Non mounted Cavalier: Seriously people have begged for it since onset and considering the Cavalier as built is more like a commander from nobility, (a man of high birth trained in the arts of diplomacy and courtly affairs as much as tactical combat) opening it up so that characters from historic backgrounds not heavily dependent on horses/mounts would really improve it.I have problems with the aesthetics of a calling a non-mounted warrior a "cavalier." If they create this it should be named something else.
Hm... I've got it! We'll call it a "Zen Archer!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hrmm.. you need to dream bigger. one Chariot, a few horses, a little Knowledge: Engineering, some tower shields and a double hackbutt or two. BOOM tank class ;)Well if you had a Double Hackabut and the leadership feat to grab a few lackeys to push it around for you...I can ride my gun into battle!? That has to be the best Tank archetype ever! :PNon mounted Cavalier: Seriously people have begged for it since onset and considering the Cavalier as built is more like a commander from nobility, (a man of high birth trained in the arts of diplomacy and courtly affairs as much as tactical combat) opening it up so that characters from historic backgrounds not heavily dependent on horses/mounts would really improve it.Yeah, I'm no fan of Mounted Combat, Give me a class feature to replace the mount, please! It just doesn't fit into most of our campaigns. It feels weird trying to cram our horse into buildings.I know that they did this with the Sword Saint Samurai archetype.
There might have also been a Cavalier archetype that replaces the mount with Guns and Gunslinger Deeds.
You have the packmaster that replaces your mount with a bunch of dogs or falcons (your pick) and the Musketeer which does replace the mount with a gun.
That being said though the latter is interesting I really want one that just does away with the mount and isn't directly tied to firearms as well.
If we are going to theory craft a high level tank class...
Ask the Wizard to create a Adamantine Golem and put a "chariot" type seat on top of it.. put the two Double hackabuts on a swivel.. NEAR INDESTRUCTABLE TANK!!!
Non mounted Cavalier: Seriously people have begged for it since onset and considering the Cavalier as built is more like a commander from nobility, (a man of high birth trained in the arts of diplomacy and courtly affairs as much as tactical combat) opening it up so that characters from historic backgrounds not heavily dependent on horses/mounts would really improve it.I have problems with the aesthetics of a calling a non-mounted warrior a "cavalier." If they create this it should be named something else.
A non-mounted cavalier should just be a Fighter archetype that can take an Order.
|
I would really like distilled versions of the core classes. I wouldn't say no to some of the other base classes as well, but core would be fine.
I want static modifiers and simple powers; a full slate of options I can hand a player that's new or just doesn't want to deal with the complexity.
A warlock-equivalent for the arcane casters. A class that just admits its a healer that heals things. A fighter with basic bonuses instead of fiddly feat choices (or just a bunch of simpler feats). A rogue with less moving parts in the talents. A barbarian where raging doesn't change half the numbers on your character sheet. And so on.
You can certainly go through and build a character to be simple, but it would be nice to be able to let players build their own simple characters out of the box.
Cheers!
Landon
|
Non mounted Cavalier: Seriously people have begged for it since onset and considering the Cavalier as built is more like a commander from nobility, (a man of high birth trained in the arts of diplomacy and courtly affairs as much as tactical combat) opening it up so that characters from historic backgrounds not heavily dependent on horses/mounts would really improve it.I have problems with the aesthetics of a calling a non-mounted warrior a "cavalier." If they create this it should be named something else.
Again why you make it an archetype, people just end up calling it that for the most part anyways.
not sure if it's been stated or not yet, but... A base 1-20 divine/arcane class. I'm already aware of the 3pp Magister.
Probably 6 levels of spells, and I would have to guess spells known. Rip some spells from cleric, some from druid, and some from wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm... I've got it! We'll call it a "Zen Archer!"Non mounted Cavalier: Seriously people have begged for it since onset and considering the Cavalier as built is more like a commander from nobility, (a man of high birth trained in the arts of diplomacy and courtly affairs as much as tactical combat) opening it up so that characters from historic backgrounds not heavily dependent on horses/mounts would really improve it.I have problems with the aesthetics of a calling a non-mounted warrior a "cavalier." If they create this it should be named something else.
