|
Is this how you would do it?
Any spells that were re-leveled to go onto a "lesser" list are reverted back to the original level.
Paladin list merges with cleric list.
Ranger list merges with druid list.
Bard to sorcerer/wizard list however they may only use Enchantment, Illusion, Alteration, Divination and Abjuration spells
Is this how you would do it?
Any spells that were re-leveled to go onto a "lesser" list are reverted back to the original level.
Paladin list merges with cleric list.
Ranger list merges with druid list.
Bard to sorcerer/wizard list however they may only use Enchantment, Illusion, Alteration, Divination and Abjuration spells
Probably a little late for this. The major problem I see with this is the Bard list now includes conjuration, evocation spells and transmutation spells. If you wanted to merge the bard list into the sorcerer/wizard list it will probably work.
Doug
Your making Holy Sword a 4th level Cleric spell?
What about Lesser Restoration? 1st or 2nd level?
Don't forget about giving the cleric access to blessed weapon as a 1st level spell. Since I play a cleric I am all for this one.
|
Is this how you would do it?
Any spells that were re-leveled to go onto a "lesser" list are reverted back to the original level.
Paladin list merges with cleric list.
Ranger list merges with druid list.
Bard to sorcerer/wizard list however they may only use Enchantment, Illusion, Alteration, Divination and Abjuration spells
The biggest issue you're going to have with this is the Ranger-only/Bard-only/Paladin-only spells. Giving all clerics access to Bless Weapon, Holy Sword-etc. is a major boost in power to those classes (and lowering of power of the aforementioned three classes). Secondly your option to relevel spells back to their "original" level is also a nerf to the classes.
Example: Hideous Laughter is a BRD 1/Wiz 2 spell. By merging you'd be making the BRD not have access to the spell until 4th level, (same as sorc, but after wizard) which is technically a nerf.
Also, would you also want to take out all healing spells from the bard list? I have seen many parties where the sole healer is a bard.
Now you may be coming from this from an viewpoint that Ranger/Paladin/Bard are overpowered, although I'm not sure how much that will fly with most people. The question I'm getting to is: Why do you want to merge the spell lists? Is it for simplicity or for balancing of power?
|
|
Your making Holy Sword a 4th level Cleric spell?
What about Lesser Restoration? 1st or 2nd level?
It would be 2nd level, the cleric list would take precedence.
As to the other comments, any paladin only, ranger only or bard only spell could be converted to a comparable level of where they would have received the spell. The other way to approach it would be to keep them the same level as before. In this case, Holy sword could remain a 4th level spell. Is holy sword game breaking at 4th? Perhaps change the bonus to scale rather than being +5, maybe +1 per 3 cleric caster levels getting it all the way up to +6 at higher levels. I think it would not be so bad.
Is there a list of lesser class list only spells? Are there any other spells that are out of whack other than holy sword and bless weapon?
Your making Holy Sword a 4th level Cleric spell?
What about Lesser Restoration? 1st or 2nd level?
It would be 2nd level, the cleric list would take precedence.
As to the other comments, any paladin only, ranger only or bard only spell could be converted to a comparable level of where they would have received the spell. The other way to approach it would be to keep them the same level as before. In this case, Holy sword could remain a 4th level spell. Is holy sword game breaking at 4th? Perhaps change the bonus to scale rather than being +5, maybe +1 per 3 cleric caster levels getting it all the way up to +6 at higher levels. I think it would not be so bad.
Is there a list of lesser class list only spells? Are there any other spells that are out of whack other than holy sword and bless weapon?
Some spells are Bard-only like Summon Musical Instrument or Good Hope which are that way because of theme. Also you would be creating a huge nerf to the bard class moving spells completely off its list since it would no longer be getting them.
|
|
Also, would you also want to take out all healing spells from the bard list? I have seen many parties where the sole healer is a bard.
This is a difficult choice but yeah remove it. Perhaps give a bardic performance class feature that heals, 1d6 per round performed. Then with the UMD skill CLW wands and other healing stuff can still get used.
Now you may be coming from this from an viewpoint that Ranger/Paladin/Bard are overpowered, although I'm not sure how much that will fly with most people. The question I'm getting to is: Why do you want to merge the spell lists? Is it for simplicity or for balancing of power?
Actually I coming from the opposite viewpoint of *giving* the Ranger/Paladin/Bard more spell access. By altering/deleting the few closet case spells you wind up with the ability to have a much more varied group of classes.
|
|
Some spells are Bard-only like Summon Musical Instrument or Good Hope which are that way because of theme. Also you would be creating a huge nerf to the bard class moving spells completely off its list since it would no longer be getting them.
Would you really care if a sorcerer took summon musical instrument?
Is this how you would do it?
I don't think I would do it at all. I think this thread might be more helpful to you if you share your reasons for wanting to do this - people may be more able or willing to find a solution for you if we can understand the goal behind your houserule.
Any spells that were re-leveled to go onto a "lesser" list are reverted back to the original level.
Paladin list merges with cleric list.
Ranger list merges with druid list.
This is dangerous.
For example, Rangers get Delay Poison as a level 1 spell. This lets them use it as early as 4th level, which is still slower than a druid. Put it back to level 2 for a ranger, and now they have to wait all the way til level 7 to use it.
Another example, Paladins don't get Cure Moderate Wounds until 10th level because it is a 3rd level spell for them. For clerics, it's only 2nd (so they get it at third level). Moving it to a 2nd level paladin spell gives them access to CMW at 7th level. In light of all the other healing paladins can do, this may make them dangerously effective as healers.
Finally, the idea of paladins getting Cure Serious Wounds at 10th level and Cure Critical Wounds at 13th level sounds even more dangerous.
Bard to sorcerer/wizard list however they may only use Enchantment, Illusion, Alteration, Divination and Abjuration spells
Taking away an awful lot from the bard. All their heals. And the following spells are currently on the BETA bard list but all of them will go away: Blindness/Deafness, Cause Fear, Dancing Lights, Darkness, Daylight, Delay Poison (why is this Conjuration?), Dimension Door, Eyebite, Fear, Flare, Glitterdust, Grease, Heroe's Feast, Light, Neutralize Poison, Prestidigitation, Scare, Shatter, Shout, Shout Greater, Sound Burst, Summon Instrument, Summon Monster 1, Summon Monster 2, Summon Monster 3, Summon Monster 4, Summon Monster 5, Summon Monster 6, Summon Swarm, and Unseen Servant.
Some of those spells seem awfully bard-like (Summon Instrument, Sound Burst) and some are too useful (healing spells), and some of them are just about the only things bards can do to be truly useful in a fight (Glitterdust, Grease). I would hate to see bards lose such things.
You could just use the SRD Prestige variants of the bard, paladin, and ranger (they get "+1 level of existing spellcasting ability" at various prestige class level breaks, instead of having their own lists). Until Paizo came along and overhauled the core classes, that's what we'd been doing, to the great approval of everyone involved.
X-only spells remained X-only; they get added to the base list in question as a class feature.
Also, would you also want to take out all healing spells from the bard list? I have seen many parties where the sole healer is a bard.This is a difficult choice but yeah remove it. Perhaps give a bardic performance class feature that heals, 1d6 per round performed. Then with the UMD skill CLW wands and other healing stuff can still get used.
Now you may be coming from this from an viewpoint that Ranger/Paladin/Bard are overpowered, although I'm not sure how much that will fly with most people. The question I'm getting to is: Why do you want to merge the spell lists? Is it for simplicity or for balancing of power?Actually I coming from the opposite viewpoint of *giving* the Ranger/Paladin/Bard more spell access. By altering/deleting the few closet case spells you wind up with the ability to have a much more varied group of classes.
You'll be increasing their access to low-level spells while nerfing the hell out of their access to upper level material since they'll be getting some spells later in their careers and a lot of spells not at all.
Bard's will be losing spells because they're not Sorcerer/Wizard: Cure spells, Animal Messenger, Animal Trance, Calm Emotions, Lesser Confusion, Delay Poison, etc.
and getting some spells later: Break Enchantment, Charm Monster, Confusion, Crushing Despair, etc.
and not getting some because they're level 7 or higher: Charm Monster, Mass, etc.
|
|
I don't think I would do it at all. I think this thread might be more helpful to you if you share your reasons for wanting to do this - people may be more able or willing to find a solution for you if we can understand the goal behind your houserule.
Mostly to increase the effectiveness of the paladin/ranger/bard. And just a bit of rules tinkering to get fewer spell lists.
This is dangerous.For example, Rangers get Delay Poison as a level 1 spell. This lets them use it as early as 4th level, which is still slower than a druid. Put it back to level 2 for a ranger, and now they have to wait all the way til level 7 to use it.
It is dangerous, but I think that at the end of the day one could gain more than lose...
Taking away an awful lot from the bard. All their heals. And the following spells are currently on the BETA bard list but all of them will go away: Blindness/Deafness, Cause Fear, Dancing Lights, Darkness, Daylight, Delay Poison (why is this Conjuration?), Dimension Door, Eyebite, Fear, Flare, Glitterdust, Grease, Heroe's Feast, Light, Neutralize Poison, Prestidigitation, Scare, Shatter, Shout, Shout Greater, Sound Burst, Summon Instrument, Summon Monster 1, Summon Monster 2, Summon Monster 3, Summon Monster 4, Summon Monster 5, Summon Monster 6, Summon Swarm, and Unseen Servant.
Some of those spells seem...
I never was a fan of the "fear" spells moving to necromancy but that is neither here nor there. there are some key bard effects in there but there are also some effects that are alright seeing go for the added diversity of spells that they would gain.
|
|
Actually I coming from the opposite viewpoint of *giving* the Ranger/Paladin/Bard more spell access. By altering/deleting the few closet case spells you wind up with the ability to have a much more varied group of classes.
I'm confused though. If you want to do this from a viewpoint of adding spells to the Bard/Paladin/Ranger list why don't you simply augment the current list rather than replacing it? I actually can't think of any way that removing/merging the spell list would improve the power of a bard/ranger/paladin vis-a-vis any other core casting class.
Also what do you mean by having a much more varied group of classes? Do you again mean to make people want to play the bard/ranger/paladin more often? If so my suggestion again would be to simply add more spells to the spell lists to entice players to play the classes. Suggestion:
Bard: Add Find Traps from the cleric list to the bard list. He won't be as good as a rogue at finding traps but he at least has the skill points to spend (and it's a class skill) and he'll get it later than a rogue (Level 4 versus level 1). Finally it'll be a spell cast/spell known taken off his list.
Also, if your plan is to give more access to spells, why would you even consider taking healing spells away from a bard? The difference between a UMD check and naturally casting a spell is an immense change (and an immense nerf).
You could just use the SRD Prestige variants of the bard, paladin, and ranger (they get "+1 level of existing spellcasting ability" at various prestige class level breaks, instead of having their own lists). Until Paizo came along and overhauled the core classes, that's what we'd been doing, to the great approval of everyone involved.
X-only spells remained X-only; they get added to the base list in question as a class feature.
They are pretty great classes too.
They are pretty great classes too.
I agree; far more fun and compelling than their 3.5e counterparts. I'm working on converting the Paizo bard, paladin, and ranger into prestige classes using the SRD ones as models.
I'd probably just give them cool class abilities and ditch spells altogether.
I'd probably just give them cool class abilities and ditch spells altogether.
I agree...I like the option of ditching spells for Pally's and Rangers... the way we always do it...is a Bonus Feat when the Character would receive a new levels of spells...but I'm not certain that will balance out with the new versions of either class in the PFRPG... hopefully we will get some options as far as the CORE classes go for things like this...one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class Alternatives
one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class Alternatives
Very true. Was basically the same as kits in AD&D. Don't know why more people don't give love to variants.
Is this how you would do it?
No way. Giving them their own lists was one of the best things in 3e.
A bard is not a sorcerer limited to half the spell-lists. He has spells no one else has access to, he gets spells "earlier" (but since he gets access to spell levels later, it often works out to him getting them around the same time as other casters), he gets spells from other classes (most importantly cure wounds spells, which are quite a boon, especially if the party doesn't have a cleric).
|
|
I'd probably just give them cool class abilities and ditch spells altogether.I agree...I like the option of ditching spells for Pally's and Rangers... the way we always do it...is a Bonus Feat when the Character would receive a new levels of spells...but I'm not certain that will balance out with the new versions of either class in the PFRPG... hopefully we will get some options as far as the CORE classes go for things like this...one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class Alternatives
I never found that four bonus feats quite equals all the spellcasting ability, and this is thinking about it from a 3.5 standpoint. If your created a few "paladin only" feats that they could take then it might start to equal the power of spells. With splatbooks there are some very potent spells available.
Paizo can't use the material because it's not OPEN it's closed WOTC property.one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class AlternativesVery true. Was basically the same as kits in AD&D. Don't know why more people don't give love to variants.
I didn't expect Paizo to use the SAME variants... I just stated that I liked the variants and that it was one of the things WOTC DID get right
I never found that four bonus feats quite equals all the spellcasting ability, and this is thinking about it from a 3.5 standpoint. If your created a few "paladin only" feats that they could take then it might start to equal the power of spells. With splatbooks there are some very potent spells available.I'd probably just give them cool class abilities and ditch spells altogether.I agree...I like the option of ditching spells for Pally's and Rangers... the way we always do it...is a Bonus Feat when the Character would receive a new levels of spells...but I'm not certain that will balance out with the new versions of either class in the PFRPG... hopefully we will get some options as far as the CORE classes go for things like this...one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class Alternatives
Then you took the wrong 4 Bonus Feats, Add Divine Vigor, Extra Smite, Sanctify Martial Strike and Powerful Charge...add those four Feats to A PAladin and you can now kick some serious tail
Then you took the wrong 4 Bonus Feats, Add Divine Vigor, Extra Smite, Sanctify Martial Strike and Powerful Charge...add those four Feats to A PAladin and you can now kick some serious tailI never found that four bonus feats quite equals all the spellcasting ability, and this is thinking about it from a 3.5 standpoint. If your created a few "paladin only" feats that they could take then it might start to equal the power of spells. With splatbooks there are some very potent spells available.I'd probably just give them cool class abilities and ditch spells altogether.I agree...I like the option of ditching spells for Pally's and Rangers... the way we always do it...is a Bonus Feat when the Character would receive a new levels of spells...but I'm not certain that will balance out with the new versions of either class in the PFRPG... hopefully we will get some options as far as the CORE classes go for things like this...one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class Alternatives
Is that all the paladin's spell list means to you? Kicking tail?
What about curing ailments, healing wounds, and all their lovely paladin utility like Zone of Truth to name just one?
I would never give that kind of stuff up to kick a little more tail.
Then you took the wrong 4 Bonus Feats, Add Divine Vigor, Extra Smite, Sanctify Martial Strike and Powerful Charge...add those four Feats to A PAladin and you can now kick some serious tailI never found that four bonus feats quite equals all the spellcasting ability, and this is thinking about it from a 3.5 standpoint. If your created a few "paladin only" feats that they could take then it might start to equal the power of spells. With splatbooks there are some very potent spells available.I'd probably just give them cool class abilities and ditch spells altogether.I agree...I like the option of ditching spells for Pally's and Rangers... the way we always do it...is a Bonus Feat when the Character would receive a new levels of spells...but I'm not certain that will balance out with the new versions of either class in the PFRPG... hopefully we will get some options as far as the CORE classes go for things like this...one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class AlternativesIs that all the paladin's spell list means to you? Kicking tail?
Yes but WE are talking about giving up the Spell List..@ least that is the comment we were discussing in this part of the thread...Thus...if someone were playing the primary muscle in the party...there is a perfectly legit reason for doing it this way... In the context of this thread...this tail kicking paladin is a very possible variant...a fine one actually... depends on the player and the group, I usually play a pally who Buffs with his spells myself...Or uses turn checks for healing,
What about curing ailments, healing wounds, and all their lovely paladin utility like Zone of Truth to name just one?
zone of truth is a great spell...but easier for the priest to keep because he can spontaneously turn it into a healing spell.... if that priest is good or neutral...which he should be before he is running around with said paladin...
I would never give that kind of stuff up to kick a little more tail.
Its obvious you play paladins in ONE way but that not so with my group or even with me...so in the context of the thread I see my musings as perfectly reasonable...and they have proven so in play test with our groups...
|
|
Then you took the wrong 4 Bonus Feats, Add Divine Vigor, Extra Smite, Sanctify Martial Strike and Powerful Charge...add those four Feats to A PAladin and you can now kick some serious tailI never found that four bonus feats quite equals all the spellcasting ability, and this is thinking about it from a 3.5 standpoint. If your created a few "paladin only" feats that they could take then it might start to equal the power of spells. With splatbooks there are some very potent spells available.I'd probably just give them cool class abilities and ditch spells altogether.I agree...I like the option of ditching spells for Pally's and Rangers... the way we always do it...is a Bonus Feat when the Character would receive a new levels of spells...but I'm not certain that will balance out with the new versions of either class in the PFRPG... hopefully we will get some options as far as the CORE classes go for things like this...one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class Alternatives
I wouldn't say that I tool the wrong feats, ECM with rajiv the right feats you lose all the diversity that you get with spells. As Blake has mentioned you lose healing spells and spells such as zone of truth. Remember not every party has a cleric with them. In fact I would almost venture that more don't than do. That being said I'll just cast my bless weapon+fracturing weapon+righteous aura+a few spells I can't even think of right now.
Then you took the wrong 4 Bonus Feats, Add Divine Vigor, Extra Smite, Sanctify Martial Strike and Powerful Charge...add those four Feats to A PAladin and you can now kick some serious tailI never found that four bonus feats quite equals all the spellcasting ability, and this is thinking about it from a 3.5 standpoint. If your created a few "paladin only" feats that they could take then it might start to equal the power of spells. With splatbooks there are some very potent spells available.I'd probably just give them cool class abilities and ditch spells altogether.I agree...I like the option of ditching spells for Pally's and Rangers... the way we always do it...is a Bonus Feat when the Character would receive a new levels of spells...but I'm not certain that will balance out with the new versions of either class in the PFRPG... hopefully we will get some options as far as the CORE classes go for things like this...one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class AlternativesIs that all the paladin's spell list means to you? Kicking tail?
Yes but WE are talking about giving up the Spell List..@ least that is the comment we were discussing in this part of the thread...Thus...if someone were playing the primary muscle in the party...there is a perfectly legit reason for doing it this way... In the context of this thread...this tail kicking paladin is a very possible variant...a fine one actually... depends on the player and the group, I usually play a pally who Buffs with his spells myself...Or uses turn checks for healing,
What about curing ailments, healing wounds, and all their lovely paladin utility like Zone of Truth to name just one?
zone of truth is a great spell...but easier for the priest to keep because he can spontaneously turn it into a healing spell.... if that priest is good or neutral...which he should be before he is running around with said paladin...
I would never give that kind of stuff up to kick a little more tail.
Its obvious you play paladins in ONE way but that not so with my group or even with me...so in the context of the thread I see my musings as perfectly reasonable...and they have proven so in play test with our groups...
So, how do I play my paladins?
It seems I play them to use all the tools they have available. So in the context of this thread, I see getting rid of their spell lists as a detriment to the class. All three of the classes listed in the thread title. I thought that's what this thread was about, discussing the notion of removing spell lists?
Paizo can't use the material because it's not OPEN it's closed WOTC property.one of the better ideas in the later splat material of WOTC was Class AlternativesVery true. Was basically the same as kits in AD&D. Don't know why more people don't give love to variants.
They can't use the specific alternatives, but they could use the concept.