Skald Discussion


Class Discussion

301 to 350 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

We're revising the skald.

As mentioned in today's blog, raging song will be changing—your allies will be able to jump in or out as they need to, it'll "play nice" with other rage class abilities.

We need to clarify what rage powers can be used.

You'll see an upgrade in armor and weapons, and a couple of other things that'll push it more toward the barbarian side of things than the bard side of things.

Awesome! Looking forward to seeing all these changes made and planning out some possible playtest uses for all this stuff.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:


As to why scribe scroll: because skalds are recorders of lore, and in a magical world they'd use their lorekeeping for magic as well.

make sense thematically, but mechanically it is problematic since spontaneous casters have a limited list of spells know.

Are you going to let it have more spells known of give it some more spells known from the Wizard list?

C'mon Sean answer. You know you want it. ;)

Edit: And Sean, thank for your posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

We're ditching the fatigue mechanic for raging song, so that avoids a bunch of problems (and, because it doesn't have a "can't be affected when fatigued" restriction, you can use it on a fatigued barbarian).

And, just to be clear: a bard can maintain a bardic performance (such as inspire courage) as a free action and cast a spell that same round. So can a skald.

As to why scribe scroll: because skalds are recorders of lore, and in a magical world they'd use their lorekeeping for magic as well.

I like that fatigue is going away. I don't really like the feeling when abilities cause explicit disadvantages for allies. I'm not saying that that's something that should never happen, it's just weird as the signature ability of a base class.


Joyd wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

We're ditching the fatigue mechanic for raging song, so that avoids a bunch of problems (and, because it doesn't have a "can't be affected when fatigued" restriction, you can use it on a fatigued barbarian).

And, just to be clear: a bard can maintain a bardic performance (such as inspire courage) as a free action and cast a spell that same round. So can a skald.

As to why scribe scroll: because skalds are recorders of lore, and in a magical world they'd use their lorekeeping for magic as well.

I like that fatigue is going away. I don't really like the feeling when abilities cause explicit disadvantages for allies. I'm not saying that that's something that should never happen, it's just weird as the signature ability of a base class.

Yeah it is quite nice. I'd like to see more Rage Powers be accessible but we're making good progress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

We're revising the skald.

As mentioned in today's blog, raging song will be changing—your allies will be able to jump in or out as they need to, it'll "play nice" with other rage class abilities.

We need to clarify what rage powers can be used.

You'll see an upgrade in armor and weapons, and a couple of other things that'll push it more toward the barbarian side of things than the bard side of things.

Being able to accept or decline the buffs during the actual performance is a big feature to implement, and allows more freedom with the class. To prevent cheapskating/metagaming the feature, I'd think to treat it like the Defending weapon property, where all allies who are under the effects may choose to receive the benefits of the Raging Song at the start of their turn, and may not do so at any other point during the turn. Otherwise, it's looking up.

As to how it will "play nice" with all other Rage Class Abilities, it will need more deliberation. I don't think it's an issue to have the benefits of Raging Song stack with other Rage effects, but have it work only at half effectiveness for those already under a Rage effect (minimum of +2 Str/Con and +1 Will Save bonuses). This solves the whole "play nice" issue and still makes it an effective and worthwhile class feature on par with the regular Bard.

I'm not opposed to the Skald having Rage Powers, but if the Raging Song is supposed to grant Rage Powers to those under its effects, I feel calling it Rage Powers doesn't really explain what it does properly, both flavor-wise and mechanics-wise.

My opinion on the matter is that the Skald should have Chant Powers: With this name, we can say that the Raging Song he is influencing has chants of war and battle flowing through his Performance, providing enhanced effects to whatever Performance he is using. An Example Chant Power would be to increase the radius of Raging Song (Resounding Anger) or Dirge of Doom (Echoes of Despair) by 10 feet, or that allies under the effects of Raging Song are affected as if they had [random Rage Power here] (Battle Orders). It opens a unique net feature for the class, but still combines both Barbarian and Bard flavors.

