Rorenado's page

This thread is for discussing the Skald. It should be used as a central location for feedback on the class as a whole. Discussion on specific topics and rules should receive their own individual thread in this forum.

Keep it civil and polite folks. Remember we are all here to make this book the best it can be.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

**OFFICIAL UPDATES**

The following official updates apply to the Skald.

• The skald should have Perform (sing) as a class skill.

• The reference to the bard spell lists should refer to pages 224–226 in the Core Rulebook.

• We will be discussing whether a barbarian or bloodrager can use her rage or bloodrage abilities under the influence of raging song. For now, they don't.

• We will be discussing revisions to the spell kennings ability to make it simpler to use.

• Allies moving out of range of ragesong (and back in again) is an issue we will discuss.

• We will discuss revisions to the weapon proficiencies to make them more suitable for viking-type characters.

• Clarification: It is not an error that dirge of doom does not list a saving throw, as it is based on the bard ability of that name, which does not allow a saving throw.

• Clarification: Ragesong can still affect a creature if it is fatigued, as the ability lacks the exclusion for fatigued creatures.

Further clarification questions that have come up in playtesting and character creation:

Do skalds count as having rage for the purposes of taking feats, traits, etc.? Our skald wanted to take the feat Blood Vengeance, but needed to know if he counts as having rage for the effect that states that if you are raging and an ally goes to negative HP or is killed, you gain an additional +2 Str/Con.

I may have missed this, but can skalds take feats relating to bardic performance, or is ragesong its own unique class ability? Our skald wanted to know if he could take feats like War Singer and Extra Performance.

Skaldi the Tallest wrote:

Skald:

Bard: Geisha

For some reason I find the mental image of a rage-inducing geisha hilarious.

"This tea ceremony was a travesty! Utter nonsense! Raragh! Smash!"

I nearly wet myself laughing so hard at this.

It basically relegates bards to the same tired role of being a +attack/+damage battery. It's not a bad thing, but this is supposed to be a new feature for this class that blends the ferocity of a barbarian with the support power of a bard. Inspiring is not the same as whipping someone into a frenzy. The best benefit of a ragesong is its utter customizability. You can add any rage power you've learned into the song to make it a customizable buff, instead of a static morale bonus. You keep saying that the rage song can't help the barbarian and other classes, but it can. It's all about the players and characters you have with you. As well as this, a character giving out two independent bonuses, one for himself, and one for his party is a wonky mechanic to introduce. What if one person wants the benefit the other has? They're kind of stuck then. Making it be just one group wide bonus is fine. A barbarian can benefit. A barbarian may want to benefit from a rage power he may not have. As well as this, he will only be fatigued for one round as opposed to twice the amount of rounds his own rage provides. Some rangers and inquisitors actually do melee combat and could benefit. I rely much less on my magic as an inquisitor, as I do melee combat and I would provoke AoO. Adding inspire courage + rage powers would be adding too many effects to the ability, making it a weirder mechanic. It's a simple mechanic. Let's not make it too crazy.

Tom Sampson wrote:

There are no bardic performances in Pathfinder that require concentration, except for The Rheumy Refrain masterpiece's ability to force a concentration check on its targets (which is pretty bizarre for non-casters to get hit with under Pathfinder rules). For that matter, none of the swashbuckler or monk powers require concentration either. Generally speaking combat powers shouldn't get interpreted as "requiring patience."

No, but bardic performances are still performances and performance is a charisma skill. Even if you don't actually roll a skill check, you are still using a charisma skill. You are still performing.

Facts, while under the effect from ragesong:

No Bardic performance.

No spell casting. This includes melee and archer casters such as the Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Oracle, Witch, Summoner and the new classes, Hunter, Warpriest, Bloodrager, Investigator Arcanist and the Shaman.

No spell like abilities.

No benefit to archers, except the boost to will saves (unless he/she have two bows).

No ragesong and barbarian rage stacking.

If I understand it right, once you accept the ragesong you can’t stop it unless you move away from the area of the ragesong.

In order:

I have to say I'm in the group that isn't happy with hybrid classes on a conceptual level. Most of the classes presented do nothing that a multiclass character couldn't already do (albeit usually slightly better). Several of them are closer to one or the other of their base classes than many existing archetypes; to me, anything that isn't at least as distinct from the base class as a Stonelord is from a Paladin has no business being anything more than an archetype.

The hybrid class concept (as being used in this book, as opposed to the uniqueness of the Magus as we were told to expect) could be decent if it was being presented as a better-balanced gestalt system that players could use to hybridize any two classes and still play with regular classed characters. That's a book that I'd be eager to buy. And it's a system that I'd be happy to see developed into a replacement for the current d20 multiclassing if there's ever a Revised Pathfinder. But as presented, the book just feels like it's being created because Paizo needs a hardback rulebook for the year, not because it's adding anything particularly interesting to the ruleset. I'd be happy if Paizo could accept that maybe the rules don't need a large expansion every year. I'd sooner spend money on setting than crunch at this point anyhow - although I'd prefer some books with substance to the pamphlets that currently make up the setting lines.

This entire book feels as though it's Paizo's solution to killing multiclassing and prestige classes. And while I'm willing to believe that their may be legitimate design reasons to want to take that flexibility away from the players (even if I can't personally understand those reasons), I suspect that there's also a financial incentive to narrowing the way that classes work. Want to play a sneak attacking cleric? Just buy the ACG 2 next year. And if this book does well, I expect it to be the model for any potential Pathfinder Revised Edition down the line - ten to twelve specific classes per book,...

Geez. Cynical much (especially that comment concerning the possibility of a ACG 2)? The book is not an attempt to cram a new rulebook in. It's an attempt to give players of Pathfinder a new avenue of creativity in the new classes, archetypes that will most certainly be in the book, and the new play options.

As the developers have stated, this is not a way to kill multiclassing. This allows for players to benefit from some often desired multiclass options without feeling like being left behind. It expands the current playable options beyond just taking an archetype, as it adds new features blended from the married classes used to make the hybrid. The goal wasn't really to make a gestalt class, either. As well as this, these hybrid classes allow for expanded character options and flavorful characters. I'm going into a Nordic campaign, and I was going to play the Savage Skald bard archetype, but the Skald class gives more of the flavor I wanted with this upcoming character than the Savage Skald archetype or even the bard class.

Lastly, if you feel like the classes don't appeal to your tastes, simply do not play them or use them in your campaigns. If you're not going to playtest these classes and give feedback that the developers can actually use (rather than making tart assumptions about Paizo's business model and practices), then why are you even posting here. Surely, you have something better to do with your time.

Rorenado wrote:

I would respectfully disagree with this statement. Fundamentally, a bard can support a party a varied degree of buffs. However, think of raging song as a stew pot. Into the stew pot, you can toss in a rage power that you and your allies can all benefit from it. Keep in mind that not everybody can or need to benefit from a bonus. A wizard doesn't exactly fully benefit from rage (extra HP is nice though), but his allies can to keep him alive. This also gives a new song to a bard-style class other than the ubiquitous inspire courage, since 90% of the time, it's the only song bard players use. Not every combat bard needs inspire courage. It's nice, but it doesn't need to be the catch all effect.

I think you might be missing the part where the Wizard is fully prohibited from casting spells if he chooses to accept the effects of the Skald's Rage Song.

That is not "no fully benefiting" that just means that the wizard cannot, except in VERY odd circumstances where he does not want to cast spells, gain anything from this buff. To be able to cast, he must decline it. This goes for Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Arcanist, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, and Shaman to name a few.

If the paladin wants access to his spells, he must decline the buff.
Same for Ranger, with the compounded effect that if the Ranger accepts the song, he can't use Handle Animal and therefore can't control his companion.
A rogue under these effects can't use feint.
An alchemist can't make extracts.
A ranged class receives only a small benefit (far less than he would from Courage)
A barbarian or bloodrager has their own rage which does not stack.
Another bard can't cast or perform under these effects.

So, the classes that will benefit:

Melee built Strength based Fighters
Melee Rogues that do not use feint or performance combat (preferably strength based rogues)
Cavaliers
...
Slayers with the same caveats as rogues.
Swashbucklers to a small degree.
Brawlers and Monks might be okay with this too.

So you...

First of all, the fault would lie with the wizard, not the skald. He is simply giving access to a benefit, not forcing it upon him. That is the whole purpose of this ability: to give access to a benefit. Not everyone really benefits from a casting of Mass Bull's Strength.

To be honest, many of the arguments you make are for casters or ranged characters (who won't take the benefit anyway), or very static and/or very highly specialized characters. You forget that there are some archetypes of ranger and paladin that don't cast spells, and heavily focus on combat. You also forget that not everyone plays to the very specific play styles you've listed. I personally have only encountered one rogue who used feint to any degree (and flanked to get sneak attack) and none that did any performance combat. Inquisitors can gain the benefit, since they are not bad combatants. My current one could definitely benefit from it. Swashbucklers are heavily melee focused, so they will gain a nice benefit. Slayers that focus on melee can benefit. Fighters can always benefit from a Str and Con bonus of any kind, especially most fighters, who tend to focus on melee. I could see an Arcane Duelist may take the benefits, especially if spells won't avail them. As well as this, many parties have more than 4 party members, and so there is a chance that many more players could benefit from this ability.

The goal is to create an option for players who don't want to play a skald archetype, but don't want to cross-class into barbarian. Many of the archetypes could grouped into your same mindset about this class. Yet, I see no problem with having it as an option for those who want it or otherwise might not have thought about it.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Have you considered giving Skalds more range on the song? 30 ft is very very limiting. Also they're Multi stat dependent and thus will usually be pretty brittle. Since they are expected to melee have you considered giving them medium armor and maybe a bonus feat toughness?

Well, 30 feet is the standard for most bard ally-boosting abilities. But I've written down the idea of allowing allies to pass beyond that distance as long as they maintain line of effect.

Mark_Twain007 wrote:

If the Skald has one of the totem trees, and a barbarian has another, Skald has beast totem and Barbarian has spirit totem for example, do they work together, since a barbarian can only have 1 totem tree?

I don't see why not, as the skald is giving that ability to the barbarian, rather than the barbarian permanently gaining the totem as a class feature.

Umm no it's not. All of Bardic Performance is "if a bardic performance has audible components, the targets must be able to hear the bard for the performance to have any effect, and many such performances are language dependent (as noted in the description)"

In other words the range is the audible range of your Bard doing said performance.

It's actually very odd that the range limits of Spells would be applied to a class feature when the range limits of Bardic Performance, the ability rage song is replacing, would be more appropriate.

Actually, 30 feet IS the standard for most bardic performances. Countersong, distraction, inspire courage, inspire competence, dirge of doom, inspire greatness, frightening tune, inspire heroics, and deadly performance all have a specified range of 30 feet listed in the bard section of the Core Rulebook.

That's exactly my point: There are a lot of really fun and interesting classes out there yet to be explored. Why are we already falling back on combining existing classes into uninteresting hybrids?

They're actually pretty interesting, considering the fact that people have been crossclassing for years and this gives people the chance to experiment with a hybrid that takes out the need for crossclassing in general. Some of these hybrids are based on very popular crossclassing options that a lot of people gravitate toward.

Rorenado wrote:

Lord_Malkov wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I've noted revising the skald's weapon proficiencies as a possibility.

I don't think skald ragesong and barbarian rage should stack, any more than a rage spell and barbarian rage should stack, or the barbarian bonus on Will saves and the bard morale bonus against fear from inspire courage should stack. Not every class is required to "play nice" with every other class in the game; there will be some combinations where my spell overlaps with your class ability or vice versa.

That might mean a skald is better in a party of rangers and fighters than a party of barbarians. Or it might mean that the barbarian uses the skald's raging song rounds for easy encounters and her own rage rounds for "boss" encounters when she wants some extra "oomph" for her attacks.

Except that once he is raging, a ranger can't use Handle Animal to give commands to his Animal Companion since it is a Charisma based skill. So you just cut out the majority of rangers (and the hunter class)

Swashbucklers and many rogues are dex based.. so not much help there. I am struggling to see the benefit of this ability to any kind of standard group.

There's an easy solution to this: opt out of the song. You get a choice when the song is started to accept the benefits or do without. Your ranger can still handle his companion and other party members can still receive the benefits if they so choose. I think the key here is that this class is not for your standard group. Larger parties can definitely gain the benefit of such an ability, and those who don't want/need it can continue to do what they do best.

I get that this would be the option... but when your main ability is supposed to be a group buff and it can only help a very limited very specific set if class/build combinations... then it isn't very good is it?

This is supposed to be the combat oriented bard, and yet they are way behind a standard bardin that role since inspire...

I would respectfully disagree with this statement. Fundamentally, a bard can support a party a varied degree of buffs. However, think of raging song as a stew pot. Into the stew pot, you can toss in a rage power that you and your allies can all benefit from it. Keep in mind that not everybody can or need to benefit from a bonus. A wizard doesn't exactly fully benefit from rage (extra HP is nice though), but his allies can to keep him alive. This also gives a new song to a bard-style class other than the ubiquitous inspire courage, since 90% of the time, it's the only song bard players use. Not every combat bard needs inspire courage. It's nice, but it doesn't need to be the catch all effect.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I've noted revising the skald's weapon proficiencies as a possibility.

I don't think skald ragesong and barbarian rage should stack, any more than a rage spell and barbarian rage should stack, or the barbarian bonus on Will saves and the bard morale bonus against fear from inspire courage should stack. Not every class is required to "play nice" with every other class in the game; there will be some combinations where my spell overlaps with your class ability or vice versa.

That might mean a skald is better in a party of rangers and fighters than a party of barbarians. Or it might mean that the barbarian uses the skald's raging song rounds for easy encounters and her own rage rounds for "boss" encounters when she wants some extra "oomph" for her attacks.

Except that once he is raging, a ranger can't use Handle Animal to give commands to his Animal Companion since it is a Charisma based skill. So you just cut out the majority of rangers (and the hunter class)

Swashbucklers and many rogues are dex based.. so not much help there. I am struggling to see the benefit of this ability to any kind of standard group.

There's an easy solution to this: opt out of the song. You get a choice when the song is started to accept the benefits or do without. Your ranger can still handle his companion and other party members can still receive the benefits if they so choose. I think the key here is that this class is not for your standard group. Larger parties can definitely gain the benefit of such an ability, and those who don't want/need it can continue to do what they do best.

Alexander Augunas wrote:

#2 — The fact that this class retains bardic knowledge is weird. Why does a savage have bardic knowledge?

The skald description states that "they balance a violent spirit with the veneer of civilization," so they're not as savage as one might think. That may be how bardic knowledge was justified, though I could see if it were tweaked a bit. Skaldic knowledge may be limited in scope or focus on other skills.

Not to mention their role as lorekeepers.

Rorenado, I see your point, but we can't cram something from the (optional) words of power system into this class. We can make spell kenning easier, and theme it to certain things (such as "you can use this for sonic, divination, and X Y Z effects") to make its purpose clearer.

It was just a suggestion, and I understand your point about the words of power system. Another suggestion would be to theme it to word based magic, or runes, or something to that nature as well, as well as any spell with a language-dependent variable.

Thanks for responding!

As to why skalds get spell kenning, it's because skalds created and used kennings, which (in short) were short pre-defined phrases that represented more complex ideas--they're using their magic codes (spells) to represent other styles of magic (spells from other class spell lists).

I get what you're trying to say, Sean, however since kennings is based upon language and metaphors, rather than magic, per se, an idea, and this is a bit out there, and I fully admit it, is this: using degree of word magic for this. Since the goal of kennings were create metaphors or complex phrases with abstract meaning, giving the skald access to few words of power (or the experimental spellcaster feat) with restrictions on what words can be learned, such as shock arc, discordant note, or crush will may help grab more of the historical meaning of kenning you're going after.

I really don't get the people saying that the skald and the savage skald are the same or act the same. Yes they have similar flair, but they don't do the same things.

First of all, Incite Rage (the savage skald archetype) grants rage to one target, as the rage spell. The raging song allows for multiple allies to choose whether or not they want to be under the effect of rage (a point a lot of people are not reading in the raging song section). Yes, you get battle song at 18th level, but the skald gets it right away, since that's its focus.

Secondly, the savage skald has its own unique abilities. The skald does not have the beserkergang, inspiring blow, or song of the fallen abilities. These are unique to savage skald, and I think Paizo thought it was necessary to create new features or blend existing features from the barbarian into the bard for this hybrid class. Remember, that is the goal here: hybridization of two existing classes.

Personally, I think the d8 hit die is fine. Since they are using the HD of the first class mentioned, I think it is fine without messing up the mechanics of the progression. Also, its BAB is fine. It is still a spellcaster, skill monkey, and warrior melded into one (remember a bard, which this is partially based off of, is a jack of all trades) so having a full BAB and d10 HD would be kind of broken (we don't another duskblade, do we?. Remember, under the effects of raging song, the skald can gain a bonus to Str and Con, effectively giving them more HP and a better attack bonus, especially later on at levels 8 and 16.

Sean and Paizo, like I said earlier, my only problem is with keening spell, since it seems out of place, and I think the wording in the PDF may be a little jumbled up. For example: "If the desired spell normally requires 1 full round or longer to cast, the casting time for the skald increases by 1 full round per spell level; otherwise, the casting time is just 1 full round per spell level." The language here should probably be cleaned up and made more clear to the reader. I think that, alternatively, you could nix keening spell for a satire or mockery style ability that would be similar to the concept of flyting.

Ok so I actually had to look into what a skald historically was for this one :-p

I think I figured what rubbed me wrong on initial impression and looking into it. Its the song part, as far as I can find they were poets and not exactly song writers, so making it raging verse or something might make more sense to me, though I could be wrong I am no scholar of Nordic history after all.

That aside... I think my only problem with it is it doesn't really feel like it is a base class. I get the impression of a bard archetype. Not much separates it from bard other than a type of song a bonus feat, the ability to get other spells, and the capstone.

I think what I was expecting from a bard/barbarian was the raging song, but less focused on spellcasting, and more focused on his own physical strength.

Yeah, you could easily spin the raging song as a raging ode.

When did Viking = Rage become the equation? I just don't see it.

The idea of berserkergang. Many vikings were believed to have eaten drug laced foods, such as hallucinogenic mushrooms, or drank vast quantities of alcohol before they engaged in raids, and became berserk as a result.

Greylurker wrote:

Insults for one.

This version of the Skald feels like he should be a Shouter. Riling up his allies for heroic feats but also laying into his enemies regarding their cowardliness, dishonorable acts and assorted parentage.

Heck yes! Since the class seems low in features and rather bare bones add flyting. Get some viking rap battle going on to make the skald more flavorful.

I mean who wants to fight the guy with frothing allies who just called dropped the best yo' mamma poem in all of Golarion?

Yeah, they could easily use Satire or Mockery from the Court Bard archetype for the flyting mechanic. Though, I do believe that they're trying to focus only on a couple of performance abilities, but it could easily replace spell keening, which I believe will be relegated to non-combat spellcasting.

My thoughts:

Arcanist: Weak flavor, but powerful regardless. The language in the Spells section could be cleared up to help the reader better understand how spells are prepared and cast. I had to read it three times just to understand the mechanic of preparing spells. Blood focus is neat and all, but is fairly underwhelming, especially using it to increase the caster level and DC of a spell by one and only one. I can understand the reasoning behind this, to preserve balance, but ultimately, this makes this use of the ability wimpy. Its use for a bloodline power use (or reuse) is also fairly underwhelming. Arcanist falls short, and I think serious work needs to be done to fix this class. However, as both wizard and sorcerer do not have a large number of abilities themselves, this becomes problematic for hybrid classes like ones being tested here.

Bloodrager: An interesting combo of feral power and feral spellcasting mixed into one class. It is a very nice mix of barbarian and sorcerer that draws out the strengths of both classes without sorcerer overpowering the class. Using the magus spell list was a very good choice I might add, since it allows the bloodrager to wreak havoc with both steel and spell. The bloodrage powers are a nice touch, since they add a element to the bloodlines that benefits the hybridization of these two classes and are rage powers tied in with the bloodline.

Brawler: I've always wanted a fist fighter character that wasn't a monk and was able to take advantage of the benefit of a full attack progression and the benefit of having a d10 hit die. This, in my opinion, goes beyond what the brawler fighter and the martial artist monk, and creates a hard knuckle fighter or boxer without tying it too much to either monk or fighter. It is a nice blend between the two classes.

Hunter: This class leaves much to be desired. It is a druid for people that don't like wild shape, but there is an issue here. The teamwork feats seem incredibly out of place here. Teamwork feats are already situational and not having solo tactics from inquisitor makes these dead features most of the time. I would say that the hunter either have the ranger's spell progression or the druid's, but not in between. With the class having a lot of feats that won't work most of the time, I would shift toward having a full list of nine spell levels instead of six. That said, I do like Animal Focus and Hunter Tactics.

Investigator: Investigator seems misnamed and the flavor is a little lacking. When I think of investigator as a hybrid class like this, I immediately think of a bard/rogue. Heck, even alchemist/bard seems to better fit. I definitely think this is better class with the bard's knowledge based abilities blended with the rogue's stealth oriented game play. Alchemist/bard could capture the idea of a forensic investigator, using science to determine causes of death and such. Alchemist/rogue for me just does not scream investigator to me. As well as this, the investigator does not, in my opinion, does not do enough to create a fully unique experience or even a truly unique class. Unlike the other classes, it feels simply like a gestalt alchemist/rogue. The inspiration talents are interesting, but they are, again in my opinion, thinly veiled rogue talents. I would also decrease the amount of die for sneak attack, while it is one less than rogue, it still steps on a full rogue's toes. Finally, poison use seems out of place for someone who's supposed to be solving crimes.

Shaman: Shaman is very interesting, but I think wandering spirit should be changed to exclude the true spirit ability, since this makes your wandering spirit just as powerful as your spirit. Limiting it to the greater spirit ability would be a sufficient fix. I do like the blending of the oracle and witch.

Skald: Love it. Very flavorful. It's different from the skald bard archetype, and creates a different flavor for skalds. It's good that other characters can opt out of the raging song, since it could be a hindrance as much as a boon. Granting rage powers to the bard is a very interesting decision, but the skald will definitely benefit, especially when he and his allies are under the effects of raging song. Spell keening is interesting, but I think is ultimately unnecessary. It takes simply too long to cast a spell with this ability, as even a 1st level Bless spell will take a full round to cast and even longer for higher level spells, including truly beneficial spells like Heal. What I would suggest instead of getting any spell from sorcerer/wizard/cleric whenever your fancy strikes, take a page from magician. Make it so that every so often you can add a spell to your spell list from either the sorcerer/wizard or cleric spell list. I would suggest making it the cleric list, so that the spells still fall under the support category for the most part, and the thunder of the magician archetype, which I do like, is not stolen.

Slayer: Slayer feels so much like what it would be to play the assassin prestige class from level 1 and with no alignment restriction. I'm still trying to decide how I feel about this, but I will say that I do find the class intriguing. I will definitely have to playtest this to feel the class out.

Swashbuckler: This is definitely more Errol Flynn than Blackbeard, and I can respect that. However, it doesn't do too much to introduce new elements other than the standard fighter basics and gunslinger deeds (though the new ones are nice). For a class based on the gunslinger, where are the guns? I understand the goal is make a gunslinger more focused on melee weapons, but at least make the swashbuckler proficient with a pistol.

Warpriest: This is definitely a class with a lot going on in it. It's like a hybridization of cleric, paladin, and fighter at once. The blessings mechanic is interesting and adds a new and interesting element of gameplay. This class definitely feels a diet paladin, but adds in a greater degree of magic and channel energy. I believe that the spells should come more from the inquisitor spell list rather than the cleric list (obviously not using any spell that is inquisitor specific, since you could still cross-class into inquisitor).

All in all, however, I think the people at Paizo have made a very interesting set of classes for players to experiment with.

[list]

Poison use felt out of place to me

Yeah, it does. Investigators are supposed to solve crimes, not create them.

I agree with a lot of people here. Investigator seems misnamed and the flavor is a little lacking. When I think of investigator as a hybrid class like this, I immediately think of a bard/rogue. Heck, even alchemist/bard seems to better fit. I definitely think this is better class with the bard's knowledge based abilities blended with the rogue's stealth oriented game play. Alchemist/bard could capture the idea of a forensic investigator, using science to determine causes of death and such.

Alchemist/rogue for me just does not scream investigator to me.

As well as this, the investigator does not, in my opinion, does not do enough to create a fully unique experience or even a truly unique class. Unlike the other classes, it feels simply like a gestalt alchemist/rogue. The inspiration talents are interesting, but they are, again in my opinion, thinly veiled rogue talents. I would also decrease the amount of die for sneak attack, while it is one less than rogue, it still steps on a full rogue's toes.

Rorenado wrote:

I assume it would be from taking a level of barbarian or something of that nature.

Not possible due to the multiclassing limits.

I guess he could take levels of Viking Fighter though.

Ah, I missed that note on page 2. I was so excited to get right to the classes that I skipped completely over it. Thanks for letting me know about that.

I believe that a skald's weapon proficiency should be changed from the standard bard list, because weapons like a rapier and whip are not flavorful to the sheer power of that is expected of this class. If you want a whip-wielding bard, play a bard. I think the inclusion of hand axe or even a battleaxe would be an acceptable substitute for a rapier. Instead of a whip, a bola or net may be a more tactical choice, and still be an acceptable substitute for a whip.

Singed, the Mad Alchemist wrote:

Question: When it says "If the skald has a rage power from another source, he (but not his allies) can use those rage powers during a raging song." does that mean the feat Extra Rage Power or something else? So the only rage powers a Skald can have are the 6 from leveling normally?

I assume it would be from taking a level of barbarian or something of that nature.

Levels.

Question: When it says "If the skald has a rage power from another source, he (but not his allies) can use those rage powers during a raging song." does that mean the feat Extra Rage Power or something else? So the only rage powers a Skald can have are the 6 from leveling normally?

I assume it would be from taking a level of barbarian or something of that nature.

What is to stop you from refluffing the Skald as a Warchanter?

I would see a warchanter as more of a hybrid of fighter/bard, cavalier/bard, or even barbarian/oracle than barbarian/bard. Personally, in the historical sense, I think skald is much more representative of a barbarian/bard than the title warchanter. Also warchanter more seems like it should be for large armies, not a small party. As well as this, this title reminds me too much of the warchanter prestige class from Complete Warrior in 3.5, and I didn't really care for that one, because it was a ridiculously OP'd bard prestige, especially when you got combine songs.

Somehow the skald being a poet... but then just makes people angry with his music sounds a bit odd thematically to me. I mean if it was like a warchanter or something like that it would make more sense to me.

I would say it fits, though. Skalds were lorekeepers (and many were warriors themselves), after all. I think what this hybrid attempts to do is better meld with a more martially focused party.

I actually do like this class quite a bit. I believe it captures the flair of what a skald in a Nordic campaign would be: more martial, as only warriors get to Valhalla. I believe that this allows for some differentiation between this class and the skald archetype. It gives rage powers to a bard, who can benefit quite a bit from them. Raging song is nice, because it can give rage to multiple party members with an out for those who still want to cast spells and use skills.

Spell keening is interesting, but I think is ultimately unnecessary. It takes simply too long to cast a spell with this ability, as even a 1st level Bless spell will take a full round to cast and even longer for higher level spells, including truly beneficial spells like Heal. What I would suggest instead of getting any spell from sorcerer/wizard/cleric whenever your fancy strikes, take a page from magician. Make it so that every so often you can add a spell to your spell list from either the sorcerer/wizard or cleric spell list. I would suggest making it the cleric list, so that the spells still fall under the support category for the most part, and the thunder of the magician archetype, which I do like, is not stolen.

First of all, I would knock them down to a d10. Warriors they were, berserkers they were not.

Secondly, Spartans would not have worn greater than breastplate, so I would suggest removing heavy armor proficiency.

Next, the class skill list is good. No changes necessary.

A lot of your combat focus abilities are very flavorful, though a few, such as Terrifying Howl and Dirty Wrestler seem out of place. Suggestions for these abilities would be thinking about using phalanx tactics, or abilities revolving around the use of shield bashes, spears, and shortswords/gladiuses. You may look at the Phalanx Fighter for some ideas here.

Shields, as opposed to armor, should be a focus on a Spartan. Instead of armor master, shield mastery may be more appropriate.

I live Champion and Defend Ally. They are both very flavorful to the Spartan.

In response to Manoeuvre Training, I would make the bonus against certain manoeuvres, such as reposition. You aren't getting around a Spartan and his phalanx.

All in all, very interesting class. I would suggest making it less of a fighter/barbarian hybrid, and focus on making it a very unique fighter-style class.

I like it. Though may I ask why you get Scribe Scroll free with no loss for it? That doesn't seem quite right to me.

Also I'd like it if you could review my Spartan Class it's on this first page. Please, thank you.

Like the geisha archetype, they also get the Scribe Scroll feat for free, due, I believe, to their loss of armor proficiency and having only weapon from monk. As well as this, philsophes wrote quite a bit during the Enlightenment, and I believed it appropriate (in a magical setting) to give them Scribe Scroll to reflect their writing prowess, blended with the magical prowess of a bard.

So, being the nerdy history grad student, I came up with the idea for this archetype while reading about Enlightenment philosophes during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. A lot of the changes I implemented were heavily borrowed from other archetypes, because if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Please tell me what you think!

Weapon and Armor Proficiency

Philosophes are proficient in all simple weapons, plus one martial weapon. Philosophes are not proficient in any armor or shield; unlike bards, philosophes are subject to arcane spell failure even when casting in light armor or when using a shield.
This replaces the normal bard armor and weapon proficiencies.

Higher Learning (Ex)

A philosophe gains a bonus equal to half his bard level on Diplomacy, Knowledge (history), Perform (oratory), Knowledge (nobility), and Profession (scribe) checks (minimum +1). Once per day, the philosophe can also re-roll a check against one of these skills, though he must take the result of the second roll even if it is worse. He can re-roll one additional time per day at 5th level and every five levels thereafter.

This ability replaces bardic knowledge.

Scribe Scroll

A philosophe gains Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat.

Bardic Performance

A philosophe gains the following types of bardic performance:

Satire (Su): A philosophe can use performance to undermine the confidence of enemies who hear him, causing them to take a –1 penalty on attack and damage rolls (minimum 1) and a –1 penalty on saves against fear and charm effects as long as the bard continues performing. This penalty increases by –1 at 5th level and every six levels thereafter. Satire is a language-dependent, mind-affecting ability that uses audible components.

This ability replaces inspire courage.

Advise (Su): At 3rd level, a philosophe can use his wisdom to teach an ally civility or grace, as well as information, albeit the knowledge is fleeting and not retained. This ability functions as inspire competence, but only affects Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Knowledge (chosen individually), Linguistics (cannot be used to learn a language), Profession (chosen individually), Sense Motive, and Spellcraft checks. This ability takes 1 hour to use, and uses 4 performance rounds, but the recipient receives the benefits for an hour after that. To gain the benefits of this ability, the philosophe must have at least a rank in the respective skill.

This ability modifies inspire competence.

Gather Crowd (Ex): At 5th level, the philosophe is skilled at drawing an audience to his performances. If he is in a settlement or populated area, he can shout, sing, or otherwise make himself noticed in order to attract an audience to his impromptu stage. The size of the crowd depends on the local population, but typically is a number of people equal to 1/2 the bard’s class level × the result of the bard’s Perform check. The crowd gathers over the next 1d10 rounds. If the bard fails to engage the crowd (such as by performing, kissing babies, trying to use fascinate, and so on), it disperses over the next 1d10 rounds.

This ability replaces lore master.

Righteous Cause (Ex): At 18th level, the philosophe can lift a crowd’s emotions and turn them toward a common purpose. First, he must fascinate the crowd, at which point he can use righteous cause. At this point, he fills them with purpose. Fascinated creatures must make Will saves (DC 10 + 1/2 the bard’s level + the bard’s Charisma modifier) to resist. Those who fail are affected by mass suggestion of a plausible idea that lingers with them for one day. Typical uses of this ability are to spark rebellion, overthrow a king, build a beneficial structure such as an orphanage, or donate money to a cause.

This ability replaces mass suggestion and is modified from the demagogue archetype.

Magical Influence

In addition, a philosophe’s class spell list includes the following:

1st—comprehend languages, cultural adaptation (Humans of Golarion), delusional pride
2nd—hideous laughter, oppressive boredom, whispering wind
3rd—heroism, tongues, unadulterated loathing
4th—crushing despair, overwhelming grief
5th—smug narcissism, telepathic bond
6th—legend lore, true seeing, unconscious agenda (Rise of the Runelords), utter contempt

A philosophe may add one of these spells or any enchantment spell on the bard spell list to his list of spells known at 2nd level and every four levels thereafter.

This ability replaces versatile performance.

So, I decided that I'd like to make a couple of races for a couple of games I have coming up. The first is an alternate human build. I wanted them to go away from the skills and focus more on martial prowess. So, I based this new human race off of the Spartans, and named it in their honor. Here it is:

Spartan (8 RP)

Medium Humanoid (human)
30 foot movement speed
+2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma: Spartans are strong and hardy, but brash.
Bonus Feat: Spartans start off with a bonus feat that they qualify for.
Mountain Born (Ex): Spartans gain a +2 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks to cross narrow ledges and on saving throws to avoid altitude fatigue and sickness.
Weapon Training (Ex): All Spartans are proficient with the gladius (closest thing I could find to the xiphos) and the longspear.
Languages: See human.

The other race is called a skulkling. They started off as the offspring of halfling slaves and skulks (not a pleasant union). Despite this, the race prospered on its own. They are the most personable creatures from the Darklands, but they still have that feeling of uncanny valley. They make decent trackers, though they are best suited to finding wounded creatures or the dead (or in some cases, the undead). They live underground mostly, where they have adapted perfect vision, and can see perfectly in any darkness. Since they are the most personable, they can act as emissaries for the Darklands if they wanted to (though this scenario would not likely happen). Skulklings rely upon the shadows to be their shield, and do not often engage in direct combat. When they do, they rely upon finesse, rather than brute strength to bring down their foes. Their physiology has been warped, and they are very frail. Despite this, skulklings boast an amazing resistance to venom, toxins, and poisons of various degrees. They are also resistant to many spells that attack the mind. Most skulklings, like their halfling kin, are neutral in alignment.

Skulkling (14 RP)

Humanoid (skulk)
Movement: Skulklings have a move speed of 30 feet.
Small: Skulklings gain a +1 size bonus to attack rolls and AC, but a -1 size penalty to their Combat Maneuver Bonus (CMB) and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD). They also gain a +4 bonus to Stealth checks.
+2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, -4 Constitution: Skulklings are quick and cunning, but very frail.
See in Darkness (Ex): Skulklings can see perfectly in darkness of any kind, including that created by spells such as deeper darkness.
Carrion Sense (Ex): Skulklings have a natural ability to sniff out carrion. This functions like the scent ability, but only for corpses and wounded creatures (creatures with 25% or fewer hit points).
Envoy (Su): Skulklings with an Intelligence of 11 or higher gain the following spell-like abilities: 1/day – comprehend languages, detect magic, detect poison, read magic.
Nimble Attacks (Ex): Skulklings receive Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.
Resistant (Ex): Skulklings gain a +2 racial bonus on saving throws vs. poison and mind-affecting spells.
Underground Sneak (Ex): Skulklings gain a +2 racial bonus on Craft (alchemy), Perception, and Stealth checks. The bonus to Stealth checks increases to +4 while underground.
Languages: All skulklings begin play speaking Undercommon. Skulklings with high Intelligence scores can choose any of the following bonus languages: Common, Abyssal, Aklo, and Draconic.

Is there a sample sheet for this character with equipment, formulae, and such? A friend of mine is looking for it, because he wanted to make a character like him, but wanted to see some of his stats and equipment.

Thanks for the information!

So, I'm thinking of buying some masterwork ammunition for my level 1 character. When it says that I need to add 6 gp to the cost of a single unit of ammunition, does this mean add 6 gp to the cost of a single arrow, thus making it 6 gp, 5 sp (20 arrows = 1 gp, 1/20=0.05), or do I add 6 gp to the cost of the quiver of ammunition? I'm pretty sure my first guess is correct, but it never hurts to check.

Brass Knuckles and Cesti are less useful for monks than for other class wanting to use these weapons. The damage output that a monk gains from his unarmed strike outclasses the output of any weapon, really. They're simple weapons, so many classes have proficiency with them, and they're monk weapons mainly because they are flavorful weapons that a monk could potentially use, especially if you want to cut down damage (so as not to kill a target immediately), but are not recommended if you want high damage, which is what it seems you want. More or less, you can use the other monk weapons to change your damage type if you needed to. As well as this, as others have pointed out, you can magically enhance weapons with special properties, such as frost or ghost touch. You cannot do this to your fists with any degree of permanency, since your fists only count as manufactured weapons for the purposes of spells and effects.

FYI: Skeletons have DR/bludgeoning, so a piercing weapon would be mostly ineffective against such creatures.

First, I'll post the wording:

Ancestral Weapon (Su): You can summon a simple or martial weapon from your family’s history that is appropriate for your current size. You are considered proficient with this weapon. At 3rd level, the weapon is considered masterwork. At 7th level, 15th level, and 19th level, the weapon gains a cumulative +1 enhancement bonus. At 11th level, the weapon gains the ghost touch weapon property. You can use this ability for a number of minutes per day equal to your oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be used in 1-minute increments. The weapon disappears after 1 round if it leaves your grasp.

When an oracle takes the Ancestral Weapon revelation, is he or she limited to that weapons the entire game? If so, by the wording above, would he or she gain proficiency with that weapon, or just the summoned version of it?

We also agreed that the Gliding Wings trait was not as necessary for a creature that already has flight. He also stated that he wanted at least average maneuverability, so I needed to reallocate accordingly. Sacrificed Terrain Stride in order to gain the extra point needed for the extra flight speed and maneuverability boost.

Addendum: As per the GM's request, I have had to redo the race, which I'm fine with, since he's going to be putting in Monkey Bird NPCs (he wanted more flight within the 12 point limit, so I had to adjust accordingly). Here is the revamp:

Mobo

+2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, -2 Strength (0 RP): Mobo are nimble and quick-witted, but lack the strength of larger races.

Monstrous Humanoid (3 RP): Mobo have the monstrous humanoid template, and can be affected by spells and abilities that affect such creatures (such as hold monster or by being a ranger’s favored enemy). As well as this, Mobo have 60 feet of darkvision. Mobo eat, sleep, and breathe.

Small (0 RP): Mobo gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a -1 penalty on combat maneuver checks and to their CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.

Slow (-1 RP): Mobo have a base land speed of 20 feet.

Flight (8 RP): Mobo have a base fly speed of 50 feet with average maneuverability.

Defensive Training (1 RP): Many Mobo have been captured and sold into slavery, but many more have been trained to defend themselves against human slavers, and as a result, Mobo gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against humans.

Camouflage (1 RP): Mobo live in and survive because of the jungle. They have learned use the terrain to their advantage, to keep themselves hidden from the eyes of a slaver looking for an easy mark. Mobo gain a +4 racial bonus on stealth checks within jungles.

Languages: All Mobo start off with Common and Mobo. Mobo with high Intelligence can select Aklo, Auran, Elven, Goblin, Grippli, Orc, or Sylvan as a bonus language.

Languages: All Monkey Birds start off with Common and Mobo (the language of Monkey Birds). Monkey Birds with high Intelligence can select Aklo, Elven, Goblin, Gnoll, Grippli, Orc, or Sylvan as a bonus language.

So, I'm testing the race builder out, and figured I'd grab a few opinions. I'm making a monkey bird race (for a Pirates of Dark Water themed campaign), and figured I'd throw out what I've built and see what opinions I get of this non-Niddler monkey bird. Total race points: 12.

+2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, -2 Strength (0 RP): Mobo are nimble and quick-witted, but lack the strength of larger races.

Monstrous Humanoid (3 RP): Mobo have the monstrous humanoid template, and can be affected by spells and abilities that affect such creatures (such as hold monster or by being a ranger’s favored enemy). As well as this, Mobo have 60 feet of darkvision. Mobo eat, sleep, and breathe.

Small (0 RP): Mobo gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a -1 penalty on combat maneuver checks and to their CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.

Slow (-1 RP): Mobo have a base land speed of 20 feet.

Flight (4 RP): Mobo have a base fly speed of 30 feet with clumsy maneuverability.

Defensive Training, lesser [human] (1 RP): Many Mobo have been captured and sold into slavery, but many more have been trained to defend themselves against human slavers, and as a result, Mobo gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against humans.

Camouflage [jungle] (1 RP): Mobo live in and survive because of the jungle. They have learned use the terrain to their advantage, to keep themselves hidden from the eyes of a slaver looking for an easy mark. Mobo gain a +4 racial bonus on stealth checks within jungles.

Gliding Wings (3 RP): Mobo take no damage from falling (as if subject to a constant nonmagical feather fall). While in midair, Mobo can move up to 5 feet in any horizontal direction for every 1 foot they fall, at a speed of 60 feet per round. Mobo cannot gain height by gliding alone; it merely coasts in other directions as it falls. If subjected to a strong wind or any other effect that causes a Mobo to rise, it can take advantage of of the updraft to increase the distance it can glide.

Terrain Stride [jungle] (1 RP): Mobo have lived in the jungle long enough to not be hindered by the terrain. Mobo can move at their normal speed while within jungles. Magically altered terrain affects them normally.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm actually quite nervous. I'm hoping either myself and/or a friend make it past the first round.

Ooh. Medication of acid.

Good Priest's Elixir of Good. Redundancy is redundant.