|
I'm going to boldize the following because it has been reiterated over and over again in this thread, and everyone arguing against it seems to be ignoring it.
Nobody is asking for a full caster in full plate that can replace both the fighter and the wizard in your traditional four-role party. What we have been asking for is a fighter class, that is as good at fighting as the fighter, but fights in a different way, ie. uses extremely limited spellcasting to supplement his or her fighting.
For such a concept to work, the class needs actually to be as good at the basic mechanics of fighting as a fighter. That means it needs to be able to wear heavy armour and have a full BAB. Since the class also plans on casting some spells (though not in any way at the same level or even in the same way as a wizard), it would need to have arcane spell failure handled in some way. That doesn't mean it needs to be handled in every suit of armour the class is capable of wearing nor does it mean it needs to be handled fully at 1st-level. I believe what most people have requested is light armour-casting at 1st-level, and medium armour-casting at some point later, with full armour-casting never. Again, this benefit, all of the class's extremely limited spellcasting, and whatever extremely few other class features the class would have come at the expense of the fighter's billion and two bonus feats.
The fighter fights with feats. This class fights with spells or spell supplements. There is currently no way to accomplish this build in Pathfinder, despite similar base classes indicating that the concept is inherently not over-powered. We realize the duskblade exists in 3.5, but the duskblade isn't legal for Pathfinder Society, and if you read the original post in this thread--the post which started this entire debacle--you'll see that I mention the duskblade, I mention multi-classing, I mention that I support both options, but that what I'm really interested in is something I can realistically run in Pathfinder Society. I appreciate all suggested solutions, but frankly--it isn't a solution if it isn't legal for Pathfinder Society.
Benn -- at the risk of over-pimping my creation, let me pimp my creation.
Granted: it isn't legal for Pathfinder Society.
|
|
I still feel as i have said before, that due to how the mechanics of arcane magic are explained in the system, circumventing the Spell Failure Chance is a big step.
It takes a Wizard/Sorcerer 2 feats, caster level 3 and a swift action to be able to reduce Arcane Spell Failure Chance 10%.
It takes 4 feats, caster level 7 and a swift action to be able to reduce Arcane Spell Failure Chance 20%.
This means with the first tier they can at most wear leather armor with no spell failure chance.
On the second tier they at most can wear a chain shirt or hide.
You know why wizards and sorcerers have to expend so many resources to circumvent arcane spell failure? Because they're sorcerers or wizards. They're really, really good at magic, but aren't used to wearing armour. If they were used to it, they'd have practiced their somatic components with armour on so many times, it wouldn't be a problem. But they didn't. They don't care about being armoured because they aren't wandering into melee combat. They never bothered practicing with armour on. Someone sticks them in a suit of armour and all of a sudden their arms are heavier and they can't seem to get their gestures right anymore. And if they had bothered to practice with armour on, they wouldn't be sorcerers or wizards anymore, they'd be some other class that wears armour and fights while using spells to supplement their casting.
Bards, on the other hand, they've always worn a little bit of armour because sometimes they end up needing to get a little closer to the action. Bards wear light armour and have no problem casting spells. They're used to it. You throw them in something heavier and it's a problem.
Arcane spell failure mechanically represents your inability to properly complete somatic components while wearing armour. That makes a lot of sense for full caster classes. Why would they be wearing armour? If your whole shtick was casting spells in order to fight better, however, you'd better believe you'd know how to complete those gestures in the armour you'd be wearing. In full plate? Maybe not. Full plate's really, really heavy and really comprehensive and it may limit your movements just a little too much. I can see that. But a breastplate? How is that going to stop somebody who has practiced his or her somatic components a billion times in that particular suit of armour from casting anything?
This says that overcomming the Arcane Spell Failure Chance is a very very big deal. Granting even the first tier of it to the first level of a base class becomes a massive step.
Where does it say this? The bard gets it, and it's not a big deal. You know why? The bard's not casting anything too offensive that early on (or really ever, the bard gets a ton of class abilities in addition to this, medium BAB, and spellcasting, all at 1st-level). Guess what other potential base class wouldn't be casting anything too offensive for this to be a problem? Should I phrase this as a thumbs/this guy joke?
On BAB, the rogue, cleric, druid, monk and bard dont get full BAB so I dont see why a martial arcanist should.
On Hit Die, the above classes also get d8 (in line with BAB/HD link). So that rules out d10 for the martial arcanist to me.
On weapons, the above classes have limited lists so that rules out full martial proficiency to me.
On spells, every other caster besides full casters (sorcerer, cleric, wizard) have limited spell selection. And limited max level. So that would be required to me.
None of the classes you listed are primary fighting classes, so none of them need a full BAB, d10 HD, or access to heavy armour or martial weapons. It would be ridiculous for any of those classes to get what's being requested here, because none of them was intended to fill the role of the fighter. Nevermind that many of them can fill that role, because in all most all cases it's due to the versatility of their expansive spell list or because of an additional, flavourful class feature that they're able to fill the role of the fighter. The cleric and druid are full casters, for gods' sake. They have 9-levels of incredibly versatile, powerful spells (which does a hell of a lot more for either of them than their medium BAB or d8 HD, I might add). Why can't this class have four to six levels of highly selectively-chosen spells and another tiny bump in HD and BAB?
On the point of spells, that's exactly what's being asked for. Nobody wants access to the wizard spell list and also full BAB. That's crazy.
|
|
Benn -- at the risk of over-pimping my creation, let me pimp my creation.
Granted: it isn't legal for Pathfinder Society. /QUOTE]
Tejon: I like your class a lot! I really do. I'd love to try to play one, and may do at some point. But the Pathfinder Society issue is at the heart of my reason for starting this thread in the first place. I am pushing PFS really hard at my store, and want to play a character that I really enjoy in the campaigns here.
|
|
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.
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. There are three incredibly different things meant by most of the terminology being used here, and honestly I think they could all use a base class, and I would love to see a base class for each of them. However, what is being asked for is the third option, which you agree doesn't exist within the current rules without home content, third party content, or 3.5 content.
I don't think anybody's really, truly knocking the potential of the bard to fit into the second category and be a reasonable fighter and a reasonable caster. At least, I'm not. I think what people are arguing is that the bard is a worthless candidate for the third category. It doesn't have enough combat potential to compete with the fighter for his role, and it has more spell-casting diversity and weird off-beat class features than you would ever need to accomplish the third persuasion of arcane warrior. If you want a decent caster/decent fighter, play a bard, or multi-class into eldritch knight but take more levels of fighter than necessary before you start into it. If you want to play a weak caster/good fighter, however, where do you turn?
[B]Nobody is asking for a full caster in full plate that can replace both the fighter and the wizard in your traditional four-role party. What we have been asking for is a fighter class, that is as good at fighting as the fighter, but fights in a different way, ie. uses extremely limited spellcasting to supplement his or her fighting.
cough....runeblade....cough
|
|
cough....runeblade....cough
Show me where it says the Book of Experimental Might is legal for Pathfinder Society.
Edit: I just realized you're the guy who originally recommended the class. I wanted to let you know I checked it out and like it a lot! It's not a solution for this thread, though, because it isn't from a Paizo product, and thus isn't even eligible for inclusion in Pathfinder Society.
cough....runeblade....coughShow me where it says the Book of Experimental Might is legal for Pathfinder Society.
Edit: I just realized you're the guy who originally recommended the class. I wanted to let you know I checked it out and like it a lot! It's not a solution for this thread, though, because it isn't from a Paizo product, and thus isn't even eligible for inclusion in Pathfinder Society.
That is an issue, but it'll be a few years I would guess before you see this outside some bard stuff in the APG i would guess
|
|
That is an issue, but it'll be a few years I would guess before you see this outside some bard stuff in the APG i would guess
I realize that. And I'm not trying to rush Paizo at all. I started this thread to try to make them aware that there's interest in and support for a class like this, so that they can at least hopefully start brain-storming and thinking about how and when they might be able to make something like this happen. I wasn't expecting to influence their 2010 schedule, but I would love to see this happen in 2011 or 2012 if they can fit it in. This thread isn't about options now, it's about showing support for options in the future.
Yeah, humm good chance in maybe an OA style book. Arcane warriors might fit in well in a book with samurai, ninja, and the like. Only other bet maybe some type in the psonic book if they are reworking them to use mostly spells a physic warrior type may fill that role
Them to be the best bet as they do not plan more APG's but them two books are on the to do list
|
I always thought the original concept of the Spellsword was really cool. I never liked that it pushed into plate wearing spellcasters, but the concept of storing spells in runes on the sword and then releasing the spell was really cool to me.
I also happen to like the 3.0 art for the class better then the 3.5 art. If I were designing the class I'd focus more one the spellcasting and less on the armor wearing.
|
|
Well a paladin version except with a few different class abilities and some arcane spells to enhance their fighting abilities. Personally that is more the type I would like to see.
Ok that might have been said before, i didn't read all the posts. It is a big and long thread already. But thought I would just post my comment on it.
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?
+1 Like my own words! I started gaming with Rifts, and this tactic with PrCs makes sense.
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.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.
This is crazy! You are saying all the things I would say! Are you some sort of mind reader?
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.
Okay, so your business plan is degrade the client to "gimme", make them wait to play what they want, and pay through the nose in broken overly balanced to the caution. You obviously don't like the idea, and you degrading term for balance "gimme" is irritating to say the least.
|
|
Stuff, good, but a tad strident because apparently he only reads his own posts, and not a lot of the munchkiny ones.
Unless I'm getting this whole debate wrong, what people are asking for is a "Gish". which is a fighter/wizard. Full BAB, full spell casting, heavy armor.
If they aren't asking for a "Gish", and are asking for a fighter with some arcane magic to supplement their combat ability, then stop using the term "gish". If they are asking for a wizard with some "melee" combat ability, stop using the term "gish".
The easiest thing in the first case might be to use the fighter, minus the bonus feats (maybe given them bonus combat feats every fourth level), good Will saves, apply a "talent" pool like the rogue gets in PfRPG, except make the "magical" talents, and give them spellcraft and UMD as class skills.
The easiest thing in the second case might be just to give the sorcerer chassis a combat feat every three levels, a narrowed spell list, proficiency in light armor and with martial weapons, good Fort save, and athletics and intimidate as class skills.
Anyway...
Help me please:
There are people who desperately need a fish-class so they can buckle lots of swash and cast a flash of spell. I get that.
These people would like to see this fish having a full BAB and moderate skills and they say the Bard was no good (I admit to oversimplify here).
Other people talk about game balance and that a full BAB and "full" casting did not match.
Leading the first group of people to cite the Paladin as a divine fish with full BAB and take it to "prove" that a full BAB/moderate cast-build was viable and balanced.Here's the puzzler:
The Paladin has a full BAB and several useful abilities, BUR he cannot cast spells before level 4 or 5 and he can never acquire spells above 4th level. So how does that validate a call for a full BAB/6th lvl spell fish??Am I the only one to whom that sounds like apples and pears?
But then it seems this thread is about different sorts of lip-gloss now.
Straw man flaw. There is zero reason why full BaB and caster level wont work so long as you manage the spell access or the spell level properly with the other abilities they would get.
why does the paladin get what it gets? to tank of course. this is not counting the sand diego super charger and mounted charge cheese.
why doesn't the ranger get heavy armor? he was meant to sit back knocking arrows, until salvatore wrote up drizzt.
why should a gish not have a d10 hit dice or heavy armor? i see a gish as more of a glass cannon. lacking in defensive ability to pick up it's offensive power.
Why do the paladin and ranger get spells and have full bab?
thier spells are a tight list with minimal combat application.
if i were to write a class with 6th-9th level spells, full bab, d10 hit dice and heavy armor, i'd give it a really tiny list of spells with minimal combat application, less spell slots, and force it to prepare it's spells in advance. if it has damage spells, expect them to be the most easily resisted ones available. it it has buffs, expect them to be heavily nerfed variants of full caster buffs. but i don't have the patience to write 6-9 spell levels, barely more than a 3-4 level tight list.
Overshadowing the Fighter is a concern.
So what chair should this class sit in? If it is the fighters then I think the spells should kick in at 4/5 level and progress like the Paladins with a similar number. Or if its the Wizards then the armor has to be similar to the bards with similar spell progression *but* a more melee...
