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.
A new class included in the core would really set this book apart as it's own thing. Just one. It would not only give us a really hard line showing the difference but would also give us an example of just what you all can do for new mechanical material.
This is a bit greedy, and I'm sure your resident editor and publicist would be squirming at such a suggestion, but I think you could get over on them by making them a T-shirt that said, "I'm a Page-Nazi", and leaving it in a box on the hood of their car.
That or you may find your favorite feat erased from the book...but what the hell it's worth the risk.
How do you feel about a new class?
If they did a new one I would prob like to see a mage/fighter class myself.
I would love to see something that follows the line of the ToB, but completely different at the same time...maybe a bit less mystical and a bit more gritty!
|
I would love to see something that follows the line of the ToB, but completely different at the same time...maybe a bit less mystical and a bit more gritty!
I'm not trying to incite anyone here, but ToB is the Gateway to 4e according to WotC. I would prefer to stay away from this kind of new material.
IF there was a new class (and I am not convinced there should be one) I would prefer it stay in line with classical fantasy. That said, I'm not sure what's missing from the 11. Probably something more like an Indiana Jones tomb-robber Pathfinder organization paragon maybe?
I'm just thinking there is only one class with Trapfinding whereas most other "functions" have overlap across classes.
My vote is for a Psionic class. Just one.
I could live with that.but please no more of this same as magic stuff
I would love to see something that follows the line of the ToB, but completely different at the same time...maybe a bit less mystical and a bit more gritty!I'm not trying to incite anyone here, but ToB is the Gateway to 4e according to WotC. I would prefer to stay away from this kind of new material.
IF there was a new class (and I am not convinced there should be one) I would prefer it stay in line with classical fantasy. That said, I'm not sure what's missing from the 11. Probably something more like an Indiana Jones tomb-robber Pathfinder organization paragon maybe?
I'm just thinking there is only one class with Trapfinding whereas most other "functions" have overlap across classes.
Your suggestion isn't bad, but I have little fear of the "gateway" effect.
the ToB uses 3.5 rules which 4th isn't compatible with...this makes it solidly 3.5 and nothing but.
The fact that some ideas were used to make 4th doesn't change much and the concepts of the ToB are certainly not what's keeping me away from 4th (namely the universal mechanic for all classes, the 45% save for anything, the monster simplification in all areas, the nerfed or non-existant spells and effects, and a fairly radical flavor change).
If 4th did just change some things and add concepts similar to the ToB, my guess is 4th would look alot more like what Paizo is doing and alot less like 4th does.
If there would be one class to be added it sure as hell would be the: PATHFINDER!
But to come back to the psionic thing:
I too have a friend who loved to play psionics. I think mainly because they did'nt use the memorize spell system (he HATED it sooo much...).
But I must say I never really liked them in "basic" D&D (it's good for some settings like Darksun).
On the other hand getting rid of this wannebe shaolin would be wonderful.
On problem of D&D3 was that it tried to be a fantasy system workable for any setting and then put stuff and fluff in that undermine that.
(The monk, the RED WIZARD PrC! I mean common! What's a Thay wizard got to do in Greyhawk? HELLOHO?!)
On thing Pathfinder should REALLY try is to give D&D a new and whole "feeling". An overall fluff that just fits.
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how you make a PATHFINDER class without running over the Ranger with a truck, then backing over him for good measure.
The 12th Iconic is going to be a fighter/sorcerer. Since they're going in this direction, I have a feeling they'll be revising the multiclass system in such a way that'll make core classes that try to mix sword & sorcery unnecessary.
Uh... huh?
more info please.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how you make a PATHFINDER class without running over the Ranger with a truck, then backing over him for good measure.
I don't see why a Pathfinder class would necessarily overlap heavily with the Ranger. I see it being closer to a bard/rogue than anything.
Think about it. Knowledge (History, Arch & Engi, Dungeoneering, Geography) all in-class, moderate BAB progression (as rogue), various "explorer" skills in-class (Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Decipher Script), trapfinding, perhaps some class benefits pertaining to increased defense against traps and spells, 8 + INT skill points, perhaps free Skill Focuses every few levels, etc.
