Shandren's page

I might be late to the party, but try taking a look at the "battle herald" prestige class. It uses a combo of bard and cavalier to build a purely martial class that grants inspire courage-like abilities to armies, boosts leadership, allows better forced marching and at lvl 15 it can have multiple group buffing effects rolling together.

It might not be the best 1v1 fighter, but it will certainly be a general worthy of renown.

The teamwork sharing "tactician" ability of the cavalier class and the bardic inspire courage are two of the best group buffing abilites available (that arent spells), and this way you get (almost) full progression on both.

a few points:

About interaction between inspire courage and banner. Remember that the attack bonuses from banner on charging are morale bonuses and therefore stack with attack bonuses from inspire courage (as Atarlost also mentioned). The + vs fear are both morale bonuses and therefore doesnt stack. But the BH has access to versions of inspire courage that only gives the competence bonus to att/dam and not the morale bonus vs fear (Sound the charge). So if you are using sound the charge and banner you dont have issues with overlapping bonuses.

About the teamwork feat from BH being move action, this could be seen as intentional to let you activate both in one round, without allowing you to activate them both alongside standard actions.

If it was the case that they both gave competence or morale I would aggree with you that it would be a "bad" design, but luckily they don't :-)

Shandren wrote:

Im btw still interested if anyone can give a nice argument as to why the GM should not allow reskins alla the one the OP suggests?

Taking the mechanics of a class and using them to play a thematically different (but mechanically exactly alike) character.

well as another example, a herbalist might be an alchemist. they want to have the mechanics of alchemy but flavor wise they're mashing twigs and leaves together, and maybe a few flowers.

Or maybe someone is playing a rogue, but has more emphasis on combat ability in mind, so they play a fighter with several ranks of stealth and a higher than average intelligence.

Perfect examples of good reskinning in my oppinion :-)

I was wondering why anyone would ever "ban" this sort of reskins.

And thanks wraithstrike for attempting to answer my question. But both of the examples you give strikes me as oppinions rather than arguments (which is fair, theyre not even your opinions). I was just wondering why for example someone thinks that the mechanics of the ninjaclass are the only (right) way to represent a "ninja(the concept)", or why these mechanics can only be used to represent a "ninja(the concept)"

Shandren out

@GozrehTime

My personal take on the examples:

A) No mechanical changes what so ever, and no coherence breaking refluffing either. Knights are not a "group" according to the mechanics of the game, and only "fluff" is changed

B) Exactly as A...! The only different being that some GMs dislike the "samurai" mechanics (maybe they think tehy are to powerful and doesn't want them for that reason?... this could just as well have happened with fighter if anyone thinks they're too powerful)

C) The GM is very clear about a mechanical restriction on his game. The player doesnt break this mechanical restriction. And since samurai obviously exist in his cosmopolitan world using fighter mechanics to play one seems like the perfect example of a good reskin

D) This is getting a bit heavier on the GM. The mechanical underlay of the gunslinger class is tailored to fit medieval guns that break down, costs a lot, where ammunition is expensive, etc. If a nice reskin can be found that fits all of the mechanics of the gunslinger, including the technobabble part, then this is fine and dandy as well. But this requires a bit of worldengineering in order to make whatever special ranged weapon the player wants to use fit the role that guns usualy do. (Maybe someone has invented a "manticore quill firing device" which uses materials that are hard to come by in the setting, shoots quills that are hard to find/expensive and breaks rather often (insert more gunslinger tropes)). Bottom line, this can work as well, but requires the GM to want something that while it isnt guns, fills a similar role in his world. As you describe the GM he might be fine with that.

E) The player wants to use rules for a class that isn't allowed (or at least likely not... crossbows in the stoneage??), and on top of that wants to refluff it to being something that very clearly doesnt fit into the campaign. This seems ways and bounds away from anything like decent reskinning. this is the same as:

F) the GM wants to run a classic western fantasy setting, and only allows the CRB. Player turns up and says he wants to play a brawler from the new XXX book, and wants to reflavour it as a navy seal melee badass. ... just send the player away or hope its 1st of april.

It seems you're missing the scenario in which the player wants to refluff something he would be allowed to play unfluffed, into something that doesnt fit the campaign. Like:

G) the GM wants to run a classic western fantasy setting, allowing only the CRB. The player wants to play a fighter(the class), but have it refluffed into a samurai(the fluff).

And then fcause the "refluff" scenario where the greatsword is fluffed as dualwielding. In which case both the mechanics and the fluff is allowed in the setting, but the "refluffing" creates coherence issues (like the afore mentioned is it 1 or 2 items?)

Shandren Out

Im btw still interested if anyone can give a nice argument as to why the GM should not allow reskins alla the one the OP suggests?

Taking the mechanics of a class and using them to play a thematically different (but mechanically exactly alike) character.

This thread is getting extremely messy. Cudos to Charons little helper (amongst a few others) for trying to define what people are actually debating :-)

Refluffing (going with that term since reskinning apparently also means changing mechanics for some people), a greatsword into dual wielding short swords, is exactly the kind of refluffing i dont like. The worst part being that what is mechanically 1 item, is fluffed as two. This creates situations that breaks the coherence of the story/world.

refluffing a "katana" as a "flamberge" however, seems positively problemless, at least as long as the campaign is strictly western fantasy. For all intends and purposes the katana he is wielding is just that, a katana (except its called a flamberge and looks slightly different). If the party finds a katana, this is also a flamberge (because those are the same weapon mechanically, as defined previously).

The only thing that could cause trouble is if the GM suddenly decides to throw in some eastern stuff, and doesn't want the eastern weapon "katana" to be the same as the flamberge. In which case I'd argue that what he is doing is creating a "katana2" weapon, which happens to share the statistics of a katana/flamberge, but looks differently, and requires other skills.

Yeah sorry... my point comes across really badly in the short version 8-( (easy to say i know).

To elaborate a bit: Of cause it is easy to just say he counts as an elf (if that is what you mean by giving the subtype), I am not arguing that this sort of reskinning cannot be done, but it requires SOME change of mechanics in order to not break the consistency of the game (the combined mechanics/flavour). If the GM is willing to make this change, then there is not problem. As in your earlier example, "tagging" the arcane magic of the bard as being "divine" instead (both flavourwise AND mechanical) is very easy to do. But the GM might not want this.

It is also really easy to just say that ok this halforc counts as an elf for all intends and purposes flavourwise and in interactions with "vs elves" abilities, he just uses the halforc race mechanically. But this is a mechanical change (half orcs do not usually count as elves mechanically). If the GM is willing to make it, fine. If not? well then you might argue that that makes him restrictive, and that might be true (I don't much care either way), but the GM has to make NO such changes in the samurai to knight reskin.

I usually read "reskin" as bing ONLY a change in "fluff" of the source material, that is why I would argue that a reskin should always be allowed. If reskinning something requires a mechanics-change, wich tbh the halforc/elf reskin does unless there is an extra explanation of why this elf isnt like the other elves, and why the elf-hating ranger doesn't get bonuses against it.

One such explanation could be that the elf is from a seperate clan of elves, let's call them mountainelves, who happen to be more ferocious than their forest cousins, and happens to see in the dark, etc. But then this requires the GM to accept the existence of such a clan. Or maybe the character in question is "cursed" (or something else) into having these "characteristics" and though he might look like an elf, he really isnt one anymore in the mechanical sense of that word.

In either case the halforc/elf is not just random-elf#13.

Be aware BigDTBone that the way you make these characters are clearly in dialogue with your GM based on the setting he has provided you, and that this really doesn't seem to be the case with the halforc/elf guy. He really just wants to play an elf with a wolf. Both very well understood concepts with mechanics that define their abilities, but he wants to use X mechanics instead (not because these fit better to the character he is playing, but because they are stronger).

My point is: The sort of "reskinning" used in playing the "samurai" class as a knight, are vastly different than the type of "reskinning" used in order to play the halforc race as an "elf".

Either can be just fine, IF the GM is ok with it of cause. But the first type he really should not have ANY reason to be against.

Short version of lost post :-(

The elf/orc "reskin" is very different from the samurai/knight reskin, because "elf" and "orc" are natural kind terms whereas "samurai" and "knight" are social terms. (A fact that is also represented in the rules by allowing things like +2 vs elves, but never allowing anything like bonuses against specific classes).

When you allow something belonging to one natural kind to have vastly different properties than the rest of that kind, it doesnt really belong to that natural kind... aka your "elf" isnt an elf.

It raises some questions like: why can THIS elf see in the dark? etc.
It also creates a bunch of rulesquestions like does the halforc/elf count as an elf against rangers with racial enemies, etc. If it does, you have now made a mechanics change, and not just a reskin. If it doesn't then why the H not? The ranger is trained in fighting elves, isnt this guy an elf? All the rules issues are fcause solvable, but this is a strain on the GM, and one that normal reskins doesnt require.

Reskinning a samurai to being a knight brings NO mechanical issues with it whatsoever.

argh freaking forum... i double post and delete one of them, and then they both dissappear along with my "sketch" :-(

Thats exactly how i am using them elder basilisk. Start inspire courage, then start a command, lingering performance will make sure that the inspire keeps rolling a bit. (This is fcause only once my tactician teamwork feats have been granted as well. Outflank and precise strike are cruel on soldiers with gang up feat). Stacking aoe buffs is what the battle herald is about. The fact that it also have some nice party buffs (reroll for example), seems like icing on the cake.
It is probably not anywhere close to the strongest class for normal play, but it is a brute for commanding.

@sandslice. Not wanting the samurai due to it being "better" that the cavalier, is an ENTIRELY different thing than not wanting it because it has eastern flavour. No amount of reskinning will change that fact. What the op is arguing against are the gms who are fine per say with the mechanics of the class, but who does not want "samurais" in their fantasy. THAT problem can be fixed by reskinning, not the "the samurai class is too strong" problem (once again i dont actuallythink that is the case, tactician is a very powerfull ability).

@LazarX

Then that is (likely) because that would specifically be a type 3 reskin. All of those classes uses arcane magic, and this doesnt exist in your campaign. In order to make them fit you would actually have to do more than just a type 1 reskin. Making it perfectly fine for you to say no... This is exactly what I said in my post :-)

@BigDTBone:

My comment about being a prima donna if you "expect" your GM to allow type 3 reskins (as I called them above), was written before your last post, and was not meant as a jibe at your expectations of your GM to compromise. I would still hold that it is the GM's "right" (i use that term loosely) to not allow such reskins as they are "technically" against the rules. But in cases like the one you describe, I absolutely think it would be smart of the GM to allow it, at least if the divine/arcane cleft isn't a BIG deal in his campaign (which you would likely have noticed if it was due to the banter between the two of you).

Shandren Out

hmm after reading through this I feel that people may be talking about rather different things when they say "reskinning", and when they say (for instance) "the GM does not want ninjas in his campaign".

There seems to be a long way from the GM not wanting ninjas (the flavour) in his western fantasy (understandable) because he doesn't think they fit in, to GM's not wanting ninjas (the mechanics of the class) in his game because he doesn't like their mechanics/abilities (also understandable). Perhaps he thinks they are too powerfull, or perhaps he feels that certain of their abilities cannot be reskinned to fit his setting. For instance it might be hard to explain that a human has darkvision (ninja trick) in an all human no magic medieval europe setting. A solution for this could be a "per ability" ban. In this case maybe disallowing the supernatural abilities of the ninja. If the player can't live with these restrictions, another class might be a better suit for their character. It seems perfectly alright that a GM can decide which mechanics and which flavour he will have at his table.

Imagine trying to reskin a wizard for a no-magic campaign. This would require a LOT of restrictions on available abilities (at least in my limited miagination), but might still conceivably be possible, provided he takes the right spells.

But i think it is very important to understand that not wanting the flavour ninja and not wanting the mechanic ninja (maybe even for flavour reasons like the darkvision example), are two different things.

It seems there are a few different way that the "ninja" might sit badly with the GM.

1. He dislikes the flavour due to flavour reasons.
2. He dislikes the mechanics due to mechanics reasons (ki is op?)
3. He dislikes the mechanics due to flavour reasons (like the darkvision example)

Reskinning solves the 1st of these. It seems to me that some people on the "reskinning is bad" team seems to think that people are trying to use reskinning as a solution to all of these issues.

1. A good reskin should absolutely be able to solve these issues.
Lets say we have a GM who wants to run a classic western fantasy setting, and doesn't want any freaking eastern flavour in his game. I do not see why a player who doesn't take any of the supernatural ninja-tricks, might not fit JUST as well into this setting than a normal rogue. Difference being he can make a few more attacks or run a bit faster once in a while (ki), and use poison. (certain things at higher levels might be harder to explain like walking on water, but maybe our rogue just wants to dip for the ki?). If the GM wouldn't bat an eye at the abilities unless he knew they came from the "ninja" class, then the reskin is a good one, and should really be allowed (I don't know PFS rules on this subject, so won't try to be clever on that point)

2. No amount of reskinning is going to help this. If your GM does not want you to have the ki mechanic, because it is too powerfull (or whatever reason), then you might want to respect his GMs decision. Or maybe respectfully try to change his mind, if you have good arguments, and he is in a good mood.

3. Certain reskins might actually help here too, but these are rarer, and require som GM leeway. Maybe your bards inspire courage isn't really a supernatural ability in the "non-magical" setting the GM is running. Or maybe his spells are divine magic as the example from a prior poster. But these require (slight) changes in the mechanics of the abilites, and should absolutely not be expected. If your GM calls you a prima donna it might be because you are expecting him to allow this sort of reskinning :-)

If anyone can provide a good argument against type 1. reskinning, I would like to hear it, cause I can't really think of any :-)

Shandren Out

NB: I do not actually think that "ki" is too powerfull, it is merely an example.

Crazy long post inc: TLDR at bottom for the lazy/uninterested.

Im playing in a very "small armies" focused campaign (we are playing lords in the council of a backwater country, with each our own soldiers to command). The game play varies a bit between army-fights and more "party"-focused play. I am (of cause since I'm in this thread) playing the commander-type.

With this setup in mind I find that I value a lot of the inspiring commands vastly different than what i see above:

Here's my list for the army-commander:

Battle magic: Doesn't work on armies. For party: Low magic setting, none of us being casters sort of puts a cap on the usefullness of this one :-)
For normal settings at higher levels this seems usefull for spellresistance indeed!

Inspire Hardiness: This one is really powerful when fights are between armies of 1st-2nd lvl warriors. The few points of DR do a very nice difference when you're facing 1d8+2 (ish) damage.
For normal settings I'd value this rather low unless you're facing a lot of minions. 1-4 DR is really not a lot at the levels you get it

Inspired Tactics: Neither my army nor my party focuses on combat maneuvres.
For normal settings, if you have a martial party focusing on synergy with trips/grapples/AoOs from teamwork feats or the like the first 2 parts of this seem positively crazy.

Keep Your Heads: We are using some homebrewed moral-rules for our armies, making this a decent choice. My build allready have decent moral for the troops however, so it would mostly be to help an otherwise full martial party against the occasional spellcasters. Lord knows that will saves arent our strong suit.
For normal settings this just seems strong in general. Will saves are some of the worst to fail.

None Shall Fall*: Doesn't work on armies. For party: This is weak during battles, but it might have some potential for getting up the fallen party members after a fight. Theres usually some rounds of inspiring commands left to burn after the fights. The poison part is very situational, but rather strong since failing it is free. Maybe using this to hustle your party overland a full day is an option at higher levels? At least combined with "easy march"
Tematically I really dislike this ability. How am I healing people exactly? Some sort of temporary hitpoints would be a lot weaker, but much less "weird". Only curing nonlethal damage would make sense too in my head, and would still allow
For normal play this loses the heal after combat potential, as people very likely have cure light wounds wands, making it downright bad in my oppinion. It may regain some use for midcombat usage once you are lvl 10 battle herald and can use it while using others.

Pincer Maneuver: My army has "Combat expertise" and "Gang up", so this is actually an almost decent choice for me. The AC part can be usefull for maneuvring on the battlefield, but id most often rather have the extra charge range. For my party we allready have an actual bard doing inspire courage, so the competence bonuses to att/dam are useless. Also, they dont have gang up
For normal play: This seems almost strictly weaker than sound the charge or inspire courage.

Rally: This one I am most certainly going to pick at some point. Failing morale (fear saves) for an army is as good as a loss, getting a free reroll once per round is insanely good. For party: meh, have a lot of vs fear bonuses already.
For normal settings. I'd call this worse than plain + will save bonus. But it might be nice to have if for some reason fear is often a problem?

Reveille: I never understood the wording on this. These effects only rarely allow any saving throw in the first place. How does this interact with people who have taken 1 point of dam from hustling for instance? And once you have failed the saving throw against "forced march" you ahve taken the nonlethal damage. At this point it is the damage that makes you fatigued, and a new save wouldnt really help you by RAW would it? I can only really see this working (RAW) against certain spels, which seems way to situational. For my campaign i believe I can convince the GM to have it (at least) work against forched march. Tematically i LOVE this ability though, if it did what I think they wanted it to do.
For normal settings: When is this ever needed? Touch of fatigue?, sleep? ray of exhaustion?

Scatter*: Doesnt work for armies. For party: It's definately not for running away, making the name a bit weird. I do sort of like the idea of using this to charge archers though, but seems too narrow, both for me, and for normal settings. Maybe the feat (wind stance) is worth it for some builds, but giving it to the party seems a waste.

Shake It Off*: Doesn't work for armies... Still going to take it (at some point at least), afteral we do face off against casters once in a while (they're evil!!). This works against stuns/etc as well.
Think enough have been said above about the power of this.
For normal settings. Yeah, its good :-)

Sound the Charge: This one is rather nice. When the GM does not allow his NPC's to act accordingly without prior knowledge, adding extra charge range from out of nowhere, is really strong. Having my army engaging an opponent and then being able to charge (into flanking due to gang up), before the enemy thinks they can, is golden.
For normal settings you should probably take some of the save-abilities first, this is not that different from inspire courage.

Sound the Retreat: This version of scatter works for armies :-) Unfortunately it doesnt work in the same way :-( and requiring "withdraw" or "double move" makes it a lot weaker. It DOES work against melee attacks though, making it really good for positioning. Allowing a 50% misschance from AoOs. Might be worth it, but since it requires you to take scatter as well, its too heavy an investment for me. For party: Maybe to allow the rogue to get into position? But tbh that seems like a waste.
For normal settings: If for some reason you have a party member who you really need to get into a good tactical position, and who is ok using his entire turn (and some of yours) to do so. I can see this doing some work in certain situations, but unlike scatter, this seems to actually be for running away. Which is not something I would usually focus a build around.
Rules question: "If you take two actions to move" is the phrasing for "lightning stance", what if you have an ability to use a swift (or immediate) action to move like 5 feet, and use this and your move action. Have you then fulfilled the requirement? I presume most "move actions" (like drawing a potion), isn't an "action to move".

Stand Firm: Seems genuinely powerfull. This almost seems like 2 commands, but tematically they fit well together. Our GM rarely tests our CMD though (lucky us), so what is usually a very powerfull buff might not do that much for us. The fort part is rarely used in army fights, but for party it is nice to be able to have an easier time avoiding diseases and poisons (low magic world remember).
For normal settings, this just seems really nice.
Wish: I really wished this would work for overland travel situations, to grant bonuses to forced march saves, or fort saves from crossing through swamps/etc.

Teamwork: Wall of text incoming:
First off, I think this command can be a lot more useful than it first appears. As the name suggests though, it may require some help from your teams builds to make it really shine, making it bad for stuff like PFS.
At face value this actually looks rather bad for anything except skills. It requires TWO persons to give up their actions (aid another is usually a standard action) in order for it to grant a higher to hit bonus to the main subject than he would get from you just using inspire courage. If only one person uses aid another, the aided person gets: +2 (aid another), +X (this ability), which is the same he would have had if he had been aided by someone while under the influence of inspire courage. And he misses out on the damage bonus as well. With 2 persons aiding the subject he now gets +4+2X, meaning he now has +X more than he would under inspire courage... but only to 1 attack, which could potentially be worth it ... once in a blue moon. But generally is just a bad use of actions. But now add in other factors.
First off: this works on AC as well, making it a bit more versatile than inspire courage, but still uses a lot of actions.
The ability begins to shine once you consider using characters build for taking advantage of aid another. There are a few ways to buff the bonus from aid another, like certains traits and class abilities (helpful probably being the most well known, but traits like fools for friends or battlefield disciple are rather powerful as well... and stacks with helpful). Then there are certain feats and class abilities that allows you to aid another as other sorts of actions than standard. such as the "swift aid" feat which makes you able to aid another (for +1 base bonus) as a swift action, or more prominently "bodyguard" that allows you to use AoOs for aiding adjacent persons to their AC when they get attacked. As bonuses from aid another stacks with each other if more than one person in your party has access to some of these feats, you can reach absurd numbers with some swift actions/AoOs.
Lastly, if you have just 1 "tactician"-archetype fighter who is lvl 11+ things may get insane due to their ability to aid several targets at once. Once you reach lvl 10 battle herald (true its getting high level) you can use this together with inspire courage as it stacks with the competence bonuses. This is also the only way to get AC bonus against regular attacks from inspiring commands

Now remember that it ALSO helps with skill checks, and it becomes close to the best command (if your party, or at the very least yourself, can tak advantage of it)

For my character this is definately a decent choice later on. I have made my character in such a way that I am hardly ever actually attacking in party fights(spending all my actions using various abilities that buff my party/army. Amongst these is Aid another (buffed through various traits and classes). Combined with the bodyguard feat (which I have) and swift aid (which I'm getting), this might actually be a very solid choice in fights where the AC of the party is really important. For my army it is less usefull as they are not (currently at least) build to take advantage of Aiding another.

Tuck and Roll: Bonus to reflex saves is decent, acrobatics seems less usefull, unless you're trying to tumble past opponents a lot. For my army, this is low prio, for my party likewise.
For normal settings: This seems like a decent choice for the reflex, but I would prefer the other saves.

Ok terribly long post, and maybe slightly necroing? :-)

TLDR: The "Teamwork" command might be a LOT stronger than you think at first. And some of the commands change a lot in power once the battle herald is actually doing what he is supposed to do, and leading an "army" of more than 3-5 other adventurers.

Best choices:

For army leading: Inspire hardness, Teamwork (if the soldiers are build for it), Rally/Keep your heads (depending on your morale rules) and lastly inspired tactics, if you are going for some crazy shenanigans like combat maneuvres, or AoO oriented teamwork feats.

For regular play: Shake it off, Teamwork (if your party is build for it), Battle magic, Keep your heads, stand firm and once again lastly inspired tactics, if you are going for some CMB or AoO crazyness .-)

Shandren Out