I'm sure this must have been broached before, but since I'm fairly new and don't see any discussion about it, I was wondering - Is Paizo just "re-doing" all the stuff in the 3.5 books?
I've become a Paizo/Pathfinder fanboy (Paizon?) over the past few weeks, and I love what they've done so far with the rules, but have they considered adding anything of their own, like a new class or race?
I'd love to see a 'Tinker' class in the core book. I know that some folks don't want any sort of 'Steampunk' feel in their games, but many settings do have at least a small amount of psuedo-tech, and it would be cool if Pathfinder tried to at least address some of those settings (like WoWRPG and Iron Kingdoms). For die-hard purists, the class could just be optional.
Even if that idea doesn't go over big, were there any non-WotC classes even considered for the PRPG? I suppose a psion-type would require a seperate rulebook, but some sort of 'Blademage' might be cool as well.
As far as race goes, as long as it isn't a 'not-quite-human' race like the splat-books were filled with (Illumians?!), I could enjoy it. Perhaps another race would best be left for the Canmpaign guide?
If it counts at all, something like the Lionmen from Monte's stuff would be awsome. As an old-school Flash Gordon fan, I just love those guys! (Any sort of 'cat-race' would probably go over big)
Think about all the archtypes - Ookla the Mok, Chewbacca, the Kzin form Larry Niven's novels... Large, hairy, fanged dudes with bad tempers are very popular!
|
The point is that as of... well, June 6th, the 3.5 books are out of print. No more are being made. Ever.
Unless Paizo does it themselves. Now they could just take the same text with the same problems that we've been fighting over since about 3 seconds after 3.0 came out and shove that out the door again, or they can try and fix it. Of course just what exactly needs fixing and how to do it are the problems that this whole year long Alpha/Beta playtest is designed to sort out.
New stuff isn't (likely) even going to be on the radar until well after August 2009.
Hey MarkusTay. Kvantum has it pretty much correct.
The philosophy behind what we're doing goes something like this: in order for a game system and its supplemental material to survive, let alone thrive, the core books need to be in print. Since WotC has discontinued the core 3.5 books, Paizo is stepping up to the plate. We're making books that are fully compatible with 3.5, but also better.
No, we are not putting any new races or classes in the initial core books. We are tying to keep it very close to the original 3.5 books just for compatibility's sake. With this book, we're keeping the game alive as we know it.
However, we have every intention of continuing on with books, much like the splatbooks. There will definitely be new classes and races and such in upcoming expansions. But you'll have to be patient. Those won't be for a few years yet.
A blademage class in the cool rulebooks wouldn't muss up backwards compatability in the slightest; isn't the idea to add rather than taking away? And hey, Monte Cook added a class and a race to Arcana Unearthed when he released Arcana Evolved, right?
It would be totally awesome.
Kind of like finding money in my next cereal box.
But, eh, I guess I could settle for a fine-tuning of the entire core rules. That would certianly be giving us our money's worth (considering, you know, that we're getting this for free).
|
Right now, just the revised 3.5 system for Pathfinder is going to be nearly 600 pages (according to comments from the Paizo staff) and its going to be fairly generic - the Golarian deities will be in there as samples, but for the most part Pathfinder intellectual property will be absent from the volume (so that other folks and companies can use it as a reference for THEIR campaign worlds).
Adding new material to it would make it less generic (and less usable to some folks) and further increase the page count of what is already goign to be a very large tome. New content should come in other Pathfinder products, where they can fully embrace the setting.
I'm of a mind that the absence of a generic sorcerous warrior class, common as it is in fantasy, is a bit of a gap in the core rules and always has been. This is actually what I asked to play when I was first introduced to D&D, before I knew anything about the rules. I was pointed to the cleric, which wasn't what I was thinking of at all.
Yes, it's been done before, but seeing Piazo's take on this- on one basic and iconic enough to fit in with the other ten classes as if it had always been there- would be awesome. You're right though, in that this is already an extremely ambitious project, and there's really no need to get greedy.
I'm of a mind that the absence of a generic sorcerous warrior class, common as it is in fantasy...
Like who? I honestly doubt I'm the most well-read fantasy fan on these boards. What have I missed that's made this archetype such a genre standard?
