RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6
aka Eyebite
|
Wandslinger (Wizard)
The proverbial Mage With No Name, wandslingers are often itinerant loners who prefer to settle their scores in a hail of spellfire. Drawing slender, rune-carved wands from their hip holsters in the blink of an eye, and thereafter riddling their foes with holes and magical burns with deadly accuracy, wandslingers are not to be trifled with. A wandslinger has the following class features.
Class Skills: A wandslinger’s class skills are Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (all except Engineering and Nobility) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), and Survival (Wis). These replace the standard wizard class skills.
Wand-Whip (Ex): A wandslinger may wield any wand as a club, without damaging it. This ability replaces the wizard’s quarterstaff proficiency.
Have Wand, Will Travel (Su): A wandslinger receives a new wand at 1st level at no cost, of any 1st level spell he knows. Because wandslingers are so keenly attuned to wands, a wandslinger may learn all of a wand’s magical properties and the number of charges it contains simply by grasping it and using a full round action to study it. This ability replaces arcane bond.
Double-Barreled (Su): A wandslinger may use two wands, one in each hand, simultaneously. The wands must be designated as primary and off-hand. Each use of the off-hand wand drains two charges. A wandslinger gains the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when wielding two wands. Double ranged attacks are subject to the two weapon fighting rules. This ability replaces the first ability granted by arcane school.
Sharpshooter (Su): A wandslinger adds a bonus equal to ½ his wizard level (minimum +1) to either his attack roll or damage, at his discretion, to a spell cast from his wand. This bonus applies only once to a spell, but can be split between multiple missiles or rays cast from the chosen wand. This damage is of the same type as the wand’s spell. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier. This ability replaces the second ability granted by arcane school.
For a Few Charges More (Su): At 8th level, as a free action, once per round, a wandslinger may apply one metamagic feat he knows to each wand in his hands. Doing so costs an additional number of charges equal to the number of spell levels the metamagic feat would have added to the spell, calculated as if the wandslinger cast that spell without using his wand. This ability replaces the third ability granted by arcane school.
The Quick and the Dead (Ex): At 1st level, a wandslinger gains Quick Draw as a bonus feat. This bonus feat replaces Scribe Scroll.
Oi. I regret to say I'm really not a fan of this one. The references to an Old West gunslinger (from the archetype name, all the way down to the names of the replacement abilities) has too much of an "inside joke" to it that I can't take it seriously. And I'm a HUGE fan of the western genre. Also, if we're going to give shout outs to "For a Few Dollars More," where's the ability paying homage to "True Grit"...?
There's probably a case to be made for a wizard archetype that's extra proficient with wands. But turning wands into clubs and Two-Weapon Fighting with them? Just ill-advised mechanical decisions. Didn't care for the Sharpshooter ability either. It's like Weapon Focus or Deadly Aim rolled into one...only better. I also think it's a mistake to replace various abilities granted by arcane schools. However, if you'd pinned down this archetype by saying it had to be the Arcane School specifically, I might have felt better about it. That way, at least you know right up front what abilities you're foregoing for the wandslinger archetype. And, you can build in the archetype to a specific school as a variant archetype of that school. Lastly, I was a little surprised to see that last ability (The Quick and the Dead), which gets granted at 1st level to be listed at the bottom. Archetype ability swap-outs generally follow the progression in level a character would go through to get them. Also, I really though you should have played around with the arcane bond class ability by making it so that the wandslinger had to take a wand as his arcane bond...not simply by replacing it with a free wand of a 1st level spell he might know.
Anyway, I'm rambling. There are holes in this one. And a lot of them come back to poor decision-making. Joshua, I'm going to guess you imagined this to be a bold design. In many ways, it is...but you danced too close to the fire on this one...or with the wolves...or something like that.
I DO NOT RECOMMEND this archetype advance. But it's clear you poured a lot into this one. Best wishes in the voting.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I have to echo a lot of Neil's comments on this one, Joshua. I certainly think wand specialists have a place in the game, but I'm not as sure on your design decisions here.
First, I generally think of sorcerers more as wandslingers than wizards, who I picture as scroll wielders over wandslingers, but that's just my own preconception and not part of the actual criticism of your archetype.
Digging into it, however, I don't buy wands as clubs, and especially not two-handed. Allowing them to be used as weapons, sure, but 1d6 bludgeoning damage seems too high. Adding TWF and letting them make multiple ranged attacks a round is going way too far.
Instead of replacing arcane bond with have wand, will travel, I'd have specified that a wondslinger must select a wand as his arcane bond. Arcane bond is one of the key, scaling abilities that follows a wizard through all 20 levels, whether it's a familiar that advances over time, or a cheaply enhanced magic item. Removing this scalability and granting an auto-identify power isn't really a fair trade-off.
