I believe you can have a full BAB and a bard's spell progression. What needs to happen is that the list of spells available to the class has to be reduced and/or the maximum number of spells cast per day has to be reduced.
In other words, instead of getting 6 1st level spells at a maximum (before modifiers) like a bard, you're going to cap out at 4 1st level spells like a paladin.
Either that, or do the full BAB and the Paladin's spell level progression, but model it off the Paladin's smite ability and in that case, we can channel acid, cold, electricity, fire, and/or sonic through the weapon and scale the damage escalation accordingly.
Does this make sense to anyone?
|
Yeah, see, the wizard/sorcerer spell list would never have been on the table for what I have in mind. It's way too broad. I'm not looking for versatility. I want to stab dudes with my spells.
As far as bard progression goes, I think with the spell list I want, bard spellcasting would be fine, but I don't think it's necessary. Hell, I'd probably go as low as 3rd-level spells. I really just don't have much need for the higher level stuff. They'd mostly just exist to speed up the point at which 2nd and 3rd-level spells become accessible. I think higher level spells and spells known are expendable in order to get the class up to par in combat, but I don't think spells-per-day are. It needs a lot of those.
Likewise, I don't know that any at-will cantrip would really do much to compensate for the lack of spells at early levels (duskblade had a few, for instance, in addition to real spells, and other than detect magic they never, ever really mattered).
I can't stab a dude with light or guidance!
There's one problem with that - the class spells really dictate how it is played. You cannot have a flexible class with such a spell-list as restricted as you would need - this could be said to be the duskblade's problem, and the duskblade has less than bardic spell-progression. My own stab uses something similar to bardic, but increased slightly on the premise that the spells will be used rapidly in combat situations.
If you go the full BAB + d10 hit dice + spells from level 1, you will need a very restrictive list if it goes up to level 5-6 spells, and little scope for extra abilities. Instead you will need to focus the class in one direction only - detection, damage dealing, defence, mobility etc.
I would far rather forego the full BAB and d10 hit dice to get more versatile spell-casting that allows the player to make the character that they want with the class with more spells and with more abilities.
Edit: Benn, you may want to stab people with your spells, but that isn't what everyone wants. A lot of people have different ideas for their ideal gish-build, and the best class will be one that satisfies everyone a bit rather than one person a lot and everyone else not at all.
Yeah, see, the wizard/sorcerer spell list would never have been on the table for what I have in mind. It's way too broad. I'm not looking for versatility. I want to stab dudes with my spells.
Now, here's an interesting point. Iron mages do that, at level one, as many times as they want. They have one spell, the face-stabbing spell, which they get immediately. There are even four different options for precisely what that spell does to the face in question.
It's just that mechanically it's not a spell in the strictest sense. It's a supernatural ability granted by the class. But it is the direct application of arcane study, and it is available at first level.
A Man in Black asked to stab dudes in the face with magic, and said he'd still be satisfied if the magic was not actually a spell. I've been assuming you wouldn't, because you've been asking for spells. But you're saying "no need for versatility, but lots of uses per day" -- maybe we're actually in the same ballpark?
|
|
All right. This is my third time trying to post this, having misclicked the first time and having had my post eaten by the board the second time!
There's one problem with that - the class spells really dictate how it is played. You cannot have a flexible class with such a spell-list as restricted as you would need - this could be said to be the duskblade's problem, and the duskblade has less than bardic spell-progression. My own stab uses something similar to bardic, but increased slightly on the premise that the spells will be used rapidly in combat situations.
If you go the full BAB + d10 hit dice + spells from level 1, you will need a very restrictive list if it goes up to level 5-6 spells, and little scope for extra abilities. Instead you will need to focus the class in one direction only - detection, damage dealing, defence, mobility etc.
I would far rather forego the full BAB and d10 hit dice to get more versatile spell-casting that allows the player to make the character that they want with the class with more spells and with more abilities.
I hear what you're saying, but it isn't what is being asked for in this thread. Versatile characters are sweet and Pathfinder has a bunch of them already, but what I started this thread to ask for, and what most of the people in support of this thread seem to be asking for, is a single-minded, focused character that's really good at what it does, but doesn't do much else.
We don't have an arcane warrior in Pathfinder that fits that bill yet.
Edit: Benn, you may want to stab people with your spells, but that isn't what everyone wants. A lot of people have different ideas for their ideal gish-build, and the best class will be one that satisfies everyone a bit rather than one person a lot and everyone else not at all.
Actually, the best classes for the job will be those that specialize and aren't so watered down in their abilities as to be ineffective at any one role. The class you're describing doesn't fill the niche I want filled. Likewise my idea doesn't fill your niche. Well then, which class is better? The answer is "both of them." However, since your idea is already in print in the form of the bard and the summoner, it seems my request needs a little more priority. I realize neither of those classes comes without roleplaying and mechanical baggage, but they exist. What I'm asking for, the reason this thread was started, and what most other people in this thread are asking for, doesn't yet exist in Pathfinder.
I hear what you're saying, but it isn't what is being asked for in this thread. Versatile characters are sweet and Pathfinder has a bunch of them already, but what I started this thread to ask for, and what most of the people in support of this thread seem to be asking for, is a single-minded, focused character that's really good at what it does, but doesn't do much else.
It's not what you are asking for, it is what others are asking for.
We don't have an arcane warrior in Pathfinder that fits that bill yet.
Agreed.
Actually, the best classes for the job will be those that specialize and aren't so watered down in their abilities as to be ineffective at any one role. The class you're describing doesn't fill the niche I want filled. Likewise my idea doesn't fill your niche. Well then, which class is better? The answer is "both of them." However, since your idea is already in print in the form of the bard and the summoner, it seems my request needs a little more priority. I realize neither of those classes comes without roleplaying and mechanical baggage, but they exist. What I'm asking for, the reason this thread was started, and what most other people in this thread are asking for, doesn't yet exist in Pathfinder.
My idea isn't in print AT ALL, and I'm not advocating existing classes. What I am trying to work on, and I've been posting up my ideas if you want to look at them, is a class which has the capacity to be specialised in any one of several directions. I agree that highly specialised classes are often very effective. No argument there. I will also add that classes that can be tailored to become any one of a number of specialists are very popular classes. Come on, when you take a fighter, you tailor your feats to specialise in a few directions. When you take a wizard, you often do the same. Both have a lot of specialisation choices, not just one.
Likewise, a gish-class should be able to be tailored to what the player wants to play. You want to be able to stab people in the face with your spells. Other players want to bypass their foes' defences with their spells. Others want to make themselves untouchable to their enemies. Others still want to be supernatural hunters ... and so it goes on.
Now, if we one of these possible with one class, a few players are happy. If we make a class that can be specialised so that all of these are possible, we have pleased a great many players. Do you follow me now? You want a specialised class, I want a class that can be specialised. If I achieve my goal, I have probably achieved yours.
Now I have based my idea not on the bard but on the psychic warrior, because it is a very versatile gish-build, even though it isn't an arcane caster. By limiting the number of spells available we coerce the class into specialisation in it's chosen area. Yes, it has mediocre BAB and hit dice, but when it has the option for spells for boosting it's attack bonus and hit points, that doesn't matter so much.
I wouldn't agree with that. I don't like the concept of d10, full BAB, plus Bard Spell Progression, especially if it uses an unmodified Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. No way. I don't care if you "balance" it by not having any special abilities: it's not the right way to go, IMO.I am am recalling things correctly, we have come up with.
1. Full Bab
2. Bard Spell Progression
3. D10 hit dieI am all for that.
I am with ya here. If you want full BAB no way in hel ya are getting a bard spell progression. Not even the dusk blade got that and his list was...umm very limited is a nice way to say it
You want Full BAB you get 1/2 spell progression like the ranger and paladin and you do not gain cantrips. If you want cantrips and bard progression ya take the bards BAB as well
If you want full BAB then you take 1/2 spell progression and the limits that come with it
GUYS, I have already changed my opinion on that, my real concern has been that they get spells at 1st level.
I am thinking right now paladin amount of spells stretched over all 20 levels rather than 15.
Then lets focus the question more specifically. What do you want the class to be able to do in the first 5 levels? Where should it be swimming in the lower level pond? You obviously want a mix of fighter and mage. What are you willing to give up to get it?
What I would like to see is 2 things.
First is a Bard like spell progrestion 3/4 bab, d8 hit die, a spell list focused in transmutation, abjuration, and necromancy (maybe some evocation).
Along with that I'd like to see the ability to wear armor. Maybe light at low levels scaling up at medium and shields at higher levels.
In addition to that I would like some class features that lend themselves to combining magic and fighting.
Something like this:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/homebrewSpellthaneThe second thing i'd like to see is an arcane equivalent to the paladin. Full Bab, d10 hit die, heavy armor, and a paladins spell progression. I could not possibly find a way to better illustrate that then here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/ironMageArcaneWarriorBaseClassThirdDraft
Idea number 1, gives up full caster progression and has the lower bab. He wont be as good as either a full caster or a fighter at what they do. But if buffed and using his class abilities he is comparable to the fighter at fighting.
Idea number 2. This is really a fighting character with arcane flavor. He is focused on fighting primarily and uses arcane themed class features to supplement this. He eventually gets some spells but not a huge variety.
What is with the 3/4th BaB?
We will have 2 of those already, variant bard and battle sorcerer. Don't they fill that rather well?
|
|
It's not what you are asking for, it is what others are asking for.
What I meant was that it isn't what this thread exists to be asking for. Other people can ask for whatever they want, but they're in the wrong thread if they're not looking for a fighter with some arcane spellcasting, allowing primarily for magical stabbing.
My idea isn't in print AT ALL, and I'm not advocating existing classes. What I am trying to work on, and I've been posting up my ideas if you want to look at them, is a class which has the capacity to be specialised in any one of several directions. I agree that highly specialised classes are often very effective. No argument there. I will also add that classes that can be tailored to become any one of a number of specialists are very popular classes. Come on, when you take a fighter, you tailor your feats to specialise in a few directions. When you take a wizard, you often do the same. Both have a lot of specialisation choices, not just one.
Sure, a class that can be tailored to fit different roles is great. Pathfinder has been really good at providing that sort of option so far. However, what I was responding to was your notion that what should be printed should be an average of all the different classes being suggested. What that would result in would be nearly assuredly unplayable.
Regardless, I still think the best option is multiple classes for accomplishing multiple things. I'm all for being flexible in terms of options within class, but if that flexibility comes at the expense of making a class able to do some of its intended jobs, I'm not down. What this thread exists to ask for is a fighter that supplements attacks with magic. That means it has to be competitive with a fighter. That means it can't afford to waste hitting time on making it's attack bonus better. That means it really needs to be a different class. I think said class should have buffing options for really tough fights, but it shouldn't rely on them. A 3/4 BAB class can't reliably compete in melee with a full BAB class without wasting time on buffs.
In other words, I'm not saying I don't like your idea, and I'm absolutely not saying I don't think your idea should happen. I'm always, always, always in favour of more options. I'm just saying that this thread was started to ask for something different. So, when you say, in this thread, "no, I think it should be like this instead of like that," you're wrong. It should be both ways, but one of those ways is off-topic. (:
I also think this notion:
Why am I bothering? Because if we present a solution to Paizo rather than a demand, we're more likely to get something. Even if they decide to revise it completely, at least a lot of the donkey-work is already done ...
is wrong as well. Again, I'm super into the fact that you're making a homebrew class, and I'm a big fan of homebrew classes in general, but Paizo isn't going to look at your homebrew class for ideas. They're professional designers and they're going to build a class from the ground up, no matter what we post. The best we can hope to do is show them support for concepts, not detailed designs. I like your concept, but I think the design belongs on the homebrew board.
Frankly, the fact that this thread became 600 posts of arguing blows my mind every time I look at it, because there's nothing here to argue. If you're into the concept originally posted, awesome: show your support! If you're not, you're just in the wrong thread.
Sure, a class that can be tailored to fit different roles is great. Pathfinder has been really good at providing that sort of option so far. However, what I was responding to was your notion that what should be printed should be an average of all the different classes being suggested. What that would result in would be nearly assuredly unplayable.
Regardless, I still think the best option is multiple classes for accomplishing multiple things.
Fair enough. I'm a minimalist, I like to produce as many options as possible from as few classes as it takes, but I can see what you are angling toward - in effect, perhaps more what the Hexblade should have been but wasn't. That's cool, now I can see where you are coming from, it does make sense.
If I get half a chance I'll throw something together more on those lines ... although you say Paizo will put something together from the ground up, I'm not so sure they wouldn't work up from something already done.
I suspect that the Hexblade wasn't aiming to be an arcane warrior as much as "really spooky fellow with a blade".
Well it failed at that, too. No wonder I couldn't tell.
Fair enough. I'm a minimalist, I like to produce as many options as possible from as few classes as it takes, but I can see what you are angling toward - in effect, perhaps more what the Hexblade should have been but wasn't.
I suspect that the Hexblade wasn't aiming to be an arcane warrior as much as "really spooky fellow with a blade".
The only major difference between Hexblade and Duskblade/whatever we're trying to put together here is a conceptual one. Hexblade has hexes to 'debuff' opponents but lacks the ability to stab them magically.
The more I think about it the more comfortable I am with a paladin spell progression IF they get to stab dudes magically with class abilities. Personally I think elementally themed temporary enhancements to his weapon is a good way to go. Gives him damage versatility and scalability. Say +1d6 at 1st lvl, 2d6 at 4th, 3d6 at 7th etc. Activated like rage or smite and lasting a number of rounds equal to 3+casting stat modifier.
Regardless, I still think the best option is multiple classes for accomplishing multiple things. I'm all for being flexible in terms of options within class, but if that flexibility comes at the expense of making a class able to do some of its intended jobs, I'm not down. What this thread exists to ask for is a fighter that supplements attacks with magic. That means it has to be competitive with a fighter. That means it can't afford to waste hitting time on making it's attack bonus better. That means it really needs to be a different class.
OK Benn, does something like this float your boat?
Not sure if I have this too strong or two weak, or if I should have left the spell progression as the Paladin/Ranger progression, but then it depends on the spell list which I haven't done yet ...
Regardless, I still think the best option is multiple classes for accomplishing multiple things. I'm all for being flexible in terms of options within class, but if that flexibility comes at the expense of making a class able to do some of its intended jobs, I'm not down. What this thread exists to ask for is a fighter that supplements attacks with magic. That means it has to be competitive with a fighter. That means it can't afford to waste hitting time on making it's attack bonus better. That means it really needs to be a different class.OK Benn, does something like this float your boat?
Not sure if I have this too strong or two weak, or if I should have left the spell progression as the Paladin/Ranger progression, but then it depends on the spell list which I haven't done yet ...
I like the name :D
I just tested it and it worked fine for me - could have been one of those ad-ware things, or Mediafire might have been effected itself for a while. I use Norton and keep it right up to date, so I don't think I can easily have been the source of a problem, but mediafire does sometimes host ads for the free users (which includes me).
Worked this time around. I didn't think it was you, I thought maybe the site was goofy, but apparently it was just a glitch that individual time.
It's nifty. I like how the energy abilities work. Doesn't seem overpowered at first blush, though I didn't look too closely yet.
Thank you, I was going to go "uses/day" but then I remembered Paizo prefer the "rounds per day" mechanic, and working it on points seems a better idea.
Update: Here is the completed spell list for the Arcane Blade:
All comments and critiques welcomed ...
And here's the provisional spell-list for the Stormchild:
All comments and thoughts welcome.
I wanted to add my vote to the "likes arcane fighters" theme of this post.
Now with that done I'd also like to add my two cents on the mechanics of the class. I really like the mechanics of the spellsword which mitigates a percentage of arcane spell failure as opposed to the light armor, medium armor, and then heavy armor progression. This gives the player the chance to where heavy armor from the get go and still have their class abilities working for them, if they are filling a role that is less worried about spell failure. I also like the spellsword mechanics of delivering any damaging spell through your sword. This opens up your spell list options instead of being touch only spells like the duskblade. Finally I like the open spell list of the spellsword which allows people to focus on the different magic types instead of pigeonholing them into one type of build. The open spell list allows for arcane tanking type classes, arcane enhanced damage, and probably a myriad of other options that I am over looking. I also like the every other level spell caster increase of the spellsword since I think that is an appropriate amount of spells for a person who is primarily focused on hitting people with is sword, and the magic is there for just additional oomph. So why don't I just become a spellsword? I agree with the original post in that I would like to do this from the beginning, not a fighter who dabbles in magic then finds his niche several levels later but a character who is both right from the beginning. In short would like to see a spellsword type class from 1-20.
I like the 10%, 20% and 30% ideas, I must say. I may incorporate those ...
I like the 10%, 20% and 30% ideas, I must say. I may incorporate those ...
If it was up to me, all classes that had armor casting by type would have a secondary % reduction if wearing heavier armor.
Hey everyone,
It might not be from Paizo, but Owen K.C. Stephens has written a gish-like base class called the Archon and it's available here on the Paizo site now:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizo/products/v5748btpy8bvi
Hyrum.