Single, Biggest Problem


Homebrew and House Rules

Grand Lodge

So I started a little project recently making what I call "patch" archetypes for each class. The idea here is that there's at least some minor (and often major) complaint about each class, and these archetypes would attempt to address that core issue by replacing it with different abilities.

Just to give you a taste of what I'm trying to do, here's one of the first ones I did:

Summoner - "Rifter"
Problem: Eidolon is too powerful and exploitable, also things can really bog down with too many summons.
Solution: Not only remove all the extra moving parts, but give the rifter the ability to do the same to his enemies, drastically cutting down on battlefield clutter. Change the summoner from a summon-spammer and eidolon tamer to a battlefield crowd controller.

  • Instead of getting summon monster spell like abilities, the rifter can disrupt the summons of others. He can banish summoned creatures, cause familiars to vanish for a time, unsummon spirits, send eidolons to their home planes, etc. (Note, the rifter still has summon monster on his spell list and can cast it normally, he just loses the spell-like ability.
  • Instead of an eidolon, the rifter has a rift, a small portal to another plane, he can move around the map. When it touches another creature and it fails a saving throw, it gets sucked into the rift for a few rounds, effectively removing it from the battle.

I'm not really looking for critique on this archetype just yet, though. What I'd love to hear from the Pathfinder community is what they think the single, biggest problem is with the other classes. If you'd like to chime in, please try to keep it brief (there are a lot of classes!). For example, a valid complaint would be that fighters really don't have anything to do outside of combat, which is an issue I'm already attempting to address in that class' patch archetype.

So, what's the single, biggest issue with the other classes, in your opinions?


The lack of class features for the cleric. Thats the one that comes to mind for me. I also think rangers should get hunter's bond at first level but thats just me.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I'm not sure if archetypes are the best way to fix perceived problems with a class. Archetypes should take a class in a different direction, not fix inherent design flaws.

That being said:
Alchemist: Needs a boost to stay competitive at higher levels.
Bards: Versatile perfomance--all it does is allowing players to optimize skill point allocation in a very counter-intuitive way.
Cleric: There should be more ways to customize this class (additional domain powers or uses for channel energy). Also, the domain slot is a nuisance. (Why can I prepare these spells only in my domain slot?)
Magus: Spellstrike--should not reward crit-fishing builds.
Paladin: Smite Evil--I'd rather have an ability that is less powerful and can be used more consistently.
Ranger: Spells--Too many spells that increase damage output (instant enemy, named bullet, etc.). Should have more utility spells instead.
Sorcerer: Bloodline feats--feats without any class synergy. Also, the delayed spell progression makes this class vastly inferior to the wizard.
Wizard: Arcane school powers--many of these don't scale well, making them useless after the first levels.

In general, I think the capstone abilities should come into play earlier (say around level 15-17). Most of them aren't that great anyway.


The cleric has class features, but they basically all come online at 1st level, you never get to choose something new, and they stop being interesting by the time you stop being low level.


Amanuensis,
Just some quick brainstorming in response to your post:

Alchemist: Needs a boost to stay competitive at higher levels.
-Could this be fixed with a revised spell list? I understand what the intent of the original spell list is, but I don't like it.

Bards: Versatile perfomance--all it does is allowing players to optimize skill point allocation in a very counter-intuitive way.
-What if the performance helped the skills of allies, kind inspire competence?

Cleric: There should be more ways to customize this class (additional domain powers or uses for channel energy). Also, the domain slot is a nuisance. (Why can I prepare these spells only in my domain slot?)
-I have been giving thought to this as well. I recommend being able to change domains to any in the deity's portfolio (similar to the suggestion I made to your ommnist), and making a class feature centered around the holy symbol that is akin to arcane bond and lets the cleric cast spells from within the current domains x/day. He chooses the spells as needed, not at the start of the day.

Paladin: Smite Evil--I'd rather have an ability that is less powerful and can be used more consistently.
-I agree, and think that utilizing detect evil could be a way to achive it. Lower damage, maybe dice instead of static bonus.

Ranger: Spells--Too many spells that increase damage output (instant enemy, named bullet, etc.). Should have more utility spells instead.
-I would suggest a revised spell list, but the ranger does need a bunch of damage spells to make them instant choices - just a few good ones. Players willl still choose those spells as long as they are options. This would require rewriting some spells too.

Sorcerer: Bloodline feats--feats without any class synergy. Also, the delayed spell progression makes this class vastly inferior to the wizard.
-I don't mind the spell level delay. As for the feats, maybe its time to revise the bloodlines. Time makes the weaknesses evident.

