What would you suggest we try to stay below than?
I never said below benchmark is a power level you aim for, but Honestly to me power wise, Bard, alchemist, inquisitor or ranger seems about right to me. But if he is cleric or druid level of power I would call it over powered really.
What would you suggest we try to stay below than?I never said below benchmark is a power level you aim for, but Honestly to me power wise, Bard, alchemist, inquisitor or ranger seems about right to me. But if he is cleric or druid level of power I would call it over powered really.
So, you think druid and cleric should be nerfed then?
So, you think druid and cleric should be nerfed then?What would you suggest we try to stay below than?I never said below benchmark is a power level you aim for, but Honestly to me power wise, Bard, alchemist, inquisitor or ranger seems about right to me. But if he is cleric or druid level of power I would call it over powered really.
What do you think the whole new version of PF was meant to do?
What do you think the whole new version of PF was meant to do?So, you think druid and cleric should be nerfed then?What would you suggest we try to stay below than?I never said below benchmark is a power level you aim for, but Honestly to me power wise, Bard, alchemist, inquisitor or ranger seems about right to me. But if he is cleric or druid level of power I would call it over powered really.
Not following mate. I'm sure the cleric and druid are different from 3.5, but I don't see them as nerfed at all. Besides, we all know that all classes aren't created equal, and that casters are more powerful than non casters most of the time, and they should be, otherwise we go to 4th edition b~*+%+@s. And that's not what PF is.
|
Sadly, I think many of the people who are trashing ideas as "munchkin" or "overpowered" are actually people who have no intention of every playing the class under discussion or allowing it in their games, as GMs.
What I see is a bunch of people talking about a subject when they all have different assumptions.
Benn, and maybe ToZ, Hexen Ineptus, and a few other folks seem to be behind the idea of a Full BAB character with very limited casting.
JRR wants Full BAB and 3/4 casting with wide open spell list.
Seeker seems to assume everyone wants what JRR wants or worse.
Paizo and the OP along with a scattering of other want a 3/4 BAB/ 2/3 caster progression class similar to bard.
Personally, I'm fully onboard with Benn's way of thinking. A class that has full BAB paired with fairly limited casting and some fun Su/ SLAs to boost their fighting sounds like a lot of fun and something that isn't really offered currently.
The list of 3/4 casters that play in melee is getting very large and overburdened. Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, etc... another addition to this list isn't really going to break new ground.
I for what it's worth picture arcane paladin.
How about something like this?
3/4 BaB
Half-Casting(like Inquisiter or Alchemist?)
Spells known like a Wizard/Sorcerer.
Thoughts? Opinions? Anything but "No this is munchkin/overpowered"?
How about something like this?
3/4 BaB
Half-Casting(like Inquisiter or Alchemist?)
Spells known like a Wizard/Sorcerer.Thoughts? Opinions? Anything but "No this is munchkin/overpowered"?
I wouldn't do wide open as you really need to look at the effects each spell might have on a class that they were not designed for. But all other 3/4th caster classes have spell lists and spell lists are a great way to control how the class acts and what it is capable of.
A wide open list is a big issue if ya ask me because you've just oked every arcane spell you will ever make.
Just a little point of clarification, can we please agree on the bard being a 2/3 caster (6th level as compared to 9th 6/9 = 2/3) or a 3/4 caster (0-6 = 7 levels as compared to 0-9 = 10 levels 7/10 ~ 3/4). I don't care which way we choose to describe it, but people are using both and it is incredibly annoying, lets all pick one:
bard is:
(a) 2/3 caster
or
(b) 3/4 caster.
I vote (a).
I like the idea of spell-like abilities but I doubt that is happening. Thou I think that idea is even better with a battle bard coming
Just a little point of clarification, can we please agree on the bard being a 2/3 caster
The 3/4th I used was a mistake, I was writing 3/4th BA and didn't notice I used it for casting as well. I agree 2/3rd sounds better
Fireball is a war spell intended to damage large group with a single action. Doing an average 15 damage at fith level against a BBEG isn't very effective. Doing 15 damage to seven weaker minions? 15*7=MEGA DAMAGE. Minions make their saves 7*7 is still 49. 49 damage for a single action is pretty nice.
