Zombie Ninja's page

I'm starting to think people love to hate the fighter. While I've never found the fighter to be an attractive class myself, there are many who do, and I think the reason why is the combination of simplicity and customizability (with all of those feats, more skill points would have been nice too but alas). Saving throws is a problem of course, but isn't really a problem with all of the class with the poor saving throw progression and no way to magically enhance them (barbarian, rogue, cavalier, slayer, etc. (martials)). Although some will hate the suggestion, a new class that has a fighter like chassis but at least 4 skill points per level and a marshal like ability to yell out commands that have some crowd control effects, good saves (obviously), and some type of feat-like (rage powers, rogue talents) customization feels warranted. This way you can have your versatile martial class, and the fighter is still there as the simpler option. Alternatively, a extensive archtype might be able to fit the bill.

I want the hexblade back (the 3.5e version), but the bloodrager is okay for the most part. I always liked the magic dabblers (Paladin, Ranger) classes, seems like the designers prefer hybrid (bard-like) casting progression though. Hopefully we'll get some new dabblers in the future.

Weapon speeds, It really did balance out weapons making the dagger a more attractive choice, and since spell-caster where very slow.

Weapon vs armor type chart. Okay, I know not every group used this and it could be argued that it added extra book keeping, but the extra flavor it added was immense.

3rd editions skill system, I'm not a big fan of reducing the skill list. Seems like we lost more then we gained by doing so.

Other then that I can't think of anything I would seriously bring back. But, I would like armor as damage resistance to be a standard rule instead of optional.

How separate the divide is between psionics and magic is up to the interpreter. When 3e psionics came out I originally ruled that psionics was a kind of anti-magic system. The closest comparison I can make is to how the alchemist is currently flavored, only based around the mind or more precisely the ego instead of components.

I don't hate on the vancian magic system, who to say how magic should work in a fantasy world, maybe the reason magic doesn't seem to be real is because they're doing it wrong ;). But like others have said I also have a preference towards mana points, or similar systems.

When it comes to re-flavoring, not a fan. Concepts become clearer when flavor text and mechanics support each other. The big advantage a class system has over a skill system is that immediate association one gets when a single word (say fighter) can be used to not only produce a mental image, but also give a clear idea of what powers and skills you would have. Re-flavor and that advantage is lost, might as well be playing a skill based system.

Not to point any kind of accusing finger at anybody, by if I was GMing for Ashiel, I wouldn't stop her from saying her egoist/shaper combo was a witch, but she would at best be considered a bit eccentric, actual most people would consider her loony, and a true witch would find her claim to be insulting. Of course at her game table that may be just fine.

The direct damage spells are fine you just need a charisma score of 35, and be using a whip as a weapon. If you're doing both then fireball is a great option.

(sarcasm)

I like conqueror, even if it doesn't describe what a bloodrager does, so I'll just call myself a conqueror when I play one.

I think it can be done well, depending how married you guys are to some of these. A few just need a little tinkering (Hunter, Bloodrager), some a total revamp (Skald, Investigator) and some need to be cut completely and replaced with something else (Arcanist, Warpriest).

Maybe on the Arcanist, but I wouldn't cut the warpriest, It really should have had full BAB and d10 hps, but otherwise some minor tinkering could give a surprisingly good class.

I'll butt in with some ideas that I think can help.

For one thing, the spell list problem might have an elegant solution.
Introduced in the 3.5 splat-book, Complete Arcana, was both a class and a prestige class, the Spellthief, and the Suel Arcanamach, respectively. They two things in common. One, they were both blends of skillful characters and caster and, more importantly, their spell list was composed of handpicked schools from the sorcerer/wizard list.

This is a good idea, as it lets you expand the spell-lists of your splatbook classes with each new splatbook you put forth, without leading to a bloat of the spell list tables.

I remember, yes it could work. Basically bloodragers would get access to spells from the Illusion, necromancy, and transmutation schools up to fourth level (just an example). A good compromise, I like it, which means everyone else will hate it.

Axiem wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

* The above points are especially relevant when you consider that there are still many archetypal fantasy classes that Pathfinder has yet to explore. Tinkers, warlocks, warlords, herbalists, etc. Furthermore, some of the thematic concepts presented in these hybrid classes would have been much better if presented as new, unique classes with fun new abilities instead of watered-down combinations.

Releasing a book with base classes, does not preclude Paizo from making more classes in another content book later.

That's exactly my point: There are a lot of really fun and interesting classes out there yet to be explored. Why are we already falling back on combining existing classes into uninteresting hybrids?

To be far some people find them interesting. I don't, but some do. Here's the trick, how do you change the classes just enough to please people like you and me, while keeping the content people happy. Now add into the mix that the developers themselves already put time and effort into the construction of the new classes, and in a very short window of time need to fix the flaws in them. Ultimately you and I are not getting what we want, we'll have to settle on a compromise.

Been discussed, apparently the good folks over at Paizos like the name and wont budge. I think it terrible.

I almost think it needs the suggestion I made on another thread. Give the spell-casting to the animal companion and give more martial options to the hunter. You end up with a reverse summoner. Well at least I think it would be neat.

Adjule wrote:

Zombie Ninja wrote:

I almost wish that Bloodrage added a bonus to Charisma instead of Constitution, and got bonus round from Charisma as well. It would mean much less MAD.

Either that, or their spellcasting could be based on Constitution instead of Charisma (kinda like the scarred witch doctor). I was kinda hoping for that.

This seems like an interesting suggestion, but being able to dump Cha entirely feels like simply too significant of a power boost. Unless they begin losing power elsewhere, the Cha bonus during rage would be more reasonable. This is definitely one of the more MAD classes though. I don't think having those are always a bad thing, it can make for interesting trade-offs (and they only need 14 Cha to cast their highest level spells. They could start with 11 Cha, and use their stat-up on it at 4th, 8th, 12th, and never be unable to cast their top level spells. If they got a headband+2Cha, they could sit even lower). I imagine most will decide to avoid offensive spells with DCs to focus on martial stats and keep Cha at an 'acceptable' level. Even stuff like the Abberation bloodline's Staggering Strike is con-based.

A bonus to Charisma While raging would also increase spell DC's and make some Magus spells more viable. This would make the class more versatile overall. Sometimes I wish developers give more insight to their design choices, am I missing something?

I was hoping for more health and a much more martial focused character. I would welcome the removal of spells from this class in exchange for more performance abilities and such.

I second the change to a d10 hit die, perhaps a full bab as well. With the class description I thought of this as a much more martial oriented character.

I wonder if the folks at Paizo's would consider such a drastic change as dropping spell-casting completely, and making it a full BAB d10HD class. I sort of like the idea, How does everyone else feel?

I almost wish that Bloodrage added a bonus to Charisma instead of Constitution, and got bonus round from Charisma as well. It would mean much less MAD.

Honestly I can't wait until we start overreacting, screaming over post, accusing people of power-gaming, label things as broken/useless, and of course the "this should not exist" complainers. Yes the next few months are going to just grand, good times...good times.

Smurfs.

I like complicated, but I'm very weird. Simplicity never did anything for me, but complex opens my mind to more and more complicated and exciting prospects. It's the reason I can't be satisfied with rules light systems. Oh well, I also love jalapeno peppers and hate tea. The point is.........wait there isn't really a point, but the bloodrager could be the most awesome thing ever.

My experience with D&D next was less then a positive one, I really disliked it. Since I play sometimes and GM sometimes, I guess I'm an example of a GM who won't be switching.

Don't care for him personally.

1. I love splat books, and hate adventure paths.
2. I don't care for golarion as a campaign setting.
3. I wish we would have gotten epic instead of mythic.
4. I get tired of the same old power creep and rules bloat arguments and see no proof for the existence of either.
5. I think pushy elitist GM's with a my way or the highway attitude, are whats really destroying the hobby.
6. I wonder what happened to just sitting around the table and having fun.

I'm not looking to start a fight, everyone has the preferences and should feel free to express them, it's just how I feel sometimes.

A gunslinger/rogue called the evil mustache twirler,. his special powers are snarky laugh, and dastardly plan.

I can smell the ocean air, and feel that sand beneath my feet.

Or a cavalier/rogue called the scoundrel. He acts all chivalrous but stabs you in the back first chance he gets.
The only class in the game that gets experience for betraying the party.

4 more, can't wait.

A monk spell-caster combo reminiscent of the sacred fist would be a cool idea.

I know it sounds weird, but I think a cleric/bard hybrid would be interesting. A Divine herald class of sorts.

I never had an issue with adding new classes, but since it's such a hotly contested debate, I'm going with a let the designers decide what they want to create stance.

To me it just makes sense, with millions if not billions of sentient being living on Golarion, nobody ever thinks outside of the box of the core four, ever. Seems unlikely.

Let game designers design, I say.

Seriously if the Bloodrager is like a Barbarian with Bloodlines and a little bit of casting I will be on that. All day, every day, 'til the end of days. Those are like, my two favorite class features in the game (Rage and Bloodlines).

You and me both, brother.

I like where this is going, but not to be a spoil sport but, Jason, you really need to work on your naming conventions.

Bloodrager = great idea but terrible name. Please consider Marauder, Conqueror, or vanquisher. Something less fake compound word sounding.

Hunter = It sounds more like a warden.

Shaman and Slayer are ok.

Warpriest = Templar, crusader, champion or perhaps sentinel.

Swashbuckler = Normally just fine, but there is an archetype by that name. To avoid confusion consider buccaneer.

There I got it off my chest, otherwise I'm really looking forward to this one.

Honestly It would be a huge mistake to completely rewrite the system. 4e did this, and it spit the player base. Likewise I'm against the idea of slimming down the system as well, D&D next does this, and it's still splitting the player base. Besides it wouldn't be a good idea to compete against D&D next with a system that's almost identical. I say let pathfinder be the advanced system, and let next be the basic one.

Is a revision in order, yes, but let paizo's take their time with it, and lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'll wait for a revision.

Rumors of the Summoner's OPness have been greatly exaggerated.

But you should only ever let a player you trust within 50 feet of the darn things.

I completely agree, but I think the dislike of the summoner is due to the fact it's a difficult class, with all of those evolutions and point counting. That said the whole point behind the summoner is not summoning, it's allowing the players to create and play their own monster. The eidolon isn't a class feature it's the character, the summoner is the class feature. That said I don't have a problem with the class being made somewhat simpler, although I do have a problem with it being removed, since it is the only class where you can create and play as a monster. It's by it's very definition unique, no the druid doesn't even come close.

I wish I didn't have to constantly defend the class, I remember before the APG class playtest even came out people said that summoners where overpowered and unnecessary, before they even seen it on paper, wow.

I love all of the APG classes, summoner is perhaps my favorite class of all time. Actually back in 3.5 I loved and used all of the splat books as well. Personally I hate it when people say build this out of this class cause you don't need options (not trying to argue just saying that's all), but then again I just prefer a larger number of specific classes verses a create your class concept.

To each his own, if you don't like them so be it, but as long as their still an option I will use them. The points to have fun, so just have fun.

Idea, why not a modified version of the gunslinger.

A grit like mechanic would fit a swashbuckler pretty well, plus good reflex and fort saves, full BAB and d10 HD, 4 skill points per level, and nimble all fit the what people are looking for well enough. Wouldn't an alternate class work well here, just change the gun out for a single handed finesse based weapon. Heck, use swashbuckler as the base class and use gunslinger as an archetype, gunslinger always seemed too specific to be a base class anyway.

I think the design goals behind the fighter and paladin are very different, so comparing the fighter with the paladin is like comparing apples to oranges. The fighter with it's bonus feats and lack of burst powers and emphasis on static bonus means the class is built for people who love customization. The paladin does have some customization, but it's not nearly as dynamic, instead he gets useful burst abilities, and perhaps more power in the right players hands. It's really hard to compare the two.

I always thought the fighter could use a little more in the way of raw power though, but let him do what he does best instead of loading him up with burst abilities.

Just wondering if there is any specific reason that the quadruped ability ability requires large size. I have an idea for a medium sized quadruped race, and find the large size restriction a little overbearing. especially since I wouldn't need the large size bonuses.