How about a Trickster/Temptress in the sense of a charismatic swashbuckling character with the power to also manipulate, through social persuasion, extraplanar beings (demons and the like) as well as animistic spirits.
I think the Mountebank (from Dragon Compendium) might fill that role. I haven't looked too closely, but it's vaguely roguish with fiend pact flavour.
I don't know if they have ritual magic (too lazy to look right now, sorry), but at least the direction should be the same
My vote goes to a psionics class.
The problem with this is that it carries a baggage of several dozen pages - the whole psionics system, with skills, feats, explanation of how it works as opposed to magic, and, of course, all the powers themselves.
It's much better off in its own book, like it was done in the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
Tinker - a goblin junker seems like it'd fit in PFRPG quite well).
A tinker/artificer/tech adept/whateveryoucallit might actually work, though it's not everyone's taste.
Although the argument has been made that many classes could fill the role,i would like to see an evil class,the assassin.Or a new take on the necromancer...
I'd like to keep the assassin as a PrC - the rogue can work just fine. Same for wizards in regards to necromancers.
You might be able to create a distinct base class for each, but it's not nearly important enough to waste core book space on it. I'd say that if they did an extra class in the core rules, it should really add to the game, and not be just a more specialised version of one of the other base classes.
You want Assassin, but what about a spy? Scout? Burglar? Con-man? Thug? There's so many things a rogue can be, why single out one aspect?
Same for Necromancer. There's seven other schools, why should necromancers get the extra treatment?
|
Really? I wasn't aware that psionicist (or Psion) would both heal and blast in the same character. Come to think of it I've never really seen a Psion that acted as the party medic. I've also never seen a Psion fill the Rogues roll.
This is because A) most D&D players are optimization fanatics, and as they stand, psionicists can not be optimized to be a healer and a blaster at the same, B) A 3.x psionicist will never be as good at Healing, Blasting, or Sneaking as the three core classes that do those things primarily; meaning they suffer the "Bard's Curse" of being second best, combined with the fact that roughly a third to a half of the fanbase dislikes psionics, which means psionicists are rare enough that you don't get to see them doing everything they can do, C) Psionicists are designed to be optimized into one "speciality school" - this is even worse than wizard specialists in terms of being penalized if you don't do it.
A generalized Psion could easily aid a party by filling secondary or tertiary roles.
Is the Psion and psi-warrior in the OGL?
Yes. I'd prefer not to see a psionics supplement until later, though--while I'm a big fan of psionics as an alternative to Vancian (because I hate Vancian so much), I think that Pathfinder should just stick to the basics for now.
Although, I think it would be awesome if Pathfinder were to be so successful that Paizo could start redoing all sorts of OGL content (*cough*EpicLevelHandbook*cough*).
This is because A) most D&D players are optimization fanatics, and as they stand, psionicists can not be optimized to be a healer and a blaster at the same
Actually, they can't really be an optimised healer period. In the core rules, he has to use up two actions to heal someone other than him, either by transferring the targets wounds to himself and then healing himself, or by manifesting vigour for temporary HP and then doing the transferring thing.
Even with complete psionics stuff, you're not that good. It has a power that lets you actually heal anyone for 5 hp per power point, with mass capability for 6 extra points I think. Basically a weaker version of heal/mass heal that's only about half as effective as the real thing.
I grant you that this last power has the advantage of being castable several times thanks to the nature of power points, but even then, you cannot mach a cleric's healing speed, and that often counts.
You can, however, be a decent self-healer - besides the power to heal yourself, there's one that lets you transfer your wounds to an enemy, and of course vigour with its truckload of temporary hit points.
B) A 3.x psionicist will never be as good at Healing, Blasting, or Sneaking as the three core classes that do those things primarily;
I agree about healing and sneaking, but blasting? Psions can be devastating blasters: All the energy spells allow you your choice of energy (so there's no fireball, but energy ball and you can choose between 4 elements).
Note that acid spells are extra (something something of the black dragon), and energy spells allow your choice of fire (with +1 damage per die), cold (+1 damage, fort save instead of reflex), electricity (with +2 to attack roll and/or DC if the enemy wears metal) and sonic (-1 damage per die, but ignores hardness).With just a couple of energy spells, those psions can easily take apart enemies.
And then there's stuff that goes to the mind (ultraplast) and the like.
C) Psionicists are designed to be optimized into one "speciality school" - this is even worse than wizard specialists in terms of being penalized if you don't do it.
The disciplines aren't bad at all. A lot of the nice stuff is available to any psion, and whatever specialty you pick will just give you some really cool powers. And if you find that the other disciplines (or even class/es) offer a power or two you'd like, you use a feat that allows you to take them.
