Necromancer Archetype will be released at a later date. I'll look into possibly doing a more detailed summary. The summary we produced was based off of class/archetype summary samples from other third party publishers.
The basics of the class are as follows
1: Intelligence is used as the primary casting stat.
I'll update the description. In function it's a base class and not an archetype. There were a few reasons for that, largely because of how much we stripped away, gave the class a spell book, and swapped the casting stat, it became impractical to think of it as an archetype due to such large changes. For all these reasons it was much easier for us to program the herolab files as a class all its own rather than an archetype.
The other reason we wanted to go with a class rather than an archetype was because in the future we want to build archetypes off of this class. For instance we're working on a Necromancer version of this class that would swap out the standard templates for Undead templates instead.
I'd like to add to it that I feel this needs clarification. I played Part 1 of the module last night, and the GM ruled that it didn't add to the Splash damage. I asked the Reddit Discord feedback group to add it to the list of rules needing clarification, and they refused stating that "the rule is not unclear in the least. If it's an alchemical item or spell that does fire damage, you add to it. There's nothing in there explicitly prohibiting it adding to splash damage, nor is there a rule in splash damage making it exempt from added bonus damage like this feat."
I understand that, but I included those archetypes because they can be readjusted for other classes like the Cleric or Monk.
Inquisitor: Monster Tactician
Bard: Arcane Healer
Warpriest: Sacred Fist
Summoner: Studied Summoner
LF PBP game. I'm developing a custom class/archetype called the Studied Summoner. It changes the summoner class by dumping the Eidolon in favor of focusing on the SLA Summons. It switches to using Intelligence and using a spell book, and puts new restrictions on Summons (to reduce abuse) while adding new flavor.
My goal is to play test this Class for inclusion in a possible published adventure later down the road, but I need to stretch it out and run it through some paces. So I'd like to get it in a PBP campaign where I'd be very open to feedback from both the players and GM on how the class performs and what tweaks it might need.
@Vakr, I'm wanting to play test a custom archetype/class called the Studied Summoner. It drops the Ediolon in favor of focusing on the SLA Summons ability. It changes the primary casting stat to Intelligence and makes the class a Prep caster with a spellbook. The class is limited on how many active summons it can use (It can't have 2 active summons till level 8) and patches some of the more annoying aspects of summon monster (Such as abuse of actions per round).
The real meat is the Spell Laced Summons class feature that turns the SLA Summons back to a 1 Round action which brings the Summons in with a free buff cast on them from the casters prepped spells (A failed concentration check blows both the SLA usage and the prepped spell).
Anyways, take a look and if it's okay with you, I'll put together an application with the class.
GM Darkblade wrote:
I've weighed the class versus a normal summoner and against the potential issues which could arise during the campaign that could hamper or alter his abilities. I'm sorry but I feel I must decline allowing your custom class for this campaign.
No problem, thanks for the consideration. Have fun everyone! I'll go ahead and withdraw my application.
Durwyn Glyphwarden wrote:
My vision of Durwyn is a Paladin that is at home in the wilds like a ranger. He is not your typical dwarf in that he actively seeks to help other races and believes that the dwarven race is stronger when united with the other goodly races.
Makes sense if you're from The Low and High Kingdom of the Wise of the Lortmil Mountains. They maintain open relations with humans and other races to the benefit of trade and mercantilism.
Does Durwyn believe the Torobid Dwarves still live? What is his opinion on the tensions between the Eastern Clans (Cletlandi and Cayzendos) and the Lortmil Dwarves?
I wanted to put something together to give you a better idea of the build I had in mind with the story flavor. Here's my submission using the Studied Summoner custom class.
Male human studied summoner 1
NG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +4; Senses Perception +0
AC 12, touch 12, flat-footed 10 (+2 Dex)
hp 8 (1d6+2)
Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +2; +2 vs. Spells and effects originating from demon worshippers and from creatures of the demon type
Speed 30 ft.
Studied Summoner Spell-Like Abilities (CL 1st; concentration +6)
. . 10/day—Summon Monster/Nature's Ally I
Studied Summoner Spells Prepared (CL 1st; concentration +6)
. . 1st—grease (2), mage armor
. . 0 (at will)—daze (DC 15), detect magic, read magic
Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 20, Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 12
Feats Augment Summoning, Spell Focus (conjuration), Sunlight Summons[UM], Vengeful Banisher
Traits demonbane summoner (the worldwound), reactionary
Skills Craft (alchemy) +9, Knowledge (arcana) +9, Knowledge (local) +9, Knowledge (nature) +9, Knowledge (planes) +9, Knowledge (religion) +9, Linguistics +9, Spellcraft +9, Use Magic Device +0
Languages Abyssal, Celestial, Common, Elven, Goblin, Orc, Terran
SQ Max Summons
Other Gear studied summoner starting grimoire, 120 gp
Augment Summoning Summoned creatures have +4 to Strength and Constitution.
Max Summons (Ex) A summoner can only have one summon monster, gate, summon nature's ally spell like ability active at one time. Normal summons cast off the Studied Summoner's prepare spells are not applied to this limit, nor are affected by it. A
Spell Focus (Conjuration) Spells from one school of magic have +1 to their save DC.
Summon Monster/Nature's Ally I (10/day) (Sp) Standard action summon lasts minutes per level.
Sunlight Summons Summoned creatures glow and are immune to blinding and dazzling effects
Vengeful Banisher Saves: +2 vs. spells or effects from Demons or Demon Worshippers.
Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
At a young age Ezekiel Brimstone displayed an aptitude for the arcane arts. His parents, who lived in a small village that straddled the border between the Bandit Kingdoms and the County of Urnst, desperately wanted better for their children. They aspired to send their son to the Guild of Wizardy, but alas they couldn't afford to send him there. As luck would have it though The Sorcerous Union of Radigast City held open trials for anyone to attend that proved skilled in magical aptitude. The Union wanted to bolster their numbers and improve their reputation, so those who achieved grand marks were allowed to attend the school for free.
Proving himself more skilled in the arts of Conjuration rather than Illusion, the school accepted Brimstone, and he left his family, farm, and siblings to attend studies in Radigast City. There her learned and honed his abilities in the arcane, till fall of the next year.
The demonic occultists and ravaging hordes of Iuz the wicked had grown either bored or restless, and it was then they decided to test the borders of their demonic kings lands. Raids were rampant and the border kingdoms had to rebuke several skirmishes. Unfortunately, Ezekiel's hometown was a casualty of those machinations. His entire family was wiped out by the demons, cultists, and undead hordes of Iuz.
Dropping out of school, feeling he had learned enough, Ezekiel refocused himself on bring vengeance on the evil cults that preyed on the weak. While he prefers to seek out those who worship and serve Iuz, he's more than happy to use his summoning prowess to take down anyone who serves evil.
Jesse Heinig wrote:
This is all really good lore, and I'll throw out another option for Barbarian is being from the Bandit Kingdoms. There the people of the land fight their hostile surroundings to survive on a day-to-day basis living under the tyrannical rule of an evil demigod Iuz. It's a harsh place that breeds tough citizens. Basically there's a giant "Paladins should not enter" sign along the borders.
Link for more reading on lore of the Bandit Kingdoms.
GM Darkblade wrote:
I will review the write up over the next day or so as requested. I admit at first glance I am leaning towards denying the request out of a sense of balance and fairness to other applicants for whom I have rejected published options from unapproved sources. I hope you understand. I will have a decision soon.
I totally understand and I appreciate the consideration. Whatever works best for your campaign :)
I'm a huge Greyhawk fan myself (I played Living Greyhawk a ton back in the old RPGA days and now I've made myself feel old).
I'm super interested in the campaign but I'd like to ask if a custom class is allowed? Basically there's a class I'd like to play test called the Studied Summoner. I know you use Hero Lab to track the players and stuff, but there's actually a Hero Lab file that has the class implemented that I could provide you.
Basically the class is designed like the Summoner but it ditches the Eidolon in favor of focusing on the SLA Summon Monster feature. However, it's not broken like the Master Summoner as the class also introduces new limitations on Summoning (It sets a Maximum number of Summons that scales in level, and it plugs the loophole that allows a summoned monster to active, then be replaced by a new summon with a full set of actions).
It's an interesting alternative and if you have issues with the class features they can be adjusted for balance purposes.
Here's a link to the Studied Summoner write up.
And here's a link to the Hero Lab file for the class. The file just needs to be dropped in C:\ProgramData\Hero Lab\data\pathfinder and it'll compile the next time you run Hero Lab.
If you're okay with it I can work up a Hero Lab file for the character real easily.
Alright, I think we've hit the saturation point for this part of the discussion. Initiate virtual handshake and lets drop this.
It wouldn't even happen until the second printing anyways, and that will take years.
This is a far better point than "It just can't happen." and I appreciate the question.
I think it goes back to my previous point about adding versatility to an under utilized class (Again, this gets to be a more regional specific thing but in my chapter of PFS I can't honestly remember the last time I saw a player run an Inquisitor other than my friend, and he stopped playing PFS years ago).
