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.
No one is asking for a class that outshines another at anything. Paladin, Barbarian, and Fighter all do about the same job, front line fighter. There is no reason why we could not add a caster version there.
There is no reason why we could not have a more hybrid class like a cleric or druid, but with arcane casting. We don't need more casters with a slight melee ting, we already have 2+ PrCs that do that, but perhaps a base class, but I don't see things getting any better than this.
|
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.No one is asking for a class that outshines another at anything. Paladin, Barbarian, and Fighter all do about the same job, front line fighter. There is no reason why we could not add a caster version there.
There is no reason why we could not have a more hybrid class like a cleric or druid, but with arcane casting. We don't need more casters with a slight melee ting, we already have 2+ PrCs that do that, but perhaps a base class, but I don't see things getting any better than this.
cleric or druid are not hybrid classes - they are full casters. Hybrid casters are paladin, ranger or bard (depending on the level of caster focus). Personally I feel eldritch knight, dragon disciple and arcane archer address this role adequately and would not want to see paizo devote resources to this base class.
Sounds like an awesome task for a 3r party publisher. Has anyone pitched the confirmed 3pp for pfrpg yet? Judging by the small but very vocal demand on the boards they might have a good untapped market in the gish.
cleric or druid are not hybrid classes - they are full casters.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.No one is asking for a class that outshines another at anything. Paladin, Barbarian, and Fighter all do about the same job, front line fighter. There is no reason why we could not add a caster version there.
There is no reason why we could not have a more hybrid class like a cleric or druid, but with arcane casting. We don't need more casters with a slight melee ting, we already have 2+ PrCs that do that, but perhaps a base class, but I don't see things getting any better than this.
3/4 base attack, ability to cast in heavy armor and TOWER SHIELD with our problem or an array of alternate forms making them a half-par combatant. They are a hybrid class of a sort, just the ones with a restrictive enough spell list to allow them to have 9th level spells and all their other goodies.
3/4 base attack, ability to cast in heavy armor and TOWER SHIELD with our problem or an array of alternate forms making them a half-par combatant. They are a hybrid class of a sort, just the ones with a restrictive enough spell list to allow them to have 9th level spells and all their other goodies.
Small point here, druids nor cleric gain heavy armor or tower shields. I do agree with the others an arcane warrior should not gain full BAB
The class needs to be a good mesh of both warrior and mage, yet unable to rival a fighter in combat nor a mage in casting. I disagree with full BAB, heavy armor proficiency and tower shield proficiency.
Like I had stated in another thread the cleric is a good comparison for an arcane warrior and they no longer get heavy armor proficiency and have never gotten tower shields. Yet are still argued as overpowered. The armor penalty should be in place because it's a fundamental rule of arcane spellcasting for all classes and seems pretty much universal. I could see a reduced penalty or one that is lessened as you level. I also would say 1d8 as Hit Dice to show the difference in martial and arcane study.
And yes, Paladins get heavy armor. But they cannot cast 1st level clerical spells till 4th level and with an incredibly limited amount. So logically the closest class comparison and a good beginning template to an arcane fighter would have to be the cleric. I don't see why this couldn't work.
Granted the spells need to be tailored to fit, but there is no reason why a fighter/mage couldn't be something like a cleric, but with arcane instead of divine.
I can see a gish with Full BAB & Bard spell progression. If you build an Eldritch Knight you can get +16 BAB & 8-9th level spells. If you take that as being balanced, then there is no problem with what I said. Limit the class to mainly self buffing spells, with a few single target spells. No area effect spells, or battlefield control spells. This can be a fighter that uses spells instead of all feats. Any bonus feat list should have arcane strike & some new ones that build on that type of feat. The problem with 4th level only spells, ala the Paladin, is that by the time you get a spell with decent duration, you will likely have a magic item that does that already.
Small point here, druids nor cleric gain heavy armor or tower shields. I do agree with the others an arcane warrior should not gain full BAB
3/4 base attack, ability to cast in heavy armor and TOWER SHIELD with our problem or an array of alternate forms making them a half-par combatant. They are a hybrid class of a sort, just the ones with a restrictive enough spell list to allow them to have 9th level spells and all their other goodies.
That is more of a personally restriction than anything.
Lets break this down. You have traits W (bast attack/hit die), X (Saves) and Y (Class abilities/skills) which add together to get you Z.
Z is a balanced character.
It doesn't mater the flavor of the abilities so long as the result is Z.
Why do you have this completely unfounded bios?
The class needs to be a good mesh of both warrior and mage, yet unable to rival a fighter in combat nor a mage in casting. I disagree with full BAB, heavy armor proficiency and tower shield proficiency.
Like I had stated in another thread the cleric is a good comparison for an arcane warrior and they no longer get heavy armor proficiency and have never gotten tower shields. Yet are still argued as overpowered. The armor penalty should be in place because it's a fundamental rule of arcane spellcasting for all classes and seems pretty much universal. I could see a reduced penalty or one that is lessened as you level. I also would say 1d8 as Hit Dice to show the difference in martial and arcane study.
And yes, Paladins get heavy armor. But they cannot cast 1st level clerical spells till 4th level and with an incredibly limited amount. So logically the closest class comparison and a good beginning template to an arcane fighter would have to be the cleric. I don't see why this couldn't work.
Granted the spells need to be tailored to fit, but there is no reason why a fighter/mage couldn't be something like a cleric, but with arcane instead of divine.
Battle Sorcerer from Unearthed Arcana.
-Weylin
Please refer to post above yours.
Small point here, druids nor cleric gain heavy armor or tower shields. I do agree with the others an arcane warrior should not gain full BAB
3/4 base attack, ability to cast in heavy armor and TOWER SHIELD with our problem or an array of alternate forms making them a half-par combatant. They are a hybrid class of a sort, just the ones with a restrictive enough spell list to allow them to have 9th level spells and all their other goodies.
No, but with a level dip into fighter, or other class, or just spending the feats, they could far surpass the armor casting ability of any arcane caster could (that gets 9th level spells that is). So it cost them 2 feats, they still do far better at it than an arcane caster after just 2 feats, or even 4 feats for that matter.
No, but with a level dip into fighter, or other class, or just spending the feats, they could far surpass the armor casting ability of any arcane caster could. So it cost them 2 feats, they still do far better at it than an arcane caster after just 2 feats, or even 4 feats for that matter.Small point here, druids nor cleric gain heavy armor or tower shields. I do agree with the others an arcane warrior should not gain full BAB
3/4 base attack, ability to cast in heavy armor and TOWER SHIELD with our problem or an array of alternate forms making them a half-par combatant. They are a hybrid class of a sort, just the ones with a restrictive enough spell list to allow them to have 9th level spells and all their other goodies.
This is a flaw in a class that still needs nerfed, not something to aim at.The cleric is the high end of class power, adding a wizard spells to that package is more then overpowered
That is more of a personally restriction than anything.
No it is indeed a class restriction. Also you need to look at the power of arcane spells vs cleric spells. I myself think clerics needed nearfed more but eh, whatever
3/4th BAB a D8 HD and a limited spell selection should work. A bard is a good baseline for this.
This is a flaw in a class that still needs nerfed, not something to aim at.The cleric is the high end of class power, adding a wizard spells to that package is more then overpowered
That is what spell lists are for. They can work that to better fit the class and balance. Plus, the theoretical class we are talking here doesn't need to get the full 9th level spells ether.
This idea that it HAS TO be anything is a personal restriction on the individual's part, and there is no way around that.
Again, you can do any combination so long as the end result is a balanced character.
Personally, as far as arcane warriors go, there are three options, two of which are possible (with some trait, feat, multiclassing, prestige, etc. choices) using the existing rules:
1) Strong caster, medium combat ability. This can be accomplished by fighter/wizard/eldritch knights, fighter/sorcerer/dragon disciple/eldritch knights, etc. The emphasis is primarily on retaining the maximum possible casting progression (and access to 9th level spells); BAB will probably be around +15 at 20th level.
2) Medium caster, strong combat ability. This can be accomplished by bard/fighter/eldritch knights, fighter/wizard/arcane archers, etc. The emphasis is mostly on BAB (probably around +18 at 20th level), with casting progression secondary (probably access to 6th or 7th level spells).
3) Weak caster, full combat ability. This is the option that is not available using the current "core" rules. This option would have full BAB and casting progression would be limited to 4th level spells.
Some people knock the bard as a choice for an arcane warrior, but the bard starts with light armor, shield use, decent weapons, and +3/4 BAB. The bard's spell list has a good selection of buff/debuff, incapacitating, and information gathering spells. Bardic performances have a variety of battlefield effects (add to attack rolls and damage, add to skill rolls, cause opponents to become shaken, etc.). A variant bard that trades some of the performances (countersong, distraction, fascinate, suggestion, etc.) for other ones (i.e. Inspire Action as a pathfinder chronicler), feats, expanded weapon choices, different spells, or different class abilities may be more palatable for those who have a mental image of the bard as a foppish musician.
Please refer to post above yours.
-Weylin
Battle Sorcerer from Unearthed Arcana took some major hits (well deserved) for what they received.
Battle Sorcerers gained the mid-level BAB and d8 hit die.
They gained Light Armor Proficiency with no inherent way to negate the Arcane Spel Failure Chance. THey just did not have the action penalty. They still had A 10% failure chance in leather armor.
They also gained a any light or one-handed martial weapon of the players's choice (thus one weapon not proficiency in all martial weapons).
In exchange, they lost one spell per day from each spell level (to a minimum of 0). And they lost one spell known from each spell level (to a minimum of 1).
Not exactly the best example to me of the concept of a full BAB, top hit die, medium armor proficient, full casting base class idea that I see floating around the forums.
Um... They got light armor and light shield casting with-out a problem.
Spellcasting
A battle sorcerer can cast sorcerer spells derived from her class levels of battle sorcerer while in light armor without the normal arcane spell failure chance.
do we really need a gish? you could just adapt the 3.5 duskblade, give it a d10 hit dice and whatever changes you feel like and you'll be fine.
but if you want a new hybrid class, i beleive it should be weaker than the equivalent multiclass build. you could say it's the "Impatience" cost. a classes power should be based on how much patience is needed to play one. it gives a sense of balance. i used to think balance was neccessary until i noticed several classes that required more patience. a wizard with it's required level of patience should be stronger than a sorcerer. what do we have for impatient casters? sorcerers, of course. can't keep track of spells, play a class with less toys. i beleive a player shouldn't take on more toys than they can handle playing with.
do we really need a gish? you could just adapt the 3.5 duskblade, give it a d10 hit dice and whatever changes you feel like and you'll be fine.
but if you want a new hybrid class, i beleive it should be weaker than the equivalent multiclass build. you could say it's the "Impatience" cost. a classes power should be based on how much patience is needed to play one. it gives a sense of balance. i used to think balance was neccessary until i noticed several classes that required more patience. a wizard with it's required level of patience should be stronger than a sorcerer. what do we have for impatient casters? sorcerers, of course. can't keep track of spells, play a class with less toys. i beleive a player shouldn't take on more toys than they can handle playing with.
The problem is that, with people like myself, they do like the concept a lot, they noticed that with the new system even with multi-classing and even PrCs there is no way for a full base attack, armored, caster; and even with the PrCs the character still seems rather sub-par to a pure 20 level character. Saying that a hybrid class is over all less useful than a pure one is just bias to ideas. A hybrid should be equal in over all usefulness, not less.
Please refer to post above yours.
-Weylin
Battle Sorcerer from Unearthed Arcana took some major hits (well deserved) for what they received.
Battle Sorcerers gained the mid-level BAB and d8 hit die.
They gained Light Armor Proficiency with no inherent way to negate the Arcane Spel Failure Chance. THey just did not have the action penalty. They still had A 10% failure chance in leather armor.
Not true.
Spellcasting
A battle sorcerer can cast sorcerer spells derived from her class levels of battle sorcerer while in light armor without the normal arcane spell failure chance.
The Battle Sorcerer variant is arguably more powerful than a cleric (especially with the use of prestige classes). The biggest limitation is in the spells known, but they still gain 9th level spells. A battle sorcerer 9/fighter 1/eldritch knight 10 would have +17 BAB and cast 5/5/5/5/5/5/5/5/4/2 spells per day (with 8 0-level and 4/4/3/3/3/2/2/1/1 spells known).
do we really need a gish? you could just adapt the 3.5 duskblade, give it a d10 hit dice and whatever changes you feel like and you'll be fine.
IMO, the duskblade's spell list and casting ability is too powerful for a full BAB class. A full BAB arcane warrior class should probably be in line with the PF RPG paladin (possibly limited to medium armor); i.e., more like the hexblade.
it's called a "Gimme" tax. a prestige class should be something special. how can it be special if it can be copied by a level 1 character? if a duskblade can do in one level what the eldritch knight does in 7, the eldritch knight should be better than the duskblade, in every way. the eldritch knight waited 7 levels, the duskblade started right away. those 7 levels should mean more to compensate for the suffering. in other words, delayed gratification should be rewarded better than instant satisfaction. thus, the "duskblade" should be weaker than the "eldritch knight". the latter waited patiently for 7 levels, the former got it as soon as he was born. patience is a virtue. it works in all other cases, (paladin,...The problem is that, with people like myself, they do like the concept a lot, they noticed that with the new system even with multi-classing and even PrCs there is no way for a full base attack, armored, caster; and even with the PrCs the character still seems rather sub-par to a pure 20 level character. Saying that a hybrid class is over all less useful than a pure one is just bias to ideas. A hybrid should be equal in over all usefulness, not less.do we really need a gish? you could just adapt the 3.5 duskblade, give it a d10 hit dice and whatever changes you feel like and you'll be fine.
but if you want a new hybrid class, i beleive it should be weaker than the equivalent multiclass build. you could say it's the "Impatience" cost. a classes power should be based on how much patience is needed to play one. it gives a sense of balance. i used to think balance was neccessary until i noticed several classes that required more patience. a wizard with it's required level of patience should be stronger than a sorcerer. what do we have for impatient casters? sorcerers, of course. can't keep track of spells, play a class with less toys. i beleive a player shouldn't take on more toys than they can handle playing with.
This "Gimmie" tax seems more like a figment of your imagination as the by far vaster selection of spells the EK gets more than balances out the effects that the duskblade gets, except the duskblade still needs to be updated and upgraded for PFRPG. The duskblade is to par in power of a barbarain (3.5), with re-packaged abilities to the arcane flavor.
The problem is that, with people like myself, they do like the concept a lot, they noticed that with the new system even with multi-classing and even PrCs there is no way for a full base attack, armored, caster; and even with the PrCs the character still seems rather sub-par to a pure 20 level character. Saying that a hybrid class is over all less useful than a pure one is just bias to ideas. A hybrid should be equal in over all usefulness, not less.So you want full BAB...
Level of armor: (light, medium and/or heavy)?
Level of casting: Paladin/Ranger (start at 4th class level and 4th level spells max) or /Bard (start at 1st level and 6th level Max) or Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcer (start at 1st and 9th level max)?
Casting type: Memorization or Spontaneous casting?
Spell acquisition: Open (Cleric), Studied (Wizard)?
Weapon proficiencies: all simple, all simple and a selected list of others, all simple and all martial?
Full BAB would from example classes preclude several of those options especially full caster ability.
That would be up to the game designers on balance really, as this is not my current profession.
However to be a full base attack type of melee caster you would need at least medium armor, and non tower shield with mithral, and not having to spend a feat. You could stretch out casting over all 20 levels replacing a lot of their class abilities. Weapons should be all simple and martial, as per all other front line melee types. Level of spells, spell selection, and how they obtain spells, etc.. I leave it up to the designers on that part for balance.
I think the mid caster/fighter will be the battle sorcerer and this supposed bard variants to come. So this is the only niche not covered for arcane casters.
P.S. Non of those options would preclude ANY of those options period with a full BaB, so long as they are not combined with extremes of a few others.
|
Tons? There's the Hexblade, which is stone cold terrible; it can't contribute meaningfully in a level-appropriate way from about level 4-5 on, and the Duskblade, which has had some discussion here and elsewhere. When I mention the many classes from which one could learn to balance a gish class, not all of them are thematically appropriate (many are psionic or divine) and not all of them work in an arcane-magic way (depending on your definition of "arcane-magic way").
Half as a direct response to AMiB, half as an observation:
This is what is confusing me the most about these discussions.
Thematically appropriate? I don't particularly care to stick to the old theme if I can just as easily call it something else - a la making a ranger and calling it a two weapon fighter - if it suits my purpose and doesn't gum up the mechanics then I'll call the druid a "godsforsaken hippie" if it suits the game. That people are unwilling, or claim to be unable to comprehend or do this is ludicrous to me.
Stepping on toes? As for the classes, true, some of them are mechanically faulty, but some of them work; none of them are designed to work in a traditional Ftr/Wiz/Rog/Clr party, so what the heck kind of role is this thing supposed to fill, anyway? DPRound? Tank? Controller? Healer? Didn't someone just say they wanted to move away from roles and allow you to "... make your own roles?" I mean, I do that through multiclassing, and PrCs, and the characters I make work well in both concept and practice, but nobody wants to hear any of that.
I've watched and participated in the several discussions with some interest, and all I ever really get out of the people asking for this class is that they want the greatest man that ever lived (complete with cowboy hat): "We want a fighter who is also a wizard! No! We want a wizard who is also a fighter! Give us both, and the ability to not step on anyone's toes! I want to be doing level-appropriate fighting and casting, if that's not OK, then please stop talking." Maybe I'm just not thinking progressively enough, but after making what I felt were several reasonable suggestions, the way I'm reading it right now: people know that they want something, but they don't know/can't agree on what it is, and you cannot help them with any of the traditional solutions to this problem unless you can offer up the Jesus of Pathfinder mixed-class perfectly balanced role-defining role playing gameplay; any kind of advice, possible solution, or direction toward more progressive options than complaining are met with "No, because..." "No, because..." and "No, because..." respectively, that is.
But, they still want that class, if only they could figure out exactly what it did... It's kind of disconcerting, really.
Edyt'd fir: spellin reasuns.
Tons? There's the Hexblade, which is stone cold terrible; it can't contribute meaningfully in a level-appropriate way from about level 4-5 on, and the Duskblade, which has had some discussion here and elsewhere. When I mention the many classes from which one could learn to balance a gish class, not all of them are thematically appropriate (many are psionic or divine) and not all of them work in an arcane-magic way (depending on your definition of "arcane-magic way").Half as a direct response to AMiB, half as an observation:
This is what is confusing me the most about these discussions.
Thematically appropriate? I don't particularly care to stick to the old theme if I can just as easily call it something else - a la making a ranger and calling it a two weapon fighter - if it suits my purpose and doesn't gum up the mechanics then I'll call the druid a "godsforsaken hippie" if it suits the game. That people are unwilling, or claim to be unable to comprehend or do this is ludicrous to me.
Stepping on toes? As for the classes, true, some of them are mechanically faulty, but some of them work; none of them are designed to work in a traditional Ftr/Wiz/Rog/Clr party, so what the heck kind of role is this thing supposed to fill, anyway? DPRound? Tank? Controller? Healer? Didn't someone just say they wanted to move away from roles and allow you to "... make your own roles?" I mean, I do that through multiclassing, and PrCs, and the characters I make work well in both concept and practice, but nobody wants to hear any of that.
I've watched and participated in the several discussions with some interest, and all I ever really get out of the people asking for this class is that they want the greatest man that ever lived: "We want a fighter who is also a wizard! No! We want a wizard who is also a fighter! Give us both, and the ability to not step on anyone's toes! I want to be doing level-appropriate fighting and...
i agree with this. How can a tailor sew a dress if she has no cloth?
and to the one who called the gimme tax imaginary.
the gimme tax is somewhat enforced, though it takes a keen eye to notice. one could say it's a figment of my imagination, but is it? it needs a little more enforcement. monstrous races have a gimme tax (level adjustment), certain hybrid classes have a gimme tax. (duskblades and thier tiny list, other class examples i don't need to list) so it does exist.
i'm tired of people looking almost exclusively at the endgame, don't the other parts matter. i deleted a headache inducing blob of text to save your eyes the pain.
I posted this elsewhere, but thought I should reiterate it here.
The biggest problem with the EK Prestige class is the list of entry requirements that automatically force you to be caster-heavy on the levels. The shortest route into that PrC is 1 Martial Class/5 Wizard or 1Martial Class/6 Sorcerer. By the time you qualify for the class, your character doesn't feel very much like a FIGHTER/Mage, it feels more like a Wizard who can use a larger variety of weapons.
If Paizo doesn't want to go the route of publishing some sort of Arcane Warrior base class, I think they could actually just publish an errata for the Eldritch Knight prerequisites so that you can meet them as a 3 Martial/3 Caster character. This would give a lot of people who are looking for the old balanced 1st and 2nd Edition Fighter/Mage feel a great option.
The requirements for the Arcane Archer have the opposite problem, where they pretty much require you to be much more martial-heavy on base classes to qualify. Plus it limits the Fighter/Mage to being a ranged combatant.
|
Ummm... Eldritch knight is not nearly as good as you imagine he is for his "gimme tax". He certainly isn't ahead of the base classes, although he may end up equal at the end of the day.
Duskblade in 3.5 was also equal to core classes in power, but severely limited in his role (damage dealing, all day, no excuses).
Saying that there isn't a place for a WeaponCaster base class, or that it isn't wanted is just wrong. I liked the Duskblade but I also wished for some versatility in the class, like different paths that could be taken in his role. Heck, the Duskblade even had a "gimme tax", less HP, less AC, lack of versatility, limited spell access, no fighter bonus feats, etc. It was a very well-designed and well-balanced class.
I think that Paizo can do one better with a well-designed and well-balanced class that blends might and magic into a wonderful base class.
Tejon is really onto something in THIS THREAD with the IronMage base class and I think this bears some notice as this a class for people wanting a good sword and spell base class that is flexible enough to make you want to play it several different times in several different ways.
Ummm... Eldritch knight is not nearly as good as you imagine he is for his "gimme tax". He certainly isn't ahead of the base classes, although he may end up equal at the end of the day.
Duskblade in 3.5 was also equal to core classes in power, but severely limited in his role (damage dealing, all day, no excuses).
Saying that there isn't a place for a WeaponCaster base class, or that it isn't wanted is just wrong. I liked the Duskblade but I also wished for some versatility in the class, like different paths that could be taken in his role. Heck, the Duskblade even had a "gimme tax", less HP, less AC, lack of versatility, limited spell access, no fighter bonus feats, etc. It was a very well-designed and well-balanced class.
I think that Paizo can do one better with a well-designed and well-balanced class that blends might and magic into a wonderful base class.
Tejon is really onto something in THIS THREAD with the IronMage base class and I think this bears some notice as this a class for people wanting a good sword and spell base class that is flexible enough to make you want to play it several different times in several different ways.
i know, eldritch knight needs to be compensated for it's gimme tax. duskblade could use variant lists. but thats a dm decision. not everything is worth the investment, but power should be balanced against investment. but it isn't. part of a design flaw. but gimme tax, though i brought it up is hurting my brain. gimme taxes seem to exceed thier benefit. exchange should be equal, but it's not. it can only be equalized by a skilled dm.
how "special" is a prestige class if it can be mimicked at a superior power level by a base class 6 levels earlier?
changing the requirements works too. currently it's more of a tank mage than an arcane warrior.
Sheboygen wrote-
"I've watched and participated in the several discussions with some interest, and all I ever really get out of the people asking for this class is that they want the greatest man that ever lived (complete with cowboy hat): "We want a fighter who is also a wizard! No! We want a wizard who is also a fighter! Give us both, and the ability to not step on anyone's toes! I want to be doing level-appropriate fighting and casting, if that's not OK, then please stop talking." Maybe I'm just not thinking progressively enough, but after making what I felt were several reasonable suggestions, the way I'm reading it right now: people know that they want something, but they don't know/can't agree on what it is, and you cannot help them with any of the traditional solutions to this problem unless you can offer up the Jesus of Pathfinder mixed-class perfectly balanced role-defining role playing gameplay; any kind of advice, possible solution, or direction toward more progressive options than complaining are met with "No, because..." "No, because..." and "No, because..." respectively, that is."
Quoted for truth.
how can the tailor sew the dress if she has no cloth to work with?
we need a middleground to base this "Gish" class.
i guess rewriting classes does mess with backwards compatability
and is the "Gimme" tax really imaginary?
i kinda overreacted when i said the gimme tax is a good thing. it was out of frustration from a stomach cramp.
i have been known to go through complete personality shifts from a momentary stomach cramp.
if i sound aggressive in my posting, assume my stomach is cramping or my chest is burning or some other similar issue.
the gimme tax isn't always the best thing. however i do beleive investment should be rewarded with equivalent return. does anyone else beleive in the law of equivalent exchange? i glanced through my books, the exchanges are not as equal as desired.
some cases i beleive the gimme tax is neccessary.
a single class gish should be balanced with the duskblade/hexblade, maybe sacrificing damage for utility.
the duskblade is a gish build that is unique, any other is just a cleric/bard/psychic warrior. we have enough self buffing warriors, a few channelers, and a few Arcane rogues, 1 of which is a gish. we have plenty of gish within 3.5 splatbooks, why not exploit that backwards compatability? get your dm to work with you on possible changes. so the splatbooks are hard to find? borrow from a freind at the table? or homebrew? but homebrew should be a last resort.
i guess the gimme tax is case by case. but it needs more concrete reinforcement. and concrete limitations. so it isn't abused for either munchkin player nor sadistic dm.
|
|
i know, eldritch knight needs to be compensated for it's gimme tax. duskblade could use variant lists. but thats a dm decision. not everything is worth the investment, but power should be balanced against investment. but it isn't. part of a design flaw. but gimme tax, though i brought it up is hurting my brain. gimme taxes seem to exceed thier benefit. exchange should be equal, but it's not. it can only be equalized by a skilled dm.
how "special" is a prestige class if it can be mimicked at a superior power level by a base class 6 levels earlier?
changing the requirements works too. currently it's more of a tank mage than an arcane warrior.
I hate prestige classes. They are a path that requires a PC to take X levels in one class and Y levels in another class and use some of each's power to meet Prereqs to get into the PRC so you can finally, after sucking for many levels, be what your character was supposed to be from day 1.
I would rather toss out all Prestige Classes and have instead nothing but Base Classes and a few prestige classes based on campaign flavor (like the Red Wizards of Thay) with more Roleplay entry requirements and less jumping through hoops with self-gimping character skill/feat selections.The worst part of 3.5 was PRC glut. Why do we want to encourage people to have PCs with 3+ classes just to meet a mind's eye goal for the PC when we could have just one class for that?
|
|
we have enough self buffing warriors, a few channelers, and a few Arcane rogues, 1 of which is a gish. we have plenty of gish within 3.5 splatbooks, why not exploit that backwards compatability? get your dm to work with you on possible changes. so the splatbooks are hard to find? borrow from a freind at the table? or homebrew? but homebrew should be a last resort.
i guess the gimme tax is case by case. but it needs more concrete reinforcement. and concrete limitations. so it isn't abused for either munchkin player nor sadistic dm.
Most of the reason for the desire to have PRPG is that either the DM wants to "keep it all PRPG" or for people wanting to play something in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Others also believe that Paizo is amazing and will make a better representative of the ideal than any previous form it took. I know I am of the latter camp. Paizo is awesome and I want to see them roll out their concept for this.
|
|
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.Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalse. As in "That's so wrong I think it just gave me cancer."
F/MU in 1e or 2e meant that you were only one or two levels behind a single-classer, in both classes. Nobody complained about it being too weak because it was the overpowered munchkin choice.
From there, you wander off onto a tangent about how whiny kids nowadays from a fundamentally misguided start.
I'm not sure about it's cancer as much as a pre-cancerous polyp in your colon.
1e F/Mu was juddery power progression wise; you had to be an elf or half-elf, and I know elves could only be 5th level max fighters, 7th level with a 17 strength or something like that;
So at 1st level you're pretty boucoup. I had one guy that I hated in 9th grade and I'd sleep his first level fighter and kill him with my fighter/magic user over and over again, but you had to get 2,000 exp to advance the fighter to 2nd level and 2,500 to advance the m.u. to 2nd level, so it wasn't over the top. By then everybody else is half way to 4th level.
Any munchkin worth his salt would cheat on his rolls with loaded dice and try to be a pally or a monk in 1e, or that "cavalier class from Dragon," or try to pester their d.m. into using psionics.
Jeesh; I killed 4 trolls with a 1st level cavalier, and went up 5 levels in one combat.
|
|
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.Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalse. As in "That's so wrong I think it just gave me cancer."
F/MU in 1e or 2e meant that you were only one or two levels behind a single-classer, in both classes. Nobody complained about it being too weak because it was the overpowered munchkin choice.
From there, you wander off onto a tangent about how whiny kids nowadays from a fundamentally misguided start.
Honestly, considering your assumptions about 1e, I seriously doubt you've ever played it.
Stop faking the funk.
And, please, don't compare 1e to 2e. They were, in spite of similar mechanics, very different games.
If I'm going to have to hear Trollman arguments, I'd rather not hear them regurgitated third hand.
yes there is too many prestige classes, but certain concepts are better off statted out as prestige classes.
Arcane Warriors are better left as a prestige class as the split focus has to be developed and it's usually an earned position in most Console RPG's. you don't start gish, you earn it. this can be said about any hybrid.
affiliations work better as prestige classes too.
i don't seem to get the whole "Gimme the cool powers now!" that everyone seems to want. i never played a single class hybrid. my hybrids were always multiclassed. i also don't beleive in dipping to cherrypick abilities. i restrict myself to no more than 2 base classes, 3 tops and 1, maybe 2 prcs. but it's rare that i double prc. most of the time, i will play single class, or single class plus a fitting prc. i usually don't go above 4 classes. and 4 classes is a high extreme for me.
if i really want a hybrid, i'll multiclass, and take a prc or 2. i'm willing to wait 7 levels to play my gish. but gish classes do not excite me. not like rotating between rogue and caster does. i don't take just 1 level of a prc either. if i can get that prc's first level ability through feats/magic items or alternate class abilities, i'll do that instead. i'd rather burn an unearthed arcana rogue talent on HiPS than take that shadowdancer level.
I can see a gish with Full BAB & Bard spell progression. If you build an Eldritch Knight you can get +16 BAB & 8-9th level spells. If you take that as being balanced, then there is no problem with what I said. Limit the class to mainly self buffing spells, with a few single target spells. No area effect spells, or battlefield control spells. This can be a fighter that uses spells instead of all feats. Any bonus feat list should have arcane strike & some new ones that build on that type of feat. The problem with 4th level only spells, ala the Paladin, is that by the time you get a spell with decent duration, you will likely have a magic item that does that already.
+99,308
i think those wanting a hybrid should multiclass as well.
the ranger, paladin and bard should have been prestige classes. or each be reworked differently into a unique mold that makes them thier own class. paladin's could be simply knights and more defense focused, ranger's into hunters, bards into "magical" performers. the subraces should have been dropped, period, if nonhumans were meant to cherrypick thier bonuses, why not give everybody a pair of floating bonuses?
in fact, why do we have a class based system if we can through multiclassing cherrypick whatever package we want?
A lot of classes were inspired by fans of other Genres
i won't bother listing.
but dnd is a fantasy kitchen sink.
borrowing from everything
it is not "medieval europe" like most assume.
|
|
Since we're talking about AD&D 1e and not OSRIC, let's look at your examples:
At 3800 xp, the character is still ftr 1/mu 1, since, well, in AD&D it took 2001 xp to become a level 2 fighter and 2500 xp to become a level two mu, and 3800/2 = 1900.
At 5000 xp, the character is a level 2 fighter, level one mu, since you did have enough xp to level (i.e. over 2001) in fighter, you didn't have enough to level (2501) as a mu.
At 5000 xp, the single class fighter is level 3, the wizard is one xp shy of level 3.
Mid levels things even out (the two level lag you describe), after level 9 single classes take off, leaving multi-class characters in the dust.
The thing is, though, 1e isn't 3x. Every point counted, to hit wise, so being two behind a single class mattered. Spells weren't watered down shadows of themselves, so being a level or two behind in spell level capacity meant something.
As far as multiclassing in 1e being the "munchkin" choice, again, you can't look at 1e through a 3x prism. Spellcasting in combat wasn't any easier because you were an elf, if you cast in combat, you probably lost your spell, so you were just a guy who couldn't hit as well as the fighter with your sword. If you stayed back like a wizard, you were just the guy who couldn't cast as powerful a spell. The point of the multi-classing in 1e was versatility, not power. Multi-class didn't step on anyone's toes, it supported both roles while not coming close to outshining either.
Munckins back then just straight cheated on ability scores and magic items. Usually by bringing their character "from a different campaign". They didn't multiclass because it didn't make anyone more powerful, frankly.
A few other things, a male elf capped out at 18/75, not 18, if they had fighter as a class. The munchkin choice in 1e was paladin, by far the most powerful class in 1e, and, by far, the hardest to qualify for (second being the ranger, who had both druid and magic user spells).
Munckins back then just straight cheated on ability scores and magic items. Usually by bringing their character "from a different campaign". They didn't multiclass because it didn't make anyone more powerful, frankly.
munchkins still do that today if they can find the group. why else were point buy and wealth by level invented?
but any smart dungeon masters know to not bring imported characters from "a different campaign" that cheese doesn't fly anymore.
i may request the dice pool variant, but i don't cheat stats. i prefer point buy anyway. however point buy favors even numbers. i think back then that everyone played fighters, am i right? and was the cleric role assigned by drawing straws?
|
|
Munckins back then just straight cheated on ability scores and magic items. Usually by bringing their character "from a different campaign". They didn't multiclass because it didn't make anyone more powerful, frankly.
munchkins still do that today if they can find the group. why else were point buy and wealth by level invented?
but any smart dungeon masters know to not bring imported characters from "a different campaign" that cheese doesn't fly anymore.
That cheese never flew, frankly. Actually, cheese wasn't really invented in D&D until Unearthed Arcana (the proto-"splatbook") was released for AD&D 1e (at least not "official" cheese, there was plenty of dairy product in the pages of Dragon back then).
There's enough queso in 3x to keep chips dipped for years in 3x, however.
|
|
In 1e, you went f/mu because you wanted to cast some spells, but still do something the rest of the time at low level besides throw f!#!ing darts at s##@ and miss after you cast your two spells for the day.
Getting to 2nd level didn't take 11 combats. It took a while.
It was never a cheese move entirely. "Get good stats somehow and be a monk" was a cheese move.
Munckins back then just straight cheated on ability scores and magic items. Usually by bringing their character "from a different campaign". They didn't multiclass because it didn't make anyone more powerful, frankly.
munchkins still do that today if they can find the group. why else were point buy and wealth by level invented?
but any smart dungeon masters know to not bring imported characters from "a different campaign" that cheese doesn't fly anymore.
That cheese never flew, frankly. Actually, cheese wasn't really invented in D&D until Unearthed Arcana (the proto-"splatbook") was released for AD&D 1e (at least not "official" cheese, there was plenty of dairy product in the pages of Dragon back then).
There's enough queso in 3x to keep chips dipped for years in 3x, however.
3.5e Unearthed arcana wasn't all cheese, it warned you on the power variants. 1e may have been.