Speaking of Archetypes, I do hope that there is one that allows the bloodrager to give up spellcasting in order to gain some rage powers. Not enough that it would undermine the barbarian of course, but I think it would still be a fun option.
Speaking of Archetypes, I do hope that there is one that allows the bloodrager to give up spellcasting in order to gain some rage powers. Not enough that it would undermine the barbarian of course, but I think it would still be a fun option.
I don't think they would do that. I definitely see them doing an archetype that drops spells, but I can only ever see them gaining an alternative super natural ability pool from that, ala the paladin and ranger substitutions for spells. Some sort of point-based pool. Otherwise it's the archetype would just be a barbarian with these bloodline powers.
The problem is, any closer to a Barbarian and you'll have a Barbarian or something better than a Barbarian. It is really, really close to being a Barbarian already.
The barbarian side would be represented by the class as written. Then the archetype would make them blastier.
... or you could just grant both options, rationalizing that no one character is going to be optimized for both anyway.
I am worried that the class would be too muddled if it were written that way. If both options were granted then they would be watered down to balance having both of the options since the mechanical differences between the approaches would be pretty drastic. Better to keep it clear cut with an archetype.
1. paladins and rangers gain more synergy from there casting stat.
2. the paladin and ranger are not caster hybirds. they are classes with spells as a supplement to their other abilities. the bloodrager has casting as a major portion of what he is. magic is a full half of the class, and while part of that magic is represented in bloodline abilities those are mostly rage, which is to say mundane, supplements to his rage. his spellcasting abilities are still more primary to his role and theme than the spell casting abilities are to the ranger and the paladin. this is why the ranger and paladin have more options for class abilities than the bloodrager, because his spells are supposed to be a major part of what a bloodrager is.
1. Paladins and rangers have more synergy because they have non-spell abilities that tie to them. Rather than breaking the design scheme by having just one 4th level caster with full levels, why don't we just make high CHA more useful to the bloodrager in other ways? The fastest solution is not always the best.
2. I dispute this. I think you are projecting an importance on his Vancian spells that isn't there, and I disagree outright with the thought that he is a "50/50" caster/melee hybrids. Why? Because he's a 4th level caster with full BAB and 4th level casting, as opposed to a 6th level caster with 3/4 BAB.
Neither of those responses is an valid argument for giving him full caster levels with 4th level spellcasting. I can see a very good argument for making CHA more important for this class, and perhaps giving him more abilities related to it, but not full levels 100% of the time.
The fact remains that giving him normal caster levels outside of rage does not serious hurt the class. It would be the difference of 1 hour versus 4 hours on Mage Armor, or 1 minute versus 4 minutes on Bull's Strength, and I don't know about you, but I can only think of a handful of combats I've run that lasted more than 10 rounds.
And you're...
when your whole argument is a logic fallacy based on a plead to tradition you do not get to simply declare other arguments invalid due to your fallacy.
you can say you do not like them, but you do not get to declare them invalid.
... or you could just grant both options, rationalizing that no one character is going to be optimized for both anyway.
I was thinking that this could be addressed in an archetype. Doing this as an archetype would create two variants of the class, one leaning towards sorcerer and one towards barbarian.The sorcerer leaning archetype would make the Bloodrage more Avatar State than barbarian Rage. Probably this would involve changing the STR to a CHA bonus and the Will save bonus to an increase to spell DC.
Other changes could be allowing the bloodrager to spend rage rounds instead of spell slots to cast while raging or to spend rage rounds instead of increasing the level of metamagic'ed. This would give the bloodrager reasonably punch and/or staying power if they want to blast away.
This would be paid for by dropping many of the remaining barbarian-derived abilities.
The class should ideally preserve the ability to viably build both meele attack and spell-damage using bloodragers and an archetype is really the only way to do that.
you'd be hard-pressed to optimize both sides at the same time anyway.
@Victor Sajic: he didnt say it added to his argument (or made his correct), only that your stance/reasoning was flawed.
sorry where did i argue by tradition.
it seems to me that you do not know what the logical fallacy of plead to tradition is, so i will explain it.
a plead to tradition is when you claim we should do something in a particular manner because that is the way it has been done in the past.
that is your entire argument. that because the paladin and ranger, i.e. the past, had a caster level 3 less than their actual level that we should do the same for this new class.
then when it is pointed out that the new class does not work like those past examples you argue to make it more like the past examples so your fallacy is supported.
my counter argument, based on the actual abilites and facts of the new class are that he does not have the class abilities to support himself and his casting stat like the past examples, and that he has a radically different spell list that requires a different use of caster level than past examples.
so while you continue in persisting in your fallacy, i am again going to point out that this classis different, and state that your logical fallacy is not the same as an actual argument based on the facts and abilities of the case before us.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please, let's stop measuring each other's fallacies.
I think the Bloodrager bonus spells should kick in when they 1st learn the level of spell thats appropriate (ie. 4th, 7th, 10th and 13th instead of 7, 10, 13 and 16)
It would help to add flavour to the bloodlines and encourage the spellcasting part of the bloodrager. As it is, if say you are an aberrant BR and wanted enlarge person, you probably already have it from your choice of 4 at 7th level. Or they cease to be useful at the level you get to play with them if they dont show up on the list. Getting bless at 7th isant that much fun
I really hope they don't rip out fast movement as one of the unnecessary barbarian abilities.Unfortunately, it will probably get removed. Right now Bloodragers get more abilities than Barbarians at 1st level thanks to the bloodlines.
If it was only for that they could move it to level 2.
the podcast thread over in general discussion already has confirmtion that BR's getting it's own spell list in the update a week or so from now, so that's a start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of being late to the discussion... This is what I get for deciding to not check BR threads before I finished play testing: 20 pages of arguments, counterarguments and suggestions to read up on... :(
Anyways, first a disclaimer, since I'm afraid this might come out sounding arrogant and provocative to some people, and I'd rather be taken seriously than be flamed to the proverbial non-regen status as the troll du jour:
DISCLAMER: Everything I post here is according to my opinion unless specifically stated otherwise. If you think anything sounds demeaning to your views, opinions or feelings, it is most likely a most unintentional side effect of a me lacking the eloquence required to express myself in a less abrasive manner, combined with my desire to get my point across. And for these shortcomings, I sincerely apologize and promise that I'll do my best to improve.
when your whole argument is a logic fallacy based on a plead to tradition you do not get to simply declare other arguments invalid due to your fallacy.
Unfortunately, this single sentence about sums up most of the thread IMO. With a few rare exceptions, it seems the suggestions proposed and the discussion surrounding them are based on a collection of pleads to tradition, or old beliefs and parameters taken for granted as valid and unquestionable truths, even though they may not be relevant to this case or ceased to be or never even were verified or objectively valid truths. So I'm gonna have to go all Nietzsche ranting about the three myths I find the most prevalent and disruptive to the discussion on this thread:
1 The Myth of the UCPU - Universal Class Power Unit
This is the strange preconception that certain groups of mechanics that happen to exist in all current classes are therefore somehow comparable units measurable across classes, despite the mechanics typically being dependent on tons of other, not so easily comparable things. An example of this myth is the belief that a balanced class cannot have 1/2 BAB (à la wizard) and 6th level casting (à la bard) without being UP, or full BAB and 6th level casting without being OP. Or the belief that a class' weapon and armor proficiencies, number of skill points/level, bonus feats, HD size or whatever are translatable into some kind of valid cross-class unit of power - the UCPU (Universal Class Power Unit).
The UCPU as an even remotely accurate measure doesn't exist, and using it to, for example, make suggestions for a new class is at best a waste of time or at worst grossly misleading and counter productive. BAB and casting represent two very separate groups of mechanics that aren't equal or even meaningfully comparable by themselves in a vacuum in terms of power and have never been, in PF or any edition of D&D. For example, according to all existing classes, the average level of any class with access to 9th level spells is inherently significantly more powerful than the average level of any full BAB class, but this does not mean a new class with access to 9th level spells is inherently more powerful than any full BAB class (though it would unfortunately most likely be so). Likewise, one class' power may be largely a product of its HD size, while another class' power has very little to do with its HD.
There simply are no easy shortcuts, simplifications or UCPUs to help compare classes or balance a new class. A class is an inherently complex whole which cannot be accurately evaluated by comparing its separate parts to other classes' separate parts. At least not if those doing the comparisons doesn't have a very high level of system mastery and understand and agree on all the differences hidden in the seemingly identical game terms.
The most common expressions of the UCPU myth in the BR discussion seem to be along the lines of:
"The BR should have 6th level casting, it can easily keep up melee with less BAB anyway."
"The BR doesn't rely on its casting since it only gets 4th level spells like the ranger or paladin."
"The BR should get more skill points, the barb has both rage powers and full BAB and still gets 4."
2 The Myth of the Absolute Class Structures
Related to UCPUs is the belief that a new class must adhere to the structure of an existing class, despite several of those existing classes having unique structures. As an example, there's little to gain from, and no rule against, a new 6th level spontaneous caster class not having the same number or progression of spell slots/level/day or spells known/level as the summoner and the inquisitor.
A good example of this is the suggestion that the BR should get level -3 CL based on the argument that the two existing 4th level casters get that.
3 The Myth of the Need for Balance Based on Class Type
Also related to UCPUs, this is the myth that a new class must never be more powerful than existing classes of its type to prevent power creep. Which is absolutely relevant when discussing full casters, but quite irrelevant when discussing full BAB classes such as the BR. I'd even say it's actually inversely relevant for a new full BAB melee class - as long as it doesn't outclass the wizard or cleric, the more powerful it is compared to existing full BAB melee classes, the better. I'm going to argue why in a little FAQ:
Q: But if the BR gets more powerful than the barb/paladin/whatever, won't that result in nobody wanting to play those classes anymore?
A: I still think the fighter is one of the most popular PF classes, statistically speaking. And it's also one of the least powerful. People will generally play whatever class they find cool, at least unless/until they run into party balance issues which makes that choice less viable. Which is precisely where a more powerful full BAB melee class comes in handy, capable of remaining relevant in higher levels despite hanging out with tier 2-3 classes, something PF currently sorely lacks (with the possible exception of certain pouncing/spell-sundering/invulnerable barb builds).
Q: But how can a melee focused class be that powerful, wouldn't that be unrealistic?
A: Well, the BR is a product of explicitly supernatural and magic powers, so I guess it wouldn't be any less realistic if it could slay epic monsters by flailing its limbs in their faces than if it could, say, alter the flow of time like its arcane parent class can.
/Nietzsche rant
I'll get to my detailed suggestions for the BR in a later post.
...1. paladins and rangers gain more synergy from there casting stat.
2. the paladin and ranger are not caster hybirds. they are classes with spells as a supplement to their other abilities. the bloodrager has casting as a major portion of what he is. magic is a full half of the class, and while part of that magic is represented in bloodline abilities those are mostly rage, which is to say mundane, supplements to his rage. his spellcasting abilities are still more primary to his role and theme than the spell casting abilities are to the ranger and the paladin. this is why the ranger and paladin have more options for class abilities than the bloodrager, because his spells are supposed to be a major part of what a bloodrager is.
1. Paladins and rangers have more synergy because they have non-spell abilities that tie to them. Rather than breaking the design scheme by having just one 4th level caster with full levels, why don't we just make high CHA more useful to the bloodrager in other ways? The fastest solution is not always the best.
2. I dispute this. I think you are projecting an importance on his Vancian spells that isn't there, and I disagree outright with the thought that he is a "50/50" caster/melee hybrids. Why? Because he's a 4th level caster with full BAB and 4th level casting, as opposed to a 6th level caster with 3/4 BAB.
Neither of those responses is an valid argument for giving him full caster levels with 4th level spellcasting. I can see a very good argument for making CHA more important for this class, and perhaps giving him more abilities related to it, but not full levels 100% of the time.
The fact remains that giving him normal caster levels outside of rage does not serious hurt the class. It would be the difference of 1 hour versus 4 hours on Mage Armor, or 1 minute versus 4 minutes on Bull's Strength, and I don't know about you, but I can only think of a handful of combats I've run that lasted more than
You've misinterpreted me on a few levels.
1. To begin with, arguing for design balance is in a work is not a plea for tradition. It is how you make the most accessible, readable, and aesthetically pleasing work, wether we're talking figurative painting, prose, or game design. Establishing a pattern or sense of balance and subsequently breaking is jarring and can lead to confusion. Paizo has established a pattern of 4th level spellcasters not receiving full caster levels, just as they've established a pattern that ties BAB to hit die size. Balance should only be broken when there is a really good reason: is this thing supposed to stick out? Does the feeling one gets from a broken pattern somehow emphasize what we're trying to do? This is getting somewhat divorced from the matter at hand and is probably the most minor element of what I am trying to say, but this is what I mean here.
2. The arguments you presented are perfectly valid arguments for change; for giving him more sorcerer, less barbarian, but none of them give a valid reason that the bloodrager needs FCL 100% of the time specifically. You say the paladin and ranger have more synergy with their casting stat. True, the bloodrager should also have that. Your second post is outright not true with regards to the bloodrager (as a full BAB class, the bloodrager is not meant to be a 50/50 spellcasting/melee). So no, I do not consider them valid points in this debate.
If you have another reason why the Bloodrager should have FCL out of rage/combat and break the established pattern/balance with existing classes, I am all ears. If you can convince me I will walk away satisfied at having learned something.
...1. paladins and rangers gain more synergy from there casting stat.
2. the paladin and ranger are not caster hybirds. they are classes with spells as a supplement to their other abilities. the bloodrager has casting as a major portion of what he is. magic is a full half of the class, and while part of that magic is represented in bloodline abilities those are mostly rage, which is to say mundane, supplements to his rage. his spellcasting abilities are still more primary to his role and theme than the spell casting abilities are to the ranger and the paladin. this is why the ranger and paladin have more options for class abilities than the bloodrager, because his spells are supposed to be a major part of what a bloodrager is.
1. Paladins and rangers have more synergy because they have non-spell abilities that tie to them. Rather than breaking the design scheme by having just one 4th level caster with full levels, why don't we just make high CHA more useful to the bloodrager in other ways? The fastest solution is not always the best.
2. I dispute this. I think you are projecting an importance on his Vancian spells that isn't there, and I disagree outright with the thought that he is a "50/50" caster/melee hybrids. Why? Because he's a 4th level caster with full BAB and 4th level casting, as opposed to a 6th level caster with 3/4 BAB.
Neither of those responses is an valid argument for giving him full caster levels with 4th level spellcasting. I can see a very good argument for making CHA more important for this class, and perhaps giving him more abilities related to it, but not full levels 100% of the time.
The fact remains that giving him normal caster levels outside of rage does not serious hurt the class. It would be the difference of 1 hour versus 4 hours on Mage Armor, or 1 minute versus 4 minutes on Bull's Strength, and I don't know about you, but I can only think of a handful of
This sounds less like its about class balance and more about discomfort due to compulsion. The BR has a spell list that is not conducive to loss of caster level. It was never designed to be good under those circumstances.
When they finish the new list, it may be designed in such a way that the caster level does not have the same impact, but at this time it is using the magus list.
In short: Magus list =/= paladin or ranger spell list. The latter two were designed to survive a significant loss of caster level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short: Magus list =/= paladin or ranger spell list. The latter two were designed to survive a significant loss of caster level.
This.
Anyhow, I would really like to see the BR have more casting, especially combined with a better action economy for casting in melee, more like a true barb gish but leaning rather heavily towards the melee side. So I say:
Improve the BR's maximum spell level, slots/day and casting mechanic, and keep the full BAB.
And no, this would not be OP, as it wouldn't even get the BR beyond tier 3, much less giving it powers anyway near comparable to the tier 1 classes. But it would hopefully make the BR the most powerful full BAB class (the only one from Paizo in tier 3).
Naturally, this shouldn't be translated into making the BR a 6th level caster. Rather, I suggest the BR continues to cast like any 4th level caster (-3CL), choosing form a limited spell list (primarily composed of self buffs plus a few debuffs and utility spells), but also gains one single bonus spell slot/day per spell level as if a 6th level caster (one 1st level slot @ level 1, one 2nd level slot @ level 4 a s o). These bonus spell slots would be reserved for spells from a very short list of (primarily) direct damage spells, known for free with each bloodline. The BR would only be able to cast these bloodline spells while raging, but they are cast at full CL and receive a bonus to DC equal to the BR's con mod.
In addition, the bloodline spells would be combined with some kind of scaling combat casting mechanic that feels "raging" and different than the magus' spell combat and spellstrike. Preferably, this mechanic also improves the BR's melee flexibility regardless of casting. Perhaps:
@ 1st level: a full round action to cast and charge
@ 10th level cast and charge with half the number of attacks the BR makes in a full attack, or pounce without casting
@ 20th level cast and pounce
(This is just a simple outline not including versions at levels in between.)
Or something that differs depending on bloodline (though some version of pounce should be a minimum, regardless of combat casting mechanic).
I also think the bloodlines' powers should, at least to some extent, focus on increasing combat flexibility (mobility, adaptable resistances, action economy etc). Finally, I also suggest the BR gains 4 skill points/level and a few more bloodline-dependent class skills to increase the class' flexibility out of combat.
Anyhow, I think this suggestion might solve several issues at once, for example, it:
- Gives the BR stronger casting while keeping to the 4th level caster structure (on paper, at least) and without stepping on the magus' toes
- Connects casting in combat and damage spells with bloodrage
- Enables effective casting of damage spells in combat without causing additional MAD or action economy issues
- Gives the bloodlines more tools to differentiate and balance power
- Gives PF a much needed full BAB melee class more balanced to the the primary caster classes
Comments welcome!
(Edited for clarity and less errors.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...1. paladins and rangers gain more synergy from there casting stat.
2. the paladin and ranger are not caster hybirds. they are classes with spells as a supplement to their other abilities. the bloodrager has casting as a major portion of what he is. magic is a full half of the class, and while part of that magic is represented in bloodline abilities those are mostly rage, which is to say mundane, supplements to his rage. his spellcasting abilities are still more primary to his role and theme than the spell casting abilities are to the ranger and the paladin. this is why the ranger and paladin have more options for class abilities than the bloodrager, because his spells are supposed to be a major part of what a bloodrager is.
1. Paladins and rangers have more synergy because they have non-spell abilities that tie to them. Rather than breaking the design scheme by having just one 4th level caster with full levels, why don't we just make high CHA more useful to the bloodrager in other ways? The fastest solution is not always the best.
2. I dispute this. I think you are projecting an importance on his Vancian spells that isn't there, and I disagree outright with the thought that he is a "50/50" caster/melee hybrids. Why? Because he's a 4th level caster with full BAB and 4th level casting, as opposed to a 6th level caster with 3/4 BAB.
Neither of those responses is an valid argument for giving him full caster levels with 4th level spellcasting. I can see a very good argument for making CHA more important for this class, and perhaps giving him more abilities related to it, but not full levels 100% of the time.
The fact remains that giving him normal caster levels outside of rage does not serious hurt the class. It would be the difference of 1 hour versus 4 hours on Mage Armor, or 1 minute versus 4 minutes on Bull's Strength, and I don't know about you, but I can
But the post you quoted didn't include how I think it should be:
I think the Bloodrager CL should be full while raging and normal out of combat. The only spells on the spell list that take a serious hit to the point of un-usability are the offensive ones; burning hands, shocking grasp, and the like, spells one would only use in combat. Rage would power up his spellcasting offense as well as his physical offense in combat, which ties the two parts of the class together rather nicely. He can still swing swords and sling spells out of rage, but he can't do either as well.
And those spells one normally casts when preparing for a fight? The buffs? Those are the same types of spells Paladins cast out of combat, and they turn out fine, as I said before.
I honestly can't really see the point Ellis. It complicates things for no real reason aside for some kind of legacy "feel". The only thing that is changing with your suggestion is that it now costs rage rounds to cast, which is fine I guess, but whats the point?
I guess in a nut shell, why is this relevant to the power of the class?
I'm still confused why there's so much talk about making this class more of a caster. Is that coming from anywhere beyond a weird fixation on the pitch of these all being "hybrid classes?" Has anyone actually been playing it and found it to just outright suck compared to older classes? From where I sit it just looks like people are setting their expectations way too high, and trying to either outright replace the barbarian, or possibly even just play some kind of d10 HP sorcerer.
I honestly can't really see the point Ellis. It complicates things for no real reason aside for some kind of legacy "feel". The only thing that is changing with your suggestion is that it now costs rage rounds to cast, which is fine I guess, but whats the point?
I guess in a nut shell, why is this relevant to the power of the class?
I like the idea for the "feel" it gives the class. Bloodrage becomes truly explosive, and bloodragers don't spend their down time obsessively buffing.
Not to mention that Paladins get access to some fantastic swift action spells. Hopefully Bloodragers get some new Litany-like spells.
Not to mention that Paladins get access to some fantastic swift action spells. Hopefully Bloodragers get some new Litany-like spells.
I hope, instead of Litany, it's more, 'Fury' or 'Wrath' styled.
I honestly can't really see the point Ellis. It complicates things for no real reason aside for some kind of legacy "feel". The only thing that is changing with your suggestion is that it now costs rage rounds to cast, which is fine I guess, but whats the point?
I guess in a nut shell, why is this relevant to the power of the class?
I don't see it complicating much. He has a normal CL and then when he's raging, spell casting is better like everything else is better.
I think it's a bad idea to give the Bloodrager a higher CL just because of a few spells on his spell list. Like changing the class to fit the spells rather than the spells to fit the class. On the other hand, I get the desire to want to cast blasty spells with this class. You should. But he shouldn't also get boosted in these other areas as a side effect. Suddenly a bloodrager who focuses on pre-battle self-buffs is better at it than a Paladin, and the only reason he's better at it is to improve spells he didn't even take.
I'm still confused why there's so much talk about making this class more of a caster. Is that coming from anywhere beyond a weird fixation on the pitch of these all being "hybrid classes?" Has anyone actually been playing it and found it to just outright suck compared to older classes? From where I sit it just looks like people are setting their expectations way too high, and trying to either outright replace the barbarian, or possibly even just play some kind of d10 HP sorcerer.It comes from the idea the mechanics should fit the flavor text.
But there is a misguided assumption that "magical barbarian" means "barbarian that cast spells as powerfully as a sorcerer". The flavor of the class is represented just as well by having lots of thematic (Su) abilities and minimal Vancian spells as it is by just lots of spells.
But there is a misguided assumption that "magical barbarian" means "barbarian that cast spells as powerfully as a sorcerer". The flavor of the class is represented just as well by having lots of thematic (Su) abilities and minimal Vancian spells as it is by just lots of spells.I'm still confused why there's so much talk about making this class more of a caster. Is that coming from anywhere beyond a weird fixation on the pitch of these all being "hybrid classes?" Has anyone actually been playing it and found it to just outright suck compared to older classes? From where I sit it just looks like people are setting their expectations way too high, and trying to either outright replace the barbarian, or possibly even just play some kind of d10 HP sorcerer.It comes from the idea the mechanics should fit the flavor text.It doesn't have lots of thematic supernatural abilities either. Any build will just have a few. Most of those abilities are not destructive. So that doesn't fit the flavor text at all.
Now I suppose more supernatural abilities could be added. Or they could just make the spellcasting work in combat in some form (making adjustments as necessary).
Frankly, that would make a more unique class. It isn't like we need a "almost exactly like the Barbarian, but slightly different" class.
Forgive me, I should have said "the flavor of the class would be represented just as well". Frankly I'm a lot more interested in the bloodline powers than spells, though I won't turn my nose up at spells.
I'm still confused why there's so much talk about making this class more of a caster. Is that coming from anywhere beyond a weird fixation on the pitch of these all being "hybrid classes?" Has anyone actually been playing it and found it to just outright suck compared to older classes? From where I sit it just looks like people are setting their expectations way too high, and trying to either outright replace the barbarian, or possibly even just play some kind of d10 HP sorcerer.
I think most people want the d10 hp sorcerer. The point of the Bloodrager is a barbarian who gets his powers from magic in his blood rather than pure physical exhertion. Lets say you get the spells bears endurance and bulls strength at level 1 and have learned to simultaneously cast them on yourself for a few rounds per day. That is the basis of the class, not "they should be casting spells most if the time" attitude some have adopted. The new spell list should help clarify this., unless they have touch and range touch as the majority. Thoughh the bloodrager spell list will likely be all the buff spells under the sun.
I am playing a bloodrager/monk,with a dip into Inquisitor for RP flavour. They stack well. Monk armour bonus and high amount of attacks, Bloodrager extra health and at level 4 abyssal, extra damage. The other day i Raged/Judgement/flurry of blows in a round. Also looking into getting spell tattoos and wands to use the buff spells before battle that i wont have to UMD to activate thanks to bloodrager
As long as I can cast black tentacles, I'm good.
I'm a little late to this discussion, and I'm afraid I'm not really interested in reading through 20 pages of content. So Imma just post my general feelings. I absolutely adore this class. One of the most flavorful things I've seen in ages, and the return of one of my favorite tropes to my RPG experience, and fairly well done. Just from a cursory glance though, the bloodlines as a whole seem extremely unbalanced. Not to say overpowered, but simply that all of them pale in comparison to Abyssal, with the few exceptions of utility benefits. But in terms of sheer overwhelming power, Abyssal takes the cake, rubs it all over it's manly-demonic chest, and then throws it in the faces of all the other bloodlines.
|
Thanks. Some good finds. But the tome gives inherent bonus and different polymorph effects dosent stack either.
But thanks for reposting it.
was about to say, wishes, tomes, and bloodlines all give inherent bonuses, which dont stack.
i was not aware that manuals were given an inherent bonus type in pathfinder. i havent used one since 3.5 honestly and they were concidered generic.
well even with that loss of 5 points it still is a 60 strength. which is a +25 to hit not counting BAB or magic. so i mean still insane. and the standard action polymorph effect is a larger bonus to strength and con, so you would use that over the abyssal generic enlarge person replica.
|
Thanks. Some good finds. But the tome gives inherent bonus and different polymorph effects dosent stack either.
But thanks for reposting it.was about to say, wishes, tomes, and bloodlines all give inherent bonuses, which dont stack.
i was not aware that manuals were given an inherent bonus type in pathfinder. i havent used one since 3.5 honestly and they were concidered generic.
well even with that loss of 5 points it still is a 60 strength. which is a +25 to hit not counting BAB or magic. so i mean still insane. and the standard action polymorph effect is a larger bonus to strength and con, so you would use that over the abyssal generic enlarge person replica.
Just wanted to point out that the inherent type on the bonus from Manuals is not new to Pathfinder, it was in place in 3.5 see the following link.
Not to mention that Paladins get access to some fantastic swift action spells. Hopefully Bloodragers get some new Litany-like spells.I hope, instead of Litany, it's more, 'Fury' or 'Wrath' styled.
I'm in favor of "hatred" as a BR-specific verbal "litany." I think that it captures the violent disgust that "rage" means (to me, anyway) and invokes a powerful, emotional kind of "primality," to make up a word.
"Hatred" is so immensely powerful that, for game rules, I think it could stand to have it's own rules when powered by the supernatural.
Just a thought. Oh, and I've been drinking...a lot. Please excuse if my stream of thought didn't make sense.
As long as I can cast black tentacles, I'm good.
at 13th level at the cost of your attack(s) for that turn (and with a lowish DC), sure. trying to wade into your spell to get at them will also be interesting to watch.
As long as I can cast black tentacles, I'm good.at 13th level at the cost of your attack(s) for that turn (and with a lowish DC), sure. trying to wade into your spell to get at them will also be interesting to watch.
Actually, he can do it pretty easily: He just gets Freedom of Movement (probably from a wand at that level).
Additionally, there's no save DC for the spell. It's a CMB vs. CMD check. At 13th level the tentacles have an effective CMB of +18 (CL 13th +4 STR +1 size). Average creature CMD at that level is only around 24-26 (per monster creation chart, the average high attack for a 13 HD creature is +22, which would already factor in STR; figure the creature has another 2-4 from DEX), so the tentacles only need to roll an 8 or higher to succeed.
As long as I can cast black tentacles, I'm good.at 13th level at the cost of your attack(s) for that turn (and with a lowish DC), sure. trying to wade into your spell to get at them will also be interesting to watch.
... or we could just pepper them with arrows, fireballs, and insect plagues. Definitely either that or the other thing.
@Xaratherus and RJGrady: good points from both of you.
on a different note, i wonder how one would build cu chulainn (It's been brought up by myself and others throughout the thread, since he seems spot-on for a bloodrager). I'd suspect the abberant bloodline (seriously, his riastrad was messed up--see spoiler), but I could see undead from the sheer terror it inspires in others.
Black Tentacles is perhaps the strongest case for basing spell power off STRENGTH.
GAAAAR, BIG MUSCLES MEAN BIG SPELLS! GRRRRAAAAARGH!
I think you'd wind up with waaaaay over-powered spells then.
Just an example, the Abyssal bloodline alters your bloodrage so that you're gaining +10 STR at higher levels. Since you're only casting when raging anyway, that means you're getting an auto-buff to all your spell affects as well.
Black Tentacles is perhaps the strongest case for basing spell power off STRENGTH.
GAAAAR, BIG MUSCLES MEAN BIG SPELLS! GRRRRAAAAARGH!
Suddenly, I want the name 'Bloodrager' to be replaced with 'Musclewizard'
abyssal bloodline is way too strong, easy to get 50 str by 20th when raging which is disruptively powerful when combined with 4th level spells and other abilities.
This amuses me, since it's still totally irrelevant compared to 9th level spells and a good initiative.
Lead Designer
|
In anticipation of a revised version of the playtest document going live, this thread is locked. A new thread will be created to discuss the revised version of the class. Please refrain from carrying over existing discussions to the new thread to avoid confusion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer