The idea of some schools would be ok, I like the idea of some schools being tied to certain bloodlines
I rather have spell lists for the new classes and lose out an Archetype that can be included in a later book.
They cant go back and change spell lists but they can add a new archetype to later books
(cut pages out of that last chapter about making new classes)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the simplicity of new classes using existing spell lists. But sometimes an existing spell list doesn't really capture the new classes flavor, which seems to be a sticking point for some classes.
Idea; I think there's too many benefits to get rid of the shared spell lists however one way to mitigate the problem is to give access to different spells via permament choices.
The classes that need their own spell lists the most are Bloodrager, Hunter and Warpriest. Bloodrangers could get more dynamic with the bloodlines by giving a lot of additions to their spell list and make the bloodlines more unique. Hunters could choose what animal aspect they use or aspect groups (predator, hoof, horn, whatever it's not a fully formed thought) that grant them additions to their spell list.. Warpriests could also get extensions to their spell lists from blessings much like domains do. These additions could give them certain spells earlier than they normally would and new spells.
I rather have spell lists for the new classes and lose out an Archetype that can be included in a later book.
They cant go back and change spell lists but they can add a new archetype to later books(cut pages out of that last chapter about making new classes)
+1 to "lose an archetype in favor of new spell list" where appropriate. Stephen seems to be on-board, at least on the consideration level, so maybe he can convince Jason and Sean. I've commented on the Bloodrager sticky that the Magus spell list is as good a list as any for a martial arcane caster (assuming the necessity of using an existing list) but they really could use their own. Shamans could definitely use access to "curse" spells, if nothing else.
One option might be to go with an existing spell list, but add early access to certain spells (or spells not on their list) via class feature. Some archetypes already do this.
|
The question I have for playtest community is it the minority or the majority who believe that the new spell casting classes need their own spell list?
Would you expect the cleric to have had a different spell list if the player suddenly multi-classed into fighter?
The Druid if she had done the same into ranger?
If you think of these classes as multi-class progressions combined to a single class, the need for a separate spell list goes away, at least with most of them.
Those aren't expected to function as their own class though, while these are. I know a lot of people are saying "They'll miss out on splat book spells", but for the most part, the best spells are CRB. These classes need spells that fit what they're supposed to do, not slide into someone else's niche.
It to me is why the Witch has its own list when it could have easily been Sorc/Wiz list. Because Sorc/Wiz or Cler/Ora didn't fit what they wanted it to do. And I for one don't think the Magus list (another that could have been Sorc/Wiz 6) fits the Bloodrager. Cut an archetype or two, that's all you'd need to do to fit 2 or three spell list.
Over-all, I think that custom spell lists shouldn't be excluded by default, a new base class deserves the assumption of considering a new spell list. IF the concept is especially tied to or congruous with an existing spell list (like Sorc vs. Wizard) then go ahead and use an existing list, but not considering a unique list by default is not giving these new base classes what they are worth. Even Archetypes should even be able to get custom spell lists (and they do, with Anti-Paladin), so base classes certainly should... I'd just hate for them to be built around ultimately unjustifiable spell level ratings (and need other goodies just to compensate) just because that's what worked for the orginal class tied to the spell list. And grabbing spells from different spell lists, whatever the 'heritage' divine/arcane typing just seems like a good way to give more uniqueness to these roles... There can be issues with new spell lists in terms of plugging into existing material outside of "Core" (sources like APG, UM, etc should be taken account of, but particularly Golarion-setting material just can't be put into the base spell lists), and that problem can already be seen wherever custom/new spell lists show up, but I think just aiming to cover "Core" setting-neutral sources is a good start and 'auxilliary' FAQ or update covering other sources could also be issued to integrate other material.
take a cue from the old Suel Arcanamach prestige class, and give a limited selection to around 3 or 4 schools of magic, to the bloodrager, that seemed most appropriate. I know I'm reiterating, but I thought it was a cleaver halfway point between a custom spell list and a already standardized one.That is actually one of the options I'm looking at.
That approach can also be nuanced by specifying from which existing spell list on an individual school basis, e.g. Abjuration from Magus and Paladin, Evocation from Sorc, etc... To get early entry/lower spell levels for certain schools but have the balance work different for other schools. To some extent there might be some interesting results if you draw on spell lists that might not be obvious at first glance, e.g. across the divine/arcane divide, but 'focusing in' on specific school could exclude some spells that wouldn't be appropriate while drawing upon the spells (and their spell levels) that ARE appropriate from that spell list.
You could even specify from X spell list but say that if any of those spells also appear on Y class spell list you use the spell level from Y (even if you aren't gaining the entire spell list of Y). E.g. Warpriest has Cleric list but if the spell is also an Inquisitor spell they use the Inquisitor Spell Level.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Besides Bloodrager, Hunter also seems a good candidate for a custom list...
Some of the other classes could be adequately addressed just by adding a few specific spells to an existing list.
Warpriest could possibly add Domain Spells associated to their Deity and Blessings, even though they don't otherwise get the normal Domain Powers...?
(and Spontaneous Domain Casting could be a good Archetype for them, in place of Spontaneous Cure/Inflict)
I feel like they should "Count as having the Domain" for anything that matters for, even though they wouldn't count as having the specific Domain Powers that they lack. (should their Blessing stack for scaling Domain Powers if they multiclass with Cleric?)
The question I have for playtest community is it the minority or the majority who believe that the new spell casting classes need their own spell list?
Would you expect the cleric to have had a different spell list if the player suddenly multi-classed into fighter?
The Druid if she had done the same into ranger?
If you think of these classes as multi-class progressions combined to a single class, the need for a separate spell list goes away, at least with most of them.
I'm in favor of shared spell lists but I don't think this argument is very valid when it comes to Hunter because to some extent the point is that other classes with smaller spell lists can have spells that cater to them and their class features which is what is being argued.
At least I hope because the Summoner has a small spell list but quick access to high level spells which led to a lot of complaints. I do think that giving small spell lists that gives quick access to high level spells defeats the point of having a fewer spell levels and makes things a bit confusing for backwards compatability.
[edit] Although a question: what does the Magus get from his spell list that he wouldn't get from just having a 1-6 Wizard list? I don't mean that as a challenge but as something I'm not seeing. I'm trying to think of whether or not I'd survive as a Magus with just the Wizard spell list and so far I feel like it's actually an improvement. I'm also thinking of homebrewing a pdf of an archetype where combat stances that interact with schools of magic but it feels difficult unless the Magus uses the Wizard list instead of his own.
Second question: What if the Magus just had a 1-6 Wizard list instead of his own? assume Magus-only spells are accessible by arcanas.
|
|
Second question: What if the Magus just had a 1-6 Wizard list instead of his own? assume Magus-only spells are accessible by arcanas.
Most Magus only spells only helped their martial side, and having the full Wizard/Sorc list would have made them WAY more versatile. There's rarely a Magus spell that isn't a Sorc/Wiz spell as well, and I might actually start using the Wiz/Sorc list for my Magus just to make them more magical.
On topic, a 4th Level caster like the Bloodrager NEEDS its own list. I don't think the Magus gets any discounted spells (feel free to correct me) while both the Ranger and the Paladin do, as those spells are given to them when they need it to be effective. I also think the Hunter and Warpriest do as well, since there's a lot of spells that the Warpriest gets too late to feel useful. But if I had to say only one person got a new list, it'd be the Bloodrager, they NEED one or at least to have Wiz/Sorc 4th level casting so they're not completely gimped as I'm not a huge fan of the Magus' spell list.
I thought so. I looked at the Magus list and it just seems like a stripped down Sorcerer/Wizard list. I think it would not have hurt it to just use the Wizard list with it's Magus only spells as Arcana.
I agree that a 4/9 arcane caster probably needs his own list but I want to test hunter before I form a solid opinion due to my recent thoughts about the Magus list. Would help if Hunter had a spellstrike-equivolent that interacted with Druid spells. But 4/9 arcane caster is pretty unique so it's casting may come off as weak or useless unless it gets it's own spells or discount spells.
The question I have for playtest community is it the minority or the majority who believe that the new spell casting classes need their own spell list?
Would you expect the cleric to have had a different spell list if the player suddenly multi-classed into fighter?
The Druid if she had done the same into ranger?
If you think of these classes as multi-class progressions combined to a single class, the need for a separate spell list goes away, at least with most of them.
I disagree, and there's already precedent for it.
For example, when someone sat down and said, "Let's combine the Fighter and the Druid into it's own class," they didn't just tack the Druid list on to the Ranger and call it a day.When someone sat down and said, "Let's combine the Fighter and the Cleric into it's own class, (the first time, anyway)" they didn't just tack the Cleric list onto the Paladin and call it a day.
Ditto the Bard. And the Magus. And the Inquisitor. And the Witch. And every single other example that I can think of that exists outside of this pdf.
Idea: What if, instead of entirely new spell lists, they had a (hopefully small) list of changes from the basic lists? Shamans already kind of have this with the Spirit Magic spells and Arcane Enlightenment hex. I haven't really looked over any of the other classes, but it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to just say "Bloodragers get X, Y, and Z as 3rd level spells" or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly , if it is a class , not a archtype , then yes , they all should have their own spell lists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think paizo already set the precedence with new classes getting there own lists. If these classes don't get there own lists then these base classes seem like less then the prior ones and like they are getting lazy in their book creation.
I think paizo already set the precedence with new classes getting there own lists. If these classes don't get there own lists then these base classes seem like less then the prior ones and like they are getting lazy in their book creation.
I disagree that it's lazy. I think I've reiterated a lot on why I think it's a good idea as opposed to an OK-enough patch. In the case of Bloodrager and maybe Skald I lean more towards needing their own list but overall I think backwards compatability and the compatability of Player Companion/Campaign setting/third party spells supercedes any benefits of their own spell lists, especially when I see the Magus spell list as a nerf and the Summoner spell list as overreaching.
Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the bloodrager needs its own spell list or there needs to be a better way to organize his spells.
If there's a problem with the magus spell list taken only to level 4 and without cantrips, one fix is to use the magus spell progression for the bloodrager - that would probably mean 3/4 bab too. The bloodrager would then become a barbarian/Sorcerer built on a magus chassis.
Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the bloodrager needs its own spell list or there needs to be a better way to organize his spells.If there's a problem with the magus spell list taken only to level 4 and without cantrips, one fix is to use the magus spell progression for the bloodrager - that would probably mean 3/4 bab too. The bloodrager would then become a barbarian/Sorcerer built on a magus chassis.
I halfway expected that before the pdf came out. Sorcerer/Barbarian feel schematically related much like Wizard/Fighter, So I thought we might get a Raging Bloodline Magus. If that doesn't eventually happen I totally need to homebrew that, it sounds awesome once I typed it out. I'm calling it a Ragemorph.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we might get a Raging Bloodline Magus. If that doesn't eventually happen I totally need to homebrew that, it sounds awesome once I typed it out. I'm calling it a Ragemorph.Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the bloodrager needs its own spell list or there needs to be a better way to organize his spells.If there's a problem with the magus spell list taken only to level 4 and without cantrips, one fix is to use the magus spell progression for the bloodrager - that would probably mean 3/4 bab too. The bloodrager would then become a barbarian/Sorcerer built on a magus chassis.
Been there, done that :o
Another solution to the cantrip problem:
Cantrips: At level 1, 2, 4, and 13 (arbitary numbers), a bloodrager learns one cantrip taken from the list of zero-level magus spells. These spells are cast like any other spell, but they do not consume any slots and may be used again.
I disagree, and there's already precedent for it.
For example, when someone sat down and said, "Let's combine the Fighter and the Druid into it's own class," they didn't just tack the Druid list on to the Ranger and call it a day...
And every single other example that I can think of that exists outside of this pdf.
The devs explained this; it is a matter of not wanting to waste page count on new lists, and on making the game easier to support by having fewer lists each new spell needs to be considered for. In the long run, this is probably very wise. Look at, say, the antipaladin list. Each time a new spell is designed, it has to be evaluated for inclusion in the antipaladin list. How many spells do you think the antipaladin missed out on because of this? Spells that conceptually fit, but for which this step was forgotten?
I thought we might get a Raging Bloodline Magus. If that doesn't eventually happen I totally need to homebrew that, it sounds awesome once I typed it out. I'm calling it a Ragemorph.Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the bloodrager needs its own spell list or there needs to be a better way to organize his spells.If there's a problem with the magus spell list taken only to level 4 and without cantrips, one fix is to use the magus spell progression for the bloodrager - that would probably mean 3/4 bab too. The bloodrager would then become a barbarian/Sorcerer built on a magus chassis.Been there, done that :o
Well Okay then.
I'll still make mine mostly because This is more Barbarian/Magus than Barbarian/Sorcerer, but if you got a (Barbarian/Sorcerer)Magus lying around I'd take that instead.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I question how much use the lists of spells do anyway. Its already such a giant pain in the ass to shift through a dozen (or more) books with spells that I'd rather just check the online spell lists on d20pfssrd or in Hero Lab. In fact when I leveled my character in Skull and Shackles to 10 tonight that's exactly what I did.
I honestly do not see why such spell list summaries appear in any books after the Core. The short listing of inquistor (random selection) spells in the APG take up not much space. After the class is introduced its a negligable amount of space to include the line 'Bloodrager X' before 'Druid Z, Sorcer/Wizard Y' on future spells.
A solution to wasting space on spell lists in the Spell chapters is not to shortchange new classes. Well a good solution it isn't anyway.
TL,DR: Spell lists in books are not useful, but using them as an excuse to limit the potential of new classes is wrong.
I question how much use the lists of spells do anyway. Its already such a giant pain in the ass to shift through a dozen (or more) books with spells that I'd rather just check the online spell lists on d20pfssrd or in Hero Lab. In fact when I leveled my character in Skull and Shackles to 10 tonight that's exactly what I did.
I honestly do not see why such spell list summaries appear in any books after the Core. The short listing of inquistor (random selection) spells in the APG take up not much space. After the class is introduced its a negligable amount of space to include the line 'Bloodrager X' before 'Druid Z, Sorcer/Wizard Y' on future spells.
A solution to wasting space on spell lists in the Spell chapters is not to shortchange new classes. Well a good solution it isn't anyway.
TL,DR: Spell lists in books are not useful, but using them as an excuse to limit the potential of new classes is wrong.
I'd argue that custom lists makes things worse so I think it's far from short changing the new classes but I've made that argument repeatedly. I'll just say that I am not a fan of how the previous custom lists were handled and I am much more concerned with backwards compatibility than future products.
As a customer of third party classes with their own spell lists including new spells the whole backwards compatibility issue is present enough that unless they share a paizo spell list the class is considerably weaker because it does not account for the two dozen Player Companions I own along with Campaign Settings and third party material that supports the core classes.
I hope to see the warpriest get its' own spell list.
The devs explained this; it is a matter of not wanting to waste page count on new lists, and on making the game easier to support by having fewer lists each new spell needs to be considered for. In the long run, this is probably very wise. Look at, say, the antipaladin list. Each time a new spell is designed, it has to be evaluated for inclusion in the antipaladin list. How many spells do you think the antipaladin missed out on because of this? Spells that conceptually fit, but for which this step was forgotten?
I disagree, and there's already precedent for it.
For example, when someone sat down and said, "Let's combine the Fighter and the Druid into it's own class," they didn't just tack the Druid list on to the Ranger and call it a day...
And every single other example that I can think of that exists outside of this pdf.
The problem with this is that it is not our job, as playtesters, to worry about page or word count in a final product. Our job is to playtest and offer feedback based on what is presented.
From a production standpoint? Those concerns the devs raise are real and should not be ignored.
From a mechanical/balance standpoint? Tacking on lists that do not fit these new classes is about the worst way to approach brand new spellcasters.
But then I think there is some confusion about what I mean when I say "unique spell lists" for these classes. I don't care if they don't get their own unique spells - please, use what already exists!
However, I'll use my example from the Bloodrager discussion: There is no way Fire Shield is good enough of a spell to have to wait until 13th level to cast it. If that spell is going to be on the Bloodrager list, it should have early access so that the class level it becomes available makes sense with the overall character level the spell was designed for.
Now, they've already admitted to giving some thought to allowing the Bloodrager to have it's own unique list, and that's great. But the same issue exists with the Hunter and Warpriest, and I think the only reason we haven't been as convincing with those classes is that they have too many other issues that need work way before we get to their spell lists.
Exactly why does Hunter and Warpriest need their own spell lists.
The way I see it, their own spell list means;
A. They get later spells earlier in their level progression, (which not only defeats the point of having a limited spell list but also caused problems such as the Summoner.)
B. Nerf spell access for some reason. (Magus)
C. Add arcane spells. (I cant imagine any that particularly fit that aren't already also on the Cleric List or accessible by things Cleric/Oracles do. Inquisitor is an example of this case and would have had access to those arcane spells if domain spells applied to it.)
Bloodrager has an argument but I think I made good points earlier as to why custom spell lists at this point in the game causes more problems than it solves and I think it's arguable that the examples of new 6/9 classes shows that it solves ANY problems.
Most of the classes do not need there own spell list, maybe the bloodrager. I am fin with the shaman using the druid spell list though I wouldn't be against him having his own.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly why does Hunter and Warpriest need their own spell lists.
The Hunter and Warpiest need their own spell lists because they are six level spellcaster shoehorned into using a 9 level spell list.
The bard doesn't use a Sorcerer/ Wizard spell list because if he did all his spells would be bad. A bard has his own spell list to show what he's good at (sonic evocations, enchantments, and illusions) many of which he gets at a lower spell level than a sorcerer/ wizard. Due to the fact that he gets second level spell at around the same time that a wizard gets third level spells (and fourth at around the time wizards get fifth) this means that he's really quite good at those spells. If he was using the sorcerer/ wizard spell list he would just be a very bad spell caster, instead since he has his own spell list he is a focused caster. The same points apply to all the other six level casting classes (who all have their own spell lists).
Hunters and warpriests are just very bad spell casters at present.
For the Shaman, I think the most effective route would be to give the class a list of special spells that are added to his class list, like how the oracle gains all cure/inflict spells known. Going through the published books and finding 9 levels of spirit-themed spells shouldn't be too hard.
Although it might be obnoxious, the Bloodrager truly needs his own spell list. There are no other 4-level arcane spellcasting classes in the game right now; that uniqueness justifies a new spell list in my opinion.
Exactly why does Hunter and Warpriest need their own spell lists.The Hunter and Warpiest need their own spell lists because they are six level spellcaster shoehorned into using a 9 level spell list.
The bard doesn't use a Sorcerer/ Wizard spell list because if he did all his spells would be bad. A bard has his own spell list to show what he's good at (sonic evocations, enchantments, and illusions) many of which he gets at a lower spell level than a sorcerer/ wizard. Due to the fact that he gets second level spell at around the same time that a wizard gets third level spells (and fourth at around the time wizards get fifth) this means that he's really quite good at those spells. If he was using the sorcerer/ wizard spell list he would just be a very bad spell caster, instead since he has his own spell list he is a focused caster. The same points apply to all the other six level casting classes (who all have their own spell lists).
Hunters and warpriests are just very bad spell casters at present.
Several things
I don't think Bard is a good example for this arguement because its a inherited item and in the context of Pathfinder the only 6/9 caster around until the APG. Also a big point I'm arguing is backwards compatibility bolstering shared spell lists.
Considering that the Magus has a stripped down Sor/Wiz spell list with rare discounts and survives is testament that the Bard has discounted spells for theme above power, which can be more flavorfully achieved by granting spell access via package decisions like domains, bloodlines, ect. Also, while this is just personal experience, a while ago I purchased a third party product of Beyond Bloodlines that presents a 6/9 Sorcerer. Its the same as a sorcerer but it gets no 7,8, or 9 level spells, progresses like a Bard in spells per day and spells known, and doesn't get bloodline spells at levels it cant cast in exchange for d8HD and 3/4BAB. The class has been going along pretty good It actually justifies the weird melee combat focused bloodlines. I am nowhere near convinced that 6/9 casting is 'bad caster' It's certainly worse than full caster but then what's the point other than 15 less spell slots if they get discounts.
I don't think they're just bad spell casters, but weaker caster that need something else to do that their spells can support.
|
|
Personally, I really think the Hunter should at least get some of the more offensive Ranger spells, like Gravity Bow or Lead Blades. I'd be okay with them being moved to 2nd level spells; then the Hunter would get them at about the same time as the Ranger. As it stands, they get stuff to improve their animal companion's combat skills, but not much to boost their own.
Similarly, I think the Warpriest should get at least some of the Paladin's spells. The Litany ones come to mind - they'd be perfect because they let you cast and attack.
Nth-ing the "Bloodragers need a separate list" comments. I will say that, if you go the direction of only allowing certain schools of magic, please make sure they get Enchantment and Transmutation. It may seem like a bad fit, but there are a lot of buff spells on the Enchantment list.
I don't know that Shamans need their own spell list, but I don't think the Cleric list would be my first choice. I'd love to see them use the Witch spell list - it's unique, it incorporates divine spells so they can still fill multiple roles, and it makes the class feel thematically closer to the Witch. If you're against using an arcane list for a divine class, then the Druid list seems more thematically similar than the Cleric list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I really think the Hunter should at least get some of the more offensive Ranger spells, like Gravity Bow or Lead Blades. I'd be okay with them being moved to 2nd level spells; then the Hunter would get them at about the same time as the Ranger. As it stands, they get stuff to improve their animal companion's combat skills, but not much to boost their own.
Similarly, I think the Warpriest should get at least some of the Paladin's spells. The Litany ones come to mind - they'd be perfect because they let you cast and attack.
yeah a good way to build a "base" with minimal effort would be
Hunter:1st level druid spells
2nd level druid spells +1st level hunter spells
3rd level druid spells +2st level hunter spells
4th level druid spells +3rd level hunter spells
5th level druid spells +4th level hunter spells
6th level druid spells + 2-3 7th level druid spells
Warpriest:
1st level cleric spells
2nd level cleric spells + 1st level paladin spells
3rd level cleric spells + 2nd level paladin spells
4th level cleric spells + 3rd level paladin spells
5th level cleric spells + 4th level paladin spells
6th level cleric spells + 2-3 7th level cleric spells
and honestly that is perfectly viable in my opinon
Personally, I really think the Hunter should at least get some of the more offensive Ranger spells, like Gravity Bow or Lead Blades. I'd be okay with them being moved to 2nd level spells; then the Hunter would get them at about the same time as the Ranger. As it stands, they get stuff to improve their animal companion's combat skills, but not much to boost their own.
Similarly, I think the Warpriest should get at least some of the Paladin's spells. The Litany ones come to mind - they'd be perfect because they let you cast and attack.
yeah a good way to build a "base" with minimal effort would be
Hunter:
1st level druid spells
2nd level druid spells +1st level hunter spells
3rd level druid spells +2st level hunter spells
4th level druid spells +3rd level hunter spells
5th level druid spells +4th level hunter spells
6th level druid spells + 2-3 7th level druid spellsWarpriest:
1st level cleric spells
2nd level cleric spells + 1st level paladin spells
3rd level cleric spells + 2nd level paladin spells
4th level cleric spells + 3rd level paladin spells
5th level cleric spells + 4th level paladin spells
6th level cleric spells + 2-3 7th level cleric spellsand honestly that is perfectly viable in my opinon
That would solve the backwards compatability issues although I'm alway opposed to 6/9 casters getting 7th level spells. They generally tend to do other stuff so it just seems cheesy and admitting that most class building problems are solved with spells.
Honestly a clean way to handle things is to allow Hunter to take from Druid or Ranger spells at level and grant newer spells based on animal aspects, and allow Warpriest the same with Paladin/Cleric based on blessings.
Alternatively they could just access Paladin/Ranger spells through Blessings/Beast aspects. Its like everyone forgets there is more than one way to get spells.
For example; The Inquisitor gets spell access pretty much from it's spell list which would not have been needed if it simply had access to the spells in it's domain. If that would have happened, aside from the 6th level spell discounts there would be very little difference in in-play spellcasting, The base Inquisitors would more easily look different from each other and they wouldn't have to print and reprint spell lists that are mostly made up of other class's spell lists. Not to mention saving space for other things, open design space for new Inquisitions and perhaps the worst thing (for me) murking up the idea of spell sources and why spell access is different.
Personally, I really think the Hunter should at least get some of the more offensive Ranger spells, like Gravity Bow or Lead Blades. I'd be okay with them being moved to 2nd level spells; then the Hunter would get them at about the same time as the Ranger. As it stands, they get stuff to improve their animal companion's combat skills, but not much to boost their own.
Similarly, I think the Warpriest should get at least some of the Paladin's spells. The Litany ones come to mind - they'd be perfect because they let you cast and attack.
yeah a good way to build a "base" with minimal effort would be
Hunter:
1st level druid spells
2nd level druid spells +1st level hunter spells
3rd level druid spells +2st level hunter spells
4th level druid spells +3rd level hunter spells
5th level druid spells +4th level hunter spells
6th level druid spells + 2-3 7th level druid spellsWarpriest:
1st level cleric spells
2nd level cleric spells + 1st level paladin spells
3rd level cleric spells + 2nd level paladin spells
4th level cleric spells + 3rd level paladin spells
5th level cleric spells + 4th level paladin spells
6th level cleric spells + 2-3 7th level cleric spellsand honestly that is perfectly viable in my opinon
That would solve the backwards compatability issues although I'm alway opposed to 6/9 casters getting 7th level spells. They generally tend to do other stuff so it just seems cheesy and admitting that most class building problems are solved with spells.
Honestly a clean way to handle things is to allow Hunter to take from Druid or Ranger spells at level and grant newer spells based on animal aspects, and allow Warpriest the same with Paladin/Cleric based on blessings.
Alternatively they could just access Paladin/Ranger spells through Blessings/Beast aspects. Its like everyone forgets there is more than one way to get spells.
For example; The Inquisitor gets spell access pretty much from it's spell list which...
if it matters the 7th level spells i was thining of where
heal, animate plants, and true seeing for the hunterand regenerate, bestow grace of champions/villans(antipaladin variant) and greater restoration
Personally, I really think the Hunter should at least get some of the more offensive Ranger spells, like Gravity Bow or Lead Blades. I'd be okay with them being moved to 2nd level spells; then the Hunter would get them at about the same time as the Ranger. As it stands, they get stuff to improve their animal companion's combat skills, but not much to boost their own.
Similarly, I think the Warpriest should get at least some of the Paladin's spells. The Litany ones come to mind - they'd be perfect because they let you cast and attack.
yeah a good way to build a "base" with minimal effort would be
Hunter:
1st level druid spells
2nd level druid spells +1st level hunter spells
3rd level druid spells +2st level hunter spells
4th level druid spells +3rd level hunter spells
5th level druid spells +4th level hunter spells
6th level druid spells + 2-3 7th level druid spellsWarpriest:
1st level cleric spells
2nd level cleric spells + 1st level paladin spells
3rd level cleric spells + 2nd level paladin spells
4th level cleric spells + 3rd level paladin spells
5th level cleric spells + 4th level paladin spells
6th level cleric spells + 2-3 7th level cleric spellsand honestly that is perfectly viable in my opinon
That would solve the backwards compatability issues although I'm alway opposed to 6/9 casters getting 7th level spells. They generally tend to do other stuff so it just seems cheesy and admitting that most class building problems are solved with spells.
Honestly a clean way to handle things is to allow Hunter to take from Druid or Ranger spells at level and grant newer spells based on animal aspects, and allow Warpriest the same with Paladin/Cleric based on blessings.
Alternatively they could just access Paladin/Ranger spells through Blessings/Beast aspects. Its like everyone forgets there is more than one way to get spells.
For example; The Inquisitor gets spell access pretty much from it's spell list which...
if it matters the 7th level spells i was thining of where
heal, animate plants, and true seeing for the hunterand regenerate, bestow grace of champions/villans(antipaladin variant) and greater restoration for the warpriest
Honestly, my philosphy is that if a feat or spell is required of a class then it should be part of a class feature if not a class feature.
Honestly, my philosphy is that if a feat or spell is required of a class then it should be part of a class feature if not a class feature.
isnt a spell list a class feature to begin with?
Honestly, my philosphy is that if a feat or spell is required of a class then it should be part of a class feature if not a class feature.isnt a spell list a class feature to begin with?
not exactly in this context. As a spell on the spell list it is optional making it easy to be a noon trap to not get it. As a not-a-spell there is design space for archetypes. As a spell there are certain disadvantages as opposed to class features.