|
as far as i am concerned the only reason to make something into a PRC is if it is over specialized and very powerful.
Yes indeed that's why I think his Shifter might be a prestige class since it want it to be a very specialized thing; multiple shapes, spells for shifting and animalistic powers. I find this very specialized druid thing so that's why I sed might be a prestige class.
yes i can see your point but i would say that before the APG was introduced if some one had suggested a class like the summoner i could easily have seen people say it should be a PRC and not a base class.
as long as it is written out well and gains plenty of abilities that round out the concept i can see just about any concept being made into a base class.
|
One thing that played years ago, was a special monk like class. In exchange for the a lot of the monk's abilities, the monk was able to cast spells. The spells work like the sorc, where the monk would know so many spells and could cast any one from the known list if they had spells remaining that day. The spells from this special monk class tended to revolve around movement (Like feather fall). It's an interesting concept I enjoyed.
On a side note... I'd love to see some books gear toward "medievel" times from around the globe, not just the standard knight/wizards/castle/dragon ones. For example, Japan, Vikings, Native American, etc.
|
How about a spellcaster who only knows a single, powerful spell. Something along the lines of "got their hands on a spell book and instead of starting at the beginning, flipped directly to the back and learned the biggest, most powerful spell in the book, and that's the only spell they know".
Dilvish the Damned...spent time in Hell, learned a handful of spells that each cause some form of unstoppable apocalypse.
yes i can see your point but i would say that before the APG was introduced if some one had suggested a class like the summoner i could easily have seen people say it should be a PRC and not a base class.
as long as it is written out well and gains plenty of abilities that round out the concept i can see just about any concept being made into a base class.
I get what you mean, there are so many Pathfinder Core grognards that will attest that the eleven base classes are all there are and all there should ever be - blah, blah, blah.
I think as long as you have a build in mind, that the base classes don't obviously cover, and as long as you try to maintain balance so that the base classes don't get over-powered by a new class - building a new class is a viable option. I've already done it three times because the need I had could not be filled with the existing classes with altered flavor. It was the mechanics that didn't match the needs.
I've seen many great new classes created on this board, and most of them viable stand-alone classes that do not resemble too much an existing class.
While nobody wants class bloat, undermining creative class creation by running home to Core Rulebook as the only solution is quite banal IMO.
GP
Most of my altered class needs easily fit under reflavored base classes. Creating new classes willy-nilly without looking at what the base classes can do with just a bit new flavor is just being lazy. However, when the need is there and the fit is not, make a new class, but keep it balanced.
GP
|
a lot of super heroes. Green lantern, superman and batman being top of my list.
yes you can get close, but not complete
Dang it superhero was going to my suggestion. I run my superhero campaign and Pathfinder style campaign as the same world. Currently I'm trying to go through all the Palladium superpowers (Heroes Unlimited and Powers Unlimited 1-3) and figure out a way to make a Pathfinder rules super hero. Figure I'm going to need to generalize alot of the powers and maybe make feat chains. Superpower feats only being available to the "Powered" class.
As for the brawler I actually did a monk that was a very irish halfling "bouncer" who was just hardcore dedicated to brawling even before he became an adventurer. Celtic myth had plenty of heroic feats attributed to various legendary figures that translated into the monk abilities, sometimes it's just in the flavor you brush over the actual mechanics.
Lastly, much earlier a "Gandalf" sword wielding wizard was mentioned. If I recall you can have your bonded item be a weapon and in such a case you are automatically proficient with it.
I'd recommend Mutants and Masterminds rules, you'll find the conversion process a little easier what with it being a d20 system and all.
I just want a monk that isn't such a mish mash of Japanese and Chinese...for one
Ki=Japanese
Chi=Chinese (or rather Qi)
I just want a monk that isn't such a mish mash of Japanese and Chinese...for one
Ki=Japanese
Chi=Chinese (or rather Qi)
I wouldn't mind a wuxia style class, quite frankly. We have the western equivilant in the paladin, after all.
My problem with the monk is that it's not based on Japanese or Chinese culture, but in really terrible 70's kung fu movies.
one thing i find funny is that even though pathfinder is backwards compatible i find it difficult to want to play a DnD base class that hasnt been updated to pathfinder.
|
|
I can see all your points just like I sed if you can make it with some feats or variants from the core class there is no need to get a new full base class it's all my points in this ^^ I wish I could know more about those oriental combat styles to adapt to the monk I'll read a bit of them to try and get an idea of them.
|
|
I wouldn't mind a wuxia style class, quite frankly. We have the western equivilant in the paladin, after all.
Ok this is a quick thing to fix your monk to be a Wushu Souther Tiger Monk Style fighter
Weapons proficiency to this style: Claws, Spear, Trident, Dagger, Shortsword
Take away from monk the: Fast Movement, Slow fall, AC bonus (tiger style has no defense at all only offense), evasion, Improved evasion, abundant step, tongue of sun and moon.
Add the following abilities:
Uncanny Dodge and Improved uncanny dodge for evasions
This are some suggestions to put in and level at they can go.
Tiger Skin (Ex): At 2nd level, whenever a monk takes lethal damage, a number of points of that damage equal to her Strength modifier bonus are nonlethal damage instead.
Striking Tiger (Ex): At 4th level, a monk can spend one use of his Ki pool when making an unarmed attack to deal +4 points of damage with that attack.
Tiger bares its Claw (Ex): At 6th level, a monk uses 1.5 of her Strength bonus on damage with unarmed strikes, instead of normal damage
Tiger Strike Twice (Ex): Whenever a 8th level monk deals damage with an unarmed strike, she immediately gains an extra unarmed attack that deals 5 less damage than the previous one if it hits. Combo cannot be used with attacks of opportunity. Extra attacks granted by combo can deal no damage if the result is low enough and they don't allow any extra effects (such as extra sneak attack damage and so on).
Piercing Tiger Claw (Su): At 10th level, a monk's unarmed attacks ignore a number of points of deflection and shield bonus to AC (in any combination) equal to her Strength modifier bonus.
Shattering Claw (Ex): At 12th level, monk gains benefits of Improved Sunder feat when making unarmed strikes.
Fierce Tiger Claws (Su): At 14th level, whenever a monk uses power punch, the affected attack also ignores points of Damage Reduction and hardness equal to monk's Strength modifier bonus.
Tiger knows no Defense (Su): At 16th level, whenever a monk takes damage, she may spend any number of Ki pool uses. For each one spent, monk turn 10 points of lethal damage to subdual damage.
Tiger Heart (Ex): At 18th level, a monk can spend one use of Ki pool as a move action to gain +8 bonus to Strength for 1 minute. This ability can be used multiple times adding only 1 minute to the duration for each use of Ki pool.
Well hope this gives you an idea on your Wu Xia of course there is the Black Tiger, White Tiger and Tiger & Crane but this is a regular Tiger style.
I'd really like to build a flying wuxia swordswoman, with exceptional grace and gravity-defying agility. I think maybe many of the individual features I have in mind could be cobbled together, but I think the result would look very piecemeal and probably not very playable, on account of any necessary feats and class-dips not being intended to work together.
ETA: whoops, somebody just got to this, above. Heh.
Also, as to Trout's ideas about Gravity, above, it might be kind of cool to see classes with limited elemental control. No spells, as such. Just SLAs to manipulate some particular force or substance. Like gravity or light or water. You could try to create such a character from a full caster, but I think they'd probably just end up being a caster with an unversatile and possibly ineffective (since you'd presumably have to take the bad elemental spells along with the good ones in order to maintain the flavor) list of spells.
I'd like to cast magic all day like, say, a certain young, scarred wizard or other characters from different fantasy series from level 1 without being overpowered. We're talking more than just cantrips and orisons, here.
And I swear, if the board eats this AGAIN, making it the 4th time (at least) I've tried to articulate this idea... well, I guess I'll be really angry, but I will impotently shake my fist at these boards so hard, the people who run this place will feel it in their bones! Well, maybe not, but I will still impotently shake my fist at it and be angry. That part wasn't exaggeration.
I'd like to cast magic all day like, say, a certain young, scarred wizard or other characters from different fantasy series from level 1 without being overpowered. We're talking more than just cantrips and orisons, here.
Sounds like a warlock's invocations to me. And their eldritch blast. From Complete Arcane.
Or possibly the reserve feats from the Complete Mage. I'll have to remind my duskblade ally about those....
I'd like to cast magic all day like, say, a certain young, scarred wizard or other characters from different fantasy series from level 1 without being overpowered. We're talking more than just cantrips and orisons, here.
Sounds like a warlock's invocations to me. And their eldritch blast. From Complete Arcane.
Or possibly the reserve feats from the Complete Mage. I'll have to remind my duskblade ally about those....
The warlock was a nice concept, but I don't think it was entirely fully realized. As for the reserve feats, those are almost entirely focused on damage dealing spells, plus they almost all require you to know 2nd level spells. I don't think focusing predominantly on almost pure damage dealing is able to properly capture the concepts mimicking the archetypes I'm thinking of here. Besides, neither the Warlock nor the reserve feats have been updated or brought into Pathfinder, so I don't think they should really be considered here.
To capture the feel I'm looking for, the class would need a decent "smorgasbord" of spells: a few ways of dealing damage and a bunch of utility spells, perhaps ones that mimic skill usage, amongst other things. Maybe some of the more non-combat-y spells are actually elaborate rituals that take more time than a round or two to actually cast. We're talking minutes, at least.
Very few of the characters you get in books and shows and whatnot these days have even the tiniest of hints that they are limited in how much magic they can do in a day in even remotely concrete terms. I just really wish that there was a class (or two... or three) that could emulate that feel without either lagging behind a little or being flat-out, full-on overpowered.
Come to think of it the wuxia thing isn't really possible. Another few to add to the list is a commander, A character with predominantly social benefits (Friar Tuck or Maid Marian) who isn't a bard or rogue, a musician who uses organized playing to inspire his comrades (Though I did make a class for that), Dragon Rider (3rd party stuff for this), non-good divine warrior (Though I have been told this coming out in the Advanced player's guide), a kensai (Basically the wuxia thing, but a savant at one weapon. You could do both as one class actually...), Character using shadow powers to combat their foes (I'm picturing disappearing and reappearing, shaping weapons from shadow, and turning into shadow to move faster. We already have a shadow dancer, why nothing basic?).
Come to think of it the wuxia thing isn't really possible. Another few to add to the list is a commander, A character with predominantly social benefits (Friar Tuck or Maid Marian) who isn't a bard or rogue, a musician who uses organized playing to inspire his comrades (Though I did make a class for that), Dragon Rider (3rd party stuff for this), non-good divine warrior (Though I have been told this coming out in the Advanced player's guide), a kensai (Basically the wuxia thing, but a savant at one weapon. You could do both as one class actually...), Character using shadow powers to combat their foes (I'm picturing disappearing and reappearing, shaping weapons from shadow, and turning into shadow to move faster. We already have a shadow dancer, why nothing basic?).
Again, is 3.5 material allowed?
Swordsage to wuxia, and warblade or crusader with White Raven Tactics for the leader :D.
My problem with the monk is that it's not based on Japanese or Chinese culture, but in really terrible 70's kung fu movies.
+1
Come to think of it the wuxia thing isn't really possible. Another few to add to the list is a commander, A character with predominantly social benefits (Friar Tuck or Maid Marian) who isn't a bard or rogue, a musician who uses organized playing to inspire his comrades (Though I did make a class for that), Dragon Rider (3rd party stuff for this), non-good divine warrior (Though I have been told this coming out in the Advanced player's guide), a kensai (Basically the wuxia thing, but a savant at one weapon. You could do both as one class actually...), Character using shadow powers to combat their foes (I'm picturing disappearing and reappearing, shaping weapons from shadow, and turning into shadow to move faster. We already have a shadow dancer, why nothing basic?).Again, is 3.5 material allowed?
Swordsage to wuxia, and warblade or crusader with White Raven Tactics for the leader :D.
Eh, they didn't really do it for me. It seemed more like those classes were empty mechanical run-throughs of another system (Which they were) trying to say they were wuxia inspired. Really? I've seen like one two weapon fighter in a wuxia film, and there's a whole style based around it, while the acrobatics is only present in that and one other of the styles. Sorry, but I'd rather have a real base class with modular abilities that mimic the films inspired by them instead of just giving them lip service. Where's my ability to use my chi to balance on a tree branch? To block swarms of arrows with unusual weapons? To fly gracefully through the air while exchanging strikes with another warrior? What about breaking my opponent's weapons? All these examples are in the movie Hero, and I don't remember any being in the Book of 9 Swords.
i always wanted to do a potion master. a herbalist / brewer that creates potions for every possibility. you can use feats to create them but why bother when you can be a wizard who is more powerful and has much more versatility.
cough alchemist cough cough :P
That's why I asked. If there's an awesome ranger build involving shape shifting, is his hat safe because they cast a few lousy spells at high level?
