|
It might be thematically appropriate to add 'shadow dice' of damage that function sorta like Sneak Attack, at +1d6 per three levels, but inflict nonlethal damage, as the Shadowdancer's blows are augmented by quasi-real forces from the Plane of Shadow. These dice can only be added in areas of dim lighting or darkness (more or less, depending on light level? Lethal or nonlethal, depending on light level?), but do not require the target to be flat-footed or denied their Dex bonus, merely operating within a shadowy area.
The foes could find themselves desperately casting light spells or whatever to cut down on the damage done by these shadow dice, while the shadowdancer is prompted to do whatever she can to keep the area dark, so that her attacks are at full power.
Alternately, just make a new Rogue Talent called Shadow Striker that grants Shadow Dice, and give it a Prerequisite that makes it only usable by someone with at least 1 level in Shadowdancer. Add it right to the 'official' KQ Shadowdancer.
He found a way.** spoiler omitted **Bards don't suck. They're not for your regular munchkin, but they don't suck.
In fact, our resident munchkin managed to powergame a bard, so there.
So did Jesus. He died.
stuff
Cool. Won't help the bard or the monk. But cool if you are a rogue/SD. :-)
|
So did Jesus. He died.He found a way.** spoiler omitted **Bards don't suck. They're not for your regular munchkin, but they don't suck.
In fact, our resident munchkin managed to powergame a bard, so there.
And in being struck down, he became more powerful than you'd ever imagine. :ROFL:
Sorry, I had to give the star wars line.
|
|
stuffCool. Won't help the bard or the monk. But cool if you are a rogue/SD. :-)
Yeah, I hadn't really considered the other two lead-ins as well, although a Monk might enjoy doing extra Shadow Dice of damage on his attacks as well. The Bard, perhaps not quite so much, lacking a reliable source of multiple attacks, to take advantage of the extra Shadow Dice. (The Monk-Shadowdancer could use Shadow Dice as written, but call it 'Shadow Flurry' or something.)
It would be as easy to come up with a Bard-Shadowdancer 'Rogue Talent' called Shadow Song that granted his allies bonus Concealment defenses as the shadows dance around and obscure them, and also allow them to avoid darkness / shadow / concealment penalties themselves (or to treat foes in shadow that they are attacking as if flat-footed or something).
Tossing this alternate features into the Rogue Talent options for the Shadowdancer, but requiring a Sneak Attack/Bardic Music/Stunning Fist lead-in would work nicely.
Wow - just read the whole thing in Kobold Quarterly - very very interesting, and I'd say nice and powerful too!
I think some class ability substitutions would work for Monk or Bard SDs.
I'd also make a class ability substitution for the Shadows themselves...I'm not a fan of that part...I'm a Shadowjack fan, that's more the flavor I'm looking for.
Seeing as the shadow is the biggest offensive capability of the class maybe swap that for sneak attack progression at 1/3. I think if a player asked for that I would go for it as a GM.
I think that the SA(or shadow-SA)-instead-of-rogue-talent ideas are really good and easy to impliment mechanically, but flavor-wise, they represent a real change in the direction of the class.
You know, maybe this class was always meant to be a 5-level PrC? The more I think about it, the more I think that this class (and the concept behind it) was really made for a few-level dip, not a full-blown career path.
|
|
I think that the SA(or shadow-SA)-instead-of-rogue-talent ideas are really good and easy to impliment mechanically, but flavor-wise, they represent a real change in the direction of the class.
You know, maybe this class was always meant to be a 5-level PrC? The more I think about it, the more I think that this class (and the concept behind it) was really made for a few-level dip, not a full-blown career path.
I have to agree. This class always kind of has a spiritual feel (in my humble opinion) and not an assassin feel. It was a connection to the world of shadows.
Of course, dropping it down to 5-levels might keep this flavor specific to the class. Then, for those munchkins out there, if you want the sneak attack then you could dip into assassin or rogue for 5 levels and that would give you the same benefit as SA at 1/3 level.
stuffCool. Won't help the bard or the monk. But cool if you are a rogue/SD. :-)Yeah, I hadn't really considered the other two lead-ins as well, although a Monk might enjoy doing extra Shadow Dice of damage on his attacks as well. The Bard, perhaps not quite so much, lacking a reliable source of multiple attacks, to take advantage of the extra Shadow Dice. (The Monk-Shadowdancer could use Shadow Dice as written, but call it 'Shadow Flurry' or something.)
It would be as easy to come up with a Bard-Shadowdancer 'Rogue Talent' called Shadow Song that granted his allies bonus Concealment defenses as the shadows dance around and obscure them, and also allow them to avoid darkness / shadow / concealment penalties themselves (or to treat foes in shadow that they are attacking as if flat-footed or something).
Tossing this alternate features into the Rogue Talent options for the Shadowdancer, but requiring a Sneak Attack/Bardic Music/Stunning Fist lead-in would work nicely.
Sounds good. Thanks.
[...]
You know, maybe this class was always meant to be a 5-level PrC? The more I think about it, the more I think that this class (and the concept behind it) was really made for a few-level dip, not a full-blown career path.
Agree but still Monks, Bards and rogues will not bennefit much after level 1 (or 2)
1 or 2 levels? I think that's a little harsh, especially if the current 10-level spread is consolidated somewhat. A class doesn't have to grant sneak-attack to be good for rogues.
Even with the current write-up I'd be very happy with a rogue10/shadowdancer5. The shadowdancer's abilities are cool and useful; the problem is that they're all supplementary powers, and a character who's build is dominated by the shadowdancer class is simply too watered-down.
I do agree that bard/shadowdancers still wouldn't be great, as the bard is already spread somewhat thin. It would also be nice if sorcer/shadowdancers or illusionist/shadowdancers were at least SOMEWHAT viable. Would a stunted spellcasting progression be completely out of line?
My issue with the shadowdancer is that a rogue/sorcerer/arcane trickster can do pretty much everything a shadowdancer can do, only better. You get all the uncanny dodge stuff through rogue, and can pick illusion/shadow stuff for your sorcecer spells known to simulate almost all of the shadow powers -- and by taking ArcTrk you'll still be pulling sneak attack progression and getting full spellcasting to supplement all those abilities. Shadowdancer offers exactly zero that you can't get with the previous-mentioned build, except for a pet shadow... so why not just add "shadow" to the list of Improved Familiars?
|
|
My issue with the shadowdancer is that a rogue/sorcerer/arcane trickster can do pretty much everything a shadowdancer can do, only better. You get all the uncanny dodge stuff through rogue, and can pick illusion/shadow stuff for your sorcecer spells known to simulate almost all of the shadow powers -- and by taking ArcTrk you'll still be pulling sneak attack progression and getting full spellcasting to supplement all those abilities. Shadowdancer offers exactly zero that you can't get with the previous-mentioned build, except for a pet shadow... so why not just add "shadow" to the list of Improved Familiars?
Arcane Trickster was a class I never allowed in 3.0 because I saw it as overpowered. Oh how the times have changed.
When the DMG first came out, Shadowdancer was really the only sneaky prestige class. It took a while for our group to pull the paperback splat books (the <insert> & <insert> books) together. Shadowdancer still seemed like a viable class then. I geuss it could end up one of the casualties of the power curve :?
Of course, dropping it down to 5-levels might keep this flavor specific to the class. Then, for those munchkins out there, if you want the sneak attack then you could dip into assassin or rogue for 5 levels and that would give you the same benefit as SA at 1/3 level.
You can't do it if you want to play a god (or neutral) character.
|
|
You can't do it if you want to play a god (or neutral) character.
Of course, dropping it down to 5-levels might keep this flavor specific to the class. Then, for those munchkins out there, if you want the sneak attack then you could dip into assassin OR ROGUE for 5 levels and that would give you the same benefit as SA at 1/3 level.
Emphasis mine
And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of "gods" who have levels of rogue. Just ask Calistria... >:D
My issue with the shadowdancer is that a rogue/sorcerer/arcane trickster can do pretty much everything a shadowdancer can do, only better.
One could argue that Hide in Plain Sight is better than (Improved) Invisibility in some circumstances, but I agree.
Arcane Trickster was a class I never allowed in 3.0 because I saw it as overpowered. Oh how the times have changed.
I never felt that way, to be honest. To be an arcane trickster, you're giving up 2 levels of spells to a same-level caster -- a major hit (an orb of fire vs. disintegrate-sized-hit) -- and on the rogue end, you're giving up half your skill points and a whole bunch of BAB.
So you can kind of be the trap guy, if you give up most of your other skills;
Or you can be a spell-backstabber, but your BAB is terrible;
Or you can be a really lousy caster.
You don't have to take five wizard levels to be an arcane trickster. This is a huge deal.
|
|
Arcane Trickster was a class I never allowed in 3.0 because I saw it as overpowered. Oh how the times have changed.I never felt that way, to be honest. To be an arcane trickster, you're giving up 2 levels of spells to a same-level caster -- a major hit (an orb of fire vs. disintegrate-sized-hit) -- and on the rogue end, you're giving up half your skill points and a whole bunch of BAB.
So you can kind of be the trap guy, if you give up most of your other skills;
Or you can be a spell-backstabber, but your BAB is terrible;
Or you can be a really lousy caster.
I just meant comparitively. Once I saw Mystic Theurge I about crapped my pants. Nothing seemed overpowered after that, until the next book, and then the next book, and then the next book. Complete Mage's Ultimate Magus just takes the cake for me. Just... wow.
Once I saw Mystic Theurge I about crapped my pants. Nothing seemed overpowered after that.
In actual play, Mystic Theurge requires full-time babysitters for about half his career, and a contributes next to nothing during that time. After that, well, sure, he never runs out of spells, but he's trying to fireball the monsters while your full-time wizard is meteor swarming them or simply gating in a Solar to fight for you. In short, MT epitomizes the old expression "looks can be deceiving."
If you want to look at classes that actually are overpowered, check out Abjurant Champion (which people affectionately refer to as "Abjurant Cheesewhore") and especially Illithid Slayer (aka "Slayer" in SRD).
Arcane Trickster was a class I never allowed in 3.0 because I saw it as overpowered. Oh how the times have changed.I never felt that way, to be honest. To be an arcane trickster, you're giving up 2 levels of spells to a same-level caster -- a major hit (an orb of fire vs. disintegrate-sized-hit) -- and on the rogue end, you're giving up half your skill points and a whole bunch of BAB.
So you can kind of be the trap guy, if you give up most of your other skills;
Or you can be a spell-backstabber, but your BAB is terrible;
Or you can be a really lousy caster.
This was my perspective but since then it's been pointed out the the entire point of AT is to be the sneak attack ray/ orb guy. You drop improved invis and then sit back and use your touch attacks for SA.
Any skills weaknesses can be made up for with spell selection or wands. Wand of knock?
While that is arguably the best strategy for arcane tricksters to me it just doesn't seem very... well it seems like something other than the sneaky caster the class is supposed to be. That is of course entirely subjective but it's my POV. Regardless... I might just be cooking up a rogue/ sorcerer/ arcane trickster for my next campaign. And it's likely to be a 3.5 campaign (not PfRPG) so that will make it slightly less exciting.
This was my perspective but since then it's been pointed out the the entire point of AT is to be the sneak attack ray/ orb guy. While that is arguably the best strategy for arcane tricksters to me it just doesn't seem very... well it seems like something other than the sneaky caster the class is supposed to be.
I agree on both counts, which is why I'd like to see the sneak attack progression replaced by rogue talent progression... but I play a lot of games in which combat is a minor element instead of being the entire focus.
This was my perspective but since then it's been pointed out the the entire point of AT is to be the sneak attack ray/ orb guy. While that is arguably the best strategy for arcane tricksters to me it just doesn't seem very... well it seems like something other than the sneaky caster the class is supposed to be.I agree on both counts, which is why I'd like to see the sneak attack progression replaced by rogue talent progression... but I play a lot of games in which combat is a minor element instead of being the entire focus.
Yeah, I agree, the two are almost reversed. AT should have rogue talents and SD sneak attack... hhmmm
To be honest I think most of the things folks are complaining about this class are the way they are because of reverse compatibility. I'd kind of have preferred they just ditch compatibility in favor of improvement but others disagreed (not on this specific example but in general).
To be honest I think if the Arcane Trickster were reworked similarly it would be pretty awesome. I'm sure the Trickster kept the sneak attack and 6 sided HD so hopefully it gets rogue talents too.
I'd kind of have preferred they just ditch compatibility in favor of improvement but others disagreed (not on this specific example but in general).
QFT
Er, "you DO have to take 5 wizard levels to be an arcane trickster." Is what I ment.
Or "You DON'T have to take 5 wizard levels to be a shadowdancer", either way.
Point is, the shadowdancer gets to use (a limited selection of) 4th+ -level wizard spells without taking any hit to BAB or HP.
And when you read the spell descriptions for shadow conjuration/evocation, their selection really isn't that limited. Shadow conjuration can mimic most conjuration spells of 3rd level or lower (including creation effects like sepia snake sigil or stinking cloud). Shadow evocation mimics ANY evocation effect below 5th level, including utility spells like tiny hut or spells that fall outside the die-per-level model (i.e. wall of fire, resilient sphere).
At 10th level you get 'greater' versions of both these spells, allowing you to duplicate ANY evocation 7th level and below (prismatic spray, forcecage), or most conjurations 6th level and below (cloudkill, wall of iron).
An arcane trickster of the same level would be able to cast real versions of the same spells, meaning the enemy can't make a save to ignore it/ignore 60% of its effects. Then again, he's PAID for that capability by accepting 14 levels of d4 (d6 in pathfinder) hit dice and poor BABs.
|
|
You know, maybe this class was always meant to be a 5-level PrC? The more I think about it, the more I think that this class (and the concept behind it) was really made for a few-level dip, not a full-blown career path.
I get that feeling about almost all PrCs, that they should be 1 to 5 levels long, and that *far* too many of those 10 level PrCs have a bunch of 'class abilities' that just progress spellcasting, or progress some previous classes abilities, in which case, why didn't you just take more levels of the base class anyway?
Only PrC levels that give unique abilities 'matter,' and any others just detract from the base class progressions.
If an 'Assassin' is just a Rogue with Death Attack and Use Poison, for the most part, does it need to be more than 3 levels long? If a Shadowdancer is just Hide in Shadows and Shadow Jump, it could also fit neatly into 3 levels.
You know, maybe this class was always meant to be a 5-level PrC? The more I think about it, the more I think that this class (and the concept behind it) was really made for a few-level dip, not a full-blown career path.I get that feeling about almost all PrCs, that they should be 1 to 5 levels long, and that *far* too many of those 10 level PrCs have a bunch of 'class abilities' that just progress spellcasting, or progress some previous classes abilities, in which case, why didn't you just take more levels of the base class anyway?
Exactly what I said at the beginning of this thread. :-)
Well, it all depends on how you want to divide class abilities.
You can slice them up shortways (SA and rogue abilities, then death attack and assassin spells, then SA and rogue abilities, multiclassing back and forth), or you can slice them up longways (no rogue powers, no assassin spells, just SA and death-attack all the way through).
I think either way is valid, in many cases at least (this is less true for many mage PrCs, i.e. those with full caster progression, which grant almost EVERYTHING that the core class would).
[...]
An arcane trickster of the same level would be able to cast real versions of the same spells, meaning the enemy can't make a save to ignore it/ignore 60% of its effects. Then again, he's PAID for that capability by accepting 14 levels of d4 (d6 in pathfinder) hit dice and poor BABs.
I said that wrong, actually. On on end of the spectrum, shadow conjuration functions at 20%; on the other, greater shadow evocation functions at 60%. That's if they make their will save (all shadow spells are 100% effective if they fail).
The difference in save DC is important and I forgot to mention that. The SD's save DCs will be viable (Shadow Evocation has a base save DC of 18, remember) but lower than that of a committed caster by a fair margin.
Again, the arcane trickster will do all this better (the trickster actually doesn't get Shadow Evocation as early as the SD does, but he will be able to cast an actual]/i] prismatic spray or acid fog if he wants to). But, again, that's [i]because he's a high-level wizard. A SD does all this without sacrificing his BAB or hitpoints. In fact this only accounts for a few of his class features.
Another curious observation about this class with regards to dipping. The shadow's abilities appear to be completely independent of the character's level in the Shadow Dancer prestige class I'll have to double check this but I'm pretty sure that is the case.
This is good news for the class overall since it means when you leave the class your shadow still progresses. If you are worried about abuse though it makes it all the more appealing for a short 3-5 level dip.
To be honest I'm not as worried about that any more.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So did Jesus. He died.He found a way.** spoiler omitted **Bards don't suck. They're not for your regular munchkin, but they don't suck.
In fact, our resident munchkin managed to powergame a bard, so there.
And in being struck down, he became more powerful than you'd ever imagine. :ROFL:
Sorry, I had to give the star wars line.
Speaking as a Lutheran, it's ok. On Old Lutheran They have "You might be a Lutheran if" and one of them is "When you hear the star wars 'May the Force Be with you' you want to reply 'And also with you.'" So it's already out there.
|
|
I think the SD is a very good ranger PrC.
From beta the requirements to get in:
Skills: Stealth 5 ranks, Perform (dance) 2 ranks.
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility.
Easy as pie for a ranger, and it adds some pretty good stealth option for them and neat trickery stuff. The only thing the ranger really misses is spellcasting and full BAB in most other cases he gains many of his class features earlier and they offer a different take on the class.
Overall though I agree that this PrC is underpowered. It is weaker than the base classes and is not different enough to warrant a PrC.
Entry classes
Ranger --> wants full BAB
Rogue --> wants sneak attack
Bard --> wants bardic music
Monk --> wants monk stuff
For all of these classes ranger makes the best sense to go in because they lose the least. This is a ranger PrC.
I think the SD is a very good ranger PrC.
[...]
Not only will they miss full BAB and spells. They will miss
Favored Enemies and combat style feats
Also they miss stuff like Quarry, Camouflage, favored terrains.
No a ranger without his full BAB and Favored Enemies will suck.
...It is weaker than the base classes and is not different enough to warrant a PrC.
...
This is a ranger PrC.
Not different enough? In a lot of ways this is essentially exactly what a PrC should look like. It's a class that is laser focused on a few specific niche abilities, stealth and mobility. The issue is that they do so at the expense of nearly everything else. It is not so much underpowered as powered in a way that most players can't leverage. Given the right campaign or has been pointed out the right NPC this class could shine. The class is overspecialized for the typical PC group.
I do agree that the ranger is a good fit for this class. The stealth abilities match well with the ranger and the shadow companion would benefit from the higher BAB and higher hit points of the ranger. But as Zark pointed out your offense quickly tapers off.
Their fascinate ability alone is uber. Its nearly impossible to save against an average roll on the perform check for that ability just with Skill Focus (perform), max ranks, and a fair charisma (let alone munchkin out the charisma). Its stopped whole fights dead in its tracks.
Besides, its not like the bard cannot do damage. They're just better at putting their opponent into a lull and then coup de grace them.
OT.
I think you should check out the rules again."The distraction of a nearby combat or other dangers prevents the ability from working.
And....
"Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the target, automatically breaks the effect."
Most people agree fascinate is usless i battle, but to sneak pass a city guard etc. in can be useful.
|
|
I do agree that the ranger is a good fit for this class. The stealth abilities match well with the ranger and the shadow companion would benefit from the higher BAB and higher hit points of the ranger. But as Zark pointed out your offense quickly tapers off.
It tapers off quite a bit more for the other 3 entry classes.
Monk - don't even think about it.
Rogue - lose sneak attack? don't even think about it.
Bard - loses a whole lot of spell casting and bardic music does not increase.
Ranger loses what, favored enemy improvements and quarry
Out of the four I think ranger loses the least...
Again I am not saying it is good or even preferred, in fact I think the class sucks but Ranger still loses the least imho.