Let's say you're a fighter with an 18 STR and a greatsword fighting a simple AC 16 Goblin. You have no other factors (e.g. weapon focus) that affect your to-hit and damage, so you're swinging at a +5 bonus to deal 2d6+6 damage. You need an 11 or higher to hit and crit on a 19 or 20 for double damage, so that means your average DPR is 7.15. An additional +1 to hit improves our DPR to 7.865. An additional +2 to damage improves our DPR to 8.25. So in this case, the +2 to damage is superior.
Let's say instead we're playing a race with a +4 strength bonus (so we have a 22 base), we have an Enlarge Person on ourselves (+2 size bonus and increases our weapon damage dice to 3d6), and a monty haul DM who gave us a +4 Belt of Giant Strength for god knows what reason. We fight the same goblin, but this time we have an attack bonus of +9 and we're swinging for 3d6+13. Our DPR is now 18.095. Adding another +1 to hit improves our DPR to 19.3875. Adding +2 to damage instead increases our DPR to 19.635. So the +2 to damage is still superior, but gives less of an advantage than it did in the first case.
Finally, let's say our DM is even more monty haul, and gives us the Weapon of Ridiculous Awesomeness that gives a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and does 100 additional damage whenever it hits an enemy. Our DPR is now 101.8875. A +1 to hit improves our DPR to 108.68. A +2 to damage increases our DPR to 103.5375. The +1 to hit finally wins out, though this is an extreme example.
The basic idea is that improving damage is constant, but improving to-hit is multiplicative: However, the scaling factor is pretty tiny. So the +2 to damage is better unless your base damage is already really, really high: This is why Power Attack is a good feat, especially with two-handing when it adds +3 instead.
A History of Ashes is terrible and can be skipped. Skeletons of Scarwall could make a cool stand-alone module, but as part of the AP it's an unnecessary distraction from what the campaign is actually about. If you ever DM CotCT:
Spoiler:
Just get rid of Illeosa's b!&*$*&# Plot Armor and lower her in level so the PCs can go straight from Escape from Old Korvosa to Crown of Fangs. You won't regret it.
Also, the thing with Gaedren Lamm in Edge of Anarchy is an unnecessary failure point: The whole campaign breaks if the PCs don't join the Korvosa Guard, and the only reason for the intro is to give a flimsy reason for Illeosa to offer them the job. Have the PCs already start out as members of the guard (and let them come up with their own reasons for why they joined as part of their backstory) and you won't miss out on anything except for a place where the players can break the plot without meaning to.
It has to do more with mechanics than with themes: You can come up with whatever fluff to justify this that you want. This change makes banning evocation and enchantment go from "always do it" to "hmm, I dunno."
I don't actually play with that rule btw (as I don't see the imbalance between schools as big enough of a problem to justify adding yet more houserules to my game), but if you want to mess around with the schools of magic to balance them better then it's a good idea, I think.
My conclusion: This system has the advantage of being very friendly to MAD classes, making it very easy to have a +3 in 3 different stats, if need be. The SAD classes get their 18 without having to sacrifice their tertiary stats. It removes the tough choices in assigning your abilities, so now you're basically choosing where you want to excel instead of choosing where you'll be crippled. It's not for everyone, but I like it.
Fractional BAB and Saves: Yes! I don't know why these aren't the default rules, really.
My rule for PrCs: All entry requirements are waived, with two exceptions.
- Each PrC has a minimum entry level, decided by me, that cannot be bypassed by any means. In most cases, this is equal to the number of skill ranks required by the class (for 3.5 classes, the number of skill ranks required -3). However, exceptions can occur when a PrC's main barrier to entry is a high BAB or spellcasting requirement, and not its skill rank requirements.
- Class features that are meaningfully advanced or otherwise utilized by the PrC are still required: To enter a class that advances spellcasting, you obviously need spellcasting to be advanced.
The only potential problem with this rule is that many PrCs are "balanced" by requiring you to take completely worthless feats in exchange for class features better than what you'd get from the logical entry base class. In practice, I don't think this is an issue.
First, I'm of the school of thought that the only type of balance that matters is the intra-party balance between player characters. As far as balance is concerned, it doesn't matter how powerful the PCs are (as the DM can just step up the obstacles to match), so long as we don't have an Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit situation.
Second, this actually helps out the lower-tier classes more than the higher-tier classes, because they can benefit much more from PrCs and multiclassing in general. Also, PrCs intended for fighters and rogues tend to have much, much harsher requirements than those intended for wizards and clerics.
Third, the seriously overpowered PrCs (like Incantatrix, Emissary of Barachiel, Rainbow Servant + Dread Necromancer) are just as disruptive with this rule as they are without. If a PrC lets you break the game in half, then it's worth entering no matter how crap the requirements are.
As for PrC levels stacking with class levels for class features... I dunno. There are a few things where it'd be fine (familiar level, channel energy dice) but that's only because these features are so minor as to not matter anyway.
Generally though, I think the best class designs are the ones where you can have a party of 4 of those classes, and by describing the characters and what they do (without referring to the mechanical abilities themselves), not be able to tell that they were all made from the same class. I have much less fondness for the overly narrow classes.
