|
Hey everyone, I was wondering if anyone had looked at these two prestige classes from Complete Warrior since the PRPG core rules were published. I think they still hold up pretty well, but I wanted a second opinion. They're both very rogue-flavored and with the makeover given to Pathfinder rogues, I can't decide if they're on-par with levels in rogue, better than levels in rogue, or not worthy of a rogue's attention.
(Improved Evasion at level 2 of the PrC if you're already a rogue? Feint as a free action after only 5 levels? Thrown weapon tricks?)
Make the class features into rogue talents and/or feat chains, would be my advice. I turned the entire master thrower PrC into a bunch of feats.
If you haven't, you should post them up Kirth.
Don't get me started. I've got dozens of pages of houserules for classes and feats alone.
My email is my forum name in lowercase at yahoo. And I'm in Iraq with hours to fill.
Check your inbox tomorrow then -- I'll send you a care package in six or seven hours. Do you need original adventures, too? I've got dozens of them, most of them very stealth- and investigation-heavy.
Fray, Kirt-rider -- You guys missed the first two mailings; if it's OK, I'd like to wait and accumulate some more volume, rather than continue to send emails to 1-2 people every single day.
Well put me on the list, then. It's xeorsos [at] gmail [dawt] com.
Hi
Add me to the list! i would love to see those sheets xD
Primusflambeau [at] hotmail [.com]
Invisible Blade was originally a 10 level class in Dragon 303 that was edited down.
Here is a link to the full version, which I like much better:
I try never to use a prestige class when a base class build can simulate it instead. For the Invisible Blade, a fighter/rogue with the bleeding attack talent is halfway there.
FEINT, UNCANNY (COMBAT)
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Greater Feint, Improved Feint, Bluff 10 ranks.
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a free action.
Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.
Special: This feat supercedes the Invisible Blade prestige class feature of the same name, from Complete Warrior.
This build has a weaker BAB, but has a much more versatile sneak attack, more skill points, and lacks some of the odd feat prerequisites (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot).
The awesome thing about that Kirth, is as you tear these prestige classes apart into their respective parts, you make each piece available to the classes mentioned without needing the whole thing, so over the course of time you end up changing the nature of the game. (And for the better I think, since it destroys the need for dipping and instead PC's take what they need)
Admittedly, my preferred game is a classless a-la-carte system. Failing that, I'd rather have a few base classes, tailored with feats and variant features, instead of having umpteen-gazillion prestige classes to do the same thing.
Kirth's got it down pretty well--you can make a stronger character with a PF Rogue than using the Invisible Blade PRC. The core Rogue's bleeding attack ability is better than the Invisible Blade's as written. Ultimately, one of the few cool, unique things you get out of Invisible Blade is the ability you get at fifth level, and as noted that can be somewhat simulated, and it's not quite worth taking 5 levels of the class to get to that when you can get some comparably strong abilities by sticking with Rogue or taking levels in another base class.
The Canny Defense ability can be neat, but that also increases MAD (when you already want a good Dex and Cha for the class). Now, if it was Cha based instead of Int-based, hmm...
I was trying to build a PF Fighter-Rogue Punch Dagger specialist and I looked at Invisible Blade, and realized she'd be much tougher and much more versatile without it. Especially with the silly ranged feat pre-reqs the class has. In fact, the class has a lot of feat pre-reqs which makes it very impractical, since a lot of light blade specialists will want to boost their damage dealing by going TWF. A good TWF build takes up a lot of feat slots; even with Pathfinder's extra feats, you still don't want to be filling out feat trees just to fill out PrC qualifications that otherwise don't suit your build. It's like they couldn't decide if they wanted the class to be a knife-fighter or a knife-thrower build and just decided to mash it together.
I'd be curious to see a new light-blade specialist PRC, mind. I don't know if it is necessary per se, but it'd be fun to work one out.
I'm looking forward to getting Kirth's email and checking out his work on this style.
Okay! Okay! I'm running a game session tonight, but hopefully tomorrow evening I'll be able to get to it.
Actually, it's pretty widely known among the online community that the Invisible Blade's author intended that the split down IB (since it was initially designed as both the Invisible Blade and Master Thrower were 1 class) be a certain BAB, Weapon Finesse, and Weapon Focus (any dagger/approved dagger-like weapon)
I could say that I'm "pretty widely known" among the online community, and yet I bet you've never heard of me before. The "online community" is a massive, nebulous amoeba of ever-shifting information, and perceptions of what the "online community" thinks can shift like that *snaps* from forum to forum. I'd therefore humbly ask you to kindly not make assumptions about or admonish people for what they should or shouldn't know based on your personal perception of the "online community." :)
Anyway, the OP referenced the class in the Complete Warrior. I was addressing the issues of that build.
Ooh, it's my birthday today, some of Kirth's goodness would make up for the underwhelming ties and socks.
Gotta wait 'til tomorrow, Snort. I've got a ruined monsastery to kill PCs with tonight!
(P.S. not sure I still have your email address...)
Gotta wait 'til tomorrow, Snort. I've got a ruined monsastery to kill PCs with tonight!
He thinks! Just wait until my Glaive wielding Cleric gets there. Evil cannot exist in MY WORLD!
(And when you said wait until tomorrow Kirth, did you really mean late tonight like you said earlier (as in maybe 2 AMish I dunno exactly) or did you really mean tomorrow tomorrow lol)
Some people have jobs. Monday night is a school night.
|
Simple and easy Invisible blade conversion to new core rules.
1) D6 hit die to D8
2) Substitue the 2nd level class ability "bleeding wound" for the Bleed ability that Rogues get from rogue talents.
3) 3rd level Uncanny feint (move action) ability becomes the Improved Feint Feat.
4) 4th level Feint mastery stays the same.
5) Uncanny Feint (free action) stays the same. (this does not give the Invisible blade the Greater Feint ability.)
6) Allow this PrC to be used with other Light weapon groups like Hand axes / clubs.
7) sneak attack damage stays the same.
8) BaB stays the same
9) Saves stay the same
10) Unfettered Defense stays the same.
Feat Requirements should stay the same, but for me, the ranged feats (Point blank shot and Far shot) were suspect and didnt make sense. So my suggestion for replacing those (if you so desire) might be...
1) require weapon specialization in the weapon being used (4th level fighter requirement)
or
2) Fighter weapon training feat with the choice in the weapon class that the invisible blade is being used for.
Hope this helps.
Yes, this is a fighter approach to the PrC, but I always thought of it as more of a light armor fighter PrC than a "toughened rogue" PrC.
CC
Next round of emails sent. Lemme know if an overzealous spam filter cuts me out!
See, this is why I hate emailing stuff to people. They keep pestering you for it, and then don't bother to send so much as a "thank you" or even a simple confirmation of receipt.
Add you guys to the list of "people not to send anything to anymore."
|
|
See, this is why I hate emailing stuff to people. They keep pestering you for it, and then don't bother to send so much as a "thank you" or even a simple confirmation of receipt.
Add you guys to the list of "people not to send anything to anymore."
I'm sorry if I forgot to thank you. I appreciated you sending it out.
I appreciated you sending it out.
Thanks! Mostly I was griping at kyrt-rider, who sure was vocal enough before I sent everything...
Hope you find something of use in all that stuff, WFG. Happy gaming!|
|
Gotta wait 'til tomorrow, Snort. I've got a ruined monsastery to kill PCs with tonight!
(P.S. not sure I still have your email address...)
It's in my profile, but just to be sure, it's
I do have the file with these classes, after all, sent October 2008, so using Alpha rules? Beta?
Have you reworked them since, to the Final rules?
I can't remember if I did remember to say thanks, at the time, but if not, I will again.
I've still got the file of that 'other' adventure conversion you mailed me, which I'm keeping in reserve, in case the PCs get walloped by permanent energy drains, and need a side-trek.
One PC is retracing the steps of his missing father, a disreputable tomb-robber, and I believe some nods to the old-school should be entertaining.
I do have the file with these classes, after all, sent October 2008, so using Alpha rules? Beta? Have you reworked them since, to the Final rules?
Email sent. This is all stuff we came up with after the final rules were released, when it became clear that Pathfinder suffered from most of the problems that 3.5 did (and that some were even exacerbated).
We're not dead yet!
Not by a long shot!
Thanks for that. I haven't had much time to read or digest it, though I do like the idea of the prestige paladin, especially the possibility of qualifying as a bard, though Practiced Spellcaster doesn't seem to apply in this case, unless you have an option for a divine bard?
Yes; unless otherwise noted, I allow all Unearthed Arcana variants.
Ooh! I see the typo you're referring to as well, and corrected it (delete the word "divine" in the Practiced Spellcaster entry). Thanks!|
|
Done. What about characters with more than one spellcasting base class?
Does every one improve, or just one?
Eg, Bard1/Cleric1/Ranger4/Prestige Paladin6.
I picked these, since they were all casters who've reached their minimum caster level.
Assuming he bumps his cleric casting level at Paladin level 1/3/5, I can see a player making the case that his effective caster levels are:
Bard: Knows spells as level 1, casts at level 4 (1+3).
Cleric: Knows spells as level 4, casts at level 7 (1+3+3).
Ranger: Knows spells as level 4, caster level 4 (4-3+3).
And would the spells specific to the paladin list become available to all three base spell lists?
I'm not suggesting this is overly-powerful, since his single-classed friends could be throwing 6th level spells, but I wonder if it's what you intended?
If you want, once I finish digitizing my houserules I can throw them at you so you can see our differences.
Yeah, I'd like that. Thanks for the offer. I've done some work on the totems as well, evening them out and synergizing the 5th level abilities.
What about characters with more than one spellcasting base class? Does every one improve, or just one?
Now I've VERY glad I sent you those files. I'd intended for one class worth of spellcasting to progress, actually, not all, but now that you've pointed it out I can't believe how obvious the change of wording for that would need to be (in fact, there was something nagging at the back of my head about that paragraph, and you've nailed it down for me). If only Paizo had used you as a proofreader for the Pathfinder rules...!
Thanks again.
First, the feats. Invisible Blade has horrible requirements -- and the writer of the class agreed, and suggested you instead have weapon focus daggers and something else. Do that.
Secondly, I think you should just go ahead and post your rules online, Kirth. Cuz I want them too! :)
Need some webspace to throw them down? Email me neceros @ gmail.com
|
|
Now I've VERY glad I sent you those files.
Our workplace is undergoing process-mapping right now, so I've still got my Periapt of Pedantry activated.
At least you don't mind, compared to some of my colleagues, who stare at me like I'm mental, or think I'm personally responsible for their great plan being impractical.If only Paizo had used you as a proofreader for the Pathfinder rules...!
If only I'd had the time. Have you seen the size of it?
I queried the Practiced Spellcaster ability, as it wasn't the same as the one in 3.5.
Then again, there are enough people who'd say that even that example I gave was 'gimped' at caster level 4/7/4, because of the reduced variable effects, lack of spells known/cast, max spell level 2, and you meet enemies with SR 20+, etc. So there's more than a few who'd petition their DM that increasing every class was what you intended.
Designers' notes from behind the curtain, or an example character are things I like to see, because they cut off a lot of argument.
At least you don't mind, compared to some of my colleagues, who stare at me like I'm mental, or think I'm personally responsible for their great plan being impractical.
On the contrary; if someone points out why one of my ideas is impractical, that saves me having to learn that the hard way later on. I'm indebted to that person for their insight and assistance. So, thanks again, amigo.
Re: prestige paladin spell progression and "designer's notes," the idea was to allow viable bard/paladin multiclassing, to fill the "knight-troubadour" archetype,, in addition to enforcing the "holy warrior-priest" one. The point was not to populate the game world full of priestly performing paladins (one might be interesting, but provide too much incentive, and that "build" quickly becomes annoying).