Grand Lodge

Amanuensis wrote:

Alchemist: Needs a boost to stay competitive at higher levels.

Bards: Versatile perfomance--all it does is allowing players to optimize skill point allocation in a very counter-intuitive way.
Cleric: There should be more ways to customize this class (additional domain powers or uses for channel energy). Also, the domain slot is a nuisance. (Why can I prepare these spells only in my domain slot?)
Magus: Spellstrike--should not reward crit-fishing builds.
Paladin: Smite Evil--I'd rather have an ability that is less powerful and can be used more consistently.
Ranger: Spells--Too many spells that increase damage output (instant enemy, named bullet, etc.). Should have more utility spells instead.
Sorcerer: Bloodline feats--feats without any class synergy. Also, the delayed spell progression makes this class vastly inferior to the wizard.
Wizard: Arcane school powers--many of these don't scale well, making them useless after the first levels.

These are all great, thanks! Actually, your critique of the paladin's smite evil was exactly my determination as well. So, my version of the paladin gives up smite evil as a per-day power and replaces it with the ability to always bypass the DR on undead and evil outsiders. Simple.

I also address the constant complaint that the strict code of conduct frustrates some players and annoys the other players in their groups. They still have to be Lawful Good, but their code of conduct has been more personalized, with the penalties instead applied to their companions, sort of. Basically, the paladin always has to suggest and encourage LG behavior, but if he's overruled/outvoted by his companions, the only downside is that they cannot benefit from his spells or healing for 24 hours. So yeah, the paladin has to argue on behalf of letting captured enemies live, but if the party's slayer decides to kill them anyway, he better not come begging to the paladin for lay on hands later that day.


dotting..

BHH

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Amanuensis,

Just some quick brainstorming in response to your post:

Alchemist: Needs a boost to stay competitive at higher levels.
-Could this be fixed with a revised spell list? I understand what the intent of the original spell list is, but I don't like it.

Bards: Versatile perfomance--all it does is allowing players to optimize skill point allocation in a very counter-intuitive way.
-What if the performance helped the skills of allies, kind inspire competence?

Cleric: There should be more ways to customize this class (additional domain powers or uses for channel energy). Also, the domain slot is a nuisance. (Why can I prepare these spells only in my domain slot?)
-I have been giving thought to this as well. I recommend being able to change domains to any in the deity's portfolio (similar to the suggestion I made to your ommnist), and making a class feature centered around the holy symbol that is akin to arcane bond and lets the cleric cast spells from within the current domains x/day. He chooses the spells as needed, not at the start of the day.

Paladin: Smite Evil--I'd rather have an ability that is less powerful and can be used more consistently.
-I agree, and think that utilizing detect evil could be a way to achive it. Lower damage, maybe dice instead of static bonus.

Ranger: Spells--Too many spells that increase damage output (instant enemy, named bullet, etc.). Should have more utility spells instead.
-I would suggest a revised spell list, but the ranger does need a bunch of damage spells to make them instant choices - just a few good ones. Players willl still choose those spells as long as they are options. This would require rewriting some spells too.

Sorcerer: Bloodline feats--feats without any class synergy. Also, the delayed spell progression makes this class vastly inferior to the wizard.
-I don't mind the spell level delay. As for the feats, maybe its time to revise the bloodlines. Time makes the weaknesses evident.

Alchemists: I had a player with an alchemist character who often felt useless at higher levels. He didn't play the character to the best of his ability, but mostly because he wasn't satisfied with the options the game offers. He didn't want to use those nifty polymorph spells, both for flavor reasons and because he didn't want to keep track of all the stat changes.

Ranger (and paladin): Both have many spells on their lists which rely on caster level and save DC, which aren't very likely to work. It probably wouldn't hurt to give them a full caster level, which would make dispel magic, neutralize poison, etc. viable options.

Sorcerer: This is the only core class I have never played, for one reason: whenever I tried to make one, I felt that a wizard would do it better, and made a wizard instead. I don't get why you only learn one new spell when you gain access to a new spell level (kind of makes the whole spontaneous casting irrelevant) and why you have to wait yet another level for that bloodline spell (which is supposed to be 'your thing'). I always thought of the sorcerer as the beginner option for new players (similar to the fighter).


At higher level, a magus gets to add wizard spells to his spell book. It would be cool if the alchemist could do the same.

Ranger and paladin spell DCs could gain a nice boost when used against a favored enemy, or against the target of a smite evil.

