For my homebrew setting, I added an artificer conversion from Eberron. Most settings don't have much need for an artificer, but my setting has regions that are fairly magitech, and Eberron was one of the most significant inspirations, so it makes sense to have it there. I don't know if this class makes sense as a base class for use in a variety of settings - it makes a lot of assumptions about the setting just by existing. Then again, I used an Eberron artificer mostly as written in a Rokugan game when someone wanted to make an Ashahina enchanter character, so it does have some flexibility.
I think there's room in the basic system for a tactician and leader class, a martial type that focuses on inspiring and buffing his allies. The cavalier has a little bit of this, but I found the cavalier to be a mixed bag of abilities that wasn't as focused as what I wanted - I was looking for a marshal or warlord class that did that as their main schtick. I have a homebrew class I'm happy with, but I'm curious as to how Paizo would do it - their class design has been pretty consistently excellent.
Yeah I'm sure SGG has ssomething I like, just not read it yet. Perhaps a bit to rash in judging them. Anyways back on topic.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue -archetypes/swashbuckler
There already is a Swashbuckler rogue archetype but its not much like the old PHBII version. I like the idea of such a class, but it'd have to have a different name and be less of a straight conversion. Not this classes biggest fan due to one bad player. One 3.5 game he plays a cliche pirate who just randomly turns up on a desert island. Next game he brings back the same cliche pirate in a setting where we never come witting 1000 miles of the open ocean. Which begged thequestion of whether he could truly call himself a pirate... But yeah that's a tangent, moving on.
I heartily agree with the idea of a military strategist type class. There's definitely a niche there thematically. More emphasising teamwork feats, buff/debuff based class features and buffs that depend on strategy. Maybe leadership as a bonus feat with features that enhance it. Have yourself a Favored Subordinate through this mechanic.
Don't think you should call such a Class 'the Martial' or 'Warlord' so as not to poke the beast of WoTc legal team. And I think there's a 3pp 'Strategist' class out there. Calling it the 'Soldier' or 'Officer' is bland and naming after military ranks is more setting specific.
The 'Tactician' might work better, or the 'Auxillery'
|
I would actually like to see some new prestige classes that don't make you feel like you are losing out while taking them. It is a hard balancing act since prestige classes hit their peak before base classes do.
As for the base classes, I think they have most of the bases covered in that department. We have spontaneous divine and arcane, fighter/mage hybrid, lots of fighting variants. Maybe some kind of prepared divine/fighter hybrid using druid or cleric lists. Not really too necessary since a cleric or druid can be built as pretty solid front liners (I play a front line druid)
There's already a 'Tactician' Archetype for Fighters. Gets more skill points, gets the sort of additional class skills you'd expect from a leader/planner type. Check 'Ultimate Combat'-- it's in there.
The 'Tactician' might work better, or the 'Auxillery'
Ah so I see. Not heard much of UC beyond tidbits from the pfsrd. Hhm, it occurs to me that something mixing some of the Bards mechanics into this vein would result in the elucidation of a clearer concept. But not the performance aspect of it. I could seen a military themed 'bannerman'/'military musician' archetype for the bard but this ain't really the theme we're trying for here (tho I that would work on its own).
I've seen a few 'officer' prestige classes knocking around that work on leadership abilities, passive buffs from inspiration, situational buffs from planning, teamwork feats etc. I just think you shouldn't have to wait for X levels to start leading men into battle. To do it well maybe, but there are born leaders out there. Hence why I support this as a base class idea.
Like with the 'Shaman' or 'Technomancer' ideas, you could have an archetype fill this niche. Or you could really explore it with a Base class and Archetypes.
I don't think so, though it really does depend on the idea. I think the main thing is that it is not needed.
Archetypes that are not tied to specific classes. And/or Allowing multi classing and still progressing.archetypes not tied to a specific base class you say?You could do it, but they'd have to be tied to things every class gets.
For example, BAB (turn 3/4 BAB to 1/2 BAB in exchange for something else), or Saves (changing from good to bad), or hit dice (changing from d10 to d8).
You can also do it with the way SGG did it in my posted link. That is each class has one or more Suites of abilities that can be traded out for the archetypes suites of abilities. One issue ofcourse is then each of those archetypes needs to be roughly balanced against eachother. It isnt perfect ofcourse but then again, not every option in the game is equaly as 'good' for a given concept/build as every other one.
I think this military leader class is sort of covered by the cavalier. And I think there are cavalier archetypes that actually focus even more on leading the party. So that may be redundant
I think that the druid spontaneous shouldn't just be an archetype because oracle is not just an archetype of sorcerer and druid is not just an archetype of cleric. It deserves its own class with unique class abilites. Maybe combining it with the shapeshifter class, but I like the idea of that being its own thing. No spells or anything.
In addition, my own Inspiring Commander cavalier archetype from the Secrets of Tactical Archetypes sounds like exactly what you want for a bard / military man. Well, he's not a battlefield musician (the bard does that well), but he keeps the tactical aspects of the Cavalier, soups them up, and also has the ability to inspire courage (and heroism, and greatness, and competence) in his allies as a (Ex). I believe there's a monkey back guarantee too, although I'm confirming that with my publisher. The whole book is based on the concept of teamwork, whether with your allies or with things you bring to the plate.
You know, a specialized fighter class could be nice. Swashbuckler could be merged into this, as would say, a sword-and-board fighter. But I fear you can already do those ... passingly.
So noted Cheapy. I'll look into those at a later date.
Edit: And can we keep the call for Psionics out of this thread please. I'm happy with that being 3pp (and therefore optional). Never liked Psionics in 3.5 and I don't want Paizo to get dragged down by opening that particular can of worms. Plus from what I hear the 3pp source on this is very good, if you like that sort of thing.
Personally I'm happy with magic being magic. Always thought that Psionics was basically just something that made magic redundant from a thematic standpoint. Why spend years learning arcane formulae or earning the powers of a deity when you can just blow stuff up with your mind?
I've enjoyed pure Psionic settings and pure magic settings. Having both in a single setting just gets my hackles up.
I think I figured out the intersection of shapeshifters and archetypes I'd like to see but would not necessarily know how to mechanically.
Cliff Notes Version - Gau from Final Fantasy VI (III in the US).
Tolstoy Version - The character in question had a mechanic that annoyed some, and amused others, where he would have to go to an area where creatures from all throughout the game could spawn and essentially tackle an enemy and for lack of better terms ride off into the wild. When he came back, he'd have learned abilities from the type of creature in question, so that he'd effectively go into a trance, that if I recall was called a Rage a la barbarians, but while he was raging he would effectively be monster in question, with access to all spells and innate supernatural abilities. While I think it might be both overpowered and unbalanced as all get-out to allow both, I could see a martial class that could do something similar with supernatural abilities, without gaining the actual magics. Some of the ranger archetypes have something similar, but I think it would be closer to a non-changing 'shapechanger' that would assume similar aspects to the things they've beaten in the past, the arsenal of their experiences the source of their potential growth.
In some ways, it would fit for an overarching melee type that isn't locked into a single specific shaman beast type.
By definition, since archetypes are infinitely customizable, you can (not that you should) modify an existing class to do whatever you want.
I feel it is a copout to fall back on "just make an archetype to do it" when addressing this sort of question.
In my mind, archetypes should be used to customize a class to fit into a specific campaign setting, just as a prestige class helps customize a character to fit into a campaign setting. It doesn't seem appropriate to me to use an archetype in order to cram one class into another role not perfectly suited for it. To use an extreme example, you "could" make an archetype of Wizard that replaces almost every class feature with something that most fighters could do. You would be left with an ugly, mutated fighter with some wizardy leftovers, and on the face of it you would have made the fighter class of no consequence, but the archetype would also be a crime against elegance and simplicity in game design.
Base classes, however, can be thought of as templates representing different playing styles. Each character within a class will be unique, but they all serve a similar purpose or function in much the same way--casting spells, healing and team support, mastering arms & armor, chasing down specific threats, hacking 'n smashing, sneaking around, blowing up enemies from afar, and so on.
Granted, the game does not need a million base classes, not like AD&D 2nd Edition saw with third-party classes nor even the proliferation of base classes from the Complete series, Miniatures HB, and the PHB II. But a new base class can give life to a playing style niche that will improve the enjoyment of the game for not only the player of the new class but also his teammates relying on the older standbys.
The goal of creating any new base class should be to 'discover', as it were, a classic and well-known playing style that is not well represented by any existing base class or core class. (There aren't a lot of them.) Here are a few examples from 3.5 that might be suitable:
+ Archivist (Int-based arcane-spells caster)
+ Marshal (aka 4th edition warlord)
+ Factotum (much more of a jack-of-all-trades than the bard, and leaves out music-based magic and abilities)
+ Spirit Shaman (spontaneous druid-spells caster)
As well as the Armiger class of Super Genius Games.
So noted Cheapy. I'll look into those at a later date.
Edit: And can we keep the call for Psionics out of this thread please. I'm happy with that being 3pp (and therefore optional). Never liked Psionics in 3.5 and I don't want Paizo to get dragged down by opening that particular can of worms. Plus from what I hear the 3pp source on this is very good, if you like that sort of thing.
Personally I'm happy with magic being magic. Always thought that Psionics was basically just something that made magic redundant from a thematic standpoint. Why spend years learning arcane formulae or earning the powers of a deity when you can just blow stuff up with your mind?
I've enjoyed pure Psionic settings and pure magic settings. Having both in a single setting just gets my hackles up.
That would a big NO, Oggron. Psionics doesn not mean sci-fi, and is quite acceptable in a fantasy setting. I would like to see a Pathfinder version of psionics that fits (mechanically) with the remainder of their classes, although I suspect many of those who champion the idea would hate it once produced. As an example of the direction that I believe Pathfinder should go with psionics, try my mind mage on for size.
After all, psionics IS magic.
And since when is it only a third party product that makes something optional? I don't allow anything outside of the Core Rulebooks unless I specifically give the player permission to use that class, feat, spell, or item that he found in the APG or Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic. The entire system is pretty much at the DMs option anyway.
Master Arminas
So noted Cheapy. I'll look into those at a later date.
Edit: And can we keep the call for Psionics out of this thread please. I'm happy with that being 3pp (and therefore optional). Never liked Psionics in 3.5 and I don't want Paizo to get dragged down by opening that particular can of worms. Plus from what I hear the 3pp source on this is very good, if you like that sort of thing.
Personally I'm happy with magic being magic. Always thought that Psionics was basically just something that made magic redundant from a thematic standpoint. Why spend years learning arcane formulae or earning the powers of a deity when you can just blow stuff up with your mind?
I've enjoyed pure Psionic settings and pure magic settings. Having both in a single setting just gets my hackles up.
That would a big NO, Oggron. Psionics doesn not mean sci-fi, and is quite acceptable in a fantasy setting. I would like to see a Pathfinder version of psionics that fits (mechanically) with the remainder of their classes, although I suspect many of those who champion the idea would hate it once produced. As an example of the direction that I believe Pathfinder should go with psionics, try my mind mage on for size.
After all, psionics IS magic.
And since when is it only a third party product that makes something optional? I don't allow anything outside of the Core Rulebooks unless I specifically give the player permission to use that class, feat, spell, or item that he found in the APG or Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic. The entire system is pretty much at the DMs option anyway.
Master Arminas
I like your interpretation this theme better than many I've seen Arminus. But the whole 'Psionics IS magic' statement is a subjective issue thats pointless to debate. There are many forums debating the inclusion of psionics, so we're hardly identifying a new niche here.
To me the 3.5 psionics system basically went:
"okay so you want to spell-like effects but you don't want to have spells per day (point pool system instead), you don't want to have to use any of the rituals/ restrictions/ somatic componants / flavor of magic, you don't want spell failure, you don't want to worry about estabilished methods of magic defense and you don't much care for balancing spells against other spells of the same level - be a Psionic!"
I got halfway through reading it and just got fed up of how easily it could be used to break things. It was a third tier of magic that seemed to render the other two largely obsolete. You'd think such a unique system of magic would be rare but suddenly it seems like every character and their pets use it.
I recognize and have enjoyed psionic rules systems in both scifi and fantasy settings. But I like to distinguish settings of Arcane/Divine and psionics, because in my mind they are very different interpretations of the same thing that if they ever coexisted. Logically one would outcompete the other for the same niche.
Many times I've asked the question of "In a world with Psionics where you can train your mind to cast spells, why would you waste your time learning arcane formulae or praying to a deity?"
The answer always boils down to 'variety is fun. its not broken, its different'. (as if something can't be different and broken)
But then as my answer boils down to 'I'm grumpy, don't wanna try nuthin new', don't take me too seriously.
A lot of the things in XPH (Expanded Psionics Handbook, the 3.5 core psionics material) could indeed be abused--but the largest abuses sprang from folks ignoring the rules. The prime rule of psionics (in 3.5 and the Dreamscarred Press update to Pathfinder) is simple: you cannot spend more power points on a single manifestation than your manifestor level. Of course, there were exceptions (Overchannel, Wild Surge, etc., etc.) but these were spelled out and had a hefty cost.
Overall, I liked the 3.5 system and was impressed by the flexibility. There were things that I objected to: astral constructs, the ecto-everything, the ability to swap energy types on the fly, the growing of claws and bites, the use of poison, etc., etc. I guess I wanted to see a focus on more traditional areas of psionics in myth, legend, literature, and film.
In my view, psionics shouldn't be as handy at doing utility as arcane magic, nor should it be able to cure all ills like divine magic. It should excell in the telekinetic and telepathic domains, and have a number of psychoportive, precognotive, and pyrokinetic uses. I fully agree that it needs to replace neither arcane nor divine, but to supplement them both as the third dominion of magic: mentalism.
I am a big supporter of the concept of psionics, and when I first read James Jacobs musings on how Pathfinder and Paizo might redo psionics, I was . . . not happy. But then I started thinking about it and how it could be done--and if handled correctly, it will work. All it takes is for those who dislike psi to contain their vitriol and for those who like psi to give it a chance.
But hey, what do I know?
Master Arminas
@Oggron: How about Lycaon or Metamorph?
I thought the wolfshifter from Wayfinder 5 did a good job on the werewolf PC Base Class, take one feat from 101 renegade feats and you may cover any of the were types and even make up your own.
A lot of the things in XPH (Expanded Psionics Handbook, the 3.5 core psionics material) could indeed be abused--but the largest abuses sprang from folks ignoring the rules. The prime rule of psionics (in 3.5 and the Dreamscarred Press update to Pathfinder) is simple: you cannot spend more power points on a single manifestation than your manifestor level. Of course, there were exceptions (Overchannel, Wild Surge, etc., etc.) but these were spelled out and had a hefty cost.
Overall, I liked the 3.5 system and was impressed by the flexibility. There were things that I objected to: astral constructs, the ecto-everything, the ability to swap energy types on the fly, the growing of claws and bites, the use of poison, etc., etc. I guess I wanted to see a focus on more traditional areas of psionics in myth, legend, literature, and film.
In my view, psionics shouldn't be as handy at doing utility as arcane magic, nor should it be able to cure all ills like divine magic. It should excell in the telekinetic and telepathic domains, and have a number of psychoportive, precognotive, and pyrokinetic uses. I fully agree that it needs to replace neither arcane nor divine, but to supplement them both as the third dominion of magic: mentalism.
I am a big supporter of the concept of psionics, and when I first read James Jacobs musings on how Pathfinder and Paizo might redo psionics, I was . . . not happy. But then I started thinking about it and how it could be done--and if handled correctly, it will work. All it takes is for those who dislike psi to contain their vitriol and for those who like psi to give it a chance.
But hey, what do I know?
Master Arminas
Yeah that was what I liked about your mind mage actually. I don't mind 'mentalism' as a class concept. I just don't like it spilling over and scooping up other classes capabilities. Which lets face it, is what would happen once you started getting archetypes and more spells. I guess my biggest dislike of something, is a class that steals another classes thunder with none of its associated weaknesses. This mixing can be done right, but it can also make other classes seem pointless.
+1 to your pet peaves on psionic powers too.
I could understand some of those things. But not all of them.
My least favourate part of psionics was the 'elemento-kinesis' side of things where you basically move away from being a psychic, steal from the arcane classes then declare yourself an X-man.
While we're brainstorming. How about pathfinder-izing (yeah thats a word now, get used to it.) the classes from Complete Magic: 'Truenamer' and 'Binder'. Debatably, the summoner and certain wizard archetypes can fill the binder role nicely. (and I know Paizo have their own shadow themed prestige classes and archetypes so the 'shadowdancers out').
But I always thought Truename magic was an underutilized concept. Perhaps combine with aspects of the Archivist for an original base class?
'Scholar' or 'Chronicler' or 'Sage' or something to that effect.
I think you mean Tome of Magic. LOL. Smilodan has converted the truenamer and I believe the binder, but you will have to a search for them.
I have done a version of the shadowcaster. The concepts in ToM were great, but once again, I think the complicated mechanics spoiled the execution. Still, this version of the shadowcaster was more of a straight conversion to bring into the Pathfinder universe instead of a reimagining (like my mind mage).
And this is my dragon shaman, although it has been critiqued as being neither a dragon nor a shaman! Enjoy.
Master Arminas
|
|
While we're brainstorming. How about pathfinder-izing (yeah thats a word now, get used to it.) the classes from Complete Magic: 'Truenamer' and 'Binder'. Debatably, the summoner and certain wizard archetypes can fill the binder role nicely. (and I know Paizo have their own shadow themed prestige classes and archetypes so the 'shadowdancers out').
But I always thought Truename magic was an underutilized concept. Perhaps combine with aspects of the Archivist for an original base class?
'Scholar' or 'Chronicler' or 'Sage' or something to that effect.
A third party publisher did the Binder. I bought the PDF, but can't recall the name of it off hand. The Truenamer would need a total rework of the mechanics. The mathematical formulae behind the DC were broken beyond belief
Ah yes Tome of Magic. My bad.
True name magic was one of those concepts that seemed to just get tested then discarded. I think the Paizo staff could do a lot more with it. But yeah it would need a rebuild.
TBW I was half expecting the 'words of power' section of the UM to have a prestige class in this vein.
|
Nah, Paizo just had to update all the 3.5 sourcebooks to lawyer-friendly PF-compatible rules, wrapped in their brand art.Talk about building on sand. Given that much of that stuff was crap anyway, I'd rather they'd just give us new stuff.
Diplomatic response: I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as I did.
While I think that there is already a good number of 20-level base classes, I think that Pathfinder could benefit a great deal from adding a few more. Yes, the archetype system allows for a great deal of diversity and customization in addition to the choices that can already be made with a class. And yes, I know that WotC overdid it, but I think the issue with 3.5 class bloat was more with prestige classes than base classes. I don't want ten or probably even five more. But I firmly believe that Paizo could easily create 2 or 3 more truly distinct classes. With the possible exception of the witch and wizard, I don't think any current classes have too much overlap.
So, should there be more classes, even just a few? I would like to see an 8+int skills class without a sneak attack derivative that took a different approach than the rogue. Also, a spontaneous caster that uses the druid spell list. Thoughts, suggestions, criticism?
100+ posts...haven't read everything, so if I missed it, my apologies.
I would like to see a PF equivalent of the 4e "Warlord" class. His primary focus is on directing his allies in ways that make them perform better or more often. This type of 3e character class could be alot of fun to play.
Nah, Paizo just had to update all the 3.5 sourcebooks to lawyer-friendly PF-compatible rules, wrapped in their brand art.Talk about building on sand. Given that much of that stuff was crap anyway, I'd rather they'd just give us new stuff.
Its possible your subscribing to the wrong game then pal, if thats your take. I really hope thats sarcasm, cos its a bit too venomous for this thread.
Knife thrower.
Knife thrower.
That'd make a sweet rogue archetype!
That's just Lazarx. You get used to it and just stop making eye contact.
Aw. But if I avert my gaze then he'll get concealment against my readied +1 Flaming Troll Bane Longsword...
No more base classes, please. In fact, is there an option to remove some? ;-)
No more base classes, please. In fact, is there an option to remove some? ;-)
Yes. It is called the DM put your man-pants on, or Rule 0 as some might refer to it. Seriously, don't allow what you don't want to allow in your game. I create conversions all the time, but I also don't allow any of the new classes from the APG, UC, or UM. Remember, everything is optional under Rule Zero. So use what works for you!
Master Arminas
Out of curiosity how many rules do you have Arminas?
I have somewhere in the mid 100's...
I try to keep it short and sweet. Basically, if it is in the Core Rules, I allow it. Anything else, ask me. I'll either say yes or no. That applies to classes, feats, spells, or magic items. And I do have a little list of homerules that I make sure my players are aware of before a game. Like swimming, for example. You take the ACP of whatever you are wearing, plus another -1 for 10 lbs. of weapons, armor, or other equipment you are wearing. You can't sleep in armor (except for padded or leather--not studded leather, but just leather) or you don't regain any hit points from resting, you don't regain any spell slots, and you are fatigued the next day (exhausted after two days).
Little things like that.
Master Arminas
Knife thrower.That'd make a sweet rogue archetype!
I'm hoping for something like the complete scoundrel with a rogue fix and a knife thrower archetype in it.
Guys, guys, the edition wars are that way, 5 years past.
Pathfinder has war gaming elements in it what do you expect Cheapy?
old school 1e type assassin
no spells!
In fairness? Because you didn't want to deal with the hassle of reviewing everything to determine what was worth keeping? Do I understand correctly?
A million times this. Sure, 3PP can be spotty in quality, but that's no reason not to use it. It's a reason to pick out the good and ignore the rest. The same applies to official supplements.
MerrikCale: you mean something like this? lol
Master Arminas
MerrikCale: you mean something like this? lol
Master Arminas
very nice
can you somehow coerce Wayne Reynolds into illustating a iconic for it