|
This is a continuation of an issue that came up in this thread about perceived shortcomings of the playtest Magus class. Paizo Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn explained that the Magus was not intended as a full melee class and would definitely remain at 3/4 BAB, settling the original issue. However, the principle of a melee-focused arcane base class, modeled after the successful full-BAB and 4th-level spellcasting scheme of the ranger and paladin, was received with enthousiasm by many community members, and considered "interesting" by Jason Bulmahn.
This thread is therefore intended as a humble petition of the community for the publication of a full-BAB, 4th-level arcane casting base class either in the Complete Magic (probably too late for that) or the Complete Combat books by Paizo. The proposed class is to fill its own niche rather than compete with or replace the Magus.
This thread is not intended as a platform for homebrew gish base classes, nor for the Magus. There are plenty of other threads for that.
For simplicity, I propose referring to the mouthful of "an official full-BAB, 4th-level arcane casting base class" by the provisional name of "Arcknight" that was introduced by Jason Nelson on the original thread (along with the word "stabracadabra"). Coming up with a better name for the final product is not a high priority for now, but of course suggestions are always welcome.
Good luck.
I very much approve of this. It's what I was hoping the magus would be.
|
I wish wand/scroll/etc costs weren't tied to spell levels. I'd love to see a caster that had full BAB and 4 levels of spells, but got them at 1st level, gained them very slowly, and their 4 level spells were more powerful than usual.
I still probably wouldn't play it (don't find gish-types much fun), but I'd love to have that option out for others.
Of course, having more powerful 4 levels would mean that more powerful spells are cheaper for wands/etc, so that wouldn't work :/
Note: If any of this doesn't make sense, I'm pretty tired right now :)
|
|
@EWHM: I like the idea of Slow Casting. I still envision a use in combat because, as written, the casting action still completes at the end of your turn. If you had said "1 round" rather than "full-round", as with Sleep or the summoning spells, that would make the spell much weaker. Still, it would allow you to make use of short-duration buff spells in the first place since putting medium or heavy armor back on takes minutes.
@Austin: Giving access to spells at 1st level is clearly too much. Every full-BAB class would want to take a dip of Arcknight to acquire a caster level and be able to use arcane wands with impunity. As soon as everybody wants to take it, it's overpowered.
I like the idea, even though i agree that the magus should be intermediate between fighter and arcane (maybe leaning towards arcane).
However, to make a successful class you need more flavour than just "3/4 figter, 1/4 arcane" just as the paladin and ranger introduce unique elements not shared with either.
So the key question is what flavour should the class have?
P.S. I'd like to suggest the name Exarch - just because i like it, or thaumaturge although it seems a little too focused on the arcane.
arcanist?
ETA: NVM: Missed part of the original post, thought we were looking for ideas.
Good luck.
+1
I'd very much like to see something like that. I think there is quite a few possible themes for it, from an arcane "ranger"-type to mage slayer.
I'm not fussy on the whole 3/4 vs full BAB issue like others are. However, I think this concepts comes more closer to a variant spin of the duskblade class than what the magus is currently being cobbled.
Incidentally, I had picked up a copy of the Dragolance Age of Mortals for a cost-friendly $4.98 at Half Price Books yesterday. What caught my attention was the Rogue Knight PrC. What would be a cool thing to see is their take on a class feature called the Desperate Strike:
This could be a cool thing to re-tool into a class such as this. (?)
|
|
I'm not fussy on the whole 3/4 vs full BAB issue like others are. However, I think this concepts comes more closer to a variant spin of the duskblade class than what the magus is currently being cobbled.
That's the point of this thread. Leave the Magus concept as it is (Paizo will not budge from it) and instead launch a new class with a different concept.
Desperate Strike sound like a nice but entirely non-magical ability, more appropriate for a Fighter variant than a magical meleeist.
I'm not fussy on the whole 3/4 vs full BAB issue like others are. However, I think this concepts comes more closer to a variant spin of the duskblade class than what the magus is currently being cobbled.That's the point of this thread. Leave the Magus concept as it is (Paizo will not budge from it) and instead launch a new class with a different concept.
Desperate Strike sound like a nice but entirely non-magical ability, more appropriate for a Fighter variant than a magical meleeist.
No disagreements, but assuming the 'Arcknight' has gone rogue and needs an offensive boost to defend himself. I'm not necessarily saying to use as-is; there ought to be a way to polish this up to give a magical effect. How could it be tweaked to involve something magical? I apologize if I didn't make myself clearer in my previous message.
Here are a few name ideas for the class that fit's Paizo's requirements of "a single, short, existing word": Wielder, Channeler, Medium, Gifted, Menace, Striker, Sentinel, Exemplar.
Templar? Too much Cleric/Paladin?
Chevalier
Constable
Crusader
Executioner
Immortal
Partisan
Praetorian
Protector
Ritter
Sherriff
Warden
Watchman
Yeoman
+1
I'd very much like to see something like that. I think there is quite a few possible themes for it, from an arcane "ranger"-type to mage slayer.
Honeslty I would go subclass of ranger, and leave the tracking and such.
Hum maybe call it a Justicar and make them arcane hunters or manhunters?
|
Full BAB and arcane spells should never be mixed. The nature of the two things are like oil and water, not chocolate and peanut butter. The creation of such a thing would be pigeon-holed into either sucking REALLY BAD at low levels (1-5) or being way WAY too powerful at high levels (14-20).
The reason this doesn't (And shouldn't IMO) exist is because Arcane spellcasting is simply, far more powerful than divine spellcasting.
I'm in favor of anything that expands character options you'd let me play. :)
Honeslty I would go subclass of ranger, and leave the tracking and such.
Hum maybe call it a Justicar and make them arcane hunters or manhunters?
Not sure it has a place in my world. But it is an interesting thought and I just do not see a need for another base class when aretypes will work. I don't see a need for a sub class really but eh thats just me.
To be honest if I was going the sub class route, I would go paladin, strip out the divine, make it an arcane order with a lawful bent.
To be honest if I was going the sub class route, I would go paladin, strip out the divine, make it an arcane order with a lawful bent.
Why lawful-only?
Although I still would like an arcane archetype for the ranger that just replaces spells. That would allow it to stack with all the other archetypes but the spell less one.
To be honest if I was going the sub class route, I would go paladin, strip out the divine, make it an arcane order with a lawful bent.Why lawful-only?
Because I find the idea of a non lawful order of knights odd? Its based off the paladin,I feel it would take order and dedication to study and discipline to master the art. I would make them mage hunters or manhunters, give them a code and make them kinda like lawmen or protectors of the realm. Built around the ideas of the paladin orders but arcane and not fueled by gods or belief in good.
And lawful keeps it open to G,N and E NPC's and such without saying Any, or any non good or some such.
Agreed, Lawful can be a wide and different in style and tone as chaotic. I think folks just confuse LG with paladin LG which are not the same thing is all.
Agreed, Lawful can be a wide and different in style and tone as chaotic. I think folks just confuse LG with paladin LG which are not the same thing is all.
Like 'Hellknights' lawful, correct?
I have long held that LN is the scariest of all Aliments.
I have long held that LN is the scariest of all Aliments.
Can you incorporate that?
Full BAB and arcane spells should never be mixed. The nature of the two things are like oil and water, not chocolate and peanut butter. The creation of such a thing would be pigeon-holed into either sucking REALLY BAD at low levels (1-5) or being way WAY too powerful at high levels (14-20).
The reason this doesn't (And shouldn't IMO) exist is because Arcane spellcasting is simply, far more powerful than divine spellcasting.
I'm not sure you're that you aren't sarcastic, but last time I checked, a cleric was a quite more powerful caster than a bard.
I have long held that LN is the scariest of all Aliments.Can you incorporate that?
Not sure what ya mean here.
I have long held that LN is the scariest of all Aliments.
|
|
Chevalier
Constable
Crusader
Executioner
Immortal
Partisan
Praetorian
Protector
Ritter
Sherriff
Warden
Watchman
Yeoman
To me, most of these evoke "Martial", a few of them "Divine" (Crusader, Immortal), and one of them "Creepy/Borderline Evil" (Executioner).
I like Praetorian, though. It suggests "bodyguard of someone really important", which fits well with arcane training. Also, there is as of yet no base class with a distinct bodyguard flavor.
The reason this doesn't (And shouldn't IMO) exist is because Arcane spellcasting is simply, far more powerful than divine spellcasting.
Arcane casting is only as powerful as you let it be. I don't think this class should get Grease as a first-level spell, for example. Shield might just be tolerable, especially if the class does not get Heavy Armor Proficiency. Maybe they should get "Swift Shield" instead, which is triggered as a Swift action and lasts for CL rounds (1 at character level 4th).
Honeslty I would go subclass of ranger, and leave the tracking and such.
Hum maybe call it a Justicar and make them arcane hunters or manhunters?
That flavor is already well served with the Inquisitor. No reason it should be arcane. This concept is tied to law and justice, which belong into the divine domain rather than the rather morally agnostic arcane magic.
Although I still would like an arcane archetype for the ranger that just replaces spells. That would allow it to stack with all the other archetypes but the spell less one.
I don't see that concept working. The spells are only a small part of the ranger class. Exchange them for other spells of similar power level and you still have a ranger, just a somewhat less thematically consistent one. That does not fill any empty niches in the game.
On the other hand, the niche of a dedicated combattant infused with magic (thematically as well as mechanically) is still a gaping hole. If it cannot be its own base class, if anything, it should be a Fighter archetype. The replacements could look like this:
Arcane Guard (Fighter archetype)
Dungeoneering, Engineering, Survival Class Skills --> Use Magic Device, Spellcraft, Sense Motive
First Bonus feat --> Iron Will
Bravery --> scaling bonus to UMD
Armor Training --> gain +1 bonus on AC and saves vs magic per tier
Weapon Training --> add 1d4 energy damage per tier to chosen weapon type, pick type 1/day
The elegance in this approach lies in the confinement of the spellcasting to the use of UMD, a pre-existing mechanic already available to frontline characters (even with a +4 bonus, from the Dangerously Curious thread). This circumvents any concerns about the balancing of a ranger-like spell list for a frontliner.
I'd prefer a separate class, but I'd settle for this.
EDIT: Another easy way out would be to introduce a few Fighter-only feats that would make dipping into Wizard more effective, e.g. by reducing spell failure chance. I'd prefer the other options though.
|
|
This is a continuation of an issue that came up in this thread about perceived shortcomings of the playtest Magus class. Paizo Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn explained that the Magus was not intended as a full melee class and would definitely remain at 3/4 BAB, settling the original issue. However, the principle of a melee-focused arcane base class, modeled after the successful full-BAB and 4th-level spellcasting scheme of the ranger and paladin, was received with enthousiasm by many community members, and considered "interesting" by Jason Bulmahn.
I must have missed that thread. What niche, exactly does this "arcknight" fulfill that the paladin and ranger -- and their archetypes -- can't fill?
|
|
I must have missed that thread. What niche, exactly does this "arcknight" fulfill that the paladin and ranger -- and their archetypes -- can't fill?
It shares the mechanical role of "frontliner" with the other melee classes, but explores the new conceptual niche of "arcane frontliner". Several fluff ideas to elaborate on this basic concept have been presented above, such as rune-tattooed mystic or elite personal guard to a noble.
Full BAB and arcane spells should never be mixed. The nature of the two things are like oil and water, not chocolate and peanut butter. The creation of such a thing would be pigeon-holed into either sucking REALLY BAD at low levels (1-5) or being way WAY too powerful at high levels (14-20).
The reason this doesn't (And shouldn't IMO) exist is because Arcane spellcasting is simply, far more powerful than divine spellcasting.
