I would rather if you all kept me out of this.
"You back in the box!"
Although everytime someone calls the concept a "gish" it becomes harder and harder to hear you... that word sucks. :-P
Any chance we could get you to move any plans for this back by a day every time someone calls it that?
you make a good point.
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.WTF? You have to include exotic weapon proficiency (katana) and trenchcoat armor bonuses as well, just to make sure that calss isn't underpowered.
which is still considered overpowered by most. But then as folks love to point out the spell list is very different. Besides cleric do not have full BAB and a d10
An arcane class with full bab/HD and full casting is broken.
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.WTF? You have to include exotic weapon proficiency (katana) and trenchcoat armor bonuses as well, just to make sure that calss isn't underpowered.which is still considered overpowered by most. But then as folks love to point out the spell list is very different. Besides cleric do not have full BAB and a d10
An arcane class with full bab/HD and full casting is broken.
Overpowered compared to what? I get a little tired of the standard of a balanced class always being the lowest common denominator. If there are comparable core classes in terms of power then the class being suggested is not overpowered.
If a class had full caster progression and full bab/HD it should basically have very few class features. I am not a fan of the full BAB sword mage but it is not inherantly broken just because. It depends on what else you do with it in terms of casting (available spells for instance) and what if any class features you give it.
|
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.WTF? You have to include exotic weapon proficiency (katana) and trenchcoat armor bonuses as well, just to make sure that calss isn't underpowered.
I know that post was intended as a trap but seriously people are still falling for it after I revealed it. Guys, WTF.
It is called a joke.
|
What I want is probably a bit different from most people. I basically want a duskblade except with casting as a swift (3 times a day maybe?) and a list of buffs, debuffs, and utility spells.
I am not interested in hitting a monster for massive damage with combined arms. I am to fight and provide the proper spells when needed, but not much direct damage. The problem is that a fighter/wizard is that the arcane spell chance is there. If that wasn't an issue, I think I'd just roll with a fighter/wizard multiclass.
The new bard is actually a good start of what I'd like, but the Performance and spell casting running into each other can be annoying. I have to examine it more however.
Creative Director
|
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
Someone made a good point in another thread James, It's the Jedi's fault. Every one know wants to play the bad ass warrior with mystic powers..thank you Jedi
|
|
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
Because when I play just the fighter, everybody expects me to be a meatshield. In a new group with bad players and DMs, with their wizards taking down everything with spells, and I can't do anything, it's annoying.
Oh look, we're fighting our 20th giant. I'm so glad I get to be healed back above 0 again.
|
Creative Director
|
Because when I play just the fighter, everybody expects me to be a meatshield. In a new group with bad players and DMs, with their wizards taking down everything with spells, and I can't do anything, it's annoying.
Oh look, we're fighting our 20th giant. I'm so glad I get to do something except to be healed back above 0.
Well... to a certain extent, the fighter's role IS to be a "meatshield." He can do damage, but he can withstand a lot of damage, and that allows other classes (not just the wizard and sorcerer, but also the rogue) who can do lots of damage to actually do what they do best. Which is dish out the hurt. Even the barbarian's got a pretty bad AC. The fighter's kinda supposed to be as much a defensive character as he is offensive.
If you want to play the character who's unleashing the damage, the fighter is, ironically, not always the best choice.
Someone made a good point in another thread James, It's the Jedi's fault. Every one know wants to play the bad ass warrior with mystic powers..thank you JediJust curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
We don't need no stinkin Jedi! we need more beer! we need rules for drunkeness and hangovers and different types of beer.
|
|
Because when I play just the fighter, everybody expects me to be a meatshield. In a new group with bad players and DMs, with their wizards taking down everything with spells, and I can't do anything, it's annoying.
Oh look, we're fighting our 20th giant. I'm so glad I get to do something except to be healed back above 0.
Well... to a certain extent, the fighter's role IS to be a "meatshield." He can do damage, but he can withstand a lot of damage, and that allows other classes (not just the wizard and sorcerer, but also the rogue) who can do lots of damage to actually do what they do best. Which is dish out the hurt. Even the barbarian's got a pretty bad AC. The fighter's kinda supposed to be as much a defensive character as he is offensive.