They can take on a warmage in regards to blasting - AND they won't be completely helpless in all the other stuff (they will still have buffs and protections and utility)
Maybe I'm a bit entrenched in 3.5, but since PRPG is supposed to be backwards-compatible, I'd be against yet another class. Last time I counted (and I don't have access to all the books/official resources) there were somewhere in the realm of 60 - 70 base classes in 3.5 from WotC alone.
I remember looking at the core books and multi-classing options when 3.0 first came out and thinking 'Wow. I could make any archetype I want with this system.' Isn't the current proliferation enough?
Just my 2 coppers.
|
|
The problem with I have with flexibility in a class system is that most people don't seem to know when there's enough, and when there's too much. Using classes, by their very definition, means a limit on flexibility. If you want your character to be something beyond the base classes, look at one of the 100294 available PrCs. That's what they're for.
Even without the PrCs, the core classes, as written, allow a nearly infinite variation of concept. Hell, I rarely need a PrC to make the character I want to play.
The classes, as written offer so much flexibility that I find it ludicrous that anyone can be upset because they're 'too restraining'. IMO, much more freedom, and we may as well go with a classless system, which would suck (at least for me, I know there are folks out there who LOVE classless systems - you know who you are, courtfool ;) ).
Is the Psion and psi-warrior in the OGL?
Quick answer, yes it is.
"This material is Open Game Content, and is licensed for public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a."
This means that it is OGL. Parts of Unearthed Arcana are also OGL, without an SRD. What is and is not OGL is defined either near the front of a product or near the back, along with a copy of the OGL. See if you can spot where Paizo's OGL declaration is in the Alpha release.
The multischool aspect of the Runescribe is why I'm liking that suggestion. It is a bit tinkerish but if it goes they way my mind is thinking then it would be more comparable to a warlock or other class with limited spells/abilities but more uses of those abilities. What I'm seeing there is 7 schools with 3 sets of runes (Positive, Neutral, Negative) based on Pathfinder #1. This means 21 different sets. Allow a Runescribe to pick 3. If we assume each set contains a spell-like ability from 1st to 9th, then that gives a Runescribe 27 abilities to draw on by 20th level. Given the degree of customization individual Runescribes could be rather different from one another.
It is also thematically appropriate, and approaches magic in a way you currently can't get in Core. Thus filling out a basic magical archetype you that is hard to make currently (even with multiclassing and large numbers of supplements).
A Gish (fighter/wizard) can be done in Pathfinder right now better then it could in 3.5. Not only does the boost in Wizard HP help but there are the two Arcane Armor combat feats that help reduce ASF. May as well even suggest a 3rd Arcane Armor feat to further reduce ASF. There is also the Eldritch Knight PrC (which really does need an overhaul anyways), with its new Pathfinder standard HD of d10.
Does anyone here play the Warcraft--not World of Warcraft--RPG? The tinker base class they had in there was really cool.
If a new class was to be proposed, I would hope that it fills the roll of an expert type. There are definately not enough Experts out there as compared to warriors and casters.
3.5 PHB casters (5): bard (also expert), cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard
3.5 PHB experts (3): bard (also caster), ranger (also warrior), and rogue
3.5 PHB warriors (4): barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger (also expert)
Give the monk 6 + Int skill points and it becomes the fourth PHB expert class. As it stands, the monk doesn't really fit in any category: no spells, not many skill points, and medium BAB.
I stand by my suggestion to include the Soulknife (touched up ofcourse, see Untapped Potential by Dreamscarred Press for some ideas) together with a revised Discipline skill (roll Autohypnosis and Concentration together) and psionic focus+focus feats. That adds, at most 5-8 pages worth of material to the book, opens up psionics to the core book and allows for a future expansion.
All of this without the need to include rules on Psionic Powers and yet ANOTHER power list in the Core Book which is cramped as is.
Maybe I'm a bit entrenched in 3.5, but since PRPG is supposed to be backwards-compatible, I'd be against yet another class. Last time I counted (and I don't have access to all the books/official resources) there were somewhere in the realm of 60 - 70 base classes in 3.5 from WotC alone.
I remember looking at the core books and multi-classing options when 3.0 first came out and thinking 'Wow. I could make any archetype I want with this system.' Isn't the current proliferation enough?
Just my 2 coppers.
Well true, but some of those classes are terrible. Also, many of them are non-OGL. I suppose there doesn't HAVE to be any more classes and they could just use the current available classes and PrC's, but I would suspect to see a few...perhaps not in the first book but sooner or later.