A lot of people apparently want to play the spellcasting swordsman, but I can't think of a classic example of the character type. Of course, I don't much like the idea myself. Heck, I don't even like rangers having spells.
For the rest of you, what's the appeal? And if you're keen on a spell-slinging blade swinger, why don't paladins work for you?
Like who? I honestly doubt I'm the most well-read fantasy fan on these boards. What have I missed that's made this archetype such a genre standard?
Elric of Melnibone.
Like who? I honestly doubt I'm the most well-read fantasy fan on these boards. What have I missed that's made this archetype such a genre standard?Elric of Melnibone.
But was he a warrior or was his sword Stormbringer?
How about multi-classing the Fighter and the Wizard (or Sorcerer)?
This works, especially at lower levels. One fighter or similar level is pretty healthy for a sorcerer or wizard, and once you get those nice 2nd- and 3rd-level touch spells you can go back to warrior.
It breaks down before you get too far, though. Spellcasters don't multiclass gracefully. And PrC fixes aren't bad either, but I think there's room in that niche for a core class.
As for the archetypes I'm talking about, it's pretty common in 'Realms fiction. A lot of characters know how to handle a sword but can also cast some impressive arcane spells (although they don't seem to know as much about magic as a real wizard, or have the toughness of a real warrior). Storm Silverhand, for example; if I recal she was statted out as having both fighter and sorcerer levels in 3.5, along with her bard levels.
There's also the.. spellsword, is it? It's been ages since I've read any of this. But elven swordsmen who cast arcane spells are supposed to be pretty common, and are trained from a young age to do both. Again, the PrC isn't bad, but it's pretty specific.
You also see more 'balanced' characters as the main charcters in videogames. Often, the main character will have hard-hitting spells as well as a hard-hitting attack. Typically he'll be flanked by a 'real wizard' (who knows more spells and has more mana) and a "real fighter" (who has a lot more hitpoints and probably hits harder).
I love Arcana Evolved's mageblade and will probably convert it for use in my Pathfinder games. It's the cleric's inverse; flashy and offense-oriented, but balanced.
But even if you are, please do a poll or something, two books is better than one!
I'm curious, what do you feel should go into the second volume, how would you split it. The reason I ask is because the 3.5 PHB/ DMG split seems pretty arbitrary. As far as I can tell there are about 450 pages of rules for everyone (PHB material) and maybe 100 or less for DMs.
|
|
I'm of a mind that the absence of a generic sorcerous warrior class, common as it is in fantasy, is a bit of a gap in the core rules and always has been
It would round the number of classes out to nice even twelve, and hey -- they've already got an iconic for it.
I wouldn't be averse to adding a "hexblade" or "mageblade" style class, but I could easily do without it. I think that for now we should probably concentrate on fixing everything we don't like about 3.5 before we add any more to it.
Oh yea, certianly.
|
|
There is already an OGC battle sorcerer class variant in Unearthed Arcana (replicated here at d20srd.org. Combine this with the Pathfinder sorcerer bloodlines (especially the Abyssal one's claws) and you've got a pretty decent fighter/mage combo in one class.
The battle sorcerer is more of a "tough sorcerer" than a "fighting sorcerer". His assets are a lot more hitpoints plus the use of light armor. But he still has 1/2 bab, very limited weapon proficiency, and no feats or class features to make him good at attacking without spells.
Arcane warrior is a pretty common theme but none of them in 3.0/3.5 have quite filled the niche for me. Some of them are still very cool though (like the hexblade).
He would be great (not the best but better than average) at melee or ranged combat, with high attack bonuses and some bonus feats or other powers, but wouldn't want to frontline due to his lack of hitpoints and (probably) limited armor.
He would also have great spellcasting abilities, able to step up and blast alongside a wizard or cleric or pull off some of the meaner touch spells, but he would be pretty limited on spell slots (which is why he should use them sparingly and rely often on his melee abilities; he doesn't have the luxory of casting a high-end spell every round).
In the end, the fighter's melee abilities would be better than his, as would the wizard's spellcasting ability (both in flexability and power), but he'd be almost as good at both when you accont for the flashy combos he can pull by being a melee mage. And being able to shift gears so easily would just be fun.
