|
In all honestly I find it harder and harder to justify the 1/3rd caster. This to me seems to be more an archetype thing then something that should be built into a base class.LilithsThrall,
Seeker For Shadow Light,
I also like this division, as we have talked about on other threads.
D10 Full Bab Paladin spell progression
D8 Med Bab bard spell progression
D6 Poor BaB Full casterOops….you aren’t talking about casters.
I dont mind the Paladin/ Ranger pattern. I think it could possibly use some expanding....Im not sure how.
With the bard, i didn't think that niche needed much expanding, but i now find the Alchemist, Summoner, Inquisitor, and Magus to be welcome additions to the game.
Perhaps to expand on the ranger / Paladin template, there could be a "holy Warriror" class or paladins of other alignments with different class abilites ( IE a LN holy Warrior of Abadar)
Possibly some sort of "hexblade" who casts arcane spells, I am sure there are other possibilities.
I could see a CG or CE paladin type, but I don't think you should be able to be a holy warrior with a N component. It's just not commited enough to the cause, whatever the cause is.
I dont mind the Paladin/ Ranger pattern. I think it could possibly use some expanding....Im not sure how.With the bard, i didn't think that niche needed much expanding, but i now find the Alchemist, Summoner, Inquisitor, and Magus to be welcome additions to the game.
Perhaps to expand on the ranger / Paladin template, there could be a "holy Warriror" class or paladins of other alignments with different class abilites ( IE a LN holy Warrior of Abadar)
Possibly some sort of "hexblade" who casts arcane spells, I am sure there are other possibilities.
I see casting that low as someone who kinda dabbles. So I would say it be more an archetype kinda option then one built into the class.
And you know how I feel of paladins. We have holy warriors now, they are clerics and inquisitors.
|
There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.I agree that we don't need 50 more variants on "guy who swings a sword" or "guy who casts spells", but I think there are some ideas that don't quite fit into those two slots. For instance, a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.They had that in 3.5, the Ranger archetype (in the d20SRD)
Wild shape-Ranger
** spoiler omitted **
You can also trade out spells for spell-less Ranger ability.
Thus, you are now a spell-less Shapeshifter (at 1st lv)
There is one more variant...the Skilled Variant who uses tricks, talking, and indirect methods to achieve success.That is just skills.
Just increase number of skill points of Mage and Warrior and everyone can choose to specilize like that. There is no need to add a class.
Yeah, but when they have the option of magic and or smashing...the skills are just a means to get to where the character can smash or cast.
I only interject the Skilled into the core origin archetypes for those stories of the trickster are just as commons the warrior and the mystic.
From the historical standpoint the skilled character had no choice but to be the progenitor of the other two types. The Skilled one developed the tools that becomes the warrior's weapons and armor. The skilled one discovered fire/magic/science process which allows the caster to warp the world.
I could argue that the warrior and the caster are just specializations of the skilled type by that logic. What you propose is just blending Starbuck_II. Nothing wrong with that, but mixing the abilities of the three created the classes we have today.
I tend to think of this whole page in terms of chemistry...
Electrons (Warriors) move around Protons (Casters) and Neutrons (Skilled) and form the element of roleplaying.
A variant class is not an archetype.
Ninja is a Rogue variant class
Not according to the developers, but what it's called really isn't the point: You take the existing base mechanics of the alchemist and make a technologist from them with variations in abilities, 'technologies' list rather than 'infusions' etc - you get the picture. Call it an archetype or call it a variant - call it a Large Dutch Edam Cheese for all it matters about the name.
If by "existing base mechanics," you mean BAB and "spell" progression only, then an artificer/technologist could be considered a "variant" of the alchemist. Of course, by that standard, inquisitors and summoners are "variants" of the bard (alchemists and magi, too, stretching the spell progression mechanics slightly). Then again, an alchemist without bombs, extracts, or mutagens and focused on clockwork/magic-tech instead of reagents/magic-chem is pretty much a complete re-write of the class, not a "variant."
An artificer is similar to an alchemist, but similar doesn't mean one should be shoehorned into the other. An artificer/technologist will need different mechanics than bombs, extracts, and mutagens to do the concept justice; for instance, the goggles and sword that run off "batteries" found in Dungeons of Golarion ("The Red Redoubt of Karamoss"). Also, the "spell" list will need to be drastically different, since the focus will be on animating/powering objects instead of the alchemist's self-enhancement.
I'd rather see a good base class for the concept than a mediocre/poor archetype or alternate class that tries to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Just because we disagree with his statement does not mean we did not read it.
There's an Engineer alternate class by Hida_jiremi and Anthony Kane, that is really good. But, to me, it doesn't fit themathically as an offshoot. That is why I would like to derive a mad cientist base class that could then have both thae alchemist and the engineer as alternate classes. Maybe even the artificer.
That could also allow a bigger distinction between alchemists using mad chemistry and the many types of mad biologist that appear as alchemist archetypes.
If that Mad Scientist class can't be derived like that then a full Engineer/Artificer class should be done, prefentially different from the alchemist.
There's an Engineer alternate class by Hida_jiremi and Anthony Kane, that is really good. But, to me, it doesn't fit themathically as an offshoot. That is why I would like to derive a mad cientist base class that could then have both thae alchemist and the engineer as alternate classes. Maybe even the artificer.
That could also allow a bigger distinction between alchemists using mad chemistry and the many types of mad biologist that appear as alchemist archetypes.If that Mad Scientist class can't be derived like that then a full Engineer/Artificer class should be done, prefentially different from the alchemist.
You do understand that is built on the alchemist frame right? It is mostly just rewording elixirs and extracts into inventions. I like it and to me it showed why you do not need a new class. Its a minor change to the parent class. Not sure if its an archetype or alt class as they seem not to be based off size or word count.
I would say archetype.
Either people are ignoring posts which they don't agree with or they are lacking basic reading comprehension skills.
I am not sure others comprehension skills are the issue as I still am trying to understand what ya were asking a few pages back :)
There's an Engineer alternate class by Hida_jiremi and Anthony Kane, that is really good. But, to me, it doesn't fit themathically as an offshoot. That is why I would like to derive a mad cientist base class that could then have both thae alchemist and the engineer as alternate classes. Maybe even the artificer.
That could also allow a bigger distinction between alchemists using mad chemistry and the many types of mad biologist that appear as alchemist archetypes.If that Mad Scientist class can't be derived like that then a full Engineer/Artificer class should be done, prefentially different from the alchemist.
You do understand that is built on the alchemist frame right? It is mostly just rewording elixirs and extracts into inventions. I like it and to me it showed why you do not need a new class. Its a minor change to the parent class. Not sure if its an archetype or alt class as they seem not to be based off size or word count.
I would say archetype.
NOOOO, it's an alternate class for the monk...[/sarcarsm] Of course I know it's based on the alchemist, it's why I pointed out.
It also changes the mutagen for powered armor or a battle glove. And the bombs for a ray gun. And the formulae list for different blueprints. And the poison stuff for trapfinding. And Brew Potion for Craft Wondrous Item. So, you know, it's just a minor change, except it changes every single thing about the class. Really minor.And it is an alternate class, because, and let me be clear,
There's an Engineer alternate class by Hida_jiremi and Anthony Kane, that is really good. But, to me, it doesn't fit themathically as an offshoot. That is why I would like to derive a mad cientist base class that could then have both thae alchemist and the engineer as alternate classes. Maybe even the artificer.
That could also allow a bigger distinction between alchemists using mad chemistry and the many types of mad biologist that appear as alchemist archetypes.If that Mad Scientist class can't be derived like that then a full Engineer/Artificer class should be done, prefentially different from the alchemist.
You do understand that is built on the alchemist frame right? It is mostly just rewording elixirs and extracts into inventions. I like it and to me it showed why you do not need a new class. Its a minor change to the parent class. Not sure if its an archetype or alt class as they seem not to be based off size or word count.
I would say archetype.
NOOOO, it's an alternate class for the monk...[/sarcarsm] Of course I know it's based on the alchemist, it's why I pointed out.
It also changes the mutagen for powered armor or a battle glove. And the bombs for a ray gun. And the formulae list for different blueprints. And the poison stuff for trapfinding. And Brew Potion for Craft Wondrous Item. So, you know, it's just a minor change, except it changes every single thing about the class. Really minor.
And it is an alternate class, because, and let me be clear,
Excuse me, Gentlemen (or Ladies, I don't pretend to know). But may I interrupt this discussion to pimp my own Engineer base class for the second time in this thread?
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
|
That's the thing, I think that gunslinger players need to wrap themselves around the realization that they do have non-gun weapon proficiencies and they need to make use of them as secondary attacks. With out a mage type casting one of those reload spells, the gun's primary use are to open with what you have and then lay into your enemy with blade. Which is pretty much how early gun combat played out when guns are in the emerging phase circa 15th century. It's not until you get well into the Advanced stages of 18th century Colt Revolvers can you have your Wild West shootouts that some folks seem to feel should be the standard. That's the key difference between the "Emerging" and the 'Advanced" stage of Firearms as described in UC.
And I'm cool with the idea of guns being performance-wise, a backup weapon.
But if it's a backup weapon (because youre not going to get to fire it more than once in a fight, most likely) then it should be light on feats, and its utility should match the price.
For a backup weapon, the price is too high, and the exotic weapon feat is unreasonable.
For a primary weapon, the guns don't perform well enough, and trying to compensate for that performance costs outrageous amounts of money. Hell, ammo alone is ungodly expensive, and thats just for some lead pellets! Exotic Feat? I can see it for a weapon that can perform as your main weapon.
And I'm cool with the idea of guns being performance-wise, a backup weapon.But if it's a backup weapon (because youre not going to get to fire it more than once in a fight, most likely) then it should be light on feats, and its utility should match the price.
For a backup weapon, the price is too high, and the exotic weapon feat is unreasonable.
For a primary weapon, the guns don't perform well enough, and trying to compensate for that performance costs outrageous amounts of money. Hell, ammo alone is ungodly expensive, and thats just for some lead pellets! Exotic Feat? I can see it for a weapon that can perform as your main weapon.
Exactly, the price needs to be 90% less (10%) to be a backup weapon. You can't even afford one otherwise till 3rd level (by ignoring other gear) if you aren't a gunslinger (and I didn't mention bullets).
Guns shouldn't be exotic because guns are as simple as crossbows. Bows are too easy as martial (if we want realism).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what PF really needs is new archetypes that let you adjust a class to be kind of a different class, or make slightly more radical changes. That would basically eliminate the need for more classes.
Examples:
- Turn prepared casting classes into spontaneous spellcasters.
- Turn spontaneous casters into prepared casters.
- Replace lesser spellcasting with other abilities (feats for Paladin and Ranger, etc).
- Add minor magical abilities to non-magic classes (spell-like powers for barbarian or fighter, or more of them for the rogue).
Anyways, you get the idea. Real class mods instead of just minor tweaks. I would love to see archetypes that replace an entire core ability with another ability that fits the class. Paizo would never have to make another class again, pretty much. :)
There's an Engineer alternate class by Hida_jiremi and Anthony Kane, that is really good.
You see, IMO an artificer is not just a reflavoring of the alchemist. An artificer should be more than someone in steam-punk battle armor with a bomb gun.
There's an Engineer alternate class by Hida_jiremi and Anthony Kane, that is really good.You see, IMO an artificer is not just a reflavoring of the alchemist. An artificer should be more than someone in steam-punk battle armor with a bomb gun.
If you had bothered to continue reading you would see that I said that.
Either the alchemist and the engineer come from the same base class or it needs to be it's own class.I gotta agree with LilithsThrall, the reading skills on some people in this thread are abismal...
NOOOO, it's an alternate class for the monk...[/sarcarsm] Of course I know it's based on the alchemist, it's why I pointed out.
It also changes the mutagen for powered armor or a battle glove. And the bombs for a ray gun. And the formulae list for different blueprints. And the poison stuff for trapfinding. And Brew Potion for Craft Wondrous Item. So, you know, it's just a minor change, except it changes every single thing about the class. Really minor.
And it is an alternate class, because, and let me be clear,
It does not change everything, but does change much, like say the anti-paladin( which changes more) At most you are looking at an alt class, not a new class. Not a single thing there needs a new class, nothing.
It all fits fine on another class. Hell you do not even need as much of a change.
It does not change everything, but does change much, like say the anti-paladin( which changes more)
NOOOO, it's an alternate class for the monk...[/sarcarsm] Of course I know it's based on the alchemist, it's why I pointed out.
It also changes the mutagen for powered armor or a battle glove. And the bombs for a ray gun. And the formulae list for different blueprints. And the poison stuff for trapfinding. And Brew Potion for Craft Wondrous Item. So, you know, it's just a minor change, except it changes every single thing about the class. Really minor.
And it is an alternate class, because, and let me be clear,
You're right it still uses discoveries, has the same BAB HD, skills, proficiencies and saves. But it does change everything else, so alternate class.
At most you are looking at an alt class, not a new class.
Wow, it's like the thing I've said several times already! Thanks for pointing out to me exactly the thing that I've repeated several times.
Not a single thing there needs a new class, nothing.
Yes, that is why it's an alternate class not a new class. If a new class were to be done it would open new possibilities and concepts, but in the case of the alternate class, it was made based on the Alchemist, so nothing in there could be totally new, since it has to be balanced against the abilities it changes. That is how archetypes and alternate classes are supposed to work.
It all fits fine on another class. Hell you do not even need as much of a change.
Not temathically it doesn't. Just because some people don't have the imagination to envision new class mechanics that fit better with the flavor, doesn't mean it's impossible and that you have to shoehorn it into another class. Christopher Delvo is proof, he made a pretty good engineer class.
Yes, that is why it's an alternate class not a new class
Honestly an the name archetype or Alt class does not matter as they really are the same thing. Paizo has even said as much.
Based upon what paizo has published we can define them as.
Archetype: A set of changes small or large in scale, to a base class which makes it more specialized or better fits it to a set theme.
Alt class: A set of changes small or large in scale, to a base class based upon the name given to the Alt class which can make it more specialized or better fits it to a set theme.
They are the same thing, Paizo messed up by giving one a different name based off the name they gave the archetype.
Not temathically it doesn't.
see we agree then.
I am not skipping your second point but a new class should be made, If and only if you can not in any way make it work in another class first. And nothing here has got to that point.
Use the search function. It as been said about 20 times now. They call em just big archetypes ( which honestly is not true of the last two).
And I'm cool with the idea of guns being performance-wise, a backup weapon.But if it's a backup weapon (because youre not going to get to fire it more than once in a fight, most likely) then it should be light on feats, and its utility should match the price.
For a backup weapon, the price is too high, and the exotic weapon feat is unreasonable.
For a primary weapon, the guns don't perform well enough, and trying to compensate for that performance costs outrageous amounts of money. Hell, ammo alone is ungodly expensive, and thats just for some lead pellets! Exotic Feat? I can see it for a weapon that can perform as your main weapon.
Exactly, the price needs to be 90% less (10%) to be a backup weapon. You can't even afford one otherwise till 3rd level (by ignoring other gear) if you aren't a gunslinger (and I didn't mention bullets).
Guns shouldn't be exotic because guns are as simple as crossbows. Bows are too easy as martial (if we want realism).
Aggreed about usage. I think that the feat represents the need for proper maintenance, however shooting should be easy.
Aggreed about usage. I think that the feat represents the need for proper maintenance, however shooting should be easy.
No, in D&D/PF, feats aren't about maintenance (that would be listed somewhere if it was). Gunsmithing feat is about mainentance but only gunslinger gets that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if there was a reiteration of core classes and then build class abilities on top of that.
Kind of like the example above:
Warriors: +1Bab/Level d10 HD - Combat Abilities
Priests: 3/4BAB/lvl d8 HP - Divine powers (priests)
Mages: 1/2BAB/level d6 HP - Spellcasting (Wizards, Sorcs)
You know I have a real issue with this. D8 should not go with full casting and its high time the arcane d6/ divine d8 dies. Full casters should all have the same frame.
And I'm cool with the idea of guns being performance-wise, a backup weapon.But if it's a backup weapon (because youre not going to get to fire it more than once in a fight, most likely) then it should be light on feats, and its utility should match the price.
For a backup weapon, the price is too high, and the exotic weapon feat is unreasonable.
For a primary weapon, the guns don't perform well enough, and trying to compensate for that performance costs outrageous amounts of money. Hell, ammo alone is ungodly expensive, and thats just for some lead pellets! Exotic Feat? I can see it for a weapon that can perform as your main weapon.
Exactly, the price needs to be 90% less (10%) to be a backup weapon. You can't even afford one otherwise till 3rd level (by ignoring other gear) if you aren't a gunslinger (and I didn't mention bullets).
Guns shouldn't be exotic because guns are as simple as crossbows. Bows are too easy as martial (if we want realism).
Aggreed about usage. I think that the feat represents the need for proper maintenance, however shooting should be easy.
I think a lot of the complexity in primitive firearms (matchlock, wheellock, flintlock and even percussion) isn't in firing them, it's in loading the weapon. There are far more, and more involved, steps to load an early firearm than there are to ready a bow or crossbow. Reloading them is made even more difficult in times of stress like combat. I've shot everything from flintlock on up and it gets interesting when your pouring powder down the barrel (we weren't allowed to use ramrods in reenactments -- some people managed to leave them in the barrel and make projectiles out of them) or priming the pan while watching opposing troops closing - even in a reenactment. Keeping your match dry and burning was a constant concern with matchlocks. Heck, dropping percussion caps while trying to put them on a nipple while wearing cavalry gauntlets is an experience too :)
Personally I think the longbow should be an exotic weapon, the regular bow and heavy crossbow martial and the light crossbow simple. But that's me. Firing a primitive gunpowder (say 17th - early 19th century) weapon would be exotic and later firearms (cartridge or maybe percussion) martial.
|
You know I have a real issue with this. D8 should not go with full casting and its high time the arcane d6/ divine d8 dies. Full casters should all have the same frame.
:)
I've become completely disillusioned with the HD/BAB tie-in. You can no longer develop classes that have d4/Full BAB or d10/Half BAB to fill different concepts. Maybe those concepts are no good, but you can't even explore them now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I have a real issue with this. D8 should not go with full casting and its high time the arcane d6/ divine d8 dies. Full casters should all have the same frame.:)
I've become completely disillusioned with the HD/BAB tie-in. You can no longer develop classes that have d4/Full BAB or d10/Half BAB to fill different concepts. Maybe those concepts are no good, but you can't even explore them now.
Oh I like the tie in, but I would tie casting in as well
D10 best 1/4th
d8 best 1/2
d6 best full caster
What I dislike is divine casters getting d8/ med BAB when they should not. I am very close to killing divine/arcane spell lists and just having a full caster list/ half caster list.
I could get behind something like that.
I think a lot of the complexity in primitive firearms (matchlock, wheellock, flintlock and even percussion) isn't in firing them, it's in loading the weapon. There are far more, and more involved, steps to load an early firearm than there are to ready a bow or crossbow. Reloading them is made even more difficult in times of stress like combat. I've shot everything from flintlock on up and it gets interesting when your pouring powder down the barrel (we weren't allowed to use ramrods in reenactments -- some people managed to leave them in the barrel and make projectiles out of them) or priming the pan while watching opposing troops closing - even in a reenactment. Keeping your match dry and burning was a constant concern with matchlocks. Heck, dropping percussion caps while trying to put them on a nipple while wearing cavalry gauntlets...
And I'm cool with the idea of guns being performance-wise, a backup weapon.But if it's a backup weapon (because youre not going to get to fire it more than once in a fight, most likely) then it should be light on feats, and its utility should match the price.
For a backup weapon, the price is too high, and the exotic weapon feat is unreasonable.
For a primary weapon, the guns don't perform well enough, and trying to compensate for that performance costs outrageous amounts of money. Hell, ammo alone is ungodly expensive, and thats just for some lead pellets! Exotic Feat? I can see it for a weapon that can perform as your main weapon.
Exactly, the price needs to be 90% less (10%) to be a backup weapon. You can't even afford one otherwise till 3rd level (by ignoring other gear) if you aren't a gunslinger (and I didn't mention bullets).
Guns shouldn't be exotic because guns are as simple as crossbows. Bows are too easy as martial (if we want realism).
Aggreed about usage. I think that the feat represents the need for proper maintenance, however shooting should be easy.
That's why I wrote in one of my previous posts that firearms should be simple weapons as far asshooting is concerned, but should have a high chance of failure upon reloading by someone who doesn't know what to do exactly.
Reloading is quite a bit of alchemy - you need to know how much powder, how to stuff in everything just right (not too much - deformed bullet probably misses or may even get stuck in the barrel, not too little - loose bullet can fall out or go wild amiss), clearing the barrel properly to prevent it from getting clogged. You also need to be able to perform everything under stress and rather quick. I think that this all got rolled under the exotic weapon proficiency (at least all firearms are rolled under the same feat). Exotic was probably chosen so that all the classes don't get them along with martial and simple weapon proficiencies and it doesn't get confusing. Gunsmithing gets you cheap ammo and guns. The amount of knowledge to create black powder and bullets in times of nonstandardized manufacturing techniques and with less than perfect equipment Would also be great. The more I think about it the more it seems to me that compared to what was probably known to educated people the amount of knowledge needed to operate the guns was quite high.
If the guns were instead simple weapons, I'd probably make reloading a skill check with DC a 1st level person could make at low levels as a full round, accelerating the reloading with higher DCs and imposing penalties upon failure. That could actually work IMO.
I could do with more prestige classes that enable interesting multiclasses that don't otherwise work. And I don't mean like the sorry lump that is the Mystic Theurge.
+1
*cough*psionics*cough*
When I was 14 I thought psionics was cool in 2nd ed. The problem is this system has always met up with fail every time this has been added. It has been here since 1st ed, but I can't help but hope it doesn't come back. I called for it to be integrated with the game since beta to keep it from breaking the game later on.
So with that lacking from happening, I just don't think adding psionics can work any more. I just hope it will not be added.
The only way I can see it being added is as part of the magic system, and that just won't be what people want.
Ninja could have been a Rogue archetype.
It is...
It is...
Ninja could have been a Rogue archetype.
To try and prevent the inevitable "no it's an alternate class":
...Ninja and samurai are actaully archetypes; they're just a lot more detailed...
That was said here.
It is...
Ninja could have been a Rogue archetype.
To try and prevent the inevitable "no it's an alternate class":
...Ninja and samurai are actaully archetypes; they're just a lot more detailed...That was said here.
Thank you
Thank youIt is...
Ninja could have been a Rogue archetype.
To try and prevent the inevitable "no it's an alternate class":
...Ninja and samurai are actaully archetypes; they're just a lot more detailed...That was said here.
No problem. Now, my good deed for the day done, it is nap time.
|
|
The only way I can see it being added is as part of the magic system, and that just won't be what people want.
You know what I'd like to see for psionics?
Here is a Psionics system I could get behind:
A handful of scaling abilities, gained through feats ideally, but optionally as archetypes, which function as Extraordinary Abilities or Supernatural Abilities.
Mind Reading: Detect Thoughts + Telepathy + Mass Versions & Better versions of the above etc.
Mind Writing: Suggestion + Charm + Dominate + Geas + Mass Versions & Better versions of the above etc.
Telekinesis: Mage Hand + Telekinesis + Fly + Unseen Servant etc Better versions of the above.
I dont want them to grant those spells, it would probably be easier to come up with a single mechanic that scales and provides similar functionality for each one.
Perhaps each one could have a simple table of DC Modifiers. The DC would be based on a stat+1/2 level, and you could increase the number of targets or get stronger effects as you level up; the base strength would go up as you level up, and you could go for stronger effects than your level dictates by lowering the Will/Will/Ref save DC.
Ideally, they wont have x/day usage, and will instead rely on rolls to function. Possibly CMB in some cases, or a new mechanic, like an attack roll using Int (Mind Writing) Wis (Mind Reading) and Cha (Telekinesis). - But I'm getting rather tired of x/day. In an ideal world I'd replace all x/day abilities with some other mechanic that doesnt have any limit on uses per day, bringing them up to match Sneak attack, combat maneuvers, and basic attacks, but a new mechanic would have to be derived to do that.
I was thinking of this specifically.What do you find wrong with Paizo's update of the class? The fact that it has a d6 instead of a d4? You do realise that no class in Pathfinder has a d4.
It has d10's really.