I agree about the sorcerer's bloodline spell. An oracle gains his bonus spells at even levels and even then only choosing one spell is tough. My oracle rarely has use for his bonus spells, and its a bit of a joke at the table when I finally get to do so.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Patch archetypes? I thought I came up with that!


What if a Sorcerer learned a new spell at every level? That fits with the idea of an innate caster I think, versus the Wizard who has to find a scroll or book with the spell in it.

On the other hand, the idea to revise the Bloodlines has been om these boards once or twice I think, usually to mimic an Oracle's Mystery. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it makes the two classes almost mirror images to each other that way, with the main difference being a different spell list and branch of magic. So if a rewrite is in order, try not to make them Mysteries.

I love the change to Smite for the Paladin, seems almost perfect for a looser or different alignment game.

Grand Lodge

UsagiTaicho wrote:

What if a Sorcerer learned a new spell at every level? That fits with the idea of an innate caster I think, versus the Wizard who has to find a scroll or book with the spell in it.

On the other hand, the idea to revise the Bloodlines has been om these boards once or twice I think, usually to mimic an Oracle's Mystery. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it makes the two classes almost mirror images to each other that way, with the main difference being a different spell list and branch of magic. So if a rewrite is in order, try not to make them Mysteries.

I love the change to Smite for the Paladin, seems almost perfect for a looser or different alignment game.

I don't think sorcerer need more spell casting ability, they are fine on that front. I personally feel bloodlines are poorly designed. Many of the abilities don't fit well with what sorcerers actually do.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
What if the performance helped the skills of allies, kind inspire competence?

I think the main point of versatile performance was to encourage bards to put their skill points into more than one Perform skill without penalizing the bard disproportionally. A replacement ability should reflect that.

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Ranger and paladin spell DCs could gain a nice boost when used against a favored enemy, or against the target of a smite evil.

That is a really good idea.

Grand Lodge

You guys have some really good ideas, but the core of this project is to fix the single biggest issue with each class, not nitpick every little detail.

Here's another example:

Antipaladin - "Penitent"
Problem: You rarely get the chance to play them because of the evil alignment requirement.
Solution: Make a Lawful Good version that keeps all the "bad guy" feeling offensive powers, but has to act like a regular paladin on his road to redemption. I designed it to be kind of like Darth Vader, but it ended up being a lot like Spawn or Batman, good guys with stealth/ambush/fear powers.

  • Instead of detect good, the penitent gets a once per day "is this an evil action?" kind of augury power.
  • Instead of smite good, he gets a "forgiveness" ability that basically lets him pull a killing blow at the last second and make a Diplomacy check to change the target's attitude.
  • If he makes it all the way to 20th level, the penitent immediately swaps all antipaladin levels for paladin levels.


I think you need to be careful here. I know you aren't looking for a critique of your original archetype, the summoner, but you made it not a summoner any more. I think any archetype needs to maintain the core abilities of a class in order to be an archetype; otherwise it's just a new class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unchained Cleric, plz

Will give $$$

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the antipaladin is that it's just a chaotic evil paladin, which is kind of boring and devalues paladins a bit. I'd prefer a class that's more like a Darth Vader-ish knight of tyranny, likely Lawful Evil. LE is the evil alignment that's the least likely to backstab the party and therefore be a better candidate for play.


Headfirst wrote:
You guys have some really good ideas, but the core of this project is to fix the single biggest issue with each class, not nitpick every little detail.

And you have a list of these biggest issue, or do you think that could require some discussion?

Grand Lodge

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
You guys have some really good ideas, but the core of this project is to fix the single biggest issue with each class, not nitpick every little detail.
And you have a list of these biggest issue, or do you think that could require some discussion?

I have a working list, yeah, but I'd love to hear more about what the community thinks is wrong with each class. So yeah, it should probably be a discussion.


Headfirst wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
You guys have some really good ideas, but the core of this project is to fix the single biggest issue with each class, not nitpick every little detail.
And you have a list of these biggest issue, or do you think that could require some discussion?
I have a working list, yeah, but I'd love to hear more about what the community thinks is wrong with each class. So yeah, it should probably be a discussion.

Honestly I just find the Cleric as rather .... boorish. Or uninspiring. Lack of class abilities, namely a genuine capstone ability, is what drives me away. Some domains grant a semi-capstone (fire immunity, etc), but I'd much rather have a Final Revelation from Oracle.

Also every even level is essentially a "dead level," since you get your new spells, feats, and channel energy at odd levels. Rather odd, since Pathfinder does a good job at avoiding that. Yeah, some domains kick in at 6th/8th, but I have a bone to pick with domains as class features.