Yea, a lot like a wizard/fighter (or eldritch knight), but molded and rebalanced into a core class with a few cool "spellstrike"-type powers thrown in and all the hiccups in his power scale ironed out.
I don't take this all that seriously, though; I probably wouldn't say there was a 'gap' in core at all if the blademage archetype didn't keep poping up in PrCs, variant classes, and (so far somewhat off-key) core classes. This shows that some people agree, but the image in their head probably isn't the same as the one in mine.
|
|
I hadn't checked out the UA battle sorcerer variant in a while, but looking at it again I think it actually covers the "gish" role pretty well. By giving up one spell known and one spell per day at each spell level, they get d8 hit points, BAB as a cleric, one martial WP and can cast in light armor. That seems about right, considering they get to keep their arcane bloodline under the Pathfinder rules. A battle sorcerer with the Arcane bloodline and Arcane Bond: (some weapon) would be pretty capable. Maybe battle sorcerer could be added as an "official" variant in the final rules document?
I don't think it covers the gish roll at all. A battle sorcerer is no more likely to make an attack roll than a regular sorerer.
He may be given a sword but he isn't given the power to do anything with it. This is an ornamental sword.
He IS a lot tougher (armor and hitpoints of a 3.5 ranger), which means he can afford to be a bit more reckless than the standard caster, which I'm sure is fun (I've never played one myself).
|
|
I don't think it covers the gish roll at all. A battle sorcerer is no more likely to make an attack roll than a regular sorerer.
He may be given a sword but he isn't given the power to do anything with it. This is an ornamental sword.
He IS a lot tougher (armor and hitpoints of a 3.5 ranger), which means he can afford to be a bit more reckless than the standard caster, which I'm sure is fun (I've never played one myself).
Re-read the class. They get the BAB advancement rate of a cleric (+3/4 levels) rather than a wizard (+1/2 levels). Combine that with an arcane-bonded (and inexpensively enchanted) melee weapon and a couple buff spells and you're ready to roll.
Re-read the class. They get the BAB advancement rate of a cleric (+3/4 levels) rather than a wizard (+1/2 levels). Combine that with an arcane-bonded (and inexpensively enchanted) melee weapon and a couple buff spells and you're ready to roll.
Now tell me how I read this twice and still missed that.
I don't think the gish class is need, we have the OGL battle sorcerer, Pathfinder is backwards compatible. I would only change what I always do with the battle sorcerer which is to allow any two martial weapons to be proficient with.
Arcane warrior is a pretty common theme but none of them in 3.0/3.5 have quite filled the niche for me. Some of them are still very cool though (like the hexblade).
Is the battle sorcerer going to be a tank? No, but that's not what it's designed to be. It's designed to be a secondary combatant (one free light or one-handed martial weapon, +3/4 BAB) and arcane artillery (full spellcasting progression).
The "tank" arcane warrior role is best filled using the spellsword PrC from Complete Warrior (or the duskblade base class from Player's Handbook II). The arcane archer and eldritch knight in the DMG can also fill the "arcane warrior" niche in different ways. Then there's the acolyte of the skin (Complete Arcane), bladesinger (Complete Warrior), daggerspell mage (Complete Adventurer), enlightened fist (Complete Arcane), master of the unseen hand (Complete Warrior), rage mage (Complete Warrior), and warshaper (Complete Warrior). All of these choices can be used in 3.5, with multiclassing or on top of the battle sorcerer, to fit the "arcane warrior" role.
I don't think the gish class is need, we have the OGL battle sorcerer, Pathfinder is backwards compatible. I would only change what I always do with the battle sorcerer which is to allow any two martial weapons to be proficient with.
Or use Weapon Group Feats and give battle sorcerers starting group proficiencies of "basic weapons, plus any other one."
|
|
Like who? I honestly doubt I'm the most well-read fantasy fan on these boards. What have I missed that's made this archetype such a genre standard?
A lot of people apparently want to play the spellcasting swordsman, but I can't think of a classic example of the character type.
Elric is a special case, as is Gandalf (what w/being an angel, and all) and Merlin Corey. However, from some of my favorite authors:
Glen Cook: In the Dread Empire series, the Tervola are nobility of the Dread Empire, accomplished (as in frequent spells of massive destruction) mages and skilled fighters. The Lady, the Dominator, and arguably most or all of the Ten who were Taken in the Black Company series are similar.
