Matthew Vickrey's page

Look at the Lyric Spell feat in Complete Mage. WotC has actually written quite a few nice feats for bards.

Reviewing some of those bardic music feats might give some insight on how to best incorporate new elements into the class

Wonderful news indeed.

Since the ancient days of role-playing games, the Bard has been one of my favorite classes. The unparalleled ability to aid and buff allies, along with a unique blend of talents make this a highly appealing class.

However, Bard's have become somewhat of a joke in D&D 3.5, with mediocre combat prowess, virtually no offensive abilities, and pitiful spell-casting. The myriad of bonuses from Bardic music are insignificant at higher levels of play.

These things in mind, this class has a lot of potential. The Bard's true strength has been in the class's inherit versatility, and the correct way to make this a more viable class is to emphasize versatility.

Without further ado, here are a few suggestions to improve the Bard's versatility:

Skills- Increasing the Bard from 6+ to 8+ skills per level not only puts this class on par with the rogue, but allows the bard to fully utilize Bardic music without losing other valuable skills.

Bonus Feats- Perhaps a few bonus feats will help this class realize it's potential as a jack-of-all-trades.

Spells Known- The Bard's list of spells packs a limited variety of utility and support magic, without encroaching what either a cleric or wizard can do. However, with such a limited number of spells known, the strength of the spell-casting ability (especially with the laughable spells per day)this list is almost irrelevant.

Now this one is going to come under heavy fire. What if, perhaps, the Bard were granted a spellbook (much like a wizard's) without losing his ability to cast spontaneously? Not only does this fit into the role-playing aspect that maintains that Bards are keepers of forgotten lore, but it also allows the class to utilize its spell list to the fullest potential.

Look over the list of Bard spells in the Player's Handbook, and heck, every other supplement and you'll see that even if a Bard were to know all the spells on his class list, he still wouldn't be able to touch a Wizard's spell-casting power.

But if the spellbook suggestion isn't viable then a simple increase in the Bard's number of spells known should suffice.

I'm vehemently against Paladins being able to cast spells like Raise Dead and Atonement as I feel it steps on the toes of clerics. However, the current paladin spells are a joke.

It is true that spell-casting is only a minor aspect of the class, however, the spells on the paladin list are almost worthless. As it stands now, paladins could lose all spell-casting ability without losing much effectiveness as a class.

Let's look at the spell-casting mechanics:

*No spellcasting until 4th level
*Max spell level is 4
*Max caster level is 10
*Max number of base spell slots are 4/4/4/3 at 20th level

Would it really be so wrong to add a few spells to their list?

At least fix their "cure wounds" line so they get "cure critical wounds" as a 4th level spell. Also, toss in "bear's endurance" and "eagle's splendor" at the very least.

As for most of the other spells, they don't seem too out of line, provided that the paladin never gets a clear advantage over clerics in any regard to spell-casting.

1. Smoke more
2. Swear more (especially in front of small children)
3. Ridicule others who are less intelligent or attractive
4. Continue to drift though college with my "C+" average
5. Try to offend someone new every day
6. Continue to pretend to be a decent person
7. Maintain the illusion that I'm a devout Catholic
8. Gain 300lbs

In Spell Compendium, Rangers have quite a few very nice spells.

Hunter's Mercy (Lv1) SWIFT ACTION- Next attack with a bow is automatically a critical hit. Yes, not automatically confirmed, but automatically a critical.

Blade Storm (Lv2) FULL ROUND- Make one attack with each melee weapon against all threatened opponents

Arrow Storm (Lv3) FULL ROUND- Make one attack with a bow against every creature in range.

It does not continue bloodline bonus feats/abilities for Sorcerers, so it would be a sacrifice for them in some ways. In addition, Sorcerers would still be limited by the # of spells known, they would just be able to pick from the Divine and Arcane spell lists. I hardly call that overpowered.

However, if you approach it from a Cleric side. Gaining full Cleric spells casting, but also being able to cherry pick the best arcane spells could be unbalancing. You would sacrifice Channel effectiveness, Domain abilities, etc, but it might just be too much. Perhaps a requirement that the opposite spells known must be 1 level lower than the max you can cast. So a Cleric casting 3rd level Divine spells could also pick up two 2nd level Arcane spells each level. That way they would never get 9th level arcane spells.

I think what I am currently arguing against is the explicit trap of the MT. It seems like a huge win, gaining both Divine and Arcane spell casting progression, but the only time it's effective is when there are no other casters in the group.

You make a very valid point. Perhaps sorcerer was a bad example. Your last suggestion is a step in the right direction.

Kudos

What would be better in line with a straight classes power and still keep the versatility would be a PrC that continues full spell casting for a class, but allows them to cherry pick spells from the other...

Here's the inherit problem with this suggestion: if the MT had full progression in one type of spellcasting (let's use sorcerers for example), then every other PrC with full casting progression options for sorcerers would pale in comparison. Honestly, being able to compete with other full arcane spellcasters while having potent divine spells would get out of hand very quickly. Unless every other caster class and prestige class received high-level abilities that could compare, very few players would ever play those classes to their highest levels.

Yes, your last post confirmed that the MT is not as potent in specific areas as pure casters.

But instead of reiterating the MT's perceived deficiencies why dont you explain WHY the MT needs a boost?

Do you really think its balanced for the MT to be on equal footing in blasting/battlefield control/buffing with a cleric or wizard of equal level?

This goes back to the whole "destroying any incentive to play a pure caster class" issue.

The MT is not fully dedicated to either path, and therefore SHOULD be 3 levels behind the pure casters.

Duncans and Dragons makes an interesting suggestion. I'd advocate either that, or simply removing spellcasting options from the assassin.

I don't feel like the assassin compares to a high level rogue in terms of unique abilities and effectiveness in combat.

Could the assassin be rewritten with a full base attack in mind? If so, what would it look like? Could it produce a deadly, stealth based warrior?

I think the OP is onto a very solid idea. Limiting characters to one prestige class prevents them from dipping into multiple classes to cherry-pick certain features.

Dropping the max number of levels in a prestige class might create problems with hybrid prestige classes (Mystic Theruge and Eldrictch Knight among others).

Two words: Space requirements.

Just let that sink in for a moment.

If there isn't even enough room to add existing prestige classes like the Dwarven Defender, what makes you think there will be enough to add 5-7 more levels to each existing prestige class, along with (most likely) brand new class features for each of them?

Also, core classes are meant to provide a set of talents and abilities, whereas prestige classes typically develop a single, more focused ability (or blend 2 core abilities into one, fluid ability). If a character was Class3/Prestige Class17 they'd likely only be useful in very select instances, and virtually worthless in all others.

I half-heartedly apologize if my last comment had seriously offended anyone. Looking at message boards in general, it was still comparatively tame and tactful.

The reason I felt it was necessary was the realization you must eventually make:

All of this whining for more buffs (especially to the most effective classes) is counter-productive. Threads like this distract the community from real issues that need to be addressed. Time is limited.

Some advice to fellow members: Thoroughly examine the other class/prestige class options before crying for a buff. Try to remember what each class is supposed to do, and then determine if it accomplishes its goals effectively.

Thankfully, it appears most of you are on board with my initial suggestions. The Mystic Theruge adds an impressive variety of spellcasting options for the character. It is meant to represent a respectable (not the best) proficiency in the arcane and divine arts.

If the MT were given the ability to cast both 9th level arcane and divine spells, then why would anyone play the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard classes?

No single class, prestige class, spell, ability, or feat should ever make an entire core class obselete. This was the fatal downfall of WotC's v3.5, as future supplements rendered older material worthless.

I like these suggestions.

Jason's version of the Eldritch Knight got a much needed boost to hit points, and many new flavor abilities. However, despite these boosts, the EK still feels subpar, especially when compared to the fighter and pure casters.

I'd recommend looking at the Duskblade base class from Player's Handbook 2, and the Spellsword prestige class from Complete Warrior for ideas to increase the effectiveness of this class.

Though some discretion is needed when considering new features. The Eldritch Knight should never outshine a fighter in pure physical combat or a sorcerer/wizard in terms of pure casting.

Like the wonderful suggestions made by the original poster, any new abilities need to increase the EK's unique ability to blend warfare and magic into one fluid art.

Stop asking for a buff to the Mystic Theruge. This is one of the most appealing PrC's that accomplishes what it is meant to: to give the character a wide variety of spellcasting options.

