It does that sometimes.
OK, here's my first draft, sans spell-list. I'm planning on the spell list being fairly restrictive, along the lines of the psychic warrior's powers list. I've given them more spells/day than the bard, and a few touches some of which people have mentioned here.
It does that sometimes.
OK, here's my first draft, sans spell-list. I'm planning on the spell list being fairly restrictive, along the lines of the psychic warrior's powers list. I've given them more spells/day than the bard, and a few touches some of which people have mentioned here.
Some people may not be comfortable downloading a rtf from a offsite filesharing location if they're not familiar with the poster. You could always convert to a PDF or throw it up on Google Docs or something?
Sadly I don't have a PDF converter currently, unless anyone can suggest one (preferably free!)?
Edit, OK I found one - the PDF file is downloadable here.
Edit #2: I didn't make clear that the somatic flourish feature will make using a shield have in effect no spell-failure chance.
Level-appropriate means able to contribute effectively to challenges of a CR approximate to its level. For example, a level 3 character should contribute meaningfully to a fight against an ogre, and a level 20 character should contribute meaningfully to a fight against a balor.Heh. Considering that my group ignores both CR and 98% of the 'monster manual,' that level 3 character might be the one facing the balor...in which case, his meaningful contribution might be being the first to realize that it's time to run. Meticulously balancing classes, powers, and creatures for a game lost our interest before 3.5 came out. We want to have those times when one or more party members has no 'meaningful' way to contribute to a situation. For us, it's more fun when the wizard has tapped out for the day, and the fighters have to do double duty protecting them and hacking up critters; or when the fighters have to sit and twiddle their thumbs while the rogue and wizard figure out how to open a magically-protected and mechanically-rigged set of doors. You and I seem to want different things from the game. I suspect that you would be less than satisfied playing with my group, and I with yours. To each his own.
It does not mean "doing the best with what you have" or anything of the like....to you. To me, that's exactly what it means. That's why I play B/X D&D more than anything else right now, as well as why my players and I cast aside all classes except Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue when we play Pathfinder.
Regards,
Darrell
You clearly differ from my group as well, and any i have known. The concept of game balance is important to quite a few players of this game. Personally I find nothing fun when a player is sitting there doing nothing, especially in combat when things can take hours of real life time. That is why the rogue and the bard are both given combat options even though they are skill centric characters. The game itself is moving towards keeping players involved in all aspects of the game. While I respect your choice to play as you wish, you are in the minority, and the minority is the realm of house rules. If you want to park a balor in front of level 3 characters no rules or character options will stop you and your players can run for thier lives all the same. I however am not as capable of balancing a class as the proffessional game designers at paizo. Thats why I give them money for books, for them to do it for me. My guess is you will have to do your stuff yourself no matter what options you use.
You clearly differ from my group as well, and any i have known.I've known a great many people who play the way I do.
The concept of game balance is important to quite a few players of this game....and of little consequence to others. Again, to each his own.
Personally I find nothing fun when a player is sitting there doing nothing, especially in combat when things can take hours of real life time. That is why the rogue and the bard are both given combat options even though they are skill centric characters. The game itself is moving towards keeping players involved in all aspects of the game.Combat doesn't take hours of real-life time in my games ... several minutes at most.
While I respect your choice to play as you wish, you are in the minority, and the minority is the realm of house rules....or older editions. :-)
If you want to park a balor in front of level 3 characters no rules or character options will stop you and your players can run for thier lives all the same.Actually, I wouldn't, but they might encounter a dragon. I don't really use 'planar' creatures.
I however am not as capable of balancing a class as the proffessional game designers at paizo. Thats why I give them money for books, for them to do it for me.To date, I've really only given Paizo money for one rulebook, and have already house-ruled the crap out of it. All my other Paizo stuff, I bought for 'fluff.'
My guess is you will have to do your stuff yourself no matter what options you use.:-) The option I use most often is called Basic/Expert D&D from around 1981 or so (I think). It works quite effectively for playing the way I like. :-)
Regards,
Darrell
Thats fine, but that isnt the edition we are talking about here. We are talking about something that is 3 decades later, and has a whole new generation of players. So why do you think it important to discuss a potential element of this game you already see as very flawed compared to your favored game? If its not your cup of tea why does it matter if it exists or not? You are unlikely to buy it regardless.