Steve Brust: Vlad Taltos & most of the Dragaeran main characters in the Jhereg series are fighter/spellcasters.
Barbara Hambly: From the Darwath Trilogy, Ingold Inglorion and Lohiro are top-notch wizards and fighters.
The thing is, though, that Hambly shows her characters having to work at least twice as hard as everyone else. Vlad gets by on synergy between two different types of magic and a fighting style unfamiliar to most of his opponents. All of the rest of the characters above are really, really old (by human standards), and so have time to master two widely disparate disciplines. All of which is to say that they're maybe tough to justify in game terms.
Spell name change, name of class abilities changed, name of class changed, boom, works under OGL and is completely legal.
...but it already exists so why rewrite the same thing? It's for this kind of thing that PRPG is backwards compatible.
Can the Duskblade cast spells from another class while armored? If so, it would be the perfect solution (picking up levels of Wiz and Ftr along the way).
If not, maybe change it to synergize with other spellcasting-classes and call is a Spellsword in 3P?
Then again, that would make it a no-brainer dip for any wizard...
Maybe cast spells from other classes that are ½ his current Duskblade casting level; something like that might work.
Yea, I'm prettywell sold on the battle sorcerer as a generic gish (though I still love the mageblade). The weird thing is that I own Unearthed Arcana and don't even really remember this.
I think I may have wrote it off as overpowered when I first read it. But it's easy to underestimate how bad the hit to spells known hurts; they basically get (another) -1 level delay to new spell level access, because on even levels they have a new level's spell slots, but no spells known to cast them on (presumably using them for metamagic or just burning them for lower level spells).
And an arcane bonded weapon (rather than a familiar, which is more a liability when you're in the fray) is just what they were missing. Alternately, instead of picking the arcane bloodline, you could build some mean characters around some of the other bloodlines (like those that grant at-will melee touch effects at 1st level).
As for using the soulknife, well, I usually like to hold psionics in reserve, if that makes any sense. The appeal of psionics to me is that they are something completely different and removed from magic.
I avoid meshing them with magic (or stating that it's just a different expression of the same disciplines) because that ruins all the fun.
Soulknife is an awesome class though.
At least once a day this site eats my post and dumps me on the products page...
<Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr>
|
|
As for using the soulknife, well, I usually like to hold psionics in reserve, if that makes any sense. The appeal of psionics to me is that they are something completely different and removed from magic.
Normally, I would agree with this, but nobody in our gaming group is into Psionics at all (and, frankly, I'm not keen on integrating it, if none of the players care for it), so the Soulknife stands out as being the one class from the Psi Handbook that can be used in a completely non-Psionic setting, almost entirely with nothing more than flavor change.
Plus it's way cool.
Yea, that makes sense.
Of all the psionic classes, the soulknife feels the least out of sync with a fantasy/magic world.
Back to Topic,
I'd love to see them do about one Core like book a year, and maybe one or two splat books for the core, not setting but core game.
New classes I'd love to see would be a redo of
Tinker WOW
Archer 3 arrows for the King
Knight R&R Excaliber
One might say the last two can be done with Fighters but I always saw them as distinct.
The reality is besides the Psionics Handbook you will not see exact remakes of Wizards or any other companies books. And in either case you will not see them till late 2009 or 2010. However if you have the above they should be easy to add to your Pathfinder game. Tinker needs no work, he fits fine, and I have a gut feeling WOW RPG will not end, it will continue as is and its fairly compatable now. Nothing to back this up, I might be wrong, just a feeling.
As for the Archer and Knight is it just me or does anyone else think that the whole issue of Power Creep had to do with Wizards offical books and not 3PP D&D supporting books. Sure some settings or core books powered creep but for the most part this was the exception not the rule. Excalibers Knight was all about Role playing with some unique ablites that made him diff. then a Fighter, not special. In fact I had to give him Rokugons ancestral sword ablity to buff him up. He worked great that way, but now with Pathfinder power creep (and power creep as such is not a major issue for me) I have to make the Knight better (ie something every level).
|
Back to off topic:
This is what I propose for an arcane warrior style class.
Take the body of a ranger, including spell progression, BaB, saves, etc. Everything but the abilities and spell list. Now, for abilities, it starts out with Arcane bond, but it has to be a weapon. The keystone ability is that as a move action you can add a special magical damage bonus to attacks made with your bonded weapon, 1d6 damage of an energy of your choice. Arcane spell failure chance applies to the action, but you ignore those in light armor. This extra damage increases by 1d6 for every additional attack you get via BaB, but every lower attack uses one less die. For example, when you have BaB +6/+1, your first attack would deal x+2d6 and the second would deal x+1d6. Because of the nature of Arcane Bond, we don't have to worry about any of the weird 2HF stuff. Finally, at 1st level and every 4 levels after that, you get a fighter feat. The spell list would feature a few combat spells, a few spells that are useful outside of combat, and a lot of spells that increase your abilities.
That's my quick and dirty proposal. The bonus damage and arcane bond thing comes from the fact that nearly every arcane warrior I can think of uses a specific, special weapon to channel their magic abilities.
Yea, I'm prettywell sold on the battle sorcerer as a generic gish (though I still love the mageblade). The weird thing is that I own Unearthed Arcana and don't even really remember this.
I think I may have wrote it off as overpowered when I first read it. But it's easy to underestimate how bad the hit to spells known hurts; they basically get (another) -1 level delay to new spell level access, because on even levels they have a new level's spell slots, but no spells known to cast them on (presumably using them for metamagic or just burning them for lower level spells).
Re-read the description again. "Subtract one spell known from each spell level on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known (to a minimum of one spell per spell level)." (emphasis mine)
The limitation on spells known does hurt by limiting the sorcerer's spell flexibility even more than normal. On the other hand, it doesn't limit spell power.
|
The duskblade is a great choice and IMNSHO, could simply be dropped in as is, if it weren't for the fact that it's IP owned by WOTC.
Slight alterations to their spell list, perhaps (Destruction? Seriously?), but I don't think they even need a buff to still be roughly on par with existing classes (though making them useful beyond 13th level would be nice...).
What are you looking for that duskblade doesn't fill?
The whole point of PRPG is for you to be able to still use your existing splatbooks. You have Pathfinder RPG, you have PHB2, you have Beguilers and Dragon Shamans and Duskblades and Knights. The only changes are in feat progression and some skill and feat differences, and some spells have changed. That's it. If you want a Daggerspell Shaper, use Complete Adventurer with Pathfinder RPG. You don't need to reinvent the wheel here.
That's the whole point of Pathfinder being backward compatible that people seem to be missing.|
|
Like who? I honestly doubt I'm the most well-read fantasy fan on these boards. What have I missed that's made this archetype such a genre standard?
A lot of people apparently want to play the spellcasting swordsman, but I can't think of a classic example of the character type.
Elric is a special case, as is Gandalf (what w/being an angel, and all) and Merlin Corey. However, from some of my favorite authors:
Glen Cook: In the Dread Empire series, the Tervola are nobility of the Dread Empire, accomplished (as in frequent spells of massive destruction) mages and skilled fighters. The Lady, the Dominator, and arguably most or all of the Ten who were Taken in the Black Company series are similar.
Steve Brust: Vlad Taltos & most of the Dragaeran main characters in the Jhereg series are fighter/spellcasters.
Barbara Hambly: From the Darwath Trilogy, Ingold Inglorion and Lohiro are top-notch wizards and fighters.
The thing is, though, that Hambly shows her characters having to work at least twice as hard as everyone else. Vlad gets by on synergy between two different types of magic and a fighting style unfamiliar to most of his opponents. All of the rest of the characters above are really, really old (by human standards), and so have time to master two widely disparate disciplines. All of which is to say that they're maybe tough to justify in game terms.
Add to this: Lythande the Star-browed from Thieves world, Raven (also from the Black Company), The Fallen Lords and Archmages from the Myth games, and Elminster.
|
|
I think that one thing we'll be seeing is the Pathfinder AP series giving us the occasional bonus the OP is asking for. Haven't really seen it yet, save the Red Mantis PrC, but the AP strikes me as a perfect dispensory for bonus classes, races, feats, and spells ... or class variants. (I'm a big proponent of the latter.)