Since you're in the air on Spell Flux, might I recommend you change it from a bonus to AC, to Temporary HP? Multiply the spell level by his Int mod perhaps? Blocking a level 9 spell would then grant up to 45 Tmp HP... which seems fair.
Will you be adjusting the wording from "Activated" to "the will save fails" on the text? (Spell bane)
The Spellhound suggestion is rather fair and reasonable. I like it.
Range seems fine, yes. So say, he has essentially a spell sense of 60 feet and then can extend that range with an added DC IF he sees and is aware of the target.
Meaning that anything outside of those 60 feet (20 + 10xINT) would require the Spellbreaker to have sight or be aware of their presence. (Truesight goggles against greater invisibility shennanigans, anyone?)
Alternatively, we could have that range start at 20 feet and increase by 5 ft. per level to make it simpler.
I'll think on that, and thank you for bringing my attention to Spellhound's range.
----------------------
Mmmh, I'm still sort of unsure. +9 at level 20 isn't impossible, but it is a pretty serious bonus. I'm thinking that maybe the Spellbreaker could have an identical thing to the paladin. That you may use any enchanted weapon's enhancement bonus and add onto it, but the addition can not go higher than +5.
Alternatively, if your bonus is higher, then you can just use Spellflux instead of the weapon for its duration.
That kinda seems fair to me, I suppose. Considering if you can sunder several strong spells, you could spread that enhancement out to your armor, shield and weapon essentially. Could be a pretty powerful combo, but only if it lasts at least 4 rounds.
-----------------------
I like what you're saying on Anti-Magic Fortitude, Oly, but then at level 11 I'd have to give the Spellbreaker something else entirely.
It just seems like a very logical transition, just as it is for evasion and improved evasion. Although what you are suggesting is much more fun.
I'll give it some thought and see what I can replace Improved Anti-Magic Fortitude with.
Spellflux... I'm hesitant to do that, because that's something the Spellbreaker Adept already does, Sphynx.
I'd rather just keep it as it is and make it stack to +5, as it is legal.
And will do!
Gulian, I've been enjoying the development of this class and really like how it has evolved. Can't wait to see the final product!
Oly, I like the idea of an anti-magic field and I really like that it doesn't distinguish between ally and foe (very thematic for this class). However, I think a 20ft-burst radius is too big. I suggest a 10ft-burst radius. On a battle map that's a difference between a 9x9 square and a 5x5 square.
As for wanting to shield only allies with this field, I suggest taking care of that via a feat, similar to the selective channeling feat:
Selective Shielding
Prerequisite: Anti-magic field class feature
Benefit: When you activate your anti-magic field, you can choose a number of targets in the area equal to your Intelligence modifier. These targets are not affected by your anti-magic field.
On your turn each round, as a free action you can choose different targets to exclude from your anti-magic shield. The total number of targets excluded cannot exceed your Intelligence modifier.
Normal: All targets in the X-ft burst are affected by your anti-magic shield
Oly, glad you like the idea for the feat re anti-magic field (henceforth AMF). As for the size and cone and ally vs enemies aspects from the original, I have some thoughts about how we can tweak the ability so there is no need for a feat and cones. I'm modeling some of these off the various bard performances (e.g. Inspire Courage):
AMF as affecting allies only - this should be reduced to 26+Int mod rounds a day + 2 rounds per day for each spellbreaker level beyond 11. This is directly analogous to the bardic performance with the 26 rounds coming from 4+(2x11). The spellbreaker uses a move action to activate it and a free action to maintain it. Allies must be within close range of the spellbreaker (e.g. 25 ft. + 5ft/2 spellbreaker levels) to benefit from the effect and no two allies desiring to be affected by AMF can be more than 30 feet from one another (modeled after Cleric 4 spell Blessing of Fervor). Spellbreaker must have line of effect but not necessarily line of sight to shield allies
Potential improvements to initial idea: no need for extra feat; no need for cone; no need to worry about enemies benefiting; range increases and scales
Potential downgrades from initial idea: no longer unlimited duration; requires some amount of tactical positioning for allies to benefit
I can see AMF for the "tank" ACF sharing his full benefit to Wis and Fort (instead of half) but allies must be directly adjacent to the spellbreaker.
As an alternative to the base AMF I describe above - we can keep the AMF as a 10ft burst that affects all in area and then keep the feat I described earlier. The burst radius goes up 5 ft at level 14 and 5 ft at every other level after that (16, 18, 20) for a max of 30 ft at level 20. It has unlimited duration but still requires line of effect.
A spellbreaker can shape his field into a cone (with range being equal to his burst radius) but doing so required effort on his part. He can only do so 26+Int mod rounds a day + 2 rounds per day for each spellbreaker level beyond 11.
