How about something new?


Races & Classes

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Fake Healer wrote:
LazarX wrote:
James Lewis 857 wrote:


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 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.

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.

I didn't miss that at all. What you seem to be missing, which I have pointed out at least twice now, is that there is no reason to continue duskblade past 13th level. Once you get full channeling, move on and pick up practiced spellcaster. Nothing else in that class iw roth the progression.

The Exchange

So what you are saying is that full BAB, more Quick Casts, increased SR penetration, increased fort and will saves, full caster levels and access to 5th level duskblade spells (including Disintegrate, slashing dispel, and Polar Ray) isn't worth sticking around for? Yeah, I guess I really don't understand your issue.....Duskblade is a great class all the way through especially when coupled with PRPG's increased number of feats and other options introduced.


Fake Healer wrote:
So what you are saying is that full BAB,

Lots of classes offer this.

Quote:
more Quick Casts,

4 of them total. Not really all that helpful. Especially with items like Belt of Battle running around.

Quote:
increased SR penetration,

+2? SR is either extremely weak or impossible to penetrate by 13th level+anyway. You're looking at SR 19 or so, and with practiced spellcaster, you're looking at +20 at level 17. Higher with spell penetration.

Quote:
increased fort and will saves,

Plenty of classes offer this.

full caster levels and access to 5th level duskblade spells (including Disintegrate, slashing dispel, and Polar Ray)

Ever heard of prestige classes? You can get this with those.

Quote:
isn't worth sticking around for?

Nope.

Quote:
Yeah, I guess I really don't understand your issue.....Duskblade is a great class all the way through especially when coupled with PRPG's increased number of feats and other options introduced.

I'll build comparison characters if you want? 13 duskblade, 7 levels elsewhere vs. 20 duskblade.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Dragonchess Player wrote:
Hydro wrote:

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.

My mistake.

Again.

I'm iffy on it; it looks like it's on the edge of balanced (which is the perfect place for something, really; it should be almost broken, a "good choice"). By having less spell slots and better defenses, he trades one kind of staying power for another. By knowing less spells but being able to handle a weapon, he's trading one kind of flexability for another. There's nothing he's better at than either a sorcerer or a fighter, which is a good sign for a hybrid class.

My greatest concern would be Tenser's Transformation and similar spells that grant the wizard melee ability on the assumption that he doesn't already have any. These may need to just be plucked from the battle sorcerer's spell list on a case-by-case basis.


Fletch wrote:
Hydro wrote:
I'm of a mind that the absence of a generic sorcerous warrior class, common as it is in fantasy...

Like who?

Skeletor...!


I said this in my last post - the one that got eaten. I'm still considering a Warrior/Wizard class...

I was thinking that maybe Paizo could do a melee-oriented Bloodline for the Sorceror, duplicating much of what the battle-Sorceror is. Perhaps call it an Ogre-Mage Bloodline or something.

That would be a cool compromise - rather then create a whole new Gish class, they could just do another bloodline of the Sorc and he would fit the bill.

A Wizard culd do much the same, if he picked up a couple levels of Swashbuckler or Duelist... or even Monk - anything to pick-up HP, wep prof and AC would work, I suppose.


I'm going to chime in with something I've been advocating for a while: Changing flavor, not mechanics. The core of 3rd edition, and by expansion 3.5, is solid. In fact, it had the fighter/mage class built right into it and nobody has noticed it.

It's called a cleric.

Hear me out. Looking at the cleric, what do you have. d8 HD(worse than fighter, better than wizard), 3/4 BAB(worse than fighter, better than wizard), full casting...scratch that, full casting in armor. Isn't that what the core of every fighter/mage build is? A spellcaster that can do his tricks in armor with some more HP? I've heard a few gripes about this, but I don't really think they fit.

"Clerics are divine casters"
Call it arcane magic if you want. Flavor change, does nothing to the mechanics. Unless of course the act of changing the name of where your power comes from entitles you to arcane spell failure. In which case, every wizard I play from here on out is a divine caster. In full plate.

"The spell list is wrong"
This one I hate. If it's a problem, try to get your DM to switch the spell list to the Wizard/Sorcerer list. However, I think the cleric list is perfect for a fighter/mage. Buffs and healing, to make him stronger than or outlast anything he's fighting. Blasting weak? What do you need it for? If you're killing at a distance, why do you need high HP, good attack abilities, and the ability to wear heavy armor?

"It's too powerful"
You allow clerics at your table, but a cleric with a name change is too powerful? I've actually had people who had no problems with clerics argue this. Because I said I wanted to run it as a fighter/mage. With no actual changes from the cleric class aside from a few names.

Now, if you think the cleric itself is too powerful, I can see that. It does have definite perks. Hell, I even have a compromise. I haven't tested it, but I also haven't had a chance.

Full power: Cleric, as is, edit all mentions of divine magic to arcane.
Power down: Spellcasting as bard. Spells known must be picked off cleric list. Every time you gain access to a new spell level, you gain one additional spell known off the wizard/sorcerer list. Drop all domain abilities beyond level 1. Gain full martial weapon proficiency.

If turning/channeling bothers you with a non-divine character, I suggest dropping it but allowing the character to function as though he could gain and spend psionic focus for the purposes of feats. Gives a little more flexibility to combat options.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

JasonKain wrote:

"It's too powerful"

You allow clerics at your table, but a cleric with a name change is too powerful? I've actually had people who had no problems with clerics argue this. Because I said I wanted to run it as a fighter/mage. With no actual changes from the cleric class aside from a few names.

A cleric run as a fighter-mage IS more powerful than one run as a healer.

It's commonly referred to as CoDzilla.

(this is fallacy, of course; it's no more powerful in terms of overall contributions, it just hogs more spotlight so people are more apt to call it broken)


Been there, done that.

I ran a cleric in the last FR game I was part of...

Speciality Priests of Mystra cast Arcane spells as Divine. :D


Hydro wrote:
JasonKain wrote:

"It's too powerful"

You allow clerics at your table, but a cleric with a name change is too powerful? I've actually had people who had no problems with clerics argue this. Because I said I wanted to run it as a fighter/mage. With no actual changes from the cleric class aside from a few names.

A cleric run as a fighter-mage IS more powerful than one run as a healer.

It's commonly referred to as CoDzilla.

(this is fallacy, of course; it's no more powerful in terms of overall contributions, it just hogs more spotlight so people are more apt to call it broken)

Maybe you're right. It's just one of the things I came across that seemed like a poor argument, and one that wasn't directed at the class, but the play style. Barbarians can choose 2 handed or sword and board. Wizards can choose blaster or controller or shapeshifter or all three. But a cleric decided to focus on something aside from healing and it's broken? Huh?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
James Lewis 857 wrote:
I'll build comparison characters if you want? 13 duskblade, 7 levels elsewhere vs. 20 duskblade.

A duskblade 13/spellsword 7 can channel touch spells as part of a full attack and can channel any spell as a move action 4x/day, can cast spells in medium armor and with a heavy shield without chance of failure and subtracts 25% from the chance of failure in heavy armor, and casts spells as a 17th level duskblade. Think of a dwarf duskblade 13/spellsword 7 in twilight adamantine full-plate with a dwarven waraxe and heavy shield... full BAB, CL 17, 5th level arcane spells, and can cast without spell failure. Nasty. Also, a duskblade can meet the spellsword prerequisites at 5th level without multiclassing or spending feats.

The Exchange

Dragonchess Player wrote:
James Lewis 857 wrote:
I'll build comparison characters if you want? 13 duskblade, 7 levels elsewhere vs. 20 duskblade.
A duskblade 13/spellsword 7 can channel touch spells as part of a full attack and can channel any spell as a move action 4x/day, can cast spells in medium armor and with a heavy shield without chance of failure and subtracts 25% from the chance of failure in heavy armor, and casts spells as a 17th level duskblade. Think of a dwarf duskblade 13/spellsword 7 in twilight adamantine full-plate with a dwarven waraxe and heavy shield... full BAB, CL 17, 5th level arcane spells, and can cast without spell failure. Nasty. Also, a duskblade can meet the spellsword prerequisites at 5th level without multiclassing or spending feats.

See I just get how that is better than a duskblade 20. Mithral Full-plate, Heavy shield,...full BAB, CL20, more 5th level arcane spells, and no spell failure. I just don't see why the spellsword levels would be better. Am I missing something about spellsword here?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

JasonKain wrote:
Hydro wrote:
JasonKain wrote:

"It's too powerful"

You allow clerics at your table, but a cleric with a name change is too powerful? I've actually had people who had no problems with clerics argue this. Because I said I wanted to run it as a fighter/mage. With no actual changes from the cleric class aside from a few names.

A cleric run as a fighter-mage IS more powerful than one run as a healer.

It's commonly referred to as CoDzilla.

(this is fallacy, of course; it's no more powerful in terms of overall contributions, it just hogs more spotlight so people are more apt to call it broken)

Maybe you're right. It's just one of the things I came across that seemed like a poor argument, and one that wasn't directed at the class, but the play style. Barbarians can choose 2 handed or sword and board. Wizards can choose blaster or controller or shapeshifter or all three. But a cleric decided to focus on something aside from healing and it's broken? Huh?

The cleric is already broken. Even moreso in Pathfinder. You can tell that it's broken because every party needs a cleric.

Parties without clerics are, generally, weaker. Period. That's why so many casual gamers get "stuck" playing the cleric ("What do I play?" "Play a cleric for us! We need healing!").

The 3.0 designers percieved this. Everyone new clerics were a necessity in previous editions, and peole always complained because they got stuck playing them.

So what do they do? Tone down their support abilities, perhaps, or spread them around to other classes just a bit more so that a party without a cleric isn't better or worse than a party with one?
Ha!

They add even MORE power: flashy, more personal power, by granting domain slots/powers, plus spontainous healing (which lets you ready a full list of offensive or self-buff spells without sacreficing any healing potential). In order to bribe reluctant players into playing it. That way there is no disparity between parties because every party is guaranteed to have one cleric and everybody is happy.

Good thinking.

The reason this seems to work is that people don't really 'see' support power. If the cleric buffs the barbarian and the barbarian marches out and kicks ass, we percieve that as the barbarian's victory. If the cleric heals the rogue after an ambush and the rogue backstabs the BBEG for massive damage ten minutes later, no one thanks the cleric. He's just doing his job.

Many players don't like that. They want a different kind of spotlight. But rather than saying to them, "just don't play a cleric", we just kept adding more and more power to make it more appealing.

And then when he takes all those resources and turns them inward, spends all his spell slots to buff himself or blast enemies, spends his feats and equipment on acting as a solo bruiser (and there's [b]nothing[/i] to say that he can't or shouldn't), it's like some overpowered monster-class just jumps up out of nowhere.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fake Healer wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
James Lewis 857 wrote:
I'll build comparison characters if you want? 13 duskblade, 7 levels elsewhere vs. 20 duskblade.
A duskblade 13/spellsword 7 can channel touch spells as part of a full attack and can channel any spell as a move action 4x/day, can cast spells in medium armor and with a heavy shield without chance of failure and subtracts 25% from the chance of failure in heavy armor, and casts spells as a 17th level duskblade. Think of a dwarf duskblade 13/spellsword 7 in twilight adamantine full-plate with a dwarven waraxe and heavy shield... full BAB, CL 17, 5th level arcane spells, and can cast without spell failure. Nasty. Also, a duskblade can meet the spellsword prerequisites at 5th level without multiclassing or spending feats.
See I just get how that is better than a duskblade 20. Mithral Full-plate, Heavy shield,...full BAB, CL20, more 5th level arcane spells, and no spell failure. I just don't see why the spellsword levels would be better. Am I missing something about spellsword here?

Both full BAB, AC about the same (duskblade 20 can add +2 more from Dex), hp the same, duskblade 20 gets a few more spells and a slightly higher CL, duskblade 13/spellsword 7 gets DR 3/- (from adamantine armor) and can channel any spell through their weapon (not just the touch spells that Arcane Channeling is limited to (chill touch, ghoul touch, shocking grasp, touch of idiocy, and vampiric touch); chain lightning, channeled pyroburst, disintegrate, enervation, polar ray, or shout are possible for the duskblade 13/spellsword 7) 4x/day. Basically, the duskblade 13/spellsword 7 gains some versatility on damage dealing (potentially huge, like +17d6 cold to a melee attack with a channeled polar ray) and armor use for three levels of spellcasting.

Former VP of Finance

JasonKain wrote:

I'm going to chime in with something I've been advocating for a while: Changing flavor, not mechanics. The core of 3rd edition, and by expansion 3.5, is solid. In fact, it had the fighter/mage class built right into it and nobody has noticed it.

It's called a cleric.

And many other interesting things. :)

That is...interesting.

Starts mentally going over cleric spell lists.

Now, just a tweak here and there....

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Races & Classes / How about something new? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Races & Classes