. Paladins are paragons, and more combat focused. I doubt the War Priest will have a full BAB if it's a Magus style class though. Mind you, it might have a buffnig mechanic allowing it to channel when hitting for added dice. Something like the Magus's pool so he can do his casting attack tricks.
(Consider the Magus as the prototype to these classes.)
The more I think about it the Hunter being a Magus style (Ranger/Druid) split might work. Ups the caster power with some shape changing, but keeps the weapon training and animal companion options. Downplays the high end favored foes and terrain stuff, and the Druid uber casting/polymorph options. The cost for being a hybrid.
Etc. etc.
I'm curious if we'll see an Alchemist or Summoner hybrid. I hope we do.
|
|
Mana potions could give temporary mana points?
[tangent] Vancian 'mana potions' could just refresh spell slots. A wizard would only get to re-use spells he'd already prepared (or cast a spell he already has prepared without expending the slot), like a pearl of power. A sorcerer would just gain another slot of the level of the potion for a time. Some potions might be fixed, and such a potion might only refresh a single 2nd level spell, while others might be 'open' and allow one to refresh two spell levels of spell, either one second or two first. [/tangent]
|
Artificer/Engineer: Fun classes that could use some updating to Pathfinder. Opens up more steampunk games.
Shaman - I liked what 4e did with this so something along those lines would kick butt
Dragonrider - SGG did a great job with this but I'd like to see it expanded up and cleaned up.
Chronomancer - Again we have SGG Time Warden/Theif but they need some love to make them viable. Would be great to see Paizo somehow expand that theme.
Some more time based archetypes, bloodlines, etc. would be cool.
I would be happy with just a dragonrider archetype really.
I would like racial paragon classes for catfolk, lashunta, aasimar, androids, etc. as well as the core races.
I do hope this book has something for every class not just the new ones. Though I would understand if most of the options are for the new classes.
|
|
Artificer/Engineer: Fun classes that could use some updating to Pathfinder. Opens up more steampunk games.
Shaman - I liked what 4e did with this so something along those lines would kick butt
Dragonrider - SGG did a great job with this but I'd like to see it expanded up and cleaned up.
Chronomancer - Again we have SGG Time Warden/Theif but they need some love to make them viable. Would be great to see Paizo somehow expand that theme.
I agree about the Artificer option. But the Shamen 4E version? Yick no, we already have Druids doing this. The 4E Shaman was basically 1/4 of the current Druid build just with spirit options.
From what the preview says, I think we'll see something in practice more like the Witch with Oracle powers. At least.
Dragonrider would be easier sa a Cavalier Archtype...in fact I think it IS in the Dragon Hunters Handbook.
Chronomancer. Ummm. I think they (Paizo) wasn't going to touch that with a 11 foot poll. So no Chronomancer AD&D 2E era wackiness. The Demiplane of Time is a no-go.
Last I heard there is a demi plane or dimension of time in Pathfinder.