The Skald should be proficient in wearing Medium Armor, but he shouldn't be able to cast in it; at least, not until he gets more proficient and versatile in his spellcasting (make it an extra feature with Spell Kenning, being able to cast in Medium Armor). I also believe that the Skald should have some of the more primary Martial weapon proficiencies (Longsword, Greataxe, etc.) I'm not opposed to Full Martial proficiency, though it's not something the class can't do without.

I am also curious as to whether Skill Points or Hit Dice will be adjusted as well, but so far I am glad there are going to be revisions at least.


Playtested again with a skald last night lvl 6 this time.
Class is fun although i still will say that it feels like a bard archetype, than a hybrid

i think the class needs more incentive to get into melee right now as it stands w/ d8hp + only proficient in light armor/bard weapons, is not alot of incentive to get into enemies faces.

I have suggested the magic being dropped before in a previous post, but seeings as spell-casting is something the dev's want linked to the class, why not make it Devine w/ its own spell list?
Or make it where skalds don't have a spell failure chance in medium armor
that way they could have medium amor proficiency and have more incentive to go in and smash face


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, if the Skald gets some method to get around the fact that Allies can't cast or use skills, then we might have something here.

Otherwise...

Well, I guess I will wait and see what happens. More martial stuff will really help things out. If the Skald can be relatively competent on his own, then it will matter far less that 80% of possible allies won't benefit from his ragesong.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As to why scribe scroll: because skalds are recorders of lore, and in a magical world they'd use their lorekeeping for magic as well.

While I do like the class, as a Scandinavian, I don't feel the skald really has a nordic/viking feel. It is more of a celtic thing to have music on the battlefield, or Turk if you prefer (was recently in Istambul listening to Turk battle music). In nordic tradition, the berserker and the skald stood for opposite cultural traits. Berserkers are mentioned in the sagas as monsters that everyone was afraid of, and which it takes a cool and experienced hero to deal with. Skalds were chroniclers and law-speakers and opposed to barbarism - which didn't stop them from going viking of course. And the stories certainly kept old feuds alive, and thus kept up battle-lust in a larger time frame. "Civilized" is a very relative term here.

Now, Pathfinder is fantasy. Having a viking-esque battle-singer is fantasy and can fit. But trying to use nordic models for what a skald is, what weapons it should use and so on, might be misleading.

Liberty's Edge

How does rage song interact with animal companions? Are they automatically willing or unwilling?


Starfox wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As to why scribe scroll: because skalds are recorders of lore, and in a magical world they'd use their lorekeeping for magic as well.

While I do like the class, as a Scandinavian, I don't feel the skald really has a nordic/viking feel. It is more of a celtic thing to have music on the battlefield, or Turk if you prefer (was recently in Istambul listening to Turk battle music). In nordic tradition, the berserker and the skald stood for opposite cultural traits. Berserkers are mentioned in the sagas as monsters that everyone was afraid of, and which it takes a cool and experienced hero to deal with. Skalds were chroniclers and law-speakers and opposed to barbarism - which didn't stop them from going viking of course. And the stories certainly kept old feuds alive, and thus kept up battle-lust in a larger time frame. "Civilized" is a very relative term here.

Now, Pathfinder is fantasy. Having a viking-esque battle-singer is fantasy and can fit. But trying to use nordic models for what a skald is, what weapons it should use and so on, might be misleading.

100% agreed. If you wanted to play a more historically accurate Skald, you would likely play a Bard. It's one of those problematic things when we attach historical names to a fantasy class (Barbarian, Witch, Monk to name a few). So expanding the list of options is a good thing.


Coridan wrote:
How does rage song interact with animal companions? Are they automatically willing or unwilling?

Sorry. Pets are not affected.

Advanced Class Guide Playtest wrote:


A raging song is language-dependent with audible
components, but not visual components. Affected allies
must be able to hear the skald for the song to have any effect.

My bold.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zark wrote:
Coridan wrote:
How does rage song interact with animal companions? Are they automatically willing or unwilling?

Sorry. Pets are not affected.

Advanced Class Guide Playtest wrote:


A raging song is language-dependent with audible
components, but not visual components. Affected allies
must be able to hear the skald for the song to have any effect.

My bold.

Speak with Animals?


It'd be more like Death Growl With Animals, but that could work.


Cheapy wrote:
It'd be more like Death Growl With Animals, but that could work.
  • It is a 3rd level spell for bards
  • Does the rest of the party speak "animal"? If not, they don't get the benefit if the Skald sing in “Animal”, unless the Skald got more than one mouth.
  • Is there only one animal language? If not, the bard must pick one animal language.
  • Casting speak with animal is a standard action. Casting it on the Skald and the rest of the party will take time and resources.

    Verdict: No, that could not work.


  • Zark wrote:
    Cheapy wrote:
    It'd be more like Death Growl With Animals, but that could work.
  • It is a 3rd level spell for bards
  • Does the rest of the party speak "animal"? If not, they don't get the benefit if the Skald sing in “Animal”, unless the Skald got more than one mouth.
  • Is there only one animal language? If not, the bard must pick one animal language.
  • Casting speak with animal is a standard action. Casting it on the Skald and the rest of the party will take time and resources.

    Verdict: No, that could not work.

  • Comprehend Languages permanancied on the Animal Companion. 2,500 gp. Till then a potion of Comprehend Languages works.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Sean K Reynolds wrote:

    We're revising the skald.

    As mentioned in today's blog, raging song will be changing—your allies will be able to jump in or out as they need to, it'll "play nice" with other rage class abilities.

    We need to clarify what rage powers can be used.

    You'll see an upgrade in armor and weapons, and a couple of other things that'll push it more toward the barbarian side of things than the bard side of things.

    What about losing the spellcasting?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Almost every animal companion uses their first attribute point on Intelligence and gives their pet one rank of linguistics to understand Common, so this isn't as big an issue as people seem to think.

    A much bigger issue is that animal companions are one of only a very few characters that would ever want the only class feature that the Skalds grant.


    mplindustries wrote:
    Almost every animal companion uses their first attribute point on Intelligence and gives their pet one rank of linguistics to understand Common, so this isn't as big an issue as people seem to think.

    OT. I doubt this is legal by RAW or RAI - a creature with Int 3 is no longer an animal and thus not a legitimate animal companion.


    Starfox wrote:
    mplindustries wrote:
    Almost every animal companion uses their first attribute point on Intelligence and gives their pet one rank of linguistics to understand Common, so this isn't as big an issue as people seem to think.
    OT. I doubt this is legal by RAW or RAI - a creature with Int 3 is no longer an animal and thus not a legitimate animal companion.

    Really? I didn't think an Int of 3 turned it into a magical beast...Huh.


    This blag post should explain it.


    Starfox wrote:
    mplindustries wrote:
    Almost every animal companion uses their first attribute point on Intelligence and gives their pet one rank of linguistics to understand Common, so this isn't as big an issue as people seem to think.
    OT. I doubt this is legal by RAW or RAI - a creature with Int 3 is no longer an animal and thus not a legitimate animal companion.

    Ummm, no.

    There are rules in the Animal Companion section precisely for raising its intelligence to a 3. It states that this can increase their feat options etc.

    Linguistics though.. yeah that is pushing realism a LOT.

    But share language is a really common thing to use on your companion. It is a level 1 druid spell that lasts 24 hours, and you use it so that anything that comes up (like a PC shouting a warning) can be understood by your companion. It also means that when someone, for example, alerts allies to a monster's particular weaknesses, the companion also gets this information.

    This spell also lets your companion benefit from Inspire Courage.


    Cheapy wrote:
    This blag post should explain it.

    Insightful. So yeah, if you take the time and bump the animal's int up it could understand common.


    Scavion wrote:
    Cheapy wrote:
    This blag post should explain it.
    Insightful. So yeah, if you take the time and bump the animal's int up it could understand common.

    Your tone suggests that you find this to be unusual or not worth it. This is interesting to me because I have literally never encountered an animal companion that was not immediately given Int 3 at the first opportunity--I've even seen humans use the alternate racial ability to bump it up straight away at level 1. There is almost nothing you can do for your companion that is more useful than that.


