I think a more common suggestion has been:
3/4 BAB, d8, Bard Spell Progression
OR
Full BAB, d10, Paladin/Ranger Spell Progression.But I could be wrong.
You're right.
|
The economy of it is that it prevents you from NEEDING to buy a magic weapon. Sure, a +1 or +2 weapon would be typical equipment at those levels if you were a typical character. However, having that class ability means you basically get 2000 or 8000 free gp to spend on other things.
That is true, but nothing you could buy with that money would be as beneficial to a combat class as a magic weapon. There is a reason it is standard equipment. A fighters feats and weapon training work with a magic weapon, not in place of it. So does every other fighting class' abilities. Would you consider it acceptable for a rangers favored enemy bonus to not stack with a magic bow? Or a fighters weapon training? The loss of this compatability is a big hurt for the overall potetial of the class. After all at high levels, a fighter with a +10 weapon has ALMOST ALL of the benefits this class has to offer in class abilities. There is something wrong with that.
Yes but he doesn't need to buy a magic weapon. He can infuse a Masterwork weapon to the level of an appropriate weapon that he could own, so the portion of treasure for him that would go to a magical weapon can be spent on other stuff like AC booster, any of a ton of wondrous items, or scrolls, potions, wands, a house, a sailing ship or whatever.
This is totally different than the ranger's FE or fighter's WT. This ability actually removes the need and dependency on having a magic weapon and allows the money that would be used in that line of acquisition to be allocated to boosting up other parts of the class.Pertaining to the bolded section, the fighter's abilities aren't designed to replace a magical weapon. This guy's abilities obviously were.
Paizo delivered!
It gave us the summoner.
As to the dead levels: It is a casting class. It has less dead levels than a wizard or a sorcerer.
He is a casting class akin to the bard, not the wizard or sorceror. He has 4 more dead levels then the bard. A dead level is when a caster does not get a class ability OR a new spell level.
And as to your point about the loss of versatility.Lets look at that 6th level Spell blade again shall we?
If it has a +1 weapon sure I cannot pile on its +1 bonus and BOTH of its +1 abilities. This is a loss of nova capability but not a loss of versatility. The spellblade can choose to add both of its +1 abilities simultaneously, or add its +1 bonus and the ability of its choice. And as the class gains levels it gains more abilities and bonus to play with. This seems like versatility to me.
Again, i did not say versatility, you lose a portion of the class' ability entirely.
Not being able to apply all of the bonuses at every level is not an issue with the class, it is a balance issue. A 6th level character should not have a +4 or a +5 weapon. Heck a +3 weapon is awesome in the hands of a 6th level toon. And a 6th level spellblade can always have a +3 weapon, no matter what he is wielding. If the monster takes to the air and the spellblade needs to pull its bow? Bang slap the enchants on it. Using a back-up weapon because his got lost or needs a certain type to overcome DR? This will also be a +3 weapon. This class will ALWAYS have a magic weapon with an enchantment bonus equal to half of its level.(which is higher than the types of items that will typically be dropped in level appropriate treasure) And because he can swap the infusion from round to round, its safe to say that any weapon he wields will be thusly enchanted.
You are taking the level of the magic weapon on its own. A fighters weapon training, a paladins smite, and a rangers favored enemy work just fine with a magic weapon. I said in my original post, yes its nice to be able to pick up any stick of the ground, but all other combat classes' ability work with using a magic weapon, there is no reason a spell blade should lack that. The have less ability because they are getting class abilities they cannot use together, let alone with standard equipement. That is rediculous and it is poor design.
The idea of having several weapon "special abilities" available is to add versatility to the class so that they always have an weapon ability that is appropriate to the combat. The idea is not to use all of them at once.It means if I have flaming as one of my abilities, and we go up against a fire elemental that I can switch it out for another more useful weapon enchant I may know instead of just turning it off and letting that bonus go to waste. The idea is to have several abilities ideal for a variety of encounters, not to have several abilities go nova all day every day.
Again i am not saying the ability is not versatile, I am saying it lacks in overall potential when compared to any other group of class abilities.
Lets also remember that this 6th level swordblade has 6 cantrips, 4 1st level spells, and 4 second level spells that it can cast a goodly amount of times per day. It also gets to select these spells from arguably the best spell list in the game (sorc/wiz) in its entirety as opposed to a paired down list that many "gish" classes suffer from. So this character has the freedom to be versatile with its spells as well. It could go for abjuration/enchantment and be a buffer, it could be a tricksy illusion based caster, or it could go outright blow s@~& up mode and focus on evocation and DD spells, or anything in between. (it is even eligible for contingency, what fighting class would not love that).
This is no more capable then a bard in terms of casting. However the bards abilities like every other class actually work with what it is expected to carry. A bards song for instance stacks with a magic weapon, it even stacks with most of the spells it can cast. Class abilities should work together, not against one another.
I guess in the end I don't see a class that can always have an enchanted weapon with a bonus equal to half of its character level (hell if it had improved unarmed strike it could even enchant its hands in this way), with special abilities chosen from a goodly pool, the ability to cast up to 6th level sorcerer/wizards spells (with no restriction on spell selection), and cast these spells in armor, as a class with poor versatility.Heck if you are afraid of the core class ability being useless at high levels then be a baddass in levels 1-7 and PRC into eldritch knight and get bonus feats instead for your high level career.
Again, i didnt say poor versatility, i dont know where you got that from, i said poor potential. If you dont see whats wrong with a class for whom the entirety of their class features is equaled by the fighter's weapon by level 17 and who takes a hit in use of their class features for using standard equipment as poor design, you are pretty much blind.
In fact your example is illustrative of how NOT in line with Pathfinders base classes it is. Taking the eldritch knight prestige class is strictly better then continuing in spell blade, because you get SOMETHING from the class instead of virtually nothing. The whole point of pathfinder was to eliminate that behavior especially in the case of spellcasters.
TLDR version: I disagree with your assessment that this class loses a large portion of its versatility because it has restrictions in place to ensure it cannot pile on enchantments and end up with a weapon that disrupts the power balance of the game because it is too good for its level.
|
Yes but he doesn't need to buy a magic weapon. He can infuse a Masterwork weapon to the level of an appropriate weapon that he could own, so the portion of treasure for him that would go to a magical weapon can be spent on other stuff like AC booster, any of a ton of wondrous items, or scrolls, potions, wands, a house, a sailing ship or whatever.
This is totally different than the ranger's FE or fighter's WT. This ability actually removes the need and dependency on having a magic weapon and allows the money that would be used in that line of acquisition to be allocated to boosting up other parts of the class.Pertaining to the bolded section, the fighter's abilities aren't designed to replace a magical weapon. This guy's abilities obviously were.
It also means that every masterwork weapon he owns could potentially be a magic weapon of an appropriate power level for his character level. A fighters ability works on a very narrow group of weapons, and a rangers ability works on a very narrow group of monsters.
This guy gets his bonus on any weapon against any monster, in additon to unrestricted spell access of spells up to 6th level.
love,
malkav
Yes but he doesn't need to buy a magic weapon. He can infuse a Masterwork weapon to the level of an appropriate weapon that he could own, so the portion of treasure for him that would go to a magical weapon can be spent on other stuff like AC booster, any of a ton of wondrous items, or scrolls, potions, wands, a house, a sailing ship or whatever.
This is totally different than the ranger's FE or fighter's WT. This ability actually removes the need and dependency on having a magic weapon and allows the money that would be used in that line of acquisition to be allocated to boosting up other parts of the class.Pertaining to the bolded section, the fighter's abilities aren't designed to replace a magical weapon. This guy's abilities obviously were.
It also means that every masterwork weapon he owns could potentially be a magic weapon of an appropriate power level for his character level. A fighters ability works on a very narrow group of weapons, and a rangers ability works on a very narrow group of monsters.
This guy gets his bonus on any weapon against any monster, in additon to unrestricted spell access of spells up to 6th level.
love,
malkav
It can apply to any weapon for a certain amount of time per day. A fighter gets his bonus to a decent range of weapons ALL THE TIME. The ranger should be less situational as well given that any respectable dm gives guidance as to which favored enemy makes sense, and if they dont, you dont play a ranger in that game.
And how exactly is his limited spell selection not restricted? He doesnt have a spellbook he has spells known akin to a bard, that is not unrestricted, that is highly restricted.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The economy of it is that it prevents you from NEEDING to buy a magic weapon. Sure, a +1 or +2 weapon would be typical equipment at those levels if you were a typical character. However, having that class ability means you basically get 2000 or 8000 free gp to spend on other things.
That is true, but nothing you could buy with that money would be as beneficial to a combat class as a magic weapon. There is a reason it is standard equipment. A fighters feats and weapon training work with a magic weapon, not in place of it. So does every other fighting class' abilities. Would you consider it acceptable for a rangers favored enemy bonus to not stack with a magic bow? Or a fighters weapon training? The loss of this compatability is a big hurt for the overall potetial of the class. After all at high levels, a fighter with a +10 weapon has ALMOST ALL of the benefits this class has to offer in class abilities. There is something wrong with that.
Oh, I think you do have a point - the ability to entirely (or even mostly) emulate a class' abilities through purchase of wealth is kinda lame.
At the same time, if our high-level fighter type doesn't need to spend 200K on a +10 weapon, instead he can spend 200K on a +4 manual of gainful exercise and a +6 belt of physical might (STR/CON) - so yes, he hasn't directly made his weapon itself better, but based on his ability to invest his gear-wealth differently he has a +10 STR and +6 CON advantage compared *AND* a +10 weapon compared to the guy who just had a +10 weapon.
Also, if the presumptive gish guy gets disarmed, sundered, disjoined, or otherwise has his Awesome Weapon of Awesomeness taken away, he can make a new one whenever he wants. He can also laugh at weapon type DR by carrying a golf bag of weapons and whipping out whichever is the appropriate one for the situation and laying the mojo on it, or if he wants to put it on a bow or crossbow instead of a sword or axe he can (or should be able to, unless the class is intended solely as a melee gisher).
A guy who invests 200K in his uberweapon is kinda stuck with the one he has, which limits his versatility.
Yeah, I know, it's a simplistic argument, because of the diminishing returns on investment for higher-end gear and the situational value of versatility. I'm just arguing that having a portable suite of magic weapon mojo that you can put wherever you want and that obviates the need for investing in one of the most expensive categories of items (and thereby enabling a lot of other purchases), it's still a decent ability even if the weapon itself ends up no better than the weapon another person could get.
Oh, I think you do have a point - the ability to entirely (or even mostly) emulate a class' abilities through purchase of wealth is kinda lame.
At the same time, if our high-level fighter type doesn't need to spend 200K on a +10 weapon, instead he can spend 200K on a +4 manual of gainful exercise and a +6 belt of physical might (STR/CON) - so yes, he hasn't directly made his weapon itself better, but based on his ability to invest his gear-wealth differently he has a +10 STR and +6 CON advantage compared *AND* a +10 weapon compared to the guy who just had a +10 weapon.
Also, if the presumptive gish guy gets disarmed, sundered, disjoined, or otherwise has his Awesome Weapon of Awesomeness taken away, he can make a new one whenever he wants. He can also laugh at weapon type DR by carrying a golf bag of weapons and whipping out whichever is the appropriate one for the situation and laying the mojo on it, or if he wants to put it on a bow or crossbow instead of a sword or axe he can (or should be able to, unless the class is intended solely as a melee gisher).
A guy who invests 200K in his uberweapon is kinda stuck with the one he has, which limits his versatility.
Yeah, I know, it's a simplistic argument, because of the diminishing returns on investment for higher-end gear and the situational value of versatility. I'm just arguing that having a portable suite of magic weapon mojo that you can put wherever you want and that obviates the need for investing in one of the most expensive categories of items (and thereby enabling a lot of other purchases), it's still a decent ability even if the weapon itself ends up no better than the weapon another person could get.
I am not arguing that it isnt a good ability, it is pretty good to be honest, but it is the only thing the class gets aside from bard casting progression. If this were only a part of the class it would be fine. But we are talking about the entirety of its class features. And even if you dont have a magic weapon and save all that gold and use it effectively on other stuff, you still cannot use all of the class ability at once at higher levels. They went overboard with the infusion/special ability. If part of my class ability cannot be used that class ability is essentially a dead level. This class is therefor loaded with them whether or not you use a magic weapon.
Somebody said Gish was in reference to Githyanki, and its a class that is both good at melee combat and spellcasting. Am i understanding this correctly. (Late to this party, getting caught up...)
Thanks.
Gish was actually originally a very specific in game reference to a githyanki fighter mage. It has since (much to the displeasure of some) come to refer to all fighter mage types.
|
No, it doesn't work. There's no build that gives you a capable melee character who supplements their martial abilities with arcane magical ones in a level-appropriate way except at a very narrow level range specific to that build. And sitting on your thumb until (or worse, after) you hit that level range isn't very fun, and this is a game.That depends on what you consider "level-appropriate" to be. For some of us, "level-appropriate" means working within the limitations available at your current level, rather than wanting all the benefits at once.
Sorry to come into this so late, but after reading only a few pages, I get the feeling some people out there would run screaming into the night if they had to function under a system like the old "basic" D&D, where there were only a few classes to choose from at all, the fighter/wizard-type character was called an 'elf' (and came with its own set of limitations), and clerics couldn't cast spells at all until second level.
Darrell - I hadn't quite realized just how many years have passed since the days of OD&D, but be assurred you're right that some would. However, many still enjoy OD&D. A world of "restrictions" weren't thought of as such early-on. The modern notion of "character-build" is what the world thinks of today as D&D, but was not always so. In its day, the description and character roleplay were focus, with rules in periphery, with little concern over them. In many ways, this still makes for a great game. Try running a game of D&D where you invite folks who have not played and tell them, "don't worry about the rules, just tell me what your character does." Back then, we shared not only our actions, but our thoughts, intentions, and with 1 minute combat rounds had a lot more dramatic dialogue before and during moments when the bbeg was killed.
The notion of quantifying everything to a science, and greater focus on the so-called balancing of everything has promted newer concers with the game unique to 3e and beyond. As one person points out, "waiting is unfun." Sure it is, and in our society of instant gratification we want it all now. Further, with the rules in the faces and duffle-bags of all the players now, not the just GM, there is heightened awareness of what "progression" the build will take. While many/most will say "of-course", I'll just point out that this is a relatively newer development. In the early years, PHB and other player resources did point out progressive abilities that made players excited, they were mostly class-illustrative powers, but not the kinds that were pre-eminantly viewed as important factors to survive combat or nerf/buff the class for success. They simply were cool descriptive powers to illustrate the progression of the classes abilities, adding much flavor and yet seeing scarce or occasional use.
When the game was played, it wasn't a series of power selections, or feats, or skills, or even class abilities. Really, it was about the exposition/hook, travel/adventure, problem solving, imaginative descriptions, personality and alignment interactions, story development, character development, progressive facilitation of PCs over the course of their lives - ultimately leading toward castles or guilds, then on to epic battles of world preservation. So, as someone who was there, and played OD&D, and had an "Elf" I would agree that by today's trends/standards you're probably right to say "run screaming." Yet, as we all know, new is different, but not necessarily better. Trends in large numbers are fickle, and the pendulum swings over the decades one way then back again. My point in this round-about way, is to generally agree with you, but perhaps not for absolute reasons. Sure, it sounds clunky or restrictive, but in many ways rules have become the new ball-and-chain of the imagination. Players imaginations are inherently free, but everywhere they are in chains.
Thanks for indulging me to share this opinion,
-Pax
Has anyone considered using the Hexblade for this?
NO!
I loved the flavor, but the class all out sucked, I got the lead game designer to admit shortly before they announced 4th ed.
I think a more common suggestion has been:
3/4 BAB, d8, Bard Spell Progression
OR
Full BAB, d10, Paladin/Ranger Spell Progression.But I could be wrong.
I think we Paizo do a duskblade-like cast things at all levels, and still keep it balanced.
If anything, we DON'T need a 3/4 casting, as we are getting that already, "apparently".
Here is an idea.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit die
4. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
5. Charisma casting stat.
6. Sorcerer type spell selection
Then leave it up to choosing the right spells
No matter what, full caster level for spells that effect something other than yourself is a necessity so that it has half a chance of doing anything, especially with all the other stats you will need to put points into; that will be a big enough hit to spell success as it is. Then again you could make the class just do a bunch of buffing and utility spells really.
|
|
I think a more common suggestion has been:
3/4 BAB, d8, Bard Spell Progression
OR
Full BAB, d10, Paladin/Ranger Spell Progression.But I could be wrong.
I think we Paizo do a duskblade-like cast things at all levels, and still keep it balanced.
If anything, we DON'T need a 3/4 casting, as we are getting that already, "apparently".
Here is an idea.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit die
4. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
5. Charisma casting stat.
6. Sorcerer type spell selectionThen leave it up to choosing the right spells
No matter what, full caster level for spells that effect something other than yourself is a necessity so that it has half a chance of doing anything, especially with all the other stats you will need to put points into; that will be a big enough hit to spell success as it is. Then again you could make the class just do a bunch of buffing and utility spells really.
We have several CHA casting types and several WIS if anything this should be INT.
I think we Paizo do a duskblade-like cast things at all levels, and still keep it balanced.If anything, we DON'T need a 3/4 casting, as we are getting that already, "apparently".
Here is an idea.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit die
4. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
5. Charisma casting stat.
6. Sorcerer type spell selectionThen leave it up to choosing the right spells
No matter what, full caster level for spells that effect something other than yourself is a necessity so that it has half a chance of doing anything, especially with all the other stats you will need to put points into; that will be a big enough hit to spell success as it is. Then again you could make the class just do a bunch of buffing and utility spells really.
I would not allow such a class in any game I run. You want bard like arcane casting you take the 3/4th BAB
I would not allow such a class in any game I run. You want bard like arcane casting you take the 3/4th BAB
I think we Paizo do a duskblade-like cast things at all levels, and still keep it balanced.If anything, we DON'T need a 3/4 casting, as we are getting that already, "apparently".
Here is an idea.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit die
4. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
5. Charisma casting stat.
6. Sorcerer type spell selectionThen leave it up to choosing the right spells
No matter what, full caster level for spells that effect something other than yourself is a necessity so that it has half a chance of doing anything, especially with all the other stats you will need to put points into; that will be a big enough hit to spell success as it is. Then again you could make the class just do a bunch of buffing and utility spells really.
I have to agree with this, I think the duskblade was over the top combining the two, i really like the homebrew iron mage class that is floating around if you want a full bab arcane class though. But we should use the existing classes as a standard, either bard or paladin 'frameworks' are appropriate.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I would not allow such a class in any game I run. You want bard like arcane casting you take the 3/4th BAB
I think we Paizo do a duskblade-like cast things at all levels, and still keep it balanced.If anything, we DON'T need a 3/4 casting, as we are getting that already, "apparently".
Here is an idea.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit die
4. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
5. Charisma casting stat.
6. Sorcerer type spell selectionThen leave it up to choosing the right spells
No matter what, full caster level for spells that effect something other than yourself is a necessity so that it has half a chance of doing anything, especially with all the other stats you will need to put points into; that will be a big enough hit to spell success as it is. Then again you could make the class just do a bunch of buffing and utility spells really.
+1 If it's good enough for the psychic warrior, it's good enough for a spellthane type.
|
|
I have to agree with this, I think the duskblade was over the top combining the two,I would not allow such a class in any game I run. You want bard like arcane casting you take the 3/4th BAB
I think we Paizo do a duskblade-like cast things at all levels, and still keep it balanced.If anything, we DON'T need a 3/4 casting, as we are getting that already, "apparently".
Here is an idea.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit die
4. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
5. Charisma casting stat.
6. Sorcerer type spell selectionThen leave it up to choosing the right spells
No matter what, full caster level for spells that effect something other than yourself is a necessity so that it has half a chance of doing anything, especially with all the other stats you will need to put points into; that will be a big enough hit to spell success as it is. Then again you could make the class just do a bunch of buffing and utility spells really.
Well the Duskblade didn't even get as good of stuff as is being proposed. The had a d8 Hit Die and only cast up to 5th level spells, with a seriously reduced spell list. I also don't think they got full BAB, although I could be wrong since I don't have my books in front of me.
yep it was full BAB with a total of 24 spells spread over 5 levels, with only 2 spells of 4th and 5th level
Well the Duskblade didn't even get as good of stuff as is being proposed. The had a d8 Hit Die and only cast up to 5th level spells, with a seriously reduced spell list. I also don't think they got full BAB, although I could be wrong since I don't have my books in front of me.
Duskblade got a full BAB with HD 8.
EDIT: Ninja'ed by s.o.s.
|
|
Okay, I have never played one, so please explain to me what is wrong with it.Has anyone considered using the Hexblade for this?Yes but it will require some serious fixing to work.
Nothing is wrong per se. The duration and the affects of the Hex curses are very poor. If you want I have all of the rules from every Rule book for the Hexblade in one file and I could send it to you.
Don't open it. It's hexed with explosive runes!
Has anyone considered using the Hexblade for this?
The Hexblade was a 'magic-lite' gish if anything, and frankly it sucked donkey-balls.
I think we Paizo do a duskblade-like cast things at all levels, and still keep it balanced.
If anything, we DON'T need a 3/4 casting, as we are getting that already, "apparently".
Here is an idea.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit die
4. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
5. Charisma casting stat.
6. Sorcerer type spell selectionThen leave it up to choosing the right spells
No matter what, full caster level for spells that effect something other than yourself is a necessity so that it has half a chance of doing anything, especially with all the other stats you will need to put points into; that will be a big enough hit to spell success as it is. Then again you could make the class just do a bunch of buffing and utility spells really.
I think bard spell progression with full BAB and d10 hit dice is too much, frankly. With the Duskblade the spell levels maxed at 5th and you got more low-level spells. I think that is a better role to follow if you want full BAB. Full caster level is fine, but there have to be limits if you want full BAB and d10 hit dice, otherwise you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
+1 If it's good enough for the psychic warrior, it's good enough for a spellthane type.
The Psychic Warrior gets the equivalent of bard spell progression with 3/4 BAB and d8 hit dice, even in Dreamscarred's reworking for Pathfinder (although they do get bonus feats, and in DSP version they will have some cool class features too).
You know, we could eventually just go with a d8 with full BAB. All one really has to do is just pick up Toughness.
As a chassis, we could still do the bard progression, but seriously parse down the spells available for each level for their own unique spell list. Throw in the warmage's Advanced Learning ability to pick up their own personal spell at certain levels.
In the meantime, it's all about wanting to do damage through the weapon. We shouldn't refer to it using 'sword' or 'blade'; we should allow the arcane warrior to use a pole arm or a lucerne hammer if he so desired.
The primary elements that need to be transmitted through the weapon would be: acid, cold, electricity, fire, sound, etc. Allow him to energy substitute when swiftly imbuing the weapon to strike. If you miss, you hold the charge that you initially put through until you successfully strike. The downside is if you try to add a fire strike and you miss, then find out by watching another ally try to flame the opponent and discover it is immune, you're SOL. You can discharge it and substitute it for another energy type, but you would have spent one of your per day usage.
It should be looked into with either a 'power point' system and/or channeling when the arcane warrior increases in level with regard to escalating the energy type damage (cleric's channeling, rogue's sneak attack, paladin's smite -- think of those mechanics). We can still work in the quick spell / per day and +# against SR as the class escalates in level.
There can be a mechanism that allows the primary weapon to be classified as magical in the hands of the arcane warrior.
That takes care of the damage side, energy types, and getting through SR, but what about increasing the BAB?
EDIT - I didn't mean BAB, but the weapon + bonus. Spend a spell slot and give it a duration?
When rewiewing the spell list, which will be reduced, we can go ahead and strip out the melee touch and ranged touch spells and keep some in that allows for self buff & battlefield control.
Allow a couple bonus feats through out the levels that will allow the class to choose from a certain list of fighter or arcane feats to supplement.
After all of that is put together, we can then determine the appropriate cap stone.
*****
I apologize if this is a unformatted, but I'm thinking out loud. Thoughts?
EDIT: With that in mind, I'm going to re-think the spell list by cutting the fat.
I think we will need a custom spell-list that will include options for spells that boost chances to hit or bypass shields or armour or both. A lot of swift actions castings and the like as well, and spells like buffs, enhancers, and close range effects.
I think that 3/4 BAB and d8 hit dice (perhaps with Toughness as a bonus feat as well) are more appropriate. I would increase the spells/day and cap the spell levels at 5th. I would give it a restricted number of spells known, selected from as broad a pool as possible.
1. Full Bab
2. Spells at level 1
3. Full Caster Level
4. D10 hit die
5. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
6. Charisma casting stat (lest helpful directly to combat)
7. Sorcerer type spells know
8. Slot preparation like a wizard (no book)
To all those who hate the idea of bard spell slot progression and full BaB? Why? Is it arcane strike? Because that was supposed to be a swift action, not a free action.
Because it doesn't matter how many spells they know, if all their level 1 spells are feather fall, and prestidigitation.
P.S. Please, tell me why, because all I am hearing is a rejection of an idea, with no rational to back it up.
I think we will need a custom spell-list that will include options for spells that boost chances to hit or bypass shields or armour or both. A lot of swift actions castings and the like as well, and spells like buffs, enhancers, and close range effects.
I think that 3/4 BAB and d8 hit dice (perhaps with Toughness as a bonus feat as well) are more appropriate. I would increase the spells/day and cap the spell levels at 5th. I would give it a restricted number of spells known, selected from as broad a pool as possible.
We will already have that though with the variant bard.
Level-appropriate means able to contribute effectively to challenges of a CR approximate to its level.
So hey. You well-rested yet? Really would like that critical eye of yours on the Iron Mage before I call it finished. :)
(Speaking of the Hexblade, by the way: outright replacing that class was high on my list of Iron Mage goals.)
1. Full Bab
2. Spells at level 1
3. Full Caster Level
4. D10 hit die
5. Light armor and shields, moving to medium with heavy shields
6. Charisma casting stat (lest helpful directly to combat)
7. Sorcerer type spells know
8. Slot preparation like a wizard (no book)To all those who hate the idea of bard spell slot progression and full BaB? Why? Is it arcane strike? Because that was supposed to be a swift action, not a free action.
Because it doesn't matter how many spells they know, if all their level 1 spells are feather fall, and prestidigitation.
P.S. Please, tell me why, because all I am hearing is a rejection of an idea, with no rational to back it up.
Obviously, it doesn't matter without any indication of what those spells are going to be. However, 6 levels of spells is likely going to include more powerful spells and more spells, which would overpower the class. Basically, the more levels of spells there are, the more levels you have to fill with options, which either means more work creating a custom list (and all the potential issues there), or using sorc/wiz list, in which case this melee guy is getting some powerful stuff.
And, well, increased save DCs do, in fact matter. But I don't think that's the main point.
Exactly what I was trying to get at, thanks.
Insane:
It's been covered multiple times why. The EK can not be played at low levels. As for the Bard, while it can do all those things, it can not in A Man In Black's excellent terminology "stab dudes magically." The bard uses magic, OR hits guys. The people who want a fighter/mage base class want some sort of ability to hit guys with their magic, either a channel spell or an Arcane Strike-like feature or SOMETHING.
Hexen:
I was trying to offer you rationales why it is viewed as too powerful, usually. "Exactly what I was trying to get at" because I gave you an argument at least, or because you thought I was backing you up? Because backing you up was not my intent. I realize spell levels don't matter without spells attached, but I think that unless a really weird spell list was made, 6 levels would be too much for a full BAB caster.
In the end all I really want is spells at first level. I really don't care too much about what level of spells they get so long as it is the same as a paladin, but as an arcane type of class, not focused on a god or school, I think spells at first level are needed for flavor and game play.
P.S. I would like to add, I want to a class that can "stab dudes magically".
Soulknives had... other issues, and plenty of games don't allow psionics. Shadow sentinels are race-specific, and an uncommon race at that. And Spellswords, while cool, are still a PrC, while most on this thread want a base class.
Let's not talk about the Abjurant Champion. *shudder*
And yes, certain spell access is part of the character concept as well, though there is obviously debate over what that spell access should be (self-buffing/debuffing/blasting/etc.)
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what was so bad about Abjurant Champion? Can someone give me concrete examples of how it made a character more powerful than they should be capable of becoming? Other than kneejerk "omg full spell and full BAB! nerfplx".
And yeah, for the most part I think we all agree on spell selection being single target/touch attack blasting, self buffing (bulls strength, mage armor)some minor party buffing (haste maybe) and single target debuffing. Any area of effect spells should be very limited if allowed at all.
In the end all I really want is spells at first level. I really don't care too much about what level of spells they get so long as it is the same as a paladin, but as an arcane type of class, not focused on a god or school, I think spells at first level are needed for flavor and game play.
P.S. I would like to add, I want to a class that can "stab dudes magically".
We can get spells at first level without using the bard spell progression. I am thinking something more like the duskblades - more lower level spells but a lower cap than the bard - if you really have to have full BAB. But if you include some spells that increase chances to hit you don't need full BAB; this debate was had in Dreamscarred over the Psychic Warrior, and it was eklected to keep the PsyWar's BAB and hit dice as is.
Soulknives had... other issues, and plenty of games don't allow psionics. Shadow sentinels are race-specific, and an uncommon race at that. And Spellswords, while cool, are still a PrC, while most on this thread want a base class.
Let's not talk about the Abjurant Champion. *shudder*
And yes, certain spell access is part of the character concept as well, though there is obviously debate over what that spell access should be (self-buffing/debuffing/blasting/etc.)
Soulknives are not a gish-build, and the Pathfinder version being prepped by Dreamscarred is pretty cool (full BAB after a lot of discussion, some very nifty class abilities etc).
I would carefully add self-(only)-healing to the list of spells as well. It's an option the PsyWar has, and I would use the PsyWar as the yardstick for a balanced list.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what was so bad about Abjurant Champion? Can someone give me concrete examples of how it made a character more powerful than they should be capable of becoming? Other than kneejerk "omg full spell and full BAB! nerfplx".
And yeah, for the most part I think we all agree on spell selection being single target/touch attack blasting, self buffing (bulls strength, mage armor)some minor party buffing (haste maybe) and single target debuffing. Any area of effect spells should be very limited if allowed at all.
There's a difference between a prestige class having both full spell progression (or nearly so) and full BAB and a base class having them. If you go for a PrC, you have already nerfed your BAB by taking levels in a full spell-casting class to get the most out of it. I agree with your spell-list completely (see above).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Abjurant Cheesewhore problems.
1) Easy to get into, two feats (one for elf/planetouched) one of which was a must for a melee caster.
2) Full BAB, good fort and will, full casting levels. Total cost entered, 1 or two feats.
3) In addition to full caster, and boosting the BAB a net 2 points, and the Fort save by 3 and on average 15 extra HP, there are also the additional spell benefits. A quickened, extended, +9 shield bonus for a first level spell slot? Yes please. All my abjurations extended? Yes please. Spamming quickened dispel magics all 'round? Yes please.
By comparison of the one or two feats spent to enter the class, the wizard would need to burn a feat on Great Fortitude then another feat on improved toughness, and there are not feats to emulate a +2 BAB, or the free quickened/augmented abjurations.
Since one of the class features was BAB = Caster level, it was hinted that this class was designed for things like the Suel Archanmach or other caster prestige classes, so they'd have a hope in heck of beating SR, or for the Fighter 10/Wizard 5/Abjurant Cheesewhore 5 so he'd have a CL of 17 instead of 5, and his spells would be effective.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I agree the Psychic Warrior is the 'gold standard' of the Spellthane type class.
Hexen, would you be happy with getting one spell every three levels? 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th? If the Psychic Warrior has d8s, 20 powers, and average BAB, then 7 spells for full bab and d10s seems fair.
Or optionally, they get no bonus feats no level based attributes, just the BAB, d10s and bard spell casting?
I fail to see how bards or eldrich knights cannot serve i would almost presume to say the need is in the imagination department not the mechanical.
EK are exactly as old editions ftr/mages only with fewer levels less in bab and spells evntually, no race requirements, no stat requirements, same xp tables, no level limits, approx 2 levels behind either as is the mystic theurge. They have Good BAB, Good spells and cover for both.
Bards are perfect jedi.
You don't need to sing. Make your peform Kata/Stances (dance), Kiai (oratory)
You can use said 'physical mastery' and 'breathing control' to do everything from acrobatics and diplomacy to sense motive.Your focused Kiai can boost your and others combat spirit (inspire), break others magics (distraction), comand their focus(fascinate), intimidate them (suggestion), break their fighting spirit (dirge of doom).
You can resist others honeyed words (well versed) that sway those with less spirit.
You are no brute but a cultured highly sophisticated warrior. Capeable at many arts including calligraphy (act), and poetry (comedy) and educated in the ways of every enemy, every strategy, every esoteric secret (bardic knowledge) eventually mastering such knowledge as it becomes part of you and your art (lore master).
You eventually master of your mind, body and soul not only are you resistant to attacks that assail your will (good will saves) but are able to engage in any skill without external interruption or mental clatter sepperating you from oneness (jack of all trades).
Your occult training allows you to sense attackers while sleeping (alarm), heal (cure light wounds), create illusions in the minds of others (silent image), and even transmogrify matter (grease).
Soon you can duplicate yourself (mirror image), increase your skills (heroism), blur your form (blur) and even turn invisible clouding the minds of others etc etc etc etcDo we really need a $ book that tells us this or replicates it in a slightly different format?
If you fail to see why those classes dont serve, and the arguments already presented in this thread dont convince you, you wont get it, and probably just recognize there are people who want something you dont see a need for.
I agree the Psychic Warrior is the 'gold standard' of the Spellthane type class.
Hexen, would you be happy with getting one spell every three levels? 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th? If the Psychic Warrior has d8s, 20 powers, and average BAB, then 7 spells for full bab and d10s seems fair.
Or optionally, they get no bonus feats no level based attributes, just the BAB, d10s and bard spell casting?
That would not be up to me, that would be up to paizo, but we are making an Arcane Armored Mage Fighter. It only makes sense that they have arcane spells from first level.
Again, they are not a paladin, they are not bound and devoted to a god or idea; paladin's get abilities from level 1 based on this concept. They cast spells in melee. So it only makes sense that they get spells from level 1.
That would not be up to me, that would be up to paizo, but we are making an Arcane Armored Mage Fighter. It only makes sense that they have arcane spells from first level.
Again, they are not a paladin, they are not bound and devoted to a god or idea; paladin's get abilities from level 1 based on this concept. They cast spells in melee. So it only makes sense that they get spells from level 1.
No arguments here. I agree completely that the point of a gish-build is to use spells and weapons both (and if you don't have the spells you only have half of the deal) from level 1.
I'm going to throw some ideas down on paper and then see what you guys think ....
|
Here's the thing: the Bard IS a Gish. It's a perfectly valid Gish. But it's not the only way to do a gish.
Think of it this way:
Big Heavy Guys (fighter for martial, paladin for divine, ranger for nature, ?Gish? for arcane)
Mobile Smasher Guys (rogue for martial, monk for divine, barbarian for nature, bard for arcane)
Glass Cannon Guys (?archerydude? for martial, cleric for divine, druid for nature, sorcerer/wizard for arcane)
Now, this is a really big forced oversimplification, but it's really at the heart of what's being discussed.
The bard is like the monk or rogue or barbarian; he runs in, bounces around, uses tricks to prevent himself from taking a lot of damage or getting shut down by status stuff. Rogues use their talents, monks use their saves and special abilities, barbarians use rage powers and fistfulls of hitpoints, bards use music and spells.
The bard is a perfectly valid gish, but his fighting style is very different from the way Fighters, Paladins, and melee-focused Cleric and Druids engage. Bard's can't tank - they don't have the staying power.
To get that staying power, the tank-gish needs full base attack, more hitpoints, and some other miscellaneous stuff. As a tradeoff he's got to give up a significant part of spellcasting utility. The real question is
a) "what kind of miscellanious stuff does the tank-gish need?"
b) "how much farther below the bard spellcasting does he have to go?"