Super Genius's "Talented Class" Line


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

So, the Talented Fighter and Talented Rogue are out, and both have expansion books. Talented Monk is in layout, and it's expansion rules are in playtesting.
I'm thinking of Talented Barbarian, or Talented Cavalier, next. Thoughts?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I happen to love the talented fighter and talented rogue. Dont know how I will feel about the talented monk. But I think i'd be fairly concerned with the talented cavalier or barbarian. Mostly because I dont see their archetypes as generic as the fighter's and rogues, and wonder if breaking up those abilities into talents wouldn't do a diservice to their themes.

Obviously barbarian rage powers are a good fit for talents, but is the rage class feature? What about the cavaliers mount? Would a cavalier make sense if someone took the cavaliers charge 'talent' but not the mount talent? It seems like you could end up with a fairly messy mismash if you went wrong with either the barbarian or cavalier that wasnt as likely with the more interchangable (in my mind) powers of the rogue or fighter.

Dont get me wrong I very much like the talented line. There is one of each (talented rogue and talented fighter) in the party of my rise of the runelords game. I am just worried that this is a case of what was good for the goose might not be good for the gander.


Paladin. The archetypes for it almost universally bad, but individual abilities within those archetypes are very cool.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Kolokotroni wrote:
I happen to love the talented fighter and talented rogue. Dont know how I will feel about the talented monk.

Obviously if you pick it up, I'll be interested in your opinion. :)

Kolokotroni wrote:

But I think i'd be fairly concerned with the talented cavalier or barbarian. Mostly because I dont see their archetypes as generic as the fighter's and rogues, and wonder if breaking up those abilities into talents wouldn't do a diservice to their themes.

Obviously barbarian rage powers are a good fit for talents, but is the rage class feature?

One question I asked myself was "Can I see a viable barbarian build without rage?"

For example, I hadn't originally intended to do a Talented Rogue, because rogues already *have* talents. But there was strong support for the idea, and I saw how archetypes, subclasses, and even one PrC were sub-dividing the rogue's abilities in ways I thought added nothing and reduced flexibility. But the main reason I went ahead and did it, was that I saw ways to make a rogue with no (or less) sneak attack that would be fun to play for certain concepts and styles of games.

Similarly, I can see a viable barbarian build with with no rage -- and that opens up a lot of possibilities.

Kolokotroni wrote:
What about the cavaliers mount? Would a cavalier make sense if someone took the cavaliers charge 'talent' but not the mount talent?

In most cases I think the answer to that is "no." But I could easily see a cavalier build with no mount and no charge, who focused on siege warfare, or being a falconer, or a hound master, or a squad leader. I think the biggest limitation to the cavalier is that it is so tied up in being a mounted combatant, which makes it difficult for archetypes to remove that element without rewriting the class. But the core concept of a knight who is more strongly tied to the nobility, chivalry, and a code of conduct than fighters, without being a paladin, is much stronger than mounted combat in my opinion.

Kolokotroni wrote:
It seems like you could end up with a fairly messy mismash if you went wrong with either the barbarian or cavalier that wasnt as likely with the more interchangable (in my mind) powers of the rogue or fighter.

The key would be to make sure talents have appropriate prerequisites, as the sneak attack talents of the talented rogue do. and the concept of edges (which also appear in talented monk) help guide a character into one of a set of pathes without restricting them to just one build or allowing any hodgepodge of abilities.

Kolokotroni wrote:
Dont get me wrong I very much like the talented line. There is one of each (talented rogue and talented fighter) in the party of my rise of the runelords game. I am just worried that this is a case of what was good for the goose might not be good for the gander.

It's a fair concern. I'm really interested to see if I am right and I can do this, or if my design reach exceeds my grasp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
I could easily see a cavalier build with no mount and no charge, who focused on siege warfare, or being a falconer, or a hound master, or a squad leader. I think the biggest limitation to the cavalier is that it is so tied up in being a mounted combatant, which makes it difficult for archetypes to remove that element without rewriting the class. But the core concept of a knight who is more strongly tied to the nobility, chivalry, and a code of conduct than fighters, without being a paladin, is much stronger than mounted combat in my opinion.

This sounds more like you're doing a Knight class which subsumes Cavalier, rather than expanding the Cavalier. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Distant Scholar wrote:
This sounds more like you're doing a Knight class which subsumes Cavalier, rather than expanding the Cavalier. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I think that's a fair and insightful assessment. While I think a class name should inform the design of the class, much as a monk need not be a member of a religious order and a rogue need not be a dishonest and unprincipled person, a cavalier need not be a horseman.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheRedArmy wrote:
Paladin. The archetypes for it almost universally bad, but individual abilities within those archetypes are very cool.

That's a really good point, and I'm pretty sure I'll have to tackle it at some point. But I confess I am worried that the same technique used to design the previous talented classes can't be easily applied to the paladin and its archetypes without boosting the overall power of an already potent class.

But that's not reason not to try, and edges will help, and I can playtest the heck out of it...


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
TheRedArmy wrote:
Paladin. The archetypes for it almost universally bad, but individual abilities within those archetypes are very cool.

That's a really good point, and I'm pretty sure I'll have to tackle it at some point. But I confess I am worried that the same technique used to design the previous talented classes can't be easily applied to the paladin and its archetypes without boosting the overall power of an already potent class.

But that's not reason not to try, and edges will help, and I can playtest the heck out of it...

That is also a concern for most classes. The simple truth is, the more flexible you make a class, the more likely it is to be out of balance with less flexible classes.

If you take for instance the druid and the summoner, and break everything down that they and their pets get into 'talents' and 'edges', they probably turn out numerically similar. But you dont see 500 message board threads about the druid being broken (a few sure, but not on the scale of the summoner).

And while a few naysayers are always expected for 'new' things in an rpg. Its pretty clear that the summoner is genuinely disruptive to a lot of groups. And thats because you get to pick and choose just about every thing the summoner gets. If someone puts everything into the eidolon being a combat monster, and the summoner does nothing but buff the eidolon, its going to be rediculous compared to everyone else.

Its something I noticed and was mildly concerned about initially, but for the fighter, rogue, and potentially the monk I am not exactly concerned if they get a boost. With the barbarian, and potentially the paladin, you take an already powerful class and make it more flexible in it's options. That is something that I would look long and hard at before letting it at my table, even if it was put out by you guys.

Contributor

If we're talking martial classes, I'd vote for Cavalier/Gunslinger and then Barbarian. The barbarian is already much more modular than Cavalier or Gunslinger, and it doesn't need the overhaul as much as the Rogue did. On the other hand, Cavalier and Gunslinger have very little alteration in their core classes; you get to pick an Order as a Cavalier, but there are no choices in the Gunslinger class (or in any other part of the Cavalier class).

One thing that I think is lacking both for the Cavalier and the Paladin (way ahead of myself) is the lack of an appropriate "swap" for Smite Evil or Challenge. Only one Paladin archetype actually trades away Smite Evil (Tranquil Guardian for the Aasimar) and none of them do it for the Cavalier.

Also, when you've hit all the classes it would be cool to see a "Genius Guide to Talented Races' where you essentially break down racial archetypes and say, "These talents are for kitsune paladins. These talents are for human paladins, etc," so all of those archetypes don't remain untapped.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
I confess I am worried that the same technique used to design the previous talented classes can't be easily applied to the paladin and its archetypes without boosting the overall power of an already potent class.
Its something I noticed and was mildly concerned about initially, but for the fighter, rogue, and potentially the monk I am not exactly concerned if they get a boost. With the barbarian, and potentially the paladin, you take an already powerful class and make it more flexible in it's options. That is something that I would look long and hard at before letting it at my table, even if it was put out by you guys.

I am absolutely keeping an eye on the question. And much as I had to invent edges to make the Talented rogue work, I may need a new mechanic here to boost flexibility without boosting total power level.

Or I may have to set things up so the core barbarian is the most powerful barbarian you can build, and flexibility comes at a cost.

Certainly there are tweaks I made to fighter/rogue/monk designs to keep them reasonable -- limiting sneak attack dice for example (so you can't take the sneak attack talent at every level).

I have a hint of an idea to make Talented Barbarian and Ranger one book for both classes (blending them into a single flexible class), and Talented Cavalier and Paladin another two-fer class book, but that's going to take some serious assumption examination.