Potential improvements to initial idea: scaling radius for both burst and cone which eventually allows the spellbreaker to protect quite a sizeable area from high level casters
Potential downgrades from initial idea: still requires a feat to not benefit enemies in the burst's area (but I can see someone not taking this feat for purely RP reasons which I like)
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of giving the cone for free. Mechanically, the field should be a burst or a cone but not both as that's a bit unbalanced IMO. Also, thematically, I think a burst is more appropriate so I made the cone "cost" something. Likewise, thematically a burst affecting all is more appropriate, so I made an ally only affecting AMF cost something, by requiring allies to be within a certain range of each other as well as the spellbreaker and by limiting the number of rounds/day the spellbreaker can choose to aid his allies.
Hope this helps, Gulian (and thanks Oly for the initial idea).
edit: Oly, I just remembered you require the spellbreaker to make a Knowledge Arcana check (DC 30) to shape the cone. While some GMs might think that is enough of a cost, most, myself included, wouldn't. Perhaps the spellbreaker should be requires to make a new Arcana check every time the cone needs to be reshaped (e.g. spellbreaker moves more than 5ft)?
Also, the more I think about the unlimited duration of AMF, the more I think it might be OP, especially when considered against other buffs such as Bard's Bardic Performance, Paladin's 'Aura of X', various defensive spell (most of which are round/level). I suggest limiting the duration of AMF and using bardic performance as the model (it's the longest). Perhaps we then allow AMF to provide a flat +4 to will and fort? Or perhaps we allow the spellbreaker to share whatever his pluses while AMF is active? Granted, the other party-buffs I mention only affect allies so...I look forward to what others have to say about duration
And as for the feat being based off of Wis mod +1 or Int. I have no strong feelings either way. Using Wis would be more directly analogous to Selective Channeling's use of Cha, so from a design perspective it makes total sense. I would suggest that if AMF gets a limited duration, the feat should use Int. If AMF has unlimited duration, the feat should use Wis.
Oly,
I'm a fan - both for mechanical and thematic reasons - of AMF affecting all in its area. I provided an ally-only one as an alt and for us to discuss pros and cons of AMF-all vs AMF-allies only and the balance trade-offs one might make between them. I see now that my preference wasn't all that clear so lo siento on my part for any confusion I caused.
First things first: I see your point about problems with limiting it to rounds per level and concede. I agree that once you get into a high (30+) number of rounds per day, it becomes a moot point for most battles at level 11+, as well as a bookkeeping headache for all involved. However, out of combat, I can see a GM getting annoyed at a SB saying "I keep watch all night and have my AMF up the entire time". I think from a marketing perspective (i.e. getting GMs to actually sign off on allowing someone to play a SB in his/her campaign), limiting the number of times a SB can AMF helps with the sell 'cause unlimited has a high 'sticker shock' for most GMs :) I suggest a SB can have AMF up 1 minute/SB-level + Int or Wis mod (I have a slight pref for Wis based on some of your reasoning). Uses must be spent in 1 minute increments. Personally, I'm cool with unlimited duration on AMF, but my concern is the potential out-of-combat abuse that many GMs might imagine upon seeing an unlimited duration.
If a duration limit is set on AMF, cones inherit that limit and no need to constrain how many times they can be used per day. If no limit is adopted, then I think number of cones one can create in a day should be 1 per/SB-level + Wis mod. But I still think there should be a "cost" for using a cone. I think it still needs to be activated via the Knowledge check you first introduced and I agree it should drop immediately if the SB moves more than 5ft. I LOVE your idea about a Concentration check to continue the AMF if the SB takes more than X hit point damage, where X is a threshold equal to SB-level + Constitution score. I liked the simplicity to the bonus the SB gets to the concentration check (SB-level + Wis mod), but I must admit the calculation of the DC seems a bit clunky (and I'm not sure how you got to 23) I think the DC should just be total damage taken that round - threshold. Using your examples, we actually get the same numbers :) But let's say SB is attacked again that same round and takes another 25 more points of damage. He's already taken his threshold so he must make a new check, this time the DC = 48 (50+25)-27. Instead of the cone reverting to burst, I think the AMF should be lost. A new burst or cone can be put up during SB's next turn.
What if we instead go for Oly's original idea but change it to, instead of a bonus to saves, be an anti-magic field as per the spell with a 15 ft. radius for a number of rounds equal to 3+INT+half Spellbreaker level with the innate ability to exclude an amount of people equal to 1+CHA mod from its effect. The Spellbreaker may choose to extend this range by 5 ft by making a DC 15 concentration check, with the DC increasing by an additional 5 for each 5 ft. he wants to increase it.
He can indeed choose to make it a cone effect with a length of up to 15ft by making a DC 25 Spellcraft check and then further increase the range with the same concentration check rules.
Once he chooses who is excluded from the field, he must re-establish the field.
It is a swift action to keep the field up and a move action to start it. (That way the Spellbreaker knows that if he keeps it up, he will be unable to Spellsteal.)
Let's call it Anti-Magic Aura instead!
One thing that bothers me is that a Spellbreaker could potentially learn the Anti-magic field spell and cast it if he has a high enough spellslot available. Thoughts?
------------
@dpb
Comments such as those ( the one where you sung praise for the class) really better my mood and keep me up for more class ideas!
--------------
@Cheepenbulky
I see where you were going with that archetype! Basically an anti-magic combatant without the utility. But if I were you, I'd either switch out Spellsteal, Spellbane or Spell Sunder to get those effects. I could see this guy be a battlefield controller with a polearm in hand!
Also, without Spellhound, how will the Nihilist identify enemy spells and be able to use AoO's to Sunder outside his turn? I like where you've gone, but you could make that DC a little lower and just alter a single bit of text from Spellhound. Maybe he doesn't get Sunder bonuses on applied spells and they obviously do not further increase on known spells since he hasn't a spell-book.
Gulian,
Glad my small contribution is helping to keep you motivated :)
Antimagic is crazy powerful so your addition of a duration and swift to keep it active help mitigate that. However, as a class feature, it comes on line the exact same level that wizards are able to cast it, so it makes the feature less useful if an SB has a wizard in his party.
From personal experience, your party will hate it. Recently in an encounter with wild-magic effects, for an entire encounter my monk radiated an anti-magic field with a 30ft radius. My party hated because even though it helped us against the one magic-user baddie, it also shut down all of our magical weapons/armor/etc and so made us more vulnerable to the non-magic baddies we were facing that encounter
I suggest:
(i) we keep the save sharing that Oly first suggested because that makes this feature rather unique to this class and something that can't be easily replicated by a spell
(ii) keep the 15 foot radius that can be increased with checks vs Concentration DCs that scale with range increase (although DC 15 to extend to 20ft radius is too easy at level 11, I say bump it to 20)
(iii) keep the damage threshold and concentration checks Oly and I discuss above
(iv) not provide auto-exclusion for the thematic reasons Oly and I discuss above and keep that ability as a feat
(v) no duration. I see this feature as being directly analogous to Paladin's Aura of X. I just looked them up and they are 10ft burst radius, affect allies only, and are active for as long as the paladin is conscious. I think the increased range for AMA is justified because it affects all in area and is basically a bonus to saves of +2@ll, +3@12, +4@16 and +5@20 which is weaker than or equal to the flat +4 paladins provide to various things until level 16 (although admittedly the paladin's aura protect against a more narrow band of situations). However, I think the wording for this should be the SB can keep AMA active as long as he is able to take actions. So along with death and unconsciousness, stunning and sleep also knock AMA out, but not dazed or nauseated because both allow for at least a move action.
(vi) keep move action to activate but I must admit I'm on the fence about free to maintain or swift to maintain. From a thematic perspective, I like swift to maintain because it makes intuitive sense the SB has to extend some amount of energy to protect others with AMA. From a "I don't want to unduly gimp SB" perspective, I like free to maintain :)
As for my suggestion re: introducing a duration to pre-empt potential out of combat abuse GM's might see, I now think that we don't need to address that in class. Rather, if a SB wants to stay up all night, the GM of that game should start making him make normal fort saves to fend off becoming fatigued/exhausted, not to mention will saves to fend off delirium from lack of sleep :)
@Gulian and Oly, I took the liberty to consolidate our ideas into a more formal write up because our ideas and agreements were being spread across a number of posts and were becoming difficult to follow
Anti-Magic Aura: At Level 11, the Spellbreaker's anti-magic abilities become strong enough that he can create an aura to shield others from spells and spell-like abilities. The Spellbreaker can use a move action to radiate an aura in a 15 foot radius centered on himself and a swift action to maintain it in subsequent rounds. All within the aura’s area gain a bonus to their Fortitude and Willpower saves against spells and SLA's equal to half the bonus the Spellbreaker receives from his Anti-Magic Fortitude ability. This ability can be used for an unlimited number of rounds, and the Spellbreaker may choose to dismiss it as a free action. This ability only functions while the Spellbreaker is conscious and able to take actions. The anti-magic aura does not add to the bonuses the Spellbreaker already receives from his Anti-Magic Fortitude ability.
With extra effort, the Spellbreaker may manipulate his anti-magic aura in two ways, by reshaping the burst into a cone and by extending the range of the aura.
