If you want more focused 6-level casters then that's an issue, but nature magic is a subset of divine in PF1. Sorry, you're wrong there...and the dandy ranger really has nothing much to do with nature even if you were right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that I don't like Summoners, and have very little genuine interest in Necromancy... I find myself quite surprised that I would love to see a Necromancy focused class based on something akin to the Summoner chassis.
Or whatever other 6/9 caster chassis rich in fun abilities... Mesmerist? Anyways, the summon SLA mechanic creating Undead is very cool.
The "Monster in a Bottle" Alchemist/Summoner is another idea that you can easily make into a heavily Necromancy focused class... throws bomb, a few Shadows appear! Neat.
EDIT: Also you have to be a race from a third party adventure path that no-one has ever heard of to make it work.
Hey!
Seriously though, LOL!
When I say a "6th level necromancy focused caster" I don't mean a 6th level caster who can do some necromancy (ditto illusions)--
I mean a base class 1-20 that gets specific talents and abilities JUST to be the best necromancer/illusion type there is-- Magus is effectively this for Evocation and Summoner for Conjuration and Shifter kind of is for transmutation/polymorpph so I want a Necromancy and Illusion equivalent to those.
And Rangers are not divine casters- they are nature casters- completely different source it's-
Martial
Divine
Nature
Arcane
OccultNature is not a subset of divine.
And yes- everyone who is saying "occult martial" means an occult class that gets full BaB and limited or no spells without having to jump through strange hoops.
1. Martial is not a caster type. Putting "martial" there is either wrong or an unnecessary confusion.
2.
Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells, which are drawn from the ranger spell list presented in Spell Lists. A ranger must choose and prepare his spells in advance.
Nature is not a caster type; and druids / hunters / rangers are most certainly divine in PF1. Nature isn't in PF2 either; it's called primal there,
3. Occult is, surprisingly, not a caster type; it's called psychic in PF1. Occult as a caster type / tradition is what bards use in PF2.
Oh hey, one more 'occult martial': id rager bloodrager. Full BAB, 4-level psychic spellcasting.
If nature is not a separate caster type then druids; rangers, and hunters would not exist these would simply be clerics, plains, and warpriests of certain deities.
But the druid list is entirely different from the cleric list and the types of abilities these classes get are so radically different that from a game design stand point they absolutely are filling an entirely different role.
If nature is not a separate caster type then druids; rangers, and hunters would not exist these would simply be clerics, plains, and warpriests of certain deities.
But the druid list is entirely different from the cleric list and the types of abilities these classes get are so radically different that from a game design stand point they absolutely are filling an entirely different role.
Your first paragraph is a declaration with no proof. Where do the thousands of classes and archetypes in PF1 come from? Different traditions but not in most cases different power sources. There aren't enough different power sources for that.
Classes and archetypes are all over the place in PF1; blurring the edges of civilised divine and wild divine I remind you of the dandy ranger again, and also the nature mystery oracle, the courtly hunter archetype and more. Whether from class features or spell lists, there isn't the firm dividing line you seem to imagine.
A druid and a cleric are different classes and even with archetypes they have distinct flavours (not necessarily distinct roles), but there's plenty of other classes between them which do blur the edges of flavour and of whatever roles you could name.
If nature is not a separate caster type then druids; rangers, and hunters would not exist these would simply be clerics, plains, and warpriests of certain deities.
"Divine" (in regards to spellcasting) is a game term. Don't use game terms when you want to talk about flavor.
"Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers)." CRB pg. 206
everyone who is saying "occult martial" means an occult class that gets full BaB and limited or no spells without having to jump through strange hoops.
What makes a class "occult"? Currently, the answer is either "it's from Occult Adventures" (in which case a new class couldn't qualify per definition), or "it has psychic casting" (in which case a pure martial couldn't qualify per definition).
An occult martial would start with psychic sensitivity and have "occult" themed abilities along with a full BaB. . .
Look- we can split hairs about "power sources" verse "flavor"- but in game design terms ranger/hunter/druid do not fit into the same chain of classes as paladin/warpriest/cleric, and there is a "missing" option for the paladin equivalent of other than LG (or CE) alignments that range does not fill.
An occult martial would start with psychic sensitivity and have "occult" themed abilities along with a full BaB. . .
Look- we can split hairs about "power sources" verse "flavor"- but in game design terms ranger/hunter/druid do not fit into the same chain of classes as paladin/warpriest/cleric, and there is a "missing" option for the paladin equivalent of other than LG (or CE) alignments that range does not fill.
That "missing" option is the Inquisitor.
Inquisitor is a 6th level caster- which is another replacement for warpriest, but there is still no Divine, non-nature, non-alignment restricted option for a 4th level/full BaB caster.
I really don't understand the impulse to claim that everything you could ever possibly want in PF1 already exists there. . . clearly the existing options don't "fit" what people are envisioning or else they wouldn't be asking for more options- so unless something that does exist is just incredibly obscure saying "this obvious thing is already that" doesn't really add up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, you could say that most of the official classes could be simulated by combinations of other options. This never stopped those classes from being desired. The main point of the ACG is that some combinations of classes could be interesting enough to be classes in their own right.
An occult martial would start with psychic sensitivity and have "occult" themed abilities along with a full BaB. . .
Order of the eastern star samurai / cavalier? Starts with psychic sensitivity and has the right theme thanks to the edict and Knowledge checks.
But perhaps that's not quite occult enough.Id ragers don't start with PS, but gain it at level 4 when they're allowed to cast. On the other hand, they pick up phantom abilities (even if they normally have to interact with a spiritualist) whenever they rage.
But perhaps that's not quite fast enough.
Serpent-Fire adepts get to do a lot of psychic Naruto nonsense with opening the chakra-gates, and have PS.
But, being monks, perhaps that's not quite martial enough...
Look- we can split hairs about "power sources" verse "flavor"- but in game design terms ranger/hunter/druid do not fit into the same chain of classes as paladin/warpriest/cleric, and there is a "missing" option for the paladin equivalent of other than LG (or CE) alignments that range does not fill.
So, just to be sure, you want:
- A full martial, 4-level divine caster class, which is not nature-themed (away with you, Mr. Ranger!) and is not fettered by alignment.
Gray paladin can be LN or NG in addition to LG.
Tyrant antipally can be LE.
Insinuator antipally can be any evil, but loses spells.
Vindictive bastard (ex-pally) is written awkwardly...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
6th level caster focused on Necromancy
6th level caster focused on Illusion magic
When the Summoner first came out, I remember thinking that this was just the Conjuration version of this base chassis, and you could tweak it to have an undead Eidolon, and replace the various Conjuration spells with Necromancy spells, and the Summon Monster options with either Summon Undead or Channel Energy options.
The Enchantment version would have a perma-thrall, like the 3.X Thrallherd, and enchantment spells.
The Illusion version would have a permanent Shadow Monster as 'Eidolon,' and illusion spells. Their companion would be the easiest to replace, since it's only 'partially real' anyway. It pops like a soap bubble, but can be resummoned immediately (still takes 1 minute, no in-combat resummons!).
The Transmuter would either be a self-transmuter, or have a Construct 'eidolon' that they enhance and send into the fray.
Alternately, the Abjurer has the Construct companion (an animated suit of heavy armor, weapon and shield), and has enhanced counterspelling options (to the point that someone might ever actually find them not a horrible waste of an action...).
The Evoker has an elemental-type companion (fire, lightning, ice, acid, they pick one at the start of the day, and perhaps have bonuses to appropriate spells of that energy type for the day), incarnated destructive energy, as companion, and appropriate evocation spells.
And the Diviner! Uh, I got nothing. :)
The Diviner gets a Magic 8-ball with a note that says if he wants to know what's going to happen before it happens, maybe he should GM his own game. Lol.
I always felt the summoner should have been broken up into 2 classes. One would be more of a martial type, with a few special abilities to maintain his eidolon. And the other class would be more of a spellcaster who focuses on conjuration and has an eidolon to watch his back.
The Transmuter would either be a self-transmuter, or have a Construct 'eidolon' that they enhance and send into the fray.
The Evoker has an elemental-type companion (fire, lightning, ice, acid, they pick one at the start of the day, and perhaps have bonuses to appropriate spells of that energy type for the day), incarnated destructive energy, as companion, and appropriate evocation spells.
The evoker/transmuter version is the magus.
And to be honest, I thought the spiritualist was the 6th level caster necromancer.
Look- we can split hairs about "power sources" verse "flavor"
Splitting hairs my ass, the rules are crystal clear that Druid and Ranger are divine casters. You are simply using that term wrong.
I really don't understand the impulse to claim that everything you could ever possibly want in PF1 already exists there.
No one does that. But many things do exist, that's just how it is. You can play a 6/9 caster with a Bloodline, an Alchemist that throws Summon Monster spells, a 'tank' "with a taunt built in due to manipulating the minds of enemies", a class with good luck/bad luck abilities, a psychic caster with full BAB, or, yes, a 4/9 caster with a divine-flavored spell list that doesn't have to be lawful.
clearly the existing options don't "fit" what people are envisioning or else they wouldn't be asking for more options
Or they might not even know about the existing option.
Classes or arcehtypes where the characters gains a dragon or slowly gains powers to be come one(and be a viable combatant) are what I want from Paizo.
That's not what you originally asked for - you said "Anything that is dragon based beyond bloodline abilities but, you know, isn't terrible at it or punishes you for it(looking at you Draconic Druid and drake companions)." Wyrm Singer and Wyrm Witch are both dragon based and aren't terrible or punish you.
There is no right or wrong in a thread asking about things you wished existed.
Even if you wished something existed, and you find out that it already does exist, you aren't wrong.
All the it does exist so in your face playground crap is completely unnecessary.
It's one thing to be helpful and point someone towards what they want if you know it exists... it's totally different to freaking argue about it.
I really don't understand the impulse to claim that everything you could ever possibly want in PF1 already exists there.
No one does that. But many things do exist, that's just how it is. You can play a 6/9 caster with a Bloodline, an Alchemist that throws Summon Monster spells, a 'tank' "with a taunt built in due to manipulating the minds of enemies", a class with good luck/bad luck abilities, a psychic caster with full BAB, or, yes, a 4/9 caster with a divine-flavored spell list that doesn't have to be lawful.
While many of the options exist as an archetype, that still might not be what the person is looking for. I mean the fighter/magic-user build existed long before the magus as an eldritch knight PrC. But the magus has all its parts designed to work together. Besides, some people just don't like the eldritch knight. Some might not like a particular archetype.
|
Wyrm Witch has no dragon flavor besides "oh look, encumberance is my spell book." Punishing to typically low-strength characters. Yes, it could be a really expensive gemstone, but that is even more incentive for it to be stolen from you. A spellbook has less buyers than a familar, and a familiar has less buyers than fancy thing.
Wyrm Singer is terrible for dragon stuff. The coolest thing it can do, turn someone into a dragon, is a performance(which is okay) that only effects one person(not okay) who loses a lot of armor class and damage(also not okay) and cannot use what is arguably the most iconic thing a dragon can do(super not okay). That is punishing. Compare to a Brown-Fur Transmuter, who can make multiple allies dragons(at the cost of spell slots, which isn't as good compared to performance) but they can all use breath weapons. Several levels sooner.
Hey, maybe the whole 'aspects' thing means they only get the abilities and not the shape, which... also isn't very fun? That just makes it rage+ but only a one person.
Look- we can split hairs about "power sources" verse "flavor"Splitting hairs my ass, the rules are crystal clear that Druid and Ranger are divine casters. You are simply using that term wrong.
So you sit down at a table and say, "I want to play a Cleric" and the DM says "No- you have to play Druid."
Are you happy? Are you satisfied? Is Druid the same as Cleric?
rules pedantry is irrelevant here-
druids are not clerics
hunters are not warpriests
and rangers are definitely not non-lawful good Paladins
No amount of the technicalities of the rules set involving their magic will make a person who wants to play a CG Paladin satisfied playing a ranger instead.
99% of the time, Druid is an upgrade from a Cleric, as is Ranger over Paladin... so you will probably end up with a better character.
However, you should not allow the GM to make those decisions for you. It's your character, and honestly, you can be whatever YOU want. That's the whole point of fantasy games.
None of this has anything to do with the OP, though...
The main difference between the divines is their divine focus.
Divine Focus (DF): A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character's faith. The divine focus for a druid or a ranger is a sprig of holly, or some other sacred plant.
Oddly, shaman need a divine focus but don’t officially have one.
Look- we can split hairs about "power sources" verse "flavor"Splitting hairs my ass, the rules are crystal clear that Druid and Ranger are divine casters. You are simply using that term wrong.
So you sit down at a table and say, "I want to play a Cleric" and the DM says "No- you have to play Druid."
Are you happy? Are you satisfied? Is Druid the same as Cleric?
rules pedantry is irrelevant here-
druids are not clerics
hunters are not warpriests
and rangers are definitely not non-lawful good PaladinsNo amount of the technicalities of the rules set involving their magic will make a person who wants to play a CG Paladin satisfied playing a ranger instead.
I really don't know what distinction you want to make here. Druids aren't clerics, and oracles and shamans aren't either, but there's commonalities of flavour there and if the GM said "No druids! They're the enemy in this campaign!" you could still make a nature-flavoured spellcaster. Similarly if they said "No clerics! The gods don't have distinct monotheist priesthoods in my world!" you could still make a civilised-flavoured spellcaster.
Your original call was for a divine non-lawful 4-level spellcaster and I'm not sure you even looked at the Dandy ranger. If you want a CG paladin that's a requirement you didn't mention, and yeah Paizo didn't really publish such for PF1 (they did for PF2 and it pissed at least one person off to the point they refused to consider PF2). There's a warpriest archetype, the Champion of the Faith, but as a 6-level caster it might breach your original requirements if they're in play too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Priest class would have been nice(Wizard HD/BA, good will saves, simple weapons + deity's weapon, light armor prof., 3 domains, channel, lay on hands or negative energy blast, spontaneous casting with domain spells).
It's pretty freaking obvious that not a person on the planet who wants to play a divine 4 level caster is going to play a dandy ranger--
Just stop with this nonsense.
Casting off the bard list is not remotely the same as casting off the cleric or paladin list. All its other abilities are bard or ranger abilities, not traditional paladin-cleric style abilities.
Dandy Ranger is fine for what it is- but no, it's not a 4th level divine caster in any meaningful sense.
"I want this class"
"Here's something that in a hyper technical sense can be said to meet the requirement but which will give you none of the abilities you wanted from that class, so you're dumb for wanting it."
This is tedious nonsense-- you're not going to convince me, or anyone else that this square class your demanding we like fills the round hole for the class we think is missing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Dandy Ranger is a terrible archetype, in my opinion. It's like here's a Ranger that sucks at being a Ranger. No thanks. A Half-Elf with Arcane Training can make use of the same amount of the Bard spell list, without all the baggage of being a lame AF Dandy Ranger.
A crafting class that allowed you to get creative with magic item rules
99% of the time, Druid is an upgrade from a Cleric, as is Ranger over Paladin...
Ranger is an upgrade over Paladin? I've not heard anyone say that before. In the right campaign (Giantslayer or Skulls & Shackles, for example) that might be true, but it seems a novel claim.
Paladin does have some downsides of course (2 skill points, reliance on heavy armour, anti-evil focus, code of conduct) but ranger has its problems too (MAD, weak animal companion, mediocre spells, FE, FT).
While many of the options exist as an archetype, that still might not be what the person is looking for.
And that is fine. But I see no harm in mentioning something that might be exactly what the other person wanted. Because in parctise, this thread is rarely about classes people thing that would make a good addition to the game, but rather classes for somethign they would like to play.
It would even help in the creation of a new class, because per the class building guidelines, "each new class should have something that makes it unusual, giving it a means to interact with the game, and the game’s world, in a new and interesting way." ACG pg. 241f You can see with the Shifter what happens when such guidelines are broken.
Wyrm Witch has no dragon flavor besides "oh look, encumberance is my spell book."
I think "you sleep on a hoard" is as dragon flavored as it gets. I'm beginning to feel you are more interested in dragon mechanics than dragon flavor.
Maybe if you only want one or two very specfic things, you shouldn't start your posts with "anything". Seriously, when you ask for "anything", you recieve "anything". Don't blame people for taking you at your word!
No amount of the technicalities of the rules set involving their magic will make a person who wants to play a CG Paladin satisfied playing a ranger instead.
You didn't say you wanted a CG Paladin, you said you wanted a divine caster. By the definition that the rules use, and that 99.9% of all players use, a Ranger is a divine caster. Get the notion that it's not because it doesn't fit your vision of a divine caster's flavor out of your head.
"Divine casting" does not equal "Cleric". "Divine casting" describes a mechanic, not a flavor. This is a fact. Accept it! If you use the phrase "divine caster", people will naturally presume you're talking about the machanic. Don't blame people for taking you at your word! If you want to talk about flavor, don't use the name of a mechanic.
Ranger is an upgrade over Paladin? I've not heard anyone say that before.
Yeah, it's generally accepted that Paladin is stronger than Ranger, and that Cleric is stronger than Druid. Maybe not for a specific build concept, but in general still.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class that is a build your own monster.
Monstrous traits(natural attacks, tongue, high jump, climb, swallow whole, amphibious, swim, etc.)
Monstrous defense(natural armor, energy resistance, immunity, evasion, slime, etc.)
Monstrous power(breath weapon, aura, gaze, web, ray, etc.)
Thinking more on it, I would've liked to see a d6 wis-based divine class, a d10 int-based arcane class, and a d10 occult class.
This would let me fill out a grid of classes available for a setting idea I had.
d10 arcane - ___
d8 arcane - magus
d6 arcane - witch
d10 divine - paladin
d8 divine - inquisitor
d6 divine - ___
d10 psychic - ___
d8 psychic - bard
d6 psychic - psychic
barbarian, brawler, kineticist, slayer, swashbuckler
alchemist, druid , and bloodrager would be from the 'mysterious other continent'
|
|
Thinking more on it, I would've liked to see a d6 wis-based divine class, a d10 int-based arcane class, and a d10 occult class.
This would let me fill out a grid of classes available for a setting idea I had.d10 arcane - ___
d8 arcane - magus
d6 arcane - witch
d10 divine - paladin
d8 divine - inquisitor
d6 divine - ___
d10 psychic - ___
d8 psychic - bard
d6 psychic - psychic
barbarian, brawler, kineticist, slayer, swashbuckleralchemist, druid , and bloodrager would be from the 'mysterious other continent'
Bloodrager is a d10 arcane, warpriest and clerics are d8 divine
I want a Witcher, alchemy, spell like abilities, martial prowess, specialized monster hate, and parry ranged attacks.
A non-caster healing class with channel, lay on hands, and "life" points(3+Con mod+Cha mod+ 1-2 per level) that they can use to create healing, curative, and raise dead/resurrection effects. Maybe also giv them positive energy powers like the postive energy blast of kineticist, fast healing, positive energy field that does damage to undead attackers, etc. Though a 9th level Cha based spontaneous caster, a "Healer", that you choose the source of your healing power which determines your caster type(arcane, divine, or psychic) would have been interesting. I would still give the class channel and lay on hands. Though it's spell list and spells known would be a set list.
You know how the Mindblade magus has psychic spells instead of arcane spells and the Onmyoji spiritualist has divine spells instead of psychic?
Maybe a Witch, Bloodrager and Arcanist could have gotten archetypes that switch spell lists around.
You know how the Mindblade magus has psychic spells instead of arcane spells and the Onmyoji spiritualist has divine spells instead of psychic?
Maybe a Witch, Bloodrager and Arcanist could have gotten archetypes that switch spell lists around.
Paladin has Pearl Seeker which makes it psychic as well- but of course it's water themed and you get a hippocampus so useless 9 times out of 10.
A bloodrager archetype that made it cast off the Ranger list as a "nature's wrath" would be cool.
Arcanist has "white necromancer" or whatever- but that doesn't go far enough. Needs a total swap to divine casting-- could stay with Int and fill the "int divine caster" role that never got translated from 3.5
Also- several classes could probably do with an archetype to swap them into spirit magic casting.