|
You're right about the light armor, missed that. The shield is still a problem (15%), but just taking it off the arm should cure that. Mithril decreases spell failure by 10% only (even though it lowers the weight class) according to the DMG. So I'm not sure how the Mithril plate would work out... I'd lower the chance from medium, but still have a chance (probably 15%). Arcane Strike is good if you have good spells. +1 to hit / +1d4 per spell level. But you need a +4 BAB so you have to be a 6th level + Bard and then your bonuses are low due to the lower level (than a wizaed) spells a bard has at that level (2nd level at 6th, 3rd at 7th -- if you have bonus spells for CHA at that level). Still, custom expensive armor, feats from 2 different splatbooks to get a mediocre combatant with pretty limited spell selection by mid level. Of course, any combo class is going to have similar problems or be unbalanced. It's "doable", but I suspect your bard would be better off, as a bard, putting the feats and stuff in other areas.
You are missing the point about the mithril armor. It counts in all ways as a wieght class lower, so Mithril full plate is medium armor for the purpose of the Battle caster feat, and thus incurs no Arcane spell failure. It also raised the max dex bonus by 2, so you can count on a +3 dex bonus to complement your +8 (or more) armor bonus. fighting with a keen rapier (crit on a 15-20) with the use of arcane strike, and you have a reasonable fascimile of a warrior mage with a charm fetish.
At 1st level, you can do chainshirt, buckler and rapier. Note that bucklers do not interfere with somatic spell components, so they still allow casting. A human bard with Battle caster and weapon finese, can take advantage of their normally high dex to have an AC as high as most level 1 fighters, an 18-20 crit range, and a chance to hit comparable to a fighter. It is hard to keep pace with the fighter, but that's why you have to acquire the correct equipment.
Of course, no one has mentioned the best reason why the bard is a great wizard alternative: use magic device. Simply put, with a reasonable charisma bonus of +3 (its your prime req after all), your bonus in +7 at 1st level. You only need a 20 to activate a wand, and within a few levels you have a 50/50 or better chance to activate any wand/staff/rod your party acquires. By 10th level, and a standard treasure level, you can expect a +4/+5 charisma bonus, and only fail to activate a wand on a roll of a 1 (maybe a 2 or 3). The ability to use ANY magic item in the game goes a long way toward making the bard doable.
EDIT: crap, i forgot that 3.5 added a +1 BAB requirement to weapon finesse. Since you can't do that at level 1, I'd sub with toughness or wandstrike.
[You are missing the point about the mithril armor. It counts in all ways as a wieght class lower, so Mithril full plate is medium armor for the purpose of the Battle caster feat, and thus incurs no Arcane spell failure. It also raised the max dex bonus by 2, so you can count on a +3 dex bonus to complement your +8 (or more) armor bonus. fighting with a keen rapier (crit on a 15-20) with the use of arcane strike, and you have a reasonable fascimile of a warrior mage with a charm fetish.
At 1st level, you can do chainshirt, buckler and rapier. Note that bucklers do not interfere with somatic spell components, so they still allow casting. A human bard with Battle caster and weapon finese, can take advantage of their normally high dex to have an AC as high as most level 1 fighters, an 18-20 crit range, and a chance to hit comparable to a fighter. It is hard to keep pace with the fighter, but that's why you have to acquire the correct equipment.
Of course, no...
Or you're missing the point about mithril :) The DMG says "Spell failure chances for armor and shields made from mithril are decresed by 10% maximum." It's still a heavy armor, treated as one category lower for most purposes. It goes on about various other effects. (DMG page 284). Actually, that makes, the spell failure rate 25%. Less if you want to lower the percentage from platemail because it's lighter than regular platemail. The feat in Complete Arcane conflicts with the DMG. Does it supercede the DMG? Depends on your DM.
If you are acquiring the correct equipment and feats to equal the base fighter, just what do you think the fighters are doing with their money and feats?
|
|
[You are missing the point about the mithril armor. It counts in all ways as a wieght class lower, so Mithril full plate is medium armor for the purpose of the Battle caster feat, and thus incurs no Arcane spell failure. It also raised the max dex bonus by 2, so you can count on a +3 dex bonus to complement your +8 (or more) armor bonus. fighting with a keen rapier (crit on a 15-20) with the use of arcane strike, and you have a reasonable fascimile of a warrior mage with a charm fetish.
At 1st level, you can do chainshirt, buckler and rapier. Note that bucklers do not interfere with somatic spell components, so they still allow casting. A human bard with Battle caster and weapon finese, can take advantage of their normally high dex to have an AC as high as most level 1 fighters, an 18-20 crit range, and a chance to hit comparable to a fighter. It is hard to keep pace with the fighter, but that's why you have to acquire the correct equipment.
Of course, no...
Or you're missing the point about mithril :) The DMG says "Spell failure chances for armor and shields made from mithril are decresed by 10% maximum." It's still a heavy armor, treated as one category lower for most purposes. It goes on about various other effects. (DMG page 284). Actually, that makes, the spell failure rate 25%. Less if you want to lower the percentage from platemail because it's lighter than regular platemail. The feat in Complete Arcane conflicts with the DMG. Does it supercede the DMG? Depends on your DM.
If you are acquiring the correct equipment and feats to equal the base fighter, just what do you think the fighters are doing with their money and feats?
Sorry my friend, you seemed to misconstrued the 1st paragraph in the mithril entry in the DMG. "Most mithril armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement or other limitations (for example, whether a barbarian can use her fast movement ability while wearing the armor) heavy armor is treated as medium, medium as light."
Wotc has already answered that this would apply to a bard or warmage in its Q and A PDfs, so its official. However, if your DM choses to ignore that, I guess you would be S.O.L.
I was not trying to say that a bard can be a match to the fighter - because it can't. In fact, that's not even the purpose of this thread. What I was putting out there, is that a bard can be a good example of a fighter/mage in scale with the ranger or paladin. Rangers and paladins lean much more to the fighter side, but bards have far more skills and 6th level spells, so I call that a wash.
On a final note, battle caster does not conflict with anything that i can see.
Sorry my friend, you seemed to misconstrued the 1st paragraph in the mithril entry in the DMG. "Most mithril armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement or other limitations (for example, whether a barbarian can use her fast movement ability while wearing the armor) heavy armor is...
It seemed like a reasonable interpretation of "maximum" to me. If WotC has weighed in on it, that's OK. I don't frequent the WotC boards and other than erata I haven't downloaded anything from there. The hoops you have to jump through to be a half way decent fighter seem like more trouble than they're worth for the bard though. Spell casting and skills would seem to me to be more useful areas to explore with them. The other "fighter" / something classes (Paladin, Ranger) are simply better combatants without the need for the extra mile in feat selection. Even though you can, with effort, make them an OK fighter / arcane caster a class built to do that would be a better choice for those so inclined. Which leaves you with multi-classing or one of several classes (Duskblade, etc.) which people tend to find fault with.
|
|
The other "fighter" / something classes (Paladin, Ranger) are simply better combatants without the need for the extra mile in feat selection. Even though you can, with effort, make them an OK fighter / arcane caster a class built to do that would be a better choice for those so inclined. Which leaves you with multi-classing or one of several classes (Duskblade, etc.) which people tend to find fault with.
I agree, paladins and rangers far outclass the bard in melee. They're all hybrid classes, its just that the ranger/paladin lean far more toward the fighter end of the spectrum than bard. Bards outshine the others in spell casting ability, with a solid selection of arcane spells, and healing to boot. With the absence of a true fighter/mage class in the SRD, I think that the bard deserves a little more attention. I've seen them played to fill this role quite well in the past.
|
Honestly, though, I think you have to take flavor into account as well. Someone looking for a fighter/mage sort of character without multiclassing probably wouldn't go for the artsy, musical bard. I like bards, don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't have the right feel, on top of the other things that seperate it from your typical fighter/mage class.
Honestly, though, I think you have to take flavor into account as well. Someone looking for a fighter/mage sort of character without multiclassing probably wouldn't go for the artsy, musical bard. I like bards, don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't have the right feel, on top of the other things that seperate it from your typical fighter/mage class.
Then don't play the bard as an "artsy, musical" character, just like you don't have to play the barbarian as an "savage brute." Take Perform (Oratory) and Perform (Weapon-drill) and play a bard who uses chants, speeches, etc. and flashy weapon maneuvers (i.e., like most movie combats) instead of singing and playing an instrument (think Cyrano de Bergerac; "Hark, how the steel rings musical!/Mark how my point floats, light as the foam,/Ready to drive you back to the wall,/Then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!").
Granted, the bard doesn't have many damage-causing spells. However, the bard has a great selection of controling/disabling spells and a pretty good selection of information gathering and utility spells.
There is always the Battle Sorcerer variant or the old standby the Eldritch Knight although there are plenty of better PRCs after years of source books unless it has to have +20 BAB at L20.
FRCS Paladins and Rangers of Mystra have the ability to cast spells from a spell book by taking a feat. No reason other Rangers and Paladins of Gods of Magic shouldn't be able to do the same.
I agree, paladins and rangers far outclass the bard in melee. They're all hybrid classes, its just that the ranger/paladin lean far more toward the fighter end of the spectrum than bard. Bards outshine the others in spell casting ability, with a solid selection of arcane spells, and healing to boot. With the absence of a true fighter/mage class in the SRD, I think that the bard deserves a little more attention. I've seen them played to fill this role quite well in the past.
I think that's what people are looking for -- a fighter / arcane caster that rides the fighter side of the line, like the Paladin and Ranger. The Bard, for all it's good points, just doesn't cut it there. Given the long multi-classing tradition of Elvin Fighter / Magic User (which was what made Elves popular in the original D&D) I would have expected some decent combo class to emerge in 3.E. They seem to have stuck with multi-classing and then later, in various supplements, come up with some fairly unsatisfactory combo classes. It would be nice if somebody -- Paizo for example -- came up with a good class :) Just hinting here guys... but it would certainly help round out the core classes.
I agree, paladins and rangers far outclass the bard in melee.
If you look at just the bard, sure. But the bard is the ultimate support class in combat: if I look at the damage that's done by the entire party but should be attributed to the bard, that tends to put the bard's in excess of paladins' and rangers' damage (excluding smited and favoured enemies respectively, but that's as it should be) in a standard 4 character party, and it only gets better with more characters. Every point of damage caused by Inspire Courage is really a point of damage done by the bard. Damage from every attack that only hits because of Inspire Courage is all damage done by the bard.
I agree, paladins and rangers far outclass the bard in melee.If you look at just the bard, sure. But the bard is the ultimate support class in combat: if I look at the damage that's done by the entire party but should be attributed to the bard, that tends to put the bard's in excess of paladins' and rangers' damage (excluding smited and favoured enemies respectively, but that's as it should be) in a standard 4 character party, and it only gets better with more characters. Every point of damage caused by Inspire Courage is really a point of damage done by the bard. Damage from every attack that only hits because of Inspire Courage is all damage done by the bard.
I don't think anyone is arguing their utility, just their ability to function as fighters. You could amke the same arguement for clerics with cure spells, etc.
I don't think anyone is arguing their utility, just their ability to function as fighters. You could amke the same arguement for clerics with cure spells, etc.
I understand, I just wished to point out that "outclassing in melee" can be taken several ways. Besides, given the various buff and weaken spells bards get, I wouldn't discount their ability to function as fighters. Invisibility/See Invisible and Blindness alone make them pretty dangerous opponents in combat.
Of course I could throw a slight spanner in the bard workshop and say what If I want to play a tone deaf arcane fighter cant play cant sing looks at the perform skill and scoffs.
All the examples I've read use the buffing bard song abilites to make the class more fighterish but you've forgotten that its not just the bard that gets the buff the whole party gets the same buff thus the fighters are now doing even more dmg than before the bard has not closed the gap he's simply moved the whole group up a step, he'll never be close enough to have it satisfying.
And the funny thing is with a bard in the the group a DM is almost forced into throwing tougher encounters at the group because the bard is juicing up the party to make light work of suitable encounters, harder encounters the Fighters still work fine but the almost there bard is once again missing enough times for it to be an issue.
But hey ;) I'll accept that a "Powergamed" Bard could pull off arcane/fighter but honestly isn't enough of a gap here that another class couldn't fill this interesting archetype ?
|
|
But hey ;) I'll accept that a "Powergamed" Bard could pull off arcane/fighter but honestly isn't enough of a gap here that another class couldn't fill this interesting archetype ?
Yes. The bard is not a perfect fit, but it does make a good approximate. Would I prefer a more blasty-fighter mage class? Definately. But since the Bard does exist, this has always seemed to be a back burner project in 3.x
Why are we stuck on the Bard here? R_Chance hit the nail on the head - bards are great, but do not fill the fighter/mage gap. Sure they can buff and do all sorts of nifty party helping things - but they are not generally hacking up the baddies like a paladin would.
Some ideas to bat around:
-Personal buffs over group buffs.
-Buffs tend to bump damage rather than protect.
-Gives up a fighter's bonus feats in exchange for class skills.
-Moderate equipment or behavioral restrictions equal to ranger's or paladin's.
The pure fighter can beat up baddies all day long as long as she is healthy. The spellsword is weakened by her lack of feats in exchange for limited numbers of boss killers.
I like the idea of channeling spells through weapons. Fireball bad. Charged arrow good. If you want to throw lightning bolts like a wizard... take a few levels in wizard!
|
|
Why are we stuck on the Bard here? R_Chance hit the nail on the head - bards are great, but do not fill the fighter/mage gap. Sure they can buff and do all sorts of nifty party helping things - but they are not generally hacking up the baddies like a paladin would.
Some ideas to bat around:
-Personal buffs over group buffs.
-Buffs tend to bump damage rather than protect.
-Gives up a fighter's bonus feats in exchange for class skills.
-Moderate equipment or behavioral restrictions equal to ranger's or paladin's.The pure fighter can beat up baddies all day long as long as she is healthy. The spellsword is weakened by her lack of feats in exchange for limited numbers of boss killers.
I like the idea of channeling spells through weapons. Fireball bad. Charged arrow good. If you want to throw lightning bolts like a wizard... take a few levels in wizard!
Well, the bard is the current placeholder. I would say that Jason's changes make the bard fit much better. d8 HD, many more spells per day, 1st level spells at 1st level, etc...
If we did go with a new class, I'd personally be disappointed if it focused too heavily on buff spells. The Primary difference between arcane and divine magic is that arcane magic has many more battlefield control spells. Whether direct damage, area effects, charms, or other enchantments a fighter mage should have some of the distinctive flashy spells. The idea of a mix class would be to have some of the archetypal abilities of both. Also, I would want an earlier and more substantial acquisition of spells than ranger or paladin receive.
Of course I could throw a slight spanner in the bard workshop and say what If I want to play a tone deaf arcane fighter cant play cant sing looks at the perform skill and scoffs.
It's not like the paladin and even the ranger don't come with bagage of their own. This is D&D, classes are just not generic.
If we did go with a new class, I'd personally be disappointed if it focused too heavily on buff spells. The Primary difference between arcane and divine magic is that arcane magic has many more battlefield control spells. Whether direct damage, area effects, charms, or other enchantments a fighter mage should have some of the distinctive flashy spells. The idea of a mix class would be to have some of the archetypal abilities of both. Also, I would want an earlier and more substantial acquisition of spells than ranger or paladin receive.
Sounds good to me...
|
|
The key to this "new" class has to be that it is in some ways comparable to the Paladin and Ranger. It needs to be able to tank, albeit in its own way. It needs to be able to hold its own in the front ranks, either as a light armored mobile sword (ie the Ranger with the two weap option) or as some form of tanker (ie the paladin with heavy armor) Early I would like to see it be mostly a self buffer, later it can add what a wizard or sorcerer can do, (ie a couple levels behind the wiz or sorc be able to do those area affect types or rays of doom)
So maybe at those first few levels they only get a few spells and have to choose between the armoring up or enhance the weapon spells, or a third option would be a little of both, though imo middle of the road isn't as good an option in 3.e You always seem to be better off just figuring out your niche and playing that to the hilt.
Later levels, after the wizard/sorcerer have begun to lob the impressive stuff then you can start getting some, still not your primary job.
Theme is my goal for such a class. A true Fighter/Mage class is still fighter first and mage for enhancing fighting abilities.
|
|
A true Fighter/Mage class is still fighter first and mage for enhancing fighting abilities.
This is really only one possible interpretation of the fighter/mage, and a suboptimal one in my opinion. if your magic is just going to enhance your combat abilities directly, why not just play a straight fighter? After all, if the spells allow you to exceed the straight fighter, then you fail your "don't do either job better than the original" rule. if they only just pull you even with a straight fighter, what's the point? I fell that utility, control and blastiness is the way to go for the class.
I have some ideas, though. Roughly what i would like to see if something like this:
1. HD - d8
2. Good Will and Fort saves, poor reflex.
3. 2 skill points per level.
4. BAB bonus same as cleric.
5. spell progression that mirrors the bard, with int as the spell casting stat. Use a spell book.
6. Spell list that is primarily the schools of Enchantment, Evocation, Abjuration, and transmutation. defense/buffing, along with crowd control. theme the list, perhaps avoiding area effects in favor of rays/touch spells.
7. Allow use of light armor without arcane spell failure. Add medium armor at mid levels. All simple and martial weapons.
8. A class feature that allows the character to add his int modifier to AC as long as they are wearing light armor (medium added lvl 10+)
9. Perhaps make an improved familiar like ability a class feature and mimic the combat familiar choices from Complete Warrior (worg, howler, blink dog, hell hound, etc...) for a "fuzzy friend"
I know many people have expressed a desire for full BAB. I think if you put that in you run the risk of eclipsing the fighter altogether. The limit of 2 skill points is the same as fighter and mage classes. the high int bonus you'll likely have should help here. This was mostly some ideas I was kicking around before bed. I'll post more tomorrow if there is an interest.
That character would be a Human Duskblade 1/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 8/ Abjurant Champion 5. Take one level of Eldritch Knight after the first seven levels to qualify for Abjurant Champion, then all five level of Abjurant Champion, then the rest Eldritch Knight.
Fighter 1 / Wizard 4 / Prestige Bard (ua) 15 or
Fighter 4 / Wizard 1 / Prestige Bard (ua) 15 is OGL, and preserves that tasty, 1e bard college flavor.I think there is a bit more clarification needed on the OP's basic query.
Are you looking for a self-buffer; an armored blaster/aoe caster or something completely different?
I think that's what people are looking for -- a fighter / arcane caster that rides the fighter side of the line, like the Paladin and Ranger. The Bard, for all it's good points, just doesn't cut it there. Given the long multi-classing tradition of Elvin Fighter / Magic User (which was what made Elves popular in the original D&D) I would have expected some decent combo class to emerge in 3.E. They seem to have stuck with multi-classing and then later, in various supplements, come up with some fairly unsatisfactory combo classes. It would be nice if somebody -- Paizo for example -- came up with a good class :) Just hinting here guys... but it would certainly help round out the core classes.http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48760
This is my proposition for a fighter/wizard class with a fighter BAB progression. This class is based on magicians in Vance's Dying Earth stories - they usually fought with swords, supplementing them with magic.
This class is distinctly weaker than a wizard, but on the wizard-fighter powerscale it is much nearer wizard than figher.
I like it, D&D has been using Vancian magic since BD&D all the way down to the prismatic spells, it's about time it got a Vancian Wizard. I think it needs a little something at level 20 though; maybe Silent Spells? Also, I'm a little confused, does it get bonus spells for a high spell attribute? And if so which attribute gives the bonus spells CHA or INT? I can't tell if you forgot to write it into the description because you thought it was obvious, or if you didn't want them to have bonus spells.
The key to this "new" class has to be that it is in some ways comparable to the Paladin and Ranger.
...(snip)...
Theme is my goal for such a class. A true Fighter/Mage class is still fighter first and mage for enhancing fighting abilities.
Food for thought...
------------------------------------------------
Weapon Caster
level 1
• Good BAB progression (+1, +2, +3, etc.)
• d8 HD
• Light Armor & Light Shield
• Ability to cast in light armor without spell failure
• 2+INT starting skills
• Weapon Prof.: Simple + 1 Weapon Group (Swords, Axes, etc.)
• Unique/Limited spell list concentrating primarily on combat(?)
-*Buffs & Extra Damage through weapons. Not direct spell attacks.
-*Some utility spells. (Detect/Read Magic, etc.)
-*Poor Spell progression. (Ranger/Paladin progression)
-*Innate caster, Uses INT (No spellbook)
level 2
• Combat Style Choice: Combat Casting, Improved Initiative or
Improved Unarmed Strike
level 4
• Quick Cast Ability - cast spells from this class only, as a move
action instead of a standard action.
level 5
• Summon Familiar
• Weapon Group Proficiency of choice.
level 6
• Combat Style Choice: Battle Caster, Spring Attack or Improved
Familiar
level 7
• Energy Affinity 1 - Ability to modify any spell (from this class
only) with an energy desciptor to use the chosen type of energy
instead as a free action. (Acid, Electricity, Fire, Cold, Sonic)
You do not gain the entire list, only the one you have chosen.
level 8
• Arcane Strike Ability (as per feat)
level 10
• Aura Armor Ability: (Sacrifice a spell +1 AC/4 class levels
+Spell Level for a number of rounds equal to your INT bonus.)
• Energy Affinity 2 - As per Energy Affinity 1, You choose a
different energy type from the one you selected at 7th level.
------------------------
------------------------
Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
I was pondering a low Energy Resistance as well, but it really didnt seem to fit the theme. The Energy Affinity is something I've always wanted my wizards/sorcerers to have, so I added it to the class as an ability, it keeps the Weapon Caster versitile at higher levels.
I limited quite a few starting features basing them off of the
Fighter & Wizard, then Ranger, Paladin & Bard. Since Pathfinder
has reached back into 2nd Ed. and brought back the weapon groups
for the fighter, I thought this would be an amazing opportunity to
use them. The character needs to compensate for the GOOD BAB
progression and the d8 HD, at the same time keeping some semblance
of a fighter's weapon variety. I didn't see a Fighter/Mage having
the complete martial weapons list, nor did I want to limit them
below what a Fighter can actually wield... they just have to
choose.
I like the Arcane Strike concept quite a bit, I think the class
should work off of it heavily at later levels. Sacrificing spells
for a rather nice, free action affect. The Aura Armor ability
might need to be earlier on, but at its current level it provides
that super boost for a short burst. Spell level isn't exactly this
class's strong suit. INT Bonus to AC would be nice, but would require removing something from this hypothetical build.
This IMO is how the Duskblade should look, as it would keep 1
class from doing the job of 2 classes at the same time and still
have that HYBRID flavor we all love about the Ranger/Paladin.
Having messed with the various online class generators a little
bit before, I believe this works pound for pound.
... if your magic is just going to enhance your combat abilities directly, why not just play a straight fighter? After all, if the spells allow you to exceed the straight fighter, then you fail your "don't do either job better than the original" rule. if they only just pull you even with a straight fighter, what's the point?
The point is the same as playing a Ranger, Paladin or any other Hybrid class. You have a niche and fancy unique powers that a fighter does not have access to, while still being able to be competant on the front lines. Asking "what's the point?" really makes this entire post kind of ...well... pointless. People want a Fighter/Mage, but are not willing to accept the Bard as the answer. "The Point": Brainstorming in the hopes that an 'acceptable' Fighter/Mage will make it into Pathfinder Final.
I fell that utility, control and blastiness is the way to go for the class.
All of those jobs belong to the other classes, you could essential do them, but at what point do you do them better and stand on the front line in combat as well? Answer: Duskblade *BROKEN*
Wizard - Blaster/Controller/UtilityCleric & Druid - Controller/Utility (Blaster later levels)
4. BAB bonus same as cleric.
If you do not give it the same BAB as a Fighter/Ranger/Paladin you are essentially making a tough cleric or another bard. AND we know how people feel about the bard in this post already... Rogue/Mage filling an inappropriate slot of Fighter/Mage I believe was the census.
I am a sad panda that only one person recoiled in horror at the build I put up ( Reminder: Duskblade 1/Wizard 6/Abjurant Champion 5/ Eldritch Knight 8. BAB: 17, Effective casting level: 18 ).
That build slaps a Duskblade around like a red-headed stepchild and, if you allow all the Complete series books from WotC, is completely legal.
|
|
Well, just to add my 2cp in on the Bard = fighter/mage class... I disagree. Bard = rogue/mage hybrid. Not Fighter/mage hybrid. While the duskblade might be overpowered (taking away most rays would fix that) i think it is a better answer than the bard. A bard is skills/magic. Not fighting/magic.
If i had to say what a paladin/ranger equivalent would be i would do the following.
Full BaB
Medium Armor/Shields
Touch spells channelable through his weapon
Buff spells
This is extreamly simplified, but that would be my concept. No/very few range spells. No healing spells. Basicaly, he can use his spells to enhance his combat prowess and his combat damage. He cant replace the spell slinging sorcerer or the utility wizard. But he is comparable to a combat oriented cleric.
*Edit* Ok, guess i reposed alot of stuff. Ment to get this in sooner. But the point still stands. =P
|
|
The point is the same as playing a Ranger, Paladin or any other Hybrid class. You have a niche and fancy unique powers that a fighter does not have access to, while still being able to be competant on the front lines. Asking "what's the point?" really makes this entire post kind of ...well... pointless. People want a Fighter/Mage, but are not willing to accept the Bard as the answer. "The Point": Brainstorming in the hopes that an 'acceptable' Fighter/Mage will make it into Pathfinder Final.
You seem to have misunderstood my point. I was not questioning why people want the class. Rather, if it does nothing interesting, essentially limited to temporarily buffing itself to allow it to match (perhaps you want it to exceed?) the fighter, then there is no point for the class. Just play a fighter. A warriormage should have magic that matches the mage stereotype better. "buffing" is not at the top of anyone's list of the mage archetype. Yes it is useful, but not very sexy.
I felt that utility, control and blastiness is the way to go for the class.All of those jobs belong to the other classes, you could essential do them, but at what point do you do them better and stand on the front line in combat as well? Answer: Duskblade *BROKEN*
Wizard - Blaster/Controller/Utility
Cleric & Druid - Controller/Utility (Blaster later levels)
You are making a hybrid class. By definition it fills roles already belonging to other classes. The idea is to do a pretty good job of filling the role from TWO classes without eclipsing either of the originals. To argue that a warriormage should not use the types of spells that define a mage, would... well... make the class something other than a mage hybrid. A warriormage needs to have some crowd control and direct damage, the flashier, the better.
If you do not give it the same BAB as a Fighter/Ranger/Paladin you are essentially making a tough cleric or another bard. AND we know how people feel about the bard in this post already... Rogue/Mage filling an inappropriate slot of Fighter/Mage I believe was the census.
4. BAB bonus same as cleric.
if you give the class the same BAB progression as a fighter you would need to tie spells to the ranger/paladin chart. Who wants a warrior mage who gets no spells to 4th or 5th level? and then be tied to spells far weaker than other characters of that level? You'd be better off playing a dual class fighter/wizard. You'd have more weapon choices and a wider spell selection, allowing you to BE a warrior mage at the 1st 4 or 5 levels.
I advocated the cleric BAB and the bard spell progression because it appears to be a fair trade to slow base attack in exchange for a heightened use of arcane magic. When you add the idea of int bonus to AC when wearing light/medium armor, you can have a character that out of the box is at least 75% as good as a fighter, with some arcane power right away. seems reasonable to me. If it still isn't fighter enough for you, push the HP to d10.
|
|
Underling, I see your point on the flashy sence of wizard and the distinct "lack of flash" of buff spells. I tend to see clerics as the buff warriors anyway. But if we break down the ranger and the paladin there are some distinct things we notice.
Full BaB, d10 HP. They start out as fighters with a couple tricks.
Paladins later get cleric spells, but are primarily martial. Rangers get druidy spells, and animal companions, but again, are a martial class first and a spellcaster second.
If we want to make a fighter/wizard hybrid... they need to be martial class first. Full BaB. Full d10 HP. This is where it gets tricky. I recognize that. To follow the same progression we would have to give them some sort of "arcane tricks" to use, while not giving them spells till 4th lvl.
What if we gave them something like:
Arcane Strike - X times per day can add their class level to attack and damage.
Summon weapon - summons a chosen weapon to hand as a move action.
these are just two i came up with off the top of my head. Then at lvl 4, we give them an interesting mix of spellcaster spells.
Channel spell - channel touch spells through their weapon
spell list being a little more condensed
give them a combination of 1st/2nd lvl wizard spells as their 1st lvl spells. 2nd/3rd as their 2nd lvl spells. 3rd/4th as their 3rd lvl and 5th/6th as their 4th lvl spells. They wont ever get to 9th lvl wizard spells, but they still get some fun ones to play with.
1st lvl examples:
Shield, True Strike, Shocking Grasp, Chill Touch, Enlarge Person, Color Spray, Burning Hands, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Minor Image, etc
2nd lvl examples:
Phantom Steed, Lightning Bolt, Heroism, Major Image, Vampiric Touch, Haste, Keen Edge, Stone Skin, Fire Shield, Shout, Shadow Conjuration, etc
I just picked some of the flashier/more martial spells. But you get the idea.
I felt that utility, control and blastiness is the way to go for the class.
...(paste)...
A warriormage needs to have some crowd control and direct damage, the flashier, the better.
What you are describing exists, it's called a Warmage.
4. BAB bonus same as cleric.
...(paste)...
if you give the class the same BAB progression as a fighter you would need to tie spells to the ranger/paladin chart. Who wants a warrior mage who gets no spells to 4th or 5th level? and then be tied to spells far weaker than other characters of that level?
In the example concept I provided it does use the Paladin/Ranger spell progression, but starts casting at 1st level. While still being able to hold his own on the front line.
I advocated the cleric BAB and the bard spell progression because it appears to be a fair trade to slow base attack in exchange for a heightened use of arcane magic. When you add the idea of int bonus to AC when wearing light/medium armor, you can have a character that out of the box is at least 75% as good as a fighter, with some arcane power right away. seems reasonable to me. If it still isn't fighter enough for you, push the HP to d10.
It still looks like a Bard to me, the d10 HD doesn't help and isn't an acceptable bump. The average of a d4 class and a d10 class doesn't equate to a d10. A d8 was being fair, while a d6 would make it underpowered.
Also, there is no class currently that gains any stat bonus to AC while in more than Light Armor. Most classes with powers similar to this idea (add the idea of int bonus to AC when wearing light/medium armor)are Monk-based and are forbidden to wear "armor" period. If medium armor were a possibility, it would have to be after 5-6th level at least and would chew up another class ability or feat to allow him to actually cast in it, successfully.
|
|
What you are describing exists, it's called a Warmage.
I felt that utility, control and blastiness is the way to go for the class.
...(paste)...
A warriormage needs to have some crowd control and direct damage, the flashier, the better.
Warmage is not OGL. Wasn't the point if this thread to come up with a PFRPG warrior mage?
In the example concept I provided it does use the Paladin/Ranger spell progression, but starts casting at 1st level. While still being able to hold his own on the front line.
I fail to see how the design as I posted couldn't hold the line as well as one of the fighter hybrids. Armor class would be good, spells would enhance combat potential and options, AC bonus from int makes up for lack of heavy armor. At 8th level, for example you'd only be 2 BAB behind a straight fighter, yet have access to 3rd level spells. Seems a fair trade.
It still looks like a Bard to me, the d10 HD doesn't help and isn't an acceptable bump. The average of a d4 class and a d10 class doesn't equate to a d10. A d8 was being fair, while a d6 would make it underpowered.
I agree about the d10, as I only suggested it as a possible compromise. What I find amusing is that you feel d6 is too weak, yet that is exactly what the Eldritch Knight prestige class does (d6 hd, fighter BAB, wizard spell progression). Seems a d8 with bard spell progression still sounds about right to me balance wise. What doesn't seem right is gaining spells from 1st level with a fighter BAB and ability to wear armor AND ability to channel spells into melee attacks AND...etc... It all seems a little too Book of 9 Swords to me. sorry.
Also, there is no class currently that gains any stat bonus to AC while in more than Light Armor. Most classes with powers similar to this idea (add the idea of int bonus to AC when wearing light/medium armor)are Monk-based and are forbidden to wear "armor" period. If medium armor were a possibility, it would have to be after 5-6th level at least and would chew up another class ability or feat to allow him to actually cast in it, successfully.
I had stated that the medium armor would come in as a mid (8-12?) level class feature, so yeah, it would cost a 'feat or class ability'. The idea that int AC bonus hasn't been done for anything above light armor (duelist) doesn't really matter, as the idea is to balance the class against the existing core. This AC bump is vital to allow the character to stay on the front line without being handcuffed to buff spells to function effectively.
The difference as I see it, is the build you advocate, while having spells, would most likely just use them to enhance melee and nothing else. That does not match the mage archtype.
The other hybrid classes keep the feel and theme of their progenitors in their class features. Paladins can heal, cure disease, turn undead, etc... basically all the things that you expect a cleric to do. Rangers have enhanced abilities in the wilderness and animal companions - the base ideas of the druid. A warrior mage should do the same. From a mechanical metagame perspective buff spells are best, but I feel strongly that they fail the style test. Wizards are versatile, with control and direct damage being a huge componet of their class. A buff heavy fighter mage just seems like a one trick pony.
I am a sad panda that only one person recoiled in horror at the build I put up ( Reminder: Duskblade 1/Wizard 6/Abjurant Champion 5/ Eldritch Knight 8. BAB: 17, Effective casting level: 18 ).
That build slaps a Duskblade around like a red-headed stepchild and, if you allow all the Complete series books from WotC, is completely legal.
Considering that the common consensus is that Abjurant Champion is even more broken than the Duskblade, most of us probably thought "just another Abjurant Champion build..."
However, I'll see your Duskblade 1/Wizard 6/Abjurant Champion 5/Eldritch Knight 8 (which does not allow you to cast wizard spells in armor without ASF) and raise you a Duskblade 13/Spellsword 7 (BAB +20, CL 17 (20 to penetrate SR on targets you've wounded), 20d8 HD, Arcane Channeling with touch spells on a full attack, Quick Cast 2x/day, cast in medium armor and using a heavy shield without ASF, Reduce ASF from heavy armor by 25% (twilight adamantine full plate FTW!), and Channel any spell (even chain lightning, disintegrate, enervation, polar ray, shout, etc.) as a move action 4x/day).
I am a sad panda that only one person recoiled in horror at the build I put up ( Reminder: Duskblade 1/Wizard 6/Abjurant Champion 5/ Eldritch Knight 8. BAB: 17, Effective casting level: 18 ).
That build slaps a Duskblade around like a red-headed stepchild and, if you allow all the Complete series books from WotC, is completely legal.
Considering that the common concensus is that Abjurant Champion is even more broken than the Duskblade, most of us probably thought "just another Abjurant Champion build..."
However, I'll see your Duskblade 1/Wizard 6/Abjurant Champion 5/Eldritch Knight 8 (which does not allow you to cast wizard spells in armor without ASF) and raise you a Duskblade 13/Spellsword 7 (BAB +20, CL 17 (20 to penetrate SR on targets you've wounded), Arcane Channeling with touch spells on a full attack, Quick Cast 2x/day, cast in medium armor and using a heavy shield without ASF, Reduce ASF from heavy armor by 25% (twilight admantine full plate FTW!), and Channel any spell (even chain lightning, disintegrate, enervation, polar ray, shout, etc.) as a move action 4x/day).
I think I just got vaguely ill, it's the DM in me crying out against the powergaming munchkinism of it.... Oh, the humanity... two totally evil, evil, horrible, terrible, ... ahhhhhh!! *runs off screaming*
I think I just got vaguely ill, it's the DM in me crying out against the powergaming munchkinism of it.... Oh, the humanity... two totally evil, evil, horrible, terrible, ... ahhhhhh!! *runs off screaming*
Sorry about that...
Back OT, what about a warrior-mage with full BAB, d10 HD, 2 + Int mod skill points, proficiency with medium armor and shields (but not tower shields) and simple and martial weapons, bard spell progression/spells known (but not 5th or 6th level spells), access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list, can cast spells in light armor and using a light shield without ASF at 1st level (improves to include medium armor at 6th and heavy shield at 10th), gets Arcane Strike (Pathfinder RPG version) as a bonus feat at 2nd, and can channel a damage-causing spell through their weapon as a move action 1x/day at 4th level (2x/day at 8th, 3x/day at 12th, 4x/day at 16th, 5x/day as a swift action at 20th)? IMO, this is more or less what the duskblade should have been, more balanced and more customizable.
I felt that utility, control and blastiness is the way to go for the class.
...(paste)...
A warriormage needs to have some crowd control and direct damage, the flashier, the better.
...(paste)...
What you are describing exists, it's called a Warmage.Warmage is not OGL. Wasn't the point if this thread to come up with a PFRPG warrior mage?
Looking at it from that persepctive, then yes... Pathfinder does/could not have THEE Warmage due to lack of OGL, but it is available for use if someone is using 3.5E splat books to enhance Pathfinder. That is after all the primary function of Pathfinder, backwards compatibility and enhancement of core classes to meet the power level of the splat books... or so I read at one point.
The topic of the post Ranger = (Fighter/Druid) Paladin = (Fighter/Cleric) where's the Fighter/Mage ? suggests a "martial" class with arcane suppliment. As I said, just because the Warmage is not OGL, doesn't mean you can't use it.
What doesn't seem right is gaining spells from 1st level with a fighter BAB and ability to wear armor...
The bard does that, but is a rogue BAB. However my image of the Fighter/Mage does not have Bardsong and his choice of weapons to use was also limited, but different. (Simple + 1 Weapon Group)
AND ability to channel spells into melee attacks AND...etc... It all seems a little too Book of 9 Swords to me. sorry.
I gave my concept Quick Cast at 4th level, which would let him cast only his CLASS (whatever it would be called) spells from a very limited, unique list, as a MOVE action. This is no worse than any Combat Expertise tree currently, which can be gotten at level 1 by a Fighter of any race.
I did not give him an Arcane Strike ability until level 8 as that is also not OGL.
|
|
Griffin, don't get me wrong here. I have no mechanical issue with your build. I think it about as balanced as mine. The only issues I have are stylistic, and it appears you have the same with my idea.
Rather than debate the pros and cons endlessly, why don't we both take the time to do a formal write up and post them to the thread. That way, anyone who likes our ideas can mine them for use. Also, it may spur a little more input from others.
Anyway, I think the chance for this to make the beta is gone, and likely the final release will not be adding any classes, either. Still, it does lead to some stimulating reading.
|
|
Here's my attempt, keeping in mind that this is still a rough draft. The spell list isn't concrete, either, but they get their own spell list that takes a limited selection of spells from the sorc/wizard list that fit their play style. I based this class off of an idea in a freeform rp I played, with some elements of Bladesinger thrown in for flavor. This is a lighter, skirmisher-type fighter/mage, which is how I tend to play them. I'm actually playtesting this in my own campaign, and it's worked out well so far. ((Note: Things got kinda squished together, but I think it's fairly self explanatory))
Spellblade
Hit Die: d8
Class Skills: (2+Int Modifier)
Acrobatics, Climb, Craft, Fly, Intimidate, Knowledge (All, taken individually), Profession, Spellcraft, Ride, Swim.
Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: Spellblades are proficient with Light and medium armor, all simple weapons, and light and one-handed melee weapons
Spellbook: Spellblades start at 1st level with 4 0-level spells and two 1st level spells, and an additional 0-level spell for every point of their int bonus. At every level thereafter, they can choose two more spells of any level they can cast.
Level B.A.B. Fort Save Ref Save Will Save Special
1 +0 +0 +2 +2 Armored Casting, Cantrips
2 +1 +0 +3 +3 Dance of Warding
3 +2 +1 +3 +3 Eschew Materials
4 +3 +1 +4 +4 Weapon Attunement +1
5 +3 +1 +4 +4 Wraith Step 1/day
6 +4 +2 +5 +5
7 +5 +2 +5 +5 Spell Channeling
8 +6/+1 +2 +6 +6 Weapon Attunement +2
9 +6/+1 +3 +6 +6 Summon Weapon
10 +7/+2 +3 +7 +7 Wraith Step 2/day
11 +8/+3 +3 +7 +7
12 +9/+4 +4 +8 +8 Weapon Attunement +3
13 +9/+4 +4 +8 +8
14 +10/+5 +4 +9 +9 Greater Channeling
15 +11/+6/+1 +5 +9 +9 Wraith Step 3/day
16 +12/+7/+2 +5 +10 +10 Weapon Attunement +4
17 +12/+7/+2 +5 +10 +10
18 +13/+8/+3 +6 +11 +11 Wraith Step 4/day
19 +14/+9/+4 +6 +11 +11
20 +15/+10/+5 +6 +12 +12 Mastered Attunement
Armored Casting: When wearing light armor, and weilding a one-handed melee weapon in one hand, a Spellblade ingores arcane spell failure for the armor they are wearing.
Cantrips: Spellblades can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day. They can cast these spells at will as a spell-like ability. The number of cantrips a Spellblade can prepare is noted under “Spells Per Day”. Cantrips are treated like any other spell cast by the Spellblade in terms of duration and other variables based on level.
Dance of Warding: Starting at 2nd level, when wielding a one-handed melee weapon in one hand and nothing in the other, and only when wearing light armor, the Spellblade adds a dodge bonus to his armor class based on his half his level, rounded down, up to a maximum of his int bonus.
Eschew Materials: At 3rd level, the Spellblade gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat.
Weapon Attunement: Starting at 4th level, a Spellblade can attune to their weapon of choice during a day-long process of meditation and training using the weapon to be bonded. Once complete, the Spellblade receives a +1 enhancement bonus to all attack and damage rolls with the bonded weapon. At every 4th level thereafter, the enhancement bonus increases by +1. Finally, at 20th level, they have become so attuned to their weapon that it gains a +5 enhancement bonus, and a simple, empathic intelligence.
Wraith Step: Starting at 5th level, the Spellblade can call upon their innate magic to teleport up to 30ft in any direction as a swift action, as long as the spot is within their line of sight, 1/day. At 10th level this increases to 2/day, at 15th 3/day, and at 18th 4/day.
Summon Weapon: At 9th level, the Spellblade can summon their attuned weapon to their hand as a swift action.
Spell Channeling: Starting at 7th level, a spellblade can channel touch or ray spells through his bonded weapon. He may choose to substitute a normal attack with his weapon for the touch attack required of the spell. This attack is resolved as a normal attack rather than a touch attack, and does damage as a normal attack in addition to the spell's effects.
Greater Spell Channeling: Starting at 14th level, a spellblade's ability to channel his spells increases. He can now channel spells through his weapon as a swift action during a full attack.
Spells Per Day
0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1st 3 1 - - - - -
2nd 4 2 - - - - -
3rd 4 2 - - - - -
4th 4 2 1 - - - -
5th 4 3 2 - - - -
6th 4 3 2 - - - -
7th 4 3 2 1 - - -
8th 4 4 3 2 - - -
9th 4 4 3 2 - - -
10th 4 4 3 2 1 - -
11th 4 4 4 3 2 - -
12th 4 4 4 3 2 - -
13th 4 4 4 3 2 1 -
14th 4 4 4 4 3 2 -
15th 4 4 4 4 3 2 -
16th 4 4 4 4 3 2 1
17th 4 4 4 4 4 3 2
18th 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
19th 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
20th 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
|
|
Rough draft of the spell list, just for good measure. Again, not concrete yet.
0-Level
Resistance
Acid Splash
Detect Magic
Read Magic
Dancing Lights
Ray of Frost
Message
1st-Level
Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law
Shield
Mage Armor
Obscuring Mist
True Strike
Burning Hands
Magic Missile
Shocking Grasp
Chill Touch
Ray of Enfeeblement
Expeditious Retreat
Magic Weapon
2nd-Level
Protection from Arrows
Resist Energy
Acid Arrow
Fog Cloud
See Invisibility
Scorching Ray
Shatter
Blur
Invisibility
Mirror Image
Bear's Endurance
Bull's Strength
Cat's Grace
3rd-Level
Dispel Magic
Protection from Energy
Sleet Storm
Fireball
Lightning Bolt
Wind Wall
Displacement
Vampiric Touch
Fly
Haste
Keen Edge
Magic Weapon, Greater
Slow
4th-Level
Dimensional Anchor
Stoneskin
Black Tentacles
Dimension Door
Solid Fog
Fire Shield
Ice Storm
Wall of Fire
Wall of Ice
5th-Level
Cloudkill
Wall of Stone
Telepathic Bond
Cone of Cold
Sending
Wall of Force
Waves of Fatigue
6th-Level
Dispel Magic, Greater
Acid Fog
Wall of Iron
CHain Lightning
Freezing Sphere
Disintegrate
Griffin, don't get me wrong here. I have no mechanical issue with your build. I think it about as balanced as mine. The only issues I have are stylistic, and it appears you have the same with my idea.
Rather than debate the pros and cons endlessly, why don't we both take the time to do a formal write up and post them to the thread. That way, anyone who likes our ideas can mine them for use. Also, it may spur a little more input from others.
Anyway, I think the chance for this to make the beta is gone, and likely the final release will not be adding any classes, either. Still, it does lead to some stimulating reading.
Meh, I really wasn't trying to debate or argue. The Fighter/Mage and the Mage/Fighter both likely have a large following, it's just a matter of playstyle and theme. The concept I posted is about as formal as I really care to get. I'm not big on wishing and hoping for things that will likely not ever see the light of day again. On that note, I would agree that posting any major change requests/wishes at this point falls into the category under, "Wish in one hand and ... in the other and see which one fills up first.".
I was thinking an official core "class creator" might be something of interest. Using a point system to pick and choose abilities. I know there is at least two of them out on the web for 3.5. *shrug*
This thread sounds like my own "Something New?" thread a week or two back, wherein I argued for a Warrior/Wizard class.
After much debate and good ideas, I think creating a Sorceerous Bloodline for Melee might work just as well, without Paizo having to re-invent the Swordmage.
I even thought of an appropriate Bloodline - the Ogremage. :D
|
|
Save that you're wrong. Mithril Plate Armor is not medium armor. It's use is not covered by medium armor proficiency, it's simply heavy armor made with an exotic material. the style of wearing and the proficiency of wearing it still makes it heavy.
You are missing the point about the mithril armor. It counts in all ways as a wieght class lower, so Mithril full plate is medium armor for the purpose of the Battle caster feat, and thus incurs no Arcane spell failure.
Save that I'm right ;)
Seriously, look at the main 3.5 errata document, page 51. Mithral armor counts in all ways as one size category lighter including what proficiency is needed, for the use of special class abilities, etc... They acknowledge that this was a little unclear in the PHB, but subsequent publications, rules decisions, and magic items published all assumed this usage.
So, yes, Mithral full plate is medium armor in all ways, and a mithral breastplate is light armor. So bard + battlecaster + mithral fullplate = no arcane spell failure.
EDIT: spelling corrected
|
The Duskblade is not about being a caster. The Duskblade uses magic as an edge for her weaponplay. When it comes to mano y mano combat the duskblade would slice up that cheese construction better than the Swiss.
I would love to see that broken down statistically. I can only guess what the Duskblade would bring that the Cheesemaster couldn't top with 9th level spells and the ability to craft his own magic items at lower cost.
|
|
Can you give me a link to this document?
Save that I'm right ;)Seriously, look at the main 3.5 errata document, page 51. Mithral armor counts in all ways as one size category lighter including what proficiency is needed, for the use of special class abilities, etc... They acknowledge that this was a little unclear in the PHB, but subsequent publications, rules decisions, and magic items published all assumed this usage.
So, yes, Mithral full plate is medium armor in all ways, and a mithral breastplate is light armor. So bard + battlecaster + mithral fullplate = no arcane spell failure.
EDIT: spelling corrected
of course. Its on Wotc, so I don't know if you have to log into the gleemaxtrosity to get it.
HERE it is.
I'll put the question & answer in question in the spoiler tag for your convenience.
What about a character proficient with medium armor,
such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with
mithral full plate armor?
The description of mithral on page 284 of the Dungeon
Master’s Guide is less precise than it could be in defining how
it interacts with armor proficiency rules. The simplest answer—
and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use—
is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter for all
purposes, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the
Dungeon Master’s Guide says, but it’s a reasonable
interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s supported by a
number of precedents, including the descriptions of various
specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the Dungeon
Master’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks).
Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on
wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s
combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on
wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).
The same would be true of any other special material that
uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf,
on page 120 of the EBERRON Campaign Setting).
of course. Its on Wotc, so I don't know if you have to log into the gleemaxtrosity to get it.
And a "thanks much" from me btw. I'd meant to ask you about the WotC material for any other stuff that might be on it. I've downloaded individual errata before, but not their faq. I apprecaite having it, all the more so for not having to go to their site to get it :D
|
To me, the Hexblade seemed a kind of "bad-luck Ranger". He got spells on the Ranger scale, and who plays a Ranger for the spells?Nobody does, just like no one plays a Paladin for the spells. But the thread is about making a Ranger/Paladin like class for arcane magic, so it makes sense to go with that progression and full BaB.
Hmmm... I didn't like the Duskblade either. Personally, I would eliminate spellcasting from the ranger and paladin class features -- IMO paladins should have more auras and smite-related abilities, while rangers could get more "striker" or nature-related abilities.
|
|
Thanemage from Green Ronin's Advanced Players Handbook? As far as I remember it's OGL.
Quoting this, because everyone seems to have missed it. It's got full BAB, (roughly) paladin/ranger spellcasting, and some other spell-like/supernatural abilities as kickers. It's just exactly what most people seem to be asking for at this point.