| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
part of me really wants to write up a guru archetype for the Ganeshan from racial guide 4....REALLLY want to.
|
part of me really wants to write up a guru archetype for the Ganeshan from racial guide 4....REALLLY want to.
:D That's awesome.
I've got to tell you, archetypes for the Vizier, Guru, and Daevic have been the most time consuming things I've worked on other than the classes and system themselves. The system is so robust and flexible, it's sometimes hard to think of a concept that needs an archetype. Like for the Vizier, I've had players and playtesters (and myself) make snipers, necromancers, earth wizards, dragon disciples, Mega Man, classic magic missile wizards, controller tanks, tauric champions... And that's just from the core class. Racial archetypes are such a great way to go because the race's traits and background really give you that framework and direction to establish an archetype concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a little contribution to the wonder that is the Akashic Mysteries book, a vizier character sheet: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2al4m3kd9wikeuh/vizir_character_sheet.zip?dl=0
It's a remix of the HappyCamper character sheets, with some adjustments, modifications, and lots of custom made changes.
It's just some fan work I've been doing on the weekends, solely for my amusement, this being my third "creation" so far. I hope it's useful!
Late to the party but reading the current work in progress I noticed that veilweiving and using essence are somewhat separate, does that mean in the future we might get new classes that are Akashic but not veilwievers?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Late to the party but reading the current work in progress I noticed that veilweiving and using essence are somewhat separate, does that mean in the future we might get new classes that are Akashic but not veilwievers?
Absolutely. The Guru and several archetypes already play with essence independently of veils to one extent or another, the upcoming Pharaoh class will have lots of non-veilweaving essence abilities, and an in development class for a future product, the Tatvayist, will actually invest essence into his allies!
*blink blink* Pharaoh class??
Any chance of ever getting Simple Class Templates for veilweaving classes?
EDIT: And Pharaoh is an akashic initiator that started as a hybrid class. A very very very early version can be found here
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Akashic Races playtest document has been updated. 2 new subraces have been added to each of the three anthromorphs, so now in addition to your camelfolk, crocodilefolk, and hawkfolk, there's racial variants for elephants, rhinos, tigers, snapping turtles, ibis, and vultures. Let me know what you all think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually a big fan of using non-standard racial ability score modifiers. These variations are very cool!
I certainly didn't expect tiger people from the Sobek chassis, but it ended up working so well.
I think Solhofaat ended up being my favorite. Tough characters are some of my favorite kinds of characters, and turtles are some of the coolest animals.
Also I love the Thoth reference in the Hibkha's flavor text.
Altogether, there is a lot of fun to be had here. Me and my brother have been having a blast talking about how to fit them into a campaign setting we wish to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ahhh god i see my plans to present akashic alt traits for the ganeshan wont overlap with your own elephantine race, exxxxxxccccccccccellent.
There is an akashic skald archetype that I placed on the submission forum, though it's very rough and I wrote it while I was sleep deprived.
And the rogue that steals veils, though I think Ssalarn might have planned to made that into a talent...
I was thinking of writing up a cavalier/hunter archetype where the animal companion/mount gets the veils.
Another was a witch archetype that bonds to a minor genie instead of a familiar, allowing them to draw in minor elemental spirits (the kind that you put into golems) and then shape them into veils, instead of getting spellcasting.
|
|
I was thinking of writing up a cavalier/hunter archetype where the animal companion/mount gets the veils.
This is actually already something I'm almost finished working on :P
The veil-stealing Rogue will be an archetype that lets you steal more than just veils, though as part of that we'll probably also include a couple talents in that vein.
I selfishly wish for a Psywar archetype that would stack with both Pathwalker and Meditant for an ultimate jack of all DSP trades, but there's not much left to replace. Bonus feats at 5, 14, 17, 20, and path skills at 4, 10, 16, 19.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually a big fan of using non-standard racial ability score modifiers. These variations are very cool!
I certainly didn't expect tiger people from the Sobek chassis, but it ended up working so well.
I think Solhofaat ended up being my favorite. Tough characters are some of my favorite kinds of characters, and turtles are some of the coolest animals.
Also I love the Thoth reference in the Hibkha's flavor text.
Altogether, there is a lot of fun to be had here. Me and my brother have been having a blast talking about how to fit them into a campaign setting we wish to make.
I'm glad you liked the non-standard modifiers. I was a little worried that those might throw people off, but I figured they're for specifically rare alternates, so hopefully people would get that I just wanted to do something a bit different.
Tigerfolk on the Sobek chassis did work surprisingly well. A few people thought sweeping tail was odd to keep, but I'm like "Are you really going to tell me that you don't want to play a badass tigerman who tears into people with his claws and trips the fools trying to sneak up on him with his tail?"
Solhofaat are my favorite too. My fiancee' pointed out to me that I can now make a nunchaku wielding, throwing star flinging, turtle-man,and asked me if I did it on purpose. I wish I could say yes, but instead all I could say was "I like turtles!"
It makes me smile that you caught the Thoth reference.
Let me know how you work them all into your world! And what characters arise as a result :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We want to do the campaign silk road style. Great rumors of a distant land where one trade voyage can earn you fortune beyond measure. Nobody remembers the last time somebody succeeded, but many believe the royal family are descended from somebody who that completed the journey.
Your campaign begins by traveling to where the "King's Path" starts with your journey. As you travel along the path, engaging in trade, you encounter the new races (though the akashic races based off African animals will be very known. They already trade with your nation.). During their travel players may get caught up in local affairs, make alliances and enemies, or even set up their own schemes.
The players might even get caught up in their own Taglios or Beryl much to their dismay or excitement.
I want it to be a long campaign, where once the PCs are finished, could be rich enough to retire from adventuring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also along that journey we wanted to make Humans rarer and rarer as you head East. The races having little need to expand yet as overpopulation has yet to set in. Additionally the cost and difficulty of expanding into territory of a new environment and inability to interbreed with the existing regional residents has kept the species mostly segregated.
That way instead of everything being "mostly human with random non-humans milling about" it would be areas primarily dominated by specific species. With the West being Humans, Dwarfs, Elves, ect. Middle being Akashic races, and East being drawn from Chinese mythology.
As for why everything is humanoid, but evolutionarily separate in a truly improbable way? It's magic aint gotta explain shiz!
Magic...something something.... Deities... Something something... Creation myths.... Something....
Thank you for making it possible! We needed the inspiration.
I get the feeling you've answered this, but is there an akashic barbarian planned?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been loving every little thing about this, though I must confess my implementation has been more as a source for 'ooh magic' for races that may not typically be all that magically adept; not that Akasha is any less useful than arcane or divine or psionic, but has a more comfortable non-overly-sophisticated feel to it that, over time, people who have felt that more traditional magics are out of their reach will turn to, develop further, and refine in their own ways. As I read more I want to treat it as proto-magic, but also want to develop it in more of a general sense of accessibility - I have been looking at crossing the results with Jade Oath goodies to cover a wide range of applications.
Keep up the great work!
I was thinking of writing up a cavalier/hunter archetype where the animal companion/mount gets the veils.
This is actually already something I'm almost finished working on :P
Cavalier or Hunter? I'd assume hunter since it's easier to replace spellcasting, but a knight who's horse has veils would be pretty cool... Though there is the issue of animals not having as many body slots as humanoids.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cavalier or Hunter? I'd assume hunter since it's easier to replace spellcasting, but a knight who's horse has veils would be pretty cool... Though there is the issue of animals not having as many body slots as humanoids.
I was thinking of writing up a cavalier/hunter archetype where the animal companion/mount gets the veils.
This is actually already something I'm almost finished working on :P
Cavalier, actually. Legend Rider is the current working name, though I'm not sure if that will stick.
I like the name Legend Rider. Are you planning on making this archetype compatible with Beast Rider, or will it include its own ability to let you ride non-horses?
Excellent! I am so happy to hear that. As much as I like horses, sometimes you just have to ride something else. Especially with a name like Legend Rider.
|
|
Excellent! I am so happy to hear that. As much as I like horses, sometimes you just have to ride something else. Especially with a name like Legend Rider.
I'll try and get it up ASAP, I've just been delayed incorporating some new things into the Daevic doc and making corresponding notes in the Vizier and Guru errata logs. They're small changes inspired by EZ's review that I think will simplify things and save some page space (meaning more total goodness at the end of everything).
A recent playtest including the Legend Rider led to a really amusing question though: one of my players was wondering if his mount could take the Share Veil feat to share a veil with its rider :P
I think the answer is going to be yes, but that will require me to build that exception into the archetype.
That sounds good! EZ's review was very good, and caught a lot of stuff I didn't. He definitely reads documents closely.
If you don't mind a suggestion, I think that a way of writing that kind of exception into the archetype without actually writing it would be increasing the companions intelligence score. You could include it in wherever the AC gets veilweaving. Something between 3 and 5 intelligence should explain how it knows to shift essence around and work its veils.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone can get animal companion, though it costs two feats, three for full strength one.
For the Animal Companion, I might suggest providing multiple archetypes for different classes but with a common skeleton of how veilweaving works on companions.
Making a basic skeleton sounds like it'd work, though having specific stuff for different types of companions would be good.
Would it be out of line to write up some manner of attempt at a sha'ir as a vizier/summoner mash-up?
|
|
Would it be out of line to write up some manner of attempt at a sha'ir as a vizier/summoner mash-up?
Not at all. I know there've been a few people chatting about doing something along those lines, and I'd actually written something like that up back in the early stages as a Vizier Path, but then it was decided that might be a few too many moving parts for an initial offering.
Would it be out of line to write up some manner of attempt at a sha'ir as a vizier/summoner mash-up?Not at all. I know there've been a few people chatting about doing something along those lines, and I'd actually written something like that up back in the early stages as a Vizier Path, but then it was decided that might be a few too many moving parts for an initial offering.
PMing so as not to derail and because this could go all sorts of places. If toes are not trod and I prove to not be out of line, would not mind sharing with the thread.
|
|
PMing so as not to derail and because this could go all sorts of places. If toes are not trod and I prove to not be out of line, would not mind sharing with the thread.Would it be out of line to write up some manner of attempt at a sha'ir as a vizier/summoner mash-up?Not at all. I know there've been a few people chatting about doing something along those lines, and I'd actually written something like that up back in the early stages as a Vizier Path, but then it was decided that might be a few too many moving parts for an initial offering.
I really liked your write up, my only concern is that it hijacks the existing cosmology a bit. Feel free to share the premise and see if the forum can help you make it a little more fluff neutral.
I really liked your write up, my only concern is that it hijacks the existing cosmology a bit. Feel free to share the premise and see if the forum can help you make it a little more fluff neutral.PMing so as not to derail and because this could go all sorts of places. If toes are not trod and I prove to not be out of line, would not mind sharing with the thread.Would it be out of line to write up some manner of attempt at a sha'ir as a vizier/summoner mash-up?Not at all. I know there've been a few people chatting about doing something along those lines, and I'd actually written something like that up back in the early stages as a Vizier Path, but then it was decided that might be a few too many moving parts for an initial offering.
An understood concern, even as I think of it as being akin to the means by which certain iconic aberrations, such as aboleth, fit better into a more specifically psionic paradigm compared to their more 'psychic magic' fluffed interpretation. That being said, I appreciate the go-ahead as I would not want to be poaching in my presentation of this concept to the general public.
That said...
-----
The reason why I was taking the conversation to PM is because I had been previously working on other takes on the sha'ir concept but kept hitting minor snags, in addition to the problem of the faults of the original version. Plus, certain flavor details were not falling gracefully into place.
This changed with an idea that isn't addressed specifically, but seems to make for a potentially worldview altering concept in relation to the role of Akasha in a setting. Dragons and fiends and other innately magical beings are brought up in regards to other users of magic, and to me the whole innate magic concept works great in those cases and beings...but given that Akasha tends to show up as quasi-real temporary items of shaped essence, the epiphany dawned for the perfect representation and manifestation of Akasha taken to a logical conclusion of sorts.
What if Genie-kind were born of pure Akasha and the elements, primal and primordial?
The idea I was looking at is that, as Akasha is neither arcane nor divine, it fits perfectly as the most rudimentary source from which genie-kind springs, in conjunction with the frequent association of genies with vessels and/or containers and substantial materialism. The objects aren't merely loot and bling - they are accumulated Veils made Manifest, which is why they are prone to ceasing to function if stolen from a genie. They are patterned essence, but real enough to hold form and function so long as someone spends essence, willingly or not, to keep them formed.
The logical progression for this would be that genies DO cast spells...but it is a case of veil weaving above and beyond what the akashic classes do, as mortals. Effectively, essence is wrestled into the form of a spell, and it is indistinguishable from the more typical arcane or divine casting - and the genies could care less about the difference as it is a non-issue for them. For Sha'ir emulating genie magics, however, it is not so easy to overcome; thus why divine spells were so much harder to retrieve and cast in earlier editions.
My idea for the sha'ir is hinged on the idea that true genie-kind do not reproduce by traditional breeding; crossing with other races produces elemental-kin. Instead, they use sha'ir (perhaps unwittingly) to make more of their kind. Rather than 'calling' a gen, they are actually creating one, though to any other observer the difference is academic. The gen is as much a liason between the sha'ir and a specific genie as between others of its elemental type. Instead of retrieving spells, the gen retrieves shaped essence, manifest as jewelry and trinkets on the sha'ir. Those shaped essences are used in both casting spells and shaping Veils further. The gen would have a quarter to half of the normal evolve points, but the rest serve as its buffer for how much shaped essence can be retrieved for its master, and the sha'ir can chose to forgo some of that power for the gen's usage.
Much as the alchemist can focus on bombs, infusions, poisons, or mutagens, I would picture the Sha'ir being able to focus on casting from essence like a magus from an arcane pool, reducing unto negation the penalties for casting divine spells, improved elemental mastery, or improving their gen to the point of more usability and partnership, preferably not to the point of the perceived brokenness of the standard summoner.
Also, lots and lots of essence, and uses of same.
TL;DR genies are to akasha what dragons were to the 3.5 sorcerer? Maybe?
Thoughts? I figure shared veils are a given, but beyond that I figure I shouldn't over-complicate the idea.
I think shoving so much flavour into a class and it's mechanics would be a negative, since I prefer them being very open to being reflavoured.
I think shoving so much flavour into a class and it's mechanics would be a negative, since I prefer them being very open to being reflavoured.
As a point of calibration in relation to my own expectations - do you/did you feel the same about sorcerers in the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder?
3.x trended, originally, towards Sorcerer = Dragon blood, rather than the diversity of bloodlines that came thereafter.
As a point of calibration in relation to my own expectations - do you/did you feel the same about sorcerers in the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder?
I don't feel the same, since it seems like going from "PF sorcerer where you can flavour the source of your magical powers however you desire" to a "3.5e sorcerer where all the feats and flavour revolve around dragon heritage".
I don't feel the same, since it seems like going from "PF sorcerer where you can flavour the source of your magical powers however you desire" to a "3.5e sorcerer where all the feats and flavour revolve around dragon heritage".
As a point of calibration in relation to my own expectations - do you/did you feel the same about sorcerers in the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder?
And I ask the question because, as per Al-Qadim, Sha'ir gained their power from working with genies, which was a rather specific sourcing. I would think that, for a class themed around genie magics, this wouldn't be a particularly egregious issue.
Moreover, the underlying idea - that Akasha taken to its extreme would match well as a motif of genie magic - struck me as a good bridging fit if only for the fluff about retrieved spells optionally manifesting as jewelry and trinkets.
But for sake of argument, do you have the same grievance with the Pharaoh class?
And I ask the question because, as per Al-Qadim, Sha'ir gained their power from working with genies, which was a rather specific sourcing. I would think that, for a class themed around genie magics, this wouldn't be a particularly egregious issue.
Moreover, the underlying idea - that Akasha taken to its extreme would match well as a motif of genie magic - struck me as a good bridging fit if only for the fluff about retrieved spells optionally manifesting as jewelry and trinkets.
But for sake of argument, do you have the same grievance with the Pharaoh class?
I know how Al-Qadim works, but my setting isn't Al-Qadim.
I don't see how the pharaoh forces any of the flavour in the setting other than, some warriors can use essence in a different way. That big post you made had a decent amount of stuff in it that would normally be setting specific, like how genie reproduce, which wouldn't be appropriate in some games settings. It'd be fine if you flavour it in that way, but by allowing major flavour like that to become aspects of the mechanics can lead to forcing people to have a certain flavour to their settings, which I am directly opposed to, especially when incarnum/akasha have always been so reflavour friendly.
It'd be fine with them getting veils or spells or whatever from a minor jinn or whatever, but don't put tonnes of setting specific fluff into the mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But for sake of argument, do you have the same grievance with the Pharaoh class?
Not butting in, but I actually do hope the final Pharaoh is a little less pre-fluffed. Don't get me wrong, the concept is cool, but I like the idea of blending akasha and initiation enough that I would like to do so without being tied to that specific concept.
Re-skinning the abilities, including the maneuvers of the Empty Pyramid discipline, is certainly a thing regardless, but it's always a bit easier when the mental image hasn't already been painted.
And I ask the question because, as per Al-Qadim, Sha'ir gained their power from working with genies, which was a rather specific sourcing. I would think that, for a class themed around genie magics, this wouldn't be a particularly egregious issue.
Moreover, the underlying idea - that Akasha taken to its extreme would match well as a motif of genie magic - struck me as a good bridging fit if only for the fluff about retrieved spells optionally manifesting as jewelry and trinkets.
But for sake of argument, do you have the same grievance with the Pharaoh class?
I know how Al-Qadim works, but my setting isn't Al-Qadim.
I don't see how the pharaoh forces any of the flavour in the setting other than, some warriors can use essence in a different way. That big post you made had a decent amount of stuff in it that would normally be setting specific, like how genie reproduce, which wouldn't be appropriate in some games settings. It'd be fine if you flavour it in that way, but by allowing major flavour like that to become aspects of the mechanics can lead to forcing people to have a certain flavour to their settings, which I am directly opposed to, especially when incarnum/akasha have always been so reflavour friendly.
It'd be fine with them getting veils or spells or whatever from a minor jinn or whatever, but don't put tonnes of setting specific fluff into the mechanics.
A fair point - the emphasis on flavor as part of the concept is at the very least a case of my enthusiasm of concept and hypothesis. The emphasis is as part of tying the concept together, of making sense of why using Akasha as the basis of geniekind's magic is examined as intently as it is.
Frankly, if one wanted to refluff it as something else, a big part of the flavor to crunch ratio makes for less sense as another interpretation, not just because of nomenclature but because of comparative specificity of concept. The closest thing that comes to mind would be someone working in the style of a Shintō priest besseching the casting of spells from ambient kami, and to my own biased opinion would be less intrinsically suited to an Akashic approach.
Perhaps a more apt comparison, for me, is the nature of people refusing to use samurai or ninja purely because of the names. And they are specifically alternate classes of cavalier and rogue, thematically suited to what they do, but that doesn't stop people from refluffing them how they see fit.
There's not a particular niche I see that would be a non-culturally-anchored 'Caster of spells using energies retrieved by others'. Summoners as a chassis fit for a revisitation of Al-Qadim's sha'ir, and the idea of akasha fitting well with a speculative origin on genie-kind's genesis holds a bit of appeal to me, so stripping that away is to me somewhat defeating of the purpose. HOWEVER! If one is engaging in world-building without any form of pre-existing cultural baggage or concepts, then I would think that re-pointing power source would be less of an issue.
That having been said, is the idea of the genie genesis retcon so offensive? I mean, aboleths were supposed to be psionic, but got refluffed for Pathfinder. Dreamscarred press put things back to where it was originally, and the same applies to Duegar. Dreamscarred Press has a different take on Maenads than Paizo but there's not been much in the way of torches and pitchforks for violation of canon. One doesn't have to take the idea of genies as intrinsically akashic entities as gospel, but the way that genie are generally considered to be originated is as pure magic and elemental forces. So...the problem is what, exactly?
That's mostly rhetorical; there's not really any need for an answer because in-context specificity is clearly a subjective taste matter. After all, it isn't as though the Guru has any form of mechanically-driven culturally-specific behavior related to functionality...like, say, non-lethal combat.
But for sake of argument, do you have the same grievance with the Pharaoh class?
Not butting in, but I actually do hope the final Pharaoh is a little less pre-fluffed. Don't get me wrong, the concept is cool, but I like the idea of blending akasha and initiation enough that I would like to do so without being tied to that specific concept.
Re-skinning the abilities, including the maneuvers of the Empty Pyramid discipline, is certainly a thing regardless, but it's always a bit easier when the mental image hasn't already been painted.
Fair point, though I am often curious when this comes up as to how people handle things like, say, alchemists, or barbarians, or paladins with what were originally concepts tied to specific cultural tropes and themes in their initial implementation. The rage-driven warrior concept eventually grew beyond it's more Norse-assumptions, and alchemists are certainly more than an endless series of Jeckyll and Hyde reprises, and not all Paladins are the Lancelot cliche.
Truthfully, I like the Pharaoh as it is, but I could see where one would want a more setting-neutral name, with perhaps the Pharaoh name serving as an archetype or alternate class. I admit, I had a targeted niche/specialty/theme in mind when I was trying to convey what I was making. I wasn't trying to convert the jackal, mathematician, or any of the other kits; I had the sha'ir specifically in mind because past iterations had been flavorful but mechanically bad, and it seemed that the akashic system worked well for bridging the proverbial magical gap (and changing the gawdawful retrieval mechanic into something much more useful than spending all that time retrieving spells that may or may not be useful and instead providing extra essence in pre-shaped veils that could be unraveled and reshaped or used as actual spell-trigger items).
Perhaps a more apt comparison, for me, is the nature of people refusing to use samurai or ninja purely because of the names. And they are specifically alternate classes of cavalier and rogue, thematically suited to what they do, but that doesn't stop people from refluffing them how they see fit.
There's not a particular niche I see that would be a non-culturally-anchored 'Caster of spells using energies retrieved by others'. Summoners as a chassis fit for a revisitation of Al-Qadim's sha'ir, and the idea of akasha fitting well with a speculative origin on genie-kind's genesis holds a bit of appeal to me, so stripping that away is to me somewhat defeating of the purpose. HOWEVER! If one is engaging in world-building without any form of pre-existing cultural baggage or concepts, then I would think that re-pointing power source would be less of an issue.
It's not to do with the culture that the flavour is based on, akasha has a arabic/egyptian/indian flavour as part of it that I like, but nothing in the mechanics actually enforces any of that, it's just flavour in the background. It lets the developers give it a feel, a style, but it's mechanics don't stop me from reflavouring the veils to being programs currently running on my wyrwood, gen that have been bound by their masters, blessings from deities, etc.
That having been said, is the idea of the genie genesis retcon so offensive? I mean, aboleths were supposed to be psionic, but got refluffed for Pathfinder. Dreamscarred press put things back to where it was originally, and the same applies to Duegar. Dreamscarred Press has a different take on Maenads than Paizo but there's not been much in the way of torches and pitchforks for violation of canon. One doesn't have to take the idea of genies as intrinsically akashic entities as gospel, but the way that genie are generally considered to be originated is as pure magic and elemental forces. So...the problem is what, exactly?
Each of those examples is contained to itself (and is actually just stuff that 3.5e already refluffed that DSP just updated). A class's fluff is generally contained to the class. A monster's fluff is generally contained to the monster. A class shouldn't decide cosmological details of a setting unless it is setting specific.
That's mostly rhetorical; there's not really any need for an answer because in-context specificity is clearly a subjective taste matter. After all, it isn't as though the Guru has any form of mechanically-driven culturally-specific behavior related to functionality...like, say, non-lethal combat.
Guru's non-lethal combat doesn't determine anything about the setting, so it's not culturally-specific. To be honest, I'm not actually sure what culture your referring to with that. I have seen stuff like that in a range of cultures, and the first example that comes to mind with it isn't even Arabic/Egyptian/Indian.
Maenad versus Maened is still internally contradictory as race versus monster, subject to GM selection, as is duegar v.PF versus duegar vPU. 3.5 sorcerers were inferred as to be inherently tied to dragons, and it got drastically expanded heading into Pathfinder, but there wasn't nearly as much complaint about the class being tied to dragon blood. Aboleth fluff in 3.x was internally consistent inasmuch that you either used psionics, and thus used the psionic version, or did not, and settled for a close-fit kludge using spell-like abilities. If it is required to dislodge location-unspecified pains, then insert an 'it is rumored' in front of the cosmological derivations and origination of Geniekind as needed. Any further non-constructive complaint can be directed to PM so as to not be continued derailing.
In light of Stalchild's comment, and because of a perceived lack of clarity, I am going to try something slightly different - as the idea was initially themed around a specific class and theme, with that setting's cosmology in mind, the class formed in a specific way and emphasis may have picked up in specific places in unintended ways.
The idea, in specific, is the Sha'ir, which is based on Arabic folklore relating to genies, full stop. Taking the origin of genies out of the picture, you basically get a caster class that has to rely on another being for its magic, at which point how is it any different from a cleric or a witch, without hexes?
The immediate supposition is the presence of veil-weaving, which is still a form of magic-working, but while valid in and of itself, it thematically loses the qualities of what a Sha'ir is supposed to be. How would one reconcile this division?
This is why, before even getting to the reproductive aspect, the idea of genie magic in general being Akasha 'taken to 11' came to mind. Much how Paizo went towards Psychic Magic for Occult Adventures instead of the Dreamscarred approach of revamping Psionics, making it behaviorally function as established magics with a shift in components, I wanted to take what was originally a throwaway bit of fluff - that retrieved spells fetched by Gen could be displayed as rings, jewelry, and miscellaneous trinkets - and apply it in the way in which veil-weaving results in actual quasi real items worn by the weaver. Genies were, in my experience, prone to being fairly 'blinged out'. Additionally, they are portrayed as having access to arcane and divine magic, and that carried over to the source class as well, albeit with a substantial penalty. How the genies are able to do so is possibly irrelevant to some, but to me struck as a possible reason to have a class growth option of being able to emulate the same capacity in geniekind.
The sourcing of the Gen stemmed from the same concept used for how eidolons are formed, tweaked to fit more with the aspect of geniekind friendship and bonding. In the Complete Sha'ir for 2nd Edition, the means and ways by which a Gen could be upgraded fit rather well with the Evolution points system - the main concern was, as always, that people would find this overpowered and excessively exploitable. My solution to this is reducing the number of points a Gen can use for itself, using the rest to indicate the 'carrying potential' it has for retrieving the shaped essence used for both veil-weaving and spell-casting.
Thus far, the concept itself, while certainly themed heavily, is not inherently tied to a cosmology, and doesn't require any actual 'universal' changes. However, I am not seeing any variations that would fit this concept - fey binding would be similar but the expectation would be the fey working as an emissary to the court of the First, and to me fey may be the only other sorts likely to store magic as essence objects - tokens from Fey Revisited come to mind, along with the ever-popular pots of gold.
With all of that said, there's a substantial amount of fluff room no matter where you go with it. I'm just not sure if the concept fits well with genericizing - if it did it would be more in line with a generic summoner that just happened to pick up some Vizier levels rather than anything that would actually integrate the workings of the two classes.
|
|
I've been quietly observing and letting you all sort this out, thought I'd jump in again. Rather than hijacking the cosmology, why not just embellish it? Rather than "all genies are X" why not "many genies and their kin are accomplished practitioners of Y and have adapted to X".
For the proposed sha'ir idea, there could be the neutral approach that somewhere out there are whole clans of djinn, genies, efreeti, what have you, who are highly accomplished users of akasha. Sometimes, lesser emissaries of these clans are sent out into the world and train mortals in their techniques. Knowingly or unknowingly, in exchange for teaching veilweaving to these mortals, the djinn emissary siphons off a tiny portion of sha'irs essence that is then utilized to aid the clan, strengthen the emissary, what-have-you. You could even utilize an essence burn mechanic where the emissary can grant binds or veils the sha'ir normally wouldn't be capable of using, in exchange for a greater tribute in essence that the sha'ir would then have to recover normally.
See, this is why I try to put these sorts of things out - my scope and focus probably makes sense to me, but I suspect that proximity skews views and masks intent. For example, even in regards to fluff on the nature of genie magic, it was in order to provide the kind of semi-explanatory 'underwriting' as was done for things like aboleths and duegar in order to clarify their abilities in-game. It struck me less as forced mechanics and more as a parallel explanation.
I especially like the idea of sha'ir potentially gaining access to more powerful veils than would normally be available, though in relation to the concept I was wondering if having multiple 'tracks' of growth like the alchemist would be a good idea or not. I already worried about the power disparity that comes of summoners in general, so maybe the enhancements approach would need to be strongly restricted - yet greater access to both spells and veils would make for interesting growth paths.
The other major concern was for the very niche non-spell abilities; trapping enemy genie kind is kind of specific by any standard, and isn't exactly suited to just replacing with a favored enemy type of substitution.
I'm away from my books for another hour or so, but wanted to post the actual write up I've gotten done once I finish cross-checking the last few details.