New Class: The Strategist


Homebrew and House Rules

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sup all, got a new idea rolling around in the old think pan, gonna see what you guys think. It's a TOB style class for non magical characters, thinking of working on a magicalesque counterpart to it. But for now, check out:

The Strategist

Have fun with this one, it's only about 60% complete though, still working on a few things.


Cool concept. I assume you're looking for some feedback?

1) Strategist's Style: I like this, but what I might have done is, in the spirit of a ranger's combat styles - is delay it to 2nd level. Its not a big deal though. Since you already have 4 ability scores as options, why not a 5th? Constitution could have an endurance theme. For the Steel Defender style, I think an insight bonus would be more thematic, and more fitting? Or perhaps simply an ability to add Wis to touch AC. For the Scarlet Bravo, I would simplify it by granting additional +1s at levels 6, 12, and 18 instead of counting as larger sizes. I know its not the same, but its easier.

2) Cunning Machinations: I had to read it a few times but I'm pretty sure I get how it works. You should work on clarifying the wording though.

3) Advanced Training: The class gains quite a few bonus combat feats. This isn't bad. However, you have given no restrictions on what feats can be chosen, and you have even given them the ability to ignore multipkle prereqs. Don't bonus feats already aleviate the burden of prereqs?

4) Tactics in general: You have a wide selection, which is good. I hope you continue to diversify and refine them. I see many options to increase personal performance. What I don't see much of however, are abilites that help a team's planning/strategy. This theme is the focus of paragraph four of the introduction, so I think it should be better represented.

Sczarni

It is a bit strange that all the mental stats get a style, and Dexterity does too, but STR and CON don't. I'd actually suggest making the Steel Defender key off of CON, so there's two physical and two mental stats. Adding a fifth style as Ciaran said would help too, but then people will wonder why there's no sixth one.

Then again, the idea of a WIS-based martial type that isn't a divine caster or a monk is pretty cool, so it'd be a shame to lose the WIS-based style.

The way the bonus feats ignore prereqs is a little clunky too. If I grab Improved Disarm by ignoring Combat Expertise, do I also get to ignore the INT 13 prereq? Do I then qualify for Greater Disarm with a normal feat?

As it stands, the only way to get a bonus feat in Pathfinder without meeting its prereqs is to choose it off a list of feats that the class feature giving you the bonus feat lets you choose from. I'm not sure the game is ready for "pick any feat and ignore some but not all of its prereqs". It's probably best to just give the Strategist a list.

Silver Crusade

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Cool concept. I assume you're looking for some feedback?

1) Strategist's Style: I like this, but what I might have done is, in the spirit of a ranger's combat styles - is delay it to 2nd level. Its not a big deal though. Since you already have 4 ability scores as options, why not a 5th? Constitution could have an endurance theme. For the Steel Defender style, I think an insight bonus would be more thematic, and more fitting? Or perhaps simply an ability to add Wis to touch AC. For the Scarlet Bravo, I would simplify it by granting additional +1s at levels 6, 12, and 18 instead of counting as larger sizes. I know its not the same, but its easier.

2) Cunning Machinations: I had to read it a few times but I'm pretty sure I get how it works. You should work on clarifying the wording though.

3) Advanced Training: The class gains quite a few bonus combat feats. This isn't bad. However, you have given no restrictions on what feats can be chosen, and you have even given them the ability to ignore multipkle prereqs. Don't bonus feats already aleviate the burden of prereqs?

4) Tactics in general: You have a wide selection, which is good. I hope you continue to diversify and refine them. I see many options to increase personal performance. What I don't see much of however, are abilites that help a team's planning/strategy. This theme is the focus of paragraph four of the introduction, so I think it should be better represented.

Yep, looking for feedback and yours is always appreciated. You seem to have a good handle on things.

1. I could see pushing it to second level, it'd help even out my chart a little bit. As for Con, I actually had that slated as an option, but a friend of mine thought Con was too universal a stat to go handing out to be a key stat, made the class a little too SAD. Right now it's pretty mad, but it really depends on how you base your character. I actually want to make another character in the same vein as the Swordsage, who's the 'magical' counterpart to this later.

Steel Defender: I could see going to an insight bonus, might try that.

Scarlet Bravo: There's actually a reason for the 'fake size', and the reason is that you can use CMB maneuvers against less and less opponents as you get larger. With the fake size increase, you can trip giants, disarm pit fiends, and actually keep using combat maneuvers long into the later levels.

2. It's an early draft, I think spacing some things out might help clarify the wording, although hit's good to know that some things are worded murky.

3. It does actually say a bonus combat feat, although I think I'll look over the Fighter to see about mirroring the words exactly so there's no confusion. And honestly, there's tons of feats that are garbage, even with bonus feats. It's why Spring Attack (a relatively good feat) is never taken by Fighters, regardless of how many bonus feats. Same with Whirlwind Attack. The main concept of it is honestly "NO COMBAT EXPERTISE NEEDED), and to help the player ignore other annoying prereqs. Once you burn out some of the terrible feat prereqs, some feats actually start looking good.

4. What I'm thinking for abilities that help a team's planning and such are going to be class abilities, since I want intelligence to be a focus of the class. So right now I'm fishing for ideas on that, maybe something akin to Dark Knowledge from the 3.5 Archivist, but not direct damage bonuses and such.

Silver Crusade

Silent Saturn wrote:

It is a bit strange that all the mental stats get a style, and Dexterity does too, but STR and CON don't. I'd actually suggest making the Steel Defender key off of CON, so there's two physical and two mental stats. Adding a fifth style as Ciaran said would help too, but then people will wonder why there's no sixth one.

Then again, the idea of a WIS-based martial type that isn't a divine caster or a monk is pretty cool, so it'd be a shame to lose the WIS-based style.

The way the bonus feats ignore prereqs is a little clunky too. If I grab Improved Disarm by ignoring Combat Expertise, do I also get to ignore the INT 13 prereq? Do I then qualify for Greater Disarm with a normal feat?

As it stands, the only way to get a bonus feat in Pathfinder without meeting its prereqs is to choose it off a list of feats that the class feature giving you the bonus feat lets you choose from. I'm not sure the game is ready for "pick any feat and ignore some but not all of its prereqs". It's probably best to just give the Strategist a list.

I guess I should ask here, do you think a style based on Con would be fair? It's a pretty universal stat, just like Strength would be for this class, so having classes based around those stats might be a little unbalancing. But I'd like everyone's opinion here before making a decision.

I actually planned on making a second class off this chassis, basing more around monk/rogue style play in the vein of the Swordsage eventually, this is more my precursor for it, my Warblade.

I'm pretty sure the ability says that it only ignores feat prereqs, which is pretty cut and dry. Although a list wouldn't be a terrible idea. My only issue with a list is being unable to add things to it later from new books, but I guess that's not terrible.


I vote for keeping the "fake size increases." Those are necessary and very important to being relevant in maneuvers.

Advanced training in itself is amazing, and I feel that it should have been a fighter ability from the core rule book. Kudos on coming up with a functional and very cool ability.

As for Style Protege, I am very curious to see what this will be.


The fake size increase makes sense now.

I saw the combat feat bit. What I meant is that most classes that grant bonus feats present a list to choose from. You chose to allow any combat feat AND allow the ability to ignore prereqs. IMHO just too good.

A con based style might be fine. Hit points are obviously an important asset. However, con doesn't help skills. Since hp are a more concert asset than skill bonuses, you could make the con style bonus less juicy than the others.

Silver Crusade

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

The fake size increase makes sense now.

I saw the combat feat bit. What I meant is that most classes that grant bonus feats present a list to choose from. You chose to allow any combat feat AND allow the ability to ignore prereqs. IMHO just too good.

A con based style might be fine. Hit points are obviously an important asset. However, con doesn't help skills. Since hp are a more concert asset than skill bonuses, you could make the con style bonus less juicy than the others.

Yeah, trust me there's a method behind all this madness.

