|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Hm, interesting, though this race is annoying to read.
I agree with the others, but I also feel like you aren't using your design space effectively. For example, why does the feat that turns the tentacle into a natural weapon consider them as slam attacks when the game already defines a tentacle natural weapon? Most of the feats are really lame and look like they should be alternate racial traits or just race traits. Their society also needs more work. It doesn't really show me much about this race. What do they value? How does their civlization work? How do they treat one another? What about themselves do they take pride in? What gods do they worship and why?
Alright, onward to Integrated Assault, the "flurry" attack for this class. I can't decide between two ideas for it:
A) Whenever the class full-attacks, they get a bonus attack from an integrated weapon (not stacking with Rapid Shot and TWF).
B) When full-attacking with only integrated weapons, they're treated as having TWF (essentially like brawler's flurry or flurry of blows)
I'm also reluctant to grant full flurry progression to this class. Unlike the brawler and monk, they can get a lot more interesting abilities than either of those classes and they already have an advantage in using better weaponry with the attack. Power sources should let the special attack and integrated weapons scale well without more extra attacks. What do you think?
Goth Guru wrote:
Draft C is pretty good.
Alrighty then! Rapid Reload seems like the better option, but the capacity makes it more unique and solves the same problem without giving too much. By the time the character's iteratives start to overcome their capacity, they should always have all their staple ranged feats to make choosing Rapid Reload not so painful. Hm, maybe I could also introduce an upgrade that works like Manyshot.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
No, because you still need a hand to reload. But that can be pretty ridiculous, which is why the above drafts add the requirement that the weapon must be wieldable in one hand.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
That's a good catch. I might make the gauntlets an upgrade, a freebie, or an archetype that restricts you to using close weapons but grants full brawler's flurry.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Yeah, I agree with you there. Future versions won't take any longer than the time needed to draw a weapon.
I'm not crazy about granting extra standard actions either. I'd explicitly limit the choices what the class can do with them, which is what the monk of the four winds's slow time ability does.
Moving up to your speed as a swift action is a really powerful ability (in fact, it's a mythic ability). Even if it were just 30, 20, or even 10 feet, that's insanely good. Even the fact it's based off of movement speed rather than a flat value means it scales well if the class buffs their movement speed. Additionally, they can get an extra attack as a swift action. There's absolutely no reason for any martial to not dip one level into dynamo. Ranged fighters can get an extra attack and can move as a swift action and full attack.
Alright, then the class can attack multiple times with the same weapon in a flurry of blows-like way. Here's three drafts of integrated weapon. The first one tries to keep the weapon standardized but later provide ways to augment it. The second and third restricts integrated weapons to only weapons you can wield in one hand--this helps ensure ranged weapons are too strong with this since one-handed ranged weapons tend to have half the range increment. To not hurt them too much, they
Interesting upgrade suggestions.
You say one attack per weapon, and they only get one weapon at first level. This makes integrated assault entirely redundant, until 5th. There should be more levels with upgrades and more upgrades in general.
You're totally right. They only get the second attack if they pick gauntlets. This should be the first thing that gets changed. As I see it, I need to do either of three things with integrated weapons:
A) The class should get more integrated weapons to make use of the extra attacks. However, that could get cumbersome dealing with a plethora of different weapons on the character.
B) The class should be able to attack multiple times with the same weapon when using integrated assault. This, however, would make it very powerful for ranged builds.
C) The class should get some other special attack instead of a flurry of blows-like attack.
Which appeals to you?
Christopher Dudley wrote:
The flip side of that is that if their body augmentations improve them along the lines of the expected gear level, it should cost them gold to improve. Because getting WBL gear for free in ADDITION to their WBL really is too much.
Just giving them free gear and stats is not really a direction I want to go in, which is why I choose to, instead, give them ways to augment the special things they get from the class.
Goth Guru wrote:
I stand by the no encumbrance for installed armor.
I don't want to do that directly since that's kind of the fighter's thing. However, I think I do agree that a class feature that involves grafting something on you to impede your movement sounds like a bad deal. It might be better to keep it as an armor bonus to AC that's attached to you, sort of like an innate bracers of armor.
And, yeah, to be frank, it is supposed to be kinda a nerf- Kinda trying to drop Wizard from tier 1 to tier 1.5 or so. UNLIMITED POWER comes at a sizable cost.
Every change should be done to make the game more fun to play. All of these nerfs just feel like punches to face than an attempt to tone down their power.
I believe she did not use the spell to its potential. It's best to use gaseous form to ensure an escape rather than simply run away. Other spells are already good for that, like haste or fly. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And I don't think it should be. I think it's great the spell requires a little bit of planning and creativity to utilize properly.
A friend recently told me he wants to start a magitech campaign and gave me permission to play a class of my own design. I can't pass up this opportunity to playtest my artiforged class, which is a perfect fit. However, there's several things I haven't figured out well and I need to finish the draft by the end of the month!
The class, called the artiforged, is basically the fantasy equivalent of a cyborg, designed to be largely setting neutral where the flavor of your augmentations varies. You could be attaching clockwork to yourself, growing organs using alchemy, Frankensteining yourself with undead limbs, or turning yourself into a half-man/half-Groot-like creature. It's a full BAB class centered around the character gradually augmenting their body. Some of its class features include:
The concept of the archetype was to trade utility/healing for more offense.
Pathfinder is an offense-oriented game. Offense is often more valuable than defense and healing. As a result, trading healing abilities for lots of more damage is a massive power increase. It's typically good archetype design to have ability replacements match the general purpose and theme of the ability getting replaced.
Maurice took the words right out of my mouth. DC 25 Reflex save seems pretty high for a CR 1 trap. But that's a minor issue.
I actually really like the encounter. There's a lot going on. The premise is pretty evil in a fascinating way: an undead lord that uses living creatures as "soil" for his garden. That's such a delightfully evil thing that I gotta use that in my campaign. I also like how each enemy has their own tactic.
This will get a vote from me.
I remember having a conversation about this before. Having multiple levels of masterwork that increase the attack bonus (damage wouldn't really work because by definition, a +1 weapon is magical).
I worked out the price formula as price = [weapon price] + 300*[bonus]^2. It might be helpful to give each quality a name. +1 = masterwork, +2 = refined, +3 = flawless, +4 = superior, +5 = perfect.
The price of a bonus contributes towards the price of a magic weapon of the same bonus. In other words, if you want to upgrade your refined +1 longsword to a +2 longsword, you simply subtract the prices.
I wasn't aware that you needed to be a seascarred to select those arcana. Most of the options don't actually say you need to be a certain race or heritage in the actual text of the option. For example, the arcana's text doesn't say you need to be a seascarred and for most of them, there's no reason why other characters could use it.
Yeah, some of the SLAs are pretty lame, like jump. However, the heritages that get the worst SLAs also get the best bestial form abilities. Though fanglords have jump, they have a choice of up to three natural attacks, +10 movement speed, and see in darkness. Despite having talking to rats as their SLA, wererat-kin get the best ability of them all: distraction! In fact, it actually looks overpowered unless your GM rules it only works on natural attacks.
Is this with or without the recent change you made?
Skinwalkers don't take a -4 penalty to Charisma. Read this again.
While in bestial form, a skinwalker takes a –4 penalty on Charisma and Charisma-based checks when interacting with humanoids that lack the shapechanger subtype.
The text means they take a penalty on Charisma checks and Charisma-based skill checks. They have to use this language because Charisma checks are not skill checks---they're ability checks. Charisma checks are used for things such as charm person and Command Undead. If the author meant the bestial form grants a Charisma penalty, then the text would say "to Charisma" and the penalty would be mentioned in the Ability Score racial trait heading. Additionally, it doesn't make any lick of sense why some heritages would give you Charisma bonuses when you shapeshift despite having a penalty.
Changing the action economy of it is a pretty big difference. This class has some major action economy issues. Being able to cast spells and use this ability also raises a lot of questions. You can't just say "the puppeteer can start casting a spell without breaking concentration" because concentrating on a spell is an on-going activity. If it were me, I'd make it work more like bardic performance or rage except you have to spend an action to renew it that provokes an attack of opportunity.
5) I find it odd that this class has a 3/4 BAB and needs to be within close range to use its main class feature, and yet they can never use that BAB to fight because they need to spend all their action economy on manipulation.Are you saying the class should have more BA or less? Manipulations still require an attack to attach at very least and there is at least 1 manipulation that can be used to attack directly. That is before even looking at the mastermind flair.
I'm saying they should have more ways to use their BAB. They can't make any attacks while manipulating and having a BAB doesn't confer any benefit to his manipulations. It just feels like a waste. I do think giving them a 3/4 BAB and 6-level spellcasting is a good fit. And having manipulation be limited by requiring a standard action and additional action economy tax each round is a smart idea. However, it feels weird that he has a good BAB but cannot perform attacks or use it in any other way.
Much of this comes from experience when working on one of my classes. I had a class that needed a standard action to gain a resource, a standard action to use the resource and perform his primary blasting attack. In addition, he had a medium BAB and can cast spells. He had way too many things to do with his standard action. Your class seems like it will have plenty of action economy issues that make it really annoying to play.
Also, touch attacks were designed for low BAB characters. Even low BAB characters can easily land touch attacks, especially at higher levels. As a result, touch attacks are easy for a medium BAB character. Initiating a manipulation should be relatively easy to create a simple minion because the class has to use up a standard action just to start using their main class feature. However, i wouldn't call a touch attack a good way to utilize the BAB.
I feel like both classes are too narrow of concept and need a strong mechanic to back them up. But if I had to pick one of the two, I'd go with the first one, even though that sounds like a ranged flurry of blows. I could see that concept expanded for a melee combatant, maybe even a samurai with inhuman reflexes.
I'll look over the class with more detail later, but here are my first impressions.
1) A class centered around attaching magical threads to creatures and objects and controlling them like a puppet is really interesting. I've harshly criticized many classes on this forum because they lacked a unique/interesting mechanic worthy of an entire class. The puppeteer definitely deserves to be its own class and serves as a good foundation for a number of character concepts thanks to puppeteer masteries.
2) I got really confused when I first looked at the manipulation ability text. The text spends three paragraphs explaining the rules around manipulation without actually saying what the power actually does or how it benefits the player. I didn't understand it until I saw one of the puppeteer masteries. I highly recommend rewriting this ability to keep it simple and concise and clue that the benefits of the ability are listed elsewhere.
3) If concentrating on a manipulation doesn't follow most of the rules for concentration, then it shouldn't be called "concentration."
4) As a addition to #3, I agree with Ciaran that the strings should be better defined. Perhaps there's something you can do with the strings by themselves as defined under the manipulation text.
5) I find it odd that this class has a 3/4 BAB and needs to be within close range to use its main class feature, and yet they can never use that BAB to fight because they need to spend all their action economy on manipulation. It might be interesting that manipulation works by having the puppeteer sacrifice basic attacks to have their puppet attack instead. Almost like Azir from League of Legends. In other words, instead of manipulation working by maintaining "concentration," he performs actions using his puppets as if he were performing the action himself. Any action the puppet does uses his action economy. This would help make the class more distinct than just a summoner and allow other abilities to hook onto this mechanic.
Step 1: Why not just give the monk a full BAB? They should have been a full BAB class to begin with.
Step 2: That's a pretty big nerf as the monk relies heavily on Power Attack to really do some serious damage.
Step 3: I'm not crazy with this new FoB.
I also don't understand why the change with amulet of mighty fists.
I personally thought of making the TWF feat grant the ability to perform a special attack that's basically vital strike where the bonus damage uses the off-hand's damage dice. *Shrug*
In terms of balance, the class's early game looks alright, but I'm not so sure about their late game. 6-level spellcasters tend to fall off around 10th level. Also keep in mind that all talent pools either have multiple tiers (rogue talents) and/or have level restrictions (magus arcana). Classes have this so they aren't stuck having to pick low level abilities. With this class, I'm not so sure. I think they'd be overpowered to gain major hexes or advanced ninja tricks.
On the other hand, having a 20 foot natural weapon is a pretty huge boon that pays off well in the end game. Some hexes are amazing at all levels (like Flight). So, I guess the class is pretty well balanced for the most part.
On another note, I'm not crazy about them getting lay on hands when they can already get the healing hex, which is amazing in its own right.
Ah, there we go. You don't need to use so many parenthesis. You have an entire sentence all in parenthesis.
This is actually a pretty cool idea. I've been brainstorming various replacements for spell combat and spellstrike that have the same general theme (combat-related action economy benefits with spells) but do something different.
I disagree. There's many cool archetypes for specific concepts. I think the niche that prestige classes fill could be fulfilled either by expanding archetypes to work for multiple classes or by creating a new construct entirely.
What exactly do you have in mind for the Eldritch Knight? So far, I haven't really seen any specifics.
While well written, I'm not really crazy about it. I think it's too narrow-focused to be a class on its own. I see the general idea though: turn the white-hair witch (an otherwise very awful archetype) into a 6-level, 3/4 BAB class. However, it steals pretty much all of its class features from other classes. In the end, I'd rather play a hexcrafter magus with maybe another archetype attached that's like Kapenia Dancer, but grants the prehensile hair hex instead of proficiency in bladed scarfs.
Just a Guess wrote:
No early access, just a way to circumvent the strangeness that alchemy is not magic. And it gets the ban-hammer.
Alchemy isn't magic, but the alchemist's alchemy is magic. However, many feats like Arcane Strike and item creation feats only care if you can cast spells, even if the feat itself doesn't have anything to do with casting a spell.
I agree with Zhayne. I don't understand why it needs to be a whole class. It has almost no class features and borrows most of its class features from the magus. Even the talent pool is basically a bunch of bonus feats. So, it would be better off as an archetype. Designing classes is really hard, anyway.
Which of the pair to buy
General Game Structure