I also don't see additional material to have any compatibility issues (unless of course it's purposely made incompatible).
|
I just wonder why people who don't like or can't figure out how to effectively play a class have to say, "This sucks! Let's throw it out."
I disagree with this statement.
3.x edition is supposed to be all about options. If you can't *almost* randomly build a character and have fun playing it, then I feel the system could be tweaked. The Monk and Bard are at the top of my list in this regard.
The great promise of a lot of options available is the implied idea that all feats are more or less equally useful/powerful. You pick a direction to go in and can rest assured that the character you wind up with will be fun to play and not useless in the party.
When you have to do extreme Min/Max-ing and or study carefully to choose the only path of feats that make any usable sense; the system is not optimized.
I played in a few long campaigns with Bard and Monk PCs; both classes struggled mightily to remain relevant as time went on. I don't think the answer is as simple as "... we can't figure out how to effectively play a class..."
For comparison, I am not sure that you can pick the wrong feats, etc that would render a Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard useless, ever. Same (to a lesser extent, perhaps) with the Rogue and Fighter. I feel this is definitely not true with the second/third tier guys (Bard, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk)... even with the "correct" feats chosen (a most anti-3.x statement if there ever was one) these classes are not relevant at high levels.
Sounds like a role a Psionicist could fill easily.Really? I wasn't aware that psionicist (or Psion) would both heal and blast in the same character. Come to think of it I've never really seen a Psion that acted as the party medic. I've also never seen a Psion fill the Rogues roll.
...
Thematically that class could cover the two areas that are needed and offer a minor rogue trapfinding element. Runescribe can find and disable magical (not mechanical) traps?
Actually a Nomad (psion) can easily fill in for a rogue. Picking locks is a breeze via "Control object" ...or you could simply Time Hop" the door and walk through. Throw on a level of Elocator or better yet, a few Mavric Voidshaper levels and you have the perfect character for finding pit traps as he won't fall in! Take the Expanded Knowledge feat to learn Astral Construct and you can create solid "henchmen" to open chests and toors you think could be trapped.
I'm firmly against a new core class, myself. At least in the main rulebook. My reasoning is that it impacts cross-compatibility. As the replacement (or a replacement anyway) for 3.5, we have to expect that people will be wanting to use it to run existing, or perhaps new campaign settings. Settings which people will have built using the assumption that the existing core classes have a place in their world but everything else is optional. Once something makes it into a core rulebook, it's no longer truly optional. GMs have to consider how option x fits into campaign world y.
I mean, you wouldn't want to run a pathfinder campaign using an Eberron book as your base. Artificers and warforged and changelings, oh my! It might well work, but still. Nor would you want to try using Iron Heroes or the Warcraft RPG. And you certainly wouldn't want to use anything which counts Dragonborn as core.
That's what it all comes down to, for me. If Pathfinder were to include a new race or class, it would effectively be saying "this is so great that we included it in the core rules. Every campaign setting should include it."
Somehow, I find it difficult to conceive of any new race or class which could be devised that could enjoy such universal appeal.
Were I to add a 12th class, I'd be tempted to do something like this:
Oracle
1) Start with the open content Cloistered Cleric modifications to the Cleric class.
2) Switch spellcasting to the open content Spontaneous Divine Caster.
3) Drop the Turn Undead class feature. Add "preternatural sense" abilities in its place -- Trapfinding (2nd level), Uncanny Dodge (3rd level), Trap Sense (+1 at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th), and Improved Uncanny Dodge (7th).
4) Add Perception (3.5 Listen/Search/Spot) and Disable Device to the class skill list.
So you have a spontaneous divine caster, with expert-level skill points (6/level) and (bardic) Lore, who can substitute for a rogue for handling traps (at second level). So the party can go ahead and have a monk or ranger instead of a rogue; the cleric's substitute can handle the traps.
Maybe if you dropped the BaB and put it at d6...also change Fort and will to will and Reflex.
It's BAB and HD are already Poor and d6. That's also really to powerful, even with the current 'improvements' to the current base classes. We don't need another full caster. Either cut back the available spell list or the number of spell (levels) available.
What fantasy stereotypes aren't being filled by current classes? Don't forget multiclassing and the SRD prestige classes. What can't the PHB/DMG/MM handle well as a character concept in traditional generic fantasy?
Give the monk 6 + Int skill points and it becomes the fourth PHB expert class. As it stands, the monk doesn't really fit in any category: no spells, not many skill points, and medium BAB.
One of the primary elements common to all Experts are Perception skills (Listen, Spot Search) and Stealth skills (hide and move silently). Even with it's few skill points a Monk has the skill selection of an expert. It's BAB, HD, and mobility help place in that category. The Monk straddles Warrior and Expert.