If you want to see absolute best critfisher with published material that I can make (aside from cheating by using Pun-Pun to give you an ability that says "I get infinite attacks per round, always critting"), here's a fully TO build. Warning: This build relies on 3.0 material, and specifically on material that was written under different assumptions for how critical threat ranges work. A DM is perfectly reasonable in interpreting how it works in another way, in which case this build is still plenty good at what it does but nowhere near as ridiculous: I assume the maximally permissive interpretation, as this is intended to be TO and not actually played.
LE Human Factotum 1/Martial Monk 1/Factotum +7/Disciple of Dispater 8/Swashbuckler 3
1 - Disciple of Darkness
H - Font of Inspiration
F - Combat Expertise
F - Power Attack
M - Improved Critical (Rapier)
3 and beyond - more Font of Inspiration (9 total)
Requires: INT 30, STR 13 (though more of either won't hurt)
You end up with 17 BAB. Get yourself a Rapier (but any 18-20 critical weapon will work, I just use a rapier for style) enchanted up the wazoo, and it's a 15-20 threat weapon thanks to improved critical (for which we dodge the requirements thanks to a level in martial monk). Disciple of Dispater's 8th-level ability explicitly stacks with Improved Critical, so now it's a 3-20 threat range weapon. With all of those Font of Inspirations we have 60 Inspiration Points to use with Cunning Surge, letting us spend 3 IP to get a standard action attack, with up to 20 extra attacks made this way each encounter (and we can use them all on the first round if we want). Most of those will threaten.
The opposite of that. The more feats you have, the more you can pick good ones with prerequisites. Also, instead of choosing between "the good ones," you just take them all. By 10th level, a fighter has more feats than a similarly oriented paladin accumulates in their career.
Hmm, let's see, I could take 2 more levels of Fighter for 1 feat (and maybe +1 weapon training), or I could take 2 levels of Paladin for Smite Evil 1/day (CHA to attack rolls against one enemy until it dies, basically), Detect Evil at will, immunity to fear, lay on hands, and CHA modifier to all my saves. Or I could take 2 levels of Barbarian and get Rage, fast movement, uncanny dodge, and any 2nd level Rage Power I feel like (maybe Superstition or Reckless Abandon).
Better be one heck of a feat.
That's not to say more than 2 levels of Fighter are never useful; Sometimes in order to make a particular concept or combo work you just have to have a bajillion different feats. Concepts like that will probably be less than impressive compared to what you'd get from other classes though.
It works fine: Carmendine Monk and Kung-Fu Genius have been floating around for years and haven't broken anything. Making it a trait is slightly more powerful (as a trait is generally worth half a feat), but I think it'd be fine: It's no worse than Student of Philosophy or similar traits.
This. The Path of War material is excellent and Stalker can make you feel like a serious crit king.
+1 for Path of War material in general. Honestly, the problem with the Stalker is that it makes critfishing so awesome it feels like a waste to do anything else with it.
They can go very deep into feat chains. Strictly from a mechanics standpoint, they are one of the most complex classes in the game.
Generally, class features are better than feats. Furthermore bonus feats have the very curious problem that the more bonus feats you have, the less valuable each additional one is because you're naturally going to pick the best feats first. Inevitably, there's going to be a point where you have all the feats you really want, and while you could benefit from more it's just not worth giving up or delaying class features to get them.
This is why it's generally not a good idea to take more than 2 levels of Fighter, unless the entire point of your build is "I want to make a Fighter 20."
Really, it's up to you to breathe life and fun into your character AND to take advantage of rules that were put into place to make the game fun and enjoyable for everyone.
Disappointed in your combat options? You CAN do things other than full attack, you know. Do you use Vital Strike? Did you take feats that let you demoralize effectively? Did you take Saving Shield? Is there a rogue in your group? Why don't you take a 5-foot step so he can flank more effectively? Baddies moving toward the spellcaster? Did you take Stand Still and plant yourself between the baddies and your wizard?
Outside of combat .... did you take any feats or traits that make things more interesting? Cosmopolitan gives you two extra class skills. Intimidating Prowess makes sure everybody recognizes your mighty thews. If you're still feeling useless, why don't you aid another? RP it a little bit, roll a die semi-well, and you can give somebody else a +2 bonus to his next skill roll. Did you (again) explore archetypes? The cad and the tactician both bring something to the noncombat fighter.
Finally ... did you bother to give your fighter a personality? Is he a loud, boisterous bruiser? A contemplative weapon master? A sly, sneaky flanker?
You can have fun playing a fighter, and you can do things other than "full attack, full attack, full attack." But it takes a little effort on your part.
The problem with the fighter is, yeah, you can totally breathe life into your character and have lots of fun, but you can do this with any class you care to play. The argument isn't that you can't have fun playing a fighter, the argument is you can have just as much fun with a Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Paladin, or Barbarian and get useful class features too.
You could just say Sarenrae here's his prayers all the way from Faerun, or you could pick a FR deity with similar portfolio and say that is Sarenrae as she is known in FR,
She's basically genderswapped Pelor anyway. It'll work just fine.
So do the Swordlord, Buckler Duelist, Free Hand Fighter, and Dervish of Dawn, and yet the Swashbuckler was made. If the OP finds the evangelist unsatisfactory for what he wants to do, making a homebrew hybrid class is a perfectly valid solution.
As for the OP's question: I don't really know about the rest of the deities, but I know for a fact that Zon-Kuthon favors the Bagpipes. Cause, you know, god of torture and all.
As already mentioned, you can be neutral evil as a druid. So if you just wanna make a lich druid who still has their spells and class features, there are no problems even within the rules. And even if there was a problem, it's an NPC: Just tell your players that it's a special homebrewed Lich template (without specifying the exact changes), they'll never know the difference.
If you want the lich to atone and become nonevil for fluff reasons... Don't forget that you are the DM, and you get to decide how these things work. Maybe there's nothing stopping liches from being redeemed, most just don't because the process of becoming one goes pretty far over the deep end in the first place. Maybe liches normally can't be redeemed, but this one is special for some reason. Maybe *most* liches redeem themselves eventually after they have a few thousand years to really take a look at their place in the universe, but usually get slain by adventurers before they get that old. Maybe your campaign setting is non-standard and liches are good guys by default.
So lets say that I'm a writer working on introducing a new product to Pathfinder that has some ties to old material that had alignment restrictions built into it.
I've chosen to include a class that contains alignment restrictions based on the build you choose for this class that are tied in to thematic elements. What does this do to your interest in the product? Is this a deal-maker or deal-breaker to you? Why?
Depends on what you do with it. I think this could be done in an interesting and intelligent way, and I say that as someone who usually ignores alignment. When I get offended is when the content is loaded down with bone-headed fluff that clearly nobody actually bothered to think through all the way, and when this fluff is rendered as an immutable expectation of how the content is to be used in your games. Bonus points if this fluff gives mechanical baggage to encourage you to "roleplay properly."
Bottom line: I'm turned off from buying/using a product if it feels like, for it to fit my games and be a positive contribution, I'm going to have to put more work into it than the original writer did. That's just depressing.
Full divine casters should be 3/4 Base attack. If you want to play 1/2 Base attack, play an arcane class. It's what they do. Cloistered Cleric in 3.5 was OP, still able to CODsilla with a 1/2 Base attack, you know?
Arbitrary restriction. Furthermore Divine Power (the main reason cloistered clerics weren't as crippled in melee as their 1/2 BAB might seem to imply) has been hit with the nerf bat in PF: It's now a scaling luck bonus rather than "BAB = Character Level." A 1/2 BAB Divine caster class is fine.
- None of that stupid charisma penalty crap. Really. There's no reason for this except to further shoehorn them into being a Barbarian Only race. That, and, you know, maybe someone at Paizo doesn't trust that groups will roleplay the downsides of walking around with a freaky appearance in town and feel the need to tack on a mechanical penalty so players don't just stay shifted 24/7. (Then again from how I hear PFS games go, this lack of trust may be justified...)
- You always get your physical stat and natural armor bonus, shifting just changes what traits you get. Unlimited shifting uses per day (seriously the only reason I can think of for why this is limited is someone at Paizo is terrified of at-will abilities). Swift action to transform, and a swift action to change your traits (don't need to change back to human, then transform again).
- Extra Feature still exists, but you start taking two traits whenever you transform instead of just one.
Honestly? The race is still underpowered for everyone except Savage Barbarians (claw claw bite hoof hoof gore) and they're a sad joke compared to real lycanthropes, but this at least makes them more playable.
I guess the first question to answer when making any new class is: what about it is most appealing? Are mystic theurges cool because they have a lot of utility because of the vast amount of spells they have? Or is it some flavor reason like "I think it'd be great to play a mage who became a preacher after he found some sort of spirituality in the wonder of magic." ?
Mystic Theurge has more than one reason it appeals, because there's more than one combination it can work with. With just the core classes, you can use it to make a Cleric/Wizard, Cleric/Bard, Cleric/Sorcerer, Druid/Wizard, Druid/Bard, or Druid/Sorcerer. Arguably, a faithful base class rendition of the mystic theurge would have to cover (at least) all of these. And even within each combination, there are many different character concepts.
That said, if I were to make a Cleric/Wizard hybrid class, I'd make them a sort of magical anthropologist. A scholar on a deeply personal quest to travel the world and learn as many different philosophical and cultural perspectives as they can, whether to gain a more complex understanding and context for their own beliefs and values or to find themselves new ones, and drawing divine spell power from this understanding.
A quite like clerics (especially caster and support clerics over battle clerics) so this class is right up my ally. I also like it quite a bit better than the Priest from Adamant Entertainment, but it's not perfect. Thoughts:
- I don't like how the "default" of the class is Good, and to play other alignments you need archetypes. I get that you want different abilities for different alignments, but I'd prefer for this to be baked into the class. Also, no love for law and chaos?
- Are there any dogma spell lists that are different from their respective domain lists? I didn't check every single dogma, but I couldn't spot any differences as I was browsing through them. If there aren't any, it'd be easier to say "You get the same spell list as that of your respective domain."
- Dogmas overall feel weaker than domains. I don't know if you intended this for balance reasons (since the class also gets Holy Strike, "Holy Arcane" (which would be much better named as Holy Arcana btw), and spontaneous dogma casting), or just because you wanted dogma powers to be more beneficial to a full caster and just made them weaker than domains by accident. It also has the unfortunate problem that dogmas aren't compatible with subdomains: This locks out a lot of really interesting options.
- The Madness dogma refers specifically to the Touch of Corruption ability that Dark Priests get, but there are good-aligned deities that get that domain: Chucaro and Tsukiyo, for example.
- Holy Strike, well... doesn't seem to *fit*, really. It seems like this was an ability designed for a completely different class, that was just stapled onto the Priest just because. It feels like Eldritch Blast, except with a daily limit on its uses for some reason.
- Holy Strike's damage output is really really low: It has the same problem as the Arcanist's blast exploits. At level 19 you'll be doing 40d6 damage assuming you invested in all five Empowered Strikes. At this level, it's hardly even worth the standard action.
- Permanent Shield is weird. It says it lasts until dispelled, but supernatural abilities normally can't be dispelled. So you just get CHA as a Deflection bonus to AC, all day er'ry day? 6th level seems kinda low for that.
- Quick Strike feels really pointless. I assume that by "attack action" you mean that you can full attack with it (since an attack that isn't part of a full attack is still a standard action). Except the Priest gets only half BAB, so that's a maximum of 2 attacks. Whoopdie do.
- Give the lay on hands range improvements a consistent, regular progression instead of making us look it up on a table. It's much easier to remember and apply "10 feet at 5th level, and 5 additional feet for every level afterward" than a table of arbitrary ranges.
Have you actually played with this rule or are you just throwing around rules and seeing what you think is cool? I'll tell for nothing - limited options are boring. A Warlock, despite his cool powers, is boring. This version of the Erudite, assuming that you don't have 15-minute work-days and only a couple of encounters before resting, will get more and more uninteresting as he levels up. Nobody wants to be doing the same thing, day in, day out, and it simply makes it a lot worse if you want to do something interesting but don't, because who on earth needs near-unlimited uses of My Light, Sustenance or Detect Psionics on an adventuring day?
One thing I forgot to mention: Erudites in my games can use Psionic Talents just like Psions can. So that helps with the basic utility abilities somewhat. Also, actually, I like the 15-minute workday: I prefer to have one big APL+4 or APL+5 encounter fought at full power instead of several smaller encounters the PCs fight over the course of the day. If you're doing 10-20 encounters a day, the UPPD limitation is much more restricting (and in that case I'd give them more UPPD, but still make it apply to all of their levels instead of separately for each level).
In a system where Alignment is actually directly tied to mechanical implications (with things like Smite Evil, Holy Smite, etc.)I think that non-evil demon worshippers stretches things too far. At least for creatures who are mechanically tied in to their demon worship.If Joe the generally good-natured Minotaur goes to Baphomet's Wednesday night service because that's where his folks go, that's one thing; if Baphomet has recognized Joe's drive and ambition and gifted him with unholy powers to acheive his ends, that's another.
In Cheliax, most everyone worships Asmodeus because it's illegal not to: If you went around saying everyone in Cheliax is thus evil, or worse, that everyone in Cheliax thus deserves to be killed on sight, I'd call you a looney. Don't see why the same principle couldn't apply to a community where demon worship is considered the norm (like, say, in Gnoll, Boggart, or Drow society). And even clerics of demon lords can be chaotic neutral.
It'd be a nerf. Spell Combat is the Magus's most powerful (and most compelling) class feature: Wizard arcane schools are generally less than impressive. People only play specialist wizards for the extra spell slot. An archetype that lets you play a "Specialist Magus" who gets an extra slot of each spell level for spells of their specialist school could be a neat idea, but I wouldn't trade spell combat for it. Consider trading an Arcana or two and lowering their Arcane Pool progression for it instead. Other things I'd consider:
- Make the benefits of each specialization unique rather than just ripping off wizard arcane school powers.
- The magus spell list is woefully deficient of certain schools, like Necromancy, Divination, and Enchantment (all three of which don't even have at least one spell of each level). Illusion and Abjuration have just enough spells to make it workable, but would be at a serious disadvantage when compared to Evocation, Conjuration, and Transmutation specialists (as these three schools make up the bulk of the spell list). Maybe give these disadvantaged schools extra spells to add to the magus's spell list to give them a boost?
- Give each magus specialization its own name rather than just copying the wizard specialization names. You're not a Necromancer Magus, you're a Deathblade.
If you want to make the Magus less cookie cutter and using the same weapon all the time, considering making archetypes that make other weapon styles more viable rather than taking away spell combat. Like how the Myrmidon tries (and fails) to make an Archer Magus work?
I completely disagree. Your ruling makes the Erudite worse and worse as he levels up, which is a sure sign you're doing something wrong. No erudite in his right mind under this ruling would ever expend any power he didn't want to use all day, to the near exclusion of anything else.
Just to take the quoted extreme of this ruling, a 20th-level erudite's unique powers drop by 87.5%, yet his power points and so on all remain the same. You've basically turned him into a psionic warlock with lower BAB, hit points and no cool (but unsatisfying) at-will abilities (and, in case I'm not clear, that is not a good thing).
The strength of the Erudite is that you know (basically) any number of powers you want, and (until you hit your UPPD limit) have access to any power you know at all times. This is kept intact: Arguably, even with this rule, the Erudite is still superior to the Psion.
The problem is players wanting to soften evil. They want to play as necromancers, assassins, demon worshipers, etc, without being evil. IMO, this isn't compatible with a serious campaign world.
IMO, if you can't have necromancers, assassins, and demon worshippers who aren't evil, your campaign world can't be taken seriously.
Quote:
Lastly, when speaking of optimal versus non-optimal, not everyone is concerned with having an optimal character. Some of the best characters in campaigns that I have ever seen were sub-optimal. But the players played them well, their characters fit into the campaign world well, and the players consistently role-played their characters so that the character's integrity was kept intact.
So while my level 1 fighter with a two-handed weapon maybe should take power attack because it is a good feat, he may be more concerned about precision, and as such, his character doesn't embrace any kind of fighting style that reduces precision.
It doesn't make it mental drudgery creating a character in this way. It is a character creating method that focuses on taking the mental image & information of a character and converting it into the Pathfinder system. When you're trying to make that conversion, you're not concerned about what is optimal, and if you decide to change the image or idea of the character in order to make the character more optimal, then you're sacrificing the character concept.
That would not be an acceptable character creation method at my table.
Do you mean the Magic of Faerun 3.0 version of the class (which you linked), or the 3.5 Player's Guide to Faerun update? The latter is vastly more powerful (but the 3.0 version is really good too). Either way, "overpowered" really depends on what they do with it, and how this compares to what the other characters can do, but the Incantatrix is a class so powerful that it's easy to smash all but the highest-power campaigns to pieces with it without much effort. It's also a class new players like to gravitate towards without really understanding it because they read on the internet that it's the most powerful PrC in 3.5.
Ask the player to give you a list of tricks they want the character to be able to use, then evaluate what they'll be allowed to do based on that: Walking around with every spell in the game active on themselves at once is probably too much, but a once per day free Quicken Spell on themselves is probably alright. Make it clear that you're trusting them to ONLY use the class for what they've listed, and that breaking this trust will not be taken kindly.
Why not just ban erudites? That rule should blows them out of the water.
Well, an Erudite is to a Psion as a Wizard is to a Sorcerer. I like the idea of a psionic character who goes around collecting and learning every psionic power there is. Their UPPD mechanic also gives them a very different feel from how a prepared caster operates, while still providing a meaningful limitation at lower levels (and my houserule keeps that limitation meaningful at all levels).
By a strict reading, however, the Paladin Code nearly is.
Fall or Fall scenarios are quite easy to engineer even by accident. A favorite is "Lie or get someone killed", both choices force a Fall.
This. Furthermore I have no problems with a player who wants to play the fettered, but tying this to a particular class, and to a particular kind of fetteredness, is a really bone-headed idea. And any character like this should be ready to accept the tragic, horrible consequences that inevitably results: Which sort of goes against the Paladin's entire Knight in Shining Armor thing in all but the most idealistic settings.
Agreed. I'd love for there to be at least two options for each alignment (CEGL), and a few neutral ones (elementals, etc.) for each level of summon monster, and for all the templated animals to be removed. I don't find the idea that the heavens or hells are populated by cetes of heavenly badgers or pods of infernal porpoises all that compelling.
And when it gets up there in summon monster levels, and you've got resolute/examplar tyrannosaurs apparently wandering around the city of Axis, and anarchic/entropic giant squid splorping around the Maelstrom, it gets pretty surreal.
Actually, I interpret summoning spells as making a new (temporary) creature, with the template application being a side effect of your own alignment rubbing off onto the creature. The spell doesn't fetch you a Celestial Badger scampering around the mountain of heaven, it makes a new badger, which is infused with your own Goodness to become a celestial badger.
This is why I also allow you to summon creatures outside of your alignment (even though by the rules you can't) with some changes. Good-aligned casters can summon Risen Hezrous, while Evil-aligned casters can summon Fallen Ghaeles.
Gancanagh wrote:
Modrons and Dragonspawn, I hope they are kept in their horrid Copyright prison for all eternity.
Worst thing for me is that Bestiary 5 is just as wasted as D&D monster manual I once bought with over 10 of those horrid, silly and stupid looking Modron in it.
I hate those things and I hope they burn in copyright forever. Tum tum tum!!!!!!!
- The most important rule, and the only one that matters: We're all here to have fun. Don't disrupt the game, whether through your character's behavior or through cheesy tricks (though my cheese tolerance is relatively high). No PvP unless the player (not necessarily the character) consents to it ahead of time. Yes, even if you're Evil.
- 30 point buy, and you can buy a 19 (before racial modifiers) in a stat by spending 22 points, or a 20 by spending 28 points. You can spend 5 attribute points to gain a bonus feat at level 1 instead of increasing your abilities.
- When you gain +1 to an ability score at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, you gain +1 in two abilities instead (they must be different abilities). At levels 10 and 20, you gain +1 to all ability scores. This really, really helps the MAD classes while providing only marginal benefit to the SAD ones.
- Alignment is (mostly) gone. Alignment can (and should be) fluff. Only outsiders with alignment subtypes and characters with an alignment aura count as having an alignment for the purposes of effects like Detect Evil or Holy Word. A cleric (or paladin's) alignment aura is based on their deity's alignment, and not their own. Alignment requirements are gone (as is the Paladin's code), though servants of a deity (such as clerics and paladins) are expected to further their deity's interests. If I believe a cleric (or paladin) is acting inappropriately, I prefer to talk to the player about it instead of breaking out the Fall card.
- Humans do not gain a bonus feat at 1st level. Everyone gains 2 feats at 1st level (not counting those they gain from spending ability points or from classes). Any race that lets you add +2 to a score of your choice instead lets you add +2 to any two scores of your choice. (I think humans are boring and this encourages people to not play them.)
- Everyone gets 2 additional skill points at each level, that must be spent on Profession, Knowledge, or Craft skills. These points cannot be spent on Craft skills that are used for making magic items, or on Knowledge skills used for identifying monsters. I like these little fluff skills that make your character a little more well-rounded than "Every single one of my skills is devoted to fighting and dungeon-crawling" without being forced to cut into your effectiveness to do so.
- Monsters as PCs are allowed, using the rules in the bestiary, with three exceptions. First, the limit on how many extra levels you gain is equal to the monster's original CR, not half CR (this means that you always eventually catch up). Second, for monsters with inherent spellcasting ability (such as Nymphs or Ghaeles), class levels overlap, not stack, with your inherent spellcasting. For example, a Nymph Druid 1 is an ECL 8 character who casts as a 7th-level druid and the class features of a 1st-level druid. She doesn't gain 8th-level druid casting until she reaches her 8th druid level (at which point she'll be ECL 13). Third, the following feat exists:
Hidden Potential
Requirements: Monstrous Race, at least 1 class level
You gain 1 effective level in a class you already possess, without increasing your Effective Character Level. This effective level only advances your class features, and not your hit dice, BAB, skill points, or saving throws. This cannot give you more effective class levels than your ECL. Special: This feat may be taken more than once.
Effectively, this feat lets you trade feats in order to "buy off" your monster CR more quickly, and the requirement means you can't use your first-level feats, or your racial hit dice feats, to do so. So, a Quasit Ninja 1 (ECL 3) can take this feat and gain the abilities of a Quasit Ninja 2, but still be only ECL 3.
- Custom races made with the Race Builder are allowed, but only if everyone in the party is playing such a custom race (or a monster-as-PC): Custom races and printed races are just too difficult to balance effectively. No more than 20 RP may be spent, and no ability score modifier can exceed +4 or -4 (including size modifiers).
- Fractional BAB and saves are used. For hit points, max hit points at first level, then average hit points (rounding up) every level afterward.
- If you're wearing light or medium armor, add 1/2 your level (rounding down) to your AC. If you're wearing heavy armor, add 3/4 of your level to your AC.
- All spellcasting classes are now SAD: If a class relied on more than one attribute for its spellcasting previously, the player may choose either stat.
- Erudites have their Unique Powers Per Day limitation apply for *all* of their power levels as intended, not for each power level. To compensate for this, their UPPD limitation is increased by 1 (so at level 20 you get 12 UPPD rather than 99). Powers manifested through Metaconcert (and similar effects) apply to this limitation. Convert Spell to Power is banned.
- Archivists can only scribe divine spells from the Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Adept, and Shugenja lists, as well as all domain lists. Spells from the list of a homebrew or third party divine base class allowed by permission. Spells from prestige classes, or spells obtained by methods of converting other spells to divine spells (such as Divine Magician, Hexer, or Favored Soul of Bahamut) can't be scribed into your prayerbook.
- Factotums may only use their Cunning Surge ability once per round. Ruby Knight Vindicators may only use Divine Impetus once per round. Otherwise, these abilities are unchanged.
- Oracles may, alternatively, decide to not have a curse at all. They don't gain the penalty from any curse, but don't gain the benefits of any curse either. An Oracle may not use spells or archetypes that rely on the Oracle's Curse ability if they take this option, such as dual-cursed oracle or Oracle's Burden.
- Oracles gain Channel Energy at level 1, as the Cleric class feature. The Life Oracle revelation that grants channeling instead gives the oracle 4 additional channeling uses per day.
- Spontaneous casters are not required to increase the casting time of their spells when applying metamagic feats.
- Most PrC requirements are waived, and replaced with a minimum entry level, decided by me on a case-by-case basis, but in most cases is equal to the class's highest skill rank requirement (or the highest requirement -3 for 3.5 PrCs). Class features or feats required by PrCs are still required if and only if the PrC advances or utilizes them in a meaningful sense: It wouldn't make much sense to be able to enter Master of Many Forms without Wild Shape, for example. Things like Fochlucan Lyrist requiring Evasion for no reason, though, are waived. If a concept doesn't make sense to me, I reserve the right to require a cool-sounding explanation.
- Fast-progression classes like the Ur-Priest and Divine Crusader are allowed, but with the following rule: You cannot cast a spell unless your ECL is greater than or equal to 1 + twice the spell's unmodified level. So even though you can use Ur-Priest to get a 9th-level spell slot at level 14, you can only use it to prepare metamagic'd versions of lower-level spells.
- Paragon Surge either does not exist, or is usable by anyone (not just half-elves). I keep going back and forth on this one.
You have three evil people in the party. Your paladin will either fall pretty much immediately or he'll end up getting stomped out by the three evil people. You need to talk to your buddy and warn him that the paladin isn't going to work with that party, if he persists be an evil necromancer and kill him and reanimate the body.
It's everyone's responsibility to make sure the party can work well together (unless you're playing a PvP game and the OP is very clearly not). Evil characters, come up with a reason why you'd get along with (or at least tolerate) a Paladin. Paladin, come up with reasons why you'd get along with (or at least tolerate) the evil characters.
Don't tell me "The differences are irreconcilable" because that's horse s$$~. You control literally everything about your characters, down to their entire personal histories (which can be retroactively retconned if need be) and motivations. The only way it can't work is if you're just being stubborn and refuse to budge, or if you're just terribly uncreative.
Maybe the Paladin is your necromancer's brother/sister, and wants to put you on a better path even though they're disgusted by your current behavior, but they still love you enough to protect you with their life (and you'd do the same for them).
As for falling... the paladin code is stupid anyway, and if the DM actually enforces it then a Paladin is screwed no matter what, even in an all-paladin party, because the code is self-contradictory and impossible to avoid breaking.
It simply seems to me that the talk of theoretical Wizard (or prepared caster) superiority is based on hypotheticals... in other words, one has to assume that a Wizard is able to get all the information needed to prepare his spell list perfectly ahead of time AND that he has every spell he could possibly need at his fingertips whenever and wherever he wants them. That's a lot to assume. Moreover, it seems to be the standard assumption that any magical gear that could possibly be desired (assuming it fit within established WBL) was also on hand and readily available at all times. And lets not even get into the Wizarding dependence/vulnerability of his spellbook.
It's not about tailoring your entire spell list specifically to the situation, it's about preparing the spell you need. Most problems an adventurer can encounter can be solved with just one or two spells of sufficiently high level: This is especially true for non-combat situations. It's simple enough to keep a sufficiently broad daily list of the spells that can cover the most common situations, and if you know you're going to be facing an issue in advance you can prepare a spell just for it (Hmm, we're talking to that crime boss tomorrow? Better prepare a Suggestion or two...). Also, keep a couple of slots open. You can prepare any spell into one with just 15 minutes of work, 1 minute if you take Fast Study.
And while you totally can mess with a wizard by restricting their access to scrolls or targeting their spellbook, this doesn't really make the wizard any less powerful, it just makes them more tedious and unfun to play.
Note that the claimed superiority of the wizard is only in the long term. In the short term, with a wizard and a sorcerer with the same spells known/prepared, a sorcerer is the superior choice. Aren't characters not allowed to rest while doing a scenario in PFS?
My biggest concern about keeping blessings vs switching to domains is that new domains will likely continue to be released (by 3pp, if nothing else), but unless we also see new blessings released with them, the warpriest will start falling behind. Keeping things with domains means not having to worry about needing to double-up on design space.
The problem with this approach is domains and blessings are designed with very different principles in mind: Even as-written, I like most blessings on a warpriest better than most domains. Furthermore, just giving the warpriest domain powers puts them another step closer to the cleric and inquisitor, which is frankly the very last thing the class needs. Make blessings more unique: Give the warpriest more stuff they can do that a cleric can't (or at least not so easily).
I'm a big fan of the IME concept from Goblins (as well as the more subtle spell aura colors from Order of the Stick). I like coming up with an IME for each character and fluff all the spells to visually have an effect consistent with the IME, and like to encourage players to do the same.
As far as I'm aware, its one of those 'unwritten design philosophies'. Like how, in the conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder, Paizo, more or less, tied BAB and Hit die together (Full BAB = D10 hit die, 3/4 BAB = d8 hit die, 1/2 BAB = d6 hit die).
Except it's not unwritten: The 3.5 -> Pathfinder conversion guide explicitly states that converted classes should follow the rule. It does *not* say "No class with full BAB should have a better spell progression than a Paladin or Ranger." Which would be quite the poignant piece of advice given the existence of things like the Duskblade and Mystic Ranger. It might be an unwritten assumption the team follows (and would help explain why the Bloodrager is so crippled) but if so, it's a stupid one.
There isn't any Cleric/Oracle hybrid (something a bit like the Arcanist), Mystic Theurge was added for its special ability.
... Something with both 10 levels of divine spells and 10 levels of arcane spells, might be broken. (Oracle/Sorcerer would answer the casting stat question/problem)
I started homebrewing a Cleric/Oracle Arcanist-analogue I called the Chosen, but gave up when I realized I couldn't separate the appropriate abilities for the class from the inevitable sue-ness that concept implied.
Also, arcane/divine casting is not as bad as people make it out to be. Sufficiently high level clerics and wizards can emulate each other's abilities pretty well with minimal effort, and both spell lists are so broad that they basically can do anything anyway (though sometimes in slightly different ways). It's only a significant boon at low levels. And even then, it's only broken (relative to what both classes can already do at least) if you really, *really* care about niche protection. (Thou shalt not give the wizard healing spells! It is verboten!)
In order for the Warpriest to be full BAB, his spell casting has to drop down to 4 spell level progression, like Ranger, Paladin and Bloodrager.
Says who? Full BAB isn't all that it's cracked up to be, really. WotC vastly overvalued full BAB (and attack/damage bonuses in general) for years and their class designs were crippled by it.
Spontaneous casters already can use Quicken Spell. See Metamagic Feats. Quicken Spell is called out as a specific exception to metamagic feats taking a full round action when used by spontaneous casters.
Really? That's awesome! I had no idea that was changed from 3.5. Good job, Paizo.
"And while in these states, they can as near-instinct cast some arcane spells. Fast, violent, and seemingly unstoppable, the bloodragers’ magic is murder."
Certainly evocative of melting faces with lightning, I think. I mean, it doesn't say...
"And while in these states, they can as near-instinct cast some arcane spells (just not very well unless buffing which they shouldn't be doing while raging anyway). Fast, violent, and seemingly unstoppable, the bloodragers’ magic is murder (not their spells magic, mind you, just their SU magic...their spell magic is kinda rubish at murder)."
I totally understand how you feel this way and I totally agree, but what's wrong with the bloodrage looking more like this?
I think it's important for Clerics, too. My Clerics all try to use their gods' favored weapons. But if it's not a very combat-oriented weapon I focus on something other than rolling attack rolls. But since the Warpriest is all about rolling attack rolls, I'd like to be able to do that with the favored weapon without *too* much of a handicap for a non-martial weapon.
I don't always play Clerics of Desna, but when I do, I just carry the starknife on my belt for looks and when it's necessary to make actual attack rolls I pull out a light crossbow (or a composite longbow, that one time I played an Elf).
While many ferocious people can tap into a deep reservoir of rage somewhere in their very being, bloodragers have a more intrinsic power, one that seethes in their blood. Like sorcerers, bloodragers’ blood surges with arcane power. Many of their kin use this power primarily for spellcasting, but bloodragers enter an altered state where their bloodline becomes manifest—rage becomes reality, where the potency of strange ancestral unions and deeds lashes out with supernatural fury with devastating ends. And while in these states, they can as near-instinct cast some arcane spells. Fast, violent, and seemingly unstoppable, the bloodragers’ magic is murder.
Role: Masters of the battlefield, a bloodrager’s bloodline and skill wreaks havoc on his enemies as he unleashes fearful carnage. His place is up front in his enemies’ faces, supplying tremendous martial support with a smattering of arcane casting. Adventurers who travel with a bloodrager learn to stay out of his way.
Doesn't say anything about melting your enemy's faces off with lightning. Granted it doesn't say anything contradicting that either, but your argument isn't as strong as you think.
The current direction of the class is not invalid, though I personally would have preferred a class with more focus on offensive spells. However, I do agree with Drachasor that the best way to go with this direction is to get rid of the offensive spells entirely. Sure you can try to make a Bloodrager who uses spells for offense, but it's a trap. We might disagree on this point, but I'd rather not have the option in the game at all than watch new players pick it and then get frustrated with their characters.
My idea? Make some Bloodrager-exclusive spells that mesh better with their casting style to replace the more traditional options. Here's an example:
Distracting Voices
School Illusion (Figment); Bloodrager 1
Casting Time 1 Standard Action
Components V
Range Personal
Target You
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates (see text); Spell Resistance No
With a roar, illusory voices (the content of which you may choose) emanate from you at a distance of 5 feet/level. Any enemy within this emanation must make a Will save or be distracted by the voices, becoming treated as being flanked so long as they remain in the area. Any enemy within your melee reach takes a -4 penalty on this save. An enemy that successfully saves must make an additional save each round to avoid the effect, but an enemy that fails its save does not receive new saving throws to resist (unless they exit the emanation and then re-enter). Special: If you cast this spell as part of entering a Bloodrage, this spell ends when the bloodrage ends (or when its duration expires, whichever comes first).
Completely unrelated to avoid double posting, I'd like to reiterate that giving Bones shaman unholy weapons at 11th level severely punishes people who want to play good-aligned bones shamans (or even shamans who occasionally take bones as wandering), since it essentially says "you can't use weapons after 11th."
But but but, good-aligned necromancers are verboten!
About the witch spell list: It's not as good as the wizard or cleric lists, true, but there's plenty of variety and a number of very potent spells. A witch without hexes would be an extremely potent character and potentially campaign-breaking character, if not up to snuff when compared to the other full casters.
The redesign on counterspell was intended to limit is utility a bit. The previous version encouraged arcanists to burn through their spell slots and reservoir at an alarming rate, and the end result is that opposing spellcasters had a very hard time getting any spells off at all. I am not convinced that the change went too far, but the previous rule was not working as intended (which for the record, is meant to make counterspell an occasionally useful option, not a prime strategy). There might be room for an exploit chain to enhance this option if the build is one that is truly desired, but even then, it is going to have to nerf Spell Parry in its language. That combo is ridiculously good.
I think a build that can counterspell effectively (even if it's limited to only one class) is a great idea, even though I agree it should take more investment than "Hey, here's one exploit every single arcanist is going to take."
With 3.5 material you could get similar abilities with a Cleric taking Divine Defiance, Spontaneous Domain Casting (Magic Domain), and the Inquisition domain (whether natively or from a level in Church Inquisitor). That's 3 class features and a feat, and you can get it online by level 5. I'd expect an arcanist to need a similar level of investment.
I've been playing with it for a while: It's mostly fine, honestly. It means spontaneous casters can make use of Quicken Spell (one of the most important metamagics for prepared casters) and it gives them an extra edge of in-encounter flexibility over prepared casters. Things only break down when you combine this with certain things that assume full-round action casting times for spontaneous metamagic, like Arcane Fusion (and the entire Arcanist metamagic mechanic). But those problems are patched easily enough.