Before you go calling Adv Train overpowered, tell me what combat feats are now unfair because of this. You'd need to be 6th level to take a requirement less spring attack, and since BAB requirements are still a thing, you're not getting anything early. It's not even letting you fake Fighter levels, so you're not stealing his lunch. So I guess I'm wondering what makes it too good?

I might do a wisdom/monk style, move Defender over to Con, going to take a little fiddling, but I can't see a Strength style being fair at all, due to how omni useful it is to everyone except the Sniper.

Adam B. 135 wrote:

I vote for keeping the "fake size increases." Those are necessary and very important to being relevant in maneuvers.

Advanced training in itself is amazing, and I feel that it should have been a fighter ability from the core rule book. Kudos on coming up with a functional and very cool ability.

As for Style Protege, I am very curious to see what this will be.

Yeah, the fake size increases are really important.

I like Advanced Training, but I want to see where others are finding it overpowered.

And Style Protege was crazy before, I might nix it and add in some knowledge stuff.


Well, Advanced Training is overpowered if compared to classes like the Fighter. Bonus feats ignoring prerequisites is not overpowered in my opinion, if compared to Pathfinder itself. As I said earlier, I think fighters should have that rule too, but fighters lacking that rule is not a good reason to take it from the Strategist.

Besides, you already did limit it to only feat prerequisites. If it ignored feats, stat requirements, and BaB requirements then we might have an issue.


I love me a good warlord class. Here are some notes from my first skimming of it:

1. You get cunning machinations and your talent pool are a first level ability but it seems like you only choose a key stat at level 2 with calling.
2. If these abilities are based on strategic genius why isn't int always the key stat? As an additional note: why would the smart fighting style be a sniper?
3. For the other stats: Dexterity in particular feels like it might be particularly open to power gaming options (as you can fight without multiple ability dependence). I would change the combat maneuvers calling to being a second wisdom or intelligence-keyed calling. How does someone strategize from dexterity anyways?
4. As Adam said, ignoring feat requirements could really pose some problems. Think about the vital strike and cleave trees for instance. What does it mean to have furious focus if you don't have power attack? etc. That aside, do you maybe think this ability is too powerful? It will eventually allow the class to get the last feat in all the best feat trees.
5. It seems like the bonuses from the charisma build are gonna start getting crazy (20 cha at level 15 and leaders charge means the potential for +10 to attack rolls for some ally that round. Pretty damn good.)

Have you read through the Warlord class from Dreamscarred Press (in their version of Book of Nine Swords)? This class reminds me of that class in part because these techniques remind me of maneuvers. They even have analogous keywords.

I still have not really read the techniques too closely. In particular, the scarlet bravado tree feels less like the tree of a strategists and more like the tree of a warblade (a-la Book of Nine Swords)


I've been giving the ability to ignore prereqs more thought, and in -some- cases it would not grant a benefit at all. One specific example is the "Step Up And Strike Feat". It does absolutely nothing by itself. It modifies how Step Up and Following Step. However, I'm sure there are some "abuses" that could occur with the last couple of bonus feats the strategist gets.


I dunno, man. Prerequisites are a balancing factor (and probably an important one). I don't go in for all this ignoring them.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
I dunno, man. Prerequisites are a balancing factor (and probably an important one). I don't go in for all this ignoring them.

I am not sure if all prereqs are needed though. For instance, combat expertise for any combat maneuver is not a balancing factor. It is a tax for daring to not just attack.

Similar taxes are feats leading up to spring attack, whirlwind attack, shield combat feats, and dazzling display.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
I dunno, man. Prerequisites are a balancing factor (and probably an important one). I don't go in for all this ignoring them.

I don't either, but was offering some counter-point.


That is wholly fair, Barnes.

@Adam
If you think those particular feats don't need their prerequisites then the house rule should be to ignore those specific prerequisites. I would not build a rule into one class that flat ignore prerequisites.

Silver Crusade

Excaliburproxy wrote:

I love me a good warlord class. Here are some notes from my first skimming of it:

1. You get cunning machinations and your talent pool are a first level ability but it seems like you only choose a key stat at level 2 with calling.
2. If these abilities are based on strategic genius why isn't int always the key stat? As an additional note: why would the smart fighting style be a sniper?
3. For the other stats: Dexterity in particular feels like it might be particularly open to power gaming options (as you can fight without multiple ability dependence). I would change the combat maneuvers calling to being a second wisdom or intelligence-keyed calling. How does someone strategize from dexterity anyways?
4. As Adam said, ignoring feat requirements could really pose some problems. Think about the vital strike and cleave trees for instance. What does it mean to have furious focus if you don't have power attack? etc. That aside, do you maybe think this ability is too powerful? It will eventually allow the class to get the last feat in all the best feat trees.
5. It seems like the bonuses from the charisma build are gonna start getting crazy (20 cha at level 15 and leaders charge means the potential for +10 to attack rolls for some ally that round. Pretty damn good.)

Have you read through the Warlord class from Dreamscarred Press (in their version of Book of Nine Swords)? This class reminds me of that class in part because these techniques remind me of maneuvers. They even have analogous keywords.

I still have not really read the techniques too closely. In particular, the scarlet bravado tree feels less like the tree of a strategists and more like the tree of a warblade (a-la Book of Nine Swords)

Forum ate my last reply...sigh...

1. I'm still playing around with that, trying to hit a good balance right now.

2. I'm thinking of changing things so Defender is Con, and Sniper is Wisdom, so Int isn't related to anything, and is always a key stat for everyone's abilities, making them always smart.

3. I'd rather not overlap myself, Dex is mostly for execution of the maneuvers, like how Con would be for tanking the hits, while Intelligence coming up with them and Dex/Con is for actually executing them.

4. I'm not seeing where this is causing a problem. Like no one's brought up a solid example yet. As for taking Furious Focus without P. Attack, it literally does nothing, so that's not really a problem. If I could be shown a solid example of this being unfair, I'd look at it, but right now all I see people saying is "It might be broken."

5. Remember, that's only for one swing. I did take care to keep those from getting too crazy.

I haven't read POT since it's not on the SRD, but knowing that they called their maneuvers "techniques" makes me want to change the name, since I want this to be different.

And this is my 'warblade' class, because if you'll remember, the Warblade was an intelligence based class as well.


On ignoring feats being a problem:
1. Those rulings you are talking about are not obvious from the given rules as they exist.

Further probing on the topic:
Can you skip directly to arcane armor mastery then?

Can you get moonlight stalker master right away? Greater feint right away? Passing trick?

A super dangerous one: dimensional dervish?

Or skipping right to deathless zealot? Cockatrice Strike and Medusa's Wrath?

Spirited charge w/o prerequisites; mounted skirmisher w/o prerequisites.

Can you skip right to light step as an elf?

Snap shot. Greater eldrich heritage.

I am tired of going through this list now.

I think you will be much better served by giving the class a list of feats that you like that the strategist may take without prerequisite.


I see no problems with skipping to greater versions of combat maneuvers.

Skipping to dimension dervish is hard, because it means you still need to have D.Door ro even use it. Lets not forget that this class feature only allows the skipping of feat prerequisites, not stat, spell, or class feature prereqs.

monk's can already skip to Medusa's Wrath. Everything before it is a terrible tax and I find skipping them to be the correct thing to do.

Mounted Skirmisher would still require 15th level. Not a problem. Spirited Charge's prerequisites are actually really good, so I see no reason why the character wouldn't take most of them anyway.

Greater eldritch heritage is not a combat feat. Can't skip it.

Almost every feat you mentioned has very weak prerequisites that make taking the actual feat a chore and usually not worth it.

You still need 13 int, and darkvision or lowlight vision to even take Moonlight Stalker Master. However, its not so strong that I see taking it immediately as overpowered. Definitely a awesome and strong feat. The level at which other feats should be at. Also one of its prerequisites, Moonlight stalker feint, is really good and worth taking anyway.

Silver Crusade

Excaliburproxy wrote:


On ignoring feats being a problem:
1. Those rulings you are talking about are not obvious from the given rules as they exist.

Further probing on the topic:
Can you skip directly to arcane armor mastery then?

Can you get moonlight stalker master right away? Greater feint right away? Passing trick?

A super dangerous one: dimensional dervish?

Or skipping right to deathless zealot? Cockatrice Strike and Medusa's Wrath?

Spirited charge w/o prerequisites; mounted skirmisher w/o prerequisites.

Can you skip right to light step as an elf?

Snap shot. Greater eldrich heritage.

I am tired of going through this list now.

I think you will be much better served by giving the class a list of feats that you like that the strategist may take without prerequisite.

Okay, let me take these one by one, since I'm not looking to argue, just to get feedback.

1. I don't see how it's not clear myself. You take Furious Focus, which gives a benefit to power attack. It's your first attack, so you're not even taking multiple attack penalties yet, so for me, I'm not seeing where that's confusing. Maybe that's just me, I might need more feedback on that.

I'm not sure you read the ability correctly, as you can only skip one combat feat per time Advanced Training. Let me show you how this would work out:

2nd Level: One feat ignored.

6th Level: Two feats ignored.

10th Level: Three feats ignored.

14th Level: Four feats ignored.

18th Level: Five feats ignored.

So let's say you wanted to go straight to D. Dervish, two level dip. You'd need your 6th level of Strategist to skip both prereq feats. Besides, they'd still need to be able to cast D. Door, since they can only skip prereq feats, which would be a terrible multiclass. The lowest level they could pull this off is Summoner 7th/Strategist 6th, which isn't really that impressive at all.

Moonlight Stalker: It lets them skip Blind Fight or Combat Expertise at 2nd, and both at 6th, and they still need to reach other prereqs for it, so yeah, I'm pretty sure I think that's fair.

Deathless Zealot: At 14th, when we could get this with A.T., you're skipping four feats, and seeing as Endurance is crap, I'm totally comfortable with making this a valid feat.

Medusa's Wrath: Same deal, and if you don't have IUS, it's slightly worse. And requires level 14.

Cockatrice Strike: 14th level, this isn't crazy powerful. It's a full round for one attack, needs to be against an opponent already suffering a condition, and HAS to be a crit on an unarmed strike, which is at best a 19-20 crit range. I wouldn't take this one if I got it at first level for free.

Light Step: 6th level, so yeah, that's fine.

Snap Shot: Already a tech that does something similar, but yeah, at 6th this is fine, as you're probably at least taking Rapid Shot.

Greater Eldritch Heritage: This isn't a combat feat...not sure why you mentioned it.

In closing, this isn't letting you instantly skipping all prereqs, it's slowly letting you ignore more.


Cunning Machinations:
At this point in development, the strategist does not have a "key stat". That comes at 2nd level. Also, as a nitpick, just wanted to point out that stat is not a game term. Its slang for ability or ability score. :)

So what to do?
1) Move Strategist's Calling back to level 1.
2) The strategist chooses a key ability as part of CN, and this determines his SC at level 2.
3) The strategist only gets 1 talent point at level 1, then it is determined by the key ability score at level 2.
4) something else?

Strategist's Calling:
So something that has started to bother me is that a Peerless Sniper gets no benefit is he dumps Wisdom, but any of the others can dump the key ability score and still get their benefit. If you consider this a problem (as I do), and you choose to rectify it, there will be some major overhauling to do.

I had the following ideas for alternative SC benefits. Just brainstorming.
Peerless Sniper: instead of a damage bonus, which is kinda way better than the other choices in a min-max kind of way, Wisdom could be used to offset penalties to ranged attack roles, such as from long range, firing into melee, and cover. I think its thematic for a sniper. I sniper could be seen as one that deals more damage, but could also be seen as one who makes the tough shot.
Steel Defender: since this is Con based now, I don't feel armor specialization is as thematic. A change of name might be in order too. What about a a scaling bonus to natural armor, maybe eventual resistance/immunity to fatigue, or DR against bleed damage and other kinds of recurring damage?
Scarlet Bravo: what happens at 18th level?

Instant Analysis:
What about rolling monster knowledge checks as a swift action?

What are your capstone ideas? They're tough.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The skipping of feat prereqs doesn't bother me from a balance perspective, it bothers me from a rules perspective. Does ignoring one prereq feat allow you to also ignore the prereqs OF the feat you ignored? Can a Strategist with 7 INT take Improved Disarm in this manner by skipping Combat Expertise? Lore Wardens have brought up that exact argument at my tables. (I argue that they can.) And if he does so, will he then qualify for Greater Disarm when his BAB hits +6?

My problem isn't that it's too broken-- Paizo is pretty good about enforcing BAB requirements and the like on combat feats to prevent that kind of thing from happening-- but that it creates a lot of rules questions that don't need to be created.

I'm also not sure how valuable it even is to let a Strategist ignore more prereqs as he levels up. Sure, the first time is cool, but most feat chains don't even go five feats in. What feat are you taking at level 18 that requires FIVE other feats that you don't already have? Are you snagging the very top of the Two-Weapon Fighting tree at level 18 despite having made no investment towards fighting with two weapons before? Conventional wisdom says you should be using these bonus feats to move further up in the chain of your choice, but the fact that you can ignore prereqs means you're actually being encouraged to cherry-pick from a bunch of unrelated chains and never get any good at any of them.


While there are few feats with 5 prereqs that are desirable without the chain leading up to them, I think that the current scaling of this ability also "future proofs" it.


N. Jolly wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:


On ignoring feats being a problem:
1. Those rulings you are talking about are not obvious from the given rules as they exist.

Further probing on the topic:
Can you skip directly to arcane armor mastery then?

Can you get moonlight stalker master right away? Greater feint right away? Passing trick?

A super dangerous one: dimensional dervish?

Or skipping right to deathless zealot? Cockatrice Strike and Medusa's Wrath?

Spirited charge w/o prerequisites; mounted skirmisher w/o prerequisites.

Can you skip right to light step as an elf?

Snap shot. Greater eldrich heritage.

I am tired of going through this list now.

I think you will be much better served by giving the class a list of feats that you like that the strategist may take without prerequisite.

Okay, let me take these one by one, since I'm not looking to argue, just to get feedback.

1. I don't see how it's not clear myself. You take Furious Focus, which gives a benefit to power attack. It's your first attack, so you're not even taking multiple attack penalties yet, so for me, I'm not seeing where that's confusing. Maybe that's just me, I might need more feedback on that.

I'm not sure you read the ability correctly, as you can only skip one combat feat per time Advanced Training. Let me show you how this would work out:

2nd Level: One feat ignored.

6th Level: Two feats ignored.

10th Level: Three feats ignored.

14th Level: Four feats ignored.

18th Level: Five feats ignored.

So let's say you wanted to go straight to D. Dervish, two level dip. You'd need your 6th level of Strategist to skip both prereq feats. Besides, they'd still need to be able to cast D. Door, since they can only skip prereq feats, which would be a terrible multiclass. The lowest level they could pull this off is Summoner 7th/Strategist 6th, which isn't really that impressive at all.

Moonlight Stalker: It lets them skip Blind Fight or Combat Expertise at 2nd, and both at 6th, and they...

Still a can of worms that you need not open but I have already made my excellent arguments.

Also: it makes the order you take your feats now matter in new weird ways. Should a character take dodge to get spring attack earlier? Or should you just wait until level 6. If you want a feat earlier then there is a real chance that your build will be worse later on. It is a nightmare. Ignoring these feats is a waking nightmare that will destroy Pathfinder and kill us all with biting insects.

Silver Crusade

Silent Saturn wrote:

The skipping of feat prereqs doesn't bother me from a balance perspective, it bothers me from a rules perspective. Does ignoring one prereq feat allow you to also ignore the prereqs OF the feat you ignored? Can a Strategist with 7 INT take Improved Disarm in this manner by skipping Combat Expertise? Lore Wardens have brought up that exact argument at my tables. (I argue that they can.) And if he does so, will he then qualify for Greater Disarm when his BAB hits +6?

My problem isn't that it's too broken-- Paizo is pretty good about enforcing BAB requirements and the like on combat feats to prevent that kind of thing from happening-- but that it creates a lot of rules questions that don't need to be created.

I'm also not sure how valuable it even is to let a Strategist ignore more prereqs as he levels up. Sure, the first time is cool, but most feat chains don't even go five feats in. What feat are you taking at level 18 that requires FIVE other feats that you don't already have? Are you snagging the very top of the Two-Weapon Fighting tree at level 18 despite having made no investment towards fighting with two weapons before? Conventional wisdom says you should be using these bonus feats to move further up in the chain of your choice, but the fact that you can ignore prereqs means you're actually being encouraged to cherry-pick from a bunch of unrelated chains and never get any good at any of them.

I don't see how a lot of this is a problem, seeing as what the ability does is rather clear cut. They can't skip the Int 13 prerequisite with this ability, so a 7 Int Strategist couldn't take the first feat regardless. That's why I only allowed it to skip prereq feats, since there's so many terrible ones.

I'll admit there's the chance for rules confusions on which feats are skipped, but I feel this is pretty minor overall. Maybe I'll put a part in that says to place the skipped feat next to the feat taken or something.

And there's a few abilities that have lacking returns the higher you go, so maybe at 18 skipping 5 feats is basically superfluous, I'm fine with that, the ability's mainly intended for its first three iterations. Anything after that is gravy. Excaliburproxy did a god job of pointing out a few feats that were actually made viable by this, like Deathless Zealot and Cockatrice Strike. I'd like to see this more in play (I have some playtesting this Saturday) before I call foul on this, because so far all it's doing is making some terrible feats with awful prereqs actually playable.

A few actual changes made to the class, such as studying the target for CMB/D bonuses, shifting focus back to Intelligence as the class's main focus, and a few new techniques, as well as a new ability for the Peerless Sniper's calling.

Sczarni

I'm all for making Deathless Zealot and Cockatrice Strike viable, but if you're, say, a Peerless Sniper who's focused on being as good as possible at archery, and never took any of these feats' prereqs, do you even want Deathless Zealot or Cockatrice Strike?

The average player is going to expect that his bonus feat slots are going to go towards his chosen fighting style. The Strategist's first two bonus feats likely will, but by the third one, he's either going to be deep enough in the tree that there's nothing left he doesn't already HAVE the feat prereqs for, or he's going to actually WANT the feats that this ability lets him skip. He's going to spend quite a bit of time staring in frustration at the feats chapter before he even remembers Deathless Zealot exists, and he's probably going to be disappointed when he realizes it's the best choice for him at this point.

You might be fine with the 18th-level iteration being superfluous, but I doubt the players are going to be fine with realizing how weaksauce their 18th-level class ability is. Levels that high are supposed to be where the totally freakin' sweet stuff happens!

Silver Crusade

Silent Saturn wrote:

I'm all for making Deathless Zealot and Cockatrice Strike viable, but if you're, say, a Peerless Sniper who's focused on being as good as possible at archery, and never took any of these feats' prereqs, do you even want Deathless Zealot or Cockatrice Strike?

The average player is going to expect that his bonus feat slots are going to go towards his chosen fighting style. The Strategist's first two bonus feats likely will, but by the third one, he's either going to be deep enough in the tree that there's nothing left he doesn't already HAVE the feat prereqs for, or he's going to actually WANT the feats that this ability lets him skip. He's going to spend quite a bit of time staring in frustration at the feats chapter before he even remembers Deathless Zealot exists, and he's probably going to be disappointed when he realizes it's the best choice for him at this point.

You might be fine with the 18th-level iteration being superfluous, but I doubt the players are going to be fine with realizing how weaksauce their 18th-level class ability is. Levels that high are supposed to be where the totally freakin' sweet stuff happens!

I don't really feel like it's a 'want' sort of thing here, it's that they're options. It's the same to me as saying "The Fighter has so many feats, why would they want to take ones that are only kind of good for their build?"

