At the risk of Sounding Stupid...Deconstruction of Character Classes


Homebrew and House Rules


My group and I have been moding character classes from the time of 2nd edition. First edition was fine the way it was (at the time) 'cause most of what you could do was limited to your imagination and die rolls. Things like that are now covered by feats.

Here is the rub. I have said it before and I will continue to say it. No matter how many classes and or Arch-types are made there will never be one to cover exactly what you have in mind.

Enter my problem. I say mine 'cause the others in my group either don't have the time or they don't have the patience. Instead of working it alone ('cause I know it is out there somewhere. I just haven't seen the signs directing people there) I figured I might be able to enlist the help of the knowledgeable people here.

In short...what equals what?

One feat = +2 to 2 skills
One skill rank = 1 language or a +1 modifier to ability (loose math seeing as how most feats grant a +1 themselves)

Any input would be helpful, or should I say any helpful input would be redundantly helpful?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You may be interested in reading this thread before starting such a massive work. You'll get the pros and cons of a class deconstruction/class builder.


Maxximilius wrote:
You may be interested in reading this thread before starting such a massive work. You'll get the pros and cons of a class deconstruction/class builder.

I see there is a thread that covers this...mostly. I also understand it is more art than science, but there does seem to be some science involved. Seeing as how this is more of House Rules, the art part can be handled in house. The science part is what I am interested in.


Okay, let's try a little at the time.

A fighter who only uses one or multiple shields...yes like Captain America.

And/Or a Fighter who uses oversized weapons Much like that Barbarian, but not having to be a barbarian.


The brawler fighter archetype is perfect for Capt. America IMO, since it gives substantial bonuses on attacks an maneuvers with "close" weapons -- such as shield bashes and unarmed strikes, and generally covers his fighting style pretty well. His character style? Well, that's all in the roleplaying. This is what I would use if I were trying to make a similar character.


Okay, this is a good start. No one here is arguing back and forth about if it should be done or not, or even arguing that is has already been tried and referring to non-Pathfinder games.

I am not really trying to use a point buy system, though I have seen someone suggest classless characters....interesting...I think that was done with d20 modern with Tough Hero, Strong Hero and the like. I know d20 and Pathfinder are close enough to use with one another, but the point here is trying to stay in Pathfinder. Otherwise I will be picking up that feat that allows anyone to cast cantrips from 3.0 or 3.5.

Lets try another step...

Maximums gained by a Feat and or Talent?

Seeing as how the only way to gain an attribute point is to gain 4 levels, why not a feat or talent that does so?


technically cap is using a template that gave him scads of attribute buffs or that just capped him at "human max" for all physical attributes around 20-26 depending on that attribute. If you were using 3.5 I'd place it at about half dragon level. I dont own the ARG so I dont know if that would help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Feats and attributes aren't equivalent because some classes get far more feats than others. If you take classes out of the equation and say that perhaps what the fighter gets is the upper limit, then you would start seeing some very awkward attribute builds.

If I were to hazard a guess as to the value of something. I would say that two feats is equal to an extraordinary ability. 2 skill level progression is probably equivalent to a good save in terms of purchasing. Base attack is a strange one... it seems as though half progression is worth nothing, three quarters is not huge either, but full base is super expensive. It could have to do with the fact that full base is usually in a package with martial proficiency, which is worth a lot of feats.

Casting is pretty nebulous as it depends on both the type, and the level. So if you deconstruct spell casting effectively, let me know. :)


Trogdar wrote:

Feats and attributes aren't equivalent because some classes get far more feats than others. If you take classes out of the equation and say that perhaps what the fighter gets is the upper limit, then you would start seeing some very awkward attribute builds.

If I were to hazard a guess as to the value of something. I would say that two feats is equal to an extraordinary ability. 2 skill level progression is probably equivalent to a good save in terms of purchasing. Base attack is a strange one... it seems as though half progression is worth nothing, three quarters is not huge either, but full base is super expensive. It could have to do with the fact that full base is usually in a package with martial proficiency, which is worth a lot of feats.

Casting is pretty nebulous as it depends on both the type, and the level. So if you deconstruct spell casting effectively, let me know. :)

I like you! You make a lot of sense for just giving it a shot! Maybe we can make something of this seeing as how you broke it down, or at least gave us a start at breaking it down.


proftobe wrote:
technically cap is using a template that gave him scads of attribute buffs or that just capped him at "human max" for all physical attributes around 20-26 depending on that attribute. If you were using 3.5 I'd place it at about half dragon level. I dont own the ARG so I dont know if that would help.

This is getting a bit off topic, so I'll let it be after this post, but to really make Capt. America using 3.X/PFRPG rules, I would give him a high level in fighter (brawler) to account for his skills and the paragon template from the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook to represent the effect of the serum/superpowers, which gives him a huge bump in base stats as well as a variety of other stuff, including -- IIRC -- social bonuses with his base race (human, obviously). The paragon template also adds a bunch of racial HD and adds +10 CR, putting him solidly in the high echelons of superhero power.


Danny Kessler wrote:
proftobe wrote:
technically cap is using a template that gave him scads of attribute buffs or that just capped him at "human max" for all physical attributes around 20-26 depending on that attribute. If you were using 3.5 I'd place it at about half dragon level. I dont own the ARG so I dont know if that would help.
This is getting a bit off topic, so I'll let it be after this post, but to really make Capt. America using 3.X/PFRPG rules, I would give him a high level in fighter (brawler) to account for his skills and the paragon template from the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook to represent the effect of the serum/superpowers, which gives him a huge bump in base stats as well as a variety of other stuff, including -- IIRC -- social bonuses with his base race (human, obviously). The paragon template also adds a bunch of racial HD and adds +10 CR, putting him solidly in the high echelons of superhero power.

I appreciate the brain power on this one. That is one reason I hate to write this particular part. I wasn't really trying to make Captain America himself, just a class that would simulate him...without using 3.0-3.5. If I were to use B.P. (before Pathfinder) then I would have cast cantrips for all my characters...lol.

In truth, what I am trying to do here is create a system for building a character and or class (without using a point system) that doesn't exist, but still seems to fit and is fairly balanced compared to other classes. Nothing so solid as to say this is how it is, but something flexible enough to mod existing classes to being solid enough to create something never thought of.

A tall order to be sure, but when enough people here take it serious (as you surely have seeing as how you have made the effort...twice! Thank you) then we have a huge brain trust to mull it over.

What do you say people? Let's help this ball roll! Yes that is a challenge! I throw down the gauntlet! Read what came before and see if we can make it happen. Sure it's been tried before. Many times in fact. It wouldn't have come up so many times if it wasn't worth it, would it? LET'S DO IT! YEAH......yeah? (crickets chirping)


Okay...here is a quick decon of the base races...it is oversimplified and doesn't take into account weight, or age...

Human is the baseline, seeing as how it is the most basic race (I wonder why)

Attribute = 2
Skill Points = 1
Feats = 1
Language = 1
Others = +1 skill point or +1 hit point

Every Base Race has this in common (I included the favored class)
Some things you don't are things that have been offset by others...if you wish to actually see the math, just ask and I will post it. For now I will move on.

Dwarf and Elf have an extra 7 feats (age was not calculated into the equation)

Half-Elf, Half-Orc and Halfling have +5 feats...it seems there is pattern enough for model right? Oh, wait....I missed one didn't I?

Gnomes those cute little guys get 12 extra feats and a skill level above the base class....Hmmmmm. That changes the power curve.

I am going through and seeing if this is offset by something else. The carry capacity is already taken into account, but not age or weight...yet.

The reason it is hard to come up with a mathematical means of creating races/classes is because of back story. A good back story is rewarded by the book. That is where the science meets the art. It is also where the Player meets the GM (or the writer meets the editor).

I hope this helps us a bit.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Have you ever considered that a pure point based game system like HERO or GURPS would be more suited to your group's playstyle?


LazarX wrote:
Have you ever considered that a pure point based game system like HERO or GURPS would be more suited to your group's playstyle?

No. ... You haven't really read what this is actually about, have you? I don't want to argue this point...that is not productive. Let's try and be productive here, please.


Have you seen the race builder in the Advanced Race Guide yet? It has a point-buy system for racial traits. Many of those traits are similar to class abilities, so perhaps you can extrapolate from a lot of the crunch there.

It also breaks down the math behind the abilities of all the core races, such as the gnome.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's a problematic endeavour because the classes and the feats weren't built that way. There really isn't much of an even break down. The other problem are the feats and such that have prerequisites.

A very good example are traits. A trait is supposed to equal half a feat, but how many traits are equivalent in value to one that gives a +2 inititative bonus? Many of them are very situational, valuable when the situation comes up and useless otherwise. Although a player may have a good reason for picking it anyway, it will be a qualitative reason, not a quantitative one.

Feats are just as bad, how many feats have the impact of Dervish Dance? Eldritch Heritage?

You literally would have to take each and every piece and evaulate it on a case by case basis.


The Rot Grub wrote:

Have you seen the race builder in the Advanced Race Guide yet? It has a point-buy system for racial traits. Many of those traits are similar to class abilities, so perhaps you can extrapolate from a lot of the crunch there.

It also breaks down the math behind the abilities of all the core races, such as the gnome.

Thank you! I will look into that. There is that little birdy that tells all. Listen to the bird. The bird is wise.


LazarX wrote:

It's a problematic endeavour because the classes and the feats weren't built that way. There really isn't much of an even break down. The other problem are the feats and such that have prerequisites.

A very good example are traits. A trait is supposed to equal half a feat, but how many traits are equivalent in value to one that gives a +2 inititative bonus? Many of them are very situational, valuable when the situation comes up and useless otherwise. Although a player may have a good reason for picking it anyway, it will be a qualitative reason, not a quantitative one.

Feats are just as bad, how many feats have the impact of Dervish Dance? Eldritch Heritage?

You literally would have to take each and every piece and evaulate it on a case by case basis.

Instead of saying how problematic it is, you nay sayer, let it be. If you have nothing positive to offer don't say anything...PLEASE (again).


This kind of "Rules Mush" always confuses me.
Why not add a class called Jack of all trades?
Cherry pick from a list of class features.
Each class feature has certain drawbacks.
Arcane spell use comes with smaller hit dice and possible spell failure.
Divine spells can stop working if the character violates alignment or ethos.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
xanthemann wrote:
LazarX wrote:

It's a problematic endeavour because the classes and the feats weren't built that way. There really isn't much of an even break down. The other problem are the feats and such that have prerequisites.

A very good example are traits. A trait is supposed to equal half a feat, but how many traits are equivalent in value to one that gives a +2 inititative bonus? Many of them are very situational, valuable when the situation comes up and useless otherwise. Although a player may have a good reason for picking it anyway, it will be a qualitative reason, not a quantitative one.

Feats are just as bad, how many feats have the impact of Dervish Dance? Eldritch Heritage?

You literally would have to take each and every piece and evaulate it on a case by case basis.

Instead of saying how problematic it is, you nay sayer, let it be. If you have nothing positive to offer don't say anything...PLEASE (again).

I am being positive. I'm trying to point out that the major problem with what you want being a simple answer is that not all traits, feats, etc. are equal. I'm assuming you want something resembling a balanced conversion. If you're going to insist on global values for each type of thing, you can toss that goal out the window.


Please do not post unless it is useful. The purpose of this exercise is to try and figure out how to do it. Not completely science like. Story takes a part in it as well. How is it being positive when you say toss it out the window? I mean really. That is positively negative.


xanthemann wrote:
Please do not post unless it is useful. The purpose of this exercise is to try and figure out how to do it. Not completely science like. Story takes a part in it as well.

Then just make it up as you go. Seriously.

First you present the thread as if you're looking for some kind of mechanical deconversion -- i.e., rules tinkering. Then, when people point out mechanical systems quirks that should be taken into account, you say they're not being "useful" and should shut up, and that you weren't interested in a "science-like" mechanical conversion after all, but rather a "story" thing.

From my standpoint, you seem to be defining "useful" as "reading your mind and agreeing with whatever it is you're thinking," which is a no-win situation for anyone trying to contribute.


The Rot Grub wrote:

Have you seen the race builder in the Advanced Race Guide yet? It has a point-buy system for racial traits. Many of those traits are similar to class abilities, so perhaps you can extrapolate from a lot of the crunch there.

It also breaks down the math behind the abilities of all the core races, such as the gnome.

This is useful commenting.

You know what? Forget it. I'll take my toys somewhere else. Someone tries to make a thread for help ... serious help... and when others tell them to forget it ...others really think that is helping and positive.

Normally I am a calm person. I don't anger easily and am far from violent. The turn this thread has taken ... has taken me there.

I'll just do the research myself from here on out. I thank those of you who have taken this seriously. Those of you who ... nope I won't say it. *breath in breath out* WoooooSaaaaaaa


Kirth Gersen wrote:
xanthemann wrote:
Please do not post unless it is useful. The purpose of this exercise is to try and figure out how to do it. Not completely science like. Story takes a part in it as well.

Then just make it up as you go. Seriously.

First you present the thread as if you're looking for some kind of mechanical deconversion -- i.e., rules tinkering. Then, when people point out mechanical systems quirks that should be taken into account, you say they're not being "useful" and should shut up, and that you weren't interested in a "science-like" mechanical conversion after all, but rather a "story" thing.

From my standpoint, you seem to be defining "useful" as "reading your mind and agreeing with whatever it is you're thinking," which is a no-win situation for anyone trying to contribute.

By the way, I never said "shut up". Be polite at least.


xanthemann wrote:
By the way, I never said "shut up". Be polite at least.

Yes you did -- you used different actual words, but your meaning on that one point was crystal-clear and without any ambiguity.

You might notice a consistent trend -- people try to help with suggestions that are all over the map, and you get frustrated with a number of them because they're not giving you what you want.

The problem is that, from your posts, it is in no way clear what exactly you would consider "useful." People have been trying to help, but since they don't know what you want, they're forced to guess, which is an enormously inefficient process with an inherently high degree of false hits. Instead of thanking them for their effort, you yell at them for not guessing correctly. Other people you tell that you "like" them, and pat them on the head, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it.

Unless you're just straight-up trolling because you think it's fun to annoy people and make them run in circles. Judging solely from your posts, I think that's about 60% likely, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and posting as if you're in the 40% instead, and that you simply have no idea what's going on here.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
xanthemann wrote:
By the way, I never said "shut up". Be polite at least.

Yes you did -- you used different actual words, but your meaning on that one point was crystal-clear and without any ambiguity.

You might notice a consistent trend -- people try to help with suggestions that are all over the map, and you get frustrated with a number of them because they're not giving you what you want.

The problem is that, from your posts, it is in no way clear what exactly you would consider "useful." People have been trying to help, but since they don't know what you want, they're forced to guess, which is an enormously inefficient process with an inherently high degree of false hits. Instead of thanking them for their effort, you yell at them for not guessing correctly. Other people you tell that you "like" them, and pat them on the head, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it.

Unless you're just straight-up trolling because you think it's fun to annoy people and make them run in circles. Judging solely from your posts, I think that's about 60% likely, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and posting as if you're in the 40% instead, and that you simply have no idea what's going on here.

If you would please ... please. Look at the first few posts. Up until a point system was offered up (ie: Gurps and the like) everything was fine. I said no to the Gurps and reiterated about using Pathfinder. After that things fell apart. Until then it was working fine. Now that there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication about something, as well as being accused of things ... not making an issue of it. I am just dropping it. I tried to be polite, I tried to be lighthearted, understanding and above all else ... polite. (I know I already said that, but it is twice as important.)

I don't wish to upset anyone and in turn I don't wish to be upset by anyone. I just want to find a way to peacefully create another base or arch-type class. Too much to ask?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I don't wish to upset anyone and in turn I don't wish to be upset by anyone. I just want to find a way to peacefully create another base or arch-type class. Too much to ask?

xan i make a lot of base classes, i have quite a bit of experience in this, and i can tell you 100% for certain there is no science to it, it is just art. you will never be able to break it down to x feature being worth x feature, it just doesn't balance that way. the only way to do it is to feel it out and figure out what is or isn't balanced once it's written out. People here were trying to tell you that, not insult you or be unproductive.

If you have an idea for a base class you want and feel you can't do it yourself, just put up a request here and someone will most likely be willing to build it for you or help you fix one you've attempted to build that isn't balanced, but no one here is going to have a magical answer to point values cause they just don't exist.


soulofwolf wrote:
Quote:
I don't wish to upset anyone and in turn I don't wish to be upset by anyone. I just want to find a way to peacefully create another base or arch-type class. Too much to ask?

xan i make a lot of base classes, i have quite a bit of experience in this, and i can tell you 100% for certain there is no science to it, it is just art. you will never be able to break it down to x feature being worth x feature, it just doesn't balance that way. the only way to do it is to feel it out and figure out what is or isn't balanced once it's written out. People here were trying to tell you that, not insult you or be unproductive.

If you have an idea for a base class you want and feel you can't do it yourself, just put up a request here and someone will most likely be willing to build it for you or help you fix one you've attempted to build that isn't balanced, but no one here is going to have a magical answer to point values cause they just don't exist.

I understand that it is more art than science when it comes to creating the classes as well as the races. What I am looking for is theories and/or previous mandates/examples to get a good starting point.

I apologize if I misunderstood anyone, and if anyone misunderstood me. Trying to dissuade a person from following a generalized avenue is not the way to 'help' though. I am not worried about the easy way. I am however, trying to find a way that works for me.


I get the feeling that at least some part of the misunderstanding is not misrepresented intent, but language issues. Xanthemann does not use English as well as most, and that causes some impediment in understanding what he wants from this endeavour.


Quote:
the only way to do it is to feel it out and figure out what is or isn't balanced once it's written out

as far as theories go on what might be balanced to base it off of? umm high bab classes don't get spells above 4th level mid bab classes generally get up to 6th low bab get up to 9th. mid bab martial classes (as in non spell casters) should get abilities each level. high int classes should have low skills, low int non martial classes should have high skills, hd size is relative to how much of a martial class they are. (non melee shouldn't need the hit points)

that's all the "common sense" stuff that is there from just looking at the existing classes. anything outside of that just throw something together, play around with it and tone it up / down as needed to balance it at each level. i recommend using the combat manager application, putting your class in a party of four and at each level put your party of four against a fight 2 cr's higher. that should give you a good idea of how powerful the class is at each level and make it easier to make tweaks to it.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
I get the feeling that at least some part of the misunderstanding is not misrepresented intent, but language issues. Xanthemann does not use English as well as most, and that causes some impediment in understanding what he wants from this endeavour.

Thanx :( It is more of a problem with the speed of my thoughts compared to typing speed and a slow keyboard (it could be my position with the keyboard. Can't help that currently). Maybe I need some Ginko.


soulofwolf wrote:
Quote:
the only way to do it is to feel it out and figure out what is or isn't balanced once it's written out

as far as theories go on what might be balanced to base it off of? umm high bab classes don't get spells above 4th level mid bab classes generally get up to 6th low bab get up to 9th. mid bab martial classes (as in non spell casters) should get abilities each level. high int classes should have low skills, low int non martial classes should have high skills, hd size is relative to how much of a martial class they are. (non melee shouldn't need the hit points)

that's all the "common sense" stuff that is there from just looking at the existing classes. anything outside of that just throw something together, play around with it and tone it up / down as needed to balance it at each level. i recommend using the combat manager application, putting your class in a party of four and at each level put your party of four against a fight 2 cr's higher. that should give you a good idea of how powerful the class is at each level and make it easier to make tweaks to it.

Thank you very much. Honestly. This helps. I mean, sure, most of it is common sense, but remember...common sense is not so common. It should be a super power. As a mechanic I have mechanical common sense, but it seems I am making no sense here...that is odd...I know what I mean. (I am making jokes...for the most part. I don't want to be misunderstood.)

Thank you again soulofwolf. Very helpful.


In taking up my suggestion, I don't think the OP thought (and I didn't mean to imply) that he would take the math in the race builder and use it verbatim. By "extrapolate" I didn't mean to imply that it was simply a matter of arithmetic. Of course GM discretion is involved. So I don't think there was actually much disagreement to begin with.

I think that the feelings that have boiled up is testament to, shall we say, the limitations of communicating on the Internet.

Over and out :)


The Rot Grub wrote:

In taking up my suggestion, I don't think the OP thought (and I didn't mean to imply) that he would take the math in the race builder and use it verbatim. By "extrapolate" I didn't mean to imply that it was simply a matter of arithmetic. Of course GM discretion is involved. So I don't think there was actually much disagreement to begin with.

I think that the feelings that have boiled up is testament to, shall we say, the limitations of communicating on the Internet.

Over and out :)

I strongly agree. By the way, no offense was ever taken by your comment.

Silver Crusade

I stay on my stance about a class builder : it simply isn't doable efficiently (that is, without being broken or bland) within the system. Way too much complexity, way too much layers of powers with various costs depending on what other abilities you possess, what may be useful and what wouldn't.

But if you need basic guidelines :
- Full BAB : d10 or d12
- 2/3 BAB : d8
- Slow BAB : d6


Thank you for the effort. Really.


If you look at the core classes and all of the builds enough, you get a pretty solid understanding of what is and isn't balanced.

The things that I am curious about are never put into play. What if you built a high BaB character with arcane casting that had half the number of base spells and a highly restricted spell list(abjuration, illusion, and... necromancy for example).

I mean full casting with 2 spells per level and a three school restriction...

Is that doable? that's something that I would love to hear thoughts on.


Hmm, the Aristocrat NPC class has one hell of a skills selection (25, which is like the rogue), is proficient with everything save Exotic weapon (which make it the 3/4 BaB class with the most proficiencies, and the only one with more than +2 skill point to have Tower Shield Proficiency)... no wonder it makes for an interesting level dip. (compared to the Warrior NPC class, or even Fighter)

There need to be Aristocrat/Noble type PC classes (without sticks in the ass).

Silver Crusade

Is it ironical ? Maybe you would prefer a good sneak attack deconstruction, then.

Sneak Attack :
=> 1d6 damage against flat-footed, denied-their-dexterity-bonus-to-AC, flanked enemies.

Who is the best at sneak attack ?
- Rogues. Rogues have d8 hp, 2/3 BaB, 8+Int skill points, lots of class skills.

What is the best progression in the game ?
- Rogues gain a +1d6 increase at level 1, then every odd level. 1d6 sneak represents an average of +3.5 damage per hit ; not multiplied on a crit.

What is the iconic ability other classes gain at first then every odd level ?
- Fighters : Combat Feat/Armor/Weapon training.
- Wizards : +1 highest spell level.
- Clerics : heal +1d6 to all allies, +1 highest spell level.
- Barbarian : Rage/Trap sense. Sucky in the last part, but the barbarian gets more oomph at level 1 and 2 from rage.

Let's say sneak attack and his class counterparts are worth 3 class points. Let's put trap sense at 1 class point.

Now, the fun part. Let's imagine, or just use existing sneak attack variants that can (should ?) be balanced within the system, and within archetypes of their own :
- 1d8 with knifes, 1d4 with other weapons.
- cumulative +2 base damage per odd level against any creature suffering from a dterimental condition, multiplied on a crit.
- 1d8 against fascinated creatures, 1d4 whenever else. Gets in a pack with fascinate based on the character's Charisma (with a class point cost in itself lower on any class without spellcasting).

Now, more complicated. Let's estimate the price of Sneak Attack (d8 with X weapons) bought with 3 class points, by Fighter A who already got Weapon Training (X).
Weapon training allows the use of Gloves of Dueling for a +2 bonus to attack, damage, +4 against disarm/sunder/saving throws with X.

=> Weapon Training (X) + Sneak Attack (d8 X, d4 Y) = 3+3 = 6.
Average level 7 att+damage (+1 weapon, no feat, 18 Str, kukri) = +8 Att, 1d4+7+1d8 damage = +15 Att, 15 damage.

Let's compare this to Fighter B without Weapon Training, but with two levels of base Sneak Attack and a +2 weapon.
=> Sneak Attack (d6) + Sneak Attack (d6) = 3+3 = 6.
Average level 7 att+damage (+2 weapon, no feat, 18 Str, greatsword) = +6 Att, 2d6+6+2d6 damage = +13 Att, 22 damage.

Let's compare this with a vanilla knife master rogue with a +1 agile weapon.
=> Sneak Attack (d8 X, d4 Y) + Sneak Attack (d8 X, d4 Y) = 3+3 = 6.
Average level 7 att+damage (+1 agile weapon, finesse, 18 Dex, kukri) = +5 Att, 1d4+4+4d8 damage = +12 Att, 24.5 damage.

- Is fighter A better than fighter B ?
Yes, because a +2 bonus to attack and a weapon with higher critical range will benefit more to the fighter than higher damage, because he has full BAB, more opportunities to make this bonus worth it, and his weapons are currently kept safer than the greatsword. Having a limitation on your available weapons means nothing when all your feats apply on a single one and it is so well protected - and this is a reason the Knife Master gains a meh class feature replacing Trap Sense (including all replacement more interesting you could have chosen from other archetypes with a system providing more liberty), balancing the pros and cons of the archetype.
- Is a level 7 rogue better at doing sneak attacks than fighter A and fighter B with the same class feature ?
No, and you just broke the system by making the fighter better at using sneak attack than the rogue herself. To deal damage, you have to hit. While a rogue may find the fighter's bonus to attack invaluable, it has less attacks, and relies on high sneak attack damage.
Note that the fighters didn't even take their feats to increase to-hit and damage.

Yet, by mixing class features and giving them a cost, you are making other classes more efficient at a specific job that a base class itself.
And unless you are ready to account for every loophole ever in class combinations (which may eventually be correctible by giving each class the property to reduce the cost of abilities tied to their style of play), be sure your task will be pretty long.


I thank you all for your input. This is very helpful. I apologize for my earlier comments to LazarX and Kirth Gersen.

There had been some misunderstandings by what people were saying and it got under my skin before I could really absorb what was really being said.

Once we got past that things have begun to progress very well.

Again, my apologies to those whom I may have offended.

Note: remember I did say 'At the risk of sounding stupid'.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / At the risk of Sounding Stupid...Deconstruction of Character Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules