|
Pretty much all of them. At this point me and my group have houseruled some part of pretty much every class.
Sometimes because it's unbalanced. Sometimes because it's not fun. Sometimes just for flavor. We love this game and also enjoy improving upon it because no matter how fun it is, Pathfinder is also a deeply flawed game in need of a little homebrew repair.
I would have made it that all casters got to add their casting stat mod to damage with all damage dealing spells.
That Rogues and Swashbucklers could add their Dex mod to damage(no feats).
That Rogues and Swashbucklers got increased base speed as they leveled(max at least +30).
For the most part I like Pathfinder 1e the way it is. I’ve started buying 2e books, but I still haven’t made the switch because 1e is such a great game.
If I were to change something I would make fighters and rogues more appealing to play. I’m not sure how exactly. I would probably look at the archetypes for each class and see what I could add to the base chassis from those. The Phantom Thief archetype for example has abilities that, in my opinion, should be standard for all rogues. For fighters I would also also look at ways to make armour and shields more effective without having to select a bunch of feats. For both classes I would add two extra skill points per level.
^That's a start, but I think Fighters and some of the other martials should be merged to let them do some really cool stuff. Loads of bonus feats are a good feature, but then you get nickel-and-dimed to death with feat taxes, and then other class features are too exclusive of each other (like Weapon Training/Advanced Weapon Training versus Martial Flexibility -- hence the wish to merge some of the martial classes, like Fighter + Brawler, but more flexibly than the Martial Master archetype lets you do). (Of course, reducing feat taxes would be a good thing to help address this.) Agreed on needing more skill points -- everybody who isn't an Intelligence-based caster should get 2 more per level (this includes taking into account archetypes that alter casting stat).
I would have made a Paladin/Monk hybrid class.
^Iroran Paladin does this, although weirdly it disqualifies itself from being a base class for entry into the Champion of Irori prestige class (another Irori-specific Paladin-Monk hybrid), because it trades out Smite Evil.
Honestly, the concept of hybrid classes could have been reworked as expanded archetypes, like how 2e did.
- The Warpriest is essentially a martial-oriented Cleric.
- The Arcanist is a variant Wizard.
- The Skald is a Bard with Rage Powers (easily tradeable).
- The Slayer is a Ranger with Sneak Attack and Rogue Talents.
- The Investigator is an Alchemist with no bombs.
- The Bloodrager is a Barbarian with spells, like a Magus.
- The Hunter is a Druid with a better companion.
- The Shaman is an Oracle with Hexes.
- The Swashbuckler is a Fighter with Deeds.
I'm fairly certain they knew that, but labelling all of those concepts as brand new classes, they were able to provide a lot of content for a new rulebook for people to buy.
Some of the classes are more unique. And many can easily host their own archetypes. But if you want to take it to the extreme, then every class is just an advanced version of the commoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember when the ACG came out and people were wondering about the Warpriest:
"A hybrid of the fighter and the cleric? Don't we already have the paladin?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember when the ACG came out and people were wondering about the Warpriest:
"A hybrid of the fighter and the cleric? Don't we already have the paladin?"
Yeah, I remember that too. I actually liked the addition of another class in the 'chain' from martial to full caster. Some examples:
Fighter -> Paladin -> Warpriest/Inquisitor -> Cleric
Shifter -> Ranger -> Hunter -> Druid
Barbarian -> Bloodrager -> Magus (Eldritch Scion)/Skald/Bard -> Sorcerer
Though, they tried with Fighter (Child of Acavna and Amaznen). They should just have released a new hybrid class instead of an archetype. Maybe they should have drew inspiration from the Duskblade or Warmage from D&D 3.5e. A Fighter with access to only a couple magic schools.
Fighter -> ??????? -> Magus -> Wizard
^The ??????? is something I'd like to see filled by a proper d10, full BAB, 4/9 prepared arcane casting backcross hybrid of Myrmidarch Magus and Fighter (Child of Acavna and Amaznen definitely doesn't count(*)).
(*)Child of Acavna and Amaznen is at least a medium-rare archetype. Because it isn't well-done.
I remember when the ACG came out and people were wondering about the Warpriest:
"A hybrid of the fighter and the cleric? Don't we already have the paladin?"
The Paladin has only 4 levels of spells, while the Cleric has 9. The Inquisitor has 6, but the rest of its features doesn't mesh with the Warpriest.
I agree that the Hunter, Bloodrager and Warpriest could be standalone classes, but my point still stands that some hybrid classes could have been archetypes though.
- The Arcanist has exploits instead of schools.
- The Skald uses the same spell list as the Bard, so the core class could get Rage powers over other features.
- The Slayer is a spell-less Ranger, which we've seen a few times already.
- The Investigator has many Rogue features.
- The Shaman now has Hexes.
- The Swashbuckler has enough features to replace proficiencies and feats.
Wait, let me get this straight... you'd make a hybrid class of the 2 classes that are unhittable tanks, with built in martial upgrades both offensively and defensively... bonus feats... self healing and decent action economy?
Er, you do know that hybrid classes aren't gestalt, and that they don't have all the class features of both parent classes, right? Like, such a hybrid class wouldn't get both Divine Grace and cMonk's three good saves.
The only other no brainer in the game was the brainstorming session for the Arcanist: let's combine the 2 most powerful full arcane casters, the class type which, if they can just survive til about L5 are shockingly godlike.
Not only is Sorc not one of "the 2 most powerful full arcane casters", the result is weaker than Wizard. Again you seem to assume that hybriding two class must inevitably create something stronger than either parent class, but that's just not how it works.
my point still stands that some hybrid classes could have been archetypes though.
Some, yes, but many hybrid classes get way too much new stuff to work as archetypes. Reworked selectable class features like Warpriest's Blessings and Shaman's Spirits don't work for archetypes, as those take way too many pages for an archetype. Indeed, Shaman (14) and Warpriest (9) have then most pages of the hybrid classes, and Arcanist (6.5) and Bloodrager (8) also have way too high a page count to be feasible as archetypes. On the flip side, Brawler and Slayer only have three pages each, and that's with an illustration and class table (together about a full page). Subtract duplicate class, and those would indeed be doable as archetypes. Hunter and Skald could probably work, too (each takes up four pages, and casters have about half a page just explaining their casting).
Of course, the whole deed system is objectively horrible and contrary to Pathfinder design principles, and should not have been used for standalone classes to begin with (whereas it would work well for archetypes) - that makes the statement about Swashbuckler valid by default.
The Investigator has many Rogue features.
Two. It has two Rogue class features. Trapfinding and Trapsense. It also has different saves, class skills, and skill ranks per level. The class has almost no Rogue in it, and in practice is actually a hybrid between Alchemist and Slayer.
some hybrid classes could have been archetypes though.
- The Arcanist has exploits instead of schools.
- The Skald uses the same spell list as the Bard, so the core class could get Rage powers over other features.
- The Slayer is a spell-less Ranger, which we've seen a few times already.
- The Investigator has many Rogue features.
- The Shaman now has Hexes.
- The Swashbuckler has enough features to replace proficiencies and feats.
The arcanist doesn't just have exploits. It has an interesting and novel form of spellcasting. If anything, I'd now like another class to be the divine version of arcanist
The skald could have been an archetype. Most of its abilities are taken from other classes. But I still find it an interesting class on its own.
Slayer really could have used a wider space.
Investigator plays a lot different than alchemist or rogue and his its own fun mechanics.
Shaman is clunky. Not sure if it should have been an archetype, but it's not well designed either.
Swashbuckler is too simple and too much a melee-flavored gunslinger. Probably would have been better off as an archetype.
Also, I think the brawler would have been better as a fighter and/or monk archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love a Druid archetype that gave spontaneous casting. Its easy enough to homebrew yourself but... come on.
I remember when the ACG came out and people were wondering about the Warpriest:
"A hybrid of the fighter and the cleric? Don't we already have the paladin?"
The Warpriest issue is that it ran into the stumbling block that was that from Day 1 the Cleric should have been made a D6 class albeit renamed into something thematic.
In effect Warpriest is what the original concept of "the Cleric" should be. You would have then had a nice neat D6-D8-D10 divine family tree.
Right on. And Adept as it is written just doesn't cut it, because it is just BAD as it is written, even for an NPC. The 9/9 (10/10?)(*) prepared divine spellcasting class should have been d6, 1/2 BAB, and had a reasonable wealth of additional interesting class features. A remix of Warpriest and Cleric would be the 6/9 (7/10?) prepared divine spellcaster (remix -- unify the unnecessarily separate Blessings into rebalanced and enriched Domains that would work as mini-Mysteries, also used by the fullcaster divine version). Make Inquisitor a prestige class like Hellknight Signifer, and make Paladin/Antipaladin/etc. be prestige classes like D&D 3.5 started to offer but then seems to have forgotten about, and like Pathfinder's Hellknight (the non-caster version, but could very closely approximate 4/9 casting by starting a spellcasting progression that doesn't depend upon existing spellcasting, like Prophet of Kalistrade and Red Mantis Assassin do).
(*)Including provision for decompression of spell levels to bump overpowered spells up to a higher level, although 10 levels is probably insufficient and I am going to estimate that you would really need 12 levels.
Another thing that occurred to me (which is general, but related to the above): For prepared casters, the relation between 6/9 and 9/9 spellcasters is fairly sensible: 9/9 spellcasting progresses as maximum_spell_level = (class_level + 1) / 2 with upper_limit 9; 6/9 spellcasting progresses as maximum_spell_level = (class_level + 2) / 3 with upper_limit 6; but then 4/9 spellcasting DOESN'T progress as maximum_spell_level = (class_level + 3) / 4 with upper_limit 4 (however, Adept NPC class does, except with upper_limit 5). Instead, it progresses as maximum_spell_level = (class_level - 3) / 3 with upper_limit 4 and usually no Cantrips/Orisons/Knacks, but caster_level may or may not be offset by -3. Now, if you enter a prestige class that gives you its own 4/9 spellcasting like Prophet of Kalistrade and Red Mantis Assassin do, this makes sense, but it seems kind of odd on a base class. For spontaneous 9/9 casters only, spell levels after 1 are delayed by 1 level (which seems like just an unnecessary holdover from D&D 3.x).
I assume there are spell casting vendors in most major cities: Guano. Eye of newt. Scale of euryale.
What do you do if they have the Eschew Materials feat? Or what if they cast polymorph through a racial spell like ability, like the Angel-Blooded Aasimar has Alter Self?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea who though that it was okay for Druids/Shifter to have uncapped access to the bestiary.
Shifters don't (baring one of two archetypes), they have to pick from a specific list and only get what's explicitly stated there. And despite that, Druid's WS is only better when they can abuse huge forms.
Even if they have reduced abilities the sheer number of natural attacks should had put it into question.
You mean... three? There're only four animals with more than three natural attack, three of them have four attacks but with one or more secondary (which doesn't add much), and the remaining one is the giant octopus - which is silly, but only works because RAW polymorphing into an aquatic creature doesn't make you lose the ability to breath air even if you turn into a freaking fish or something.
So, as a GM I would like a level 7ish character to explain where he gets Euryale bodyparts from.
Why, from the spell component pouch, of course!
Look, material components are flavor, nothing more. Spider Climb requires a live spider, I guess an SCP comes with a cage in it? Stinking Cloud requires a rotten egg or cabbage leaves, how do you not need a check to not be nauseated every time you open your SCP? Web requires a spider web, how the hell are you supposed to store that? Fire's Friend requires a flame.
What do you do if they have the Eschew Materials feat? Or what if they cast polymorph through a racial spell like ability, like the Angel-Blooded Aasimar has Alter Self?
That's always the question when people try to shoehorn in a houserule with the pseudo-justification of material component. For some reason, I've never seen an answer to that question from guys insisting that Infernal Healing was evil because of the material component...
That's always the question when people try to shoehorn in a houserule with the pseudo-justification of material component. For some reason, I've never seen an answer to that question from guys insisting that Infernal Healing was evil because of the material component...
Isn't it evil because of the spell tags? School: conjuration (healing) [evil]
I know people like to argue about alignment tags until they are blue in the face but it is what it is. Playing without it is just playing with houserules. I have been part of games where using that spell has certain implications and consequences. My witch in Giantslayer always looks over his should when he casts the spell just in case the Paladin is looking.
I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be a contrarian and I know I'm coming off that way, and seem like a jerk, and I'm really not trying to but I am so I AM sorry. Also I think I'm completely threadjacking here. I'm just trying to understand WHY these transformation type spells, or just monstrous physique, is restricted in this way. Again, I'm sorry and if you want me to just be quiet say so.
Honestly, the rarity of some of these monster parts should preclude them from being worth less a gold piece and require the character to actually purchase them. Components for spells are one of the few balancing factors that keep magic in some sort of equilibrium within the game. I am not saying that it balances anything perfectly or that each individual spell is carefully designed around this factor. Too many authors and editors out there add and change things for that to be a universal statement.
However, things like these are ways that allow a GM to keep access to certain things limited. If a GM doesn't want a character pulling information from a book they shouldn't have access to, that is their prerogative. I am a fairly permissive GM and have a lot of experience with most material in PF1. I still frown when players try to use material from well outside the scope of the campaign.
As far as I handle Infernal Healing or Celestial Healing... If you've got a drop of (un)holy water, you have the components for the spell. If you are a Tiefling or Aasimar, you've got the components for the spell. Honestly, those spells aren't really an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those spell components are indeed for sale in somewhere like the right district of Absolom.
But claiming that Euryale Scale and Devil's Ichor are available in the thorp of Little Nowhere, Isger, population 24, on the pretext that unpriced components cost nothing and the village has a limit of 50gp is not going to work on me.
Beast Shape is not the only Polymorph Spell.
No, but of the spells usuable with Wild Shape, it's the only one that's good at offense. Also, not letting polymorph grant unusual natural attacks (or unusual reach) takes care of most issues.
Certainly not the only one available to shifters.
Without archetypes, that list is all they can turn into. Maybe you should read the class description before complaining about it.
Also, congratulations on being literally the first person I've seen to claim that Shifter's Wild Shape was too strong because they can turn into too many different things.
Also it is trivial to get more natural attacks, or to boost natural attacks for that matter.
Sure. But it's even easier when you don't polymorph. The fact is that Wild Shape likely gives you the same amount of natural weapons as a trait and a single rage poer do (or two rage powers, or a feat and a level in Shifter, etc.).
But claiming that Euryale Scale and Devil's Ichor are available in the thorp of Little Nowhere, Isger, population 24, on the pretext that unpriced components cost nothing and the village has a limit of 50gp is not going to work on me.
So you would let someone with Eschew Material cast the spell just fine?
Isn't it evil because of the spell tags?
That's a tautology, not an explanation. Why is it tagged evil? Healing someone isn't an evil act. A spell tag a.k.a. descriptor "categorizes the spell in some way", and "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves" (with two stated exceptions, language dependant and mind-affecting). By the definition of the word, a "descriptior" should describe, not dictate.
People claim that it's tagged as evil because of the use of an evil substance (here's an example of such a claim), but that would logically mean that casting the spell without the component (Eshew Material, SLA, from a wand, etc.) would remove the evil tag. just like it would remove the limitation of a "you need to encounter a creature to polymorph into" houserule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Polymorph spells make an honest attempt to be balanced, but need more work in this department. Being able to get a super-powerful form early just because it is medium just seems wrong. Of course, this is already not totally wrong -- you could fake a Green Man with Plant Shape I (or Druid Plant Wildshape that does the equivalent) well enough to fool the unobservant, but you would be way wimpier, not having anywhere near the ability scores (especially including Strength and Constitution), and you wouldn't have any more levels of Druid spellcasting or more feats than you had yourself, and you won't have the Spell-Like Abilites. On the overpowered side, your number of usable attacks and their total damage will be definitely on the high side, and this -- this is one of the things that needs tweaking. (Also noticed that Plant Shape in at higher levels gives you a lot less than Beast Shape once you get to Beast Shape III, which is where Plant Shape I starts, so Plant Shape might actually need some tweaking up, or else Beast Shape needs a considerable amount of decompression.)
Speaking from experience in a party, that Green Man obliterated most enemies that were level appropriate. Got to the point the rest of us asked why we were even around as the Druidzilla was present.
If you really wanted to use a houserule against Polymorph, then just set a limit on the number of natural attacks allowed per round, like the eidolon has. Being oddly rules lawyerly about material components is not the answer.
That's a tautology, not an explanation.
And? I am not one to simply ignore flavor text or actual alignment tags because it is convenient to do so.
Why is it tagged evil? Healing someone isn't an evil act. A spell tag a.k.a. descriptor "categorizes the spell in some way", and "Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves" (with two stated exceptions, language dependant and mind-affecting). By the definition of the word, a "descriptior" should describe, not dictate.
This is an issue with mistaking intent with behavior. We are not hashing out real world philosophy here, or at least I am not. Pathfinder has quantifiable and measurable evil that makes up its universe. Evil is Evil because it is Evil, in the Pathfinder universe.
People claim that it's tagged as evil because of the use of an evil substance (here's an example of such a claim), but that would logically mean that casting the spell without the component (Eshew Material, SLA, from a wand, etc.) would remove the evil tag. just like it would remove the limitation of a "you need to encounter a creature to polymorph into" houserule.
I make no such claim. The spell is Evil because it is Evil. It invokes the very nature of Evil in order to cast and bring forth the effects of the spell, and detecting (and feeling) that Evil is part of the spells effects.
No, making alignment-tagged spells automatically alter your alignment is the houserule. Here's what the rules actually say on the topic: "There’s no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class [...] it’s generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. [...] It’s best to let players play their characters as they want." CRB pg. 168 And before anyone starts, the sidebar from Horror Adventures is explicitly described as "advice", and thus per definition not a rule.
If you want to play in a game where your actions have no real consequences on your alignment or how the universe perceives you, then you are not welcome at my table. There would be too much friction and disagreements for an enjoyable experience. As far as I am concerned, players have control over how their character react and behave (outside magical compulsion), that is it. You can have your character act outside of the descriptive alignment (that is expected at times) but you cannot do so consistently without something changing. You may play differently, and that is fine.
Pretty sure that Euryale scales cost (RAI) more then 1 GP, which makes Eschew materials stop working.
That's not RAI, that's a complete fabrication on your part.
Also, since Euryales have "the lower body of a snake", they probably shed, and pieces of their discarded skin would work for the material component. Plus, you wouldn't need an entire scale anyway, just "a piece of the creature". Polymorphing legitimately makes homeopathy work!
So how expensive is 100th of a Deathsnatcher feather?
Being able to get a super-powerful form early just because it is medium just seems wrong.
It should be noted that 3.5 had a limitation on what you can turn into ("The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level", 3.5 PHB pg. 263), and Paizo made a conscious decision (I presume) to remove that.
Speaking from experience in a party, that Green Man obliterated most enemies that were level appropriate. Got to the point the rest of us asked why we were even around as the Druidzilla was present.
It's important to remember that you only get specific abilities, and "vines" is not one of them. Did the character get to use vines as primary attacks? Because they shouldn't. Did the character get the 30ft range on the vines? Because they shouldn't.
Hell, a polymorphed creature shouldn't get the vines at all, because a Green Man only has them because he has an ability that says "A green man can extend up to six thorny vines from his body to attack foes." A PC doesn't have that ability, and thus can't do that.
Evil is Evil because it is Evil
If that's your concept of worldbuilding, or making the game world feel real, I wouldn't want to play at your table. It sounds utterly horrible.
That no one was ever able to actually explain what makes the spell evil was my whole point. Thank you for perfectly demonstrating how ridiculous the behaviour of people desperately trying to insist on a spell's evilness that they can't explain is!
If you want to play in a game where your actions have no real consequences on your alignment
Exactly the opposite is true - I want to play at a table where my actions have consequences on my alignment. like whether you heal a dying creature, not which wand you do it with.
Evil is Evil because it is EvilIf that's your concept of worldbuilding, or making the game world feel real, I wouldn't want to play at your table. It sounds utterly horrible.
You hardly have enough information about my world building to reach an informed conclusion on that matter but if you want to leap to conclusions, I won't stop you from doing so.
That no one was ever able to actually explain what makes the spell evil was my whole point. Thank you for perfectly demonstrating how ridiculous the behaviour of people desperately trying to insist on a spell's evilness that they can't explain is!
What makes the spell Evil is the actual EVIL it invokes that is palpable to the recipient and anyone who can detect the Evil via a spell. You might not like it but that is what the spell does. You are free to create your own version that uses less malevolent forces to power the spell if you like. Its a far better use of your time than arguing over why the spell is Evil in the first place.
I know how useful and effective that spell is, and why people have the desire to use it. If I was an Evil deity looking to subvert and corrupt mortals, I'd make such a spell in the exact same way because mortals tend to take the quickest and easiest paths to their desired goals. Getting them to argue over the morality of the spell even when its Evil is obvious to anyone using it, blurring the real meaning of Good and Evil, is something I would greatly desire.
Exactly the opposite is true - I want to play at a table where my actions have consequences on my alignment. like whether you heal a dying creature, not which wand you do it with.
Casting a spell or using an item is an action, a behavior, and while in a world were the very forces of Good and Evil are measurable parts of it, is going to have an effect on the world and the characters that inhabit it. You might not like the effect but you are the one that chose to engage in the action. If you don't like the consequences, change the behavior and the choice.
The role of the GM is to be an arbiter between you and the world, and they are supposed to be as unbiased as possible. If you don't want to play in a world where Good and Evil (and Law and Chaos) are active forces that actually have a direct impact on the world, and only exist on the fringes and nod understandingly at your intentions, you don't want to play one of my games. That is fine.
Also, just to be clear, your actions DO have an impact on your alignment. Casting an Evil spell to attempt to do Good by helping a dying creature might very well result in a Neutral net effect, impacting your alignment in no real way. That doesn't change the nature of the spell. It might, however, heavily influence the feelings and perceptions of your character in the eyes of those you save with those methods and how those NPCs feel about such magic.
Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
Why does it say that? Because it's not very fun to keep track of components.
^In principle, it wouldn't be too hard to keep track of components, given how many other things you have to keep track of; but I think that at some point between the introduction of 1st Edition AD&D and 3rd Edition, the designers realized that they needed to add a lot of information to make the components trackable. And if this HAD been detailed as needed in 1st Edition AD&D, I would have to say good luck finding it -- the Dungeon Master's Guide was cool, but it had such atrocious organization that as far as I can tell everybody ended up playing a bunch of house rules completely unintentionally due to being unable to find critical pieces of information such as spell recharge rates that were actually there, but hidden in weird places. (Illogical organization in AD&D 1st Edition also doomed conceptually sensible but badly implemented concepts such as Armor Class vs Weapon Adjustment, and then took out neighboring conceptually sensible and reasonably implemented concepts such as Weapon Speed Factor as collateral damage.)
Wow a lot of posts since I was last here. Anyway, I have always thought spell components are lame. While components that have a GP cost make sense for balance reasons, I am still not a fan with some of them. Take for example the stoneskin spell, there is a GP cost and a limited amount of damage it can absorb, just pick one.