Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 8307180" data-attributes="member: 92511">Before I get into your "3 nagging questions" (which looks remarkably closer to 15 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) I will chime in to get on board to hear about these "nine full casters"... which sounds to me like, mmmmmayhaps, a bit much.How "related" are we tawkin'? I mean, all classes -full, sub-, half-, whatever- deserve their own write-up. If nothing else their differences need explaining/exposing. It's just a matter of how much write-up is necessary. An "Illusionist" (even if it's its own full class, versus a "speciality school sub-class of a wizard") needs the explanation that it "functions in [all, many, some] ways as a wizard but [differences, alterations, things that are not in common]." As for "spellcasting" and preparation techniques nearly always falls under the "Magic" chapter or "Using your Magic" segment at the beginning of the Spell descriptions. Something about "How casting works in Combat" or some such. Usually there's at least some lip service paid to the difference between "Divine" and "Arcane" power sources....if you have nine full casters, I imagine that section is going to be somewhat longer but doesn't need full explication within Class descriptions.I don't know that it would be "bad" at all. It depends on how you set it up...and basically, your preferences of how those things work.I wouldn't think so. My homebrew setting/game has several spells that are available to a number of different casters, who use magic [i.e. practice magic/cast spells] differently, with the same spell effect at different levels [tiers] for their class. Again, this is a personal preference thing. Introduced in D&D 3e or 3.5 I guess. Carried through PF1. Seems like D&D 5e did away with it. I, personally, see no problem to it. Par example: the Cleric can Cure [Light] Wounds as a 1st level spell. Obvs. MY setting/game Druids (and Bards, I think, and Witches) don't get it til a 2nd level spell. Characters with my game's "Ritualist" Theme (any caster who can use spells with the "ritual tag"), however, could perform Cure Wounds, too, as a first level spell (or higher depending on how many ranks in the theme they choose to accrue).   "Wizard, Bloodline Wizard, Witch, and [full-caster] Bard? Well, the Wizard, Witch, and Bard I certainly would expect to be three distinct classes. If all that's separating the first two is a bloodline, then that seems like the kind of thing to be handled by a background/origin/bloodline kind of decision point mechanic that is independent (and doesn't warrant) a separate "class" all its own. Yes.In PF? That's still a Magus.A thief who uses magic or a caster who uses their magic to steal things? In my opinion, that's handled in D&D by what they call a Warlock. It's what the Arcane Trickster is suppsoed to be (and SHOULD have been). It could also be, in D&D, what is a Bard. Though I don't think any of them did it really quite right. Also, not necessarily a class concept, I feel, doesn't need its own base class...but an archetype that should be accomplishable via either a caster or thief base with appropriate feats/traits/themes/added options. IN D&D 5e, that'd be a Bard. In PF too, I think. I'm not sure what you mean by "all caster." If all they do is use magic?...then in what way are they a Bard? "Wizard" would seem to be the proper answer.Oh! No. Absolutely not.As you should. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Which, since they are NOT "PCs" is perfectly fine and "in bounds."Seems unnecessary.That is one way to go. Seems to have been quite successful for PF. But also sometimes leads to distinctions without [or with pointless] differences.That seems to be two separate questions. And, ultimately, again (sorry) a matter of personal taste and preference. I see no reason a full-casting cleric would have to be a "blaster" or "superbuffer" to go adventuring. It is equally valid to have full-casting clerics who DO go out into the world and those who choose/prefer to stay in their quiet cloisters meditating, praying, seeking/contemplating their deity's will, and/or serving their community and whatnot. The power granted to you as a cleric, afterall, is not for self-aggrandizement or personal pursuits (at least, usually, not from the Good or Lawful deities).  In my world/game? Absolutely. Again, your world, your preference.</blockquote>

Verification