Renchard's page

78 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd much rather see level bonus go away, and tie higher level abilities into class abilities and proficiency gated feats.

Make proficiency tiers be gated by character level.

Make feats and abilities be gated by proficiency tier.

Make the in-game effects be gated by feats and abilities.

Plus, getting rid of the requirement to explain why the 20th level character is a better farmer than the 1st level farmer, despite never having farmed, is certainly a bonus. (Yes, I know about trained/untrained uses of skills and skill feats. But isn't it better to just have a system where a 20th level character doesn't have a +20 bonus to untrained skills?)


I think people are missing the elephant in the room when it comes to homogenizing progressions. (Hint: It starts with "4" and ends with "e".)


Ched Greyfell wrote:


It seemed like mostly the power gamers were the ones mad and posting.

Just as an anecdote, I'm a power gamer and I really like the new system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:


1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things?

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game? (Most of you will see what I'm doing here, I'm finding common ground)

1) Yes.

2) No.

3) Yes. I like every edition of D&D. I like pretty much every RPG, actually, because I choose to play them for what they are.

4) Since all of those things seem positive and don't contradict each other, all of them would be appreciated.

5) Do you mean easier to learn for people new to the game? I have no problem with that.

6) Since I'm an experienced gamer, accessibility is less of a priority for me.

7) Of course. I'll play pretty much anything.

8) I'd probably drop the level scaling. Bake more powerful options into feats gated behind master and legendary proficiency. Get rid of general feats and put more narratively focused options into its place. (Replace general feats with dedication feats, maybe?) Move some higher level class feats down to open up lower level options, and change them to scale with level.


BryonD wrote:


Debates about hit points and the # of chickens one can buy are just goalpost moving into areas that divert away from whether the PF2E ruleset provides better value to the overall marketplace compared to PF1E and other successful games.

As much as I wish the mainstream market had moved beyond the played out combination of simulationism and actor stance play, I have to agree with you that the market seems to prefer them.

I'm pretty sure that PF2 has already lost the new edition war, and now we'll just be measuring the length of the war and the number of casualties.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Lucid Blue wrote:


Huh. Different philosophies I guess. So would you be opposed to just letting players erase any damage after each combat? Or assuming that they always have enough food and water, even in locales that don't have food and water?

If not, is the objection purely math/balance related rather than in-world-fiction related?

Maybe I'm the odd duck here...

It's always immediately obvious who hasn't played Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or any other narrative RPG.
Or played them and found them not to their liking.

If that was the case, the OP would be about the recognition of the presence of narrative mechanics and an argument that it's not the aesthetic they think the game should strive towards.

Instead, we got "it's not realistic!" pearl clutching and references to hoary old diatribes like the Alexandrian's.


Lucid Blue wrote:


So, if I bring the formula for a katana to my local master basketweaver... She should be able to forge that katana better than any expert level swordsmith?

If you're making the argument that Craft should have more specificity than it currently does, much like Lore, I would accept that as a reasonable complaint.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucid Blue wrote:

So I'm floating in the negative energy void. And the party is starving. But my ranger KNOWS... that the secret recipe of KFC chicken isn't REALLY a secret. It was stolen by the nightshade many years ago. So before the party starves to death, I float over to the secret KFC vault, and pilfer enough crispy chicken to sustain us for another day.

Is this an acceptable explanation? If not, why not? Does the explanation of a math block REALLY need to match the fiction of the world? Who's to say that I CAN'T find the secret KFC stash in the void?

If the in world explanation DOES matter... Shouldn't we just avoid the dissociated mechanics in the first place?

KFC would violate genre constraints, but other than that, sure, why not?

Granted, a Survival check on the Negative Material Plane should probably be Very Hard, like in the DC50 range, and I wouldn't allow it all unless you had Legendary Survival proficiency. But that's about challenge setting, not "dissociated" mechanics.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

If if it helps, just translate "feat" to "choice" in your head.

So on even levels you make a class choice and a skill choice, and on odd levels you make either an ancestry choice or a general choice and also get something you don't choose.

It's just that "Fighter Feat" sounds a lot better than "Fighter Choice" when you put it on the page.

Exactly. A feat is a choice. The alternative to not having a feat is not having a choice. Would the game be better if it gave you less choices? (That's not a rhetorical question, either, too many choices can easily bog down character building.)


Lucid Blue wrote:


Huh. Different philosophies I guess. So would you be opposed to just letting players erase any damage after each combat? Or assuming that they always have enough food and water, even in locales that don't have food and water?

If not, is the objection purely math/balance related rather than in-world-fiction related?

Maybe I'm the odd duck here...

It's always immediately obvious who hasn't played Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or any other narrative RPG.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


I'd be very relieved if this were true. I sincerely hope it is. I'm not at all positive that's the case, however. They said that pretty explicitly on the Multiclass Archetypes. Nothing remotely similar has been mentioned in regards to Signature Skills.

I think they view some skill as more valuable than others, and tying extra signature skills to the dedication feats let them do some gate keeping to keep more valuable combinations apart. It's pretty much impossible to get Arcana, Religion, Nature, and Occult to let yourself be a super ritualist, for example.


Uchuujin wrote:

The more I read, the more it feels like 4th edition to me. Mostly given that each class is pretty restricted to a smattering of abilities unless they use feats to multiclass. And every couple levels you gain a new class feat from a class list, like the encounter (Et. all) abilities from 4E.

I find this all very ironic because PF exists due to people abandoning 4E, and now it's trying to emulate the failed project that caused it exist in the first place.

In all seriousness, how do you add options into a class and level based system without creating a menu of options to pick from? What would you do differently?

The only way I can see to add even more versatility into the system would have been to turn the class features, prestige class features, archetype features, and feats into an enormous pool of general feats, and let you select a feat each level. And I think that kind of system would have its own giant problems.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Renchard wrote:
THAC0 was 2e only.

To be honest, BAB is nothing fundamentally different than THAC0 in disguise, just one counting up to ACs getting better when higher, and the other counting down for ACs that are good when low. The machanism is the same.

Thus, the BAB of a 3.x/PF1 character added to the THAC0 of the same character class/level in AD&D always results in 20.

In addition, I believe THAC0 was actually originally started in AD&D 1e. They had the to hit tables, but there was also an option to use THAC0 via the DMG and later elaborated or focused more upon in some modules/adventures.

Sure, but the greater point I was making is that THAC0 is is no way fundamental to D&D.


Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Ronin_Knight wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.
Yes it's similar in that it's on the D20 chassis, other than that it has more in common with 4E or 5E than it does with Pathfinder or 3.X, it like those systems treats customisation and variation like vile expletives.
I think your lack of grasp of the strength of those systems shows why you're not able to see PF2e with any clarity. 4e and 5e both allow for a ton of customization, especially 4e. And 5e is so easy to homebrew the relative lack of customization is almost immaterial.
If homebrew is a valid customization option, chess is a customizatomizable game.

Every game is theoretically customizable, but there are multiple vectors of customization, and practicality makes some of them less useful. 4e was extremely hard to homebrew for, 3.5/PF1e easier but still fairly complex. 5e is more straightforward, and lightweight games like FATE easier yet.

Chess is obviously super easy to customize, but it renders the meta-discussion around the game entirely moot. That's one of the reason homebrew was never a major factor for 3.5/PF1e, as quite a bit of the popularity of the game was based on meta-discussion factors.


dungeon_architect wrote:
Renchard wrote:
There's one for every class. Barbarian is at top left of page 54, for example.
ohh...wow how did I miss that, thanks you just saved me a lot of frustration and note taking

The organization within the book is actually pretty top-notch. Note how class feats are organized by level, but there's also an alphabetical index at the beginning of the section.


Kirtri wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
I'm more disapointed in that nobody else gets combat feats now.
Advanced Maneuver, pg. 280.
Provided you don't mind using 2 other feats first...

Both of which you provide you a benefit.

The fundamental issue here is, if feats for combat become general feats, what do you give to the fighter? Where else can his identity lie?


Ronin_Knight wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.
Yes it's similar in that it's on the D20 chassis, other than that it has more in common with 4E or 5E than it does with Pathfinder or 3.X, it like those systems treats customisation and variation like vile expletives.

I think your lack of grasp of the strength of those systems shows why you're not able to see PF2e with any clarity. 4e and 5e both allow for a ton of customization, especially 4e. And 5e is so easy to homebrew the relative lack of customization is almost immaterial.


Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
I'm more disapointed in that nobody else gets combat feats now.
Advanced Maneuver, pg. 280.
So you need to multiclass as a fighter. It's bad,

Incorrect. It's good.


There's one for every class. Barbarian is at top left of page 54, for example.


Greylurker wrote:
I'm more disapointed in that nobody else gets combat feats now.

Advanced Maneuver, pg. 280.


Ronin_Knight wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
Disagree. Feels like a beta(playtest) to me, but yeah, obviously. Can't wait to try it tonight. GMing it for my 5E group. They're pumped too. Probably my new system, just going off a cursory read-through.
Yes and I'm sure it will do great with a 5E group, for people who wanted something that even vaguely resembled Pathfinder as we know it you have to admit there isn't much similar to the 1e incarnation

Compared to other rulebooks I've been looking at, like WFPR4e and Savage Worlds, it looks pretty darn similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Renchard wrote:
Honestly, if people don't understand that 3-18 for Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha is fundamental to the definition of D&D and its descendants, they shouldn't poke holes in other people's design.
Many things were "fundamental" to D&D. Like THAC0, and Elf/Dwarf being a class instead of a race. Doesn't mean we kept them.

THAC0 was 2e only. Elf/Dwarf as classes was only from Moldvay B/X onward to Rules Compendium, and isn't part of the lineage that current D&D/PF are derived from. Much less fundamental that the stats. They're as definitionally part of D&D as rolling a d20 to attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Edymnion wrote:


It was pointless as anything but a vestigial holdover from rolling for stats.
What would you propose for groups (like mine) who only ever roll for stats? Just have a chart that if you roll an 18, your ability... score(?) is a +4? There's no real point to getting rid of them, and it seems like a weird complaint to have.

Honestly, if people don't understand that 3-18 for Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha is fundamental to the definition of D&D and its descendants, they shouldn't poke holes in other people's design.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
See, thats where I disagree. I think that MY CHARACTER should be as good or not good at whatever *I* decide he/she is good at. Not what the designers tell me he/she is ALLOWED to be good at.

Then, quite simply, you shouldn't be playing a class-based game. Putting abilities into silos to reinforce flavor is the reason the class concept exists in the first place.


Milo v3 wrote:

Occult flavour is about things like cults, rituals, invocation, forbidden practices, relics, sacrifice, drawing in power from outside, sympathy, spirits, old gods, ascension, etc.

Occult flavor is now more about bard stuff. New edition, new flavor.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

A 10th level cleric will have 15 spells per day to cast, plus 4-7 or so free heals, plus 4-7 casts of their powers, plus cantrips, plus whatever bonuses 5 free class feats have given you. They are hardly starving for options or power.

The idea that they're "taking away powers, and giving us feats to buy" is fundamentally flawed. They're creating a brand new baseline. There's no way they were going to make PF2 start at a PF1 baseline, and then add a whole host of new options on top of it. Turning class features into feat choices is still a power increase; "choice A or B or C" is always better than "choice A only", even if choice A is normally the best option, simply because B or C might have synergies with other options that aren't immediately obvious.

Pessimism is not a biological imperative; choose optimism, voice your concerns but have faith in the designers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
They can't be Orders. Druids have Orders. You'll have Storm Order Druids casting nth Order spells.

We already have 10th level characters who are 7th level druids casting 3rd level spells that function at 8th level. Redundant redundancy is already a thing.


Stone Dog wrote:

Even though there are only four Traditions and each class seems like it is only going to get one or two of them on their standard lists, I could see ways for classes to branch out from that using the keywords.

Wizards could take Class Feats like Necromancer that allows them to pick Necromancy spells regardless of what Tradition they are.

Yeah, I agree. Personally, putting Necromancy spells into Material simply because of necromancer wizards bothers me a bit, I'd rather see the spells be grouped logically by spell list. Handle exceptions like necromancers with feats.

Ideally, classes flow outward from spells, rather than spells being categorized purely to support previous class concepts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Alistair wrote:

I'm a bit of an oddity in that I have loved every game I've ever played. Basic D&D, AD&D 2e, 3(.5)e, 4e, 5e, Pathfinder, Strike!, LotFP, DCC RPG, White Wolf, WHFRP 2e, The One Ring, BCG/Z, BFRPG, Darker Dungeons and more!

I HATE edition wars. They are divisive and more often than not bring out the worst in the gaming community. I loved 4e and feel so slighted that so many people balked at it simply because it was different. I felt the same way when people balked at 3e when 2e was winding down. And, while it was not as pronounced, I know more than a few people who freaked when WotC announced 5e.

Pathfinder 2e is something long needed. the d20 system is being weighed down and becoming far too bloated to be healthy. It needs to slim down or die from it's own weight.

That does not mean I hate Pathfinder! I love Pathfinder! I fully intend to continue playing it just like I do so many other games! Change is not bad, change is needed lest system fatigue occurs.

So bring on P2E! I embrace it!

Amen, sir! New is good! New is fun! Every edition of every RPG supports a certain playstyle, embrace that playstyle so that you can have fun whatever you play.


Does the book have any suggestions about running an occult-only game?


1) Has there been any modification to the summon monster ability of the summoner?

2) Do the updated classes give any notes as to how they should interact with previously existing archetypes?


chbgraphicarts wrote:

Wildfire Heart Ifrit | Daring Champion Cavalier / Sensei Monk / Mysterious Stranger Gunslinger / Fighter
Base Stats: Str 9 / Dex 16 (14+2) / Con 14 / Int 12 / Wis 10 (12-2) / Cha 17 (15+2)
Stat Increases

CL1 Ftr1 Weapon Finesse (Retrain to Amateur Swashbuckler (Oppurtune Parry & Riposte) at level 3), Weapon Focus (Longsword)
CL2 Ftr2 Slashing Grace
CL3 Cav1 Improved Initiative, Distracting Charge | Grit/Panache Pool: 1/3
CL4 Mnk1 Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist | Cha 18 | Grit/Panache Pool: 1/4
CL5 Gun1 Rapid Reload (Pistol) or Power Attack | Grit/Panache Pool: 5/8
CL6 BtHr1 Sound the Charge

OK, I really like this build. Would it also work replacing Ftr2/Mnk1 with Examplar3, or would the lack of feats be too punishing?


So I'm working on a homebrew concept where magic items are much more prominent, because standard spell use has been removed. Characters might have some inherent supernatural or spell-like abilities, but no spell progression is allowed.

So I'm trying to put together a list of allowable archetypes that will broaden the number of classes allowable. I'm hoping someone can point out if I've missed any, or if there are some that grant spellcasting to normally non-casting classes.

Barbarian (all)
Fighter(all)
Monk (all)
Rogue (all)
Cavalier (all)
Gunslinger (all)
Brawler (all)
Swashbuckler (all)
Slayer (all)
Investigator (Sleuth, Spiritualist)
Bloodrager (Untouchable Rager)
Paladin (Warrior of the Holy Light)


CraziFuzzy wrote:
The fact that so many in 3.5 (and apparently still in pf) would plan out their lower levels specifically, and make a character that in many ways is unenjoyable at lower levels, to get to a specific prestige class is, in my opinion, the perfect example of what makes the archetype model so superior. You get the flavor of your character from level 1, without having to wade through weird mechanics in the hope your campaign lasts long enough to get to where you were trying to go.

The best way to get around this would simply be to give Prestige Classes a level requirement, and nothing else but the most cursory requirements.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Goodnight, sweet Mystic Theurge. Early entry has been removed from the FAQ.


I've been looking over blaster builds for a 6th level one-shot. Is there any source for the "+1 damage per die of the spell" feature other than the Orc, Draconic, and Wildblooded Primal bloodlines for sorcerer?


Any book which massively expands upon the number of 6th-level casters, which from my perspective is the sweet spot of power and complexity upon which Pathfinder thrives, is a win.


Specifically, ones that also combine with Nature Fang? Nature Fang gets rid of Wild Shape, which I've never liked, but I'd also like to get rid of all the extra summoning, which I find annoying.

Assuming there is no archetype that gets rid of spontaneous summoning, what would be a balanced trade for the ability? I was thinking of spontaneously casting from a domain.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Oh right, just realized a biggie. Bards get Blindness at level 4 (2nd level spell). Permanent blindness. The cure comes at level 7 (3rd level spell). So similar to what DrDeth said, look for things where the cure is either unavailable or a higher level than the afflict. Especially since monsters are probably based on the sorc/wizard versions, and therefore would get blindness as early as CR 3.

Yea, that's a good catch. Never been a big fan of the perma-blindness. I'll have to think how I want to approach that. I think I'll just lower cure blindness to 2nd level. Seems to fit better there anyway.


TimD wrote:

So are you eliminating them from your game world or just restricting which options players have?

If the former, then you may have some "downstream" effects that may affect your continuity if not addressed.
If the latter, as long as you get buy-in from your players, I don't see how it would be a problem. Your best bet would probably be to ask them about it and let them know you want to try it as an experiment. If you write in some sort of in-game explanation to give them a bit more plot / investment, they may even get excited about it (family traditions, all being members of the same order, all being reincarnated heroes of the appropriate classes, etc.).

Any instances of level 7+ spells would be eliminated, outside of some prestige classes. The most powerful casters only have 6th level spells. (Obviously, this game won't be set in Golarion, it's a homebrew.)

The classes are removed from the game world in the sense that I won't give non-monstrous NPCs abilities that the players wouldn't eventually have access to. I don't tend to design NPCs using PC rules, so the class "existing" in the world isn't really relevant to my needs.


Claxon wrote:

If you concern is too much power, just ban 9th level spellcasters from your game and Summoners. And don't argue on this one, summoners are 9th level spellcasters disguised as 6th level spellcasters. They get earlier access to so many spels its silly.

Otherwise, let players play what they want. If they want to play full BAB classes with no spell casting, or play a monk, brawler, slayer, fighter, etc why is it a problem? Spell casting is usually what breaks a game, so I can get behind the idea of restricitng spell casting access. I can't get behind banning the monk, even if it isn't mechanically effective as others.

It isn't a problem. It's an experiment. We've been playing Pathfinder for 5 years, 6 by the time my turn DMing pops up. I like to keep it fresh.

The last time I ran a game, 4 of the 6 players were 6th level casters, and I noticed that the game ran really well from the mid levels even into the upper levels. The only classes that caused a problem were the paladin (as a high level melee buzzsaw) and the witch, once high level spells came into play. All of the other characters contributed well but not overpoweringly so. Good damage, good survivability, good out of combat contributions.

So I want to try a game that has most of the options that are normally available, but with what I saw was a real sweet spot in terms of capability.


So I have a pet theory that goes like this:

The 6th level caster classes are the absolute sweet spot in terms of Pathfinder design.

All of these classes have a strong but not overpowered spellcasting chassis, along with numerous class features with a diverse suite of options included.

The inclusion of 7 new 6th level caster classes between ACG and Occult Adventures has lead me to the point of thinking a game with only those classes now has more the enough options to be viable for my next spin at DMing.

Bard
Magus
Inquisitor
Alchemist
Investigator
Skald
Hunter
Warpriest
Occultist
Mesmerist
Spiritualist
Summoner (only if Unchained keeps it as a 6th level caster, the current version is a bit too strong).

My question is, are there any major class features that are missing between these classes and all of their available archetype options? I want my players to have a pretty full range of thematic options, just with a limited mechanical chassis. Obviously, Full BAB and 7+ level spells, but I consider that a feature, not a bug.

Just as an example, wild shape is an option, by taking Feral Hunter. Rage powers are available via the skald. Witch hexes are available via Hexcrafter magus. Sneak attack is available via the vivisectionist alchemist. And so on.


Lemmy wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I'm in the disappointing position of this being the only class from the book I'm interested in, and being disappointed with a lot of how it's executed so far. Would love to see a revised version or a list of considered changes.
I kinda share your opinion... But I do ended up liking the Medium. The other classes aren't very innovative, IMO, so it's difficult to get excited about them.

Yea, I have to agree. I do like the Mesmerist, Occultist, and Spiritualist, but mosly because they add to the pool of 6-level casters, which I feel is the real sweet spot for Pathfinder development.


Soulknife also has bladeskill called Focused Defense, which adds the Wisdom modifier to AC as a dodge bonus when fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise. So at level 4, that's a -2 to attack for a (Wis+2) bonus to AC.


Skaldi the Tallest wrote:


I fully think that Pyrokintcists, Keraunokintcists, Cryokintcists and Caustokintcists (?) should be awesome at what they do and shouldn't need to dip into another element to survive.

Edit: I'm pretty sure "I want" over and over again probably makes me sound petulant. I really hope I'm wrong there. I just really like the idea of a specialist thriving. Yes, there are risks in specializing, but running with a theme is awesome.

Yea, we had this discussion on ENWorld a few months ago. Basically the question for elemental themed casters is this:

Are you an expert at generating your element, or are you a master of your element?

If a pyromancer (or pyrokineticist) encounters a fire elemental, should he run, because he knows his spells are useless, or should he laugh, because fire elementals fall under his domain?

I've seen arguments for both sides, and it really depends on how you view the character thematically, and where you're drawing your inspiration from.

If in your view, the pyromancer is a flavor of specialist wizard who chooses to focus on fire spells for greater efficacy, then running her into fire-resistant creatures to challenge her is par for the course. The game of the wizard is preparation and adaptation. The specialist's choice is to enhance capability generally at the cost of ineffectiveness in certain situations.

On the other hand, if for you a fire caster is someone with an inborn predisposition to fire magic, than it makes much more sense for fire creatures to fall under your purview. Fire elementals should fear you rending their fiery essence asunder.

Ultimately, the choice is dependent on what thematic Mark (and Paizo) want to support for the class. Is the kineticist someone who chooses to learn an element, or is it something they're born to?


Mark Seifter wrote:


You can always put burn in your defense to feel the burn!

Yo dawg, I heard you like burn, so I put some burn in your defense so you can defense while you burn.

.
.
.
I'll show myself out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:


There will definitely be more stare options in the book.

And a Care Bear race, I hope.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, while I like the overall skeleton of the class, my biggest beef is tying the implements into the overused wizard schools. Why not design the powers around the major types of implements, rather than using the implements as a proxy for the schools? Let the occultist master an implement type to gain their spells, and also have class abilities to strengthen the powers of magic items that they find, thus giving them a greater incentive to seek out new treasures?

Something like:

Weapons - learn spells that increase personal combat power, and the ability to grant extra abilities to focused weapons.

Clothing (including armor) - learn spells that increase personal defense and personal transformation, and grant extra abilities to your armor, and other body slot items.

Magical tools (wands, staves, rods) - learn spells that grant magical attacks, and grant extra abilities to magical implements.

Objet d'art (valuable slotless items, gems and other valuables) - learn spells that influence emotion, grant extra abilities to slotless items.

Momento mori (relics of the dead, many items may fit into other categories) - learn spells of knowledge and necromancy, some minor enhancement abilities.

Trinkets (useful but consumable items, various tools) - spells of utility and transformation, can be enhanced to grant to various utility functions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I do like the medium (an inherited love from the 3.5 binder, its obvious ancestor), I think having 54 spirits is a case of symmetry for symmetry's sake. Here's what I would do to simplify the class.

1) Drop the alignment restrictions for binding multiple spirits. Make as many spirits as you can make cool abilities for, and then stop. Grid filling then becomes unnecessary.

2) Streamline the abilities a bit more. The seance bonus and the ability to give them to the party is cool, keep those. The spirit bonus mostly seems like a separate entity to have something to trade out for archetypes, I guess. Otherwise, I would roll them up into the lesser powers, and have the higher bonuses in the higher tier powers.

3) The dual/triune/quartenary aspect thing is overly complex. I'd rather see "At 5th level, you can channel two spirits. You get their powers." Done. At 11th, you can channel 3. At 17th, you can channel 4. (Or not. I think 4 might be overkill, but I'd have to see.)

4) There's no need for spirit abilities that reference other abilities. I'm think of some of the Wisdom spirit abilities that have the Spirit act as a Strength spirit in some situations, thus causing the player to have to reference a whole new menu of options, and have some bonuses either appear or disappear. That's just painful.

5) Giving every spirit a spell list seems to add extra work, again for the sake of symmetry. I'd rather see the medium have their own small spell list, and a small list of spells known.
Have some spirits (not all, but some that are obvious spellcasters, like The Unicorn, The Lost, The Devil's Lantern, for example) have powers that let you treat some spells as being on your spell known list while being channeled.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd really like to run a 19th century gaslight campaign with these classes, along with the Investigator, Brawler, and Swashbuckler.

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>