legolizard's page

If your looking for something to generate weapons there is this already.

Weapon Generation Site

its not perfect and you may have to generate a weapon in the level range a few times to get one close to what you want but in general it works.

Yeah, I had my coder friend look into that program. It decides everything in a far too random way. The damage, the prices, almost everything is decided for you. Also it doesn't let you pic the specials and all the important details. Nothing even close to what I need.

I understand you are trying to be helpful and I appreciate it, but what me and my friend are making is very very different and more advanced than the random generator on that site.

wow this is still going. Sorry I haven't been around to respond. I have been working with a friend on a solution to this problem.

It's not perfect, but hopefully it will be customizable enough to cater to each person who wants to use it. I don't want to go too much into detail, but the idea is its a simple program that will set up certain guidelines on what weapons of certain levels and certain types should be able to have and than suggest a price for the weapon based on what the user applys to the weapon.

A lot of work needs to be done and I don't want to raise anyone's hopes.

Any time you give players cart blanche to play build a bear they will find something broken in the system and break it.

"If you stat it they will kill it" deadlands

You could probably go through the guns and draw up some guidelines, but like anything else there's probably something overpowered you could do with it.

Probably the best answer I have read. But at the same time, just don't let them design things in league play. I know for a fact they didn't allow crafting magic items in Pathfinder league.

"Defending" and "explaining" are two different things. While I don't really think that Paizo NEEDS defending (I mean, they haven't actively refused to release the rules you want, they just haven't done it yet), we are just trying to detail why it hasn't happened yet.

I understand why you think you are explaining, but you are actually defending or just making excuses on Paizo's behalf. Your "defense" just comes down to calling me entitled, that's it. I resently had to convince a friend of mine that starfinder wasn't dead on arrival (sold out first printing right.)

But if adding such a basic set of rules would damage Paizo's business model than I have to wonder if he was right. Your acting like I am asking for a gold encrusted toilet seat for 9.99 here, but I'm not. I am asking for some kind of ruleset/guidelines on how to design my own starfinder weapons. If that is "too much" and I am acting entitled for wanting that, than maybe you are the one who is expecting little to nothing from Paizo and would hand them money for little to nothing. The way you describe it, Paizo is on a needles edge and about to collapse at any moment and asking anything of them is too much.

Also having low expectations and calling me "entitled" is one hell of a self defeating attitude. If you never expect better from any business than you will never see anything improve. But I guess that is the difference in how we think. All you see is someone entitled and all I see is a fanboy who can't bring himself to want better.

So stop your "business" BS. I am not asking for anything big here.

You do realize that none of us in this thread work for Paizo? So please do not take all our assertions as gospel. It's true that so far there has not been a weapon building table but they gave us alien building tables in the first Alien Archive so that you could build your own monsters and NPCs.

your first point is fair enough. I apologize if this came off as too aggressive to anyone, except "Dracomicron." Can't ignore just how bad his responses are.

But about your second point. The fact they added such a guide to building monsters is why I expected some kind of eventual weapons designing guide. The fact they had it doesn't suddenly mean we should never get any other guides. They kind of set a precedent.

They could have done the same thing, just made monsters and expected us to make our own based on the monsters they provided already. But they didn't, because they knew having rules to let people make their own monsters would add value to the game. I am wondering why they haven't done the same for weapons and gotten a bunch of weak answers that just don't make sense or are just fanboy excuses (not from you specifically hmm, that other guy I already mentioned.)

There is an old quote attributed to Gary Gygax that says, "the secret that we can never let the DMs know is that they don't need any rules." If we have the tools necessary to make our own stuff, the developer's profit model falls off.

You know his word isn't golden right? Also didn't he run his company into the ground because he didn't feel the need to maintain the game? Also, why would I want to put my time, money, and effort into a system I know the creators don't want to support fully for their own gain? I started playing Pathfinder because Wizards screwed up, nothing is keeping me with Paizo if they decide to screw up.

They probably haven't included those rules because price and damage dice are non-linear. The huge number of special qualities and crit effects are also a barrier.

Complicated GM only rules that most GMs will never touch are not a great thing to dedicate time, money, and printer space to.

So how are they doing it than? They must have some system they are using and all I am asking is for them to share it. Also, are we talking about the same thing? Because designing your own weapons is at the top of a lot of peoples lists, it would be worth the time to spell out these rules, god knows they felt that starship creation and battles were worth printing. But weapon design is were you draw the line of "too complicated?" Are you even listening to yourself right now?

honestly, these responses are depressing. One person openly admitting this is only for Paizo to make more money and others just trying to say I don't need it I can just make stuff up. If I am just making the stuff up, why do I need their system at all? Why do I need Paizo?

This trend of defending any action, or lack of action, a company is doing doesn't lead to better products. It leads to stagnation and worse products.

Why doesn't Starfinder have custom weapon design rules yet? People told me to wait for the armory because surely they will be in there, but nope.

Also no, I am not talking about weapon creation rules. I am talking about rules/guidelines that tell you how to design a custom weapon and how much it would cost based on what abilities are on it.

The closest thing I have found is a random weapon generator (random weapon abilities and random price so no good) and some incomplete fan made guidelines.

I am really surprised that Paizo hasn't provided these rules from the very start and I won't be able to build a proper campaign settings until something is provided. I will be honest, this has really disappointed me and I simply can't spend money on a system that isn't getting the support it needs from it's creators.

If anyone has a homebrew weapon design system or I simply missed the rules somewhere, I would be very happy to get pointed in the right direction.

1. In a pinch, you can spend RP for EP, although I probably wouldn't until level 10 when the trade improves. (Though I do wish it were a swift action, since you really need those move actions.) It's not really an issue at 1st (EP just boosts your AC, which hitting somebody will also do). At level 2 and 3, getting hit is almost guaranteed to be enough damage. At 4th, you get another way to gain a starter EP, including "getting missed" or "charging".

2. That's going to take several levels to start happening, of course. If you're taking too much damage, you spend your points to mitigate it as much as possible. I mean… if you were any other class, you'd just be dead already. If you're not getting hit for enough, then you're taking less than 2 x level damage per hit. If you finish the fight before you get hit (4 + Con mod/2 + 1) times, then you don't touch your HP during the fight. So… seven or eight times for most of your career.

I think the aspect trait does help considerably, though, since the first point is the most important (+1 AC against targets you didn't hit, you start getting your free weapon properties, and you've got an emergency use). If it's a concern, at level 6 you can also get a point from getting hit with energy damage, and you get to roll to reduce the damage.

3. I'd honestly like for this to be an option for emergency use, but it's not. It's almost always a bad trade, but having it available would make for some nice cinematic moments on the very rare occasions that it's worth it.

4. This really doesn't seem like the case. Level 2 sets the general tone for EP: it takes 4 damage to get 1 EP, and 1 EP prevents 2 damage, so it would have been better if you hadn't been hit for 4+ damage. Earning EP by damage is not a good trade; it's a consolation prize. If you run up in combat, you're going to get damaged. Unlike other classes, you get something useful when you're damaged. It's like how Solarian doesn't want combat to run long (that's more party resources spent,...

1. That "pinch" would be at the start of every combat pretty much and like you said its not really a worthwhile trade until 10th level. The 4th level ability is nice, but they are all "once per combat" and really don't solve the issue at all.

2. So what you are saying is this class has to spend points to keep enough stamina so they can earn other points so they can start having fun? Which was one of the two main points I was making. "Damage = benefit" mechanics always end up not only being counterproductive but not as fun as more active mechanic systems. I don't think it's really that bad of an idea to give them a more pro-active way to earn their entropy points.

3. Again, you are using far more resources than other classes would just to start using your abilities. You are taxing your consumables, or your resolve, or your healer. Its still counterproductive.

4. I will agree to disagree with you on this. I need to do more testing in the starfinder system with this mechanic. But in all other systems I played in that I used such mechanics the character usually dies because they end up using more hp and resources for little gain.

It seems like the Vanguard is being pushed into the sword and board role. I am happy shields are back but this is still a sci-fi fantasy game and we already have a class that does melee better, granted the solarian is much more complicated, to a fault.

My point is that the Vanguard should have at least longarms added to their weapon proficiency. They feel too much like a archetype for Solarians at the moment, giving them some more gun options (especially some kind of shotgun option) would really help them just play differently than a Tanky Solarian.

If the Vanguard is going to stay the "tank" of starfinder than they will need more shield focused abilities that don't require them to actually hold a be piece metal/ceramic.

Like replace reactive with something that lets the Vanguard make a entropy shield that can grant themselves or an alley a floating energy shield. Really move forward with that magical tank theme.

(Also reactive feels like such a "filler" ability that was put in for no other reason than to avoid empty levels.)

Or dare I even say, give them more of a sliding shield AC bonus that doesn't require them to even be holding a physical shield. Sure give them special bonuses if they also have a shield equipped, but giving them more entropy based defense abilities would really help make them fit the theme.

But whatever you do, don't give them the stupid Solarian balance thing.

Super excited for the Vanguard . . . except for how they gain their primary resource of Entropy points.

This idea of "gaining benefits by getting damaged" has been around for a long time and it has never really worked. I remember trying it out with the good old crusader from the book of wee . . . Book of the nine swords.

So here are the problems I have always run into when using a class that has to take damage in order to use it's abilities.

1. Slow start - You have to take damage before you can do your cool stuff. Unless you are lowering your guard and running into attacks,you are not guaranteed to get damaged. Now starfinder has a large assortment of fun weapons you can use before taking damage and you can spend resolve points, but you will have to wait to use your more interesting abilities.

2. Feast or famine - You may end up getting no points because nothing is doing ENOUGH damage to you or not at all, or end up getting too many points that you lose or can't use because you are taking way too much damage. These are both issues but the first is by far the worse or the two. While the aspect trait at level 4 helps, it can only be used once per combat so it doesn't really fix the issue.

3. Self Damaging - someone always tries to cheese the system by self damaging in some way. Sure you can have the wording of the ability try to prevent this, but what is an "enemy" is up for interpretation. "Aren't we all just our own worst enemy, so me hurting myself counts right?" Point is, anything that requires a GM to constantly have to reaffirm or designate who is and isn't an enemy for game mechanics may lead to issues, both role playing wise and balance wise.

4. You should have dodged that - Damage should be avoided. If you make it in the characters best interest to lower their guard or not dodge a blow you may find they are taking a lot of unneeded damage. This will get them killed. I know there is the whole "cost vs. reward" argument, but eventually these mechanics always get characters killed. Also the death ends up not being impact full. More of a "unavoidable when you really think about it" scenario more than a "oh no how could this have happened?" scenario.

OK, so what do we do to fix this entropy point issue?

Make Entropy more Like grit points. Were dealing damage and taking damage gain us points. That way it feels really natural to go in swinging and take and give that damage the Vanguard was clearly intended to do. Possibly even make the Aspect entropy point regain work once per round instead of once per combat or have a Vanguard start the day with full points.

The Vanguard is supposed to be the front line fighter who is in the thick of it. Instead of making them the vanguards round be "I lower my defenses and don't dodge the first attack," make sure its "I charge in an bust his head open!"

They clearly haven't forgotten Unchained Summoner exists, since Blood of the Beast includes a (in my opinion very good) new eidolon type.

Some evolutions that were in the old summoner were just abhorrently overpowered, and it's likely for the best those were retired.

At the same time, though, it's kind of sad how difficult it is to get pounce.

I agree it was over powered, but since its not a newer class or one of the original core classes, I probably wont be getting much love like the newer classes might. I just would really like to get some magical spell casting back onto the eidolons. The new psychic stuff is a good start but lets get some arcane and divine in there too.

Wow, has there been any effort to replace the cut content from the Summoner? or did they make the occult class to replace the summoner?

I noticed recently that a new evolution was added for unchained eidolons from the "Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Horror Realms" book, its a psychic version of the old basic magic evoltution.

That got me thinking "Does that mean they are going to be revamping some of the old evolutions to work with the newer unchained summoner eidolon?"

Then I thought, "Can old evolution from books other than the advanced players guide be used with unchained summoner eidolons?

From my understanding, the unchained book redid the evolutions provided in the original Advanced players guide but didn't cover evolutions that came out in other books, are all the other books eidolon content also no longer usable with the unchained summoner eidolon?

Ok guys here is the newest version.
The Magnus
Made some big changes, like adding spell casting that begins at 4th level like other martial classes with some spell casting.

I also brought the arcane pool back down to the normal 1/2 level + int level. I reviewed everything and realized that the only reason my arcane pool was so big was to accommodate the spell knowledge arcane talents. Decided it would just be better to give them the casting ability than balloon their arcane pool.

At this point I need to flesh out some of the arcane talents a bit more and start play testing this sucker.

Thank you all again for your feedback and comments.

Your spell doesn't just give you a bonus to attacks. It gives you a weapon that you can cast with. And you can cast the spell as a swift action. That alone is pretty big. The best 1st level combat buffs are all standard actions and usually give you a +1 for the duration of a battle.

I feel like you're trying to make the spell do too many things.

Your right, I should cut some things from the first level version. Would putting a cap on the bonus help out to, maybe a max equal to the persons caster level.

The first one is too good for a 1st level spell.

You should put all of these spells into a single document.

The weapon spell is too powerful for a 1st level spell. It's also overly complicated for what should be a rather simple effect. Just let it create a masterwork weapon that lasts until the caster lets go of the weapon after a 1 minute per level duration.

Is it really that strong? Even with a a +5 int mod the person is only getting a +2 to attack for a couple of rounds.

True strike gives you +20 for one and not to mention the many other spells that can give that same amount to + hit.

Also I restricted it to the martial caster classes for a reason. Paladins have plenty of level 1 spells that are equal or greater in power to this spell.

Ok updates to the Magnus.

Changed arcane pool to 4 + int mod, and gains 2 points a level after first.

Increased the cost of arcane point abilities across the board. (except for the spell knowledge abilities, they are expensive as is)

Added some more Arcane Talents. Arcane blast, martial spell style talents, and a greater talent that allows you to take none lethal damage instead of paying arcane points.

Need to possibly change the martial spell style talents to work with the create weapon class ability.

While I have not found a good way to regain points or if regaining points is a good idea, I am considering making abilities under certain circumstances become free. (like if the arcane blast crits, it is free or you get half your points back that you spent on it)

What do you guys think?

Hey guys, will be working on another version of the class as I mull over a lot of the feedback you guys have given me. In the meantime I posted some spells that sticks with the create weapon theme of the Magnus.

Weapon Creation Spells

Working on some spells specifically usable for magus and other melee casters.

First we got the create weapon spell. A simple spell to help magus's over come some of the problems with low STR and low BAB.

Worked really hard to make this useful and balanced. It is restricted to very specific classes (no wizards allowed), while it has a swift action spell it has a duration of only rounds. It is a created item, so while it is not effected by spell resistance it does not have any huge advantages over a normal item. Like being made out of force.

From these spells I created the martial spell styles. Spells that make more specific created weapons and have special stance spells. The inspiration for the stance spells comes from the old 3.5 daggerspell stance.

Solar Flare Style

Darkhand Style

I appreciate any feedback you guys may have.

( Also have a class that may use these spells a lot, The Magnus )

Instead of the fighter training giving 3/4 your level as fighter levels, perhaps you give level-3 as fighter levels?

You have no idea how much of an issue that was with my editor. He thought a level -3 would be too strong. So I compromised. In the end the difference at 20th level is 2 fighter levels. It seems like something that is worth play-testing.

ACTIVE ITEM

I think you meant to title this "Activate Weapon". I would remove this as a class feature and put it in the talent section.

DUAL WEAPONS
This should also said be a talent. Some magnuses will never use it.

CRAFT ITEM
Same as Dual Weapons. Also, if you implement 4-level casting you won't need it.

You are right about these talents not being for everyone. But I wanted to avoid empty levels with this class and giving them random feats, arcane talents, or greater arcane talents seemed too strong.

Also I fixed the name, it's now "Activate Item." It's intended not for weapons but for wands, scrolls and other such items.

This is supposed to be a mage knight class.

That was the first draft yes. But too many people where calling the whole thing redundant and a horrible idea. I believe you where one of those people.

Honestly, if I wanted to create a fighting class with a refresh mechanic and magical abilities, I'd design a class feature that grants a single once-per-day spell-like ability that refreshes on critical hits and kills. Instead of using a spell list, the class has to choose from a discrete list of spells. I'd have this list consist of spells that are largely considered underpowered, but still pretty cool and useful if you could use them repeatedly throughout the day.

At this point Cyrad I have to say if this class is not your cup of tea I don't know what to tell you. You have made some good points and I thank you for that. But I am getting the distinct feeling that this class will probably never truly chive with you. You seem to be critical no matter what I have done to this class. Also to answer your question, I am not just going to add a bunch of 3/day or spell like abilities because THEY ARE BORING AND NEVER GET USED!

I remember every prestige class in 3.5 had one or two of them. People where so scared to use them they usually went to waste. They where filler for a lot of classes and ended up being the easy and un-creative way to fill up class abilities.

As for limiting the spells to a specific list and not the magus list, what you described;

I'd have this list consist of spells that are largely considered underpowered, but still pretty cool and useful if you could use them repeatedly throughout the day.

Describes the magus class spell list to a T.

As for being able to cast 2nd level and 3rd level spells sooner than a magus, that was an error on my part. All the level requirements for the spell knowledge arcane talents where too low by 1. I have fixed that.

The class should not be able to regenerate points through critical hits or other means. If the class can spend arcane points to cast spells, then arcane points should be a finite daily resource. In game design terms, allowing points to regenerate changes the pool into a dynamic engine, which makes it much more powerful. This is why swashbuckler and gunslinger deeds are usually not very powerful.

My Self wrote:

What's too powerful to have at level 1? You don't have real spells like a regular magus, it should be fine to have arcane pool. Recognize that Barbarians get a +2 to hit, +2 or +3 to damage, and +2 health at 1st level for a few rounds a day. That's much more than a +1 weapon's worth

As I explained in the other thread, the magus gets that ability as a trade off for having less of a BAB and a class feature that bestows a penalty to his attack. The magnus not only has a full BAB but also can "cast" a 1st level spell at 1st level that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, does not require components, and does not apply spell resistance.

You also can't really compare this to the barbarian. The barbarian significant trade offs for rage. They don't have any spells and have really terrible skills.

The reason I added the regain for the arcane points was because of overwhelming feedback. so far you are the only one who has said its overpowered. But you did get my thinking, since they have a regen I should bring up the costs of some of the stronger abilities.

Why did you choose to alter the magus Arcane Pool class feature? It looks like your magnus can do the same thing, but the feature is broken up.

I broke it up because it was too strong to have at level 1. a magus gets away with being front loaded with abilities because it has a medium bab. The magnus has a high bab, so getting enhanced weapons 1st level would make them too strong for that level.

This class started out as an alternative version of the magus, like the ninja is with the rogue. But as it changed it became its own animal.

Dotting. I am also working on a full martial 'arcane knight' sort of class - I'll take a look at this later!

New version with new thread and new name HERE

Hello everyone, second draft, original thread can be found here.

The magnus is a front-line contender with a wide variety of arcane inspired abilities.

The Magnus

Last thread and reddit post provided some awesome feedback, hope to see more :D

It's way too strong. At 1st level, he gains medium armor, 1st level spells, full BAB, spell combat, arcane pool, another good save...basically, it's better than the normal magus in every way at 1st level. At later levels, it's better than the magus aside from less spell levels and loss of spell recall. But they get a lot of other stuff, too.

You need to keep in mind that the magus gains spellstrike, spell combat, arcane pool, and other such powerful offensive abilities specifically because they're not a full BAB class. Making them full BAB completely removes that trade off.

And if you intend to make it a full BAB + 4-level spellcaster, you should follow either the paladin's or medium's spell progression. If you give them 1st level spells at 1st level, you end up making them incredibly overpowered and an obvious 1st level dip.

Good feedback. Currently I am working on the 0.2 v, I am cutting out the spells, spellstrike and spellcombat entirely. I will be focusing on the class specializing in arcane pool abilities and giving it more of its own arcana.

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

LINK

Could be the space...

Yeah, the space is not there when I edit the post, but when I post the changes it is there again for some reason.

Thanks. For some reason I thought the simple forum codes would not work on these message boards >.<

LINK

Could be the space...

Yeah, the space is not there when I edit the post, but when I post the changes it is there again for some reason.

"Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist.

Make sure that you have the correct URL and that the owner of the file hasn't deleted it."

I have no idea why it is doing this. I am copying the link exactly

Made an alternate version of the magus, more knight than mage. I need feedback, Feel free to leave feedback here or on the google doc.

Looking for feedback on balance, possible over powered combinations and I am open to a different name.

Fixed the link

Magus knight

Is this going to have any kind of public Playtest?

Its already printed so no.

Bandw2 wrote:

Belabras wrote:

Androids are immune to Morale Bonuses. That means they don't get a thing from Rage or Bloodrage.

So their fatigue immunity is good, but you've got a feat tax before you can rage cycle with it.

they can still rage and gain rage powers they just do not gain the stat bonuses.

honestly playing a chaotic android that malfunctions would be interesting to play.

But you don't even get Rage Powers at level one, so there's really almost no point. Until they pay the feat tax.

Keep in mind that if you did not get the Empathy feat at first level you would be a level 1 barbarian that is unable to gain the morale bonuses from raging.

So even if fatigue immunity was not a factor, in order to be able to do use rage and bloodrage properly you would need to get the Empathy feat.

Does immunity to fatigue make you immune to fatigue? Wow.

As a philosophical discussion, that could have potential. As a rules question, it is about as cut and dried as you can get. Yes, being immune to fatigue prevents you from gaining the fatigued condition from any source that would normally apply it. Just like immunity to fire prevents even magical fire damage, and immunity to poison prevents even really venomous snakes from poisoning you.

Seemed pretty cut and dry to me too. But SOOO many people I have mentioned this too are saying "I would still have you be effected by the rage fatigue because of reasons!"

I understand their concern but it seems for this case simply going by the rules I am in the minority.

Androids are immune to Morale Bonuses. That means they don't get a thing from Rage or Bloodrage.

So their fatigue immunity is good, but you've got a feat tax before you can rage cycle with it.

But as I mentioned, the feat "Empathy" that androids can take allows them to gain morale bonuses at the cost of the fear immunity.

legolizard wrote:

This means that a level 1 android barbarian with the empathy feat is not subject to rage and bloodrage's main drawback.

...

That is AWESOME.

Where can this feat be found? I'm assuming the Technology Guide?

Its in the people from the stars and the fires of creation. Its called empathy.

So this question has come up several times. Most recently when I noticed that Androids (who as constructed humanoids are immune to fatigue and exhaustion) are able to get the feat empathy that allows them to gain morale bonuses.

This means that a level 1 android barbarian with the empathy feat is not subject to rage and bloodrage's main drawback.

To me it seems that it is pretty clear that Androids would not suffer from fatigue after raging like this, but many people disagree.

They say that the fatigue from the rage is something brought on by the character and is not something you can bypass.

Just wanted to get some clarification on this.

First thought. She is ADORABLE!

Sorry guys, but my first thought was her saying "Senpai Senpai! Lets go discover ancient arcane knowledge together! Senpai I released an arcane horror onto the world >.< agoe*! (or whatever sound girls make in animes I dont know)

Sounds awesome. But I am still worried by the WAS "the bloodrager WAS a full BAB class after all."

Did they remove the full bab? Other questions still linger as well.

Will certain spells be added or removed from their list (looking at bladed dash to be added)?

Was an alignment restriction added to match the barbarian?

Was the Arcane bloodline changed?

Seems I will have to wait until the book in August.

I still think basing a class largely around a minor detail of the cleric class (favored weapon) probably hampered what could be done with it; we already have a 3/4 BAB class that is strongly inclined toward the deity's favored weapon, it's called a cleric.

3/4 BAB and high damage puts this in the same problem area as a monk. Monks lack for accuracy boosts. Maybe the warpriest will fare better. I would much have preferred to see full BAB. No damage boost, or even just setting a flat minimum, would have made made more sense to me.

I don't see this effectively replacing a paladin or a melee-focused cleric.

I agree, bonus damage does not mean anything unless you can hit. I will still try out the class but sadly I think with this change will doom the class to none use as the paladin does pretty much everything a warpriest does but better.

Hello Paizo forums. Today I bring you a spell I have been working on for awhile now and I wanted to get some thoughts and feedback on it.

The create weapon spell is designed to make an armory of weapons available to those with the talent to pull them from the fabric of the universe and to use them.

It is designed for the Magus and other melee oriented casters. Please keep this in mind when looking over the spell because the highest level weapons will not be available to any class until at least level 10.

Due to the length of the spell and the weapon list I have made both available on a google doc that you can freely leave comments on.

Create Weapon Spell Google Doc

F.A.Q

Question: Why make this spell? I heard Maguses were overpowered!

Answer: While Maguses can be powerful early game they tend to drop off in power once mid and late game I have noticed. Also they lack any signature spells to call their own. I created this spell to add some versatility and flavor to the Magus.

Question: I found a typo, a phrasing issue or a grammatical error! What should I do?

Answer: Please highlight the error and leave a comment on the google doc. I tried to find all the errors I could and get people to proof read it. But you never know what I could have missed.

Questions: I have an idea for a weapon to add to the list. Do you have guidelines on how to balance the weapon and what list it should go in?

Answer: At the bottom of the google doc I have brief guidelines on the thought process behind the different weapon levels.

Question: Should I leave comments on this forum or on the google doc?

Answer: Which ever one you feel more comfortable with. But please keep in mind that the forum moderators control the forums and I control the document. So I can remove comments or close commenting down on the doc at any time.

Question: This spell is totally overpowered and you should feel bad.

Answer: That is not really a question and you have to keep in mind that this spell was designed for classes you get spell levels much slower than Wizards or Sorcerers. I feel pretty good about the whole darn thing.

So I know a graveknight regenerates inside the suit of armor it was made in, but does it need to wear that specific suit of armor at all times?

Can it do what a lich does with its physcophlacty? Hide it in a tomb or something so if it is defeated it is no where near the thing that took it down?

I did not find anything saying that the graveknight had to have that armor on at all times.

Another not as important question regarding graveknights, by armor do they mean the normal armors in game or can a helmet, bracers of armor or some other item that does not count as traditional armor also work?

Because a monk graveknight seems like something that would be awesome.

One interesting thing was that at least in one thread there were suggestions of just sticking with the Sorcerer/Wizard list but it was shot down for being potentially abuseable with the caveat that 1-6 level spells could be gained through an arcana. Currently playing a Magus and looked at what I could take with that arcana and it didn't seem that great unless there are some Frostbite-like spells that I'm missing. I did pick up Mage Armor (dex magus) just so that I don't have to waste prep time with shield, but spending an arcana for Mage armor feels so weak just to get rid of an annoyance.

Currently Magus and Summoner are poster examples of why I think shared spell lists are a good idea. Especially considering that so many classes feature means of out-of-list spell access.

I think class specific spell lists can work, if they are done to make the class unique and not in a way to remove power from that class. Sadly the magus is an example of a spell list made to nerf the class.

I never thought this thread would explode as it has.

Ok I have to suggest this. The bloodrager should be able to either replace his Wis bonus for his Cha bonus for will saves and be able to use char based skills while blood raging.

"But that does not make any sense, cha based skills while raging"

THAT NEVER STOPPED KAMINA!!!

He raged and did nothing but cha based skills.

Is there any chance we can see a waredge like ability to the bloodrager.

Something like, "Any spell that is cast while raging and that does damage adds the bloodragers Str or Con bonus to the damage of the spell."

I would also like to see more built in spell effects while the Bloodrager is raging. like the Arcane bloodline provides but for the bloodrager as a whole.

Another suggestion would be to give some options to lesson the burden of needing so many good ability scores for the bloodrager. Like have some of the blood lines give the Oracle lore mystery option of replacing their dex mod for their cha mod for AC.

You can also add a rage activated spell function. Where the bloodrager casts spells on themselves beforehand and they activate once they start raging.

Also if you guys are plan on still having the Bloodrager use the magus spell list you will really need to add some unigue spells to the magus spell list. It was designed for a class that ends up learning almost half their spells through class abilities and from the wizard spell list.

Ahh. I thought you were reffering to the general state of the playtest a few days earlier.

But I must say that I disagree with you on the complication of builds.

take the Bloodrager, for example. I don't really see a situation where he wants to stop attacking in order to cast his piddly 1-5 levels behind the real casters spells. He's either going to be spending his first action buffing, or he's going to be buffing before combat. This means that a regular barbarian/sorcerer can safely wait to enter rage 'till his second round of combat.

And I think that I can safely make the argument that, since neither the bloodrager, nor the sorcerer/barbarian wants to be targeting the enemy with his spells (they don't have enough cha to make save spells stick, and they do more damage attacking than blasting anyway) caster level doesn't matter beyond spell duration. This means that a bloodrager only rally gets the edge in rounds/lvl spells - and that's only until the sorcerer/barbarian reaches CL 5. I'm hard pressed to think of any combat I've been in that lasted longer than 5 rounds.

Compare Barbarian 11/sorcerer1/dragon disciple 8 to Bloodrager 20. They both get 4rth level spells. Neither of them is going to be casting spells in combat beyond the first round, and if the sorcerer/barbarian really needs a fly or protection from energy at the opportune time, he can use moment of clarity to copy the ability of the bloodrager. Interestingly, the bloodrager has 2 less strength than the dragon disciple. In turn, the bloodrager gets three points of base attack bonus. with power attack, this means that the bloodrager gets a +1 to hit over the dragon disciple and between +1 and +2 to damage per attack.

There are other factors as well, of course. But all in all, I'm still not convinced a sorcerer/barbarian multiclass warrants a whole new class in itself.

But the +1 to hit and strength is a trade off for the +3 to hit you would get from the full bab of the bloodrager. Not to mention you are getting 9 more skill points or hp (or both if your human and get a feat) on the bloodrager. Not to mention all the bloodlines for the bloodrager are designed specifically for the bloodrager. The build you posted, barb/sor/dragon discp. is limited to only the dragon bloodlines.

But at the same time, I would take the sorc spell list over the magus spell list (the one the bloodrager uses) any day of the week.

There is a lot of give and take when comparing the builds. Enough to that it feels like it would come down to personal preference.

That isn't to say that the bloodrager does not need some work. It does. Namely in the spell selection department and the fact there is really no reason to cast many of the eligible spells while raging. Maybe if they added an extra something to cast these spells while raging.

Like a warmage war edge, adding the bloodragers Str or Con bonus to the spells damage.

You're using the class that almost everyone agrees is awesome as a comparison. Also you're using a class that probably has the most originality in it. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Brawler. There are a at least 3 monk/fighter combos that will end up miles better then what the brawler brings to the table.

And at the same time monk multiclassing pretty much goes great with everything. But I see your point.

That really just means the Brawler (along with the arcanist) need to have some changes made to put them on par with the Bloodrager and the others.

But at this time, the Bloodrager, the slayer, the skald and the War priest are all better alternatives than their multiclassing equivalents.

I kind of hope these new hybrid standards make them go back and change the Magus a little. (You can all call me crazy but I still believe it needs a higher BAB!)

Huh? I've seen people argue that these are bad entirely because you can already multiclass, not the other way around? Has anyone actually posted on these boards that the ACG classes are bad because they do something else than warrior or mage/thief/priest?

I apologize for not clarifying what I meant. I was referring to people I have met while playing the game and not any specific person that has posted on the forums.

Sorry about that :)

One of the most common complaints I've seen is that they could make better classed strictly by multiclassing

If there is a way to be a barbarian spellcaster with full BAB I would like to see it.

But I see where what you mean. The thing is every time you multiclassed to get these combos you would always need to give up some very important things that would make the character weaker overall to their pure class counterparts. Namely the characters BAB, caster level or saves.

I will use the bloodrager as an example again. Unlike a Barb/Sorc combo, the bloodrager gets, like I mentioned, a full BAB, a higher caster level and far more synergy (unless someone else can show me a feat or prestige class that allows for casting any arcane spells while raging).

What these advanced classes give over the older multiclass option are all the little things that prevented multiclassing from being better or equal to the pure classes. There was not enough ways to synergize class abilities and honestly many prestige classes were far too underpowered compete with a pure class.

A good example was the rage prophet (Barbarian/oracle prestige class). It was soooo close to being able to do what a bloodrager could, but lets see who they stack up at lets say level 10.

5 bar/1 Oracle/4 Rage proph

BaB +8 Caster lv 4 Fort +6 Ref +2 will +5

10 Bloodrager

BaB +10 Caster lv 7 Fort +7 Ref +3 will +3

So the multiclass option only has a -2 BAB compared to the hybrid class, that is not too bad. The Hybrid has 3 caster levels over the multiclass and that is pretty big, especially since you start running into things with high SR at 10th level. As for the saves they are pretty matched, with the hybrid having the higher Fort and Ref saves by one each bu the multiclass having the higher will save by 2.

That all being said, lets not forget the little bonuses from the favored class bonus. The favored class bonus was intended to be that little reward for those that stuck with their class, a better alternative to the old xp penalties from 3.5 (which I never remember once being used). It is only 1 skill or hp point per level, but the hybrid in the end will have 5 more hp or skill points to choose from than the multiclass character.

All those small factors add up in the end. That is why I see these hybrids as a functional solution to many if the issues I have with multiclassing.

I honestly would have liked to see more options for multiclassing over these hybrids (feats, better prestige classes, ect). Sadly doing more multiclass option in the past has led to characters being made like 3 Pal/3 Monk/3 Cleric/1 prestige A/2 prestige B/2 prestige C >.<

The character Hybrid option allows us to mix up the character roles and at the same time lead to less horrible, unbalanced and convoluted character builds.

I love it. This is exactly what I have been waiting for. I have always loved making my characters unique and that were more than just the "Fighter" or the "cleric" of the group.

But there will be many naysayers to these advanced class ideas. Those opposed to it believe that multiclassing or any deviation from the core class system should never be an option.

Please do not listen to those people. For the love and god and everything holy please do not let this be spoiled by people with little to no imagination when it comes to character roles.

A little paranoid I know. . . . . Ok a lot paranoid but I just hate players that have little to no imagination when it comes to class combinations.