"Steping on toes", "Overshadowing", sigh...
The barbarian and Paladin perform a near or the same role as the fighter, so this argument does not count so long as it is balanced with the rest. I understand the concern, as this was a big problem with 3.5 but PF RPG has done things a lot better about this.
Okay, so your business plan is degrade the client to "gimme", make them wait to play what they want, and pay through the nose in broken overly balanced to the caution. You obviously don't like the idea, and you degrading term for balance "gimme" is irritating to say the least.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.
basically, if a player wants a class that doesn't exist? i'd find the closest multiclass combo. using 3.5 splatbooks too if neccessary. i beleive some concepts are better left as prcs. maybe i wouldn't go to the brim. i have very minor homebrewing skills. i'd be lenient on making prc's for hybrids that currently do not exist. case by case. but i wouldn't make them base classes for the same build. oh you want a swordsage/druid, i'd make a prestige class for a hybrid martial adept divine caster, as none exist, using mystic thuerge as a guideline, but it's class feature is that it gets both manuevers and divine spells. if a guy wanted an arcane warrior, i'd point them to an existing class, after asking them what they want, in concept, and in more detail than just "The Kewl Powers they want". i'd fill a niche that hasn't ben filled, not replicate the same niche.
Unless I'm getting this whole debate wrong, what people are asking for is a "Gish". which is a fighter/wizard. Full BAB, full spell casting, heavy armor.You're getting the whole debate wrong.
i'd rather see a class that fills a new or lacking niche rather than repeat a niche or step on 2 pcs' toes.
Unless I'm getting this whole debate wrong, what people are asking for is a "Gish". which is a fighter/wizard. Full BAB, full spell casting, heavy armor.You're getting the whole debate wrong.
No he is getting it right. He was pointing out they are using the wrong word.
why does the paladin get what it gets? to tank of course. this is not counting the sand diego super charger and mounted charge cheese.
why doesn't the ranger get heavy armor? he was meant to sit back knocking arrows, until salvatore wrote up drizzt.
why should a gish not have a d10 hit dice or heavy armor? i see a gish as more of a glass cannon. lacking in defensive ability to pick up it's offensive power.
Why do the paladin and ranger get spells and have full bab?
thier spells are a tight list with minimal combat application.if i were to write a class with 6th-9th level spells, full bab, d10 hit dice and heavy armor, i'd give it a really tiny list of spells with minimal combat application, less spell slots, and force it to prepare it's spells in advance. if it has damage spells, expect them to be the most easily resisted ones available. it it has buffs, expect them to be heavily nerfed variants of full caster buffs. but i don't have the patience to write 6-9 spell levels, barely more than a 3-4 level tight list.
We agree on something, there needs to be balance; I am glad you don't work for PF RPG, as you seem bias against the idea of the class.
Think barbarian class abilities that can be easily canceled by magical means for the buff spells and require an additional stat to use. They have another weakness to their powers and require more stats than a non-caster.
p.s. The abilities should be better if that was their only type of power they got. However this needs to be brought down if they get a better variety of spells.
[B]Nobody is asking for a full caster in full plate that can replace both the fighter and the wizard in your traditional four-role party. What we have been asking for is a fighter class, that is as good at fighting as the fighter, but fights in a different way, ie. uses extremely limited spellcasting to supplement his or her fighting.
...
I feel for you, and feel the same way.
why does the paladin get what it gets? to tank of course. this is not counting the sand diego super charger and mounted charge cheese.
why doesn't the ranger get heavy armor? he was meant to sit back knocking arrows, until salvatore wrote up drizzt.
why should a gish not have a d10 hit dice or heavy armor? i see a gish as more of a glass cannon. lacking in defensive ability to pick up it's offensive power.
Why do the paladin and ranger get spells and have full bab?
thier spells are a tight list with minimal combat application.if i were to write a class with 6th-9th level spells, full bab, d10 hit dice and heavy armor, i'd give it a really tiny list of spells with minimal combat application, less spell slots, and force it to prepare it's spells in advance. if it has damage spells, expect them to be the most easily resisted ones available. it it has buffs, expect them to be heavily nerfed variants of full caster buffs. but i don't have the patience to write 6-9 spell levels, barely more than a 3-4 level tight list.
We agree on something, there needs to be balance; I am glad you don't work for PF RPG, as you seem bias against the idea of the class.
Think barbarian class abilities that can be easily canceled by magical means for the buff spells and require an additional stat to use. They have another weakness to their powers and require more stats than a non-caster.
p.s. The abilities should be better if that was their only type of power they got. However this needs to be brought down if they get a better variety of spells.
thank you. i'd rather see unfilled niches filled than a constantly refilled niche restatted. balance is neccessary. i'm off to create mystic thuerge style prcs for martial adept/casters, martial adept/psionics, martial adept/meldshapers, meldshaper/casters, and meldshaper/psionics.
|
|
Stuff, good, but a tad strident because apparently he only reads his own posts, and not a lot of the munchkiny ones.Unless I'm getting this whole debate wrong, what people are asking for is a "Gish". which is a fighter/wizard. Full BAB, full spell casting, heavy armor.
If they aren't asking for a "Gish", and are asking for a fighter with some arcane magic to supplement their combat ability, then stop using the term "gish". If they are asking for a wizard with some "melee" combat ability, stop using the term "gish".
The easiest thing in the first case might be to use the fighter, minus the bonus feats (maybe given them bonus combat feats every fourth level), good Will saves, apply a "talent" pool like the rogue gets in PfRPG, except make the "magical" talents, and give them spellcraft and UMD as class skills.
The easiest thing in the second case might be just to give the sorcerer chassis a combat feat every three levels, a narrowed spell list, proficiency in light armor and with martial weapons, good Fort save, and athletics and intimidate as class skills.
Can you please quote some of the "munchkiny" posts for me. I've read the entire thread from post 1 to post 377, and I don't remember reading anything that both disagreed with the spirit of the interpretation I've been presenting and advocated some sort of arcane warrior.
And you are getting the whole debate wrong. To begin with, just about everybody stopped using the word "gish" before page 2 of the thread, because so many people immediately threw a fit about the word. Second of all, regardless of what word we're using, we've just about all been pretty explicit about what concept we're after, and I'm sorry, I just don't feel like most of the people fighting the notion are reading the thread. If they were, they'd know that their ideas have been met with unanswered rebuttal over and over again.
You, for instance, have just in this last post, ignored the fact that your suggestions aren't legal for Pathfinder Society, which has already been stated on this page of the thread to be one of the major reasons some of us want Paizo to put out official content that addresses this niche.
|
|
basically, if a player wants a class that doesn't exist? i'd find the closest multiclass combo. using 3.5 splatbooks too if neccessary. i beleive some concepts are better left as prcs. maybe i wouldn't go to the brim. i have very minor homebrewing skills. i'd be lenient on making prc's for hybrids that currently do not exist. case by case. but i...
I might go about things the same way, buttttt... not in Pathfinder Society, since there isn't enough material yet to do that. And what you or I might do in our own personal home games has nothing to do with the fact that a niche isn't being filled yet in Pathfinder (and more specifically Pathfinder Society).
basically, if a player wants a class that doesn't exist? i'd find the closest multiclass combo. using 3.5 splatbooks too if neccessary. i beleive some concepts are better left as prcs. maybe i wouldn't go to the brim. i have very minor homebrewing skills. i'd be lenient on making prc's for hybrids that currently do not exist. case by case. but i...I might go about things the same way, buttttt... not in Pathfinder Society, since there isn't enough material yet to do that. And what you or I might do in our own personal home games has nothing to do with the fact that a niche isn't being filled yet in Pathfinder (and more specifically Pathfinder Society).
i guess i never had to worry, never playing pathfinder socieity nor rpga. i've played homegames with a dm that can actually make rulings that fit his campaign. in other words, i don't think i've done 100% RAW.
|
|
I don't understand your constant insistence on that point. There is no arcane warrior class currently legal in PFS. Period. None of the other suggestions are legal in PFS (other than multiclassing or the bard). So, what, exactly is your point of bringing that up? If Paizo makes an arcane warrior class, it will be allowed, I'm sure, in PFS. So, if peple want to suggest possibilities, they are just as valid as any others, and probably just as likely, at this point, to be adopted by the Paizo folks, so are just as likely to be allowed in PFS.
The argument "It isn't allowed in PFS" is a non-starter.
And, frankly, full BAB and full casting is, prima facie, munchkiny.
|
|
I don't understand your constant insistence on that point. There is no arcane warrior class currently legal in PFS. Period. None of the other suggestions are legal in PFS (other than multiclassing or the bard). So, what, exactly is your point of bringing that up?
And, frankly, full BAB and full casting is, prima facie, munchkiny.
I'm not sure what you're missing, but I know there's no arcane warrior class legal in PFS. That's one of the main reasons we're asking Paizo to write a class that fits this bill. That's the main point of this thread, in fact. When people make suggestions for alternatives that aren't legal for PFS, it doesn't really offer anything to the conversation. I get that third party, home-rule, and 3.5 options exist. We all get that. Every single person in this thread gets that. None of those things are what's being asked for, because it isn't a solution for a large contingent of people. Now, if someone could provide something that was legal for Pathfinder Society that was not a base class, but which fit the bill for what people are asking about, that would be a meaningful contribution. I don't believe that has happened yet.
You aren't helping your argument, when for the billionth time you mention that full BAB and full casting is munchkiny, a fact that has yet to be debated by anybody in this thread. If I'm wrong, show me some quotes.
|
|
i guess i never had to worry, never playing pathfinder socieity nor rpga. i've played homegames with a dm that can actually make rulings that fit his campaign. in other words, i don't think i've done 100% RAW.
I hear ya. I prefer those types of games too. That isn't really what this thread is about at all, though, as I'm more than satisfied with my options for games such as those. I put in a request for a new base class primarily because I wanted to have options for Pathfinder Society, and secondarily because I honestly think Paizo's results will be better than WotC's, other third parties', and my own efforts.
|
|
If "full casting" means "nine levels of spells," then no, it's not. If "full casting" means "the full casting ability of a cleric or wizard" then yes but nobody's arguing for that.
This is true. I've been taking "full casting" to mean "on the level of a cleric or wizard." If that isn't what's being meant, then I apologise for any misunderstandings on my behalf.
The notion that 9th-level spells and BAB together is inherently over-powered, regardless of what spells are on the list, just seems crazy to me, but I don't think anybody's been suggesting that. I hope not anyway. I once designed a class that had full BAB and up to 9th-level spells, but whose class spell list consisted of a single spell at each spell level. I was universally told the class was underpowered by everybody who read it. It had other abilities too.
didn't Mr. Jacobs mention the APG having features for the bard to make it an arcane warrior? typing with one hand is hard, especially while eating cheesecake with the other.
didn't Mr. Jacobs mention the APG having features for the bard to make it an arcane warrior?
He did allude to that, yes. I have my doubts about whether or not it can be done effectively without removing the whole singing and dancing bit and replacing it with something more thematically appropriate, but perhaps they plan to do just that. If they do it up in that manner though, can you really still call it a Bard? Not that I think what you call a class makes a difference, mind you.
typing with one hand is hard, especially while eating cheesecake with the other.
Why on Earth would you use HANDS to eat yummy yummy cheesecake? Dive in face first, imho.
|
|
I don't understand your constant insistence on that point. There is no arcane warrior class currently legal in PFS. Period. None of the other suggestions are legal in PFS (other than multiclassing or the bard). So, what, exactly is your point of bringing that up?
And, frankly, full BAB and full casting is, prima facie, munchkiny.
I'm not sure what you're missing, but I know there's no arcane warrior class legal in PFS. That's one of the main reasons we're asking Paizo to write a class that fits this bill. That's the main point of this thread, in fact. When people make suggestions for alternatives that aren't legal for PFS, it doesn't really offer anything to the conversation. I get that third party, home-rule, and 3.5 options exist. We all get that. Every single person in this thread gets that. None of those things are what's being asked for, because it isn't a solution for a large contingent of people. Now, if someone could provide something that was legal for Pathfinder Society that was not a base class, but which fit the bill for what people are asking about, that would be a meaningful contribution. I don't believe that has happened yet.
You aren't helping your argument, when for the billionth time you mention that full BAB and full casting is munchkiny, a fact that has yet to be debated by anybody in this thread. If I'm wrong, show me some quotes.
