Mechanically, your archetype is really sub-par. An Urban Ranger does what the Saboteur does, but better.
-Matt
This is the Liberator of Archetypes: solid flavor, perfectly themed abilities, low utility.
You have my vote sir.
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7
|
Good Idea, good implementation. This archetype really turns the ranger upside down, context-wise. Only useful in certain types of adventures, but IMO that's OK for an archetype.
With a few interesting skill choices, I could see this as a sapper / sapeur as much as a saboteur.
Voted.
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
I kind of get an "eco-terrorist" feel from this archetype, which fits well with the Ranger and not necessarily a Rogue. I can envision the Saboteur using his sabotage to defend nature itself, affecing not only seige engines but other "machines" and trappings of technology like constructs that deforest swaths of land in a single pass etc. I kind of like this one, although it is very specific.
Saboteur (Ranger)
I think this is a very well written archetype. Personally, I'm not excited about the concept, but that's just me.
Good job!
Ken
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
This is the Liberator of Archetypes: solid flavor, perfectly themed abilities, low utility.
You have my vote sir.
I was trying to figure out what the saboteur had in common with The Liberator...
I really wanted to like this one. It was well thought out and tight. My issue with this is class choice. I wonder if Rouge would have been a better base for this.
I would not want to play this class.
Just wanted to thank everyone who voted for the saboteur. We'll see tomorrow if they were enough! If I didn't earn your vote, I hope to wow you next round if i advance. I will come back in a day or two to provide a play by play breakdown of the saboteur.
Mechanically, your archetype is really sub-par. An Urban Ranger does what the Saboteur does, but better.
-Matt
Voting is done I know but I really have to disagree. The Urban Ranger's stealth abilities are mainly restricted to cities and urban environments, while the Saboteur makes full use of a normal ranger's favored terrain. It even makes a high level saboteur more dangerous and effective at his job.
Voting is done I know but I really have to disagree. The Urban Ranger's stealth abilities are mainly restricted to cities and urban environments, while the Saboteur makes full use of a normal ranger's favored terrain. It even makes a high level saboteur more dangerous and effective at his job.Mechanically, your archetype is really sub-par. An Urban Ranger does what the Saboteur does, but better.
-Matt
Yes, thank you. I hope to post an overly long detailed breakdown of the saboteur this weekend after my nefarious villain is submitted and I hope it will prove insightful if to future contestants if they include the archetype next year (but who knows what those Paizo devils up their sleeves :) !).
I really like this archetype. I had a similar idea using the fighter as the base and focusing on the siege engineer side. I am looking forward in seeing your villian in the next round.
Saboteur (Ranger)
Saboteurs mercilessly hunt down their foes and cripple the enemy’s means to wage war. Saboteurs harass invading armies by leaving cleverly hidden traps for unwary scouts and sneaking into the very midst of their opponents’ camps to sabotage their fortifications and siege engines.Class Skills: The saboteur’s class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Disable Device (Dex), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (history) (Int), Perception (Wis), Ride (Dex), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str). These replace the standard ranger class skills.
Skill Ranks Per Level: 6 + Int modifier.
Tamper (Ex) : At 1st level, a saboteur gets a +2 competence bonus on her Disable Device skill check when attempting to sabotage a simple device. At 11th level, the bonus increases to +4. This ability replaces wild empathy.
Improved Sunder (Ex) : A 3rd level saboteur’s engineering knowledge grants her Improved Sunder as a bonus feat, even if she does not meet the prerequisites. This ability replaces endurance.
Saboteur’s Cunning (Ex) : Starting at 4th level, a saboteur applies her favored enemy bonus to her Disable Device skill check to sabotage devices created by creatures of the selected type. Favored enemies suffer a negative penalty equal to the saboteur’s favored enemy bonus to their Perception and Disable Device skill checks to detect and disable a trap set by the saboteur. In addition, a saboteur applies her favored enemy bonus to her CMB when making a sunder attempt against a favored enemy. This ability replaces hunter’s bond.
Ingenuity (Ex) : When attempting to craft a trap, a 7th level saboteur can add ½ her Knowledge (engineering) skill bonus to the attempt. For every 5 that the saboteur beats the Craft (trap) DC, the saboteur raises both the Perception and the Disable Device skill check for the trap by 1. This ability replaces woodland stride.
Sabotage...
Ok, here's a breakdown to look at design choices/decisions. This isn't meant to be a defense of the Saboteur, but merely to explain the thinking that went behind the decisions made. Hopefully, this will prove useful to contestants in future Superstars if Paizo decides to do archetypes again. So here it goes:
Ranger or Rogue?- I never felt this was a rogue class, though a rogue has great disable device and trap skills. As I said in the opening description, the Saboteur harasses invading armies. I meant for these guys (or girls) to be able to survive out in the environment. They also have to be able to track scouts to ambush them, something that a rogue can't do. Also, I liked how they could use their favored enemy bonuses. Rangers know how to fight a particularly enemy, and saboteurs take it in a new extreme. I'm glad that the judges saw that in my presentation.
Before I go into the skills individually, I want to discuss mechanically as a whole how I picked and swapped abilities and why. Initially, I was trying to make a "sapper", a combat engineer that dealt with both defense and offense. But creating rules to fortify buildings and such was a real pain. Also, I initially thought about replacing favored terrain with some sort of rules for fighting in/around fortifications but then how do you describe fortifications? Is a dungeon a fortification? A tomb? Also, I knew that the saboteur, like many archetypes in the APG would be a little niche(who is going to play a Horse Lord in a dungeon campaign, or an archivist, or jungle druid, cutpurse, etc.) I think archetypes are as much a tool for the GM to craft a campaign than for the players. If the GM is going to play a military campaign than the saboteur is great. If the campaign is a dungeon delve, play a regular ranger. Easy. But even with that in mind, I realized I didn't want to totally nerf the ranger. I needed to keep it's core class but replace certain abilities that were thematically linked with new ones that were thematically linked. The double edged sword with a ranger is that unlike many other fighting classes, they have a lot of special abilities. It gives them more versatility and more to work with but you have to be more careful with what you take away. So, I decided to go after some of the Ranger's animal/nature skills but keep his favored enemies, terrain, and tracking intact. So I removed a lot of the things like Handle Animals/Wild Empathy, etc. Yeah, I had to remove evasion, but that didn't detract from the ranger hunting down and killing his enemies. So with that idea established, it made it much easier to decide what to lose and where to add it.
Now onto the skills. I removed wild empathy with tamper. Tamper isn't a strong ability, but it's replacing a 1st level ability, so a simple bonus I thought was justified. I amped it up at level 11 to give it more staying power in regards to usefulness. Now, I say "simple device." This is interesting and where we get into the gray unexplored rules area. The Corebook doesn't have a whole lot to say as far as sabotaging devices under the Disable Device skill description. It says you may disable simple devices such as wagon wheels and horse saddles with a DC 15 check. In the chart it gives a DC 25 difficulty to sabotage a complex clockwork device. And really, that's it. So, this something I would keep in my mind as I developed the other abilities.
Improved Sunder-nothing new here. I got rid of endurance and swapped it with a feat that fit thematically. Maybe rangers need endurance but the will have to pick it up on their own.
Saboteur's Cunning- Now here's an interesting one and one that probably did the most revision on. This was difficult because I had decided to remove Hunter's Bond and replace it with my own thing. Yet, Hunter's Bond is a pretty good ability so I would have to make something to replace it. I thought applying favored enemy bonuses to traps and such seemed like the right fit for a saboteur. Yet, they were also giving up either an animal companion or the ability to have their allies use half their favored enemy bonus. So that's where I decided to add in the sunder part. I figured, the other stuff wouldn't come into play as much so give them a little combat bonus to help. Was it enough? I think the campaign you play decides if it is enough.
Ingenuity- Someone mentioned the dread skill synergies from 3E. Yup, that somewhat inspired me on this. But realistically speaking, if you had engineering knowledge, you would probably build a better trap (unless you are Wile E. Coyote). I agree, I did double dip on the intelligence bonus, but with all the required stats a ranger needs (Dex, Con, Str, Wis for spells), intelligence may be second to last, but in a revision, I would probably tweak it slightly
And the last- Sabotage. Lots of things going on here and perhaps I could have been more clearer with how this worked. First of all, I said complex device because the Disable Device description says you can sabotage simple devices. So I said, well, know you can sabotage basically whatever you want and here's a DC for it. Also, the DD skill description mentions the needing 5 or better to hide evidence of tampering. I wanted to ramp that up a bit. The way the ability reads, is that the saboteur can disable a complex device and if she beats it by five or more so there is no evidence of tampering she can modify the range. What I meant for this skill was that the saboteur had two choices, disable the device so it could fall apart later per the DD skill rules or modify the range so it hurts the enemy instead. At that point I could have been a little more clear that there were really two options. To save on words, I used a semi-colon and started with "she can" and therefore the impression I got from people was that the general consensus was that she only modified the range and not destroyed the device. I thought it would be kind of cool to see a wall of orcs preparing to charge a wall, they let lose their catapults and kathunk, rocks go flying into their own troops. But causing them to fall apart is good too.
I think that answered the general questions I saw about the saboteur. Thanks ago for your votes and if you still have questions, I will try to answer them.
BTW, besides Disable Device saying ´this skill lets you sabotage simple mechanical devices, such as catapults´, the place where Siege Engines are actually mentioned in the rules (Environment Chapter: Urban section, rather than the Equipment Chapter) actually specifies: ´Siege engines are treated as difficult devices (e.g. DC20) if someone tries to disable them using Disable Device.´, so that is definitely already covered by Disable Device already.
BTW, besides Disable Device saying ´this skill lets you sabotage simple mechanical devices, such as catapults´, the place where Siege Engines are actually mentioned in the rules (Environment Chapter: Urban section, rather than the Equipment Chapter) actually specifies: ´Siege engines are treated as difficult devices (e.g. DC20) if someone tries to disable them using Disable Device.´, so that is definitely already covered by Disable Device already.
That is good to know. And double checking, you are correct, they are listed as "difficult devices." So complex is still a 25. But you would still need to beat it by 5 to avoid notice of tampering. Honestly, in a revision, I probably wouldn't even include what the DC was, letting the GM decide what the DC was. The new Combat book also promises more siege engines. Maybe some will be more complex, maybe they won't. Saboteur may even become more relevant...I admit going out on a limb on that one. I figured the judges would call me on that if I was too far out of line. What I enjoy about this contest is digging deep into the rules and learning when I'm mistaken.
Reading even further, it mentions magic catapults, specifically a +1 flaming catapult. Much like rogues can disable magic devices and others can't, I would say the saboteur could disable magic siege engines when others couldn't.
From the way I read the Sabotage description, I assumed that when the saboteur beat the DC by 5 or more, she not only left no sign of her breaking it (so that it doesn't work/falls apart when fired), but also was able to decrease the max range in the case that someone undid or fixed the damage she had done.
Example: I sneak into the orc base and slip my way to their rock lobbas. Not only do I rig them to not work (loosening frame bolts, untying ropes, etc), but I also manage to set the catapult to constantly undershoot irregardless of my other tamperings. So, when the evil gnome mechanic decides to do one last check of his babies prior to action the the next day and discovers my handiwork, even if he fixes the blatant sabotage, it won't be until they're fired that anyone will realize that I've messed with the range settings.
In other words, Sabotage's ability to decrease range acts as a backup to the outright tampering. When the enemy combat engineer/mechanist/repairman undoes the tampering or does some on-the-spot battlefield maintenance (after the frame collapses or the rope snaps), the range is still messed with until that particular piece of sabotage is fixed.
Also, I assumed that the "more complex devices" meant that the Saboteur could disable Siege Towers, Trebuchets, Repeater Bolt Throwers, etc. Most catapults/rock lobbas or ballista/bolt throwers are pretty simple in construction and design, whereas a trebuchet or repeater ballista works off of more complex engineering principles.
Please take note that nothing says that the saboteur also can't gimmick with crossbow range increments (a ballista-in-minature).
