The only new base class the game really needs is an arcane warrior, a Spellblade or gish or whatever. We've got 2 divine warrior classes in core, but that other niche is left completely unfilled.
Have you seen the bard?
Lem, the mighty arcane warrior, wielding music, arcane magic, and his rapier in a deadly dance of death!
Coming to a theater near you...
I thought that it was better balanced and was based on a more interesting mechanic.
IMO, it was beter balanced because in terms of casting amount, the ability to allocate all of your power into a dozen 9th level powers in a day, or a ton of weaker ones balanced out much better with say the sorcerer (the most similar other class) who would get a lot of spells of each level but couldn't do what psions could do in terms of essentially freely combining spell slots to cast higher level spells in place of lower level ones. You were giving up some overall quantity for absolute flexibility. In 3.5, you got both in even greater amounts. A L20 3e psion had 223 power points (assuming a +6 primary ability mod, not THAT hard to get at 20th level). In 3.5 the same psion would have 403 power points. Not sure, but I think 10 extra 9th level spell slots counts as at least a little broken. (for comparison purposes: a sorcerer's spell set of 6 spells of every level [not including bonus spells, but those don't add that much] costs 486 power points). Is the ability to shift your spell slots around at will really only worth 80 pp?
As for the mechanic, the fact that the psion suffered from the worst MAD out of any of the classes was one of the reasons I loved it. It made you really choose what you wanted for your character, and also gave you a flexibility in playing style unmatched in really any other class. How many other classes can you choose your primary abilities? Plus it made it interesting; you never knew what to expect when you came up against another psion, and assuming a good dm, your opponents would be just as off-balance. In 3.5, you were basically an int-based sorcerer with even better flexibility in casting, and based on your mandatory choice of a discipline you got a couple of exclusive powers, so you lose the ability to take multiple core powers of the disciplines. Oh woo, you balanced being able to take any power and bumping up the number of pp by 180 by restricting nomads access to astral construct.
I feel they destroyed the very things that made psionics so interesting to begin with by overpowering it and stripping it of its different FEEL; ability score-wise, a psion now is like a wizard in that there is one UND PRECISELY VON ability that you place your highest score in, and then you have two secondary priorities that, while you can decide which is more important to you, they must always take your next highest scores, and then you dump wisdom, strength, and charisma (in that order), vs. before where there was no one true build, and whatever you chose, it was your own path of attaining perfection (kind of like the class's fluff...hmmm). The only thing I think they improved in the 3.5 version was getting rid of psionic combat, but who didn't house-rule that anyways?
Sorry that I always rant at such length, but this time I think it's completely warranted.
TL;DR: 3.5 psion is an OPed sorcerer clone.
The "gish" (or some sort of blademage) is the one class I wouldn't mind seeing the PRPG core rulebooks tackle (in theory, at least; I would be shocked if they announced a new core class this late in the game). Just because it's so incredibly popular an archetype, both among players and in setting lore.
Well, make that two core classes. I think at this point we need stats for that fridge-ninja.
I would like to see some sort of Arcane Warrior. Spellsword/bladesinger/duskblade, an arcane variant of the paladin. . .
Something along those lines as a base class.
We've already got the Eldritch Knight PrC. What if Eldritch Knight was promoted to a base class? I like the name better than spellsword, bladesinger, or duskblade. (Spellsword is the best of the three, and the other two sound cheesy. Why name a character class after a weapon? It's like a firefighter calling himself a hose.)
I have already done a first draft of the cavalier, and Bulmahn has several ideas already buzzing.
I don't imagine we will do a ton of core classes, but I can definitely see us publishing a few.
Why cavalier? That was the most boring, unwelcome class proposal during 1e. Archer is much more interesting, and equally unnecessary (both are fighters). The paladin already covers the archetypes of knight errant and knight in shining armor. Is the idea to do those same archetypes with less magic? I might prefer an option for the paladin to sacrifice spellcasting for other martial abilities (something many people asked for in the beta playtest paladin thread). How else is a cavalier different from a paladin? (It would be poetic justice to make cavalier a sub-class of paladin rather than the other way around :)
I would love to see a conversion of Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved classes for Pathfinder.
That would be fun, although I'd like to see the conversions in terms of existing base classes as well as new base classes (maybe even a class preview contest, like the PF RPG iconics previews, to prove which way is better). The Witch is the most interesting. I wonder if it could be accomplished in an elegant way by giving an existing class another option or two.