{Grognard Mode=On} What about pre-3.x edition Rangers? They had (limited) arcane spells and full THAC0? {/Grognard}
I'd go the APG alt abilities route on a Ranger -- maybe focused on Aberrations, Undead, Outsider (Evil), and other unnatural opponents -- keep them in light armor encumbrance armor and replace their divine spells with access to Abjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, and Transmutation arcane spells. Also, give them some ability to temporarily hammer through an opponents spell resistance and dispel with melee attacks.
I'd use Paladin as a model,
I started to do this earlier and stopped. I would never allow anything close to what I came up with in game. Paladin+ Arcane is way,. way to good.
Ranger I still say is the way to go here. Paladin is just too much.
+1 to Ultimate Combat adding an Arcane Warrior type sub-class. Although I would have been much happier to see magical-like options for the Fighter appear in Ultimate Magic.
====
At this point I agree that Ranger is the sub-class vehicle to accomplish this. Either Arcane Hunter or Arcane Bodyguard could be done. By Bodyguard I don't mean someone who steps in front of the party arcanist to take a hit, I mean someone who can work alongside the full caster and take advantage of their spells flinging. Either getting hit by friendly(non-friendly) AoE and not worrying (rangers already get Evasion and Improved Evasion), or being able to move around a magically altered battle field with little to no restriction. Really this could also all apply to an Arcane Hunter who can maraud around magic heavy battles with little impediment and go after specific tougher foes. Having powers/spells to deal magical concealment/fogs, walls, pits, difficult terrain (grease, black tentacles).
@ Ironicdisaster, one advantage of going with a Ranger is the Combat Style options. Keeping those would let different Arcknights approach combat in all kinds of different ways.
|
|
At this point I agree that Ranger is the sub-class vehicle to accomplish this.
I am astounded at the level of support this IMHO weird idea is getting. I agree that Ranger and Paladin are the right guidelines for the creation of a new base class, but if you're going the archetype route, you have to inherit the basic concept of that class.
None of the ranger abilities have anything to do with the arcane theme, and would therefore have to be completely replaced, defying the purpose of the archetype model. Even the saves would have to be reshuffled -- Will is iconic for all spellcasters, whereas Reflex is so neither for the "caster" nor the "frontliner". If you do stick to the general architecture of the ranger class, you will get a "witchhunter"-style ranger -- a concept you can easily play on the basis of the Inquisitor class or simply a Ranger who takes Disruptive, Spellbreaker, and the appropriate favored enemies. A witchhunter archetype for the ranger would still be worthwhile (after all, many of the published archetypes can be emulated by traditional builds), but it would not fill the void niche we're talking about.
Since the Fighter is the only base class that has a pure "martial competence" flavor, which is desirable as a component of an Arcknight, and no other flavor that must be traumatically amputated as in the case of the Ranger or Paladin, I hold that it is the best basis for an arcane archetype that emulates the Arcknight flavor.
However, I think spellcasting with an all-new dedicated spelllist and custom rules for Arcane Spell Failure far surpasses the scope of an archetype. This calls for a separate write-up as a sub-class, as shown in the example of the paladin. Even there, the concept of a sub-class was only chosen because the antipaladin is a perfect mirror image of the paladin in terms flavor and architecture. An Arcknight is by its very nature so different from a Ranger or a Paladin that this approach does not work there.
This is why I think we need to aim at one of these two solutions:
(1) A dedicated new base class;
(2) One or more archetypes to existing classes that generate some Arcknight flavor within the limited scope of the parent class.
As an example for (2), the "Arcane Guard" I posted above is close enough to the original Fighter class architecture to pass as a Fighter archetype, but sacrifices true levels of spellcasting (which would be far out of scope for an archetype) in favor of liberal use of wands and scrolls. While not an Arcknight, an Arcane Guard at least feels like a dedicated meleeist suffused with a spark of arcane power. He will still use Mirror Image in frontline combat like a true Arcknight -- having to cast it from a wand rather than from a spell slot is not that much of a difference.