If there's an awesome ranger build involving shape shifting in the APG I could get a hat and eat it, out of pure joy, but I would rahter celibrate with a nice malt.
Werner Herzog ate his shoe, so perhaps Hogarth will end up eating his hat.Werner had a lot of beer to the shoe. It had been cooking for 5 hours, but it still seem hard to chew. I guess a hat will be easier to eat.
That's why I asked. If there's an awesome ranger build involving shape shifting, is his hat safe because they cast a few lousy spells at high level?
If there's an awesome ranger build involving shape shifting in the APG I could get a hat and eat it, out of pure joy, but I would rahter celibrate with a nice malt.
Werner Herzog ate his shoe, so perhaps Hogarth will end up eating his hat.
Werner had a lot of beer to the shoe. It had been cooking for 5 hours, but it still seem hard to chew. I guess a hat will be easier to eat.
I'm cautiously pessimistic, in particular because I don't think there's anything about the ranger class that says "shapeshifter" to me. Hopefully it's not just a new combat style (e.g. "claw/claw/bite" instead of archery or two-weapon combat).
I'd like to cast magic all day like, say, a certain young, scarred wizard or other characters from different fantasy series from level 1 without being overpowered. We're talking more than just cantrips and orisons, here.
Sounds like a warlock's invocations to me. And their eldritch blast. From Complete Arcane.
Or possibly the reserve feats from the Complete Mage. I'll have to remind my duskblade ally about those....
The warlock was a nice concept, but I don't think it was entirely fully realized. As for the reserve feats, those are almost entirely focused on damage dealing spells, plus they almost all require you to know 2nd level spells. I don't think focusing predominantly on almost pure damage dealing is able to properly capture the concepts mimicking the archetypes I'm thinking of here. Besides, neither the Warlock nor the reserve feats have been updated or brought into Pathfinder, so I don't think they should really be considered here.
To capture the feel I'm looking for, the class would need a decent "smorgasbord" of spells: a few ways of dealing damage and a bunch of utility spells, perhaps ones that mimic skill usage, amongst other things. Maybe some of the more non-combat-y spells are actually elaborate rituals that take more time than a round or two to actually cast. We're talking minutes, at least.
Very few of the characters you get in books and shows and whatnot these days have even the tiniest of hints that they are limited in how much magic they can do in a day in even remotely concrete terms. I just really wish that there was a class (or two... or three) that could emulate that feel without either lagging behind a little or being flat-out, full-on overpowered.
In the Tome of Magic (again, 3.5, but Pathfinder is still relatively new), there is the binder, which typically lets you use your main abilities either once every 5 rounds, once a round, or constantly. There is also the Truenamer, which has to make a skill check each time they use a "spell;" the DC increases by +2 each time they re-use a "spell" in the same day.
Those 2 classes might also serve as some inspiration for how to create a "cast all day" spellcaster.
It also seems like the media examples of the cast all day spellcasters have a really limited number of abilities known. For example, it looks like all Harry Potter knows is a trick to disarm wands, a curse to hurt opponents, and a method of teleporting from fireplace to fireplace; maybe Dispel Magic too. He might also know some additional rituals, but he seems to use only a few spells at will.
Of the top of my head I would say that the following concepts either cannot be made,
Swashbuckler
Skirmisher
Shaman
Practitioner of ecstatic magic
Practitioner of high ritual magic
Pugilists
Any form of psychic.
i can just about fool the game into letting me play the swashbuckler, skirmisher and shaman, with multiclassing, but the results are pretty weak compared super-optimised versions of the classes they are made from.
Swashbuckler- bull feathers- rogue. Done.
Skirmisher- Ranger or rogue with shot on the run/spring attack. Done
Shaman- Fluff- Cleric with nature domains.
Practitioner of ecstatic magic- Fluff. Get real happy when you cast.
Practitioner of high ritual magic- Kinda agree, but this is not an archetype that is SUPPOSED to be available at low levels. It IS "high" magic, no?