-----
I'm quite serious that we are missing a Divine Expert by (power and type).
Sounds like a more powerful version of the Sorcerer (with healing spells, trap finding, more skill points, etc.)
In other words, assuming the Sorcerer is balanced, this class you are proposing is grossly unbalanced.
Well, by the same analysis, the standard cleric is a more powerful version of the wizard (not even the spellbook limit on spell selection, healing spells, turn undead, better BAB, better weapons, better saves . . .).
The relevant domain for the oracle, I think, is how well it stacks up to the cleric.
Compared to the Pathfinder cleric, it has poor BAB, poor hit points, lousy armor, and no turn undead. In exchange it gets a bonus domain (Knowledge), 4 more skills/points (depending on how skills wind up working), two more class skills* (all-knowledge-skills-as-calls-skills is a standard feature of the Knowledge domain), lore, trapfinding/sense, and evasion. Like wizard-to-sorcerer, it swaps out a long list of preparable spells for a short list of spontaneous spells castable more often.
What could you take away from the oracle without making it so clearly inferior to the cleric that nobody would ever touch it? Get rid of the extra spell/level and the evasion?
|
I think it's important to concentrate on getting the existing classes right before considering doing new core classes (if such is even needed - I would be especially diappointed if space was taken up in the book to flesh out a whole psionic system just to support a single psionic class that, should it ever be included as revised 3P material, should be in a separate book).
I'm with those folks who feel that core classes have enough of a spread at the moment and can be expanded even further with the use of prestige classes if needed or desired.
I think it's important to concentrate on getting the existing classes right before considering doing new core classes (if such is even needed - I would be especially diappointed if space was taken up in the book to flesh out a whole psionic system just to support a single psionic class that, should it ever be included as revised 3P material, should be in a separate book).
I'm with those folks who feel that core classes have enough of a spread at the moment and can be expanded even further with the use of prestige classes if needed or desired.
Like I said, were I to add a twelfth class. (Given my druthers, I wouldn't.)
That said . . .
Balance-wise, I don't consider oracle a problem. It doesn't displace the arcane caster blaster, it doesn't displace the front-line warrior, and it doesn't displace the sneaky type (though it allows a bard/ranger/monk to fill that slot without denying the party the ability to handle traps). In the divine caster slot, it isn't clearly superior to a cleric or druid, and it plays distinctly differently from them. (It does step on a cleric/loremaster archetype-wise.)
And, well, it fits right in for a three iconic party set:
#1 Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard
#2 Oracle, Paladin, Monk, Sorcerer
#3 Druid, Barbarian, Ranger, Bard
The second is a bit short on BAB/HP, the third is definitely short on arcane but the extra weight in BAB/HP offsets that some. RP-wise, Group 2 is probably centered around a common religion of the oracle/paladin/monk, while group 3 is wilderness-oriented. (And is probably adventuring in the wild where trapfinding/disabling isn't nearly as critical as in a dungeon. Snares and pits can be handled with, well, the druid and ranger both having detect snares and pits.)
Personally I think that D&D should break off into some other area's of fantasy and make the game more inclusive, even to people who's fantasies don't follow the typical mythic fantasy mold. Here are some thoughts on new characters to do that.
Pokemon Master: This class would basically have the magical ability to capture monsters with a series of magical balls that he would learn to create at first level. He would get a new ball and the ability to capture bigger monsters as he goes along. He would be able to absorb a new monster any time one of his minions drops one's HP under 5, and then make basically a death knell-type of attack to capture it. He would not be able to capture creatures with higher CR's than his HD as well.
Pyramid schemer: This character would basically get the leadership ability at first level and an automatic 3 cohorts. He would gain more per level but only the first 3 would ever gain level and all the rest besides those would be first level commoners for life. He would constantly gain more followers and with it more power having all his abilities and attacks jacked by how many followers he currently has, but would have to make a save on a daily basis to see how many of his followers died of starvation or suicide.
Constant Gardner: This person would have multiple abilities focused completely around plantlife. He would get full spell progression but would only be able to cast spells specifically targeting plant life...also get any type of plant as a favored enemy. He would get +1 every level to Knowledge(nature), craft(garden), and profession(landscaper), and disable device....and fly.
MMO TOON: This character would get abilities and skills that focus on specifically bringing in the MMO crowd. He would have abilities like; draw aggro: obvious
farm: enemies magically re-appear and fight them over and over again for additional treasure and XP...of great value when you run into an easily exploitable monster or two in a campaign.
power level: There would be no level 4 for this character...he would go strait to level 5.
