Well then! I suspect that they'll probably be pretty happy with some of the variant bard class abilities and stuff we'll be doing in Advanced Player's Guide. I can't say much about them now, of course... but stay tuned!
That sounds intriquing. Over at private sanctuary they came up with a fun alernate bard
Just a suggestion for a different gish concept. What about a spellcaster who has to fulfill somatic components by striking in combat (or at least performing a martial arts kata when not in combat).
Lets say, maybe, 1 successful hit/move per spell level to be cast as a base. They build up a pool of energy in combat and then use it cast. Probably a spontaneous caster, with either spells known. Perhaps if its a more rigid style of spellcaster-martial warrior, it might have a small spell list instead of spells known.
Perhaps other types of spells are charged with other tactical stances, such as total defense, trip attacks, charging, or maybe at higher levels some feats like power attack are used.
Anyway, that's just something I think would be cool to see.
If I was going to do a class like this I would like directly at the two that already exist as divine counterparts, paladin and ranger. The only difference is being magish I would give them some cantrips basically to give them a caster level for arcane strike. I would hand pick battle spells and give the class abilities of similar power at the levels paladins/ranger do. Arcane strike would probably be a class feature. They would get full BAB but not look anything like the fighter, no weapon/armor training or bonus feats unless it was done up like the ranger/monk wehre you pick from a list at certain levels. That way there is a reason to have a wizard around (spells over 4th spell level) and a fighter (weapon and armor training/feats), but you do have a playable arcane melee guy.
Or I would play a half-orc bard with power attack.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
"And it's not even broken to have a class with, say, a full nine levels of spellcasting, plus good BAB, HP, and proficiencies, with extra abilities on top of that." So you've never played a cleric or a druid, then, huh.The point is that an arcane cleric wouldn't be inherently broken, so when you're making a martial class with real arcane spellcasting it doesn't necessarily need to have the martial and spellcasting sliders turned down as far as they are on a bard.
Exactly. It's not like the only options are:
1. Play a multi-class ftr/caster till you can make it to a good prestige class.
2. Play a bard and try and sub out the music shtick for that's a little less...let's say "high fantasy".
3. Play a gestalt character.
It's a continuum, and it's entirely possible to give out 9 casting levels and provide some type of dilution to the spell abilities. The problem with the multi-class and prestige classes is that the way they limit spell progression is by capping caster level. That's a good way of doing it, but it's by no means the only way.
The hardest way of doing it is probably to create a custom spell list that is very similar to the bard's. It'd be nice if spellcasting used the prepared rules instead of the spontaneous rules and Int instead of Cha to cast. I'd replace the bard's song ability with something that encourages them to engage in melee - maybe a sneak attack variant that kicks in at 2nd/3rd level, progresses slowly over time, only kicks in when flanking, and gives allies fighting that creature a bonus to hit and damage.
For spells, I'd weight it heavily towards utility spells (find traps, hold portal, detect magic, spider climb, jump). I'd put in healing and combat, but make them at a higher level than for other casters. So, the class could cast fireball, but it'd be a 4th level spell instead of a 3rd level spell. That would allow the character to dabble in using combat magic and be fairly effective at it, but with a lower number of times per day than a full caster.
Last, I'd let the class have the ability to swap out spells relatively quickly on the fly.
I like this design because putting the emphasis on intelligence and utility spells evokes to me the crafty adventurer, who knows a dash of magic through study and memorization of certain spells, but who can also hold his own in a fight. He's not as good in combat as the fighter or as deadly as a rogue can be and, though he can peel off a major combat spell or two, he'll still be outshone and outperformed by the dedicated casters.
|
The War Bard (A Gish Idea)
Bard 1
Skills:Acrobatics, Intimidate, Perform (Oratory: Strategy/Tactics/Inspiring Speeches), Perception, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device.
Also maybe Perform Wind Instruments (Trumpet or Bagpipes), Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Any)
Feats: Arcane Strike, if Human also take Combat Expertise
Class Features:Bardic Knowledge, Bardic Performance, Cantrips, Countersong, Distraction, Fascinate, Inspire Courage +1.
Weapons: Whip, Rapier, Longspear. (If Half-Orc Falchion instead of Longspear)
Spells: 0- Detect Magic, Dancing Lights, Read Magic, Message, 1- Grease, Cure Light Wounds (if you get into melee prepare to get hit)
Bard 5
Feats: Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, (If Human add Dodge)
Spells: 0- Detect Magic, Dancing Lights, Read Magic, Message, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand; 1 - Grease, Cure Light Wounds, Cause Fear, Silent Image; 2- Mirror Image, Pyrotechnics, Invisibility
Bard 7/Dragon Disciple 3
Feats: Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Greater Trip, Dodge, (if Human add Mobility), Toughness (Bloodline)
Spells: 0- Detect Magic, Dancing Lights, Read Magic, Message, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand; 1 - Grease, Cure Light Wounds, Cause Fear, Silent Image, Hideous Laughter; 2- Mirror Image, Pyrotechnics, Invisibility, Glitterdust; 3- Confusion, Haste, Slow, Charm Monster
Bard 7/Dragon Disciple 8
Feats: Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Greater Trip, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Power Attack, (if human add Cleave or Improved Sunder), Toughness (Bloodline)
Spells: 0- Detect Magic, Dancing Lights, Read Magic, Message, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand; 1 - Grease, Cure Light Wounds, Cause Fear, Silent Image, Hideous Laughter, Unseen Servant; 2- Mirror Image, Pyrotechnics, Invisibility, Glitterdust, Suggestion, ; 3- Confusion, Haste, Slow, Charm Monster, Phantom Steed, ; 4- Dimension Door, Freedom of Movement, Zone of Silence, Dominate Person; 5- Dispel Magic (Greater), Mass Suggestion
Bard 12/Dragon Disciple 8
Feats: Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Greater Trip, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Sunder, (if Human Add Improved Critical), Toughness (Bloodline)
Spells0- Detect Magic, Dancing Lights, Read Magic, Message, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand; 1 - Grease, Cure Light Wounds, Cause Fear, Silent Image, Hideous Laughter, Unseen Servant; 2- Mirror Image, Pyrotechnics, Invisibility, Glitterdust, Suggestion, Silence; 3- Confusion, Haste, Slow, Charm Monster, Phantom Steed; 4- Dimension Door, Freedom of Movement, Zone of Silence, Dominate Person, Cure Critical Wounds; 5- Dispel Magic (Greater), Mass Suggestion, Persistent Image, Mind Fog; 6- Analyze Dweomer, Project Image, Summon Monster VI, Shout (Greater)
Outfight a wizard!
Outcast a fighter!
The War Bard is your second line of defense, tripping opponents, throwing debuffs, buffs and attacks where needed. Human or Half-Orc are your best choices for the War Bard. Jumping into the Dragon Disciple for Str, Con and HD bonuses is a brilliant way to go.
The War Bard, perfect for the Gish Player in you. (I highly recommend putting your Favoured Class bonus in HP)
mmm. Your feats are the problem with the above build.
The bard has buffs...his Song and his spells. Do be a melee combatant he has to stand in there and take it.
he also has to hit his foes.
Lingering Song means his bardic effects last two rounds after he stops siniging. Yay, triple your rounds of bardic use! He can sing himself a bonus.
The Exalted Feat words of inspiration doubles your bardic morale bonus.
There's a magic item that adds +1 to it.
Dragonfire something or another increases it further.
Snowflake wardance puts your Cha to work for you in combat.
Add weapon focus.
He can sing himself up as a hero, or rely on the spell. he can haste and make extra full attacks if he doesn't own boots of speed.
He should be entering combat by level 10 with +5 th/dmg from bardsong alone, and then Snowflake Wardance on top of it. He could be a solid melee with the right armor and a mithral buckler. No, he won't have feats for combat manuvers, but he'll hit, and do damage, and in the meantime buff the whole bloody party.
===aelryinth
|
|
mmm. Your feats are the problem with the above build.
The bard has buffs...his Song and his spells. Do be a melee combatant he has to stand in there and take it.
he also has to hit his foes.
Lingering Song means his bardic effects last two rounds after he stops siniging. Yay, triple your rounds of bardic use! He can sing himself a bonus.
The Exalted Feat words of inspiration doubles your bardic morale bonus.
There's a magic item that adds +1 to it.
Dragonfire something or another increases it further.Snowflake wardance puts your Cha to work for you in combat.
Add weapon focus.
He can sing himself up as a hero, or rely on the spell. he can haste and make extra full attacks if he doesn't own boots of speed.He should be entering combat by level 10 with +5 th/dmg from bardsong alone, and then Snowflake Wardance on top of it. He could be a solid melee with the right armor and a mithral buckler. No, he won't have feats for combat manuvers, but he'll hit, and do damage, and in the meantime buff the whole bloody party.
===aelryinth
Those are all great choices, and if your DM is allowing 3.5 stuff (and I think most DMs should be allowing 3.5 stuff) then those are some great choices.
The above is just a suggestion on how to do a Gish Bard. About the only major change I'd make is perhaps taking Toughness sooner for those extra HP. The Gish Bard is NOT going to outdamage a fighter (nor should he), but he is going to make sure that the opponent pays for every inch of ground (by tripping him up, scaring him off, debuffing him and giving your party boosts with Bardic Performance).
So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.
Hate to say this but Bard is far more a mix of fighter/wizard then paladin is a mix of fighter/cleric. It isn't even close. The paladin is a fighter with holy flavor, not a fighter cleric. His spell casting is poor and rarely offensive, he can heal maybe too well but blame channeling being too good for that, otherwise he's a melee class nearly purely. A bard is much more a balance of the two classes, and while I don't think he makes a very good replacement for a fighter/wizard mind you, but he is ten times the multiclass then the paladin is.
I thoguht thsoe were both options in the SRD. If not, there's a feat allowing that for worshippers of Mystra (sub. god of magic) in FR.
==Aelryinth
|
There are already a few options in WotC books for a fighter/wizard type base class (I really hate using the word "gish" for anything but a githyanki fighter wizard), and those options remain compatible for play in the Pathfinder RPG.
We probably WON'T make a class like this though, since a full on fighter/wizard type base class would destroy the niches already inhabited by the fighter and the wizard, for one, and would also really hurt the niches provided by classes like the bard.
There are a few prestige class options to handle this class combo already (eldritch knight, dragon disciple, arcane archer), but as for base classes the bard is pretty much it—a class that combines some elements of combat (relatively good weapon selection and armor wearing) and limited spellcasting. The Advanced Player's Guide is going to introduce (among other things) many new bard spells that will help define the class's role; spells that work well in combat to aid a swashbuckling style of fighting, for example.
But we have no plans to do something like the duskblade.
Although I am not a fan of the duskblade per se, I am displeased with your response. Perhaps in the future we the fans and players will give you a reason to rethink this idea.
To note a response you put forth earlier about chocolate milk and orange juice on how the are great separate but together they don't do well. I would place forth a different response. There are many mixed drinks. I prefer a black russian myself and or even a rum and coke. Not all mixed drinks are bad. A well made and well thought out not to mention a support for the class in official rules would be appreciated by us your consumers.
I realize however you can not please everyone and still run a business. Just please don't say never this is something many of us want.
Maybe a PrC to replicate the 1st edition Ranger (low-level Druid and Arcane spells)?
|
|
I'm just not a big fan of making a base class out of something that is pretty much the reason multi-classing, and at least two PrCs, exist. That's all I'll say on the topic, as I respect that others have different preferences.
I think saying it's the whole reason for multi-classing is a little inaccurate. It may well have been the reason multi-classing came to be, and sure, it's a popular use of multi-classing, but I've known a ton of other incredibly good character concepts that make use of multi-classing without wanting to have anything to do with arcane sword-swinging. The other issue is that you can multi-class all you want, but it doesn't make you a magic sword-wielder. It makes you a fighter who uses some magic. The abilities are all separate, rather than interwoven and synergistic like your average base class.
You know, there is the Duskblade.
I'm a huge fan of the duskblade, and in home-games I'll continue to use it until Pathfinder ever gives me a reason not to. It isn't legal for Pathfinder organized play, though, and I'm going to be playing a lot more of that soon. I just don't like the idea of an entire archetype being absent from Pathfinder Society.
We probably WON'T make a class like this though, since a full on fighter/wizard type base class would destroy the niches already inhabited by the fighter and the wizard, for one, and would also really hurt the niches provided by classes like the bard.
That's fair enough, but I don't think a good arcane sword-wielder (I'm trying to be respectful and not use the 'g' word, which isn't my favourite word either, but which--sadly--gets the job done since people know what I mean when I use it) needs to step on any of those classes' toes. The idea isn't that an arcane fighter would ever be the same type of melee combatant as a fighter or nearly as powerful of a caster as a wizard. It shouldn't be. The duskblade never stopped anyone from playing wizards, sorcerers, fighters, or barbarians because it had zero flexibility in its class spell list, it had extremely limited spells known, it didn't have any combat bonus feats, and it didn't have d10 HD. It may have stopped them from playing some combination of those classes, but I thought one of Paizo's cornerstone philosophies was that base classes should be played from levels 1 to 20 as often as possible. A base class that stops people from multi-classing seems right up your alley! I think a good arcane sword-wielder would find a way to meld spellcasting with swordplay (like 4E's swordmage and like 3.5's duskblade--coincidentally, my favourite class in the game for 3.5 and one of only two tolerable classes I've found so far in 4E) rather than just have access to both options, would lack all of a fighter's bonus feats, would at least have a cleric's BAB and HD (though full BAB and d10 would be ideal), would be able to cast without spell failure in up to medium armour, and would have a really carefully chosen spell list with lots of spells/day, but few spells known.
Did I just describe the bard? Other than my first stipulation and the preference for better BAB, maybe I did, but I don't think the bard pushes hard enough in its combat limitations and strengths, and above all, the bard is incredibly limiting from a role-playing perspective. You can't build a bard without having to dedicate your powers to triggering off some sort of performance, which means you have to build a character who's a performer. I have nothing against performer characters, but I don't always want to play one, and I think the bard is generally a weak class choice because it pigeon-holes its user. No other class so severely penalizes your ability to make the character you want to make, not to mention the bard is a jack-of-all-trades. I just want to be a jack-of-two-trades. (: I don't want 6+Int skill points or any of the bard's class abilities, most of which focus on buffing allies and debuffing enemies. I don't want to open locks, fascinate people, or heal anybody. And honestly, those are the reason people play a bard. Every bard I've ever seen in action has been focused on being a goofy role-playing source of comedy for the group and/or buffing/debuffing. A class that didn't do either of those things and wasn't a skill-oriented character wouldn't have to step on the bard's toes one bit.
Well there is the oracle class which can be made into various gish classes. An oracle with battle focus can function as a Fighter/Cleric. An oracle with the Bone focus functions as Oracle/Necromancer...
I know! I love the oracle, and I'm excited about playing one in Pathfinder Society. It has role-playing limitations of its own, however, because it's a divine caster, chosen by a god or gods to receive power. That's just what it is. I know that divine and arcane magic isn't terribly different mechanically, but there's something about the idea of being tied to a divine source of power that just doesn't satisfy all my wants and desires, and certainly the cleric and wizard or the sorcerer and oracle aren't seen as too similar to prevent each other's use, so I don't see that an arcane sword-wielder would step on the cleric or oracle's toes at all.
While I understand that an Eldritch Knight takes time and patience to reach it's potential, I feel that is the point of it. It's a very rewarding path, but it's not meant to be instant gratification. I hear people talk of hitting level 10 or 15 and the rewards for it in one thread, but then hear people unable to wait beyond level 1 for a character to come into his/her own in another.
I hear what you're saying, but I think you're misunderstanding why I'm not satisfied with the eldritch knight (not that I don't like it, because I do). My problem with it is two-fold. First of all, if I'm starting a character at first level it corners me into a role-playing dilemma, because I can't start play as an arcane sword-wielder. I can be one or the other. That's in essence forcing me out of a back-story that includes training in both, or aptitude in both, and I think role-playing limitations on classes are bogus (in case that isn't obvious already). I'm all for characters growing into themselves and changing as characters throughout the course of their progression, but this is a flat-out limitation on where I can start. Secondly, mechanically, it's pretty tough to pull off a character that's good and on-par with his or her peers until you're well into eldritch knight. Both of these problems are solved if the game starts at high levels, but the eldritch knight suffers from the same problem most character optimization builds you'll find on the internet have: sure, you may be a sight to behold at level 20, but strip a few levels off and try to play the character from the ground up and you're not going to make it long enough to get there! Generally, if there's a niche you can think of that can't be filled (and currently a level 1 character that has a background in fighting and arcane casting can't be), then there's reason to fill it. The reason? You're going to make some players happy. And there's no reason why it should have any effect on the players that aren't interested in it. For the same reason the existence of the bard doesn't bother me at all. I don't like it, so I won't play it. Problem solved. Don't want to play an arcane fighter? Don't.
This is a very good interpretation of our design philosophy, in fact. It's not good game design to let a character contribute to a party everything that two different classes can contribute. A class that casts spells as a wizard by has the fighter's combat abilities would result in no need ever for a fighter or a wizard, and that'd basically waste and disrespect all the work that went into building the fighter and the wizard.
I just don't believe that any arcane sword-wielder has ever invalidated a fighter or a wizard. Combining the two creates a very different role from that which either of those two classes fill. Sure, it has the same end-goal as a fighter, but so does the barbarian, and I don't think those classes step on each other's toes at all. They have different ways of getting where they're going. The way I'm looking at this is as such: the sorcerer and the wizard are both melee-incompetent arcane casters. They both pick their spells and use arcane spell-casting to assault their opponents in whichever way most appeals to them. They even have the same spell list. Nobody would ever say (at least in Pathfinder) that they step on each other's toes, though, because one casts spontaneously and the other needs to prepare, not to mention there's a big flavour-divide to keep them feeling separate. Well, an arcane fighter and a fighter both tread into melee and beat their opponents' brains in, but a fighter uses feats and skillful combat maneuvers to accomplish this, whereas the arcane swordsman supplements his fighting with self-buffs and trades skilled combat maneuvers for bursts of arcane energy. The two aren't even remotely similar from a perspective of flavour, and feel at least as separate to me as the sorcerer and the wizard.
And I probably spoke in haste... some day we might take a stab at doing a duskblade style class, but it won't be equal in power to a gestalt fighter/wizard will be. And in the short run, I'm more interested in exploring the bard and developing it via new spells and feats to allow it to fit this role.
Now, this is what I like to read! I don't think anybody would reasonably ever ask for a class to be as good as two other classes, gestalt. That would be crazy. I'm asking for a synergistic combination of the two that isn't as powerful in the arcane arts as a wizard or sorcerer, and goes about melee very differently from a fighter. I'm all for giving the bard more flexibility, but I hope you'll hear my concerns with the class! It feels like you're trying to create a new niche for a class that already has its niches, rather than create a new class that really, truly fills that niche. I'm not looking for a fighter who has spells. I'm looking to blend melee with spell-casting. There's lots of ways to do this, and realistically several base classes could be made to fill this role, but the common thread is magical melee, not necessarily just magic and melee.
Ah, I agree. But a paladin doesn't get all of the cleric spells; she gets a relatively small fraction of them. We could certainly build some sort of "arcane fighter" that follows the paladin or ranger's use of spells, but such a class would, like those classes, not get much in the way of spells, and if I'm understanding the point of this discussion, that'd be a major disappointment for folks looking for a class that can excel at fighting and casting high level stuff like chain lightning.
I think I just communicated poorly in my original post. I've said enough at this point on power-level. I think a class with duskblade-calibre spell limitation is more than fine. I don't think super high-level casting offers as much to the concept as a lot of particular lower-level spells do, honestly. I will say that whereas an arcane version of the paladin or the ranger (ie. a hexblade-like class) would be fine, I'd definitely prefer casting from level 1, onward. Again, I just don't like the role-playing limitations that just up and "developing" spell-casting at 4th-level creates. I'm thinking duskblade, more than hexblade (though I like both classes a lot).
I agree which is why Monte Cook's runeblade makes a lot of sense. The character is martial and uses runes engraved on the blade to produce different spell like effects.
Where can I find this runeblade? I've been working on a prestige class with that exact same name for one of my current games, in which I play a character pretty much exactly like what you described, deriving powers from runes, and using them for melee purposes.
Why not play an "Arcane Paladin" or "Arcane Ranger"? Mayby change Divine grace to Int and Paladin spells to Arcaneand good to go.
Because I can't use homebrew material in Pathfinder Society. I'm all for making stuff up, changing stuff, and/or using 3.5 stuff anywhere else, but I'm suggesting Paizo put something like this together for themselves, and in official capacity. They're currently limiting their own organized play, and this archetype has a reasonable-sized following. I realize they can only put out so many books a year and there are other priorities, and I'm fine with that. As long as a base class like this is on their radar as a niche that needs filling.
Thanks again, James and any other Paizo dudes. To reiterate what somebody said earlier in the thread (and sorry for inadvertently creating such an unwieldy thread--I didn't realize this would generate so many responses in only a day), it's really incredible that you allow your customers to communicate so directly and openly with you and that you really listen to their feedback. So far, you guys have won me over with your quality game development and refreshing approach to the philosophy of game design, and I'm excited for all your upcoming material, even if it'll take a few years before the game itself is as self-sustaining and rich with options as 3.5 had grown to be. Thanks!
why are elves the sole arcane archers? i beleive the "Elf" requirment should be dropped. is it a typo? possibly a copy pasta error? what if somebody wanted a human, dwarven or halfling arcane archer? a gnomish or orcish one? or even a Tiefling or Aasimaar one? that needs to be errataed. the other "X Race only" classes were dropped or had thier racist requirements removed.
|
|
I was ALWAYS unhappy with how the Bladesinger turned out in 3.x
The concept of a graceful sword wielding spellcaster is much most desirable then an arcane paladin to me. And I don't mean dancing graceful, I mean elven graceful. :P
I've been trying to make a bladesinger work in 3.5 recently, and I'm very disappointed so far. My fighting is not as good due to wizard levels, but my spell casting is really awful since I've been in fighter/swashbuckler. To me, this showcases badly designed gish classes in 3.5 is either way overpowered, or way underpowered. What makes a bladesinger unique is not fully realized until level 4 into the prestige, and earliest is level 9, and then it's getting only level 2 spells. That's far too slow. My build is specifically fighter 1/swashbuckler 3/wizard 2. I knew this could happen, but to actually experience how bad is enlightening.
The ironic thing is I normally dislike elves in D&D. They are too pretty, too snobbish, too haughty, too frail. But the bladesinger, the elven elite commando, that appealed to me.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
As a small side note, the bard's high number of skill points does make it easy to create a bardic F/MU-type with INT as their dump stat - you will still have plenty of good skills. Take an 8 in INT and max your Acrobatics, Intimidate, Perception, Stealth, and UMD. Plow your good stats into STR/DEX/CON and your spell selection into combat buffs or defensive spells for yourself (or allies if you like).
Put zero ranks into Perform skills unless you really want to - the bardic performances you'll be using will always be inspire courage or competence, which don't require skill checks (and you can certainly rationalize as 'skilled battlefield commands' or 'tactical genius' rather than any pretense of a performance). If you must take a Perform skill just to feel like you are getting something out of Versatile Performance (which you are - essentially three skills for the price of one), take (oratory), which gives you both Diplomacy and Sense Motive.
Point is: Just because bards *CAN* be tooty-fruity doesn't mean they *MUST* be.
This is a very good interpretation of our design philosophy, in fact. It's not good game design to let a character contribute to a party everything that two different classes can contribute. A class that casts spells as a wizard by has the fighter's combat abilities would result in no need ever for a fighter or a wizard, and that'd basically waste and disrespect all the work that went into building the fighter and the wizard.
Instead, if you want to be a fighter/wizard, you have to sacrifice something. And that something is basically a delay to your abilities.
Think of classes as cups. As you gain experience, you fill your class (cup) with powers (delicious chocolate milk or orange juice, say). If you want to have TWO flavors, you have to mix it up. If the single classed character gets six ounces of drink, the multiclass one has to split his six ounces so he gets, say, three ounces of chocolate milk and three of orange juice. And in some cases, mixing those flavors creates something distasteful or gross.
Having a class that lets you have equal amounts of chocolate milk and orange juice in the cup at the same time AND that keeps both flavors equally delicious is not balanced game design, and it's not something Paizo's interested in doing.
You're absolutely right, someone who cast like a wizard and had all the feats and BAB of a fighter would be a broken class. Don't do that. Thankfully NO ONE IS ASKING FOR THAT!!!!!!
What we want is a full BAB class with a few nifty class features, roughly half the spellcasting progression of a sorcerer, and a very limited selection of spells focusing on offensive melee combat.
Since we as a community recognize that most campaigns don't reach the high echelons of 16th-20th level, having the only core character path along what is obviously a quite popular concept/paradigm ONLY pay off at the capstone of a PrC and likely 17th character level leaves a lot to be desired.
To everyone else: yeah just tweak the Duskblade.
Meatrace more then a few have asked for just that. Not everyone mind you but more then a few
Edit just to make clear the OP said "Anyway, I just wanted to throw this out there and see what you guys thought. Hell, even a battle sorcerer type sorcerer variant would be incredible. Find a way to give the sorcerer a good BAB, d10 HD, and a way around arcane spell failure in light or medium armour, at the expense of some other stuff, and publish some sort of class variant! I'm all for it!"
Full casting and full BAB. That is the very thing that started the thread
Nobody's asking for a character who fills the full spellcasting role of a wizard, while also being as capable in melee combat of a fighter. (Or, if they are, they're aiming at a power level out of line with what most people on this messageboard are generally discussing.)
Again the OP asked for that very thing. A sorcerer with full BAB/HD and the ablity to cast in armor
That is the very thing he asked for in the first post
Nobody's asking for a character who fills the full spellcasting role of a wizard, while also being as capable in melee combat of a fighter. (Or, if they are, they're aiming at a power level out of line with what most people on this messageboard are generally discussing.)
Again the OP asked for that very thing. A sorcerer with full BAB/HD and the ablity to cast in armor
That is the very thing he asked for in the first post
Well no one would want that because it's just a sorcerer with armor. Please PLEASE read stuff before commenting. He never uses the term "full caster" he's merely asking for a gish type class though he isn't perhaps working it to your exacting standards.
If someone had full BAB and d10 HP and could cast in armor and had the exact same spell capabilities as a sorcerer..you know what? Big whoop. I'm not asking for that, let me be clear, but you're not connecting the dots. They would still be UTTERLY INCAPABLE of both meleeing and casting a big spell, they would be doing one or the other.
What MIB and I both want is NEITHER. We want to, as MIB has so eloquently stated, stab guys magically. We want to use spells to enhance our fighting ability instead of the plethora of feats and special moves that other classes, FULL BAB classes some of whom have magical capabilities (I'm looking at you Paladin), already have.
That's what we want, not a gestalt ftr/wiz, not a multiclassed ftr/wiz who is a burdon to his party until he gets to level 10 in the prestige class he's been eyeing since level one. We don't want to be the guy in armor who strangely lobs fireballs, we want to be the guy right up there with the fighter who dispite his lack of fighter class perks and feats can still stand toe to toe (or at least be competitive) with the damage the fighter/barbarian/paladin is dishing out because he augments his martial power with ARCANE MIGHT!
Get it?
Got it?
Good.
Well no one would want that because it's just a sorcerer with armor. Please PLEASE read stuff before commenting. He never uses the term "full caster" he's merely asking for a gish type class though he isn't perhaps working it to your exacting standards.
Nope don't get it
First you claim no one asked for that. Then when showed someone did you claimed no one wanted oneWhats the point of a sorcerer, when this new class gains the same spells, same number of spells but full BAB/HD and can cast in armor?
This is indeed the very thing that started this thread
I was clear not everyone wanted that , you claimed no one asked for it when they infact did ask for that very thing.
I have no issue with what your asking for but I was not the one claiming something the OP himself asked for was never asked for
EDIT: Again I am not disagreeing with you in what you want. Only in that some folks want everything or don't see an issue with being as good as 2 full classes. I am not saying that is what you 2 or even most want
Creative Director
|
why are elves the sole arcane archers? i beleive the "Elf" requirment should be dropped. is it a typo? possibly a copy pasta error? what if somebody wanted a human, dwarven or halfling arcane archer? a gnomish or orcish one? or even a Tiefling or Aasimaar one? that needs to be errataed. the other "X Race only" classes were dropped or had thier racist requirements removed.
It's actually a holdover from the 3.5 version of the game. And I agree... it SHOULD be removed. Limiting arcane archer to elves only is kind of frustrating, and I suspect that we'll be errating that so that any race can qualify for the class. In the meantime... feel free to make orc and halfling and nixie and succubus arcane archers!
why are elves the sole arcane archers? i beleive the "Elf" requirment should be dropped. is it a typo? possibly a copy pasta error? what if somebody wanted a human, dwarven or halfling arcane archer? a gnomish or orcish one? or even a Tiefling or Aasimaar one? that needs to be errataed. the other "X Race only" classes were dropped or had thier racist requirements removed.It's actually a holdover from the 3.5 version of the game. And I agree... it SHOULD be removed. Limiting arcane archer to elves only is kind of frustrating, and I suspect that we'll be errating that so that any race can qualify for the class. In the meantime... feel free to make orc and halfling and nixie and succubus arcane archers!
sounds good.
It's actually a holdover from the 3.5 version of the game. And I agree... it SHOULD be removed. Limiting arcane archer to elves only is kind of frustrating, and I suspect that we'll be errating that so that any race can qualify for the class. In the meantime... feel free to make orc and halfling and nixie and succubus arcane archers!
eh nice, good thing that
Well no one would want that because it's just a sorcerer with armor. Please PLEASE read stuff before commenting. He never uses the term "full caster" he's merely asking for a gish type class though he isn't perhaps working it to your exacting standards.Nope don't get it
First you claim no one asked for that. Then when showed someone did you claimed no one wanted oneWhats the point of a sorcerer, when this new class gains the same spells, same number of spells but full BAB/HD and can cast in armor?
This is indeed the very thing that started this thread
I was clear not everyone wanted that , you claimed no one asked for it when they infact did ask for that very thing.
I have no issue with what your asking for but I was not the one claiming something the OP himself asked for was never asked for
EDIT: Again I am not disagreeing with you in what you want. Only in that some folks want everything or don't see an issue with being as good as 2 full classes. I am not saying that is what you 2 or even most want
Actually the OP DIDN'T ask for that. The line you quoted was a throwaway at the end of the post a "heck I'd even take a..." as opposed to what he was actually asking about. Read his further post on this page of the thread for what we're asking for. Also read the original post in its entirety not just the last line. Reading comprehension FTW!
There's already the bard (who will get more combat oriented spells in the APG).The bard would be fine as a Fighter/Mage type base class, if they would get rid of the fruity singing and dancing stuff and give it a little something else in return.
So take different Perform skills...
The only "Bardic Music" ability that requires playing an instrument or singing is countersong. Take Perform (Act) for a bard that quotes inspiring plays (insert St. Crispin's Day speech), Perform (Oratory) for a bard that gives "pep-talks," etc.
A bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X can work quite well as a "gish" who concentrates on battlefield control and buff/debuff rather than blowing things up.
OT:
why are elves the sole arcane archers? i beleive the "Elf" requirment should be dropped. is it a typo? possibly a copy pasta error? what if somebody wanted a human, dwarven or halfling arcane archer? a gnomish or orcish one? or even a Tiefling or Aasimaar one? that needs to be errataed. the other "X Race only" classes were dropped or had thier racist requirements removed.It's actually a holdover from the 3.5 version of the game. And I agree... it SHOULD be removed. Limiting arcane archer to elves only is kind of frustrating, and I suspect that we'll be errating that so that any race can qualify for the class. In the meantime... feel free to make orc and halfling and nixie and succubus arcane archers!
Hmm... I actually like the idea of giving races a point to show off their racial abilities or at least what the races are known for. Elves are known for archery and arcane abilities, dwarves for sturdiness, gnomes for illusion magic etc. So, creating possibilities to show off their signature abilities sounds ok to me - this would by the very nature of it exclude other races. If this should be accomplished by Prestige Classes is perhaps another question.
Stefan
From reading the various threads on this subject, I think what could work best for creating a class like this is probably really tweaking the bard as starting point for this kind of class - call it an "arcane swashbuckler" or something like that. I would imagine this kind of class as a light combatant moving around a lot on the battlefield, harassing his enemies with special maneuvers, reducing their options and softening them up for the final blow when buffs himself up for just this. I would not see him as buffing his companions (leave that to clerics), but rather casting spells like fumble, entangle, confusion on single targets while dancing around them and buffing his own attacks with true strike when his opponent is so thoroughly irritated that he can even sneak attack him. He will need some defensive buffs or maneuvers for the start phase. My image is something like the Three Musketeers (in the 70ies version) or the Crimson Pirate with magic added to their combat prowess.
If you just design a fighter who gets his buffs from his own spells instead of cleric spells or regular magic items, why bother? It should make a difference in style as well, not just hacking away at enemies with his buffs from a different source.
As an aside, IIRC, Elric was a summoner who rarely cast outright spells in melee, but I might be mistaken. If I´m right, he is no combat caster per se and not suited as an example.
Stefan
why are elves the sole arcane archers? i beleive the "Elf" requirment should be dropped. is it a typo? possibly a copy pasta error? what if somebody wanted a human, dwarven or halfling arcane archer? a gnomish or orcish one? or even a Tiefling or Aasimaar one? that needs to be errataed. the other "X Race only" classes were dropped or had thier racist requirements removed.It's actually a holdover from the 3.5 version of the game. And I agree... it SHOULD be removed. Limiting arcane archer to elves only is kind of frustrating, and I suspect that we'll be errating that so that any race can qualify for the class. In the meantime... feel free to make orc and halfling and nixie and succubus arcane archers!
Already done that with a Halfling Arcane Slinger. She is a real blast. A bit of a hold-over from 1ed days when Halflings were the Kings of Slings.
Kind of stemmed from my deep irrational hatred of all things Elven too.
the Bard is a great basis to start playing with arcane warrior ideas. While clerics get 9 levels of spells, their spells are less explody, and more buffish, in most cases. Although that's not to say that a gish wouldn't want to be more buffish than explody, seeing as if you have fireballs, using a sword seems kinda less important.
If I was going to do a class like this I would like directly at the two that already exist as divine counterparts, paladin and ranger. The only difference is being magish I would give them some cantrips basically to give them a caster level for arcane strike. I would hand pick battle spells and give the class abilities of similar power at the levels paladins/ranger do. Arcane strike would probably be a class feature. They would get full BAB but not look anything like the fighter, no weapon/armor training or bonus feats unless it was done up like the ranger/monk wehre you pick from a list at certain levels. That way there is a reason to have a wizard around (spells over 4th spell level) and a fighter (weapon and armor training/feats), but you do have a playable arcane melee guy.
Or I would play a half-orc bard with power attack.
well I was thinking that it might be a very bard like class, with 6 spell levels, 3/4 BAB, and some more martial class features. This class might be more like a bard crossed with a monk, with maybe a beefed up arcane strike that provides an attack bonus, evening out the effective BAB, like Flurry does for monks.
The spellcasting would probably require fulfilling an action and then releasing a spell effect as a swift action on the next attack round. So your spells would take effect "1 round late". You could probably hold 1 spell for a time, like holding a touch-spell charge, but it would preclude you from further casting. Dropping a held spell, however would not waste the spell slot (unless it was dropped from taking damage. perhaps the class would have a class feature for better resisting spell disruption).
As for the somatic stances themselves, what if they were tied to spell schools? Like abjuration spells require you to go on total defense for a round, evocations might require a charge attack, etc. Perhaps these stances might be related to draconic sigils, and perhaps were developed as a way of countering arcane spell failure. I could see this class wearing medium armor, to be more frontline oriented. they would need to be in the thick of things anyway if they want to charge up the next spell.
Further ruminating probably needs to move to the houserules forums :D
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So take different Perform skills...
The only "Bardic Music" ability that requires playing an instrument or singing is countersong. Take Perform (Act) for a bard that quotes inspiring plays (insert St. Crispin's Day speech), Perform (Oratory) for a bard that gives "pep-talks," etc.
<snip>
I've been threatening to play a dwarf bard with ranks in oratory like Billy Mayes (RIP)
Just a little insight, the term "Gish" means different things to different people.
For some this is a kind of wizard who can also weild a sword and isn't a fool for standing next to the fighter in melee combat, as many people said the eldritch knight fills this possition. I think that the summoner class may be able to fill this position as well, with his pet.
The next type of "Gish" is more like the hexblade was, a warrior who uses spells to increase his combat ability in a way simular to how a fighter uses feats to improve his. Such a class donsn't exsist, yet, in pathfinder. Note: in my own personal opinion the hexblade was the only class that did this in D&D, and would be a welcome addition to the game.
Next is a class thats fully and equally parts fighter and wizard, in other words the duskblade. This idea is ussually critized for many reasons, most of wich have already been stated. Overpowered would be the main problem.
One myth that needs dispelled is that the bard is anywhere close to a "Gish". Bard are simply a support class with heavy focus on skills. I reject that any additional customization to the bard can change that. In order for a bard to change to a gish he would have to lose the healing spells, all his bardic songs and lore abilities, and his focus on skills, and then gain abilities that allow him cast spells while in combat and self only buffs (or de-buffs)that increase his (or lower his opponents) combat abilities far more dramatically then what he has now, as well as a increase in base bab and hit dice. In other words he have to change from a support role to an active one. what's let over is not a bard anymore.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think you've misunderstood the OP's point. He wants a full warrior with a small selection of arcane spells, not a gestalt fighter/wizard.
Full BAB + a handful of cleric spells = paladin
Full BAB + a handful of druid spells = ranger
Full BAB + a handful of arcane spells = ???
I don't have my Monte Cooke PDFs in front of me.
Also the Pathfinder database houses my Arcane Legionary and Spellstalker (which I can't link directly, stupid firewalls), one is a warrior/spelltosser the other a rogue/spelltosser both based off the bard as a guideline.
There's already the bard (who will get more combat oriented spells in the APG).The bard would be fine as a Fighter/Mage type base class, if they would get rid of the fruity singing and dancing stuff and give it a little something else in return.So take different Perform skills...
The only "Bardic Music" ability that requires playing an instrument or singing is countersong. Take Perform (Act) for a bard that quotes inspiring plays (insert St. Crispin's Day speech), Perform (Oratory) for a bard that gives "pep-talks," etc.
A bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X can work quite well as a "gish" who concentrates on battlefield control and buff/debuff rather than blowing things up.
The bard spell list, spell progression, casting style (no spell memorization), preformances, and stats all take away from what some people envision as a fighter/wizard (If you use the g word to refer to them don't expect to be taken seriously by me, I just think very little of those who use it and skip over posts containing it).
This does not mean I think the bard class is no good, just not good at pretending to be a fighter/wizard. The Eldrich Knight works better(much as I dislike most PrCs) the feats for casting in armor really are the only part that need changing in my view. Basically they stink, improve them and you have your fighter/wizard no issues. Now if you want a base class fighter/wizard well alter the bard to drop his song and dance (or any performance skills at all), drop his skill points, change his casting mechanic, alter his casting stat, alter his spell choices, and ... well you get the idea.
OT:
why are elves the sole arcane archers? i beleive the "Elf" requirment should be dropped. is it a typo? possibly a copy pasta error? what if somebody wanted a human, dwarven or halfling arcane archer? a gnomish or orcish one? or even a Tiefling or Aasimaar one? that needs to be errataed. the other "X Race only" classes were dropped or had thier racist requirements removed.It's actually a holdover from the 3.5 version of the game. And I agree... it SHOULD be removed. Limiting arcane archer to elves only is kind of frustrating, and I suspect that we'll be errating that so that any race can qualify for the class. In the meantime... feel free to make orc and halfling and nixie and succubus arcane archers!Hmm... I actually like the idea of giving races a point to show off their racial abilities or at least what the races are known for. Elves are known for archery and arcane abilities, dwarves for sturdiness, gnomes for illusion magic etc. So, creating possibilities to show off their signature abilities sounds ok to me - this would by the very nature of it exclude other races. If this should be accomplished by Prestige Classes is perhaps another question.
Stefan
Agreed watering down racial requirements for PrCs that are iconic for some races would just add the the vanilla feel that Pathfinder has brought to the races.
So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.And I probably spoke in haste... some day we might take a stab at doing a duskblade style class, but it won't be equal in power to a gestalt fighter/wizard will be. And in the short run, I'm more interested in exploring the bard and developing it via new spells and feats to allow it to fit this role.Blech, Bards. No singing and/or dancing crap, please.
The Vikings didn't think that singing and dancing was crap, or fruity, and they are about as close to the archtypical manly man that you can find.
|
|
Edit just to make clear the OP said "Anyway, I just wanted to throw this out there and see what you guys thought. Hell, even a battle sorcerer type sorcerer variant would be incredible. Find a way to give the sorcerer a good BAB, d10 HD, and a way around arcane spell failure in light or medium armour, at the expense of some other stuff, and publish some sort of class variant! I'm all for it!"
Full casting and full BAB. That is the very thing that started the thread
It's my fault for including that little blurb at the end of my post, but really? As others have mentioned, you're not paying attention to the spirit of my post at all. I spent the entirety of the post before that asking for a proper arcane sword-wielder and referencing the duskblade. I threw in one little paragraph at the end stating that even some sort of battle sorcerer variant would be a start (because it would at least solve the armoured caster issue without needing to be a song-and-dance-man armoured caster), and you're going to make claims that I'm asking for a gestalt wizard/fighter?
I asked for the class variant just because I thought something like that was more likely to show up soon (maybe even in the APG) and act as a band-aid to stop me from picking at the real problem. And even ignoring that, I explicitly stated in the quoted section that the good BAB would come at the expense of "other stuff," which could quite easily be "normal spell-list" and/or "quantity of spells known."
Hell, I even mentioned the battle sorcerer variant from Unearthed Arcana as a reference point, and that variant isn't overpowered--it's nearly unplayable. It loses a spell per day and a spell known at every single spell level in exchange for d8 HD, medium BAB, martial weapon proficiency with one particular weapon of your choice, light armour proficiency, and no arcane spell failure in light armour. Believe me, none of those things are worth the loss of spells per day and spells known at every level. Especially when you consider that under 3.5, there wasn't really ever a reason to continue with sorcerer from levels 1 to 20, and you pretty much always prestiged as soon as you could. That meant the benefits you got from going battle sorcerer didn't affect your prestige class levels, but the drawbacks sure did, gimping your spellcasting no matter what prestige class continued the progression for you.
Anyway, I may not have been as clear as I had intended to be with what I was asking for, but please don't include me as proof in your arguments that there's this contingent of insane people out there somewhere who want a gestalt wizard/fighter made into a base class. That isn't what I asked for in the bulk of my post (or my incredibly long response since then), and it's not even what I asked for in my "even this would be a start" segment at the of that post either.
|
|
Blech, Bards. No singing and/or dancing crap, please.So make a bard who's a storyteller or a military commander who enables his bardic performances via Perform (oratory). Problem solved.
Or you could do a Skaldic build similar to the ourt poets of the Viking kings. I doubt anyone here would acuse the vikings of being fruity.
Edit: ninja'd
Gish is the new Drittz.
So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.There is a massive difference between the duskblade with up to 5th level spells, spell channeling better than a 12 level character spell sword from 5 th level etc etc and a hexblade.
Hexblade might be worthwhile.
Duskblade is rort candy !!
So why exactly is the duskblade a sham?
So why exactly is the duskblade a sham?So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.There is a massive difference between the duskblade with up to 5th level spells, spell channeling better than a 12 level character spell sword from 5 th level etc etc and a hexblade.
Hexblade might be worthwhile.
Duskblade is rort candy !!
Basically the duskblade got his cake and could eat it too. He got a huge number of spells and some of his spells (polar ray) where far more powerful then a 5th level spell slot. On top of that full bab and full armor selection and the ability to cast in light and medium armors.
Still his small spell selection and focus on just doing big damage and nothing else made him feel like a one trick pony, however it was a good trick.
If you really want to play a good gish class, you should play a Swordmage in 4E. It is exactly what you are looking for.
If you really want to play a good gish class, you should play a Swordmage in 4E. It is exactly what you are looking for.
Is this were I say I would rather play a D&D based game...or just ignore the post because it clearly was made to recieve such a reply...
Basically the duskblade got his cake and could eat it too. He got a huge number of spells and some of his spells (polar ray) where far more powerful then a 5th level spell slot. On top of that full bab and full armor selection and the ability to cast in light and medium armors.Still his small spell selection and focus on just doing big damage and nothing else made him feel like a one trick pony, however it was a good trick.
Wasn't a fan of the duskblade, I too thought it was too much. Honestly 3/4 BAB, armor use, martial weapons, and casting, up to 6th level spells, and maybe some few bonus feats. That's to me pretty much all I need for my fighter/magic-user. It wouldn't be the hardest core class to create honestly. Base casting on int, use a cut down wizard spell selection maybe pick three schools and that's all the spells you can learn, and of course spell books.