Mr. Fishy played a Wizard with Burning Hands as a third level spell(empowered spell feat). Damage like a fireball, save like a fireball, easier to aim.
Magus is a slipply slope to far one way and the class is munchkinland to far the other and its unplayable with out major skill or help.
Many a poster has stated the spell casting is very powerful, in fact Mr. Fishy remembers there being a fight about the power of wizards over the rest of the world.
So please excuse the posters that fear a great Munchkin uprising.
One more thing...>Drops a troll bait to protect the crop<
Forum Trolls are a natural predator of young munchkins.
|
|
How about something like this?
3/4 BaB
Half-Casting(like Inquisiter or Alchemist?)
Spells known like a Wizard/Sorcerer.Thoughts? Opinions? Anything but "No this is munchkin/overpowered"?
3/4 BAB 2/3 casting is one of the 2 rational ideas bounced around in this thread. This is also the idea Paizo seems most behind.
The only 'problem' I see with it is it's pretty well covered territory, as you say Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor all work in this space.
I still think a paladin/ranger spell progression could work with a full BA, if you add in 0-level spells starting at 1st class level. I seriously doubt if 0-level spells are going to unbalance the class as compared to the paladin or ranger.
|
I seriously doubt if 0-level spells are going to unbalance the class as compared to the paladin or ranger.
Funny you should mention that. I can state with certainty that my ranger casting endure elements at will did not ruin the game.
I seriously doubt if 0-level spells are going to unbalance the class as compared to the paladin or ranger.Funny you should mention that. I can state with certainty that my ranger casting endure elements at will did not ruin the game.
To be honest man your games are so altered that you can't really use that to judge how it will effect a normal game that uses just the standard rules.
What I am saying you guys are using totally different rules then what is in the book, so what works for your game can not be said to work with games that do not use the same rules you do
It may or may not, broken does not always mean overpowered. But again stuff playtested with totally different rules have no bareing outside of that playtest as it can not be used as data for games not using all the changes.
But if paladins and rangers {half casters } do not gain them then another half caster class should also not gain them
|
|
Seeker, I'm not even going to argue with you about this. You haven't played in Kirth's game, you have no idea what effect the house rules he uses have. I think we had this problem with the playtests, people reading the rules and making a judgement call based on that. If people did not accept that then, why should I accept it from you now?
Again, you cannot tell me that giving 0 level spells to paladins and rangers is going to break Pathfinder.
maybe, but why do it?
|
|
Again, you cannot tell me that giving 0 level spells to paladins and rangers is going to break Pathfinder.maybe, but why do it?
Because it really does make a difference to have a spell at first level instead of waiting four levels to have any magic. It does give a different feel to the class, and I can state that from experience. Even if it is only one 0-level spell.
|
|
Because it really does make a difference to have a spell at first level instead of waiting four levels to have any magic. It does give a different feel to the class, and I can state that from experience. Even if it is only one 0-level spell.Again, you cannot tell me that giving 0 level spells to paladins and rangers is going to break Pathfinder.maybe, but why do it?
Ah, the wonders of prestidigitation...
Must have read the post differently than you. I did not feel the "weapons" was implied. I interpreted it as this class is not meant to be a toe-to-toe fighter all the time. More along the lines of the rogue and monk (possibly the new APG d8 classes though I've never play tested any of them). If it is as you imply then I would agree. The magus should not have weapons specializations, the critical abilities, etc. My point was that when it comes to cumulative melee power and and durability the classes should be equal. By melee power and durability I mean the ability to deal and sustain damage. I know the magus will accomplish this through arcane means (blink tank anyone), but at the end of the day the results are the same. I see the magus and fighter as interchangeable. Both accomplishing the same task(s), just through different methods.The bolded bit is where I disagree. If you are going to be able to cast fireball and chain lightning you have to give up something. Maybe you don't intend for the class to be doing this but several people have suggested exactly this and everything I've heard implies the class has more or less the wizard spell list.
Suggesting that weapon specialization and critical feats is equivalent to 3/4 spell casting doesn't pas the reasonableness test.
I stated earlier that I think all the magus spells should be close proximity. I would let them have magic missile so they did not have to use a bow for occasional range damage. If I were building it all spells would be melee touch (deliverable through weapon X/day), pointblank AoE, and buff and utility. By utility I mostly mean mobility. I would have a very narrow spell list. In my mind this class could never step on the toes of a utility wizard or even your average sorcerer.
Mr. Fishy . . . If the class is as good as a fighter then why play a fighter. If he caster better than a wizard then why be a wizard . . .
I think the Paladin is just as good as the fighter, and yet a lot of people still play fighter. I think this class is more about flavor then filling some role that no other class can fill. People want want a warrior who augments his martial prowess with arcane knowledge. If the class had all the fighter abilities AND spells . . . that would be broken. If at the end of the day the fighter and the magus are on equal footing, I think that is mission accomplished.
You can make a class that gives you the feel and does what ya want and like those can take center stage at times, without always being the best. You should be able to match those lasses when buffed and at full but not 24/7 as that is the non-magical classes role to fill.
I guess my fundamental difference with this is WHY is it for the non-magical classes to fill? I want the option of a character who does not rely on his tactical/martial ability alone, but augments those things with magic. I want the magus and the fighter to be equal but by taking different paths to reach the similar end results.
How about this as a compromise. 3/4 BAB, bard-ish spell progression (with completely different spells of course), some ability to compensate for his diminished BAB like smite or the like, and the ability to use his CL for his BAB for feat prerequisites.This is where I think they are headed. Look at the Inquisitor and Alchemist. Both can in some way can boost attack ablity. I am thinking you're gonna see a class with magical combat abilities more then you will see something you can already make.
I was never worried about the diminished BAB or last iterative attack. It was all about the HP for me. If you look at the OP I suggested 3/4 BAB and d10 HD. I am disappointed that paizo won't divorce themselves from this BAB=HD rule. They made an exception for the barbarian and I think they should do so again. BAB can be made up with buffs and cool abilities. Those ideas I totally support, and agree that a person who divides his time between swordplay and study would not be as good as a guy who only studies swordplay. However durability is difficult and seems to be the running problem with alchemists, rogues, and monks in my gaming group. I know there is toughness, and I plan on getting that too and using the favored class. Still would be nice to have the additional HP. If they gave the magus vampire strike as a SLA that could be used X/day I would back the 3/4 BAB in a heart beat. But I don't see that happening.
Because it really does make a difference to have a spell at first level instead of waiting four levels to have any magic. It does give a different feel to the class, and I can state that from experience. Even if it is only one 0-level spell.
to me, "because it really doesnt make a difference" is not a good reason to do it
|
|
to me, "because it really doesnt make a difference" is not a good reason to do it
Because it really does make a difference to have a spell at first level instead of waiting four levels to have any magic. It does give a different feel to the class, and I can state that from experience. Even if it is only one 0-level spell.
Is the 'doesn't' a typo?
I keep talking about customization of this class as being the key, and now I have put a few ideas on how it could be done. I think since there are so many ideas on what this class should look like that I would like to see a build-your-own-magus mechanic. This is what I came up with. Obviously it is very rough, but let me know what you think of the theme more than the content.
Magus
D8, ¾ BAB, 2/3 Spells
Good Will
Skills 2+ Int
Class Skills: Climb, Diplomacy, Kno. Arcana, Knowledge any 1, Spell Craft, UMD
All martial weapons and light armor
Blood Magus
Good Fortitude
A Blood Magus uses the blood of his enemies to fuel his magic, and to empower himself in battle.
SLA X/day do an additional 1d6/every 4 levels damage and take the same amount as bonus HP (possibly heal that much damage?)
Level 8 loose light armor prof. but gain the ability to fuel X + Con levels worth of spells/day from the blood of fallen enemies
Skills- Survival, Sense Motive
Bonus Feats-??
Spells added to Spell list-
Zephyr Magus
Good Reflex
A Zephyr Magus is never where you expect her to be. Lithe and fast the zephyr can strike and be gone faster than the wind.
SLA X/day teleport up to 30ft+10/2 levels as a move action works with spring attack
Level 8 channel the same spell through both weapons X times/day
Skills- Fly, Stealth
Bonus Feats- two weapon fighting tree??.
Spells added to Spell list- Fly,
Stone Magus
Good Fortitude
SLA X/day for a number of rounds equal to ½ level + Int gain DR 3 +1/2 levels
Level 8 10ft AoE blast centered on the magus that does 1d6/5 levels and knocks targets prone fort saves
Skills- Perception, Intimidate
Bonus Feats- Toughness, shield prof., medium armor prof.
Spells added to Spell list-
Magus school abilities- in addition to the focused studies of the different schools, all magi can focus their attention on areas of interest.
Book bound- Add any spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list to the magus spell list
Swordbound- You spend “too much time” practicing with your weapon of choice this has affected the rest of your studies. Sacrifice one spell known/level to move to full BAB (HP remain the same).
Physically fit- you spend a lot of time working on being in peak physical condition, but don’t practice your spells as often as you should. Gain 1 additional HP/level. This stacks with Toughness. Sacrifice one casting/level/day
Arcanist- sacrifice 1 HP per level to cast one additional spell per level cannot be taken with the toughness feat
Weapon Savant- requires weapon focus. Gain critical mastery as bonus feat. Critical feats can now be taken with your magus level counting as fighter level
All of you asking for a 3/4 BAB 2/3 casting will be probably be pleased once the bard variant gets here sometime in the next 2 months.
I am seeing the opposite Pres man, some folks here will never be satisfied to the class is so over the top broken it makes a cleric look weak. When you start with cleric and druid as "benchmarks" for power level you've started off to high to start with.
All of the classes should be designed with the cleric or druid as the benchmark. If you aim low, you're sure to hit your mark.
I for what it's worth picture arcane paladin.The problem with that is the type of spells. It would work ok if his spells were mostly buff spells, but any kind of offensive spells are useless by the time he gets them. A lightning bolt at 11th level ain't gonna cut it. That sounds more like the 3e bladesinger than a fighter/mage. In fact, the vibe I'm getting is people here are wanting a bard without music and not a fighter/mage at all.
Not entirely true, the key would be in creating a great spell list that capitalizes on the fighters nature yes, but also you would have to have an ability that allows the guy to cast at his character level once he gets his spells, say in replacement of channel energy. I could see a set up where he gets a channeled arcane weapon attack that does energy damage starting right out of the gate akin to an offensive lay on hands applied to a melee weapon as well. Its not really hard to envision when you consider the number of other abilities a paladin has and that the new guy would need his share of toys too. You could give him 0 level spells out of the gate for example to up the arcane flavor...
How about
Feat
Prereq: arcane strike
As a swift action you can expend one of your spell levels to gain an increase to your base attack bonus equal to the spell level. This may grant you an increased number of attacks. Your BAB can not exceed your charcter level.
This effects lasts for a number of rounds equal to your charisma or intellgence modifer.
|
I'm sorry. I've been reading all of this as fast as possible, and I can't find the section I wanted to quote now, but somebody mentioned the notion that a self-buffer with full BAB would be too powerful. To that, I say, it really depends on what buffs you're getting. Buffs like True Strike don't care what your BAB is, and the class simply wouldn't need small to-hit buffs. The idea is that this class is about fighting. It can't afford to waste too many rounds buffing itself, so those types of buffs wouldn't make a lot of sense for it. Sometimes you absolutely need to strike true, and I think True Strikes makes a whole lot of sense, but I wouldn't mess with many other to-hit buffs at all. The ideal spell list would be primarily about mobility and concentrated (read: not widespread) damage output.
And as for MerrikCale, the "why" would be because paladins and rangers aren't about spells. The spells are an after-thought, a clever way to give them flexible class features at later levels. This is a class that fights by harnessing the power of arcane magic with every attack. Telling such a class he's just going to have to wait until 4th-level to be relevant, and that he can only be relevant a measly handful of times per day at that point seems a little bogus. An arcane class with the ranger frame (a'la hexblade) could be a lot of fun, but it isn't going to fill this niche.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My two C-bills on the hybrid issue.
Matt’s theories on fighter mage hybrid class.
2) Base Attack Bonus: Average. Bards, clerics, druids, battle sorcerers, psychic warriors all have average BAB. One of the conceits of the design is to have the hybrid use spells to ‘tank up’ to provide power in combat equal to the fighter. Divine might, rage, inspire heroism, are exaples
3) Hit Dice: d8. It matches the average BAB, and again, the hybrid is expected to use/consume personal resources to match up with the Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin. Examples would include healing for clerics/druids/bard/psychic warriors, false life for the battle sorcerer. Also defensive buffs like blur/shield of faith/displacement/stoneskin, etc.
4) Skill points and skills: Somewhat tied to class abilities (below) skills and skillpoints are going to vary depending on the class build. Normally it will be 2 skill points per level, but it can be more, depending on the class abilities.
5) Spells known/per day: 2/3 casting is standard (bard, psychic warrior) or close to it (duskblade) Half casters (hexblade, thaneblade) should have several more class abilities. The bard knows 34 spells (not counting cantrips) the psychic warior knows 20 powers, the duskblade 23 spells. In most cases, the spells should be from a set list, much as the bard/duskblade/psychic warrior. This also allows spells to be scaled up and down slightly, tweaked to fit the caster progression better. If the hybrid gets all the ‘good’ spells, you’re likely doing it wrong.
6) Class abilities: Class abilities are influenced by spells known. The greater the class features the lower the spells net power should be.
7) Play well with Prestige classes. A hybrid should not just be ‘take these levels, then go eldritch knight.’ The class should be designed to make EK an option, but not automatically the best option.
So how does my arcane legionary stack up? IOW, can I practice what I preach?
1) Intelligence as casting stat.
2) BAB is Average.
3) Hit Dice is d8.
4) Skill points are 4 per level, higher than 2, but the class abilites are pretty generic.
5) Slightly enhanced spells known vs. bard, again tied to class features. Most are buffs or single target spells with a handful of utility spells (phantom steed, dispel magic)
6) Class abilities, kind of bland, but it’s related to the psychic warrior as its ‘parent’
7) Play with prestige classes. Eldrich Knight is clearly an option, starting at level 8. The arcane legionary/eldritch knight at level 20 will have +17 BAB, 12/6/12 saves cast as a 19th level caster and an average of five more hit points. He will lose one feat, 20 skill points, the ability to swap out his 2nd, 3rd and 4th level spells, and lose his bonus 3rd 4th 5th and 6th level spell. He’ll also lose the favoured class bonus, which is either 10 sp or 10 HP (meaning that he still could come out 5 HP ahead of the EK. Both are valid options, IMNSHO.
That’s what is needed for a functioning hybrid. By burning a finite resource he can match a fighter temporarily. He can also substitute for a poor man’s wizard at lower levels. Essentially he can out magic the fighter, and out fight the wizard.
Again, you cannot tell me that giving 0 level spells to paladins and rangers is going to break Pathfinder.