To be honest, so many of these type threads have gotten so large so quickly in such a short period of time, it is entirely possible that I could be confusing posts from a different thread.
didn't Mr. Jacobs mention the APG having features for the bard to make it an arcane warrior?He did allude to that, yes. I have my doubts about whether or not it can be done effectively without removing the whole singing and dancing bit and replacing it with something more thematically appropriate, but perhaps they plan to do just that. If they do it up in that manner though, can you really still call it a Bard? Not that I think what you call a class makes a difference, mind you.
bard is just the name of a package of abilities. not every "bard" has to call him/herself a bard.
Why on Earth would you use HANDS to eat yummy yummy cheesecake? Dive in face first, imho.
typing with one hand is hard, especially while eating cheesecake with the other.
Just because i like anime doesn't mean i'll dive face first into cheesecake, my left hand was holding the fork. right hand pressing keys. it's not polite to dive face first into yummy yummy cheesecake. it gets a slapping across the face from an anal retentive father. and i'm female. i gotta have some manners to keep me on a higher position than the men i manipulate.
And, frankly, full BAB and full casting is, prima facie, munchkiny.
....I should copy paste a comment to this.
You can keep a class balanced with
Full Base Attack
D12 hit die
Full Caster Level
9 full levels of spells
and full armor casting.
It all comes down to the spells they get, how many, what casting stat, how they cast spells, and how they get spells.
bard is just the name of a package of abilities. not every "bard" has to call him/herself a bard.
Agreed.
Just because i like anime doesn't mean i'll dive face first into cheesecake, my left hand was holding the fork. right hand pressing keys. it's not polite to dive face first into yummy yummy cheesecake. it gets a slapping across the face from an anal retentive father. and i'm female. i gotta have some manners to keep me on a higher position than the men i manipulate.
Manners only matter when someone else is looking. I'm currently enjoying a very rare "house to myself" moment, so if I had some yummy, yummy cheesecake in front of me at the moment, all bets are off.
Just because i like anime doesn't mean i'll dive face first into cheesecake, my left hand was holding the fork. right hand pressing keys. it's not polite to dive face first into yummy yummy cheesecake. it gets a slapping across the face from an anal retentive father. and i'm female. i gotta have some manners to keep me on a higher position than the men i manipulate.
Manners only matter when someone else is looking. I'm currently enjoying a very rare "house to myself" moment, so if I had some yummy, yummy cheesecake in front of me at the moment, all bets are off.
unfortunately, it's rare that i get that. and daddy is real scary.
unfortunately, it's rare that i get that. and daddy is real scary.
If he weren't somewhat scary, he wouldn't be doing his job properly, now would he?
Also, since this thread is now somewhat about cheesecake, I give you:
Single serving cheesecakes are sheer genius.
|
|
To be honest, so many of these type threads have gotten so large so quickly in such a short period of time, it is entirely possible that I could be confusing posts from a different thread.
I can definitely relate to that. I've been trying my best to stay on top of just about all of them, since I feel at least partially responsible, but they've gotten incredibly unwieldy, incredibly quickly. I'd still be interested in seeing quotes from anyone, from any of the relevant threads, that indicates they want a wizard's casting ability coupled with a full BAB. I just haven't seen anyone seriously make that claim. I've only noticed people repeatedly arguing into an echoing cavern that such a thing would be over-powered.
|
|
One thing I'm a little concerned about, and I hope someone might enlighten me regarding, is whether by chatting about this stuff on the forums we make it less likely a particular design will actually show up in official material. I mean, if someone on here actually comes up with a base class design that seems nifty to most of us, does that mean Paizo will then end up wanting to stay away from publishing anything too similar, just to make sure they're in the clear when it comes to copyrights and such?
I think what's more likely is that Paizo just stays out of the custom class threads. If they don't respond, they didn't read them, and if they didn't read them, there isn't much of a case that they stole anybody's intellectual property.
I wouldn't worry about them abandoning a good class because somebody else also came up with the same idea for a home game.
Show me where it says the Book of Experimental Might is legal for Pathfinder Society.
well, ya got me there
by the way, Paizo is selling the Book of Experimental Might for $10!!!!