If you want to play the character who's unleashing the damage, the fighter is, ironically, not always the best choice.
Then I should abandon this character, play a non-melee, and let the party hire minions to die. My previous DM was great at hiding the problems of the engine, but this DM is quite poor at doing so.
Or play 4e, cause their artificial balancing solves imbalance (and I'll have to deal with other nonsense instead.)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
Actually, I think it works in a group of 3 players or 5 players.
In a group of 3, a bard strength combat focused caster (spellthane) can serve as a front line fighter with a bit or preperation (shield) or can do some area effect (burning hands, arc of lightning) depending on spell selection.
As a 5th wheel he serves where needed, close support with the fighter, skirmishing with the rogue, standing back with the wizard. in fact with the right mix of spells and spell completion items, he may even be able to free the wizard up for more esoteric spells
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
Quite a few things happened, actually, but if I had to pinpoint where it began, I'd say the release of Advanced D&D 1st Edition started most of it. You remember that one, right? The one where the clerics were there for casting Cure spells on the turns where they weren't Turning Undead, and that's about all? Where nearly every class feature of the Rogue was made obsolete once the casters got 4th and 5th level spells? The one where the Fighter's player finally figured out that he was nothing more than the casters' henchman after the campaign finally reached 10th level?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
I disagree...I would argue that there is even more room for a hybrid specialist in a group that has the basics covered.
Because when I play just the fighter, everybody expects me to be a meatshield. In a new group with bad players and DMs, with their wizards taking down everything with spells, and I can't do anything, it's annoying.
Oh look, we're fighting our 20th giant. I'm so glad I get to do something except to be healed back above 0.
Well... to a certain extent, the fighter's role IS to be a "meatshield." He can do damage, but he can withstand a lot of damage, and that allows other classes (not just the wizard and sorcerer, but also the rogue) who can do lots of damage to actually do what they do best. Which is dish out the hurt. Even the barbarian's got a pretty bad AC. The fighter's kinda supposed to be as much a defensive character as he is offensive.
If you want to play the character who's unleashing the damage, the fighter is, ironically, not always the best choice.
The problem with that philosophy is that unless that Fighter has the potential for unloading some serious hurt, why would any villain played by the GM as if it had any brains at all whatsoever ever bother attacking him until after the true threats have been dealt with?
I have to agree to a certain extent with Moro, sorry James, we should get away from roles, well at least we should allow each class to be customized into a role. Two wizards one a necromancer the other an abjurer should play differently, the necro offensively, the abjurer defensively. Well that's the way I see it, but hey everyone has a different opinion on the subject.
Anyway just to chime in again. There is several concepts here, on is a arcane ranger/paladin (hexblade, yes I'm a fan). The other is more like a wizard with a sword (Eldritch Knight), and the last is a combo (Duskblade not a fan). The first and second choice I fully support and welcome their inclusion into the game, the last not so much so.
One place that MIGHT be an interesting place to approach for this material, though, would be Kobold Quarterly. If I recall correctly, Wolfgang's always looking for new Pathfinder articles.
an excellent idea. The spell-less Ranger was very nicely done. I like it better than the Pathfinder version
sorry
|
|
I have to agree to a certain extent with Moro, sorry James, we should get away from roles, well at least we should allow each class to be customized into a role. Two wizards one a necromancer the other an abjurer should play differently, the necro offensively, the abjurer defensively. Well that's the way I see it, but hey everyone has a different opinion on the subject.
Anyway just to chime in again. There is several concepts here, on is a arcane ranger/paladin (hexblade, yes I'm a fan). The other is more like a wizard with a sword (Eldritch Knight), and the last is a combo (Duskblade not a fan). The first and second choice I fully support and welcome their inclusion into the game, the last not so much so.
It's not the meat shield role that bugs me. BTW, meat shield, which I used, is a derogatory term for melee classes. It implies they are there to absorb damage. Tank is a better term, because we think tanks as machines that take a beating, but also dishes out beatings as well.
