CHEEPENBULKY's page

I would like clarification as well. As it stands it reads, to me at least, is that it only comes into effect on a failed save. Which seems kinda silly to me, as I would hope it would be more along the lines of: affected player takes a save, and another save the next round. 1 failed save = standard duration, 2 failed saves = double duration, 0 failed saves = no disease.

But as I said it seems to read like it only does anything if the first save fails.

A better place to start than the master summoner, might be to start with the broodmaster and tweak it from there. That one already has a system to deal with multiple permanent eidolons. I know its not exactly what you were looking for, but it might be a good start. I would say for your specific scenario, you drop 1 spell per level (similar to crossblooded sorceror), and likewise gain additional skillpoints/stat points/feats/armor bonus/evolution points/etc at certain levels.

i would do it something like

bonus skill/evolution points = highest cast-able spell level.
bonus feats/stat points (dex or str) at 5/10/15/20
bonus armor bonus at 4/8/12/16/20.

This would result in a broodmaster summoner with slightly better eidolons, and less casting. whether the trade-off as described is fair, weak, or overpowered i would not know.

also you might want to alter the capstone ability (doesn't seem to mesh with a chess master feel)

DOT

How about an "over-heat" (malfunction?) check? Immediately after using any ability that increases tension, the player must take a DC 5 CON check, with a penalty equal to half his/her current tension, round down minimum 1. If they pass, continue as usual. If its a failure, lose all tension and become exhausted for rounds equal to tension lost.

example: tension = 4; CON = 16. so 1D20+1 check. still IDK if you would consider that too extreme

EDIT: of course, i just realized that this doesn't account for the idea of hitting the sweet spot and leaving it there. It could be done every turn. or better yet, take the check every turn if their tension exceeds 1/4 of their level + 1, round down (and bump it up to a DC 10). So a level 8 can run around with a +3 to all attacks all day. If the player wants to push it a little bit more he can, but at the risk of roughly a 50% chance of exhaustion for # of rounds = to tension and loosing all pooled tension.

That's for all the name suggestions. Would something like Polyformancer be too much of a mouthful?

I like it. i also like polyformist. But polyformancer reads much the same way, and is a little further down the "unique" path.

The Blue area under deed explains that they can take use any deed that they have the level for and vigor points to spend on.

Deeds wrote:

Fighter spend Vigor points to accomplish deeds. Most deeds grant the Fighter a momentary bonus or effect, but some provide longer-lasting effects. Some deeds remain in effect while the Fighter has at least 1 panache point, but do not require expending panache to be maintained. A Fighter can only perform deeds of her level or lower. Unless otherwise noted, a deed can be performed multiple successive times, as long as the swashbuckler has or spends the required number of panache points to perform the deed.

That's how I read it, but since it isn't instantly obvious i wanted to make sure it wasn't just an error of omission.

Aren't the Fighter's feats still significantly more plentiful and more open than most other classes? Though I am interested in this, maybe I could replace the first ability with a weaker brawler feat swap ability.

With half feats the fighter would gain the same amount of bonus feats as the monk, gunslinger, and swashbuckler. He gains his feats at the same rate as the ranger receives his combat training (which ignore feat taxes). and is closely matched to the bonus feats the wizard gets (every 5 lvl's). inquisitor can be thrown in here to, because of their teamwork feats class feature (every 3 lvl's).

I agree with Bandw2 on the fact that a player should still be able to mold the fighter into the niche they want with half the feats, especially with vigor adding some things that would otherwise take one or more feats.

As for the tripping why don't you add something like: "A fighter with at least 1 vigor point may choose to ignore size differences for combat maneuvers he has a bonus in, from a feat, deed, spell or equipment." or something along those lines. This would effectively allow trip to stay effective as creatures turn huge or larger, but doesn't simply hike his bonus to the moon. And by forcing the fighter to have a bonus in the maneuver from a feat, deed, spell, or equipment; you force the fighter to specialize at least a little.

Also just a thought, but since you are cutting a fighter's feats in half you might want to figure out a way to overcome some feat taxes and tie it to deeds.

and does the fighter pick and choose deeds? or is he assumed to have it as soon as he is at the minimum lvl? if he has to pick and chose, at what levels?

It seems that the name Metamorph is not as uncommon as I thought it was. And here I thought I was being all smart like.

So I will be taking suggestions for a new class name while considering a new one.

Is just the simple "Shifter" taken? i know there is "feral shifter" and "dark shifter" but i don't see any that are just Shifter.

As for the class itself, i love it. I just need a publisher to pick it up so I can argue the use of it in my group >_<. They only allow published classes in the games.

EDIT: or I also like "Polyform".

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how this effects ever character in the game. I don't mean that in a negative way; I am looking forward to reading your arguments why this affects so many characters negatively and I am willing to listen if you'd just tell me what you are thinking of.

I have given ONE exception where this houserule would be ill-advised. You cannot possibly discard the viability of my houserule just because I thought of an objectively bad development myself. If you'd just tell me where I'm going to run into problems, I can take that into consideration. Why do you have to be such a prick about it and act so dismissive without giving me a single concrete example of how I'd make a "laundry list of exceptions"?

This effects every class in the fact that it shatters what little balance exists in the system. By allowing this all classes w/o int dependent class abilities will be just as tough as before but gain more skills for less point buy than a character that has int dependent class abilities.

This in and of itself will not cause anything to "break", and all the issues that arise would be easy enough to patch up. The issue that everyone is getting caught on (including myself) is that: CON is simply more useful and more influential than INT as things stand... and you are trying to argue that giving even more influence to CON and removing what little influence INT has is no big thing.

i can not think of any way that anything will be over powered, even the scarred witch (because a few extra skill points is not going to tip this class into completely broken territory). But just because it will not cause any game breaking issues does not mean that it is a good idea. The game is balanced in such a way that it is assuming that a well balanced character has at least a 0 in both INT and CON, which will not be the case in your system, because int has no value for most classes with your system (monopoly money).

You're grossly exxagerating. And no, dumping a stat should not come with a punishment; it should be a trade-off. The trade-off to dumping a stat is pumping another. Dumping intelligence comes with an added punishment that I feel isn't balanced with everything. There is no SAD class based on Constitution, unlike Intelligence (except for the Scarred Witch). That means that Con will almost never be maximized, because it'd inevitably be a trade-off with the SAD or MAD class's primary ability scores. Well, perhaps if they are barbarians and I would welcome a barbarian that is good for more things than hacking things to pieces.

dump str - can't hit in melee, and can't do physical dmg

the ONLY stat that hurts less when you dump it is cha, so i don't see where you get the

Dumping intelligence comes with an added punishment that I feel isn't balanced with everything.

melee builds using your system will ALWAYS dump INT... and almost always dump CHA (like they all do already) rogues will dump INT, rangers will dump INT... everyone will dump int (except wizards).

to mention your "trade off" argument. Where is the tradeoff? By using CON for skill points you now have no need to decided between skill points against HP. just put it all into CON and you gain HP, FORT save, and Skill Points. and you lose... knowledge skills. thats not a trade off, thats cashing in monopoly money for a whole stack of $100 bills.

I personally like the method voideternal dredged up. It's way clunkier than a skill method should be, but i like the way it ties skills to attributes. And if you do the math, and sprinkle in some common sense, you end up with a pretty solid nearly well balanced system, IMO. take the fighter example voideternal had used you end up with 2+1=3 skill points using the standard system. Or 8-4 skill points to spend using the syetm voideternal had read about (most likely it will be 7-4 skill points, be cause you can only get so good at jumping and swimming, and everyone wants some knowledge).

as for higher skilled classes, their main attribute usually falls into more skill-useful areas. bards have a plethora of useful cha skills to put their points into, rogues have no shortage of cha or dex skills to allocate their skill points. Which means that those classes will be converting less "typed" skill points into "untyped" than the fighter or barb, which will allow them to keep their overall mastery of skills.

edit: to be perfectly honest tho. increasing base skill bonus is still probably the best way to go about things.

They flipped MP and HP.

Since Pathfinder doesn't work on mana then no that ability is not mimic-able.

It is if you look at it from an angle. This ability implies that the red mage's magical power and vitality are intertwined. So it could be an ability that as a swift action converts "X" level spell into ("X"x10) HP (or "X" x 7+caster-stat), and vice versa.

But since that ability, and anything like it, do not exist, might as well stick with completely ignoring it. unless you planned to homebrew the class from the ground up; which I think already has a couple thread attempts.

CHEEPENBULKY wrote:

robert best 549 wrote:

Slivers within 50 feet of each other share their specialized trait with other slivers within this radius.

I could see this being a real pain to manage. I personally would have the queens, overlords and hivelords act as a type a focus. Give the queens, overlords and hivelords an EX that read like:

Hive Mind (EX): Though Slivers are intelligent enough to act on their own, A queen (or overlord, or hivelord) brings out the full potential of the hive. All Slivers within 50 feet of the Queen (or overlord, or hivelord) share abilities with all other Slivers in the same area; excluding the Queen, Hivelord and Overlord. This effect ends only upon the Queens (or overlords, or hivelords) death.

This will give the effect of a hive mind, without completely nullifying the sliver threat upon the controlling creatures demise.

I personally find a 50 ft control range really weak. Queen slivers would be really be the main threat, and if it's only 50 ft she has to be on the front lines for attacking.

Guard " Commander! slivers! What do we do? They have flying and megantic slivers!"

Commander "target the queen. She can't fly, and she has to stay within 50 ft. Archers target the queen. Flying slivers will fall from a height of 40-50 ft the highest they can fly from the queen. Shoot fireballs, ice storm and artillery."

Queen dies round one. Commander "Target stragglers"

A 50 ft control range is far too small. Movement based abilities don't mean anything if they can't be followed by a queen that is also responsible for ability sharing.

I was doing this purely for ease of mechanics. multiple 50' bubbles could be a b!!~@ to manage. constantly having to micromanage the multiple AOE's.

And there are many ways to correct these issues, give the queen a personal guard squad, with a tower shield proxy; add an effect that causes miss chance; or my favorite - give queens an ability that gives all slivers in her range the "bodyguard" and "in harms way" feats. this would be good flavor since hive minds are often portrayed as minions giving their life for the greater good (this is also how it is usually played in MTG as well, block with the crap slivers to protect the queen).

EDIT: and you could switch it up for queen, hivelord, and overlord. i like the queen having the bodyguard/in-harms-way combo, it portrays the hives love for their queen. Overlord has a swarm of slivers surrounding him at a 10' radius, giving him total cover after 5', and doing XD6 to non-slivers who are in the swarm. then the hivelord is equipped with hardened front legs which he can interlock, forming a type a tower shield (same tower shield mechanics and everything). This would give a good feel IMO. Queen - the heart of the hive and her children would die for her. hivelord - the ultimate combatant of the hive and master of war. Overlord - the brain of the hive and controller of the masses.

My thoughts are these. Trying to calculate the CRs on these will be tough. Different abilities interacting in unexpected ways, plus the initial lack of knowledge will make them very very tough, even the little guys. Best guess, add a +1 CR to the base slivers for two different slivers in a combat after after the first (1-2 CR+, 3-4 CR +1, 5-6 CR+2). That is an untested guess - use your best judgement. Do a test run of encounters with a similar team to your PCs to see if they are tough/weak for their abilities.

Next focus is who is fighting them. If you have low level adventurers (3-5) fighting these guys, then the Queen should be CR 5 maybe max CR 6 by herself (more hit dice, maybe toughness or saving throw feats, improved natural armor or improved natural attack), since she will likely have more types near her that will boost her CR.

For the Overlord and hive lord, will they accompany the Queens? If so, they should have CRs maybe in the range of CR 7-8 for the Overlord and CR 9-10 for the Hive Lord. If that is too low (e.g. you want slivers to be a higher level threat), those should be adjusted as high as you want Slivers to be a playable and credible threat. In that case, my suggestions are Overlord should be 9-12 CR, and the Hive Lord 13-17 CR. More appendages/attacks as size increases would increase their danger/damage.

I think the best way to control CR would be to limit how many slivers the Queen, Overlord, and Hivelord can control. and tie the extra diffuculty added by the stacking abilities into the control creatures CR. As for numbers, I haven't screwed with the sliver system enough to know where numbers should fall.

Slivers within 50 feet of each other share their specialized trait with other slivers within this radius.

I could see this being a real pain to manage. I personally would have the queens, overlords and hivelords act as a type a focus. Give the queens, overlords and hivelords an EX that read like:

Hive Mind (EX): Though Slivers are intelligent enough to act on their own, A queen (or overlord, or hivelord) brings out the full potential of the hive. All Slivers within 50 feet of the Queen (or overlord, or hivelord) share abilities with all other Slivers in the same area; excluding the Queen, Hivelord and Overlord. This effect ends only upon the Queens (or overlords, or hivelords) death.

This will give the effect of a hive mind, without completely nullifying the sliver threat upon the controlling creatures demise.

One last nitpick:

Quote:

...elven curve blade, and any bladed melee weapon with the word "elven" in its name

This is a bit redundant. I know the ECB needs to be named explicitly somewhere in the archetype, just so it doesn't get overlooked. But I think it's better to spend a few sentences talking about awesome elven duelists that wield curve blades.

Hilariously, this archetype allows you to take slashing grace on rapiers and fencing grace on longswords. Not that it matters because those feats don't stack.

I personally prefer the wording as is. It is a minor "flaw" (for lack of a better word) to clarify a main reason for the archetype.

Elegant Strike (Ex): At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, an elven duelist gains the ability to strike precisely with a curve blade (though not natural weapon attacks) adding half her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. If she wields a longsword or rapier the bonus damage is not halved. She can even use this ability with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by graceful strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a graceful strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn't multiplied on a critical hit. As a swift action, an elven duelist can spend 1 panache points to double her graceful strike's damage bonus on the next attack. This benefit must be used before the end of her turn, or it is lost. This deed's cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the

In this you call out the ECB as only half bonus for damage because of 2-handed DMG bonus. But you do not specify longsword, which can be wielded 2-handed to receive same bonuses.

so if you are going to implement half-bonus i would recommend doing what Shroudb says and just say: "half damage from elegant strike if weapon is wielded in 2 hands."

But overall I agree with Diminuendo, Power attack for this PrC would be a HUGE investment. As this class is set up atm, STR is an obvious dump stat, so any investment put into STR to gain power attack, subtracts from a better place for those points; like a higher DEX, CHA, or most importantly CON (especially since CON will take a hit from being an elf).

So i would argue that the half damage caveat is completely unnecessary. you gain extra damage for not being able to carry a buckler.

TLDR: Power attack is a moot point IMO. Putting a 13 into STR to get power attack, when you are fighting a below AVG CON on a purely melee fighter is going to hurt a lot in the long run.

there is one thing that i am questioning. Is the free attack you receive from the hurtful feat at full BAB? or same BAB as the attack triggered the feat?

example: I have BAB +6/+1, and lets assume for simplicity that i have no other bonuses to attack. I full attack doing non-lethal damage. My first attack misses but my second attack hits. my free intimidate from enforcer then happens. It succeeds and now i have a free attack. So do I hit again at the +1 to match the attack bonus i had from the attack that triggered the free hit; or do i get a +6 atk bonus because that would be my full BAB.

In most cases it says "make attack at full BAB" or something along those lines in the feat description. but this one lacks that. Probably because it is a monster feat and iterative attacks is not a thing with natural weapons; or it was created under the assumption that the feat would not be used as part of a full attack. but either way i was hoping to get some educated guesses as to what the attack bonus might be.

EDIT: under the same school of thought, with multiple weapons/natural weapons, do you have to make the free attack with the same weapon that triggered the free attack? (hit with claw, can i use a bite as my free attack)

I was looking at a rogue thug 1/snakebite brawler build that seems promising.

You get sneak attack (make that hurtful feat really cause pain) with a nearly full BAB.

Hurtful is your only realy swift actions.

This build sadly does not allow for a timely sap adept & master (earliest i can see it being worth getting is lvl 9), as well as denying you the feat slots to get improved feint at a decent level (which ends up making one of your class abilities useless)

is it dead? or finished?

I've seen too many threads, where GMs are refusing to let players use their reroll abilities, because the DC is already known.

"You can't reroll natural 1s, because you know it's a fail."

"You can't reroll any total of 10 or less, because you know that's a fail."

"You just heard Player B fail on a result of 18, so you know your result of 17 is also a fail. So you're not allowed to reroll."

And of course, the times after the GM has called "Fail!" immediately, before the player has had chance to register the result of the roll.
"I want to reroll that.."
"TOO LATE!"

The latter could be a dickish GM move, to prevent players using their abilities, or it could be a GM trying to hurry the game along.

It doesn't matter whether these abilities affect saves, attack rolls, skills, very often the DC is a fixed one from the rules (like the Climb DCs for various surfaces), has been given to the players by the GM, 'You think it's a tough lock to pick, at least DC 30.", or has already been established, or estimated to close accuracy, by the previous rolls.

Too many GMs are taking that clause about 'only allowed to reroll, before the results are known' as binding, preventing the use of these abilities.

them are punky DM's

I think you are reading too much into the it. I have always played it as, "before the DM informs you that you've passed/failed". A DM cannot assume you KNOW that you will pass/fail, so he has to give you the benefit of the doubt, until such a time that he informs you. As soon as you take assumptions into rules (assuming a player has done the math and assuming a player knows the spell level) you over complicate them.

yes a player can be pretty sure (all the math says he has failed) that he has failed the ref save for a fireball with a 10, but he can not know for certain until the DM tell him.

I plan on living until I'm 80 or 90.

so, the time investment on recreating the whole system could not be justified by "laziness" - even in as far as I identify with the moniker so long as it doesn't rub too hard against my enjoyment of a good game (an equally unsatisfying waste of time).

that said,
though I like the idea that a fighter can "specialize," I find underwhelming that this can devolve into simple (BORING!) numeric bonuses. when I think of specialize, I think of cool stunts and crazy maneuvers. and fortunately, a lot of these have already been written in the rules, even if they are sadly locked behind feat-bloat.

enter the Brawler and his fancy Martial Flexibility. this is an elegant solution for the experienced player who may very well be at home with the prospect of poring through tomes IRL to find the perfect stunt or maneuver IGL. To adjust for a newbie, you could just let them pull from CRB only, plus one Advanced/Ultimate feat per level, as a sort of "feats known" list. that is one solution.

mine is this.

maybe your fighter, Gulian, could go halfway and be able to train with a certain number of weapons in the morning, and until he trains new ones, be able to use Martial Flexibility with those weapons only. This would keep him at once specialized and flexible. Your legendary swordsman simply chooses "swords" every day, whereas your master-of-all-weapons chooses a different weapon set each day.

just throwin' out ideas.

much like a pyro wizard chooses fireball and scorching ray everyday and takes feats to back those up. but a master-of-all will pick the spells that play well for those days events. I could see this being AWESOME.

I see what people are saying about flat bonus across the board, but i have to agree with the people who are saying that specialization is kind of what makes me like the fighter. A recommendation that could make both parties kinda happy would be:

Weapon training:
Starting at 5th level, a fighter gains a +1 bonus to attack and damage which he can apply to a single weapon group, as noted below.
at level 9 the fighters gains an extra +2 to attack and damage which he can apply to one or more weapons groups (including the group he choose at level 5). At level 13 the fighter receives and extra +3, and +4 at lvl 17. The bonus to a single weapons group can not exceed the bonus supplied at any given level. Bonuses granted from overlapping groups do not stack. Take the highest bonus granted for a weapon if it resides in two or more groups.
A fighter also adds this bonus to any combat maneuver checks made with weapons from this group. This bonus also applies to the fighter's Combat Maneuver Defense when defending against disarm and sunder attempts made against weapons from this group.

this could be used similar to the current weapon training, or allow a fighter to get a larger bonus in less groups or an even bonus among many groups.

example:
lvl 5: +1 to blades (H)
lvl9: +2 to blades (H), +1 to close
lvl 13: +3 to blades (H), +3 to close
lvl 17: +4 to blades (H), +4 to close, +2 to bows

or

lvl 5: +1 to blades (H)
lvl9: +1 to blades (H), +1 to close, +1 to bows
lvl 13: +2 to blades (H), +2 to close, +2 to bows
lvl 17: +4 to blades (H), +3 to close, +3 to bows

or

lvl 5: +1 to blades (H)
lvl9: +2 to blades (H), +1 to close
lvl 13: +3 to blades (H), +2 to close, +1 to bows
lvl 17: +4 to blades (H), +3 to close, +2 to bows, +1 to axes

or

lvl 5: +1 to blades (H)
lvl9: +1 to blades (H), +2 to close
lvl 13: +1 to blades (H), +2 to close, +2 to bows, +1 to axes
lvl 17: +2 to blades (H), +2 to close, +2 to bows, +2 to axes, +2 to blades (L)

possibilities can go on for quite a while

TriOmegaZero wrote:

CHEEPENBULKY wrote:

..but can't find the sheath that is attached to his hip. YAY FOR REALISM.

That's inaccurate. He knows exactly where it is, and can sheath his weapon unerringly every time. He just can't do it faster than a move action.

But he can fire and reload a musket 10 times in a round.

Much better example of selective realism.

dotting this

in pathfinder an archer could shoot a gnat at the other end of a football field in the eye 10 times in 6 seconds, but can't find the sheath that is attached to his hip. YAY FOR REALISM.

CHEEPENBULKY wrote:

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

I would add features to the barbarian instead.

I came to the same conclusion.

so here is an extremely rough draft: The Arvernian

For now i pretty much just slapped some brawler abilities onto a barbarian. This could be broken as all get out, but it lays the ground work.

I like the ground work but we don't seem to take any penalty in order to gain Avernian Strike or Av Cunning. Maybe remove fast movement or something?

av cunning i gave for free, as a gimme for the loss of armor proficiency. as for the strike, i have no clue what to give up to get it... but it is definitely a must.

I would add features to the barbarian instead.

I came to the same conclusion.

so here is an extremely rough draft: The Arvernian

For now i pretty much just slapped some brawler abilities onto a barbarian. This could be broken as all get out, but it lays the ground work.

intrigued, will put some thought into this.

An Aasimar dual cursed dark tapestry oracle with his favored class bonus in the many forms revelation would be an effective and creepy build. Dark tapestry has deep ties to the H.P. Lovecraft type feel which is an undoubtedly odd world. You would gain polymorph and beast shape faster than any one else in the game, giving you a solid reason to constantly be using your monstrous forms. Tack onto that your dual curses of haunted, tongues, wasting or wolf scarred (pick your two) and you have a truly creepy dude on your hand. turning your aasimar into a metal angel wouldn't hurt either xP.

EDIT: As reference for your many forms scaling (assuming your dm allows you to take the favored class bonus for many forms from lvl 1)
beast shape 1 for 7 minutes @ lvl 5 (wizard gets it lvl 5)
beast shape 2 for 12 minutes @ lvl 8 (wizard gets it lvl 9)
greater polymorph for 15 minutes @ lvl 10 (wizard gets it lvl 13)

and all this without using spells. The monster just erupts from inside you.

and in case your dm doesn't want to allow FCB into many forms from lvl 1 heres a thread that cites book examples of prebuilt classes that allow such a scenario.

What if I did half spell level, rounded down, minimum 1 (or 1/4 hd for SLA since feedback does SLA as well as spells)? I want to tie it to spell level somehow; since you are essentially shocking the caster with the power of the spell. That would top out at 4 rounds. and for most of the early game it would be 1-2 rounds, finally getting to 3 rounds towards the mid teens. Which seems pretty similar numbers wise to your idea, and nearly on par with stunning critical.

P.S.: need an opinion here, should MF downgrade to sickened, dazed, or staggered on a successful fort save?

and a two cents on the tweaked arcane sight you added. I would say have only detect magic at lvl 1. Then at lvl 5 the spellbreaker gains arcane sight without use limits (the spell is permanency-able after all) and greater arcane sight at int/day uses. Maybe even hold off on GAS till lvl 10, since it isn't cast-able by anyone till lvl 13.

having all three at lvl 1 is a little much. also idk if its just me, but granting arcane sight and greater arcane sight at the same time, and with same uses per day seems a little off.

Well I am blind. Sorry I missed the blurb "at appropriate levels" silly me. Though I'm still going to push for no limit on Arcane Sight, unless you can think of a way that would be too much more broken than getting permanency cast on it.

hey Gulian, what changes do you feel would be necessary for the archetype I penned up to make it onto the google doc?

and a two cents on the tweaked arcane sight you added. I would say have only detect magic at lvl 1. Then at lvl 5 the spellbreaker gains arcane sight without use limits (the spell is permanency-able after all) and greater arcane sight at int/day uses. Maybe even hold off on GAS till lvl 10, since it isn't cast-able by anyone till lvl 13.

having all three at lvl 1 is a little much. also idk if its just me, but granting arcane sight and greater arcane sight at the same time, and with same uses per day seems a little off.

@ Volf

I dont see your worries personally... Casters on most occasions can only cast 1 maybe 2 spells per round. And Sunder has a very limiting range of adjacent, aka reach or ranged weapons can not be used to sunder. So unless all of the casters are standing in a pile of "breaker-bait", the SB is only going to have 1 caster in his sunder range, and likewise will only have 1 maybe 2 opportunities to use an AoO to sunder.

Take that into account and increasing your # of AoO's accomplishes very little.

and your question as to if it works like counterspell. It does work like counter spell as in; if it is used as an AoO it shuts down the spell before it can be fully realized.

edit: realized i was thinking spellbane in my argument, disregard.

Heya Gulian,

You've put together an excellent class! Congratulations ... I have attempted such a class in the past and it's always failed, miserably.:P Got a quick question for you; where is the most up-to-date version of the class? Also, is there a Google docs version we can check out on-line?

Cheers
Volf

latest and greatest from Gulian: Spellbreaker

I don't know from my quick look over, if it is completely up to date; but its probably damn close.

I agree with using stat. Its nice game play wise, knowing exactly how long you have an option. As for it being MAD, the way i was assuming it would be is use it next turn or lose it, so any duration would be better than that. And there wouldn't really be a need to pump that stat, with the "minimum 1" its technically even dumpable. unless it was 12 or higher might as well dump it.

Took a lot of your input into consideration. nerfed DT by making it 50% fail chance instead of getting rid of casting altogether (kept it at "1/2 SB lvl" rounds. Altered SR to not play as nice with friendlies as the base classes SR. Altered Spellbane to work with reach weapons and added the stacking disruption modifier. The level 7 ability now only does movement speed and grants him concealment. increased save on MF, and added DT to the effects.

@ Gulian

Magic Entanglement: I'm glad magic entanglement works out so well o_0... Honestly i had not done the math with that one yet, and was having the same initial worries you were. but floating right around 50% chance of killing a spell, with a chance to jump up to 65%-ish sound perfect.

Disruptive Transfer: (DT from now on) I don't see how this could be over powered while Feedback (MF from now on) can simultaneously be under powered. They are similar in most ways except feedback is reactive and arguably better. DT just shuts down spells, the caster can still run from combat and takes no hit to ac (other than spells lost); while having a seriously limiting use/day mechanic. While MF has no use/day limit, does not require any action, and completely shuts down the caster (assuming failed saves). I could see the turns of no spellcasting being a little too aggressive, but 1 turn for 1 use seems a little weak to me. since the spell steal debuffs enemies and buffs the SB, while DT just debuffs. How about 1/4 SB level. That peaks at 5 turns at lvl 20. the scaling turns of "no casting" reflects the scaling bonus that the base class gets by stealing progressively more powerful spells, the blockers becomes progressively more destructive.

disruptive shortcut I totally understand what you are saying on this ability. it does feel jammed in there and a little out of place. But i didn't want to remove it, since this is really the only non-"beat up casters" thing this archetype has. The base class has spell casting, and spell flux to give it a bit of flexibility and utility. I honestly had not thought about the increased movement speed, which does fit much better as a replacement for spell flux (fluff and flavor wise), but has so much more limit. how about a middle ground, teleport 1/2 spell lvl x10 on sunder. then he can still get himself to otherwise impossible locations (like straight up) especially since positioning is that much more important for this archetype. Honestly i'd be cool with either, so if teleport is really a deal breaker for you, im cool with just movement speed increase (same rules as spellflux for duration)

MF as stated in the DT section, this makes the caster just short of helpless, that in and of itself is a major bonus (stunning critical is a MINIMUM lvl 17 feat). stunning abilities not limited by uses/day are crazy high level abilities, let alone ones that do not require an action. Id probably up the save to 15 + spell level + int. I was trying to avoid damage in this ability, was looking for a non-damaging disable. And picture as a purely mental whiplash.

as for adding DT to spellbane instead, you would effectively be cancelling the spell casters casting ability all together (even with the nerfed DT), since you can safely assume that the blocker will hit at least once per turn.

I like the idea of his SR applying against friendlies, but i think he should have some control over his disruptive effect. What about SR - INT for friendlies? that makes it succeed more often than not, but there is still that chance of failure floating back there (about 25% failure chance at lvl 10, almost 50% failure at lvl 20). The archetype already loses all abilities to buff himself, make it too difficult for others to buff him and it could really start hurting.

In exchange, allow Spellbane to be activated by reach weapons and any target previously affected by Spellbane increases his Concentration check DC by 2, stacking every time he takes another Spellbane to the face.

BRILLIANT, it should only stack till the blockers next turn.

Summary (TLDR):

• DT is just a weaker MF that uses an action and has uses/day, yet is overpowered even though MF is underpowered?
• changed DT cast-blocking ability to 1/4 SB lvl.
• changed teleport to proc on a sunder instead of always on. willing to go down to movement speed, but I would prefer not to.
• added int to DC on MF.
• Spell blocker SR now works against friendlies at SR-INT.
• Spellbane now procs with reach weapons, and every spellbane to the face in one turn increases concentration and defensive casting DC by 2.

EDIT: what if DT did a %chance to fail casting instead of shutting it down altogether? 50% fail chance for "1/4 SB-lvl" rounds?

I had a thought. What about some sort of cursed archetype? Like a sorcerer bloodline minus the spells? They use their curse to hound spellcasters and such.

Thats similar kinda to my proposed Spell Blocker with a different fluff. But the archetype fluff could be changed to suit a curse, might suit it better in fact.

I do think the class needs some type of team friendly ability. Right now all its got is spell steal, which is primarily offensive. this makes the class seem incredibly selfish. The aura was a way to make some friends on the team. I do agree half bonus seems kind of low, it should be full bonus.

Let's say it grants everyone besides the excluded targets standing in the aura his Spell Resistance and the effects of Anti-Magic Fortitude with the relevant bonuses, but cause the Spellbreaker to lose said bonuses for his person.

This right here, i think is heading in the right direction. It adds a tad bit of trade-off; and adds the strategy and thoughtful use, that i think Oly is looking for. It may not be perfect yet (it seems too extreme, to me at least) but i think it might be a step closer.

2 cents here. Use Qpb's latest version, but full bonus instead of half. Then add ability to grant his SR to people effected by the aura but at the loss of his own SR AND saves. Essentially putting a big target on his head to defend his party.

dpb123 wrote:

How's this for a paired-down AMA?

Anti-Magic Aura: At Level 11, the Spellbreaker's anti-magic abilities become strong enough that he can create an aura to shield others from spells and spell-like abilities. The Spellbreaker can use a move action to radiate an aura in a 15 foot radius centered on himself and a swift action to maintain it in subsequent rounds. All within the aura’s area gain a bonus to their Fortitude and Willpower saves against spells and SLA's equal to half the bonus the Spellbreaker receives from his Anti-Magic Fortitude ability. This ability can be used for an unlimited number of rounds, and the Spellbreaker may choose to dismiss it as a free action. This ability only functions while the Spellbreaker is conscious and able to take actions. The anti-magic aura does not add to the bonuses the Spellbreaker already receives from his Anti-Magic Fortitude ability. A Spellbreaker may only have one anti-magic aura active at a time.

The Spellbreaker may choose to make the field a 15 foot cone instead, but must spend a standard action to activate it. Unlike the burst-aura, the cone-aura immediately deactivates if the Spellbreaker takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn.

At level 14, the Spellbreaker may increase the radius of the aura by 5 feet. He may add an additional 5 feet to the aura at levels 17 and 20 (30 ft. maximum radius at level 20). An extended aura immediately deactivates if the Spellbreaker takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn.

This looks fine, as long as the optional feats to improve the ability are also retained.

looks good, and just like Oly, i think feats would be a thing worth keeping

@ Gulian

My first reaction to possibly nerfing studied in the art, was to make it a fixed bonus (+x at lvl 1) that increased by a set amount. that way it wont scale exactly with the DC... If you do +1 at lvl 1, increases by 1 at lvl 5, 10, 15 and 20. you end up with half of the bonus, which could work. But so many things in this class just scale with level, that it seems almost boring.

But if you leave it as is for the knowledge skills, while applying the half level bonus on spellcraft checks 1+INT (suggestion) times per day, chosen before rolling. The knowledge checks are already time tested by the bard class, so no issues there. And by giving spellcraft a limit, you force "strategic decision making" as to when you should use your easy button; and when you can rely on your 60% success rate.

In my mathing I noticed a slight issue that could arrive from the studied in the arts class ability. Any spell breaker only needs to put 8 ranks into spell craft to completely shut down any caster. As things are a spell breakers spell craft skill scales 3x faster than the difficulty of the check.

Lvl 4 skill bonus (assuming full ranks and Int mod =3) is 12, dc of highest spell by a lvl 4 caster is 17. 80% success.

Lvl 6 skill - 15; dc is 18. 90% sucess

Lvl 8 (Int mod 4 now) skill = 19, dc is 19. 100% success.

And from this point the bonus from studied in the arts scales at the same rate as the max dc from an equal lvl caster. Essentially from this point on a spell breaker identifies ever spell cast by an equal level caster, and gets a free sunder attempt. This is different for SLA'S but not by much.

I'm not against skill checks I'm against unnecessarily bogging down an ability with rules that add very little to the ability, while simultaneously making it seem overly complicated at a glance.

The check is either going to be so high as to make it seem unnecessarily daunting or it going to be just a check that the guy passes every time. the check by itself gains you nothing. Spell breaker by lvl 11 will have a bonus to know arcane of at least 18 (more likely it will be in the 22ish range after INT). So the check as set is almost an auto sucess, and pretty much a moot point. Crank it higher and it will just seem unnecessarily high. I think being unable to move would more than enough, since this is primarily a melee class. moving then spending another move action to set up a cone would eat up a whole turn. That seems like it would hurt enough as is. How about steal a page from defensive stance (stalwart defender) or rage and throw a a cool down (possible status effect) on the person when they drop the cone. Can even steal the wording for movement from defensive stance

The way I see it, you either make the check 30 (30 to simply do a class ability 0_o) or drop it. And even at 30 the check becomes a moot point again by level 13 or 14 depending on gear (lvl + (1/2 lvl) + Int + 3) @ lvl 14 with mediocre gear is 14+7+5+3=29

Ah i misunderstood the movement penalty on cone. well then i think the movement penalty alone should be enough. move action to turn the aura from radius to cone. and any movement drops it, no check, it just drops. then use mobile aura feat to grant movement... more CP from me...

@ OLY: I agree with you on the feats, just feel some of the mechanics are a little over controlling.

@Gulian as much as I agree with you on simple is better, especially for an "improved" version. I have to say these guys are onto something. Will/Fort saves don't work well with the auto half (can't have half a death effect) and as of right now this classes team capabilities are pretty low. Whereas their recommendation solve both of those issues.

Now I think it can be simplified.

• the cone shape adds a lot of variable, rules, and complication, for minimal gain.
• The concentration checks for movement and dmg, while being thematically interesting could make it a lot to keep track of (might be easy, IDK this is just my knee-jerk reaction)
• why give an ability just to upgrade it one level later? just give it all right away, or make it atleast 2 levels
• the increased radius should be fixed, or increase by level. you shouldnt be able to, or need to, increase the radius using a check. Taking a check every turn can get monotonous.

Just by doing this you save 2 paragraphs. you lose cone, which I think that one should be a feat; and require no check to manipulate. and make radius scale by level, or just go with the paladin aura and its x big, thats it. no bigger. ever. by doing this you make mobile aura feat unnecessary. I love that the aura does not play favorites between friend and foe, and totally agree with the feat ideas, Gulian can drop them if he really wants to, it wouldn't kill the ability, but i like them.

EDIT: sorry about the partial post before, meant to hit preview, and accidentally hit post

Realized that the Magic Nihilist archetype i was working on wouldn't really work. Its main class feature, manipulatable antimagic fields, was too similar to spell sunder (and spell sunder did everything thematically and mechanically better than the antimagic fields). So I changed my focus, and altered the archetype slightly. Say hello to the Spell Blocker

The goal here was to create a battlefield controller that completely abandoned harnessing magic (ie: no spellsteal, channel, or spellbook), and focused completely on shutting it down. To balance the bonuses the class loses by not having its spellbook I gave the Spell Blocker skill focus at lvl's 5, 10, and 15; to represent their diversified training and give the class back some of their lost utility.

In the long run this class relies less on the presence of other spell casters, since their 2 utility abilities (the skill focus feats and the teleportation ability) do not require spells to be cast for them to work. But also gains less from the presence of spell casters, since they can not steal spells to assist them, or gain limited spell casting by sundering spells.