Contributor

I don't know if doing a Paladin/Cavalier crossbreed is going to be easy for you, Owen. After all, both of those classes also have an alternate class that you'd have to contend with, and while there aren't many differences between antipaladin and paladin, the differences between samurai and cavalier are massive, much more than rogue/ninja.

That said, the idea is intriguing, especially considering that it means you could theoretically take the cavalier's bonus feats as a paladin, or the paladin's defensive abilities as a cavalier. It certainly sounds cool.

It would also open the for you to turn the gunslinger into a series of Fighter Talents, considering that there's only so much you can do with the gunslinger in the first place.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Lots of smart stuff

And then

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Also, when you've hit all the classes

This took me aback a bit. All the classes? I mean yes, the line is popular, and yes I'll keep doing them as long as their is demand. But:

It takes about 6 weeks to do one of these. There are 20 official Paizo base & core classes. I've only done 3.

So right now going through the rest of the classes, alchemist to wizard, is another 102 weeks or work (assuming I don't take any breaks from the project).

So mostly, I am still way, way far away from planning what comes "after." :D

Alexander Augunas wrote:
it would be cool to see a "Genius Guide to Talented Races' where you essentially break down racial archetypes and say, "These talents are for kitsune paladins. These talents are for human paladins, etc," so all of those archetypes don't remain untapped.

Although that is a cool idea...

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
I don't know if doing a Paladin/Cavalier crossbreed is going to be easy for you, Owen.

No. No, it's not. It'd be making a lot of work for myself.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
That said, the idea is intriguing, especially considering that it means you could theoretically take the cavalier's bonus feats as a paladin, or the paladin's defensive abilities as a cavalier. It certainly sounds cool.

Yeah. Yeeeeaaaahhhhh. Mebbe I should have kept my big mouth shut.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
It would also open the for you to turn the gunslinger into a series of Fighter Talents, considering that there's only so much you can do with the gunslinger in the first place.

Well, SGG already did a bunch ofr additional deeds, and I could fold those into this. and there are four archetypes and another four racial archetypes, and at least two by Rite Publishing...

But yeah, it's a more limited field.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just have to say I love the Talented versions and would love to see something worked up for all the Core and Base classes if possible (and of course all the SGG classes, though I know that would be insanely time consuming and expensive). In my ideal version of choosing a class, pretty much every ability would be broken down into talents, extraordinary abilities, supernatural abilities, etc, each costing a different number of points. Barring that, a blank template could be created whereby a class only gets X number of each type of abilities, and they can't be substituted. So no swapping out a talent for a supernatural ability, for example.

Ever since the Talented line of products were introduced I've looked at different archetypes and wondered just how bad would it be to strip all those alternate abilities out of every archetype and make them available for any member of that Core or Base class to pick and choose from. But I'll be the first to admit that I'm absolutely terrible at designing mechanics, so that idea is probably just a wispy bit of thinking. Nevertheless, YOU guys are doing a great job. That's why you keep getting the great majority of my gaming allowance cash.

EDIT: Maybe a "Super Genius Guide to Building Talented Classes" would be a handy thing to make the minions work on.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The voices (in my head) demand The Talented Summoner! :D

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Nevertheless, YOU guys are doing a great job. That's why you keep getting the great majority of my gaming allowance cash.

I read your whole post, but I just wanted to say this is one of the nicest things anyone has said about us. Thanks!

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

This took me aback a bit. All the classes? I mean yes, the line is popular, and yes I'll keep doing them as long as their is demand. But:

It takes about 6 weeks to do one of these. There are 20 official Paizo base & core classes. I've only done 3.

So right now going through the rest of the classes, alchemist to wizard, is another 102 weeks or work (assuming I don't take any breaks from the project).

So mostly, I am still way, way far away from planning what comes "after." :D

Clearly I have more faith in Owen K.C. Stephens than he himself does!

Owen K.C. Stephens wrote:
My Big Mouth wrote:
it would be cool to see a "Genius Guide to Talented Races' where you essentially break down racial archetypes and say, "These talents are for kitsune paladins. These talents are for human paladins, etc," so all of those archetypes don't remain untapped.
Although that is a cool idea...