The Spellbreaker may choose to make the field a 15 foot cone instead, but must make a DC 25 Knowledge (arcana) check to do so successfully. If the cone-aura is attempted but fails, the only penalty is that the move action is wasted and the anti-magic aura is not activated. Unlike the burst-aura, the cone-aura immediately deactivates if the Spellbreaker takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn. Anytime the Spellbreaker takes more than his hit point damage threshold in a round, he must make a Concentration check versus a DC equal to the amount of hit point damage taken that round that is above his threshold. If the check is successful, the cone-aura remains active; if the check is unsuccessful, the cone-aura immediately deactivates. The Spellbreaker’s damage threshold is equal to the Spellbreakers’s number of hit die plus his Constitution score (e.g. a level 11 Spellbreaker with a Constitution score of 16 has a damage threshold of 27). When making a concentration check, the Spellbreaker rolls a d20 and adds his Spellbreaker levels plus his Intelligence modifier.
Starting at level 12, with the same move action it takes to activate an anti-magic aura, the Spellbreaker may increase the radius of the aura by 5 feet. He may add an additional 5 feet to the aura at every even level after level 12. To do this successfully, the Spellbreaker must make a DC 25 Knowledge (arcana) check. If the extension is attempted and fails, the only penalty is that the move action is wasted and the anti-magic aura is not activated. If the Spellbreaker wants to extend a cone-aura, two Knowledge (arcana) checks are required, the first is to create the cone-aura and second to extend it. Failure on either check means the Spellbreaker failed to activate the aura and his move action is wasted. Anytime the Spellbreaker has an active extended aura (whether burst or cone) and takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn, that aura immediately deactivates. Anytime the Spellbreaker takes more than his hit point damage threshold in a round, he must make a Concentration check (see the discussion above for information regarding the Spellbreaker’s hit point damage threshold and Concentration checks).
I added a swift action to maintain the aura because I think thematically even the burst-aura should cost something because the bonus is a pretty good one and is untyped so it stacks with all other bonuses. However, requiring more than a swift to maintain it gimps the SB. I also folded in the no-more than a 5-foot step on the code and extended auras. I worded it this way because one can still take a 5-foot step and full attack but not a move action and full attack. As for the Concentration check, I was following how it works for casters in that the ability modifier added is the one they use for determining bonus spells and the like. For the Spellbreaker, the analogous ability appears to be Int.
I see two feats for this class feature:
Selective Aura
Prerequisite: Anti-magic aura class feature
Benefit: When you activate your anti-magic aura, you can choose a number of targets in the area equal to 1 + your Wisdom modifier. These targets are not affected by your anti-magic field. On your turn each round, as a free action you can choose different targets to exclude from your anti-magic shield. The total number of targets excluded cannot exceed your Intelligence modifier.
Normal: All targets in your anti-magic aura's area are affected
Mobile Aura
Prerequisite: Anti-magic aura class feature
Benefit: You can move as normal when you have a cone and/or extended anti-magic aura active
Normal: If you have a cone and/or extended anti-magic aura active and you take more than a 5-foot step on your turn, your anti-magic aura immediately deactivates
As I mentioned earlier, I can see the Spell Defender's aura providing full bonuses to saves but only to folks directly adjacent to him. The Spellslayer's aura can perhaps center the origin of the burst/cone at range (i.e. not needing to center it on the Spellslayer himself) The range for determining the origin would be close range (25 ft + 5 ft/2 levels)
Just caught a copy-paste error. The last sentence of the Selective Aura feat should read "The total number of targets excluded cannot exceed 1 + your Wisdom modifier."
@Oly, you're right about the amount of damage a melee-based combatant is likely to be subject to in a single round at levels 11+. I suggest we change the passage re: hp damage threshold to "The Spellbreaker’s hit point damage threshold is equal to twice the sum of the Spellbreakers’s number of hit die plus his Constitution score (e.g. a level 11 Spellbreaker with a Constitution score of 16 has a damage threshold of 54)."
Also, while it's implied, I suggest we make explicit that a SB can only have one anti-magic aura active at a time. Otherwise, a SB can create two cones for a semi-circle, or overlap cones for other partial-circle shapes.
@Cheepenbulky
I see where you were going with that archetype! Basically an anti-magic combatant without the utility. But if I were you, I'd either switch out Spellsteal, Spellbane or Spell Sunder to get those effects. I could see this guy be a battlefield controller with a polearm in hand!
Also, without Spellhound, how will the Nihilist identify enemy spells and be able to use AoO's to Sunder outside his turn? I like where you've gone, but you could make that DC a little lower and just alter a single bit of text from Spellhound. Maybe he doesn't get Sunder bonuses on applied spells and they obviously do not further increase on known spells since he hasn't a spell-book.