    Has anyone playtested this class in a band of Warriors? I feel like they would be very useful there. In fact, I just might run the intro to Burnt Offerings and change the Bards to Skalds. Hmmm. Anyone else wanna beat me to this go ahead.


    mplindustries wrote:
    Scavion wrote:
    Cheapy wrote:
    This blag post should explain it.
    Insightful. So yeah, if you take the time and bump the animal's int up it could understand common.
    Your tone suggests that you find this to be unusual or not worth it. This is interesting to me because I have literally never encountered an animal companion that was not immediately given Int 3 at the first opportunity--I've even seen humans use the alternate racial ability to bump it up straight away at level 1. There is almost nothing you can do for your companion that is more useful than that.

    Uh. No. I meant Insightful. And if thats your piece of pie cool. And I actually have a Hippogriff Ranger build who'd be interested in pursuing this method. And I tried to accomplish some degree of the same thing earlier with Comprehend Languages. I said "Take the time..." because the blog post said it could takes years.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    What's that, Lassie? The Skald is stuck in the old well?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Well, i'm pretty sure is too late for that suggestion, but maybe the skald would fit better in the concept of the bloodrager: full BAB, d10 Hit Die, 4 levels of spells taken from the Bard spell list (up to 4th level spells).


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ricardo Pennacchia wrote:
    Well, i'm pretty sure is too late for that suggestion, but maybe the skald would fit better in the concept of the bloodrager: full BAB, d10 Hit Die, 4 levels of spells taken from the Bard spell list (up to 4th level spells).

    How about d12 hit die and no spells?


    Glim Sniksnak, Goblin Ninja wrote:
    Ricardo Pennacchia wrote:
    Well, i'm pretty sure is too late for that suggestion, but maybe the skald would fit better in the concept of the bloodrager: full BAB, d10 Hit Die, 4 levels of spells taken from the Bard spell list (up to 4th level spells).
    How about d12 hit die and no spells?

    The answer for your question is simple: just play a barbarian. My intention here is trying to contribute to the discussion about the skald.

    Grand Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Ricardo Pennacchia wrote:
    Well, i'm pretty sure is too late for that suggestion, but maybe the skald would fit better in the concept of the bloodrager: full BAB, d10 Hit Die, 4 levels of spells taken from the Bard spell list (up to 4th level spells).

    I TOTALLY would love to see D10/Full BAB martial weapons/Medium Armour - NO spells but bardic countersong inspiration etc.

    That said, I think there is Zero chance of that happening. Based on the Week 1 blog, sounds like they are committed to the spell casting aspect... which will lock this class in at 3/4 BAB


    Scavion wrote:
    mplindustries wrote:
    Scavion wrote:
    Cheapy wrote:
    This blag post should explain it.
    Insightful. So yeah, if you take the time and bump the animal's int up it could understand common.
    Your tone suggests that you find this to be unusual or not worth it. This is interesting to me because I have literally never encountered an animal companion that was not immediately given Int 3 at the first opportunity--I've even seen humans use the alternate racial ability to bump it up straight away at level 1. There is almost nothing you can do for your companion that is more useful than that.
    Uh. No. I meant Insightful. And if thats your piece of pie cool. And I actually have a Hippogriff Ranger build who'd be interested in pursuing this method. And I tried to accomplish some degree of the same thing earlier with Comprehend Languages. I said "Take the time..." because the blog post said it could takes years.
    Quote:

    From Animal Type Description

    Traits
    [...]
    An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

    Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
    [...]
    One of the surest ways to complicate the relationship between an adventurer and her animal companion is to cast awaken on the beast. The moment the spell takes effect, an animal companion ceases to be a class feature, and instead becomes a person—an NPC [...]

    The last section pertains directly to awaken but there is nothing to indicate it would not apply to other changes in Intelligence. The general wording and the note under traits seems to indicate that an animal with an Int of 3 or more from any source ceases to be an animal and is therefore not a legal animal companion.

    Edit: Ah, that blog post was official. Well, I guess Pazio can change their own rules. However, if they do, they should do so properly - why is awaken suddenly one of the few bad ways to raise an animal's Int? It is after all a druid standby for exactly this. Sigh.


    Starfox, Awaken gives you a slew of bonuses besides raising your int. Full BAB, a Hit Die increase(d10s)...

    Bumping the Int to 3 doesn't fundamentally change the Animal into another creature like Awaken does.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ricardo Pennacchia wrote:


    The answer for your question is simple: just play a barbarian bard. My intention here is trying to contribute to the discussion about the skald.

    Fixed that for you. Can we put away the snarky comments now?


    Starfox wrote:


    Edit: Ah, that blog post was official. Well, I...

    I think the animal entry is a copy pasta mistake from 3.5. From the beginning, Pathfinder has been clear that Animals can eventually gain intelligence scores higher than 2.

    In 3.5, gaining an intelligence higher than 2 turned the animal into a magical beast.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I propose the following changes to the skald:


    • Drop spellcasting
    • d12 hit dice
    • Full Bab
    • Martial Weapon Proficiency
    • Give them Bardic Performance
    • Change Rage Song to a type of bardic performance than only skalds can do (and allies can benefit from if they choose).
    • Change Spell Kenning to a special type of bardic performance as well. The Perform DC would be 20 + spell level. If successful, they can cast any spell from any class as a spell like ability once a day. (Twice at 11th level and thrice at 17th level.) The maximum spell is equal to the skald level divided by 4 (for 6th level spells at level 16).

    I think that will be an awesome class to play.


    Glim Sniksnak, Goblin Ninja wrote:

    I propose the following changes to the skald:


    • Drop spellcasting
    • d12 hit dice
    • Full Bab
    • Martial Weapon Proficiency
    • Give them Bardic Performance
    • Change Rage Song to a type of bardic performance than only skalds can do (and allies can benefit from if they choose).
    • Change Spell Kenning to a special type of bardic performance as well. The Perform DC would be 20 + spell level. If successful, they can cast any spell from any class as a spell like ability once a day. (Twice at 11th level and thrice at 17th level.) The maximum spell is equal to the skald level divided by 4 (for 6th level spells at level 16).

    I think that will be an awesome class to play.

    It could be, but it doesn't really take enough from the bard.

    I agree with "more barbarian" generally, but there is a bit of a issue...
    Martial classes are harder to do.. the knife's edge of balance and viability is very thin there. Give a class spells and it iss far easier to handwave any holes in its design... because spells.

    Spells really let you do a lot of things and cover over inconsistencies very well. So much so that a 9 level caster really doesn't need class features.... or at least they don't rely on them at all.

    The other problem is that if you try to make this a 4-level caster class with the bard list.... well they already have the Bloodrager in this book, which is a 4-level arcane casting barbarian.

    So, I think that sticking with 6-level casting is where you end up, but I also agree with the concept of diminished spellcasting..... AKA getting less spells per level foor mor emartial goodness


    Glim Sniksnak, Goblin Ninja wrote:

    I propose the following changes to the skald:

    Drop spellcasting
    d12 hit dice
    Full Bab
    Martial Weapon Proficiency
    Give them Bardic Performance
    Change Rage Song to a type of bardic performance than only skalds can do (and allies can benefit from if they choose).
    Change Spell Kenning to a special type of bardic performance as well. The Perform DC would be 20 + spell level. If successful, they can cast any spell from any class as a spell like ability once a day. (Twice at 11th level and thrice at 17th level.) The maximum spell is equal to the skald level divided by 4 (for 6th level spells at level 16).
    I think that will be an awesome class to play.

    Although i doubt the developers will adopt this approach for the skald, i see it as a good concept of barbarian warchief archetype (only removing the Spell Kenning, IMHO).

    Lord_Malkov wrote:
    The other problem is that if you try to make this a 4-level caster class with the bard list.... well they already have the Bloodrager in this book, which is a 4-level arcane casting barbarian.

    You got a point, but the bloodrager makes use of the magus spell list. And then you would have two arcane counterparts to the "cleric-based" (somewhat, at least) paladin, and the (somewhat) "druid-based" ranger.


    I think at this point, my preferred skald would be:
    - Built on the bard skeleton
    - Light armor, shields
    - Proficient with all simple weapons, and the shortsword, rapier, longsword, battle-axe, handaxe, greatsword, greataxe, shortbow, longbow all martial weapons
    - ragesong becomes "song of rage" and replaces inspire courage in the bardic performance list; inspire heroism gets swapped for inspiring greater rage, and deadly performance becomes mighty rage
    - keep well-versed
    - replace lore master with rage powers while performing the song of rage; moment of clarity becomes an allowed thing
    - fast movement replaces bardic knowledge
    - remove versatile performance and squeeze in that spell kenning thing
    - casts one less spell each day of each spell level


    Cheapy wrote:
    This blag post should explain it.

    The blog post and the rules on animals and intelligence is vague and messy. Something even Jason B admits if you read his comments in the thread.

    An animal with int 3 does not necessarily learn a language. If it does it might take years for it to learn a language. A smart animal is still just an animal.

    I hardly think Comprehend languages is useful. The animal is still just and animal, but Share language should be a safer bet.


    Lord_Malkov wrote:
    Glim Sniksnak, Goblin Ninja wrote:

    I propose the following changes to the skald:


    • Drop spellcasting
    • d12 hit dice
    • Full Bab
    • Martial Weapon Proficiency
    • Give them Bardic Performance
    • Change Rage Song to a type of bardic performance than only skalds can do (and allies can benefit from if they choose).
    • Change Spell Kenning to a special type of bardic performance as well. The Perform DC would be 20 + spell level. If successful, they can cast any spell from any class as a spell like ability once a day. (Twice at 11th level and thrice at 17th level.) The maximum spell is equal to the skald level divided by 4 (for 6th level spells at level 16).

    I think that will be an awesome class to play.

    It could be, but it doesn't really take enough from the bard.

    I agree with "more barbarian" generally, but there is a bit of a issue...
    Martial classes are harder to do.. the knife's edge of balance and viability is very thin there. Give a class spells and it iss far easier to handwave any holes in its design... because spells.

    Spells really let you do a lot of things and cover over inconsistencies very well. So much so that a 9 level caster really doesn't need class features.... or at least they don't rely on them at all.

    The other problem is that if you try to make this a 4-level caster class with the bard list.... well they already have the Bloodrager in this book, which is a 4-level arcane casting barbarian.

    So, I think that sticking with 6-level casting is where you end up, but I also agree with the concept of diminished spellcasting..... AKA getting less spells per level foor mor emartial goodness

    I think that's a cop out. So, there really isn't anything else of value to a bard, or as you claim any other classes, other than spells?

    Rogues, Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, and Cavaliers are all great classes without spells, so that argument is invalid.

    What you are saying is that even if they put all other class features of the bard into the skald except the spellcasting, there would be no point to it.


    Glim Sniksnak, Goblin Ninja wrote:


    I think that's a cop out. So, there really isn't anything else of value to a bard, or as you claim any other classes, other than spells?

    Rogues, Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, and Cavaliers are all great classes without spells, so that argument is invalid.

    What you are saying is that even if they put all other class features of the bard into the skald except the spellcasting, there would be no point to it.

    Ummm, not at all what I said.

    What I am saying is that building a full BAB martial class is harder than building a 9-level caster from a design perspective. That was first. For example, if the original Arcanist was released, it would be a good competitive class. If it was released without its blood focus, or ANY other class features except spells, it would still make a decent character ... because magic.

    So, anyway, my point was that making a full BAB martial character is just more difficult from a design perspective and that pushing to close to barbarian creates a class that is less of its own class and more of an archtype.

    I was not trying to suggest that martial classes are bad at all.

    Keep in mind that the Evangelist and Sensei archtypes are archtypes that add on Bardic Performance to a base class... so a barbarian that gets performance is not far outside the realm of an archtype.

    Going 4 levels of casting can fix things, but again, the bloodrager sort of took that role already.

    So, we are pretty much landing on a 6 level caster. I don't think that a full BAB d12 hit die barbarian with more skills, performance, lore master etc. couldn't be good... I just don't think that it is the sort of thing that the design team would go for.

    Keep in mind also that the Slayer is the only one of these hybrids that came in with a caster class and lost spells entirely... and that is a 4-level caster.

    So, some diminished casting, like getting only 4 spells per spell level, would probably be the best thing to trade for enhanced martial prowess, if (as I have assumed) those other options are off the table.

    I think if the Skald stays a pure 6-level caster, then you have very little room to enhance its martial abilities.

    So there needs to be some loss of spellcasting somehow, and the fact that bloodrager is taking that 4-level casting barbarian 'slot' is really gumming up the works for the Skald.

    Alternatively, what might be interesting would be to change the Skald to having no spellcasting, but a slew of options for SLAs in addition to better combat options, a full BAB, and performance.


    Glim Sniksnak, Goblin Ninja wrote:
    Starfox wrote:


    Edit: Ah, that blog post was official. Well, I...

    I think the animal entry is a copy pasta mistake from 3.5.

    Yeah, I agree with this. A mess. But still better than 3.5.

    An example: The Dragoneel, Int 4, text mentions it can be trained. It is a dragon, not even a magic beast. And Handle Animal only mentions training animals.


    Its not messy at all, the general rule is that animals that gain an into of 3 become megical beasts. If i am a dm and i want to make a smarter walress i make its int 3, and then change all the other characteristics for my super walruss to match those of a magic beast.

    Then theres specific exceptions to the rule, such as Druids being able to raise their animals int to 3. But they stay animals and retain alot of the issues with animals, however they can now take profession lawer... and jus tbe bad at it :P

    Handle animal does not have to mention dragons at all, the Dragonel creates a specific exception to the general rule regarding handle animal.

    All that said, i do not think comprehend languages works on an animal as it has no capacity to understand language beyond tricks. Thats really why speak with animals exists.

    I like the idea of lots of angry squirrels though following the Skald's ragesong.


    Mojorat wrote:
    Its not messy at all, the general rule is that animals that gain an into of 3 become megical beasts. If i am a dm and i want to make a smarter walress i make its int 3, and then change all the other characteristics for my super walruss to match those of a magic beast.

    Except that there's no such rule in Pathfinder -- there was such a rule in 3, but it's gone now -- and the blog post linked confirms that.

    However, all this seems tangential to the matter at hand.


    One thing to keep in mind is that there is going to be stuff in the book that gives existing classes access to some of the new things that the new classes can do. I can easily see a barbarian archetype that simply subs out Rage for Raging Song, full stop. (Okay, and it gets some tweaks to its Rage Power class feature to make it work right with Raging Song.) While anything is possible, such an archetype seems more likely than a decision to rearchitect the Skald into a noncaster with full BAB and d12s.

    Grand Lodge

    Don't know why we can't leave the D12 as the Barbarians Schtick* and give D10 to a non casty Skald class...

    * Barbarian and Stalwart Defender, but the SD is a PrC and a legacy take across of a dwarvish PrC from 3.5


    Tilnar wrote:
    Mojorat wrote:
    Its not messy at all, the general rule is that animals that gain an into of 3 become megical beasts. If i am a dm and i want to make a smarter walress i make its int 3, and then change all the other characteristics for my super walruss to match those of a magic beast.

    Except that there's no such rule in Pathfinder -- there was such a rule in 3, but it's gone now -- and the blog post linked confirms that.

    However, all this seems tangential to the matter at hand.

    The thing is, animal companions aren't normal creatures at all. They fight "as a druid of their Hit Dice," they count as animals for spell purposes, and they are called out as using animal traits for some of their racial features. But they aren't really animals, not really; they're a class feature, and they have whatever characteristics they have.


    Can't believe this discussion is still going on, but here is the skinny.

    According to the Animal Companion rules, you can have a companion with an Int over 3 according to this section:

    "Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources."

    and this one:

    "Animal companions can assign skill ranks to any skill listed under Animal Skills. If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice."

    So, it expands their feat access to feats outside of the animal companion list and they can take linguistics (though still do not have the ability to speak).

    What others are referring to is the statement in the beastiary about animals where it lists this as a quality of animals:

    "Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal)."

    So, these are contradictions, but as always, specific trumps general, and it is best to go with the companion rules when dealing with companions.


    It's not even a question of specific trumping general. That statement about animals applies to animals. Nowhere in the AC does it say it applies to ACs. They "are" animals only insofar as for the purposes of spells cast on them. In every other way they are like animals only as far as each place it is called out.


    Lord_Malkov wrote:
    Can't believe this discussion is still going on, but here is the skinny.

    Lol... Yeah, i found myself intrigued as well about it, sort of "what the blazes is this animal companions' discussion is doing here in the Skald Discussion?"

    301 to 350 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / Class Discussion / Skald Discussion All Messageboards