Crap. I totally should have saved that one and pitched it to you. >.>

Owen K.C. Stephens wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
That said, the idea is intriguing, especially considering that it means you could theoretically take the cavalier's bonus feats as a paladin, or the paladin's defensive abilities as a cavalier. It certainly sounds cool.
Yeah. Yeeeeaaaahhhhh. Mebbe I should have kept my big mouth shut.

And now you know how I feel! :D

But yeah, mixing all of the options for Cavalier / Paladin together will most likely allow players to create something that is much greater than either class separately, which goes against the precedent of the Talented Fighter and Rogue classes. Still, I can dream of the awesomeness, can't I?

Dark Archive

Starfinder Superscriber

I would like to see a talented gunslinger before a talented cavalier/samurai. And I would rather see the samurai version first.

A talented line for the magus and oracle could help give some options to these classes.

I'd would also like to see a talented line for the cleric. I would like to see them get a level 20 ability besides spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It always bugged me that sorcerors get one ability suite and then have to stick to it - the same with oracles. Don't get me wrong, I love both classes and talented alternatives would be a serious challenge - especially sans losing the fluffy focus on a theme...

Also: +1 for the Samurai - the class has seen enxt to no support and could use some additional oomph!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't matter what you put out next in the talented line, I'm buying it. Keep up the great work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I’m most keen to see what Owen and the other Super Geniuses can do with the Cavalier/Samurai - and if they’re game to throw the Paladin into that mix, more power to them! There are parts of the Cavalier/Samurai which really bug me (I’ve imagined trying to play the early portion of Rise of the Runelords, with a mount-based PC in all those catacombs [shudder]), and I’d really, really like to see ways to customise the Samurai, especially if it let them throw around Smites instead of challenges.

That being said, I’ll echo what Arkady Zelenka said - I’ll keep buying whatever ‘Talented’ pdfs come next, virtually immaterial of what they are. ;D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cavalier/Samurai. It's one of the most straightjacketed classes. A good redesign would let you decide how much mount, exactly, you want, and whether you wanted to charge, shoot arrows, or fight alongside. The banner should come in a variety of colors and styles to match your summer wardrobe, not just drab old courage and charging. And what are the Orders, but awkwardly assembled packages of talents? Throw in the Samurai abilities, which really are just better conceived Cavalier abilities (resolve? heck yeah!) and you have some winners there. Samurai becomes a talent (granting samurai weapon proficiencies).

You definitely could combine paladin and cavalier, but I'm not sure it's a great idea. The Paladin already has plenty of options and benefits from being somewhat prebuilt. Combining paladin and knight would seem less like the Talented ___ and more like a new mashup class. Now, I happen to like a good mashup, but the question is: what do you gain? I would actually suggest that instead you just add create Cavalier Talents that allow you to make something very much like a Paladin without necessarily reproducing all their class features and progression. So, if you want to be Lawful Neutral, or don't feel like being a minor spellcaster, you could take Cavalier, snag aura of courage rather than banner, take the mount, then a talent that upgrades it to paladin mount, pick a challenge talent that offers a smiting rider, and there you go.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I still think that the Talented Alchemist would be a good choice for this line. What better mish mash of a class is there than the Mad Scientist of whom you never know which way they will go.

Though I do like the ideas you have for the Cavalier Owen, maybe the best bet is to go in alphabetical order. (hehehe)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Very consistently with SGG products, I read them and I admire how easily grasped the mechanics are and extremely solid the concepts are. Then I shake my fist to the heavens because I hadn't thought of it first for my own work!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To beat the Super Genius, you must move very, very quickly.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
It would also open the for you to turn the gunslinger into a series of Fighter Talents, considering that there's only so much you can do with the gunslinger in the first place.

Well, SGG already did a bunch ofr additional deeds, and I could fold those into this. and there are four archetypes and another four racial archetypes, and at least two by Rite Publishing...

But yeah, it's a more limited field.

Ashiel came up with what strikes me as a more ]coherent version of the Gunslinger which strikes me as a good chassis for a talented Gunslinger. I'd consider checking that work out for a starting point when looking at what you can do. Or just get in touch and do some work on tidying it up. It does use firearm rules closer to the ones in the Anachronistic Adventurers series.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Talented Time Thief? :)

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rite Publishing wrote:
Talented Time Thief? :)

Since Steve is sitting right across from me at my dining room table RIGHT NOW, I took the liberty of making my response to his suggestion of how much MORE work I COULD take on, in person.

Sadly, said response is not printable in a public forum. :P


Hey, that's awesome! Any collaboration coming out of this meetup?

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Cheapy wrote:
Hey, that's awesome! Any collaboration coming out of this meetup?

The current conversation has... not gone that direction. But we may just be too tired, since we're discussing charts that measure body part sizes, and rules for clubbing, and and quotes describing campaign settings.

And there's a lot of laughing.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:


charts that measure body part sizes

Are you sure you're not working on a F.A.T.A.L product instead of a Pathfinder-compatible one?


I'd like to see a Talented Cleric, too. To date, it's the most boring class for me, and I'd like to play one at some later date.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fabius Maximus wrote:
I'd like to see a Talented Cleric, too. To date, it's the most boring class for me, and I'd like to play one at some later date.

That's very much on my List of Things to Do, but I am also pretty sure it won't be next. I'm (literally) making this up as I go along, and I want some more experience under my belt before I tackle ANY of the full-spellcasters.

But yeah, cleric may come very early in that process. Sorcerer is also near the front of the full spellcaster line.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It might be interesting to see something like edges, but for spellcaster levels. I imagine spell casting in general would require an additional 'element' added into the talent line. It would be interesting to say sacrifice caster levels on a sorceror for additional bloodline abilities.


Isn't that niche already covered to a degree by Beyond Bloodlines? For clerics, there's also the Exalted Domains books that adds some customizability.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Kolokotroni wrote:
It might be interesting to see something like edges, but for spellcaster levels. I imagine spell casting in general would require an additional 'element' added into the talent line. It would be interesting to say sacrifice caster levels on a sorceror for additional bloodline abilities.

I am seriously considering having something like Eldritch Edges, that you get at levels when you get a new spell level, which you could spend on that or spend on some other major benefit.

But that's a rough, rough, rough, vague idea right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I vote Cavalier/Samurai for the next talented class, and if you think you can make that more awesome by adding Paladin/AntiPaladin that's great!, but I don't know how you'd do it.

But I don't know how you got fighter and rogue to be so awesome either, so do what makes sense to you, and we'll buy it!

And when you DO get around to talented spellcasters, make sure they are Spell Points compatible? I now run a spell points/talented fighters and rogues game, and it is SO much more awesome than core rules, and still works with all Pathfinder material!

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cavalier (including samurai) is currently at the top of the list. I'm looking at adding paladin in the same book... but right now it's actually looking like that most likely won't happen (though it's very likely to be discussed in a sidebar when I get around to the paladin book).

There shouldn't be any problems using Spell Points with Talented Spellcasters (when I get to them), since the spell point system works with the normal class and spell rules. that said, I will be sure to see if an additional sidebar is called for!

I am very glad you find using these two sets of rules together adds to the fun of your game!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope you do it. Everything the Cavalier needs is stuff I know that you excel at. I have yet to purchase a SGG product and feel like I wasted a nickel of mine.


I think the Ranger could work with this - the chassis of a lighter armoured skilled fighter with a combat style, but it could easily be moved away from the rest of the concept and provide an interesting alternative to a conventional fighter, especially if you can effectively substitute spells.

You may think that the Barbarian one covers this though

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

vectorious wrote:

I think the Ranger could work with this - the chassis of a lighter armoured skilled fighter with a combat style, but it could easily be moved away from the rest of the concept and provide an interesting alternative to a conventional fighter, especially if you can effectively substitute spells.

You may think that the Barbarian one covers this though

A Talented Ranger is very likely to happen. It *might* get combined with the talented barbarian, just as cavalier and paladin may get blended into one, but the more I work on that idea, the less likely it seems to me it'll pan out.

Contributor

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
vectorious wrote:

I think the Ranger could work with this - the chassis of a lighter armoured skilled fighter with a combat style, but it could easily be moved away from the rest of the concept and provide an interesting alternative to a conventional fighter, especially if you can effectively substitute spells.

You may think that the Barbarian one covers this though

A Talented Ranger is very likely to happen. It *might* get combined with the talented barbarian, just as cavalier and paladin may get blended into one, but the more I work on that idea, the less likely it seems to me it'll pan out.

I stick with what I said before; mixing Paladin and Cavalier (or even Ranger and Barbarian) is more likely to make characters who are above the standard version of those classes. Paladin and Cavalier each have strengths and weaknesses, and it would be very easy to throw away a character's weaknesses using that system. I'm playing an Order of the Cockatrice Samurai right now, and the idea of being able to take Divine Grace without needing to be Lawful Good ... pretty crazy. But then again, it also raises the question of, "Is restricting paladins to Lawful Good only actually helping the game, or is it a piece of tradition that should be examined, like 3.5's Favored Classes or racial restrictions on Prestige Classes?"

Just as importantly, is that an archetype that a 3PP should tackle? We know how people tend to respond when the 1PP breaks tradition (polarized); how would people view someone who isn't "Word of God Offical?"

All very interesting questions!

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Alexander Augunas wrote:
I'm playing an Order of the Cockatrice Samurai right now, and the idea of being able to take Divine Grace without needing to be Lawful Good ... pretty crazy.

Of course that can be avoided by making lawful Good alignment a prerequisite of the divine Grace edge... assuming I go that direction. (Which actually seems less likely right now... for exactly the kind of balance questions you mention -- but I haven't ruled it out yet)

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Just as importantly, is that an archetype that a 3PP should tackle? We know how people tend to respond when the 1PP breaks tradition (polarized); how would people view someone who isn't "Word of God Offical?"

That one doesn't really worry me. Nothing we do is official, and lots of popular 3pp have tackled the idea of "paladins for every alignment" without creating angry mobs with pitchforks and torches.

Heck, I'm rewriting core classes. I'm already beyond the edge of the most common 3pp work (which expands existing rules or offers new options, but rarely replaces existing core material entirely). But some really neat stuff has been done by other companies in this vein (Spell-Less Ranger, for example), and if Talented Monk is as popular as Fighter and Rogue, I'll feel comfortable saying I have an audience for these.

That said ultimately, if combined cav and pal seems to be the best design I'll do it. If it doesn't, I won't. And either way, there's likely to be a sidebar.

For example, Talented Monk has a sidebar about what happens if you make MonkNinjaRogue a single class...


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

So, the Talented Fighter and Talented Rogue are out, and both have expansion books. Talented Monk is in layout, and it's expansion rules are in playtesting.

I'm thinking of Talented Barbarian, or Talented Cavalier, next. Thoughts?

My vote is for Talented Cavalier; The teamwork stuff of the APG Cavalier just doesn't appeal to me. I'm surprised that I don't hear anything about the Samurai class from UC; I like this class. Do people simply not play in Asian campaigns a lot, because I could see myself playing one of these.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
I'm playing an Order of the Cockatrice Samurai right now, and the idea of being able to take Divine Grace without needing to be Lawful Good ... pretty crazy.

Of course that can be avoided by making lawful Good alignment a prerequisite of the divine Grace edge... assuming I go that direction. (Which actually seems less likely right now... for exactly the kind of balance questions you mention -- but I haven't ruled it out yet)

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Just as importantly, is that an archetype that a 3PP should tackle? We know how people tend to respond when the 1PP breaks tradition (polarized); how would people view someone who isn't "Word of God Offical?"
That one doesn't really worry me. Nothing we do is official, and lots of popular 3pp have tackled the idea of "paladins for every alignment" without creating angry mobs with pitchforks and torches.

I'm working on three variant Anti-Paladins, for each type of evil. This arose from my feeling that Lawful Evil would be better as an arch-villian against the Paladin; An organized evil - even an empire - would make powerful enemies for the paladins.

I'm also working on a class like the cleric, but more dedicated to their god ( known as an Ardent ), and a Champion: A Paladin-like character who hasn't quite conquered his failings enough to become a full Paladin.

Heck, I'm rewriting core classes. I'm already beyond the edge of the most common 3pp work (which expands existing rules or offers new options, but rarely replaces existing core material entirely). But some really neat stuff has been done by other companies in this vein (Spell-Less Ranger, for example), and if Talented Monk is as popular as Fighter and Rogue, I'll feel comfortable saying I have an audience for these.

That said ultimately, if combined cav and pal seems to be the best design I'll do it. If it doesn't, I won't. And either way, there's likely to be a sidebar.

For example, Talented Monk has a sidebar about what happens if you make MonkNinjaRogue a single class...


So, I've become aware there's such a thing as the Genius Guide to the Templar. Yet another wrinkle in the Cavalier-Paladin stew. How different or similar is the Templar to either?


RJGrady wrote:
So, I've become aware there's such a thing as the Genius Guide to the Templar. Yet another wrinkle in the Cavalier-Paladin stew. How different or similar is the Templar to either?

Paladins and Anti-Paladins are alignment-specific; Templars are specifically dedicated to a god.

Scarab Sages Contributor; Developer, Super Genius Games

Caligastia wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
So, I've become aware there's such a thing as the Genius Guide to the Templar. Yet another wrinkle in the Cavalier-Paladin stew. How different or similar is the Templar to either?
Paladins and Anti-Paladins are alignment-specific; Templars are specifically dedicated to a god.

Conceptually Caligastia is quite right!

Mechanically, the templar is a full-attack-bonus class with martial weapons and medium armor, lots of hp, and special abilities you choose from (including, you know, some talents) but no spells. Some of their abilities tie to the themes of their individual gods.

There's also a section talking about templars vs paladins in the book. I posted it below.

Templar vs. Paladin
So, what’s the difference between a templar
and a paladin? It’s twofold, and the first is easy
to explain. Although a paladin is an exemplar
of the forces of good and law, a templar is an
agent of divine will closer in scope and concept
to a cleric. Any god can have templars, and
chaotic good, true neutral, and even lawful evil
templars are just as common (possibly even
more so) as lawful good examples of the
class. The grim warlord who conquers cities
for the god of war, the battlefield hospitaller
who escorts healers for the god of healing,
and the insane pyromaniac determined to
burn the world for the god of madness and
fire are all examples of templars, though
none could possibly qualify as paladins.
That naturally leads to asking what the
crucial difference between a paladin and a
lawful good templar is, which touches on
the second major difference between the
two classes. Put simply, templars are not
held to the same standards as paladins, by
either their order or their gods. Paladins
must follow a strict code of conduct. This
code is not just a requirement of their
order, it’s a crucial part of how they gain
their power. No matter how reasonable
or forgivable a paladin’s violation of this
code might be, it results in a loss of divine
power until the paladin atones. If a paladin
uses poison to destroy a great evil, even if
no other option seemed to exist and the evil
had to be destroyed, that paladin loses her
divine powers until she atones. A paladin
is not even required to worship a god (or
similar philosophic concept) as a cleric is.
It seems reasonable then to say that it’s not
a god that gives a paladin her power, it’s
the dedication to order and righteousness
required of a paladin, and this is why
there is no such thing as paladins of other
alignments*. Only a lawful good character
can remain so purely dedicated to a specific
set of rules as to gain supernatural power
from doing so.
A templar, even a lawful good templar,
does not carry that burden. Like clerics,
they draw power directly from a god (or
philosophy) to which they are dedicated.
While grossly violating the code of conduct
required by his god will strip a templar of
his powers, minor infractions made in good
faith or as rarities have no effect. They are
expected, since the templar is only mortal.
Indeed, as long as a templar remains with
one step of his deities’ alignment, he can
suffer an alignment change and still gain
power from his god. A lawful good templar
serving a lawful neutral god of protection
might be forced to take evil steps to achieve
the defense of a city, and thus slip to lawful
neutral alignment. Although this can cause
the templar some sleepless nights of moral
wrangling, as long as he continues to serve
his god faithfully, it has no impact on his
status as a templar.
Thus, while similar, paladins and
templars fill different roles and serve
different ends. Paladins are always and
chiefly paragons of law and good who draw
supernatural power from their dedication,
regardless of their religious beliefs.
Templars are the strong, militant arm of a
god’s worshipers in the mortal realm.
*The sole exception to the “no paladins of
other alignments” is of course the antipaladin,
as presented in the Advanced
Player’s Guide. However, the very fact that
an anti-paladin must maintain his extreme
stance, that he must be as unendingly and
unflinchingly vile and random as a paladin
must be benevolent and ordered, suggests
that even anti-paladins draw their power
less from evil gods and more from the raw,
supernatural power of being on the extreme
end of mortal behavior.

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Super Genius's "Talented Class" Line All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.