Giving it the ability to cast 9th level spells would destroy any incentive to playing a pure caster.

The conflict here is power vs. versatility.

As mentioned earlier, if you want 9th level spells, dont add this prestige class. However, if you want a potent mix of divine and arcane then this is clearly the class.

It's called balance, twits.

It appears that Jason agrees with the multitude of players that feel that the Blackguard shouldve been made a base class.

Perhaps the only viable way to do this without using up the precious, limited space is to add an option for paladins who may choose to follow this path.

Perhaps the following, subtle changes are the solution to making this PrC more enticing.

+ Add 1/2 Caster Progression
+ Add a +1 to the Enhance Arrow progression line
+ Increase the DC of Arrow of Death

No. The Int + Level simply determines which secrets you can learn. High intelligence does not confer additional secrets on the character.

The myriad of bonuses given by secrets appear to stack with all other bonuses. A knowledgeable player can use this to their advantage to have marginally higher Hp, saves, or attack rolls than a normal sorcerer or wizard.

But these bonuses appear lack-luster. At high-end play a +2 to fortitude saves or an additional 3 hp won't compare to abilities provided by other classes.

Compare a Wiz10/Lor10 to a Wiz20 (any specialty). This class seems significantly underpowered.

I can't see anyone in my campaign ever using it. A handful of the abilities are nice, but this seems less appealing than a Bard.

Most of the abilities have very little combat utility, with the exception of the 2 abilities that summon barbarians.

As far as roleplaying purposes go along, it's difficult for me to distinguish this class from the Loremaster.

Thoughts?

What if instead of splitting LoH and Channeling again, why not up the uses/day?

So far I'm very satisfied with the changes to the paladin. I do feel that some of the suggestions made on this thread are far from reasonable.

If any further buffing is in order, why not consider the following modest proposal:

Since paladins have the option to obtain a bonded weapon, and fighters now have the impressive weapon training class feature, why not remove the "Fighter-only" requirement from the Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization feats?

With Weapon Training, a fighter can gain up to a +4 to hit and damage with a single category of weapons, with an additional +3/+2/+1 to another three groups respectively. Assuming the fighter takes the aforementioned feats, this translates to a staggering +7 to hit and +10 to damage rolls with a single weapon (not to mention the Weapon Mastery capstone)

Is a +3 to hit and +6 damage unreasonable for non-fighters to have?

Yeah, melee combatants that wear heavy armor (assuming no mithral) or are dwarves are at a bit of a disadvantage when they can't get close enough to swing.

Heck, even a 30ft movement speed can't always compete against a creature with potent ranged attacks or spells.

But is that a disadvantage for slower characters, or an inherent flaw in making a pure melee character?

Hmm... you make an extremely valid point.

As the bonus damage from ability bonuses, enhancement, etc. begin to develop, the dinky base damage for smaller weapons is hardly noticeable.

However, the gap may be felt at lower levels with a sub-optimal build (say for example the halfling character uses a non-thrown weapon or even a melee weapon). But this seems hardly an issue.

This clearly addresses the issue with weapon damage. But is the slower speed for small races still a threat to their viability in combat?

Share your thoughts

Yes, smaller races are significantly disadvantaged as melee combatants. If not just for the limited carrying capacity and the slow speed, but the pitiful damage that smaller weapons deal.

Actually, the decrease in damage that smaller weapons do is a pretty strong disincentive from playing a ranged fighter too.

Perhaps my judgment was slightly premature. After re-examining the other races, I've concluded that Dwarf, Half-Orc, and Human stand far above the rest.

Um... why not take an exotic weapon?

Bam! Solved.

Y'all can thank me later.

Seems like the perfect solution. It's simple, reasonable, and many of us have reached a very similar (if not identical) conclusion.

Half-elves in 3e and 3.5e were a joke. They were basically humans without the bonus feat, and with low-light vision and crappy skill bonuses.

In PFRPG they've become more like their elven ancestors in terms of skill bonuses, and gained the +2 to any one attribute like humans. They only real other addition is the Skill Focus feat, which seems to be of questionable merit.

Does anyone else feel the half-elf is comparable to the other basic races or is some sort of adjustment in order?

Boosting the bard's skill points to 8+ int modifier seems like a reasonable solution. Perhaps the Monk could use a boost to 6+ as well?

There's a feat that does this in Book of Exalted Deeds.

It's called Intuitive Strike, it allows the character to use their Wis mod in place of strength for natural attacks and simple weapons. They also have one for ranged in both Complete Warrior and Complete Divine called Zen Archery.

You're absolutely right, a generalist should never outperform a specialist in their chosen field. This needs looked at.

Could you please elaborate as to how wizards are currently overpowered? You've simply noted some of the boosts they've received without explaining what advantages they have that threaten game balance.

Yes, wizards (like clerics) offer an impressive amount of versatility, and can potentially have an answer to any problem they may encounter in an adventure... provided they selected the right spells...

The very fact that they wizard can prepare so very few spells per day severely checks said versatility. A wizard doesn't have the slots available to prepare spells for the thick of battle AND simultaneously prepare all of the necessary spells a party needs for exploring. So, most wizards end up preparing what they feel to be an even mix.

Due to the nature of the Wizard and the Sorcerer, if the two were to meet in a direct confrontation (assuming they both had purely combat spells) the sorcerer would have a huge advantage by being able to cast more spells.

I feel that these new boosts help emphasize the wizard's mastery of arcane studies and make the class much more appealing to take the full 20 levels of (thus reducing the chances of Prestige class dipping).

Perhaps you should examine the sorcerer's new bloodline powers (and heck, all of the boosts the other classes have received) and then re-evaluate your current stance.

I feel like current design leaves healing right where it should be. The following is a brief outline of the current healing hierarchy:

Clerics, and not only those with the healing domain, currently stand significantly above all other classes as the prime healing class (Ex. mass heal and channel energy for good clerics).

Paladins stand a close second with Lay on Hands, and receive a well-deserved capstone boost at 20.

Druids are clearly third, with access to heal as a 7th level spell.

Bards are a close fourth, sporting spells like cure critical wounds and mass cure moderate.

And finally the only other class with notable healing ability is the ranger, with access to cure serious wounds.

Bards and Druids have a wide assortment of natural talents and certainly don't need any boost. However, they don't need a nerf either. Healing spells help secure the bard's potential as a party support class. Whereas they help emphasize the druid's connection to the raw power of nature.

Please leave healing as-is.

Thank you for all of the constructive feedback so far. When trying to make the paladin a more capable (and defensively oriented) melee combatant it is important to make sure that the Fighter still maintains his lead in the combat niche`.

If the suggestions I made for the fighter would work better as new feats or talents, then what would be a better approach to ensuring the fighter never loses his place as the master-of-arms?

When considering HP I try to keep two things in mind:

1. Making 1st level heroes a little more durable. It's frustrating for new players to be slain by a stray arrow.
2. Having fixed (no rolling) to keep players on a roughly even playing field. Despite the fact that this is supposed to be a non-competitive game, players will constantly make comparisons between their fellow party members. Fixed hit points will also ensure that players who play classes with higher HD, will not (by virtue of bad luck) be outclassed by characters with ideally, lower hit die.

Using these two principles, I feel I have reached a solution that will meet all design goals.

Starting Hit Points= (2x maximum + 2x constitution modifier)

This is similar to receiving x4 skill points at 1st level. Adding level 1 in a new class will not grant a PC the starting HP of the class, but rather the value indicated at the "HP per level" section.

Hit Points/Level Up= (1/2 maximum + 2x Constitution modifier)

This will ensure a sound foundation for the toughness of PCs that is not rooted in luck. Leave luck of the die for the adventure itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, a 1st level fighter with a constitution of 14 would start with 24 hit points. When the fighter reaches 2nd level, his new HP total will be 33. Each level, (assuming his constitution modifier does not increase) he will gain 9 hit points. Respectable, but not out of line.

Now lets look at a caster. A 1st level gnome wizard with a Con 16 would start with 14hp. At 2nd level, he would boast a total of 22hp. Gaining 8 hp/level may seem excessive, but consider this: the wizard will have to invest most of his points into intelligence, preventing a him from outclassing the fighter.

At 20th level (assuming neither constitution score changes) the PCs would look like this:

Fighter- 195hp
Wizard- 166hp

If this seems to close, keep in mind that the fighter will likely increase his Con considerably.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And of course, before any else addresses it: this greatly increases the emphasis on Constitution. Any thoughts?

Greetings, before I delve into the "meat" of my post I would like to state that I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons since first edition and have always been dissappointed with the way these two classes played out.

Also, I would like to commend Paizo for its work with these, and the other 9 featured classes. They have done a phenomenal job in regards to addressing many balance issues. Because of their somewhat similar roles, I felt it necessary to address my balance concerns in a single thread. Plus, after detailing my paladin changes, I'll need to post suggested fighter changes to help the class maintain its original flavor.

Without further exposition: my suggestion.

Paladin- I've always found this class somewhat lacking as a defensive martial class. Also, it's damage output (even against evil creatures) is pitiful at best. With the release of 3.0 some of these concerns were addressed, but they carried a hidden defect: in order to be an adequate paladin, a character had to have exceptional stats in almost all areas. My following suggestions will address these concerns.

Basics- Bump hit die up to d12 and gain a good will save. These changes bear a similarity to the Knight class in the PH2 and reflect the intended, defensive nature of the class.

Proficiencies- Add tower shield proficiency. See previous rationale.

Smite Evil- This is what many consider to be the signature feature of the class. But, many feel that it lacks the offensive punch. First, I would recommend that when smiting evil that the attack be considered good-aligned. Second, I would increase the extra damage from 1x paladin level to 2x.

Lay on Hands- This ability is easy to fix: increase the amount of HP restored with each use to 2x the paladin's class level. Before you begin thinking that this will overshadow the cleric's role as the primary healer, continue to read on.

Divine Health- Why not add an immunity to poisons as well? Monks receive something similar.

Spellcasting- Now, this will be by far the most controversial part of this post. With the paladin's many immunities, ability to heal HP and adverse effects with lay on hands, ability to channel energy, and the ability to deal significant damage to evil creatures why have spells at all? Of the 11 base classes listed, 7 are spellcasters. If the previous changes I've suggested are made then the paladin has little use for spellcasting. I feel that this will not only emphasize the martial element of the class, but will prevent encroachment on the territory of clerics and druids.

Mettle- I never understood why paladins didn't get this class feature.

Now for the fighter changes-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighter- Though most players have optimized their PC fighters by investing solely in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, this class was not meant to be the feral warrior. That role falls to barbarian.

What (ideally) separates the fighter and barbarian is that the fighter's combat prowess is the result of discipline and training, where as (as I mentioned earlier) the barbarian is a fierce, feral savage. The following changes will emphasize the fighter as the master of the battlefield, increase the number of attributes the class will benefit from, and re-establish its tactical flavor:

Proficiencies- Same, except as noted below.

"At 1st level, a fighter may choose one exotic weapon proficiency per point of Intelligence bonus he has (if any). Once these choices have been made they cannot be changed. If the fighter’s Intelligence bonus increases at a later time, it does not entitle him to an additional choice."

New Class features:

Combat Initiative (Ex): At 1th level, the fighter receives a +1 competence bonus to all initiative checks. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level, and by an additional +1 every five levels thereafter (10, 15, 20).

Combat Tactician (Ex): A fighter’s knowledge of battle tactics is unmatched, perfected through years of practice. Beginning at 4th level, the fighter adds his Intelligence bonus (if any) to bull-rush, disarm, grapple and trip attempts and to all rolls made to resist those maneuvers.

Veteran’s Eye (Ex): Countless battles have taught the fighter how to better strike his enemies’ weak points. Starting at 8th level, a fighter adds his Intelligence bonus to rolls made to confirm critical hits and also adds this bonus to the damage dealt by critical hits. This bonus damage is not multiplied. Creatures with no discernable weak points (abberations, constructs, and some undead) are not effected by this ability.

Critical Opportunity (Ex): At 12th level, a fighter can employ a quick maneuver to gain the upper hand in an engagement after dealing a powerful blow. After dealing a successful critical hit to an opponent, the fighter can make a free disarm or trip attempt. Regardless of the choice made, this action does not provoke an attack of opportunity. This ability may not be used against the same opponent more than once per encounter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please evaluate these suggestions and give any constructive feedback.