Desha's page

I really wonder how much "this is an entry level class" affected the design process. Since, while all of my favorite PF classes get to make a lot of choices as they go, I can see how "Choice Paralysis" is a real thing for some people (it's kind of why I dislike playing prepared casters) and particularly newer players who may be drawn to the concept.

English is my second language and it is hard to make classes like the druid for me because I need to read through bestiaries and find all the different animals just to play the class. I like the changes to shifter giving it more ability to use wildshape often, but I would not play it if it had druid wildshape.

Is this Pathfinder and 5E, or is 5E version a separate product?

I like the bladebound hook for a warlock class neat! May have to order the hardcover!

This might have already been asked somewhere, but for people who missed the Kickstarter will there be an option to get the book through Backerkit or something similar? Will you be doing preorders through Paizo?

Spheres vigilantes! Luchador abilities like en fuego and high flyer feel like they should be available earlier and then increase with level. Secret police get Sending at 1st level? Isn't that a 4th level spell? Even if its not very good as 4th level spell it should probably have limits. Can sky marine get more ship abilities? I know its got other stuff but that table has too many empty spots. I like enigma a lot X-men for pathfinder!

I like picking a common choice that applies to a lot of different enemies, like undead, and then focus more with each choice after that. But don't necessarily pick ones that are too common with your later choices, since you can use Instant Enemy for your largest bonus against cratures that aren't your favored enemies.

Thank you for the review. I will use what I can of it to push forward and continue to improve on my work.

As a fan of the book and someone whose GM has taken the time to write up a quick clarification document so we can continue to use it despite the flaws, I want to say that I think this response to a review that had some very harsh things to say shows class and aplomb, and I remain very much a fan of you and your work.

I have watched friends work on monster design for Pathfinder before and can easily imagine how much work went into the massive monster section of this book, so I just want to say that while I can not call out anything in Endzeitgeist's review as incorrect, I would still be tempted to give this 4 or more stars for its quality as a bestiary of whimsical and interesting monsters alone.

Desha wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I'm not sure where you're intending to go with this question.

If you're asking whether you can have a party without full casters, the answer is yes. You may need to adjust the way it can handle things but it can be done. So if you as a GM want to remove them from your game, that's your lookout.

If you're asking if full casters should be removed form the ruleset, a change that drastic would cause Paizo to have the same kind of player revolt that WOTC did when it inaugurated 4th edition, so that's not going to happen.

Would people still revolt if the wizard existed but was retooled to have the same level of power and versatility as a bard? For example, if a wizard worked more like an Ultimate Psionics psion and her specialty both limited her options and provided a very specific direction for her power, or if common spells like invisibility were retooled to add your caster level to your stealth check and let you be treated as having concealment if you start your turn unobserved. I think the most serious issues with full casters are not that they are full casters, but that the casting systems and options for full casters are so powerful and permissive. If you still had wizards and clerics but they were redesigned to line up better with Tier 3 classes, I think most people would be just fine with that, and many would actually appreciate the change.

More than likely, yes. Because you're not just talking about wizards, you're talking clerics, druids, oracles,sorcerers, witches, psychics and probably some more I can't remember. There are a lot of players who LIKE having those full casters around even if they don't play them themselves. You don't want to play them... fine. You want to forbid them in your own games, that's also fine.

But taking them away from everyone else because you don't like them is a supremely drastic step that's going to take more convincing than it would to persuade Asmodeus to give up the Hell gig and...

I am not saying take them away, I am saying make them better balanced to the other classes by removing the most abusable options and making the classes have to focus more on a particular theme. Right now, I can play a transmuter wizard with the exact same set of prepared spells as an illusionist, or a cleric with the Chaos Domain who has all the same spells prepared as a cleric with the Death Domain. If schools and domains influenced the character more heavily, and if you trimmed out some of the worst most powerful spells, you could easily have clerics and wizards that are still full casters and still use Vancian magic, but which are closer to Tier 3 then Tier 1. For Oracles it could be Mysteries, Sorcerers Bloodlines, Witches Patrons, and so on for the other full casting options. The problem seems to be two parts, first that schools and domains and similar options are things you can tack on without actually informing the other facets of your build, and the second that some spells are simply more powerful than other spells, even of the same level. Both of those seem like things you could easily fix without actually taking away someone's toys or sacrificing a sacred cow.

I'm not sure where you're intending to go with this question.

If you're asking whether you can have a party without full casters, the answer is yes. You may need to adjust the way it can handle things but it can be done. So if you as a GM want to remove them from your game, that's your lookout.

