|
I am working on a Gladiator version of a Ranger base class. I was discussing it with a friend and he asked why I was writing it as an alternate class rather than an archetype.
My answer, which kind of started to make me reconsider, was that with the archetypes, they are still at the heart of it the original class. My feeling was that the Ranger is a nature warrior, but then we have the Urban Ranger. I started to feel, well, maybe a Ranger is a warrior that excels in his environment.
Now this is where my logic ran me in circles. Isn't a Gladiator a warrior whose environment is the arena? In the arena, (and usually in one on one combat) the gladiator is king.
I also felt that I would be replacing a large number of Ranger class abilities. At what point does it cease to be an archetype and proceed to be an alternate class?
Community opinions and Developer opinions are welcome!
I have to say, I'm not thinking ranger when I think gladiator. At his heart, the fighter is the guy that is just dedicated to learning about fighting. That's why he gets armor training, weapon training, and extra combat feats.
The ranger is a guy that's good at scouting, knowing his environment, learning about his enemies, and fighting them.
Now, where I see gladiators at are, they are guys that learn about fighting, but not so much to do it efficiently, but impressively. Rangers are the antithesis of slow killing. Their job is more or less to kill something well.
So I'm thinking if the gladiator learns about fighting, but mainly to do it impressively, that still leans towards the fighter being its core.
Hopefully that kind of convoluted logic will be minimally helpful . . . ;)
Honestly at this point I am unsure what is an archetype or alt class anymore.
The AGP used to be a good guide line. An alt class was a vast rewrite that effected most if not all the powers at every level and clocked in at a bit over 2k words .
An Archetype changed a few things to changing half the class and tended 450 to a bit over 1k words.
So going by that anything that changed less then 10 would prob fall under archetype while anything that more or less reworked most or all of the class would be an alt class.
But that is no longer the case, so honestly I have no clue what the point of having an archetype/alt distinction is really
I do think you picked the wrong class, this seems more a fighters area then a ranger.
I would have to picture a Gladiator as being a fighter who excels at controlling a fight more than efficiently killing his opponents. Lots of trips, disarms, intimidation, etc.
I could maybe see a points pool feature that gives him Points based on how flashy his kills are or something. Or bonuses based on wether or not a crowd is watching, but that all seems really, really conditional to the particular game you're running.
What about spells? That wouldn't seem right for a Gladiator, IMO.
I saw the gladiator as a barbarian arch-type, with a little bit of rogue thrown in, but that's just IMO.
I can actually make a case for gladiator as a type of bard, given that his real profession is entertainer and not soldier. He's not just supposed to kill, he's supposed to do so in an entertaining, crowd-pleasing way.I don't think the bard rules would make it easy to create one, though, so I'd fall back to fighter and create a lot of unique alternate feats for the gladiator archetype emphasizing classic, if non-optimal gladiator weapons like the net and trident, silly but striking types of armor, and cinematic if impractical moves and killing combos.
Are you trying to make a gladiator for D&D world or are you trying to emulate Roman gladiators?
If it is D&D world, you can pretty much have anything goes. I don't know that you need a class for it, unless you want to replace a few fighter feats with class abilities for handling really goofy stuff (water, animals, group on group).
If you are trying to emulate Roman gladiators, well, there were four or five standard types. A couple of them didn't get heavy armor. They would need some class abilities in exchange for those. For example, the type that was unarmored, and used a net and trident is a little hard to make with the normal rules and would need some development.
Savage Barbarian!
|
|
It seems pretty obvious that people are not seeing the angle that I was approaching for the gladiator. Guiltily, I have been watching Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and the doctore is what I would picture as a Ranger style gladiator.
In my view, there are fighters, rogues, and barbarians that might be gladiators in name, but the gladiator class is the one that lives for the arena. It is about studying your opponent, knowing the tricks to defeat them, and such.
I was planning to drop spellcasting, hunter's bond, camouflage, hide in plain sight, though for much of it, I have yet to figure out what I will replace it with.
Now, if anyone wants to see my train of thought, I have my work on google docs, though please bear in mind that it is currently a work in progress. Send me your e-mail and I would be happy to share it with you.
|
|
Are you trying to make a gladiator for D&D world or are you trying to emulate Roman gladiators?
If it is D&D world, you can pretty much have anything goes. I don't know that you need a class for it, unless you want to replace a few fighter feats with class abilities for handling really goofy stuff (water, animals, group on group).
If you are trying to emulate Roman gladiators, well, there were four or five standard types. A couple of them didn't get heavy armor. They would need some class abilities in exchange for those. For example, the type that was unarmored, and used a net and trident is a little hard to make with the normal rules and would need some development.
And I was trying to create "Combat Style" feat groups for those, but I ended up sticking with the Secutor, Murmillo, and Thracian.
But in there, I think one of them had Exotic Weapon Proficiency as a Combat Style Feat. ^_^
On the one hand, gladiators came from all walks of life: soldiers, farmers, sailors, etc. So it seems to me that this is a person who already had training and was then taught fighting or just more about fighting.
On the other hand, as mentioned, the new gladiator-in-training could have been a farmer who had never fought before. So he is learning something new.
On the other, other hand, what he is learning is to fight.
To me, gladiator is an archetype. He's a fighter with the accent on a few specific moves, or who specializes in certain weapons, but a fighter nonetheless. In fact, a very pure fighter in a very pure fighting environment. In my mind, there's no difference between an arena and a training circle, except the roar of the crowd.
Guiltily, I have been watching Spartacus: Blood and Sand. . .
Me too.
There's been discussion of a combat maneuver based fighting class, and I that would be great. Also, I think "Gladiator" is the perfect name for such a class. When you're using combat maneuvers, you're not just killing your opponent as quickly as possible. You're manipulating, controlling, and disabling him, until he's at your mercy. That's perfect for someone who's trying to both win a fight, and put on a good show.
Honestly, anybody can be thrown into an arena and voila! You have a gladiator! Very few people were actually raised for that purpose.
I personally think it should be a prestige class that, as others have said, supports combat maneuvers, with perhaps some "appeal to the crowd" morale support.
Not to say that you can't build a class from the ground up, though.
|
|
Honestly, anybody can be thrown into an arena and voila! You have a gladiator! Very few people were actually raised for that purpose.
I personally think it should be a prestige class that, as others have said, supports combat maneuvers, with perhaps some "appeal to the crowd" morale support.
Not to say that you can't build a class from the ground up, though.
Yeah, that is the conclusion that I came to. Great minds do think alike... Thanks for the input!
Here is my new line between archetype and alternate class. Will you ever want to make an archetype of it? I could very easily see the gladiator as an alternate class that then has archetypes based on the different classical fighting styles for example.
Figures, the one time I don't copy my text before I submit the post...
Anyways, I can see Gladiator as its own class to start off in unless your starting at level 0. There aren't classes like conscript, apprentice, acolyte, urchin, etc.
I'm not seeing Ranger as a class to base it on though. Rangers strike me as wanting to take a foe down quick and clean, not draw things out. Fighter I could see. I think Barbarian might be better though. Change Rage to give them +4 to Con & Cha, let them stay fully aware of their actions (can make skill checks, etc.), and give them a bonus to CMB & CMD to represent the Gladiator hamming things up and drawing out a fight.
Gladiators are showman combatants. I know this won't be popular, but I would say bard.
|
|
Gladiators are showman combatants. I know this won't be popular, but I would say bard.
Actually someone echoed that sentiment early on in the thread. After much thought, I realized that many gladiators are thrust into the role. So it made sense to make it a Prestige Class, so that anyone could become one. Essentially, as I mentioned earlier, a gladiator could be anything, a rogue, a fighter, a bard, but then the Prestige Class is the one that longs to be a Champion of the Arena. Cheesy? Maybe, but I like it.
I'm not seeing Ranger as a class to base it on though. Rangers strike me as wanting to take a foe down quick and clean, not draw things out. Fighter I could see. I think Barbarian might be better though. Change Rage to give them +4 to Con & Cha, let them stay fully aware of their actions (can make skill checks, etc.), and give them a bonus to CMB & CMD to represent the Gladiator hamming things up and drawing out a fight.
See, when I was re-doing the Ranger, I changed up the bonuses that he got, and added CMB for favored enemy. Like Blueluck and Mahorfeus mentioned, combat maneuvers lend greatly to controlling the battle, and giving yourself enough time to appeal to the crowd. Couple that with a Favored Defense feat, and you have a character that can up his AC to effective levels even while fighting with little or no armor!
Here is my new line between archetype and alternate class. Will you ever want to make an archetype of it? I could very easily see the gladiator as an alternate class that then has archetypes based on the different classical fighting styles for example.
