StephJZ's page

StephJZ wrote:

Blood Magic would seem to be a logical sub school of necromancy as well.

Not to be a git, but can you describe "Blood Magic"?

I'm asking because I considered it, but pondered how much it would fit in the ven diagram of the other schools.

Diablo Necromancer blood magic I think would fall under "biomancy" or "curses".
A lot of the "blood magic" that relates to sympathetic magic already shows up in Divination.
And blood sacrifice kinda shows up in the Life, Psychopompy, and Undeath schools.

If you have a different take I would love to hear it!

The kind of blood magic I'm thinking of would be more the type that directly manipulates hit points or steals life, or uses life as a resource in a clever way. Vampiric Touch would be a simple example of a classic, core spell that fits the concept. I sometimes find myself wishing there were more spells that expanded on what Vampiric Touch does in different directions or plays with the concept of stealing and sharing hit points a little more.

Blood based rituals is territory that could go in a variety of possible directions as well.

I've mostly been underwhelmed by what D&D has typically presented as a "blood mage" prestige or sub class, which mostly seem to come down to "burn your own health for extra spell power" from what I've seen.

Blood Magic would seem to be a logical sub school of necromancy as well.

I'm not sure if this would be appropriate for "Unchained Fighter" or not, but one thing that would enhance the fighter greatly which has nothing to do with skills or feats is a more significant options to have truly special "Combat Manuevers" such that you're not just like "I swing my sword". This can be taken too far if you make combat manuevers too much like spells (like they did in 4.0 D&D), but in general I think they are a nice way to make Fighters feel like they actually have special abilities of their own beyond the vanilla nature of just weapon proficiencies, bonus feats and high bonuses to combat.

I tend to think that specific faction systems give characters more of a real sense of "alignment" than the alignment system as such. The classic Planescape setting was very good for this, as the factions were not just based on the alignment axis, but on specific philosophies and relationships to the setting and lore. Being a member of The Fraternity of Order or Mercykillers meant something much more specific than, say, just being lawful neutral.

I think if "morality matters" is going to be a thing for gaming, then it should account for "grey morality" and just the fact that there are a lot of overlapping moral angles on different things from different perspectives. It can be nice for a setting or world to have such a feel - a sort of quasi-realism about belief and conflict.

The person fighting against a group that they think is wrong certainly thinks they are good. But from another group's perspective, they are bad. From a 3rd, more pragmatic group's perspective, they may have no personal or moral investment in the former two's conflict at all and have their own separate concerns. They're "neutral", but "neutral" is relative here - everyone can be "neutral" relative to certain things. "Good Group A" might not be the ones to fight their fight either.

This is where alignment breaks down, because things start to look more like a clash between subjective beliefs and cultures, descriptively or at the meta level.

Law and Chaos make sense like Good and Evil but one person's "lawful good" can possibly become another person's "lawful evil". There are also different interpretations of Law, and different ways of approaching it - as either a self-discipline or personal code (introverted/follower), something to be enforced on others (extroverted/leader), in a political sense (representing the government's law and power or support for the government's law and power, which varies by region and culture), in a religious sense (representing religious law), or more as a personality trait (rigid or stern). "Chaos" can mean valuing personal freedom. Or a free spirited, whimsical personality trait. Or "crazy". Or "nature lover". It can really mean anything from being a murder hobo to being a noble savage to being a heroic freedom fighter.

Perspectives and factional tendencies can be based on a lot more than just good vs. evil. Nature vs. Man or Machine, "civil" vs "uncivil" undead, religion vs. anti-religion, cults and religious conflicts, secret societies and honor codes, political intrigue, blood fueds, tribal warfare, conflicts within evil groups, organizations that are sometimes forced to be morally neutral or grey for a greater cause (like the Grey Wardens in Dragon Age), are all possible twists on things.

Ultimately, what's important is your character's background and beliefs. The alignment system is just an oversimplistic summary of that.

It's somewhat weird that you've removed access to typical Cleric domains and substituted your own. That very much restricts the options with the class, and leads to silliness like not being able to take the Trickery domain. This is especially notable since your domains are a fair bit stronger than the best standard domains, so it can't even be said to be for balance reasons.

You're right that they are stronger than typical Cleric domains. I think this was purposeful because I felt like I had to compensate for something. I definitely can see why many of them look overpowered. I think the reason I took away access to normal Cleric domains is because I wanted the class to feel like it had access to magic that normal Clerics don't, as part of the magical aspect of the class. It's slightly tempting to want to approach the class as having an aspect of Thaumaturgy.

The Stealthy Infliction class feature doesn't actually do anything. The inflict spells all call for melee touch attacks, meaning they're a form of attack and can already benefit from sneak attack. No ability is required to do this.

As far as I'm aware, the difference is that Inflict spells do not actually make a touch attack roll is part of the spell, unlike say Vampiric Touch, so sneak attack doesn't apply to them. Am I wrong about that? I wasn't 100% sure but if that's the case, then yea, it is a useless class feature.

Finesse Grip is a bit too strong for characters with the spell combat class feature, allowing them access to a one-handed finessable reach weapon. Aside from classes that absolutely need to stick with one-handed weapons, though, it compares rather equitably to the elven branched spear. Take that with a grain of salt, as many people regard the elven branched spear as overpowered.

Finesse Grip, in basic form, is just my attempt to bring back the Monkey Grip feat from 3.5. D&D. It does have more power than Monkey Grip here though, due to the Special text, and that probably drives it over the top.

Threatening Touch is one I'd keep an eye on, but just at first glance it doesn't seem broken. However, the low prerequisite barrier combined with how many classes can potentially make use of it make me weary that there's a potentially broken combo here. Definitely a very powerful feat no matter how you slice it.

I would definitely consider raising the prerequisite barrier.

I think what you are attempting is possible, but I also believe that it could be better suited as a prestige class. Forgive me for saying this, but the archetype you have written seems to have too much of an agenda in mind. I feel like you traded out features you didn't want in order to get your favorites (sneak attack and spell combat). This doesn't feel like a rogue/cleric mix. It feels more like an death cultist. And spell combat isn't part of the cleric or the rogue. There are weapon proficiencies that neither class has.

My suggestion is that you dial back sneak attack to a slower progression - maybe like the slayer's. This will give some room to add other feature to introduce other elements of the rogue. An archetype or class should be able to cater to multiple builds, and this one seems to cater one kind of build. An assassin priest, I want to say? Expand the skill list, add skill points, and add acceptable domains to allow for other rogue aspects such as trickery, social charm, cleverness, crime, etc.

In a way you're correct about the prestige class agenda. Before I came up with this idea I was coming up with a Divine Trickster prestige class that is close to Arcane Trickster. But it seemed like a lot of my ideas that were different than Arcane Trickster's abilities worked better as part of a Cleric archetype first.

The concept here is more like a Cleric that also has Sneak attack and mixes it with their spells and has and a few unusual magical abilities, than it is about being a skill monkey, but with a dash of the rogue's stealth, and possibly with the character starting with 1 level in Rogue for the skill points and Trapfinding.

But it seemed like in order to make the simultaneous casting and melee combat roles as functional as it could be, I needed to better mix spell casting and combat. Spell Combat seemed like a good solution because of the action economy it provides. That ended up pushing it towards feeling more like a Divine Magus with sneak attack than a Rogue. But in a way, I think of Spell Combat as supplementing the assumed two-weapon combat style of the Rogue.

I admittedly got a little power-gamey by adding weapons like Estoc and Elven Curve Blade. I suppose I was thinking ahead to possibilities that would make for a cool Spell Combat character. My thinking there certainly has nothing do with the Rogue. Keeping class skills per level at 2 is also a little feel bad for me too.

I did have some hesitance at first about giving the archetype full Sneak Attack, but I wanted it to really feel like a Rogue Gestalt in that one aspect. I could still play around with it, maybe keep it every two levels but delay it by one level, or make it every three levels.

The idea behind Dual Casting also seems like something that might be better or more generally applied to arcane casters, or as an option for Magus characters.

I was also originally vaguely thinking of giving it a ranged option but it didn't seem to fit once Spell Combat was there. Maybe it's possible for the 2nd level ability to function like the Ranger in giving you a choice between Spell Combat and some form of Ranged Spell Combat.

Sorry, about that, the link should work now: The Heretical Cleric

I've been messing around with the idea of a character concept that mixes aspects of the Rogue and Cleric. Typically, Rogue/Cleric is not the easiest multi-class combination to make practical. There is the Cloistered Cleric, but that mostly just gives extra skill points and isn't all that Rogue-like. And if one looks into 3rd party material, there is the Divine Agent, which is closer to the ballpark and splits the difference between Channel Energy and Sneak Attack, but isn't quite what I'm looking for either.

So I just created the Heretical Cleric archetype, which outright trades Channel Energy for full Sneak Attack and also has a few abilities that make it similar to a Magus, using Spell Combat instead of two-weapon fighting. I also am still working on some custom feats that can help out such a character.

Here's what I have so far: The Heretical Cleric

Feedback, suggestions, criticism, all welcome.

I remember making a Berserker custom class for 3.5 D&D some years back. My approach was a bit different though. I made it have something similar to the Monk's flurry of blows ability, but with weapons. And Guerilla tactics type of abilities. The idea of a Berserker to me conjures up the image of a fighter who attacks faster than normal and uses unconventional tactics on the battlefield, much like Scottish or Celtic fighters were described.

StephJZ wrote:

I'm just starting to skim this so I don't have any particular feedback yet, but I've been wanting to see a Witcher type of character in Pathfinder and this looks like it is well done in executing the concept from the little I see so far.

Thanks, I really tried to make it feel like Pathfinder while still hitting that witcher-esque note.

Did you get a chance to look it over more?

For the most part, it seems pretty solid. I would say a couple of things though.

I worry a little bit that Focused Study of the Behemoth is too specialized or too late because of it applies to giants. Maybe that isn't really as much of a problem as I'm thinking, but I could easily see someone playing through a campaign without ever encountering a giant.

Stunning Strike from the Wolf school seems like it might be underwhelming because of how late you get it.

The one most minor quibble of them all I'd make is that the school of the Dragon doesn't make flavor sense to me in its name. I don't associate dragons with firearms.

The formulae that you have to choose from for the Alchemy abilities isn't specified. But I'm assuming it's identical to that of the Alchemist?

This might overcomplicate a class that already has a lot going for it, but it would feel a little more like the Witcher if you could somehow enhance your Sigils later on.

Part of me wishes there was some way you could have a use for "mutagens" in the way the Witcher does in the Witcher 3, I.E. extracting mutagens from specific monsters you killed in order to brew special potions or directly enhance your abilities.

Just some food for thought. Overall it seems like you did a pretty sweet job.

I'm just starting to skim this so I don't have any particular feedback yet, but I've been wanting to see a Witcher type of character in Pathfinder and this looks like it is well done in executing the concept from the little I see so far.

Just a general thought: take inspiration from The Witcher perhaps? Alchemy is an important part of what makes a witcher what they are. Obviously the video game has completely different mechanics than DnD, but some general concepts can be transferred over and you can create your own stuff from that.

A couple things about your Cleric idea:

- While it's one way to compensate for things, more skill points probably isn't that important to a Cleric character, unless you're trying to specialize them to be more rogue or bard like.

- If you are going to reduce BAB and think of your Cleric as being like a pure caster, I suppose one of the logical routes to take would be to give them abilities that enhance their casting in some way.

- Another possibility is to find ways to alter or enhance your channeling ability to do different things.

That said, I kind of agree with the prior poster about the basic utility of BAB. Even without taking a power gaming perspective, there can be situations where it's useful for a character to at least have a back-up plan for situations where they will otherwise find themselves useless - such as when your party is confronted with flying enemies and no one does ranged combat in the party. This is especially true for Vancian magic, where the cliche example is that the Wizard runs out of spells, and is left just being a low HP and low BAB character running and hiding or using items if they can until they get their spells back.

For this reason, I've tended to want to make my Cleric characters specialize in ranged combat. Which also happens to be one of the best possible builds.

I have been toying with the idea of making Monk/Druid characters based on the Way of the Angry Bear guide that was posted a number of years ago (The Way of the Angry Bear). I really like the flavor of Monk and Druid together, and I love the idea of a Monk that synergizes their unarmed combat abilities with Wildshape.

However, I ran into the fact that the Feral Combat Training feat has been errata'd and nerfed, making the type of build talked about in that guide a bit less significant than originally intended, aside from the complications that arise from multiclassing and gestalt-like characters.

In my understanding, Feral Combat training is still useful, in that it can be used to have one of your natural attacks from Wildshape work with both Flurry of Blows and abilities from feats that are based on Improved Unarmed Strike (such as Dragon Style). What it doesn't do post-errata is let you use your Monk's unarmed strike damage die for natural attacks while in Wildshape. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So I figured I would homebrew a Monk/Druid prestige class based around this type of build to get around the limitations of Feral Combat Training and represent the build in one cohesive class. Enter the Feral Disciple:

The Feral Disciple

Requirements
Alignment: Must be Lawful Neutral
Skills: Knowledge (nature) 5 ranks
Feats: Feral Combat Training
Special: Wild Shape class feature
Special: Flurry of Blows class feature or Multiattack feat

Class Features
Base Attack: Medium
Saves: Fortitude, Reflex and Will
Class Skills: Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, Handle Animal, Knowledge (Nature), Knowledge (Planes), Perception, Ride,
Stealth, Survival, Swim
Skills Per Level: 4 + Int modifier
Hit Die: d8

Wildshape: The Feral Disciple's class levels stack with Druid levels for the purpose of determining their Wild Shape ability.

Monk Abilities: The Feral Disciple's class levels stack with Monk levels for the purpose of determining their Unarmed Strike
damage, their Flurry of Blows ability, and their natural AC bonus.

Monstrous Wildshape: At 1st level, the Feral Disciple must choose a monster type: Aberration, Dragon, Fey, Magical Beast,
Monstrous Humanoid, Undead, Ooze, Outsider, and Vermin. They gain the ability to assume the form of creatures of that type with
their Wildshape ability. At 2nd level, they can assume the form of a large creature of the chosen type, a tiny creature at 4th
level, a Huge creature at 6th level, a Diminuitive creature at 8th level, and a Gargantuan creature at 10th level.

Bonus Feats: At 1st, 5th and 9th level, the Feral Disciple chooses a bonus feat from the following list (Bleeding Attack,
Crushing Blow, Domain Strike, Dragon Style, Elemental Fist, Flyby Attack, Hamatulatsu, Improved Natural Attack, Monastic Legacy,
Multiattack, Natural Spell, Noxious Bite, Rending Claws, Scorpion Style, Shaping Focus, and Wingover).

Feral Ferocity: At 3rd level, the Feral Disciple may use their unarmed strike damage die for natural attacks while in Wild Shape. Additionally, their natural attacks while in Wildshape count as Magic Weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Monstrous Style: At 4th level, the Feral Disciple gains a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls while in Wildshape. If the Feral Disciple has the Multiattack feat, their penalties to secondary attacks are reduced to -1.

Extraordinary Wildshape: At 7th level, the Feral Disciple gains all of the extraordinary special abilities and special qualities
of any shape they take using their Wild Shape ability, wether or not they appear in the list of the relevant spell.

Improved Monstrous Style: At 8th level, the Feral Disciple's bonus to attack and damage rolls while in Wildshape increases to +2. If the Feral Disciple has the Multiattack feat, their penalties to secondary attacks are reduced to 0.

Wildshape Mastery: At 10th level, the Feral Disciple gains all
of the spell-like abilities of any shape they take using their Wildshape ability, whether or not they appear in the list of the
relevant spell. These spell-like abilities are based on their Wisdom modifier.

Overview and Thoughts

The basic idea here is that you are a Monk who goes into Druid to get Wildshape, and then enhances their Wildshape with Unarmed Strike and its related abilities via Feral Combat training. From the Druid angle, you're giving up spellcasting progression in exchange for enhanced Wildshape abilities and Monk gestalt synergy. I also leave open the possibility of entering the class without being a Monk via the Multiattack feat, which supplements Flurry of Blows.

Monstrous Wildshape is a bit like the ability of the Master of Many Forms prestige class from 3.5 D&D, but it is more narrow and specialized to one creature type.

The bonus feats serve one of three possible functions: to give you more abilities from feats that are based on Improved Unarmed Strike, to give you access to some Monster feats, and to help you fix up the losses to abilities from being multi-class, bringing you closer to a gestalt Monk/Druid. They're all feats that naturally go with the build.

Feral Ferocity is essentially intended to do what Feral Combat Training was originally exploited to do. On the surface, it might not seem like it does much, but it can do a lot applied to your secondary natural attacks while in Wildshape.

Monstrous Style helps make up for the cost to your BAB of multiclassing and slowly eliminates the penalties for doing full attack actions while Wildshaped. Even if one comes into the class without Multiattack, it is a very useful feat for the build and this serves the function of moving us toward the equivolent of Improved Multiattack, which doesn't appear to exist in Pathfinder.

Extraordinary Wildshape is a nice ability that is identical to the 7th level ability of the Master of Many Forms.

Wildshape Mastery is our capstone that essentially makes up for giving up Druid spellcasting by giving you the ability to use spell-like abilities of your Wildshape forms. If there's anything I'm worried about being OP about this, this is it. Might go with Supernatural abilities instead.

My main questions are:
- Does this actually work within the rules as I think it does?
- If it does work within the rules, is this balanced? Overpowered? A little underwhelming? How does it compare to a pure Druid build based on a similar concept?
- General thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? Critique?

I always was a big fan of Planescape, as I think it's one of the coolest things to ever come out of D&D. Unfortunately Planescape was discontinued a while ago, though there was a website that was devoted to a 3.0 conversion by independent developers at http://www.planewalker.com/ with a bunch of PDFs. With that said, I don't think it's that big of a leap to try to convert the content over to Pathfinder. Some of it already lives on in the general D&D content as well.

One of the interesting things about Planescape is the Lady of Pain, who has a somewhat mysterious origin and nature, which is generally treated as a matter with a million different speculative explanations, none of which there is canon on the truth of (deliberately). But it occurs to me that some really awesome epic campaign ideas could come from a search for the true origins of the Lady of Pain, with the campaign's own non-canonical explanation. Further, such a campaign could involve the threat of the death of the Lady of Pain with such knowledge - of course killing her in combat and giving her stats would be stupid. What could kill the Lady of Pain would be something more indirect and cerebral.

Of course, the consequence of the Lady of Pain being gone would be significant and negative, as she essentially functions as a true neutral over-god that keeps out the powers and stops the Blood War from spilling out into Sigil. It would seem that if any groups would be interested in getting rid of her, it would be (1) what remains of the Athar at the base of the Spire, as they may view her much in the same way they view the powers and (2) the evil powers from Baator, who would want to take over Sigil for themselves.

Other groups who would be interested in understanding the Lady of Pain, but be opposed to destroying her, would be the Fraternity of Order (they are obcessed with understanding the laws of the multiverse, and the Lady of Pain is its greatest mystery) and the Transcendent Order (who are the defacto ruling body of Sigil that is the least touched by the outcome of the Faction War). It would also seem that the Outlands is a fitting place for any remaining secret knowledge about the Lady of Pain to exist, as it's where Sigil is technically located and is the true neutral center of the Multiverse. It's also where what remains of the Athar is located - right at the base of the spire.

I'm curious if anyone has any comments, thoughts, or suggestions on this idea? I'd really like to be able to convert Planescape over to Pathfinder and set up an epic campaign based on this.