How about the Eldritch Scrapper Sorcerer? How about we give a character with the worst BAB and the worst HP a bunch of combat feats instead of bloodline powers? That will work real well.While I agree that it is a terrible, terrible archetype, one of my friends has pointed out it can be a decent option for a sorcerer who is constantly polymorphing into something dangerous rather than blasting or whatever.
At that point, though, I'm not really sure why you aren't playing a druid, who was designed to polymorph into stuff to fight and still has better BAB and HP.
Because druids dont get shapechange or polymorph... druids can turn into ANIMALS. Arcane can turn into dragons and weird things...
Of cpurse the Dark Tapestry Oracle does it better :p
Only one thing wrong with the Archaeologist:
The Bard is required to have verbal components to his spells. Even if the spell doesn't normally have a verbal component. And the Archaeologist archetype, the archetype that gets rid of all the Bard's performance abilities, the archetype whose whole point is to let players play a skillsy, castery type with a modicum of combat ability WITHOUT having to do any singing or musicing...
...still requires you to sing your spells. Ugh!
Does it have to be actively sing-y? As far as I can see, there aren't really set requirements for that part, only that you need to speak in a loud, clear voice (unless I am missing something big- still not seeing anything in the magic section).
You could just something mathematical or computational.
Why do they need to have this when wizards and sorcerers don't? You are a dabbler- you dabble in melee, you dabble in spells, you dabble in various skills. This is the 'jack of all trades, master of none' thing you have going on- you are not a specialist. You need mnemonic devices in order to use spells since it is your crutch.
...still requires you to sing your spells. Ugh!"Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music)."
I'm sure a creative player or DM can re-flavor those spells that specifically call out music or instruments. But really... I think expecting the archetype to re-write the entire spell list is reaching a little. Does the archetype really need to state "only recitation" somewhere for players to figure that out?
What do you mean "rewrite the entire spell list"? I'm just saying that they should have put in a line to the effect of "The Archaeologist is exempt from the Bard's usual requirements for supplying a verbal component to his spells. If the spell normally requires a verbal component anyway, the Archaeologist must still provide it, but he is no longer specially required to supply one by virtue of being a Bard. Also, an Archaeologist is allowed to take Silent Spell and apply the benefits of that spell to his Bard spells."
And sure, I'm aware that recitation is a possibility. If I were playing an Archaeologist, I'd probably refluff him as a Truenamer, and describe his verbal components (and the requirement that ALL of his spells have one) that way. That's not the point.
The point is: the Bard has class features and special requirements for his spells due to the insisted fluff of "Bards = Music". The Archaeologist excises all the class features revolving around "Bards = Music" because it exists to let players have a Bard option that gets to ignore "Bards = Music". The fact that the Archaeologist did not also excise the special requirements for his spells is merely because they forgot to take it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...still requires you to sing your spells. Ugh!"Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music)."
I'm sure a creative player or DM can re-flavor those spells that specifically call out music or instruments. But really... I think expecting the archetype to re-write the entire spell list is reaching a little. Does the archetype really need to state "only recitation" somewhere for players to figure that out?
What do you mean "rewrite the entire spell list"? I'm just saying that they should have put in a line to the effect of "The Archaeologist is exempt from the Bard's usual requirements for supplying a verbal component to his spells. If the spell normally requires a verbal component anyway, the Archaeologist must still provide it, but he is no longer specially required to supply one by virtue of being a Bard. Also, an Archaeologist is allowed to take Silent Spell and apply the benefits of that spell to his Bard spells."
And sure, I'm aware that recitation is a possibility. If I were playing an Archaeologist, I'd probably refluff him as a Truenamer, and describe his verbal components (and the requirement that ALL of his spells have one) that way. That's not the point.
The point is: the Bard has class features and special requirements for his spells due to the insisted fluff of "Bards = Music". The Archaeologist excises all the class features revolving around "Bards = Music" because it exists to let players have a Bard option that gets to ignore "Bards = Music". The fact that the Archaeologist did not also excise the special requirements for his spells is merely because they forgot to take it out.
I find that actually down plays the role of music and singing in human culture, actually. It is more than just cheesy entertainment.
Did you know that, due to the requirements of verbal history before writing systems were wide spread, many people had to spend a large part of their lives memorizing history?
The vedas are written in chant form because it is easier to remember with the use of meter, rhymes, etc. I mean...there are over 10, 000 lines in that- comparable to memorizing war and peace, and trying to memorize it perfectly word for word. You have to cheat it out if you aren't superhuman. And this practice carries over to all the epics around the world- they are all just too long to deal with without compressing them and processing them into an easier to store form.
So, is it completely beyond reason that you can't deal with powers that BEND THE WORLD TO YOUR WHIM without using mnemonic devices? Particularly when you aren't a specialist in that stuff?
|
Arcane fullcasting versatility. Though I agree that you should probably be a druid instead.How about the Eldritch Scrapper Sorcerer? How about we give a character with the worst BAB and the worst HP a bunch of combat feats instead of bloodline powers? That will work real well.While I agree that it is a terrible, terrible archetype, one of my friends has pointed out it can be a decent option for a sorcerer who is constantly polymorphing into something dangerous rather than blasting or whatever.
At that point, though, I'm not really sure why you aren't playing a druid, who was designed to polymorph into stuff to fight and still has better BAB and HP.
Dragon disciple?
...still requires you to sing your spells. Ugh!"Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music)."
I'm sure a creative player or DM can re-flavor those spells that specifically call out music or instruments. But really... I think expecting the archetype to re-write the entire spell list is reaching a little. Does the archetype really need to state "only recitation" somewhere for players to figure that out?
What do you mean "rewrite the entire spell list"? I'm just saying that they should have put in a line to the effect of "The Archaeologist is exempt from the Bard's usual requirements for supplying a verbal component to his spells. If the spell normally requires a verbal component anyway, the Archaeologist must still provide it, but he is no longer specially required to supply one by virtue of being a Bard. Also, an Archaeologist is allowed to take Silent Spell and apply the benefits of that spell to his Bard spells."
And sure, I'm aware that recitation is a possibility. If I were playing an Archaeologist, I'd probably refluff him as a Truenamer, and describe his verbal components (and the requirement that ALL of his spells have one) that way. That's not the point.
The point is: the Bard has class features and special requirements for his spells due to the insisted fluff of "Bards = Music". The Archaeologist excises all the class features revolving around "Bards = Music" because it exists to let players have a Bard option that gets to ignore "Bards = Music". The fact that the Archaeologist did not also excise the special requirements for his spells is merely because they forgot to take it out.
Ok, I'm baffled... are you suggesting there are Bard spells that only have Verbal components because the character is a Bard? Silent Spell exists for a reason... almost all spells have Verbal components, regardless of class... those that don't are the exception, not the rule. Just being an Archaeologist does not exempt him from being subject to the normal (non-Bard) rules of the game. You can fluff recitation to literally be *anything* vocalized... well anything except singing or instruments. An Archaeologist could be reciting the exact same verbal components as a Wizard at this point... it's not a "special requirement" except for spells that don't have a Verbal component. You could utter a differently inflected "Hodar" for every spell, it doesn't matter.
I'm completely at a loss as to what your complaint is now. I don't think a free Silent Spell applied to everything being cast is a reasonable request for an already kind of overpowered archetype. If you're hung up on the "Bards=Music" thing, then that sounds like you are trapped by your own interpretation of the fluff.
EDIT: Asking the DM for your Archaeologist to be able to take/use Silent Spell also seems like a reasonable request. I'm not sure I would allow it in my games, but it's not unreasonable given the description of the archetype.
Dragon disciple?Arcane fullcasting versatility. Though I agree that you should probably be a druid instead.How about the Eldritch Scrapper Sorcerer? How about we give a character with the worst BAB and the worst HP a bunch of combat feats instead of bloodline powers? That will work real well.While I agree that it is a terrible, terrible archetype, one of my friends has pointed out it can be a decent option for a sorcerer who is constantly polymorphing into something dangerous rather than blasting or whatever.
At that point, though, I'm not really sure why you aren't playing a druid, who was designed to polymorph into stuff to fight and still has better BAB and HP.
Damn i didnt think of that! Lol
If only Eldritch Scrapper stacked with Crossblooded. Maybe it does? Technically the CB does not say it modifies the abilitiea or anything. So maybe?
If you could stack them, Go Ghoul/Dragon. Level 3 grab the Ghoul claw ability. Get Eldritch heritage (abyssal). Go Dragon Disciple for even more martial ability.
Granted that does hurt your martial flexibility progression though...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I agree on the feat and trait, but then does that make the archetype overpowered, or the bolt-ons?
There was an old 3.5 saying. "Feats Should Be Nice, Not Necessary." (FSHBNNN). The 'problem' with the archaeologist is that Lingering Performance is a feat that pretty much becomes a 'must have' The benefits are 'too good' to not have. I know my archerologist is better than my meleeologist, but part of that is from his trick quiver.
There was an old 3.5 saying. "Feats Should Be Nice, Not Necessary." (FSHBNNN). The 'problem' with the archaeologist is that Lingering Performance is a feat that pretty much becomes a 'must have' The benefits are 'too good' to not have. I know my archerologist is better than my meleeologist, but part of that is from his trick quiver.
I agree on the feat and trait, but then does that make the archetype overpowered, or the bolt-ons?
So in other words, the archetype should grant 2 performance rounds per level like the Bard instead of requiring a feat? Just curious really to see where the others perceive power to reside. :)
I think 1 extra round per level (I think what the author actually suggests) would be balanced.
Every other pool measured in rounds grows with each level (rage, sacred weapon, etc.).
While this one doesn't.
Okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Amusingly, I picture my bards whistling the Indiana Jones theme when casting or using luck.
Ok, I'm baffled... are you suggesting there are Bard spells that only have Verbal components because the character is a Bard? Silent Spell exists for a reason... almost all spells have Verbal components, regardless of class... those that don't are the exception, not the rule....
That's not what Tectorman said at all.
Read it again, with my bolding:
"The Archaeologist is exempt from the Bard's usual requirements for supplying a verbal component to his spells. If the spell normally requires a verbal component anyway, the Archaeologist must still provide it, but he is no longer specially required to supply one by virtue of being a Bard. Also, an Archaeologist is allowed to take Silent Spell and apply the benefits of that spell to his Bard spells."
All he was suggesting is that the Archaeologist should not have the same line that normal Bards do that you must add a Verbal component if one doesn't exist, and that you can never use Silent Spell on a Bard spell.
Now, the real reason for taking Monk Vows is so that you can enable this.
Ok, I'm baffled... are you suggesting there are Bard spells that only have Verbal components because the character is a Bard? Silent Spell exists for a reason... almost all spells have Verbal components, regardless of class... those that don't are the exception, not the rule.
Core Rulebook, page 35:
"Spells:...Every bard spell has a verbal component (song, recitation, or music)."
That's every Bard, every archetype of Bard, for every single Bard spell. Unless otherwise noted, which unfortunately, the Archaeologist does not.
Core Rulebook, page 133:
"Silent Spell (Metamagic)
...
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat."
I'm completely at a loss as to what your complaint is now. I don't think a free Silent Spell applied to everything being cast is a reasonable request for an already kind of overpowered archetype. If you're hung up on the "Bards=Music" thing, then that sounds like you are trapped by your own interpretation of the fluff.
No, I'm not asking for the Archaeologist to be able to ignore all verbal components all the time. I just want them to be able to ignore the "Bards = Music" part of their spellcasting just like they're able to ignore it for their class features. Which is not the same as not having verbal components at all.
I want them to be subject to the requirements of Wizards, Sorcerers, Bloodragers, and any other casters you care to name. I just don't want their spellcasting to be additionally restricted based on the part of the fluff of the primary class ("Bards = Music") that the Archaeologist was created to ignore in the first place.
It'd be like creating a Rogue archetype fluffed as a master of daggers and then not putting in any features related to using daggers. Well, that's an exaggeration. In fairness, the Archaeologist isn't that bad off. It's 90% of what it's billed as (which is why I find it infuriating: they tripped at the finish line).
Did you know that, due to the requirements of verbal history before writing systems were wide spread, many people had to spend a large part of their lives memorizing history?
Interesting, but I have to wonder if that even applies to the default assumptions of the sorts of worlds that Pathfinder is used for?
Heck, even the Barbarian is literate (and he used to not be).
The vedas are written in chant form because it is easier to remember with the use of meter, rhymes, etc. I mean...there are over 10, 000 lines in that- comparable to memorizing war and peace, and trying to memorize it perfectly word for word. You have to cheat it out if you aren't superhuman. And this practice carries over to all the epics around the world- they are all just too long to deal with without compressing them and processing them into an easier to store form.
So you want the Bard to represent a character class that applies that tradition in the gaming world? Then I have good news. There are [the entire sum of all Bard archetypes -1] different ways you can do that.
I'm just asking for one that gives me good skills, a modicum of fighting ability, and moderate spellcasting ability without unwanted baggage. Just the one, I promise. And again, it's already 90% there. I just wish they hadn't missed that last remaining bit.
So, is it completely beyond reason that you can't deal with powers that BEND THE WORLD TO YOUR WHIM without using mnemonic devices? Particularly when you aren't a specialist in that stuff?
"Hi, my name is the Magus and I'm in exactly the same boat as the Archaeologist Bard."
"And I'm his good friend, Bloodrager."
"And we're not specialists in our spellcasting, either. Furthermore, most of our spells have verbal components as well (simply because of the nature of the spells in question). But the few that don't normally? Oh, we don't have to say anything to use them."
"Despite not being specialists?"
"That's right, Bloodrager. I can even apply some Silencing metamagic to my spells. Heck, so could you."
"Yeah, sure... (grumbling) like I've got the higher level spell slots to waste on gimmicks like that."
"Hi, my name is the Magus and I'm in exactly the same boat as the Archaeologist Bard."
"And I'm his good friend, Bloodrager."
"And we're not specialists in our spellcasting, either. Furthermore, most of our spells have verbal components as well (simply because of the nature of the spells in question). But the few that don't normally? Oh, we don't have to say anything to use them."
"Despite not being specialists?"
"That's right, Bloodrager. I can even apply some Silencing metamagic to my spells. Heck, so could you."
"Yeah, sure... (grumbling) like I've got the higher level spell slots to waste on gimmicks like that."
Lets make a list
Magus-
-learned caster
-melee
-mixes magic with that melee so it blends as much as possible
blood rager-
-born with magic in his blood, lots of effects
-melee, and being angry
-relatively late and small magic
bard
-learned caster
-skills, with many support abilities for that
-A wide number of buffing mechanics (or the luck, in the case of archaeologist)
-melee
-magic (which also appears to include healing- rather odd for arcane casters)
I personally can't compare blood rager to bard since they have different sources- the blood rager has magic in his very being.
And going beyond that, the bard has more disparate elements. The magus intentionally tries to learn how blend his arts. The blood rager has melee, rage, and weird blood things (which seem more to just happen, rather than being trained). The bard just stretches himself more thin.
There is also question of how later publications affect the validity of the original design. Within core, bard was the only non-full arcane caster, so that is what is coloring my perception here. But it is hard not to be affected by later publications too, I suppose.
But of course, this is the internet. No one ever convinces anyone the other side is wrong when we all get like this. So, I am off since I don't trust how well I can manage myself. It stops this topic from dominating the thread as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I made my archaeologist bard gain a ki pool and use tea's of transference personally, I also refluffed the singing-casting to be speaking in ancient tongues to summon the magic ala 3.5's wordcasting(without it being weird)
I like that. Ki pool is a clever idea. Thinking about making another archaeologist soon, half elf with the whip trees and finesse rogue.
I'm completely at a loss as to what your complaint is now. I don't think a free Silent Spell applied to everything being cast is a reasonable request for an already kind of overpowered archetype. If you're hung up on the "Bards=Music" thing, then that sounds like you are trapped by your own interpretation of the fluff.No, I'm not asking for the Archaeologist to be able to ignore all verbal components all the time. I just want them to be able to ignore the "Bards = Music" part of their spellcasting just like they're able to ignore it for their class features. Which is not the same as not having verbal components at all.
Still not getting it.
Recitation is not music. Recitation could be literally any non-musical thing you want, including the *exact same things that Wizards utter* for their versions of every spell on the Bard list. Acting does not involve music per the game rules. Neither does Oratory. Dance. Comedy... that's nearly half the perform skills that generally have nothing at all to do with music.
Non-musical bards I've DM'd for: a Mime (comedy, and yes, he still had to provide Verbal components), a Professor (oratory... Archaeologist actually), and a Paladin wannabe (acting). None of these players had trouble re-flavoring the Bard to something non-musical. Some made little effort and one made a lot, complete with his own names for spells.
I get the desire to be able to apply Silent Spell, even though this Archetype was brought up as potentially too good already. But seriously, if you think that one line is somehow restricting bards to be "musical", I think you're still locked in a box of your own making.
Now I'm off to see if there truly are any Bard spells that don't have a Verbal component for any other class that has access to them. If not, that line of fluff is completely and utterly pointless.
^I can think of one such spell right off the bat, inherited originally from the AD&D 1.0 Illusionist: Hypnotic Pattern. Spells like this are rare. but they do exist.
^I can think of one such spell right off the bat, inherited originally from the AD&D 1.0 Illusionist: Hypnotic Pattern. Spells like this are rare. but they do exist.
Yep, and I found a few in the first few levels I checked. I even oddly found a spell (Borrow Skill) that is Bard only and still doesn't list a Verbal component. Not sure if that means it is exempted from the usual Bard rule. It would be interesting to see the take of the developer who wrote the Archaeologist on Verbal components. But the archetype is pretty strong as-is, and I'm not sure there's a good reason to remove the restriction when it can obviously already be "non-musical".
Apologies for side tracking the original thread. :(
Had anyone mentioned Ragechymist???
Raging yourself unconscious seems kinda dumb lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly surprised that noone has mentioned Totem Warrior yet. You know, the Barbarian archetype that quite literally does nothing.
But isn't nothing at all better than a wide swarth of the archetypes?
Doing nothing means you lose nothing. Lets just compare that to the feral child druid, which gives up wildshape for....???? (I'll tell you- trap sense and some minor bonuses to trap based perception and CMD...in EXCEEDINGLY specific conditions). IE- it cripples your combat abilities, removes your good weapon proficiencies (which you would actively use without wildshape), removes your literacy (how long has it been since an edition had truly illiterate classes?) and unique lanuage options (which always had that kinda cool option for commanding your animal companion), and gives little use in return.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna add the Picaroon to this list. The idea is interesting, the theme is strong, and dang it who wouldn't think going into melee with a sword and pistol is super cool? Only a few issues.
You never get Gun Training, so your damage will be lacking on ranged attacks. You need both Melee and Ranged feats to function at full capacity (at least Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Deadly Aim plus Improved and Greater TWF, Power Attack/Piranha Strike, Weapon Focus, and your Dex to Damage feat of choice). You cannot use Precise Strike if you're using both hands to attack and you cannot reload without an empty hand (niche weapons such as the Dagger Pistol and Sword Cane Pistol fix these, but they're very expensive and don't deal much damage). The archetype helps on the feat end by granting you free TWF and Weapon Finesse but does nothing to solve the Precise Strike or Reload issues (Lightning Reload comes in so late it barely matters). To top it all off, you don't get a free gun to start with, so unless you dipped Gunslinger or took the Rich Parents feat you can't even use your class abilities until you scrounge up the gold to purchase one.
Well, if you do go sword and pistol (feat), you could always use a cestus for your melee weapon.
It is a piercing or bludgeoning weapon that has dagger like stats (so fair enough- not the best weapon, but well enough to be 'acceptable' at least) and it allows you to continue using your hand since it a gauntlet type weapon.
Off-topic, so hiding it.
Still not getting it.
Recitation is not music. Recitation could be literally any non-musical thing you want, including the *exact same things that Wizards utter* for their versions of every spell on the Bard list. Acting does not involve music per the game rules. Neither does Oratory. Dance. Comedy... that's nearly half the perform skills that generally have nothing at all to do with music.
Non-musical bards I've DM'd for: a Mime (comedy, and yes, he still had to provide Verbal components), a Professor (oratory... Archaeologist actually), and a Paladin wannabe (acting). None of these players had trouble re-flavoring the Bard to something non-musical. Some made little effort and one made a lot, complete with his own names for spells.
I get the desire to be able to apply Silent Spell, even though this Archetype was brought up as potentially too good already. But seriously, if you think that one line is somehow restricting bards to be "musical", I think you're still locked in a box of your own making.
Now I'm off to see if there truly are any Bard spells that don't have a Verbal component for any other class that has access to them. If not, that line of fluff is completely and utterly pointless.
It's the principle of the thing. That's it. That's all there is to it, and it's enough to get on my nerves.
Ever see National Lampoon's Vacation (the original)? Do you have any inkling at all why Clark Griswald was pissed off when he finally got to Wally World, only to find it closed? Then you get why this irks me.
Yes, I most certainly can refluff the "recitation" as something entirely devoid of music. You seem to be under the impression that I'm suffering from a lack of imagination on that front. Allow me to correct that for you. I already mentioned reskinning it as Truenaming. Having the recitation simply be identical to what a Wizard would be saying? I'm already aware of that, as well.
But it gets tiring and discouraging having to do that all the time. It's like the game is actively telling me the "skillsy, kinda fighty, somewhat spellsy" character I want to express with the game is the BadWrongFun kind of character. That the extra work I'm putting in to get out from under the umbrella of "Bards = Music" is some kind of penance for being a nail sticking out. Especially when the archetype exists to be that kind of character in the first place and 90% accomplishes it anyway. It's like getting a rug pulled out from under me.
B6 the way, the above discussion exposes an archetype that we DON'T havec: a Mime Bard.
B6 the way, the above discussion exposes an archetype that we DON'T havec: a Mime Bard.
^The link in the spoiler doesn't work.
None of the Bards I have played have ever been much into music.
^The link in the spoiler doesn't work.
^Not a full set of Mime Bardistry, but a nice find as far as it goes. I can see this leading to some really comical mishaps if not used right, though -- starting with building a bridge or cover over a chasm: Dumb enemy fails save and cruises right over; your allies pursue, but have already auto-saved, and therefore plummet.
Quoted from the text
You and your allies may automatically fail your saves if you want to treat the wall as real (for example, if you want to use the wall as a bridge to cross a chasm)
They take such a hit to spell casting by using the bard stuff, I don't know why the other restrictions are there as well. I'll probably just come up with my own archetype then, until this one is fixed, if ever.
How about the Primagus or the Cabalist?
Because where Paizo sucks not 1's at something, 3rd party at least gets a critical threat. ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh... At this point, Dreamscarred Press (and few other 3pp, actually) is a better Paizo than Paizo.
Heh... At this point, Dreamscarred Press (and few other 3pp, actually) is a better Paizo than Paizo.
Really. They make more cohesive archetypes for Paizo classes that Paizo themself or make proper use of talent systems to deliver fresh content to old classes.
|
Heh... At this point, Dreamscarred Press (and few other 3pp, actually) is a better Paizo than Paizo.
Seconded. Which is both good and bad imo. Good because I have access to better quality material than what I can get at Paizo. Bad because it shows the shortcomings of the Paizo devs at designing new material imo. When 3pp does it better than the parent company it's really not a good thing. I find myself barely looking through most of my Paizo collection. Instead finding more inspiration in 3pp and even 3.5. While Inner Sea Gods has better production values. Green Ronin Book of The Righteousness simply has more flavor and better options imo.
Off-topic, but I really wish that someday Dreamscarred Press releases their own gaming system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they will. Or at the very least it looking much like 3.5 or PF. It makes no sense to make another 3.5 clone at this point imo.
They are also in a boat similar to Paizo and the discussion of a 2nd Edition. Why make their own game system, with all of its problems, when you're unique contributions (Path of War/Psionics/the upcoming stuff from Akashic mysteries) already work and are bought by their fans?
There are of course other practical reasons for not doing it.
- Not having the creative staff on hand to put out adventure path supplemental material like Paizo is able to
- It would be splitting an already fractured market, as they would basically be targeting a subset of the Pathfinder community.
- Expanding to that degree would be VERY expensive and VERY risky.
Quoted from the text
You and your allies may automatically fail your saves if you want to treat the wall as real (for example, if you want to use the wall as a bridge to cross a chasm)
Oops, I read it wrong -- so much for the Wile E. Coyote scenes . . . .
I don't think they will. Or at the very least it looking much like 3.5 or PF. It makes no sense to make another 3.5 clone at this point imo.
That's not necessarily a show-stopper -- at least a few years ago, more 1st Edition clones and semi-clones existed than I can remember.
I agree I like Green Ronin and Dreamscarred Press much more sometimes.
I want to point out Reincarnated Druid and Beast Bond Witch are just evil if used correctly. A witch at level 10 can never die if there is a foe or ally near by. Druids just reincarnating unless killed by a Death effect, and if you pick Samsaran not only do you get awesome stolen spells but also +2 Racial bonus on top of your class +4 against death effects oh and a good Fort save.
Quoted from the text
You and your allies may automatically fail your saves if you want to treat the wall as real (for example, if you want to use the wall as a bridge to cross a chasm)
Oops, I read it wrong -- so much for the Wile E. Coyote scenes . . . .
I don't think they will. Or at the very least it looking much like 3.5 or PF. It makes no sense to make another 3.5 clone at this point imo.That's not necessarily a show-stopper -- at least a few years ago, more 1st Edition clones and semi-clones existed than I can remember.
You can have that though- Just have a barbarian.
We all know what I am talking about- the cookie cutter supersticious yaddayaddayadda one. With that, he cannot choose to fail the save, and as such his huge saves will force him to fall.
Which can be great if the barbarian's player forgets that and charges to fight some flying enemies next to the imaginary bridge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree I like Green Ronin and Dreamscarred Press much more sometimes.
I want to point out Reincarnated Druid and Beast Bond Witch are just evil if used correctly. A witch at level 10 can never die if there is a foe or ally near by. Druids just reincarnating unless killed by a Death effect, and if you pick Samsaran not only do you get awesome stolen spells but also +2 Racial bonus on top of your class +4 against death effects oh and a good Fort save.
Add the Shades of the Uskwood feat and at certain levels you get undead creating spells. As a Reincarnating Druid this is awesome because you just go and reanimate your own corpse.
Add three levels of Green Faith Acolyte and you'll never worry about negative levels again.
Note: the above works best as a recurring villain, not a PC.
^Also, even if you manage to hoodwink the Green Faith into accepting a Zon-Kuthon worshipper, negative levels will still mess you up and can still kill you if you accumulate too many before you have a chance to hibernate, and even if you survive to hibernate, 3 weeks to get rid of the negative levels is still a substantial cost.
I would just guy a Jealous Runeforged Weapon which eats three negative levels when drawn.
18,000 GP vs 3 levels and 3 weeks.
|
|
That's not necessarily a show-stopper -- at least a few years ago, more 1st Edition clones and semi-clones existed than I can remember.
True. Yet I just can't see the fans of 3.5. or PF rushing out to buy another 3.5./PF unless it address all or at least some of the flaws of the system. My gaming group and myself see no reason to buy another edition which continues the martial.caster disaprity.