|
I put together a proof of concept fighter/wizard. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think.
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.
I keep saying this, but check out Monte Cook's runeblade
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.
It's a legitimate question, so I do not understand what all the vitriol is for. And, I'm not just singling you out here. There are several people who would rather give snide response than honest answers. These forums and the members are better than that. Plus, It's not helpful for your cause. The paladin comparisons are not good for your argument because the paladin brings a unique skill set and role in the DnD world (NOTE I said in the DnD WORLD, not PARTY ROLE. There is a difference.)
All that said... For the most part, I agree with the developers that the core classes are there to build from. And this would be a prime case for a multi-class, which seems to be how the developers designed things. Still, I can understand your desire for a Spellthane, Bladecaster, Spellfighter or whatever you feel like calling it. If you pace out the abilities and limit the spell list I think it could work well.
The problem you're going to run into here is that some people want a fighting mage and others want a spell casting fighter. Some want the cake and the ability to eat it too (but we'll ignore them). If you do this as a group project, you'll need to define what it is you want to do very clearly. I'd love to see this take shape.
Yet, in Pathfinder, 3.0 and 3.5 the ranges fighter is completely viable. Having seen it in action the build is great. I was just using it as an example of the pigeon-holing 4th edition has been reduced to. Yeah, probably not the place to discuss it. But it doesn't need to be debated anyway.
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.
While the MTV, Microwave dinner set might not have the patience, a good player who understands the game mechanics and wants to invest time and play into a character would feel that the path to Eldritch Knight is working exactly as intended.
And believe me, I know that rules differ at all tables and no game is "right" or "wrong" as long as all included have fun. I play 2 different groups a week and they are like night and day. But for me, if one of my players wanted a warrior/mage build, I'd open the page to Eldritch Knight and say, "Here you go."
Sorry, but the progression through EK just feels like a back stab. You take a bunch of feats that take up swift actions, such as arcane strike, and arcane armor training just to get the capstone that is unpredictable in use, and if you use ether of the feats that you used to get there it just not exist, and so it does not for most situations.
But that is my feeling with the class.
Really? People want a mage/wizard base class?
Seriously though. My way of thinking is that a warrior/mage SHOULD take time. You don't have to agree with me. I'm all for people playing to have fun. I'm sorry the system doesn't accomodate you in this. The problem I foresee is that you won't see anything on this till 2011 if at all, so people might want to look at other books or systems. I wish you luck.
|
|
Problem with non-PrC combo like the arcane fighter base class is where does that stop?
Fighter-Rogue base class
Fighter-Monk base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Arcane Caster" base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Divine Caster" base class
Rogue-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Monk-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Barbarian-Divine Caster base class <Foaming at the mouth rabble rouser>Then also how much of each core class to include?
1/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 3/4 caster?
1/2 and 1/2?
3/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 1/4 caster?Whichever is decided on ratios there will be many complaints of "not enough of this aspect" or "too much of that aspect".
-Weylin
I agree with this statement.
Problem with non-PrC combo like the arcane fighter base class is where does that stop?
Fighter-Rogue base class
Fighter-Monk base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Arcane Caster" base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Divine Caster" base class
Rogue-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Monk-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Barbarian-Divine Caster base class <Foaming at the mouth rabble rouser>Then also how much of each core class to include?
1/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 3/4 caster?
1/2 and 1/2?
3/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 1/4 caster?Whichever is decided on ratios there will be many complaints of "not enough of this aspect" or "too much of that aspect".
-Weylin
Thats what happened with WoTC. Beguiler (rogue/mage), scout (rogue/ranger), Swashbuckler (fighter/rogue) etc etc
Having said, clearly the arcane warrior is a different breed. Since 1e, there has always been the elf fighter/magic-user. Heck in OD&D the elf class was just that
I agree with this statement.Problem with non-PrC combo like the arcane fighter base class is where does that stop?
Fighter-Rogue base class
Fighter-Monk base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Arcane Caster" base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Divine Caster" base class
Rogue-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Monk-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Barbarian-Divine Caster base class <Foaming at the mouth rabble rouser>Then also how much of each core class to include?
1/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 3/4 caster?
1/2 and 1/2?
3/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 1/4 caster?Whichever is decided on ratios there will be many complaints of "not enough of this aspect" or "too much of that aspect".
-Weylin
As stated, those could clearly be different classes for different options for the player.
|
|
Problem with non-PrC combo like the arcane fighter base class is where does that stop?
Fighter-Rogue base class
Fighter-Monk base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Arcane Caster" base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Divine Caster" base class
Rogue-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Monk-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Barbarian-Divine Caster base class <Foaming at the mouth rabble rouser>Then also how much of each core class to include?
1/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 3/4 caster?
1/2 and 1/2?
3/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 1/4 caster?Whichever is decided on ratios there will be many complaints of "not enough of this aspect" or "too much of that aspect".
-Weylin
Thats what happened with WoTC. Beguiler (rogue/mage), scout (rogue/ranger), Swashbuckler (fighter/rogue) etc etc
Having said, clearly the arcane warrior is a different breed. Since 1e, there has always been the elf fighter/magic-user. Heck in OD&D the elf class was just that
Elves sing, dance, love art, use long bows and longswords, cast a bit, fight a bit, have knowlege gained over the ages.......
HELLO THE NEW BARD INCARNATIONS SINCE 1ST ED.
Its right there infront of everyone....blade SINGER
You realize a bladesinger doesn't actually sing right? They also don't play instruments in combat. Bladesingers are warriors through and through, not a fighting minstrel.
Well, I am playing a 'gish' Bladesinger now.
Much greater than the prestige-class design.
Home-brew built by the gm.
:)
Ohhh.. The Bladesinger... Yeah... Those were the days... :)
And I remember with extreme joy the good old days of the Bladesinger... how I miss it...
|
|
I don't have any problem with combination-style base classes if you want to keep going that route. I actually thought the beguiler was an amazingly fun and interesting class, and the scout was pretty cool too. Both filled really cool niches, and managed to combine different base classes in a way that made the end result still feel really interesting and different.
Personally, I don't understand why people have a problem with having more options. If you don't want the options nobody's forcing you to use them. One of the guys I game with sometimes doesn't ever use anything non-core. He plays in games with us where all of the rest of us do, and he's perfectly content to just stick to his core books. He won't even consider anything from a different book. And you know what? That's fine. He sticks to core, we try out new things. Nobody loses!
Honestly, the diversity of options is one of the main attractions of 3.5 for me. Some people love restrictions. Some people love options. The game works great for either group of people because it allows the restrictions people to just ignore anything they're not interested in, but the game's publisher stays in business by continuing to put out books for the options people.
I just really don't see comments like "this shouldn't be possible without multi-classing" or "I agree they could, I just don't think they should" as productive. Great. We get it. You don't want to play Pathfinder like this. But some of us do, and we're not telling you how to play your games. You want to stick to core? Awesome. You want to multi-class your way into crazy hybrid archetypes? Fantastic. Not everyone else wants to play the game the same way as you. I've been trying not to bring it up, but I actually love multi-classing too. A big part of multi-classing for me, however, is having lots of class options to keep myself entertained. Is that the wrong way to play? No, it's just not the way everyone plays.
I realize Paizo's consciously attempting not to publish nearly as many books as WotC, but they're a game publishing company and the way they keep Pathfinder alive and healthy is by continuing to put out new supplements. That's going to mean new classes from time to time. Sometimes those classes won't be for you, or you'll think they could have been done some other way and it'll irk you for some reason. It's just something that has to be lived with if you want to play this game, and it doesn't do anybody any good to write it off publicly just because it wasn't intended for you.
Oh boy...
Why do I get the impression that the real problem is that too many people imagine a bard MUST look like Danny Kaye in a pink leotard (maybe because all Bard iconics are small rogueish blond guys?) rather than the dark leather-trenchcoated Albino type (but... wait... there is an iconic like that: Fighter/Mage in 2nd Darkness...).
Bards have a good BAB, they have nice buffs/self-buffs, decent hp and saves, all they need is a martial spell selection.
You can build awesome fighter concepts with the bard, just stop being sissies thinking bards haveing a code that forces them to run around in jesters' costumes pulling pranks and singing in falsetto.
The Paladin is not a Fighter/Cleric. The Paladin sucks at turning and healing compared to a cleric and spells are capped at 4th level.
No they won't. :P
The Paladin was used as an example several times and my point simply was, you cannot expect a Spell-toting Swordwielder with full BAB and 9th level spells. Yes, I know, no-one wants that and no-one ever asked for that.
So, the bard is only the third best melee fighter in the group? who's number one the fighter and then? the rogue?
As a bard you give yourself and your party an attack AND damage bonus for umpteen rounds.
So this class shall be the best melee fighter in the party AND sling combat spells!? Why does that smack of glory-hounding?
BTW: I had a Bard 7/Barbarian 2 in STAP and I outclassed the crank Ranger 5/Fighter 1/Barbarian 2/Warshaper 1 Were-Baboon and was only outclassed by the (imo broken) Warblade.
No they won't. :P
The Paladin was used as an example several times and my point simply was, you cannot expect a Spell-toting Swordwielder with full BAB and 9th level spells. Yes, I know, no-one wants that and no-one ever asked for that.
So, the bard is only the third best melee fighter in the group? who's number one the fighter and then? the rogue?
As a bard you give yourself and your party an attack AND damage bonus for umpteen rounds.
So this class shall be the best melee fighter in the party AND sling combat spells!? Why does that smack of glory-hounding?BTW: I had a Bard 7/Barbarian 2 in STAP and I outclassed the crank Ranger 5/Fighter 1/Barbarian 2/Warshaper 1 Were-Baboon and was only outclassed by the (imo broken) Warblade.
Glory hounding? Not at all.
Think of it this way. What makes a fighter a fighter? Is it JUST his BAB and heavy armor? Or is it his giant mound of feats that make him infinitely customizable, a solid damage dealer, and combat tactician?Instead of feats we want a character that accomplishes the same things with magic. Instead of Weapon Specialization he casts Bull Strength on himself, instead of power attacking he zaps his opponent through his sword with Shocking Grasp, instead of throwing his axe at a fleeing opponent he Magic Missiles him.
We're really not asking for something more powerful, just something that has a different style and flavor. You're right, the Paladin is more than just a cleric/fighter and we want more than just a wizard/fighter. We want a cool, iconic base class that finds its own niche.
Riffing on Loopy's ideas from the other gish thread: the Iron Mage.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[Glory hounding? Not at all.
Think of it this way. What makes a fighter a fighter? Is it JUST his BAB and heavy armor? Or is it his giant mound of feats that make him infinitely customizable, a solid damage dealer, and combat tactician?Instead of feats we want a character that accomplishes the same things with magic. Instead of Weapon Specialization he casts Bull Strength on himself, instead of power attacking he zaps his opponent through his sword with Shocking Grasp, instead of throwing his axe at a fleeing opponent he Magic Missiles him.
We're really not asking for something more powerful, just something that has a different style and flavor. You're right, the Paladin is more than just a cleric/fighter and we want more than just a wizard/fighter. We want a cool, iconic base class that finds its own niche.
Ever notice how no one says the psychic warrior horns in on the fighter's toes?
This despite buffs (vigour, psionic lion's charge) healing (body adjustment, vampiric X) debuffs (dispel psionics, poison) area effects (hostile empathic transfer, breath of the X dragon) movement (dimension slide, hustle) unique feats (deep impact, psionic weapon) and any power they want (expanded knowlege).
I am not arguing with you or any other of the viewpoints here, but this statement is incorrect based on many posts by Paizo employees. Their main focus is Adventure Paths, not supplements.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I realize Paizo's consciously attempting not to publish nearly as many books as WotC, but they're a game publishing company and the way they keep Pathfinder alive and healthy is by continuing to put out new supplements. That's going to mean new classes from time to time. Sometimes those classes won't be for you, or you'll think they could have been done some other way and it'll irk you for some reason. It's just something that has to be lived with if you want to play this game, and it doesn't do anybody any good to write it off publicly just because it wasn't intended for you.
|
|
I am not arguing with you or any other of the viewpoints here, but this statement is incorrect based on many posts by Paizo employees. Their main focus is Adventure Paths, not supplements.
That may be their focus, but it isn't what's going to keep the game alive and healthy. Paizo never stopped putting out adventures for this system in the time between the advent of 4th edition and the release of Pathfinder, and I'm sure those adventures sold, and I personally never stopped playing 3.5, but a legion of people jumped ship for 4th edition solely based on the virtue that it was still being published. Obviously none of us know, but I'd almost guarantee that Paizo's adventure sales dipped considerably after the announcement and release of 4th edition, and the release of the Pathfinder RPG probably revitalized those sales considerably. I can't believe the decision to publish the PFRPG was in no way influenced by the desire to keep their adventures sale-able. Ceasing production of new game books would do the same thing to their adventure sales that WotC did when they pulled the plug on 3.5.
Elves sing, dance, love art, use long bows and longswords, cast a bit, fight a bit, have knowlege gained over the ages.......HELLO THE NEW BARD INCARNATIONS SINCE 1ST ED.
Its right there infront of everyone....blade SINGER
...1st ed bards were semi-druids. They did not have arcane spells of any kind. They were fighter/thief/druids really....
And bladesingers did not exist either, actual fighter/magic-users did but bladesinger is a 2nd ed splat book thing.
No they won't. :P
The Paladin was used as an example several times and my point simply was, you cannot expect a Spell-toting Swordwielder with full BAB and 9th level spells. Yes, I know, no-one wants that and no-one ever asked for that.
So, the bard is only the third best melee fighter in the group? who's number one the fighter and then? the rogue?
As a bard you give yourself and your party an attack AND damage bonus for umpteen rounds.
So this class shall be the best melee fighter in the party AND sling combat spells!? Why does that smack of glory-hounding?BTW: I had a Bard 7/Barbarian 2 in STAP and I outclassed the crank Ranger 5/Fighter 1/Barbarian 2/Warshaper 1 Were-Baboon and was only outclassed by the (imo broken) Warblade.
If the bards abilities were shifted slightly toward combat I think it would satisfy the majority of people asking for a blade mage type. The songs, though good, dont fit that image. The class is also pretty heavily skill focused, and the spell list focuses mostly on enchantment and illusion. If this could be focused more on the transmutation and abjuration schools and the emphasis on skills and group buffs reduced in exchange for combat abilities I would be quite satisfied with it being the fighter mage class.
But I think this is a new class, and is a worthwhile class to develop. Just like the ranger and paladin are different flavors of something pretty similar (a fighter type with some divine spells) i think it is reasonable to desire a bardlike class that who's class abilities are shifted in a different direction.
So basically what i want is a class based off the bard, with bard spell progression, with a different spell list that shifts away from enchantment and illussion, 3/4 bab, and some class abilities that lend themselves to combat.
I would also like to see an arcane class more akin to the paladin/ranger. Full BaB, with more combat abilities then the above class and the spell progression of the ranger/paladin in arcane spells.
The argument being made about the paladin, was that you can get the FLAVOR of a paladin by combining a few levels of cleric with alot of levels of fighter. You can also get the flavor of the ranger by combining a few druid levels with alot of levels of fighter. And you can get the bard flavor by combining a sorceror with several levels of rogue. The argument is meant to counter the 'just multiclass' argument. It is not meant to say I want a full bab class with 9 levels of casting and free meteorswarms as a swift action once per round. I dont want to just multiclass, i want a class that combines the two elements (fighting and magic) in an interesting but balanced way that i cannot get via multiclassing.
I dont want to have my cake and eat it too, I would simply like a strawberry short cake instead of chocolate moose (dessert preferences not withstanding).
|
|
No they won't. :P
The Paladin was used as an example several times and my point simply was, you cannot expect a Spell-toting Swordwielder with full BAB and 9th level spells. Yes, I know, no-one wants that and no-one ever asked for that.
So, the bard is only the third best melee fighter in the group? who's number one the fighter and then? the rogue?
As a bard you give yourself and your party an attack AND damage bonus for umpteen rounds.
So this class shall be the best melee fighter in the party AND sling combat spells!? Why does that smack of glory-hounding?BTW: I had a Bard 7/Barbarian 2 in STAP and I outclassed the crank Ranger 5/Fighter 1/Barbarian 2/Warshaper 1 Were-Baboon and was only outclassed by the (imo broken) Warblade.
If the bards abilities were shifted slightly toward combat I think it would satisfy the majority of people asking for a blade mage type. The songs, though good, dont fit that image. The class is also pretty heavily skill focused, and the spell list focuses mostly on enchantment and illusion. If this could be focused more on the transmutation and abjuration schools and the emphasis on skills and group buffs reduced in exchange for combat abilities I would be quite satisfied with it being the fighter mage class.
But I think this is a new class, and is a worthwhile class to develop. Just like the ranger and paladin are different flavors of something pretty similar (a fighter type with some divine spells) i think it is reasonable to desire a bardlike class that who's class abilities are shifted in a different direction.
So basically what i want is a class based off the bard, with bard spell progression, with a different spell list that shifts away from enchantment and illussion, 3/4 bab, and some class abilities that lend themselves to combat.
I would also like to see an arcane class more akin to the paladin/ranger. Full BaB, with more combat abilities then the above class and the spell progression of the ranger/paladin in arcane...
I believe that earlier in this thread (maybe it was one of the other gish threads though) that Jacob's came ina nd said flat out that there would be new options for gishness for bards coming in the APG. If an alternate spell list and a few variant features would quell the folks that need to get their gish on, then it really wouldn't even need a new class.
You could even reflavor the bards singing abilities to say the bard is channeling an arcane aura that is offering those effects instead (buffs to party members and detriments to foes, and the ability to counterspell), and base them off of concentration instead of perform.
Then swap out some of the enchantments from the list for a few transmutations and abjurations (and maybe the occasional evocation). Then you have just what you wanted.
Then you are done.
love,
malkav
Thats what happened with WoTC. Beguiler (rogue/mage), scout (rogue/ranger), Swashbuckler (fighter/rogue) etc etc
Having said, clearly the arcane warrior is a different breed. Since 1e, there has always been the elf fighter/magic-user. Heck in OD&D the elf class was just that
By that very statement the arcane warrior is not a different breed. It is another hybrid class like all the other combinations I mentioned. Precedent doesnt change that. Dwarf also used to be a class, yet dwarves can now do something besides be short stocky fighters.
-Weylin
Agreed. It is certainly a hybrid class. Absolutely. But it is long been a poplular concept in D&D. When I played the basic game of OD&D in thet late 70s/early 80s, you played the Elf class. It was essentially a fighter/magic-user.
In 1st edition AD&D I would say the most popular mulit-class demi-human was the elf fighter/magic-use combo.
Literature has many such characters. Much more than say cleric/rogues or druid/rangers etc etc
And yes, we can do different things with these classes. Thankfully. I hated even back in the 1st edition days the prejudice agains demi-humans who can only advance to certain levels (excpt thieves for some strange reason). We used to house rule that all the time. I am very glad we can play dwarven bards and gnome rangers.
My only point is that I feel the arcane fighter is so iconic that may be it should be base class to some degree.
[I believe that earlier in this thread (maybe it was one of the other gish threads though) that Jacob's came ina nd said flat out that there would be new options for gishness for bards coming in the APG. If an alternate spell list and a few variant features would quell the folks that need to get their gish on, then it really wouldn't even need a new class.
You could even reflavor the bards singing abilities to say the bard is channeling an arcane aura that is offering those effects instead (buffs to party members and detriments to foes, and the ability to counterspell), and base them off of concentration instead of perform.
Then swap out some of the enchantments from the list for a few transmutations and abjurations (and maybe the occasional evocation). Then you have just what you wanted.
Then you are done.
I do beleive that has alot of promise, and I look forward to seeing it. But I am not sure how much can be changed without it being a completely new class. As for swapping things out, obviously i can do this, I already am working on such a class, but obviously here i am not asking what i can do myself, I am asking what the proffessionals at paizo can do. They are better at it then me. The alternate features for the bard sound cool but I am hesitant as I get hung up by the songs, which to me are support features, for a guy who is more of a back line character. I have never seen a balanced class that has the kind of buffing abilities the bard has with its songs and is a capable frontliner. I dont think it can be done. It is that set of abilities specifically, the songs that i would want shifted from what they are to something that makes the class a melee class.
Like James said classes are like cups, theres only so much you can pour in before it spills and becomes overpowered. I would like to see the songs poured out, and combat abilities poured in. Songs are what makes a bard a bard, if those are removed, you have a new class in my opinion.
Hail to the Chief!
|
|
I do beleive that has alot of promise, and I look forward to seeing it. But I am not sure how much can be changed without it being a completely new class. As for swapping things out, obviously i can do this, I already am working on such a class, but obviously here i am not asking what i can do myself, I am asking what the proffessionals at paizo can do. They are better at it then me. The alternate features for the bard sound cool but I am hesitant as I get hung up by the songs, which to me are support features, for a guy who is more of a back line character. I have never seen a balanced class that has the kind of buffing abilities the bard has with its songs and is a capable frontliner. I dont think it can be done. It is that set of abilities specifically, the songs that i would want shifted from what they are to something that makes the class a melee class.Like James said classes are like cups, theres only so much you can pour in before it spills and becomes overpowered. I would like to see the songs poured out, and combat abilities poured in. Songs are what makes a bard a bard, if those are removed, you have a new class in my opinion.
The marshal is an example of such a class (I think it was originally printed in the Miniatures Handbook). Its easy to get hung up on singing bards.
I once proposed a new campaign that I had been working on for months to my gaming group (this was many years ago) that was dark, gritty, super-cereal, and just full of oppressive evil coolness (IMO of course). And my bastard players, despite having access to cool new options I had designed to give players access to tapping dark power, and the dismal hell hole of a town that I started the game in decided to make a....mariachi band as their group concept. And I ended up with a group of musicians with a penchant for bad jokes, and a wagon full of busted up musical instruments. I was horrified, but I am not one to let my players get the best of me, so I ran with it, and it turned out to be a fantastic campaign that is still talked about fondly to this day, that started as a joke to try put me off.
I have also seen bards that don't sing. My favorite bard was a magician (not a wizard but a guy who did card tricks and pulled rabbits out of hats). You could also use things like perform:oratory to inspire your comrades. I even had a player once who developed kind of a Kata dance of death that he used as his perform:dance.
A bard does not have to be spoony. He just has to have force of personality. This could easily be modified to force of will.
I guess in the long run I am not opposed to new options and classes. I just prefer that they cover vastly different concepts and playstyles. I feel that the arcane warrior can easily be handled with the current classes (which I view as a tool box to help me make concepts come to life). Basically when I have an idea that can be juxtaposed against a current option and found to be very close, I don't see the need to make a new class for it, when it pretty much fits in whats already there.
But I digress. If you want a new class then keep asking for it. In the interim my groups will be playing out their gish fantasies with the current classes. I am not opposed to asking for more options. I am opposed to the idea that those options are necessary for the concept to be visualized in the system.
love,
malkav
The marshal is an example of such a class (I think it was originally printed in the Miniatures Handbook). Its easy to get hung up on singing bards.
I once proposed a new campaign that I had been working on for months to my gaming group (this was many years ago) that was dark, gritty, super-cereal, and just full of oppressive evil coolness (IMO of course). And my bastard players, despite having access to cool new options I had designed to give players access to tapping dark power, and the dismal hell hole of a town that I started the game in decided to make a....mariachi band as their group concept. And I ended up with a group of musicians with a penchant for bad jokes, and a wagon full of busted up musical instruments. I was horrified, but I am not one to let my players get the best of me, so I ran with it, and it turned out to be a fantastic campaign that is still talked about fondly to this day, that started as a joke to try put me off.
I have also seen bards that don't sing. My favorite bard was a magician (not a wizard but a guy who did card tricks and pulled rabbits out of hats). You could also use things like perform:oratory to inspire your comrades. I even had a player once who developed kind of a Kata dance of death that he used as his perform:dance.
A bard does not have to be spoony. He just has to have force of personality. This could easily be modified to force of will.
I guess in the long run I am not opposed to new options and classes. I just prefer that they cover vastly different concepts and playstyles. I feel that the arcane warrior can easily be handled with the current classes (which I view as a tool box to help me make concepts come to life). Basically when I have an idea that can be juxtaposed against a current option and found to be very close, I don't see the need to make a new class for it, when it pretty much fits in whats already there.
But I digress. If you want a new class then keep asking for it. In the interim my groups will be playing out their gish fantasies with the current classes. I am not opposed to asking for more options. I am opposed to the idea that those options are necessary for the concept to be visualized in the system.
Damn post eating monster....
Anyway let me try that again.
The marshal is actually a great example of what can go wrong when you try to make a balanced melee class with buffing abilities comparable to the bard. The martial's auras were great. In the games i've played with a martial in the party we all loved having him around. But the truth is, as a melee combatant, he was atrocious. He had no class abilities tied to this, all he had was armor and a longsword. This does not make a class a combat type. There have to be class abilities tied to fighting. The martial didnt really have this as all of its class ability juice for the cups was put into the buffing auras.
A bard that still has its songs will have this same problem. And I am fully aware a bard doesnt have to 'sing'. But its buffs are a large part of its collective abilities, and it while very good is not a combat geared ability.
I also agree that this isnt a 'need', its a want. There is no dire need for a magic fighting type of class, but there is no more need for a paladin, a bard, or a ranger. These concepts can be just as well covered by the other classes. The issue is it is more difficult to do and because spell casting multiclasses poorly (for good reason mind you) it does not work out very well. I have attempted a fighter mage type on a few occassions, and it is possible within the 3.5 material to munchkin my way to a pretty good character. But the fact is, the whole point of pathfinder to me is I shouldnt have to munchkin my way to a good character, it shouldnt be that hard.
In my view making a fighter mage (which is not some new fangle concept) should be as difficult to make as a paladin, bard, or any other class for that matter. I have on numerous occassions in my gaming career particularly in 3.5's span introduced new people to the game. I have had a couple occassions where someone had in mind the fighter mage image as what they wanted to play. I had to turn them away from it, or build it for them in those cases because it is comparatively difficult to do. This is a fairly iconic character type, that A is rather poor at low levels, and B almost completely excludes newer players because it is hard to do. I think this should be corrected and would like to see paizo do it.
Oh boy...
Why do I get the impression that the real problem is that too many people imagine a bard MUST look like Danny Kaye in a pink leotard (maybe because all Bard iconics are small rogueish blond guys?) rather than the dark leather-trenchcoated Albino type (but... wait... there is an iconic like that: Fighter/Mage in 2nd Darkness...).Bards have a good BAB, they have nice buffs/self-buffs, decent hp and saves, all they need is a martial spell selection.
You can build awesome fighter concepts with the bard, just stop being sissies thinking bards haveing a code that forces them to run around in jesters' costumes pulling pranks and singing in falsetto.The Paladin is not a Fighter/Cleric. The Paladin sucks at turning and healing compared to a cleric and spells are capped at 4th level.
The bards are the generalists, not the armored mage we are looking for. They spend too much of their effectiveness getting little bits of everything to be effective at anything. When we see an arcane warrior we see jedi or duskblade, not the guy that sings to improve the party and loses abilities to silent spells or being under water, or the guy that gets a bonus to knowledge skills.
To say a bard fits an armored mage is like saying it fits the role of any other basic class concept, fighter, mage, cleric, or rogue.
Oh boy...
Why do I get the impression that the real problem is that too many people imagine a bard MUST look like Danny Kaye in a pink leotard[?]
Simcha...I think I love you...[strum-strum strum-strum]
Simcha...I think I love you...[strum-strum strum-strum]Oh boy...
Why do I get the impression that the real problem is that too many people imagine a bard MUST look like Danny Kaye in a pink leotard[?]
How flattering... :P
Simcha...I think I love you...[strum-strum strum-strum]Oh boy...
Why do I get the impression that the real problem is that too many people imagine a bard MUST look like Danny Kaye in a pink leotard[?]
Danny Kaye was an Fing PIMP!!!!!!!!!!
You realize a bladesinger doesn't actually sing right? They also don't play instruments in combat. Bladesingers are warriors through and through, not a fighting minstrel.
No, the bladesigner doesn't sing, but it makes its sword whistle in an almost artistic way.
While I agree that bladesigners are not 'fighting minstrels', they aren't far from artists themselves and the bard class seems to me like a pretty good platform for a bladesigner character.
Yet the bard has its challenges to fit the fighter/mage role adequately. It would need more martial options, but some are coming soon we've been told. I wouldn't mind to see martial use of the bardic music, which would fit the bladesinger archetype and if the fluff is right, more down-to-earth concepts as well. The bard's spell list also lack a bit of punch and battle spells beyond self-buffing IMO.
All that to say that I think that the bard COULD fit the role adequately, but for the moment, the bard doesn't quite cut it.
I think that the question of base-class vs multiclass is a more central issue however. With Paizo's position on rewarding single-class characters and opening new optional base classes, the relevance of depending on multiclassing to achieve a well-defined role such as the fighter/mage is somewhat diminished. Multiclassing will still be useful to tweak a character concept, but with the way things are going with Pathfinder RPG, basic character concepts combining elements of two or more classes seem to be better off with their own base class. In that light, I would encourage the creation of some kind of generic arcane warrior base class that could later be geared toward a narrower concept through multiclassing with another base classes or a prestige classes.
'findel
|
Problem with non-PrC combo like the arcane fighter base class is where does that stop?
Fighter-Rogue base class
Fighter-Monk base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Arcane Caster" base class
Fighter-"Spontaneous Divine Caster" base class
Rogue-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Monk-Spellcaster(any sort)base class
Barbarian-Divine Caster base class <Foaming at the mouth rabble rouser>Then also how much of each core class to include?
1/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 3/4 caster?
1/2 and 1/2?
3/4 fighter/rogue/monk/babarian and 1/4 caster?Whichever is decided on ratios there will be many complaints of "not enough of this aspect" or "too much of that aspect".
-Weylin
Thats what happened with WoTC. Beguiler (rogue/mage), scout (rogue/ranger), Swashbuckler (fighter/rogue) etc etc
Having said, clearly the arcane warrior is a different breed. Since 1e, there has always been the elf fighter/magic-user. Heck in OD&D the elf class was just that
Funny thing about the AD&D elf fighter/mage, though. They lagged behind (i.e. weren't as "viable") single class fighters and wizards (usually by two or three levels in each class. As in a party with a 9th level fighter and a 7th level wizard would have the poor elf at 4/3 Fighter-MU).
Obviously, I'm not going to get into the OD&D/Basic elf, as class and race were one in the same were you not a human, but even then, neither fighting ability nor spell casting progressed as quickly as that of a human fighter or magic user.
However, the people here I see that seem to have been weened on 3x want said class to be "billy badass" in both skill sets. And that's the rub: 3x multi-lassing does emulate the progression that the iconic elf f/mu followed in 1e. Problem is, the way the system works in 3x punishes anyone who wants to play certain concepts (like the iconic elf f/mu) unless the DM does some serious messing with the base assumptions of the ecl/cr/every underlying mechanic of 3x.
So, basically, people need to accept that such a class won't be nearly as good as a fighter or wizard at their particular shtick, but would be more versatile and able to back up those niches, or they have to look in the mirror and just own their munchkinness.
Either way. But it would make the debate easier and coming up with a class (and I still don't see what's wrong with the bard, other than some "flavor" people don't care for) that would actually work within the system, and not be some ridiculous munchkin wet dream.
|
|
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.
My favorite bards don't play instruments, but rather serve as masters of lore, treasure-stores of knowledge, and warrior-skalds on the battle field. No time to tune a lute as your marshaling your forces into battle!
Houstonderek wrote "Funny thing about the AD&D elf fighter/mage, though. They lagged behind (i.e. weren't as "viable") single class fighters and wizards (usually by two or three levels in each class. As in a party with a 9th level fighter and a 7th level wizard would have the poor elf at 4/3 Fighter-MU).
Obviously, I'm not going to get into the OD&D/Basic elf, as class and race were one in the same were you not a human, but even then, neither fighting ability nor spell casting progressed as quickly as that of a human fighter or magic user.
However, the people here I see that seem to have been weened on 3x want said class to be "billy badass" in both skill sets. And that's the rub: 3x multi-lassing does emulate the progression that the iconic elf f/mu followed in 1e. Problem is, the way the system works in 3x punishes anyone who wants to play certain concepts (like the iconic elf f/mu) unless the DM does some serious messing with the base assumptions of the ecl/cr/every underlying mechanic of 3x.
So, basically, people need to accept that such a class won't be nearly as good as a fighter or wizard at their particular shtick, but would be more versatile and able to back up those niches, or they have to look in the mirror and just own their munchkinness.
Either way. But it would make the debate easier and coming up with a class (and I still don't see what's wrong with the bard, other than some "flavor" people don't care for) that would actually work within the system, and not be some ridiculous munchkin wet dream."
All this rings true with me also. People have said that the Paladin is the divine version but they get 4th level spells maximum starting at 4th level and to be fair the Paladin needs to spread its stats over STR, WIS and CHA.
Most of the proposals I have seen want full BAB, arcane spells with no spell failure, minimum three schools to pick spells from, martial weapons, spells from the start topping out at 6th level, etc. It is too much IMO.
Yes I understand the desire for such a class but it shouldn't outshine the Fighter at fighting or the Wizard at casting at any level.