|
MASTER:
Medium BAB
Two Good Saves
Six Skills per Level: Player chooses ten Skills as Class Skills
At 1st, 2nd and every even Level the Master gains a Bonus Feat. This Feat cannot be a "Fighter Feat."
At 1st Level the Master gains one Spell Known (1st Lvl) that he or she can cast as a Spell-like Ability three times per day. This spell may be chosen from the Sorcerer/Wizard or Cleric Spell list. Once selected it can never be changed for another spell (except via a Wish). Spell casting is Charisma-based.
At 3rd and every odd level through 17th, the Master can select an additional Spell Known at advancing spell levels -- 2nd @ Third Lvl, 3rd @ 5th Lvl, 4th @ 7th Lvl,...
At 20th Level the Master can Mimic any "Special" Class Feature of another Class as a Swift Action, 3 times per day for a total of 20 rounds; these rounds do not have to be consecutive and the Master can end the effect as a No Action.
For example, A Master can Mimic a Ranger's Favored Enemy, gaining that effect from a 20th Lvl Ranger -- or a Rogue's Improved Evasion or Sneak Attack,... a Monk's Movement Bonus or AC Bonus,... a single Hex from a Witch or the ability to make an Alchemist's Bomb.
All special qualities use the Master's Level as Class Level and only ONE Special Class Feature can be used at a time. So if using a Ranger's Favored Enemy the Master gains only one Favored Enemy, but gains that effect as per a 20th Lvl Ranger (+10 bonus).
This Feat cannot be a "Fighter Feat."
Do you mean Combat Feat? If so, say that instead. If you mean feats like Weapon Specialization, just take it out entirely (the feat specifies fighter level x in the prereqs).
This concept is very unfocused and the only unique ability is at 20th level. Aside from the spell-like abilities, what does this class do in combat?
What did you have in mind for this class and why would anyone want to play this before anything else?
Proficiencies? Arcane spells failure yes/no? "Full arcane caster" (well Sorcerer/Wizard list) with medium BaB?
The capstone ability is really interesting. Maybe incorporate it more in the class, and earlier? For example, they can emulate a class ability a number of times per day equal to 1/2 their level + their Intelligence modifier. Activating this ability is an immediate action and its duration is one round.
They can emulate a class feature that is gained by the sample class equal to half the master's level. At 11th level, they can emulate the class ability that is gained at the sample class's level -2. At 20th level, the master can emulate the abilities of a class equal to their level.
Also, you might want to consider allowing the master to select a rogue talent in place of a bonus feat.
And give them at least 12 skills as class skills. Or even all skills as class skills. They don't have any special attacks, so giving them a lot to do outside of combat would be a good balancing factor.
|
|
Yes, no "Combat Feat" allowed. I guess I just have gotten used to calling them "Fighter Feats."
No Spell failure chance.
I don't think having one spell each level is unbalancing -- it's not too different from all the Medium BAB Classes that have 1st-6th Level Spell lists such as the Bard, Alchemist and Inquisitor.
Ah, yes a Rogue Talent and/or a Feat, thanks.
spelllike abilities don't use material right? So you can have wish, and change your spells known for free?
Your class seems weirdly simple to me, that's not bad, but it lacks any flavour, what do you expect him to do? Cast a few control spells and charge into battle?
Edit: also your capstone ability is stupidly powerful, mainly because you can take other capstone abilities of other classes. I would limit it up to lvl 19 abilities, and even then I wonder what counts as class feature.
|
|
Very good point on the Capstone -- I guess it HAS to be 19th Level.
Okay, if not Spell-like Abilities -- cuz the PC HAS to have material components -- I guess just Spells, spontaneously cast like Sorcerer & Oracle. Also, a DM may have to create a Spell List and remove things like Wish -- To be able to cast that at 17th Level 3 times per day is a bit much.
The inspiration behind the Class was just to make a Class with LOTS of Feats, like a Fighter -- but not a Fighter.
It doesn't need Fluff for me; I don't like pre-Fluff Classes. FTR, CLR, ROG, WIZ -- there's not really much in the way of pre-Fluff for these, at least, compared to Ranger, Paladin, Inquisitor and Witch. (Someone else doesn't get to tell me what "Paladin" means, for example.) This Class is the PC Class equivalent of the Expert NPC Class; I call it "Master" because that's the next step up from "Expert."
I think that for comparrison one must balance this Class with other Medium BAB Classes -- Rogues don't charge into battle either, for example.
I kind of picture this type of class as the Maesters from GRRM's BoFaI. A non-magical, non-combative skill monkey. Maybe give them 8 + Intelligence modifier skill points, all skills as class skills, bonus non-combat feats or rogue talents at 1, 2, and all even levels, and maybe special class abilities at the odd levels.
Things like trapfinding, slippery mind, track, skill re-rolls, etc.
Maybe special abilities like the ability to qualify for racial feats without being a member of that race; I can see this guy having the Well Prepared feat, for example.
This is like a sorcerer that trades spells known for higher level spells.
IMO SLA's are better than spells:
1. No somatic or verbal components (or XP or material, which you've addressed)
2. No counterspelling (either way)
3. Use a standard action by default, which means "out of combat" spells are useable in combat...
I'll have to look at the non-combat feat selection to determine if the feat progression puts the class over the top.
Why don't you allow spells to be switched out? This basically means that he will suck at early levels or not have enough useful spells at later levels (IMO).
I kind of picture this type of class as the Maesters from GRRM's BoFaI.
GRRM's BoFaI = George R. R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire"?
I kind of picture this type of class as the Maesters from GRRM's BoFaI.GRRM's BoFaI = George R. R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire"?
Yeah. I always get fire and ice mixed up.
Well, their order.
MASTER:
Medium BAB
Two Good Saves
Six Skills per Level: Player chooses ten Skills as Class SkillsAt 1st, 2nd and every even Level the Master gains a Bonus Feat. This Feat cannot be a "Fighter Feat."
At 1st Level the Master gains one Spell Known (1st Lvl) that he or she can cast as a Spell-like Ability three times per day. This spell may be chosen from the Sorcerer/Wizard or Cleric Spell list. Once selected it can never be changed for another spell (except via a Wish). Spell casting is Charisma-based.
At 3rd and every odd level through 17th, the Master can select an additional Spell Known at advancing spell levels -- 2nd @ Third Lvl, 3rd @ 5th Lvl, 4th @ 7th Lvl,...
At 20th Level the Master can Mimic any "Special" Class Feature of another Class as a Swift Action, 3 times per day for a total of 20 rounds; these rounds do not have to be consecutive and the Master can end the effect as a No Action.
For example, A Master can Mimic a Ranger's Favored Enemy, gaining that effect from a 20th Lvl Ranger -- or a Rogue's Improved Evasion or Sneak Attack,... a Monk's Movement Bonus or AC Bonus,... a single Hex from a Witch or the ability to make an Alchemist's Bomb.
All special qualities use the Master's Level as Class Level and only ONE Special Class Feature can be used at a time. So if using a Ranger's Favored Enemy the Master gains only one Favored Enemy, but gains that effect as per a 20th Lvl Ranger (+10 bonus).
...
I'm sorry Ray, but I feel you took the "Master" right out of the class with the first class ability: Spells...of any kind.
What is the point of basing a hero class on the expert if they immediately junk their SKILLS for the cheap way out. How about abilities that enhance their skills, and allow them to achieve greatness through their EXPERTISE.
Unfortunately, it is debatable whether a purely skill based class can succeed as an adventurer. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!
I think you are spot on with the masses of bonus feats which cannot be Combat Feats. That ensures that the PC will have some other interesting things going on. But they need more.
I agree with SmiloDan that the capstone may hold the key. Some version of that may be spread through the levels to form the combat backbone of the class.
Alternatively, or in addition, a progression of Master Talents could supplement the bonus feats.
-two coppers
Maybe you could base the class on Bard, but use Craft or Profession rather than Perform as the focus?
Maybe you could base the class on Bard, but use Craft or Profession rather than Perform as the focus?
Or Knowledge!!! :-)
Maybe look at the 3.5 Archivist for inspiration.
I think a non-spellcasting, skill-based, non-sneak attacker might be a great class. A combo of a sage, Sherlock Holmes, MacGuyver, Dr. Who, Inara Sera, Locke Lamora, pretty much most mad scientists and politicians, etc. etc.
You still haven't answered what the **** are the weapons and armor proficiencies.
You still haven't answered what the **** are the weapons and armor proficiencies.
Firearms.
@SmiloDan
What do you think the Master does in combat?
|
|
Why don't you allow spells to be switched out?
Didn't much think about it -- it seemed to me that that feature should be "special" for Sorcerers & Oracles (true casters).
I think it makes a Player running a Master be more careful in spell selection -- but I haven't made any builds for this Class at any level so I dunno.
@SmiloDan
What do you think the Master does in combat?
Fight Defensively while flanking and aiding another? ;-)
I don't know.
|
|
It is debatable whether a purely skill based class can succeed as an adventurer. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try!
I think you are spot on with the masses of bonus feats which cannot be Combat Feats. That ensures that the PC will have some other interesting things going on. But they need more.
Well, the Skills aspect of the Class just seemed to make sense for a "lots of Feats" Class with nothing else.
And as far as the name, "Master" -- well, I just thought it was kinda like an Expert with Feats, and thus playable as a PC. The concept wasn't originally intended as an upgrade for the Expert but as a Class with lots of Feats, designed as per the Fighter.
. . . . That being said, once I looked at the Class, lots of Feats and Skills, I realized two things: First, that it's too obvious a "Dip" Class -- take one Level, get a Feat and choose a bunch of Skills you want to be Class Skills. Heck, the Fighter is still bad enough at that, despite Paizo's desperate attempt at redesign for the new rules-set.
Second, it still seemed a bit weak in theory. I figured if I added Spells to it it would make it stronger (playable) and remove the "this Class screams "dipper" element.
But I didn't put much thought in the Spell design aspect of it. I just figured one spell at each Spell Level would be interesting enough to play and encouraging enough to continue to take Levels in.
|
|
Alternatively, or in addition, a progression of Master Talents could supplement the bonus feats.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen on my end -- it requires WAY too much work. Which is to say that it requires some work, which is WAY too much for me.
I'm sure the reason I designed spells as "one every Spell Level" instead of "here's Spells Level 1-6 and a chart" -- like the Bard, Alchemist, Summoner & Inquisitor, is because it requires some work -- WAY to much for me.
|
|
You still haven't answered what the **** are the weapons and armor proficiencies.
Yeah I never think about that kinda stuff -- I don't have any care about it. I think copying the Bard's or Rogue's is a good idea. Or maybe the Alchemist's. Someone else can look and make an argument for the best choice; I don't much care, personally.
But you're right, it should be designed.
Probably all simple weapons and light armor, but not shields.
Armor Proficiency (Light, Medium, and Heavy), Martial Weapon Proficieny, and Shield Proficiency are Combat Feats, but the master can select them with their regular feats.
|
|
What do you think the Master does in combat?
.
.Fight Defensively while flanking and aiding another?
I don't know.
.
.I hadn't thought of that, either -- I guess the question can be thrown at a couple of the other Medium BAB Classes, Inquisitor, for example -- he's in the same boat, BAB-wise as the "Master" but unlike the Rogue (Sneak Attack), Alchemist (Bombs), Summoner (Eidolon) or Monk (Flurry of Blows), the "Master" doesn't have anything that makes him "stand" as a secondary fighter.
But I don't know how much (if any) of a problem this is. NONE of the medium BAB Classes can be treated as primary fighters without very specific builds. How many times have we seen (usually from inexperienced Players) Monks, Druids and Bards get clobbered because the Player throws them into combat as if it were a Full BAB fighter?
Maybe build your Master as a reach weapon, disarm fighter.
Maybe build your Master as a ranged weapon fighter.
Maybe build your Master with Spring Attack.
Maybe build your Master with Spell use -- remember the Feat Expanded Arcana which gives you an Extra Spell Known!
But you're right, the Class certainly seems more of a "squishy" than a typical Medium BAB Class (well, except for Bard, but, really, who would actually play a Bard; they're so pathetic? ;)
The reach disarm/trip idea sounds like a cool idea, especially since a master will presumably be smart enough for Combat Expertise.
Even the bard can buff himself.
The master may need some kind of combat oomph. Maybe look at the Smart Hero from d20 Modern for ideas.
who would actually play a Bard; they're so pathetic?
Don't be so quick to judge, I've seen and played some pretty kick ass bards before. While they may suck individually, they really are the ultimate third (or fifth) wheel; between inspire courage and haste they make high BAB class heavy parties tear twice as many orifices in combat. Even the mages don't mind having him around, as letting the bard be the buffer frees up spells that can be better spent elsewhere. They make everyone better and can shore up any roll the party is lacking.
If I had to choose one, I'd take a bard over a rogue any day of the week.
On the other had, if you mean fluff-wise, then yeah the bard is hands-down the most pathetic class in the game.