Open Playtest - Arcane Knight, Dragonsoul, Noble, and Priest Classes


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

@Priest: Yeah...that's why I was very hesitant there.

@Arcane Knight: I'm the type who's more than willing to create powers to fit what it is that I want to do. Right now, I've only got Universal, Abjuration, and Air schools written up. I still have to do Conjuration, Divination, Earth, Enchantment, Evocation, Fire, Illusion, Metal, Necromancy, Transmutation, Water, and Wood. I'm not quite crazy enough to try to do all the focused schools, though. I know I'd burn out.

And the reason I let them attune a number of items equal to their Int mod is for several reasons. For one, I don't want to penalize dual-wielders for having two weapons. Similarly, there isn't nearly enough support for thrown weapon specialists, and if the Arcane Knight has a high enough Int, why not let him enhance a plethora of daggers or the like? Also, what if that dual-wielder wants to enhance their bow? My answer was simple enough...I simply based the number of items on their Int because it felt less limiting of character concepts as compared to the idea of a set handful of items.


Then make sure the infusion is one of your key abilities then, because attuning that many items makes it quite potent.

For the school powers, who says you can't use some of the focused school powers to augment your other school powers. Also look at appropriate bloodlines and cleric domains for additional ideas for related powers.


Oh, definitely. I'm trying to do that sort of thing on the side (go figure that co-workers would go on vacation when I decide to post my docs). I'll probably have the 'first draft' of the school stuff late Tuesday or such. We'll see.

Dark Archive

Benjamin Medrano wrote:
I'll probably have the 'first draft' of the school stuff late Tuesday or such. We'll see.

Well I look forward to hopefully seeing them today.


Yeah...running behind on them. However, I intend to put up at least half of them a bit later.


Okay, put up the new abilities, adjusted level chart, and all that...

As for the schools, I'm done with a touch more than half of them, so it's a good start.


And...everything I made is now up. As a note, as Abjuration was the first I created, I think I may need to go back and adjust it.


First up.... massive kudos on the job

Second....a very nice take on the Priest class, I can see the amount of work you've put in. Definitely one of the best 3PP (if not the best) write ups.

Thirdly... I like how you've actually made CHA a worthwhile investment for a cleric type class now!

One suggestion... go full out on the ultra-dedicated to the divine cause aspect. Instead of allowing arcane armour failure, I would flat out ban the use of physical armour. Something along the lines of..

"A Priest forgoes all forms of physical armour or shields and may not gain proficiency in their use. Such is their belief in divinity, they view physical armour use as an insult to the gods. If they are worthy, they will surely be protected from harm... and if they are not, they would not want a piece of metal denying their deity justice."

You could adopt a similar vein with weapon use?

As a balance to this you could give the Priest an additional feat? Maybe a choice of spell focus, spell pen, metamagic.. etc. Or alternatively give them a spritual familiar?

"At 1st level a Priest receives a Cherubim or Imp (depending on whether they cure or inflict) as a familiar. It functions not only as an assistant to the Priest but as a Guardian of the Faith, ensuring that the Priest does not stray from his chosen path. It functions identically to a Wizard's familar (including the range of bonuses available), except that it is incapable of manipulating ANY physical object." ..... or something similar to ensure that it does not have the range of options a Wizard's one has.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Lightbringer, how'd I let you getting involved slip under my radar.

giving them a familiar is a bit much as well with the armor thingy, it hamstrings the lore to the mechanics. try to avoid that in anything other than archetypes.

especially when you consider gods of war.


Silver Surfer wrote:

*snip*

One suggestion... go full out on the ultra-dedicated to the divine cause aspect. Instead of allowing arcane armour failure, I would flat out ban the use of physical armour. Something along the lines of..

"A Priest forgoes all forms of physical armour or shields and may not gain proficiency in their use. Such is their belief in divinity, they view physical armour use as an insult to the gods. If they are worthy, they will surely be protected from harm... and if they are not, they would not want a piece of metal denying their deity justice."

You could adopt a similar vein with weapon use?

As a balance to this you could give the Priest an additional feat? Maybe a choice of spell focus, spell pen, metamagic.. etc. Or alternatively give them a spritual familiar?

"At 1st level a Priest receives a Cherubim or Imp (depending on whether they cure or inflict) as a familiar. It functions not only as an assistant to the Priest but as a Guardian of the Faith, ensuring that the Priest does not stray from his chosen path. It functions identically to a Wizard's familar (including the range of bonuses available), except that it is incapable of manipulating ANY physical object." ..... or something similar to ensure that it does not have the range of options a Wizard's one has.

While I see where you're coming from, and the idea of restricting armor has some precedence (druid), I really don't want to do that. There are a couple of reasons that I don't want to flat out ban them, but the most basic one is simple.

That restricts character concepts heavily. As it stands, if the Priest wants to take the feats for armor proficiencies and takes the Arcane Armor feats (which, I will note, don't require arcane caster levels, so a priest qualifies), they can. If they want to multiclass and branch out, they can. Restricting the armor or weapons in such ways would be the realm of an archetype for a specific campaign setting, IMO. It shouldn't be the baseline for a generic 'unarmored priest' that I'm going for. Heck, I could see a priest who took Exotic Weapon Proficiency for a two bladed sword or such, even if just for the thematics. Especially for an evil cleric with a scythe or such.

As for spell focus items...those are in a different document entirely at the moment. I've been working on 'caster implements' for a while now.

And I'm not, at the moment, interested in a divine familiar. Might be worth exploring later, but I've got another class, which is almost three classes, that I'm working on, in my copious free time.


Benjamin Medrano wrote:

While I see where you're coming from, and the idea of restricting armor has some precedence (druid), I really don't want to do that. There are a couple of reasons that I don't want to flat out ban them, but the most basic one is simple.

That restricts character concepts heavily. As it stands, if the Priest wants to take the feats for armor proficiencies and takes the Arcane Armor feats (which, I will note, don't require arcane caster levels, so a priest qualifies), they can. If they want to multiclass and branch out, they can. Restricting the armor or weapons in such ways would be the realm of an archetype for a specific campaign setting, IMO. It shouldn't be the baseline for a generic...

Fair point... again kudos on a great job... I hope it is successful

I find it genuinely bizarre (and suspicous!) that given the increasing number of Priest classes out there that fill a genuine niche that has always existed, that Paizo have never bothered to do one themselves!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Silver Surfer wrote:
Benjamin Medrano wrote:

While I see where you're coming from, and the idea of restricting armor has some precedence (druid), I really don't want to do that. There are a couple of reasons that I don't want to flat out ban them, but the most basic one is simple.

That restricts character concepts heavily. As it stands, if the Priest wants to take the feats for armor proficiencies and takes the Arcane Armor feats (which, I will note, don't require arcane caster levels, so a priest qualifies), they can. If they want to multiclass and branch out, they can. Restricting the armor or weapons in such ways would be the realm of an archetype for a specific campaign setting, IMO. It shouldn't be the baseline for a generic...

Fair point... again kudos on a great job... I hope it is successful

I find it genuinely bizarre (and suspicous!) that given the increasing number of Priest classes out there that fill a genuine niche that has always existed, that Paizo have never bothered to do one themselves!

because cleric casting is already VERY good, so not becoming overpowered just because you removed armor proficiency is hard. I'd say that a good deal of the priest classes i've seen have actually just turned into cleric-- classes.


My opinion is that they just haven't seen the need to create one. Oh, they made an archetype...but the thing is, the un-armored priest hasn't been as big in the legacy of D&D, so it simply isn't as important, as far as I can see.