I added text to the MN (Magic Nihilist) version of Spellhound, to allow for identification of spells. Left out the bonus to sunder, but made sunder as AoO a possibility (missed that part on my read through). I would love to swap out void step to replace spell steal instead of spell flux, but I tried to mirror the solar oracle ability as well as possible, any pointers would be cool. I would like to keep Spellbane since that is the classes only form of damage, and spell sunder is far too central to the class to replace it outright (alter a little maybe but not replace). Spell steal seems too controlled for a class that tries to use magic in its most chaotic form, when possible... but as I stated above I am at a loss for what to do with it.
As for lack of utility, I believe its loss of utility by loosing what little spell casting it gets and stuff is mitigated by its bonus to UMD. The increased mobility and the flexibility from its antimagic fields should also increase its utility.
can use antimagic fields to shut down magic traps, enemy casters or once you get the improved version, save your teammates in response to a successful casting of a spell.
@Gulian: I hope you aren't being turned off from the idea because DPB and I have basically tried to design one class feature to take away from one that was overpowered
I don't think that is the issue, Gulian had mentioned last Monday that his weekend free time is limited, so won't work much on the class on weekends.
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!
Realized that the Magic Nihilist archetype i was working on wouldn't really work. Its main class feature, manipulatable antimagic fields, was too similar to spell sunder (and spell sunder did everything thematically and mechanically better than the antimagic fields). So I changed my focus, and altered the archetype slightly. Say hello to the Spell Blocker
The goal here was to create a battlefield controller that completely abandoned harnessing magic (ie: no spellsteal, channel, or spellbook), and focused completely on shutting it down. To balance the bonuses the class loses by not having its spellbook I gave the Spell Blocker skill focus at lvl's 5, 10, and 15; to represent their diversified training and give the class back some of their lost utility.
In the long run this class relies less on the presence of other spell casters, since their 2 utility abilities (the skill focus feats and the teleportation ability) do not require spells to be cast for them to work. But also gains less from the presence of spell casters, since they can not steal spells to assist them, or gain limited spell casting by sundering spells.
I'm totally fine and hyped for the class, worry not! I simply don't have as much time as I wish I did. Weekends+ Monday and sometimes Tuesay are my least active days due work and social things!
Just haven't had enough time to get into what you are designing thoroughly.
Some things I can say off the bat are:
1) It is generally a semi-filler ability (small improvement to the previous) being replaced for an ability that was thematically cool, yet not overly powerful. It then turned into a much more complicated ability, with a rather large wall of text a player has to overcome. Simplicity is best, in my book.
2) I dislike making feats soecifically for classes unless they're made by paizo. I'm not sure why, but I'd generally prefer it to be in one class feature. That being said, this ability isn't going to be and shouldn't be a -central- class ability, thus making feats soecifically to alter its performance seems a bit anti-climatic in the class itself.
I should have all the time in the world to really get into the class feature in detail and consider everything it brings to the board versus the old one on Wednesday!
@Gulian as much as I agree with you on simple is better, especially for an "improved" version. I have to say these guys are onto something. Will/Fort saves don't work well with the auto half (can't have half a death effect) and as of right now this classes team capabilities are pretty low. Whereas their recommendation solve both of those issues.
Now I think it can be simplified.
- the cone shape adds a lot of variable, rules, and complication, for minimal gain.
- The concentration checks for movement and dmg, while being thematically interesting could make it a lot to keep track of (might be easy, IDK this is just my knee-jerk reaction)
- why give an ability just to upgrade it one level later? just give it all right away, or make it atleast 2 levels
- the increased radius should be fixed, or increase by level. you shouldnt be able to, or need to, increase the radius using a check. Taking a check every turn can get monotonous.
Just by doing this you save 2 paragraphs. you lose cone, which I think that one should be a feat; and require no check to manipulate. and make radius scale by level, or just go with the paladin aura and its x big, thats it. no bigger. ever. by doing this you make mobile aura feat unnecessary. I love that the aura does not play favorites between friend and foe, and totally agree with the feat ideas, Gulian can drop them if he really wants to, it wouldn't kill the ability, but i like them.
EDIT: sorry about the partial post before, meant to hit preview, and accidentally hit post
@ OLY: I agree with you on the feats, just feel some of the mechanics are a little over controlling.
Ah i misunderstood the movement penalty on cone. well then i think the movement penalty alone should be enough. move action to turn the aura from radius to cone. and any movement drops it, no check, it just drops. then use mobile aura feat to grant movement... more CP from me...
The check is either going to be so high as to make it seem unnecessarily daunting or it going to be just a check that the guy passes every time. the check by itself gains you nothing. Spell breaker by lvl 11 will have a bonus to know arcane of at least 18 (more likely it will be in the 22ish range after INT). So the check as set is almost an auto sucess, and pretty much a moot point. Crank it higher and it will just seem unnecessarily high. I think being unable to move would more than enough, since this is primarily a melee class. moving then spending another move action to set up a cone would eat up a whole turn. That seems like it would hurt enough as is. How about steal a page from defensive stance (stalwart defender) or rage and throw a a cool down (possible status effect) on the person when they drop the cone. Can even steal the wording for movement from defensive stance
The way I see it, you either make the check 30 (30 to simply do a class ability 0_o) or drop it. And even at 30 the check becomes a moot point again by level 13 or 14 depending on gear (lvl + (1/2 lvl) + Int + 3) @ lvl 14 with mediocre gear is 14+7+5+3=29
I'm not against skill checks I'm against unnecessarily bogging down an ability with rules that add very little to the ability, while simultaneously making it seem overly complicated at a glance.
Oly, that's actually not how Improved anti Magic fortitude works. Take evasion for reference. If the effect can't be halved, such as a save or die effect, it won't be. I don't know where you got the idea that it works on a phantasmal killer or charm person at all.
O_o
------------
What we mean by complexity is not the strategical variety of decisions an ability can lead to making, but the giant wall of text you're creating by adding all these details to the class.
When I first started PF, for instance, I couldn't make myself read the Sacred Bond ability because it made my eyes bleed with the sheer amount of words in its description. Or, for instance, some of the spells I just avoided because I didn't want to deal with the essay I had to read through to understand how they worked entirely.
That's what I'm talking about here. Complexity is cool, walls of text are not.
In my mathing I noticed a slight issue that could arrive from the studied in the arts class ability. Any spell breaker only needs to put 8 ranks into spell craft to completely shut down any caster. As things are a spell breakers spell craft skill scales 3x faster than the difficulty of the check.
Lvl 4 skill bonus (assuming full ranks and Int mod =3) is 12, dc of highest spell by a lvl 4 caster is 17. 80% success.
Lvl 6 skill - 15; dc is 18. 90% sucess
Lvl 8 (Int mod 4 now) skill = 19, dc is 19. 100% success.
And from this point the bonus from studied in the arts scales at the same rate as the max dc from an equal lvl caster. Essentially from this point on a spell breaker identifies ever spell cast by an equal level caster, and gets a free sunder attempt. This is different for SLA'S but not by much.
Oly, you're literally not getting the point in trying to make.
The huge wall of text is not remotely attractive as an addition/alteration to the class. So far, I'm convinced that you misunderstood how Anti-Magic Fortitude operates and am slowly growing unsure if what you're suggesting is better or worse, or if it's even "overpowered" as you suggested.
If you can make that wall of text smaller and less: "Oh, so to use this ability I have to make this check, then this check and then that, and then if I want to do this and that, I need to do this and then if I want that I need to take this feat or that feat..."
--------
@Cheepen
I actually had my mind focus on exactly that direction. I'm generally considering the best way and extent of nerfing Studied in the Art
Hi all,
Re: complexity - I think Gulian's and Cheepenbulky's use of the word is more akin to "bulky" or "cumbersome" and Oly's use of the word is more akin to "mulit-faceted"
I must admit, that when I was writing up the Concentration check and damage threshold mechanics, I found them to be "bulky" and "cumbersome" so I can totally see how others can feel that way too.
I agree with Oly about choices and trade-offs, it's what makes playing different classes more fun than others. I also must admit, I was never a fan of the cone shape and even less of a fan of an expanding aura, but you all seemed to like those features. And, if we were to choose between the two, I would choose cone over expansion mostly because expansion seems OP to me. I would prefer to provide those options as feats (cone being folded into Selective Shielding) but understand Gulian doesn't like non-official feats so this suggestion probably won't be taken up.
Assuming the final product has both options and assuming we want to make the mechanics of using them less bulky and cumbersome, I think we should adopt the standard action to use the cone-aura and a skill check (with a higher DC as Cheepenbulky points out) to expand auras. We drop the concentration mechanic but keep the mechanic that cone-auras and expanded auras auto-deactivate if the SB takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn.
Re: SB-specific feats - my take is that providing the SB with some feats makes the class more "real"(I believe all classes have class-specific feats). It also provides more customization options and provides a player a more "complete" package to take to his GM when getting the class approved
@Gulian - re: how Anti-magic Fortitude works on save or die effects, I had the same reading as Oly and Cheepenbulky. Now that I know otherwise, I'm left wondering if our trying to replace it with AMA is moot. I'm cool with either TBH, I just want to see a finalized version :)
@ Gulian
My first reaction to possibly nerfing studied in the art, was to make it a fixed bonus (+x at lvl 1) that increased by a set amount. that way it wont scale exactly with the DC... If you do +1 at lvl 1, increases by 1 at lvl 5, 10, 15 and 20. you end up with half of the bonus, which could work. But so many things in this class just scale with level, that it seems almost boring.
But if you leave it as is for the knowledge skills, while applying the half level bonus on spellcraft checks 1+INT (suggestion) times per day, chosen before rolling. The knowledge checks are already time tested by the bard class, so no issues there. And by giving spellcraft a limit, you force "strategic decision making" as to when you should use your easy button; and when you can rely on your 60% success rate.
Here are our options for Studied in the Art.
1) Make it a fixed bonus, as suggested by Cheepen
2) Allow making checks in knowledges untrained, take away progression and halve the spellcraft progression.
3) Take away the knowledge, allow Spellbreaker to add his int mod a second time to spellcraft instead of scaling. (Probably not, too dippable.)
4) Take away spellcraft scaling entirely and keep the knowledges, leaving the player and the class to fend for themselves with their checks, more reason for skill focus and spellcraft based traits and so on.
I like option 2 and 4 the most.
-------------------
Oly, if you actually count the amount of effects Anti-Magic Fortitude would apply to, considering that things such as save or die (which can not be halved by a succesful will save as per description) and charm effects (same story) are not really effected by this ability, nor its improved version, you would see that the Evasion ability actually saves you from a much bigger amount of problems, as well as improved evasion. Land then you further apply the limitation of it working against spells and spell-like abilities only... Yeah.
Hence why, Improved Anti-Magic Fortitude isn't really OP.
Yeah it's multi-faceted and cool, but if you don't decrease the amount of letters, it's not going to fly for the majority of players who will just go "Ugh..." when seeing that. So, if it's really not too big of a hassle, could you sort that problem out?
Do you think the class isn't interesting without your suggested ability? If so, you could make an archetype based around it, if that's the most important part for you.
How's this for a paired-down AMA?
Anti-Magic Aura: At Level 11, the Spellbreaker's anti-magic abilities become strong enough that he can create an aura to shield others from spells and spell-like abilities. The Spellbreaker can use a move action to radiate an aura in a 15 foot radius centered on himself and a swift action to maintain it in subsequent rounds. All within the aura’s area gain a bonus to their Fortitude and Willpower saves against spells and SLA's equal to half the bonus the Spellbreaker receives from his Anti-Magic Fortitude ability. This ability can be used for an unlimited number of rounds, and the Spellbreaker may choose to dismiss it as a free action. This ability only functions while the Spellbreaker is conscious and able to take actions. The anti-magic aura does not add to the bonuses the Spellbreaker already receives from his Anti-Magic Fortitude ability. A Spellbreaker may only have one anti-magic aura active at a time.
The Spellbreaker may choose to make the field a 15 foot cone instead, but must spend a standard action to activate it. Unlike the burst-aura, the cone-aura immediately deactivates if the Spellbreaker takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn.
At level 14, the Spellbreaker may increase the radius of the aura by 5 feet. He may add an additional 5 feet to the aura at levels 17 and 20 (30 ft. maximum radius at level 20). An extended aura immediately deactivates if the Spellbreaker takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn.
This looks fine, as long as the optional feats to improve the ability are also retained.How's this for a paired-down AMA?
Anti-Magic Aura: At Level 11, the Spellbreaker's anti-magic abilities become strong enough that he can create an aura to shield others from spells and spell-like abilities. The Spellbreaker can use a move action to radiate an aura in a 15 foot radius centered on himself and a swift action to maintain it in subsequent rounds. All within the aura’s area gain a bonus to their Fortitude and Willpower saves against spells and SLA's equal to half the bonus the Spellbreaker receives from his Anti-Magic Fortitude ability. This ability can be used for an unlimited number of rounds, and the Spellbreaker may choose to dismiss it as a free action. This ability only functions while the Spellbreaker is conscious and able to take actions. The anti-magic aura does not add to the bonuses the Spellbreaker already receives from his Anti-Magic Fortitude ability. A Spellbreaker may only have one anti-magic aura active at a time.
The Spellbreaker may choose to make the field a 15 foot cone instead, but must spend a standard action to activate it. Unlike the burst-aura, the cone-aura immediately deactivates if the Spellbreaker takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn.
At level 14, the Spellbreaker may increase the radius of the aura by 5 feet. He may add an additional 5 feet to the aura at levels 17 and 20 (30 ft. maximum radius at level 20). An extended aura immediately deactivates if the Spellbreaker takes more than a 5-foot step on his turn.
looks good, and just like Oly, i think feats would be a thing worth keeping
So, essentially, it's a 15 foot aura that gives +1 to will and fortitude saves for all standing within its range? That's... pretty minor, if you ask me and doesn't feel very anti-magic, considering there are spells that simply don't target will and fort saves.
Maybe we could make it something like granting the effects of Anti-Magic Fortitude to all standing within (including enemies)?
-----------
I'm personally against the level 14 thing. The meagre 3 level gap seems forced and out of place.
I say, remove that entirely and keep it at 15 ft. In addition, granting this aura to others makes the Spellbreaker lose the effects of his own Anti-Magic Fortitude and its relevant bonuses.
He may select a number of targets to exclude from this aura equal to his INT mod and is limited to 4 + 2x INT rounds per day of it. You don't need a whole lot of them.
Let's say it grants everyone besides the excluded targets standing in the aura his Spell Resistance and the effects of Anti-Magic Fortitude with the relevant bonuses, but cause the Spellbreaker to lose said bonuses for his person.
The cone thing is also out-of-place, it doesn't actually serve any real tactical purpose in that it does not hinder enemies if you project this aura at them in the least. It'd be something the Spellbreaker would simply never ever use.
-----------
I honestly think this ability is somewhat too sudden and didn't have anything leading up to it. It -feels- a bit out of place, but it's definitely an interesting one.
Perhaps, instead, there could be an archetype focused entirely on projecting anti-magic auras instead of Spell Sundering, Spell Stealing and Spellbane. Call it something classy, like say... The Purifier. Maybe he could also have some curse, magical disease and so on removal abilities and the ability to use Cure and Inflict spells from scrolls without consuming them, or something. Flavor-wise, they could be people that specialize in hunting down disturbances to the natural order, such as outsiders (be it good or bad, they hunt them down), undead, abberations and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the class needs some type of team friendly ability. Right now all its got is spell steal, which is primarily offensive. this makes the class seem incredibly selfish. The aura was a way to make some friends on the team. I do agree half bonus seems kind of low, it should be full bonus.
Let's say it grants everyone besides the excluded targets standing in the aura his Spell Resistance and the effects of Anti-Magic Fortitude with the relevant bonuses, but cause the Spellbreaker to lose said bonuses for his person.
This right here, i think is heading in the right direction. It adds a tad bit of trade-off; and adds the strategy and thoughtful use, that i think Oly is looking for. It may not be perfect yet (it seems too extreme, to me at least) but i think it might be a step closer.
2 cents here. Use Qpb's latest version, but full bonus instead of half. Then add ability to grant his SR to people effected by the aura but at the loss of his own SR AND saves. Essentially putting a big target on his head to defend his party.
Well to be fair, the Fighter, the Barbarian and the Monk have no abilities that aid allies either, yet they aren't prohibited from playing good alignments.
Barbarians are meant to Rage and bash skulls, and they can be good people while doing so. Fighters are meant to swim in a sea of feats. Monks are meant to do their kung-fu goodness. Ranger's are meant to be sort of warrior-druids.
And Spellbreakers are meant to break spells and stab spellcasters.
In this sense, there's nothing really that says: "This class should have supportive abilities for his team because its flavor demands it." - for such an ability to be justified in the classic representation of the Spellbreaker. The classic Paladin representation has it, while the class itself can be tailored to a Holy Avenger-type concept that doesn't heal anyone. And the same should be true for the Spellbreaker, who will have the ability to be tailored for supportive abilities with an Archetype!
I doubt a party could ask for a better supportive action than killing the enemy in one fell swoop or (in this case) shutting down the enemy's spellcasting almost entirely.
Sundering a Bestow Curse effect on a friendly target, for instance, is support. Or just being in the fray with a shield is also support.
Conclusion: That's a very very debatable reasoning for the ability you've provided, for this class is no more selfish than any other class out there.
----------------
Now, again, I'm convinced that taking away Improved Anti-Magic Fortitude (Something of a minor increase to the previous layout of the class.) and granting it this ability is just a step towards unnecesarry power levels for the class. In addition, the ability is a bit unruly when you look at it from the grand perspective of the class. It simply popped up randomly with nothing hinting that the class might have an ability like this in it.
Especially if you wish to implement feats that would alter it. If you really do, I'd like you to remember what sort of feats directly affect classes in this game. They are:
Rage Power feats - Barbarian's main class feature
Revelation feats - Oracle's main class feature
Channeling feats - Cleric's main class feature
Lay on Hands and Smite feats - Paladin's main class features
Sneak attack and Rogue Talent feats - Rogue's main class features
And then you kind of have this level 11 ability that fairly randomly pops up and suddenly has feats for it.
Having feats for Spell Sunder is cool. Having feats for Spellsteal is cool. Maybe even feats for Spellbane. But this particular ability seems entirely out of place with the level of emphasis you are placing on it.
Either it should be gained at earlier levels (At 6th level or just below), essentially telling a player that this is part of the class, is important and central to the class, and that he's meant to use it in abundance, or be weakened and really bottled down.
I think that this ability, along with many other supportive abilities, should be placed in an archetype or several, where the class' flavour will be altered accordingly to make sense in having such an ability, along with several other supportive abilities leading up to it.
For instance, the Spellbreaker Adept could have this, because it seems to be right up its alley.