Classes that are still needed


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
The hell is a Marshmallow fallacy?
The notion that there are no means to facilitate a character concept because the means that exist are considered not optimal and thus may as well not exist.
Ah so its used to shame folks when they're upset because the mechanics are lacking.

Essentially, I coined it during a discussion about fighter types who get 4+ skills and their usefulness.

It was like the tactician fighter didn't exist because he wasn't good enough, therefore Paizo failed them somehow.

Assuming base fighter is a fair baseline, I see nothing wrong with Tactician, personally. Not optimal? Maybe. But it has a niche and it shouldn't be terribly hard to make one an effective character.

But to challenge my own assumption: Fighter is.. a hair on the weak side (due to lack of effective options, not lack of power), but definitely not outside of acceptable range for it to be worth keeping them around as-is. It's easy to see them as weaker than they are if you skip looking at the fighter-specific feats. Though I suppose those aren't as fighter-specific as they used to be.

TL;DR - If tactician is weak, it's because fighter is weak, not because of the archetype.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Ignore this if it's already been hashed out. I'd like a proper eldritch knight. Less blaster magus, more robust caster with a sword that doesn't suck and doesn't fall victim to the action economy nightmare the current EK demands. Summoners are decent in their no ACP with armor deal and in the robust aspect of things but still too focused. It really should be more a straight wizard/fighter hybrid. Emphasize the knight aspect and put in some samurai-like orders that mix in with various organizations or do something with a nobility aspect.

Check out this thread.

One way to replace Eldritch Knight would be a Magus archetype that trades out some of the Magus nova stuff (including Spell Combat and its Improved and Greater version) for adding more battlefield control to the spell list, and better ability to do maneuvers and other useful things with two-handed weapons, including polearms. (I'm trying to recreate the idea of a Reach Eldritch Knight (scroll down to "Third Character" about halfway through the post, and then read the next couple of posts for debugging) that got hosed by the SLA FAQ nerf.)


master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
The hell is a Marshmallow fallacy?
The notion that there are no means to facilitate a character concept because the means that exist are considered not optimal and thus may as well not exist.
Ah so its used to shame folks when they're upset because the mechanics are lacking.

Essentially, I coined it during a discussion about fighter types who get 4+ skills and their usefulness.

It was like the tactician fighter didn't exist because he wasn't good enough, therefore Paizo failed them somehow.

Tactician is okay, but it doesn't solve any of the issues that Fighters have ASIDE from the 4 skill points.

Shadow Lodge

master_marshmallow wrote:
Scavion wrote:
The hell is a Marshmallow fallacy?
The notion that there are no means to facilitate a character concept because the means that exist are considered not optimal and thus may as well not exist.

Are we talking "not optimal" or are we talking "caster cleric that gets diminished spellcasting as a class feature"?

Because the cloistered cleric is the latter.

I personally like the Ecclesitheurge, though I understand why some find it lacking. A more customizable spell list would probably go a good ways.

ertw wrote:
While I was working on the Beguiler conversion I had a user that thought it would be possible to break magic users into two-school specialists in order to depower magic users a little. It broke up along these lines: Beguiler (illusion/enchantment), Warmage (evocation/abjuration), Dread Necromancer (necromancy/divination), and Summoner (conjuration/transmutation).

Not a bad idea, though I'd recommend allowing some flexibility in which schools are paired. Transmutation/necromancy for example seems suitable for a magical Dr. Frankenstein, and divination/abjuration works well for a pacifist scholar.


Weirdo wrote:
ertw wrote:
While I was working on the Beguiler conversion I had a user that thought it would be possible to break magic users into two-school specialists in order to depower magic users a little. It broke up along these lines: Beguiler (illusion/enchantment), Warmage (evocation/abjuration), Dread Necromancer (necromancy/divination), and Summoner (conjuration/transmutation).
Not a bad idea, though I'd recommend allowing some flexibility in which schools are paired. Transmutation/necromancy for example seems suitable for a magical Dr. Frankenstein, and divination/abjuration works well for a pacifist scholar.

I actually did conversions for the Warmage and Dread Necromancer as well that were based around this separation of schools and the framework of my Beguiler, but neither one is particularly polished/anywhere near ready. Naturally I did mix the spell lists where appropriate, but did try to keep them focused on their respective schools. I did end up with an archetype for the Dread Necro that basically ends up as both Dr. Frankenstein and the monster by grafting parts from undead creatures to herself as she levels.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Check out this thread.

One way to replace Eldritch Knight would be a Magus archetype that trades out some of the Magus nova stuff (including Spell Combat and its Improved and Greater version) for adding more battlefield control to the spell list, and better ability to do maneuvers and other useful things with two-handed weapons, including polearms. (I'm trying to recreate the idea of a Reach Eldritch Knight (scroll down to "Third Character" about halfway through the post, and then read the next couple of posts for debugging) that got hosed by the SLA FAQ nerf.)

The main reason I hate magus archetypes to fill this role is that the archetypical eldritch knight is an elf with an elven curved blade in the CRB. The magus is through and through designed for a one handed weapon. This fundamental design concept cuts short the generalist angle to the martial side of the implementation. Maybe getting rid of spell combat alone solves this. I'm unsure. I've tried to build a magus like how I want an EK to be, but I was not pleased and have avoided it since and that was a level 1 build so I'm unfamiliar with how the later options actually play out.

Also, ideally, I'd want the whole sorcerer/wizard list even if it were on condition that their lack of focus on certain schools means all schools are treated like opposition schools that can be focused on with the Opposition Research wizard discovery as you level. This would favor a spontaneous caster since they get two guaranteed slots when they gain a new tier of spell. Or, turn the Opposition Research initially into a class feature that grants one Opposition Research as a free bonus feat which then allows the class to take further discoveries in the other schools thereafter in place of regular feats from leveling. I don't think it'd be a huge thing even if you got regular bonus feats from the class progression that just granted you Research discoveries in addition to normal feats. Grant the first one at level 4, or whatever, then one more for every 4 beyond that or something. Level 20, that's 5 out of 8 schools, one shy of a specialist wizard. Just an idea of one potential way to do it.

I'm fine with having give and take in the access and casting of spells and how many good martial features you get, but I just want a solid, general fighter and magic user chassis that I can customize. The magus, summoner, et al. simply take too much with no option to shore up other things in return for that taking, or they do so in a completely narrow way that doesn't allow similar yet different concepts. It's almost in the same vein as my dislike of the summoner eidolon in that if you don't build kali-like, natural attack monstrosities then you are forced to have crazy AC or other ridiculousness such as an array of immunities because there simply aren't other options. That'd be the one thing I'd change with that class, it's options, even though I think the class itself is fine.

Liberty's Edge

Buri Reborn wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Check out this thread.

One way to replace Eldritch Knight would be a Magus archetype that trades out some of the Magus nova stuff (including Spell Combat and its Improved and Greater version) for adding more battlefield control to the spell list, and better ability to do maneuvers and other useful things with two-handed weapons, including polearms. (I'm trying to recreate the idea of a Reach Eldritch Knight (scroll down to "Third Character" about halfway through the post, and then read the next couple of posts for debugging) that got hosed by the SLA FAQ nerf.)

The main reason I hate magus archetypes to fill this role is that the archetypical eldritch knight is an elf with an elven curved blade in the CRB. The magus is through and through designed for a one handed weapon. This fundamental design concept cuts short the generalist angle to the martial side of the implementation.

... His name was Seltyiel and they retcon'd him to be a magus when Ultimate Magic was released. So.. not a great example there. Also, he uses a scimitar or longsword (depending on incarnation), but never used a two-hander (to my knowledge). And he's a half-elf, not that it matters much.

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Seltyiel


@Stabbity - The point is still well made and totally valid. Martial caster hybrids are always pushed into narrow spell lists which heavily limits the sort of characters you can make with any one of them. If, for example, the bard chassis allowed you to choose spells from the wizard list and additionally allowed you to specialize in one school so that you could cast those spells at one level lower, it wouldn't break anything and would make a thousand different characters viable. Not only that, but you wouldn't need to create a tonne of different spell lists.


StabbittyDoom wrote:

... His name was Seltyiel and they retcon'd him to be a magus when Ultimate Magic was released. So.. not a great example there. Also, he uses a scimitar or longsword (depending on incarnation), but never used a two-hander (to my knowledge). And he's a half-elf, not that it matters much.

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Seltyiel

Hrmm.... you're right. Now I'm wracking my brain (and books) for where I saw that bit of art.


You know what? I just realized you were pointing out a discrepancy with the iconic, not that you disagreed with his premise.

Kind of a derp there, sorry.


Trogdar wrote:

You know what? I just realized you were pointing out a discrepancy with the iconic, not that you disagreed with his premise.

Kind of a derp there, sorry.

I thought it was a completely different iconic. You were right the point is still made in that there is an extremely narrow window currently alloted to martial/caster mixes. That was the actual crux of my post. I'm still looking for that bit of artwork.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

You know what? I just realized you were pointing out a discrepancy with the iconic, not that you disagreed with his premise.

Kind of a derp there, sorry.

I thought it was a completely different iconic. You were right the point is still made in that there is an extremely narrow window currently alloted to martial/caster mixes. That was the actual crux of my post. I'm still looking for that bit of artwork.

NPC Codex?


Kalindlara wrote:
NPC Codex?

No. It was clearly an elf wielding an elven curve blade and wearing some armor. I thought it was in the CRB, but it's clearly not. I'm suspecting APG or UC. I'm not finding those books currently.


To present a class closer to what I'd prefer for an EK:

Eldritch Templar (lame name, I know)

You can see the similarities to magus yet it's completely different.


Trogdar wrote:
@Stabbity - The point is still well made and totally valid. Martial caster hybrids are always pushed into narrow spell lists which heavily limits the sort of characters you can make with any one of them. If, for example, the bard chassis allowed you to choose spells from the wizard list and additionally allowed you to specialize in one school so that you could cast those spells at one level lower, it wouldn't break anything and would make a thousand different characters viable. Not only that, but you wouldn't need to create a tonne of different spell lists.

I don't know if you've seen but a bard can totally do that except its from any Arcane class.

Bard

Only thing missing is a school of magic.


Reading through (most of) this thread, it seems like the a lot of what people want are archetypes for various classes more than new classes. I'm seeing a lot of "A Spontaneous version of [x] Spell casting class," or "[x] Class with some of [y] class's abilities." It seems to me that since the ACG, these kinds of things are more the purview of Archetypes. If you want a spontaneous casting Druid, or prepared casting Bard, you don't want a new class, you want an archetype. Hopefully one that only touches spell casting, so you can combine it with as many other archetypes as possible. The same goes with a class that borrows abilities from another class.

Liberty's Edge

revaar wrote:
Reading through (most of) this thread, it seems like the a lot of what people want are archetypes for various classes more than new classes. I'm seeing a lot of "A Spontaneous version of [x] Spell casting class," or "[x] Class with some of [y] class's abilities." It seems to me that since the ACG, these kinds of things are more the purview of Archetypes. If you want a spontaneous casting Druid, or prepared casting Bard, you don't want a new class, you want an archetype. Hopefully one that only touches spell casting, so you can combine it with as many other archetypes as possible. The same goes with a class that borrows abilities from another class.

Agreed, for the most part. Some things, like a Full-BAB (Su) shapeshifter, would still require their own class to be done properly. An archetype approach would either be spell-based (blegh!) or swap out so much that it's not really the same class anymore.

Closest I see to a full shapeshifter is Beastmorph alchemist, but I'd prefer something that's more like Werewolves and less like Mr. Hyde.


I don't think so, there are plenty of niches that aren't just spontaneous X or prepared Y.

Look at the difference between the sorcerer and the wizard or the cleric and the oracle.


StabbittyDoom wrote:
revaar wrote:
Reading through (most of) this thread, it seems like the a lot of what people want are archetypes for various classes more than new classes. I'm seeing a lot of "A Spontaneous version of [x] Spell casting class," or "[x] Class with some of [y] class's abilities." It seems to me that since the ACG, these kinds of things are more the purview of Archetypes. If you want a spontaneous casting Druid, or prepared casting Bard, you don't want a new class, you want an archetype. Hopefully one that only touches spell casting, so you can combine it with as many other archetypes as possible. The same goes with a class that borrows abilities from another class.

Agreed, for the most part. Some things, like a Full-BAB (Su) shapeshifter, would still require their own class to be done properly. An archetype approach would either be spell-based (blegh!) or swap out so much that it's not really the same class anymore.

Closest I see to a full shapeshifter is Beastmorph alchemist, but I'd prefer something that's more like Werewolves and less like Mr. Hyde.

What about the Ranger for a Full BAB shapeshifter?

Shapeshifter

Liberty's Edge

Brain in a Jar wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
revaar wrote:
Reading through (most of) this thread, it seems like the a lot of what people want are archetypes for various classes more than new classes. I'm seeing a lot of "A Spontaneous version of [x] Spell casting class," or "[x] Class with some of [y] class's abilities." It seems to me that since the ACG, these kinds of things are more the purview of Archetypes. If you want a spontaneous casting Druid, or prepared casting Bard, you don't want a new class, you want an archetype. Hopefully one that only touches spell casting, so you can combine it with as many other archetypes as possible. The same goes with a class that borrows abilities from another class.

Agreed, for the most part. Some things, like a Full-BAB (Su) shapeshifter, would still require their own class to be done properly. An archetype approach would either be spell-based (blegh!) or swap out so much that it's not really the same class anymore.

Closest I see to a full shapeshifter is Beastmorph alchemist, but I'd prefer something that's more like Werewolves and less like Mr. Hyde.

What about the Ranger for a Full BAB shapeshifter?

Shapeshifter

That has the right name, and the right flavor, but the abilities themselves fall flat on their faces. That character still relies on their favored enemy as their source of offense, a real shapeshifter relies on the shapes. And it isn't online at level 1, which a real shapeshifter would be.

Also, *rounds* per day? No way, buck-o. We need something that's at least 10m/level, preferably all day by around lvl 10 or so. You can't call something shapeshifter and have them use their ability for less time than a non-dedicated shifter like Druid, Sorc, Wizard, Magus, or Alchemist.

Alchemists make the best shapeshifters right now, they're just on the wrong chassis w/r/t a real shapeshifter (who wouldn't be going around chugging potions to do their job). For my home games I would simply reflavor alchemist to accomplish a shapeshifter character, but that won't fly everywhere.


Shifter idea.

Full BAB, Best fort and ref, poor will

Druid wildshape, except get a single extra use at level one for Beast shape I.

Ranger spellcasting.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rhedyn wrote:

Shifter idea.

Full BAB, Best fort and ref, poor will

Druid wildshape, except get a single extra use at level one for Beast shape I.

Ranger spellcasting.

So... a Ranger archetype?


Xethik wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

Shifter idea.

Full BAB, Best fort and ref, poor will

Druid wildshape, except get a single extra use at level one for Beast shape I.

Ranger spellcasting.

So... a Ranger archetype?

Could replace combat style.


Scavion wrote:


The Ecclesitheurge doesn't patch the issues found with running a more purely castery Cleric.

Agreed.... I did write a thread about the issue previously but to repeat:

1) The Ecclesithurge DOES NOT provide a D6 divine caster option

2) Part of the prob with the Ecclesithurge is due to the poor design and stagnancy of the cleric class

3) By starting off down the path to pure caster by removing weapons and armour but keeping D8 and 3/4 BAB... etc Paizo has only created probs. Since the Ecclesithurge has removed weapons and armour (which I agree with) they are not going to be in the mix as much as previously. The problem is that clerics and by default the Ecclesithurge do a lot of buff/anti-buff, heal/harm which are roles that involve being in the melee.... and so at present it finds itself stuck between 2 worlds. In terms of AC it will have very little so will be incredibly vulnerable.

4) To make a proper caster cleric... D6 and 1/2 BAB must be done.... otherwise you end up with this situation of "Not really a pure caster but not really a cleric either"... and thus unable to do either job effectively.#

5) I know there has been an errata regarding Blessing of the Faithful (traded for 1D6)but I thought it was very limp. The only benefit is the ability to use channels to extend the duration of the blessing but since the blessing itself is pretty tame that isnt that much use.

6) What should of at least been done was the ability to further trade out channeling D6 in exchange for increasing the blessing potency (eg at 12th level the blessing increases from +2 to +4 - this replaces the channel increase).

7) Linked to the previous point, sooooo many classes have the ability to opt in to channeling but ironically the cleric has few options to opt out!!! This is a shame as it would free up all manner of options for being more caster.

There are a multitide of different ways that Paizo could solve this but rather bizarrely and suspiciosly chooses not to.

I think in terms of a D6 class it boils down to 2 options:

1) INT based divine.... the perfect choice being an Archivist conversion

2) Stick with WIS based..... the unholy/holy man.. no armour and only staff and dagger for weapon options.... its particular niche being bringing down holy/unholy judgements on its enemies and/or using own/others blood to fuel spellcasting! Call it the Apostle.. unlike other divine servants, its connection with its deity is much closer but it pays for it by having to lead an incredibly pious life (maybe has to pay extra 10% for all equipment costs?)


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

Shifter idea.

Full BAB, Best fort and ref, poor will

Druid wildshape, except get a single extra use at level one for Beast shape I.

Ranger spellcasting.

So... a Ranger archetype?
Could replace combat style.

Plus you could drop spellcasting with another archetype if you really didn't want it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think another reason that a d6 divine caster is of interest to people - and the reason it's talked about at all - is that it's not like there aren't already redundant classes out there. I mean, Paizo just released the warcaster or warcleric or whatever, which is literally a more battle-oriented cleric when the cleric is already battle-oriented! If it's a question of "well are we sure we want to commit resources to something that you could finagle into fitting already existing mechanics" then I would say Paizo (through the writers and community interaction) already is squandering space. There is literally nothing the warpriest does that can't already be done with the base cleric. So why shouldn't I be able to ask that some of that space is wasted on something I like too? I mean, I don't begrudge the warpriest, because I will freely admit that there might be a class that caters to my specific tastes, one day down the road, and I'll be happy to use it.

The other side of it is that I would personally like it to be a brand new class, with original mechanics; i.e. no domains, no mysteries, and (heh) no wildshape! A druid-witch hybrid could be a great step and fix a lot of it. Alternatively, having the room for it to be an original class allows more variability and new ideas, instead of doing this stuff here where the first things people leap to are just "well let's mash in the same stuff from the existing classes and end up with the exact same choices as before." Don't get me wrong, I enjoy all the existing classes; the oracle, druid, and cleric are all great, fun to play, and have a lot of flavor. and none of them fill that role I'm looking for : \

Scarab Sages

xeose4 wrote:
There is literally nothing the warpriest does that can't already be done with the base cleric.

I suggest you re-read warpriest. Fervor for free quickened spells at level 2. Quicken Blessing for on-demand dimensional pounce. Several Bonus feats that you qualify for before your BAB would allow.


Warpriest seems more like a balance between people wanting/not wanting Paladins of various alignment.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
@Stabbity - The point is still well made and totally valid. Martial caster hybrids are always pushed into narrow spell lists which heavily limits the sort of characters you can make with any one of them. If, for example, the bard chassis allowed you to choose spells from the wizard list and additionally allowed you to specialize in one school so that you could cast those spells at one level lower, it wouldn't break anything and would make a thousand different characters viable. Not only that, but you wouldn't need to create a tonne of different spell lists.

I don't know if you've seen but a bard can totally do that except its from any Arcane class.

Bard

Only thing missing is a school of magic.

That's interesting but kind of not the point I was trying to make, which is that creating new classes with narrow spell lists actually makes for fewer characters and worse game balance over time.


Trogdar wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
@Stabbity - The point is still well made and totally valid. Martial caster hybrids are always pushed into narrow spell lists which heavily limits the sort of characters you can make with any one of them. If, for example, the bard chassis allowed you to choose spells from the wizard list and additionally allowed you to specialize in one school so that you could cast those spells at one level lower, it wouldn't break anything and would make a thousand different characters viable. Not only that, but you wouldn't need to create a tonne of different spell lists.

I don't know if you've seen but a bard can totally do that except its from any Arcane class.

Bard

Only thing missing is a school of magic.

That's interesting but kind of not the point I was trying to make, which is that creating new classes with narrow spell lists actually makes for fewer characters and worse game balance over time.

Fair enough. I wasn't and i'm not attempting to undermine anyone's want/need for a new class just offering suggestions from the current rule-set to offer others in case they missed it. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
There is literally nothing the warpriest does that can't already be done with the base cleric.

I suggest you re-read warpriest. Fervor for free quickened spells at level 2. Quicken Blessing for on-demand dimensional pounce. Several Bonus feats that you qualify for before your BAB would allow.

The way it does it is different and fancy, but in the end it's just a Cleric with stunted casting mixing it up in melee.

Just like a Cleric X/Fighter 1

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Warpriest seems more like a balance between people wanting/not wanting Paladins of various alignment.

At which it fails, possibly because those designing it didn't pay enough attention to the latter group to realize that "a cleric, but more fighty" wasn't the point. Otherwise the crusader cleric or the inquisitor would have already done the job. EDIT: Note that the inquisitor is more than just a fighty cleric but it does do rather well as a more martial divine caster.

Bloodragers make better alt alignment "paladins" than the warpriest - especially with a little oracle.

Celestial Spelleater Primalist Bloodrager gets you:

  • Full BAB
  • A limited-use feature improving your combat prowess, including special offensive & defensive powers against evil creatures
  • Charisma-based spellcasting
  • Swift action self-healing (plus limited passive fast healing)
  • The Celestial Totem line of rage powers for a boost to your (swift action) healing, a halo, and SR vs evil spells.

Multiclassing with Lame Oracle gives you access to limited divine spells (also charisma-based) and immunity to fatigue by level 9 depending on the oracle/bloodrager proportion. It also makes you eligible for Divine Protection to get Cha to saves like a real paladin! The battle mystery has a few good revelations for multiclassing with.

Not sure what the best proportion of Bloodrager to Oracle would be (of course, this would make a gorgeous gestalt...)


Buri Reborn wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Check out this thread.

One way to replace Eldritch Knight would be a Magus archetype that trades out some of the Magus nova stuff (including Spell Combat and its Improved and Greater version) for adding more battlefield control to the spell list, and better ability to do maneuvers and other useful things with two-handed weapons, including polearms. (I'm trying to recreate the idea of a Reach Eldritch Knight (scroll down to "Third Character" about halfway through the post, and then read the next couple of posts for debugging) that got hosed by the SLA FAQ nerf.)

The main reason I hate magus archetypes to fill this role is that the archetypical eldritch knight is an elf with an elven curved blade in the CRB. The magus is through and through designed for a one handed weapon. This fundamental design concept cuts short the generalist angle to the martial side of the implementation. Maybe getting rid of spell combat alone solves this. I'm unsure. I've tried to build a magus like how I want an EK to be, but I was not pleased and have avoided it since and that was a level 1 build so I'm unfamiliar with how the later options actually play out.

Also, ideally, I'd want the whole sorcerer/wizard list {. . .}

I had a similar idea but would do it differently. The Magus archetype replacing Eldritch Knight (Mageknight maybe?) would use the Magus casting progression (including being a 6/9 caster), but the union of the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list and the Magus spell list, sort of like what the Hunter does with the Druid and Ranger spell lists, but since the former includes nearly all of the latter, really means making a few spells available early entry. Spell Combat (and its Improved and Greater versions) and something else (haven't figured out what yet) would be traded out in favor of Arcane School (including specialization) and Arcane Bond.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Check out this thread.

One way to replace Eldritch Knight would be a Magus archetype that trades out some of the Magus nova stuff (including Spell Combat and its Improved and Greater version) for adding more battlefield control to the spell list, and better ability to do maneuvers and other useful things with two-handed weapons, including polearms. (I'm trying to recreate the idea of a Reach Eldritch Knight (scroll down to "Third Character" about halfway through the post, and then read the next couple of posts for debugging) that got hosed by the SLA FAQ nerf.)

The main reason I hate magus archetypes to fill this role is that the archetypical eldritch knight is an elf with an elven curved blade in the CRB. The magus is through and through designed for a one handed weapon. This fundamental design concept cuts short the generalist angle to the martial side of the implementation. Maybe getting rid of spell combat alone solves this. I'm unsure. I've tried to build a magus like how I want an EK to be, but I was not pleased and have avoided it since and that was a level 1 build so I'm unfamiliar with how the later options actually play out.

Also, ideally, I'd want the whole sorcerer/wizard list {. . .}

I had a similar idea but would do it differently. The Magus archetype replacing Eldritch Knight (Mageknight maybe?) would use the Magus casting progression (including being a 6/9 caster), but the union of the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list and the Magus spell list, sort of like what the Hunter does with the Druid and Ranger spell lists, but since the former includes nearly all of the latter, really means making a few spells available early entry. Spell Combat (and its Improved and Greater versions) and something else (haven't figured out what yet) would be...

But spell blending and the magus 19th level ability exist so whatever spells you are missing from the sorcerer/wizard list are hardly out of reach.

Marshmallow fallacy prevails.


I crave for a nature-based magus. No animal companion shenanigans.
3/4 Bab, 6th level spontaneous casting, ways to utilize its spells while attacking.
Something like magus+ranger minus the animal companion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:


But spell blending and the magus 19th level ability exist so whatever spells you are missing from the sorcerer/wizard list are hardly out of reach.

Marshmallow fallacy prevails.

7-9th level Spells?

Spell Blending only gets you a few spells and you give up extremely potent Magus Arcana as an opportunity cost.

The 19th level ability is outside the range of play for most folks.

The "I'm making huge assumptions by only looking at things by face value and not delving any further than that because if I did I would clearly see the point people are making" fallacy lives on.


Grangerer wrote:

I crave for a nature-based magus. No animal companion shenanigans.

3/4 Bab, 6th level spontaneous casting, ways to utilize its spells while attacking.
Something like magus+ranger minus the animal companion.

So a Hunter archetype that gets spellstrike, spell combat and maybe some magus arcana in exchange for the animal companion (and all class features related to it) and stuff? Sounds alright.


I would most like to see a full-BAB dedicated shapeshifter that isn't a spellcaster.

There are tons of good potential character classes that Pathfinder hasn't incorporated. Just look at the third-party products.


Possessor: saboteur of life; live through 1,000 deaths.

All about taking control of other enemies, partially or completely, for short times at low level, and far longer at higher level. Your body is vulnerable while this occurs, but sometimes you just need a momentary connection - to make the bandit stab himself mid-swing instead of hit you (a low level power, one in which you don't become helpless or lose dex to do this), or perhaps you want to assume more complete control and ensure he cuts himself properly and deeply while under your influence.

Fluff it as some type of sorcery + psionics variant, crawl through blood or right into the mind. Live a thousand deaths, all of your own making. Intensely reliant on party cooperation and protection for the more deep and lengthy forms of possession. Possession runs the risk of draining charisma if you do something horrible and final to the form you are in and stay for the full show, but generally it runs off wisdom.

Scarab Sages

Scavion wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
There is literally nothing the warpriest does that can't already be done with the base cleric.

I suggest you re-read warpriest. Fervor for free quickened spells at level 2. Quicken Blessing for on-demand dimensional pounce. Several Bonus feats that you qualify for before your BAB would allow.

The way it does it is different and fancy, but in the end it's just a Cleric with stunted casting mixing it up in melee.

Just like a Cleric X/Fighter 1

The same can be said of any class post CRB.

Just using APG classes:

Alchemist: Wizard with stunted magic + bombs
Cavalier: Fighter with a horse, or a Paladin without a god.
Inquisitor: Paladin/rogue
Oracle: Stunted cleric
Summoner: Super specialized sorc with a pet
Witch: Single class theuruge/PC Adept


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


But spell blending and the magus 19th level ability exist so whatever spells you are missing from the sorcerer/wizard list are hardly out of reach.

Marshmallow fallacy prevails.

7-9th level Spells?

Spell Blending only gets you a few spells and you give up extremely potent Magus Arcana as an opportunity cost.

The 19th level ability is outside the range of play for most folks.

The "I'm making huge assumptions by only looking at things by face value and not delving any further than that because if I did I would clearly see the point people are making" fallacy lives on.

Everything has a give and take.

If a person wants 7-9th spells and wants to be decent in combat they can use the Eldritch Knight.

If they want a way to blend spells into combat we have the Magus.

If there was a third option to get both it would invalidate the Magus and the Eldritch Knight.

The concepts exist, if people like them or not, is another matter.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

Everything has a give and take.

If a person wants 7-9th spells and wants to be decent in combat they can use the Eldritch Knight.

If they want a way to blend spells into combat we have the Magus.

If there was a third option to get both it would invalidate the Magus and the Eldritch Knight.

The concepts exist, if people like them or not, is another matter.

One aspect of the concept exists. It's not the same thing.


Grangerer wrote:

I crave for a nature-based magus. No animal companion shenanigans.

3/4 Bab, 6th level spontaneous casting, ways to utilize its spells while attacking.
Something like magus+ranger minus the animal companion.

You should take a look at Warpriest it covers much of what your looking for. Just pick a nature themed god and your good to go.

It's got 3/4 BAB, 6th spell progression (only spontaneous cure or inflict), and has decent ways of mixing it in melee or ranged while using spells or adding effects to attacks.

Between Fervor(Swift Action Casting of Spells that effect the Warpriest) and a number of Nature themed blessings that add to your attacks. (Plant adds entangle, others add fire damage or acid etc).

or you could play a Magus and take options/spells that are nature themed (add in Spell Blending arcana to get more options, Broad Study lets you use spells from another class list (requires multi-classing) so Magus 6/Druid X would let you use spell strike/spell combat with druid spells)


Buri Reborn wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

Everything has a give and take.

If a person wants 7-9th spells and wants to be decent in combat they can use the Eldritch Knight.

If they want a way to blend spells into combat we have the Magus.

If there was a third option to get both it would invalidate the Magus and the Eldritch Knight.

The concepts exist, if people like them or not, is another matter.

One aspect of the concept exists. It's not the same thing.

Could you explain further?

What's missing?


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

Everything has a give and take.

If a person wants 7-9th spells and wants to be decent in combat they can use the Eldritch Knight.

If they want a way to blend spells into combat we have the Magus.

If there was a third option to get both it would invalidate the Magus and the Eldritch Knight.

The concepts exist, if people like them or not, is another matter.

One aspect of the concept exists. It's not the same thing.

Could you explain further?

What's missing?

The same thing that's preventing "Commoner" from being a valid "Guy who fights with sword". Competence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

Everything has a give and take.

If a person wants 7-9th spells and wants to be decent in combat they can use the Eldritch Knight.

If they want a way to blend spells into combat we have the Magus.

If there was a third option to get both it would invalidate the Magus and the Eldritch Knight.

The concepts exist, if people like them or not, is another matter.

One aspect of the concept exists. It's not the same thing.

Could you explain further?

What's missing?

The same thing that's preventing "Commoner" from being a valid "Guy who fights with sword". Competence.

Oh okay. Thanks that's super helpful in my question to a person that isn't you.

Thanks!


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

Everything has a give and take.

If a person wants 7-9th spells and wants to be decent in combat they can use the Eldritch Knight.

If they want a way to blend spells into combat we have the Magus.

If there was a third option to get both it would invalidate the Magus and the Eldritch Knight.

The concepts exist, if people like them or not, is another matter.

One aspect of the concept exists. It's not the same thing.

Could you explain further?

What's missing?

The same thing that's preventing "Commoner" from being a valid "Guy who fights with sword". Competence.

Oh okay. Thanks that's super helpful in my question to a person that isn't you.

Thanks!

Your question was "What's Missing?" and I've stated quite plainly what is missing. A commoner can use a sword. That does not mean however that because this one aspect of "Guy who fights with sword" is sword is met the role is "filled". This is because the person who wants to play "Guy who fights with sword" wants said "Guy who fights with sword" to actually be good at fighting with swords. The commoner isn't good at this. Therefore, what is lacking is competence.

Considering this is the answer to your question regardless who answered it... your welcome.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

You should take a look at Warpriest it covers much of what your looking for. Just pick a nature themed god and your good to go.

It's got 3/4 BAB, 6th spell progression (only spontaneous cure or inflict), and has decent ways of mixing it in melee or ranged while using spells or adding effects to attacks.

Between Fervor(Swift Action Casting of Spells that effect the Warpriest) and a number of Nature themed blessings that add to your attacks. (Plant adds entangle, others add fire damage or acid etc).

or you could play a Magus and take options/spells that are nature themed (add in Spell Blending arcana to get more options, Broad Study lets you use spells from another class list (requires multi-classing) so Magus 6/Druid X would let you use spell strike/spell combat with druid spells)

I played a warpriest and i like the class, but it cannot do the thing i am looking for. Blessings are a tiny part of the warpriest and the swift action casting is purely buffbased, as it only works when casting spells on yourself.

The magus multiclass does seems like opening a can of worms.

Somebody said it. A Hunter archetype with the essential magus class features in exchange for the animal companion and the teamworkstuff is quite a nice idea

Scarab Sages

Grangerer wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:

You should take a look at Warpriest it covers much of what your looking for. Just pick a nature themed god and your good to go.

It's got 3/4 BAB, 6th spell progression (only spontaneous cure or inflict), and has decent ways of mixing it in melee or ranged while using spells or adding effects to attacks.

Between Fervor(Swift Action Casting of Spells that effect the Warpriest) and a number of Nature themed blessings that add to your attacks. (Plant adds entangle, others add fire damage or acid etc).

or you could play a Magus and take options/spells that are nature themed (add in Spell Blending arcana to get more options, Broad Study lets you use spells from another class list (requires multi-classing) so Magus 6/Druid X would let you use spell strike/spell combat with druid spells)

I played a warpriest and i like the class, but it cannot do the thing i am looking for. Blessings are a tiny part of the warpriest and the swift action casting is purely buffbased, as it only works when casting spells on yourself.

The magus multiclass does seems like opening a can of worms.

Somebody said it. A Hunter archetype with the essential magus class features in exchange for the animal companion and the teamworkstuff is quite a nice idea

A Feral hunter worshiping Torag with the Blessed Hammer Feat is a good compromise. Edit: or a nature fang druid using the same feat.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

Could you explain further?

What's missing?

Anzyr is right. Magus is built entirely on the one-handed wonder. It is not a good general martial and general caster mix. It's a blaster/longsword(/other one-handed blade) character. See the difference? Give me the versatility of a wizard and the fighter. Look at the class I made and compare it to the magus. As is, I don't even care about spell combat. I want to focus on spell strike and utility. That neuters a magus from being competent in even what it does do. That's not even trying to make it do other things.

201 to 250 of 409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Classes that are still needed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.