Rewriting domains to be as flavorful as mysteries would be a good approach for the cleric.


Core fullcaster class features in general. Arcanists, Shamans, Witches, Oracles, and Psychics have fairly good fillers. As addressed above, Clerics get cool things, but only at low levels. Well, besides healer clerics, because "rebuke death" is absolutely terrible. Druid abilities besides Wildshape and Divine Bond are mostly fluff and mechanically "meh". Wizards get... 4 bonus feats? Isn't that like stealing 1/3 of the Fighter's class features?

Fighters can't do anything that doesn't involve "full", "attack", and "damage". Literally, if you ask a Fighter player to not ever say "attack" or some variant thereof, ("swing at", "hit", "chop", etc) you will have a nigh-useless character on the board. However, as countless other threads have pointed out, it'll be rather difficult to fix them with a simple patch.

Rogues can't hurt enemies consistently. Sneak Attack requires your team to design their battle plan around you. 3/4 BAB hurts. Stealth is entirely broken, and a Magus with Vanish or a Vivisectionist Alchemist is likely a better Rogue than a regular Rogue.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

In many cases, the biggest issue with a class can't be fixed easily.


I like the idea of adding new options rather than replacing everything.

My leveled mutations are based off of bloodlines. They often offer more bonus spells. A mutant sorcerer might gain a new bloodline/mutation every 5 levels(1-5=1, 6-10=2, ect.) Go to Leveled Mutations.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barbarian - Certain rage powers are far stronger than the others, resulting in The One Build.
Cleric - Lacks interesting class features. Most levels are dead ones.
Druid - Has too many class features rather than a clear progression.
Fighter - They lack agency on and off the field from mid- to late-levels.
Monk - Low attack bonus and MAD issues.
Paladin - Flavor is very restrictive to character concepts and u fairly punishes any deviation.
Rogue - Everything. Just everything.
Sorcerer - Delayed casting progression.
Wizard - Low levels are boring as hell but trivializes encounters later on.

Alchemist - A well-built Alchemist is very competent at most roles. They do require a lot of buff time to get up to speed though.
Cavalier - Mounts don't fit everywhere and without the mou t their class barely functions.
Gunslinger - Touch AC is unbalancing.
Inquisitor - Nothing really. They're a great, well-balanced class
Magus - Low attack bonus, especially evident in the late-game when Arcane Pool no longer buffs your attack rolls thanks to your magic Weapon.
Oracle - Delayed spell progression.
Summoner - SLA progression is way too strong for a 3/4 BAB class and it's easy to mess up the eidolon's stats. Slows down the game.
Witch - Less utility than other Arcane full-caster.

Arcanist - They have all the power of a sorcerer with the variability of the wizard. Their exploits are often either overpowered or extremely weak.
Bloodrager - Same as Barbarian but to a lesser degree.
Brawler - Lower AC and less uses of Martial Versatility than they really need.
Hunter - If the companion dies at lower levels it can take a long time to train a new one. Took me 6 months in a recent campaign. Especially hurtful since half the class is wasted if the companion is dead.
Investigator - Up until Level 4 they struggle to hit in combat.
Shaman - Lacks a strong class identity by trying to be too many things.
Skald - Raging Song is only useful for martial Strength-based combatants.
Slayer - Not enough Talents to choose from.
Swashbuckler - Bad Fortitude save.
Warpriest - Eh, seems fine to me.

Kineticist - Not enough Talents (especially for electricity), Burn is unwieldy.
Medium - Weak mechanics and punishes specialization, which Pathfinder generally rewards.
Mesmerist - Low attack bonus kills many concepts.
Occultist - Not enough focus powers and very limited spellcasting.
Psychic - Seems like the Phrenic Pool should be bigger.
Spiritualist - Not too familiar with the class, but the spirit companion looks kinda weak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

  • Barbarian - absurd disparities in usefulness of rage powers - rebalance
  • Bard - out-skills rogue - remove versatile performance
  • Cleric - access to entire spell list - limit based on domains (a la 2nd ed. spheres)
  • Druid - full caster + wild shape + pet - change casting to bard progression
  • Fighter - no out-of-combat utility - add Leadership/intimidation abilities
  • Monk - everything - scrap and start over
  • Paladin - "paladin falls" arguments - replace/remove that mechanic
  • Ranger - can't track teleporters, etc. - change discern location, find the path, etc. from spells to ranger class features.
  • Rogue - spells >> skills - bard casting progression, but only skill-like spells, tied to actual skills
  • Sorcerer - staggered casting - move bonus 1st level bloodline spell to 1st level, 2nd to 3rd, etc.
  • Wizard - too wide a spell selection - take away free spell acquisition and drastically increase cost for transcription from scrolls, etc. Or force specialization and completely remove all access to barred schools.
  • Magus, bloodrager, slayer, warpriest, mystic theurge, etc., etc. - need at all - fix multiclassing


  • Kirth Gersen wrote:


  • Ranger - can't track teleporters, etc. - change discern location, find the path, etc. from spells to ranger class features.

