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.
Anyone can do that job up to a certain DC for non-magical traps. Beyond that there are spells and items that will let you discover/avoid traps pretty easily.
Actually, one of the cooler rogue-only things I've seen was in Eberron. Some premade or something, I don't remember. A rogue was using UMD or Disable Device to calculate trickshots on machinery in a lightning rail train engine room (or maybe on a skyship, who knows). He would bounce shots off walls and into steam pipes to block lanes of movement, that sort of thing. It was neat.
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.
A specialist-gish (as Set suggested) would be really good at ONE school (specifically, in the ways which that school aids in the buckling of swashes) and fairly good at fighting. As opposed to a gish which is fairly goo dat all schools and fairly good at fighting.
The former would be more stylish and distinct (see his write-ups); the latter would in practice play a lot like a fighter/wizard.
Necessary to make the game complete? Not at all. Worth the trouble? Debatable.
But I think it would be cool.
As for psions, I was referring to the fact that psionics -feels- so different from magic. Psionics feel "different" or "out of place" in the typical fantasy setting; which is a bad thing if you're trying to slip them in as another branch of arcane spellcasting, but awesome if you're giving them their own otherworldly nitch in the setting.
|
A specialist-gish (as Set suggested) would be really good at ONE school (specifically, in the ways which that school aids in the buckling of swashes) and fairly good at fighting. As opposed to a gish which is fairly goo dat all schools and fairly good at fighting.
Yeah, and, between the Abjurant Champion, the Death Knight, the Unfailing and the Moon Wraith Adepts that I already mentioned (and other similar ideas, such as the EverQuest Shadow Knight class, which is essentially a Fighter with a dash of Necromancer, in the same way that a Paladin is a Fighter with a dash of Cleric), it's not exactly the newest idea under the sun, even if I've gone a step further into considering Conjuration, Illusion and Divination based 'swordmages.'
A fey Glamer Knight would fashioned weapons and armor out of quasi-real shadow magic 'illusions,' weapons and armor that are weightless and made of 'smoke and mirrors' but remain capable of inflicting (or warding against) very real wounds, would be a neat elven tweak on the Duskblade.
An evocation based Force Lord who calls up a Flame Blade or Flame Arrows (and could tweak them into a blade of lightning or deadly icicles of frost), combining martial skill with punishing evocation magic would also be cool.
I have to say -- and I'll probably be crucified for this around these parts, but oh well -- that I much prefer how 4th edition handled the "gish" concept than how most people seem to do it. If you make the concept as a fighter/mage, then you're enforcing a division between the two concepts, and as we all know, "divided we fall". By unifying the concept the way the Swordmage did, it really strengthened the overall flavor and function, IMO. I still hate 4th edition (D&D Minis Advanced is what I call it), but it had several good ideas buried under all the bad ones.
I think it's cool that 4e has a swordmage, even though I have no idea what it looks like. :)
Arcana Unearted/Evolved's "mageblade" is one of my favorite classes ever.
I suppose the thing I dislike most about Mage/Fighter Hybrids is there is just too many floating about, and not everyone will agree it's the best idea.
I personally think a Mage/Fighter Hybrid would be somthing similer to a Hexblade, or a Soulknife, or somthing similer to cultists of the Mythic Dawn in Oblivion (for those unfamilier, when the cult members first attack they appear as heavily armed warriors, but once slain their summoned suits of armour and weapons disapear to show robes. The benifit of their spells is that they can summon powerful weapons and armour, which compenstates for lack of their physical might).
The reason why I prefer these is because I think a mage/warrior wouldn't study spells like others, they would focus on spells or ever just supernatural abilities to improve their combat ability. Then again, this is just my opinion, someone who thinks that a mage/warrior should simply be a warrior with a few blasty spells still has a valid opinion. But it's just that, someone with a different view to mine is very likely in a subject like this. It wouldn't surprise me if there were literially hundreads of different mage/warrior hybrid ideas out there, each one radically different from the other.
If Paizo decides to make one, I'd surgest just making one and sticking with it (though it might be hard considering there is already a mage/fighter hybrid prestige class in their final version, so "sticking with it" might mean not making another class) rather than making a horde like the WotC splatbooks, which seem to have more Warrior/Mage hyrbid prestige classes than anything else.
If you are only going to have one option, it should functionally be a wizard/fighter. I.e, a combat-capable class that casts from the wizard spell list.
This is how gishes worked in 2e (the spellswords/spellsingers of the elves. Or, I don't know, the gish of the githyankai. =p). It's also flexible enough that you can build any one of the options you've mentioned. That, to me, is what a gish is; anything more specialized (including a soulknife-type arcane warrior) would be throwing in the spinoff without covering the core archetype.
Then again, I have no trouble with all the various spinoffs, either. I think the only real problem with having a core wizard/fighter class would be all the prestige classes that you can qualify for early.
|
As I said earlier: Hell no.
The moment I notice a class creep in Pathfinder will be the moment I stop buying. I came to Pathfinder to get a better set of core rules; I don't need a reprint of every single 3.5 book I own.
That's too bad you feel that way.
Me, I feel exactly the opposite. Class creep is to be welcomed with open arms (and closed armored mouths). Embrace it! Revel in it!
You know what's really cool?
If there is class creep then *everybody* wins! I win, because I like having all those extra options. You win, because you just don't need to use it or buy it - no money spent, no extra classes. We all win!.
But if you get your way, and Paizo (and all the 3PPs out there) refuses to allow any class creep, then only you win.
Wouldn't it be nicer if everybody wins?
I don't want class creep...
I want class options, sans creep...
I would rather see it in the form of ability substitutions personally.
Rangers/Barbarians and Paladins could all be done as class ability substitutions of fighters.
Druid could be a substitution of Cleric.
Wizard and Sorcerer...well they use the same spell lists...the major differences, bloodline and how they use the same spells. Sorcerer should have just been a substitution. of wizard, and also they should be able to cast their spells at the same time as wizards anyway...
|
|
Rangers/Barbarians and Paladins could all be done as class ability substitutions of fighters.
Doing a True20/generic Warrior thing and making the various Ranger, Barbarian, Monk and Paladin class features into feat chains that a generic Fighter could take would be neat.
But that's not really the direction D&D has taken.
Wizard and Sorcerer...well they use the same spell lists...the major differences, bloodline and how they use the same spells. Sorcerer should have just been a substitution. of wizard, and also they should be able to cast their spells at the same time as wizards anyway...
Going one step further, I'd love to see a game with *all* of the spellcasting classes, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Ranger, Bard and even the hapless Adept choosing at character creation whether to be a spontaneous caster or a prepared caster. No need for a Favored Soul 'spontaneous Cleric' or a Spirit Shaman 'spontaneous Druid' or a Sorcerer 'spontaneous Wizard.' Spontaneous casters would get flexible casting and tiny spells known lists and more castings per day, while Prepared casters would get potentially unlimited spells known, less castings per day and inflexible spell preparation at the day's beginning. This would radically change Clerics and Druids, who currently have unlimited spells known, but don't have to maintain any sort of prayerbook (eliminating one of the balancing factors of the wizard), but would allow for all sorts of, IMO, fascinating class options, including spontaneous Paladins who only know a few spells, but can cast them more often (and flexibly) than a prepared Paladin, and prepared Bards, who carry loose sheafs of arcane notes that they've cobbled together in their travels, from which they prepare their spells in the morning.
Spontaneous casting may have seemed like a huge deal to the designers of 3.0, but I don't consider so horribly overbalancing that it necessitated throwing away a Wizard's bonus feats and creating a whole new class.
and even the hapless Adept
Adepts actually aren't horrible. Their spellcasting progression is kinda slow, but they have a very nice spell list.
and even the hapless AdeptAdepts actually aren't horrible. Their spellcasting progression is kinda slow, but they have a very nice spell list.
Agreed, and they get Heal as a fifth level spell, which means that limited wish can cast it (note depending on campaign this can be considered munchkiny, however if you are paying the XP or GP cost of the spell then I say go for what you can get!).
A very nice spell list. It's almost a shame however because that spell list is used for much of the "overpowered" and "munchkin" stuff for the Archivist, chameleon, and such.
Spontaneous casting may have seemed like a huge deal to the designers of 3.0, but I don't consider so horribly overbalancing that it necessitated throwing away a Wizard's bonus feats and...
I agree, it simply wasn't as huge as WotC tried to continue to make it out to be, especially with such limited spell lists due to spells known.
I mean what good is spotnaneous casting if you only have 1 spell of that spell level?
ravings of a madman
What? Just about the only thing that barbarian, paladin and ranger have in common with fighter or each other is a full base. Those would be incredibly long lists of changes. In fact, they'd have to write down what those classes get at every level... it would just be outlining a new class, but calling it a variant of fighter.
You're basically saying that you have this huge bone of contention with their presentation. Give me a break.
Yea, seconded.
Like I said earlier, it would make more sense if the samurai were described as a "fighter kit", but even then it would be such an important variant that the Oriental Adventures rulebook would have had to give it its own chart anyway. It needs a different class skill entry, and it needs its own pool of bonus feats. And of course the variant's flavor text would remain indispensable to the game (it's roll in that setting is a lot deeper and more complex than that of, say, fighters or rogues).
Does it really make that big a difference?
If you don't like new classes, then you don't like new classes. Some people don't like new races, some are sick of new feats. I like new-anythings, personally (including/especially entire new games with ten or more new classes).
But griping about what gets the title of "class" (and passing judgment on the entire game/company for abusing that title) seems like such a useless kind of rigid-mindedness.
The sorcerer, I think, is a different bag. He used to overlap with the wizard so much that the PRPG designers basically had two options: redefine him as a variant, or give both classes enough new spin to distinguish them. They took the latter rout, but the former would have played just as well.
Yea, seconded.
I like new-anythings, personally (including/especially entire new games with ten or more new classes).
I knew if I waited and watched long enough, I'd find something we agree upon.
;)
|
I think there is a need for a Blackguard and Asassin as base classes. There are some people who like to play in campaigns colored with evil. Personally, I would like to see Warlock as well and Shaman, but based on the old Shaman class from the Spells and Magic.
I think an evil rogue fits the assassin build better than the assassin class ever did...
Given that, traditionally, the "assassin" archetype is simply one of a very skilled back-stabber...
Yes, I'm comfortable with that as a PrC for rogues.
If you're interest, though, I believe Kobold Quarterly has published an assassin base class. I think it's the only core class that they've accepted so far, which to me suggests that it must be pretty good.
If you're interest, though, I believe Kobold Quarterly has published an assassin base class. I think it's the only core class that they've accepted so far, which to me suggests that it must be pretty good.
If I remember correctly that particular assassin class was a preview of the content in the d20 Freeport Companion that Green Ronin had coming out at the time.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If I remember correctly that particular assassin class was a preview of the content in the d20 Freeport Companion that Green Ronin had coming out at the time.If you're interest, though, I believe Kobold Quarterly has published an assassin base class. I think it's the only core class that they've accepted so far, which to me suggests that it must be pretty good.
You do remember correctly, sir.
It was during the PrC focus when people asked why the Blackguard wasn't updated. James suggested that the paizo staff didn't see the blackguard as a PrC and were looking at doing it as a full base class and wanted to have the time to do it right rather than rush something out to stop people from whining that it wasn't available.
Yes. Thanks. So, I very much doubt that Blackguard will be only new base class. Why not Assassin as well? My vote goes to Blackguard, Assassin, Warlock, Noble and Shaman as new core classes.
Noble can be very cool if done well, and I'd love to see a class mechanically similar to Warlock without the baggage.
Is Warlock OGL?
Because I really enjoyed them, and I'd be curious to see whether Paizo would alter them to stay in step with the rest of the changes.
I do wish that the Enlightened Spirit prestige class for warlocks hadn't been unusable...
Is Warlock OGL?
Because I really enjoyed them, and I'd be curious to see whether Paizo would alter them to stay in step with the rest of the changes.
I do wish that the Enlightened Spirit prestige class for warlocks hadn't been unusable...
I don't think warlock is OGL, but I think a "caster" built around SLAs would be doable without crossing the IP line, and it wouldn't carry the warlocks RP and alignment baggage.
|
As for psions, I was referring to the fact that psionics -feels- so different from magic. Psionics feel "different" or "out of place" in the typical fantasy setting; which is a bad thing if you're trying to slip them in as another branch of arcane spellcasting, but awesome if you're giving them their own otherworldly nitch in the setting.
I agree to a degree. The mechanics for psionics is very different from magic. But apply the same mechanics to psioncs as you do for divine and arcane magic and I think it fits right in.
I wish the sorcerer had been a psion, use the same rules as magic, and just call it psionics with a different list.
I'm not a big fan of the sorcerer as a wizard-wanna-be. Why not have two versions of every class then? Have a rogue and a thief, a fighter and a warrior, a paladin and a holy knight, barbarian and totem warrior... amounts to the same thing.
I would be VERY happy to do without sorcerers all together.