The unfortunate fact is that melee classes are often less dangerous than casters because of powerful status effects that end encounters/fights very quickly. Doing damage is fine, but if a caster hits a monster with Enervate, Blindness, Black Tentacles, Hold Person, Stinking Cloud, etc, that's often more effective.
Although the monk has it's own issues, I love the Stunning Fist. If it works, it swings a fight immediately. Many people have always preached more options, and I agree. I don't know if the answer is feats that melee classes that qualify for, tweaking of rules, adding better class features, or nerfing casters.
In my particular case, it's because of a weak DM that is allowing his casters to great, and the melee to be chumps. But because there is already an imbalance along with the DM bringing endless giants, the melee end up being no good.
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
Even in a group of six players interesting things happen. My group for instance is not consistent in who is at the table, we have 8 players but because of our schedules you never know who is going to be there. We have had times where due to circumstance one of the roles or more then one of the roles isnt present with 5 people at the table. A mix isnt a bad thing, and it can really come in handy in times like that. Not to mention there are groups (ive been a part of them) that run with 2-3 players instead of 4. Its nice in those kind of games to be able to play somethihg other then a cleric and a paladin.
Not to mention, I dont overly like the idea of roles as rigid as they have become. I like the idea of a different take on things. Heck we had a campain that had 2 paladins a fighter and a barbarian in the same party, everyone still had fun, and crazy enough, everyone operated a little different. The system is robust enough (i think) to handle a little over lap and still have an interesting and fun party dynamic.
There is another side to it. I am not alone in this, I like magic in dnd. Its what makes it dnd to me. Its what I enjoy most. If the party "needs" a rogue, i'd play a beguiler. If the party needs a fighter type, i'd like to play a fighter/mage type. The reason being I will enjoy the flavor and the style of the class more, but I especially will enjoy it more from a mechanical standpoint. I like having spells, and if there is a balanced way for me to have some spell casting and still fill that needed roll I am usually quite pleased. The beguiler and duskblade were probably my favorite 3.5 classes, though I think the duskblade needed some work, and my group did a fair amount of house ruling to it.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons?
Uh...I feel like I've seen this quaint idea illustrated on a book cover somewhere recently...
Someone made a good point in another thread James, It's the Jedi's fault. Every one know wants to play the bad ass warrior with mystic powers..thank you Jedi
So why don't we start using a new name if people hate the term gish. How about Jedi? Or better yet, Magi? See it rhymes with Jedi, but still sounds magical. And the enemies of the Jedi (Magi) are the Sith (Gith). See it works great. Of course people might think the character is suppose to be carrying gifts to random kids on bright starry nights, but I'm sure we can get past that. So what about it, magi instead of gish anyone? ... anyone?
|
|
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
I feel like I keep getting to the party too late in this thread and end up just reiterating what others have already mentioned, but honestly, the kind of character I most enjoy playing--and what I've been requesting in this thread--is only a replacement for the fighter. He or she happens to use spells to fill the role of bonus feats and combat maneuvers, but that doesn't make for a wizard replacement if you're trying to put together a properly balanced party. Myself, I've always been a fan of putting together a party of people playing whatever characters they each want to be playing and letting the GM figure out how to send balanced and challenging encounters their way, but if you absolutely need a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, and a cleric, the class I'm envisioning only fills that first role.
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
Are we back to this again? The Spellthane isn't taking the place of the wizard AT ALL since he can't do all the awesome things a baseline caster can nor would he want to.
Also, whats wrong with one guy playing the fighter and the other guy playing a CLERIC. Why does one guy have to be both and play a PALADIN.
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
+1
Cake and eat it.I can't understand the need myself but others plainly disagree.
Just curious.
Whatever happened to the idea that one player's the fighter and one player's the wizard and they work together to fight dragons? Why the need to have one class that does everything?
A class like this works MUCH better in a game where there's one or maybe two players. But in a group of four to six players... I'm not so sure...
+1
Cake and eat it.
I can't understand the need myself but others plainly disagree.
You don't NEED Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Monks, Bards, Druids, or Sorcerers either. So I just can't understand why people who would like to play those classes aren't considered as wanting to "have their cake and eat it too", but others plainly disagree.
Oh wait, perhaps they just want to have fun with a classic character idea, without feeling like a complete gimp for the first 17 levels of the game.
