Originally Posted by
Renchard
First off, I'm a huge fan of your work, so kudos to you for taking your insights into (what I feel is) an even more accessible direction.
Thank you!
Therefore, anything I say is merely for consideration, and please don't let it be taken as any sort of criticism.
I don't mind criticism in the slightest, no worries.
Let me start with some high-concept thoughts and then move down into the nitty-gritty.
1) BAB and saves. Since this is an E6 game, why not play around with the advancement of these parameters to give a slightly greater spread between those who are competent and those who are not? Something like a +1 BAB for fighters, and a +1/2 BAB for rogue and mage? For saves, maybe a +1/level for Good Saves, and a +1/2 levels or +1/3 levels for Bad saves? Play around to taste, but why keep a design that doesn't serve a game that is only going to 6th level?
I don't quite follow you here - could you explain in further detail? I'd rather not penalize the rogue's BAB any further.
2) Mage: division between arcane and divine. Beyond ASF and some feats, what point does maintaining that division serve? You have 3 arcane classes, and 1 of them can cast in armor anyway.
Admittedly, not much. It's a legacy decision. In my previous compendium, I did away with divine spellcasting altogether. I could do that here; it's an easy enough adaptation.
3) Mage: HPs and skill points between arcane and divine classes. Clerics and Druids are going to be skill-poor compared to virtually every other class, and don't even get a bump to HPs to compensate. If there is anywhere a division into a 4th class would seem warranted, it's between arcane and divine. Or, apitballing here, but since classes share skill points and HPs, drop the division between arcane and divine, and have a warrior-mage class and a pure-caster class.
Clerics (and druids, to a lesser extent) were always skill-poor. I've given them both pretty heavy nerfs (removed the druid's animal companion and altered his wild shape for what I hope is the worse; removed cleric domains and fighting ability), but the fact remains that they are still full casters, and any more toys than that are gravy. A separate spellcasting class for divine casters would be a bit too much complexity, I think.
4) Multiclassing. If I recall, you're not a proponent of people going 3/3 or 2/2/2 or anything with your classes, so it may not matter to you. But a lot of interesting concepts can't be done with only three classes to pick from, like a theurge.
This particular incarnation is friendlier to multiclassing (I've moved archetype powers up a level, and tried to push the most "dippable" powers back to 3rd level. To reiterate, because it's a total 180 from my last effort: I support multiclassing with this compendium.
5) Relative strength of archetype powers. I think when you're designing classes, that's it's easy to forget how much on an E6 campaign takes place at 6+. I think a lot of the archetype powers are good concepts, but may be too powerful upfront. Some of that power may be better to assign to feats that members of that archetype can take as capstone feats. I'm not going to pick on any particular power, since you may totally disagree concept with this concept, and that's fine.
Pick away, please. I'm a theoretical designer and don't have many (if any) opportunities for playtesting, so I need all the feedback I can get. I'm trying my level best to make sure that the really powerful abilities are the Greater Archetype Powers (I think I need to switch around the monk).
6) Monk: Flurry of blows is a really annoying ability. It's constantly argued about (just check out the Paizo forums) and runs counter to the fast movement ability of the monk. Which isn't there anymore. Hmm. I guess you didn't like that monk aspect? While I see that the greater power mitigates the movement aspect, maybe there are other ways to represent the monk's kung-fu fighting?
I did forget to include fast movement (which I will rectify). I'm not at all opposed to axing flurry of blows, since it's kind of stupid anyway. I strongly believe that the monk (and really all fighting classes in general, but that's another point entirely) should be able to full attack and move in the same round.
7) Monk: The monk SR is really strong. I'd say start it at 8 + level, and maybe a feat to move it to 12 + level at level 6. And 100% spell failure if they don't penetrate seems really excessive.
8 + level means that he only has a 40% chance to resist spells cast by an equal level caster. I'd prefer it to be stronger - heck, drow get 11 + spell level just for being drow. If I spent years training in a monastery to unlock the powers of the mind, my spell resistance damn well better be higher than a prissy dark elf noble who spent his life dithering around in the underdark. But I digress. I could compromise at 10 + level.
As to the second point, I have considered it and yes, it is excessive, but in duration. I'm either going to keep the 100% failure chance and make it only last for one round (it's going to be a one-shot anyway; no mage worth his spellbook is going to cast on a monk twice) or make it so that the monk is healed for a certain amount after absorbing spells.
8) Knight: The lesser power is an immediate action, but they can do it 3 times per round at level 6. Since immediate actions are limited to once a round, something has to give in the description. Honestly, more than 1/round seems a bit much to me.
Right, should be free action. Don't see why more than once a round is too much, though - the knight's entire schtick is "I am a D&D-based tank that can actually exert some control over who the enemy targets," and that's like... his central ability. But I'll think about it.
I'm still looking, so more later.