Could be pretty cool. Maybe give them some cool new ability called "Trailblazing" that allows them to boost the movement speed of allies nearby. They'd basically be like Indiana Jones. Could be very cool.
|
|
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'd say that they should concentrate on the existing material. If they have space and/or time left after that, they can do a new race or class or something.
Actually, I'd rather have them do several great new classes in an extra book.
But since we're throwing around suggestions, classes I could see working well:
Arcanist/Warrior crossover: Could be a Runeblade, Duskblade, Mageblade, Arcane Knight, you name it. Basically something for those who want to combine arcane power with martial prowess. I'd go for stuff that charges their weapon-based attacks with arcane power (if I want a magical warrior that can buff itself, I play a cleric). Plus, I consider the flashy stuff more up arcane magic's alley.
Noble: A weapons-grade aristocrat. A courtier that can fight, too. Part courtier (with social skills and class abilities for favour and their standing and influence), part person in charge (order people around, part noble fencer (he's able to use some weapons, but mostly light ones, the ones you use for sport - hunting, fencing tourneys, formal duels, that sort of thing).
Marshal: Call it commander, officer, something like this. Basically a soldier who's in charge. He'll have at least medium BAB (could be strong, too) and abilities to order others around (and effectively, too).
Hexer: Could have any number of names. What I'm aiming at is someone who puts hexes at people. Curse the heck out of, or rather into, people.
What I am really missing is some kind of Agent/Spy.
I think this would make a good thing for the Bard but then again it might also fit for the rogue.
What I am really missing is some kind of Agent/Spy.
I think this would make a good thing for the Bard but then again it might also fit for the rogue.
A rogue can easily take that job: Listen, spot, search / perception to look for things; hide, move silently / stealth to avoid being seen; disguise for assumed identities; bluff / deception, intimidate, diplomacy (gather information) to get people to give you information.
|
|
I'd say that they should concentrate on the existing material. If they have space and/or time left after that, they can do a new race or class or something.
Noble: A weapons-grade aristocrat. A courtier that can fight, too. Part courtier (with social skills and class abilities for favour and their standing and influence), part person in charge (order people around, part noble fencer (he's able to use some weapons, but mostly light ones, the ones you use for sport - hunting, fencing tourneys, formal duels, that sort of thing).
Marshal: Call it commander, officer, something like this. Basically a soldier who's in charge. He'll have at least medium BAB (could be strong, too) and abilities to order others around (and effectively, too).
I'd say that a Noble/Marshal crossover is the way to go. While spellcasting fighters are maybe more appealing, we've seen then in a thousand different (and often broken or otherwise overpowered) incarnations, while the basic game lacks a class that's able to boost its allies though resources and competence without resorting to some sort of magic or supernatural trick.
Combining the excellent Noble core class features from the Green Ronin Master Class sourcebook with a field commander (an evolved Marshal core class from the Miniatures Handbook) could really fill out some gap instead of providing yet another variant on the same subject.
Yeah sure anybody can do an agents job through the skills, but I'd like to see some special and interesting FEATS to actually improve and support this.
Take a look at the Master Spy PrC (or something) they get some very cool abilities but I don't see the need for making this a prestige class.
|
|
I posted this, but the board ate it.
LilithsThrall wrote:
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.
If they make a new class, they should try, IMO, to make something completely new. We've got psionics, we've got divine, we've got arcane(with some innate arcanists), we've got two gishs, we've got three sneaky attackers, we've got all of that. A new class should be a new concept, maybe a class that can mix arcane and divine magic(there isn't a base class that does this, and there's few PrCs that do it well), or a class that opens a new path for magic, or maybe a beast-trainer class, something that, at the very least, hasn't been seen as a base class yet, preferably something that hasn't been seen in a class at all yet. Maybe a necromantically flavoured non-caster or something, that'd be interesting.
I vote no.
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...
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.
Yes, it is a good question as to "what do we need" not "what we want."
Break it down:
Martial base: Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian
Divine base: Paladin, Druid, Cleric, Ranger
Arcane base: Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard
Roles
Warriors: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin
Experts: Bard, Ranger*, Monk*, Rogue
Casters: Druid*, Cleric*, Wizard, Sorcerer
*Overlaps in Warrior role. CoDzilla front-line versions.
While we don't have as many dedicated warrior classes in appearance we actually have many classes that can fill that role. We don't really need another Warrior class? I like Gish as much as the next person however it is overly redundant in many ways.
With 12 class we should be able to create 3 iconic parties.
1st is: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric
2nd contains: Sorcerer and Druid for sure
As for the other classes that make up 2nd and 3rd....
#1
2nd is: Paladin, Monk, Druid, Sorcerer
3rd is: Barbarian, Ranger, Bard
#2
2nd is: Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer
3rd is: Barbarian, Monk, Bard
#3
2nd is: Paladin, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer
3rd is: Barbarian, Monk, Ranger
#4
2nd is: Barbarian, Monk, Druid, Sorcerer
3rd is: Paladin, Ranger, Bard
#5
2nd is: Barbarian, Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer
3rd is: Paladin, Monk, Bard
#6
2nd is: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer
3rd is: Paladin, Monk, Ranger
Looking at the 3rd party setups...
#1 and #2 have poor healing support and poor blasting support. In #1 the bard is tacking basically all the slack in those areas.
#3 is so dead it's not funny. No healing, no blasting. The ranger doesn't get enough spells to cover healing magic in any real way.
#4 is better of then most as it has three of the alternate healers. However that healing is still limited and the lack of a blaster caster is going to be felt.
It seems to me that we need a combo healer and minor blaster to help that 3rd party. It's already a hodgepodge grouping. Maybe not a blaster but some class that can deal with large clusters of enemies the way arcane casters can.
Another missing element is a secondary trap finder. The Rogue is the only Core class that finds and disables traps. This makes it a unique class as it's role/job isn't shared by any other class (as the others are).
|
|
It seems to me that we need a combo healer and minor blaster to help that 3rd party. It's already a hodgepodge grouping. Maybe not a blaster but some class that can deal with large clusters of enemies the way arcane casters can.
Another missing element is a secondary trap finder. The Rogue is the only Core class that finds and disables traps. This makes it a unique class as it's role/job isn't shared by any other class (as the others are).
Sounds like a role a Psionicist could fill easily.
Personally, I am against the idea of yet another core class. This was one of the problems I had with 3.5 D&D under WotC. Whenever a "complete <class>" book came out two more core classes were introduced. In PHB II even more were introduced. All of these could have been dealt with through core class variants instead of entirely new core classes and seemed to much like "Hey, now you can start as a prestige class". The core classes are core for just that reason, their concept is the basis for other option.
A friend and i have argued back and forth whether Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Druid and Sorcer actually deserve to be core classes or if they could and should be subsumed into their base class. Especially since (with the exception of sorcerer) they all began as subclasses. Even when we theoretically agreed on the concept we debated which class they should be subsumed into. Personally, I would not be averse to seeing barbarian and ranger turned into a "talent options" under fighter...paladin under a less miltant cleric...sorcerer under wizard and druid under cleric. Though this would make for core classes being more complex and Jason has stated he wants to keep that to a minimum so i dont expect this to ever happen.
IF we did need another core class I would prefer one that focuses on a social aspect as their strong point. Essentially combine the bard and the noble (as found in systems like Conan). This would also include courtiers, the stereotypical tricksters (who was often more social cerebral than a rogue), temptresses, heralds and the more "in plain sight" spies and agents provocateur. Though i would not refer to this class as Noble (as i have seen suggested). To me noble is a social designation not occupational like the other classes (yes i also dislike the npc class "Commoner").
