I remember a dm allowed my warmage to cast healing spells in one game. The requirements were steep (3 feats I believe).
So! I had to be mid level, and use two energy substitution feats (it was kind of becoming a focus of the character, and energy sub had its own pre-reqs). One to turn a fire spell into sonic, and then sonic into healing (feat tax was in there). It was quite fun, and did allow my warmage to throw healing fireballs. I didn't overuse it though, but occasionally had my character shoot themselves in the pretty head with fire bolt (turned sonic, then turned into healing) to heal up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, to me, the idea that there is simply this big bad list that every cleric knows or every wizard knows, and knows fully, is just silly.
I'd be tempted to go in the other direction, and restrict the spell lists of clerics and druids (and everyone, even paladins and rangers) in this manner.
At 1st level, the spellcaster gets a choice;
1) Spellbook (prayer book, scroll of ogham runes, whatever) with spells acquired and transcribed just like a wizard. Exceptions would exist, so that clerics would automatically learn their domain spells, but anything beyond that, and their 'two per level' they have to pay for.
2) Small list of 'spells known' like a sorcerer, that he can cast spontaneously.
Nobody gets every spell on their class list for free. Everybody uses either the wizard or sorcerer spell acquisition methods.
Prepared bards, with a bunch of notes of different magical performances he has learned? Absolutely. Spontaneous paladins who can cast any of the paladin spells in their small 'spells known' selection, but none of the others on the paladin list? Yup. Clerics toting around holy canons of their faith, filled with obscure rites and obeisances and invocations and supplications that she might find necessary? Sure. Spontaneous druids who have only mastered a few of the deeper secrets of the druidic arts (having a sorcerer-like Spells Known list), but can cast them more flexibly than a 'prepared' druid? Bring it.
Monsterrs and encounters are designed on the assumption that no matter how circumstantial a spell the cleric will have it given 24 hours warning or at worst have it in 24 hours.
I absolutely do not design with this in mind. I design for what's appropriate to the situation. Whether they roll it or the situation goes south really just depends, but then I expect players to think about something before blindly charging in.
-Ben.
I'd be tempted to go in the other direction, and restrict the spell lists of clerics and druids (and everyone, even paladins and rangers) in this manner.
This is part of what I do with creating various caster-organizations. Each one has its own list, its own secrets, and then growth from there is personal research or conquest.
-Ben.
I just played through an AP with a party that didn't have a cleric. Having every divine spell at your disposal is useful, but not essential.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's nice. Paizo does design their monsters with this in mind. Just look through the bestiaries for what CR abilities start appearing at. You'll find ability damage is CR 3 to match lesser restoration and blindness, deafness, curses, and diseases mostly start at CR 5 when a cleric should have the corresponding removes and level drain starts at CR 7 when restoration is available to fix it.
Ability damage starts as low as CR 1/2, with the giant centipede, viper and poison frog, with plenty of CR 1 and 2 examples as well.
Disease, CR 1/3, with the dire rat, and CR 1, with the ghoul, etc.
Energy drain starts at CR 3 with the wight.
The monsters in the game are *totally* not designed the way you say.
Jade Regent spoilers
Jade Regent, in particular, has a wight thrown up against a 2nd level party, and a half-dozen or more examples of deathblade poison (each dose costing more than the estimated treasure value of the *entire encounter* at that CR!) being used against 3rd to 4th level PCs, long before neutralize poison is available.
And, ideally, you *should* be able to run an adventure with an oracle or druid as a healer, and they don't even get some of these spells (druids don't get restoration, for example) or might not have chosen every single one (in the case of an oracle).
Multiple APs have 'sample parties' in the back that don't include Kyra, suggesting that the people at Paizo don't think you necessarily need someone with every spell on the cleric list to make it through their APs, since they've got Paladin/Ranger/Bard/Wizard line up in Curse of the Crimson Throne, and a Druid/Monk/Barbarian/soon-to-be-Magus in Second Darkness, and a Druid/Ranger/Monk/Barbarian in Kingmaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I tell people the fluff does not constitute the rules. The mechanics do. Fluff is artistic license, not the actual in game limitations or allowances.
Jade Regent gives you an NPC cleric ally and a [SPOILER] which can cast clerical spells on you. Usually you have the ability to purchase scrolls of restoration, remove blindness, etc. Other campaigns may be less forgiving.
This has really drifted away from the thread topic...
If anything, to me, the idea that there is simply this big bad list that every cleric knows or every wizard knows, and knows fully, is just silly.I'd be tempted to go in the other direction, and restrict the spell lists of clerics and druids (and everyone, even paladins and rangers) in this manner.That's a terrible idea with the current spell list.
A cleric gets spells for the benefit of the party and many of them are either priceless or worthless depending on if someone happens to have mummy rot or stat drain at the moment. Monsterrs and encounters are designed on the assumption that no matter how circumstantial a spell the cleric will have it given 24 hours warning or at worst have it in 24 hours.
This is a valid concern when running 3.x, but it's an issue even without introducing house rules. As Set says, any given RAW party might not have a divine caster capable of healing the current malady-of-the-day!
Personally I think it's an issue of flawed game design, but that's a different discussion.
I remember a dm allowed my warmage to cast healing spells in one game. The requirements were steep (3 feats I believe).
So! I had to be mid level, and use two energy substitution feats (it was kind of becoming a focus of the character, and energy sub had its own pre-reqs). One to turn a fire spell into sonic, and then sonic into healing (feat tax was in there). It was quite fun, and did allow my warmage to throw healing fireballs. I didn't overuse it though, but occasionally had my character shoot themselves in the pretty head with fire bolt (turned sonic, then turned into healing) to heal up.
lol, that's odd but pretty neat. Three feats for what amounts to a 3rd level mass heal. 1d6s aren't as great as 10s, but they're way better than 1s!
Nobody gets every spell on their class list for free. Everybody uses either the wizard or sorcerer spell acquisition methods.
I'm so onboard with this idea!
|
If Fighters are intended to be a generic, customisable class (as is shown by their feats), then shouldn't they have a customisable class skill list?
I use traits to do this. Generally one trait for the region, one to give a background aspect like this.
-Ben.
While it can be done this way, they really shouldn't have to.
The class (or archetype) should provide the tools to perform the advertised job, so traits can be used for their intended purpose, of personalising the character.
If every watchman is forced to purchase Alertness and Skill Focus feats, at first level, plus a trait to give them Perception as a class skill, then where is the variety? They will all be cookie cutter clones of each other.
How will Watchman A show that he was brought up by priests?
How will Watchman B ever express his fondness for musical theatre?
"What did you do last night, Watchman A?"
"I...um...I went home and was exceedingly Alert."
"That's ...interesting."
"How 'bout you, Watchman B?"
"Mmmm? Well, I stayed in. And I did that thing, where I focussed on Perceiving the objects in my room."
"Right."
"Kind of a ...hobby of mine."
"Sounds good."
"Yup."
Relying on traits and odd-level feats, to fill gaping holes in a class' essential abilities, would be the equivalent of expecting a wizard to spend a feat/trait to unlock Magic Missile to their spell list, or the healer cleric to spend a feat/trait to be able to cast cures or channel.
|
|
Otherwise, no, there's no reason there shouldn't just be a single spell list for all casters with delimiters based on deities, specialties, arcane colleges, or religious institutions of your choice. But that requires a lot more work than straight up base lists, and adds a hurdle to new player integration.
That's certainly how they do it in the Diamond Throne setting.
The arcane/divine divide doesn't exist, and all spells are theoretically available to be learnt by anyone.
They are, however, divided into common, uncommon, and rare spells (maybe not those exact names, but that's the gist).
Certain classes get access to only the common list, others get uncommon access, some get rare, but each class has the option of learning outside their class' comfort zone, at a cost.
There was also the concept of under- or over-casting a spell, that learning some spells gave you the inherent option of casting them in a lower or higher slot, for lesser or greater themed effect.
This idea would help sorcerers keep their bloodline theme strong, without forcing them to use all their 'spells known' slots on learning Lesser X, X, and Greater X, nor without giving them more 'spells known' that they spend scattershot, diluting their theme.
|
|
A Heal skill (or, for that matter *all* skills) being upgraded to be remotely relevant to conditions present in the game world, would also be a fine solution. If someone with the Heal skill could do anything at all to treat ability damage, or the deafened condition imposed as easily as via a *thunderstone,* or provide any benefit at all against more supernatural maladies like providing a bonus to Fortitude saves to avoid permanent level loss, that would go a long way to ditch the 'must have a cleric to go on this adventure' syndrome.
But that's a completely other issue, of skills being more or less undervalued, particularly compared to spells.
Easier access to arcane abjuration effects that can purge lower level effects, such as a blindness/deafness spell or a curse, could also take some of the load off of the cleric (or the oracle, who can't really be expected to take remove blindness or remove curse as one of the five 3rd level spells he's going to know *in his life,* or a druid, who will never know either of those spells, *ever* (or remove paralysis, or restoration, or greater restoration...)).
Dam special interest groups!Ah-ha! Because wizards are intelligent, and know that if they had access to cure spells everyone would be badgering them to cure them, just as they do other classes when they learn them. As wizards do not want to give up their status as god-wizard for the lesser one of heal-bot, The Union of Arcane Spell-Casters and Associated Trades immediately penalise any wizard who starts along this road of research.Nothing prevents them from creating their own cure series except ... an ingrained game paradigm that has forgotten wizards can research and second ingrained paradigm that falsely thinks only clerics can heal.I've never met a DM who interpreted that line in that way, 'cause it doesn't make much sense really.
If wizards can research cures, why aren't they already on his spell list? It's hard to believe that no wizard ever previously had a use for healing and the cash to learn.
Unite and stand together, comrade!
It's flawed game design, but it's also the bestiary we're stuck with. The rational solution is to give all healer classes guaranteed access to the condition removers and non-HP restorers, not strip it from the only class that can handle the unknown as things now stand.
I can live with that.
Or I can live with all casters having access to the condition removers. Or with the DM providing the party with an NPC healbot, back at home base or in the party itself. ("I'm an undefined class, all I can do is cure and remove conditions!") Or with the DM simply house ruling even the worst conditions to be temporary.
Whatever floats a DM's boat, really.
On the topic of perceptive fighters, I don't have a strong opinion other than: I'm tired of cross-class skills. All of them, for everyone. Rogues having lots of skill points is niche protection enough.
On the topic of perceptive fighters, I don't have a strong opinion other than: I'm tired of cross-class skills. All of them, for everyone. Rogues having lots of skill points is niche protection enough.
What LazerX said, plus the bard can do a lot more with his barely less skill-points, and the ranger is close enough as to ensure he can do 90% of the rogue's role and a lot more besides. Rogues are the least niche-protected class in the game, their niche is overrun by other classes doing everything they do and more besides.
Rogues are the least niche-protected class in the game, their niche is overrun by other classes doing everything they do and more besides.
Not necessarily a bad thing. Niche protection in a form like trap finding is a bad thing, it forces players to need a rogue or could even cut down on the niche in order to make the game more viable without that class. Rogues need a boost, not niche protection. Could you imagine if we went back to the old skill system? Bleh, suddenly classes almost can't perform certain basic and mundane actions, which I'm not particularly fond of.
I agree with MrSin. We don't need niche protection for Rogues, we need a freaking buff. Useful Rogue Talents would be a good start, especially if they are not of the "Here, have a feat!" variety.
Buffing what skills can do at mid/higher levels would be nice too.
Rogues are OP.
On the topic of perceptive fighters, I don't have a strong opinion other than: I'm tired of cross-class skills. All of them, for everyone. Rogues having lots of skill points is niche protection enough.If you think cross class is bad in Pathfinder, you obviously never played 3.X.
Actually I played (mostly DMed) 3.x for eight years, and have played just one night of PF. I've been posting here since '06. But it's alright, I won't hold this against you. ;)
Anyway, PF skills are better than 3.5 skills, in several respects. But as they say, the existence of oceans doesn't make a lake any less wet.
Either make class skills matter (as in 3.0 or 3.5), or get rid of them entirely.
So... you hate class skills in PF, then state you don't like the skill system at all, but want to go back to where its actually more limiting to the point that putting points in class skills is an act of futility? I'd rather it only mean something minor than actually be a detriment. Class skills mattered in 3.5 because they essentially determined what you could ever do with your skill points. If PF used the same cross skill gig I'd put money on perception in class being a lot more valuable(because apparently most adventurers don't have perception in class to begin with, which is silly.)
Eat your breakfast Kalibos. I eat my kitten every morning. It's filled with fiber.The fluff-crunch conflict occurs when the kitten's been sleeping in your cereal bowl.
"It's the bones that make it crunchy!"
Rogues are the least niche-protected class in the game, their niche is overrun by other classes doing everything they do and more besides.Not necessarily a bad thing. Niche protection in a form like trap finding is a bad thing, it forces players to need a rogue or could even cut down on the niche in order to make the game more viable without that class. Rogues need a boost, not niche protection. Could you imagine if we went back to the old skill system? Bleh, suddenly classes almost can't perform certain basic and mundane actions, which I'm not particularly fond of.
I agree with MrSin. We don't need niche protection for Rogues, we need a freaking buff. Useful Rogue Talents would be a good start, especially if they are not of the "Here, have a feat!" variety.
Buffing what skills can do at mid/higher levels would be nice too.
I agree with you both, the rogue does not need niche protection, it needs an expansion of it's abilities. Easiest way is through more and better rogue talents.
Rogues are fine as is.