Well, you could always, instead of re-working the entire class list, just give them an ability that gives them that skill as a class skill (as if they took the feat).Additionally, I would like to note that the current idea I had for an archetype would require a full change of skills because one skill is not thematically appropriate - at all - and one skill that is isn't on the class skill list.
Note that there is only one archetype in the APG that has a separate Class Skills entry, and only a handful that change class skills at all. So fiddling with class skills isn't a significant component of most archetypes (probably because the diff between a class skill and a non-class skill is much smaller in PFRPG, as there's no half-ranks stuff involved).My question would be (probably for everyone, since round 2 is open voting): to what degree is not fiddling with class skills if it's reasonably appropriate a design flaw?
Based on the published archetypes it seems like not so much since, for example, a Monk of the Healing Hand doesn't have Heal as a class skill, which seems thematically appropriate to me.
(I have an idea I really like that I think would already struggle to fit in 450 words, and tossing 50 on class skills for it just doesn't seem viable. Maybe I'll write it up and see what it looks like.)
The problem is that makes no sense and is a cheap way out.
|
The problem is that makes no sense and is a cheap way out.Well, you could always, instead of re-working the entire class list, just give them an ability that gives them that skill as a class skill (as if they took the feat).Additionally, I would like to note that the current idea I had for an archetype would require a full change of skills because one skill is not thematically appropriate - at all - and one skill that is isn't on the class skill list.
Note that there is only one archetype in the APG that has a separate Class Skills entry, and only a handful that change class skills at all. So fiddling with class skills isn't a significant component of most archetypes (probably because the diff between a class skill and a non-class skill is much smaller in PFRPG, as there's no half-ranks stuff involved).My question would be (probably for everyone, since round 2 is open voting): to what degree is not fiddling with class skills if it's reasonably appropriate a design flaw?
Based on the published archetypes it seems like not so much since, for example, a Monk of the Healing Hand doesn't have Heal as a class skill, which seems thematically appropriate to me.
(I have an idea I really like that I think would already struggle to fit in 450 words, and tossing 50 on class skills for it just doesn't seem viable. Maybe I'll write it up and see what it looks like.)
Why is that a cheap way out? Did you not see the Urban Ranger in the APG?
Urban Ranger: At 1st level, an urban ranger adds Disable Device and Knowledge (local) to his list of class skills and removes Handle Animal and Knowledge (nature) from his list of class skills.
The problem is that makes no sense and is a cheap way out.Well, you could always, instead of re-working the entire class list, just give them an ability that gives them that skill as a class skill (as if they took the feat).Additionally, I would like to note that the current idea I had for an archetype would require a full change of skills because one skill is not thematically appropriate - at all - and one skill that is isn't on the class skill list.
Note that there is only one archetype in the APG that has a separate Class Skills entry, and only a handful that change class skills at all. So fiddling with class skills isn't a significant component of most archetypes (probably because the diff between a class skill and a non-class skill is much smaller in PFRPG, as there's no half-ranks stuff involved).My question would be (probably for everyone, since round 2 is open voting): to what degree is not fiddling with class skills if it's reasonably appropriate a design flaw?
Based on the published archetypes it seems like not so much since, for example, a Monk of the Healing Hand doesn't have Heal as a class skill, which seems thematically appropriate to me.
(I have an idea I really like that I think would already struggle to fit in 450 words, and tossing 50 on class skills for it just doesn't seem viable. Maybe I'll write it up and see what it looks like.)
Why is that a cheap way out? Did you not see the Urban Ranger in the APG?
Urban Ranger: At 1st level, an urban ranger adds Disable Device and Knowledge (local) to his list of class skills and removes Handle Animal and Knowledge (nature) from his list of class skills.
That is NOT what you proposed and, seemingly, explicitly what has been disallowed for this competition.
Urban Ranger: At 1st level, an urban ranger adds Disable Device and Knowledge (local) to his list of class skills and removes Handle Animal and Knowledge (nature) from his list of class skills.
Could we get an official call on whether doing something similar would be subject to disqualification?
|
|
That is NOT what you proposed and, seemingly, explicitly what has been disallowed for this competition.
No. It wasn't, but I found that. And, although I know the spirit of the competition is to replace powers with powers, where does it explicitly say you can't do the same thing as the Urban Ranger? Not arguing, just curious, cause I didn't see it.
Could we get an official call on whether doing something similar would be subject to disqualification?
I'd prefer the "list them all" way, but we do do it the other way as well, so both are legit.
Could we get an official call on whether doing something similar would be subject to disqualification?I'd prefer the "list them all" way, but we do do it the other way as well, so both are legit.
Thanks for the response!
I like the way "list them all" looks better as well, but for some concepts it's hard to sacrifice the ~20-30 words difference to that.
Could we get an official call on whether doing something similar would be subject to disqualification?I'd prefer the "list them all" way, but we do do it the other way as well, so both are legit.
That makes more sense and cuts a lot of unnecessary words.
Urban Ranger: At 1st level, an urban ranger adds Disable Device and Knowledge (local) to his list of class skills and removes Handle Animal and Knowledge (nature) from his list of class skills.
I hereby motion to DQ the APG!
In a similar-but-opposite vein, there's a section in APG archetypes that isn't in the given template: a list of rage powers complementing a barbarian archetype; rogue talents, hexes and discoveries for rogues, witches and alchemists respectively.
The provided template doesn't have a listing for this; is providing such a list (for the relevant classes) considered mandatory/preferable/unnecessary/lamentable/illegal/[other]?
EDIT: Unnecessary.
New rage powers, rogue talents, hexes, and discoveries are just additional options for a base class to select from...
They aren't archetypes.
In a similar-but-opposite vein, there's a section in APG archetypes that isn't in the given template: a list of rage powers complementing a barbarian archetype; rogue talents, hexes and discoveries for rogues, witches and alchemists respectively.
The provided template doesn't have a listing for this; is providing such a list (for the relevant classes) considered mandatory/preferable/unnecessary/lamentable/illegal/[other]?
I'd consider such a list as an optional part of the archetype. Wouldn't hurt if you included it, but not required.
Illegal.
New rage powers, rogue talents, hexes, and discoveries are just additional options for a base class to select from...
They aren't archetypes.
I don't think that's what Standback was asking.
I think he was asking about something like:
Cutthroat Rogue
...
Recommended Talents Ideal talents for a Cutthroat Rogue are bleeding attack, combat trick, surprise attack and weapon training.
Cutthroat Grapple At fifth level, a cutthroat rogue can make a standard attack with a light weapon; if successful, the rogue can make a grapple attempt as a free action without incurring an attack of opportunity. The cutthroat rogue must have taken combat trick(improved grapple) in order to gain this ability.
Edit: ninja'ed by SKR. Hardly a surprise :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
aka Dementrius
|
All this talk of modifying class skills, I wonder if anyone has considered changing a classes alignment restrictions. Like a bard as a legal scribe or some kind of chaos monk. To say "any chaotic" is few enough words, but if multiple alignments are viable, should they be listed by full names (lawful good, neutral good, lawful neutral) or can we trim the word count by abbreviating these (LG, NG, LN)? Naturally these changes would need their own Alignment heading, and I assume it would go above the other headings, where alignment is supposed to go. I certainly have ideas for alignment based archetypes, but if it's going to be a word-sensitive endeavor I'll probably scrap it. :(
I'd love an answer on this too.
|
|
All this talk of modifying class skills, I wonder if anyone has considered changing a classes alignment restrictions. Like a bard as a legal scribe or some kind of chaos monk. To say "any chaotic" is few enough words, but if multiple alignments are viable, should they be listed by full names (lawful good, neutral good, lawful neutral) or can we trim the word count by abbreviating these (LG, NG, LN)? Naturally these changes would need their own Alignment heading, and I assume it would go above the other headings, where alignment is supposed to go. I certainly have ideas for alignment based archetypes, but if it's going to be a word-sensitive endeavor I'll probably scrap it. :(I'd love an answer on this too.
Well, my 2 cents? If you are changing the Alignment requirements, you are on the verge of creating a sub-class. Like the Anti-Paladin. Which is not allowed by the rules. I think if you word you abilities appropriately and do a good enough intro paragraph, people will get the hint. But, remember, even if you planned on the arch-type being say LG, that doesnt mean that a CG player wouldn't mind playing it. So, why restrict the alignment?
In an archetype, anything that you'd call out with a boldface header in a book should be called out in a boldfaced header in your submission.
The purpose of the provided archetype writeup was not to limit you to just those things, it was to show you how to format the basics correctly and let you extend that formatting method to whatever other things you need to call out in your submission.
Yes thanks. Now that I've written stuff out I'm not sure I'll be going with an alignment based archetype, but it's still in my keep pile for now, so thanks. Any official word on how to annotate these alignments? Is LG acceptable of should it be lawful good?
I'd consider such a list as an optional part of the archetype. Wouldn't hurt if you included it, but not required.In a similar-but-opposite vein, there's a section in APG archetypes that isn't in the given template: a list of rage powers complementing a barbarian archetype; rogue talents, hexes and discoveries for rogues, witches and alchemists respectively.
The provided template doesn't have a listing for this; is providing such a list (for the relevant classes) considered mandatory/preferable/unnecessary/lamentable/illegal/[other]?
Thanks much - that's very helpful. :D