Knight?
How about an Adventurer as a class? 3/4 BAB and two good saves and spontaneous casting of up to 4th level pulling from arcane and divine lists but all counting as arcane spells. Then tack of a growing list of deeds or tricks every few levels they can pick from for melee styles, range styles, bonuses for casting level or overcoming SR... kind of like a bard/ranger but able to dabble at a lot and specialize in one specific role of their choice.So basically you want a bard with bonus feats, bonuses to overcome sr, and "bard tricks?"
Yeah, that just kinda sounds like a Bard, Torbyne.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have problems with the aesthetics of a calling a non-mounted warrior a "cavalier."
Even if he supports King Charles I during the English Civil War?
Arcane NPC a counterpart for the Adept, or just allow the Adept's style (divine/arcane) to be chosen by the player/GM.
|
Hasn't the Adept's role been taken by the Witch?
If the familiar is unwanted, it could be subbed out for a wizard's spellbook, or divine 'prayer book'.
I knew a player who played an Adept, in 3.0, or 3.5, because he valued the mix of arcane and divine spells on the spell list, and the fact it could be played as a hybrid caster from level 1, without going down the route of the Theurge, especially as we couldn't guarantee the game would be played to the level that Theurge would be an option. He seemed to have fun with it, and didn't complain of being weak, though that could have changed by high level, if the lack of class features became noticeable. If he were to play the same theme today, I'm sure the Witch would cover all the bases he was aiming for.
If you're concerned about using a Witch to sub for an Adept, because of the power level, believing that an NPC should stay weaker than a PC of the same level, that's easy to do for any class; simply take non-optimised feat/spell/hex/trait choices, and it will naturally fall into place.
For the same reason, I don't add Warrior levels to NPCs, I give them Fighter levels, and trust that the fact my GM time is limited means I won't be able to scour the messageboards for the 'perfect' feat synergy. Sure enough, they still drop like flies to a well-built party of PCs, just as if they had been Warriors, but they have the feats to allow more interesting tactics before they're swept away. Especially when it comes to unit-shared Teamwork Feats, which most PCs don't consider taking or reading themselves.
If you're making a martial cohort or follower, build them as a Fighter, but make half their feats Teamwork Feats, and it means that, when they're with their trained battle-buddies, they're quite effective, but if they go adventuring, they've only got half as many effective feats, just as if they'd been built as a Warrior in the first place.
I would really like distilled versions of the core classes. I wouldn't say no to some of the other base classes as well, but core would be fine.
I want static modifiers and simple powers; a full slate of options I can hand a player that's new or just doesn't want to deal with the complexity.
A warlock-equivalent for the arcane casters. A class that just admits its a healer that heals things. A fighter with basic bonuses instead of fiddly feat choices (or just a bunch of simpler feats). A rogue with less moving parts in the talents. A barbarian where raging doesn't change half the numbers on your character sheet. And so on.
You can certainly go through and build a character to be simple, but it would be nice to be able to let players build their own simple characters out of the box.
Cheers!
Landon
Explain how a Barb who rages cannot change numbers? I mean rage increases stats.
Would you prefer the 5E version where it changes only effects: +Attk/dam instead of Str?
A non-mounted cavalier should just be a Fighter archetype that can take an Order.Non mounted Cavalier: Seriously people have begged for it since onset and considering the Cavalier as built is more like a commander from nobility, (a man of high birth trained in the arts of diplomacy and courtly affairs as much as tactical combat) opening it up so that characters from historic backgrounds not heavily dependent on horses/mounts would really improve it.I have problems with the aesthetics of a calling a non-mounted warrior a "cavalier." If they create this it should be named something else.
Well, they kinda did that with the Tactician, but instead of an order, they gave you the teamwork feats. The problem is I want just about EVERYTHING but the mount of a Cavalier, so it would be easier to make a Knight Archetype from Cavalier and give us maybe weapon or armor training from a fighter and lose the mount.
From a fighter, you would probably be in alternative class territory more than Archetype.
|
There is a Spontanous Druid Style class. In Thunderscape the Entomancer gets the Druid Spell List (As well as some Entomancer Specific Spells), but casts them like a Sorcerer/Oracle. The Entomancer also can use Animal Empathy and mind effecting spells on Insects, Spiders and other vermin even though they are typically immune to such things.
|
|
Explain how a Barb who rages cannot change numbers? I mean rage increases stats.
Would you prefer the 5E version where it changes only effects: +Attk/dam instead of Str?
As I recall, the 5e barbarian got advantage on attacks in the playtest, which was a complete mess with multiple attacks. But, that's the general principle.
I have a player that wants to play a barbarian, but isn't going to carry through the +4 Con to a +2 Fortitude saves. And she isn't going to apply the +4 Strength to +2 CMD or remember that it gets canceled out by the -2 AC modifier. Because she wants to freak out and smash stuff, not fiddle with a bunch of formulas whenever her character gets angry.
There are a lot of ways it could be designed. I tend towards token pools like the beta book barbarian or the berserker from Iron Heroes. But even rage being boiled down to a few explicit modifiers would probably get it played in my group.
But if there's any class I want to feel comfortable handing a new player, it's a barbarian. "Ogg smash!" should not require this much bookkeeping.
Cheers!
Landon
I know and it's terrible.Cloistered Cleric archetype.In no particular order
Priest: a divine scholar more focused on scholastic pursuits and intellectual wisdom than martial prowess as a way to get closer to god.
How 'bout this dude?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/pri est| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be 'all of them'. HERO character creation is easy.
|
|
I know and it's terrible.Cloistered Cleric archetype.In no particular order
Priest: a divine scholar more focused on scholastic pursuits and intellectual wisdom than martial prowess as a way to get closer to god.
How 'bout this dude?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/pri est
Of course! This is actually the one I use a lot in my home games I just want to see Paizo do something in a similar vein.
That would be 'all of them'. HERO character creation is easy.Back when I was playing it always took me a couple of hours, even when I had help from a GM who know the game better than I did.
The Character Creator software makes it super easy. And is lots of fun to tinker with.
@JoeJ - It helps to have an idea of what you want your character to do. You don't just sign up for Grad school, you have to plan that through and get some prereq's out of the way. That's just life.
That would be 'all of them'. HERO character creation is easy.
By "Hero" I assume you mean Fantasy Hero? By the guys who made Champions? Ifso, then in my opinion, building a Hero character is a order of magnitude more difficult and time consuming than D&D/PF.
But I do enjoy Champions.
@JoeJ - Only if you've got a character concept in mind and don't mind being rigid.
Personally, I always plot out a few levels ahead, so that level up is quick and easy. Unless, of course, the character winds up being influenced in game and changes direction. Something I notice a lot of people don't do....
Want a really fun game? Play from 1st on up with no idea of what you're going to have your character do, and build it organically! Honestly some of the most fun I've ever had in a game was in a full party that did that. No meta-gaming, no 1-20 road map, and no idea what the adventure included.... Then again, I have fun when the characters are challenged, the quest is in danger of failing, and yet we still succeed... unlike the steam rolling the younger generations prefer to play, it seems...
I'd be happy to see a well done class builder system. I have faith that smart players and GMs could make good use of it and create something that sticks with a theme not available with the current class options. Maybe even more helpful would be an archetype builder. Customizing the current classes would be pretty easy within some set guidelines.
BTW... Has it been confirmed if a class/archetype builder will be included in the Advanced Class Guide? I seem to remember hearing something about it; or did I read some bunk info on the book?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idd have gone with just about anything but Hunter, of all the APG classes it seems the most bland and I dont see the point, unless the official book fixes it to be more interesting somehow of course.
.
I'dd have liked a martial druid. Full-bab or Limited bonus dependent class with less spellcasting (paladin progression or just no spellcasting at all) and more focus on Wild shape, basicly a Druid/Ranger hybrid or Druid/Barbarian hybrid - Spellcasting.
At later levels instead of gainign access to more creautre types (elementals, plants) it might gain bonuses for existing forms, larger claws, stronger bites, extra senses.
Somewhere past 14th level he would become able to shift its wild shape form without expendign extra uses.
Archetypes might have enabled extra variety, an abberration archetype that lets the character turn into eidolon like aberrations, dinosaur form archetype, dragon form archetype and so on.
.
Idd also have liked a kind of caster that mixes Arcane and Divine magic, a 20 level base class Mystic Theurge.
.
Does anyone remember the Ultimate Magus from "Complete mage". I would like to see som class options with that kind of metamagic proficiency.
.
It would have been nice to see a single Psionic character type, ven if it was just a trumped up Arcane caster.
.
Of course the game has been missing a 1/2 bab full divine casting class, something with exeptionally strong healing ability and a multitude of domains.
Idd have gone with just about anything but Hunter, of all the APG classes it seems the most bland and I dont see the point, unless the official book fixes it to be more interesting somehow of course.
.
I'dd have liked a martial druid. Full-bab or Limited bonus dependent class with less spellcasting (paladin progression or just no spellcasting at all) and more focus on Wild shape, basicly a Druid/Ranger hybrid or Druid/Barbarian hybrid - Spellcasting.
At later levels instead of gainign access to more creautre types (elementals, plants) it might gain bonuses for existing forms, larger claws, stronger bites, extra senses.
Somewhere past 14th level he would become able to shift its wild shape form without expendign extra uses.Of course the game has been missing a 1/2 bab full divine casting class, something with exeptionally strong healing ability and a multitude of domains.
Druids are already sufficiently martial enough. Do want the Fighter to lose *even worse* to them?
That being said I would love an INT based divine caster ala the Archivist. Though we already sort of have options for "Theurges" in Witch, Razmiran Priest Sorcerer and Ancient Lorekeeper Oracles.
|
Idd have gone with just about anything but Hunter, of all the APG classes it seems the most bland and I dont see the point, unless the official book fixes it to be more interesting somehow of course.
.
I'dd have liked a martial druid. Full-bab or Limited bonus dependent class with less spellcasting (paladin progression or just no spellcasting at all) and more focus on Wild shape, basicly a Druid/Ranger hybrid or Druid/Barbarian hybrid - Spellcasting.
At later levels instead of gainign access to more creautre types (elementals, plants) it might gain bonuses for existing forms, larger claws, stronger bites, extra senses.
Somewhere past 14th level he would become able to shift its wild shape form without expendign extra uses.Of course the game has been missing a 1/2 bab full divine casting class, something with exeptionally strong healing ability and a multitude of domains.
Druids are already sufficiently martial enough. Do want the Fighter to lose *even worse* to them?
That being said I would love an INT based divine caster ala the Archivist. Though we already sort of have options for "Theurges" in Witch, Razmiran Priest Sorcerer and Ancient Lorekeeper Oracles.
Personally, I still think that martial Druid could work and be balanced. Spontaneous SNA and AC are terribly powerful - ditch those, bump up the HP and to-hit, and you could have a relatively powerful, but probably still less powerful than core Druid, archetype.
Besides, the Barbarian already makes the fighter obsolete. Actually, pretty much every other full-BAB class does. What's one more on the pile?
i want to cut a mountain in half, without magic.
Sounds like an old build I made that I called the hammermancer, something like +20 sunder checks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble with that is that you wind up with "Oh great, I didn't look ahead and make sure I started with high enough stats, so I can't take the next feat that would make me better at what I've been doing."
Feats with stat requisites are the debbil. (As are many other prerequisites. I don't have to learn burning hands to cast scorching ray, and scorching ray to cast fireball, why must non-spellcasters have to deal with this feat tree nonsense?)
I've played too much Mutants & Masterminds, where you can take Power Attack with a Str 10, or the equivalent of Combat Expertise (Defensive Attack) with an Int of 10, or Move-By Action without Dodge or Mobility type prerequisites, and gotten very spoiled by how martial 'Batman' characters can indeed have nice things.
Knight?
The number one thing I miss from 3.5 is the other d12 HD class. The Magus was my Duskblade fix, but the cavalier just doesn't do the Knight fix.
That would be 'all of them'. HERO character creation is easy.By "Hero" I assume you mean Fantasy Hero? By the guys who made Champions? Ifso, then in my opinion, building a Hero character is a order of magnitude more difficult and time consuming than D&D/PF.
But I do enjoy Champions.
Since '89 it has been a universal system "HERO" and Fantasy Hero, Champions et all are just campaign/genre books.
Fantasy Hero characters can be really simple to build; But then I've been playing that game since '85, so I can create a basic character in about half an hour out of my head.
That would be 'all of them'. HERO character creation is easy.By "Hero" I assume you mean Fantasy Hero? By the guys who made Champions? Ifso, then in my opinion, building a Hero character is a order of magnitude more difficult and time consuming than D&D/PF.
But I do enjoy Champions.
Yes, and yes. And I disagree completely, because all the stuff you need for HERO is in one book, maybe two if you need a genre book.
ANDI have not yet figured out what to do with Adepts, since these are really lousy casters, but they have spells from at least 2 lists.I think a strong argument could be made that the witch is an adept raised to the level of a PC class. They have a similar feel to them and a mixed spell list between arcane and divine (more or less depending on patron and archetype, but it's certainly possible).
Hasn't the Adept's role been taken by the Witch?
Now that I have had a chance to check this out on a computer with a decent size screen instead of a phone, Witch doesn't really come out ahead of Cleric/Oracle in this department -- both are missing a roughly equal number of Adept spells. So Adept could equally well be an archetype of any of these, except that Adept is specified as casting prepared Divine spells (although the spell list is small enough to lean in the direction of spontaneous casting), which makes them lean in the direction of Cleric/Oracle.
Speaking from experience, if this were updated to PF, I'd probably give them one more ability. I'd give them a field of specialization; they're scholars of a sort, after all. Since they use the cleric's spell list and that list is highly reactive, it would help give them some traction. The self-buffs the cleric gets just aren't as useful when you have poor BAB, poor AC, and low HD. So giving them more spells, not as domains, but added to the cleric spell list, would go a long way to make them workable. So I'd say each one gets a field of specialization that adds some spells to their list. No extras like domain powers, just an expansion on what they can cast. I'd probably base them off the Knowledge skills. So if you specialized in Knowledge (nature), maybe you can add the summon nature's ally spells to the spell list plus a few others like commune with nature. If it's Knowledge (local), go poach a few spells from the bard list (e.g. glibness, irresistible dance). And so on.
Actually, this approach to Domains is more interesting than Domains themselves -- it harkens back to 2nd Edition D&D Spheres and Specialty Priests, which, for all the roughness in implementation, had more flavor (at least on paper) than Domains.
Tying this in to the Adept above, make Adept an archetype of this kind of Priest.
{. . .}
The problem is I want just about EVERYTHING but the mount of a Cavalier, so it would be easier to make a Knight Archetype from Cavalier and give us maybe weapon or armor training from a fighter and lose the mount.
If you don't mind trading Heavy Armor for a full-level Animal Companion (later on optionally pack of Animal Companions dividing the levels; anyone know if Boon Companion can boost the divided levels?), Huntmaster might be not too far off from what you want.
I think of the War Priest as the divine magus tbh. Only focused on buff spells.