Finally, I'm really turned off by replacing arcane school powers. That sets up the precedent of designing a backdoor school by just giving all new powers in place of whatever school the wizard picks. It makes school selection arbitrary, and school powers are only one part of a selected school's mechanics. Does a wandslinger need to choose forbidden schools? What about extra spell slots granted at each level?
You're clearly working to make a cutting edge archetype here, and picking a full casting class as the basis only makes that tougher. I think the concept of your archetype is sound but the mechanics don't reach the high bar you've set for yourself.
Thus, I DO NOT RECOMMEND this archetype for advancement, but the voters may think otherwise. Best of luck.
Total Points: 2 points
Recommendation: Not recommended for advancement
Comments In Detail
Name & Theme (.5 point)
You went spaghetti western in the middle of a medeval fantasy contest. Interesting choice.
Mechanics (.5 point)
I take 1 level of this class, and I get a bunch of cool stuff:
* 1 wand (Free!)
* I can use slender bits of wood & other materials as a club
* I can use 2 wands at once
* I get a 1/2 level (Wizard) bonus to attack rolls
* I get Quick Draw as a bonus feat
That's a lot of frontloading. I could see characters building towards Assassins being real interested in this - there could be many potential multiclass / prestige class builds that could get a lot of benefit from taking 1 level of this class.
The only thing worth taking more levels of this for is the ability to apply metamagic to a wand. Frankly, this is the only cool and innovative part of this whole archetype - had you built something around just this concept it may have been a better choice.
Awesomeness (0 points)
You shot Awesome down.
Template (1 point)
You used the template well.
Context (0 points)
Trying to be clever you veered into joke territory. This couldn't be published by Paizo - they'd get hatemail from purists and they'd end up with a negative perception that they didn't understand their customers or their IP.
Okay, wandslinger, like a gunslinger. Got it.
Wand-Whip: I guess this is a riff off of "pistol-whip." But according to the rules, "A wand is 6 to 12 inches long, 1/4 inch thick, and weighs no more than 1 ounce." That's no club. More like a dagger. So this ability doesn't have anything to do with whips, lets you treat a non-weapon wand as if it were a club weapon 1 size bigger than the actual physical object. Got it.
Have Wand, Will Travel: Giving a level 1 character a 750 gp magic item is way too good. Even a regular wiz only gets a masterwork weapon as an arcane bond item, and that's not intended for direct combat. And then you get the weirdness of "I used up that wand, so now that aspect of my class feature is useless."
The second ability (identifying wands quickly) is fine.
Double-Barreled: It is unclear what sort of action it is to use two wands in the same round. I don't like that it just swaps the "first ability" of your arcane school, regardless of what that school is.
Sharpshooter: You're mixing "the wandslinger" and "you" in this paragraph... you need to stick to one or the other for the entire writeup.
For a Few Charges More: This absolutely must say that you can't use it if the metamagic feats would increase the spell's spell slot level above 4. Wands have a level 4 limit for a reason.
The Quick and the Dead: Because Quick Draw doesn't affect wands, this ability has almost zero use for a wandslinger. Unless you intend the "use it as a club" ability to mean it counts as a club for the purpose of drawing this, and it's not clear that you mean that. Better to say "A wandslinger can draw a wand as a free action." And he probably shouldn't get it at 1st level.
I really, really want to like this archetype. The idea of the wandslinger is very evocative. But the mechanics you're presenting here are just too wacky, and almost all of the abilities come in at first level, so you get all your goodies right away and don't really much in terms of archetypeness for leveling up.
RECOMMENDATION: I do NOT recommend this archetype design for advancement in the competition.
|
Wandslinger (Wizard)
I think some of the above comments aren't quite justified. The "front-loading" problem is, I think, fairly minor, given what class features are being replaced. For example, I could just as easily say that Wizards are too front-loaded, and list all of the abilities that are replaced by this archetype.
However, I'm definitely with Sean K. Reynolds, here. There is too much about this that doesn't quite hold together. I'd love to see a gunslinger-like character. Wands might be the right way to go (or guns, since they aren't outside of Pathfinder's purview), but this just isn't it.
Definite points for trying, Joshua!
I voted for this archetype. The mechanics aren't completely sound, but the enthusiasm that I read from this and joy in trying to connect the mechanics of the archetype are things I simply can't ignore.
The designer shows that he understands where several of the problems are for a wizard in this design and attempts to address them without dwelling on them too much as well. I would have liked to have seen something that addressed caster level and save throw issues from using wands however I can understand why the designer didn't go that route -- after all there is already one archetype that touches on that, and some class features that do as well so it wouldn't have been 'innovative'.
I am voting on this one on the hope that the promise shown so far will blossom more in the next round -- I feel it isn't so bad as to ruin a chance to move forward and captures the idea behind archetypes well. It is also one of the hardest classes to work with and deserves some props for that as well, since it didn't fall into the "this is another specialization/bloodline/mystery" trap.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6
aka Eyebite
|
My biggest concern with this is that it doesn't specific arcane wands, or go into any detail about what happens if they multiclass. If I'm a cleric 1 and then take levels of Wandslinger, can my free wand be Cure light wounds?
I'll be happy to answer any questions after the round comes to a close, but simply can't comment at this time per the rules.
Thank you for your interest though!
Wandslinger (Wizard)
Breaking with the judges again, and probably going to vote for this one. As another poster remarked, I feel the love you have for this. It's a character archetype I've been toying around with playing a lot lately, probably because one of my PCs' archenemies was a wandslinger built with 3.5 rules and I got... erm... wand envy. :)
My only critiques:
1. Wand whip should do less damage if there's no chance of breaking a wand when you do this, perhaps 1d4 lethal bludgeoning as a mere club.
2. Getting Quick Draw for free at 1st level is a bit much. Why not just grant Craft Wand instead, ignoring caster requirements kinda like witches with the Cauldron hex do?
I also see a thematic resemblance between your wandslinger archetype and the new gunslinger alternate base class. (Both builds get extra free stuff at first level, too, btw, so glass houses, people.) I happen to like yours better, but the gunslinger is prompting some heated discussion in other threads, and I suspect you'll find your voting bloc skewed by this (for better or for worse).
But dude, I love your archetype. Totally gonna build one, with my GM's approval.
Wandslinger (Wizard)
The proverbial Mage With No Name, wandslingers are often itinerant loners who prefer to settle their scores in a hail of spellfire. Drawing slender, rune-carved wands from their hip holsters in the blink of an eye, and thereafter riddling their foes with holes and magical burns with deadly accuracy, wandslingers are not to be trifled with.
You should know the drill by now, but in case you missed it the first time round, Ask A RPGSupersuccubus is posting from the point of view of a CE aligned succubus:
Would you want this person sitting next to you as a guest at a formal evening dress dinner party?
No thank-you. Itinerant loners like this are hard work, socially speaking. They just sit there, usually staring into the distance, and moodily worry at their ham and salad.
How effective a flower-picker does this person seem likely to be?
Not very effective unless it exclusively involves him blowing stuff up with wands.
Could you hire one person like this to do a better job than one other trained mercenary and/or to do the jobs of two (or more) other trained mercenaries?
Oh yes. For simple, dirty, blow-stuff-up jobs, someone who can blast away with two wands simultaneously is going to be a lot better than almost anyone else. 'Bandit problem? What bandit problem?' (Said deadpan in a nearly dead tone, possibly having blown smoke from the tips of two wands.)
Put him in a situation though which requires solutions slightly more creative or beyond the capacity of a wand and suddenly he's going to look out of his depth.
Other comments?
I'm aware that in other dimensions (the world of 'Legend') wands may be big enough to club someone around with, but they really aren't in the multiverse in which Golarion exists.
Desirability:
Hireable for uncomplicated 'easy' stuff. Otherwise snack.
Josh, as Abraham Spalding said a few posts above, props to you for taking on a tough core class to design an archetype for.
I really like the idea of it, but I wished you hadn't gone as "joke-like" with many of the class abilities.
Despite all that however, I'm voting for you, and my reasons are very much the same as Abraham's, I'd like to see more from you and in light of that, I'm hoping to help provide that opportunity.
RE: The Quick and the Dead it's a minor nitpick, as I'm voting for you, but shouldn't that really appear more toward the top of the archetype's write-up?
Keep an eye out for such things in future rounds (and I'm hoping you get there), I know that future rounds are fast and furious, but if nothing else you have time to prepare for the villain round. Make sure you are ready, and in the 3 days of that round make your edits and what not and preview, and proofread before submitting.
Okay, that's all my advice.
Good Luck!
Also, if we're going to give shout outs to "For a Few Dollars More," where's the ability paying homage to "True Grit"...?
It's over in the gunslinger playtest. :)
This archetype, despite its Western theme, made me think of this. Mostly because two wands is pretty pimp.
The only thing that really gives me pause in terms of the frontloading discussion is Have Wand, Will Travel, just because a 1st level wand is huge when you're first level and either useless or long expended by higher levels. Conversely, arcane bond scales pretty well in usefulness as a wizard gains in levels.
Replacing school abilities gives me pause, too -- I feel like, as is, wizard specializations tend to either have a lot of must-have or very good spells at a wide range of levels (so you're picking it for those spells in the bonus slots) or really good school abilities. The way this archetype is built is more rewarding for one of the former.
I'm still making up my mind about this one.
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
It's fun and different, and a bold design choice, which I really like. But it doesn't quite deliver... Wands have no barrels, so I don't think it's a good idea to call an ability "double-barreled". Also, the ability is too much like a D&D 3.5 feat. The ability you get at 1st level is listed last, which is confusing.
Some good ideas there, though. I wish you the best of luck in the contest!
My first thoughts were Harry Potter and a Western. Two wands are cool, but 3.5 touched on it in the miniatures game and maybe a prestige class.
The name made me look at it because it was different, but also turns me against it. Wandslinger makes me envision two gun holsters with wands in them and the user is dressed like a cowboy but is a sterotypical wizard too. Like an outlaw with a magician hat on top.
On the positive side, the abilities are rather well written. You make it easy to envision with your writing. The theme just kills it though.
I've wanted to play a Wandslinger for years, and when I saw this was one of the options to vote for, I thought I'd be sold. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the judges on virtually every count. No wands should be used as clubs, and replacing arcane school powers just doesn't work for me.
I liked the way you stuck with the western theme, though. It was a very stylish entry. And I'm glad someone is thinking along the lines of a wand-wielding wizard with Quick Draw.
This one definitely earns extra style points with its "mage with no name" spaghetti western theme. It made me picture a magical version of the old west, where wizardly prospectors mixed with gunfighters, saloon gals and card sharps in a magic-powered gold rush.
Of course, that image could be misleading. There's no reason this archetype couldn't fit into more standard games. The flavorful ability names provide color, but the abilities would work well in a variety of settings.
I'd like to see what you do next round!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
Bad timing.
If the gunslinger hadn't come out this week, it might appear stronger, or if it had come out two weeks ago, some features might have been um, stolen. As it is, while most of the mechanics are sound, or close to it, there's enough wiggle room, and the names (oh gods the ability names) draw my vote away from it.
Hopefully Joshua won't hold me unforgiven...
This is the only non-"recommended" archetype I voted for (and I only used 5 of my votes). As has been harped on, there are mechanical flaws, but you've come up with a fun and interesting design here, and that's the bottom line IMO. Personally, I would enjoy refining this archetype.
So, you got my vote on flavor and concept. Good luck.
Hopefully Joshua won't hold me unforgiven...Ah! I see what you did there.
;)
I appreciate all the comments, ranging from the good, the bad, and even the ugly.
Spoiler:Yep. I really did just do that.
Don't. This isn't a time for competitors to banter and engage the voters in conversation. In my opinion, you're toeing the line of a DQ here, Joshua. Either copy/paste the provided statement for commentary in the rules or stay out of your submission thread while the voting is underway.
Josh, I give you full props for swinging for the fence on concept and going "off-script" on expectations.
That said, there are times when people swing for the fence and whiff; I've done it before - many people have, and there's no shame in the effort.
However, the crossover theme wouldn't land in my game, which is a big part of what I'm voting for - "would I be excited to add this to my game".
NO VOTE.
|
|
Bad timing.
If the gunslinger hadn't come out this week, it might appear stronger, or if it had come out two weeks ago, some features might have been um, stolen. As it is, while most of the mechanics are sound, or close to it, there's enough wiggle room, and the names (oh gods the ability names) draw my vote away from it.
Hopefully Joshua won't hold me unforgiven...
Honestly, I think it's hilarious - hilarious! - that some of the things the judges crushed this archetype for, Jason and SRM are doing as a playtest just a few boards up. Up there, a gunslinger can hit someone with the butt of their weapon, while here, the wandslinger can use his wand as a club. Neil and Ryan commented about the Western-themed abilities, while Gunslinger has a capstone called "True Grit".
There's a degree of comic coincidence there that I can't ignore. As such, this is very likely to get one of my votes.
Well, this entry is certainly stylish. And hilarious. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it isn't. I find myself charmed a bit by it. The replacing the arcane bond (which already allows you to have a wand) with a free wand (which is awesome at 1st level but won't last your career), is a bit of a deal-breaker for me. Also, as others have pointed out, the Quick and the Dead ability not only doesn't work, but is in the wrong place. It feels like an afterthought. Had it been in the first level abilities and said "allows the wandslinger to draw a wand as a free action" rather than "Quick Draw as a bonus feat", it would have worked better.
This is only the second archetype I've read, so I don't know where it ranks quite yet. There were a lot of missteps here, but on the other hand I want to see what else this designer can come up with. Good luck!
Have Wand, Will Travel: Giving a level 1 character a 750 gp magic item is way too good.
Seems a bit unfair when you consider the gunslinger playtest ;)
This is tough, I like the gunslinger theme here, and I respect the difficulty in archetyping a wizard. This however just isn't it. It's too much at first level. It makes my choice of school completely arbitrary. It takes away my kitten.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
,
Star Voter Season 6
aka raidou
|
Joshua, this looks to be a neat spaghetti-western inspired class, and hopefully will deliver a lot of fun. Wizard is an interesting choice, as they lack a lot of the roguish dexterity and panache that I envision might be required of this guy. Let's see.
Wand-Whip (Ex): A wandslinger may wield any wand as a club, without damaging it. This ability replaces the wizard’s quarterstaff proficiency.
Means that you're considered "armed" when wielding a wand. Interesting. You're also a wizard, so your melee attack prowess is pathetic at best. Not sure that I'm buying the idea that a wand deals club damage.
Have Wand, Will Travel (Su): A wandslinger receives a new wand at 1st level at no cost, of any 1st level spell he knows. Because wandslingers are so keenly attuned to wands, a wandslinger may learn all of a wand’s magical properties and the number of charges it contains simply by grasping it and using a full round action to study it. This ability replaces arcane bond.
This is too expensive an item for a first level character. Maybe this should be a wand with ten charges or something. Identifying a wand is a good thematic fit.
Double-Barreled (Su): A wandslinger may use two wands, one in each hand, simultaneously. The wands must be designated as primary and off-hand. Each use of the off-hand wand drains two charges. A wandslinger gains the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when wielding two wands. Double ranged attacks are subject to the two weapon fighting rules. This ability replaces the first ability granted by arcane school.
There's a ton of 3E material out there, so some duplication is bound to happen when designing archetypes, classes, magic items and so on. The ideas are "out there" in the collective consciousness. This ability is duplicated pretty well by the Double Wand Wielder feat in Complete Arcane, so we're not breaking new ground here. I can see it overpowered in certain situations. I can also see the GM of this character deciding that he's okay with sundering PCs' gear after all.
Sharpshooter (Su): A wandslinger adds a bonus equal to ½ his wizard level (minimum +1) to either his attack roll or damage, at his discretion, to a spell cast from his wand. This bonus applies only once to a spell, but can be split between multiple missiles or rays cast from the chosen wand. This damage is of the same type as the wand’s spell. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier. This ability replaces the second ability granted by arcane school.
This is a pretty decent ability. Most of the mid-upper level abilities a wizard gets are pretty powerful, so this seems about on par, and makes your wandslinger extra-good at dealing damage with wand spells.
For a Few Charges More (Su): At 8th level, as a free action, once per round, a wandslinger may apply one metamagic feat he knows to each wand in his hands. Doing so costs an additional number of charges equal to the number of spell levels the metamagic feat would have added to the spell, calculated as if the wandslinger cast that spell without using his wand. This ability replaces the third ability granted by arcane school.
Again, an ability that exists "out there" in the form of the Metamagic Spell Trigger feat. Yours works specifically on the two wands your wandslinger is wielding, to keep the dual-shooter theme. I think it's too much in a TWF situation, especially if there is no cap. A couple of maximized Scorching Rays per round, plus the sharpshooter bonus, is over the top.
The Quick and the Dead (Ex): At 1st level, a wandslinger gains Quick Draw as a bonus feat. This bonus feat replaces Scribe Scroll.
This is odd since quick-draw only lets you draw a weapon, not other types of items.
Joshua, I don't mind the ability names so much. I find them amusing. They're un-printable in their current form for reasons discussed in other posts, so that's obviously problematic. You've tied a number of wand-wielding abilities into the class and yet this guy can't craft wands by default? or expand their capabilities to 5th or 6th level spells? or set a wand to auto-fire?
I feel that this archetype is one of those "Be bold or go home" things we really hope to see. But I don't think you found the right heart of this archetype. Wizard doesn't quite seem to fit correctly. I suspect, though, that a wandslinger archetype based off the new "gunslinger" class has some merit. Time will tell. I'm not sure how I feel about voting for this class, but I'm leaning toward giving it a pass because of what I feel is a very strong potential for abuse and some abilities that I've seen before in other places.
I like the idea of a wandslinging wizard, but I don't like this implementation.
I don't like the introductory paragraph.
I don't like the wand as a club idea.
It seems too good to be true to get a free wand at first level.
The ability names seem to be a bit jokish.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Seems a bit unfair when you consider the gunslinger playtest ;)
Have Wand, Will Travel: Giving a level 1 character a 750 gp magic item is way too good.
I noted the same irony, considering the price of guns!
I liked the archetype in concept, and I didn't mind the western theme, but seriously Ryan is right that this could easily be perceived as, while not a joke submission, then certainly playing very close to the line of jokery. As someone who has unfortunately perpetrated some nefarious easter egging in my early writing work, I had to learn the valuable lesson:
Don't try to be clever. Try to be awesome.
The abilities you've given here take too much of the character of the base wizard away and end up giving you a generic, school-less wizard caster. Also, your abilities are too good and don't really fit with the wand's essential characteristics (a club? more like a long pencil).
I like your concept more than your mechanics. The voters will decide what they like best.
Congrats on making round 2, and best of luck!
Don't. This isn't a time for competitors to banter and engage the voters in conversation. In my opinion, you're toeing the line of a DQ here, Joshua. Either copy/paste the provided statement for commentary in the rules or stay out of your submission thread while the voting is underway.
Hopefully Joshua won't hold me unforgiven...Ah! I see what you did there.
;)
I appreciate all the comments, ranging from the good, the bad, and even the ugly.
** spoiler omitted **
From the official rules:
"5. During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion that could be considered as adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying the content of their current submission."
I do not see how the contents of any message that Joshua has posted in this thread could be construed by a reasonable observer to have done any of those things.
Congrats Josh, when I first read this I thought 'dual wand wielder' yeah!!. Even if it has been done before, archetypes are supposed to bring in well... archetypes. Then it changed pace with the gunslinger aspect, and I thought cool Quickwand mcDraw!! That changed things up a bit and I liked it (specifically that reading kept me guessing :). After that the theme grew into cliche. Then I saw dual wand wielder (and checked the wording in my 3.5 splat book) and then I saw quickdraw. not as unexpected as I originally thought. Some simple solutions to the mechanics have already been offered, so it is possible to pull this one into useable. And I think you have found an archetypical wizard without going to a spell school. good luck!
Joshua,
I hate to beat a dead horse, but yes, your tongue-in-cheek presentation here completely killed this entry for me.
The concept begind this entry could have been so very, very good. There's plenty of room for a wand-focused spellslinger; I think you've found at least some solutions to tweaking the class to let that in. But when you focus so overwhelmingly on referencing Western tropes and cliches, the entire thing comes across as hokey and impossible to take seriously. The Fighter class doesn't invoke the images of Schwarzenegger and Stallone; the Druid description doesn't revamp quotes from The Lorax. I'm frankly astounded you would break so sharply from the accepted tone of Pathfinder game material; if it's not clear to you why this has thrown people off so badly, I'll be happy to delve into it more once you can respond and lay out your original intentions for the tone.
Beyond that, here's my attempt at a feedback rubric. I'll be focusing mostly on concept, writing, and theme; I've got a lot less to add on the mechanics side of it.
Resonance
Is the concept a cohesive, identifiable archetype? Do I understand the concept? Is it colorful, interesting, innovative?
The concept is clear, and probably has a lot of potential. The presentation, unfortunately, makes a joke out of it, instead of presenting it in a manner designed to entice.
Implementation
Does the implementation of the archetype do justice to the concept? Can the archetype character do the type of things we'd expect him to?
So-so.
The Quick and the Dead, Double Barreled, Sharpshooter, and Few Charges More are very apropos. They're not earth-shatteringly innovative, given the concept, but then again they don't have to be - it's a straightforward concept and these abilities implement it in a straightforward fashion.
Wand-Whip is a real strike against. I'm getting an image of your Western loner suddenly beating up the ruffians with a pair of chopsticks. That's absurd; it doesn't fit the theme; it hurts the entry. I can only assume you imagine wands looking somewhat different than I do; it's clear, though, that you've badly clashed with a commonly-held opinion on the subject.
One point for consideration is that something on wand crafting might have been a nice change of pace, and given the wandslinger a more reliable arsenal. OTOH, that may be further unbalancing. OTOH, that might have been a really good substitute for the "free wand at level 1" issue.
Playability
Would players want to play this archetype? Would this character archetype have a place in a game? Will the archetype's unique flavor be evident in actual gameplay?
If we can get past the other stuff - then yes, absolutely. The concept is here, and the straightforward wand powerups are here, and I don't have to fight with chopsticks if I don't want to.
All in all, I think you've shot yourself in the foot here, and I'm sorry to see that. A lot of the flaws you've been called out here for are bad additions you made, rather than important elements you left out. If you'd recognized how poorly those additions had been received, you'd have had a neat, colorful entry left, that might well have been quite popular even if its mechanics or balance were questionable. I'm looking forward to hearing your own comments on these choices, but if the danger in them wasn't clear to you while you were writing, then I'm concerned that you lack the self-awareness to keep the clunkers out of the gold.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
This one's not bad. I'm concerned that one of the abilities may be a bit too straight a riff off of dual wand wielder and another off a wand metamagic feat. If I were editing you I'd probably pull out the book and check. I like the ability to smack people with wands. I like Quick Draw, though level 11 seems really high for it. You did get caught by Quick Draw not working on wands, even if that's one of Pathfinder's sillier rules. I think since you can use a wand as a club (archetype ability) it ought to count, but a Superstar ought to catch that little glitch regardless.
I think a better approach than metamagic feats would have been to boost the DCs for casting from wands. It's pretty easy to keep that balanced for a class that relies on wands.
I would like it a lot more if it wasn't a bit tongue-and-cheek. As others have mentioned, cute doesn't get too far in Pathfinder. But overall, this archetype's good in my opinion, just not quite up there enough for my vote.
Good luck!
Have Wand, Will Travel: Giving a level 1 character a 750 gp magic item is way too good. Even a regular wiz only gets a masterwork weapon as an arcane bond item, and that's not intended for direct combat. And then you get the weirdness of "I used up that wand, so now that aspect of my class feature is useless."
<looks into Ultimate Combat Beta> I think you just shoot down Gunslinger's Firearm feature.
I really, really want to like this archetype. The idea of the wandslinger is very evocative. But the mechanics you're presenting here are just too wacky, and almost all of the abilities come in at first level, so you get all your goodies right away and don't really much in terms of archetypeness for leveling up....
Some of this ideas could be just turned into feats and allowed to anyone that can sensibly use the wands.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
Name and concept: Wow .. what timing. I've also seen this in Eberron and that's the best place for it. But neither the Gunslinger playtest nor my own biases were really under the author's control, so I'll see what I can say about the technical side.
Archetype mechanics, expression of the concept: Class skills: No Use Magic Device, no Appraise or Linguistics to get a better idea what a found wand might do (though, to be fair, he's stacked on an ability a bit later that removes the need for the latter). I don't understand the change to Knowledge skills. Intimidate, fine .. Perception, probably a power boost, but he does need a better chance to act with surprise .. Ride, I see the reason and I don't much like it .. Survival is inappropriate.
Wand-Whip (Ex): I hope the author read the description of Pathfinder wands at some point. Clubbing someone over the head with one without breaking it doesn't work as an Extraordinary ability.
A free 750gp magic item and free identify spells aren't a fair exchange for arcane bond.
Then he gets Two Wand Wielder at first level as well. He gains Two Weapon Fighting (that's a very dangerous way to word it) - perhaps that means this ability is a full-round action? I don't see any other rules text for what "use two wands simultaneously" means.
Sharpshooter: Can any other character in the game increase the effect of a wand? Or of each projectile in a magic missile? At first level?
The Quick and the Dead: Just to complete the reasons to dip in for one level and go, he gets another bonus feat and one that is only dubiously even relevant to wands.
Wider relationships: This archetype is pretty much all about widening the relationships between fantasy gaming and Western cartoons, with none of the balances that the Gunslinger has.
I didn't want to like this idea, and I don't.
Uhm, when I saw the title I was very eager to delve into your creation. Wandslingers have been one of my favorites for a long time and in Pathfinder I really miss a wand specialist.
That said you immediately put me off with your choice to turn the wand wielder into some sort of cowboy. Wizard <> cowboy in my book.
Additionally your abilities are either wacky (gain a wand - once and use it as a club), OPed (apply meta magic to wands without a limit), not fully thought out from a rules standpoint (wielding two wands simultaneously?) or rather useless (two-weapon fighting, quickdraw?).
Finally there is also not a lot of development in this archetype as it gets nearly all its abilities at first level.
Wandslinger (Wizard)
1.Is the Archetype conceptually interesting?
2.Are the mechanics of the Archetype interesting?
3.Are the mechanics of the Archetype balanced and well executed?
But rather than simply adding up the marks for a final score I'm gonna interpret them as a point in 3-dimensional space and the final mark of your submission will be the length of the vector between the origin and this point.
Note that my ranking doesn't need to directly correspond with my votes, as other factors like: Strength of your item submission, mood, my horrorscope and other random stuff still factor in. Also note that this scheme is highly subjective and only mirrors my perception and opinion about your archetype submission.
Conceptual Mojo (CM): 1, Wizards and Gunslingers don't go well together in my book, it is an odd match, like a bard-astronaut or zombie acrobat. (it could perhaps work as a sorcerer Archetype)
Mechanical Mojo (MM): 2, He is slinging those wands, but the references and shout outs make me groan.
Mechanical Execution (ME): 1. Missing on many marks. Very front loaded, basically a new arcane school, very powerful in places
Final note: Gunslingers are cool ( and would have been a good archetype) wandslingers aren't.
Total Score: 2.449
Don't. This isn't a time for competitors to banter and engage the voters in conversation. In my opinion, you're toeing the line of a DQ here, Joshua. Either copy/paste the provided statement for commentary in the rules or stay out of your submission thread while the voting is underway.
I seem to recall defending YOUR ability to banter in 2009, Neil. I recall a lot of GULGA CENCH posts in character, albeit after the round was over, and defended their relevance as an indicator as to whether you could write dialogue or create interesting characters. Obviously, the situations aren't quite the same and I agree with the idea of being cautious, but still...
There's a lot of mechanical issues here, but at least it's interesting and flavorful, unlike a lot of the bland submissions I've read thus far.
The front-loading's really not an issue: multi-classing something with a wizard designed around DPR role is crazy talk. It'll be a wasted level down the line. The fact that the DC is going to destroy the utility of many wands while being insanely expensive by the mid-game is a problem too. On the other hand, the low DC's might be like all the missed shots in westerns.
I'd have said that your first level ability was to take a stick and "charge" it each day with a limited number of charges that scaled in number as you leveled in the class. You start game with a six-shooter, not a 50-shooter then.
This one's on the revisit pile.
As someone who has unfortunately perpetrated some nefarious easter egging in my early writing work, I had to learn the valuable lesson:
Don't try to be clever. Try to be awesome.
Da Da Da Da Da Da Da Da BATMAN!! :)
I can see myself playing a wandslinger. I like anyone willing to push at the the tropes of heroic fantasy and try something different. If this round had word limits of maybe a 1,000 or so I think Josh would not have taken some of the short cuts he did; and worked out some of the mechanical wrinkles in his write up.
I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do in later rounds.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
I seem to recall defending YOUR ability to banter in 2009, Neil. I recall a lot of GULGA CENCH posts in character, albeit after the round was over, and defended their relevance as an indicator as to whether you could write dialogue or create interesting characters. Obviously, the situations aren't quite the same and I agree with the idea of being cautious, but still...
Don't. This isn't a time for competitors to banter and engage the voters in conversation. In my opinion, you're toeing the line of a DQ here, Joshua. Either copy/paste the provided statement for commentary in the rules or stay out of your submission thread while the voting is underway.
I'd add that we've had haiku, plushie links, limericks, puns (Scoobie Doobie Lahamu comes to mind.)
Oh boy Joshua, I’m sure by now you can see what people dislike about this. This is one of those things you could have expected. Ever read an internet forum about whether gunpowder in a fantasy game is a good thing? Or psionics, etc. Topics like this are landmines and you have hit one.
Even the gunslinger playtest doesn’t help because it makes your idea look less original.
I hope you enjoy the RPG Superstar experience, good luck.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I'm not as bothered by the Western feel and ability titles of this archetype as some. We're writing for a company that is about to publish a gunslinger and a samurai in the same book. A lot of the Paizo staff and fanbase enjoy a gritty pulp feel to their gaming. Also, while this presentation might be very WSestern, not every character using it has to be. The concept is also very Harry Potter, yes?
I am more troubled by the lack of balance and mechanical knowledged displayed in the design. At my table, Quickdraw allows you to pull anything readily available that you can use in combat. But that's a home rule. You have to observe rules as written during design, and Quickdraw is no help. Also, if you're gong to allow the wand to be a club, you ought to capitalize on that theme. Make it (Su), so that magic protects the wand and packs a whallup. Give the wand an enhancement bonus at later levels equal to the spell level trapped in the wand. Allow at even higher levels, the chance to spend extra charges to hit better or deal more damage, and allow the wand to cast a spell on a critical hit if used as a melee weapon. These features can be spread over the 20 levels of the class, keep a theme, and give it some balanced oomph. You can keep your first level ability by replacing the arcane bond or maybe even replacing the school feature. Of course, you have to be careful that replacing the school isn't really just inventing a new school.
And, unrelated, I don't think it's unfair for you to make pithy comments that recall your Western schtick, but I do think when a judge advises you against it you shouldn't argue. And I think criticism about Neil's banter is unfounded, since his comments as Cench were in other folks' threads, or were palced after voting concluded.
This archetype reminds me of Wile E. Coyote. Not that this is trying to model that particular suuuuper genius. But that this archetype does something crazy cool, then immediately falls off a cliff or gets hit by an oncoming train. This is a mess.
There's a kernel of a good idea here. Deep. Way, way down deep.
I wanted to really like this, but to echo some of the other comments, it does appear to be a bit front loaded and a bit tongue-in-cheek. But if I really wanted to make this tongue-in-cheek, I would have refashioned this archetype to fit on a bard chassis and have some sort of perform function going on where he's using the wands as if he were scoring instructions to an (invisible) orchestra and/or choir as part of his bardic performances in addition some of the action offered here.
Wandslinger (Wizard)
I completely concur with everything the judges said on this one.
This feels like an attempt to maximize the wizard's ability in combat, using wands as a trade off for abilities that may not have been significantly important before.
I feel it's too front loaded, tempting players to just pick up a level in this for the extra oomf they would get.
I think it has potential, but balance is key and this doesn't feel balanced. I would have spread out the abilities more, and focused more on being a wand-master.
A free wand at 1st level is WAY too much to give in exchange for Arane Bond. I would have much rather seen a unique use of Arcane Bond with a wand.
Finally, this feels like it would be better suited as a form of Prestige Class. You wouldn't really become specialized in the use of wands until higher level when you were able to possess a few of them.
Just my thoughts,
Ken
I have a few issues with this archtype and some of them have been mentioned. This being said however I really like this class. I am not a fan of Magic Users as a whole with the exception of the Bard but I really enjoyed this one.
I would want to play this class despite some of the front end loading and the apparent nullification of the Quick and the Dead.