Warlord - A martial-based mixture of Knight/Marshal abilities
What the hell is a Marshal? Are we playing Stratego? Boot Hill? :)
Does a first level character need to be able to marshal troops? If it's like the 4e Warlord who gives tactical bonuses to allies, seems like a fighter feat, although it might be nice to be able to confer bardic-style buffs without having to multi-class bard.
The other classes you mention all seem to be worth exploring.
Marshall:
MDT and I have submitted Pathfinder-ized versions in this thread:
Marshall:
MDT and I have submitted Pathfinder-ized versions in this thread:
Pretty quick with that :) Nice, the idea looks more interesting than it did before, even though buffing other players' characters has never really appealed to me. I prefer abilities that let my character shine in the desired circumstances, and let the other players each find their own way to shine. (There is no shortage of cool class abilities, so it's not like PCs really need someone in the group that can hit them with another buff whenever they start suffering from withdrawal.)
Fighter (eyes red, edgy): Hit me!
Warlord: <intones warlordy speech>
Fighter (eyes clearing): Ah! Now that's the ticket!
<resumes merrily hacking and slashing>
Warlord (to himself): What a chore!
If you are a marshal, should you collect a fraction of the XP others earn, since really it was partly you earning it? The idea of sharing credit for my own actions (I'm not talking about the shared accomplishments of a team), as if I couldn't have done them on my own without some doofus standing over me giving orders, leaves a funny taste in my mouth too. The analogue in real life is the stupid manager taking credit for the creativity of his direct reports (even though he never did anything but get in their way, and they succeeded in spite of him). Somehow, the idea of a bard inspiring me is less objectionable, because he does it with art rather than authority.
Warlord: Be great in battle, or I will drive this boot up your #$$!
<peons commence frantic leaping>
In a large scale miniatures game, I could see the presence of marshals on the battle grid adding some tactical interest. I'll try to read more of your thread and see if there's more to the idea that I'm missing.
[lots of good points deleted]
(I also think that "samurai" and "gamba fighters" would be best represented by class kits, if we still had them around. But even then they would be used often enough in their respective games to warrent their own class tabled anyway, so hey).
I agree 100%. To me, the equivalent of a "kit" is an class variant (like those presented in Unearthed Arcana) or a prestige class, not necessarily a new class.
In fact, everything you said in your post, I agree with. :-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd like Psionics to remain as they are. You know, balanced, playable and well fleshed out.
3.0 psionics is an example of a natural 1 on profession (writing). MAD no scaling, damage dice lower than a pure caster... Having played sorcerers, battle sorcerers, duskblades, and[i] XPH psions, erudites and psychic warriors I can say they play [i]nothing alike. Anyone who tells you that has never played them.
If we have to have 'ethnic classes' (Samurai, Battledancer, Skald, etc.) I understand, just prefer them being class options rather than new classes.
Edit: My last 'Psionics are balanced essay: here
Why cavalier? That was the most boring, unwelcome class proposal during 1e.
I can't wrap my head around it either. It seems to have just come out of left field. I haven't heard any great clamor for a class whose defining feature is making ride checks. Meh.
I'd like Psionics to remain as they are. You know, balanced, playable and well fleshed out.
3.0 psionics is an example of a natural 1 on profession (writing). MAD no scaling, damage dice lower than a pure caster... Having played sorcerers, battle sorcerers, duskblades, and[i] XPH psions, erudites and psychic warriors I can say they play [i]nothing alike. Anyone who tells you that has never played them.
Yeah, I thought it was all crazy talk too. Plus one of the Japanese students was looking at my laptop over my shoulder, and pointed out a misspelling of "better". I am just tickled pink about that.
Marshall:
MDT and I have submitted Pathfinder-ized versions in this thread:
Pretty quick with that :) Nice, the idea looks more interesting than it did before, even though buffing other players' characters has never really appealed to me. I prefer abilities that let my character shine in the desired circumstances, and let the other players each find their own way to shine. (There is no shortage of cool class abilities, so it's not like PCs really need someone in the group that can hit them with another buff whenever they start suffering from withdrawal.)
Fighter (eyes red, edgy): Hit me!
Warlord: <intones warlordy speech>
Fighter (eyes clearing): Ah! Now that's the ticket!
<resumes merrily hacking and slashing>
Warlord (to himself): What a chore!If you are a marshal, should you collect a fraction of the XP others earn, since really it was partly you earning it? The idea of sharing credit for my own actions (I'm not talking about the shared accomplishments of a team), as if I couldn't have done them on my own without some doofus standing over me giving orders, leaves a funny taste in my mouth too. The analogue in real life is the stupid manager taking credit for the creativity of his direct reports (even though he never did anything but get in their way, and they succeeded in spite of him). Somehow, the idea of a bard inspiring me is less objectionable, because he does it with art rather than authority.
Warlord: Be great in battle, or I will drive this boot up your #$$!
<peons commence frantic leaping>In a large scale miniatures game, I could see the presence of marshals on the battle grid adding some tactical interest. I'll try to read more of your thread and see if there's more to the idea that I'm missing.
Yes, it's not everyone's cup of tea, But I have seen the old version used to good effect. I just don't see a fighter/bard working instead of this class.
...Marshall:
MDT and I have submitted Pathfinder-ized versions in this thread:
Pretty quick with that :) Nice, the idea looks more interesting than it did before, even though buffing other players' characters has never really appealed to me. I prefer abilities that let my character shine in the desired circumstances, and let the other players each find their own way to shine. (There is no shortage of cool class abilities, so it's not like PCs really need someone in the group that can hit them with another buff whenever they start suffering from withdrawal.)
Fighter (eyes red, edgy): Hit me!
Warlord: <intones warlordy speech>
Fighter (eyes clearing): Ah! Now that's the ticket!
<resumes merrily hacking and slashing>
Warlord (to himself): What a chore!If you are a marshal, should you collect a fraction of the XP others earn, since really it was partly you earning it? The idea of sharing credit for my own actions (I'm not talking about the shared accomplishments of a team), as if I couldn't have done them on my own without some doofus standing over me giving orders, leaves a funny taste in my mouth too. The analogue in real life is the stupid manager taking credit for the creativity of his direct reports (even though he never did anything but get in their way, and they succeeded in spite of him). Somehow, the idea of a bard inspiring me is less objectionable, because he does it with art rather than authority.
Warlord: Be great in battle, or I will drive this boot up your #$$!
<peons commence frantic leaping>In a large scale miniatures game, I could see the presence of marshals on the battle grid adding some tactical interest. I'll try to read more of your thread and see if there's more to the idea
I see the Marshall as the ultimate Team Player...and since he's clad in Plate, has a Battle Axe and a Clerics Attack Bonus he can hold his own in a fight... and SInce EVERYONE who contributes gets xp from the CR...I don't see why he'd need a share of the others guys XP...thats just silly... and if you think tactics isn't an art in of itself than you don't have any clue about the history of warfare... a manager is a terrible analogy...its more like the platoon sgt yelling to flank and lay covering fire on that machine gun nest...or grab the panicing FNG and pointing him back toward the fight...
In you arguement...a cleric who casts prayer and has his party maul the baddies doesn't get any experince because he didn't swing his mace., or a mage cast haste and he's party does in the nasty with a flurry of well placed hits... the Marshalll Aura can have similar impact... if you don't beleive one ability can save the day...Read my thread about comments on Rally Cry and how the Warpriest Save the game! Also in the Marshall Thread
To come out of left field here, I'd like to see classes added with specific flavors. Tome of Magic comes to mind as an example with what they did with the Binder. Mongoose, I think it was, did a top-notch flavor job with the Shaman, and it'd be nice to see something like that. Perhaps add in some perform and bluff tricks, possession, ghost/walking, runecrafting to it.
It'd be nice, when new class options get introduced, if they came in with some flair, story behind them that made them truly unique in what they do. Blackguard would fit into this category--I'd almost combine them with hexblade as the concept of the black-hearted warrior.
Fewer classes, but more time, more space devoted to classes can make them more well-rounded, and offer more emphasis to certain tropes or options that people want to play. It also makes it more possible to provide support for these classes, in terms of unique feats, options, and so on. WotC overdid it, to the point most of what they offered was bland, uninteresting, and simply too much. They were like some fanboy on a love craze writing bad emo poetry.
Kits were a concept from 2e that really worked, and I think, building on the previous concept, might be a great way to craft the more "variants of" classes, like the Cavalier. I could see kits working in Pathfinder, especially with PF's emphasis on single-classing. Especially with the additional class features they've given out, which makes "swap outs" that much simpler. Kits in this case would otherwise be known as "alternate class features." Or, "give up this feature of this class that doesn't quite work with this variant concept, and add in one that does."
Instead of making a new class, or an entirely new PrC. (Not that I don't like PrCs.)
Many new classes I see are "let's make a y, which is like z, but different in flavor because of..." I think some sort of kit system would work wonders for most variant classes and help keep the single-class emphasis of PF...reduce the strain on DMs, and with a set of guidelines, let players and DMs alike customize their visions more easily.
And I'd like to see more time, space, flavor given to new classes than what WotC did.
I'd like Psionics to remain as they are. You know, balanced, playable and well fleshed out.
3.0 psionics is an example of a natural 1 on profession (writing). MAD no scaling, damage dice lower than a pure caster... Having played sorcerers, battle sorcerers, duskblades, and[i] XPH psions, erudites and psychic warriors I can say they play [i]nothing alike. Anyone who tells you that has never played them.
Edit: My last 'Psionics are balanced essay: here
First off I do agree that 3e psionics were poorly done in a lot of ways. I felt though that psionic combat were the only thing wrong in concept, and while I did feel that it needed to be buffed any weaknesses ended up balancing themselves out based on being able to essentially manipulate my spell slots at will. I played a 3e psion along-side a 3.5e sorcerer and we found I was generally only slightly less powerful. When we tried updating to 3.5, I tried keeping all of my abilities roughly the same (choosing the same or similar powers in most cases), and I was suddenly doing a lot more than the sorcerer. We were 14th level, so both the sorcerer and I had just gotten 7th level spels when XPH came out. His main offensive spells were cone of cold and chain lighting. I had energy wave. We did just as much damage, but I could hit more targets more easily, and I could choose my energy type AND got little extra bonuses depending on which type I chose. When your party's melee characters are a monk and a rogue, guess which save they don't care about having to make.
I agree with some of the moves they made in XPH, (eliminating psionic combat, simplifying bonus power points, giving more pp), but I think they overshot the mark by too much (too many pp, consolidation into a non-choosable stereotypical magey ability score, scaling [which needed the most improvement] was generally not that useful, and forced specialization to the exclusion of all five other disciplines). I think though for all of that, my biggest problem was that they forced you to use Int as your primary ability score, which is really ironic since I almost always made Int my main anyways. I think with a couple of house-rules, that 3.5 would be the more fun class, but as is, for all of its flaws, 3e psion is more FUN for me, and so I prefer it. Most people I've talked with felt the same way, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Also, the value of being a DM with 3e psionics and seeing your players' faces when your throw the troll savant/kineticist at them is PRICELESS.
<about the Marshal class> Yes, it's not everyone's cup of tea, But I have seen the old version used to good effect. I just don't see a fighter/bard working instead of this class.
I agree, bard doesn't have it in this case. Even though I had a little fun picking on the Marshal class, I can see it working to good effect. Thanks for not taking offense.
Multiclassing is a little unsatisfactory even when it does capture the desired concept. You lose power. PrCs offer a work-around, and they are the only way to multiclass and still get a capstone ability. I wonder if the the PFRPG book will make multiclassing more viable. A few bonus effective class levels, or a capstone from the class of your choice might help. But even if multi-classing worked perfectly, it won't always satisfy what someone wants to achieve with a new base class.
I agree with SquirrelyOgre. The Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarnum come to mind. The reason I loved these books is the flavor and the new systems. These classes are easy to fit into most campaings.Most of them also mess with souls, which is my kind of flavor.
Whatever is or isn't added I know I want to see it supported from that point on. No more of this, "Oh we added something similiar in the last book but since we aren't referencing that book we won't put anything in this book that uses things from that book even if they were good ideas."
|
I'd like to see a good shaman, all of the ones I have seen so far have been too clumsy or too complicated.
I think the cleric works fine for this role... but not druid. Druids don't make good town priests the way a cleric does. I just put a cleric in leather armor and give them a club when I want a shaman. Play with the domains some for a custom fit and this character works out perfectly. :D
I think the cleric works fine for this role... but not druid. Druids don't make good town priests the way a cleric does. I just put a cleric in leather armor and give them a club when I want a shaman. Play with the domains some for a custom fit and this character works out perfectly. :D
Wait... You see the shaman as a "town" priest ?
I'd say that's what most real life shamans have been. Somewhat outside of the general society, but highly revered by everyone. They talk with spirits, which can't be seen, and they often took some powerful stuff that made them a bit weired, so many people might think of them as a bit creepy. Also, he could curse you, if he wanted to. But they are often among the most educated members of the community and provide an invaluable service by taking care of all spirit issues.
You probably wouldn't invite him to your home or ask him to look for your kids for a few hours, but they are not outsiders and in fact quite high in the hierachical order. But that's pretty much very much like an actually village priest was in europe up to 100 years ago.
In my game, I use a cleric variant with only light armor, d6 HD and more skills, and some minor changes to the spell list. Perfectly fine working shaman.
|
|
I think the cleric works fine for this role... but not druid. Druids don't make good town priests the way a cleric does. I just put a cleric in leather armor and give them a club when I want a shaman. Play with the domains some for a custom fit and this character works out perfectly. :DWait... You see the shaman as a "town" priest ?
Er, maybe I worded that badly. I mean in something such as a clan hold, using the American idea for town as the size and not the D&D or European size of towns.
So I was thinking small and tribal, but really why not allow them for those same kinds of towns? Its an aesthetic choice really, not a class as I see it.
|
I'm a little bemused by the whole "We want an anti-paladin/blackguard core class". Why not just drop in options to make paladins non-good?
I'd like to see some rules for hybridizing casters and melee classes further (Duskblade, Beguiler, but with any school available). I'll always feel a fondness for the Dragon Shaman class, but cut loose so it wasn't limited to dragons. The mechanics were different enough from bards that it wasn't just a retread (looking at YOU scouts), or a hybridization of other core classes. Also BREATHE FIRE. Although if you broadened it to non-dragon motifs you'd have to allow eye lasers or blasts of cold from the hands.
|
|
PFRPG has gone the route of statting out eleven full classes, as opposed to a small core (as in UA) where one uses oodles of feats to create/emulate a desired class concept. Given this, it seems reasonable and consistant that a few new core classes appear... But I caution Paizo to present them as "conjectural", perhaps as fully statted examples of what one obtain from significantly altering core class features. And then I suppose class tweaking advice could be introduced along side for those who wish have balanced guidelines for lesser variants. One single product could do this and I think most people would be pleased given Paizo's ability to produce quality work.
Addtionally, I hope future prestige classes will almost always be tied to the Golarion setting with setting specific prerequisites and setting specific benefits. I say "almost" because I know there are a few generic prestige class ideas could have merit too.
So for me, new classes can be quiet cool/kewl, but should be introduced with caution. Too much spice will spoil the stew.
Here are a few I'd like to see:
Witch -- an arcanist with flavour towards to nature, tranformations, divinations, and a bag of tricks in the form of illusions, curses, enchantments and summonings. (I think those "whelm" spells that the Beguiler uses are quiet appropriate for the Witch.) Throw in some kind of limited shape changing for mid to high levels and give them a more restricted spell list compared to what Wizards get. She's all subtle and very little "flash". I built my own based upon a suggestion in the DMG and ideas from the GR and MGP books.
Blademage (or some other name) -- our "gish" class; basically a reworking of the Duskblade with a more generic class name. Given how much people struggle to perfect this with multiclass schemes etc., I think such a new core class is almost essential.
Priest -- take the Cleric, remove the martial components, add a third domain and have all spells spontaneous. Much like the Favoured Soul, but go in the direction of non-melee flavour like Wizards so he's very strong on divine magic, but physically vulnerable if caught by opposing fighters and rogues.
I'm sure there are other ideas as good or better, but that's my current three paid with my 2 cents.
[EDIT] On second thought perhaps the Priest idea isn't worth full class development and should be just a modest variant of Cleric.
We've found the cloistered cleric from UA to work very well in 3.5 and 3.75. We switched a 3.5 cloistered cleric to PFRPG when we started and she has worked quite well in play.
I'd say that's what most real life shamans have been. Somewhat outside of the general society, but highly revered by everyone. They talk with spirits, which can't be seen, and they often took some powerful stuff that made them a bit weired, so many people might think of them as a bit creepy. Also, he could curse you, if he wanted to. But they are often among the most educated members of the community and provide an invaluable service by taking care of all spirit issues.
You probably wouldn't invite him to your home or ask him to look for your kids for a few hours, but they are not outsiders and in fact quite high in the hierachical order. But that's pretty much very much like an actually village priest was in europe up to 100 years ago.In my game, I use a cleric variant with only light armor, d6 HD and more skills, and some minor changes to the spell list. Perfectly fine working shaman.
Aye. Or, they're some of the most beloved and looked-to members of the community. I, Aborigine recalls when he visits, his people remember his old position and he's quickly beset by the entire 'town' to come, to heal, to give advice on even the most trivial matters.
He leads dances, ceremonies, he sings, he chants. When he calls the disease from the sick it's called "singing the sickness" out of the body. When a disease enters the body, it can be referred to as "being sung." One of the reasons I've always thought perform should be a class skill for them.
I think the cleric could work, with a few changes. Actually, I thought the bard could--emphasis on esoteric and local knowledge, performance, diplomacy, and so on. Perhaps need some spell list changes, of course, but that's par for the game.
Anyhow. Back to the regularly scheduled discussion. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
We've found the cloistered cleric from UA to work very well in 3.5 and 3.75. We switched a 3.5 cloistered cleric to PFRPG when we started and she has worked quite well in play.
Seconded. Given the chance, I'll take the cloistered cleric over a regular cleric for my character any day of the week.
|
A few things I would like to see added to the shaman presented above, would be a minor Wisdom to AC, some class feature that allows them to predict the weather, and maybe some sort of wisdom check to reroll initiative/perception similar to the Jedi in SW Revised.
There are some feats in Heroes of Horror that are also particularly suitable for a Shaman and Cleric. Lunatic Insight and another that allows you to see spirits for 1 miniute per Wis Mod, after death. There are a few others, too.
I think the "shaman" suffers from ninja-syndrome here.
"Shaman" is a generic but evocative word.
Because of this, it has been used in many creative and colorful ways in fiction.
And because of this, it is attached to a wide range of very specific and exclusive archetypes.
In other words, everyone wants a shaman, but no one agrees on what it should be.
I'm all for creativity here, but I've read most of the posts advocating a "shaman" class and I still don't understand why anyone would use a class other than cleric or druid for this. What is it that these classes are doing wrongly, and in what significant ways would you change them?
Perhaps it's that the "shaman" should have a sense of mystery attached to it, and that the cleric/druid mechanics are so familiar to you now that you can't possibly find them mysterious?
I would very much like a set of guidelines published to help in designing new classes/prestige classes. There was something like that (homebrew, but very good) for 3.0 and I loved it.
Basically it would somehow abstract various class features to give a rough estimate of a class's "power". I would by no means expect it to be exhaustive, but even a little guidance is better than none.
[EDIT]
I was thinking of the class construction engine by shadowcraft studios.
Interestingly, according to their guide, monks had the most "creation points" and clerics had slightly less than average. So clearly it wasn't a hard science.
Interesting stuff regarding niches
This is an idea that my group rarely touches. I guess it just doesn't occur to us. But I whole-heartedly agree. We almost always have a cleric, but the player who usually operates the cleric is too busy constructing a new form of CoDzilla to heal. We've had a bard and a druid fill the role adequately, but it would be nice if it were a little easier to get an alternative healer. (We've pretty much got an understanding going that everyone needs to be able to self-heal a little via items or something.)
[EDIT]
The shame of it is that there's 50+ base classes, and probably a hundred prestige classes, and yet I have to really search to find any worth taking. Anything with +1 caster level is out, and anything with it's own spell list is waaaaay out. Classes that are gimmicky or stupid are out, so there goes stuff like Exotic Weapon Master. Classes that are too difficult to get into are generally out, so there go the cool prestige classes in the back of the Bo9S. I wind up spending a lot of time with the complete adventurer and complete warrior.
I'd like a big*** book called "The Art of War" that is just stuffed full of feats/classes/prestige/equipment for fighters/barbarians/rogues.
I'd like to see more alchemical items, and more powerful ones. Who says you have to be a wizard to make neat stuff? I'd like poisons that will do more than itch if you stab something larger than a dog. I'd like some more interesting weapon options (Golarion is taking care of this, somewhat)...
It's unfair when half of every book is given over to describing new spells, but fighters are assumed to just use one of the four or five most common weapons.
I didn't even know they changed dread necro to base class. meh I'll just use the Necronomicon PrC.
I think the real problem people have with "intruding" upon the niche of others is that they are core concepts (priest-type for example) that have given up most other things in order to specialize in one or two particular arenas (the cleric has excellent healing and buff spells, but next to no attack magic and only limited utility spells). While I think it's perfectly legitimate to similarly limit a character (few buff spells, but lots of healing and utility for example), the reason people say no one should heal better than the cleric is that the cleric has given up most other abilities in order to be the best at healing. If you want to have something better than the already specialized classes, be prepared to give up even more (like the cloistered cleric giving up physical combat proficiency). No one likes a Mary Sue (though granted even they tend to give up most physical combat ability and use some dinky little stick).
B) Instead of getting bonus damage and some free metamagic, they get a minor touch attack, rebuking undead, bonuses to creating undead, and a gradual transformation into a lich.
If you want to become a Lich and meet all the requirements at level 11: Why would you wait until level 20 just to save 4,800 Xp and 120,000 gp?
Because then you would have to deal with the EL adjustment anyway. The dread necromancer does it much better (not just in terms of effectiveness, but player-friendliness and playability. It would work much better in an actual game).
Also, I really have to disagree with whoever implied that the cleric is a focused archetype. It share's the bard's spotlight as one of the least focused classes in the game. They have the BEST spell list for healing and support, but they're also excellent at information gathering, good at debuffing/save-or-sink, and not bad at attack magic on top of that. On top of domains, excellent armor proficiency, decent HP and BAB...
"given up most other abilities"? Realy?
Yes, that's beating a dead horse- we all know that the cleric has too much going for him and we all know why (to lure people who don't like healers into playing one anyway. Which was a horrible design philosophy, and one that the PRPG has yet to abandon). But it also illustrates that the 11 base classes have a lot of conceptual ground to cover, and that there's plenty of room for more focused classes that 'step on the toes' of existing ones.
I've never seen a dread necromancer in play but I like it so far. It takes an archetype which wizards and clerics only brush up against and hits it dead-center.
It gets a LOT of powers for a full-time caster, but I think its spell list may actually be limited enough to balance that.
|
|
Off Topic, but I think the Dread necromancer makes a better Divine class than Arcane. I haven't any change when I implement this, but I think the fluff makes more sense as a Evil Cleric variant than a Sorcerer variant. One exception, no Divine Feats allowed.
As for the True Necromancer, while I like the 3.0 one better, a little, I love the idea of the class. It is better than the Mystic Theurge in all ways. Nearly the same spell casting progression, but you actually get class features, too.
|
It occurs to me that not only would I like to see a 'Gish' class, I wouldn't mind seeing *eight of them.*
We've already got an Abjurant Champion concept, that uses Abjuration magic to enhance fighting ability, but how much fun could it be to use one of the other schools in this way?
The 'necromantic warrior' has already been touched upon with the Death Knight core class (from Green Ronin's Secret College of Necromancy) and the Unfailing and Moon Wraith Adept Prestige Classes (from Hollowfaust and Arcana: Societies of Magic, respectively), presenting various options for Fighters (or Monks!) who enhance themselves with necromantic forces.
An illusion-based fighter would be a bit rogue-ish, and use abilities like blur and displacement, as well as non-OGL stuff like Swift Invisibility to appear, attack and disappear, all in an instant.
A divination-based fighter would combine martial skills with uncanny precision and avoidance abilities, as they enter a combat trance that allows them to anticipate foes actions, and prepare defenses before an attack is even unleashed (and unleash attacks that slide perfectly into predicted gaps in enemy defenses).
A conjuration-based fighter would create armor, weapons and gear with a snap of her fingers, and fight alongside a single summoned beastie, appropriate to her level. She would never be unarmed, and even when taken by surprise would have an ally ready to leap out of 'nowhere' to surprise her 'ambushers.'
An evocation-based fighter would be able to channel destructive energy into energy-damage smite attacks, and shield himself against these same forces. By calling up fire, he can make his weapon into a flaming blade, or even hurl javelins of flame, and gain limited fire resistance, and as levels increase, he can learn more options, so that he can switch to channeling the forces of lightning or frost.
The enchantment focused warrior would use bluff and feints and intimidation to supernatural levels of effect, enhancing mortal skill with arcane might, to daze and cow and fascinate enemies. (And the Bard is already darn close to this class, as I'm envisioning it...)
And finally, the favorite choice of the optimizer, the fighter who can alter his own form and gain the attributes of a War Troll. The transmutation-based fighter wouldn't have this sort of power, but would be able to alter his attributes and abilities within certain limited ways, and generally only a certain amount at a time. If he needs to leap over a chasm, he can modify himself to gain a significant bonus to jump checks, if he needs to function underwater, he can modify his lungs to be able to hold his breath like a crocodile, and if it's just an arse-kicking he needs to dispense, being able to boost his strength by four points during combat, with none of the downsides of a Barbarian's rage, or to give himself a natural armor bonus, proves handy. He wouldn't be turning into that War Troll, but he would be able to pick and choose from a menu of a dozen or more effects, throughout the day, and have options that assist in stealth, movement, etc.
What your envisioning looks kind of like an arcane Iron Heroes (I say that because I have touched upon several of those archetypes in brainstorming new core classes for that game).
Sounds cool. n_n
In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a dreadnecromancer-esque class for each school (dread evoker, mystic seer, etc).
Really, no matter how you build your specialist, a wizard is a wizard, and they remain a very general/flexible class. I like the concept of a sorcerer-esque specialist with only one school of magic and lots of class features to suppliment that.
|
|
I really think that the Dread necro makes a much better Evil Cleric than it does Sorcerer variant. In both flavor and mechanics (if you say it is Divine and not Arcane). If they do something like it again, I'd hope for it to be a varient death cleric. But I would also like to see some alternate Arcane specialists classes.
I'm quite happy with it as a sorcerer, considering that in D&D necromancy is equally the domain of either arcane or divine (and that in literature the distinction is so fuzzy, at least when concerning mad death-cultists). I do like them being CHA-dependant (it feels right; undead SU's and spell-likes are based on CHA, turning is tied to CHA, and cult-leaders should have good CHA). Remember that you don't necessarily have to be a divine caster to be a zealot of Vecna.
But it makes sense as a divine class too. Really, all you have to do is call it divine (it is structured very much like the favored soul class).
|
|
Thats basically what I mean. I think it screams Divine (Turn Undead, many more Divine only spells than Arcane only, the fluff, it just all seems much more cleric than wizard). But that is just my opinion. The only two thingas I can think of that would change is 1.) Divine Metamagic would now work, (but is usually not allowed anyway, and DN's don't have a lot of broken Divine Metamagic spells), and 2.) a few spells might get a boots if the have an expensive Arcane Material Component, (which I have not yet noticed and do not think there are any).
It occurs to me that not only would I like to see a 'Gish' class, I wouldn't mind seeing *eight of them.*
*cough* psion *cough, cough*
I don't think psionics and magic are that interchangable: having a psychic warrior is not the same as having a gish.
Which, actually, is one of the things I like about psionics.
|
I think there needs to be more options for the following niches -
Trapfinding: What makes the rogue so special that they are the only ones who can see and disarm traps. I figure anyone with Perception and Disable Device should be able to do that job.
Healing: While this works fine as a cleric specialty (particularly if they are devoted to gods of healing), sometimes nobody wants to play a healing character devoted to a deity. Other classes that should be able to fulfill the role - Wizards (Necromancers) (shock!), Witches, Psions (Ardents).
I don't think psionics and magic are that interchangable: having a psychic warrior is not the same as having a gish.
Which, actually, is one of the things I like about psionics.
I was actually referencing the "casters who specialize in x school" thing. You do that as a psion (or psychic warrior).
For that matter, there's the option to do that with wizards, it's specialization. I'm just saying I don't see the point in making a bunch of gish classes when you can just specialize a single gish class.
As for whether they're interchangeable, it depends. If you use the transparency rules (most do, in my experience) then they are functionally interchangeable. Psionics can be dispelled by casters, PR works against spells, etc. It's the easiest way to do things. However, manifesters will always be more versatile and WAY more fun and interesting than casters. Which is the thing I like about them.