[3.P] E6 campaign setting, class suggestions

[RFLS]

So, I'm writing up a new setting for an E6 campaign, and I was hoping for suggestions on classes to be allowed. I'm generally an anything goes, sandboxy DM, and I want to take a stab at running the players through a campaign, module-style (but written by me). I'm hoping to keep the classes in a very tight power level and fairly close theme,

The game will be Pathfinder rules, but 3.5 material allowed. Here goes.

Core classes:


Barbarian: Allowed, no modifications.
Bard: Allowed, no modifications.
Cleric: Allowed, considering homebrew class features, but I'll post that elsewhere.
Druid: Allowed, but spellcasting is on a bard progression (still prepared, though), they don't receive an animal companion, and wildshape is gained at first level.
Fighter: Allowed, but discouraged.
Monk: Allowed, and given a significant homebrew buff.
Paladin: Allowed, no modifications.
Ranger: Allowed, no modifications.
Sorcerer: Allowed, gains spell levels one level earlier.
Wizard: Allowed; gains spell levels one level later.


Pathfinder specific:


Alchemist: Removed.
Cavalier: Allowed, but discouraged.
Gunslinger: Removed.
Inquisitor: Allowed, no modifications.
Ninja: Allowed, no modifications.
Magus: Allowed, no modifications.
Oracle: Allowed, no modifications.
Summoner: Removed.
Witch: Allowed; gains spell levels one level later.


D&D 3.5 splats:


Binder: Allowed, but see below.
Crusader: Allowed, no modifications.
Dragonfire Adept: Removed, campaign reasons.
Factotum: Allowed, no modifications.
Incarnate: Allowed, no modifications.
Scout: Allowed, no modifications.
Spellthief: Allowed, no modifications.
Swordsage: Allowed, no modifications.
Totemist: Allowed, no modifications.
Warblade: Allowed, no modifications.
Warlock: Allowed, but see below.


Sorcerer and Wizard:

The goal here was to make sorcerers more powerful, while allowing the wizard to retain its versatility. I feel like this slight change definitely does that, but I'm not sure what the effects over-all will be.

Binder and Warlock:

I'm very seriously considering gestalting or partially gestalting these for the purposes of this campaign. Their fluff fits extraordinarily well together, they're both low-tier classes by themselves, and I don't think they'd break anything. I'd definitely appreciate suggestions on this.

Fixed-list casters:

You may have noticed the absence of the fixed-list casters. This was not because I forgot them. I fully intend to include them, actually. I was considering homebrewing 4 more of them, 1 for each of the remaining schools (because Beguiler took 2). Assuming I get them roughly balanced with the existing three, how would these impact the existence of sorcerers? I deliberately left sorcerer in as an option so that players weren't locked into those 7 lists. I'm also debating whether I should move their spell levels up by one as well; I feel that leaving them where they are is fine, and gives Sorcerer an edge on them.

Overall, I'm looking for thoughts on how the Playground thinks these would fit together in a campaign. Any classes I've left out either don't fit at all (Samurai), were done better in Pathfinder (Oracle v. Favored Soul), or are just overall mediocre (Swashbuckler). If there's something not listed that you think should be, it'd be great to hear about. The intended feel of the setting is pervasive magic fantasy, with well established nations and organizations, in a classic (well, European, anyway) societal framework.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Quick question on Tome of Battle:

Is it fair to assume that this is how (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s7GQLBeyEP1FitOMikP_Kh8oRmKnzG_AKvaOPqjHqWk/edit) you will be updating the Tome of Battle for Pathfinder?

[RFLS]

Quick question on Tome of Battle:

Is it fair to assume that this is how (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s7GQLBeyEP1FitOMikP_Kh8oRmKnzG_AKvaOPqjHqWk/edit) you will be updating the Tome of Battle for Pathfinder?

Yup. I'm leaning towards Perception as the skill for Diamond Mind, as Sense Motive is already a skill for Setting Sun and psionics is not on the table (for the record, I adore psionics. They just don't fit in the setting. Damn Vancian casting should've been done that way from the start)

[W3bDragon]

I noticed that the Fighter and Cavalier are allowed but discouraged. Is that for plot reasons or power level reasons?

If its a matter of power, the fact that you're running E6 automatically makes the power band rather small, so I wouldn't be too concerned in that regard. A well built fighter can definitely hold his own in an E6 game.

If its for other reasons, then just flat out disallow the classes. Its been my experience that when you tell a player "you can, but I'd rather you don't" it usually equates to "Yes by all means go ahead!" If you don't want these classes in your game, remove them.

[RFLS]

Well, Cavalier's discouraged because I'm honestly uncertain as to how well it functions in a game, and I don't want a player to find out that it's just terrible to use without me being able to give some sort of warning.

Fighter's discouraged for the same reasons I'd discourage one in a full 1-20 game. They're very, very simple, with no unique tricks, and everyone can do what they do, but better. I'm not banning them, though, because a) some players like simple, b) some of the archetypes and ACFs are entertaining, and c) sometimes, you just need an extra feat or two in a build.

[Amnestic]

Binder and Warlock:

I'm very seriously considering gestalting or partially gestalting these for the purposes of this campaign. Their fluff fits extraordinarily well together, they're both low-tier classes by themselves, and I don't think they'd break anything. I'd definitely appreciate suggestions on this.


Aren't Binders generally considered T3? It's like gestalting...I dunno, rogue and Warblade because they're both 'low tier'.

Might be different in E6, granted, but Binders should be able to stand on their own two feet just fine.

I agree that it's not likely to break anything, but it might make them overly attractive.

[limejuicepowder]

Aren't Binders generally considered T3? It's like gestalting...I dunno, rogue and Warblade because they're both 'low tier'.

Might be different in E6, granted, but Binders should be able to stand on their own two feet just fine.

I agree that it's not likely to break anything, but it might make them overly attractive.

In an e6 game, a binder is probably t3, but barely. Being able to only attach 1 vestige at a time really hurts; yes they technically have access to a good variety of stuff, but the chance they're going to have bound the right thing for the right time is low. And unlike a wizard/cleric, they have no divination spells to help them out. The expel vestige feat does work, but it has some pretty strong limits. Plus it becomes a feat tax, along with the basically required improved binding.

Gestalting the two would bring it up to mid-high t3, no question about it. But if the group is the kind where melee = ToB, there would be no problem.

[RFLS]

Aren't Binders generally considered T3? It's like gestalting...I dunno, rogue and Warblade because they're both 'low tier'.

Might be different in E6, granted, but Binders should be able to stand on their own two feet just fine.

I agree that it's not likely to break anything, but it might make them overly attractive.

Huh. I was working under the impression that they were both low tier 4/high tier 5. I was mostly aiming to give both classes more options than their default.

[Amnestic]

Huh. I was working under the impression that they were both low tier 4/high tier 5. I was mostly aiming to give both classes more options than their default.

If what limejuicepowder says is accurate (and it very well might be) then the Binder being limited to one vestige is gonna hurt it significantly in E6, so gestalting them might not be too bad.

Warlocks, I believe, are generally considered mid-tier 4, with Binders being Tier 3 (online vestiges boost them to Tier 2!). I don't think they're really in need of gestalting, though taking a look at Binder versatility might be needed. Seems you're open to homebrew solutions, so there might be something to consider there. E6 gives the warlock extra feats to burn on Extra Invocation (Least) if they need it too.

That's my view on it, anyway.

[Larkas]

Hmmm, E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?206323-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp-D) actually encourages giving access to homebrewed "Capstone Feats". It wouldn't hurt at all to make a feat that gave access to the Binder's level 8 ability, namely "Soul binding (2 vestiges)". It would improve their versatility somewhat.

Furthermore, keep in mind that there are plenty of "level 8 capstones" in PF, so you might want to make feats for those too.