New class brainstorming, the Military Soldier


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being a soldier in real life and having done a lot of looking at how magic would change a world, I find the idea of soldiers in a world of learnable magic that don't cast magic to be downright ridiculous. Certainly, even a full blown wizard doesn't have the magical endurance to last through an army on army battle casting spells left and right, (not even a lvl 20 can last 10 minutes) but an army of soldiers casting the right spells at the right times will flatten an army that merely seeds the occasional wizard in various places.

Also, any attempts I've seen thus far of a sword and spell mixture class has very poor selection of abilities, usually focused entirely on damage output. A soldier that uses no magic is either stupid, incompetent, religiously anti-magic, or incapable of learning magic. Or a conscript (aka untrained cannon fodder, though not exactly PC material).

What I want to do is make a class more representative of what a soldier would actually be like in a world of learnable magic. Such a soldier would use weapons and armor (they last the battle), but also strategically cast spells, mostly long lasting enhancments, maneuvering, defenses, defense bypassing, etc, with only a few blasting spells (what good is a sword if you spell everything to death, what good is wasting all your spells on short bursts of damage when you have other attack options and need your damage output to last long term). They would also have a few spells for establishing, and breaking into, fortifications and a few convience field spells like for hygiene and putting up tents quickly (cause the commanders would demand it at least).

Spells like enlarge person, teleport, greater invisibility (for the commandos), spider climb, dispel, mount, shield, are all the sorts of spells a soldier would use.

What do you think of this concept? Any suggestions or comments?


I would give it 4-level casting like a paladin or ranger. In this way, magic is not available to the less experienced soldiers, yet is only one of their weapons instead of their main weapon.


Funny thing is I used ranger for professional soldiers at first.


Seems alright at first, except then 99% of all soldiers would never reach the point of casting spells.

There are two sets of considerations here, balance the meta for PCs reaching from lvl professionals to the demigod status of level 20, but also the thematic consideration of most characters in the world rarely reaching even lvl 4. High level, or even mid level PCs make even commandos seem like minions. Players tend to forget that lvl 1 in a PC class is a well trained professional not a mook.

(really, I think readjusting several aspects of the system to shift this dynamic to most characters in the game world being able to reach lvl 10 - 15 would be a good thing, but that should be done in a different thread.)

Also, the basics of spellcasting and fighting with spells would be taught in basic training. I probably wouldn't mind capping out at lvl 4 spells, if they started at first level. Really an entirely new progression would be suitable here gaining a new spell lvl every 5-6 lvls but starting at level 1, but I'd rather not butcher the core precedents that much.


TheAlicornSage wrote:
What do you think of this concept? Any suggestions or comments?

Well if it was as simple as you think then every country in these imaginary worlds would be doing so.

Magic capable characters are usually PC's and as such are by definition in the game usually the exeptions not the average joe.

ARMIES are made up of average joes. Now could I see elite forces being eldritch knights, magi, Paladins, rangers and bards? Sure!

But your entire army? No. And for the same reason our entire armies are not special forces quality. It is why rank and file troops in our world are not all Seals or Green Berets and such.

Magic is hard to learn and so much dedication is required that the game rules show the the better you are at magic the worse you are at anything else physical related. Your even start play a lot older since the training takes so much more time to reach basic proficiency as compared to more physical endeavors, like shooting weapons or beefing up (pure fighters).

Plus magic books and spells are damned expensive to make. You could equip several squads of light infantry for the cost of a spell book with 5 or 6 first level spells in it.


Maybe you could use this to build it. It could create the function pretty easily.


Except look at reality with technology in place of magic. With very few exceptions, tech wins.

Likewise, a military force utilizing spells will tear through any mundane force, just from the tactical and strategic superiority, even if no damaging spells were available.

The extra time in training is more than worth it, and high training standards are easily achievable, like the marines. Would magic require more training time? Certainly, but the difference is so large that it is a no brainer. In fact, the only thing keeping magic rare is lack of industrialized farming, requiring the majority of people to stay uneducated farmers.

Take a squad of lvl 2 fighters against a squad of fighter1/wizard1, and the second squad wins even with no damage spells.

I figure that yeah, there would be forces used with little training and thus little or no magic, but those wouldn't be primary combat forces, they would be the forces that merely hold captured areas and keep the enemy busy until the real combat guys can get there. They might see use against militias which would likely have little to no magic themselves, but again, that is secondary combat. The fighter class fits well with these secondary forces and it isn't a stretch for an adventurer to start out here.

In terms of cost of equipping, it is expensive either way, but considering that primary combat forces are landed gentry and are expected to therefore have tax income to pay for equipment, which is expensive anyway, I don't really see this as much of a point. Further, a squad can all use a single spellbook to prep spells and would all be familiar with the same set of spells anyway. Also, the Spell Mastery feat would be common as well.

As for real life forces not all being seals or special forces, that is beside the point as even our non-combat focused military units could easily squash a roman unit of similar or even larger size, because of our tech. Same thing applies in the game world, except instead of technology (which progresses with society rather than the individual) it would be magic, and once one military starts conquering with a superior force structure, every other country must follow suit or be next to defensless, much like we in the real world would not consider a force armed with swords to be much of a defense regardless of size forcing any military to accept using guns and grenades just to somewhat level the field.


Easiest with existing documents.
1F
2W(cantrips, bonded item, 1st lvl spells, maybe Abjuration "defense" specialist)
3-7F (1st iterative)
8-9W (2d lvl spells)
10-11F
12W
13-14F
15W 3d lvl spells
16-20F

Or
1F
2W ((cantrips, bonded item, 1st lvl spells, maybe Abjuration "defense" specialist) w/ wands/scrolls of anything you "really" need beyond your basic load of 3cantrips, 2 spells per day (assuming just bonded item)
3-20F

If you wanted to do homebrew of a new class/archtype.
Start with one of the existing progression chassis for when spells would come on line (IE Ranger's chart).
Decide which existing fighter things they'd giveup to balance the casting (or maybe go d8 HD and just keep fighter tables for feats "as is")


@christos gurd and GM 1990

Good ideas to investigate. And yes looking to build a class.

I am thinking starting with bard and stripping out the knowledge/performance/etc stuff, swapping in fighter feats and abilities, then rebuilding the spell list. I'd like to see about a special core ability though to really distinguish the class from others.


Perhaps allow arcane domain like choices based around military roles, such as artillery, scout, flankers/cavelry, assault, heavy attack, anti-fortifications/engineer, etc.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

@christos gurd and GM 1990

Good ideas to investigate. And yes looking to build a class.

I am thinking starting with bard and stripping out the knowledge/performance/etc stuff, swapping in fighter feats and abilities, then rebuilding the spell list. I'd like to see about a special core ability though to really distinguish the class from others.

Ya, special core ability is one of the things everyone on the 'fighters stink' threads point out as missing.

Take a look at the Stamina concept in unchained (its been added to the PRD). I've been tinkering with adding it to fighters and allowing them to use stamina to improve skill checks for Str/Dex skills, boost CON checks and reflex/fort saves, and surge speed. That might be another chasis concept that you just pick some skills/abilities other classes have that is Soldier like and allow them to use stamina to activate it. Less powerful options earlier and fewer stamina, and more powerful options coming online later/costing more points.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Half the people in the world outright are incapable of learning real wizardry. Int 10 or below, if we're talking wizardry. another major fraction are going to be barely passable with it (Int 11-12...you know, the smart people in your high school). Relative geniuses, like your class valedictorian, will be competent (Int 13-14)...if they manage to get to 10th level where it is relevant, and otherwise it's not.

The vast majority of soldiers are not going to exceed level 3, because that's where the vast majority of NPC's end up. Sure, you might get the rare elite platoon up to level 6, but past that is grokking rare. You certainly aren't going to find armies of much of anything higher then seasoned level 3's, and an army of level 4's is probably the most elite army of its size on the continent, really.

So, anything higher then level 1 spells is not something to worry about, and even then 60% of your recruits simply aren't going to be smart enough.

I brought this same kind of topic up on another thread, talking about how you should train every peasant with Int or CHa 10 in wizardry or sorcery, JUST so they could learn cantrips. Prestidigitation alone would change the world. Even 1-3 level 1 spells a day could be a game changer over time.

It sounds more like you want to cherry pick the good buffing spells, and move away from the direct damage weaksauce stuff the magus uses, despite the facts the requirements for your class would be almost the same.

I suggest you acknowledge the fact that learning magic is not easy. Just like an average to weak strength human can't be a soldier (basic training is there to make them stronger and tougher, after all), the average human simply isn't going to be able to learn or master magic to any real extent, and the learning portion of it is going to be at least or even more intensive then what is required to whip a person into sufficient shape to soldier.

You've got kind of a double standard, thinking that it would be 'easy' to teach spellcasting, like its 'easy' to go through basic training, or something. Learning magic is more like getting a Summa Cum Laude Bachelor's Degree, or being elected president of your class...it's just not that easy a thing to DO. I know its hard to measure mental reqs, and since 'anyone' who is a PC can be a caster with the stats, it makes it seem it is easy.

It's not, or the game world WOULD be running over with casters.

And then you have to realize that training up a caster and getting their gear is NOT cheap, especially when you start multiplying by thousands. Then you have to pay the wages, and the troops are aware what their casting ability is worth, and so you have to pay more to compensate...

Yeah, you got a vicious circle going on here.

I'd say you'd be better off making an 'officer' for your soldiers, someone smart/driven enough to get a level in wiz/sorc, take arcane armor training, and with just a level or two of casting ability able to exploit his magic to make a difference at key moments, use wands, and the like. Experienced soldiers could literally be the Eldritch Knight class, unlimited mixing of combat ability and good spells...but these guys would be level 6+, true elites, more competent then any human alive on our own world has ever been. Prestige Class would be a real, hefty thing, and yeah, they'd be awesome soldiers with their own spell selections. It's just there wouldn't be very many of them.

==Aelryinth


First, Int can be raised with training just like strength as a part of int is methodology, perspective, and way of thinking.

Second, we have had systems of writing for thousands of years yet only in recent centuries has literacy become widespread to the masses, enabled by three things, printing presses making written works widely available, excess time to spend on schooling, and the need for literate workers from industrialization.

The same reasons as kept the masses from becoming literate in ages past also apply to the training of magic. But notice that those factors do not apply to a standing military/nobility.

Learning magic does not need to be any more difficult than teaching basic math in order for it to remain mostly in the hands of only 20% of the population.

Thirdly, primary combatants are not always like modern militaries where it is merely a job. The default assumtions are a european feudalistic society. This means that the primary soldiers are the nobility, folks who own land and receive taxes to pay for outfitting themselves and are trained from birth how to fight a war (among other things). Teaching them magic as well only makes sense.

The other types found on the battlefield are yeomen, militia, mercs, and conscripts. Mercs can charge plenty to cover outfitting and training and the state pays it as it is a short term cost. Conscripts barely get any training at all thus this discussion doesn't really aply to them. Yeomen are trained in their respective noncombat areas and then brought to the war, such as hunters learned in the ways of the bow who get brought in for their archery and can be extended to wizards/sorcerers who have studied for their normal careers only to be brought over to support the troops. Militias are lightly trained and likely not enough to learn magic, but also, they are not the primary combatants.

Thus this class is for the primary combatants, usually the nobility or career soldiers at least, not conscripts, nor yeomen, nor militia.

Also, many things can be done to make it cheaper. For example, a squad could all prep spells from the same spellbook (for which a long scroll or other format would likely be used instead of western book style).

And even just cantrips with a few first level spells would be more than beneficial enough to be worth the time and money.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You asked for suggestions and comments and that is exactly what you got. That you got this many posts in response to a concept (as opposed to a write up) is commendable. You can write any character class you like, even if strangers think it needs to be different, but don't be offended when people take the time to read what you wrote and offer honest opinions.


Since most recruits aren't going to be very capable in multiple ability scores, trying to o this with just one class will be problematic. Keep in mind that arcane casters (with a few exceptions that aren't going to be found very often in the general population) can't armor up very well, so you'll have to have some kind of formation with armored frontliners protecting squishy casters and archers -- think of an army that is like a giant PC party. If you are going to have spellcasting frontliners (given that most recruits won't have the combination of Dexterity AND Intelligence to be good Magi with enough Light-Armored armor class to survive long enough to be worth their expensive training), Warpriest might be your best bet -- if it fits within the particular society. Otherwise go with the giant PC party idea (actually, think of armies in the WarCraft universe, but on a larger scale).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think he's getting offended, or at least it doesn't sound like it from what he writes.
Some people invite opposing viewpoints so they can have their ideas poked full of holes so they can remake them or solidify them.
This discussion is the perfect time for that..

.

Regarding the concept..

There's two things to look at when adding magic to your soldiers: from a narrative point, and a gamist point.

Narratively, I think you've got it down pretty good. If I'm paraphrasing properly, you are basically looking at a common soldier force that adds magical ability to their combat training, so that they can negotiate the magical world they live in.

From a gamist point of view, you need to decide: how do I want the gameplay of my Soldiers to feel like.

Here's some examples:

The Scholar Feel - You have to spend time memorizing spells from a source, afterwhich you cast the spell and it's gone. You require rest to regain your spellcasting ability.
This promotes the "research and downtime" feel of scholarly casters.

The Channeler Feel - You have a set of magical abilities from your training, and you can fire them off as needed. You require rest to regain your strength in magic.
This promotes the "pure magic" feel of sorcerer/bard types.

The Special Talent Feel - You train in abilities that are supernatural or even magical in nature. A lot of these abilities are always in effect, while some can be boosted to greater effect with special effort. This special effort drains your strength a little, and requires rest to regain.
This promotes the "special training" feel of monks ki or barbarians rage.

.

Personally, I like the idea of the third one (Special Talent feel), however I can see a case for all three.

In fact, I could see your Arcane Soldier actually having archetypes that trade off some (or all) of their magical source for those different methods.

Then you could see armies of different nations having different types of arcane soldiers fighting against each other.


@ Claren
I wasn't taking offense at all. I appreciate the feedback even if it does feel a bit overly stereotypical sometimes.

@ UnArcane
You are assuming the military would fight like classical armies, but I suspect fighting more like modern armies would be more likely. With magic, maneuverability goes way up as does anti-infantry artillery. The biggest difference is that unlike modern armies, there would still be a place for highly trained warriors, rather than mildly trained masses. One of the advantages of guns was that an untrained conscript could reliably kill well trained warriors. In this case, the untrained conscript vs warrior would remain in favor of the warrior, but like with modern armies, slugging it out unit vs unit on open fields is just plain suicide.

Perhaps some unit on unit exercises would be useful with various people designing their military units, tactics, and strategies and pitting them against each other to find better ways of incorporating magic into warfare. I.E. One side could be designed with primarily melee with mages scattered as support, while another could try a mage blitzkrieg, while another could try something more modern. Then examine how the unit compositions and strategies actually compare.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm aware that this will sound dismissive, so I apologize for that, but it sounds like you just want the Magus with a different spell list. Or what other significant changes are you looking for?

You also mentioned bards. There's a few archetypes floating around that swap out the Bardic Performances.

Though, really, most six-spell-level classes seem to fit the bill. Heck, as mentioned, even four-level spellcasters like rangers and paladins, though with rather limited spell lists, seem to fulfill the thematic requirement.

Mostly I'm wondering what you're looking for that isn't already offered.


As a ruler, If I wanted to form a magical soldier army (which looks like a smart move), I wouldn't actually train my soldiers to spellcasting. I would make use of my magical civilian workforce to craft a sizeable amount of wands of specifically chosen spells, and train my soldier to use those wands.
Training someone to use a wand is cheaper and quicker than training him to spellcast, and doesn't suffer of issues like spell failure.
That way, my soldier have mostly standard abilities, but can also draw a wand or two and point it at the target.

Following this idea, a Magical Soldier would be a Fighter Archetype, with the following abilities:
- at 1st level, get a 5-charges wand of a 1st-level spell (that's ~75gp, so we could have it here "for free")
- get a limited spell list (2-3 spell / level), but is not able to actually cast spells.
- can use spell trigger items (and maybe spell completion items ?)
- can/must choose "spell trigger item" as a weapon group for the purpose of weapon training.
- A few times during the leveling (like 4-5 times in the 20 levels), the soldier get to add any wizard (or cleric ?) spell to his spell list.
Please note that I haven't listed which features they would replace.


Aralicia wrote:
As a ruler, If I wanted to form a magical soldier army (which looks like a smart move), I wouldn't actually train my soldiers to spellcasting. I would make use of my magical civilian workforce to craft a sizeable amount of wands of specifically chosen spells, and train my soldier to use those wands.

This Slayer archetype sort of does this, where they have set spells that they can consistently use wands/scrolls of without actually being able to cast the spells. You could work off that base to create the various military specialties the OP was talking about, each with customized spell load-outs and bandoleers of those wands.

Also, lol at this Slayer casually outdoing a hypothetical Fighter, as usual.


DominusMegadeus wrote:

This Slayer archetype sort of does this, where they have set spells that they can consistently use wands/scrolls of without actually being able to cast the spells. You could work off that base to create the various military specialties the OP was talking about, each with customized spell load-outs and bandoleers of those wands.

Also, lol at this Slayer casually outdoing a hypothetical Fighter, as usual.

Ah yes, the Stygian Slayer. Forgot about it. I'm not a fan of the archetype, mostly because of the "living shadow" style to it. But yes, Spell Use from the stygian slayer is pretty much what I was talking about.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Actually I believe there's a feat where you can pick a spell list, and use items off that spell list without having to check UMD.

Note that there's a simple problem in your assertion that mental stats can be trained up...you can't do it until level 4. That means if they have a 10 or less, they basically can't take this class and cast spells until level 4.

So, you're basically looking at an elitist class however you want to spin it, instead of something easy to qualify like a warrior (there's literally no stat reqs to take class levels in most melee classes to use their class features, which is untrue of spellcasting).

One idea I used for a campaign is a sub-wizard class where they only learned 3 schools of magic, and got intelligence bonuses for purposes of those schools (one primary and two secondary). Certain combinations of schools known had poetic names to go with them (i.e. The Tyrant's Triad of Enchantment, Conjuration and Necromancy; The Bard's Triad of Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation; The Knight's Triad of Abjuration, Transmutation, and Evocation; The Merchant's Triad of Transmutation, Divination and Illusion; The Scholar's Triad of Conjuration, Divination and Necromancy; The Adventurer's Triad of Divination, Evocation and Transmutation; etc etc etc).

You had spells of those three schools and that was it, with no bonus spells like a specialist had...but you could cast them even with inferior mental stats.

==Aelryinth


Trigger Loaded wrote:

I'm aware that this will sound dismissive, so I apologize for that, but it sounds like you just want the Magus with a different spell list. Or what other significant changes are you looking for?

You also mentioned bards. There's a few archetypes floating around that swap out the Bardic Performances.

Though, really, most six-spell-level classes seem to fit the bill. Heck, as mentioned, even four-level spellcasters like rangers and paladins, though with rather limited spell lists, seem to fulfill the thematic requirement.

Mostly I'm wondering what you're looking for that isn't already offered.

Honenstly, I didn't realize that PF changed the magus so completely, however, I still find aspects that are not right, and some that just don't make sense narratively even for the existing magus concept. The ability to cast a spell as a swift action after a critical hit for example, is really neat mechanically, but is a disassociated mechanic. It doesn't make sense that one can cast a spell in a way they normally can't because they accidently hit a bit harder then expected.

I think this magus version is probably a better base to build on though.

Four lvl casters only fit the bill if mid to high lvl characters are often found on the battlefield, but they aren't. Most armies won't have but a few lvl 4 people, and by few I mean less than a dozen. Golarion itself might have a few more, but the rules aren't just for Golarion, and Golarion has demigods everywhere, which is different than a standard setting.

Also, prepared casting is the suckiest casting system ever created. It isn't even a true vancian system. I understand why Gygax did it that way, but I still avoid prepared casting like a plague. Besides, the battlefield is the one field where prepared casting is least acceptable. Having the flexibility to respond to the changing nature of a battle is a must for any decently trained soldier and prepared casting flies in the face of that. Arcanist is probably the best for this as soldiers can select different "loadouts" depending on the terrain and circumstances of the upcoming battle. Spontaneous is the next best.


Aralicia wrote:

As a ruler, If I wanted to form a magical soldier army (which looks like a smart move), I wouldn't actually train my soldiers to spellcasting. I would make use of my magical civilian workforce to craft a sizeable amount of wands of specifically chosen spells, and train my soldier to use those wands.

Training someone to use a wand is cheaper and quicker than training him to spellcast, and doesn't suffer of issues like spell failure.
That way, my soldier have mostly standard abilities, but can also draw a wand or two and point it at the target.

Following this idea, a Magical Soldier would be a Fighter Archetype, with the following abilities:
- at 1st level, get a 5-charges wand of a 1st-level spell (that's ~75gp, so we could have it here "for free")
- get a limited spell list (2-3 spell / level), but is not able to actually cast spells.
- can use spell trigger items (and maybe spell completion items ?)
- can/must choose "spell trigger item" as a weapon group for the purpose of weapon training.
- A few times during the leveling (like 4-5 times in the 20 levels), the soldier get to add any wizard (or cleric ?) spell to his spell list.
Please note that I haven't listed which features they would replace.

Perhaps you missed the part above about this not being for conscripts. Primary warriors, like what I trying to model, were not adults who one day decided to join the army. They were the nobility who were trained from birth to fight on the battlefield. Cheaper and quicker are not concerns of the ruler in this case, only for conscripts, and occasionally yeomen, would those matter and neither conscripts nor yeomen are the intended model of what I want to create.

Also, spell failure only applies to those that are not trained to cast in armor. Hence every other class with casting and combat lacking spell failure issues.

Also, teaching spellcasting rather than wands also eases the logistics train, a very important military consideration (logistics is the lifeblood of an army. That said, such magic items would likely see a lot of use, but not relying on them means the logistics foljs can focus on more important stuff, like food.


Aelryinth wrote:

Actually I believe there's a feat where you can pick a spell list, and use items off that spell list without having to check UMD.

Note that there's a simple problem in your assertion that mental stats can be trained up...you can't do it until level 4. That means if they have a 10 or less, they basically can't take this class and cast spells until level 4.

So, you're basically looking at an elitist class however you want to spin it, instead of something easy to qualify like a warrior (there's literally no stat reqs to take class levels in most melee classes to use their class features, which is untrue of spellcasting).

One idea I used for a campaign is a sub-wizard class where they only learned 3 schools of magic, and got intelligence bonuses for purposes of those schools (one primary and two secondary). Certain combinations of schools known had poetic names to go with them (i.e. The Tyrant's Triad of Enchantment, Conjuration and Necromancy; The Bard's Triad of Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation; The Knight's Triad of Abjuration, Transmutation, and Evocation; The Merchant's Triad of Transmutation, Divination and Illusion; The Scholar's Triad of Conjuration, Divination and Necromancy; The Adventurer's Triad of Divination, Evocation and Transmutation; etc etc etc).

You had spells of those three schools and that was it, with no bonus spells like a specialist had...but you could cast them even with inferior mental stats.

==Aelryinth

Raising stats, this is one spot where the abstract mechanics and the narrative they are supposed to represent diverge almost unavoidably. If someone actually had to reach lvl 4 in order to raise a stat, then there would never be weightlifters since lifting weights wouldn't increase strength and only a few people every century would ever gain any kind of stat increase. So while there are excellent mechanical considerations for this divergence, it isn't valid naratively, thus should not be a consideration in the narrative development of the class concept.

Also, 10 is high enough for cantrips and you would stat up such an individual with an 11 - 13 in int, explaining that stat as being due to their training.


Some of the the things to consider here though is that a military battle lasts hours, not rounds, jumping from one skirmish to the next, fighting for several minutes before rushing to the next objective and fighting several minutes. Spells can't be the primary damage output (unlike one analysis guide on magus which claims spell damage as the primary damage source). Spells like Mage Armor, which last for hours per cl, or utility like passwall to get past barricades would be the spell list.

Other things I'd consider doing is removing the somatic componant allowing the use of bows and polearms without inhibiting casting, casting while moving, make spellcraft checks to expand spell aspects like duration and area, sr, dispelling attacks (to dispel active spells or be extra effective as disrupting), improved counterspell options, taking extra advantage from the benefits of familiar spells (i.e. gaining extra bonuses to cmd/cmb while enlarged), using a lesser form of truestrike as a swift sla (sniper archtype/role), expending slots to undo fatigue or exhaustion.


Instead of actual spells, why not a pack of SLAs or some sort of arcane pool that lets you cast them? Every level, you learn an new SLA of a spell level equal to 1/3 your level. It sounds like practiced, limited magic that could fit on a full BAB frame. Soldiers don't practice and learn how to use every single gun in existence, they learn how to use their guns and their weapons. All Wizards do is cast, yet they only automatically learn two spells per level.

To remove the somatic component problem, make the item a bonded item, like the Wizard bonded item. Look at how the Eldritch Archer Magus handles this. As for true striking and attacking, that sounds awfully like something a Magus could do with a full attack action.

Alternatively, you could also go the Medium route, and be a 4-level 3/4 BAB caster with cantrips and various hit chance boosts.


Aelryinth wrote:

Actually I believe there's a feat where you can pick a spell list, and use items off that spell list without having to check UMD.

{. . .}

This sounds quite useful -- any idea on the name of the feat?

@OP: I must have missed the part about these being elite soldiers -- in that case, depending upon the national flavor, you might want some kind of highly trained Bloodrager archetype or some kind of d10, full BAB 4/9 psychic martial caster (think psionic warrior).


4/9?

I'm not particularly familiar with psionics. Anything specific to lookup on that front? At least for general idea of psionic warriorness?

And it is less elites (they aren't spartens), but nobility were at least well trained and educated as a lifelong proffesion, not that all took it seriously of course.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

4/9?

I'm not particularly familiar with psionics. Anything specific to lookup on that front? At least for general idea of psionic warriorness?

And it is less elites (they aren't spartens), but nobility were at least well trained and educated as a lifelong proffesion, not that all took it seriously of course.

4/9 means 4-level caster.

Psionic casting works in armor.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

TheAlicornSage wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Actually I believe there's a feat where you can pick a spell list, and use items off that spell list without having to check UMD.

Note that there's a simple problem in your assertion that mental stats can be trained up...you can't do it until level 4. That means if they have a 10 or less, they basically can't take this class and cast spells until level 4.

So, you're basically looking at an elitist class however you want to spin it, instead of something easy to qualify like a warrior (there's literally no stat reqs to take class levels in most melee classes to use their class features, which is untrue of spellcasting).

One idea I used for a campaign is a sub-wizard class where they only learned 3 schools of magic, and got intelligence bonuses for purposes of those schools (one primary and two secondary). Certain combinations of schools known had poetic names to go with them (i.e. The Tyrant's Triad of Enchantment, Conjuration and Necromancy; The Bard's Triad of Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation; The Knight's Triad of Abjuration, Transmutation, and Evocation; The Merchant's Triad of Transmutation, Divination and Illusion; The Scholar's Triad of Conjuration, Divination and Necromancy; The Adventurer's Triad of Divination, Evocation and Transmutation; etc etc etc).

You had spells of those three schools and that was it, with no bonus spells like a specialist had...but you could cast them even with inferior mental stats.

==Aelryinth

Raising stats, this is one spot where the abstract mechanics and the narrative they are supposed to represent diverge almost unavoidably. If someone actually had to reach lvl 4 in order to raise a stat, then there would never be weightlifters since lifting weights wouldn't increase strength and only a few people every century would ever gain any kind of stat increase. So while there are excellent mechanical considerations for this divergence, it isn't valid naratively, thus should not be a consideration in the narrative development of...

training for stats is part of the retraining rules, is what you are looking at.

Also, when an NPC gets levels in a PC class, they go from the standard array (12,11, 11, 10,10,8) to the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) which again is your 'training' and also imitates the superior point buy.

Which doesn't obviate my point that if they start at level 1 with a 10 Int, they can't cast level 1 spells.

Also note that the class you are presenting with 'long term buff spells' is going to be less useful as an adventuring class, because short term buff spells are the most useful.

You are also not seeing that 'burst effects' are things that can make or break battles. A fireball is instantaneous, but can open a whole in solid lines, and the resulting surge can basically win a full battle. Rock to Mud can destroy a cavalry charge or a dug in position. Illusions can break lines and panic defenders as they try to respond to attacks from unexpected positions, and let's not even get into what can happen if you drop a brown bear into the middle of a bunch of swordsmen.

I direct you back to my suggestion above, where you teach the soldier types to specialize in a single branch, or three, of magic, give them like a +4 and +2 bonus to casting stat for their primary and secondary schools, and disallow all other kinds of spells.

This lets you specialize the soldiers as specific kinds of casters with VERY specific training, and gives them immense amounts of flavor. A soldier whose main power is simply conjuring beast after beast to help defend, another whose power is defending against enemy magic, a third who does stealth ops with illusion spells, and another who is an enthusiastic direct damage dealer.

==Aelryinth


^As an alternative to limitation to specific schools of magic, you could have them be trained spontaneous casters (limited number of spells known, with list determined by subclass). All the psychic classes (so far) are spontaneous casters (except for Kineticist, which is not actually a spellcaster, but could certainly be useful on a battlefield in its own right). (For that matter, if you are going with actual Psionics from Dreamscarred Press instead of Occult/Psychic classes from Paizo, Psionic classes are really spontaneous casters(*), but instead of using quasi-Vancian spell slots, they use Power Points).

(*)Unless they have released some kind of prepared Psionic manifester since the last time I looked at their stuff.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

Being a soldier in real life and having done a lot of looking at how magic would change a world, I find the idea of soldiers in a world of learnable magic that don't cast magic to be downright ridiculous. Certainly, even a full blown wizard doesn't have the magical endurance to last through an army on army battle casting spells left and right, (not even a lvl 20 can last 10 minutes) but an army of soldiers casting the right spells at the right times will flatten an army that merely seeds the occasional wizard in various places.

Also, any attempts I've seen thus far of a sword and spell mixture class has very poor selection of abilities, usually focused entirely on damage output. A soldier that uses no magic is either stupid, incompetent, religiously anti-magic, or incapable of learning magic. Or a conscript (aka untrained cannon fodder, though not exactly PC material).

What I want to do is make a class more representative of what a soldier would actually be like in a world of learnable magic. Such a soldier would use weapons and armor (they last the battle), but also strategically cast spells, mostly long lasting enhancments, maneuvering, defenses, defense bypassing, etc, with only a few blasting spells (what good is a sword if you spell everything to death, what good is wasting all your spells on short bursts of damage when you have other attack options and need your damage output to last long term). They would also have a few spells for establishing, and breaking into, fortifications and a few convience field spells like for hygiene and putting up tents quickly (cause the commanders would demand it at least).

Spells like enlarge person, teleport, greater invisibility (for the commandos), spider climb, dispel, mount, shield, are all the sorts of spells a soldier would use.

What do you think of this concept? Any suggestions or comments?

You're going by the assumption that magic is just another mundane skill... no different than blacksmithing or calligraphy. Whereas the common fantasy trope is that magic requires a special gift or talent that can't be taught. The fact that a player can opt to take a level of wizardry or sorcery is a game conceit... not something borne out in literature.

It should also be noted that the Magus IS the class that does virtually everything you're asking for. It's the charoppers of the message boards that choose to restrict themselves to dervish dancing shocking graspers. My Magus makes a good deal of use of the enhancement and utility spells within the class list.


^In the case of trained spellcasters, you get the hardest of both worlds -- you have to have the natural talent AND you have to be trained how to use it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Actually in PF, there's no such thing as a 'talent' for wizardry...that's the bloodline of being a sorcerer, not a wizard.

PF credo is that basically ANYONE could be a wizard...you just have to learn it, and not everyone can learn it, even if they are a genius (different geniuses have different kinds of intelligence). That's why wizardry exists...so anyone smart enough can use magic.

For NPC's, that means they have the epiphany, and they understand when the DM says they do.

This is quite different from the standard 'heritage' trope of spellcasters, but that's how mages (and divine casters) roll in PF.
==============
I stayed away from spon casters for the same reason I stayed away from pure wizards - unrestricted spell list. Plus, he was using Intelligence as the baseline.

Spon casters can still cherry pick the spell list. If you restrict them to a school of magic, you don't have to generate a custom skill list.

The magus is partially what he wants, but the magus is based more on evocations then he wanted, and almost completely avoids certain types of spells. BY limiting schools of magic, you open up wide variation while avoiding the overpoweredness of an unrestricted spell list, while also saving yourself a boatload of work.

He does keep centering himself on the elitist 'trained from birth' trope instead of the 'common soldier training' trope, so the base style of the magus is a good trope...it's just the magus is a dedicated caster, and he wants a more soldier type, which means group functionality instead of individual prowess, I get the feeling.

==Aelryinth


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^In the case of trained spellcasters, you get the hardest of both worlds -- you have to have the natural talent AND you have to be trained how to use it.

In Ars Magica, children born with the Gift, i.e. the potential to be taught magic are rare enough that Magi (the proper term not the Paizo one) have been known to buy ( or steal ) them from their families.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Different game, different rules. In PF, those kids would be sorcerors.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Different game, different rules. In PF, those kids would be sorcerors.

==Aelryinth

Maybe....it's not MANDATED that the rules dictate the flavor. Maybe in my world untrained sorcerers are just literally devastating explosions waiting to happen if they're not trained to contain and control their power.

This is close to the explanation how sorcerers work in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor.. and it's the justification the Wizard's Guild puts out for the bounties they offer for sorcerers.

And again, just because Pathfinder allows players to be sorcerers or wizards does not mean that any knucklehead in Golarion can be taught magic.


Well, the way I see it basic magic is available to everyone -- simple things like stat boosts, or elemental attacks; they really don't take much effort to learn and would provide a strong basis for a military/soldier class, alternatively you go for a mass-production version of the class and you give them things like extracts, mutagens, and bombs flavored as the gear in their tactical kits. Either way, I think that 'complex' spells, things like illusions, and mind control are beyond the scope of 'basic' training, and would require a more specialized archetype or some cross-class training.


"You are also not seeing that 'burst effects' are things that can make or break battles. A fireball is instantaneous, but can open a whole in solid lines, and the resulting surge can basically win a full battle."

Not entirely correct. Grenades do not make or break battles. You are thinking of fighting opponants in the roman style, with tight formations, but in truth, a more modern approach woukd be used. Area effect spells would be devestating to a formation, therefore, doctrine would develop to defend against that, such as using very loose formations, to make it such that area effect spells would rarely get more than one or two soldiers.

"Which doesn't obviate my point that if they start at level 1 with a 10 Int, they can't cast level 1 spells."

The point I was making was that your point, while not directly invalid, isn't an issue because their training would ensure that int would not be one of their lower scores, therefore, not likely to ever be 10 or less.

"You're going by the assumption that magic is just another mundane skill"

I am going on the assumption that the settings supported by d20 may include those where magic merely takes or possibly not. PF is not designed explicitly for Galorion (and even if it was galorion sems to have magic be usable with mere training, no specialness required). That is why I support having mundane fighters, because in some settings, magic isn't trainable.

As for limiting spell selections, Firstly, I'd rather leave that to the players/gm (I don't even like classes, I just happen to like everything else about d20 enough to put up with them), but if I were to limit spell selections, it would be more like domain wizard style instead of by school.

"He does keep centering himself on the elitist 'trained from birth' trope instead of the 'common soldier training' trope"

There are two soldier types I want to represent, trained from birth nobility, and american style (in theory) of every soldier being highly trained with basic training across all roles. Every american soldier learns basic first aid, doesn't matter that very few will be combat medics. I am not going for conscripts, or otherwise poorly trained troops.

I also am focused on how magic would change the battlefield, like above where tight formations would not be used because of aoe spells.


Here's a couple of ideas (not sure if they are quite what you are looking for)

Create a fighter archetype that gives UMD as a class skill and bonuses to it, one or two cantrips early on, and maybe 1 first level spell per day at level 2 and going up from there (maybe they don't have the training and personal magical ability of wizards, but they know enough to use scrolls and the like that other casters have already created).

Also,
most groups of men at arms will have several magical tacticians linked to their unit. These could be bards or maguses with some minor changes to their spell lists and altering some class abilities. You could create a magus or bard archetype that has more group spells and spells that are more tactical (things like bless, see invisibility, enlarge person, etc). Maybe look to cleric domains for powers that help allies. Maybe create some magus arcana that helps allies in some way (giving enhancement bonuses to others' certain skill checks instead of to his own weapons).

Assume that for every five basic fighter types in an army, there will be at least one of these tactical spellcasters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see what you are saying but let me give an example,

In A Hymn Before Battle, (a sci fi but work with me here), a battalion (about 1000 soldiers) got reduced to a mere 53 soldiers, yet they remained effective. Despite having only 2 engineers, all of them could still plant explosives, because despite having separate specialties, there was enough crosd training that any soldier coukd fill any role if needed.

Your idea however is very much like human's enemy, the posleen, which had a god king with lots of weak troops. What did the smart humans do? They focused on destroying the god kings of course, because the weaklings were nearly ineffective without the god kings. So while you might be suggesting a ratio of 5 to 1, your concept still suffers that major vulnerability of placing one soldier as vastly more important than the others and making them a keystone element that the enemy will focus on. While some tyrants or groups that don't mind high losses, such an army is not the sort I'm looking for.

In Starcraft terms, you suggest zerg, but I want protoss.


I kind of meant using both together; Almost all basic soldiers would have enough background in magic to at least be able to use wands to cure each other, scrolls like monkey fish or enlarge person decently effectively, etc, and a couple of cantrips. Soldiers are all equipped with at least a few of these scrolls that are provided to them.

Giving the fighters a caster level at level 1 and spell list would be awesome, because then you don't have to worry about the scrolls ever failing. And then if this fits the flavor of your world better, don't worry too much about keeping track of how much the country is spending on scrolls. The economics of pathfinder can't exactly be called realistic anyways, and it all is really only there to support the flavor; none of it is a hard and fast rule. If the military complex uses magic this often, they probably know how to mass produce scrolls or have deals worked out with spellcasters or whatever. It's a lot different from a small band of adventurers showing up at a store and saying "make this for us".

Then on top of that, you could make the ratio of spellcasters to fighters 1:1. If you are mostly dealing with low level guys, your basic magus really only needs a 12 in intelligence. Usually, the magus will only be 2 hp and 1 to hit behind the fighters. Toughness and weapon focus will mitigate both of those.


Are you going to post a draft of your class idea?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

TheAlicornSage wrote:
There are two soldier types I want to represent, trained from birth nobility, and american style (in theory) of every soldier being highly trained with basic training across all roles. Every american soldier learns basic first aid, doesn't matter that very few will be combat medics. I am not going for conscripts, or otherwise poorly trained troops.

I actually wrote and published a class based on very similar premises, and also influenced by my own time in the military. It's an Intelligent, skilled combatant focused on team-oriented tactics and thematically appropriate skills both in and out of combat. It has access to a combination of extraordinary and magical abilities under the assumption that an intelligent and trained military figure would learn to harness all the tools available in a magical fantasy world, and one of the archetypes I wrote, the Eldritch Chevalier, even uses a unique casting mechanic to cast a limited number of arcane spells supported by class mechanics that allow him to leverage these spells to best effect as part of a unit. It may be worth checking out for you and others seeking the type of character you described in your post.

To quote my own description of it in the product thread-
"Drawing some inspiration from a combination of my own time in the military and the Marshal class from 3.5, the Battle Lord gets Auras and Drills, teamwork focused abilities that allow him to buff allies on and off the battlefield. In addition to sharing various bonuses and teamwork feats with allies, the Battle Lord selects a military specialty, such as Artillerist, Medic, Scout, or Soldier, which further customizes him and gives him tools to fill a specific role in addition to his general roles of primary combatant and party buffer.

The Battle Lord is an intelligent, full BAB combatant who enhances the entire team's performance and capabilities, and which Endzeitgeist referred to as "a thing of beauty"."


Trekkie90909 wrote:
Well, the way I see it basic magic is available to everyone -- simple things like stat boosts, or elemental attacks; they really don't take much effort to learn and would provide a strong basis for a military/soldier class, alternatively you go for a mass-production version of the class and you give them things like extracts, mutagens, and bombs flavored as the gear in their tactical kits. Either way, I think that 'complex' spells, things like illusions, and mind control are beyond the scope of 'basic' training, and would require a more specialized archetype or some cross-class training.

Now, why didn't I think of that? Go the Alchemist route, but tone down the Alchemy to 4/9 (4/6?) and limit Extract selection by specialty (but provide a way to get a limited amount of cross-training), but in exchange make the chassis d10, full BAB, and have full martial weapon and armor proficiency and a small amount of Weapon Training and Armor Training (also have an archetype that traces out some of this for solid firearm use). Still gets to take a wide range of Alchemist Discoveries, including ones that modify Mutagens and Bombs.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Different game, different rules. In PF, those kids would be sorcerors.

==Aelryinth

Maybe....it's not MANDATED that the rules dictate the flavor. Maybe in my world untrained sorcerers are just literally devastating explosions waiting to happen if they're not trained to contain and control their power.

This is close to the explanation how sorcerers work in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor.. and it's the justification the Wizard's Guild puts out for the bounties they offer for sorcerers.

And again, just because Pathfinder allows players to be sorcerers or wizards does not mean that any knucklehead in Golarion can be taught magic.

Well, that's not the Blackmoor setting that I read.

The wizards spread the propaganda about sorcerers that they have demon-derived bloodlines and are born threats that must be destroyed, where all wizards are members of the Guild and so 'under control', without such dangers.
This is made even more biased by the fact that default sorceror skills in 3.5 come from dragons, not demons.

And of course, before 3e, there were no sorcerors, so it was just non-Guild wizards and guild wizards fighting one another.

==Aelryinth


@ gronka

The expenditure of spells and wands would be massive. For a short term or quick response, it is an alright tactic, but for the standing military, it reminds me of russian soldiers learning to throw potatos because there were not enough grenades for training, or when they would get deployed weaponless, expected to grab a weapon from the dead. For a standing military it is cheaper to just train them. Think about it, a potion is 50 gold, scrolls and wands are 100s of gold. Paying soldiers 1 gold a week for a year's worth of training is about as much as two scrolls, and is still a significant pay raise over mundane craftsmen.

Or not. In double checking the exact values of commoner and craftsmen wages, it seems there is some wonky stuff going on. In one of my GM references (admittedly 3.x), commoners make about a copper per day and craftsmen make a silver per day, but this doesn't track with the profession skill (either 3.x or pf) which says untrained assistants make a silver per day and that a trained person would make about a gold or more per day (average of 7 per week at lvl 1).

However, even so, it is still cheaper in the long run to just train troops properly. Having troops learn to use scrolls would require practice, and each scroll is nearly a month's wages and training would require using many of them per soldier just for training, then fielding them would be even worse.

Has the advantage of being faster though (while supplies last), but as the old business saying goes, "Quick, cheap, quality. Pick two and the third goes to [preferred place of utter, horrible, and eternal banishment]."


Not a complete build just yet, but here is where I'm thinking at the moment,

d10
full bab
fort and will = good

Specialized casting techniques, Combat Spell Effects.
CSEs are in between words of power and normal spells (storywise, grounded in the older magic that is supposedly wop).
This class can use a CSE instead of an attack any time they could make an attack (including aoos and such).
The exact effect list based on chosen specialty.

The downside is CSEs always require a spellcraft check to cast successfully and never have a duration other than concentration or instant. Instead, this class can maintain a number of concentration based effects each round equal to int mod +1, as a swift action. (for example, mage armor would be concentration for duration as would shield. A swift action is used to maintain them both if the caster has an int of at least +1.). Taking damage requires a concentration check to maintain the spells, as does casting a new one.

This gains a number of points and casting an effect spends these points.

Area, hd targeted, and number of targets would be normalized to the class level, and area size and shape interchangable similar to wop and affect the spellcraft DC. These would naturally be less efficient than wizards and sorcerers. For example, instead of 10' cubes per cl, it might be two 5' cubes per cl, 75% drop in volume or 50% drop in surface area.

Other than target/area/duration and possibly a couple others or minor caveats, normal spells can be used as is.

Just in the sketch out phase, still trying to make sure the concept is workable.


What I'm saying, though, is that the economics of pathfinder are really out of whack, anyways. A castle costs 500,000 or 1,000,000 gp to build, according to 3.5; in PF, I think it's still in the hundreds of thousands, which seems like it puts it outside the affordability of most kingdoms.

According to the rules, any commoner with a 12 int could be an adept, use scribe scroll, and use his 3 spells per day to scribe 3 scrolls, and get about 35 gp in profit every single day, which is, as you were saying, is over a months' wage. That's 7,000 gp a year only working 200 days (and 6 hours a day at that). You would expect any city to have a number of pretty mundane businessmen like this who in a couple of years have saved up more money than a 5th or 6th level character. A city like Absalom would certainly provide plenty of demand for their products. The local magic shop owner should be richer than most nobility.

So what I'm saying is, don't worry about the economics or ruining the suspension of disbelief; it's easy to say they invented a magical printing press for scrolls or something, but the product is out of the reach of adventurers because they don't want the technology falling in to the wrong hands. Which is, I guess, something that should be addressed: is this a class designed for an NPC army, or is this a class you are expecting PCs to take?

The other thing is, it seems like scrolls will provide a big advantage in versatility; you can have a number of scrolls ready for any eventuality, where most casters only get a couple of spells a day that must be prepared ahead of time.
According to the character advancement chart, normal npcs start with 260 gp, and heroic start with 390. You could easily outfit each level 1 npc with chainmail, 4 scrolls, a weapon, and a shield. (likely these warriors will be heroic and higher level, anyways, as you were describing a highly trained army instead of conscripts).

The combat spell effects seem like a neat way to give them the feel you are looking for.

1 to 50 of 161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / New class brainstorming, the Military Soldier All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.