I would rather see psionics get a supplement all its own quickly following the main PFRPG release. Including yet another magical system (which let's be honest..psionics is just that. only the flavor has changed, not the core mechanics really). Which is also why i am solidly against psionics ignoring SR and such.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Dislike witch as a class myself. It is just a wizard, cleric or druid with specific theme to their spells, feats and personality/back story to me. As any of the three classes i mentioned take Craft Potion, a high rank in Alchemy, select more curse aspected spells and there you have a witch.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
How about a Runescribe? Someone skilled in creating runes that give them certain powers, or enhance items they use or make. They could specialize in a specific type of rune (like one aspect of sin magic), much like different schools of magic.
A runecrafter's skills and abilities would focus on ancient knowledge, magic, and item creation. Runes would give access to greater power; perhaps instead of verbal and somatic components to cast spells, a runecrafter quickly scratches a rune into a door to ward it, onto a fighter's axe to empower it, or use it as part of item creation to give the item more abilities or greater ones. Simple runes would take a standard action to scribe, and more complex runes or runewords would take a round or longer.
An example low-level rune based on wrath magic could be traced onto a fighter's forehead with ashes from a bonfire, granting them a bonus to attack and damage while lowering their AC or Will save.
A mid-level rune based on sloth magic could be carved into a runescribe's weapon with faerie wings, allowing him to place someone into a deep slumber with a melee touch attack.
A high-level greed rune written onto a magic item could destroy it, subvert it, or even make it into something completely different (like removing a curse).
I may have the schools and sins a bit mixed up (my Rise of the Runelords is at home) but I'd like to see something more to do with runes in the game, personally.
If, IF, Pathfinder RPG needs a new class I think it needs to fill the niche that a warlock/thaumaturge fills.
Something arcane but also that flirts with the concept of vestiges, pacts, or other transactions with mysterious powers.
Just a thought, but then again I've been itching to play a thaumaturge for a bit.
And there again is the mentality i dont get..psionics = scifi. Nothing inherently scifi or non-fantasy about psionics inherently.
I agree that psionics is just another form of magic. But then as i posted in other threads, aside from flavor and mechanics there isnt any difference between arcane, divine, psionic or ki really. different ways of manipulating the same thing.
I dont think a tinker type would really be worth its own class in most settings. That sort of thing is easily dealt with through the expert npc class or importing the artificer from Eberron, or the similar class from Iron Kingdoms (though both are fairly setting specific).
I think any added class would need to excel in a very broad area not already covered by another. Which is why i suggest a social-based class (rogues and even bards do not have broad social ability as their focus). Class abilities could be favors, reputation, skill boosts, skill tricks, possibly a minor spell caster or option similar to rogue talents, possibly some mentalist exceptional abilities (making a possible attacker pause with a sudden deluge of psychobabble).
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
Personally, I am against the idea of yet another core class. This was one of the problems I had with 3.5 D&D under WotC. Whenever a "complete <class>" book came out two more core classes were introduced. In PHB II even more were introduced. All of these could have been dealt with through core class variants instead of entirely new core classes and seemed to much like "Hey, now you can start as a prestige class". The core classes are core for just that reason, their concept is the basis for other option.
I agree -- I don't want to see another core class unless it feels like truly belonging in the game and does not overlap the abilities of an existing class. I especially wouldn't want to see any "gish" class, because that often makes multi-classing seem weak in comparison. Why would you play a wizard/figher, if you can play a Duskblade? Or another type of "Swordmage"?
I also agree with you on all those core classes from the "splat books". We never allowed them, because some of them felt really weird and -- just like those "gish" classes -- they often had a lot of overlap with existing core classes or prestige classes. Besides, most of them would have made more sense as prestige classes anyway.
A friend and i have argued back and forth whether Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Druid and Sorcer actually deserve to be core classes or if they could and should be subsumed into their base class. Especially since (with the exception of sorcerer) they all began as subclasses. Even when we theoretically agreed on the concept we debated which class they should be subsumed into. Personally, I would not be averse to seeing barbarian and ranger turned into a "talent options" under fighter...paladin under a less miltant cleric...sorcerer under wizard and druid under cleric. Though this would make for core classes being more complex and Jason has stated he wants to keep that to a minimum so i dont expect this to ever happen.
I have had similar discussions with my friends -- especially since True20 came out and although it only had three "Core Roles" (Warrior, Expert and Adept), you could modify them to include all D&D classes (e.g. Paladins as Holy Warriors) in the game. However, I don't expect Pathfinder RPG to go this way either.
IF we did need another core class I would prefer one that focuses on a social aspect as their strong point. Essentially combine the bard and the noble (as found in systems like Conan). This would also include courtiers, the stereotypical tricksters (who was often more social cerebral than a rogue), temptresses, heralds and the more "in plain sight" spies and agents provocateur. Though i would not refer to this class as Noble (as i have seen suggested). To me noble is a social designation not occupational like the other classes (yes i also dislike the npc class "Commoner").
Here I don't agree with you on combining bards with nobles (any courtier class works better as a profession, or as a PrC --just like in FR). If I had my way, barbarian would be a cultural background and not a core class (i.e. you could take those barbarian abilities/feats for a "savage" fighter). I suggested on another thread that there could be feats and/or skill bonuses related to social status, culture and race, and I'd rather see it handled this way.
I would rather see psionics get a supplement all its own quickly following the main PFRPG release. Including yet another magical system (which let's be honest..psionics is just that. only the flavor has changed, not...
Agreed. Besides, not everyone likes psionics or wants to use them. What I would *really* like to see is every spellcasting class using *spell points* instead of spell slots (just like psions use PSPs). I just wonder if those Rage Points function in a similar manner...
Agreed. Psionics should be something that can completely ignore SR, including the magic immunity of your average golem. Why not also make Psionic characters more resistant to your standard magic. I'm almost certain many more people would want to play a mentalist under those circumstances.My vote is for a Psionic class. Just one.I could live with that.but please no more of this same as magic stuff
Actually, nothing needs to change for this; psionics is already very explicitly designed to support exactly this sort of thing with no modification needed, which is why there are monsters with power resistance instead of spell resistance. I believe the full rules for that are in the XPH, although they aren't in the SRD. This isn't the default, however, because a lot of people don't want to make psionics fully half of their game, and anything short of that puts psionic characters at a very real advantage. (This is one of the areas where Eberron really shines; Secrets of Sarlona is probably the best resource for psionic material after the XPH, and also may well be the best "official" setting for a psionic campaign.)
Comes to spellcasting, I dislike the vancian system currently in use but not enough to not play D&D (or Pathfinder).
I would rather see spellcasters work like the sorcerer if you have to have spells/day instead of points. A set number of known spells and a number of times you can cast each level per day.
Overall, my prefered magic system is a magical skill system. Something where spells are not certain until higher levels. Basically each school of magic would be a skill unto itself or something on par with a weapon group (and certain classes would have a "Base Casting Bonus"). Spells would be assigned a DC to cast based on level (3 or 5 times level as an example). Rituals (which would include heavy hitters like resurrection or wish..which i despise as a spell at all) would be spells that anyone could do but would be expensive and lengthy. No fastcasting of eartquakes or such.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
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.
Such a thing would be part Warlock, part Trickster. Its magic powers would derive from its social skills - basically what Sorcerers should have been, in my opinion, but weren't. It would be a gish with rituals that weren't combat capable (due to long casting time), but quite powerful.
Such a class could represent a gypsy girl, a swashbuckler, a witch (like I mentioned earlier), perhaps a shaman - in short, various forms of trickster/temptress.
That is still way to much of a gish class for my liking, especially adding in extraplanar beings. Though Charisma-based and manipulation and persuasion was what i was thinking regarding a social class. Any class powers being more extremes of skill than magic itself mostly. On par with the Paragon prestige class with its extremes of skill use but focused on social interaction and being a core class.
Swashbuckler to me is a subtype of fighter more than anything else. Shaman is a variant on cleric or druid whose deities are ancestors and/or animistic spirits (possibly a mix of fae and elementals). Witch i covered in a previous post. A "gypsy" type of character is a social or cultural status not a class to me.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
Comes to spellcasting, I dislike the vancian system currently in use but not enough to not play D&D (or Pathfinder).