Pugilists- Agree, but there is a reason people invented weapons- it is because they hurt more :)
Any form of psychic- Oracle fill this niche nicely, IMO.
No?
Of the top of my head I would say that the following concepts either cannot be made,
Swashbuckler - needs a fighter-variant more than a separate class, I've currently got a working fighter-based swashbuckler in a game.
Skirmisher - needs a rogue variant.
Shaman - needs a druidic or clerical variant, possibly a different class (I liked the spirit shaman from CD).
Practitioner of ecstatic magic - would be an interesting and original concept.
Practitioner of high ritual magic - as above, this could be interesting if done right but I'm not sure it would be a good class for an adventurer. I always looked on the wizard preparing his spells as a ritual mage doing his ritual work and then drawing on the power when needed (casting the spells).
Pugilists - you could make a fighter or monk variant for this.
Any form of psychic. - you need the psionics rules for that.
i can just about fool the game into letting me play the swashbuckler, skirmisher and shaman, with multiclassing, but the results are pretty weak compared super-optimised versions of the classes they are made from.
I agree, some are doable now but imperfectly. I think the weapon finesse discussion was very much on the line of finding the feats that would make a fighter-based swashbuckler work, and the same approach could work for the pugalist.
.... finding the feats that would make a fighter-based swashbuckler work, and the same approach could work for the pugalist.
Only if by "work' you mean do the same base damage as a 2 handed brute. They "work" just fine as a role playing concept, but I agree, they don;t do as much damage, cuz, well, they're really not supposed to.
.... finding the feats that would make a fighter-based swashbuckler work, and the same approach could work for the pugalist.Only if by "work' you mean do the same base damage as a 2 handed brute. They "work" just fine as a role playing concept, but I agree, they don;t do as much damage, cuz, well, they're really not supposed to.
I will defer on the point of the pugalist, but for the swashbuckler I must ask how being run through the heart makes you less dead than having your skull cleaved open? A way of inflicting precision damage for a fighter using a finesse weapon is perfectly in keeping with this idea.
I don't disagree in principle, mind you, but a simple chain shirt WILL stop a rapier or dagger thrust very effectively. It will do FV<K all against a 2 handed sword :) Precision is great, but light bladed weapons < Heavy armor pretty much every time.
But we're dealing with a fantasy role playing game, so don't let my realism spoil our collective fun :)
Of the top of my head I would say that the following concepts either cannot be made,Swashbuckler - needs a fighter-variant more than a separate class, I've currently got a working fighter-based swashbuckler in a game.
Skirmisher - needs a rogue variant.
Shaman - needs a druidic or clerical variant, possibly a different class (I liked the spirit shaman from CD).
Practitioner of ecstatic magic - would be an interesting and original concept.
Practitioner of high ritual magic - as above, this could be interesting if done right but I'm not sure it would be a good class for an adventurer. I always looked on the wizard preparing his spells as a ritual mage doing his ritual work and then drawing on the power when needed (casting the spells).
Pugilists - you could make a fighter or monk variant for this.
Any form of psychic. - you need the psionics rules for that.
i can just about fool the game into letting me play the swashbuckler, skirmisher and shaman, with multiclassing, but the results are pretty weak compared super-optimised versions of the classes they are made from.I agree, some are doable now but imperfectly. I think the weapon finesse discussion was very much on the line of finding the feats that would make a fighter-based swashbuckler work, and the same approach could work for the pugalist.
I sort of agree on the skirmisher. I think you could handle it as either variant rogue or ranger, but i think there is a conceptual niche for a class who functions based on rapid movement & ranged attacks. Something similar to the scout perhaps.
On skirmisher I have to disagree very strongly.If you look at Iconic swashbucklers from fiction, and compare it to a fighter you find the match up rather poorly.
For instance, fighters are weak willed(poor will) and clumsy(poor ref), but tough(good fort + constitution). On the other hand, swashbucklers tend to be nimble and resistant to compulsion and torture, and with the exception of dread pirate robertson(and his iocain powder immunity) seem to be forever getting drugged and poisoned.
Then you have the 'finesse issue', in some way I think it is the least of the issue fighters have as wanna be swashbucklers, and swashbucklers very often wound and incapacitate through well placed blows, and you can do this, by focusing your fighter on the criticial feats. But, a swashbuckler class could expand this approach with class feature that expand critical range, and the debilitating effect of critical hits.
Then you have the movement and trickery element, things like dodging so that an enemy strikes his ally rather than you, or swinging or sliding under the table to strike at the targets heel, and put a table between youself and the targets allies. Where as, fighters are actually rewarded for standing still to take advantage of full attack.
The leadership thing, swashbucklers are inevitably leaders of men, seducers of woman and great wits, able to draw their enemies onto their swords with taunts and insults. Fighters on the other hand brave, and scary, but slow disincentive to be charismatic.
By the time a alternate class features lists has been written up to make the fighter into the swashbuckler i recognise, you wouldn't be able to recognise it as a fighter at all.
On the pugalist front, you can make a fighter that acts as a pugalist, but it is a really bad choice mechanically. Alternate class features might be the way to deal with it, but we don't have them yet. I will admit you can make a boxer vaguely in line with someone like Mohamed alli, using the monk, but it A, come with a lot of baggage monk related, and B, Isn't really what I meant by a pugalist. My vision is much more of a british workingh class victorian bare-knuckle fighter, broad shoulded, with single punchs that shatter bones like a sledge hammer and a capacity to soak up damage like nothing on earth. As it stands, about the closest I can come is a ranger/barbarian multiclass, and even then it carries a lot of stuff I don't want in the character.
Shamanic magic is not the druidic magic of Pathfinder. If i where to try and make a shaman, I would go with a blend of summoner, alchemist and ranger, and that would be an ungodly mess...
95% of this can be accomplished with a well built Rogue. Maybe not until 8th + level, but it can be done. And a lot of it can still be done with a fighter, IF the player i willing to for go his/her secondary attacks. Just because you HAVE 2 attacks doesn't mean you hafta use them.
No?
Swashbuckler- bull feathers- rogue. Done.
Skirmisher- Ranger or rogue with shot on the run/spring attack. Done
Shaman- Fluff- Cleric with nature domains.
Practitioner of ecstatic magic- Fluff. Get real happy when you cast.
Practitioner of high ritual magic- Kinda agree, but this is not an archetype that is SUPPOSED to be available at low levels. It IS "high" magic, no?
Pugilists- Agree, but there is a reason people invented weapons- it is because they hurt more :)
Any form of psychic- Oracle fill this niche nicely, IMO.
Shaman: Okay, so can you tell me how the cleric class represents individuals who must tattoo themselves, ritually injure themselve, live under complex systems of taboo and get stoned, so that the spirits while talk to them, offer advice and perform services for them? How does the cleric class involve the crafting of fetish weapons, tiki and folk charms? How does it handle possession by spirits and the alliance and advice of a totem spirit?
Practitioner of ecstatic magic:Just fluff? Tell that to sufi mystics spinning, in endless dizzy making dances as they search for enlightenment, tell that to the cannabis hazed minds of hassassins slicing their enemies to pieces in the crusades, tell that to the maenads, as they tear appart orpheus at the hight of their drunken, lustful, cannibalistic rage, deep in the arms of the Dionysian Mysteries.
Ritual magic: i don't think any practitioner of spiritual alchemy, Christian theurgery or hermetic ritualism would agree with you on this. ritual magic, is one of the primary tropes of magic, along with ecstatic practices and shamanism(which share a lot in common, but do also differ in theme substantially) and what might best be described as hedge magic
No?
Swashbuckler- bull feathers- rogue. Done.
Skirmisher- Ranger or rogue with shot on the run/spring attack. Done
Shaman- Fluff- Cleric with nature domains.
Practitioner of ecstatic magic- Fluff. Get real happy when you cast.
Practitioner of high ritual magic- Kinda agree, but this is not an archetype that is SUPPOSED to be available at low levels. It IS "high" magic, no?
Pugilists- Agree, but there is a reason people invented weapons- it is because they hurt more :)
Any form of psychic- Oracle fill this niche nicely, IMO.
Shaman: Okay, so can you tell me how the cleric class represents individuals who must tattoo themselves, ritually injure themselve, live under complex systems of taboo and get stoned, so that the spirits while talk to them, offer advice and perform services for them? How does the cleric class involve the crafting of fetish weapons, tiki and folk charms? How does it handle possession by spirits and the alliance and advice of a totem spirit?
Practitioner of ecstatic magic:Just fluff? Tell that to sufi mystics spinning, in endless dizzy making dances as they search for enlightenment, tell that to the cannabis hazed minds of hassassins slicing their enemies to pieces in the crusades, tell that to the maenads, as they tear appart orpheus at the hight of their drunken, lustful, cannibalistic rage, deep in the arms of the Dionysian Mysteries.
Ritual magic: i don't think any practitioner of spiritual alchemy, Christian theurgery or hermetic ritualism would agree with you on this. ritual magic, is one of the primary tropes of magic, along with ecstatic practices and shamanism(which share a lot in common, but do also differ in theme substantially) and what might best be described as hedge magic
Just because a real world order has fluff not required by the class does not mean that the class cannot be used to perform the idea. Your shaman for instance, can easily be done by a cleric. His gods who grant him power are the spirits that he must appease. To appease them, he must perform his rituals, tatoo himself, and do many other things. Alternatively, take a look at the Oracle, which can easily be used for possession. Talking with spirits is a roleplaying thing easily done.
Just because a real world order has fluff not required by the class does not mean that the class cannot be used to...
^ This. Not every ROLE play choice has to have MECHANICS backing it up.
Example: the 3.0 Oriental Adventures Shaman had a number of taboos associated with their casting. The main downside was losing spells. You could easily apply that kind of nit-pickiness to a LN God/ Tribal totem, where if your character strays too far from X, you lose Y.
You know, like clerics who go against their alignments :)
Also, If I'm remembering correctly, the shamans had a spirit that did exactly what you are describing. The APG Oracle does a lot of this too, in fact, almost to a T.
Ecstatic magic- Sufis- Fluff, Hashashin? Drug using fluff (or you can use any number of 3rd party rules for drug ue. I just don;t care to).
NOw the Delphics- you can fluff it, or you can use BoVD for a lot of that. Or you can give NPC commoners a level of barbarian, and fluff it so they only use it during rituals.
And ritual magic, IMO is already well represented in your terms by lower level Sorcs, witches, and Adepts (NPCs). Love charms, healing, fortune telling, even minor protection from critters of bad intent can all be done by these guys. And IMO the "book" casting time can be used as a guideline for "quick and dirty" magic, where as if a caster had more time, he /she could probably do more stuff with a given spell levels power. But it takes time.
This is where, IMO, we have to draw the line between NPCs and PCs. Show me a player who wants their character to spin in circles for hours on end in game time, and I'll show you a player who is often looking for a new group :) These ideas are great for NPCs, who have the resources or the drive to lead a contemplative life. PCs are not those guys.
But hey , I like new classes too :)Just saying that you really need to stretch to come up with a CHARACTER idea that can;t be built using the the current MECHANICAL system.
A Juggernaut style character, what i mean by that is some one who is super resistant to all different forms of injury or attack, really hard to kill.
a total brute, i get the picture in my head of players coming across one of these guys and s*!+ting themselves because they know this will be a very hard fight.
i have always thought there should be a base class based around fighting spellcaster.
A Juggernaut style character, what i mean by that is some one who is super resistant to all different forms of injury or attack, really hard to kill.
a total brute, i get the picture in my head of players coming across one of these guys and s&#*ting themselves because they know this will be a very hard fight.
Barbarian can do this. As can fighter. Pick up DR. Perhaps a way of getting SR would be kinda cool for them.
I don't disagree in principle, mind you, but a simple chain shirt WILL stop a rapier or dagger thrust very effectively. It will do FV<K all against a 2 handed sword :) Precision is great, but light bladed weapons < Heavy armor pretty much every time.
But we're dealing with a fantasy role playing game, so don't let my realism spoil our collective fun :)
A chain shirt stops a rapier about as well as a helmet stops a greatsword in the real world, let alone in fantasy. A breastplate would be more effective, but the concept of precision damage is not punching through armour as much as it is finding the chinks in it. In the English Civil War (17th century) the rapier became the sword of choice against armoured foes over the larger, heavier swords.
I don't disagree in principle, mind you, but a simple chain shirt WILL stop a rapier or dagger thrust very effectively. It will do FV<K all against a 2 handed sword :) Precision is great, but light bladed weapons < Heavy armor pretty much every time.
But we're dealing with a fantasy role playing game, so don't let my realism spoil our collective fun :)
Dagger maybe, rapier no, chain is good for slashing not stabbing, just so ya know : )
A chain shirt stops a rapier about as well as a helmet stops a greatsword in the real world, let alone in fantasy. A breastplate would be more effective, but the concept of precision damage is not punching through armour as much as it is finding the chinks in it. In the English Civil War (17th century) the rapier became the sword of choice against armoured foes over the larger, heavier swords.
(Great, now I have the Clash song running through my head :))
Reference please? IIRC, at least the cavalry continued to use wide bladed heavy sabres, and the infantry was mostly pike and shot. Officers may have carried a thrusting sword, but it was hardly common practice for them to engage in actual fighting. But I agree that "finding the gaps" is key for precision, but then....
Well then we get into the abstraction that is "fantasy RPG combat" vs" Oh crap,My leg's off!!". Or even "I just had a 36" piece of metal shoved through my upper arm, I'm done for today, thanks!! Hope I don;t get gangrene and die :("
Vice
"Meh, 8hp? It's just a flesh wound!!" :)
Dagger maybe, rapier no, chain is good for slashing not stabbing, just so ya know : )
IF you have an ACTUAL bit o'maille, riveted and made from high tensile steel, backed by a leather Jerkin, a one handed thrust from a rapier would be hard pressed to penetrate. A 2 handed attack from an Estoc? Different kettle o' fish :)
Uh, a chains shirt, much less heavy plate, can do a LOT against a two handed sword. The idea is to find the spots the armor doesn't cover and stab in, or smash them in with blunt kinetic force.
Guys with greatswords didn't run around bisecting knights ;p
Reference please? IIRC, at least the cavalry continued to use wide bladed heavy sabres, and the infantry was mostly pike and shot. Officers may have carried a thrusting sword, but it was hardly common practice for them to engage in actual fighting. But I agree that "finding the gaps" is key for precision, but then....
Well there's a Parlimentarian cavalry rapier in Gloucester Cathedral, and I know Spanish (including the Conquistadors) also used rapiers ...
The point is, well, the point: you concentrate the force in a very small area, be it with a spear, a needle-bodkin arrow or a thrusting sword. The mail then works for you, because the rings can trap the point rather than deflecting it. That said, I'm certainly not saying it would be easy or a sure thing, merely that it is possible.
The greatsword probably wouldn't do much against the armour, but the impact would definitely hurt the man in it, so it could damage the wearer - just not by slicing him.
A Juggernaut style character, what i mean by that is some one who is super resistant to all different forms of injury or attack, really hard to kill.
a total brute, i get the picture in my head of players coming across one of these guys and s!@&ting themselves because they know this will be a very hard fight.
Yeah, I can see a class like this having a huge CMD, Resistances to energy damage, significant DR, possible FH, SR, and bonuses to Saves. Probably Mettle, and maybe Evasion. Maybe based on Constitution instead of Strength. Maybe +3/4 BAB, all good Saves, and either 1d12 HD OR add double Con bonus to hp to 1d8 HD.
Actually, it would be neat to see a spellcaster, or some other special ability user, based on Constitution. Maybe something that gets supernatural and/or extraordinary attack modes: breath weapon, poison, gaze attack, etc.
Uh, a chains shirt, much less heavy plate, can do a LOT against a two handed sword. The idea is to find the spots the armor doesn't cover and stab in, or smash them in with blunt kinetic force.
Guys with greatswords didn't run around bisecting knights ;p
There is a reason most greatswords only had about a foot of sharp edge on a 3-4 ft blade. It was as much to beat the opponent to the ground as anthing else. The middle of the blade is a grip, and the pommel is a striking surface. The idea when fighting a fully armored opponent was to knock him to the ground so you could stab through his neck, underarm, or eye sockets. Piercing the plate armor meant that you lost your weapon, because you could never get it out in a combat situation after the steel crimped arround the blade.
As for the Rapier vs chainmail, it doesn't work that well. It works better than against plate, but light swords came about as armor became less useful because of guns and crossbows. You no longer needed a heavy sword to withstand an opponents armor, so a lighter weapon that could place a shot in the lighter armor that covered less area became more relevant. Rapier didn't come about until chainmail was loosing popularity to just a breastplate, which was significantly lighter and easier to wear for long periods of time. Piercing chainmail with a rapier would be a good way to break your sword, even if it kills the guy.