Increasing the desire to play the hybrid/versatile classes means more skills at the table (Seriously, I don't know what it's like for other people but we have a horrible time with skill versatility.), more people who can cast CL Wands, and the Monster Knowledge feature really helps with the encounters as well. All in all I think it'd help an under utilized class get more play time.
In the same vein I think the should let the Investigator utilize Wands (Another woefully under utilized class) but that's a conversation for a different thread.
I propose we drop this line of discussion because it's serving no purpose to the larger conversation.. I didn't pull Tonya's name out of a hat. I had tried a few different points of Contact and was told directly by the @Paizo representative to contact her about this request. I will agree that making changes to the Archetype isn't her responsibility, but I offered that as a possible solution to the problem. PFS absolutely influences the Pathfinder product, and seeing as Tonya is responsible for the Pathfinder Society program, she's a part of that feedback loop.
Also, the part about nerfing is also a weird point. If all people do is bring up how powerful it is and it's banned from Organized play potentially because it's too powerful, then doesn't that indicate it might need a Nerf? Reworking it to fit better in PFS play and letting it be legal is better than just wiping it off the table completely and never allowing it at all. I'd imagine Paizo want people to utilize desired aspects of their product, and PFS is where the most play of various builds happens (Due to a larger pool of rotating characters).
So Tonya Woldridge doesn't work for Paizo? Unless they specifically don't work for Paizo (Which I believe they do since on Twitter it lists them as living in the Redmond/Seattle region which the Paizo headquarters are located) then of course it is. It's just a matter of one part of the business communicating with another part of the business. If the core Leadership portion of PFS (Which is owned and operated by Paizo) has 0 ability to communicate and interact with the Pathfinder product group (Also owned and operated by Paizo) that's a business failing there at an organizational level. The implication there is that Pathfinder can influence PFS, but PFS can never influence Pathfinder.
It's a toned down Monster Tactician. Writing that out suddenly makes me want to make this...
That's really interesting, I hadn't heard of that archetype before. I'll need to crunch it through Herolab and see how it plays out.
Another one I REALLY like (I have a level 4 character with this Archetype in PFS) is the Preservationist for the Alchemist. All you have to give up in Poison Use and you add Summon Nature's Ally to your Formula List that scales better than the normal Alchemist progression (IE at level 8 you get Summon Nature's Ally IV as a 3rd level extract).
Warpriests get in on the fun too with the Good/Evil/Lawful blessing with their Battle Companions. Unfortunately that doesn't kick in till level 10, but it's still a standard action and scales well too.
Hence the suggestion to help you, since what you're asking can't be done.
Of course it can. Maybe I'm not asking in the right place (I know this is PFS but PFS is a part of Paizo as a larger organization, so it's not irrational to think they'd know "who" to talk to as far as the "product group" goes.) but the archetype can be errata'd to fit PFS. These things aren't written in stone.
Alexander Lenz wrote:
Reducing the spells per-day seems extreme. I'd be okay with Bane being tossed out and the domain being removed. Keep the Summon Tactics in unless that's just determined to be crazy too good. Again, the Summoner can just choose not to pull out it's Eidolon and they have all their SLA Summons and a good Arcane Spell casting list that's Spontaneous just like the Inquisitor.
I think the Master Summoner was blocked not because it was "too good" (because the Eidolon gets such a massive nerf that it basically becomes useless) but it falls under the same "Too Complicated" category of running Summons AND a Pet based class. I get that, but oddly there are many other ways to accomplish this exact same type of "build" with other classes/archetypes. Back to my Animal Totem example. You get a full caster class, with Spontaneous Summons (That are Standard Actions at level 5) along with an Animal Companion.
Summoner: Took much reliance on the Eidolon. Again, I'd be happy for an archetype here that dumps the Eidolon for the SLA Summons to get a buff. I know I could just run the Summoner without the Eidolon, but then it feels like I'm having to just ignore a rather major feature of a class (Hence hamstringing myself) to get it working way I want. I also have a minor bias against Charisma based casters, I just don't like Charisma as a casting stat Since it provides very little other benefits. At least Int grants a lot of additional skill points and applies to a bunch of other skills. Wisdom applies to a bunch of really important skills (Perception, Sense Motive, Heal, Survival) while also bumping your Will save.
Cleric: I've crunched the numbers on the Herald Caller a bunch of times and while it kind of works, it's also a bit confusing and I argue makes the class far more complicated than anything with normal summons because now you have to check if your Summons are something in line your Deity. It adds additional layers of complexity that frankly don't really add much flavor in my opinion and like the Shaman Druid, I think overly complicates the summoning mechanic (Though I love the Mighty Heralds class feature at level 4).
Arcanist: So full disclosure, I am running an Occultist archetype for the Arcanist in PFS currently (He's level 3). He's fine, but doesn't fit the mold I'm going for (IE the "Tactician" with group buffs, support, and healing). Dumping your Arcane Reservoir to summon as a SLA is rough, but I totally get it because it's a very versatile class that is also a full spell casting class with an unrestricted spell list.
Druid: I've thought about running the Animal Shaman build but like I said previously, it's that archetype that actually concerns me from a complexity standpoint with all the templates. Not a bad option and I keep playing around with the build.
I also don't see the harm in asking for a change though. Obviously some people feel the archetype is too powerful for PFS, so why not bring it in line and make it so that it does work for PFS?
Gary Bush wrote:
I figured. I also figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Worst they can say is no.
Sliska Zafir wrote:
I disagree with this argument because the Animal Shaman doesn't stop the class from taking different forms with Wild Shape, it makes other non-totem based forms operate at different levels. Meaning if the character finds themselves in a situation that taking a non-totem form would be more advantageous then they need to not only look up that shape, but they'll then also need to calculate how they operate at -2 effective levels for that shape. Hence why it overly complicates an already massively complicated class feature.
While I appreciate that perspective, I'm just a consumer of their products who pays appreciatively for what they put out there. If they're going to get annoyed with a customer simply because that customer is respectfully and politely advocating to further consume their product (IE I want to play an Archetype they developed from a book I happily paid for.) then the problem isn't with me.
Shunned is different than Banned. I don't disagree, but the teamwork feats aren't nearly as complex to calculate as the Young, Advanced, or Giant templates are that the Shaman Druids gain access too.
It's powerful, but remember that Judgement scales ridiculously well as a class feature. I have a buddy who's is an Inquisitor freak (that's basically all he plays for campaigns) and when I mentioned this Archetype he was instantly put off because it losses Judgements.
Also, keep in mind that the class does not have as-powerful a spell list as the Summoner does. Again, the Summoner loses Evocation, but keeps all of the most powerful Conjuration spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list, which also scale insanely well. You would be in a CR 15 encounter and Grease, as a level 1 spell, would still be a complete game changer, especially as a spell that bypasses SR.
I know, which is why I didn't correct them. As I stated, I would stand by that ruling were I running it for PFS so I didn't feel the need to clarify that then. Mostly this was a comment to commiserate that I play PFS because I GM too much.
Yet more reasons for me not to play PFS I guess, which is a shame because I get tired of always being GM sometimes.
So there's been a lot of criticism thrown my way for stating that I'd rule in favor of the old reading for Fencing Grace. I avoided bringing up this point because it doesn't really matter since I stand by my statement (As in that's how I would rule for running a PFS module) but I don't actually GM for PFS.
Basically within my group of friends I run 2 campaigns, an online game for 7 players in Redmond and table session for 5 people in Texas. I've been the only GM for 2 groups of friends for the last 5 years and I never get to play, so I go to PFS purely to be a player.
While this ruling does annoy me for my current character (You guess it, an Inspired Blade Swashbuckler/Magus) realistically it's not going to affect my build too much. I'm currently level 3, so at this point I'll just Spell Strike stuff (Since Spell Strike doesn't interfere with Fencing Grace, which is kind of ironic and weird but whatever) and get my extra attacks through Parry/Riposte. Once I hit 6th level I can Agile enchant my blade, and get back to full attacks :)
Andrew Christian wrote:
It is against the rules to enact a grudge against another player. Again, as I posted in the GM 101 book it specifically says not to make the game about you vs another player, which this GM did. Please trust me when I say he had a history of being a jerk to this other player.
1: If me ruling in favor of the player rather than against as I listed in my other examples makes me a horrible person, I'm okay with that.
2: If you are this easily offended by an idiot (me) that you'll never meet and will have no effect on your life due to his ruling of a fantasy rpg game of make believe, then I'm afraid the real world might crush you a little.
Finally the reason I find this silly is that I'm not finding any obvious posts or rules that affect the use of Spell Strike and Fencing Grace so long as your only action is to cast through Spell Strike while opting to not use Spell Combat.
"At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell."
So if the ruling were actually to stop you from both casting and attacking, yet I choose to just use Spell Strike to cast Shocking Grasp and deliver it through my Rapier (Which is both casting and attacking) I apparently still get my Dex bonus to damage. Unless I'm still missing something?
The evidence is too localized and wouldn't really "mean" anything to the context of the story. Sufficient to say that there was beef between the player and the GM so the GM specifically choose a spell he knew would only have any affect on 2 of the 6 players. You're right, death is on the table and I'm not arguing that. But a specific player was targeted and that flavored spell selection by the GM.
I'm willing to let this part rest with agreeing to disagree as it's not adding anything to the rest of the commentary. Sufficient to say that GMs do not consistently rule. Same killer GM ruled that to-hit penalty a Gunslinger suffered due to using double-barrel musket (Before the errata) stacked with additional shots. IE the first pair of shots suffered -4, the second pair of shots suffered -8, and so on.
Sorry, context was missing here. Out of the 6 players only two were bellow level 9, the primary target of the GMs wrath being one of those 2. This is specifically covered in the PFS GM 101 guide.
"Killing PC s
So he specifically made it about him vs. this other player.
So you necro a thread with the express purpose to say that you are going to not going to follow the rules? Okay....
Yeah, that's totally my fault. I've been reading through the variety of threads on this (The information is all over the place on this) but somehow I never found that link to the rules clarification for Slashing Grace that explicitly called out to use the Slashing Grace rules with the Fencing Grace rules and use the same FAQ clarification (Honestly they're handling of the rules clarification has been handled atrociously.
Second, lets not pretend that GMs at PFS games follow the rule 100% completely. I've seen GMs tack on additional hit points to Monsters because they felt the players were beating it too easily. I recently saw a GM use Circle of Death through a Limited Wish in Waking Rune just so he could kill some players he wasn't fond of. So lets not pretend GMs run/rule 100% favorable for either the player or in the spirit/intention of Paizo. There are no sacred cows here.
Azara Emberkin wrote:
Ahhh, they're referring to this section.
Meh, I still heavily disagree with this reading and won't run it this way. It's a stupid rule and doesn't actually add or balance anything in the game. Frankly whoever decided that it doesn't officially stack with Spell Combat is an idiot.
Am I the only one reading the Campaign Clarified piece as intended for actual physical weapons only?
Any mention of "Two-Weapon Fighting" uses that same verbiage, same way they refer to "using Flurry of Blows."
In the case of the campaign clarification here's how it reads.
"You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied."
So they refer to "Fighting with two weapons" rather that using "Two-Weapon Fighting" as it is usually referred to everywhere else.
Now lets read the Magus section.
"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."
So it functions like two-weapon fighting, but never states that it is two-weapon fighting. This is further clarified with the Mind-Blade Archetype.
"When using two-weapon fighting with two psychic weapons or a psychic double weapon, the mindblade can use her spell combat ability as though she had a hand free."
So normally Magus can't use TWF with Spell Combat because their hand is occupied, but this archetype specifically allows Spell Combat to be used with TWF and both hands occupied. So obviously while it functions like TWF, it's obviously not the same as the class feature can stack with TWF with the right archetype.
Honestly if GMs are ruling that Spell Combat can't be used with Fencing Grace I think they're being a bit overly strict as based on the rule readings I think it's obvious that the feat and class feature were intended to stack.
I have other characters, but I don't always bring all my characters with me to the game days if I'm expecting to play my main.
"Then why don't you just play a pregen?"
That's a great question, and why don't the other people who don't want to play up just play a pregen? This argument works both ways.
"Bill Dunn wrote:
This is a weird question and I don't know what you're fishing here for. If I respect the table well enough to yield to their decision then obviously I respect the players. If I didn't, then I'd just walk away from the table.
"Well obviously you don't respect them if you play a character that steals the thunder from them in a game."
If this is where you were going with that statement, then you're obviously misguided and lacking context. Let me give you the scenario for how this happens.
My group signs up for a table using Meetup.com. We do our due diligence and all sign up a week ahead of time making a of 4 that will play up. Game day rolls around and some people show up who didn't officially sign up at Meetup.com and want to be squeezed in. They end up at our table and drop our effectively level down and don't want to play up. In this situation I have no problem running my character that I signed up at the table for, even if we end up playing down and I outshine some folks.
If I'm forced to play down then I don't want to hear any complaining about how I dominate the encounters. I had this happen once with my Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter who is super optimized. First round of combat for the first encounter I killed everything on my first action (thanks to improved cleave and finishing cleave) and the other players started moaning about not even getting a chance to shoot a single arrow or cast a single spell.
I may not like playing down, but I will respect the majority vote of the table.