Scream into mic: This would cause deafness 30' radius as an extraordinary ability.
taunt: Weaken enemies with statements like,"LOL@UR GEAR NOOB", and,"UR ARENA RATING SUX".
[/bad ideas]
Personally I think that D&D should break off into some other area's of fantasy and make the game more inclusive, even to people who's fantasies don't follow the typical mythic fantasy mold. Here are some thoughts on new characters to do that.
Pokemon Master: This class would basically have the magical ability to capture monsters with a series of magical balls that he would learn to create at first level. He would get a new ball and the ability to capture bigger monsters as he goes along. He would be able to absorb a new monster any time one of his minions drops one's HP under 5, and then make basically a death knell-type of attack to capture it. He would not be able to capture creatures with higher CR's than his HD as well.
Pyramid schemer: This character would basically get the leadership ability at first level and an automatic 3 cohorts and a large number of followers. The cohorts would gain more levels but only the first 3 would ever gain levels and all the rest besides those would be first level commoners for life. He would constantly gain more followers, and with it more power, having all his abilities and attacks jacked by how many followers he currently has... but would have to make a save on a daily basis to see how many of his followers died of starvation or suicide.
Constant Gardner: This person would have multiple abilities focused completely around plantlife. He would get full spell progression but would only be able to cast spells specifically targeting plant life...also get any type of plant as a favored enemy. He would get +1 every level to Knowledge(nature), craft(garden), and profession(landscaper), and disable device....and fly.
MMO TOON: This character would get abilities and skills that focus on specifically bringing in the MMO crowd. He would have abilities like; draw aggro: obvious
farm: enemies magically re-appear and fight them over and over again for additional treasure and XP...of great value when you run into an easily exploitable monster or two in a campaign.
power level: There would be no level 4 for this character...he would go strait to level 5.
Scream into mic: This would cause deafness 30' radius as an extraordinary ability.
taunt: Weaken enemies with statements like,"LOL@UR GEAR NOOB", and,"UR ARENA RATING SUX".
[/tragic ideas]
I'm sorry about that last post.
I've been drinking too much coffee today.
|
|
Ok, now I'm sure there is some kind of publishing force at Paizo looking at this new initiative saying, "You have XX number of pages to use for this publication...no more no less. IF you go over given page amount, you will be forced to play a 3.0 bard half-orc with 7 Charisma for the next 6 months during gaming, while everybody else plays the shiny new Paizo characters."
That being said, I would love to see a new class. . . .
What would be most fitting would be a Pathfinder build for each core class. So, if people intended to play as Pathfinders, they'd get special abilities in lieu of standard abilities.
I had thought of a Pathfinder class or prestige class, but both seem self-defeating to the broad range of people who become Pathfinders. Still, a game crunch benefit would be nice. With my suggestion, you aren't confined to a particular class or prestige class to play a Pathfinder. But likewise, there are certain benefits to being a Pathfinder as opposed to not. (But likewise, you also sacrifice some standard class abilities in the process.)
My problem remains that to be a core class anything proposed would have to be something that is glaringly missing in the current core classes. Which is why to me the only options for core classes becomes a strongly social based class (let's be honest, the bard is pathetic at filling this role really) or an expert whose skills lay outside the rogues sphere and whose abilities were closer to the Paragon prestige class. Witch is already easily covered by wizard, cleric or druid (or in many cases an Adept NPC class with brew potion feat). Tinker/Artificer (not the Eberron kind) are a little too specific in focus compared to the broad strokes of the other core classes. Which brings me to my other consideration regarding a possible new core class.
How specific is the class? If it is too specific or to inherently thematic then I dont think it would make a good core class. All of the core classes have a very solid generality to them even rangers, bards and druids. This generality is part of why they deserve to be a core class and not relegated to a prestige class. Specifics is where the prestige classes come in to me be they 5-level or 10-level.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
My problem remains that to be a core class anything proposed would have to be something that is glaringly missing in the current core classes. Which is why to me the only options for core classes becomes a strongly social based class
I always thought that that could be accomplished by a noble class, something suitable for PCs.
|
|
My problem remains that to be a core class anything proposed would have to be something that is glaringly missing in the current core classes. Which is why to me the only options for core classes becomes a strongly social based classI always thought that that could be accomplished by a noble class, something suitable for PCs.
You can do this with a bard. Seriously.
Actually, I am wholeheartedly in favor of Pokemon Master as the twelfth class.
It'll need to be *called* "warlock" or "binder" or "demonologist" -- but we'll all know the score.
Seriously, I'm not kidding.
Actually, I am wholeheartedly in favor of Pokemon Master as the twelfth class.
It'll need to be *called* "warlock" or "binder" or "demonologist" -- but we'll all know the score.