I would rather see spellcasters work like the sorcerer if you have to have spells/day instead of points. A set number of known spells and a number of times you can cast each level per day.
Overall, my prefered magic system is a magical skill system. Something where spells are not certain until higher levels. Basically each school of magic would be a skill unto itself or something on par with a weapon group (and certain classes would have a "Base Casting Bonus"). Spells would be assigned a DC to cast based on level (3 or 5 times level as an example). Rituals (which would include heavy hitters like resurrection or wish..which i despise as a spell at all) would be spells that anyone could do but would be expensive and lengthy. No fastcasting of eartquakes or such.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
You might want to take a loot at D20 Thieves World series -- its magic system is very similar to your ideas. Basically, you need to build Mana for each spell (10+(10 X LVL)) with "Spellcasting Checks" (Base Casting Bonus + INT/CHA). You can "prepare" any spell beforehand with Checks (i.e. you can create a Mana Pool for it) but you can only "hold" a number of spells equal to your INT or CHA modifier. Magical fumbles are also quite common, but as the game supports "infinite" number of spells per day (NOTE: in theory, not in practise -- sooner or later you'll end up messing up a spell badly) it feels actually quite balanced. Also, higher level spells might take three or even four rounds to cast without any Mana in pool. It also has a rough Ritual Casting -system, which would need tweaking to make it actually work, but it's a pretty good system nonetheless.
I'd personally want a magic system based on Spellcraft Checks but instead of slots I'd do it with Spell Points. The thing is, you'd probably have to make all spells (at least those requiring Ranged or Ranged Touch Attack rolls) "autohit" to compensate for the check?
You might want to take a loot at D20 Thieves World series -- its magic system is very similar to your ideas. Basically, you need to build Mana for each spell (10+(10 X LVL)) with "Spellcasting Checks" (Base Casting Bonus + INT/CHA). You can "prepare" any spell beforehand with Checks (i.e. you can create a Mana Pool for it) but you can only "hold" a number of spells equal to your INT or CHA modifier. Magical fumbles are also quite common, but as the game supports "infinite" number of spells per day (NOTE: in theory, not in practise -- sooner or later you'll end up messing up a spell badly) it feels actually quite balanced. Also, higher level spells might take three or even four rounds to cast without any Mana in pool. It also has a rough Ritual Casting -system, which would need tweaking to make it actually work, but it's a pretty good system nonetheless.
I'd personally want a magic system based on Spellcraft Checks but instead of slots I'd do it with Spell Points. The thing is, you'd probably have to make all spells (at least those requiring Ranged or Ranged Touch...
Sounds similar to the system in the Black Company setting (one of my favorite series).
I dont mind having "autohit" with spells if you are requiring a casting roll every time. Given that an attack roll is actually several attacks one of which lands a telling blow, I would just assume casting rolls include targeting. Especially if casting is harder than attack rolls.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Why not use d20 Advanced Magic? Fatigue/Energy-Point bases spell casting where anyone can learn magic, but wizards and other caster classes have an easier time of it.
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.
There is a downside to including a Psionic class in the Pathfinder book, you would also have to include many of the Psionics rules and powers. That eats up more pages then a single new class should.
Thinking about party makeup here are what I see as the three Iconic parties, based on Favored classes.
1st: Dwarf Fighter, Halfling Rogue, Human Cleric, Elf Wizard
2nd: Half-Orc Barbarian, Gnome Bard, Half-Elf Druid, Human Sorcerer.
3rd: Paladin, Monk, Ranger.
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. I would like to point out that (in Pathfinder #1) there were Positive aspects to rune magic that the Thasilonians abandoned. Runes don't need to be Sin based. Paizo writers really should elaborate more Good and possible Neutral aspects of rune 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?
I also really liked the artificer from ECS, and thought a runescribe could be a way to inroduce a class with somewhat of a focus on items. It wouldn't be the main thing, but rune-enhanced items would be something special that could make the class unique from other casters and tinkers.
Is the Psion and psi-warrior in the OGL?