Aha! I finally figured out what seemed odd about that statement to me! The "free use of magic" idea is perfectly fine for those that know how to manipulate the "ambient" magic. Concept-wise however, for divine spells, that is a granted thing from their deity, and as generous as a god may be, freely channeling power to their followers for the 0th level spells encourages reliance, which seems to me as something that the gods would seem to want to prevent. Fluff-wise, it flies in the face of the "proving yourself to me" bit.
Shelyn: "Create Water again? Just what is he doing down there, building a lake?"
Really?
"Solomon Grundy want orisons Too!"
Was someone talking about me again?
For what it's worth, to add my 2 coppers, I gave Cleric orisons to Paladins and Druid ones to Rangers years ago.
None of my players ever considered it as unbalanced or system-breaking.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Again, you cannot tell me that giving 0 level spells to paladins and rangers is going to break Pathfinder.Aha! I finally figured out what seemed odd about that statement to me! The "free use of magic" idea is perfectly fine for those that know how to manipulate the "ambient" magic. Concept-wise however, for divine spells, that is a granted thing from their deity, and as generous as a god may be, freely channeling power to their followers for the 0th level spells encourages reliance, which seems to me as something that the gods would seem to want to prevent. Fluff-wise, it flies in the face of the "proving yourself to me" bit.
Shelyn: "Create Water again? Just what is he doing down there, building a lake?"
counter arguement, jsut to be contrary.
In 2e, clerics could get up to 2nd level spells, even from 'dead gods' because their faith was powerful enough to allow the minor miracles.
Along those lines what about divine casters who worship concepts or ideals?
So unlimited orisons for clerics and druids is okay but not for rangers and paladins because they use swords? You're okay with 'reliance' for them but not the others? Clerics and druids don't have to 'prove themselves'?
Huh.. I didn't think about the clerics and druids. Shows how often I play them, though. *considers* At a shot in the dark, I would say it is for two reasons. One is balance, so there is a "caster" for the divine, as those classes have been proven to be able to do. The second is because of their spell progression. Those are the divine casting classes that get full spell progression, right? Perhaps there is more of the divine invested in them, or perhaps they've become more efficient at using their power?
*thoughtful* Hmm.. by nature of their role, they have a closer connection to their deity, and that connection might allow for a "trickle" of magic, enough to power orisons, whereas the ranger and paladin (despite the latter being kinda like the "hand" of the deity), focus more on the world they exist in, rather than trying to reach beyond. Sure the Paladin gets Holy Champion eventually, but think of the previous levels are a progressing "proving ground" as the deity takes more and more of an interest in them.
*checks the Ranger* Again, trying to make sense here, but the ranger is learning how the natural world works in the domains he favors. That follows a "nature is divine" approach, where the magic could be interpreted as "knowing the land" *checks the spell list* or "becoming one with the land". For the most part, not many of the Ranger's spells are blatant effects, and if the divine focus is "rubbing dirt in the wound" or something like, it might be a magical effect, but the ranger might not even need to admit it was magic..
I'm just thinking that what the Paladin and Ranger pursue is a focus on the "middle ground" between mortality and divinity, one championing a god until it takes notice, the other coming as close as they can to "becoming one" with the land they tread. Sorcerers and Wizards (and Clerics and Druids) can "pursue a higher path" by pursuing the ability to empower themselves (arcane), or following the path their deity walked, and in turn becoming empowered.
But this may start to tread into another thread.
In 2e, clerics could get up to 2nd level spells, even from 'dead gods' because their faith was powerful enough to allow the minor miracles.
That starts towards a "what is the soul" or "where do ghosts come from" discussion for me.. Even if a god is "dead" and his portfolio assumed by another, or discarded entirely, they are a large part of the faith, and perhaps it is not the god themselves, but the faith that allows the creation of the spells.. "Faith can move mountains", and all.. looks like it can also cause minor miracles.