From the way I read the Sabotage description, I assumed that when the saboteur beat the DC by 5 or more, she not only left no sign of her breaking it (so that it doesn't work/falls apart when fired), but also was able to decrease the max range in the case that someone undid or fixed the damage she had done.
Example: I sneak into the orc base and slip my way to their rock lobbas. Not only do I rig them to not work (loosening frame bolts, untying ropes, etc), but I also manage to set the catapult to constantly undershoot irregardless of my other tamperings. So, when the evil gnome mechanic decides to do one last check of his babies prior to action the the next day and discovers my handiwork, even if he fixes the blatant sabotage, it won't be until they're fired that anyone will realize that I've messed with the range settings.
In other words, Sabotage's ability to decrease range acts as a backup to the outright tampering. When the enemy combat engineer/mechanist/repairman undoes the tampering or does some on-the-spot battlefield maintenance (after the frame collapses or the rope snaps), the range is still messed with until that particular piece of sabotage is fixed.
Also, I assumed that the "more complex devices" meant that the Saboteur could disable Siege Towers, Trebuchets, Repeater Bolt Throwers, etc. Most catapults/rock lobbas or ballista/bolt throwers are pretty simple in construction and design, whereas a trebuchet or repeater ballista works off of more complex engineering principles.
Please take note that nothing says that the saboteur also can't gimmick with crossbow range increments (a ballista-in-minature).
Yes, you are spot on with your assessment. Since "tampering" was already part of the Disable Device skill check, I wanted to add a little extra to the new ability since it's replacing evasion which is one of my favorite abilities. That way, it gave the saboteur options. I believe that Ultimate Combat will have new siege engines so maybe I'll revisit this archetype when that book comes out.
Reading even further, it mentions magic catapults, specifically a +1 flaming catapult. Much like rogues can disable magic devices and others can't, I would say the saboteur could disable magic siege engines when others couldn't.
I wouldn`t say that. A magic trap isn`t a normal physical trap +1 flaming, but a purely magical construct (with whatever flavor wanted, e.g. glyphs triggered by programmed input, etc). Magic swords +1 flaming aren`t any different to Sunder beyond that they have higher hardness and HPs and need an equal + weapon, no class abilities or unique skills are needed (they can also be broken by STR checks 100% per normal).
Adding +1 flaming to a catapult doesn`t change it`s mode of operation at all, so being able mess with that mode of operation should be able to bypass a +1 flaming catapult just as easily as a mundane catapult... Now if you`re talking about PURELY MAGICAL siege engines, relying solely or primarily on magic for their prime function, then sure, I would agree.
Incidentally, I also read that section earlier, and I thought: +1 flaming catapults? +1d6+1 dmg? are they kidding? I mean, there`s certain enhancements that might be useful, Keen or Range or Seeking, but Flaming +1d6??? Bad example there :-)
Reading even further, it mentions magic catapults, specifically a [i]+1 flaming catapult[i/]. Much like rogues can disable magic devices and others can't, I would say the saboteur could disable magic siege engines when others couldn't.I wouldn`t say that. A magic trap isn`t a normal physical trap +1 flaming, but a purely magical construct (with whatever flavor wanted, e.g. glyphs triggered by programmed input, etc). Magic swords +1 flaming aren`t any different to Sunder beyond that they have higher hardness and HPs and need an equal + weapon, no class abilities or unique skills are needed (they can also be broken by STR checks 100% per normal).
Adding +1 flaming to a catapult doesn`t change it`s mode of operation at all, so being able mess with that mode of operation should be able to bypass a +1 flaming catapult just as easily as a mundane catapult... Now if you`re talking about PURELY MAGICAL siege engines, relying solely or primarily on magic for their prime function, then sure, I would agree.
Incidentally, I also read that section earlier, and I thought: +1 flaming catapults? +1d6+1 dmg? are they kidding? I mean, there`s certain enhancements that might be useful, Keen or Range or Seeking, but Flaming +1d6??? Bad example there :-)
I can see that in a 3rd edition Forgotten Realms adventure where magic was so prevalent, but not so much in Golarion.