If there was one last 1st Edition source book what would you want in it?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

None of that is really what I'm after though, I want an archetype that trades out class features.


Wow, a lot of posts since I last posted here on Monday.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Earlier, I wrote:
Claxon wrote:

The other day I went looking to see if there was an Inquisitor archetype with rage and rage powers, something like the Bloodrager but on the Inquisitor chassis.

I'd like it to have it's spell casting unchanged, but I'm unsure exactly what class features would have to go. It seems obvious you need to trade judgements for rage, an ability to cast while raging, and some rage powers. But not sure if you'd need to trade more.

But a Raging Inquisitor would be pretty cool.

Maybe trading out Judgment, Solo Tactics, and Teamwork Feats for Rage, Rage Powers, Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge, and Sanctified Ragecasting (works like Bloodrage and spellcasting while in Bloodrage, including the self-buffing rider, but for Inquisitor spells). Also change spellcasting and other remaining Wisdom-based Inquisitor abilities to be Charisma-based.

Thinking about this more, it reminds me that I also want a proper Rage Prophet. The idea of the Rage Prophet prestige class is really cool, but mechanically it just doesn't work very well, and you really have to jump through hoops to get it to work decently -- for starters, it doesn't progress Rage rounds, and it doesn't have the Blood Casting feature that Bloodrager does, so you're stuck with using Moment of Clarity, which has awful action economy and is the Rage Power equivalent of a feat tax. I would like to see a 6/9 casting, d8, 3/4 BAB conversion of the Oracle that adds in Rage and Rage Powers; or a 4/9 casting, d10, full BAB Barbarian/Oracle hybrid inspired by Bloodrager but not constrained to be a Bloodrager archetype; or maybe even both. Both of these are something that even 2nd Edition doesn't do so far (unless I missed something hidden in a really weird place -- yes, technically, you could go Barbarian multiclass {Oracle or Sorcerer} or vice versa, but unless something sneaked in recently, you're still stuck with using Moment of Clarity, which still has awful action economy and is still a feat tax. If they had thought of how to do this properly in 1st Edition, it would have helped with doing it properly in 2nd Edition (hint, hint).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So many things I would have liked to have seen. I really wish we got a couple years worth of stuff for 1st ed, or at least a couple more hardcover books....if those books where things I really wanted anyway;)


Jon Goranson wrote:
I let the Bard roll their performance for Inspire and it can go higher based on the roll.

My bard is not the most optimised of my players and could do with a boost. Can you tell me more about this or tell me what I need to buy to read it?


What does 6/9 and 4/9 spell casting mean?


OmniMage wrote:
What does 6/9 and 4/9 spell casting mean?

It means out of maximum magic levels. So Wizard is up to 9th level spells so would be 9/9, a Bard has 6th level spells at max level so is known as a 6/9 spellcaster. Paladins have up to 4th level spells as a maximum so is known as a 4/9 caster. Hope that helps.

EtG


Thanks!


^A bit more detail on this:

9/9 prepared casters get access to a new level of spells at each odd class level, starting at 1st level and excluding 19th level. 9/9 spontaneous casters are similar but have a 1 level delay for 2nd level through 9th level spells. Apart from a few weird archetypes, both types also have 0 level spells (cantrips/orisons/knacks).

6/9 casters, regardless of prepared or spontaneous, get access to new spells at each 3n + 1 level, starting at 1st level (n = 0) and excluding 19th level (n = 6). Apart from a few weird archetypes, they also have 0 level spells (cantrips/orisons/knacks).

4/9 casters, regardless of prepared or spontaneous, get access to new spells at each 3n + 1 level, starting at 4th level (n = 1) and excluding 16th and 19th levels (n = 5 or 6). They usually DON'T have 0 level spells (cantrips/orisons/knacks), but in the rare instances that they do, these usually start at 1st level (but 2nd level for Child of Acavna and Amaznen Fighter, which also delays the acquisition of 1st level spells to 5th class level).

And that reminds me, I wish they had come out with a proper 4/9 spellcasting, full BAB, d10 HD arcane caster, rather than the pathetically bad Child of Acavna and Amaznen Fighter archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unchained Ranger
Unchained Fighter
Unchained Ninja
Unchained Cavalier/Samurai
Unchained Swashbuckler
Unchained Gunslinger

Fix the underperforming classes. One last big gift to martial classes.


What!!! No Ultimate Shifter?;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, yeah, literally forgot about it because Shifter is so bad.

Its at the bottom of my personal homebrew rework list because I have no idea how to fix it.

Absolutely bogus that they made a martial class that was worse than the druid at shifting.


^So it's not just me that keeps forgetting about it . . . which is odd because I keep remembering the approximately equally bad Child of Acavna and Amaznen Fighter (and to a lesser extent the even worse Hulk Brute Vigilante) . . . although on thinking back on it that just may be luck of the draw, that Child of Acavna and Amaznen Fighter happens to have been mentioned more in the threads that I frequent, whereas Shifter extremely rarely comes up in those. (This in turn might have something to do with Shifter being a class that apparently not very many people use at all, whereas Child of Acavna and Amaznen is at least an archetype of a commonly used class.)


ShroudedInLight wrote:

Unchained Ranger

Unchained Fighter
Unchained Ninja
Unchained Cavalier/Samurai
Unchained Swashbuckler
Unchained Gunslinger

Fix the underperforming classes. One last big gift to martial classes.

Ranger? That one is pretty good. Not sure what I'd change.

Fighter isn't bad. Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training could have been included in a core book, but not really necessary at this stage

Ninja isn't bad either really. It was already a bit of an unchained rogue.

My only complaint about the swashbuckler is that it should have had a good will save. Other than that, a solid martial class.

Gunslinger is fine. It's overly tied to firearms, but that was the point so....

I never see anyone play cavalier or samurai, but I think that's more of a logistics issue. Not enough places you can take a mount. I don't know how unchained would address that.

I think Bloodrager could have used a sidebar just giving you the option to use the unchained version of rage with them, but again not really necessary at this stage.

Brawler's Flurry is terribly written and could use a do over. It would benefit from switching to the unchained monk version of flurry, but the two classes are already too similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, my complaints with those classes (and the Shifter) aren't all that complicated and are more about overall Design philosophy than about how good they are/are not at their job.

Design Talk:

So, I feel like all classes should have some modular element about them. I want to be able to play the same class over the course of five-ten different campaigns and still feel like I'm doing something new each time. I also want my players to be able to field multiple of the same class without feeling like they're all mechanically identical.

For some classes their spellcasting does this for them. You can play 8 different Wizards each specialized around making the most of their specific school and not feel like you've played the same character each time. Sure you'll want to default to the "best" spells in each case, but its entirely doable to focus down on specific schools of magic.

For classes with more restrictive Spellcasting, you end up needing more modular class features. Stuff like Oracle Mysteries, Witch Hexes/Patrons, Arcanist Exploits, Evolution Points for Eidolons, and etc that allow for replay/differentiation.

The most interesting Martial Classes also have this modular nature to their abilities, Barbarian Rage Powers. Vigilante Talents. Fighter's long, long, long overdue Advanced Weapon/Armor Training Options. There are even a few interesting Rogue Talents thanks to Unchained, though most are still hot garbage. The classes I mention are guilty of being too similar to each other when played either sequentially or together in a group, or too narrow in some manner.

Its not about whether or not its possible to do something fun or overpowered with the class. Its really about ensuring that you have enough options to make the character unique and interesting.

Ranger: Favored Enemy and Terrain are ass unless you get the GM to give you prior knowledge to what you're facing, the Slayer does this so much better. Its also awkward because the Hunter exists and largely does the nature-y aspect of the Ranger so much better. It suffers from being a 3.5 conversion, 2e does a better job but I don't know the math there yet so I'm still running 1e.

Fighter isn't bad, but is exceptionally boring. Advanced Weapon and Armor Training come too late to the party to really make the Fighter stand out as different or unique. It needs to follow a chassis more similar to the Slayer or Monk with talents at even levels instead of Feats. Again, this suffers from the 3.5e conversion.

Ninja is okay but it suffers from its nature as a throw away class designed to be an alternate to the Rogue. That gives it two problems, one of them being a lack of material and the other being that it was tied to Core Rogue, yuck. I do have ideas on how I'm going to homebrew this. I'm taking aspects from Monk, Alchemist, and Rogue and mixing them all together, make it something other than just Eastern Themed Rogue TM.

Cavalier and Samurai are my current project, I just have to design 30 odd talents and they'll be good to go. Design wise the lack of talents and the reliance upon the extremely limited stuff they get from their Order is just silly in comparison to over classes who get to pick fun things every level. Plus they're a class without spellcasting who has an animal companion, when animal companions are largely balanced around the idea that they have a buddy casting spells on them. Extremely silly.

Swashbuckler has no modular abilities at all, Deeds are exceptionally stupid and make every swashbuckler feel identical. Gunslinger is like swashbuckler but even worse because it is tied to the awful rules associated with Guns. So glad I've finished my homebrew on these folks, playtesting is currently on going and nothing seems to have broken yet.

Shifter needs to actually be able to shift, make its Wild Shape just dramatically better than the Druids and hopefully expand the options for transformations. Shifters should be going Dragon Shape 3 at late game, again, with actual choices throughout the class in the form of talents on even levels.

Brawler honestly is another dishonorable mention, Martial Flexibility does a lot to save them from my general ire at the lack of modular talents. However, they really don't have much else going for them. They're also in a weird spot between Fighter and Monk without the advantage of Ki Powers and Style Strikes to really make themselves stand out.

In terms of the remaining classes that don't have modular talents of some kind: Paladin/Antipaladin could have a bunch of class features turned into talents and then allow them to pick those up as they level up. Same goes for Warpriest, Bard, Inquisitor, Druid, Summoner, Spiritualist and Hunter. These folks just have spellcasting to fall back on and usually at least some modularity to their chassis.

Basically, strip off some abilities from the chassis of any of the above classes and give these folks a modular ability on even levels and a much larger modular ability every 5-7 levels and I'd be happy. It'll take me forever to homebrew everything, but that's the plan.


Melkiador wrote:
Fighter isn't bad. Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training could have been included in a core book, but not really necessary at this stage

Oh boy, hard disagree on that statement...

Fighter has to be the worst class in P1E right now...
- Barely any skill points
- Lack of direction unless you read the 300 combat feats
- Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training came out to late
- Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training are useless with archetypes
- Archetypes often replace Weapon Training and Armor Training, when they could have replace the 12 Bonus Feats
- Lack of actual purposes and is outclassed by other martial classes
- Lackluster class features
- Lackluster special feats

An Unchained Fighter that makes the class NOT a brainless battering ram would have been welcomed.


This may sound counterintuitive, but more crossover books, like the Vampire Hunter D Pathfinder book, which is an official 1st party book.

I just think the fresh perspective would be nice, even if it ultimately wouldn’t be allowed in too many GMs’ games, due to being a different setting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Barbarian is already top tier.

Brawler is fine as is.

Cavalier is okay though could have used some more good archetypes like a dragonrider.

Fighter is okay but I still think it should have gotten 6+Int skill points and weapon focus should have been for weapon groups.

Monk, at least we got the unchained version though I still think that it should have still gotten the good will save.

Ninjas would have been cooler if you had clans and each clan gave you interesting options like one that gives you monk unarmed strike, AC(Cha), and few other monk abilities, a clans that gave you 6th level casting(one for arcane, one for divine, etc.), clan that gave you sneak attack and other assassin/rogue abilities, clan that gave you psychic abilities, clan for shadow magic/abilities, clan for oni related powers, etc.

Ranger is already top tier.

Rogue, well we have the unchained version, though I wonder if it should have had a fighter's HD/BAB.

Samurai, I would like a complete redo of this one. Like one that uses ki powers for their sword and various sword techniques.

Shifter, so much potential and I could see a variety of variants.

Swashbuckler should have had a good fort save and Dex to damage built into the class.


Slayer was pretty ok. I think it could have used better advanced talents. The class doesn’t offer much past low level.

It would have been nice to have a weapon finesse path for slayer.


I think ShroudedInLight's comments about the Ranger being a 3.5 conversion is spot on and actually explains many of the core classes' "issues," including the fighter. I think the fighter's intent was to always be a mainstream underdog character that distinguishes itself by understanding battlefield tactics... but those tactics are pretty much available to everyone at varying levels because they're feats.

I think "fixing" the fighter isn't the way to go. 3.x design philosophy has evolved, and a big part of the philosophy now is giving each class a useful, unique mechanic (or at least a unique variant of an existing mechanic). The fighter's main mechanic is access to a whole lot of things available to everyone else. Don't fix the fighter; create a new class that's not tethered to previous editions' mechanics. I realize I've said nothing new about this topic.

I've been told that's what they did for the 2E fighter.


^Part of what they did with the 2nd Edition Fighter is just nerf everybody else, like with respect to the possibility of getting Combat Reflexes -- and for that particular example (and probably others that I can't think of at the moment), even Fighter has to wait a really long time, for at least half of most campaigns. This is really unsatisfying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So like, the Fighter's got a couple of problems. As Andostre mentions, they don't really have a useful unique mechanic. They get access to more feats, but so do all the martial classes. They get higher attack and damage rolls under certain conditions, but so do other classes.

The only really unique thing they had going for them are the Fighter only feats (which are okay but aren't really interesting until the book that adds the Advanced Weapon and Advanced Armor training) and faster movement in medium and heavy armor. Its only "recently" in PF1 terms anyway that Fighter got unique selectable mechanics in the advanced training options and most of the Fighter archetypes don't let you play with them because they swap out Weapon or Armor training.

So thats on the mechanics side. On the flavor side, the Fighter is in a whole other jam.

Wanna be a master of a specific fighting style? Ranger or Slayer.
Wanna be a knight in shining armor? Cavalier or Paladin
Wanna be a knight in black armor? Cavalier or Anti-paladin
Wanna be a close range ball of death? Monk or Brawler
Wanna be a finesse master? Swashbuckler or Unchained Rogue
Wanna hit things really hard? Barbarian or Bloodrager

It doesn't fulfill any of those fantasies better than the other options you have available.

Back over to mechanics, the Fighter is a generalist who will do a decent job at whatever you design it to do. However, at the end of the day, it still needs to focus down a single path. The Fighter doesn't have any class features that allow it to be an actual generalist.

Honestly, what I would want to see out of a Fighter rework is if the Fighter could pick up any weapon and know how to use it. Give the Fighter free feats based on the weapon they're currently wielding, just the basics at first and then talents that expand on those.

For instance, a Fighter should be able to pick up any exotic weapon and just wield it. A Fighter should be able to grab a bow and shoot into melee without worrying about spending two feats on making Bows viable, then swap over to a Greatsword or a Sword and Shield when needed. Give them free Two Weapon Fighting when they wield two weapons, or Combat Reflexes when they have a polearm.

Stuff like that.


ShroudedInLight wrote:

So thats on the mechanics side. On the flavor side, the Fighter is in a whole other jam.

Wanna be a master of a specific fighting style? Ranger or Slayer.
Wanna be a knight in shining armor? Cavalier or Paladin
Wanna be a knight in black armor? Cavalier or Anti-paladin
Wanna be a close range ball of death? Monk or Brawler
Wanna be a finesse master? Swashbuckler or Unchained Rogue
Wanna hit things really hard? Barbarian or Bloodrager

It doesn't fulfill any of those fantasies better than the other options you have available.

You... explained it better than I could :P

Thanks ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShroudedInLight wrote:

On the flavor side, the Fighter is in a whole other jam.

Wanna be a master of a specific fighting style? Ranger or Slayer.
Wanna be a knight in shining armor? Cavalier or Paladin
Wanna be a knight in black armor? Cavalier or Anti-paladin
Wanna be a close range ball of death? Monk or Brawler
Wanna be a finesse master? Swashbuckler or Unchained Rogue
Wanna hit things really hard? Barbarian or Bloodrager

The one flavor of character that I sometimes try to play with the fighter is the grizzled veteran. I know it's anachronistic, but in my head he's always got a cigar between his teeth. Just a tough as nails, pessimistic dude who knows it's his job to go in there and get knocked around for king or paycheck. And on a good day, he gives as good as he gets.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...Didn't we have this exact same thread before?

Well anyway, book of statblocks for all demigods/quasi deities without statblocks :p


Andostre wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:

On the flavor side, the Fighter is in a whole other jam.

Wanna be a master of a specific fighting style? Ranger or Slayer.
Wanna be a knight in shining armor? Cavalier or Paladin
Wanna be a knight in black armor? Cavalier or Anti-paladin
Wanna be a close range ball of death? Monk or Brawler
Wanna be a finesse master? Swashbuckler or Unchained Rogue
Wanna hit things really hard? Barbarian or Bloodrager

The one flavor of character that I sometimes try to play with the fighter is the grizzled veteran. I know it's anachronistic, but in my head he's always got a cigar between his teeth. Just a tough as nails, pessimistic dude who knows it's his job to go in there and get knocked around for king or paycheck. And on a good day, he gives as good as he gets.

The only things I can think of are the "gladiator" and the "guard dog".


ShroudedInLight wrote:
So like, the Fighter's got a couple of problems. As Andostre mentions, they don't really have a useful unique mechanic. They get access to more feats, but so do all the martial classes. They get higher attack and damage rolls under certain conditions, but so do other classes.

This is partly correct, but they get a LOT more feats than the other classes. Problem is that Pathfinder feat taxes eat up so many of those that even Fighters can often just barely get them in. Advanced Weapon Training (and to a lesser extent Advanced Armor Training) can let them get some mostly unique useful mechanics (shared with a few weird archetypes of other classes). Again, the problem is that these work in a feat tax kind of way (especially Advanced Weapon Training, where the really good stuff is, and which has a harsh limit on how often you can take these options).

ShroudedInLight wrote:
The only really unique thing they had going for them are the Fighter only feats (which are okay but aren't really interesting until the book that adds the Advanced Weapon and Advanced Armor training) and faster movement in medium and heavy armor. Its only "recently" in PF1 terms anyway that Fighter got unique selectable mechanics in the advanced training options and most of the Fighter archetypes don't let you play with them because they swap out Weapon or Armor training.

Some of these archetypes could be fixed in that department by a minor change in text (for example, Archer). Others should have their Weapon Training/Armor Training substitutes be made selectable optionis (in many cases, of Advanced Weapon Training/Advanced Armor Training).

ShroudedInLight wrote:
So thats on the mechanics side. On the flavor side, the Fighter is in a whole other jam.

But flavor isn't in a mechanics vacuum . . .

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Wanna be a master of a specific fighting style? Ranger or Slayer.

Ranger has the problem of needing to choose the right Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain and/or the right archetype to pull this off properly. Slayer works better for this, but Slayer Talents are competing with Ranger Combat Style. Neither one of them lets you be a master of a specific fighting style in Heavy Armor, unless you go through prestige class hoops. Fighter has just enough bonus feats that in some cases, it can be a master of TWO specific combat styles, although the lack of getting off the hook for feat taxes hurts. Fighter should have a Combat Style feat series where the 4n + 2 feats are now.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Wanna be a knight in shining armor? Cavalier or Paladin

That's what Cavalier and Paladin are supposed to be for. Although Cavalier is restricted enough to lead a decent number of people to call for a Cavalier Unchained, and 1st Edition Paladin only does it for Lawful Good (which makes sense for a prestige class, but not for a base class; and yes, I know about Grey Paladin, but it's a rather bad archetype, and Vindictive Bastard isn't all that great either, although my initial impression was that it is slightly better).

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Wanna be a knight in black armor? Cavalier or Anti-paladin

Same thing as above, except that Antipaladin has more alignment options in workable archetypes, although they forgot to change the Tyrant's spell list to be oriented to Lawful Evil instead of Chaotic Evil (but that's easy to fix).

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Wanna be a close range ball of death? Monk or Brawler

That's what these are supposed to be for. Although Brawler doesn't seem to have gotten much support after release, so you're really going to have to lean heavily on Martial Flexibility, which doesn't have very many uses per day until you get to high levels. Pre-Unchained Monk is pretty weak unless you really know what you're doing with your archetypes and Style Feats, while Unchained Monk suffers from losing a lot of the pre-Unchained Monk archetype options; both suffer from being restricted to Lawful only (except for Martial Artist, which is pre-Unchained only and rendered at least mostly obsolete by Brawler).

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Wanna be a finesse master? Swashbuckler or Unchained Rogue

That's what these are supposed to be for. Although Swashbuckler is rather weak, and didn't get very much support after release, unless you manage to use something overpowered like Desna's Divine Fighting Style (and even then, your poor Fortitude Save may kill you). Also, Swashbuckler's progression is a real railroad, and while alternate Deeds were introduced, you really get punished for picking them (you have to trade out 2 Deeds for 1 of these).

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Wanna hit things really hard? Barbarian or Bloodrager

These have the mechanics, although Bloodrager suffers from unevenness of Bloodlines, including the rather limited and rather hit-or-miss Bloodline Feats. But if you want to be the more strategic hard-hitter, this flavor may not match so well.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
It doesn't fulfill any of those fantasies better than the other options you have available.

I would say that in some cases it does; besides, you don't want to completely overshadow the other martial classes, UNLESS you are going to merge them with Fighter . . . which in a subset of cases might actually be a good idea.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Back over to mechanics, the Fighter is a generalist who will do a decent job at whatever you design it to do. However, at the end of the day, it still needs to focus down a single path. The Fighter doesn't have any class features that allow it to be an actual generalist.

The bonus feats help . . . if only Pathfinder 1st Edition(*) didn't have so many feat taxes that most characters have to just end up bypassing most feats. Nevertheless, with Fighter, dual specialties are at least not totally off the table.

What I'd like to see is merge Brawler, Gunslinger, Ranger, Swashbuckler into Fighter, and give the Fighter the Brawler's Martial Flexibility, while making the other Brawler, Gunslinger/Swashbuckler, and Ranger class features be options that Fighter could pick up. Then also merge Brawler into Monk, and give Monk the Brawler's Martial Flexibility, while making the other Brawler class features be options that Monk could pick up (with Monk lending itself better at some than Fighter, and vice versa). In both cases, have Martial Flexibility start out with more uses per day, or make Combat Stamina a regular thing, hook Martial Flexibility into that, and make most Combat Stamina tricks less expensive. Then also similarly merge Slayer into Rogue (including Combat Stamina, if that is to be made a regular thing).

(*)Seems to be reduced in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, but certainly not gone, and Pathfinder 2nd Edition locks more things to just 1 class (like Combat Reflexes, and even for Fighter, it's way up in level before you can get it).

ShroudedInLight wrote:

Honestly, what I would want to see out of a Fighter rework is if the Fighter could pick up any weapon and know how to use it. Give the Fighter free feats based on the weapon they're currently wielding, just the basics at first and then talents that expand on those.

For instance, a Fighter should be able to pick up any exotic weapon and just wield it. A Fighter should be able to grab a bow and shoot into melee without worrying about spending two feats on making Bows viable, then swap over to a Greatsword or a Sword and Shield when needed. Give them free Two Weapon Fighting when they wield two weapons, or Combat Reflexes when they have a polearm.

Giving them Martial Flexibility (but with more uses per day, or better yet hooked into a buffed version of Combat Stamina) would help a lot with all this.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
That's what these are supposed to be for.

I think ShroudedInLight's point isn't that those other classes should not be suited for those specific flavors... but that there aren't many viable iconic flavors left that are best suited for a fighter, the quintessential martial class.


CorvusMask wrote:
...Didn't we have this exact same thread before?

No, I don't think there's ever been a thread discussing shortfalls of the fighter before. Not ever.


Magic item unchainded.

A book on magic items where said items are not overpriced and underwhelming.


Nicos wrote:

Magic item unchainded.

A book on magic items where said items are not overpriced and underwhelming.

Hey Nicos! Hope you are well :)

On Topic: 1/2 bab unarmored Priest.


Scavion wrote:


Hey Nicos! Hope you are well :)

Waves at the goblin*

Scavion wrote:


On Topic: 1/2 bab unarmored Priest.

Priest as a full casting divine class?


Yup. I just like the idea of it. Preferably with a custom suite of options depending on worship/domain


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also like a similar idea, but I prefer it to be able to use light armor (to differentiate it to arcane full casters). In absence of anything else, the priest from the tome of secrets is good enough.


Reviewing the Antipaladin spell list for the discussion thread for Iluzry's Guide To The Paladin / Antipaladin made me realize that Antipaladin has a LOT of Intrigue/Social spells. Antipaladin even has most of the right class skills to go with these, but is very deficient in skill ranks per level, meaning that an Antipaladin really needs to invest in boosting skill ranks (and you know what that means) to get the best use of these. This seems to call for a Rogue or Vigilante archetype with partial Antipaladin class features, including Antipaladin spellcasting (but without the caster level impairment, although retaining the 4/9 spellcasting).

Of course, this wouldn't be enough for a whole 1st Edition book, so I'd want it to be part of a followup to Ultimate Intrigue -- Intrigue Adventures, or something like that; or if that wasn't enough, then make a fill-in-the-holes book that would also have other needed missing classes and archetypes (like a d10, full BAB, 4/9 spellcasting backcross hybrid between Myrmidarch Magus and Fighter that rightfully pretends that Child of Acavna and Amaznen Fighter was just a bad dream). Or more relevant to the Antipaladin/Rogue/Vigilante hybrid, a corresponding Rogue or Vigilante archetype that has partial Paladin class features, including Paladin spellcasting, for when Good has to work undercover.

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / If there was one last 1st Edition source book what would you want in it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.