I'm sorry, but if you really want this to be a viable class, you really need to at the very least, prevent the spellsteal from stealing a spell more than half the spellbreaker level. I don't care how clever a 5th level character is, he shouldn't be dropping a level 9 spell with an attack or anything... that should remain totally out of his league.
They already flat out lose to any martial as is.
They dip into Spellbreaker and get SR 11 which does not scale as they level unless they invest more Spellbreaker levels.
Why are level 9 spells supposed to be out of the Spellbreaker's league? A level 18 caster will gives the Spellbreaker a 15+ 9 + 9 DC to beat. That's 33. A level 6 Spellbreaker will -never- be able to even get there.
However, if a Spellbreaker should not be able to stop a level 9 spell from happening at high levels, then a wizard shouldn't be able to cast a level 9 spell at high levels. Classes are intended to be equal in their core, and I don't see anything about this class that is "overpowered".
I don't see how this class isn't "viable" and you aren't showing it to me. When making it, I specifically considered each other base and core class and weighed up where the Spellbreaker would stand in comparison to them. I would like to hear an argument that specifically says where this class is OP in comparison to each other class, please.
So far, I'm simply hearing that: "Casters are gods and there shouldn't be something that can actually stand up to them." - and you are not providing any reasoning. If you find this imbalanced, then how come a wizard can fly up into the sky under great invisibility and demolish an army with a simple wand of fireballs? Or dominate the minds of Kings into doing their bidding? Or rewrite reality itself with a mere 25000 gold.
Please make a convincing argument showing where this class is specifically imbalanced and in relation to what class.
------------
The SR has been updated and more balanced. Please read the new version before saying anything. That goes to both Sphynx and Oly.
Paladins have two good saves and they're fully martial, can heal, are immune to diseases and so on. Why is having two good saves for a class that is much less versatile and much less effective versus non-magical opponents a problem?
Clerics can cast level 9 spells and can still wear heavy armor and shields, for crying out loud!
Read the changes that have already been made to the class so far, including spell resistance. Laziness is no excuse for ignorance.
I don't care how good or bad casters or non casters are. I am more concerned with comparing it to all classes and I advise that you do the same .
However, if a Spellbreaker should not be able to stop a level 9 spell from happening at high levels, then a wizard shouldn't be able to cast a level 9 spell at high levels. Classes are intended to be equal in their core, and I don't see anything about this class that is "overpowered".
That's not what's being said. 1/2 level says they'll be able to stop a level 9 spell once they reach level 18. That's only one level after a Wizard can start casting level 9 spells.
I don't see how this class isn't "viable" and you aren't showing it to me. When making it, I specifically considered each other base and core class and weighed up where the Spellbreaker would stand in comparison to them. I would like to hear an argument that specifically says where this class is OP in comparison to each other class, please.
"Not viable", and OP aren't the same thing. It's not OP for most classes to get their features at 1st level, it's just not viable for the theme and feel of the game. Having the ability to fly 90' (Perfect) at 1st level isn't OP by the say you define it, it's just not viable in a sensibility sort of way.
So far, I'm simply hearing that: "Casters are gods and there shouldn't be something that can actually stand up to them." - and you are not providing any reasoning. If you find this imbalanced, then how come a wizard can fly up into the sky under great invisibility and demolish an army with a simple wand of fireballs? Or dominate the minds of Kings into doing their bidding? Or rewrite reality itself with a mere 25000 gold.
What you're hearing, isn't what's being said. If we felt that way, we wouldn't be trying to help build this. I'm helping because I want to see this in a game, maybe even in published print, but it's broken If your objective was to just build a class, you shouldn't have posted here, this is a community board, expect us to try to create a consensus in such projects (as opposed to each having their own version of the class). It's a great idea for a class, better than most, but it's broken. The fact you have people engaged in this should make you happy, not on the defensive. You're not being attacked. We are just trying to be your peer in making this a work of art as a class. ;)
Please make a convincing argument showing where this class is specifically imbalanced and in relation to what class.------------
The SR has been updated and more balanced. Please read the new version before saying anything. That goes to both Sphynx and Oly.
I keep looking, and I simply don't see this update anywhere. I see a bunch of archetypes, but I'm still trying to fix the class pre-archetypes. Best way to make sure we all see the same thing is to make it as a pdf on a dropbox or google-docs account and update the pdf when you make changes... otherwise expect people to continue to step into this discussion with the same exact initial "OMG, that SR is way OP", because it is. :P
That's all I'll say for now. :) I'm looking forward to seeing this expanded upon and fixed and will keep pestering you for just that reason. :P
If possible, could you do the "Compare them to..." comment for every single class besides the ones you have already listed?
You have not examined the archetypes thoroughly enough. Below the actual archetype is usually a comment about it, which also contains updates on the class.
Look, I value everyone's opinion and make it a priority to consider every aspect of what is suggested to me, as well as reply to it in detail. I don't mean to be rude, and if I have been, forgive me, but it is incredibly hard to keep my patience with opinions that don't seriously examine the thread, the class and all the posts and discussions that have already taken place. So, let's keep things civil and look at them objectively, with unclouded vision.
That being said, please thoroughly consider every thing you state and view them from the perspective of every class, their potential for solving problems thrown at them with from the DM and advantages/disadvantages in comparison to other classes.
That being said, I amvery seriously hoping that you use the "Compare them to a..." line for every base and core class, and show exactly what you mean by the complaints you've put forth in relation to other classes.
P.S. Breaking spells is not nearly as useful to being able to cast them. If you don't believe me, playtest the classes in various (combat and non-combat) situations at different levels and see for yourself.
Warpriests are better at melee than the Spellbreaker.
@Sphynx
I understand exactly why you help, my frustration is more to do with different perspectives upon the game.
The half level thing would have been quite reasonable normally, but keep in mind that some classes are able to confront threats of several levels higher than themselves with relative ease. Such classes are Druids and Wizards, to show the top of the food chain.
Sorcerer's are able to do so as well. Barbarians can often simply break early-to-mid level games and so on.
It's reasonable, but you're assiming that the high level wizard will be unable to make his will save, which I doubt. A high level cleric will most likely shrug off the Spellbreaker's attempt to spell steal alltogether, to make a point.
-----
Now, the example of a flying Spellbreaker is rather extreme. First of all, the Spellbreaker can't steal spells at level 1. Second of all, that is -such- a situational imagining of the situation, it simply does not apply. I sincerely doubt the Spellbreaker would even have a spell like that to steal at such a level.
That, and if we're thinking tactics and you are -that- afraid of the level 3 Spellbreaker, then simply don't buff yourself. Summon a monster instead.
Firstly, the spell breaker is quite capable of handling more powerful entities since it's a rare NPC/PC that can even have a max spell levelling like a Wizard. They'll have no trouble at all stealing the 'best' spell a Magus has for example. Secondly, it's not like they can't steal a spell, but the level of that spell is just limited by his level/2. Taking away a level 7 spell is often as effective as a level 9 spell. Especially since the selection of the spell will be done by the GM anyhow, who'll likely pick the least useful spell the NPC has (and even then, he will probably just reduce the spell-max by 1 not remove an actual spell). After all, let's say you wanted to fight a Balor (CR 20), you only need to be level 14 to remove his Firestorm or Blasphemy, one of his most potent abilities. You've still got a very effective character doing a very effective job. But, at least he has to be level 14 now to do these things to a Balor.
As for the flying, I wasn't talking about spell breakers, I was speaking in general. Giving any class flying at 1st level isn't "OP", it's just not viable, it's broken. As for the spell breaker, I'm in no way (as my PC) afraid of one. As a Magus, my character would be on equal ground without his spells... I'm not worried about me. I'm only concerned about the balance levels of these features.
I think you're misunderstanding the mechanics of Spellsteal a little bit.
You can't steal spells that have not yet been cast and you can only do so to magical effects. You could steal a curse or Eagle's Splendor. Fly. Invisibility (if you can find the enemy) and so on, but only if they have already been cast.
A Balor's firestorm can't quite be stolen, but it could potentially be sundered. If it's a spell like ability, the DC for doing so is pretty -darn- hard to meet. (DC 30 is no joke, even with the Spellbreaker having successfully identified it for his sunder bonuses.)
As I said, I could dig the 1/2 level restriction, but it's somewhat unequal to what other classes get, especially for a situational boon. For instance:
A caster's 3rd level spells (6th level char) could solve a variety of situations: from blasting enemies to disabling them to gaining knowledge to enchanting someone into agreeing with you.
A 6th level Spellbreaker would only be able to solve a situation involving 3rd level spells, which the BBEG would probably be able to overshadow. Alternatively, he could have no spells at all, leaving the Spellbreaker to simply attack him in melee without any great number of feats or bonuses. Just pure BAB to hit and his stats. Maybe a weapon focus, but doubtful.
Although, I DO see what you're saying. Maybe limiting the spells he can STEAL to half his level is reasonable. But sunder I would like to keep the same, because the naturally high DC the Spellbreaker has to overcome takes care of that concern, as well as the range limitation on it.
Change added to document!
...
Which I will post on Monday-ish, Tuesday-ish as a Google doc.
Personally, I think you overestimate full BAB.
The Warpriest is indefinitely better at melee than the Spellbreaker because:
It has melee enhancing abilities.
It has armor enhancing abilities.
It has Blessings.
It has domain abilities.
So please take -all- aspects into account. Full BAB alone doesn't make this class good at melee because full BAB is THE ONLY THING THE SPELLBREAKER HAS GOING FOR IT IN MELEE.
-------
Warpriest and fighter are not the only classes in the game, therefore excuse me. If you don't want to compare the Spellbreaker to them, then keep in mind that I already have.
Anti-magic is not comparable to 6 levels of spell-casting because it is extremely situational while spellcasting is not situational. It's literally how it is. I would compare it more to 4 levels of casting, therefore compare this class not to Warpriests but to Rangers and Paladins (aka other full BAB classes).
The fighter has 20 feats. This class has 13, 3 of which can be used for things like Weapon Focus and so on. Only the 3 bonus feats this class has qualify for such things, and if it were me, I'd use them on Agile Maneuvers, Weapon Finesse and Combat Expertise.
The fighter's armor training and weapon training may not be comparable to anti-magic, but together with the feats, it is.
However, I would argue that the fighter is not comparable to -any- class at all, especially Rangers and Paladins.
In fact, if you compare the Spellbreaker to the paladin, it's honestly weaker in every situation that does not involve magic. It's weaker than any class in those situations, really. I find that alone to make it not worth 6 levels of spellcasting.
However, this class performs very differently in different settings, which makes the entire class situational, meanwhile other base and core classes are relevant at all times.
----------
If a wizard dips one level into Spellbreaker, it gets its spells one level late and has a spell resistance that doesn't scale. Sure, it'd be good for a level or two, but then it will rapidly begin to fall off.
Did not misunderstand the spellsteal, stealing firestorm (as it's being cast) is powerful still... however, glad to see you're modifying it to a cap. :)
Spell Resistance 11 (1st level) class-dip analysis.
Level 1 enemy targetting dipper to level 9. TN on a d20 to successfully target the dipper:
1 -> 50%
2 -> 45%
3 -> 40%
4 -> 35%
5 -> 30%
6 -> 25%
7 -> 20%
8 -> 15%
9 -> 10%
Now, while you are seemingly looking at this from a maxxed character PoV, it should be reminded that a seemingly large number of players play P# (Ie: P6 for many, P8 in my games).
This may not seem huge to you, but when you compare it to other similar things, you see a huge discrepency. Other classes/races that get spell resistance get it at 5 max, and against specific energy types. You need to be at least 6th level to gain Wind Stance (20% concealment vs ranged attacks). You need to be able to cast 5th level spells to get the equivalent from a Clerical spell. You're handing it out at 1st level... yeah, it's worth dipping, even if it means losing a level.
I think you should make it more in line with the current system.
1st level -> You spend a swift action to activate spell resistance of 5 against a player-chosen (at the time he activates it) energy type. (25% against an equal)
3rd level -> resistance equals spellbreaker level + 5
6th level -> resistance against all energy types = spellbreaker level (can still resist only a single type to get the +5 bonus
9th level -> spellbreaker level + 10 against a single energy type with a swift action.
12th level -> resistance against all energy types = spellbreaker level + 10.
[EDIT]PS. Yes I realize this is not "Energy Resistance", which is a form of DR, it's "Spell Resistance", but limiting it by an energy type would make it more in-line with existing mechanics and levels.[/Edit]
You can't steal a firestorm. O_o That's not how Spellsteal works.
I'll think on the Spell Resistance, but keep in mind that I absolutely do not intend to make it less powerful than the SR of any other class. That's just thematically inappropriate.
One thing that should be noted is that there are many spells that are unaffected by spell resistance alltogether. But either way, I'll revise the resistance again.
----
Since you didn't look, the current mechanic for the Spellbreaker is an SR of 10+level. He chooses a school of magic and adds his INT mod to his SR. against that school.
Since that is still too much, I'll think it over.
I did look. :P Hence my stating that 1st level had an initial SR of 11 in my previous comment.
And yes, I see now that I'd misread spell-steal, only effects, not spells. The name of the feature keeps confusing me. :/
No worries! Having it steal spells directly from spellslots would be over the top!
I'll revise the SR. I'm thinking perhaps making it 5+level at level 1, increasing by some amount every few levels to eventually line up to 11-13+level+int at higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I recall, the only PCs to get Spell Resistance at all are Drow. They get 6 + Class Level, and although I don't see much chatter on that these days, I recall when the book came out, it was a huge deal, and people were house ruling things to not allow this. I know in my games, I removed the "plus their class levels" from that text.
Alright, so we're taking out fortitude saves.
I was going to protest at first, pointing at rangers and Paladins with their two good saves, along with the paladin's Divine Grace, but then I reay thought that there's no real reason for the ass to have great fortitude besides the fact that it's intended as a martial combatant, usually warranting some kind of fortitude save to them from that.
I'll consider and weigh up what a fortitude save decrease (Switched for a fortitude save increase against spells, spell-like abilities and magical effects) would do to the class.
I am absolutely not taking away full BAB from the class. As it stands, all other martial classes beat this class as is. Literally all of them and full BAB alone doesn't give it any significant advantage over them.
-----
The Drow actually have feats they can take to further increase their spell-resistance.
Monks and Arcanists have spell resistance as well, although at later levels. Arcanists have the highest in the game currently.
Sorry, that's just something I can't allow myself to take away.
Dude, just look at the paladin. If you won't allow this class, then I'd argue that something like Rangers and Paladins that have TWO good saves, 4 levels of casting and can still boast various combat-enhancing bonuses (The paladin more so), should not be allowed at your table either. And those are both core classes.
I personally think a full BAB is ok. More than OK, I see it as a requisite to make this class work even, not really sure why there's grief over the full BAB. However, Gulian, I want to address something I've avoided for a bit... your comparing them to fighters/paladins/etc...
Unlike any other class, this class has the potential to straight out remove the threat of an enemy spell caster. You keep comparing them to what a fighter or paladin or whatever can do... not what they can prevent. Place a fighter or paladin against quite a few targets, and this spell breaker will outshine them rather easily. However...
it is forming up nicely, and I'm glad you're adamant in regards to a solid BAB. Hope to see your google doc version of it today so I can truly evaluate it. :)
Did not misunderstand the spellsteal, stealing firestorm (as it's being cast) is powerful still... however, glad to see you're modifying it to a cap. :)
Spell Resistance 11 (1st level) class-dip analysis.
Level 1 enemy targetting dipper to level 9. TN on a d20 to successfully target the dipper:
1 -> 50%
2 -> 45%
3 -> 40%
4 -> 35%
5 -> 30%
6 -> 25%
7 -> 20%
8 -> 15%
9 -> 10%
This a little skewed, since pretty much any caster will get spell penetration (unless its a save or suck caster, but then SR doesn't do anything)
assuming spell penetration at lvl 7 (most common level to take the feat) lvl 7 and up is moved to 0%. Just slightly skewed, but thought id get it out there.
[edit] just realized i was thinking pc builds here, I havent looked at NPC prebuilds, or the beatiary. But a DM facing a Spellbreaker could easily swap out a feat for spell penetration, possibly even earlier than lvl 7.[/edit]
I don't think we have the same definition of "any caster"... Between Treant and Q's guides, the Wizards have a bunch of feats far more important than Spell Penetration (unless you're an Elf), and most builds I see don't have it... similarly, none of the spell casters I've seen in games have had that feat.
The best way to handle enemies with a high SR is to send your fighters after them... SR can be avoided by magic types by them using battlefield control spells which don't actually target the enemy with SR, or with buff spells on the fighter type.
Spell penetration is so extremely situational that few people bother... it doesn't boost your spell, just your ability to overcome SR. I'd expect 90% of casters to skip Spell Penetration for more useful and commonly used feats like metamagics, toughness, improved initiative, improved familiars, etc...
I don't think we have the same definition of "any caster"... Between Treant and Q's guides, the Wizards have a bunch of feats far more important than Spell Penetration (unless you're an Elf), and most builds I see don't have it... similarly, none of the spell casters I've seen in games have had that feat.
The best way to handle enemies with a high SR is to send your fighters after them... SR can be avoided by magic types by them using battlefield control spells which don't actually target the enemy with SR, or with buff spells on the fighter type.
Spell penetration is so extremely situational that few people bother... it doesn't boost your spell, just your ability to overcome SR. I'd expect 90% of casters to skip Spell Penetration for more useful and commonly used feats like metamagics, toughness, improved initiative, improved familiars, etc...
ok, I might have been tainted by my own dm's love for SR. But it still stands that any DM can work spell penetration into a baddy, if s/he feels it necessary. And any DM that would not be up for altering creatures to give a challenge, would probably not allow a 3rd party/custom class to begin with.
I have to disagree Oly, in particular to your comment that, "They're the strongest class when facing a caster, so should be the weakest when facing non-casters".
Being good at a situational scenario shouldn't handicap them when in a much less situational scenario. While definitely good at dealing with spell casters, they're also 1-trick ponies. Prior to this class, certain superstitious Barbarians were the "Strongest class when facing a caster" in my opinion, but that shouldn't have turned them into mid-tier fighter types...
The thing is, while this class is great vs casters, that's not usually what you face, and when you do, it's not usually the entire composition of the engagement. These guys really are rather weak, unless of course, it's a magic-heavy battle they're going up against. And seriously... every other high-tier BAB class has class abilities that stack on top of the BAB, making them much higher than their level in calculated attack bonus. Now, while I wouldn't have done the high BAB myself for this class, as it "feels" right for them to be mid-tier, it's just a feeling, not a mechanics call. And if he did go mid-tier, I'd hope he'd have something that resulted in them (like a Magus) having a calculated BAB equal to a full BAB, but just making it a full BAB is simpler. :P
Alright, maybe not today, but it's going to be out and about on Wednesday! I usually have no real time to sit down and get to typing things during the weekends, so that's why I'm much slower to respond. Plus, today was DND day with my group!
I'm not taking away Full BAB and then giving them feats + situational bonuses. That defeats the general purpose of lowering the BAB, and mostly simply destroys the structure of the class, adding the amount of text a player has to cover in order to play.
No, sir. Full BAB I am absolutely adamant on, and if you wish to find out why, give the class a playtest over a long game.
For such an endeavor, I recommend the current stats, generates with a 20 point buy.
Elf, Spellbreaker level 1
10 STR (may cause problems with encumbrance)
14 CON (+6 buy, -2 racial)
16 DEX (+4 buy, +2 racial)
16 INT (+4 buy, +2 racial)
10 WIS
10 CHA
Your first feat will have to Weapon Finesse. Consider it an immediate feat tax. Followed by Piranha Strike, leaving you to wield only light weapons, because of how MAD the class is.
---------
P.S. Spellbane does not currently activate with ranged attacks. That I clarified during the thread discussions somewhere and you'll see it in the Google doc as well.
However, there will be a ranged weapon focused archetype soon!
Google Doc!
Discussed changes added, though I may have missed something.
Spell Resistance: looks good, ends with an SR of 35 (75% vs level 20), starts with an SR of 6 (25% vs level 1). Dippers will have an SR of 10 or 11 against a single type.
Studied in the Art: Still no idea why he gets spells he can't cast... but I see no problem with it. Even multi-classing to wizard, he just has a lot more spells he knows, not more per-day spells he can cast or anything...
Spellhound: Does it stack with Anti-Magic Fortitude? Just needs to be clarified, it's good either way.
Bonus Feats: Should be clearer in stating that they gain Bonus Traits at those 3 levels.
Spell Steal: I've stated it before, I state it again, this is the most broken feature of the class. The duration should absolutely NOT be longer than 1/2 the remaining duration of the cast effect. Just open the core book and look at the possibilities...
- AID: Clerics have 1 minute/level for +1 boost to attack rolls, saves, and temporary HP. Anti-Spell guys whose theme is breaking spells get the same spell for 1 hour/level.
- Alter Self: 1min/level vs 1hour/level to have darkvision, scent, swim speed and +2 to either Dex or Strength.
- It gets much worse...
Secondly, while perhaps difficult to do, stealing a spell of someone many levels above you is equally broken (really need a level cap, such as previously suggested: equal to half-level of breaker).
And this for a class that's anti-spells... they're the BEST spell casters in the game in many ways. Spell Steal really needs to have a destructive reduction in duration, or not let the breaker have the effect.
SpellBane: Should not be able to erase any spell of a level that he can't have in his useless spellbook, or again, 1/2 level of the breaker.
Spell Sunder: Why CMD, which is based off of Strength and Dexterity? I like the idea, just not sure CMD is the right roll. I think maybe use a saving throw is a better idea...
CMD: Let's look at the numbers... Average CMD will be (assuming decent levels in Str+3 and Dex+3) 16 + level vs 15 + 1/2level + spell level. So, roughly a 50% chance against evenly matched opponents who have a wizard's spell progression (weaker spell casting types are closer to 70% success rate at higher levels). Note: CMD is not rolled, this is a static number. Meanwhile, an effect is a guaranteed success, regardless of level (16 + breaker level vs 10 + spell level. No need to even roll.
I like the idea, but the mechanics are broken. Maybe try this... for both scenarios, the spellbreaker uses the Counter Spell rules and is treated as knowing the spell regardless if it's in his spellbook or not. So, copy-n-paste of the Counter Spell rules:
If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell's level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent's spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can't do either of these things.
To complete the action, you must then cast an appropriate spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (or have a slot of the appropriate level available), you cast it, creating a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.
Now we have a purpose for the spellbook... he is limited by his 'spell slots' as to how many spells he can counterspell every day. If he can only cast 2 level 5 spells, then he can only counter 2 level 5 spells a day... suddenly, we're doing the same thing, more efficiently, but using the already in place pathfinder rules.
Spellflux: Looks fine, but it should be noted that no matter how high the enhancement is, it can't do more than +5 according to the rules. If you don't give them Special Abilities to spend those excess enhancement levels on, they're just lost.
I don't play past 8th level (P8), so won't comment on the rest, but do see a lot of work to balance this class.
Spell Sunder is as it is to be in line with the Barbarian:
Spell Sunder (Su)
Prerequisite: Barbarian 6, witch hunter rage power
Benefit: Once per rage, the barbarian can attempt to sunder an ongoing spell effect by succeeding at a combat maneuver check. For any effect other than one on a creature, the barbarian must make her combat maneuver check against a CMD of 15 plus the effect’s caster level. To sunder an effect on a creature, the barbarian must succeed at a normal sunder combat maneuver against the creature’s CMD + 5, ignoring any miss chance caused by a spell or spell-like ability. If successful, the barbarian suppresses the effect for 1 round, or 2 rounds if she exceeded the CMD by 5 to 9. If she exceeds the CMD by 10 or more, the effect is dispelled.
However, simply better in every way. Obviously.
So, while what you describe is, yes, essentially more effective (While also limiting the Spellbreaker to what he can break and turning a battle between him and a spellcaster to who has more "spellslots" (The caster obviously, because he'll go for an 18-20 in his casting stat), for a very short duration, the mechanic currently in place is quite fine. It's not particularly overpowered nor underpowered. The fact that it's not extremely effective in early levels balances out how it grows in power and effectiveness later.
Besides, a simple counterspell is extremely simple and just not fun to base an entire class around. The mechanic in place shows that a spellcaster can simply shrug the Spell Sunder aside with sheer skill and power.
The CMD (Call it DC if you wish. I simply used the terms currently used in the Rage Power.) is quite high at first and becomes somewhat easier to meet, especially with Agile Maneuvers, later on for the Spellbreaker.
Spell Steal allows a will save with a standard DC for just about any class effect. At the level this class will get it at, the DC will be something like 14 (At level 3.). That's by far not at all impossible to overcome.
At level 8 (P8), Spell Steal's DC will be something like 17. Any wizard/cleric spell usually has a save DC of 19-20 (Level 4 spell + Casting Score of at least 20.) by this level, depending on the point buy. (Which will also lower the DC of the Spellbreaker's Spell Steal, consequentially.)
The ability is not so monstrous, the duration aside as it was made purely for flavor reasons. (I fixed it just now.)
While also difficult to do, a caster is still able to succesfully carry through a save or suck spell upon a higher level opponent. If that is a possibility, I don't see why Spell Stealing from a higher level opponent shouldn't be, considering there is a very limited amount of times per day you can use it. Especially in the P8, where it's limited to only 2. (2 spells per day, be it higher level ones or lower.)
---------
I could alter Spellflux's flavor to infuse the Spellbreaker's own self with magic, giving him a morale bonus to either AC or Attack/Damage, perhaps? That would remove the necessity for extra abilities. The duration is pretty short anyway.
-----------
Spellbane requires you to be adjacent. That, in and of itself, is a huge balancing factor. I don't think this needs any changes. Then, when the Spellbreaker is finally able to do it at range, it won't matter by then, because he would be able to erase any spell any spellcaster is able to cast at that level anyway.
It also allows a will save which negates the effect. My logic is the same as it is for other classes. Their class features and spells have a chance to remove higher level enemies. Be it save-or-suck or other things. So should the Spellbreaker have a chance at it. The DC for any of his class abilities is entirely standard-issue for the entire game. The big baddie has as much chance to shrug it off as he does anything else at that level.
----------
Spellhound stacks, yeah. They are two different situations. One is given against spells that don't have a halving effect from fortitude or will saves (Basically save-or-suck spells and spell-like abilities), the other is given on a successful spell-identification.
The bonus to saves granted is essentially a replacement for the fortitude save progression to be concerning only spells and magical stuff.
----------
I'll fix the wording with the Bonus Feats.
Ok, you need to reword to match the Barbarian if that's your goal. The Barbarian "makes a combat maneuver" (That's rolling a D20 and adding his CMB). That is a huge difference than applying your CMD.
Rolling a D20 and adding his CMB, which for the Spellbreaker would be D20 + 4ish(Str) + Level(BAB) against a target number of 15+level of caster. The Level of caster and spellbreaker even out on an even fight, so it's d20+4 vs 15. That makes a LOT more sense... however...
The Barbarian gets that because of a physical rage he's in, it makes sense to use CMB (Strength) thematically... it doesn't "feel" right for a spellbreaker, though I can appreciate sticking to the same mechanics.
--------------
Spell Steal - Aside from duration, the problem is that you're gaining the effect of a spell that a caster of the same level can't gain. It's just wrong. I didn't say it was overpowered, but it is wrong that the "anti magic" guy gets a chance to steal(cast) a higher level spell than the Wizard. You really need some sort of level limitation in there. Feel free to allow the stealing, but he shouldn't be able to USE the effect if he wouldn't be able to cast that same spell if he were of the same level in the appropriate class.
--------------
Spellbane - Again, not about power levels, just fairness... However, I won't push on this because I agree with it not being overtly powerful.
-------------
Spellhound - Don't tell me, tell them via the Doc. :P
BTW, saw you 'fixed' the duration of SpellSteal. just wanted to reiterate the need for it to be half, regardless... for example, let's look at 2 spellbreakers working in unison, they could have a near perpetual use of a stolen spell. :P
I know you want to make it seem more useful, but even a couple of rounds is pretty useful for stolen effects. It really needs to be half the remaining duration (round up is ok) of the effect. If players can abuse something, they will, and you can bet that in-team spell "stealing" (more granting since stealing implies an unwillingness to part with something) will occur regularly. And they'll start doing it tactically too, waiting til there's a single round left on a spell to "steal" it and thus extend its duration on a new target...
Too much potential for abuse.
I know I've mentioned that a dual wielding spllbreaker going spellbane crazy on a full attack could be a little crazy. which you then shot down by stating that due to the lack of attack bonuses that the spell breaker gets; that most of his attacks will miss, given the penalty for dual wielding. But it just occurred to me that a good chunk of a casters AC is granted by spells, which a spellbreaker can remove on the same turn as a full attack. After removing the armor buff, if my math is correct, a spell breaker would have a greatly improved chance of landing all of his attacks (as much as 100%/100%/75%/75% etc) . I don't know how much this matters since there is a limit on the number of times per day that a spell break can use spellsteal, just thought i'd throw this out there.
BTW, saw you 'fixed' the duration of SpellSteal. just wanted to reiterate the need for it to be half, regardless... for example, let's look at 2 spellbreakers working in unison, they could have a near perpetual use of a stolen spell. :P
I know you want to make it seem more useful, but even a couple of rounds is pretty useful for stolen effects. It really needs to be half the remaining duration (round up is ok) of the effect. If players can abuse something, they will, and you can bet that in-team spell "stealing" (more granting since stealing implies an unwillingness to part with something) will occur regularly. And they'll start doing it tactically too, waiting til there's a single round left on a spell to "steal" it and thus extend its duration on a new target...
Too much potential for abuse.
I don't see this as being abuse, just clever use of resources. I can get behind the duration not exceeding what a caster of the same level would be able to get. But I don't see how refreshing duration would break anything; especially given the extremely limited uses per day. you could even fluff it as the spellbreaker re infusing the spell with his own magical energy, and that is why it is limited to x uses per day.
Well, I never said anything about CMD, Sphynx. A sunder deck implies that the character uses his CMB + sunder-treated bonuses. My wording was quite fine there.
I doubt you'll want to stack STR much, considering you can only sunder as many times per round as you have attacks of opportunity, or as an attack option on specific items/targets under magical effects.
The DC is 15 + spell level + 1/2 caster level. This reflects that the Spellbreaker has a harder time Sundering more powerful spells.
And also, what Cheepenbulky said. Yeah, you could do that with two spellbreakers on the team. But you're using spell steals on each other which you could be using on controlling enemy spellcasters. its definitely a much more viable tactic at later levels, with more daily uses of spell steal per day, but it would be quite wasteful at early levels.
Never the less, I'll see if I can and should counteract such a tactic, or leave players to have fun with it.
-----------------
Well, Cheep, you got to take into account how hard a two-weapon-build is to pull off with a Spellbreaker. Usually, you'll want a shield so you don't get face rolled by enemy martial enemies. But here's the layout.
Assuming we're human Spellbreaker
13 STR
16 DEX (4 buy, + 2 racial)
14 CON (4 buy)
15 INT (6 buy)
10 WIS
10 CHA
20 pnt buy.
1H - Weapon Finesse
1G - Two Weapon Fighting/Power Attack
2SB - Two Weapon Fighting/Power Attack
3G - Agile Maneuvers
5G- Improved Sunder (!!!) - because otherwise all your spell sunders will provoke AoOs.
7G- Improved Two Weapon Fighting
8SB- Something (Disruptive? Weapon Focus? Weapon Specialization? Cleave? Step Up?)
9G- Something (Maybe Two Weapon Defense or any of the above.)
11G - Something.
13G - Greater Two Weapon Fighting
14SB - Improved Critical (Kukri or something)
That's a long while, seriously.
But I guess you are correct, it could really rend spellcasters IF they fail all their will saves.
The next problem is to get in position for a full-attack.
I could limit Spellbane to INT mod times per round max?
To sunder a spell, he must succeed a CMD of 15 + the level of the spell being cast + half the caster level of his opponent. To sunder an effect, he must succeed a CMD of 10 + the level of the spell used to create this effect
IF you're looking to make this understandable. It should read like this:
To sunder a spell, he must make a combat manoeuvre roll against 15 + the level of the spell being cast + half the caster level of his opponent (Do not mention CMD because CMD is not being used here in any way). To sunder an effect, he make a combat manoeuvre roll against 10 + the level of the spell used to create this effect.
He uses CMB not CMD...
In this case, it's specifically a check made to SUNDER something, thus employing the Sunder combat maneuver. Just like Sundering an item, except it's a spell!
In any case, will apply further fixes to the class tomorrow, once I have access to a computer.
And then one other thing (maybe semantic) is that it has to be a save against supernatural effects to even have that: The class should grant no resistance to nonmagical poison or disease, or against the few nonmagical Will saves (such as fear).
I could see rewording anti-magic fortitude as:
Whenever the Spellbreaker succeeds a will or fortitude save against a spell, supernatural ability, or Spell like ability; the effects of the spell, supernatual ability, or Spell like ability; is entirely negated instead of halved. If the effect is negated by a successful will or fortitude save, he is instead granted a +2 bonus to said saves.
The Improved version is very, very powerful, such that even Level 11is to low for it to come in, at least as written, though my proposal would be okay at Level 11: It shouldn't grant anything on failed saves, though you could make it that if a successful save (of any sort, adding reflex) would normally halve effects, that it completely negates them.
now i personally don't mind the save mechanism for improved anti-magic fortitude, since it is just a play on evasion. But I don't understand the increased bonus. Improved anti-magic fortitude already encompasses 2 saves instead of 1, even if the bonus does have the caveat of "magical effects only", so you are already arguably more powerful than evasion. Can you explain your reasoning please?
[edit] i could get behind a oly's version as well, it seems to fit well. Seeing as a good chunk of damaging magical abilities that give saves, target the reflex save. this also would allow you to not have to worry about what half of sleep, death, suggestion etc. is. and possibly adding the fort bonus from "anti-magic fortitude" to reflex saves, instead of beefing fort even more (assuming your reasoning for the extra bonus is worth it).[/edit]
spellslayer:
- why change the name of evasion? this could potentially mess with feat prereqs.
Spellbreaker Adept
- should there be a range on mark of spell bane?
- how exactly does the "Mark" work? i don't completely understand.
- adept spellflux: the shield he creates, the "spell level x int" applies to HP of shield?
- what are the cons of adept VS vanilla spellbreaker: no combat proficiencies, lower BAB, and reduced con (secondary stat), spellbane once per turn.
- what are the pros: increased int (main stat), improved SR, ranged spellbane, increased spellsunder range, higher spell slot level, improved capstone(ish)
spellbreaker adept seems to be lacking an identity. loses survivability (overall) from loss of CON and armor. Loses offensive ability from lack of weapon prof, and can only do spell bane once per turn. Has a minimal amount of support abilities from spellflux and shareable SR, but doesnt really add enough to make it fill a support role. In short, the adept as he stands is useless against martials (beyond useless) and barely more annoying (offensively at least) to casters than the base spell breaker.
It just seems to be lacking. Maybe boost # of times per day that he can spell steal?
Spell Defender
- range on spell redirect? times per day? AOO?
- does reflect use an AOO?
love this archetype
some feedback on the archetypes
Ok, you need to reword to match the Barbarian if that's your goal. The Barbarian "makes a combat maneuver" (That's rolling a D20 and adding his CMB). That is a huge difference than applying your CMD.
Just wanted to +1 this general principle of this comment. When you write a feature that work similarly to an existing feature, try to match the language when appropriate. Language is an flawed means of communication because words mean different thing to different people, but using wording that already exists lets the reader know that it work the in the same way - except for the part that is worded differently.
Alright, yeah. Improved Anti-Magic fortitude I'll alter to giving a bonus to reflex saves against spells, or just not give any further bonus.
My reasoning for the +4 is really not connected to mechanics or anything. I just felt it was a logical increase to the previous ability. Although a +2, in conjunction with a possible bonus from Spellhound (Which can further increase if the spellbreaker has the spell in his book) is pretty massive as it is. No need for an extra +2.
Spells, Spell-like abilities and effects. Yes sir, will do.
--------------------
Spellslayer's Evasion, I eventually realised, has no logical reason to work against non-spells. I mean, the Spellslayer does not really train to evade traps, right? Just fireballs. Although, perhaps, that could be too minor to bother over, since the archetype is just essentially adding the slayer "class template" onto the spellbreaker. Yeah, I might just simply change it back to pure Evasion.
---------
Spellbreaker Adept is the most controversial and hard archetype I've made. It's honestly hard to increase the contrast of the concept I was going for, but the gist of it is:
It's supposed to sacrifice the martial abilities of the classic Spellbreaker entirely and focus specifically on -ruining the lives of spellcasters-. Spellbreaker Adepts can act as prisoners towards specific spellcasters, putting a leash (Mark of Spellbane) on them and so on. I should increase the use of said Mark to possibly allowing the Adept to also Spell Steal at the same range (Starting at 400ft on a marked target) and should mention that whenever Marked target casts a spell, the Adept may use Spellhound to identify the spell at any range.
The second aspect of it is that he strives towards ascetism, kind of like the monk. He slowly severes his essence from the universe (from magic and all magical currents) and thus changes himself. The capstone represents that he is a being that is entirely out of the system, as in his Mark reaches through dimensions and time as if they weren't there.
... It's kind of very hard to illustrate in a handful of class abilities. I hope you'll help me on this one.
Mark works like this: You do not need to see, hear or be in range of your average ability ranges to Sunder a marked spellcaster's spells. The range this works on is written in the Mark of Spellbane ability itself.
Perhaps I should make the Mark activate Spellbane twice per use, then? (There's a small force damage component to the Adept's Mark. I mean, considering he gains a bonus on INT and probably has an INT of 18-20 at level 1, he'll have 22 or 20 at level 4 already. 5 or 6 times the spell's level as damage + his level as force damage at range and a spell-slot burned? I mean, that kind of sounds pretty brutal to me. Already easily 16 damage per Mark use at level 4, or 6-7 damage at level 2. I don't know, you tell me.)
It's an archetype that's all about scaling. You start with less spell resistance, you end up with more in the end. Your intellect is being pushed forward artificially, while draining your constitution.
At low levels, it's not terribly impressive, but at high levels you're looking at 28-30 base Intellect (Assuming you went for maximum possible intellect) which is a mod of 10 before you even apply any bonuses from magical items or the books. You could deal 110 damage per Mark of Spellbane and burn a level 9 spellslot, or you could do that -and- sunder a spell at 60ft range and then use the sundered spell to cast a level 8 spell or give yourself a shield against 80 (or more) damage.
The capstone is... controversial, but it's meant to be that way. In essence, this archetype isn't meant to be in the thick of battle and will probably die swiftly to enemy archers. But if you can get it to survive until later levels (Definitely still a little weak in P6 or P8), it will reign terror upon enemy spellcasters like none other. For added effect, you could equip a longbow and shoot martial enemies from a distance, hoping you'll hit. Or maybe you could take Kirin Style feats, a crossbow and Focused shot to get 3x INT to damage, staying well away from combat and at range, coming in closer only when there's an enemy spellcaster to take care of.
Maybe a dip of Magus or Generalist Wizard doesn't give you any spellslots (Due to anti-magic radicalism) but Hand of the Apprentice could grant you INT to hit as well or the Magus INT to AC.
It's possible to be effective with this archetype, but it's -even- weaker at earlier levels than the classic spellbreaker.
Regardless it's too vague and incomplete, and I was hoping to get some assistance on it.
----------
Oops, sorry! Spell Redirect works just like Spellsteal in the sense of it having 30ft and the same uses per day.
Spell Reflect works just like Spell Sunder in the sense that it's a combat maneuver roll to "reposition" the spell. So, in essence, it's a reposition combat maneuver roll, possibly warranting for taking Improved Reposition as a feat, so the Defender doesn't provoke enemy AoO's with his Reflects.
Updates:
Changed wording as suggested, for the most part.
Changed Improved Anti-Magic fortitude and Anti-Magic fortitude.
Added in spell-like ability related text on Spellbane and Spellflux (Spell-like abilities have no level, so that was adressed).
Spellbreaker Adept may use spell-like abilities and effects to power Energy Channel spellslots, unlike any of the other archetypes.
Spell Defender's Redirect now uses up AoOs.
-------------
I may have made more. I can't remember. I think these are all the changes required.
Spell Steal given a little tweak.
Quick question on Spellbane. You say in the 1st line that whenever the spellbreaker strikes a target, they lose a spell. Later you say when the spellbind is "activated". I -think- you mean that "whenever a spell is lost" when you say activated? If not, what does it take to activate the spellbane?
And again on the Spell Flux, need to mention that +5 is the limit, they can not legally get +9 (though I believe you were going to change it to a Morale bonus to his AC)
Here is an archetype I've kinda been working on. Don't know if its even use-able but here its is
Sphynx
Kinda still debating on whether I should make it a morale bonus or not. +9 to AC or damage/hit Is a pretty serious number, even if you get it for no more than 1d4 turns. It's one of those things I wish I had playtest info on.
Alternatively, I could just make it go up to +6 and limit it to +5, just as it is for other classes. I may actually need to playtest this one to get it straight.
Spellbane happens whenever you hit, but it allows a will save. Activation basically means a failed will save, thus, indeed the lose of a spell and the extra damage occurence.
-----------------
Cheepen
Will get to that one in a moment!
------------------
Oly
I don't intend to change that part of Anti-Magic Fortitude. It's intended to work like Evasion and Improved Evasion, except for different saves concerning different things.
Considering this a thing you get against spells, spell-like abilities and so on, I see nothing overpowered in it in the least. In fact, general reflex saves are used much more often than this.