The fighter/mage archetype is as old as the game itself, which is something that cannot be said about those classes I listed above. I have no idea where this mindset that "anyone who wants an effective Fighter/Mage must be a munchkin" came from, but I can tell you that it is way off base.
|
|
It's really frustrating how many people are too busy jerking their knees to pay attention. I don't know why the wants and desires of other players bother you guys so much, but if you aren't interested in the concept, don't use it. Hell, ban it from your games! That doesn't mean that other players in other games won't make good use of it without being "munchkins" or "power gamers." It's an awesome concept from a flavour perspective. It has nothing to do with power level, and everything to do with filling a roleplaying niche that, quite frankly, hasn't been filled in Pathfinder yet, and has only even come close to being filled with prestige classes and multiclassing.
This just occured to me. Does anyone think this concept would be suitable for an asian flavor? Without really having looked into it it seems like in a fair amount of asian lore even the most potent magic users were still primary martial combatants. Just a little self serving thought since IF paizo addresses this it might be suitable for their likely asian themed book.
This just occured to me. Does anyone think this concept would be suitable for an asian flavor? Without really having looked into it it seems like in a fair amount of asian lore even the most potent magic users were still primary martial combatants. Just a little self serving thought since IF paizo addresses this it might be suitable for their likely asian themed book.
If I have to get a Katana and Trench Coat for my Fighter/Mage, I'll just stick with the singing and dancing fop that is the Bard.
|
It's really frustrating how many people are too busy jerking their knees to pay attention. I don't know why the wants and desires of other players bother you guys so much, but if you aren't interested in the concept, don't use it. Hell, ban it from your games! That doesn't mean that other players in other games won't make good use of it without being "munchkins" or "power gamers." It's an awesome concept from a flavour perspective. It has nothing to do with power level, and everything to do with filling a roleplaying niche that, quite frankly, hasn't been filled in Pathfinder yet, and has only even come close to being filled with prestige classes and multiclassing.
I would argue that, since Mr. Jacobs has already chimed in, and, the answer has been given, more or less (I love definite maybes): there are far better ways to go about getting what you want, than simply asking that you get what you want pver and over again, then talking about it endlessly over the span of 5 different threads. For example, say... this board here?
Of course, if you want to discuss "flavor" - I'll refer to the now-old, oft-ignored 4e argument: "So, you want a fighter who wields two weapons? Just make a ranger, call him a two-weapon fighter, and enjoy your game." Which is to say, there are tons of available, 1st level Arcane Warriors out there in various 3.5/Forgotten Realms splatbooks, take one and call it a "Magical Something-Or-Other of Desna" and your problem should be solved.
Then again, if this is a "Pathfinder flavor issue," I can just keep on pointing out how you can make it to Eldritch Knight by level seven with the purchase of just one Pathfinder trait.
edited: changed the language a bit, text is a funny thing when conveying thought.
I would argue that, since Mr. Jacobs has already chimed in, and, the answer has been given, more or less (I love definite maybes): there are far better ways to go about getting what you want, than simply asking that you get what you want pver and over again, then talking about it endlessly over the span of 5 different threads. For example, say... this board here?
Houserule/Homebrew forums? That sort of defeats the purpose of discussing the addition of an official base class. I don't want to have to houserule the game to death, sorry.
Nevermind how difficult it is to get one's "Homebrewed Class" into a game, barring DMing it yourself.
Of course, if you want to discuss "flavor" - I'll refer to the now-old, oft-ignored 4e argument: "So, you want a fighter who wields two weapons? Just make a ranger, call him a two-weapon fighter, and enjoy your game." Which is to say, there are tons of available, 1st level Arcane Warriors out there in various 3.5/Forgotten Realms splatbooks, take one and call it a "Magical Something-Or-Other of Desna" and your problem should be solved.
I don't wish to use 4e, and I certainly don't care how much you tout the "backwards compatibility" of Pathfinder - we are switching to PF to get away from 3.5 and the mountain o' splatbooks, thank you very much.
Then again, if this is a "Pathfinder flavor issue," I can just...
And I can continue to point out how the EK fails to fill the void and is completely ineffective until level SEVENTEEN, when it becomes only slightly ineffective.
|
|
Houserule/Homebrew forums? That sort of defeats the purpose of discussing the addition of an official base class. I don't want to have to houserule the game to death, sorry. Nevermind how difficult it is to get one's "Homebrewed Class" into a game, barring DMing it yourself.
I don't wish to use 4e, and I certainly don't care how much you tout the "backwards compatibility" of Pathfinder - we are switching to PF to get away from 3.5 and the mountain o' splatbooks, thank you very much.
And I can continue to point out how the EK fails to fill the void and is completely ineffective until level SEVENTEEN, when it becomes only...
Since I hate quote-fests, I'll answer these point by point.
I personally haven't had much trouble getting my past DM's to allow well-balanced, thought out and (hopefully) tested homebrew material into games before. If you have, I'm sorry to hear it.
You don't want a mountain of splatbooks, but you want a splat character. Interesting, perhaps just a foothill, then?*
You can, but I'm not convinced. Its working just fine for me right now. But I might be having wrongbadfun, in your opinion.
*Edit: One's definition of splatbook might differ from my own, so understand that I use the term to mean "anything beyond the core."
You don't want a mountain of splatbooks, but you want a splat character. Interesting*.
*Edit: One's definition of splatbook might differ from my own, so understand that I use the term to mean "anything beyond the core."
I think the difference there is he wants a clean break from the mess o WotC. Based on paizo's proclaimed plan, there is very little chance of the additional rulebooks ever approaching mountainous regions. Perhaps in 10-15 years, but by then we may very well have PF RPG 2.0.
How many 3.5 books are there? I have a book shelf that is slowly collapsing into its own star full of them and I do not own even close to all of them.
Of course, if you want to discuss "flavor" - I'll refer to the now-old, oft-ignored 4e argument: "So, you want a fighter who wields two weapons? Just make a ranger, call him a two-weapon fighter, and enjoy your game." Which is to say, there are tons of available, 1st level Arcane Warriors out there in various 3.5/Forgotten Realms splatbooks, take one and call it a "Magical Something-Or-Other of Desna" and your problem should be solved.
This is actually a little inaccurate, yes early on many posters on the wotc message board used this argument, but (and it's a big but) wotc themselves never felt that way. The tempest fighter came out not long after the release of 4e as a specialized two-weapon fighter. Later wotc adapted the idea to the barbarian class as well.
So, it really comes down to the desires of the developers, how they in-vision the game, not so much the players themselves. (Here's another big but) But, if the developers ignore the community for too long then the community will become disgusted by the lack of response. In other words forum post like this one will just be the beginning. Ultimately Paizo's will do what is in their best interest, but the growing pressure may force a reaction.
The size of these thread has to give some clue about the demand. Likewise they seem to crop up over and over, each time started by a different poster with different pundits weighing in. That's a lot of very vocal people calling for a Arcane warrior type as a base class.
If it was me, I just shrug it off as consumer demand and work on the class (of course keeping a high level of quantity in mind). I cant believe there isn't one person at Paizos who would'nt like the opportunity to create a new class, arcane warrior or not.
|
|
I think the difference there is he wants a clean break from the mess o WotC. Based on paizo's proclaimed plan, there is very little chance of the additional rulebooks ever approaching mountainous regions. Perhaps in 10-15 years, but by then we may very well have PF RPG 2.0.
How many 3.5 books are there? I have a book shelf that is slowly collapsing into its own star full of them and I do not own even close to all of them.
I kid, I kid, believe me, I know. I hated the "Complete This-and-That" as much as half of everyone else. And I bought them, too. Except mine are in totes. I just find the whole argument, for either side, to be a bit funny, is all.
Consider: I read indirectly that I've done it wrong, and there is no way that my character can be near as effective as a 1-20 Arcane Warrior class, a pure fighter, or a pure wizard. Knowing this to be false (I'm an optimizer, so sue or persecute me now, and in your mind, if you must), I present a working example, and am told, rather directly, that I am, in fact, doing it wrong.
I offer a solution (multiclass, its not as bad as you think), get shot down; offer another one (homebrew? there's a thread going on over here), shot down; offer another (use some of the older classes, they work pretty well), shot down. At this point, I'm just here for the pleasant company in-between English assignments.
Edit: Maybe, in my free time, I'll get a job at Paizo and secretly create an Arcane Warrior class, then release it in a super-secret PDF before barring myself in my cubicle and stapling ties (bought from a local goodwill store, kept in a box) to any who dare enter to discuss the issue with me. Would that make people happy?
I know it's a little off topic, but that's one of the biggest red flags I saw in 4th edition. I actually play a 4th edition game every other week or so.
I sat down with my DM (who is a bit of a 4th edition fanboy and unnoficial spokesperson for the system, not to mention his gaming budget is a bit huskier than mine)to talk about the lack of versatility within each class. My first concern was the "play a ranger if you want a ranged fighter" arguement. I wanted a human archer. Firmly rooted in european history, run of the mill, welsh longbowman. Nothing fancy, just some medium or light armor, a longbow and a short sword and buckler for when things get hairy. Fairly dimwitted and not particularly strong, just deadly at long range.
"There might be a ranged fighter build coming in PH2, or was it PH3? At any rate they are going to address the versatility of the classes in future supplements"
I went to the Pathfinder SRD that night and ordered the core book about an hour later. WotC be damned. If I wanted WoW I'd activate an account.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Has anyone looked at the Tome of Secrets Spellblade? It has the abilities everyone seems to want (though only 3/4 base attack and 6 level spells...
Bother, I forgot about the spellblade. *slaps forehead* Yes, with the fixes to BAB (average) d8 HP, it is a very good spellthane type class.
I would argue that, since Mr. Jacobs has already chimed in, and, the answer has been given, more or less (I love definite maybes): there are far better ways to go about getting what you want, than simply asking that you get what you want pver and over again, then talking about it endlessly over the span of 5 different threads. For example, say... this board here?
Of course, if you want to discuss "flavor" - [...edit...] Which is to say, there are tons of available, 1st level Arcane Warriors out there in various 3.5/Forgotten Realms splatbooks, take one and call it a "Magical Something-Or-Other of Desna" and your problem should be solved.
Then again, if this is a "Pathfinder flavor issue," I can just keep on pointing out how you can make it to Eldritch Knight by level seven with the purchase of just one Pathfinder trait.
Perhaps some of us don't necessarily want to wait until level 7 and would rather eat our cake right out of the gate at level 1. Like the bard or the cleric, but with a different flavor.
I am curious to see what can come out of a community based discussion. At the least, it'll be interesting statistics that I'd be glad to freely provide when I compile it. In the middle, it would be an interesting demonstration to see whether or not Mr. Jacobs can see what type of cooperation / participation can result from those who are honestly interested from such a niche as to what the majority of participants chose. And at the opposite end, it may likely be just another waste of time leading to epic fail.
*shrug* Make of it what you will. :)
Houserule/Homebrew forums? That sort of defeats the purpose of discussing the addition of an official base class. I don't want to have to houserule the game to death, sorry.
Nevermind how difficult it is to get one's "Homebrewed Class" into a game, barring DMing it yourself.
I actually was focusing more on "Suggestions" in the Community Content section. It's not a Paizo endorsed product, so some of us wouldn't want to harbor any illusion that it is. I figured it was the best place to go, to be frank. Lesser of evils and whatnot...
I think the difference there is he wants a clean break from the mess o WotC. Based on paizo's proclaimed plan, there is very little chance of the additional rulebooks ever approaching mountainous regions. Perhaps in 10-15 years, but by then we may very well have PF RPG 2.0.
How many 3.5 books are there? I have a book shelf that is slowly collapsing into its own star full of them and I do not own even close to all of them.
You're correct - (one of) the intent(s) of my exercise is to divorce from WotC. Like a lot of other grognards on the board, I own a lot of the old 3.0 and 3.5 WotC books as well as a lot of 3PP. But I also realize that those who are recent participants to the game may not have access to these tomes like others do because they're no longer supported unless you manage to score them through venues such as eBay, Half Price Books, Barnes & Noble and Amazon resellers, or cobble information from online SRDs.