Seriously, I'm not kidding.
You better be. IT all doesn't fit. Conjurer might, but the rest doesn't necessary summon nauseatingly cute critters from little balls.
|
|
Really? I wasn't aware that psionicist (or Psion) would both heal and blast in the same character. Come to think of it I've never really seen a Psion that acted as the party medic. I've also never seen a Psion fill the Rogues roll.
While I agree that leaving psionics out of the core books is a good idea, I HAVE seen a psionic character or three act as back-up healer, back-up blaster, AND the party's front man (CHA was 17, where the rogue's was only 13 and the rest of the party - well, lets say they were tanks for a reason...). They have, with the XPH, quite a nice range of abilities and aren't overpowered even through the mid-levels.
Russell Jones, that Runescribe sounds like a good fit. Even without the Sin magic aspect of the Pathfinder setting it would still have a place in other fantasy settings. Rune magic is not new to fantasy but is hardly used in D&D. It could fill a nice middle ground between Arcane and Divine magic. ...
Thematically that class could cover the two areas that are needed and offer a minor rogue trapfinding element. Runescribe can find and disable magical (not mechanical) traps?
HEAR HEAR!! Runecaster is the BOMB idea. And even non-magical traps make for an easy rune:
Rune of FailureEffect: One mechanical device (for example a lock, trap mechanism, winch, etc) fails to function.
I haven't seen the rune rules (no party to play pathfinder with right now :( but you could tie success to a spellcraft DC vs the Item DC.
As an aside, anyone besides me ever look at all the 3.5 "core" classes and think 3.5 + COMPLETE + PHBII = Final Fantasy Tactics?
Kaeyoss, I have issues with the "Noble class" concepts out there. While the class abilities concepts i like from those I have seen I dont think a social class term is a good choice for naming a core class. Noble is more social status that character class. A given noble may be a fighter, a wizard, a ranger, a cleric, an expert, a barbarian, etc etc. Change the name and tweak the commonly assigned abilities (favors, reputation and such) and it would make a fine addition.
Shisumo, while you can do this with a bard he still would not really excel in the area like the other classes do in their areas of expertise. The bard suffers a bit from his jack-of-all-trades concept from excelling in anything in particular...second best to the rogue, second best to the wizard, second best to the fighter. Which is a fantastic concept in itself (I loved Bleys in the Amber Chronicles, who was also "second best" at many things.) But I would prefer a new class with a social basis who excelled at that area.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
Shisumo, while you can do this with a bard he still would not really excel in the area like the other classes do in their areas of expertise. The bard suffers a bit from his jack-of-all-trades concept from excelling in anything in particular...second best to the rogue, second best to the wizard, second best to the fighter. Which is a fantastic concept in itself (I loved Bleys in the Amber Chronicles, who was also "second best" at many things.) But I would prefer a new class with a social basis who excelled at that area.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Okay, at first glance, this is appears to be so blatantly untrue as to be laughable, so I'm going to assume that I must be misunderstanding you somehow. When you say "a new class with a social basis who excelled at that area," what excatly are you imagining such a class would be capable of that a bard is not?
Okay, at first glance, this is appears to be so blatantly untrue as to be laughable, so I'm going to assume that I must be misunderstanding you somehow. When you say "a new class with a social basis who excelled at that area," what excatly are you imagining such a class would be capable of that a bard is not?
Something closer to the class abilities of the Noble class mentioned earlier without the social destinction that term implies. Collecting favors as they increase in level, reputation as a class ability, situational boosts to social skills, boosts to Leadership, the equivalent of skill tricks becoming class abilities similar to the rogue talents abilities, exceptional (maybe spell-like abilities) that might do things like function as a shorter duration charm person/monster (possibly leaving the person standing there a half hour later going "why did i trust that guy?").
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
Okay, at first glance, this is appears to be so blatantly untrue as to be laughable, so I'm going to assume that I must be misunderstanding you somehow. When you say "a new class with a social basis who excelled at that area," what excatly are you imagining such a class would be capable of that a bard is not?Something closer to the class abilities of the Noble class mentioned earlier without the social destinction that term implies. Collecting favors as they increase in level, reputation as a class ability, situational boosts to social skills, boosts to Leadership, the equivalent of skill tricks becoming class abilities similar to the rogue talents abilities, exceptional (maybe spell-like abilities) that might do things like function as a shorter duration charm person/monster (possibly leaving the person standing there a half hour later going "why did i trust that guy?").
-Weylin Stormcrowe
So what you're looking for is the Charismatic Hero from d20 Modern.
Honestly, I really like the noble class as it appeared in the 2nd edition of the d20 Star Wars game, and I like the Charismatic Hero as well. However, I would question whether that is a better social class than the bard, as opposed to just a different one. The bard functions on a smaller scale than the class you're describing does, but within that smaller scale, the bard can do things your class would never dream of. (Glibness, anyone?) Some of the other ones - your "shorter duration charm person/monster" for instance - are pretty close to some uses of bardic music. Moreover, D&D as a whole tends not to function at scales larger than the ones where the bard excels - I'm not sure that the class you describe would really have a place in the traditional D&D game.
There's also the question of how well the mechanics you describe fit into the rules as they stand. Reputation in particular is a complicated question - shouldn't a 20th level fighter have some reputation as well? - and has implications that go well beyond simply adding a class. Similarly, the favor mechanic, though it has already appeared over in Eberron, is an extremely "hand-wavey" class ability, difficult if not impossible to balance effectively. (One of the biggest reasons I thought Dragonmarked was a good purchase was the specific list of available favors and DCs for them within each House.)
None of this is saying that a noble-like class would necessarily be a mistake, or that it would not be playable somehow, but I would argue that the existence of the bard makes having another social-based class a much lower priority.
Now, an arcane-based warrior to set against the paladin and ranger, on the other hand...
You better be. IT all doesn't fit. Conjurer might, but the rest doesn't necessary summon nauseatingly cute critters from little balls.Actually, I am wholeheartedly in favor of Pokemon Master as the twelfth class.
It'll need to be *called* "warlock" or "binder" or "demonologist" -- but we'll all know the score.
Seriously, I'm not kidding.
How about summoning scary Monster Manual monsters from crystal balls or iron flasks?
I've said before that the psionic warrior makes a better monk than the monk does.
That being said, I could go for the psionic warrior or a variant thereof replacing the monk.
That way, everybody's happy. Psionics is in core. The monk is less eastern. The monk gets a much needed boost and becomes a better, well-rounded, class. You don't have to worry about transparency vs. non-transparency issues so much because psionic warrior abilities do less direct effects.See... I hate blanket statements like "That way, everybody's happy."
I personally don't like psionics, don't feel that the psychic warrior makes a better monk, and certainly don't want to see something like that replace the monk. I like the monk. I think monks kick mucho ass. Your proposal would not make me happy, and I'm part of everybody, aren't I?
I just wonder why people who don't like or can't figure out how to effectively play a class have to say, "This sucks! Let's throw it out."
The monk is fine, and will likely get the same facelift that the rest of the classes are getting, making it even more kick-ass.As for a new class... I'm not sure what core is missing. If you add a psionic class, then you have to make sure that all the rules for psionics link up with the PFRPG, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but could be a problem, logistically. I wouldn't mind seeing a spontaneous divine caster. Something like the favored soul, but without all the "becoming more and more divine and less and less what I was." Something like the Mystic from the DLCS, maybe, which is basically a sorcerer that casts divine spells.
I agree completly a Mystic is the Obvious choice, spontaneous divine caster, especially for settings that don't have active gods for what ever reason. However if they do sorcerers as I think they will then they will become more and more divine, like a sorcerer becomes more and more draconic. If that's how they go. In such a case however both Sorcerer and Mystic should foll Book of Eldric Might spells per-day and spells know table.
I know this will sound radical but I think maybe another class option might be an Archer. Fighters with an Archery concept never really worked, and Rangers get spells (which I was never sure why?) So a ranged warrior, and maybe not just with a bow, but I like the sound of Archer would be great. I use the Archer from 3arrows for the king, in my game but have given him 1d4 extra damge with his perfered bow every other level. I sort of use a favored enemey for this but instead of favored enemy I use a standardized progression system of creatuers this extra damge works on. Starting with Animals at level one, +1d4 at level two, humanoids at level three, +2d4 at level four and so on. For the record Aberations come in last and undead never get the extra damage.
The Game of Thrones did up a nice D20 Noble class. The Erudite with the Spells to Power variant is interesting as a psionic variant particularly if 4 more known daily powers are added to it like the Educated Wilder.
|
|
I'd like to see a spontaneous divine caster (actually, I'd like to see regular clerics go spontaneous) and maybe some form of an expert class that would be a viable PC choice. That would allow for "another trap finder" if that person were an expert in disabling devices. You might not see many PCs take it for 20 levels but it might be great for multiclassing and it would allow for NPCs who are more skilled and adventure-suitable than commoners.
Also, I don't really like the idea of noble as a class, only because it's not a profession that anyone can choose. Courtier or diplomat maybe, especially built on an expert base (Knowledge (nobility) and Diplomacy). BUt a person of noble blood could be a wizard or a fighter too, so I don't see giving them a class. Nobility strikes me more as a feat or template that gives +1 Con for healthy living conditions and better education (i.e., extra Knowledge class skills).