  • That's kind of a tall order. How can you expect someone to non-magically track teleportation?

    RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Game design issues are too complicated to adequately sum up, but if I had to give my 2-coppers...

    CORE CLASSES
    Barbarian: Most rage powers are really bad. The good ones are too passive, resulting in a class where all you do is buff yourself and hit things.
    Barbarian (unchained): Rage powers are improved, but the class still suffers from having too many passive abilities.
    Bard: I would have preferred performances were more interesting. This is a class where having a talent pool makes sense. However, I think the bard is just right.
    Cleric: Both too strong and too boring. The class just has too much in its kit. I would have liked to see more power budget invested into making domains interesting at the cost of turning it into a 6-level spellcaster or a 1/2 BAB class.
    Druid: Like the cleric, the druid has too much in its kit. It also has a lot of awesome class features that you could center a whole class around. We could have an entire class around shapeshifting, nature magic, or pets. Instead, we have a class with a mixture of them.
    Fighter: Not enough unique class features to make the class interesting to play.
    Monk: Should have been a full BAB class. Many of its features need a revision.
    Monk (unchained): Much better, but ki powers are a mixed bag. Some are cool. I would have liked to see the Qinggong monk list get fleshed out, especially when we have several monk-only cleric spells.
    Paladin: The class features between levels 6-10 feel really lacking.
    Ranger: Tracking is really boring and situational. I would have liked to see the ranger do interesting things with it. Otherwise, I think the class is fine.
    Rogue: 3/4 BAB class with no spells and very few class features.
    Rogue (unchained): Rogue finesse shoehorns you into a Dex build and feels like a clutch for lack of a full BAB. Most rogue talents are still really boring.
    Sorcerer: Should have the same spell progression as the wizard. I would have liked spontaneous casters to have a niche as being good with metamagic.
    Wizard: Way too versatile for the amount of power the class has.

    BASE CLASSES
    Alchemist: I think it's a good class, but it feels like most of the interesting class features are locked behind discoveries. Alchemy needs a rewrite as the fact the class is not a spellcaster creates many corner case mechanical problems. Also, I personally prefer if the class was extraordinary rather than supernatural, especially when the game defines alchemy as non-magical.
    Cavalier: Too many class features fettered to the mount. It would have been nice if the class let you get better mounts as you level up. Wizards get better familiars and druids get better animal companions. Why not the cavalier too?
    Gunslinger: We don't actually have a badarse gunman. We have a class fettered by a broken game mechanic that can be unfun for both player and GM alike.
    Inquisitor: It's fine, but the spell list feels really restrictive. The best spells are combat buffs, but you rarely get the action economy to use them.
    Magus: Crit touch spells are really cool, but it feels too strong at times and makes non-crit builds feel like you're not using the class to its fullest.
    Oracle: It's a fine class, but the quality of relevations vary greatly. Some are absolutely awful whereas others are amazing.
    Summoner: It's basically a one-man party. My personal pet peeve is that the class's pet is essentially immortal whereas familars and animal companions have big consquences if they die.
    Summoner (unchained): Better, but it didn't address my biggest issue with the normal summoner. I think unchained eidolons was a good direction, but it feels too restrictive.
    Witch: Would have liked to see more "benign" hexes for "good witches." I also really hate how the witch spell list doesn't have many polymorph spells when classic witches in stories can turn into animals or other people. Where's the hex that lets you turn into a cat? Seriously!

    ALTERNATE CLASSES
    Antipaladin: It's basically a CE paladin. I would have liked to see this class as more of an honor-bound lawful evil tyrant knight.
    Ninja: Still a 3/4 BAB combat class.
    Samurai: Better, but see the cavalier.

    HYBRID CLASSES
    Arcanist: The class is mostly fine, but the hybrid spontanous/prepared spellcasting is more complicated than it should and adds so much book keeping. You now have to keep track of your spellbook, spells prepared, and the number of spell slots you have.
    Bloodrager: I like it, but the spellcasting feels too lackluster for a class that's supposed to be a hybrid spellcaster barbarian. Any spell that isn't a self-buff is pretty much worthless.
    Brawler: Martial flexibility is awesome, but the class could have used more interesting class features at later levels.
    Hunter: Even with team work feats, it just feels like a 3/4 BAB 6-level ranger that gets their animal companion at 1st level.
    Investigator: Shoehorned into being a melee class when a ranged investigator might have made sense. Uses the alchemist's extract list instead of its own.
    Shaman: Cherrypicks some of the best class features from the cleric, witch, and oracle and yet has almost none of those classes' weaknesses.
    Skald: Has no way to tailor his raging song so it's useful to the entire party instead of only the Strength-based party members.
    Slayer: Needs more unique talents.
    Swashbuckler: Too many defensive abilities at 1st level. Most deeds are kind of meh. Charmed life just feels lackluster.
    Warpriest: Most class features feel like crappy versions of features from other classes.

    OCCULT CLASSES
    Not enough experience to comment. I don't think it's ethical or wise to formulate an opinion when I haven't seen or played the classes enough to do so.

    Grand Lodge

    Wow, thanks for the great lists, guys! This is really going to help my project!


    Cyrad wrote:

    Game design issues are too complicated to adequately sum up, but if I had to give my 2-coppers...

    CORE CLASSES
    Barbarian: Most rage powers are really bad. The good ones are too passive, resulting in a class where all you do is buff yourself and hit things.
    Barbarian (unchained): Rage powers are improved, but the class still suffers from having too many passive abilities.
    Bard: I would have preferred performances were more interesting. This is a class where having a talent pool makes sense. However, I think the bard is just right.
    Cleric: Both too strong and too boring. The class just has too much in its kit. I would have liked to see more power budget invested into making domains interesting at the cost of turning it into a 6-level spellcaster or a 1/2 BAB class.
    Druid: Like the cleric, the druid has too much in its kit. It also has a lot of awesome class features that you could center a whole class around. We could have an entire class around shapeshifting, nature magic, or pets. Instead, we have a class with a mixture of them.
    Fighter: Not enough unique class features to make the class interesting to play.
    Monk: Should have been a full BAB class. Many of its features need a revision.
    Monk (unchained): Much better, but ki powers are a mixed bag. Some are cool. I would have liked to see the Qinggong monk list get fleshed out, especially when we have several monk-only cleric spells.
    Paladin: The class features between levels 6-10 feel really lacking.
    Ranger: Tracking is really boring and situational. I would have liked to see the ranger do interesting things with it. Otherwise, I think the class is fine.
    Rogue: 3/4 BAB class with no spells and very few class features.
    Rogue (unchained): Rogue finesse shoehorns you into a Dex build and feels like a clutch for lack of a full BAB. Most rogue talents are still really boring.
    Sorcerer: Should have the same spell progression as the wizard. I would have liked...

    Great post.... I mostly agree

    a) Inquisitor does indeed suffer due to action economy

    b) Ninja should really be a bees knees class...a Tier 1 combatant

    c) Magus - is too powerful IMO especially when it becomes crit focussed and starts channeling spells

    d) I feel the Cleric should actually be what the Warpriest is and there should be instead a D6 divine class that is physically squishy but very 'Wrath of God' / 'Hellfire and Damnation'. I would however completely disagree that is too strong as it is.... its 'kit' is quite sparse IMO.

    e) Shaman.... disgrace of a class... should have been a Witch/Druid hybrid.... far more appropriate. Is very OP in its current state.


    Zenogu wrote:
    That's kind of a tall order. How can you expect someone to non-magically track teleportation?

    Are rangers no longer spellcasters? Those abilities could be (Su), but I just don't like that tracking -- the ranger's primary schtick -- gets completely taken over by clerics and wizards after about 6th level. Wizards and clerics have enough to do already. Keep the ranger competent in his area of core competence!


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Zenogu wrote:
    That's kind of a tall order. How can you expect someone to non-magically track teleportation?
    Are rangers no longer spellcasters? Those abilities could be (Su), but I just don't like that tracking -- the ranger's primary schtick -- gets completely taken over by clerics and wizards after about 6th level. Wizards and clerics have enough to do already. Keep the ranger competent in his area of core competence!

    Why can't it be (Ex)? Why does anything capable of countering magic have to be magic?


    Rogue Sneak Attack is too swingy while being potentially "always available." This psychologically pits the player against the DM or even other players, etc. and leaves them frustrated. Solution: Give the player more control, but place reasonable limits.

