I'm glad they're doing it like this. One of my favorite things about Pathfinder vs. 3.5 is how everything is sectioned off in a sensible way. I don't have to look through a mountain of books to find the class I'm looking for. And I know I'm not the first person to say that.
I'd be surprised if Paizo made a 4-level spontaneous caster. I'd be more surprised if they made a poor-BAB divine caster. I don't think we'll see either of those from Paizo, so I'm not counting them as possibilities.4th-level spontaneous caster of any sort!!!3) 4th-level prepared spells, witch-like spell list
4) 4th-level prepared spells, wizard-like spell list
This saddens me. Those are two of my most-wanted.
Would be cool to see a Poor BAB Castery "White Mage" cleric option with some class abilities that do buffs and such. It'd be good for those that aren't too into the armored cleric smashing things.
Class: Leech
The leech has mastered the art of syphoning the powers of other creatures through established links.
Avg BAB, good fortitude and will, simple weapons, no armor/shield prof
Main class feature: Absorb spell 0
-- The leech can absorb spells and spell-like abilities from other spellcasters and creatures - known as the source - and cast them as spell-like abilities three times per day using her class level as her caster level, her save DCs are charisma based, the spells are arcane or divine depending on the source.
-- As a fullround action(provokes AoO) the Leech can absorb the power of one level zero prepared spell, spell known or spell-like ability from a willing or unconscious target(with a spell slot available). The leech can keep this spell until released or until the source dies/is destroyed or loses its spellcasting ability.
-- While the spell is kept, she can use it three times per day(this does not reset if the spell is replaced by another absorbed spell). If the spell requires a focus or material component, these must be supplied.
-- While the spell is kebt the source can prepare one less spell per day of the spell's level, or loses the spell from his spells known or the spell-like ability that granted the spell.
-- While the spell is kebt there is a link between the leech and the original spellcaster, this link functions like a permanent status-spell which works both ways.
-- At 2nd level and every two levels beyond 2nd, the leech can absorb an extra spell or spell-like ability of a source(same or other). This new absorbed spell can be of up to one level higher than the previous highest level available(1st level spell at 2nd, 2nd level spell 4th, and so on and so forth).
-- The link with the source can be forcefully terminated with limited wish, miracle or wish, releasing all spells absorbed by the source.
Other class abilities:
Absorb Potential:
At 3rd level the leech can syphon the physical and mental capabilities of willing or unconscious creatures - sources.
-- As a fullround action(provokes AoO) the leech can imbue a source with a -2 penalty to an ability score and gain a +1 inherent bonus to the same ability score. The leech can only have one such link at a time. At 7th level and every four levels beyond the leech adds +1 to the total inherent bonus that can be gained from this ability(to a max of +5 at 19th), either to other ability scores or a higher bonus to one score, each +1 inherent bonus grants a -2 penalty to the source, each ability score is limited to gaining a bonus from only one source at a time.
-- The link can be released as a standard or can be broken by the death of the source or by limited wish, miracle or wish.
-- Creatures immune to ability damage cannot be sources for this ability.
Bind life:
At 9th level the leech can create a link with a source(willing or...) while the link persists, half of any damage the leech takes is applied to the source and half the damage the source takes is applied to the leech. At 13th level, the damage transfered to the leech is treated as nonlethal. At 17th level, the leech does not take any damage from the source.
.........
(links are suppressed when the leech and a source are on different planes)
And a capstone like "become a duplicate of another creature" with HD limit.
=======================
It really needs some better write-up, but I would love to see something like this. Sorry about the cwappy layout :)
I really hope they stick with warpriest. For me, it's a very evocative name that fits well with the cleric/fighter concept.
War Priest doesn't sound a good name for a class name to me. Besides being two words, its sounds like it is pigeon holing the character concept too much - its almost too specific. I would prefer something like Warder or Guardian.
I trust Paizo will not classes that with make other classes useless like 3.5 did so many times.Ninja killed Rogue
I'd prefer to play a rogue much more than a ninja.
I played a game once where our "better rogue" could neither find or disable traps and he didn't yet have evasion for when said traps went off, to which I retorted, WORST ROGUE EVER.
So, how is your ninja better then, with no trapfinding, trap sense or evasion at all?
I think that was his point Zaister.
Oh. OK. I get it now. :)
War Priest doesn't sound a good name for a class name to me. Besides being two words, its sounds like it is pigeon holing the character concept too much - its almost too specific. I would prefer something like Warder or Guardian.
I haven't seen the class yet, so it might be entirely possible that it is indeed not the best name for a class. Based on what little information we have on the class (it being a cleric/fighter hybrid), and the image that tidbit of informtaion conjures in my mind, that's a warpriest for me. I may be in the minority here, and that's cool. Can't win 'em all, as they say. :)
Class: Leech
The leech has mastered the art of syphoning the powers of other creatures through established links.
Avg BAB, good fortitude and will, simple weapons, no armor/shield prof
Main class feature: Absorb spell 0
-- The leech can absorb spells and spell-like abilities from other spellcasters and creatures - known as the source - and cast them as spell-like abilities three times per day using her class level as her caster level, her save DCs are charisma based, the spells are arcane or divine depending on the source.
-- As a fullround action(provokes AoO) the Leech can absorb the power of one level zero prepared spell, spell known or spell-like ability from a willing or unconscious target(with a spell slot available). The leech can keep this spell until released or until the source dies/is destroyed or loses its spellcasting ability.
-- While the spell is kept, she can use it three times per day(this does not reset if the spell is replaced by another absorbed spell). If the spell requires a focus or material component, these must be supplied.
-- While the spell is kebt the source can prepare one less spell per day of the spell's level, or loses the spell from his spells known or the spell-like ability that granted the spell.
-- While the spell is kebt there is a link between the leech and the original spellcaster, this link functions like a permanent status-spell which works both ways.
-- At 2nd level and every two levels beyond 2nd, the leech can absorb an extra spell or spell-like ability of a source(same or other). This new absorbed spell can be of up to one level higher than the previous highest level available(1st level spell at 2nd, 2nd level spell 4th, and so on and so forth).
-- The link with the source can be forcefully terminated with limited wish, miracle or wish, releasing all spells absorbed by the source.Other class abilities:
Absorb Potential:
At 3rd level the leech can syphon the physical and mental capabilities of willing or unconscious creatures - sources....
The problem with a class like this is it's dependent on the kind of opponents it faces. Like the 3.5 spell theif, if you spend the day dealing with non-casters you dont use your primary abiltiies much. And that is a problem.
I played a game once where our "better rogue" could neither find or disable traps and he didn't yet have evasion for when said traps went off, to which I retorted, WORST ROGUE EVER.So, how is your ninja better then, with no trapfinding, trap sense or evasion at all?
I personally took a level of Freebooter Trapper Ranger with my Ninja. Problem solved. :)
Except now I want to go 4 levels into Ranger for Freebooter's Bond ... decisions, decisions, decisions ....
The problem with a class like this is it's dependent on the kind of opponents it faces. Like the 3.5 spell theif, if you spend the day dealing with non-casters you dont use your primary abiltiies much. And that is a problem.
Maybe.
Or the kind of allies you have, it's two extra castings per day of one spell(up to ten spells actually with division of actions). And a dead enemy gives you nothing.
Kind of like paladin isn't much fun if you don't fight something evil. But playstyle isn't universal. And the paladin isn't a problem because of it.
And I would like to see a leech. I liked the idea of spell thief but hated the execution.
Besides, with ten new classes, I really want something that is made for other playstyles than "Murderous Hoboes Looking for Loot".
|
Pretty disappointed in this release announcement. Yet another player based and targeted class book. I would have much preferred an Advanced Bestiary book: modular breakdown of creature abilities, template creation, ability creation and CR scoring, etc.
I do think a book like this is needed (Re: check your troll pounce) - if it has modular or an "under-the-hood" kind of toolkit. If it does then maybe late 2014 or some time in 2015 we might see an Advanced Bestiary book come out along the same lines. Seems like it's still several years off, if ever - but if there is a toolkit in this book I will hold out hope.
Given how much back and forth there was about the name Magus for a class, I'd be surprised if they decided to go with War Priest (and am kind of surprised it's even been put out there that way).
I'm fuzzy on specifics (and can't seem to find a related thread at the moment), but it seems to me someone at Paizo (Jason Bulmahn?) talked about how they didn't want a name that was just two names (separate or conjoined), or didn't want weird names (like Gish), but wanted to have a single word name that was descriptive of the class.
IIRC, it was Erik Mona, and he said as publisher he insisted on a single word for consistency's sake, since most base classes are single words (rogue, paladin, cavalier). I understand and agree with the first bit. The second stipulation he had I have never understood: he didn't want the name of the class to be a compound word. He said "portmanteau," but his examples were things like "hexblade" and "spellknight" which are compound words. (Portmanteaux are "smashed up" words like "slithe" or "mimsy" or "stabracadabrist.") By his own ruling, the game could never have a base class called "pathfinder" since pathfinder itself is a compound word. I think maybe his real concern was wanting a word used in the "real world" rather than a "made up" phrase, which words like "hexblade" might be, but as the real world never had people shooting fire out of their swords (to the best of my knowledge), I'm not sure why that's an issue either.
("Gish" was always out of the question because it's WOTC's IP-related class name for WOTC's IP-protected race, the Githyanki.)
So this is why we have a name for a hybrid class that by definition is a synonym for wizard (and to the best of my knowledge, the actual Hermetic and Zoroastrian magi are the closest things the real world ever had to wizards that I know of).
So yeah, if he is now allowing "war priest" or "warpriest" something changed--or it's a placeholder for another class name (after all, isn't there a "war priest" archetype?). Especially as I'm fairly sure "warpriest" is no more a "real world" phrase than "spellblade." There ARE certainly easy to find real-world words for religious warriors (crusader, templar for two easy examples) so they could take that route if they wished.
I'm fuzzy on specifics (and can't seem to find a related thread at the moment), but it seems to me someone at Paizo (Jason Bulmahn?) talked about how they didn't want a name that was just two names (separate or conjoined), or didn't want weird names (like Gish), but wanted to have a single word name that was descriptive of the class.
IIRC, it was Erik Mona, and he said as publisher he insisted on a single word for consistency's sake, since most base classes are single words (rogue, paladin, cavalier). I understand and agree with the first bit. The second stipulation he had I have never understood: he didn't want the name of the class to be a compound word. He said "portmanteau," but his examples were things like "hexblade" and "spellknight" which are compound words. (Portmanteaux are "smashed up" words like "slithe" or "mimsy" or "stabracadabrist.") By his own ruling, the game could never have a base class called "pathfinder" since pathfinder itself is a compound word. I think maybe his real concern was wanting a word used in the "real world" rather than a "made up" phrase, which words like "hexblade" might be, but as the real world never had people shooting fire out of their swords (to the best of my knowledge), I'm not sure why that's an issue either.
("Gish" was always out of the question because it's WOTC's IP-related class name for WOTC's IP-protected race, the Githyanki.)
So this is why we have a name for a hybrid class that by definition is a synonym for wizard (and to the best of my knowledge, the actual Hermetic and Zoroastrian magi are the closest things the real world ever had to wizards that I know of).
To be fair, the Antipaladin Alternate Class sort of breaks this rule too. I'm personally hoping they pick a better name than war priest, but if that's what they decide on, I won't complain. It sort of heralds back to the game's roots as a TTRPG Expansion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blackguard was always a better name anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I want is the ability to build my own classes using a point system like the custom race builder from Advanced Races. That's it. I'd buy it just for that. In fact, make it a classless system whereby players could design their own characters to suit their whims. 2e's Skills and Powers was a great idea, but poorly executed.
|
|
To be fair, the Antipaladin Alternate Class sort of breaks this rule too. I'm personally hoping they pick a better name than war priest, but if that's what they decide on, I won't complain. It sort of heralds back to the game's roots as a TTRPG Expansion.
I think with that particular classs there were playing on the games history since that class/name was an existing NPC foe class introduced back in 1st ed AD&D.
|
|
Alexander - tweets indicate the Shaman is Witch/OracleThat is the most beautiful marriage of classes ever.
Yes, indeed. All four called out in the first post intrigued me, but this one put a grin on my face that refuses to go away.
Multi-classing, because of BAB/save/Caster level wonkiness, never quite worked for me in 3.X, and Prestige Classes even less. Hybrid classes (of which the Paladin and Ranger are already two) sound the way to go.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alexander - tweets indicate the Shaman is Witch/OracleThat is the most beautiful marriage of classes ever.Yes, indeed. All four called out in the first post intrigued me, but this one put a grin on my face that refuses to go away.
Multi-classing, because of BAB/save/Caster level wonkiness, never quite worked for me in 3.X, and Prestige Classes even less. Hybrid classes (of which the Paladin and Ranger are already two) sound the way to go.
I agree! So much so that it lead to this: The Expanded Shaman :)
Pretty disappointed in this release announcement. Yet another player based and targeted class book. I would have much preferred an Advanced Bestiary book: modular breakdown of creature abilities, template creation, ability creation and CR scoring, etc.
I do think a book like this is needed (Re: check your troll pounce) - if it has modular or an "under-the-hood" kind of toolkit. If it does then maybe late 2014 or some time in 2015 we might see an Advanced Bestiary book come out along the same lines. Seems like it's still several years off, if ever - but if there is a toolkit in this book I will hold out hope.
I wouldn't call it a player only book, especially since it means more tools for the GM. Remember, anything a Player can use, the GM can use and I like having these books that appeal to both Player and GM, rather than only one. I mean, look how well the GMG sold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call it a player only book, especially since it means more tools for the GM. Remember, anything a Player can use, the GM can use and I like having these books that appeal to both Player and GM, rather than only one. I mean, look how well the GMG sold.Pretty disappointed in this release announcement. Yet another player based and targeted class book. I would have much preferred an Advanced Bestiary book: modular breakdown of creature abilities, template creation, ability creation and CR scoring, etc.
I do think a book like this is needed (Re: check your troll pounce) - if it has modular or an "under-the-hood" kind of toolkit. If it does then maybe late 2014 or some time in 2015 we might see an Advanced Bestiary book come out along the same lines. Seems like it's still several years off, if ever - but if there is a toolkit in this book I will hold out hope.
How well did the GMG sell? I don't recall discussions of sales.
That said, if it sold poorly, that doesn't necessarily mean GM-focused guides are a bad idea. It means the GMG didn't appeal for SOME reason--maybe because it was GM focused, but maybe for another reason. For example, the GMG is designed largely for beginner GMs, and a good half of it is just advice on how to deal with players and game setup and such. If the board demographics are at all, even roughly, representative of Paizo's player demographics, the majority of Pathfinder players are experienced players who don't need "the basics" of advice on how to run a game. They still could use guidelines and generation tables (Ultimate Equipment was attractive in part because of the treasure generation tables in the back--and because people weren't happy with the ones in the GMG, another reason it might not have sold well). I have gotten good things out of the GMG, but mainly the pregen NPCs and the rules on hazards. Maybe it didn't sell well because it didn't provide enough mechanics in general to be useful. I'm still disappointed Ultimate Campaign is more player oriented than GM oriented (it's a lot of GM tools, but in terms of how to manage things that players ask for, like strongholds). We could still use more generation tables, various creation rules, and world building guidelines.
Sure, more classes can be more tools for a GM--but they are also, by and large, more work for a GM. The hardest thing in my personal experience (and take that with the grain of salt it is) is incorporating new classes into my campaign world, learning their rules, and making sure they don't unexpectedly unbalance things (less likely in Pathfinder, but a lesson I still learned to be alert for because of classes in 3.x). Classes really are for players much more than GMs, they're the ones in my experience who get excited about the new options they have. GMs have a lot of things to juggle as it is.
Mind, I actually am interested in this book (haven't cancelled my subscription yet, after all), but I do understand some folks' disappointment that there isn't a lot of GM support.
After all, without GMs, there'd be no game to play.
See, I actually see Ultimate Campaign as a good GM book that helps expand adventures and actions beyond dungeon delving and adventuring. From rules for playing children to alignment changing to the talismanic components, these are all things that help broaden the scope of the GM's story with mechanics and such. And yes, they are going to be more player focused, but the players are the focus of the game. After all, a GM without players is not having a game. They are some of the movers and shakers (though obviously not the only ones) and the tables for building, settlement, and kingdom events have been great for introducing story elements and plot points into the game. And the more you add to keep the players interested, the more they become invested in the campaign. That city they have to defend is much more valuable now that they have a store in it, or even now that they are the rulers of it. That's why I honestly liked UCamp as a GM book more than, say, the GMG or even the old DMG. It gave me tools I could use to enhance my game beyond tables and NPCs.
I guess I just feel that I wouldn't pay for advice and fluff on world building and creation rules when I can easily get that from blogs like The Alexandrian or Gnome Stew. Although admittedly, I did buy the Kobold Guide to World Building and I have to say that was a great buy. Definitely get it. But I don't think I'd need 255 pages of just advice.
This saddens me. Those are two of my most-wanted.I'd be surprised if Paizo made a 4-level spontaneous caster. I'd be more surprised if they made a poor-BAB divine caster. I don't think we'll see either of those from Paizo, so I'm not counting them as possibilities.4th-level spontaneous caster of any sort!!!3) 4th-level prepared spells, witch-like spell list
4) 4th-level prepared spells, wizard-like spell list
I could have swore Jason said there would be a 4 level arcane caster.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I actually see Ultimate Campaign as a good GM book that helps expand adventures and actions beyond dungeon delving and adventuring. From rules for playing children to alignment changing to the talismanic components, these are all things that help broaden the scope of the GM's story with mechanics and such. And yes, they are going to be more player focused, but the players are the focus of the game. After all, a GM without players is not having a game. They are some of the movers and shakers (though obviously not the only ones) and the tables for building, settlement, and kingdom events have been great for introducing story elements and plot points into the game. And the more you add to keep the players interested, the more they become invested in the campaign. That city they have to defend is much more valuable now that they have a store in it, or even now that they are the rulers of it. That's why I honestly liked UCamp as a GM book more than, say, the GMG or even the old DMG. It gave me tools I could use to enhance my game beyond tables and NPCs.
I guess I just feel that I wouldn't pay for advice and fluff on world building and creation rules when I can easily get that from blogs like The Alexandrian or Gnome Stew. Although admittedly, I did buy the Kobold Guide to World Building and I have to say that was a great buy. Definitely get it. But I don't think I'd need 255 pages of just advice.
I think the "every book is for DMs" argument is a bit disingenuous and a cop-out.
Not attacking you Odraude - I don't think you are being disingenuous here in expressing your views, I just think you and many people like you who see a book like this or Ultimate Campaign as legitimate DM focused books and pitch it as such, while to me they are not. Not when I have already seen what DM focused books look like.The argument of "it’s also a DM tool" can be applied to almost every item sold on this website – from minis, dice, flip-maps to pre-printed character sheets (which I use for some high end NPCs). The only books that are DM focus are the adventures, Bestiaries and the GMG. And if you are not running the APs/Golarion based campaign, then as a DM you a left with considerably less with regard to product releases/rules/new material that are targeted at you.
I agree that an Advanced Class book is useful to the DM if it has a class building resource in it. Otherwise it’s just another player focused book, and no - I don't see these as another DM resource. These are not DM exclusive releases, nor are they even focused on the DM as their target audience. If they had NPC only classes/powers also listed inside, then maybe I would consider it a split utility Player/DM book, but I know that isn't going to be the case.
Alternate/new class options books are primarily focused on players to provide them with new class options to cater to their needs/wants. Any use by the DM is incidental.
The various Bestiaries (with the exception of a few new PC races or animal companions) are DM focused releases. Ultimate Campaign was a collection of player subsystems and rules that were player targeted as hook mechanics from the last few years of AP releases. I guess a good rule distinction example on "is it player or DM focused" would be comparing something like the rules for Haunts (DM only) to rules for running a caravan (DM managed, but player focused).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally would like to see more books on creature creation (same breakdown as the Race Guide and maybe this upcoming release) with new templates involved, creating templates, creature powers/index, single encounter creatures, scoring creatures, etc. I have stopped running PF at this time (due to extreme burnout on the system) but as long as I buy the occasional product and may run a future game using these rules I will not stop pushing for a book like this to be published.
I would also like to see some campaign based books that do not offer subsystems or mini games for players in-game for the DM to manage. I am not asking for an advice book on how to run a game and deal with troublesome players, etc . I do think that a large component of the consumer base would appreciated a real resource on: low magic games, low fantasy games, low combat games, gritty or horror games (none of these are the same btw) and other alternates and how to mechanically adjust the game to accommodate these styles. Maybe even offer up a codified system to stop the game at certain level progressions (E6, 8, etc) and how to convert existing product to support such play styles. An alternate to item creation/WBL for these alternate campaigns would also be welcome, as would alternates to the already assumed default level of power for PF characters (alt systems for WBL, Big six, power progression or Xmass tree in PF).
And when I am setting up a new campaign - a brand new game if you will - the specific players are not the focus of the campaign. I know that might come as a shock to some posters here – but the "potential" campaign works around the rules and themes the DM is trying to convey, it has zip to do with specific players who have yet to play in the campaign. Are mass combat systems going to be needed in this game? Maybe? Are alternate wbl, expected magic levels and rules for adjusting and supporting the game accordingly needed? The answer to that is "no, go play another system because there are no rules to help you with what you need".
Anyway, barking up a wrong tree on this one and not trying to rain on what is an otherwise good announcement (as I said in my first post). Good luck with the ACG - I hope it has a class builder in it.
I can understand that and definitely respect that. I still feel, though, that the best GM resources are the ones that get your players more and more invested in the setting and its people, rather than things that help flesh out the setting. And while I definitely agree about a focus on themes and the potential for the campaign, I also love tying the player characters' wants and needs and backstories to the story in a cooperative manner. I think that might be the difference we have. I feel world building and fleshing out a setting should be a cooperative project between the players and myself. The more they give me to use in a setting (Background traits, Story feats, important NPCs, etc), the more I can weave that into my setting and make the game memorable. And I feel that UCamp did an excellent job of that and is much more a GM resource than people give it credit for.
Although, actual mechanics for things like creation, templates, low fantasy and low magic and such would be very useful. I'd agree that seeing more of that would have been really cool, especially in UCamp. I'd give some money to see that. Though for me, the answer isn't "Play another system" but "Let me tweak this system to fit my needs" :) But I am a tweaking gremlin when it comes to RPGs, so I would definitely love to see the options for other GMs that maybe don't have the time to tinker. Though I'll have to give you (and some other people I promised) the rules I had made up for a good low magic fantasy game. I titled it "Low Fantasy Gaming: From a Guy Who Has Play In Enough Bad Ones" :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just miss the days when Paizo was more about adventures than rules.You are right. We just have two adventure paths (12 volumes), a 300+ page super dungeon, the next RPG Superstar module, and two or more PFS scenarios each month. By my count, thats at least 1,836 pages of adventures, compared to 732 pages of rules product. Certainly shows our lack of committment to adventures.
Lisa
Not to mention the quality is outstanding. It's 1,836 pages of awesome. Thornkeep alone is enough to convert a staunch 1e player. Keep up the good work Lisa. Gencon was amazing. Paizo is the one and only reason I need to fly half way around the country to attend.
I actually remember making an arcane archer as a class in a game I was planning to run. Called it the Nomad. Was a 4 level arcane spellcaster that used ranged weapons and had styles for projectiles, thrown weapons, and firearms. It was like a magus and a ranger put together.
The GMG has been reprinted, so it must have sold "ok" at least.
"stabracadabrist."
:)
The ninja killed the rogue. Now the slayer will kill the ninja.
It's the cycle of life. :P
So, do you think the rogue will kill the slayer? Complete the cycle! ;P
So, do you think the rogue will kill the slayer? Complete the cycle! ;PThe ninja killed the rogue. Now the slayer will kill the ninja.
It's the cycle of life. :P
Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock?
Rock breaks scissors
Scissors decapitate lizard
Lizard poisons Spock
Spock vaporizes Scissors
Scissors cuts paper
Paper disproves Spock
Spock vaporizes rock
Rock crushes Lizard
Lizard eats paper
And paper covers rock like normal.
The GMG has been reprinted, so it must have sold "ok" at least.
The GMG is fantastic, but appeals to a limited audience. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it wasn't a great seller.
I could have swore Jason said there would be a 4 level arcane caster.This saddens me. Those are two of my most-wanted.I'd be surprised if Paizo made a 4-level spontaneous caster. I'd be more surprised if they made a poor-BAB divine caster. I don't think we'll see either of those from Paizo, so I'm not counting them as possibilities.4th-level spontaneous caster of any sort!!!3) 4th-level prepared spells, witch-like spell list
4) 4th-level prepared spells, wizard-like spell list
HUZZAH!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that everyone with a decent perception score can etect traps. The ninja is not the best example, however the inquisitor, the trapper and freebooter ranger; the vivisectionist and crypt breaker alchemist; and the archeologist Bard DID killed the rogue.I played a game once where our "better rogue" could neither find or disable traps and he didn't yet have evasion for when said traps went off, to which I retorted, WORST ROGUE EVER.So, how is your ninja better then, with no trapfinding, trap sense or evasion at all?I personally took a level of Freebooter Trapper Ranger with my Ninja. Problem solved. :)
Except now I want to go 4 levels into Ranger for Freebooter's Bond ... decisions, decisions, decisions ....
I play in a party as an archeologist, where we also have a party rogue. Each play separate, valuable roles, and the archeologist is frankly a crappy rogue. A great dungeon diver, but not a great rogue. Especially since, importantly, archeologists don't even have Disable Device as a class skill (and don't get their trap related abilities until several levels in). If you want to play a rogue-spellcaster hybrid as a base class, the archeologist is an awesome option, but it does not replace the rogue I can say absolutely certainly, as an archeologist player.
I don't see any evidence that the others "killed" the rogue either -- can do similar things, yes, but each have their niches.
But look at me, I am letting myself get derailed. I apologize, won't happen again.
It was like a magus and a ranger put together.
So ... that would make it ... a manger?
I don't know if I like the idea of mushing two classes together to make a new one; I'd rather they find a way to fix multiclassing. Now, mushing two classes together with a twist (like the magus) is better.
It was like a magus and a ranger put together.So ... that would make it ... a manger?
I don't know if I like the idea of mushing two classes together to make a new one; I'd rather they find a way to fix multiclassing. Now, mushing two classes together with a twist (like the magus) is better.
Well, mine wasn't exactly that. I was just describing it the best I could. It actually had some original abilities, with only Spell Combat and Combat Styles the only two things I kept from the Magus and Ranger respectively. But it still had its own cool twists.
Personally, I don't think any class is "dead."
But I also prefer to use my system mastery to build and play characters who are a delightful patchwork of two or more base classes.
For example, I have my kitsune (Sword Saint/Lore Warden/Thug) character and his kitsune (Freebooter Trapper/Ninja) cohort. Both awesomely fun to play. I call them my "samurai" and my "ninja," but that really isn't correct. Especially for my kitsune samurai, he's like 8th level and has like two levels in that class!
But yes, I will probably find ways to make amazingly fun builds with any base class that Paizo creates. ;-)
Hunter=Druid/Fighter/Druid? Aka 6th level Divine Casting, druid style. Cool, can dig.
Slayer... dear lord, I'm a little afraid of this, but I think the favored enemy issue will gimp it as per the ranger norm.
The others, especially Shaman (HOMG), have gotten me pretty excited. I also hope for a 4 level Arcane Caster, maybe something like Monk/Sorcerer? I know someone suggested "Psion" as a name, but I feel that's a big discordant with my own general view of a Monk/Sorc class mixture. A psion primarily perfects on honing their mind, and that's what lends them their power. A monk/sorcerer... I'll call it an "Adept" for now, an Adept would be someone who mixes their latent arcane ability through the perfection of the body, someone who expresses that power through rigorous physical movement and power. Perhaps this would be stepping on Magus' toes a little bit, but I would personally love a class like that.
Also: on Class bloat, been beaten to death, but this isn't even in the realm of 3.5 yet. I could probably name upwards of 30 without even thinking, 40+ if I tried.
Perhaps we'll see something like a rogue/wizard combo and we'll get Beguiler back, an old favorite of mine. I'm also desperately hoping we don't see a bunch of Ninja-esque classes, I.E. let's take two classes, smash them together with most of the abilities of one, a couple of the other, and a few unique abilities, and call it a day. I'd like to see more classes like Alchemist or Summoner (Don't crucify me, wait...), classes that take elements from other classes on a base level, and then add something entirely unique to the party, or perhaps simply more like Magus or Inquisitor, who are much more inherently "Hybrid" classes, but who don't solely rely on the defining mechanics of their "origin" classes (I.E. Magus doesn't have constant fighter feat progression, and Inquisitor doesn't get channel energy)
AND I STILL WANT A PROPER ARTIFICER.
AND I STILL WANT A PROPER ARTIFICER.
So does Eberron.
I think Jason Bulmahn got asked about that in a panel at PaizoCon and the answer from him is that the class concept has a lot of flaws and would be hard to do "right". You have the crafting problems with PFS. There's the fact it's supposed better at using magic items and such which rogue does a bit. If you go with potion brewing, then alchemist and witch are already pretty good with those.
The trick probably would be to make it similar to alchemist, but perhaps specialize in various types of craftable objects: rings, weapons, armor, rods, wands, staves, scrolls, and maybe a generic version that can do a little of everything.
Another option is to have it work like a bard-ish buff machine that makes your equipment more awesome while they channel some effect as well as decreasing effects of the opponent's gear in some way. The problem is that the abilities may tend to start appearing fairly contrived.
A fun variant would be to include a homunculus/clockwork companion mechanic as part of the class, but that might be too much overlap with summoner eidolons. Alternatively, you could give a couple different homunculus/clockwork stat options and then let them advance with the druid animal companion chart. In order to create a new homunculus an artificer must spend an uninterrupted 24 hours growing a new one in a cauldron or something of the sort.
That's something I always thought the 3.5 Artificer was missing was essentially a personal Warforged type companion whom the artificer could bestow all of her various buffs to.
Anyway, I'm rambling.
AND I STILL WANT A PROPER ARTIFICER.So does Eberron.
I think Jason Bulmahn got asked about that in a panel at PaizoCon and the answer from him is that the class concept has a lot of flaws and would be hard to do "right". You have the crafting problems with PFS. There's the fact it's supposed better at using magic items and such which rogue does a bit. If you go with potion brewing, then alchemist and witch are already pretty good with those.
The trick probably would be to make it similar to alchemist, but perhaps specialize in various types of craftable objects: rings, weapons, armor, rods, wands, staves, scrolls, and maybe a generic version that can do a little of everything.
Another option is to have it work like a bard-ish buff machine that makes your equipment more awesome while they channel some effect as well as decreasing effects of the opponent's gear in some way. The problem is that the abilities may tend to start appearing fairly contrived.
A fun variant would be to include a homunculus/clockwork companion mechanic as part of the class, but that might be too much overlap with summoner eidolons. Alternatively, you could give a couple different homunculus/clockwork stat options and then let them advance with the druid animal companion chart. In order to create a new homunculus an artificer must spend an uninterrupted 24 hours growing a new one in a cauldron or something of the sort.
That's something I always thought the 3.5 Artificer was missing was essentially a personal Warforged type companion whom the artificer could bestow all of her various buffs to.
Anyway, I'm rambling.
There's a 3rd party class for PF called Tinker, that I think some elements could be drawn from to make an artificer. Just some, most of it is pretty much utter trash in my opinion, but for example they gain a familiar called an "Alpha" that is essentially a construct that they can upgrade and retool with various blueprints as they level, but if it ever dies it costs an arm and a leg to repair, even moreso than the usual familiar costs. Other than that though, I can see how a proper artificer would have issues being fleshed out as a proper class. Eberron it was all about the free exp for magic items, but now that you don't pay Exp in PF, it'd be hard to give it back that kind of feel without making magic items next to free for the artificer. I do kind of miss their augments though, that was a fun mechanic in my opinion.
Also: Warforged Artificer... so much fun.
|
|
Current Hybrid Classes
Alchemist (Rogue/Wizard)
Bard (Rogue/Sorcerer)
Inquisitor (Cleric/Rogue)
Magus (Fighter/Wizard)
Oracle (Cleric/Sorcerer)
Paladin (Cleric/Fighter)
Ranger (Druid/Fighter)
Summoner (Druid/Wizard)
Witch (Druid/Wizard)
Non-Hybrid Classes <# hybrids already>
Barbarian
Cavalier (Samurai)
Cleric <3>
Druid <3>
Fighter <3>
Gunslinger
Monk
Rogue (Ninja) <3>
Sorcerer <2>
Wizard <4>
Niches that can be filled
Barbarian/Druid Shaman Type
Cavalier/Cleric Crusader Type
Cavalier/Rogue Secret Agent Type---Spy
Cleric/Monk Lay Priest/Friar?
Druid/Rogue Charlatan?
Fighter/Rogue Swashbuckler Type
Fighter/Gunslinger Musketeer Type
Monk/Sorcerer Psychic Type
Then to complete the Asian Sub-Class
Barbarian (Sohei)
Cleric (Shukenja)
Fighter (Bushi)
Wizard (Wu Jen)
Just putting some thoughts out there.