Personally, I would just like to see multiclassing work a little more like it did in AD&D. That would help with flexibility to cover any party gaps.
But, if Paizo were to make a new class I think something unique to the setting would be nice - a Pathfinder (whatever that would be), or Runemaster, as someone suggested. This could be either a divine or arcane caster, but limited to the written word. Sort of treads into the cloistered cleric/oracle concept someone proposed. That sounds interesting.
It is intriguing to have 12 classes, if only to have 3 different party concepts without doubling up on one class.
Just thought of something, what about theurge being a separate class? You would definitely need to reduce what spells are available to them. Maybe they would have to pick two domains and one school or something like that. I remember years ago Gygax proposed a Mystic class, but it never developed.
How about summoning scary Monster Manual monsters from crystal balls or iron flasks?
Withoug balls or flasks. And that's still just the conjurer.
I'd like to see a spontaneous divine caster (actually, I'd like to see regular clerics go spontaneous)
Actually, clerics make much more sense as they are now. It's druids that would make sense as spontaneous casters.
Also, I don't really like the idea of noble as a class, only because it's not a profession that anyone can choose. Courtier or diplomat maybe, especially built on an expert base (Knowledge (nobility) and Diplomacy).
That's true but then, I'd say there's more than one class in the core rules that aren't really supposed to be something you just pick up one day, either: Sorcerers, for example, are supposed to have supernatural ancestry, and barbarians are civilisation-shunning nomadic people, yet you can just pick up either. And there's other classes where the theme at least suggests that it shouldn't be such an easy thing: wizards with their decades of study as apprentice, paladins with all those orders you are supposed to be a member of, clerics and their faiths, monks and their rigorous training....
|
Pyramid schemer: This character would basically get the leadership ability at first level and an automatic 3 cohorts and a large number of followers. The cohorts would gain more levels but only the first 3 would ever gain levels and all the rest besides those would be first level commoners for life. He would constantly gain more followers, and with it more power, having all his abilities and attacks jacked by how many followers he currently has... but would have to make a save on a daily basis to see how many of his followers died of starvation or suicide.
See, I'm all over this sort of character.
Cultist/Cult Leader
Class abilities include;
Leadership at 6th (can Summon a Familiar instead of attracting a Cohort, can use Extra Cohort feat to then get a Cohort as well, if he wants)
Inspire Followers (similar to Bardic ability, but only affects followers)
Share Health (grant health to a follower, take health from a follower, transfer health between two followers)
Share Power (grant spell slots to a follower, take spell slots from a follower, use spell slots from a follower to metamagic own spells)
Sacrifice (Death Knell-like affect Cha mod +1 times / day, grants actual healing, not just temp hp)
1st – 5th spells, using Adept list + Flame Strike and Call Lightning, -Scorching Ray and Lightning Bolt, etc. More ‘culty,’ less practical. Charisma is spellcasting attribute. Does not gain spellcasting until 5th level, Adept progression is accelerated within the last 16 levels of the class.
Turn / Rebuke Undead at 7th level *or* one Domain from diety, gains a second choice at 14th level. (So will never equal a Cleric, since he can have two Domains but no Turn/Rebuke, or 1 Domain and Turn or Rebuke, cannot have both Turn and Rebuke, even if Neutral.)
Teamwork, Improved Flank
Sneak Attack
Cantrips at 4th level
1st level spells at 5th level (Adept)
Bonus Feats (Skill Focus (any Cha), any of the +2 to two skills feats, Weapon Focus (deities favored weapon), any of the 3 Cantrips 1/day feats, Merciful Strike)
Armor – None (Lt Armor Prof can be chosen as a bonus feat)
Weapons – 5 Simple + Dieties Favored Weapon (Simple Weapons must include 1 Ranged, 1 Light, 1 One-Hand and 1 Two-Hand, plus 1 of choice. Improved Unarmed Attack can be taken as a Simple Weapon choice.)
Rogue BaB
Saves: Fort Poor, Ref Med, Will Med
HD d6
Add various ‘Mass’ spells, perhaps at lower levels but only affecting Followers (Rage, Mass Rage, Good Hope, Mage Armor, Mass Mage Armor, Bull’s Strength, Mass Bull’s Strength, Haste, etc.)
A smattering of Rogue skills (mainly the deceitful Cha-based ones), a smattering of priestly casting, and a throng of devotees whom he eventually learns to not just motivate and empower, but to steal energy and power from to work his 'miracles!'