    Reduce the SA dice by 2-3, and make it usable a number of times per day ala other class mechanics. Apply a small to-hit bonus when active.

    Add the potential for more gimping/disabling effects against their target. Perhaps by letting the rogue qualify for the crit line of feats by using their class level instead of BAB. Perhaps add these feats as rogue talents.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I've always thought the arcane trickster's impromptu sneak attack ability to be rather elegant, if a bit quirky flavor-wise. I think that dropping the SA dice by 2-3 (as SquirrelyOgre said) and then granting rogues, I dunno, one daily use of impromptu sneak attack at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th and 18th level or something like that would be pretty neat. Not something that would fix the rogue (unchained or otherwise) as a whole, but I think it would be a nice feature.


    Perhaps keeping the progression but dropping the die size? D4 from d6? You could then adjust parameters of sneak attack to include any time you make only one attack in this round. Now I can't full sneak attack unless they're flanked or flat footed, but I can always stick them like a pig one good time per round. Or leave them as D6, but you can only ever deal sneak attack damage once per round. Now you have the idea of pulling hidden weapons to hit vital spots as you're doing your normal attacks. Since it has a per turn limit, you don't need some special setup to use it. It becomes more consistent damage.

    Community Manager

    Removed a post—dial back the hyperbole, please.


    Shiroi wrote:
    Perhaps keeping the progression but dropping the die size? D4 from d6? You could then adjust parameters of sneak attack to include any time you make only one attack in this round. Now I can't full sneak attack unless they're flanked or flat footed, but I can always stick them like a pig one good time per round. Or leave them as D6, but you can only ever deal sneak attack damage once per round. Now you have the idea of pulling hidden weapons to hit vital spots as you're doing your normal attacks. Since it has a per turn limit, you don't need some special setup to use it. It becomes more consistent damage.

    Some of the "rogue concept detangling" classes use a similar fix of lowering the number of die by a small amount, then adding bonuses elsewhere.

    It's been done--just not to the core class. I suspect it's too much of a shift--would affect too many feats, items, and so on.

    Grand Lodge

    Personally, I think it's a mistake to try to enhance the rogue's damage output. There are plenty of martial melee classes; why keep trying to hammer the rogue into just another beatstick?

    The archetype I'm writing right now goes in a completely different direction, enhancing the rogue's social skills. It gives them some unique stuff to do in combat instead of just skulking around, hoping to land a sneak attack.


    Headfirst wrote:

    Personally, I think it's a mistake to try to enhance the rogue's damage output. There are plenty of martial melee classes; why keep trying to hammer the rogue into just another beatstick?

    The archetype I'm writing right now goes in a completely different direction, enhancing the rogue's social skills. It gives them some unique stuff to do in combat instead of just skulking around, hoping to land a sneak attack.

    The want for more damage gets over-emphasized, yeah. The changes I proposed more even it out, and place control more in the player's hands.

    The idea of the rogue being more a disabler I like. Maybe it's too much of a legacy class, though? It tries to fit too many concepts to do any of them really well.

    That is a round-about way of saying that I'm actually really interested in your fix.


    Paizo is willing to splurge on casters, even if it isn't in casting power. Battle Shaman has a capstone that rightfully belongs to a Fighter. Most non-casting martials lack out-of-combat versatility. Fighter and Rogue specifically have to burn regular feats to be combat-competitive, and their class features are very, very lackluster.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Continuing threat: a feat or class feature. After the rogue attacks, they hide. As long as they stay hidden, they are considered flanking. The foe cannot see them, and they might attack again. If the rogue attacks anyone, the previous continuing threat ends.

    If a feat, it is free only to rogues and certain archetypes.

    This makes them useful, but not dominant in combat.

    Assisting: The fighter or Archetype hands the other person tools, kills annoying vermin, provides an extra pair of eyes, ect. This gives +4 to any non combat activity, such as finding or disarming traps. The fighter gives up their roll, if any, and the other character does it for both. For example, if the mountebank is trying to bluff their way into enemy territory, the fighter plays the terrified prisoner.

    As a feat, this is free to fighters, fighter archetypes, and some paladins(does the deity value humility in their followers?)


    Goth Guru wrote:

    Assisting: The fighter or Archetype hands the other person tools, kills annoying vermin, provides an extra pair of eyes, ect. This gives +4 to any non combat activity, such as finding or disarming traps. The fighter gives up their roll, if any, and the other character does it for both. For example, if the mountebank is trying to bluff their way into enemy territory, the fighter plays the terrified prisoner.

    As a feat, this is free to fighters

    So... fighters are already mere caddies or sidekicks after 6th level or so, so you want to spell that out using mechanics, to make that more obvious to the people who thought they were actual heroes?


    What are rogues in combat?

    Also, that's not really fair. I've designed rituals and mutations that augment Fighters, and Monks too, especially at higher levels.

    Take your +5 armor, +5 shield, and glave of glory and suggest a rule for using all 3 at once.


    Goth Guru wrote:

    What are rogues in combat?

    Also, that's not really fair. I've designed rituals and mutations that augment Fighters, and Monks too, especially at higher levels.

    Take your +5 armor, +5 shield, and glave of glory and suggest a rule for using all 3 at once.

    I suspect it's a matter of flavor. They are good ideas.

    Perhaps call it Tactical Assistance. It comes from being trained as part of an army, unit, etc.

    Kirth developed his own version of Pathfinder. It's my impression he dislikes Pathfinder and its developers in general, and so made his own, rewritten version. For a while he hosted it on here on their own forums. I don't know if that's still true.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm not mad. It just seems the single biggest problem is some, not even most, want their favorite class to be "Best Pony".

    I think each class should dominate in one area, but always be useful.

    If that's not your cup of tea, there is solo gaming. Tweak the Magus so it's even more a fighter/caster and have a friend run you through some prepared modules.


    SquirrelyOgre wrote:
    (1) Kirth developed his own version of Pathfinder. (2) It's my impression he dislikes Pathfinder (3) and its developers in general, and so made his own, rewritten version. (4) For a while he hosted it on here on their own forums. I don't know if that's still true.

    (1) That's true, as far as it goes.

    (2) I dislike that Pathfinder exacerbated, rather than fixed, most of the really glaring problems in 3.5.
    (3) Completely false. Personal animosity doesn't enter into anything. I like the developers personally; I'm a big fan of almost everything James Jacobs and Erik Mona have done; and I don't see how "Billy once fell off his bike" can possibly translate to "I dislike Billy."
    (4) TOZ linked the Beta playtest in one of the Homebrew threads, and it's still up. I wouldn't go so far as to call that "hosting."


    Lurker: A rogue archetype with the power to flank while hidden. They first attack the enemy, then hide. They don't have to hit or even be in range, just the target cannot see them. They have no bonus sneak attack dice.

    Book wizard: For bonus spells they can cast spells from their spell book. To do this from a captured book they must make the spellcraft check. They open the book and read as they cast. The spell in the book is unaffected, unless the book wizard intentionally casts something on it. Anyone or anything can hold the book for them. A universalist book wizard forgoes the Hand of the Apprentice to instead Hold Book. Any one book will float open and turn it's own pages while they read it.

    Blaster: This fighter archetype is considered to have the forceborn mutation. Tsunami Wave is a bonus fighter feat for this class.

    Forceborn
    0 level-Deflection +1(It doesn’t stack with deflection bonuses from other sources.)
    1st level Force beam. Does 1d4+1 for every 2 levels. One force beam per attack. Range 25 feet +5 feet per (level + dex bonus). Ranged touch bypasses physical armor but not mage armor, deflection bonuses, or the magical bonus to armor and shields. It also does not bypass natural armor such as barkskin or fur. The shield spell counts as +4 armor against it. This can damage objects such as locks, drilling through hardness, then actual hit points. It is effective against incorporeal creatures.
    4th level Deflection +2.
    7th level Deflection +3.
    10th level Deflection +4.
    13th level Deflection +5.
    16th level Deflection +7
    19th level Deflection +8.
    Class Skills: Perception and Stealth
    Sorc. Bonus spells not relevant.
    Bonus Feat: Point Blank Shot
    Bloodline Arcana: not relevant.

    Tsunami Wave: Feat for blasters such as the forceborn.
    Attack becomes a 45 degree cone that can be dex saved against for half. If they save, they get knocked back 5 feet. If they fail the save they get knocked down.
    The Tsunami wave is a full round attack, released over the course of a second.

    These are suggestions and the OP car modify as they see fit.

    Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I'm a big fan of almost everything James Jacobs and Erik Mona have done

    Thanks, Kirth! That means a lot, especially from someone named after a Jack Vance character! :)


    I agree with the early sorcerer complaints. Part of my houserules document includes giving bloodline/mystery/etc bonus spells at the level you can cast them, as well as giving spontaneous full-casters similar level progression as prepared casters (except maybe the arcanist, because it's crazy good).

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Single, Biggest Problem All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules