Racial Army Classes


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I went on a bit of a rant in this thread about how much a Hobgoblin army may rely on Alchemists. The initial idea goes to lemeres, of course.

So that got me thinking, which races would rely heavily on which classes for their armies? Obviously there would be a lot of Warriors in each army, but I'm thinking for their more powerful troops, the ones that they sink time and resources into buffing up.

Personally, I think an Elven Army would have a precious supply of Wizards, but would have most of their front-liners be Magi of some description. They're agile, intelligent and Magi can afford to spend one of their no-action-spells to buff their lacking health. They're almost the perfect Kensai, if you take your chosen weapon to be the Curve Blade or the Branched Spear. Damn fine Eldritch Archers too.

A Magus doesn't require the same arduous and expensive training that a Wizard does, and has much more survivability at low levels, which is pretty necessary for a battle-caster in a race with a Con penalty. Even though Elves are smart, it's also much more probable to find an individual of Magus cleverness than to find the rare genius born for a life of Wizardry.

On the other hand, Orcs seem pretty much designed to be Barbarians. This is fine, and fairly obvious. It's hard to find any class that they're good at which doesn't involve angrily hitting things. They'd make really good Kinetic Knights, but of course you can't plan for the fickle energies of the elemental planes giving you enough of those for a whole battalion. So Barbarians, most likely.

What about other classes? Not just what those classes are good at being, but what they could sink resources into making armies out of. Full-Casters, for instance, are usually either prohibitively difficult to train and find, or are so unpredictable that you can't plan to have enough of them to sustain a force. Even if you can find the one bugger with the blood of dragons, who's to say that he's Charismatic enough to use it? Even if humans make the best Sorcerers, you'll never make an army out of them.

So what about it? I can't wait to hear back from y'all!


If the rules are followed in every iteration of D20 so far, the VAST MAJORITY of any race's army will be warriors, maybe adepts to fill magical support roles. Player classes have always been the exception to normal rank and file inhabitants even in armies.


Yeah, personally I have always played it where people with levels in PC classes (or at least people with levels in *only* PC classes) are exceedingly rare, and you're certainly not going to be able to make an army out of them.

So a large kingdom might have 2-3 alchemists and 4-5 wizards for the entire army. Nobody who's not a destined to be an important officer is going to have levels in PC classes, unless they're a major NPC or a PC-to-be working on their backstory.

Like the general of the entire army might be something like Expert 6/Fighter 6.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nitro~Nina wrote:

{. . .}

Personally, I think an Elven Army would have a precious supply of Wizards, but would have most of their front-liners be Magi of some description. They're agile, intelligent and Magi can afford to spend one of their no-action-spells to buff their lacking health. They're almost the perfect Kensai, if you take your chosen weapon to be the Curve Blade or the Branched Spear. Damn fine Eldritch Archers too.

Except for one problem: Normally you can't use either of these weapons with Spell Combat. Workarounds exist for this, but they are only available after several levels. Keep in mind that Spell Combat explicitly says that you have to be using a Light or One-Handed weapon in one hand and have a free hand; only a few archetypes let you off the hook for this, and also only after several levels. Eventually you can cast Monstrous Physique (or potentially even use Alter Self to become a Kasatha a few levels before that) to get 4 or more arms and thereby be able to two-hand a one-handed weapon if you want.

Unfortunately, NOTHING seems to have good archetypes for making optimal use of Finessable Elven two-handed weapons. Swashbuckler is in the same boat as Magus in that regard. I want an Elven Swashbuckler archetype and either a modification to the Elven Spelldancer Magus archetype or an Elf-specific Magus Arcana to address this.

Nitro~Nina wrote:

A Magus doesn't require the same arduous and expensive training that a Wizard does, and has much more survivability at low levels, which is pretty necessary for a battle-caster in a race with a Con penalty. Even though Elves are smart, it's also much more probable to find an individual of Magus cleverness than to find the rare genius born for a life of Wizardry.

{. . .}

Arguably, a Magus requires even MORE training than a Wizard: about 2/3 of the training of a Wizard + about 3/4 of the training of a Fighter. Of course, this fits in well with the long Elven lifespan, so I would expect as many of the hardier Elves as possible to be trained as melee Magi, and as many of the more wiry but physically adept (just not as tough) Elves as possible to be trained as Eldritch Archers. Of course, for all their long lifespans, Elves aren't known for great organization, so these guidelines are likely to be honored more in the violation than in actual observation.

JosMartigen wrote:
If the rules are followed in every iteration of D20 so far, the VAST MAJORITY of any race's army will be warriors, maybe adepts to fill magical support roles. Player classes have always been the exception to normal rank and file inhabitants even in armies.

I actually like the idea of fairly noticeable (not necessarily majority) parts of the population to PC classes, to counter the notion (which various villains and other pointy-haired bosses are going to be promoting, in addition to the more murderhobo-minded PCs) that regular people (including most of those in armies) are simply cattle and/or cannon fodder. The PCs can become special, but they have to earn their specialness.

With that in mind, I would:

  • Upgrade Warriors to martial PC classes, usually Fighter with no archetype (but with many exceptions made on a regional or organizational basis);
  • Upgrade Aristocrat levels 1 - 5 normally to Phantom Thief Rogue, and levels 6 - 15 normally to Noble Scion prestige class (if, as often happens, the Aristocrat also has levels in PC classes, deduct these from the Phantom Thief Rogue levels to preferentially shift the Aristocrat levels to Noble Scion prestige class levels while leaving their PC class levels largely unchanged);
  • Upgrade Expert into something I haven't completely figured out yet (need a Rogue archetype along the lines of Phantom Thief, but more working class);
  • Upgrade Adepts to some kind of Witch (archetype is terrain-specific -- for instance Alley Witch in urban areas and Herb Witch and/or Hedge Witch in many rural areas) if arcane-oriented or to Cardinal or Cloistered Cleric if divine-oriented;
  • Keep Commoner as is -- somebody has to die screaming.

The above seems especially fitting for Humans, although it needs to take into account regional and national (and other organizational) variation.

In particular, I've been toying with the idea of some nations like Bachuan, Cheliax, Molthune, Nidal, Rahadoum (and Razmiran and Taldor try but are incompetent to get much results) actively trying to min-max their people to make them into super-soldiers, super-spies, super-rulers, and super-zampolits, although at the expense of flexibility, even applying both physically and psychologically abusive treatment to force people into the desired molds, as well as ongoing eugenics programs, having advanced their art of thus molding (and even breeding) people in the direction indicated by the more ridiculous (but quite common) power-gaming recommendations in guides, with this zeal for optimization having even infected many of the less unsavory parts of society. So, for instance, when you go to Cheliax, you find that a disproportionate number of the Clerics, especially Fighters and Warpriests, and even Paladins there have actually dumped Intelligence (they had it beaten out of them to mold their wills to the desires of their masters, with even such lofty institutions as the Church of Iomedae having partly fallen to this depravity). These nations would attempt to deploy highly regimented squadrons of various classes organized to pack the maximum punch against an enemy's forces by way of synergy and teamwork, with these squadrons ideally composed of shamelessly min-maxed individuals having as little individuality as possible. And that's before we even get into Hellknights -- although most of these are independent organizations, the Order of the Rack and another smaller order (can't remember the name -- Order of the Tome or Order of the Scroll or something like that? -- working to preserve information for House Thrune's secret use) are government departments in all but name (or at least were -- the latter Hellknight Order reportedly gets wiped out by the Evil PCs in Hell's Vengeance).

Verdant Wheel

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:

{. . .}

Personally, I think an Elven Army would have a precious supply of Wizards, but would have most of their front-liners be Magi of some description. They're agile, intelligent and Magi can afford to spend one of their no-action-spells to buff their lacking health. They're almost the perfect Kensai, if you take your chosen weapon to be the Curve Blade or the Branched Spear. Damn fine Eldritch Archers too.

Except for one problem: Normally you can't use either of these weapons with Spell Combat. Workarounds exist for this, but they are only available after several levels. Keep in mind that Spell Combat explicitly says that you have to be using a Light or One-Handed weapon in one hand and have a free hand; only a few archetypes let you off the hook for this, and also only after several levels. Eventually you can cast Monstrous Physique (or potentially even use Alter Self to become a Kasatha a few levels before that) to get 4 or more arms and thereby be able to two-hand a one-handed weapon if you want.

Unfortunately, NOTHING seems to have good archetypes for making optimal use of Finessable Elven two-handed weapons. Swashbuckler is in the same boat as Magus in that regard. I want an Elven Swashbuckler archetype and either a modification to the Elven Spelldancer Magus archetype or an Elf-specific Magus Arcana to address this.

Wha... *goes to check* $%£@&! Dang, I somehow thought it worked like all the other casters with the free action remove hand from shaft. They still have great stats for a Kensai or Archer, but those weapons really do not fit the bill. Hmm... there's Spear Dancing Spiral with a Staff Master Magus, but then you have to invest in Two-Weapon Fighting and Martial Proficiency. Not ideal. :(

EDIT: Aha! With your Kensai ability to be a Fighter for the purpose of feats, you could get Martial Versatility with Slashing Grace (Longsword) or Dervish Dance! Still a few feats, but you'll be using all of them except Weapon Focus (Longsword).

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:

A Magus doesn't require the same arduous and expensive training that a Wizard does, and has much more survivability at low levels, which is pretty necessary for a battle-caster in a race with a Con penalty. Even though Elves are smart, it's also much more probable to find an individual of Magus cleverness than to find the rare genius born for a life of Wizardry.

{. . .}

Arguably, a Magus requires even MORE training than a Wizard: about 2/3 of the training of a Wizard + about 3/4 of the training of a Fighter. Of course, this fits in well with the long Elven lifespan, so I would expect as many of the hardier Elves as possible to be trained as melee Magi, and as many of the more wiry but physically adept (just not as tough) Elves as possible to be trained as Eldritch Archers. Of course, for all their long lifespans, Elves aren't known for great organization, so these guidelines are likely to be honored more in the violation than in actual observation.

I would dispute that. It's much quicker and cheaper to train a soldier than a warper of reality, and it's also a lot easier to get someone to 16 Intelligence than 19, even with a racial +2. Most Elves just won't be smart enough to become Wizards, but a good number of them are easily smart enough to become decent Magi even without much brain-training. You do make a good point with the organisation side of it, however.

I also most certainly agree with the whole noticeable parts of the population being PC classes thing, at least as far as a military is concerned. 10+ Character level is solidly superhero level and should be, but I don't think that the PCs should necessarily be gods from level one.

How about a Vigilante Social Identity for the Expert? They just haven't had that one bad day...

Whoah. Holy Player-Culture-To-Dystopia, Batman! I love it!


Actually I see Ranger as the most common elven martial class. If you look at almost any story about elven warriors they are usually very good hunters and almost impossible to spot in a forest. Elves are also supposed to be very in touch with nature which fits a ranger a lot better. They can also take the two handed weapon style to get power attack without needed a high STR. This would work well with the elven curve blade.

Verdant Wheel

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Actually I see Ranger as the most common elven martial class. If you look at almost any story about elven warriors they are usually very good hunters and almost impossible to spot in a forest. Elves are also supposed to be very in touch with nature which fits a ranger a lot better. They can also take the two handed weapon style to get power attack without needed a high STR. This would work well with the elven curve blade.

This is a very good point, and I think that the archetypes that don't rely so much on Wisdom would be very good choices for an Elf army,


Nitro~Nina wrote:

{. . .}

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:


A Magus doesn't require the same arduous and expensive training that a Wizard does, and has much more survivability at low levels, which is pretty necessary for a battle-caster in a race with a Con penalty. Even though Elves are smart, it's also much more probable to find an individual of Magus cleverness than to find the rare genius born for a life of Wizardry.
{. . .}
Arguably, a Magus requires even MORE training than a Wizard: about 2/3 of the training of a Wizard + about 3/4 of the training of a Fighter. Of course, this fits in well with the long Elven lifespan, so I would expect as many of the hardier Elves as possible to be trained as melee Magi, and as many of the more wiry but physically adept (just not as tough) Elves as possible to be trained as Eldritch Archers. Of course, for all their long lifespans, Elves aren't known for great organization, so these guidelines are likely to be honored more in the violation than in actual observation.
I would dispute that. It's much quicker and cheaper to train a soldier than a warper of reality, and it's also a lot easier to get someone to 16 Intelligence than 19, even with a racial +2. Most Elves just won't be smart enough to become Wizards, but a good number of them are easily smart enough to become decent Magi even without much brain-training. You do make a good point with the organisation side of it, however.

But that's the thing: A Magus has to be BOTH 2/3 of a warper of reality and 3/4 of a soldier AND make it all work together like a fine-tuned machine. Just understanding all the abilities of the class on the PRD is more than the sum of understanding Wizard and Fighter(*), so that should be a hint right there of how intense the training needs to be. Fortunately for Elves, what they lack in efficiency and organization for this, they can make up for in time.

(*)Okay, after the Weapon Master's Handbook and Armor Master's Handbook came out, Fighter has gotten more complicated with cool stuff, possibly catching the sum of Fighter and Wizard up to Magus -- but if you go Myrmidarch Magus (which as a result of the aforementioned supplements became actually a decent archetype), you can get the Fighter's new complexity too.

Proceeding along this line of thought for a bit, Dwarves have only a little bit less time than Elves, and they have discipline and organization. By a remarkable coincidence, just a few weeks ago I realized that they can be pretty awesome Magi as well. I still wish that they had a Wizard archetype (very likely a Dwarven Transmuter archetype), but Forgemaster Cleric sort of serves that purpose -- Dwarven regiments could do well to have several of these to keep the troops properly equipped, in good morale, and otherwise buffed (but battlefield control, not so much -- they need a Wizard archetype). They also have Fighter and Paladin archetypes that are not too shabby, although strangely the Fighter archetype doesn't consider that a fair number of Dwarves are going to want to use axes as well as hammers. For reasons of movement speed, they are also probably going to want to have mounted troops even more than most other Medium races when on the surface, so I would expect cavalry squadrons composed of Cavaliers and Rangers to be popular among their surface forces, and a Dwarven armed forces would find more reason than most to split into separate services for surface operations and subterranean operations rather than being just one Army.

Nitro~Nina wrote:

I also most certainly agree with the whole noticeable parts of the population being PC classes thing, at least as far as a military is concerned. 10+ Character level is solidly superhero level and should be, but I don't think that the PCs should necessarily be gods from level one.

How about a Vigilante Social Identity for the Expert? They just haven't had that one bad day...

Whoah. Holy Player-Culture-To-Dystopia, Batman! I love it!

I thought of that too, but most Experts aren't going to want to go this route to upgrade if they have something along the lines of Phantom Thief Rogue available, except that Phantom Thief itself is too aristocratically-oriented for most of them, so a similar but noticeably different archetype is needed. Drop Dead Studios took a shot at this with the True Professional, but they made that off Classic Rogue, and it came out before other newer material (including Pathfinder Unchained Skill Unlocks).

Verdant Wheel

Hmm... I'm not being very clear, sorry. It's not the actual breadth of ability that's the problem for Wizards. It's how specialised they have to be. As you'll find out with any general-populace-level array or point-buy, getting to a decent Int score requires a lot of effort, while a Magus has less intense training in multiple fields (and their primary spells tend not to need them to have a high spell DC). Realistically, it takes less effort and fewer resources to become a jack-of-all-trades than a true specialist. Plus, Magi are already dedicated to combat; they don't need additional training to be integrated into an army, and can probably interact with other soldiers without as much awkwardness.

If Wizards are specialist scientists/engineers with PHDs, and Fighters are soldiers, Magi would be roughly in the arena of combat engineer. Scientifically capable enough to deal with specialised equipment and able to change the shape of battlefields through physics expertise (see: every Engineer Corps since the Romans), but they're unlikely to be revolutionising the field of Quantum Mechanics. Combat engineers probably take more time to train than regular soldiers, but they take significantly less time to become good at their job than Professor Steven Hawking did.

Yet the day-to-day life of Engie McMortar involves a hell of a lot more variety than Doctor Science's does and the former is lot more versatile, which would result in more and confusing class features if you were to abstract the two out.

Hawking also had to dump Strength and Dexterity into the floor to get to his Intelligence score, although like many casters he seems to have confusingly high Con.

HOWEVER, I do think that Elves would have a lot more Wizards in their armies than most races; perhaps the only one with more would be Humans, what with their ability to learn so quickly and being good at specialising into any of several paths with relative ease. That bonus feat can always give you Greater Spell Focus at first level, so they don't need to have as high a primary casting stat as anyone else; it also means that they have more room for all that lovely Metamagic. Not saying that Human armies would have tons of Wizards, but more than anyone else. Also more Sorcerers, Bloodragers and Eldritch Scions, since everything is attracted to Humanity (which works because Humans and Half-Humans do make the best Sorcerers).
____

I think your ideas on Dwarves are pretty spot-on, though I think that they'd have a lot of Gunslingers too if the tech level was high enough. They deal with ore a lot and would know enough about blast-mining and shrapnel to wonder how to weaponise it... which would lead to some Alchemists too, methinks.

I think it makes sense that Dwarves don't have many Wizards, due to their intensely practical nature that wouldn't be such a fan of sacrificing your durability for power, especially when that power is enclosed in a space the size of a Dwarf mine. I think they have the dedication and numbers to get Clerics though, since a lot of their power comes from the heavens rather than intense study that doesn't leave room for any combat.
___

I think Rogues in general are too combative for most Experts. The Phantom Thief UnRogue works for nobles because of COURSE they get finesse training; they've been fencing since they were old enough to hold a foil. Sleuth Investigators perhaps? Only the higher-level ones get any combat-based abilities.
___

I mention humans above, and their armies would be VERY interesting. They'd be very eclectic, of course, with several different specialised units for any occasion, and well... see comment on Sorcerers and Wizards above. They specialise so well, and can make strategies viable with only that extra feat. There's another point to be made here... all those half'n'half races, all of those Aasimars and Tieflings and Changelings and Sulis and Ifrits, with all of their lovely feats and traits and skill bonuses and archetypes? They're all in Human armies. Oh sure, they crop up in other races a little, but nothing like with Humans, and some of them are completely indistinguishable from their mundane brethren.

Humans are also quick learners, and I mean SUPER quick. Pick a fighting style that doesn't require being short or old or tail-y, and I bet that it was invented by humans. They have the newest tactics and can easily adapt tactics from others, and are thus probably rocking a lot of specialist archetypes that they cribbed from other humanoids, as well as Brawlers, Fighters and Masters of Many Styles. Given their versatility, I bet they also have a bunch of Bards and Occultists, though honestly they probably have the most even class-spread of any race's armies


Halflings would have lots of Order of the Paw Cavaliers.

Tengu seem to be into fancy swordplay, given their racial weapon proficiencies. I'd say they make decent Swasbucklers. Maybe even Rogues, but I don't really see an army of Rogues.

Gnomes would have lots of Sorcerers (all blasters, of course), but they're not really "army-worthy." I mostly see armies consisting of full-BAB classes, and most small races aren't really built for those.

Maybe some of the more animalistic races would have Druids. Again, they're not really army-material considering they can't wear metal, but Hunters dodge that neatly. They'd ride their war-beasts into battle instead of fighting alongside them.

Grippli are maybe too tribal to form proper armies, but I could see them having lots of Shamans to support them. Ranger would suit them well. They seem to favour Alchemists as well, but I'm not sure if they'd fit in an army. Good artillery, though.

EDIT: Funnily enough, I'd say Slayers make great army material: full-BAB, combat tricks, studied target, some sneak attack, but I can't really find a race that'd suit them. Or how they'd operate in an army. I personally see them more as loners on the battlefield, making quick and efficient work of his enemies. An army of them would be terrifying, especially with the Seething Hatred feat. Humans, perhaps?


Nitro~Nina wrote:
Hmm... I'm not being very clear, sorry. It's not the actual breadth of ability that's the problem for Wizards. It's how specialised they have to be. As you'll find out with any general-populace-level array or point-buy, getting to a decent Int score requires a lot of effort, while a Magus has less intense training in multiple fields (and their primary spells tend not to need them to have a high spell DC). Realistically, it takes less effort and fewer resources to become a jack-of-all-trades than a true specialist. Plus, Magi are already dedicated to combat; they don't need additional training to be integrated into an army, and can probably interact with other soldiers without as much awkwardness.

I wouldn't call a Magus a jack-of-all-trades -- they are rather specialized themselves, except for not having a specialty Arcane School and Opposition Schools. (I'd like a Magus archetype that adds these.) And generalist scientists are much more rare than specialized ones -- I've seen this from being in Modern Necromancy life science research myself. In terms of awkwardness of Wizards interacting with other soldiers, this is probably correct, although I'm not sure it would be enough to make up for having to combine both arcane and martial training. Wizards do have one way in which they really are more specialized, which is in having the need for a higher Intelligence score; on the other hand, they are less MAD, which may be more than enough to make up for this. If NPCs have to roll for ability scores instead of use point buy, you will probably get more Wizard-ready people than Magus-ready people, although even point buy reflects this -- a Wizard can dump Strength, Wisdom, and Charisma (not saying it's good to do so, but it's workable) and needs good but not outstanding Dexterity and Constitution (and it's workable even to have only average scores of these, although not great), and only needs a stellar Intelligence, whereas a Magus can't dump Strength (these days you can only get off the hook for this if you are going Dervish Dance, and that is probably going to get nerfed as well if it gets onto the developers' radar) and needs to have even more Dexterity and Constitution (you can only get off the hook for the latter if you are going for some kind of ranged archetype).

Nitro~Nina wrote:
If Wizards are specialist scientists/engineers with PHDs, and Fighters are soldiers, Magi would be roughly in the arena of combat engineer. Scientifically capable enough to deal with specialised equipment and able to change the shape of battlefields through physics expertise (see: every Engineer Corps since the Romans), but they're unlikely to be revolutionising the field of Quantum Mechanics. Combat engineers probably take more time to train than regular soldiers, but they take significantly less time to become good at their job than Professor Steven Hawking did.

Yes, but Stephen Hawking isn't the kind of person you're going to be integrating into an army. People like that, if involved in a military effort, would be working behind the lines (like in the Manhattan Project).

Nitro~Nina wrote:
Yet the day-to-day life of Engie McMortar involves a hell of a lot more variety than Doctor Science's does and the former is lot more versatile, which would result in more and confusing class features if you were to abstract the two out.

I would say that Dr. Science without proper broad training isn't going to do a very good job. Fortunately, in most cases, Dr. Science can afford to make more mistakes, from not being up in the battle lines.

Nitro~Nina wrote:
Hawking also had to dump Strength and Dexterity into the floor to get to his Intelligence score, although like many casters he seems to have confusingly high Con.

Not really -- that's more like a curse that hit after he had already grown up. Also see Richard Feynmann -- one of the top scientists, but also capable of putting up a fight (and inclined to do so in some circumstances).

Nitro~Nina wrote:
HOWEVER, I do think that Elves would have a lot more Wizards in their armies than most races; perhaps the only one with more would be Humans, what with their ability to learn so quickly and being good at specialising into any of several paths with relative ease. That bonus feat can always give you Greater Spell Focus at first level, so they don't need to have as high a primary casting stat as anyone else; it also means that they have more room for all that lovely Metamagic. Not saying that Human armies would have tons of Wizards, but more than anyone else. Also more Sorcerers, Bloodragers and Eldritch Scions, since everything is attracted to Humanity (which works because Humans and Half-Humans do make the best Sorcerers).

Agreed on this, although it also helps that Humans have more numbers in most surface regions, so they can pull up more exceptional individuals just by having more individuals to wade through. Also, Gnomes and certain types of Tiefling might want to have a word with you about who's best for Sorcerers . . . Although admittedly they are unlikely to be fielding their own armies.

Nitro~Nina wrote:

____

I think your ideas on Dwarves are pretty spot-on, though I think that they'd have a lot of Gunslingers too if the tech level was high enough. They deal with ore a lot and would know enough about blast-mining and shrapnel to wonder how to weaponise it... which would lead to some Alchemists too, methinks.

Agreed on the Gunslingers and Alchemists. Actually, why didn't I think of this? -- after all, I've played WarCraft II and III . . . .

Nitro~Nina wrote:
I think it makes sense that Dwarves don't have many Wizards, due to their intensely practical nature that wouldn't be such a fan of sacrificing your durability for power, especially when that power is enclosed in a space the size of a Dwarf mine. I think they have the dedication and numbers to get Clerics though, since a lot of their power comes from the heavens rather than intense study that doesn't leave room for any combat.

Still, with Dwarves' reputation as master crafters, you'd think they'd have a few Wizards . . . .

Nitro~Nina wrote:

___

I think Rogues in general are too combative for most Experts. The Phantom Thief UnRogue works for nobles because of COURSE they get finesse training; they've been fencing since they were old enough to hold a foil. Sleuth Investigators perhaps? Only the higher-level ones get any combat-based abilities.

Sleuth Investigator might be okay for police and detective types (except that it's a terrible archetype), but doesn't really fit a lot of Experts. Also, the mention of Combat Engineers above reminds me that this needs to be an Expert archetype (or sub-archetype of whatever has an archetype to replace the Expert) -- with decent spellcasters being in short supply, armies would certainly have the incentive to get as much as they could out of mundane battlefield engineering.

Nitro~Nina wrote:

___

I mention humans above, and their armies would be VERY interesting. They'd be very eclectic, of course, with several different specialised units for any occasion, and well... see comment on Sorcerers and Wizards above. They specialise so well, and can make strategies viable with only that extra feat. There's another point to be made here... all those half'n'half races, all of those Aasimars and Tieflings and Changelings and Sulis and Ifrits, with all of their lovely feats and traits and skill bonuses and archetypes? They're all in Human armies. Oh sure, they crop up in other races a little, but nothing like with Humans, and some of them are completely indistinguishable from their mundane brethren.

Of course, this depends upon which Humans you are talking about -- Humans on Earth have a very poor record of accepting people who are different from them -- and this is different Humans we're talking about -- imagine if people on Earth encountered people whose characteristics were different enough to count as separate subspecies. If you could cast Speak With Dead that could reach far back enough into time, you might be able to get some insight about that from some Neanderthals . . . .

Nitro~Nina wrote:
Humans are also quick learners, and I mean SUPER quick. Pick a fighting style that doesn't require being short or old or tail-y, and I bet that it was invented by humans. They have the newest tactics and can easily adapt tactics from others, and are thus probably rocking a lot of specialist archetypes that they cribbed from other humanoids, as well as Brawlers, Fighters and Masters of Many Styles. Given their versatility, I bet they also have a bunch of Bards and Occultists, though honestly they probably have the most even class-spread of any race's armies

This is true, although given that some of this stems from being able to put your +2 anywhere, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs would come close if they ever formed true-breeding nations of their own. (Although they don't have the Bonus Feat and Skilled trait to trade in for Dual Talent, which would hurt for making some of the more MAD concepts.)


I don’t think you are going to find may spell casters in the rank and file of armies. The rank and file of any army is low level. Most are 1st level maybe second level for elite troops. This may sound harsh but the rank and file of an army are pretty much disposable assets. When fighting starts some of them are going to die. You want something that can be trained in large numbers fairly cheaply. In game terms you will want something that does not require high stats to be affective and can survive well in combat. Because they are disposable you are also not going to want something with a lot of potential at higher level.

At 5th level a fighter has more HP and is able to do more damage, but is not all that much different than he was at 1st level. A 5th level fighter specializing in archery will probably get off 2 attacks per round. 5 1st level archers will be able to get off 5 attacks per round. The 5th level archer will of course have a better chance to hit and do more damage, but vs something with a low AC and HP the group of 5 archers will be able to take down the target faster. The 5th level archer is going to want a lot more pay than the 1st level archer. I can probably afford 10 1st level archers for the same cost as 1 5th level archer. From the stand point of an army having 10 1st level archers is a lot more cost efficient than the single 5th level archer.

Compare this to a wizard. At 1st level the wizard really can do much. He only has 2 1st level spells, 3 if you count his school spell. The 5th level wizard on the other hand has 4 1st level spells, 2 2nd level spells, and 1 3rd level spell plus one extra of every level from his school. Even when casting the same spell the 5th level wizard does a lot more damage. The 5th level wizard has a good chance of having item creation feats which significantly increases his power. From the stand point of the army the 5th level wizard is s lot more cost effective and valuable than 5 1st level wizards.

Spell casters are way too valuable to be considered disposable assets. If I find a potential wizard that is willing to sever I am not going to risk him being killed by having him in the rank and file. I am going to make sure he gets the training he needs and protect him as a valuable asset. He will either be an officer of some sort not a grunt. The wizard is probably going to be part of a special force and not a regular part of the army. A magus will probably become an officer of some sort.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The economics of armies are rather strange, and a number of people on this thread seem to be approaching it from the wrong end.

I'll start by observing that the generals get the army they can afford, not the army they want. Historically, of course, armies have changed radically over time (oh, what Caesar could have done with Stukas) but one thing they all share is that they are incredibly expensive.

Professional (standing) armies are a very late development, historically. In peacetime, a standing army is simply a hundred thousand mouths to feed that aren't doing anything useful. They don't grow crops, they don't mend walls, they don't dig wells, and they don't even forge plows. Anyone remember that scene from 300 where Leonidas asks the Athenians what their profession(s) were? If you need to recruit your army in haste from the potters, blacksmiths, and sculptors, you are going to have an army of potters, blacksmiths, and sculptors..... and maybe you can give them a level or so of fighter, but you're not going to be able to make them into wizards or magi.

Secondly, everyone always forgets about the "tooth to tail" ratio, which has always been low and gets lower the more professional the army. Even in the Middle Ages, there were usually more people in the baggage train than in the ranks -- someone needs to shoe the horses, mend the tunics, bake the bread, resharpen the axes, fletch the arrows,..... If you've got a low-level wizard, she's a lot more valuable using mending to fix the broken axle of a wagon and prestidigitation to keep food hot than she is to cast a three color sprays a day.

Thirdly, armies historically rely on the stupidity of youth. There are a lot of things that you just can't get a thirty year old to do that the army nevertheless needs to have done. Stupid things like "hold this bridge at all costs, Horatio," or "follow Lord Cardigan into the mouths of the enemy artillery," which a husband and father (or wife and mother) would be much more likely to say "eff that, no, I won't!" This, of course, gets back to Mysterious Stranger's "disposable asset" problem. There are lots of times when the generals simply need a warm body to plug a gap, and any warm body will do. To my son, however, I'm not just a warm body, I'm Mommy (or Daddy).

Fourthly, armies have relied on on uniformity for as long as it has been practical. If every century in the Legio IX Hispana has the same rough capacities, then it's very easy to move the pieces around on the board. A unit of disparate capacities (as you'd get with a number of different specialist wizards) would be a nightmare to command.

All of these factors add up to -- racial armies would look an awful lot like human armies. You'd get a whole bunch of barely-trained farmboys (and -girls) because you can recruit and train them cheaply. They're easy to get, easy to use, easy to lose, and easy to replace. If for some reason you want a unit of specialist Rangers or Magi, you may or may not be able to get one and it may or may not be worth the effort unless you have specific tasks in mind that only they can accomplish.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
If for some reason you want a unit of specialist Rangers or Magi, you may or may not be able to get one and it may or may not be worth the effort unless you have specific tasks in mind that only they can accomplish.

It's almost like there is a whole set of people with PC class levels who do very specialized jobs for a one off much higher pay grade than the rank and file.


fearcypher wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
If for some reason you want a unit of specialist Rangers or Magi, you may or may not be able to get one and it may or may not be worth the effort unless you have specific tasks in mind that only they can accomplish.
It's almost like there is a whole set of people with PC class levels who do very specialized jobs for a one off much higher pay grade than the rank and file.

Yeah. Whooda thunk, huh?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Witches or Shaman with Healing Hex would be invaluable to an army.


You'd think that there are a lot of PC builds you could throw together that would fundamentally change (or obviate) traditional warfare.

I mean, even putting aside the the ability of a high level wizard to create other planes of reality and destroy pretty much anything else that's not a high level spellcaster, you've still got classes who can rework terrain, call down tornadoes, etc. at relatively low levels.

If you consider the possibility that armies will contain those types of combatants, the rank and file don't seem necessary except as a narrative details to describe the destructive effects of the earthquake that ends up killing them.

So if you want "armies" to be a thing, you pretty much have to keep anybody with that level of power out. I mean, sure a double-life spirit guide oracle can heal an obnoxious amount of damage to anybody within 30', but that's not so useful when you're fighting a volcano.


OK, since this is general discussion, you really need to at least nod to your premise/assumptions. Are your non-boss NPCs by decree and GM fiat pale shadows of PCs?
........
I should point out that this was not the original D&D assumption. In the old City-State books, and other similar background material, you could find NPC's on any city block more powerful than all but high level PCs.
........
In my games, long-lived races tend to have scary, comparatively high level military, especially their Special Forces. Elven Ranger companies, specializing in their chosen foes keep their borders safe. Dwarves are much the same, combining superior experience and equipment.

This does not suit the more recent trends of the PCs as giants always head and shoulders above the cardboard masses. To each his own


PossibleCabbage wrote:
You'd think that there are a lot of PC builds you could throw together that would fundamentally change (or obviate) traditional warfare.

Dozens. But how many of them are available to your average warlord, and how many of them are not going to be countered by other PC builds?

The other problem, of course, is that these high-powered PC builds are actually pretty lousy at the traditional tasks of armies, in part because they can't easily be everywhere at once, and that sheer destruction is rarely something that you want because it eliminates the whole reason you wanted to go to war in the first place.

Think, for example, about what nuclear weapons did for modern (Earth-based) warfare. The power of a high-level wizard and a high-yield thermonuclear weapon are eerily comparable --- but neither have put armies out of business. Part of the reason for that is the balance of terror ("mutually assured destruction," or whatever you want to call it) suggesting that "they" will counternuke "us" just as quickly as "we" will nuke "them," and no one wins. But another issue is that obliterating Moscow, or Beijing, or New York CIty, or even Pyongyang won't actually improve the geopolitical situation. And that's why, despite having <large but Top Secret> number of nuclear warheads with the capacity to <Top Secret and very scary>, the US still has an army of 19 year olds with rifles and bad haircuts.

What would actually shape warfare more (IMHO) are not the high-level spellcasters, but the medium-level ones. A specialist unit of wizards who could throw fireballs could reshape the battlefield the same way quick-firing artillery reshaped World War I; the same unit with fly spells could and would make paratroopers practical, and by extension, make traditional castle-type fortifications useless. A clay golem costs about 40,000 gp half that in construction costs), which works out to roughly USD $4,000,00 in purchasing power. This is actually less than the cost of a modern tank, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to try to field a unit of golems as the equivalent of heavy armor to smash through enemy strongpoints; similarly, a unit of wand-armed wizards (or UMD rogues) could make great [if expensive] combat engineers or artillery.

But even with modern tactics and equipment (or their equivalents), it still comes down to the 19 year olds with the bad haircuts to get the job done.


Daw wrote:
In my games, long-lived races tend to have scary, comparatively high level military, especially their Special Forces. Elven Ranger companies, specializing in their chosen foes keep their borders safe. Dwarves are much the same, combining superior experience and equipment.

This, though, is where the economics start to bite you in the ass. Or perhaps this is why the Elves and Dwarves are only in control of tiny little clusters of the world that no one else wants in a typical Pathfinder-type game. These "scary, comparatively high level military" are expensive.

There are actually rules for this in Ultimate Campaign. Macroeconomics is handled in "build points"(BP), which are an abstraction of kingdom-level cash flow. An "army" of roughly 100 second level elven rangers is one of the standard examples, and costs one BP per week. If you put it into "reserve," basically using it as a garrison instead of a field army, it's only one BP/month, but that's still a lot. 100 second level dwarven fighters cost the same. An army of 100 "elite army commandos" (human fighter 4) cost 20 to recruit and then 1/week [or month] to maintain.

What else can I buy for 12 build points per year?

Well,.... for four build points, I can build a fishery, which effectively generates one BP/month. For six BP, I can build a mine or a quarry, both of which improve my kingdom and generate one BP/month. For 8 BP, I can lure an exotic artisan to my kingdom, which will generate a minor magic item each month. And so forth. So I'm turning down an awesome return on my investment to hire a "reserve" army. Instead of using twelve build points to make 2-3 build points back, which I will get every month for the rest of my kingdom, I'm using twelve build points to.... have an army stand around in town for a year, or go out and actually patrol the borders for roughly three months.


OQ has a lot of well reasoned logistical ideas. However....

Orfamy Quest wrote:
But even with modern tactics and equipment (or their equivalents), it still comes down to the 19 year olds with the bad haircuts[

Our modern trend of 4 year professional military enlistments are not the historical standard. (military Lifers are again becoming more of the norm) 20 year enlistments are far more common. Even "peasant" militias drilled pretty regularly. There were usually seasoned veterans with even the greenest companies.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

The economics of armies are rather strange, and a number of people on this thread seem to be approaching it from the wrong end.

{. . .}
Professional (standing) armies are a very late development, historically. In peacetime, a standing army is simply a hundred thousand mouths to feed that aren't doing anything useful. They don't grow crops, they don't mend walls, they don't dig wells, and they don't even forge plows. Anyone remember that scene from 300 where Leonidas asks the Athenians what their profession(s) were? If you need to recruit your army in haste from the potters, blacksmiths, and sculptors, you are going to have an army of potters, blacksmiths, and sculptors..... and maybe you can give them a level or so of fighter, but you're not going to be able to make them into wizards or magi.

Good points, but on the other hand, if you have mandatory military service, you can make sure that everybody gets military training before they move on to whatever they normally do in peacetime. Rotate new conscripts in, and send the trained ones back home, but keep them on reserve. This sounds like something mainly for highly organized societies (Cheliax, etc.), but tribal societies that have very frequent warfare (and other societies that get raided frequently by these tribal societies) may end up doing pretty much the same thing by accident, and they are naturals for coming up with Barbarians and Shamans (or for Orcs, Scarred Witch Doctors).

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Secondly, everyone always forgets about the "tooth to tail" ratio, which has always been low and gets lower the more professional the army. Even in the Middle Ages, there were usually more people in the baggage train than in the ranks -- someone needs to shoe the horses, mend the tunics, bake the bread, resharpen the axes, fletch the arrows,..... If you've got a low-level wizard, she's a lot more valuable using mending to fix the broken axle of a wagon and prestidigitation to keep food hot than she is to cast a three color sprays a day.

Yes, but a low-level spellcaster could also come up to just behind the front line, cast a couple of formation-breaking spells such as Color Spray (which would be a big deal in an initial assault) or a couple of key buffs (which are less of a big deal but can be done from a bit further back, thus avoiding most of the danger), and then run or ride back to resume back line duties. A low-level Magus could even do some of this from in the front line, and gets to make more attacks per round with Spell Combat (unless they are Armored Battlemages, which trade out Spell Combat but get better armor right off the bat . . . hmmm, Armored Battlemage, even as bad as it is for player characters, is actually a decent archetype to have in an army . . .). And . . .

Grailknight wrote:
Witches or Shaman with Healing Hex would be invaluable to an army.

And there you have an excellent example of a big deal that certain low-level spellcasters can do and keep doing from just behind the front lines. Hexes are once per day per target, and actually have a small amount of range, so you can stay behind the front line and keep on debuffing enemy soldiers (Evil Eye or Misfortune) (and if you used your 1st level feat on Extra Hex (Cackle), even extend it for as long as you don't actually have to move more than 5') or healing injured soldiers of your army (Healing Hex) or buffing soldiers of your army (Fortune, and same deal as before about Extra Hex (Cackle)); Human Witches, with their Human Bonus Feat, could even do both. Shamans, unfortunately, have to wait for 2nd level to get their first Hex, so no 1st level Feat Nova for them. Obviously, this isn't for everybody (in the wrong armies, incessantly cackling Witches might soon suffer the fate of Sir Robin's Minstrels), but I think it's a reasonable guess that Irrisen's army is SCARY.

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Of course, this depends upon which Humans you are talking about -- Humans on Earth have a very poor record of accepting people who are different from them -- and this is different Humans we're talking about -- imagine if people on Earth encountered people whose characteristics were different enough to count as separate subspecies. If you could cast Speak With Dead that could reach far back enough into time, you might be able to get some insight about that from some Neanderthals . . . .

All of your points are incredibly insightful, and I'm seeing Wizards as being more and more useful to Elves, although I still think that Magi would be more useful and versatile for the training put in. (The Jack-of-All argument was more about their range versatility than their skill or utility versatility, which even Specialist Wizards are better at, especially Transmuters.)

However, this, this point I want to make some arguments about. Humans aren't great with even other humans, yes. On OUR world. Even in our world, humanity can overcome racial boundaries to fight a common foe. Whether that foe is an invading empire (see Hannibal's eclectic bunch), outer space (we're all working together on the moon base) or... MORE different cultures.

I feel like Humans would band together with half-humans specifically because they're more "US" in a world where "THEM" includes alien Elves, fairy Gnomes, venomous snake people and whatever the heck Goblins are. A human-like Ifrit could be your mate down at the pub, but the Catfolk at the next table well... I'm not anti-Catfolk but cats shouldn't walk on two legs, y'know what I'm saying, Iffy? (You call your Ifrit friend Iffy because, even though it makes Iffy uncomfortable, you're mates and it's all in good fun right?)

NOTE: I do not approve of Example O'Humanface and his attitude towards those of other races, cultures, and elemental heritage. Darren (the Ifrit friend) is very patient.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

ALSO I LOVE EVERYONE'S INSIGHT HERE.

Orfamay, that's a very good point, and part of why I'd prioritise Magi over Wizards. Still, in a world where small groups of people CAN topple empires, I think that modern army structure may be slightly different.

It's also another reason to have Alchemists and Gunslingers; they pay for themselves right away. Turning lead into gold the smart way, through hard graft and elbow grease. Plus they make the best artillery if you don't have access to Arcane Magic.

___

I feel like there has been too little said about Paladins. For a Good army, they make the perfect troops. Lawful and dedicated to your cause, for starters. Able to heal decently for seconds with a side of Smite Evil. For pudding, try a little Divine Bond with a helpful heaping of low-level Spellcasting on a base of Full-BAB goodness.

But their best feature for any standing army? Three words: Aura. Of. Courage. The single greatest obstacle for any trained army is that, when panicked, we humans default to the lowest level of training. You might say "oo if I were in X situation then I would Y", but you won't unless you've been trained, at considerable expense to your country. But if you don't get scared, if you can look a dragon dead in the eye without flinching, then you have all the mental space you need to prioritise what to do and when, and maximise the effectiveness of your whole unit (Paladins are perfect leaders). Not only that, but allies close to you get better resistance to fear, plus a bunch of other auras.

Paladins are the only unmodified class that could realistically use their whole turn to think like a PC does; this would give them so much capability in an army, especially as Sergeants that are in the thick of it while still commanding their troops. They can compartmentalise, work out when to strike and when to heal, when to buff their troops and when to let a soldier die to save a unit. They can see the flaming boulder flying towards them and think calmly <How do I do this?> as everyone else screams and cries and begs for mercy.

By Level 3, a Paladin can guide entire battles, simply because she's the only person on the entire field who can think straight.


Nitro~Nina wrote:


But their best feature for any standing army? Three words: Aura. Of. Courage. The single greatest obstacle for any trained army is that, when panicked, we humans default to the lowest level of training. You might say "oo if I were in X situation then I would Y", but you won't unless you've been trained, at considerable expense to your country. But if you don't get scared, if you can look a dragon dead in the eye without flinching, then you have all the mental space you need to prioritise what to do and when, and maximise the effectiveness of your whole unit (Paladins are perfect leaders). Not only that, but allies close to you get better resistance to fear, plus a bunch of other auras.

Paladins are the only unmodified class that could realistically use their whole turn to think like a PC does;

Except they couldn't. Paladins themselves are immune to fear, but paladin's allies only get a saving throw bonus against "fear effects," which doesn't include the normal ohshitoshitohshitimgoingtodie morale-sapping effect.

But once again, you're falling into the mental trap of spending an infinite amount of resources to get the perfect army, when what you're going to be able to afford are nineteen year old farmers. UnArcaneElection actually had a pretty good description of most premodern armies: "if you have mandatory military service, you can make sure that everybody gets military training before they move on to whatever they normally do in peacetime. Rotate new conscripts in, and send the trained ones back home, but keep them on reserve." And that's exactly how you get the Athenians from 300 I linked to above.

Nine months of the year, Pseudolus is working as a cobbler making sandals. When he was seventeen, he was handed a shield, spear, and bow, and spent as much of the summer as he could be spared between community planting duties and community haymaking duties marching up and down on the parade ground. There's a law that requires him to spend an hour every Sunday shooting at targets to maintain his "skill" with a bow,.... assuming that practice isn't called off for some reason, like a shortage of arrows or because the village reeve needs new boots and that's more important (to the reeve). (The fact that there needs to be a law, as there was in Medieval England, is testament to how little practice these trained conscripts will actually do if you leave them to their own devices.)

That's not going to produce a high-level fighter. And Pseudolus himself doesn't want to be a high-level fighter. He has a wife, maybe a couple of children, and he's looking at making Master Cobbler in a year or so and earning the respect of his fellow cobblers.

What is Pseudolus' profession? ("Cobbler, sir.")

So where are you going to get a thousand paladins? And how are you going to persuade them that they want to be sergeants in this army of yours instead of going off and righting wrongs and working for truth, justice, and the <whatever> way -- improving people's lives right now?

I ran the numbers above about the game rules for standing armies, or even for the "reserve" armies if the sort UnArcaneElection was talking about. They're incredibly expensive and generate no useful economic output. For the cost of hiring the paladins to be your army, you could build a fleet of trading ships and make everyone in your kingdom wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice....

Verdant Wheel

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Nitro~Nina wrote:


But their best feature for any standing army? Three words: Aura. Of. Courage. The single greatest obstacle for any trained army is that, when panicked, we humans default to the lowest level of training. You might say "oo if I were in X situation then I would Y", but you won't unless you've been trained, at considerable expense to your country. But if you don't get scared, if you can look a dragon dead in the eye without flinching, then you have all the mental space you need to prioritise what to do and when, and maximise the effectiveness of your whole unit (Paladins are perfect leaders). Not only that, but allies close to you get better resistance to fear, plus a bunch of other auras.

Paladins are the only unmodified class that could realistically use their whole turn to think like a PC does;

Except they couldn't. Paladins themselves are immune to fear, but paladin's allies only get a saving throw bonus against "fear effects," which doesn't include the normal ohshitoshitohshitimgoingtodie morale-sapping effect.

I'd say that the ohshitohshitohshitimgoingtodie reflex would at least be helped by having a nearby Paladin, but that wasn't my main point anyway. My point was that PALADINS would be able to do all of that stuff, and help their allies along in the process.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
But once again, you're falling into the mental trap of spending an infinite amount of resources to get the perfect army, when what you're going to be able to afford are nineteen year old farmers.

Yes, assuming that the economics of warfare in a world with magic are the same way as they are in real life. In real life, an army is a drain on resources that's only useful if you want to attack or defend against other humans.

In a fantasy world like Golarion, your army is what saves you from utter annihilation the next time a Dragon takes a fancy, or the times when the Orcs get antsy, or when you realise you're an evil empire in a world with PCs in it. Armies are vastly more vital in a world where almost every single thing exists to hurt you. There's a reason that there are so many combat-only spells, and it's not because war is fun.

No, I'm not suggesting that you have PC Classes be the bulk of your forces; the question is about which each race would have the most of which PC class. I'm just saying that the Elves would have a lot of Magi compared to Orcs, and Hobgoblins would favour Alchemists. These would be the elite troops: your Knights, your Marines, your Samurai (yes I know those are all vastly different), not your rank-and-file infantrymen. Or think of them as your tanks. A decently-leveled Paladin in full-plate is roughly as durable and damaging as a Panzer, has none of the weaknesses and is undoubtedly many times cheaper.

Compared to the Renaissance Knight (the ones with full-plate), a Paladin wouldn't be that expensive to outfit. She can make the cheapest weapons effective with Magic Weapon, has her own celestial mount (and she can do with one, while medieval Knights had three), she can be an excellent healer both in the field and off it, and all you have to do is convince her that your cause is just. For a Good army? Piece of cake. The armour will be the most expensive thing by far, but that was true for Medieval Knights as well, and she doesn't need help getting into hers. And if you're a holy state in the favour of a particularly noble deity... you might have a LOT of Paladins, and they all want to serve.

Anyway, the base assumptions of Golarion are very different to our own. Money is a very different commodity when there are mystical treasures under every mountain and just one 20th Level Alchemist has enough money to destabilise an economy. Same goes for the price of soldiers when some of them come with their own armour and weapons, or can out-damage a sword with their fists.

Dark Archive

In my eyes, the main question is: "is training spellcasters something that is both scalable, reliable and economic?" Basically, can I take a reasonably intelligent young adult, add a few thousand gold pieces and a few years to feed him through some sort of training infrastructure and reliably get a low level caster? If the answer is yes, the warfare in Pathfinder will look shockingly different then medieval warfare; if the answer is no then then spellcasting is too unreliable to be a major factor in warfare.

Verdant Wheel

BlackOuroboros wrote:
In my eyes, the main question is: "is training spellcasters something that is both scalable, reliable and economic?" Basically, can I take a reasonably intelligent young adult, add a few thousand gold pieces and a few years to feed him through some sort of training infrastructure and reliably get a low level caster? If the answer is yes, the warfare in Pathfinder will look shockingly different then medieval warfare; if the answer is no then then spellcasting is too unreliable to be a major factor in warfare.

As far as we know, yes, although it's easier if it's a spellcaster that doesn't need to be a supergenius to be effective. It also probably won't take thousands of gold pieces, more like hundreds depending on the class. (Sorcerers are free but you can't reliably produce them, Wizards are more expensive but anyone could theoretically become one and Magi are probably less expensive while keeping that reliability, but can't really be used to warp the battlefield like either of the other two.)

This is why Alchemists are so great for an army. They can provide your entire army with elemental pseudo-spells (alchemists fire etc) for cheap, make excellent battlefield engineers and can blow holes in enemy siege engines, especially if they're Grenadiers with Explosive Missile. Plus they can hand out their buffs like nobody else can, and work as decent medics in a pinch. Healing shiv, meet healing BOMB.

Bards are also great in general, and aren't as difficult to train, but you're unlikely to nab many of them given their free-spirited nature. Maybe a Faith Singer or Arcane Duellist.


Nitro~Nina wrote:
(Sorcerers are free but you can't reliably produce them, Wizards are more expensive but anyone could theoretically become one and Magi are probably less expensive while keeping that reliability, but can't really be used to warp the battlefield like either of the other two.)

I'm not sure where this idea that magi take less training comes from. The only real discussion of training time comes in the starting ages, and alchemists, clerics, druids, inquisitors, magi, monks, and wizards take exactly the same amount of age to achieve level 1.


Let's not get into the "even though these two classes have the same training requirements one of them is actually much harder to train because it supports my position better to assume that" thing again, please?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Yeah, personally I have always played it where people with levels in PC classes (or at least people with levels in *only* PC classes) are exceedingly rare, and you're certainly not going to be able to make an army out of them.

So a large kingdom might have 2-3 alchemists and 4-5 wizards for the entire army. Nobody who's not a destined to be an important officer is going to have levels in PC classes, unless they're a major NPC or a PC-to-be working on their backstory.

I can understand the sentiment here, but NPC classes are so narrowly focused that I don't think it necessarily holds up in practice. There's no NPC equivalent of the wizard or magi or alchemist that you could use to fill out the ranks of those various traditions if only a handful of people in an entire nation can gain PC class status.


I am totally sympathetic to the "you can't afford classes and levels argument", but how about the following as an alternative. Pathfinder armies won't look like real armies because they're using wildly different "technology" (for want of a better word).

Large numbers of poorly trained conscripts make sense in the real world because anyone with a spear or a rifle is fairly dangerous, even to professional warriors. That simply isn't true in Pathfinder.

1st level warriors or 1st level commoners someone has drilled a weapon proficiency or two into just aren't a threat to even modestly leveled PCs. Suppose a couple hundred farmers (commoner/2), with stats in the 8-12 range, leather armor, long spears, and short bows try to take a bridge held by four 6th level PCs. They just can't. They're all going to die.

The wizard can kill about 50 in *seconds* with a fireball if they form up. The martials butcher any stragglers who don't form up. Yes, one peasant arrow in 20 wounds a PC (well, not the wizard who could cast Protection from Arrows three levels ago), but the fighter can survive a dozen hits and the cleric can heal the whole party to the tune of 3d6 a round. 3d6 is ~10hp, ~42hp for the party, or about ~180 bow shots neutralized instantly.

Maybe if the peasants were fanatical automatons they could wear the PCs down, but what is going to happen when on round one the advancing spear block gets vaporized by an explosion, the archers don't drop any of the PCs and lose a couple men to the martials return fire? The peasants are going to break, run, and never come back. They're not going to stick around to see how many fireballs the evoker prepared. They're not going to hope that arrow number 250 is the one that drops the martial.

The real world analog would be natives without gunpowder verses imperialists with machine guns and pith helmets. It didn't matter how completely the colonizers were outnumbered, their victims were simply outclassed.

What is a would be general to do? Swarms of peasant conscripts have a role as police to control the population and extract tax revenue, but any serious power struggles between nations have to happen at a higher CR per combatant. If one in a million people are 12th level, I need to make sure those people are living in my nation, given positions of power in my society, getting rich off my regime, and unleashed in commando raid assassination plots against the 12th level people in the enemy's power structure. War in Golarion would look a lot more like spy vs. spy subterfuge and political efforts to sway archmages and high priests to the cause than it would the opening scene of Gladiator.

If you have 100,000gp to spend on beefing up your military, buying the loyalty of one 15th level wizard may make a lot more sense than buying 10,000 short swords to hand to farmers.


And the points about Paladins as Sergeants makes an excellent case for having Paladin-like classes for every alignment AND for making Paladin/Antipaladin/etc. being prestige classes (along the lines of Hellknight and the Prestige Paladins of D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana and Kirthfinder) instead of base classes. Otherwise, how come the Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil nations haven't divided up most of the world among them?


Doooooooooooot


My thought on being able to afford classes and levels is that in actual Paizo APs, PC-class NPCs are only moderately rare (even with the profusion of the cannon fodder NPC classes), so it should be to some extent to what Ring_of_Gyges says above, with the caveat that ruler competence to gain the above is not assured. (Real-world examples abound of incompetent rulers that nonetheless stay in power for a while, sometimes even decades, and sometimes even until they die of natural causes.)


There is a big difference between an army and an elite squad of specialists. Even in the real world the squad of specialists will take down large numbers of ordinary troops. They also perform completely different functions. You are not going to get an army of PC caliber characters Just like the American military is not made of navy seals a fantasy army is not going to be made up of PC caliber recruits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I suspect high tech weaponry is actually a better analog for PCs than special forces. For example:

The empress of Cheliax has a Pit Fiend advisor, I'm playing in a Hell's Rebels group that wondered (in character) what would happen if Kintargo rebelled and she decided to send him to punish it. He can teleport, is immune to conventional weapons, and can level whole neighborhoods with at will fireballs. At will Blasphemy lets him annihilate crowds without damaging structures. He could show up in Kintargo and destroy the city in an afternoon and (at our current level) there is nothing we could do to stop him. A sufficiently high level PC has similar capabilities.

There isn't a special forces soldier in the world who could level a city by themselves, the best humans don't even approach that level of power. There are ICBM mounted nuclear weapons though. A nuclear strike could vaporize any city in the world and while the threat of retaliation deters that, there isn't really an effective defense against it. A modern tank is more like a 10th level fighter than a SWAT sniper (however skilled) is.

One might wonder about the geo-politics of a world where power doesn't come from technology that can be manufactured and stockpiled, but from individual super heroes who (a) arise from mechanisms you can't control (i.e. there aren't government wizard factories churning out 20th level casters the way factories *can* churn out ICBMs) and (b) can be suborned, change sides, have secret agendas, religious awakenings, secret love affairs, and all the other weirdness of human life. A B2 *pilot* might decide Communism is awesome, and that was a real concern for the security services in the Cold War, but at least the B2 itself is pretty trustworthy. A world in which an air craft carrier can fall in love with a Razmiri citizen and decide to immigrate is an interesting world to try to wage war and control nations in.


^On the other hand, Golarion does have Numeria -- just be glad that the Technic League, evil as it is, isn't very competent . . . .

* * * * * * * *

More on Elves

Being long-lived and intelligent, they would tend to favor trying to keep enemies at long range. Thus, they would tend to favor spellcasting classes with battlefield control (Arcanists, Witches, and Wizards being the most natural, although Wizards probably preferred for cultural reasons), Magi (see earlier posts about this) with a preference for ranged archetypes (and the Elf-specific Spelldancer and Elf+Region-specific Spire Defender), and a high amount of favor for martial classes good at archery (Fighters, Rangers, and Slayers). Culturally, they would favor nature-focused spellcasting classes, but with no Wisdom bonus, they aren't as good at being Druids as they would like (Elves really need an alternate racial trait that gives them a Wisdom bonus, sort of the inverse of Witchborn for Changelings). On the other hand, they should be decent Hunters and Rangers (in both cases tending to favor archery as noted above for other martials, although Ranger makes it easier), both of which can double quite well for the peacetime roles of the same names, thereby making them even more practical to keep around in peacetime. The Elven love of living in forests impairs bulk archery, but makes up for it by giving the Elves cover and ready-made provision for nature-oriented battlefield control and stealth.

Verdant Wheel

swoosh wrote:
Let's not get into the "even though these two classes have the same training requirements one of them is actually much harder to train because it supports my position better to assume that" thing again, please?

I'm very sorry if that's how I've come across. :/

It's not because I just wanted to support my position, promise; I think battlefield Wizards are super cool and I'd love to have more of them.

The fact of the matter is that a heavily regimented and universal schools system requires a lot of infrastructure, which means Universities and such. It's not like a Magus who could be from any number of different traditions, or a Druid who could have developed her skills over time in the wilderness completely for free. I can't see any other class besides the Arcanist being as expensive as a Wizard because Universities, especially ones that train literally the most intelligent people in the world, are EXPENSIVE. This isn't your local college; this has to be Harvard or Cambridge.

The [training time = resources] argument simply doesn't hold up because, as was mentioned, DRUIDS are in that same age category. How much money does it take to train up a Druid? My guess is none, or at least significantly less than a Magus or Wizard. I'm not saying Magi would be cheap, but they'd have to be less expensive than Wizards. Magi could also have wildly varying costs, from the cheaper Eldritch Scions (already come pre-packaged with magic ability) to the heavily-trained Kensai or Spire Defender (though you do save on armour).

However, I'll stop beating this dead horse if y'all are getting fed up of it. I understand that mechanically there's no difference between the resources required to make a Wizard or a Druid or a Magus; I'm working purely on realistic (for the fantasy setting) projection of what we know of each class lore-wise.

Verdant Wheel

All this stuff about how warfare would differ is really fascinating, keep it up folks!

UnArcaneElection wrote:

More on Elves

Being long-lived and intelligent, they would tend to favor trying to keep enemies at long range.

Oh man, I hadn't even considered the age reason for Elves being so range-heavy. Of course they'd prefer to stay out of the way; their mortality is so much more valuable to them, and they're smart enough to realise it. Very well put.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How much it costs to train a wizard (in general or in comparison to a sorcerer or druid) is an interesting question.

The rules for PCs assume players can take any class. The old joke is that the quickest way to become a wizard is to be a rogue and take a level of wizard one week later after you and your 3-5 buddies have cleared out the local kobold lair. Applied literally to NPCs that system becomes absurd fast.

For an example of the absurdity, try an arena. I gather up 100 commoners, give them non-lethal weapons, and have them beat on each other. Three fights a day (i.e. fight, heal up the non-lethal in 6 hours, fight, heal, fight, go to sleep, rinse, repeat) means an average of 202xp a day or a level in ten days. As they go up in level they require more XP, but also grant more XP when their fellow students defeat them. Less than a year later they'll all be 20th level sorcerers. What does that cost? The sticks are free. The healing is free. Feeding the peasants is very cheap. Clearly an absurd result.

Whatever we say about how obtaining classes and levels work we need to ignore the rules that were written for PCs. Once we do that though, we're able to do whatever we want. The question isn't what is realistic (reality doesn't produce any 20th level characters, or wizards of any level), but rather what is the most believable structure that produces the distribution of classes and levels that we want for story purposes.

If you want a world with lots of high level characters you'll need different rules than if you want one were no one is over level 6, but it is important to be clear that RAW isn't designed for this and whatever we come up with will be pure invention.

I am reluctant to endorse the theory that training druids is free (or close to it). High level druids are very valuable, if producing them is very cheap, basic economics says there should be masses of them, people should be churning them out as fast as possible. Think of it like diamond mines, diamonds are valuable, pulling them out of the ground is (relative to their value) very cheap. Consequently, every diamond vein we know about is in use, someone is converting low value labor into high value diamonds. If every reasonably wise peasant is a potential druid, then they should all be in druid training.

I'm a big fan of magical "sparks" which some people have and some don't as a matter of biology. However bright, most people can't become wizards, clerics, or whatever. Think of it like Force Sensitivity in Star Wars, you can't mass produce Jedi, someone is only trainable if they have some innate connection to the Force. That way you can set the frequency of that spark as high or as low as you want to get the number of casters you want in your setting.


Nitro~Nina wrote:


The fact of the matter is that a heavily regimented and universal schools system requires a lot of infrastructure, which means Universities and such. It's not like a Magus who could be from any number of different traditions, or a Druid who could have developed her skills over time in the wilderness completely for free. I can't see any other class besides the Arcanist being as expensive as a Wizard because Universities, especially ones that train literally the most intelligent people in the world, are EXPENSIVE. This isn't your local college; this has to be Harvard or Cambridge.

Feel free to supply rules text to support any of that gibberish.

Otherwise, it's just "even though these two classes have the same training requirements one of them is actually much harder to train because it supports my position better to assume that," as swoosh correctly pointed out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
I'm a big fan of magical "sparks" which some people have and some don't as a matter of biology. However bright, most people can't become wizards, clerics, or whatever. Think of it like Force Sensitivity in Star Wars, you can't mass produce Jedi, someone is only trainable if they have some innate connection to the Force. That way you can set the frequency of that spark as high or as low as you want to get the number of casters you want in your setting.

I like this as well. Only people with a suitably epic background become PC classes. If you're a farm boy with a stick, you can train all you want, you'll eventually turn from a Commoner into a Warrior. If you're really into magic, mastering how to use Grease will be the talk of the town and turn you into an Adept. But as soon as a Goblin sets your cat on fire, you can turn into a Sorcerer. Much like in Magic the Gathering, only a select few have the potential to become something great (Planeswalkers), and only through traumatic events will you push your limits to become an Adventurer.

I've always wondered how many Adventurers existed in the world. They only appear when the situation's extremely dire, so calamities would have to be happening pretty much 24/7 if you want a reasonable stream of heroes to pop up.
Man, now I want to write/be part of an adventure where a villainous king is randomly setting villages on fire and kidnapping townsfolk, only for the PCs to come kick his butt, only to be conscripted into his Hero Army (tm) against a much more important cause.

Verdant Wheel

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

The question isn't what is realistic (reality doesn't produce any 20th level characters, or wizards of any level), but rather what is the most believable structure that produces the distribution of classes and levels that we want for story purposes.

This is approximately what I meant when I said realistic. It's realism within the context of a world that produces Wizards.

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
I am reluctant to endorse the theory that training druids is free (or close to it). High level druids are very valuable, if producing them is very cheap, basic economics says there should be masses of them, people should be churning them out as fast as possible.

My take on it is that it is free (or close to it), but since it's a Divine class, it's granted power by some esoteric being, in this case Nature itself. You can't just make Druids happen, no matter how cheap they are.

I agree, we shouldn't focus too much on PC rules, because they obviously don't apply to most people in the universe. Our decisions should, however, be informed by such rules. For instance, the length of time it takes to become a Wizard or a Druid indicates that there's a lot more personal growth and learning in that time than, say, becoming a Rogue.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Feel free to supply rules text to support any of that gibberish.

As I said within the post you're quoting from, this isn't based on rules text; it's based on conjecture, projection and what I feel it would require to produce a Wizard as presented in what we know of the class.

By the logic you are using, it would require exactly as many resources to produce a Druid as would a Magus, which I find difficult to swallow. However, if that makes sense to you, great! It's all opinion and I welcome more of it. That's why I posted this question in the first place.

Just please, please don't assume that I'm just trying to push my own point above all else. I'm not.

*****

So, my friends... what do we think about... *spins the species-wheel*... Catfolk! Oo, that's... hmm. Interesting. They don't seem the army type. Lots of natural attackers, definitely. A terror to go up against. A few Skalds, perhaps?

Verdant Wheel

Quentin Coldwater wrote:
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
I'm a big fan of magical "sparks" which some people have and some don't as a matter of biology. However bright, most people can't become wizards, clerics, or whatever. Think of it like Force Sensitivity in Star Wars, you can't mass produce Jedi, someone is only trainable if they have some innate connection to the Force. That way you can set the frequency of that spark as high or as low as you want to get the number of casters you want in your setting.

I like this as well. Only people with a suitably epic background become PC classes. If you're a farm boy with a stick, you can train all you want, you'll eventually turn from a Commoner into a Warrior. If you're really into magic, mastering how to use Grease will be the talk of the town and turn you into an Adept. But as soon as a Goblin sets your cat on fire, you can turn into a Sorcerer. Much like in Magic the Gathering, only a select few have the potential to become something great (Planeswalkers), and only through traumatic events will you push your limits to become an Adventurer.

I've always wondered how many Adventurers existed in the world. They only appear when the situation's extremely dire, so calamities would have to be happening pretty much 24/7 if you want a reasonable stream of heroes to pop up.
Man, now I want to write/be part of an adventure where a villainous king is randomly setting villages on fire and kidnapping townsfolk, only for the PCs to come kick his butt, only to be conscripted into his Hero Army (tm) against a much more important cause.

I dunno... I like the idea of heroes working super hard to become what they are, or at least using their skills to better their natural talents. As far as magic is concerned, I feel like Sorcerers are the ones with the natural inborn talent, Wizards are the ones who put the time and effort into learning everything about reality until they can master it, with Arcanists being in between. Perhaps all Wizards have a natural talent, but personally I like the idea of them just being That Smart and, of course, hardworking. Remember, these are the Hawking-level geniuses; in that world, being super-smart gives you actual powers.

However, that idea of yours is FANTASTIC. If you give them adversity, they will come. Almost a Discworld-esque scheme...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them


I see non-Bloodline non-Mystery spellcasters (including but not limited to Wizards) more as having a natural spark of magical affinity that isn't enough to make usable arcane spellcasting unless you ALSO put in a lot of training on it -- usually involving some kind of intellectual mastery (Intelligence-dependent), but in the case of Bards/Skalds instead involving some kind of artistic mastery (Charisma-dependent). Adding divine spellcasters to this scheme, this normally involves some kind of discipline and/or anti-discipline mastery, depending upon Law vs Chaos (either way, Wisdom-dependent), except for Paladins/Antipaladins, who most need force of personality (Charisma-dependent). For Bloodline spellcasters (mainly Sorcerers and Bloodragers) and Mystery spellcasters (Oracles), the spark is stronger and has more tendency to make itself known, but you need enough force of personality (Charisma-dependent) to bend it to your will, although not all that much training. Of course, it could be that a substantial number of people who could be Bloodline or Myster spellcasters exist, but many do not experience a triggering event to let them know what potential they have, so they go through much or all of their lives thinking they are doomed to be Commoners.

* * * * * * * *

With respect to Catfolk, unfortunately I do not have a great deal of information about them, and they do not seem to have had the opportunity to form large societies of their own. This problem is not just from being a non-Core race -- Gnomes and Halflings have the same problem, although more information is available about their societies (especially Halflings).

But I can make a few educated guesses based upon their abilities. By the snippet of culture described for Catfolk, as well as their feats, they should be into classes having wild affinity and making use of natural attacks; however, having -2 Wisdom really hurts Hunter, and makes most types of Druid all but impossible. The notable exception is Feyspeaker Druid, which is Charisma-dependent -- Catfolk get a Charisma bonus, so this should be excellent for them if they want to be caster Druids -- not so good if they want to be combat Druids, because it changes BAB to 1/2. Oracles would also be welcome among Catfolk, but since you can't get them except whenever they happen to show up, Feyspeaker Druids would end up being the main 9/9 divine spellcasters in Catfolk squadrons. Unfortunately no equivalent archetype seems to be available for Hunter, so the next thing would be Ranger, which, being only a 4/9 spellcaster, isn't hurt so badly by a moderate Wisdom penalty (starting with Wisdom 11 is fine as long as you aren't using spells that have a Save DC). Alternatively, they can get some of the divine by producing Bards and Skalds, with the latter being able to snag critical divine spells by Spell Kenning. Some of the Occult classes also fit Catfolk well in flavor and mechanics, and they may make substantial use of these rather than arcane classes, which -- apart from the Bloodline classes which are welcome but only spottily available -- they have no particular disadvantage in, but for the most part no particular advantage in either, since they have no Intelligence penalty or bonus (although keep in mind that Charisma is a noticeable secondary ability score for Arcanist, and a Catfolk Magus could benefit from the natural weapons, since having a hand free doesn't mean your hand can't happen to have claws on it). For martial classes, natural attackers are a natural fit for them, and having a Dexterity bonus is pretty good, although it does tend to shoehorn you into Finesse builds. Ranger has a Natural Weapons Combat Style (and as noted above, the Wisdom penalty isn't absolutely horrible for a 4/9 spellcaster), which Slayer can also get. Barbarians can also do fine with Natural Attacks. Catfolk can also eventually get Pounce and some other nice combat abilities as feats. Swashbucklers benefit from both the Charisma and Dexterity bonuses, and if you have to have one hand free to make the most of your abilities, but that hand just happens to have claws on it, you've got an edge over most Swashbucklers (and the same holds true for a Catfolk Magus, as noted above).

Now, as before, the above requires some level of sophistication, but given that Catfolk are not very common, if they manage to form substantial communities of their own anyway and survive for a substantial amount of time, they are probably eventually going to figure out the above, even with their Wisdom penalty.

* * * * * * * *

Suddenly it occurred to me that some of what we are coming up with in this thread might be useful material for Races of Pathfinder: An Optimization Guide.

Verdant Wheel

I can see that line of thinking too, though it saddens me to think that a particularly ingenious human could go through life completely unable to warp reality... although come to think of it Nethys might take a shine and grant that person some Sage Sorcerer or Occultist powers. It's definitely a shame about low-Charisma natural Sorcerers. Doomed to become Fighters with Eldritch Heritage, perhaps. Very sad... or hilarious. "He could have been the most powerful man in all of Golarion, had he not spent all of his social time in the gym." I do think that Oracular power would only be granted to people worthy of its use, however.
____

Interesting... hmm... I can see them making good Silksworn as well. Charisma bonus, with the Dex if they want to take the touch-attack Focus Powers. Again, it turns a partially martial class into more of a dedicated caster, but I think it's rather neat. For some reason I can imagine the more urban Catfolk being quite materialistic, which also fits.

It is, however, one of those classes that you seem not to be able to produce at a whim; as I recall, the Iconic Occultist just kinda happened upon his powers by messing with powerful artefacts, which doesn't work so well for an army. Expensive and unreliable, especially the former for a Silksworn.

All of the Occult classes seem to have this issue actually. 'Tis a shame. I suppose we'll never have an attacking Fire Nation to change everything.

Slayers seem a good choice too, as I can imagine Catfolk being heavily guerrilla-based. For that reason Rogues and Monks may work, especially with those nice Racial Archetypes. There's one for the Bloodrager too, but as has been stated that's entirely based on the whim of Destiny (and ONLY Destiny, in this case).

Might Catfolk pop up in the more eclectic Human armies? Human nations seem to take all of the advantages they can get, and a Catfolk strike team would be fantastic. (Even though I don't think the Magus claw trick works since you do use the limb to "attack", though I believe the Swashbuckler one does.)
____

That guide looks interesting... perhaps vice-versa, we could base some of these decisions on that guide! Humans who grew up in the Wilderness would certainly be in high demand, perhaps fostering more Wilderness-y survival training in soldiers. Being unkillable is a good trait for a front-liner to have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nitro~Nina wrote:

{. . .}

It's definitely a shame about low-Charisma natural Sorcerers. Doomed to become Fighters with Eldritch Heritage, perhaps. Very sad... or hilarious. "He could have been the most powerful man in all of Golarion, had he not spent all of his social time in the gym." {. . .}

Well, that depends very much upon what you are doing in the gym . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just had a thought: Since Ironfang Invasion is in the process of coming out, thinking about next about Hobgoblins, as others have done a bit above. Note: I DON'T have this AP, so some of what I say may not square with it.

Agreed on them favoring Alchemists instead of arcane spellcasters due to their dislike of arcane spellcasting. You'd think that in addition, they would seek to adopt some of the Goblins' Alchemy to more systmeatic purposes, although I haven't heard of this actually happening. Maybe they have an especially strong not-invented-here syndrome -- this would square with their dislike of arcane magic, despite their not being innately impaired with respect to its practice, and would also square with their not having adopted Hellknight culture, despite similarities with their culture. They are noted for not being especially religious, but expect to find a few Clerics and Inquisitors of the more rigidly tyrannical and militaristic deities, such as Devils, including Asmodeus; these would serve as political officers in their ranks, as well as providing much-needed buffs. By their tradition, Hobgoblins would certainly have many members of the martial classes, with highly trained Fighters executing complex formation tactics, commanded by Cavaliers (Hobgoblins even have the Fell Rider archetype for this) who would also sow terror into enemy ranks. In additionm to class choice, expect Hobgoblins to make much more use of Teamwork Feats than the average PC party, and even more than all but the best-disciplined Dwarf and Human national armies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quentin Coldwater wrote:


I like this as well. Only people with a suitably epic background become PC classes. If you're a farm boy with a stick, you can train all you want, you'll eventually turn from a Commoner into a Warrior. If you're really into magic, mastering how to use Grease will be the talk of the town and turn you into an Adept. But as soon as a Goblin sets your cat on fire, you can turn into a Sorcerer. Much like in Magic the Gathering, only a select few have the potential to become something great (Planeswalkers), and only through traumatic events will you push your limits to become an Adventurer.

Honestly I kinda hate that idea. The idea that something is completely off limits unless you have some intangible and arbitrary quality just feels too... predestination to me and that's awful.

Plus we already have classes like that in the sorcerer and oracle. I don't see why we should co-opt classes like the fighter and wizard into that sort of rubbish too.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Racial Army Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.