I'm reading through the duskblade class and it says, that it only draws spells from the duskblase spell list, which doesn't contain shocking grasp... Do I have some updated PHB II?Which spell list are you looking at? The one that the book is refering to is on page 24, and Shocking Grasp certainly is on the list.
Ah, I've found it already. I noticed that DM edited the reference list we've printed for the game. No wonder that he did that...
What level was this Duskblade, what was the save DC for that Shocking Grasp damage, and how comparable is that damage to an equal level Rogue who can do their backstab multiple times in a round and unlimited times per day?Well I ws playing a duskblade who could hit with her +1 frost longsword while channeling shocking grasp for 1d8 plus 6d6+3 damage. That qualified her for membership in the Lolliepop Guild.So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.
I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.
I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.
5th level, there is no save for Shocking Grasp, and an equal level rogue does +3d6 sneak attack and because they don't have a +5 BAB at that point, cannot sneak attack more than once per round.
Edit: ninja'd
Your example rogue doesn't have TWF. Therefore he is bad.
Rogu does 8d6 damage, plus any strength and magical modifiers, in a good round of flank and shank, at 5th level. The Shocking Grasp spell by the way tops out at 5d6 at level 5 and is subject to both energy resistance and spell resistance. So what you're saying is that a duskblade is, at best, nominally more effective at combat than a rogue of equal level? I guess you're arguing that it isn't overpowered then, huh.
The chances of a dual wielding rogue hitting compared to a full BAB non TWF user are massively different. Specially considering buffs the DB has on his arsenal.
They are different by....4! Which if the rogue flanks is half compensated. Also if the DB takes time to buff that's one more round he's not doing damage in combat and the rogue can catch up to him.
Let's look at level 8 though. DB is doing that same 5d6 shocking grasp damage on a channel, where a rogue now gets 3 potential sneak attacks (assuming twf) each with 4d6 bonus damage.
Riffing on Loopy's ideas a couple of pages back: the Iron Mage.
The chances of a dual wielding rogue hitting compared to a full BAB non TWF user are massively different. Specially considering buffs the DB has on his arsenal.They are different by....4! Which if the rogue flanks is half compensated. Also if the DB takes time to buff that's one more round he's not doing damage in combat and the rogue can catch up to him.
Let's look at level 8 though. DB is doing that same 5d6 shocking grasp damage on a channel, where a rogue now gets 3 potential sneak attacks (assuming twf) each with 4d6 bonus damage.
Whenever I do the math the rogue looks like he does good to great damage, whenever I see one played I see a lot less then I expect. Most enemies who are semi-intelligent either are always on the move against dual wielders to greatly reduce their damage or do something simple like blur to remove the sneak attack damage. The higher level the game goes the more fluid the fights become. I've seen dual wield rangers, rogues, and fighters all scream because they are rarely every able to just open up and full attack.
So you used something along the lines of the Swift and Ascetic Feats from the 3.5 completes? Like swift hunter or ascetic mage, but for a wizard fighter combo?
In my game I added in feats for multi-classing that makes them more workable. But they are race dependent.So say an elf wants to be a fighter/mage as in your example. He takes the feat and his effective caster level for mage is 9, as is his spells known, spells per day, and feat requirements. He would also have an effective fighter level for feat requirements and number of bonus fighter feats.
I've used this feat for two games now, one got to level 16 one to level 12, both times the multiclass did not become a beast but was very playable. I basically opened up my 1st ed PHB and made feats for all the multiclass combos and the races allowed were based on that. Humans ofcourse could not take any of the feats, sorry, but it wouldn't break the system if they could. It just was I wanted some of the old flavor back and this is how I got it. I should have done this years ago with 3.5 but since pathfinder is so in need of house rules well I just figured why not try some things.
Don't know those feats. But I will look into them.
So you used something along the lines of the Swift and Ascetic Feats from the 3.5 completes? Like swift hunter or ascetic mage, but for a wizard fighter combo?
In my game I added in feats for multi-classing that makes them more workable. But they are race dependent.So say an elf wants to be a fighter/mage as in your example. He takes the feat and his effective caster level for mage is 9, as is his spells known, spells per day, and feat requirements. He would also have an effective fighter level for feat requirements and number of bonus fighter feats.
I've used this feat for two games now, one got to level 16 one to level 12, both times the multiclass did not become a beast but was very playable. I basically opened up my 1st ed PHB and made feats for all the multiclass combos and the races allowed were based on that. Humans ofcourse could not take any of the feats, sorry, but it wouldn't break the system if they could. It just was I wanted some of the old flavor back and this is how I got it. I should have done this years ago with 3.5 but since pathfinder is so in need of house rules well I just figured why not try some things.
Don't know those feats. But I will look into them.
The were in the complete series somewhere in more then one book I think. Dont have them in front of me to check.
Basically they allowed certain classes to stack some abilities. Swift hunter for instance allowed scount and ranger to stack for skirmish and favored enemy. They also allowed skirmish damage to apply to favored enemies even if they were normally immune to it. Basically they were feats that relieved some of the multiclass pain.
The were in the complete series somewhere in more then one book I think. Dont have them in front of me to check.
Basically they allowed certain classes to stack some abilities. Swift hunter for instance allowed scount and ranger to stack for skirmish and favored enemy. They also allowed skirmish damage to apply to favored enemies even if they were normally immune to it. Basically they were feats that relieved some of the multiclass pain.
A number of these were also presented in the class acts section of Dragon magazine.
So. We've had a bit of heated discussion lately about what a gish character should be and should be able to do. In particular, James Jacobs has weighed in, with comments including...
** spoiler omitted **
...
I think the important thing to remember is that a character like this isn't a fighter or a wizard. I really liked the concept of the 3.5 warlock.
A character who learns to incorporate magic in his fighting style can be built different ways. In pathfinder I would use the paladin/ranger spellcasting and class abilities as my benchmark.
I would add at least one, probably multiples, of the following mechanics
1)Arcane strike, full BAB, Full caster level, slow spell progression, limited spell list.
2) The ability to either drop spell slots to increase abilities, skills, attack/damage, defenses, etc.
3) The ability to incorporate spells into physical attacks i.e. imbue arrow, but not the only area spells nonsense
4) The ability to cast in armor without spell failure, either via an automatic still spell ability, or the spellcasting somatic component is the strike.Obviously it should not get arcane bonds and bonus feats like a wizard, or fighter bonus feats and weapon/armor training like a fighter, so it isn't just a superior choice.
There's probably lots of other great ideas out there, these are some that I like.
I like your explanation the best.
Which class are you talking about? Because Duskblades don't have that.Sneak attack is very contingent as well.
Unlike FULL BAB and d10 HD 24 hours a day 10 days a week !!
Offense... full bab. 2 good saves.
Blade of blood for extra d6 after the massive hit.
defense... d10 HD = epic fail.
But then again d8 is still better than a rogue and after you true strike vamp touch ir turn swift invisible for one nasty full attack your probably equal in HP to a barbarian in effect.
Rogue
Life is an endless adventure for those who live by their wits. Ever just one step ahead of danger, rogues bank on their cunning, skill, and charm to bend fate to their favor. Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents. Thieves and gamblers, fast talkers and diplomats, bandits and bounty hunters, and explorers and investigators all might be considered rogues, as well as countless other professions that rely upon wits, prowess, or luck. Although many rogues favor cities and the innumerable opportunities of civilization, some embrace lives on the road, journeying far, meeting exotic people, and facing fantastic danger in pursuit of equally fantastic riches. In the end, any who desire to shape their fates and live life on their own terms might come to be called rogues.
Role: Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware, and tend to avoid head-to-head combat. Their varied skills and abilities allow them to be highly versatile, with great variations in expertise existing between different rogues. Most, however, excel in overcoming hindrances of all types, from unlocking doors and disarming traps to outwitting magical hazards and conning dull-witted opponents.
Alignment: Any.
Hit Die: d8.
"What is a gish? A miserable pile of secrets!"
Nice Symphony of the Night reference, been awhile since I heard that one.
That's all. :)
Here's my take on gishes. The matter is so overcomplicated because avery single guy among us has a specific idea on gishes. The perfect PF RPG solution? Cavalier teaches... Gish schools/traditions with different paths and powers!
1) d8 hit die. He's not a tank of its own, but he can become one thanks to spells.
2) heavy armor and shield proficiency, with normal spell failure
3) armored casting up to light and shields at the beginning, but it can improve with levels to medium and heavy IN CERTAIN GISH SCHOOLS.
4) full base attack bonus. He's a darn warrior!!!
5) int-based casting.
6) 6th spell level, access to cantrips, like bards. by default NO spellbook. I think their training should be different from wizards.
Schools examples:
-Arcane order defenders: focus on defense, spellbook casting and know more spells
-Imperial enforcers: focus on movement, teleport and rapid strikes
-Flying nightmares: focus on flying, ranged combat and area spells, like arcane archer
-MAgic knights: they get a magical mount and mount-based powers, cavalier style
-Dwarven runemasters: foucus on armored casting, buffs and underground combat.
Etc etc.
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.
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.I agree with your assessment of possible arcane builds, Dragonchess Player. The biggest glaring hole in the core rules when it comes to arcane spellcasters is the arcane equivalent of the paladin and the ranger. There's just no PRPG class or combination of classes that could possibly fill that niche.
I'm not so sure that the bard can be easily tweaked to fill the combat arcanist role, though. The class is designed to be a jack-of-all-trades support specialist. It was never intended to be a "go-it-alone in melee" class. You can bend it in that direction if you try hard enough, but that's not what the class was designed to do.
The way I see it you have 3 different caster/combatant types.
1. The heavy casters: D6 hit die, 9th level spells, good spell selection.
2. The medium casters/combatants: D8 hit die, 9th level spells still but less of a spell selection, and armor casting, but limited proficiency.
3. Heavy combatant/non or very week caster: D10/D12 hit die, if they have spells more like very limited use class abilities, full armor casting and proficiency.
The bard is more of a non type as a generalist.
We only have an arcane type for the #1, but nether for the #2 or #3.
Ironically we have a divine for a #2 and #3, not sure about the orical as I have not looked at them, but non for the #1.
The way I see it you have 3 different caster/combatant types.
1. The heavy casters: D6 hit die, 9th level spells, good spell selection.
2. The medium casters/combatants: D8 hit die, 9th level spells still but less of a spell selection, and armor casting, but limited proficiency.
3. Heavy combatant/non or very week caster: D10/D12 hit die, if they have spells more like very limited use class abilities, full armor casting and proficiency.
The bard is more of a non type as a generalist.
We only have an arcane type for the #1, but nether for the #2 or #3.
Ironically we have a divine for a #2 and #3, not sure about the orical as I have not looked at them, but non for the #1.
I agree with most of that assessment, including your assertion that bards are too much of generalists to fill any of these niches.
However, I think niche #2 on your list is essentially describing an eldritch knight build. I'm inclined to believe that niche #3 is the one that needs the most attention. Either that, or a niche for a non-generalist class that otherwise resembles the bard.
(Sadly, the oracle doesn't fill the non-combatant divine caster niche that it really should have filled.)
From what I have heard, their is a variant bard that is more combat oriented and would be a #2.
Rogues are more of a #2, with skills instead of spells.
Coming into this a bit late.
I imagine if you want to make a "Gish" base class, you need to consider the niche of the character then have it be able to fill that niche approximately equally to the other options available.
This should not take the form of "weaker at level 1 but stronger at higher levels"
The spells of a Gish should relate specifically to what he does, and they should be something he can cast without throwing his sword away.
I would think, just on a really simple level here - if you were to take a fighter base class - remove his bonus feats, armor and weapon fighter-training, and access to fighter-only feats,
then the spells the class gets should be comparible in power to those abilities - and should fufill a similar function.
If it were me, the spells such a class got would be primarily swift action spells. They would be primarily self-buffs, or perhaps some ranged offensive for some versatility.
The self-buffs would be offensive boost, defensive boost, and maneuverability boost primarily. Throw in a couple flavor spells, for, well flavor - and go with that.
The other possibility is to give a gish class SLA's - something like the Warlock. SLA's that can instantly enchant a weapon you are holding (so every weapon you pick up becomes immediately "shocking burst") or something. And some other flavorful SLA's directly relating to getting in front and fighting.
Although that option wouldn't technically be "spellcasting", it would give a martial character an arcane feel.
...
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.
You can get closeer with Full BAB 12 / arcanist 6 / EK 2 where you somewhat make up for the lacking BAB in additional feats or abilities gained from the full BAB class.
Just a thought
I'm not so sure that the bard can be easily tweaked to fill the combat arcanist role, though. The class is designed to be a jack-of-all-trades support specialist. It was never intended to be a "go-it-alone in melee" class. You can bend it in that direction if you try hard enough, but that's not what the class was designed to do.
Bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X. Bards can cast without arcane spell failure in light armor (i.e., mithral breastplate, with Medium Armor proficiency or 1 level of fighter) and while using a shield (heavy shield), which can give them an AC about equal to most clerics. BAB is only 2 less than full, but heroism (+2 on attack rolls, etc.; 10 min/level duration) is a 2nd level bard spell. The "core" bard spell list has plenty of buff/debuff, incapacitating, and information gathering choices.
About the only thing missing for some concepts of a combat arcanist is direct damage spells. However, some of that can be gained (at the cost of one more level of casting progression; i.e., 3 total instead of 2) by a bard 4/fighter 1/dragon disciple 4/eldritch knight X. A sorcerer 4/fighter 1/dragon disciple 3/eldritch knight is also a possibility; the BAB is 3 less than full and arcane spell failure is an issue (unless Arcane Armor Training/Mastery feats are taken), but the character has better access to direct damage 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.
You can get closeer with Full BAB 12 / arcanist 6 / EK 2 where you somewhat make up for the lacking BAB in additional feats or abilities gained from the full BAB class.
Just a thought
<shrug>
If I want a strong combatant, I'll go bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X (with the Magical Knack trait) for melee or fighter (ranger)/bard (sorcerer, wizard)/arcane archer for ranged. The bard spell list has a good selection of buff/debuff, incapacitating, and information gathering spells (which leaves weapons for direct damage). A blaster/arcane archer makes a strong ranged combatant.
It's only if you want a character that's both a blaster and a melee combatant that you run into issues, the same way you'd run into issues if you wanted a character that excelled in both melee and ranged combat.
Basically, it sounds like what people are wanting is the Valkyrie from Gauntlet: Not as great at magic as Wizard, not as great at hand-to-hand as Warrior, and not as great as ranged as Rogue, but second place in all of these.
I think Bard fits the bill for the most part.
Okay, DCP, that's four posts in ten minutes about bard/fighter/EK. We get it. It's not a solution because:
It doesn't sit in any chair. It cannot replace the fighter, it cannot replace the cleric, it cannot replace the wizard, and in most games it cannot replace the rogue. It is a fifth man, which means in many games there's no room.
It's different flavor. Yes, yes, "it doesn't have to be fruity singing" but nearly all of its class abilities save possibly bardic knowledge don't fit the flavor of a warrior or a mage. You can totally make a bard who is a warrior or who is a mage but the fact of the matter is that you don't get any class abilities that back that concept.
It fights like a cleric. There's nothing particularly arcane about the way a bard fights in melee; it buffs up and walks into melee, except that the buffs are Not Very Good and better cast on someone else anyway.
It sucks at melee. A melee bard is a horrible melee combatant any way you look at it. It starts with a weak base-stat frame and then gets nothing but Inspire Courage to make up for it. You're almost always better off casting your combat buff spells on the party's fighter, cleric, or rogue than on yourself because they have abilities that actually let them do well in combat.
Its spells are too good. It's too much of a blaster AND a melee character, except that it's better at the first and bad at both. Bards are better off using their spells to win fights wizard-style than casting them cleric-style to get marginal buffs for themselves, because they're only ever going to be mediocre in melee anyway.
It's a crap build. There's no sense going EK as a bard because Inspire Courage gives you back all but one point to-hit that you lose by taking bard levels instead of 1/1 BAB levels, and EK gives you nothing but two feats and a goofy capstone that doesn't work well for bards. You're...
Just to add one really important part, bards have no class abilities that lend themselves to OFFENSE. If you are going to be a fighting character the class has to give something to doing damage. Yes you can give yourself some bonuses to hit, but you are still hitting with basically just weapon damage (maybe a little strength but you need dex to fill out light armor), there are a feats of course you can take, but its not part of the class. That a combat character does not make.
Okay, DCP, that's four posts in ten minutes about bard/fighter/EK. We get it. It's not a solution because:
<snip>
Human bard 1 (15 point buy); 12 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 8 Wis, 14 Cha; Magical Knack (Bard), 1 other trait; seven skill ranks; Weapon Finesse, 1 other feat (Scribe Scroll?); Spells Known - daze, detect magic, lullaby, mage hand, animate rope, sleep; studded leather, heavy wooden shield, short bow, 20 arrows, whip, rapier, dagger, 24 gp. AC 18, +3 attack bonus (bow, rapier, whip, dagger). This character has a decent AC and attack bonus, plus can disable foes magically. Alternately, a bard with 16 Str and 12 Dex, Spell Focus (Enchantment), and a longsword instead of a rapier has AC 16, +3 melee attack bonus, and +1 ranged attack bonus.
A bard 4/fighter 1 gains access to heroism (+2 on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks; 10 min/level duration) and hold person. Attack bonus (melee at least) +7 (+9 with heroism up), before counting magical enhancements or other bonuses not already specified. Wears a mithral breastplate (+6 armor bonus, max Dex +5, Armor Check -1) and uses a heavy shield (+2 AC); plus enchantments and other AC boosting items.
A bard 7/fighter 1 gains access to crushing despair, dispel magic, or displacement and haste. Attack bonus (melee) +9/+4 (+11/+6 with heroism, +12/+12/+7 with haste as well), plus additional bonuses.
Heroism compensates for the BAB of the bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X being 2 less than full (although iterative attacks lag slightly). Haste, in conjunction with heroism, increases combat effectiveness at least as much as what an equal level cleric gains from divine power. The bard spell list has a good selection of buff/debuff, incapacitating, information gathering, and summoning spells.
Just to add one really important part, bards have no class abilities that lend themselves to OFFENSE.
It depends on your definition of "offense."
If you mean direct damage (blaster), you are correct. If you mean debuff, disabling, or summoning, then the bard has a good selection of spells to accomplish that. If you mean "make an effective combatant," see above.
DCP, you didn't address this:
seven skill ranks
How many skill ranks are needed to replace the rogue? Two (Disable Device, Perception)? Four (Climb, Disable Device, Perception, Stealth)? Five (Climb, Disable Device, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth)? Considering that only Disable Device is not a bard class skill, the only thing a human bard with Skill Focus (Disable Device) misses out on is the +1/2 level bonus that a rogue gets.
[at 5th level] Attack bonus (melee at least) +7 (+9 with heroism up), before counting magical enhancements or other bonuses not already specified.
[at 8th level] Attack bonus (melee) +9/+4 (+11/+6 with heroism, +12/+12/+7 with haste as well), plus additional bonuses.
Considering that the buffed bard can fill the combat role about as well as an equal level cleric, I don't see your objection. If you disagree, prove your assertion that a cleric 5 or cleric 8 can fight better than the bard above. Show your actual combat totals, not just a hand-wave. I'm tired of you making statements without backing them up.
If you mean direct damage (blaster), you are correct. If you mean debuff, disabling, or summoning, then the bard has a good selection of spells to accomplish that.
Let's see, the combat bard can perform almost as well as the rogue in the stealth/traps role, can fight almost as well as a fighter (about the same as a cleric) in the combat role, AND can debuff, disable, and summon almost as well as a sorcerer/wizard. About the only thing he can't do well is cast direct damage spells.
In particular, bards are not good at melee. You can put up a hundred thousand stat blocks where the bard casts Heroism on himself, but if the party has a martial character or a divine spellcaster or a rogue he's better off casting that Heroism on one of them because they have the survivability to enter melee and/or class features or self-only spells that increase their offensive output.
Just like you can say a thousand times that divine power turns a cleric into a combat god... even though it doesn't.
Back up your statements.
|
Other than hitting dudes, I'd like a secondary magical schtick based on a theme, preferably an out-of-combat problem-solving one. This does not necessarily need to include a spell list, especially if the main schtick has a spell list. Poaching a little bit of wizard versatility seems obvious but it could easily lead to stepping on the wizard's or even rogue's toes if done carelessly. The only example of a schtick like this that I can think of is the 4e swordmage's teleporting shenanigans.
One of the ideas I had was of an ability to do say Urban tracking.
Ah, I see now. Current mechanics are irrelevant.
If James Jacobs is correct about the additions to the bard's spell list in the Advanced Player's Guide (especially if there are alternate class abilities to swap out for Bardic Performance), then perhaps the options will be available to make a bard closer to what you want. Or perhaps there will eventually be an official "arcane warrior" with class abilities similar to the 3.5 duskblade, but with spell progression in line with the paladin and ranger (or the 3.5 hexblade).
What I doubt you'll ever see from Paizo is a class that's overpowered compared to the "core" ones. If what you want is the third option listed in one of my posts above, except with the spell progression of the bard, instead of the paladin or ranger, and a spell list focused on direct damage, then you're probably doomed for disappointment. I don't think Paizo will ever publish a character class with full BAB and medium armor, but better spellcasting than any other "core" full BAB class...
Just to add one really important part, bards have no class abilities that lend themselves to OFFENSE.It depends on your definition of "offense."
If you mean direct damage (blaster), you are correct. If you mean debuff, disabling, or summoning, then the bard has a good selection of spells to accomplish that. If you mean "make an effective combatant," see above.
debuffing and disabling or summoning is all fine. these are useful things to do. This is however what a caster does, not a combat character. I am not saying they have to 'blast' but they have to be able to deal damage in either melee or ranged combat, not just through casting spells. This is what is needed to make an effective fighter mage. Being able to summon or debuff does not make a fighting character.
Ah, I see now. Current mechanics are irrelevant.
If James Jacobs is correct about the additions to the bard's spell list in the Advanced Player's Guide (especially if there are alternate class abilities to swap out for Bardic Performance), then perhaps the options will be available to make a bard closer to what you want. Or perhaps there will eventually be an official "arcane warrior" with class abilities similar to the 3.5 duskblade, but with spell progression in line with the paladin and ranger (or the 3.5 hexblade).
What I doubt you'll ever see from Paizo is a class that's overpowered compared to the "core" ones. If what you want is the third option listed in one of my posts above, except with the spell progression of the bard, instead of the paladin or ranger, and a spell list focused on direct damage, then you're probably doomed for disappointment. I don't think Paizo will ever publish a character class with full BAB and medium armor, but better spellcasting than any other "core" full BAB class...
No one is saying that they want a class like the one you describe. It would be pointless to ask for it. What we want is a class that mixes appropriate levels of arcane magic and fighting and has the class features to make it work. I am fine with using the bard as a template, what but it does not fill this role as it stands. Perhaps this is addressed in the apg, we will have to wait and see, but it is not addressed now.
|
Just thought I would add for those of you requesting a bardlike gish class. There is a class in Adamant's Tome of Secrets (PFRPG version) that is pretty much a self buffing bard with evocation spells and sword spank. I believe the class is called spellblade or arcane blade. I cannot remember which off the top of my head. But it might be just what you are looking for. Who knows? One of my players brought one to my playtest game (for the oracle and cavalier) and it was working really well for him at level 3. It had a bard spell progression (with access to choose from sroc/wiz list unrestricted), at thief BaB, 2 good saves, and class abilities that seemed to be focused on buffing the weapon of the gish (not certain on exact durations or times per day, but it something of the order of 5-7 times daily, with a duration of 6+ rounds, but I cannot remember the exact number, but it was modified by INT bonus). Its casting although spontaneous was also based off of INT. Seemed like pretty rounded deal.
love,
malkav
edit:just thought I would mention it while the PDF is still 1 dollar.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'd think that the best way to manage this style of class would be based on the warlock, with some armor-using ability (maybe warlocks already had this; I don't recall). Essentially, instead of "eldritch blast" being your default ability, that would be an option you could build up from your basic ability being "eldritch strike."
For melee, it would need to be a supernatural ability rather than spell-like to avoid easy disruption. Your invocations are your tricks and get out of jail free cards, but your main schtick is using your magic mojo to make your standard attacks or boost your weapon.
I'd have to look back at the Comp arcane book to see how well it fits, though it's not really relevant to what we wish Paizo would do, since they couldn't use a direct port of the warlock anyway as it's not open content, but I think that something *like* the warlock is the direction I would go with the "arcane warrior" archetype - base it more around SLAs than spells per se.
What I doubt you'll ever see from Paizo is a class that's overpowered compared to the "core" ones. If what you want is the third option listed in one of my posts above, except with the spell progression of the bard, instead of the paladin or ranger, and a spell list focused on direct damage, then you're probably doomed for disappointment. I don't think Paizo will ever publish a character class with full BAB and medium armor, but better spellcasting than any other "core" full BAB class...No one is saying that they want a class like the one you describe.
Only the ones holding the 3.5 duskblade up as the standard. There are also several who are stating they want "full BAB, medium armor, spell progression as a bard."
You may not want that. I know I don't. However, there are those who do.