If you're asking if full casters should be removed form the ruleset, a change that drastic would cause Paizo to have the same kind of player revolt that WOTC did when it inaugurated 4th edition, so that's not going to happen.

Would people still revolt if the wizard existed but was retooled to have the same level of power and versatility as a bard? For example, if a wizard worked more like an Ultimate Psionics psion and her specialty both limited her options and provided a very specific direction for her power, or if common spells like invisibility were retooled to add your caster level to your stealth check and let you be treated as having concealment if you start your turn unobserved. I think the most serious issues with full casters are not that they are full casters, but that the casting systems and options for full casters are so powerful and permissive. If you still had wizards and clerics but they were redesigned to line up better with Tier 3 classes, I think most people would be just fine with that, and many would actually appreciate the change.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Does pathfinder need inquisitors? It's about options people like, not the sufficient conditions to complete an AP?

Well part of this was actually to discuss AP design. Personally, I think it's pretty nice that there's not a "You must have this many full casters to advance" sign on things. I've ready through consul of thieves, serpent's skull, skull and shackles, carrion crown, and a few others, and they thankfully don't seem to need this level of power.

I'm not saying the concept of the wizard or other full casters needs to be taken out of the game, just that the level of narrative power they have is excessive for anything that's published. Trust me, I've had fun with a few of them, I just feel like design could be better suited steering away from making more (ACG was pretty decent about this), or focusing on their support.

Inquisitors and bards have always been two of my favorite classes, and recently I've been playing more third party classes that seem to fit in that power range. I have played in Wrath of the Righteous, Jade Regent, and Iron Gods, and I don't think we had any 9 level spellcasters in any of those games and things still went just fine.

I do not think you really need 9 level spellcasters to play through any AP, and sometimes I think they make the game less fun, but I also think it is usually more a combination of certain spells and the fact that there are really no restrictions on specializing that are the problem. If wizards and clerics were more tightly focused on having the spells they can pick line up with their specialty schools or domains and you removed some problem spells from the spell lists, I don't think they would be as problematic as they sometimes can be.

I picked up my copy and have been looking at building a couple different battle lords. My GM has approved the class for our next game.

I am actually very interested in two of the archetypes, the eldritch chevalier and the cavalryman. Does anyone have experience playing either archetype?

The chevalier's spellcasting seems to work best with long duration buffing spells that she shares, but I am curious as to whether there's potential for her as a blaster or controller. Control spells in particular seem like there should be some good options for blending her Drills with a spell like black tentacles.

Does the cavalryman's mount really make up for not getting to add a stat to damage like the gunslinger? I thought maybe it would get to add Intelligence to damage, but it looks like it gets mostly defensive bonuses until Thunder and Steel is gained at 14th level. It also would have been nice if the archetype had a more gender neutral name, but I haven't been able to think of one that still tells you what the archetype does, so maybe you had the same problem.

If I may: The Battle Lord is currently by far the best martial commander class out there. Its versatility surpasses the Warlord and every single Talented Cavalier build I can come up with. Good skills and full BAB maintain flexibility and allow you to be the group's face, front-line fighter and buff-battery. The draw of the class lies not in teamwork feats, but in its class options, which greatly enhance the tricks available at your behest.

That is very high praise! I think you may have sold me on the class. Are there any particular options you thought were either really good, or not up to the standards of the rest of the material? Ssalarn had mentioned medics and scouts and I know there are other specialties like the artillerist Adam mentioned, which have you played or seen played and how did they do at that job? Could an artillerist replace a Gunslinger in a group?

That being said, few classes can match the versatility/amount of options/player agenda of Akashic classes, so I don't think the battle lord reaches that level of customization/flexibility. I do have a suggestion, though: Michael has written Bravery Feats for Rogue Genius Games that coincidentally work perfectly with the battle lord - if you add them to the fray, it'll take some time before things get boring - that I can guarantee, mainly since I've seen these guys in action for quite a while now. In my home-game, they're my go-to commander class...which should tell you something about the quality of the class.

Just my 2 cents!

Thank you! I actually have Bravery Feats, so I may have to see how these play together.

Desha wrote:

What Tier would this class be considered? 3, 4? I use Ssalarn's Akashic Mysteries classes, would the Battle Lord feel like it had enough utility alongside those classes? Is there anyone with experience playing this class in Paizo APs, and is it any good?

I feel that the Battlelord fits into tier 3. Not only does the base class provide a lot of customization, but the archetypes bring it to the next level. My favorites are the charisma based archetype (Warchief) that shares Rage Powers instead of teamwork feats, and a wisdom based archetype (Zealot) that trades aura/drill radius and a few drills known for channeling energy and gaining channel smite.

I am just wondering, what else is it you want from the Battle Lord? It definitely brings utility, but it can bring more than that.

I guess the two big things I am worried about are the fact that teamwork feats seem to be largely regarded as being fairly terrible, and the class itself getting boring to play after a while. I like the Akashic classes because I rarely take the same action twice in the same combat, and if I get bored playing a class one way, I can switch up my veils and play a very different style.

What makes the Battle Lord better than a Cavalier or another class that gets Tactician? How do Specialties compare to the Cavalier's Orders? How flexible is the class itself, both during an adventure and between one adventure and the next?

@Ssalarn

Thank you for the input and response! I'd like to know what a couple people who didn't write the class think before picking it up though. No offense.

What Tier would this class be considered? 3, 4? I use Ssalarn's Akashic Mysteries classes, would the Battle Lord feel like it had enough utility alongside those classes? Is there anyone with experience playing this class in Paizo APs, and is it any good?

GinoA wrote:

DR/(anything) doesn't stop energy damage. Any of the pure energy versions of blast will just ignore DR. Spell Resistance and Energy Resistance, however...

Ok everyone, the next AP we are playing is WoTR

Don't play a pyrokineticist! One of the guys at our game shop played one last week and he was totally worthless. He could barely even deal with the tiefling mooks!

there's real life playing and then there's theory crafting.

I just got done a few weeks ago, or rather simply left a thread right here on this board going on about how the rangers favored enemy and terrain were no good and should be re written, because it's not fair if they have to fight non favored enemies or go to non favored terrain.

seriously, if you search you can find it.

Some people not knowing how to play certain classes does not make those classes bad, it just means the player or GM does not know what they are doing. Ranger is one of my favorite classes and in addition to consistently being the best damage dealer in the group they are also one of the best classes with skills. They've got spells they can use to apply their favored enemy and favored terrain class features to anything, they get to automatically share those bonuses with their animal companion or half of those bonuses with all of their allies, and every adventure path I have ever played in includes a guide of what favored enemies and terrains you should be looking at. Rangers also get to pick up any cool weapon that drops and use it just as well as any other weapon while fighters get locked in to one specific weapon group so the ranger is actually more versatile in combat than the fighter.

On the original subject, other posters have already pointed out that archetypes are balanced as a package not class feature by class feature. Full classes also get to swap out parts of the class that archetypes do not normally touch like saves, base attack bonus, hit die and other pieces that are normally more essential to the class. I think there's pretty much just the right number of classes for the concepts Paizo has chosen to support.

Like I said.

Improvements to the fighter without getting TOO far out of whack were GREAT in 2008.

The fighter WAS, for the most part fixed. It was playable.

the out of combat thing is just nagging. Because the barbarian can't do a whole lot and neither can samurai or cavalier.

The barbarian has twice as many base skill points as the fighter and gets the all important perception as a class skill. The cavalier also gets twice as many skill points and has a reason to put points in charisma. Pointing out that a class is literally half as competent as his peers isn't nagging.

I was looking on the guru playtest and I noticed that it has a veil that seems like it is specifically written for multiclass guru/psion(metabolist) charcters. Why is that? It just seemed a little weird.

Release date for Liber Influxus Communis is almost here.

Is that the open release for everyone or just Kickstarter contributors? When you say almost here, do you mean this week or this month?

Here is things I WOULD like-

-A way to recognize good answers versus ones that seem way off. Maybe somethings like Amazon's "was this review helpful?" tag. Sometimes I see about 5 different opinions on an answer and it's hard to follow what the general consensus is. A tag like this could make it easy for people to vote in when they agree with someone's interpretation/explanation of rules.

I think the favorites button does this a little, but I haven't spent a lot of time on these boards so I don't know if it helps much. A wasthis helpful button would be nice, especially if it was tied to the search engine so more helpful posts rose to the top when you search.

The other thing I'd like to see is a healing monster who's better at condition removal. My cleribelle was great for fixing up team mates who'd had holes poked in them, but I couldn't find any monsters who gave more than maybe one condition removal spell. It would be nice if there was one monster who gave remove blindness/deafness, neutralize poison, cure disease, and the restoration spells.

I don't think the class would be hurt by making it full BAB. Considering the role it fills is more similar to that of a full BAB class and it's been balanced like the fighter with low skills and lower but consistent combat performance since it can go all day, it seems as though it is more of the fighter version of the psychic classes anyways.

Desha wrote:

It's a book whose theme is classes that influence their surroundings? Sounds neat but a little vague. Is this going to be available for people who weren't in the Kickstarter to purchase sometime soon?

I would say the theme of Liber Influxus Communis is communal power, synergy and sympatico - either with your surroundings, your allies or your foes attacks, among other things. With more than ten new Base Classes I'm actually very pleased to see the theme developed so well.

Though Greg will clarify this for you, I am almost certain the book will be available for non-Kickstarter backers - this is the beauty of Kickstarting a book in this way. Case in point - stretch goals for the recent Southlands Kickstarter by Kobold Press included new Advanced Races PDFs that themselves will be unit-shifting items.

Okay, I'm interested! Is there any idea when this will be available? From people who've seen it, what are your favorite classes? It sounds like there's a bender class, what are some of the other classes and how do they fit the "communal power, synergy and sympatico" theme?

It's a book whose theme is classes that influence their surroundings? Sounds neat but a little vague. Is this going to be available for people who weren't in the Kickstarter to purchase sometime soon?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Soon.. the mysteries will be revealed soon.

I'm going on lunch in 20. I really, really hope it's here when I get back...

Or I'm going to continue waiting.

That'll teach em.

Yes, the Supplemental release (the 4th and final entry in the series) will include magic items. I hadn't really thought about legacy items yet, but that could definitely be interesting...

I will consider that a request to look into akashic legacy items then :)

Maybe a quarterstaff that works as a stave and is specifically intended to mix with Eldritch Insight? Or call me a nerd but Jafar's staff could be neat as a legacy weapon.

Side question: If a creature with a poisonous bite gains an ability that allows to use a poisonous bite, can it use both? For example if the creature in question is a serpentine blooded sorcerer (or has eldritch heritage serpentine).

Wouldn't you need to choose to use one or the other each time you made the attack?

No problem.

If you want a tank build, let me know.

This is something I'd be interested in seeing!

Desha wrote:

Christmas monsters? So, you're saying I get a flying reindeer who gives me druid spells? :D

As a gift to you, absolutely.

Sweet!!!

Desha wrote:

Rysky wrote:

For me it was simply all the math that would be involved. Never played a psionic class (save for Soulknife) because of it but I don't hate psionics or ban them from my games, just not all that interested in them.

I actually thought power points made a lot more sense than the weird slot based tiers the wizard uses. I never played a wizard for that reason, but psionics made a lot more sense and finally got me to take that step into playing casters.

It sounds like there will be some classes in this release that use the new materials but aren't stuck with slot-casting, is that right?

I actually do like the point system, but only when I don't have to do the counting aka Video games :3

Lol! I think that the point based system works more like mana bars and stuff I'm familiar with from video games, so that's probably part of why I got it.

Will there be magic items you can invest essence into? Being able to take a suit of armor or weapon and change its enhancement bonus would be neat.

Have you thought about maybe doing legacy items with an essence component, kind of like the Dark Tempest's lightsaber thing in Ultimate Psionics, but with extra bonuses you can add by investing?

Okay, I wanted to give the head's up, as it wouldn't be fair to spring this on anybody. I'm not going to be able to get everything done in time with Haunted Eve that I wanted. Family issues and surgery were involved in the delay.

With that in mind, I am still going to finish the monsters section and have it out as a "Halloween Monsters" expansion for now and include with it a discount (in some form) for the completed book when I can finish it. For the moment, you'll still be able to enjoy all of the awesome creatures that Haunted Eve brings with it, and once there's a chance for me to finish the rest of the guide to the Scribe's Marsh, I will make sure it's totally worth the wait.

Sorry for the inconvenience on my end, but I hope you still enjoy the Halloween Monsters pack when it's finished. I think I'll do the same thing with Christmas so as not to promise too much with too little time going forward.

Thank you. - Malcolm

Christmas monsters? So, you're saying I get a flying reindeer who gives me druid spells? :D

For me it was simply all the math that would be involved. Never played a psionic class (save for Soulknife) because of it but I don't hate psionics or ban them from my games, just not all that interested in them.

I actually thought power points made a lot more sense than the weird slot based tiers the wizard uses. I never played a wizard for that reason, but psionics made a lot more sense and finally got me to take that step into playing casters.

It sounds like there will be some classes in this release that use the new materials but aren't stuck with slot-casting, is that right?

I haven't played a Wilder before, but was looking at the class for an upcoming game, so I'd be interested in hearing answers to these questions as well!

I got a big kick out of M:KoM as well! My only issue was that I was going to play the healer in the group, and even with using my Cleribelle (it's basically the number one healing monster), I was pretty limited to just healing hit point damage. There just weren't a lot of options for playing a dedicated healer who could fix hit point damage and recover status effects like poison, disease, ability damage, etc.