I can agree with you here, and can even follow along with the example. Let's take a Peerless Archer, first level. You're going to take a feat to help you out, but you don't want to take Point Blank Shot because you're a sniper, and you're firing from further than 30 feet away. Heck, maybe you take a story feat because you're awesome. Second level rolls around, and now you can skip PBS to pick up Precise Shot, since you WILL be firing into melee.

Level 3 rolls around, and now you can get Rapid Shot without PBS, and you're now really enjoying yourself. Fifth level you can pick up another feat (I'd suggest Bullseye Shot, a great feat for this class if you're heavy into Tactics.) Level 6 rolls around, and now you're a kid in a candy store. You can ignore 2 feats, which opens up Shot on the Run (Mobility, PBS), Snap Shot (PBS, Weapon Focus), maybe even Parting Shot (Shot on the Run), all for feats you probably didn't want to take. Sure, maybe at level 7+ you might want to take Weapon Focus, but at this point, it's your option.

I don't see why you'd feel bad about picking up a skipped prereq, since all that means is you actually made it to your character concept sooner than you would have normally, which seems pretty nice. Without this, Shot on the Run would be a feat sink (point blank shot, dodge, mobility) and hinder you from actually accomplishing any of your design goals until you picked up Shot on the Run at 5th level at the earliest, and that's also a character who doesn't have Precise Shot (very important) to pull off one trick, and not one worth the investment either. All to be a more mobile sniper, which also is something this class works to make possible.

The ability does lose some value if you're not willing to do a little work to find good prereq'd feats, but bonus feats as a whole lose value when you're not willing to look for better ones. Show me the 21 feats a CRB Fighter takes if you'd like to see my point.

Bonus feats grow less valuable as you level. Look at most 20th level Fighter builds if you don't believe me. Show me the last 4 feats they generally pick (I've seen some builds not even give feats, just saying 'pick whatever'), so while you're probably not picking up a 5 skipper at that level, if you think this class is going to be sad about its bonus feat at that level, you might want to take some time to look at the techniques. The feat is icing compared to their 3rd Genius technique.

EDIT: Added some more techs, we're at a full 80 now, so I'm pretty proud of that. And for those of you hoping for more variety, how's another 80 possible techniques sound? This class is apart of a set, with the second class still in development. With four more callings, each one more 'magical' than the Strategist's more grounded ones, crossing the two will be very easy.

Silver Crusade

Little notes here:

* Techniques are now the first thing listed, as well as how they work. They now also have a few of the rules for old maneuvers from TOB, like dip friendliness. Also gave a few examples to make sure the player was aware of how these abilities and their rulings worked,
* The classifications for techniques are now styles. Talent points are now Style points.

* Different levels of abilities are now Tiers.

* Advanced Training now also includes warnings on "dead feats" that are capable with this feat, such as the previously mentioned Furious Focus/Power Attack issue.

* A few changes with skills, they now get all knowledge skills, as is appropriate.

* Number of techniques known was increased by 1.

And a note on Zen Offensive: This exist because it helps make non longbow attacks more viable, since they can just add Wisdom instead of Dex, as well as deal more damage. With this, the player could use a heavy crossbow just as well as a longbow and not be penalized for it. To me, this helps make more ranged styles viable.

Silver Crusade

Few more updates:

* For those of you asking for a new style, let me introduce you to the Adamantine Fist, the Strength style. The trade off for this power is twofold: Only able to be done with unarmed strikes (or equivalents) and most of their stronger moves put the user at risk too.

Doing another round to playtesting tomorrow, as well as the new class which I'll be posting after its playtest tomorrow.

Silver Crusade

Few updates

*Style points are no longer based on Intelligence, they're at a set amount.

*I might be moving Peerless Sniper to Intelligence for balance sake.

*Multiclassing is made more clear in the Technique Compendium

*Got a few prestige classes coming now, including a Grand Master one, as well as a combo of Titan Fist and Elemental Incarnate.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / New Class: The Strategist All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules