This was fun! Nice going Isis!
Search Posts
Hi Lance! I worked on the MCA project, though I did design work on only a minority of individual MCAs. That said, I've read most of them and done editing on a lot of them. None of the ones I've looked at will break a game by being too powerful. Some of them might be, as Starfox mentioned, less capable than more focused core class builds... but I think that's fine. Every play group has a different emphasis on power, and a real RP-focused group isn't going to have issues with the MCAs. My 2¢! :)
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some oozes this year :)
We've decided to avoid making any and all MCA or MCP references or comments in the playtest forums, will NOT be responding to any, and encourage you guys to avoid making such references. While I agree it would be in poor taste to advertise all over the playtest forums, I don't see any point in telling people not to make comparisons. Our work has two years times five people plus countless forum contributors behind it. Paizo's has... well, we have no idea. At least one person who thought that reskinning existing domains would contribute something of value to the core ruleset? I'm not going to go littering the playtest with self-aggrandizement. I'm probably not going to go to the playtest forums at all. Honestly, I wish Paizo payed more attention to fine-tuning its systems and less to bloating said systems. Carry on :)
I'd much rather see limitation of proficiency be a roleplay thing than a mechanical thing, because the ways we have of acquiring proficiencies aren't "worth it" mechanically in most cases. Maybe spend one skill point to become proficient with a single weapon of your choice?
1. yes
EDIT: necromental, did you see that this, unlike Power Attack, decreases DAMAGE in order to boost ATTACK rolls? I think it's mostly for rogues and monks to hit with their special attacks..? I think fighters wouldn't want this feat.
Yeah, maybe make it have automatic feather fall (self only) at 1st level, levitate (self only) at 3rd level, and then have it gain the flying ability at 5th. That way, there's a good progression of abilities that are useful without breaking assumptions. I see what you did there. Cute.
I think it's sweet. If you want to make using it in combat viable, I'd give the witch diminished spellcasting and make sure the witch has the tools to swing the broom. Broom enhancements are one way but as MrSin said the witch has 1/2 BAB so she might need an extra push. Also, I think the broom should have a constant speed of 30 feet. Maybe make a new hex that increases the broom's speed at higher level.
Hm. Raider, you certainly made your concept work, but it doesn't feel like a bard to me. Maybe I'm biased but I don't see how this redo is an improvement mechanically or multiclass-wise. It's a perfectly fine cavalier archetype but I'm starting to wonder if I'm missing the boat. What are we trying to accomplish here? Why are we reworking the same archetypes again and again? And why are we changing them so drastically rather than using iterative development to work on things like balance? Sorry to be a grouch but I don't get it.
Olfactor is sweet. It's weird, and that makes it the perfect companion to the mix artist :) I agree with finding some way to get stink bombs in there. Ninja smoke/poison bombs use ki points right? Could just let the olfactor take those discoveries and throw a bomb by spending one of his daily fragrance uses...?
Nooooo not the knight errant he's perfect.
If you're uncomfortable with a given spell tier, of course, you can still play to - oh, say 10th level - and announce that zero to 4th (for example)-level spells are available but 5th-level spell slots are strictly for metamagic (casters with no metamagic at all are still able to use those 5th-level slots for extra 4th-level spells.) Then your martials are getting full power and your spellcasters are at almost full power, but without spells of the level you deem problematic. You can also bump up (or ban) individual spells.
What DarthPinkHippo said :)
I certainly wouldn't accuse you of it. But someone would. Someone would post a thread much like this one, saying that their cavalier doesn't feel different enough from fighters. "Can I have six skill points per level?" he will ask.
You can always improve. Buffing the cleric isn't that kind of improvement, though. It's an unsustainable improvement because if you just buff every class eventually you need to increase the power level of the entire system and then the cycle restarts.I'm not sure if that's how that works. If you were to make fighters, monks, and rogues more on par with other tier 3 classes and give them interesting and fun options, the game won't break. Similarly if you gave clerics things to make them attractive but won't add anything actually powerful to them then you won't have to raise the bar(in particular things that allow it to perform multiple playstyles beyond channeling and healing). If you gave every class with 3/4 BAB martial weapons proficiency for instance, you removed a tax and 1 or 2 damage probably won't require monsters to be boosted at all. Or if you gave all non intellect based classes with 2+ skill points 4+ it makes those classes more competent, but skill points won't have to be risen all around, that ignored the point of raising the skill points in the first place. I think it is precisely how it works. Unfortunately, the closer you come to real balance, the more opportunity you give players to raise absurd complaints. If you make fighters and rogues better, barbarian players will cry foul. If you raise every class to 4 skills, cavalier and alchemist players will object. Everyone wants to feel special and inhabit some kind of niche. And the more similar you make all classes mechanically, the more the 4th-ed haters will complain. It's a fine line between differentiation and relegation, but differentiation is necessary. It would be great if we could accomplish all the differentiation needed just by giving each class a full suite of flavorful abilities... ... but then people want archetypes, and then people want multiclass archetypes, and then you degrade the differentiation, and then players don't feel special enough (how often have you heard someone on these forums say "every other class can do what the rogue is supposed to do"?), and then you're back where you started. Does my perception of a kind of cycle not make sense? Rather than handing things out to classes, putting band-aids on perceived issues, I think it would be much more productive to examine the root causes of our dissatisfactions. Once we've identified those, we can work on fixing the game systems that perpetuate them.
doc, did you read my posts before responding? I ask because you seem to think I'm against improving the game, which is totally not where I am coming from. I think the game is lacking and deeply flawed in a lot of ways (doesn't mean I don't love it), and would love to improve it. Giving the cleric more things on top of its current goodies is not the solution because it creates more problems (further making the cleric that much better than most classes).
Oh! I misunderstood then. Its... probably an endless cycle. I'd like to think you can always improve though. Especially when the same complaint occurs a few times over. You can always improve. Buffing the cleric isn't that kind of improvement, though. It's an unsustainable improvement because if you just buff every class eventually you need to increase the power level of the entire system and then the cycle restarts. This came up in another thread I was posting in recently, but someone made some comments about spellcasters and balance and it depressed me because it seemed like the poster was tacitly accepting that spellcasters should be limited and unfun at some levels, and that noncasters should be limited and unfun at other levels, and that this is good balance. If the connection isn't obvious, I think it lies in the kinds of abilities the different classes have at different points in the game. And I think one of the biggest problems in Pathfinder is how different classes progress on totally different curves. If there's a place to improve, it's there, I think. Can we imagine a cleric who loses spellcasting entirely in exchange for a set of powers that gives it a fair (and fun) progression while maintaining a tight theme? Did D&D 4e try to do something similar?
It does!!
It amazes me how there will always be some complaint about every class. For me, the thematic mechanics of the cleric are its spell list. I guess it's less special now that every class has a million abilities. The cleric is strong, the cleric is cool. But every class sucks if you ask the right person. Clerics, druids, and wizards have always been high-tier. Other classes creep up on them, or derivatives are made for people who like options (oracle, magus) and suddenly these high-tier classes seem less appealing. Feels a bit arms-race-y to me. Where does it end? Something to consider.
I pretty much have to say spellcasters suck in the early levels. At level 1, you have a few class features that you can use a couple of times per day, you have low armor class and low hit points and very little battle presence. You can cast a powerful spell like sleep or color spray, but if your opponent succeeds their saving throw, you wasted your action. And while you could argue that the same is true of a warrior, the difference is that the warrior has many more ways to make sure he hits, like attacking a target who's prone, flanking, using a masterwork weapon, taking the Weapon Focus feat, pumping Strength, attacking from high ground, charging, etc etc. Spellcasters have Spell Focus, and that only works for one school of spells they have. Playstyle is different. Power levels aren't exact and hierarchical. Spellcasters have disadvantages in the early game. This shouldn't be touted as balance. At its best, it's a flaw in the system that some characters are more fun at some levels and others at others. But again, if you have a cooperative GM and a good group of players these issues are nonissues.
So you choose a neutral deity. Or you work with your GM to create a new one, or a set of ideals (there are godless clerics). There are so many ways around this that it's hard to call it a hard and fast rule for clerics. It's a bit of pseudo-balance wrapped up in flavor that does not make the game much better.
Spellcasters are supposed to suck at early game. Take that away and you will wreck what little balance there is right now. I think this is hyperbolic. So I'll respond with another exaggeration (though I do think there's a grain of truth):Balance only exists in Pathfinder when the GM and players collaborate to ensure its presence. (Also, really? A certain class of characters is supposed to suck? I think you need to either reevaluate that premise or reevaluate the game you play. All characters should be viable and fun at all levels. And I don't think spellcasters suck early game in the current system—they're just less than godly.) I completely agree that the idea of the mystic theurge is kind of whack: it gives one character basically all the tools. But in a party where that doesn't decrease the fun for the rest of the players, there's no real issue. Mystic theurge as a base class doesn't upset CR balance at any level, I think, because of action economy restrictions. The main thing this change accomplishes is allowing players to feel more than incompetent while gaining the flavor they want from an earlier level. The secondary thing it accomplishes is allowing the character to not suck in the late game. You also don't have any alignment restrictions, meaning the mystic theurge gains access to all alignment divine spells at once, making it far superior to a cleric in terms of raw damage and condition infliction. Neutral clerics can already do this, as can oracles. In any event, I'm not convinced that power balance according to a janky platonic alignment system is the way to go. (Arguably, the paladin needs the alignment system because its abilities are too good to apply all the time, but that doesn't make it good game design.) To each their own, of course! P.S. Out of curiosity, do you think that the normal mystic theurge is broken? Because assuming 7th level entry, in each of its spell progressions, it's only one spell level behind the mystic theurge base class I'm proposing. So it has "the ability to just have two separate spell progressions." It gets "the full wizard spell list with all its offensive and personal buff capabilities, combined with the healing and support spells of a cleric." There is "literally nothing" it can't do. And yet a lot of people deem the mystic theurge kind of underpowered. Make what you will of that.
Hi Forbiddenlightbulb! Nice archetype. Reminds me of Hodge Podge's entry in RPG Superstar this year. Have you seen it?
Okay okay fine. I'm putting this in spoiler tags because I don't want it to dominate the thread; I already feel conspicuous coming into someone else's thread and doing this... Anyway, here's a formalized write up of my suggestion. If there're any typos or whatnot let me know and I'll edit it. I think all the abilities are in order.
Spoiler: Hit Die: d6.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Mystic theurges are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff. Mystic theurges are not proficient with any type of armor or shield. Spells: At 1st level, the mystic theurge selects one divine spellcasting class and one arcane spellcasting class. The mystic theurge gains the spellcasting methods of those classes. The mystic theurge's spellcasting progresses as though he had levels in each of those classes equal to his mystic theurge level. For the purposes of determining spells per day and spell DCs for each of his spellcasting methods, the mystic theurge uses the ability score that he would use if he were the class whence that method derived. (For example, if the mystic theurge selects the sorcerer's casting progression, he uses his Charisma score and modifier for his arcane spellcasting.) If the mystic theurge's spellcasting methods require tools (such as spellbooks or divine focuses), the mystic theurge is capable of using these tools. Armored Casting: The mystic theurge ignores arcane spell failure while wearing light armor if his arcane spellcasting progression is taken from a class that ignores arcane spell failure, such as the bard or magus. This does not apply to arcane spells received from other classes. Combined Spells (Su): A mystic theurge can prepare and cast spells from one of his spellcasting methods using the available slots from any of his other spellcasting methods. Spells prepared or cast in this way take up a slot one level higher than they originally occupied. This ability cannot be used to cast a spell at a lower level if that spell exists on both spell lists. At 5th level, a mystic theurge can prepare 1st-level spells from one of his spellcasting classes using the 2nd-level slots of the other spellcasting class. Every two levels thereafter, the level of spells that can be cast in this way increases by one, to a maximum of 8th-level spells at 19th level (these spells would take up 9th-level spell slots). The components of these spells do not change, but they otherwise follow the rules for the spellcasting method used to cast the spell. If one of the mystic theurge's spellcasting methods is spontaneous and the other prepared, he can only cast a spell from his other method using his spontaneous casting slots if he prepared that spell that day, though this functions even if the spell has already been cast. For example, a mystic theurge with cleric and sorcerer spellcasting can use this ability to spontaneously cast a bless spell using a 2nd-level sorcerer spell slot, if the character had a prepared bless spell using a 1st-level cleric spell slot, even if that spell had already been cast that day. Spell Synthesis (Su): At 10th level, a mystic theurge can cast two spells, one from each of his spellcasting classes, using one action. Both of the spells must have the same casting time. The mystic theurge can make any decisions concerning the spells independently. Any target affected by both spells takes a -2 penalty on saves made against each spell. The mystic theurge receives a +2 bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance with both spells if they share a target. The mystic theurge may use this ability once per day at 10th level and one additional time per every five levels thereafter, to a maximum of 3 times per day at 20th level.
A fighter is the ultimate in custom ass kicker building, you can build pretty much any type of hero with nearly any details you want. I fail to see how near absolute freedom to build the hero you want is not fun for people. Everyone finds different things fun. There are a lot of people who like the fighter because he has no X/day abilities. Those people would no doubt be baffled by this thread. Clearly, however, there is some demand for what is happening in this thread :)
Hahahaha WOW you put a lot of love into this. It's awesome. I can't comment on balance because I haven't yet had an opportunity to read the whole thing carefully, but man I want to run this :)
I don't think the idea is to make them better at combat. I think the idea is just to make them more fun to play :)
Word, that's fair. Good call. :)
Yeah, in fact I think instead of formalizing my "Mystic Theurge fix," I'm just going to push that archetype haha. My previous comments to zergtitan stand, though. I think his method is fine and interesting it just needs a bit of tweaking.
Ah. Raider doesn't like the idea of the guy casting mage armor on himself, or something? Oh well that's fine. Okay thanks for the summary Elghinn! (Did we also change the name?)
I understand adding Heal, Tom, but I'm not sure about Diplomacy or Sense Motive. Also I don't think the Mystic Theurge should lose any knowledges. I guess I'll do a proper write up of my suggestion in a bit (work calls). P.S. I guess my bros over at Multiclass Productions also have a multiclass archetype that provides a similar flavor from 1st level. So here's another attempt at fixing the MT, for consideration by anyone else in this thread: Sacred Thaumaturge.
Same as wizard would be my default.
Hey guys, sorry my first post after a prolonged absence is a red flag, but can we hold on a moment and go back to the #Arcane Fist. What's changed? It's hard to figure it out just by looking back through the forum thread. Could someone summarize the changes for me please? I ask for a few reasons—
Let me know! And sorry :< As soon as I get this settled I'll be looking at what else is going on in the thread :) Edit: p.s. AWESOME Alfray, I've added the shared folder to my Drive so I'll be backing up a copy of these as well. :)
Love the calculator. I haven't read through the whole doc though. Good work!
I would play this rogue, Lord Twig, and I don't think it would decrease fun for ANYONE at the table. So good job!
This might be a campaign best run as an e6, which generally avoids the alleged high level power disparity between the classes that are unplayably bad and the ones that are overpowered and broken, whichever those are. This. Also, in a typical E6 life cycle, you're less likely to have tons and tons of gold to spend on christmas tree decorations. For a long-term campaign that's going all the way into the 12-20 range, you're going to want to adopt a system that gets noncasters the kinds of bonuses that they would normally get by equipping magical items. Otherwise they'll suck next to casters. Alternatively, you could just nerf casters, but that comes with two problems: first, it won't be fun for the casters; second, the party will be weak and you'll need to adjust their APL down.
.
I have stressed all of the above yet he still sits on the fact I need either cover or concealment to use stealth and refuses to accept "can use stealth even while being observed" Emphasis mine. That's RAW. He's not playing by RAW. He's honestly always grumpy and it "annoys" him as he says that I always come to Pathfinder on Sundays with a smile because I'm happy. Well then. He's not playing by rule of fun either. Good riddance. Hope you find a better GM!
The real problem here is that too many abilities/effects are all or nothing dependent on the die roll. What I'd really like to see—and maybe I'll work on this if no one else is doing it/has done it—would be a revamped spell list where all these save-or-suck spells had partial effects. (I realize that this might seem like gravy for a wizard who's already loaded up on SoS spells, but it could be accompanied either by additional rules to mitigate this boost or by a recommendation for responsible gaming.)
I had a DM back in 3.5 days who would have said this was unfair. He was wrong. If someone creates a melange of abilities that is somehow game-breaking, deal with that as an individual case. Generally speaking, options like these only improve roleplaying and player satisfaction. The only real downside I can foresee is that players will be confronted with a lot more options—suddenly, the decision tree for character advancement becomes huge—and might take longer to pick their class features :)
If you're going this route, zergtitan, I would make it so that at each level of Mystic Theurge, you choose whether you're improving your arcane class features or your divine class features. Both at once is problematic, as LazarX said. And, as Dasrak said, the real problem is the set of entry requirements. Here's MY fix to the Mystic Theurge:
Simple, sweet, no sitting around waiting before getting to play the character you want. Your class features are: having more spells.
I'd play in a heartbeat, but to be honest that's largely because I haven't been playing enough Pathfinder. I've never played with BB rules but Pathfinder on the whole can do with some simplifying. It's a Byzantine system that tries too hard in a lot of ways. I would welcome faster combat and alleviation of gray areas :)
I like this, ThatEvilGuy. It's cool.
And I agree with rainzax, not sure you need a bunch of mental score requirement abilities, when the vancian feat selection sort of automatically incentivizes being slightly more moderate in ability score distribution. Looking forward to a final version!
Hi williamoak! This might not be helpful at all at this point in the discussion, but I accomplished a similar feel in a campaign I ran once by having my players start out with low fantasy arrays and one NPC class level. They didn't get their first PC class level until the end of the first session, at which point they were still weaker than the typical level 2 character. Because I was throwing encounters at them with CR as though they were normal PCs of their level, the game was pretty hard (I pulled a couple punches to keep things fun). But with each new level, the % of the PCs' levels which were NPC levels decreased, so their power relative the challenges they faced increased even if only slightly. When we finished the campaign they were at level 5 or 6 and they were really feeling like they'd accomplished something, like they had started in one place and gone to another place—zero to hero as you say. I don't think this approach suits every campaign or even every playgroup but it worked very well for me and I think it produced the kind of dynamic you're looking for.
Why would you put a proficiency in a first level class feature that isn't an option? Could just list it under proficiencies right? Maybe I'm missing something. Sweet class, though. Gunblades are the coolest and I think you did a good job translating them into PF.
Cute, I like it.
Raider has brought to my attention that the insightful mind can, at high levels, generate a buttload of AC, exceeding amounts possibly attained by other classes by using its canny defense ability in conjunction with personal-range buffs. I think that buttloads of AC are overrated, and not a huge problem, because a lot of the scariest things in the game don't target AC. But I also think that anomalies are worth looking into. Raider showed me some math and it makes sense to me: I do mean buttloads. So yeah, reconsider canny defense, or at least the ways in which it interacts with the class's other abilities!
Separate threads for MCAs doesn't sound bad actually. I mean, there're multiple threads for archetypes—they don't all get merged into a single "new archetypes" thread.
Great thread :)
No no, you get L1 eidolon @ L1, then it doesn't level until L4, like the sylvan bloodline animal companion.
Eh.
What else does the build need? Sorry I haven't read every wall of text in the current discussion :)
|