Then you have no frame of reference to comment on a conversation which is about the CR-level balance system in 3e. Thank you for making this clear.If this were a conversation about such a topic, that would be a valid point. This, however, is a conversation about whether there is a need for a 'fighter/wizard' base class in Pathfinder. Your contention that there is such a need and mine that there is not are of equal validity. You desire such a class, so your POV is valid for you, and I do not, so my POV is valid for me. The CR-level balance system is of no matter.
I do enjoy games which are not designed to be balanced in the way that 3e is, but those games are not 3e and not part of this conversation.Actually, 3e has fighter/wizard classes. This is a conversation about Pathfinder, which is not exactly 3e.
Regards,
Darrell
The system on which encounters for pathfinder is based is a perfectly valid part of the conversation about options and character choices for that system.
When we talk about a character class FOR Pathfinder, that character will be involved in encounters FOR Pathfinder. Therefore the system in which those encounters are based, is essential to the understanding of the class and where or how it should fit if at all.
The standard set by the game system is the standard you judge something by.
Thats fine, but that isnt the edition we are talking about here. We are talking about something that is 3 decades later, and has a whole new generation of players.Actually, I am one of the people who play the game we're discussing...just not as often as the older edition. (...and, for the record, 4 out of my 5 players are most assuredly from a 'new generation' of players.)
So why do you think it important to discuss a potential element of this game you already see as very flawed compared to your favored game?I don't see it as 'flawed,' just unnecessary; and that is what the point of the conversation is: is there a necessity for a fighter/wizard base class?
If its not your cup of tea why does it matter if it exists or not? You are unlikely to buy it regardless.Actually, I will buy it; I both play (house-ruled) Pathfinder and purchase a great deal of the material Paizo puts out. I may not use it for anything other than an idea mine, but I like their product, so I support them in every way I can.
Regards,
Darrell
I meant that you saw the game as flawed, not the concept. When you say you houseruled the crap out of pathfinder, my assumption is that you found lots of things in the game that are either missing or not to your liking. Is this not accurate? That would imply to me that you saw it as flawed.
But as to the original topic, you are coming from a completely different direction then people who use the system as is. How exactly can you and I have a conversation on what is or isnt neccessary when we dont have the same founding system to play with? The thread is asking for paizo to make something that they believe is neccesary based on the system they layed down, if you dont use or heavily modify that system, your opinion is irrelevant to those that do. Your needs are not the same as their needs. So you are not in a place to discuss what is neccessary and what isnt.
Sadly I don't have a PDF converter currently, unless anyone can suggest one (preferably free!)?
Edit, OK I found one - the PDF file is downloadable here.
Edit #2: I didn't make clear that the somatic flourish feature will make using a shield have in effect no spell-failure chance.
If it is a text file, use google document, it supports almost everything word can do, any anyone can just look at it, AND it is update-able.
|
If this were a conversation about such a topic, that would be a valid point. This, however, is a conversation about whether there is a need for a 'fighter/wizard' base class in Pathfinder. Your contention that there is such a need and mine that there is not are of equal validity. You desire such a class, so your POV is valid for you, and I do not, so my POV is valid for me. The CR-level balance system is of no matter.
Actually, this is a conversation about whether or not Paizo should write and print such a class. You're quite right that the game doesn't need anything more than the fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric. Hell, it doesn't even need all those. And when it comes to whether or not Paizo should print such a class, your opinion just isn't as valid. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Whether or not they print the class doesn't affect you. Their failure to print such a class negatively affects a lot of people who really want them to do so. Printing the class, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing to affect those who don't want it. Those people just fail to buy the book. Or, they buy the book for other things but don't use the class. The out-cry against this suggestion consistently blows my mind, because there's literally no reason in the world why the printing of such a class would negatively affect anybody.
If this were a conversation about such a topic, that would be a valid point. This, however, is a conversation about whether there is a need for a 'fighter/wizard' base class in Pathfinder. Your contention that there is such a need and mine that there is not are of equal validity. You desire such a class, so your POV is valid for you, and I do not, so my POV is valid for me. The CR-level balance system is of no matter.Actually, this is a conversation about whether or not Paizo should write and print such a class. You're quite right that the game doesn't need anything more than the fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric. Hell, it doesn't even need all those. And when it comes to whether or not Paizo should print such a class, your opinion just isn't as valid. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Whether or not they print the class doesn't affect you. Their failure to print such a class negatively affects a lot of people who really want them to do so. Printing the class, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing to affect those who don't want it. Those people just fail to buy the book. Or, they buy the book for other things but don't use the class. The out-cry against this suggestion consistently blows my mind, because there's literally no reason in the world why the printing of such a class would negatively affect anybody.
dont you know that if something exists that i dont like the game is totally ruined for me even if i dont use it? Its like putting a rotten apple in a barrel of apples. Its proximity to my beautiful core rules totally infects and destroys them from the inside.
My 10c
The basics are balanced.
Arcane defence should not be untyped to follow suit with other classes.
Good point. I wanted to make it a deflection bonus, but the relative benefit then declines. On the other hand, rings of protection only go as far as +5, so you are getting some benefit at higher level. We'll go for deflection bonus, if everyone is happy with that.
Arcane defence should either be
1min per spell level or
1 round per level or
1 round and a swift action
to be compareable to other classes.
Standard action. 1 minute per level of the spell sacrificed or 1 minute per class level?
Extra Spell is VERY powerful. Players will take prestige classes like wyrm wizard that loose multiple caster levels just to get themselves a choice from any list. Its the only candy some prestige classes are about. Extra spell could well be a capstone ability.
Extra Spell is also a feat out of a WotC supplement somewhere, and works exactly as described (in effect it's a bonus feat). As paizo is already kind of taking it as read that you will import feats from 3.5, this genie is already out of the bottle, I'm just giving away five free shots of it here. I don't think it's a game-breaker either, if the original spell list (currently working on it) is pretty restricted. It give the class just enough flexibility to pull a few nifty stunts (the Psychic Warrior has bonus feats and access to the feat Extra Power, so there is no restriction on the PsyWar using feat slots to buy, for example, specialist Telepath powers). This, for example, allows your Arcane Blade to do a bit of double-duty as a healer, or add a single blast spell to their repertoire. I don't think it's unbalancing because of the restricted number of spells and their levels (it maxes out at one spell for each spell-level 1-5), much as the bards ability to cast cure light wounds doesn't steal the clerics role, but supplements the party healing.
There is precedent as well with other WotC casting classes, the warmage has a similar feature for example, for the same reason: to add some scope and allow the class to evolve a few features in an otherwise somewhat specialised role. I certainly do not think that Extra Spell is worth it as a capstone when it is in effect a feat-level ability.
For those that missed it, I have done a PDF version here.
Agreed on Arcane Defense, a type is important. I'm fine with 1 min/level of spell expended, though.
Sounds reasonable. I wanted it more as a stop-gap rather than a frequently relied upon ability, or that last boost before the BBEG fight sort of power.
Some sort of ability with Arcane Attack to count the weapon as aligned or different material types at higher levels? Maybe a list they can pick from a set number of times, instead of a set "Aligned at level x, Silver/Cold Iron at level y" ?
That's a neat idea, I like it.
The description of Extra Spell only says up through 14th, but the chart for the class shows one at 17th. I'm guessing the chart is right? I don't think it's overpowered, by the by.
Eeep, I missed that error. I may change the chart if we have other abilities to add.
Somatic Flourish says something about "medium-sized" weapons, which don't exist anymore. Change to "one-handed."
Easy change!
Spell channeling into a full attack action as a capstone? That is, give up a spell as a swift action, that spell's effect is applied to all your attacks for one round.
Oooh! Tasty, I like it!
Otherwise good. I probably prefer Tejon's Iron Mage, but there doesn't seem to be anything mechanically wrong with it. The Spell Mastery mechanic is very interesting, very unusual, but I think I like it.
I pinched it off the Magewright from the Eberron setting. I may have to rename is 'Spell Knowledge' to get around any issues of copyright, but it's not too dissimilar to the way duskblades gained knowledge of spells.
I am am recalling things correctly, we have come up with.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit dieI am all for that.
I wouldn't agree with that. I don't like the concept of d10, full BAB, plus Bard Spell Progression, especially if it uses an unmodified Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. No way. I don't care if you "balance" it by not having any special abilities: it's not the right way to go, IMO.
Sadly I don't have a PDF converter currently, unless anyone can suggest one (preferably free!)?
Edit, OK I found one - the PDF file is downloadable here.
Edit #2: I didn't make clear that the somatic flourish feature will make using a shield have in effect no spell-failure chance.
OpenOffice.org has built-in PDF-creation abilities.
Edit, OK I found one - the PDF file is downloadable here.
Thanks for doing that! I'll have to download it when I'm at home and take a look. But by reading some of the comments here, there's a better way to do the Extra Spell feat. Look at the Warmage as an example. More specifically, the variant option located in PBII with regard to Advanced Learning. That's the way I thought about going for this archetype outside of its own self-contained unique spell list.
I meant that you saw the game as flawed, not the concept.No more so than any other game, and a LOT less so than most.
When you say you houseruled the crap out of pathfinder, my assumption is that you found lots of things in the game that are either missing or not to your liking. Is this not accurate? That would imply to me that you saw it as flawed.Nothing "missing or not to my liking," just stuff that isn't useful for my players/game. I have to apologize for the hyperbole in the 'house-ruled the crap out of' bit. My house rules involve dropping bits my group has no use for (such as classes other than the four "classic" base classes) and reinstituting things we wanted back (more "save or die" or "save or [insert detrimental effect here]" type things). It actually takes up less than a page of 10-point Times New Roman font.
But as to the original topic, you are coming from a completely different direction then people who use the system as is. How exactly can you and I have a conversation on what is or isnt neccessary when we dont have the same founding system to play with?We DO have the same system - Pathfinder/pseudo-3e. You just use parts of it that I don't; and I don't use it as often as you do.
Regards,
Darrell
That is very different from the impression i got from you originally, but there is still the fact that you dont use the CR system (or was that hyperbole as well?). CR is how encounters are made, encounters are what 85% (probably more) of the rules are about. If we are not agreeing on that 85% there is a very big difference between the games we place.
For instance, there was a 3rd party piece of material that came out called Horrors Something or another. It has some pretty cool rules on how to may the game truly frightening to the players. For that kind of a game, those rules are great. However it makes the whole discussion of appropriate encounters meaningless when a troll could party wipe level 8 or 9 players. The system is skewed. And thus I would not consider someones opinion of what is 'effective contribution to an encounter' valid compared to someone who uses the standard rules.
I mean thats where this whole discussion started right? You said your opinion differed on what 'effective contribution' to an encounter of 'appropriate level' meant. CR is the basis for this in the Rules as presented in the core book. If you dont use CR and I do, we cant really talk about it. It would be like you talking about Ad&d and me arguing that its unbalanced in magic the gathering (i am aware this is hyperbole but i am trying to illustrate the point).
Everyone's always going to have their own homebrewed rules. Some more and some less than others. At this point, it's pretty much semantics.
Now where were we? Oh yeah. Gish dreaming.
That is very different from the impression i got from you originally, but there is still the fact that you dont use the CR system (or was that hyperbole as well?). CR is how encounters are made, encounters are what 85% (probably more) of the rules are about. If we are not agreeing on that 85% there is a very big difference between the games we place.I quite agree that encounters are highly important, but have what seems to be a fundamental difference on the meaning of the word. You seem to be using the word 'encounter' interchangeably with 'combat.' My group only enters combat every two to three sessions, and would do so even if we used the Pathfinder rules EXACTLY as written. I don't use the CR system because storyline and logical matters trump encounter balance every time...and also because I only use a certain percentage of the available critters as a 'Monster Manual' to begin with ('normal/(some)dire' animals, goblins, orcs, some others that are occasionally useful...I use Pathfinder, but not Golarion).
The King isn't going to send two divisions of elite infantry to collect your taxes simply because your party members are now all 17th-level. He's going to send the same 1st-level 'nobody' tax collector and two 2nd-level warrior 'guards' that he did when you were all 2nd-level shlubs.
Similarly, I won't reduce the size of a village full of goblins because a friend of your 5th-level party has been captured. If there are too many goblins to consider an all-out assault, find another way to rescue the prisoner...including simply buying him back - goblins can be reasonable when faced with enough gold. (...and in my game, the DM [me] awards just as much experience for rescuing him buy buying him back that he does for defeating the goblins in combat.)
Regards,
Darrell
I understand that encounter does not mean combat in every case. However when the rule system reffers to encounter, they do indeed mean combat most of the time. Role playing encounters are something seperate. My group definately is more combat heavy then yours, we will rarely have a session without a combat, except if the story takes an odd turn.
But again, when i am talking about contributing to an encounter I am talking about combat. Most class features, a big chunk of feats, the majority of spells, and the whole 'combat' section of the rulebook, is about combat. That is alot of the rules no? The people asking for a gish class, are asking for one to fulfill their fighter mage wishes primarily for combat. That is what we are talking about. If i was not really worried about combat, taking a couple levels of fighter and a couple levels of wizard would cover things just fine. I am however worried about combat, as are the people pushing for the idea. That is what we are talking about here, not a campaign primarily driven by non-combat encounters.
You certainly can and should play however it is you wish. But your style does not coincide with the rules of the game as they are presented. You can argue that you dont need 'combat' encounters if you like, but the system is designed specifically with the intent of 3-4 combat encounter per in game day, of an appropriate CR based on the party level. This is the system we are discussing because that is how it is written. It is in that context that we are discussing the need for a Fighter Mage Base class. Your game is outside that context.
Putting in new elements for a game can't be considered in a vacuom. (dammit still can't spell that word) A major consideration with a new class is is it distinct from somethign Paizo's already put in? A key element in this case is that Paizo already has an Eldritch Knight PrC built into it's game which pretty much occupies the gish slot. In that case it becomes a matter of whether or not to bump the EK for the gish and consider very carefully the turf preservation of the existing base classes.[
Actually, this is a conversation about whether or not Paizo should write and print such a class.
Honestly the Eldritch knight doesnt cut it. A prestige class should be for something very specific. The ones that support multiclass concepts do it poorly, because they dont start working untill you get into the prestige class, and you are pretty poor at doing whatever it is you do by the time you get there. I also for one spend a significant amount of my gaming time at lower levels, which the eldritch knight does absolutely nothing for. In addition, the eldritch knight provides no class features (except a halfway descent capstone that doesnt work with 2 of the main things a fighter mage can actually take) that combine magic and fighting. The whole concept rests on the idea that some magic and some fighting all on their own is good enough. It is not. An eldritch knight for the most part just wont be good at anything, except possibly late in his career.
What we want is something that combines arcane magic with descent combat ability including class features that support that. At the moment no class occupies that territory especially in the base class department.
Thanks for doing that! I'll have to download it when I'm at home and take a look. But by reading some of the comments here, there's a better way to do the Extra Spell feat. Look at the Warmage as an example. More specifically, the variant option located in PBII with regard to Advanced Learning. That's the way I thought about going for this archetype outside of its own self-contained unique spell list.
Actually, that is exactly the same as the Extra Spell feat / class ability except that it is limited to sorcerer/wizard spell lists. The reason I want the flexibility of the spells chosen is I want to create a good, solid flexible class here; the duskblade was a good gish, but it was overly focussed on attack. I want to make a class where you can focus as you want on attack, defence, utility, mobility etc. or just generalise. Having the Extra Spell feature helps enable this.
I also for one spend a significant amount of my gaming time at lower levels, which the eldritch knight does absolutely nothing for. In addition, the eldritch knight provides no class features (except a halfway descent capstone that doesnt work with 2 of the main things a fighter mage can actually take) that combine magic and fighting. The whole concept rests on the idea that some magic and some fighting all on their own is good enough. It is not. An eldritch knight for the most part just wont be good at anything, except possibly late in his career.
This.
I've never played in an epic campaign nor have I played a 20th level character. Most of the campaigns I participate in are lower level and seems to wrap up at around 12th or 13th level for a number of different reasons.
I wouldn't agree with that. I don't like the concept of d10, full BAB, plus Bard Spell Progression, especially if it uses an unmodified Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. No way. I don't care if you "balance" it by not having any special abilities: it's not the right way to go, IMO.I am am recalling things correctly, we have come up with.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit dieI am all for that.
Please read later posts.
Also, I left the spell list specifically open for a reason, as that would be the key balancing factor.
Then lets focus the question more specifically. What do you want the class to be able to do in the first 5 levels? Where should it be swimming in the lower level pond? You obviously want a mix of fighter and mage. What are you willing to give up to get it?
While this wasn't directed toward me, I will answer on my behalf.
I don't need a d10; a d8 is purely acceptable. I can make up for it in CON or the Toughness feat.
I would take a limited spell list. I could give up all the blasty spells just to be able to deliver acid/fire/cold/electricity/sound through a weapon as extra damage in the equivalence scale as would a rogue with sneak attack or a paladin with smite per level progression. This can have a per day equivalent that goes up in level. Finally, if I want to channel to raise the to-hit attack, I could spend the equivalent of a 2nd level spell for a +2, a 3rd for +3, etc. I still have to rely on resource management.
Otherwise, I should have the same base proficiency with weapons and armor as the equivalent divine front line fighter would.
While I said I would go with a 3/4th BAB, I believe what I stated in the preceeding paragraphs could easily warrant to allow a full BAB and not have it go over-powered.
To me, the duskblade was the archetype of WotC's fighter first, magic-user second base class. The Warmage is the archetype of WotC's magic-user first, fighter second base class. I believe when most of us are referring to a base arcane warrior, we're wanting the former.
|
|
Then lets focus the question more specifically. What do you want the class to be able to do in the first 5 levels? Where should it be swimming in the lower level pond? You obviously want a mix of fighter and mage. What are you willing to give up to get it?
Well, we've already done this on every single page of the thread, but I realize it's a long, long thread, and I don't expect anybody to read the whole thing at this point, so here it is again! (: Here's what I'm willing to give up, and I think I'm on the same page as most of the people requesting an arcane fighter class (I'm also the guy who started the thread if that counts for anything):
* Fighter bonus feats
* Most of the wizard/sorcerer spell list, and certainly most of its versatility
Bonus feats are most of what makes a fighter a fighter (as opposed to a paladin, ranger, or barbarian, all of whom get d10 and full BAB) and the wizard or sorcerer's vast and flexible spell list is most of what makes it a wizard or sorcerer (not its other class abilities, which are all cool, but aren't really the essence of the class). When we ask for a d10/full BAB/spellcasting class, we're more than willing to sacrifice the above features which define the parts of our whole, in favour of spells-instead-of-feats and fighting-instead-of-versatility. These two components should, however, be married through the use of interesting class features.
I wouldn't agree with that. I don't like the concept of d10, full BAB, plus Bard Spell Progression, especially if it uses an unmodified Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. No way. I don't care if you "balance" it by not having any special abilities: it's not the right way to go, IMO.I am am recalling things correctly, we have come up with.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit dieI am all for that.
I am with ya here. If you want full BAB no way in hel ya are getting a bard spell progression. Not even the dusk blade got that and his list was...umm very limited is a nice way to say it
You want Full BAB you get 1/2 spell progression like the ranger and paladin and you do not gain cantrips. If you want cantrips and bard progression ya take the bards BAB as well
If you want full BAB then you take 1/2 spell progression and the limits that come with it
Then lets focus the question more specifically. What do you want the class to be able to do in the first 5 levels? Where should it be swimming in the lower level pond? You obviously want a mix of fighter and mage. What are you willing to give up to get it?
What I would like to see is 2 things.
First is a Bard like spell progrestion 3/4 bab, d8 hit die, a spell list focused in transmutation, abjuration, and necromancy (maybe some evocation).
Along with that I'd like to see the ability to wear armor. Maybe light at low levels scaling up at medium and shields at higher levels.
In addition to that I would like some class features that lend themselves to combining magic and fighting.
Something like this:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/homebrewSpellthane
The second thing i'd like to see is an arcane equivalent to the paladin. Full Bab, d10 hit die, heavy armor, and a paladins spell progression. I could not possibly find a way to better illustrate that then here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/ironMageArcaneWarriorBaseClassThirdDraft
Idea number 1, gives up full caster progression and has the lower bab. He wont be as good as either a full caster or a fighter at what they do. But if buffed and using his class abilities he is comparable to the fighter at fighting.
Idea number 2. This is really a fighting character with arcane flavor. He is focused on fighting primarily and uses arcane themed class features to supplement this. He eventually gets some spells but not a huge variety.
|
|
I don't think the class needs bard spell progression. I'd be happy with duskblade, and honestly I think the duskblade's was probably more than necessary. I'd settle for 1st through 4th-level spells no problem. However, paladin or ranger spell progression isn't going to cut it. It needs to have spellcasting from day one unless there's a really, really good reason for it. It should have a custom spell progression that makes sense for the class (ie. low maximum level, full caster level, and more than average spells-per-day with fewer than average spells known).
I don't think the class needs bard spell progression. I'd be happy with duskblade, and honestly I think the duskblade's was probably more than necessary. I'd settle for 1st through 4th-level spells no problem. However, paladin or ranger spell progression isn't going to cut it. It needs to have spellcasting from day one unless there's a really, really good reason for it. It should have a custom spell progression that makes sense for the class (ie. low maximum level, full caster level, and more than average spells-per-day with fewer than average spells known).
Do you mean full bab and duskblade progression? Have you looked at the iron mage class? I think thats an example of a way to get the feel of a magic using fighter from day one without giving it a better spell progression then existing classes.
Otherwise i think we should stick to the bard chasis. Otherwise you have to heavily limit class features to make up for its benefits. And I dont think an class caster or not should be lacking in class features that make it unique.
|
|
I don't think that's true. I think you can have spells from day one, and still be a solid fighter-type, without losing class features. It just depends what those spells are, how high in power level they scale, and what those class features are. I agree that the Iron Mage is cool, but I'd at least be a little bummed if the one real arcane fighter class couldn't actually cast spells until 4th-level. I'd rather have few to none early class features and have the class features catch up around 4th-level when a ranger or paladin would get spells for the first time. I think a class like what I have in mind needs a pretty healthy grip of spells per day too, which the ranger and paladin model doesn't support.
I think you can have spells from day one, and still be a solid fighter-type, without losing class features.
You can. They just can't be wizard spells. That's why the iron mage starts at 4: a custom spell list was never on the table, and with first-level access to the Sor/Wiz list the class features would have to be cut back significantly.
Meepo, I tried to make the cantrip thing work... problem is, you can't really have them used as spells (or use any which require touch) for a class which is expected to be standing in melee, not to mention using a shield in at least half of all first-level builds, unless you also give no-AoO and hands-free casting at 1st level (making wizards cry). So the iron mage has prestidigitation as an SLA, mainly as a token that they're practicing up to wizard-style magic; but I don't think that satisfies Benn's desire for first-level spellcasting.
OK gentlefolk, continuing the work I started, here is the revised version of the Arcane Blade I showed above, taking some suggestions into account. Here is also the first three levels of the spell-list for this class – tell me if I’m on the right track, guys! I have put in casting from level 1, because the spells cast can be swift-action spells, or else they can be buffs cast prior to combat. I’ve sketched in some new spells, just in rough for now.
As I said previously, I’m trying to come up with a customisable class – not another dusk blade, but something more akin to the psychic warrior. This class has spells that increase BAB, so that in spite of being ¾ BAB they can use their magic to gain an edge; likewise they have spells that increase damage and other options – the spells are what make the class, really, be it offensive, defensive, mobility wise or other. The Arcane Attack and Arcane Defence are there for stop-gaps, although they can be effective.
The Arcane Blade II PDF
Initial Spell List (levels 0-2)
Why am I bothering? Because if we present a solution to Paizo rather than a demand, we're more likely to get something. Even if they decide to revise it completely, at least a lot of the donkey-work is already done ...