That was my issue. I simply could not see too many occurrences of someone starting as a gladiator from the get go, unless he was essentially a commoner who was thrust in the role from very young, or someone that was bread for the role. I still would like to make an archetype/alternate class for it someday, but for what I need it for now, a prestige class fits better.
Thanks again to everyone that posted! I wish that I could have had some developer input too, but that in no way diminishes all that you guys have given me! Mahalo!
Gladiators are showman combatants. I know this won't be popular, but I would say bard.Actually someone echoed that sentiment early on in the thread. After much thought, I realized that many gladiators are thrust into the role. So it made sense to make it a Prestige Class, so that anyone could become one. Essentially, as I mentioned earlier, a gladiator could be anything, a rogue, a fighter, a bard, but then the Prestige Class is the one that longs to be a Champion of the Arena. Cheesy? Maybe, but I like it.
@AvalonXQ: Bard makes a lot of sense in a gladitorial setting that was like later periods of the Roman Empire. IIRC they staged fights with bladders of pigs blood and other theatrics so you were less likely to loose popular gladiators and such. When it's more life or death then I'd say basing it on a more on a fighting class.
@Aeshuura: Keep in mind any one could also become a gladiator just by multiclassing into a Gladiator class. Also keep in mind, I'm not a fan of PrCs so I'm biased.
|
|
@Aeshuura: Keep in mind any one could also become a gladiator just by multiclassing into a Gladiator class. Also keep in mind, I'm not a fan of PrCs so I'm biased.
I know what you mean about PrCs, but in my mind, I hated the PrC for the sake of PrC. If there is a real reason and prestige behind the PrC, then by all means, introduce it, but don't just throw them out willy-nilly to every Tom, Richard, and Harrison! It should be difficult to become, or else an archetype would work fine.
I would still like to revisit my archetype idea, in fact I would like to make gladiator archetypes for several different classes. Namely, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger (I know, I know, but I still have that idea in my head!), Rogue, and Bard.
Barbarian with Intimidating Prowess, Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, and Persuasive. High Intimidate and diplomacy skills.
Gladiator - done.
We don't need Paizo to tell us what a Gladiator is. There are several ways to build a Gladiator within the current framework.
Just like the ninja and samurai.
Maybe a monk build where the Ki are like glory points. A little too Street Fighter TSTG, tho.
|
|
Barbarian with Intimidating Prowess, Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, and Persuasive. High Intimidate and diplomacy skills.
Gladiator - done.
We don't need Paizo to tell us what a Gladiator is. There are several ways to build a Gladiator within the current framework.
Just like the ninja and samurai.
Maybe a monk build where the Ki are like glory points. A little too Street Fighter TSTG, tho.
To be fair, I wasn't asking for Paizo to tell me how to make a gladiator. I was asking if an archetype or an alternate class would fit better. Either way, I came to may conclusion. Your point is well taken, though, that there are many ways within the framework that suit the gladiator just fine. I was just looking for one in particular.
Thanks!
I know what you mean about PrCs, but in my mind, I hated the PrC for the sake of PrC. If there is a real reason and prestige behind the PrC, then by all means, introduce it, but don't just throw them out willy-nilly to every Tom, Richard, and Harrison! It should be difficult to become, or else an archetype would work fine.
I would still like to revisit my archetype idea, in fact I would like to make gladiator archetypes for several different classes. Namely, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger (I know, I know, but I still have that idea in my head!), Rogue, and Bard.
Some of the PrCs I could get behind but it always seemed like people would only take them until they got X ability and then switch to something else. This always bothered me because it seem like attaining that Prestige class should be an accomplishment in and of itself. Also Gladiator seems to broad to me to be a PrC. I always saw them being more specific like an Arcane casting Gladiator or something.
I can't see Gladiator as an Alt of Ranger but you can, so I say run with it!
|
|
Some of the PrCs I could get behind but it always seemed like people would only take them until they got X ability and then switch to something else. This always bothered me because it seem like attaining that Prestige class should be an accomplishment in and of itself. Also Gladiator seems to broad to me to be a PrC. I always saw them being more specific like an Arcane casting Gladiator or something.I can't see Gladiator as an Alt of Ranger but you can, so I say run with it!
Which is why I made the PrC a sort of champion of champions type of deal. I don't know. It didn't come out quite the way I wanted it to. But I think that I got some interesting elements, class-wise. It will just take implementation and a little testing to see if it is too overpowering.