On the other hand, it is part of the lore of games that I run. For instance, I ran a Sunite cleric in Forgotten Realms that refused to wear armor on the simple basis that it wasn't as attractive. I would have loved an un-armored version of the cleric for that sort of character, yet there wasn't much support for it.

And beyond that, it's a question of priorities. There was definite call for a spontaneous divine caster, so the Oracle made total sense to me (I don't like the curses, but that's an entirely different story). When the question is, to me, to create something entirely new, or to slightly change something I already have? Sure, changing what I already have is nice...but it isn't going to get as much interest as something entirely new. So I can see why they didn't decide to write one up.

Now, as to other problems with restricting a Priest to absolutely no armor. I'm bringing this up so that we can examine the pros and cons of an archetype in a specific setting. It means that an opponent could actually make them essentially worthless by strapping them into a breastplate, which is a serious damper on things (yes, it occurs for a druid too, but still). So there's that, and it also means they're stuck with their Divine Armor gift or bracers of armor for AC, unless you're like me and you let them enchant a robe with an enhancement bonus. In this particular case, what I would likely give them in exchange is either the Special Abilities of one of their domains, or an additional 2 divine power per day. Personally I lean toward the latter.


My take on it is that as a concept the "Holy / Unholy man" wearing very little armour and using v.few weapons, bringing down the wrath of the gods... etc is really viable and thematically appropriate.... far more so than some of the stuff that has been released (eg I openly admit to NOT being a fan of the ACG). I think the idea has this great Biblical Holy/Unholy slant to it!

I agree enforcing a no armour policy can leave problems but there is at least a precedent in the Ecclesitheurge (a deeply flawed archetype IMO... but as you say, thats another story).... but yes your approach is probably the best.

A significant part of the problem is I think that the Cleric class itself is poorly designed for PF with very little customization and having archetypes that are pretty terrible. The domains were badly thought through and underpowered and channeling is largely a waste of time IMO.

One of the things I really liked about your idea is that it gives the divine class new life by actually giving it some OPTIONS! There is a channel option IF you want it, whereas Clerics have channeling as basically forced upon them and because in the eyes of Paizo channeling is great, it uses up all the Cleric's options for any other useful abilities.

I absolutely bet if your Priest class became part of the rules, people would stop playing Clerics because they now have something that has some flavour!!! The current Cleric is IMO a huge waste of RP potential due to its ridiculous lack of options.

I really think PF is crying out for a proper... D6 HD, 1/2 BAB, minimal weapons and armour, divine caster

Dark Archive

My thoughts, something I wish someone would take in consideration and run with, is that of the old AD&D Specialty Priests. This allowed for all sorts of different clerics with both different flavor and mechanics based on the deity they worshiped.

Where a Priest of a deity of love played very differently from that of Priest of a deity of war, or that of a deity of thieves or a deity of the night and seers. This is the sort of things I would like to see, but it would mean completely recognizing spells back into spheres and tossing domains, the powers being added to that of the Specialty Priest as class abilities.


JonathonWilder wrote:

My thoughts, something I wish someone would take in consideration and run with, is that of the old AD&D Specialty Priests. This allowed for all sorts of different clerics with both different flavor and mechanics based on the deity they worshiped.

Where a Priest of a deity of love played very differently from that of Priest of a deity of war, or that of a deity of thieves or a deity of the night and seers. This is the sort of things I would like to see, but it would mean completely recognizing spells back into spheres and tossing domains, the powers being added to that of the Specialty Priest as class abilities.

I actually started roleplaying games in the last three months of 3.0 D&D, so I know very, very little about AD&D. I did play in a game for...3 sessions? But the GM was an absolute jerk, so I quit before even really getting started.

I've heard some bits and pieces about the specialty priests, though, and it is an interesting concept, but not one I'm currently tempted to try and create. It'd take more work than I currently am willing to do. Even creating the spell list for the Arcane Knight gave me a headache.

Dark Archive

Benjamin Medrano wrote:
I've heard some bits and pieces about the specialty priests, though, and it is an interesting concept, but not one I'm currently tempted to try and create. It'd take more work than I currently am willing to do. Even creating the spell list for the Arcane Knight gave me a headache.

Fair, enough. This is not something I would expect or ask for you to do, sorry if it may have sounded like such.

Specialty Priest is an admittingly large project that would require breaking up the spells from the cleric spell list, domains, and perhaps even some from wizard/sorcerer spell list to then be reorganizing them into spheres. Then there is consideration of creating a specialty priest for each of the Pathfinder deities, which is practically like that of the archetypes with a base 'cleric' class.


This looks really awesome and really fun, Great Job!!!


JonathonWilder wrote:


Fair, enough. This is not something I would expect or ask for you to do, sorry if it may have sounded like such.

Specialty Priest is an admittingly large project that would require breaking up the spells from the cleric spell list, domains, and perhaps even some from wizard/sorcerer spell list to then be reorganizing them into spheres. Then there is consideration of creating a specialty priest for each of the Pathfinder deities, which is practically like that of the archetypes with a base 'cleric' class.

Whoops, I didn't mean to say that I thought that you were asking me to. I was just considering the idea and kinda blanching at the sheer work involved.


JonathonWilder wrote:
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
I've heard some bits and pieces about the specialty priests, though, and it is an interesting concept, but not one I'm currently tempted to try and create. It'd take more work than I currently am willing to do. Even creating the spell list for the Arcane Knight gave me a headache.

Fair, enough. This is not something I would expect or ask for you to do, sorry if it may have sounded like such.

Specialty Priest is an admittingly large project that would require breaking up the spells from the cleric spell list, domains, and perhaps even some from wizard/sorcerer spell list to then be reorganizing them into spheres. Then there is consideration of creating a specialty priest for each of the Pathfinder deities, which is practically like that of the archetypes with a base 'cleric' class.

If it were me, I would boil the Cleric spell list down to it's essentials. Spells that every "Priest" (of any god) could be expected to have. Then, use Domains as the base, treating them more as Oracle Mysteries; lists of optional abilities to choose, long with accompanying spells. Basically, expanded Domains rather than cutting up the entire Cleric spell list.

I would seize upon 'Channeling' divine energy. Creating a Channeling or Divine pool...(Favor?). You could have a list of Blessings, some of which would be powered by the Favor pool....

-Thoughts


Speciality Priests were a fine concept but actually they didint have a lot of meat on the bones in terms of giving them personalities.... I would hyperlink you the website but I dont know how!!

Here is a link

[http://www.theagencystar.com/trigger/ADND/TheCompletePriestsHandbook.pdf]

I had an idea for a D6 divine class that had a stigmata type ability, whereby everyday they dedicated a certain number of HP to their deity in return for power boosts to their casting. It was v.wimpy but had enormous smackdown potential! Again it had a very Biblical feel to it... no armour, barely any weapons, no channeling, 1/2 BAB.....


Silver Surfer wrote:

Speciality Priests were a fine concept but actually they didint have a lot of meat on the bones in terms of giving them personalities.... I would hyperlink you the website but I dont know how!!

Here is a link

[http://www.theagencystar.com/trigger/ADND/TheCompletePriestsHandbook.pdf]

I had an idea for a D6 divine class that had a stigmata type ability, whereby everyday they dedicated a certain number of HP to their deity in return for power boosts to their casting. It was v.wimpy but had enormous smackdown potential! Again it had a very Biblical feel to it... no armour, barely any weapons, no channeling, 1/2 BAB.....

I wouldn't use the Complete..anything Handbook as an example of how to do things. Every implementation of the Specialty Priest idea, other than the Druid, was a complete let down. Every setting book and supplement TSR printed got it wrong. They started right off with breaking down what percentage of a particular faith were Specialty Priests and how many were....Clerics. Huh? I thought the "specialty priests" of Tempus were THE priests of Tempus...

The description of the idea in the 2nd Ed. PH is where you want to look. In it, they highlight the standard Cleric and the Druid as examples of the rule.

The Druid varies pretty heavily from the Cleric, and communicates a ton of flavor difference as well. That is what I am talking about.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I just realized that in my time playing ADnD not a single person was a cleric...

wait there was one guy and he was gone most of the time.

since the Noble is the class i'm really interested in you'll probably only ever get advice from me on it, so many pages to read through.

I'll say Proper preparation is like boring, more boring than cleric's channel energy, and you get it just as often. They might as well be dead levels.

maybe if instead you gave it a bit more spunk like the bard performances but made them things balanced around lasting hours.

Also the heritages in general just feel more like your mixed bag of casters and then maybe 1 or 2 actual things that you imagine a nobly noble noble being the heir of(those being the weaker options). to me at least they clash thematically and so i feel like it isn't REALLY the best way to play a noble and i feel my itch for playing a noble looking elsewhere. It's just the heritages give me a gut feeling that this isn't what i'm looking for.

it's like reading a class called druid and then finding out it very specifically only deals with plants, when druid insinuated so many different things like weather or animals, some mythos skinwalkers. or at least those options are tiny and insignificant.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

just started reading the playtest stuff, yeah, I think the vigilante got you beat. :/


Bandw2 wrote:
just started reading the playtest stuff, yeah, I think the vigilante got you beat. :/

It is uncanny how close in mechanical skeleton the Vigilante is to the Scion. However, the dual identity ruins it as a useful class in almost any situation. It seems designed completely around a solo game for someone who desperately wants to be a superhero. It does work for villains who do their villainy on the sly. It doesn't (currently) fill the niche of the Scion presented here.

These prime differences are the kinds of things that have seen the axe in prior playtests. It is conceivable that Paizo may refine the Vigilante into your Scion....oops. This is what happens to me; I conceive or create something for a game, and the publisher creates a very similar thing....except never...quite...right.


I will admit, looking over the vigilante, I was also startled by some of the similarities to the scion. However...having looked it over a bit more, I feel more reassured because their focus is entirely different. In many ways, it seems like the vigilante is an attacker or secondary spellcaster (at least to me) where I see the scion as a support character with some skill at melee combat.

At the same time, though, I am looking at it to see if it's got ideas I want to use as inspiration for new abilities for mine. And yes, an ability to replace Proper Preparation would be in order.

On the other, other hand, I'm probably going to end up wrapping up the playtest here in the near future and tinkering on a much more minor scale with the classes to fine-tune them.

Beyond all of that, though...realize, while I'm tempted to publish these classes, they're things that I made because I enjoyed making them. Not because I think they're the best thing ever. I've got one published adventure to my name, and I'm not going to become huffy or prideful because I managed something like that. Heck, the one adventure that's published no longer meets my own standards!

Live, learn, improve. That's my view ATM.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
just started reading the playtest stuff, yeah, I think the vigilante got you beat. :/

It is uncanny how close in mechanical skeleton the Vigilante is to the Scion. However, the dual identity ruins it as a useful class in almost any situation. It seems designed completely around a solo game for someone who desperately wants to be a superhero. It does work for villains who do their villainy on the sly. It doesn't (currently) fill the niche of the Scion presented here.

These prime differences are the kinds of things that have seen the axe in prior playtests. It is conceivable that Paizo may refine the Vigilante into your Scion....oops. This is what happens to me; I conceive or create something for a game, and the publisher creates a very similar thing....except never...quite...right.

nothing happens if you're discovered, so it can almost be exclusively ignored. Think of Stark-Ironman from the Marvel movies, he has a second identity, but doesn't hide who he is.

more on the vigalante, I think you should update some of the heritages to match the general power of them. Like battle heritage using full BAB for instance, and spending talents to increase your spell casting does seem fair.


Benjamin Medrano wrote:

I will admit, looking over the vigilante, I was also startled by some of the similarities to the scion. However...having looked it over a bit more, I feel more reassured because their focus is entirely different. In many ways, it seems like the vigilante is an attacker or secondary spellcaster (at least to me) where I see the scion as a support character with some skill at melee combat.

At the same time, though, I am looking at it to see if it's got ideas I want to use as inspiration for new abilities for mine. And yes, an ability to replace Proper Preparation would be in order.

On the other, other hand, I'm probably going to end up wrapping up the playtest here in the near future and tinkering on a much more minor scale with the classes to fine-tune them.

Beyond all of that, though...realize, while I'm tempted to publish these classes, they're things that I made because I enjoyed making them. Not because I think they're the best thing ever. I've got one published adventure to my name, and I'm not going to become huffy or prideful because I managed something like that. Heck, the one adventure that's published no longer meets my own standards!

Live, learn, improve. That's my view ATM.

You absolutely should publish them... I would 100% buy a copy!


Bandw2 wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
just started reading the playtest stuff, yeah, I think the vigilante got you beat. :/

It is uncanny how close in mechanical skeleton the Vigilante is to the Scion. However, the dual identity ruins it as a useful class in almost any situation. It seems designed completely around a solo game for someone who desperately wants to be a superhero. It does work for villains who do their villainy on the sly. It doesn't (currently) fill the niche of the Scion presented here.

These prime differences are the kinds of things that have seen the axe in prior playtests. It is conceivable that Paizo may refine the Vigilante into your Scion....oops. This is what happens to me; I conceive or create something for a game, and the publisher creates a very similar thing....except never...quite...right.

nothing happens if you're discovered, so it can almost be exclusively ignored. Think of Stark-Ironman from the Marvel movies, he has a second identity, but doesn't hide who he is.

more on the vigalante, I think you should update some of the heritages to match the general power of them. Like battle heritage using full BAB for instance, and spending talents to increase your spell casting does seem fair.

Yeah totally. I was more referring to the time to change between personas. I think that is a bad design for fantasy adventure gaming. But, you could just stay "in character", however you would lose your special (and strange) bonuses that only apply in "social" persona.

The thing is, I kinda like the rest of the class, particularly the Specializations. I could see the dual persona thing being a talent, or an archetype. I don't mind supporting that approach for those that want or need it. I'd just like to have a straight forward version of what this class can do for my non-superhero fantasy gaming.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow. Great work so far! I haven't read everything yet, but I'm impressed, especially with the Scion!

Just wondering, have you ever heard of a 3.5 class called a Factotum? It was an odd base class in a niche book (Dungeonscape, if you were wondering), but it had a similar really-jack-of-all-trades feel about it, where a factotum could basically gain temporary class features on the fly. Mind you, they use a resource that regenerates per encounter, which makes it feel like a prototype for 4th edition. Still, it has some ideas worth considering.


Sorry about lack of responses. I've been pondering what I want to do now that I've seen the Vigilante and such. I'm also going out of town for the week, so any other responses will be sparse until Sunday at the earliest.

And I have vaguely heard of the factotum...but that was on of the few 3.5 books that I never bothered looking at or picking up, so I don't know much about it at all.

Anyway, I'll likely keep things up through the end of next week and then close the document to the public and start working on next stages for each.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

to be clear the scion seems weaker than the vigilante and the vigilante seems weaker than most classes for it's intended role.


Good stuff.... like I said get it published and you've got your first customer!


Just got back from trip...and yeah, I'm thinking on how to make things more interesting. I'm planning to leave up the document until next Friday before taking it down and redoing some things that I don't entirely like.

As always, suggestions are welcome!


Thank you, everyone who gave me feedback on my classes! I'm closing the document to the public now and going to work on it in my free time.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Open Playtest - Arcane Knight, Dragonsoul, Noble, and Priest Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules