|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Charlatan (Rogue)
I actually like this one a lot. Very professionally presented, all the way down to the recommended rogue talents to complement the archetype. The use of Bluff as an attitude-adjusting charlatan's Diplomacy is innovative. I'm not as keen on the Mystical Ruse ability, but I do like the notion of the bonus on Use Magic Device checks to emulate another class. And the other abilities for Bamboozle, Distracting Ploy, and Perfect Delivery all fit the theme you're going for... As a result, I RECOMMEND this archetype design to advance to the next round. Well done. You're two for two in my book as I also really enjoyed your mirrored lantern of the pious seeker. Let's see how well the voters receive your charlatan.
Total Points: 2.5 Points
Comments In Detail Name & Theme (.5 point)
Mechanics (1 point)
Awesomeness (0 points)
Template (1 point)
Context (0 point)
I'm impressed, Artus. You've picked an iconic trope and run with it, and for the most part, done a very good job making it interesting and balanced. I like that you made this a rogue archetype, as I think many would make this a bard variant due to their generally higher Charisma. This makes for a nice blend of the two classes without it actually being a multiclass archetype. I think all the abilities you present are fairly straightforward and any fringe situations are covered. You stayed close to the theme, and I can't see any of these being particularly game-breaking. There are some good, innovative ideas here, too, especially being able to use Bluff in place of Diplomacy when disguised, and allowing more than one Bluff attempt if he changes disguises. I was initially put off by some strange syntax in the flavor text, however, that another edit pass or reading it out loud might have caught: "Some people lie to live, yet the charlatan lives to lie. Charlatans move from one deception to another, dancing a game of duplicity that leaves his coin pouch fatter and his victims none the wiser." Is it "the charlatan," "charlatans," or a single charlatan (resulting in "him")? Not a huge deal, but if you move on to future rounds, you should not only bring the solid design and creativity, but an attention to linguistic detail worthy of the Superstar title. All considered, I RECOMMEND this archetype for advancement. I look forward to seeing what else you can come up with down the road, but it's all up to the voting public now. Best of luck.
I think this is a perfect archetype for a "face man" sort of character. The abilities make sense, I chuckled at the "disguise yourself as a spellcaster if you have a wand/etc." ability, and I know there are some players who'd LOVE to have this archetype. I don't spot any significant mechanical problems, and while the writing needs some tightening up here and there, overall it's good. RECOMMENDATION: I DO recommend this archetype design for advancement in the competition.
Artus Nemati wrote: Charlatan (Rogue) Absolutely excellent. I love the use of bluff to replace diplomacy.
The quick disguise change is good too.
Great job! Ken
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I have to take some exception to this. Essentially what this boils down to, is you're going to give a thumbs-down to any non-combat-oriented character. While I'd agree that this character archetype would not be ideal for your typical adventure path or published module, it's an excellent roleplaying option, and I could see it fitting in brilliantly to any roleplaying-heavy game. In fact, I'll probably point my players here for that very reason. Would I point a new gamer here? Probably not. RP-heavy characters should be carefully selected by players that know what they're getting into, but I think it's worth evaluating an archetype in the spirit in which it was clearly intended.
I think I rather like this. It's smooth and well planned. I agree that it's abilities may be less useful or successful than the character is designed for, simply based on the style of the campaign, but you're likely not picking this archetype in a hack 'n slash anyways. I'm a little iffy on suggestion as an extraordinary ability but that's a little thing. Well done.
1. Is it balanced?
I like this one...
I liked your first round entry alot (again, a subtle one, but that can be good IMHO), so I can say you`re definitely getting my vote. Good luck!
I love the idea of a Charlaton. One of the most memorable characters I've ever played was a rogue that would get the group into deeper crap only to talk the group right back out again with some ridiculous on the fly BS. I'd always turn to the group and use the line the DnD movie character Ridley stole from me "Trust me." Very nice. A look at diversity from you. Round 1 - an item for someone with Channel Power ability...and Round 2 - an archetype that, as Sean already stated, would be a great Face man without stepping all over the bard.
:O I was gonna make this my archtype if I made it to round two! There are just so many good examples in history, and I had a rougue once who went into arcane trickster because he liked act as a spell caster while invisible allies cast summon spell... "Why yes I am powerful enough to conjure multiple summons in one round! How ever could you doubt me!"
Bamboozle (Ex) Replace one skill with another, make it conditional, lose useful adventuring ability. BAD.
Verdict: Very bad. Regards,
Hi Artus. You have my vote. My own archetype was based on a similar concept, although built for a bard rather than a rogue. The reason I've voted for your archetype over the other two confidence men/trickster archetypes is because yours hangs together best; the mechanics all seem sound to me, and this is an archetype that would get quite a bit of face time (if you'll pardon the pun) in my Wednesday night group; we do tend to try to talk before we fight. The only real concerns I have with your design are the things you don't mention, and the things I struggled with in building this archetype as well, namely:
Lastly, while I understand that disguises are an important part of the arsenal of your typical con man, I'm not sure why you've limited bamboozle to only work when the charlatan is wearing a disguise. It seems a little off to me--either he's a guy who is able to win people over by his wits, charm and grace (in which case he doesn't need the disguise) or he's a master of disguise(s) (in which case he isn't this particular archetype). Still, you've done enough to get a vote from me. Good luck for the remainder of the contest! I hope to see you in Round 3.
I enjoy this, less combat oriented more social oriented. Doesn't compeltely take the rogue out of his 'niche' but does make for an interesting varient. I'd play it. I don't normally address comments, but wanted to here. Kenneth T. Cole wrote: If anything I would like to see it have the option to convince people you have cast spells on them, as a minor illusion without actual magical effects. Technically you can do this as a bluff already. I've had bards bluff bad guys into thinking the Dancing lights over his head are balls of flame waiting to explode, or had a tiefling use chill touch (delivered through a kiss on the forehead) to make the NPC think she consumed part of his soul. If the guy doesn't have spellcraft, how does he know it was just a bluff? Heck, Raistlin does varients of this in the Dragonlance novels.
I like this! Not only is it presented in a very professional way, it also drips of roleplaying style. Add in two really useful abilities (distraction as swift action is nice as is bonus to umd) and this one is a winner. The fact that this will most likely not be used in a hack'n'slash campaign is not a drawback for me as many archetypes are worse than their alternatives (looking at you 2-h fighter).
Carl Flaherty wrote:
Actually, having now reviewed the competing "Bard Based" archetype, I like this execution of the "archetype" more and more. (By which I mean the original definition of the word.)
What most stood out to me was the writing, and not in a good way. I appreciate the effort to add flavor to every ability, but overall the entry seemed mushy and the rhythm was off. So, none for me, thanks.
I really liked this one. I like adding intrigue and suspicion to my games. I love when pcs try to disguise themselves and infiltrate the enemy. It can work really well or it can go really bad but either way its always fun and very high drama. I also love that this writer gave us the rogue talents that work best for this archetype. These are really helpful to characters and makes the archetype feel full.
Great job! Love the concept, the mechanics are there, nothing seems broken enough to a common GM at first glance (a category of which I fit into perfectly) to deter its use. For a small group of players (2-3) in an urban setting, this archetype could be a strong plot driver with the right kind of player behind it. Regardless, I see this archetype being popular in any party in an urban setting. VOTE.
Artus Nemati wrote:
Disclaimer: You should know the drill by now, but in case you missed it the first time round, Ask A RPGSupersuccubus is posting from the point of view of a CE aligned succubus:Spoiler: ;)
Fairness is an adjective applicable to hair coloration, balance is what a couple of mortals rapidly losing it on opposite ends of a plank pivoted on a rocky spire a couple of hundred feet above a slowly rising pool of molten basalt try to do, and logic is one of those things which you could swear is there when you rattle the piggybank but if anyone other than a demon opens it the contents turn out to be a couple of dead moths and a three week old shopping list. Would you want this person sitting next to you as a guest at a formal evening dress dinner party?
How effective a flower-picker does this person seem likely to be?
Could you hire one person like this to do a better job than one other trained mercenary and/or to do the jobs of two (or more) other trained mercenaries?
Other comments?
Desirability:
Further Disclaimer:
Artus Nemati wrote:
I actually had only one thought while reading this: why not call this ability Quick Change, or something similar? Upon reading this, I imagine an actor or actress offstage and behind the curtain, putting on a costume for the next scene in 5 seconds. Aside from that, it's a pretty interesting archetype. I wish you'd added a little more ... but I like what's here. Good luck!
Solid work. I do wish you'd spent some words given the class a mechanic to fake casting with Use Magic Device, something that's a touch overdue. And by fake, I mean fool people who have Spellcraft, probably based on on Spellcraft itself. It'd make this a wonderful complement for certain types of master spies. But overall, this archetype does what it should, and with good economy of words. Good job. In my "keep" pile.
Well done, but bards are better at what the charlatan is supposed to be good at. I am voting for it, but I would run a bard instead.
Artus Nemati wrote:
Disclaimer: My ranking scheme for this round consists of given marks form 0 to 4 in the following three categories: 1.Is the Archetype conceptually interesting?2.Are the mechanics of the Archetype interesting? 3.Are the mechanics of the Archetype balanced and well executed? But rather than simply adding up the marks for a final score I'm gonna interpret them as a point in 3-dimensional space and the final mark of your submission will be the length of the vector between the origin and this point. Note that my ranking doesn't need to directly correspond with my votes, as other factors like: Strength of your item submission, mood, my horrorscope and other random stuff still factor in. Also note that this scheme is highly subjective and only mirrors my perception and opinion about your archetype submission. Conceptual Mojo (CM): 2, Not a new concept, but one that many players love to play.
Final note: The charlatan is the very definition of an archetype rogue, so points for hitting the right niche, but points deducted for staying on safe and well explored land, both with mechanics and concept. Total Score: 4.123
Nicely done Artus. I think you have an interesting type of character a lot of people will play. More-so because you went rogue versus someone with actual suggestion abilities already. Abilities are balanced per level and for what you a rogue would have to give up. I want to point out to y'all that think this is a non-combat rogue that feint is normally a standard action. Sneak attack? OK! EDIT: ...unless creating a distraction is different than feinting. hmmm... my rules-fu just failed me. what does create a distraction mean?
I think this archetype is boring. No combat mechanics, unless you can use the Bluff as a swift action to feint, in which case it might become to much. I am not as impressed with some by the ability to use Bluff to change attitudes. Couldn't I just buy ranks in Diplomacy with my 8-10 skill points per level and still be able to detect traps? Almost all of these archetypes fits soem kind of iconic trope that players will want to explore at some point, but I don't think this one offers a rogue character anything they can't already do pretty well, and I think whatever usefulness it has is going to come outside of combat and try the patience of other players who need either eeps or facetime of their own.
Nicely done. The name is basic, but many archetype names are. The powers deliver exactly what is promised and are mechanically sound. I like the UMD trick; it's a nice swap for trap sense and thematically fits. The Bluff/Disguise trick is nicely defined, which is often hard for social 'tricks.' Bonus points for including the recommended compatible rogue talents. That shows you have paid attention to the source material and published archetypes and modeled yours to match. Any time you are working for a company that has an established style, you are well-advised to find out what that style is and follow it, and you did, while still delivering the goods. You didn't explore any epic new territory here, but you staked out a little area here and set it up well. Nice job, but remember that if you wanna not just be in it but win it, you'll need to step out of the safe and go for it a little more in the rounds to come. Congrats on making round 2, and best of luck!
I love charlatans. Give me a con man, trickster or snake-oil salesman and I'm a happy guy. This is the second con man archetype I've read so far, and I must say I like this one better. It's decidedly better balanced, and I like giving these tricks to the rogue rather than the bard. The UMD trick is pretty clever. I suspect I'm going to vote for this entry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|







