It's that way because that is how the sorcerer works... which is what the spellcasting part of the class is based on. I have house ruled bringing all of those down two levels, on both the sorcerer and the oracle, it make prestige classing a harder choice but easier to do.
A Designer wrote:
Honestly if you only want designer feedback pm or email them. Otherwise, since this is a public forum, people are going to try to hash things out among themselves. I think that this promotes more ideas from us and the gives the designer a different perspective that allows them to change their mind later. This is, after all, still in beta. The more perspectives and ideas they get to read the better the final version will be.
it's because it is summoned back healed, it made more sense when it came back fully healed.
Is it just my pdf or do all of them have errors in the names of the classes. at the very beginning of the description of the classes the titles are:
Although I might be interested in seeing what a C V Lier is, and the L Chemist could be exactly what the class is, i'm not sure this is what you want it to say.
I think the only thing i would have like to have seen that didn't get added is the cure spells, bard gets them, and they took the progression from the bard, and it would make sense with the reduced HD for them to be able to heal their eidolon, and while they could never replace the cleric as a healer, it'd be a good addition to the party.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
We thank you for anything you can give us, it didn't blow up in your face as far as i'm concerned. you, and paizo always do right by us, we have your back.... well most of us.
This is from Websters Dictionary
The oracle is a speaker, not a teller of the future!!!
I would say the basics should cover you.Mithral chainshirt enchanted
some sort of dex increaser
amulet of na
ring of protection
wand of cure wounds
beyond that i wouldn't work too hard at it.
Are the alchemist bombs spontaneous? I realize he has to prepare them but does he have to prepare so many regular bombs, and so many force bombs(assuming he has the discovery), or does he just prepare so many bombs and choose what type they are on the fly?
yes, they are spontaneous, he makes them when he needs them. he in no way prepares them. every morning he makes the containers for them but that is all, and even that is represented in the same way a sorcerer meditates for a little to be ready to cast his spells.
If you mean living in a closet with frank zappa's music, i'd have to say any time you damn well please. he was a beautifully crazy genius, the best kind.
In the camp i'm currently playing in we have an oracle. at first glance i thought it was a damn good class, maybe not equal to the cleric in healing but useful none the less. i was very wrong. the character is 2 levels ahead of the rest of the party and has repeatedly run out of things to do, except hit it with a crossbow. it reminded me of a first level, 2nd edition wizard, "I cast magic missile" then i shoot at it with a crossbow while the rest of the party kills it.
i felt sorry for the player who was frustrated with the lack of options. to add to it, if she used her spells for anything except healing the party needed to wait days before being fully healed. we spent two days on the top floor of a building in a zombie filled city, because she couldn't even take out the zombies like a cleric could.
the class turned out to be below average.
Can anyone please cite me where it says the Summoner can directly and unilaterally control its Eidolon's actions? I can't find any such reference in the text. The Summoner can certainly tell the Eidolon what to do, but the Eidolon has the option of saying "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that". Obviously that's not going to happen often, but there's nothing to suggest that Eidolons are mindless automatons (especially since they do have Intelligence scores), nor that the Summoner has absolute authority over them.
+1 This is an incredibly important thing to remember to all the DM's out there!
Dire Hobbit wrote:
I want to second the sentiment that the new classes should feel like they belong in the campaign "world".
this, as stated above, is entirely up to the DM, and these classes are not supposed to be like that, they are not core classes. this is stated in the beginning of the play-test.
Dire Hobbit wrote:
I wasn't able to organize a playtest of the classes in my group. I will say though that in our campaign, we do relatively little traditional "dungeon-crawling". Most of the action is story based with political intrigue, investigations of crimes or strange occurrences, well on and on. If a character class does not have, what I call "the Big 5"; bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, linguistics, sense motive, that character is going to spend a lot of time standing on the sidelines while the principals of the story argue.remember even if you don't have it as a class skill you can still put points into it, you just don't get an additional +3, it's not as bad as 3.0 or 3.5, it's not divided in half.
Dire Hobbit wrote:
I'd say how a character class fits into a world is extremely important. And if they don't the player is going to become frustrated with the character.It is, and they are, but this stuff is up to the players and the DM. to set it down in stone, is silly, the base classes (fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric) do not have how they fit into the world written down. a fighter can be a diplomat, a rogue can be a diplomat, a wizard can be a diplomat, a cleric can't be but we can't all be at something besides healing(just joking, cleric's can make great diplomats) the other classes in the core book are variants of these classes, specialized.
Dire Hobbit wrote:
you are so very wrong, lots of summoners changes things fantastically think of all the "wars" that could be fought between eidolons instead of people, no deaths. suddenly there is a sprouting of arenas that focus purely on summoner fighting (thing pokemon) and the effects of that. then just take them away and the worlds go back to what they were before the classes, kinda sad huh.
Dire Hobbit wrote:
Am I a hard core, "Core classes only" zealot? Hardly! But the Summoner and Alchemist just don't feel like they are in the world nor is the world affected by them.
That is limited by you and your imagination. I can't help you there.
First i'd like to start off by apologizing for my last post, i was in a bad mood and took it out on you, i didn't even think about it until i re-read my post. I am sorry.
as far as the lonely elf turning the wolf in to a barbed devil, well i would say for one the rules, you can't change base forms, a quadruped is stuck with that form. you can only change all it's evolution points when you level up, excepting of course the spell that hasn't been introduced yet. and my DM would laugh at me if i wanted to make such a dramatic change without a damn good reason.
if the summoner is world breaking you should disallow the rogue, i've created hundreds of different flavors of rogue, from the country bumpkin skill using rogue that hates combat, to a sneaky bastard that would stab you in the back if he thought it would make him a buck. the lonely elf is in fact replacing a rogue i had made that avoided combat at every chance, first words at sign of combat where always, "Can't we talk this out?". I can go on and on, the summoner is only as world breaking in flavor as much as any other class, or your imagination.
Puma D. Murmelman wrote:
Makes sense to me, my summoner is a female elf and she has sex with her wolf like eidolon. i made the DM laugh his ass off and kinda grossed out the other players. ;)
Does it have to be?No, but to stop it from being so changes the class a lot and then it'd be compared to the druid and when that happens it looses, the druid is just to kick ass for you to make a class comparable.
I can appreciate your perspective, but customization is what makes pen and paper tabletop fun. It's the same concept behind not having a lawful-good paladin (or anything else out of Aracana Unearthed). This class is just a variant of another core class... why can't it go from being a pet class to a summoning class (it IS the summoner after all, another thread points out some people's desire for a name change, I like it though.) This just changes the direction a little closer to the original class, a Conjurer focued on summon spells. Having new spells would only make it easier to have a closer to prefab monster. I guess that prefabs would make it a moot point though.
I don't disagree that all the groovy stuff in the arcana unearthed isn't, well, groovy. but making it not a single pet class just changes the point (of the class) entirely.
Umm, yes, character are more than just number on a page. but, the other part of the character doesn't need to be talked about in a play test. i can tell you detailed info about my character, but it wouldn't change the damage per round the character deals out.you are wrong, a character can be completely independent from rules... otherwise GURPS wouldn't work as a system.
I'd believe you are unimpressed with the summoner... you want everything spelled out for you so you don't have to be creative.
I love the summoner class because of it's undefined, changeable abilities. i can have a wolf like creature that is summoned by a lonely elf far away from home. or it can be a figment of my characters imagination making it more of a disjointed creature with a flexible form.. I know you want all the rules tied down for you. I would tell you to not play this imaginative class instead, play a fighter, you can hit things good.
I don't need the book to tell me how to role-play something. I need it to have rules put down, that are well balanced. I came up with a great summoner that I can't wait to play. I don't need to share this info with people on the boards because it shouldn't effect what they do with the class. however what game effects the class has are very important to the people on the boards.
as far as the mechanics of the summoner, alchemist, and witch, these classes are optional, they are not automatically added into the campaign unlike the other classes which for the most part should be in the campaign. (this was stated at the start of the play test.) if you don't like them don't put them in, tell you're pc's no. if you dm is allowing them it's up to you if you want to play them. i'm not limiting what i play, and what is playable in my camp's based on how you feel.
My problem however, is I don't see what this class purpose is over all. I see this class as a mad bomber/grenadier theme. Which I am completely ok with, but I don't see him as something very effective. As it seems to take an entire full round action to actually make and throw one of his potions, and if I'm not mistaken, he has to much nearer then he would probably want to be after throwing some of theses bombs.
I don't need a purpose from a class i can apply it my self. i would say the class needs the ability to focus, but most of the suggestions from the other threads do that nicely.
Personally i'm hoping all the first level spells, that make sense to be, get made into items that the alchemist can craft.
This just popped into my head and i wanted to see what the machine could turn it into.
The alchemist has some badass poison abilities, what about being allowed to turn spells into poisons. a poison of geas, charm monster/person, and the like, even baneful polymorph. some make more sense as a drinkable poison than any sorta poison applied to a knife, but it could be cool. and it'd make good use of the poison abilities.
I don't really have a problem with the splash part of the bomb damage as much as i do with the range, 10' increments. If i could throw it more than 10' away without taking bigger and bigger penalties it would work better in combat.
I still like the idea of using the evolution pool from the Eidolon (from the summoner) for the mutagens. drink a potion, gain an arm! ;)
I love the poison abilities, but they should be turned into discovery's and optional.
Lord Haliaeetus wrote:
Conservatives VS. Liberals, Who Cares?
I do. I find deciding who is running the country important. I enjoy the argument on both sides, I like conflict by nature, and think good things come out of conflict. I know there are many that don't think it's important and both sides are the same, and i would agree you should stay out of it. Leave it to people who care.. just don't complain, you don't care.
i would say just one, because all the other things work the same way, if you buy a extra set of hands you have to buy claws for each set.
Alex Root wrote:
An Inquisitor can cast spells. To become a Lich, one must cast spells and have a caster level of at least 11 (with a few other prereqs that aren't pertinent to the issue at hand). Does this mean that a level 11 Inquisitor of an evil god could feasibly become a lich?
can you become a Lich if you cast divine spells?
Abraham spalding wrote:
The only point the Bomb has on the fireball, and it is a fairly big one -- is the lack of save or negation for the splash damage. If you are in the splash range you will get splashed evasion or not.
This is a good point, one i hadn't thought of.
Abraham spalding wrote:
this is true, i just didn't want to spend much time on the side explaining why the wizard has a higher int no one is going to argue that a 18 int wizard is impossible.
Abraham spalding wrote:
In addition that fireball is a standard action with huge ranged, where as the bomb is a full rounds worth of actions still and has much more limited range.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
if you expand the amount to include other people, what else would you assume to be true. that all the squares are occupied if yes, then you would then assume that everyone missed the save, it just gets really complicated. so i just did it on the basis of hitting one person with the fireball, if you want to do the math, when you do the math, the wizard memorizing nothing but fireballs, that is made to throw those fireballs is going to quickly out distance the alchemist in damage.
The Wizard cannot pull off nearly as many fireballs as the Alchemist can pull off bombs in a day, but I Don’t think that’s a fair argument. The Alchemist can focus strictly on bombs, and with discoveries like the incendiary bomb, he might come close to pulling of as much damage with a single bomb as a wizards fireball, if the target stays within the cloud.
A alchemist at 10th level with a 18 int (not unreasonable to assume) would be able to throw 14 bombs that day. a wizard with a 18 int if he wished to focus on fire ball could throw 10 fireballs that day. the average damage output for the alchemist a day is around 301, not including splash damage. the average damage output for the wizard for a day of fireball throwing is 350, to only one target.
but thats with the wizard memorizing nothing but fireball in all his 3rd level and higher spells, so he wouldn't be doing much else.
That's my thought. Thank you.
When one feat requires that you charge and the other feat requires that you do not charge, you need something to let them both operate at the same time.
Still not sure where it says that.
Spring Attack (Combat)
Ride-By Attack (Combat)
here are the feats, ride-by uses a charge, the other doesn't, the other limits movement, to normal move, the other limits it to double. why would i need a feat if i meet all the requirements.
i really do want a valid reason, currently i would say it's a dm call, i would allow it, as did my dm. if you and yours do not i have no reason to say other wise.
it's because they based the spellcasting off of the bard, both in how fast they get the spells and number they know, and finally how it works (Spontaneously). i like them better as a spontaneous caster. they did this with the alchemist, which i think should be another preparation caster, though i don't mind the different progression on them, and they did it with the inquisitor. rather or not you like this, this is what they did for the play tests.
LOL this is conversely the most brilliant idea ever, and the worst idea ever... any DM that allows this should be shot.