The Nope Slayer Class

The Nope Slayer is a variant of the Lamentations of the Flame Princess Fighter class. It is the same as that class in all respects, except as noted here. (If needed, a free no-art version of the LotFP core rulebook is available as a downloadable pdf file).

To be a Nope Slayer is to be afraid, but fight on. To face one’s greatest fears every day, stare them in the face, and shout “NOPE!” before either flailing wildly in an attempt to destroy them, or flee for one’s very life.

At first level, a Nope Slayer must select 3 “Nopes.” These Nopes represent the character’s great fears, and can be anything which the GM agrees a person might reasonably be afraid of. Examples of Nopes could include; spiders, snakes, water, heights, darkness, magic, undead, bats, and batmen. Anytime one of their Nopes is encountered, the Nope Slayer must make a morale check. 2d6 v. 5 + Wisdom Modifier + 1/5th Nope Slayer level, rounded down. If the Nope Slayer rolls above their morale, they must flee wildly from their Nope, abandoning their compatriots and likely becoming lost in their attempt to save themselves.  If they roll under their morale, then any die rolls made in an effort to defeat the Nope are doubled. (Or halved, in the event that it is preferable to roll lower rather than higher).

Once a morale check against a Nope has been failed, it cannot be attempted again until the following day. However, even after a successful morale check, another check may be called for if the GM determines the frightfulness of the Nope has escalated. For example, a player may succeed on her morale check to fight the dog-sized spiders, but the GM may insist on another check when the party encounters an elephant sized spider.

Note also that rolls are only doubled when the character is specifically attempting to overcome their Nope. A player who selected “the dark” as one of their Nopes would not double all combat rolls while in the dark. Instead, they might be twice as capable of finding firewood. Though, I suppose they might double their combat rolls if facing a creature who was able to create areas of magical darkness.

REMINDER: The second annual Papers & Pencils reader survey is currently open! Please take a moment to fill it out.

Pathfinder Class Analysis 15: Oracle

Core Concept: Sitting down to write my assessment of the core concept for the Oracle begs the question: what is a class’ core concept?

If we refer to the narrative concept of a caster who must suffer a hindrance in order to access their powers, then I quite like the core concept for the oracle. Likewise if the core concept is a caster who unwillingly has magical powers thrust upon her by the gods. These are things I like.

If, however, the core concept refers to the class’s mechanics, then the oracle is perhaps the most vapid class I have assessed thus far. Not necessarily because any of its mechanics are bad, but  because none of them are unique or inventive. The oracle is a hodge-podge class, assembled from mechanics left over from other classes.

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the oracle is a bad class, or that it was a poor addition to the game. It does, however, mean that I don’t have much to talk about. Forgive me if this ends up being short because of that.

Spells: The oracle is a sorcerer who casts divine spells. There’s really not much more to say about it. Oracles learn and cast spells exactly as sorcerers do, but they draw from the cleric spell list instead of the wizard spell list. They even copied the artwork concept of a scantily clad woman. (Joy).

I suppose the one distinction is that oracles must choose whether they prefer “cure” or “inflict” spells, and they will always automatically learn every spell of the type they chose. This is in addition to the spells they gain on the “spells known” table. And while players do have the option to choose “inflict” spells, I think the purpose of this mechanic is to make healing magic more accessible–which isn’t something I’m fond of.

Don’t get me wrong, when my character gets knocked down to 1 hp, it’s good to have a magical healer around. But I prefer magical healing to be a boon, not a necessity.

Mystery: If the oracle is a divine sorcerer, mysteries are divine bloodlines. Mechanically, I cannot think of a single other thing to say about them. They are literally identical in form.

In terms of fluff, I will say that mysteries are a pretty cool idea.

Oracle’s Curse: This is probably the most interesting part of the Oracle; the flaw which they must live with in exchange for their power. It builds on ancient beliefs about magic–primal ones which seem somehow more true to the human experience. Though the curse doesn’t affect the character anywhere near as much as the mystery does, the benefits from the curse are still quite useful.

I’d prefer if the curses were a little harsher, to force the player to deal with a greater challenge. I also think these would be fun to randomize, though I understand that would be problematic for most players. (Wussies!)

Orsions: Perhaps I ought to simply omit Orsions and Cantrips from these analyses, since I always say the same thing, but I will again direct you to my cleric analysis for my thoughts on these.

Revelation / Final Revelation: These are similar to bloodline powers, and unique to each of the mysteries. To analyze each individually would go well beyond the scope of this post, and probably force it beyond ten thousand words. There are some pretty good ones, and a few bad ones. Blorp.

All in all, a solid class, but not a lot to write about.

Pathfinder Class Analysis 14: Inquisitor

Core Concept: It occurred to me as I was laying out this post that I’ve never actually taken a serious look at the inquisitor before. Other classes, like the Cavalier, the Witch, or the Alchemist at least caught my fancy enough that I read over their abilities briefly when I picked up the Advanced Player’s Guide. The Inquisitor, though? Not so much.

While my initial impression was that Inquisitors are meant to be a dark and gritty paladin, it’s a little more complicated than that. They’re much closer to cleric-rogues, with an emphasis on the cleric part. Inquisitors are who the church sends when paladins are too goody-goody to get the job done. It has a certain appeal, though like the cavalier, the inquisitor’s goals seem awfully specific for a random adventurer.

None the less, I think I like them significantly more than I like the cavalier. Though that may just be my bias towards rogue characters.

Also, I’d like to take a moment to point out the ridiculous boobage on the iconic inquisitor. It looks pretty damn stupid. Fortunately, if she goes all “Spanish Inquisition” on us, we know right where to stab her.

Spells: With spells through level 6, the Inquisitor is among the most magically invested classes outside of the primary casters. That seems a little powerful for a character with such significant physical combat ability, but I haven’t seen one played before, so I won’t make presumptions about the class’s balance.

I will say that I’ve always wanted to see a caster like this. One with spells up to 6th level or so, who rounds out their magical weakness with other cool abilities.

Domain: Since the Inquisitor doesn’t get any domain spells as the cleric class does, Inquisitor domains function more like a Sorcerer‘s Bloodlines. And while I’m not a fan of clerical domains, my primary issue with them is that they require too much of a day-to-day time investment from the player. With only a single domain, and without bonus spells, I actually think domains work pretty well for the inquisitor.

JudgementSecond Judgement / Third Judgement: I’m not terribly fond of abilities which function only in combat. There’s a certain verisimilitude to the judgement abilities, since they are god-given strength to mete out justice. But that’s the slippery slope to 4th editionism!

Aside from the “only in combat” aspect, I quite like judgements. A consistent buff which can be switched out for another in the set as a swift action is a solid mechanic which keeps things fairly simple, but can also give the inquisitor lots of options for how to approach battle. I also like how iterative levels of the judgement do not add new potential buffs, but instead allow the inquisitor to call upon multiple buffs at once. If keeps an already complicated mechanic from getting entirely out of hand.

The judgement ability is actually surprisingly similar to something I’ve been working on for awhile. On the one hand it’s a little frustrating to find out I’ve been preempted, since this is an idea I came up with before the Advanced Player’s Guide came out. On the other hand, it’s encouraging to know that the professionals at Paizo apparently like my ideas enough to come up with them themselves.

Monster Lore: In years of playing, I don’t know that a player has ever made a knowledge check to identify the weakness of a monster. This may be more a result of the way I run the game than the way my players play it, but regardless, I’m not really impressed by an ability which allows you to add your wisdom score to such a minor edge case.

I’d call this filler, but it’s a level 1 ability, so it’s one among a half dozen other abilities.

Orsions: The feelings I expressed for Orsions when discussion the cleric class essentially hold true here.

Stern Gaze: Despite my general distaste for the skills system–and in particular the Intimidate and Sense Motive skills–I none the less think this ability is entirely appropriate. The character is an inquisitor, that they would receive a significant bonus to extracting information and discerning lies is to be expected.

I might try to represent it differently mechanically, but the spirit of the ability is solid.

Cunning Initiative: I’m not certain why the inquisitor warrants a bonus to initiative. As far as I can see, they don’t have any abilities which are contingent upon acting first. If anything, it seems as though this should be a rogue ability.

The mechanic is simple enough. I just don’t see how it relates to the inquisitor.

Detect Alignment: A very standard ability for this type of class, which doesn’t really need to be discussed. Though, interestingly, the type of action required is not listed here. I would probably rule it to be a standard action, though it’d be interesting if it were a free action.

Track: I’ve no objection to the inquisitor having this ability, so my commentary on this would be identical to the one I posted in the ranger class’ analysis.

Solo Tactics: I find it interesting that so far, every martial class from the Advanced Player’s Guide (Cavalier and Inquisitor) have an ability which makes Teamwork feats work better. I would also point out that teamwork feats were introduced in the Advanced Player’s Guide.

It’s almost as if they agreed with me that teamwork feats are a terrible idea, and intentionally designed their new classes so as to avoid some of the issues I pointed out in my cavalier analysis. Namely, that any feat which requires multiple people to have the feat in order to work means that one person not being able to show up for a session, or leaving the group entirely, can severely gimp another player.

Teamwork Feat: I’m not a huge fan of bonus feats, blah blah blah, filler abilities, whatever. You’ve heard it all before, and it’s becoming super repetitive through these class analyses.

I have something new to bitch about here, though, because apparently the inquisitor can change her most recent teamwork feat a number of times per day equal to her wisdom modifier. What the fuck? As if there wasn’t already enough fiddling over feats, now alternating between any feat on the teamwork list is an ability? That would be insufferably frustrating at the table.

Bane / Greater Bane: I like this. It’s a very simple mechanic which has a lot of flavor and a large impact on the game. I could even see myself using a similar mechanic.

Discern Lies: I like this for the same reason I like “Stern Gaze” above. Though personally I think it would be cooler if the inquisitor gradually became completely immune to lies, save those which were magically warded against her somehow.

Stalwart: The D&D 3.5 Hexblade had this ability, though it was called “Mettle.” I always thought it was a little overpowered when compared to its inverse, “evasion,” which is omnipresent among the core classes. But the inquisitor has to wait until level 11 to get it, so I suppose it’s alright for it to be more powerful.

Exploit Weakness: I like the idea of critical hits which have an extra oomf to them. However, these improvements are extremely situational, to the point that the ability would be easy to forget when it’s actually relevant. It really only affects monsters who have damage reduction, regeneration, or who have a vulnerability to a type of energy which the inquisitor is using to attack them. Granted, all of those things are fairly common against high level monsters. But they’re not common enough that I think I would be able to remember “oh hey, since this creature is an ice demon and I’m attacking it with fire, my critical hit gets +1 point of damage per die rolled!”

Slayer: I really like judgement, but this just seems to make it complicated. Out of the 3 judgements the inquisitor can use simultaneously at this point, one of those can be used as if it were 5 levels higher, and that judgement cannot be switched out like the other judgements can.

It’s possible that I’m just a super stickler for simplicity, but that seems convoluted me.

True Judgement: I don’t personally find save-or-die capstone abilities to be interesting. But it kinda works for the inquisitor!

Pathfinder Class Analysis 13: Cavalier

Core Concept: The Cavalier seems an odd class to me, because I don’t really see the type of person described here as ever pursuing a life of adventure. They’re knights in a king’s court or elite soldiers within an army. What on earth would drive them beneath the earth searching for treasure? I suppose Pathfinder is designed in such a way as to make political or military campaigns an option, but none the less the cavalier is a little out of place. Though that doesn’t mean they don’t have some cool stuff about them.

II should point out that the Cavalier has a long history with D&D. Gygax originally created the class back in 1983, several years before I was born. Unlike many other such classes, though, I know absolutely nothing about the historical cavalier. I considered reading up on the class’s origins before making any assessments about this modern iteration of the class. However, it occurred to me that I have a unique opportunity to examine the Pathfinder cavalier without the bias of historical context, so I chose to maintain my ignorance until I have recorded my thoughts.

I would also like to point out that this is a class with no spellcasting ability. This makes me happy. Game designers too often resort to spells as a way of making supplemental classes interesting. In fact, out of the six new base classes introduced in the Advanced Player’s Guide, the cavalier is the only one without spells.

Challenge: I like challenge. It’s similar to a Paladin‘s smite ability, with some interesting quirks such as a penalty to AC against foes other than the one who has been challenged, because the cavalier’s focus is so intense. As one of the class’s core abilities, it is respectably flavorful and isn’t too complicated. I even like the way in which many of the cavalier orders modify it.

Mount: I have little of interest to say regarding the mount. At least little which isn’t better suited to being said about the “charge” mechanics below. I will point out that the class doesn’t have any alternative here. Every class in the core rulebook which has the ability to acquire an animal companion also has the option to replace their companion with some other ability. I’ve speculated in the past that this was due to the extreme complexity involved with maintaining the mount’s character sheet.

My guess would be that the mount is simply too essential to the workings of the cavalier class, meaning any alternative would be a severe detriment to the class.

Order: A cavalier’s order is a little bit like a Paladin’s oath crossed with a Sorcerer‘s bloodline. It provides the Cavalier with a customized benefits package (class skills, modifications to the challenge ability, and special abilities gained every few levels) at the cost of requiring the cavalier to adhere to a certain set of principals, or ‘edicts.’

Were it up to me, I think I would simplify the orders significantly, but as it stands I didn’t come across anything egregiously bad in any of the available Orders. And as mentioned above, the way in which they modify the challenge ability can be interesting. The paladin would benefit from something like this, actually, rather than its somewhat vague “do no evil, always do good” code of conduct.

Tactician / Greater Tactician / Master Tactician: I’m not a big fan of “Teamwork Feats.” For those who don’t know, they’re essentially feats which two players must take, which allow them to work together to achieve certain results. Most of these feats are actually pretty solid and neatly avoid my oft-cited problem with feats. My issue is that they require two players to both take the feat in order to gain any benefit from it. But what happens when the other guy who took the feat can’t make it to games anymore? Now the feat is useless unless another player can be convinced to take it.

Abilities which rely on other players are, in my opinion, a bad design choice.

With the tactics abilities, the cavalier can grant his teamwork feats to other characters. My only complaint about this is that the cavalier has to wait until “Master Tactician” before teamwork feats not gained through tactician bonus feats can be used with the tactician ability. It’s so confusing that I can barely understand my own explanation of it!

Cavalier’s Charge / Mighty Charge / Supreme Charge: The charge abilities, and their prominence in the way the cavalier develops, is likely why the cavalier doesn’t have the option to select another ability instead of getting a mount. But this begs the question: how often will the cavalier really have the opportunity to make a mounted charge?

This goes back to the misgivings I wrote about when discussing the class’s core concept. My players have spent all of their last two sessions in a dungeon where a cavalry charge would be pretty difficult to pull off. And while I know not everybody runs as many dungeons as I do, it seems strange to design a class which almost precludes dungeon play. I would feel bad if I had a cavalier in my current adventuring party, since they would often be forced to leave their mount behind.

Expert Trainer: For a class with such a heavy investment in mounted combat, it seems obvious that they would be exceptional mount trainers. A nice touch.

Banner / Greater Banner: The banner abilities are all about improving the morale of your companions. These, (and the tactics abilities, come to think of it) suggest to me that the cavalier would function best in a game which was more liberal about hirelings than Pathfinder is. As it stands I would think that any cavalier would be wise to pick up the Leadership feat as soon as possible.

I’ll also point out that abilities like “wave your banner and improve the morale of your allies” always seem ridiculous to me, if those allies are actual players rather than NPCs.

Bonus Feat: Oh, boo! I hate it when a class has a few random bonus feats tossed in just to keep it from having any dead levels.

Demanding Challenge: I’m not sure how I feel about the idea that an NPC can actually be forced to focus its attention on a given character. As a GM, I would not like to run a game where the players were able to force their enemies to act in certain ways.

Pathfinder Class Analysis 12: Alchemist

Something which I greatly respect about Pathfinder is the way in which Paizo has avoided system bloat. D&D 3.5’s run produced some truly terrible books, each of which came with a handful of new classes, dozens of new prestige classes, and mountains of new spells. And while Paizo has published books containing all of these, they’ve usually done so with a measured hand. The non-core, base classes are well considered and fit nicely with the 11 core classes. They’ve also been released under the OGL, which Wizards of the Coast did not do with their supplemental material.

So while I’ve completed my analysis of the core classes, I see no reason to stop looking at the rest of them.

Core Concept: While it may seem contrary to my statement above, I hate the Alchemist. In my mind, the existence of an alchemist class which gains access to impossible new heights of alchemical mastery invalidates every wizard who ever made time to focus on brewing potions. In the core rules alchemy is made out to be a great feat–not so for alchemists! They can brew potions in a minute flat!

Hit Die: 1d8 seems quite high, doesn’t it? What makes the alchemist deserve a larger hit die than the wizard? I suppose it might be argued, based on the class description, that “using his own body as experimental stock” has toughened up the otherwise squishy character. But I think 1d6 might be more appropriate.

Alchemy: As mentioned above, my least favorite aspect of this class is the way in which I feel it devalues alchemy. Creating concoctions in a single minute, and being able to create so many in a single day, makes run-of-the-mill alchemy look silly.

Once upon a time I was working on a class (never settled on a name for it, though I did have the working title of “Alchemical Surgeon”). It was primarily a healing class, and while it did receive some bonuses, it largely had to craft potions using the same process as any other class. The primary difference was that the surgeon was much more adept at using the potions, delivering them via needle prick, and allowing a single dose to be used multiple times rather that only once.

I think this would have been a much more interesting route to go than the one the Alchemist’s designers chose. Not only does it avoid the problem of devaluing non-alchemist alchemy, but it avoids another problem as well. The Pathfinder alchemist’s concoctions only work when being held by the alchemist. Something about the alchemist’s aura makes them work, blah blah blah, bullshit. It’s the kind of explanation people come up with when they need to implement a rule for game reasons, and can’t think of sufficient justification for why that rule would exist in the game world, so they just say “magic.”

My surgeon, on the other hand, was able to make concoctions more potent because he or she possessed knowledge of anatomy and knew where & how to inject the patient. That’s a much better explanation in my book.

I will say one positive thing about alchemist alchemy: I like the idea of a caster who can save spell slots to prepare later in the day with a minimal investment of time. That’s something I would like to see implemented better with another class.

Bomb: Bombs are pretty cool, I essentially covered my only issue with them above: they become inert when held by anyone but the alchemist. Which begs the question: what if the target of a thrown bomb catches it? Shouldn’t they be given a chance to do this since the bomb will become inert as soon as they posses it?

Brew Potion: Kinda obvious that this would be a bonus feat at first level.

Mutagen / Persistent Mutagen: This is actually a pretty damned cool idea, and works a mite better than the other two types of Alchemist alchemy (bombs and extracts). A better explanation for why it only works for the alchemist who created it might be that every mutagen must be tailored to the person who will use it, and they are so complex that it’s not really possible to understand another person’s physiology well enough to create a mutagen for them.

One thing I would have liked to see was more flavor. Functionally this is just an alternate form of the Barbarian’s rage ability. I think it would have been cool to have a handful of special monsters which the Alchemist could turn into at different levels.

Throw Anything: I like the Throw Anything feat. It was a clever addition to this class which I don’t know that I would have thought of myself.

Discovery: Perhaps this is just because I’ve been getting more old-school lately, but does anyone else think this would be much more interesting as a random roll rather than a choice the player must make? The impression I get of the alchemist is that they do a lot of random mixing “just to see what will happen,” so random discoveries would be appropriate.

Regardless of how they are chosen, however, I like how this ability is implemented.

Poison Resistance: I think it would be better if Alchemists simply gained immunity to poison at level 2, rather than receiving a resistance which slowly grows until it becomes immunity at level 10. But that’s a pretty consistent difference between Paizo’s design philosophies and my own.

Poison Use: Impossible to poison one’s self while using poisons. Straightforward and logical. I always thought this ability ought to be a feat.

Swift Alchemy / Instant Alchemy: These abilities only further speed up the Alchemist’s ability to create concoctions, and compound my primary issue with the class even further.

Swift Poisoning: Unlike performing alchemy quickly, applying poisons more quickly is pretty mundane and makes good sense to me. Though now that this ability exists, it ought to be an assassin ability as well.

Grand Discovery: This is among the cooler capstone abilities. Again it feels like it should be random, but that’s a pretty small complaint all things considered.

Alchemist Formulae: While I have no comment on the content of the Alchemist’s spell list, I like that the maximum spell level available is 6. There are several “partial casters” like the paladin who are primarily focused on their non-spellcasting abilities, but they normally max out at 4th level spells. The Alchemist leans in the other direction, with a heavier investment in magic. I’d prefer to see more classes like that, I think.

Pathfinder Class Analysis 11: Wizard

Core Concept: It’s the wizard; true descendant of the magic user. I said earlier that if there were only one class, it should be the fighter. Well, if there were only two classes, then the second should be the wizard. While other styles of caster can add depth to the game, none has ever inspired my imagination the way the wizard does. I think there’s something to be said for a class which uses books being powerful in a game contained within books.

Spells / Spellbooks: Vancian magic has been a subject of heated discussion since the release of 4th edition several years ago. And while I don’t want to delve too deeply into the pros and cons, I will say that I like Vancian magic. No big surprise, I know. I find it simple enough that people don’t have trouble understanding it, functional enough that it doesn’t harm gameplay, and flavorful enough that it doesn’t feel like a purely mechanical system put in place to serve function and simplicity.

I will add, though, that I think I’d prefer it if wizards never gained spells automatically upon leveling up, and were instead forced to research new spells right from level 1. Further, I think the class could make do with fewer spell slots. I may have suggested something like that in the past.

Arcane Bond: Like the druid, paladin, and ranger before it, arcane bond is the wizard’s pet choosing ability. On the one hand they can gain a familiar, as wizards traditionally do, on the other hand they can gain a bonded item. My thoughts on these choices haven’t really changed, so lets ignore the choice and focus on the bonded item ability. Essentially, the wizard selects an item through which they’ll focus their spellcasting, like a wand. The wand confers certain bonuses to them, and they find it very difficult to cast without it. Once per day, the wizard may use the bonded item to cast a spell from their spellbook which they have not prepared in advance.

This is super duper awesome. Because while I like for players to be forced to think ahead and plan their spell use, I also like the idea of a single-use backup in case something unexpected comes up. It’s not for every game, but it’s certainly an interesting mechanic for pathfinder. With the added bonus that it requires players to store their magical energy in an item which can be stolen by villains to reduce the wizard’s effectiveness.

Arcane Schools: I’m not fond of how Pathfinder handles arcane schools for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, in D&D 3.5, a character’s barred school absolutely could not be cast from. In Pathfinder this restriction has been lessened so that barred schools are simply more difficult to cast from. Often during these posts I’ve expressed a preference for allowing the character to do cool things rather than simply try to do cool things. This is the inverse of that. If the players need to make a choice which will limit them in the future, then those limits should be concrete. I don’t see any reason to buff the class this way.

My second issue with arcane schools is that they’re made into watered-down bloodlines. Part of what makes bloodlines so great is that they make the sorcerer class distinct from the wizard. Why diminish that effect by giving the wizard such a similar ability?

Cantrips: Unlike yesterday, I quite literally have nothing to say about Cantrips which wasn’t already said when I wrote about orsions back in the cleric analysis.

Scribe Scroll: When I first reread this entry for the analysis, I didn’t think much of it. Level one bonus feat for scribing scrolls, it works, whatever, move on. But upon reflection, I think credit needs to be given for this idea. The wizard, the caster who performs magic with the power of their intellect, is able to work their magic into scrolls. Other casters can do this as well, but only the wizard does not require special training.

It’s not a huge deal, but I kinda like that touch.

Bonus Feat: What a lame ability to end on! I’ve written so much about bonus feats across the numerous classes which have them, that I don’t really know what else to say. I always felt like, compared to other classes, the sorcerer and the wizard had the least interesting feat selection. Bonus feats just seem to stretch an already thin selection.

With the exception of the Fighter, bonus feats always seem like the kind of thing which is added to a class when nobody can think of anything better to give it. So it seems odd to me that they weren’t thrown out when everybody realized the wizard was insanely overpowered and needed to be scaled back in Pathfinder.

In Conclusion: With the Wizard, I’ve completed my look at the 11 core classes in Pathfinder. I hope you’ve enjoyed reading it even half as much as I’ve enjoyed writing it, because these were really fun, even if it wasn’t the most serious-minded analysis. Writing about what I want from each class has helped me better understand what I want from a tabletop RPG. I think I’ll be better at developing my own ideas now, having identified what I liked and disliked about these.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’d like to write similar posts about the non-core base classes. Paizo has done a good job on them, and hasn’t gone overboard the way Wizards did with 3rd edition. But after two solid weeks, I think everybody could use a break!

Pathfinder Class Analysis 10: Sorcerer

Core Concept: While the sorcerer is objectively more limited than the wizard, I like the class. Even in the earliest, simplest forms of D&D, playing a Magic User meant taking on an extra layer of rules and complexity. There’s not much that can be done about that, but the sorcerer’s limitations go a long way towards mitigating it. For that reason, I often recommend sorcerers to my less experienced players who want to play a magical character.

Were it up to me, I think there might even be a few more variants on the magic user class, all of which would interact with magic in a different way.

Spells: Unlike the more traditional magic user / wizard style of spellcasting, the sorcerer is a ‘natural’ caster. They know the spells they know, and can cast any spell they know at any time, but they can’t add to their spell repertoire the way a wizard can. In trade, the sorcerer is able to cast more spells per day than their more learned counterpart. Back in D&D 3.5, this trade was terribly unbalanced in the wizard’s favor. Fortunately, bloodlines have helped to balance this out.

As mentioned above, I like the idea that different arcane spellcasting classes would manage their spells differently. Though I might take it even a step further. Perhaps granting the sorcerer a few more spells per day, a few more spell slots, and make all of their spells completely random. After all, if their power is a naturally developing thing, why should they be able to pick and choose?

Of course, that would never fly with most RAW Pathfinder players.

Find Familiar: This is not a sorcerer ability, which is why it is not linked. I bring it up because in D&D 3.5, it was a sorcerer ability. To my knowledge, this is the only instance where a class had an ability removed* in the change from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder. Likely because Bloodlines are such a large change which grant the sorcerer a large range of additional powers.

While it is still possible to get a familiar, I rather prefer the class without it. As a friend of mine said shortly after we found Pathfinder, familiars never seemed to be in tune with the way sorcerers approach magic. A familiar, in our eyes, is primarily meant to assist the caster in magical research, which the sorcerer never needs to do. And bloodlines are so awesome, that it hardly feels like anything was lost at all.

*I am well aware that the Rogue had the Improved Evasion ability removed, but it remains as a rogue talent**, so it’s still easily attainable without needing feats.
**I am also well aware that sorcerers may select the arcane bloodline and thus get their familiar without needing a feat. However, doing so requires you to make a choice which will dramatically change the way your character progresses, whereas the rogue can pick up improved evasion and move on. There are no long-lasting consequences for getting improved evasion as there would be for a sorcerer who wanted a familiar.

Eschew Materials: Sorcerers cast their spells naturally, so it would be cumbersome for them to deal with material components. This works fine.

Cantrips: Anything I might say about cantrips was already written about Orsions in my analysis of the Cleric. Though I would add the caveat that the sorcerer is the only class where limitless low level casting actually kinda makes sense. I could be okay with the sorcerer having this ability if every other magic using class did not have it.

Bloodlines: Most of the sorcerer’s class abilities fall within the bloodlines, so I’ll be discussion bloodline skills, arcana, powers, spells, and feats individually. However, as a general concept, it’s important to know that I think bloodlines are a great idea. In D&D 3rd edition, the origin of a Sorcerer’s power was given a bit of throwaway fluff text about how sorcerers are descended from dragons, but that this might be true or might simply be something sorcerers like to boast about.

The Pathfinder devs took that piece of throwaway fluff, and developed it into an interesting mechanic which further differentiates sorcerers from wizards. And while I’m not always wild about the specific ways in which bloodlines are implemented, they’re still awesome.

Bloodline Skill: Each bloodline grants the sorcerer one additional class skill, relevant to the bloodline. Much as I dislike the skills system, this seems like a creative way to use it.

Bloodline Powers: The powers are my favorite part of the bloodlines. I think that if it were up to me, spells and feats would be dropped, and bloodline powers would be emphasized further. The specific powers are rarely filler nonsense, but are instead interesting abilities, such as elemental resistance, long limbs which grant extra range on touch attacks, a breath weapon, wings, or any number of other interesting oddities. I also think it’s cool that some of the powers aren’t perfectly suited to a sorcerer. A claw attack, for example, doesn’t really help someone who does their best to stay out of melee. But having an odd ability here or there can really come in handy when the characters are in a pinch.

Bloodline Arcana: The arcana abilities are really just Bloodline Powers which permanently modify a normal sorcerer ability, rather than introducing something new. What is written above applies, though these often enter “filler ability” territory, where they merely grant a small bonus in a very particular circumstance which most players will forget about during play.

Bloodline Spells: Bloodline spells are similar to a cleric’s domain spells. I hate domain spells, because they’re an extra layer of pointless complication which doesn’t improve the player’s gameplay experience in the slightest. That being said, bloodline spells work a little better than domain spells do. Since sorcerers don’t have to prepare their spells each day, but instead have a permanent list of spells which they ‘know’ and may cast at will, the bloodline spells don’t significantly increase the bookkeeping the player needs to do. They just write the spells on their spell list when they level up.

This still seems a little annoying to me, though. Perhaps it’s just a personal peeve, but I think it’s annoying to get the same thing (in this case, spells) from multiple sources (in this case, leveling up & bloodlines).

Though if sorcerers had their spells randomized, as I suggested earlier, then Bloodline spells could serve as a way for the player to have some control over how their character’s spell list developed.

Bloodline Feats: They’re feats. We all know how I feel about feats by now, right? Though I do kinda like that some of these feats are completely different from anything a sorcerer would normally pursue. Seriously, “Cleave” is in there at least once.

Pathfinder Class Analysis 9: Rogue

Core Concept: In ages long past, when the world was shrouded in the mist of ignorance and I was but a young boy, my very first D&D character was a rogue named Tarin Resche. I’ve still got his character sheet. Once that campaign ended and it was time to begin another, my next character was also a rogue, as was the following character, and even the character after that. To say I like rogues would be an understatement. This is my class, and I love it. It took me a long time to branch out into trying other classes, though I did eventually do that.

The rogue/thief class is perfectly suited to the fantasy adventure genre. They’re not big and strong, nor are they magically adept. They’re not good at staring danger in the face. What they do know how to do is how to avoid danger in the first place. Which, consequently, is why I can’t stand playing rogues in most video games. For me, the point of playing a rogue is to skillfully avoid danger. In a video game, typically you can only level up if you charge headlong into danger.

The rogue is actually quite simple for a Pathfinder class, with a scant 9 abilities, compared with classes like the monk which have more than 20. So this’ll be pretty brief.

Sneak Attack: In Pathfinder, I think it’s a little too easy to get a sneak attack. But this balances out, because sneak attack doesn’t actually deal all that much damage. So you might say that the sneak attack ability works, it just doesn’t work the way I’d want it to. I’d much prefer sneak attack to require careful planning on the part of the player, and for the damage it deals to be a probable 1-hit-kill.

Trapfinding: To be honest, I kinda hate trapfinding. Not because there’s anything wrong with it, but because it’s so damn skill-ish. Rogues should have a leg up on finding and disabling traps, no question. I just wish Pathfinder didn’t rely on the skills system to do it.

Evasion: It’s hilarious that out of all the classes which have Evasion / Improved Evasion, the rogue is the only one which doesn’t automatically receive the improved version. I know it’s available as an optional talent, but this still seems backwards to me.

Rogue Talents / Advanced Talents: The rogue makes up for its rather paltry list of 9 abilities by having these “talents” which allow the player to customize the class. Some of them are quite interesting, and if I wanted to delve into the talents in detail, discussing which are good and which are bad, this post could easily be 3k or 4k words long. But I won’t do that. I’m not even going to devote much space to discussing them in general, because they’re just re-branded feats. Sometimes literally.

I’ll grant that few or none of the rogue talents fall prey to my problem with feats, where the ability granted is something any character should be able to attempt anyway. None the less it’s a huge list of abilities which the player has to select from, which Pathfinder has too much of already.

Trap Sense: I always get this one mixed up with Trapfinding, which is probably because of three things. First, they have similar names. Second, they seem like a pretty basic rogue ability. Third, they both seem far more complicated than they need to be. Though I’ll grant that Trap Sense (bonus to reflex saves and AC against traps) is less annoying than Trapfinding (Bonus to preception and disable device checks against traps).

While I’m on the subject, why is “Trapfinding” one word, but “Trap Sense” is two?

Uncanny Dodge / Improved Uncanny Dodge: While these are solid abilities, I don’t know if I like their inclusion. I understand the logic behind them. The rogue is very dextrous and has a high level of situational awareness, thus they cannot be caught flat footed, and cannot be flanked. But I think my dislike for them stems from my dislike of the way sneak attack works in Pathfinder. In both cases, Pathfinder represents the rogue’s situational awareness mechanically, while I prefer for it to be represented with the player’s own ability to play their character cautiously.

As I said, though, these are solid abilities. I’m really just nitpicking about my own preferences.

Master Strike: The target can either be put to sleep, paralyzed, or killed outright, pending the result of a fortitude save. It’s a respectable capstone ability, without anything I really want to comment on.

This may have been the most boring class analysis yet, which isn’t what I wanted for my favorite class in the game. But I guess I just don’t have much to say about these abilities.

Pathfinder Class Analysis 8: Ranger

Core Concept: Who, honestly, doesn’t love rangers? They’re the loner badasses that we all role played as back when we were more interested in power fantasies than we were with a challenging game. But unlike our characters who never left the shadowy corner of the bar (save when they were killing people with an impossibly fast, double-bladed sword slice to the throat), rangers are at least a little grounded.

You know, much as I love magic users, I think the classes I find the most personally appealing are the grittier ones. The ones with dirt under their fingernails and callouses on their hands. The fighters, the rangers, the rogues.

Which is funny because I’m a pudgy guy who avoids sunlight, dislikes manual labor, and has frequently been accused of having ‘lady hands.’

Favored Enemy: More than anything else, the favored enemy mechanic defines the ranger class for me. It’s perfectly suited to a fantasy world’s exaggeration of a hunter, and it provides each ranger with an interesting motivation.

It’s also totally xenophobic, but in an awesome way.

Track: Like favored enemy, the ability to track an inherent part of the ranger class. Unfortunately, Pathfinder ties it into the broken skills system, which in turn breaks this ability. And while I think it’s valuable for track to have a failure chance, there’s no need to make it as complicated as the skills system.

I’d prefer something on order of using scaling dice for difficulty. 1d12 for easy, 1d10 for moderately difficult, 1d8 for very difficult, and 1d6 for hard. The GM picks a number within the die’s range, and the player rolls that die. If they land on the number the GM was thinking of, the GM gives them the wrong direction. If they land on any other number, the ranger succeeds. No checking the character sheet for bonuses, or trying to figure out what bonuses apply to which action. Just a single, quick, die roll.

Wild Empathy: Wild Empathy suffers from the same issue that Track does. It’s good that a ranger is able to soothe wild beasts and become friendly with them, it’s a bad thing that this ability must be tied to the broken skills system.

As an idea, assume that reaction is being handled with an oldschool 2d6 reaction roll. If the creature is a wild animal, a ranger may attempt to empathize with the animal, which would call for a second reaction roll, and the better of the two would be used. Starting at 3rd level, the ranger could add 1/3 of their level to the second reaction roll. (+1 at 3rd level, +2 at 6, so on until reaching +6 at level 18).

Combat Style Feat: This one makes me feel conflicted. On the one hand, I’ve reached a point where I honestly don’t like having the player make choices about their build. I’ve found that basically no player I’ve ever played with actually likes it. Most view it as a chore, while only an obsessive few (like me) ever claim to have fun ‘working on their build.’

On the other hand, this is a very simple, very cool choice which must only be made once, and has a dramatic effect on the character’s progress: do you want to be a two-handed fighter, or an archer? It’s also relevant to note that (unlike most character build choices) this decision is not about comparing specific abilities, it’s about defining the type of character you want to play.

With a gun to my head*, I’d say this is a pretty good ability.

*It sounds more interesting than “With a self-imposed deadline to my head.”

Endurance: The feat is well suited to rangers, though it’s stupidly complicated. It gives so many minor and circumstantial bonuses that I doubt anyone ever remembers to use anything other than the ability to sleep in armor without becoming fatigued. Which, to be fair, makes good sense for the ranger.

Favored Terrain: Hands down, one of the best changes made in the switch to Pathfinder. Holy fuck on a fucka-fuck, do I love favored terrain. This is on par with the fighter’s ability to become more proficient in the use of armor.

Hunter’s Bond: There’s not a lot to say about this ability which I haven’t already said before. It’s another ability which asks the player to choose between a pet, or something easier to track than a pet. My response is the same as it was for the Druid and the Paladin: make pets simpler.

To make matters worse, the ranger’s alternative to a pet is essentially the same as the Paladin ability “Aura of Justice,” which I also didn’t like. So that’s just stacking bad on top of bad.

Spells: As I mentioned in the Paladin analysis yesterday, there’s no reason for rangers to have spells. Rangers are men and women of great skill, not of magic. I would even argue that ranger spells diminishes the class, because it implies that all ranger abilities might be somehow bolstered by magic.

Even the most popular modern representation of a ranger, the much-maligned Drizzt Do’Urden, has no magical abilities. And he’s explicitly a ranger within a Dungeons and Dragons game world.

Woodland Stride: Rangers ignore underbrush. This is a good mechanic, no change needed.

Swift Tracker: This ability fails to impress me, but only because it builds on the parts of the tracking ability which I didn’t like. The parts which intersect with the broken skills system. It’s easy to implement into my own system. “If the player moves at their normal speed when tracking, the GM selects two adjacent numbers which would cause failure if rolled. Once a ranger gains the swift tracking ability, this penalty is removed.”

Evasion / Improved Evasion: Holy crap, how many frickin’ classes have this ability? I seriously have nothing to say about it at all. Cut me a break here, Paizo.

Quarry /Improved Quarry: I actually like these abilities. They connect well with other elements of the ranger class, and strengthen the theme of the hunter. But I have one very important question: how do they work? Because they they’re explicitly not magical [they’re marked with (Ex), which means extraordinary ability, which means not magical]

It’s understood how favored enemy works. The character has studied that type of creature, and knows its strengths and weaknesses. But what happens in the space of a standard action (or free action!) which allows the ranger to gain further bonuses against their officially designated Quarry?

Are they noticing a fighting pattern, and a specific way the quarry walks? Is that where they get attack and tracking bonuses from?

Camouflage / Hide in Plain Sight: While these two abilities aren’t really all that similar, I have pretty much the same thing to say about them. They both work sufficiently well, though would be improved by not being tied to the skills system.

Master Hunter: When I first read Pathfinder, I came away with the impression that at level 20, every class gains some manner of ‘instant death’ attack. In re-reading each class for these analyses, I’ve found that impression was more than a little off base. Certainly many classes have a death attack, but many (even most) do not. In fact most capstone abilities are pretty flavorful, and the ranger’s is no different. It’s essentially an instant “knockout” attack, useful if the player wishes to capture rather than kill. I like it!

Pathfinder Class Analysis 7: Paladin

Core Concept: I like paladins. They’re a weird kind of super-cleric which would be more at home in a noblebright setting than a sword-and-sorcery one. They contribute interestingly to the game as the middle ground between the fighter and the cleric, though they are not completely without their problems. I’ve actually written several posts with my thoughts on paladins before, though primarily these works have been with regards to the code of conduct.

Aura of Good: As mentioned in the cleric analysis, this seems so trivial as to be pointless.

Detect Evil: I like at will abilities. It would be interesting, as a design goal, for every ability to be an at will ability, except for the casting of spells by spellcasters. Things are much simpler when the player doesn’t need to track their uses in a given day. Aside from that, Detect Evil is a good ability for Paladins to have, though I wonder if it can be too much of a crutch. Wouldn’t it be interesting if a Paladin had to judge good and evil without the benefit of a detection spell?

Then again, this isn’t a game about moral philosophy, so that might not be a good idea, despite being an interesting one.

Smite Evil: Smite Evil is awesome. Despite the large-ish amount of math it requires, it’s surprisingly elegant in its construction. None of the numbers are arbitrary, they’re all drawn from numbers which are already somewhere else on the character’s sheet. Add Cha bonus to attack rolls, paladin level to damage rolls, and Cha bonus again to the Paladin’s AC against the character being smitten. (Smited?)

Also, apparently smite remains active until a creature is dead. Until re-reading the ability just now, I had always thought it only lasted for a single attack.

Divine Grace: While I might normally call something like this a filler ability, this is actually pretty great. Like smite, it doesn’t pull a random number out of thin air, and unlike most similar abilities received by the other classes, it applies to all saves, not a specific save, or (worst of all) a specific type of specific save. Like “will save to resist enchantment” or “fortitude save to resist poison.” No, divine grace boosts all saves.

And since a paladin is a warrior chosen by the gods, it would make sense that the gods are keeping an eye on them.

Lay On Hands: Given that this ability can only be used a number of times per day equal to 1/2 the paladin’s level, I wouldn’t mind if it were a little more potent. Perhaps 1d10 healing every 2 levels, so it kept pace as being able to heal 1/2 of the Paladin’s HP. Or maybe, instead of that, it could be used a number of times per day equal to 1/6 the characters level (minimum 1) but it heals the target up to their full hit points.

Aura of Courage: I like the idea of aura abilities. I think they’re a great idea, and I think the Paladin (as the noble, god-ordained leader type) is a great class to serve as a vehicle for auras. Courage, is a good one, though I think it might be better if those within the Paladin’s aura were actually immune to fear, rather than simply gaining a +4 bonus to fear.

Divine Health: The Paladin’s body is pure because the gods love him or her. Thus the Paladin cannot get disease. Seems like something the gods might have thought to give the rest of us, but it’s cool. I get it. They love their paladins more.

Mercy: Mercies are probably the biggest addition to the Paladin class in Pathfinder. Every few levels, the paladin selects from a list of possible “mercies,” which grows larger as the paladin rises in level. A mercy removes an affliction from the victim, and all mercies are applied anytime the paladin uses their lay on hands ability. The lower level mercies deal primarily with minor ‘status ailments,’ such as staggered, fatigued, or dazed. Higher level mercies remove curses and poison, and can even cure the blind or the paralyzed.

Generally speaking, I don’t like it when the game adds yet more things for the players to choose between. Not only must they choose feats and skills and bonus feats and what have you, but now they need to worry about mercies as well? It’s enough to overwhelm anyone who doesn’t thoroughly enjoy character building.

That being said, I think mercies are a great idea and I’m glad they were included. Perhaps they could be rolled randomly to cut down on the choices characters need to make.

Channel Positive Energy: While I like the change from “Turn Undead” to “Channel Positive Energy” for clerics, I’m less inclined to like it for Paladins. While clerics serve a healing focus as well as a crusading one, paladins are all-crusade-all-the-time. Something like “Turn Evil” which affects evil outsiders and undead might be more apropos.

Spells: As mentioned in the Bard analysis, I don’t like that 7 out of the 11 core classes gain spells at some point. I would not be sorry to see the paladin lose their spellcasting ability, though I wouldn’t go so far as to advocate it. Among the non-primary spellcasting classes, I think Paladins probably have the greatest claim on their spellcasting being appropriate. The bard has music, which should replace magic entirely. The ranger’s magical abilities make almost no sense. But the Paladin is pretty much a cleric / fighter cross class, so it makes sense that they’d have access to a small number of spells.

Divine Bond: This is basically the same issue that I addressed in the Druid class analysis, under nature bond. Pathfinder presents the players with a choice: gain an animal companion, or a cool ability. The choice was created (I think) because companion animals are frustratingly complex to manage, and Paizo wanted to offer an alternative. My solution remains the same as it was for Nature Bond: make companion animals simpler.

Though calling down the spirit of an outsider into your sword is pretty damned cool. I wouldn’t mind if both the mount and the spirit-sword managed to find their way into la

Aura of Resolve, Aura of Righteousness: These are identical to Aura of Courage, except is is for Charm/Compulsion spells instead of Fear. I feel exactly the same about these as I do about Aura of Courage. Also, high level damage reduction is fine, though probably excessive.

Aura of Justice: This doesn’t really feel like a proper aura to me. Giving your allies a special form of attack to use can be interesting, but in my mind an aura should be a consistent effect. Furthermore, as a matter of pure preference, I don’t like the idea of non-paladins being given the ability to smite. Smite is a gift from the gods, entrusted to the paladin to be used wisely. Why would the gods allow the paladin to give it someone unworthy on a whim?

Aura of Faith: Like Justice, this doesn’t really strike me as a proper aura. However, it does seem perfectly reasonable for a Paladin’s attacks to be treated as good aligned. I might have called it something else, but I approve of the mechanics!

Holy Champion: As capstone abilities go in Pathfinder, this one is pretty bad ass. Casting a Banishment spell with a swing of your sword? Fuck yeah.

Code of Conduct: I’ve written on this extensively in the past, and most of what I said remains true to how I feel. To briefly reiterate: I think the Code of Conduct needs to be more clear. There should be no ambiguity about what actions will break a Paladin’s code of conduct; for the sake of the GM as much as for the player. I also think it’s ridiculous for the Paladin to be forced to travel only with good characters. I understand why this is the case, but no class’s abilities should even make the player feel entitled to demand that the rest of the group all act a certain way.

It would be interesting if the code of conduct were modular. Perhaps a list of 10 Paladin Oaths, of which the player must select 3 to keep sacred.

Ex Paladins: I miss the blackguard.