I found this lvl 1-20 Invisible blade class while wandering the web, and it would fit a GMPC I'm working on.
Invisible blade by Pezmerga
(not me, all kudos goes to Pezmerga)
As the GM, I dont' want it to outshine the regular classes, while adding som sorely needed support.
I'm ofcourse offering them the class in this game (and future) if it's balanced.
My question is: Is it over/under powered, or is it fairly balanced?
The obvious flaw with the class is that Stealth is missing as a class skill (it does have HiPS at lvl 7), but that's easily corrected by removing Disable device and adding Stealth.
Thanks in advance for your input.
My first instinct is that it takes some of the best aspects of the fighter, monk, and of the rogue and combines them but there are subtle restrictions. It for instance only gets weapon training once, with no further increases. It has a slower sneak attack progression. It also is more or less restricted to normally inferior weapons (daggers and such). I would say it is definately a strong class, probably near or at the top of the list for a straight martial character. I dont think you need to drop disable device, just add stealth. It isnt the skill list that could potentially make the class overpowered. It is the loads of stuff it gets (seriously that is a very full progression chart).
This really inst a support class though, it is primarily there to do damage. Full BAB, several combat bonus feats (and free choice bonus feats), sneak attack. This thing is meant to stab things, repeatedly. Depending on party make up any combat characters (fighter, rogue, paladin, barbarian etc) could definately feel outshined. If optimized this class can do some viscious damamge. Mind you if it isn't optimized it could easily fade into the background of combat, feighting instead of full attacking and offering skills more then damage.
This really seems like a class that was built to fit a purpose to me. Like there was someone who wanted a character that didnt need armor, in an urban setting that could still hold his own in a fight and was roguelike. I dont know if it would or wouldn't fit your current game. It really depends on your party and your storyline/setting.
I agree that this class isn't a support class, but I never play casters when I run a GMPC. I just can't play casters continously well enough, and since I'm always the GM, I never get to practice except with enemy NPCs.
That is kind of beside the point since the group consists of a Rogue and a Urban ranger (Favored enemy: Humans). (I told them to make the pcs they wanted and that I'll modify the AP after their abilities).
We're playing a modified version of Curse of the Crimson Throne.
I was thinking about the progression chart and how to adjust it, beacuse i agree: It's very full.
How about this:
Level
2 - Remove TWF
5 - Remove Quick draw
9 - Remove Far shot
16 - Remove Bonus feat
That's four feats off the progression without creating dead levels and not much change to the "feel" of the class.
The next step down would maybe be to drop it to a medium BAB progression.
I dont think you need to drop the bab, and if you pull those things I think it would be ok. Hard to tell without actually building one and rolling some dice. But just out of curiosity, is there a reason you want this kind of character? Is the ranger an archer and you think you lack a frontliner? I mean you could easily park a straight fighter in there as an npc if you dont want to provide a caster, so I am wondering why this particular class? Is it just something you think you would like to play?
The reasons for this type of character class/changes are many:
1. We've actually played a few sessions and the characters are kind of set. Changing the character to a fighter, while sound from a party composition viewpoint, will require more metagaming than I'd prefer.
The character is established as a "roguelike character with a fondness for small blades".
2. They grew up together as Gaedren's Lambs and are all living on the shadier side of Korvosa. My players expressed interest in using "rogue-tactics" (stealth, ambushes etc.) and i want to accommodate them.
3. My player's characters are cousins and is used to working and fighting together. I want to let them flank and work their tactics togheter, while the npc should be more self-reliant, picking up stragglers and so on.
4. The player who plays the rogue usually plays casters, this is his first time playing Rogue, and I have been feeling that I'm steling his thunder by playing a character that is so similar even though we've chosen different archetypes. And I think he's feeling it too!
5. I know this type of character (feinting, sneak attacks etc). I could run it sleeping. So playing this type of character would allow me to give the enemies various fighting styles more focus.
Those are the main reasons that I want to use this class. It will allow me to diversify the group without changing the character and altering the story.
I will probably drop the feats and try it out, if it's still too strong, I'll drop the BAB as well.
This kind of "behind the scenes" changes has never been a problem in my group and i encourage my players to change if they feel like something doesn't fit the character, at least in the early levels.
BTW: Thanks for your input! :)
I originally made this class with a solo campaign in mind. I am anxious to hear any opinions on balance in a group setting though! Hope it works out for you. :)
I did intend for the class to have stealth and I edited the post on Giantitp forums.
I'll let you know how it goes! :)
Ok sounds good :)