Well the quick recap is:
Can animal companions benefit from performances?
Performances are language dependent, so you must understand the language of the performance.
Can animal companions take a rank in linguistics?
They can with an Int of 3 or higher.
Can an animal even BE Int 3 or higher?
So, yes they can benefit, yes they can get Int 3, and yes they can take a rank of linguistics in order to learn a language (or disable device, spellcraft, knowledge history or use magic device... it might be weird, but thems the rules)
The fact that the most action Skalds get is talk about druid animals saddens me.
The fact that the most action Skalds get is talk about druid animals saddens me.
I actually like the way the class is right now. The only thing I can think of to make them completely solid is just opening up the Rage Power selection to include immediate action Rage Powers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what's wrong with starting with the bard, dropping spellcasting, and swapping in some barbarian abilities and some of unique skald abilities to compensate.
Seem the most logical way to go.
It is not as clear as you make it out to be.
First, the blog post FAQ is not even a part of the official FAQ.
Second the Devs haves made add-ons to this rules. And yes when it comes to rules regarding animals and monsters James Jacobs is a Devs that has the authority to state what goes and what does not go.
Here are just a few:
Does that mean an average adult human can learn 30 tricks?Humans are humanoids, not animals, remember? That means rules for animals don't automatically also apply to humans.
And
Is that what James was saying? I'm not sure - it did not seem like it.
Now, what James says makes sense to me:
"Heavy War Horse: This simple template ... increase its natural armor bonus by +2. Increase all ability scores except Intelligence by +4. When you apply the Advanced Creature template to a heavy war horse, you shouldn't adjust their Intelligence scores."
However, this seems to contradict what Jason is saying above:
"There are many ways an animal can gain intelligence. It can gain hit dice and apply its ability score boost to Int. It can gain the advanced simple template."So, my question is: does the simple template increase an animals INT score or not?
The advanced simple template does increase an animal's Intelligence. What James said doesn't contradict that.
What he's saying is that a heavy horse shouldn't have a higher Int score than a normal horse simply because its 'heavy'. The rules used "Horse + Template = Heavy Horse" for simplicity's sake, and that ended up having unintended consequences.
So James is suggesting we use a separate template to create heavy horses. One that doesn't increase Intelligence.
That doesn't mean you can't use the advanced template on a horse to make 'a really badass horse', in which case it would have a higher Int score. Ditto for any other animal you advance that way.
That's exactly what James was saying, actually.
One thing I hated in the 3.5 Monster Manual was the fact that it had so many identical stat blocks for horse variants. It was a waste of space, I thought. But we went a bit too far at simplifying things.
Actually, horses more than ANY other creature should be stats available to PCs. We probably should have just put some horse stat blocks in the equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook.
An even better solution, though, would have been to just nix the idea of a heavy horse entirely. Just do stats for a horse...
And
Hey there Everybody,
Couple of quick responses.
1. Animals work under the rules for Handle Animal. The only place where Int comes into this is using the skill for Magical Beasts (which must have an Int of 1 or 2 for the skill to be used on them) and the number of tricks an animal can learn. On the first issue, it is just easier to have the rules apply to all creatures of the animal type, regardless of Int. This does not necessarily create two different Int score tracks, it just places limitations on creatures of the animal type, which I think is perfectly reasonable. Similar limitations apply to plants, but PCs have fewer iterations with them as tools and allies, so the issue is far less common there. The rules are silent on the second issue, but I think a GM could safely assume that an animal can learn 3 extra tricks for each point of Int above 2 (following the pattern).
2. Because we are dealing with something that has a real world analog (animal intelligence), it is pretty easy to get into heated debate about what an animal can and cannot do. Remember that we are running a game here, not trying to simulate every exact possibility of reality. That means that in some situations, the rules might not be able to properly replicate every situation without opening up the system to easy abuse. Some GMs will certainly view the weapon wielding animal companions in this way, which is why we left it open for GM interpretation (such as in PFS). I am going to let Hyrum and Mark make the call on this situation for PFS, based on their experience and vision for the Org Play program.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
And
Yeah.
I don't really see much willingness from Paizo to transparently discuss this problem, probably because alot of them are embarrassed at the situation themself and don't want to publicly acknowledge shortcomings.So, before you go an make sweeping statements like this one, on a subject in which you are clearly just drawing on conjecture (and being a bit insulting in the exchange), let me just clear this up.
This system for handling animals is not ideal. It does not quite work the right way and some left over language from old editions is clearly to blame, along with my lack of catching it during the development process.
However..
I make it a rule not to change the game in the FAQ if I can help it. A GM should be able to go to the book, and its update, for all of the rules he needs. Anything outside that is in his purview. The FAQ is here for guidance in deciding that purview. I don't want to end up with a system, by which a GM (or PFS judge) has to be intimately familiar with every messageboard post and every FAQ blog post to run a game. We have to give leeway in this regard, so that is what we do.
It should be noted.. that I have flagged this particular issue for clarification in the next printing of the Core Rulebook, but that may take a bit to implement. Until then, this is the best we can do. Offer guidance and let GMs decide.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
My bold
AndBy the way, and in order to add more fuel to the fire...
My preference = Animals never have more than a 2 Intelligence.
If an animal has Int 1 to 2, build it as an animal.
If an animal has an Int of 3 or higher, build it as a magical beast.
If an animal has no Int score at all, build it as a vermin.Animals are animals. When they start doing things like talking or using crossbows or pole arms, they're fantasy, and they should be treated as fantasy creatures. And druids should have very little interest in weird "he thinks he's people" since that's not natural at all.
That's me, though... so unless I'm your GM you don't have to worry about it. And if you're MY GM and you've got animals who thinks they're people and they're not magical beasts and they haven't been granted their people powers by magic like awaken or from being reincarnated, gorilla-king style, from something that CAN do this stuff... I'll probably bail on the campaign. Or make a ranger with favored enemy (talking animal). :-P
And
I should also add a quick note that there was a much simpler option here...
By a very strict reading of the rules, you cannot give an animal an Int higher than 2. If you do it becomes a magical beast, at which point in time it is no longer an option for an animal companion, which obviously goes against some of the rules mentioned in the AC guidelines. We decided not to go that way, since it too broke written rules, but was even less satisfactory.
In the end, if you want monkeys in your game wielding greatswords and using wands, thats fine. Its your game (Core Rulebook, page 9). The rules are relatively unclear so we left that door open at this time. Its not really what I envision the druid being about (and there are serious power balance issues to be considered, which is why many consider the druid to be terribly unbalanced), but for now anyway, the rules leave it open.
PFS, is another matter entirely, and I will not address it here.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
My bold
AndAnd finally I have to points:
A human with int 3 would probably be a person with an extreme Iintellectual disability, perhaps an IQ below 20 (or at least not higher than 35-40). Compared that to the smartest animal on earth today (Chimpanzee) that apparently have an IQ of 12. So my guess is that there probably humans that have very limited linguistic skills, including actually learning a language. They also have a very limited intellectual capacity of grasping pretty much anything beyond the very basic stuff.
If I were a GM I would not allow a PC to have an int score lower than 4 or even 6.
BTW, I have worked with people with Intellectual disability and all of them could speak and all of them had an IQ far higher than 20, I’m just saying that int 3 is probably eqvivalent of severe or profound intellectual disability
So even if you do cast Share language on an animal with int 2 it doesn’t mean it understands all you say. Even if you cast speak with animals and start talking to your AC with int 2, what is it going to say?
Me thirst. Me hungry. Me pain. Me afraid. Me see big creature (could be human, could be ogre, could be half-elf, could be hobgoblin, could even be Gnome. Big is relative)). Me see small creature (could be Gnome, Could be Hafling, could be human child, Could be goblin, could even be adult human. Small is relative)
And finally a from the blog post again:
Gaining a language does not necessarily grant the ability to speak. Most animals do not possess the correct anatomy for speech. While a very intelligent dolphin might be taught to understand Common, there's no way for him speak it. There is also the issue of learning the language. The rules are mostly silent on this front, due to ease of play for PCs, but a GM should feel safe in assuming that it might take years to actually teach Common to an intelligent animal. All of this, of course, assumes that the animal even bothers to fill that language slot. Possessing the ability to use a language does not necessarily mean that such an ability is utilized. .
And we also have this blog post that caused a 18 pages heated discussion about variour animal companion rules.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lejb&page=1?Animals-and-Their-Tric ks#discuss .
Anyone saying the rules are clear is flat out wrong. This is very much up the GMs call.
Maybe for the Skald's purposes, it can just straight-up say that it affects animal companions regardless of whether or not they have somehow acquired a language, on account of that being awesome.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe for the Skald's purposes, it can just straight-up say that it affects animal companions regardless of whether or not they have somehow acquired a language, on account of that being awesome.
Or it could state that it is specifically not a language based effect. You aren't sure what he's saying, BUT YOU FEEL THE RAGE!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Metal requires no words... ROCK ON!!!!
can you not make a little Army of Leadership and raging song?
Zark -- Most of us disagree with you (and I'm not getting into what Int 3 means for language or skills or tricks or whatever) about 3 int = magical beast. (And that doesn't mean we're disagreeing that animals should *start* with an int of 1 or 2 -- just that an animal that gains 3 intelligence by advancement or a headband isn't automatically a magical beast... and that there is no longer a rule that says so -- build rules and advancement rules aren't the same) -- however, it's not really germane to what we're talking about here.
Maybe you could move that discussion to another thread so we can get back to talking about the Skald?
Unless you think whether or not ragesong affects animal companions is the thing that'll make or break the class?
|
I would like to say again that ragesong is too specific and focused an ability for a nonarchetype and the class would benefit from having a list of different performances at each spell level with different effects, and losing spellcasting (just use the communal spells as a guideline to what effects they could give)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think using the full strong/stupid rage mechanic on the skald is a misstep. He's not the frothing madman that drives his followers into a frenzy, he's the wise leader and scholar, a warrior who has a deeper knowledge of the world.
With the ragesong being the keystone ability of the class, (with the Skald essentially trading the barbarian's martial abilities, and the bards entire musical variety for it) having it come with such an action-restriction penalty, and stat specific benefit is frustrating.
Only certain classes benefit from Strength, and even they look twice a not being able to control their characters. As rage powers get into the mix, the cost/benefit analysis does shift, but when you need to stop the game so the other players can weigh the pro/cons of your MAIN class feature, that can be pretty disheartening.
When a bard starts playing, everyone gets buffed. No questions asked. When a barbarian goes crazy, the baddies get smacked, and everyone else cheers. With the Skald, you trade both of these for "Eh, I think I'll pass this round"
I think a cool way to shape the Rage song, would be to allow him to choose what stats are boosted. The Skald can use his knowledge and experience to heighten their reactions, expand their minds, or strengthen their hearts. Remove the blanket action restriction, but maybe bring back the fatigue penalty, with the idea that resuming the song wipes the penalty.
TrueSong: The Skalds knowledge of the inherent power that weaves it's way through the world allows him to unlock the potential of his allies. With a successful Perform check (DC 10) the Skald grants all allies within 30 feet (+10 feet for every 5 the check exceeds the DC) a +2 bonus to two stats of his choosing. Maintaining the Truesong is a free action. Once started, the skald can choose to change the stats granted by the Truesong as a Standard action. If an ally leaves the area of the Truesong, they lose the bonuses granted by it at the end of their next turn, and become fatigued for one round per round of Truesong recieved. This fatigue is removed if they are granted the benefits of Truesong again.
As for spells, think normal spell casting should be dumped, and Spell Kenning should be expanded. Give the Skald the ability to shape magic with his Words. (Or Perform Oratory if you rather) Give him a sharply limited ability to cast, based off his ability to Ragesong (Say, 2-3 rounds of rage per spell level), make doing so a full round action (Or, if the spell is already a full round, double the casting time) that provokes AoO, and give him a spell level cap based off of his Skald level. Let him cast any spell off of the Bard/Wizard spell lists, and see what rabbits he can sing out of a hat.
I would also personally base both his casting and singing off of wisdom instead of charisma, but that's just me.
Just some random ideas, loving the playtest as a whole. Keep up the great work!
Zark -- Most of us disagree with you [..] about 3 int = magical beast.
Don't put Words in my mouth. Reread my posts in this thread. I never claimed such a thing.
I’ve only stated facts.A raging song is language-dependent
An animal with int 2 don’t understand common.
Speak with animals is a third level spells for bards.
etc
Unless you think whether or not ragesong affects animal companions is the thing that'll make or break the class?
Combined with the fact that ragesong sucks if you have casters in the party, then yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zark -- Most of us disagree with you [..] about 3 int = magical beast.
Don't put Words in my mouth. Reread my posts in this thread. I never claimed such a thing.
I’ve only stated facts.A raging song is language-dependent
An animal with int 2 don’t understand common.
Speak with animals is a third level spells for bards.
etc
Unless you think whether or not ragesong affects animal companions is the thing that'll make or break the class?Combined with the fact that ragesong sucks if you have casters in the party, then yes.
Potions of Comprehend Languages, a 50 gp investment, and if your not playing PFS, you can have it permanency'd on your Animal Companion.
Lets move on please.
I like the Truesong suggestion earlier. I like the idea of a Skald's words unlocking the true potential in his allies in different ways.
Permanency is not something you can afford at lower levels.
Share Language is obviously a better spell than comprehend language and what a creature with int 2 can comprehend is up to GM fiat.
You hand out bad advice and then decide we should move on. Classy.
Fair enough, Zark -- I actually put Starfox's words in your mouth, and I apologize.
However, again, maybe it's just me but I think the class needs a lot more work than just allowing the [non-badger, rage don't stack..] pets of rangers, druids and cavaliers (and, well, the new classes) to benefit from the song -- and that our energies are much better spent discussing ways to make the skald a better class rather than whether or not animals can benefit from a language-dependant effect (especially since share language solves the problem either way for 24 hours at a time)
Personally, I don't think that the success or failure hinges on whether or not animal companions with 3 int and a rank of linguistics can understand the song, because the other issues seem more important.
This 'problem' regarding Performances and Animal Companions has stemmed back with the Core Bard and several of his performances that are also Language Dependant. It is nothing new and there is no point in bringing this up regarding this class because the issue is old and has little bearing on fixing the class itself.
@Scavion: If we try that, we run into the same issue as the Raging Song: playing nice. What kind of bonus is it? Does it stack with other bonuses? Is it considered a temporary bonus? Does the +2 affect that statistic for all creatures, or do those affected choose which stat it goes to? Is it overpowered for such a performance?
The class features need to be simple yet unique. Defining yet primitive. That's a lot of what the Skald is about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This 'problem' regarding Performances and Animal Companions has stemmed back with the Core Bard and several of his performances that are also Language Dependant. It is nothing new and there is no point in bringing this up regarding this class because the issue is old and has little bearing on fixing the class itself.
@Scavion: If we try that, we run into the same issue as the Raging Song: playing nice. What kind of bonus is it? Does it stack with other bonuses? Is it considered a temporary bonus? Does the +2 affect that statistic for all creatures, or do those affected choose which stat it goes to? Is it overpowered for such a performance?
The class features need to be simple yet unique. Defining yet primitive. That's a lot of what the Skald is about.
I'm thinking +2 Temporary. That keeps it a bit in line. Yeah I want it to stack with other stuff. Those affected choose what it affects. Music has a different effect on different people =)
I don't think it would be overpowered overall. I wouldn't want it to scale to +6 however. I think scaling to an eventual +4 would be nice.
I figured allowing Clarity of Mind would help a lot of the issues with Raging Song as well as clarifying it as a NOT language dependent ability. Opening up the Rage Power selection would also help the Skald tremendously.
You don't always need to understand the music to feel it.
Bards use there own performances to hit things that they otherwise wouldn't be able to. +4 to a stat is half as effective as inspire courage and would leave the bards best attack two points behind. Please try to remember that this is supposed to be a hybrid of a bard and a barbarian, if anything it should be more likely to hit, not less.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion the Truesong should;
-stack with most things (so not morale, temporary would be fine)
-provide everyone a bonus to 2 stats chosen by the skald upon activation (standard to change). This would allow him to tailor it based on the group.
-require a perform check (with expanded radius on a higher check)
-have no skill/concentration penalty to allow other players to benefit and still play their class
-keep the fatigue mechanic, but allow a round of leeway to allow for combat movement
I really don't feel like this is anywhere close to overpowered when compared to the panoply of bard songs. Skald gets one song, hopefully it's a good one! :)
I like the Truesong idea.
This 'problem' regarding Performances and Animal Companions has stemmed back with the Core Bard and several of his performances that are also Language Dependant. It is nothing new and there is no point in bringing this up regarding this class because the issue is old and has little bearing on fixing the class itself.
@Scavion: If we try that, we run into the same issue as the Raging Song: playing nice. What kind of bonus is it? Does it stack with other bonuses? Is it considered a temporary bonus? Does the +2 affect that statistic for all creatures, or do those affected choose which stat it goes to? Is it overpowered for such a performance?
The class features need to be simple yet unique. Defining yet primitive. That's a lot of what the Skald is about.
I'm thinking +2 Temporary. That keeps it a bit in line. Yeah I want it to stack with other stuff. Those affected choose what it affects. Music has a different effect on different people =)
I don't think it would be overpowered overall. I wouldn't want it to scale to +6 however. I think scaling to an eventual +4 would be nice.
I figured allowing Clarity of Mind would help a lot of the issues with Raging Song as well as clarifying it as a NOT language dependent ability. Opening up the Rage Power selection would also help the Skald tremendously.
You don't always need to understand the music to feel it.
That is where it becomes an issue. Temporary bonuses are ambiguous in what they grant for each statistic, considering they don't function like a Stat Belt or Headband normally do. We then run into arguments such as "I get additional Spell Slots now!" or "I gain more HP!" when they may not be the case.
As far as I'm concerned, the big challenge is that the more generic you make the bonuses provided by the song, the more redundant the class becomes with the Bard, but if you don't do something then the class is of limited use to most parties. (Although being able to make even one person sort of a combination Barbarian/WhateverTheyAlreadyAre is kinda cool.)
Basically, there are three desiderata, and I think that it's hard to make them all true at the same time.
1) Skald's song is useful to a wide variety of classes and parties.
2) Skald's song is as distinct as possible from a Bard's song.
3) Skald's song isn't outrageously complicated mechanically.
(You could also have the Skald have a very bardlike song but undergo a comprehensive redesign to make it different from the bard in other ways, but it's not clear to what extent that's on the table.)
Truesong feels like a reasonable midpoint between 1 and 2, although it's making significant sacrifices on 2 for moderate gains on 1. (Remember that if you pick Int or Wis or something that you remove the Skald itself from the pool of people benefitting from that stat.) You can let people choose the benefit on a person by person basis, (which is big gains one 1), but at that point it starts getting real similar to what a Bard's doing anyway. Making everybody generically more awesome is a fine way to make the class functional, but it also makes it even more bardlike.
Possible Epiphany:
What if, instead of adding to Strength or Con or whatever, it added directly to hit, damage, HP, and possibly save DCs?
Then, you'd just have to add that aggressive spellcasting was still acceptable (some language about always targeting an enemy with your spells each round) and you'd be set.
It would benefit everyone from Raging Barbarians to Dervish Dancing Swashbucklers to blasty casters, and it would still feel like rage because you have to be relentlessly aggressive while it's on.
On top of just working better with less muss, I think it's actually better, where possible, for things to modify derived statistics than base stats.
I think the reason that people are either shying away from that idea or just saying to flat-out give the skald Inspire Courage is that it's very close to Inspire Courage - which adds directly to hit and damage. While the ability to impart rage powers would still set the Skald apart to some degree, I think that there's some concern about the whole thing ending up too bardlike.
@MPLIndustries: Sounds like Inspire Courage 2.0, instead of just hit and damage, it's health and spell DCs as well. Also, that's a big sign of power creep.
How about a Mocking Display Bardic Performance, where enemies make Will Saves (equal to 10 + half Skald level + Charisma modifier) or become infuriated, having a -1 to Hit, AC, and Saves, but a +2 to Damage rolls (that scales as the Skald levels)?
How about instead of Rage Powers (which imply that only the Skald gets them), he gets Chant Powers, features that amplify his current Raging Song (such as increased Area of Effect, applying abilities to those affected as if they had X Rage Power, etc.)?
The class needs to be different, but include elements of both of the classes listed in its hybrid classification.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Skald (using some shorthand since typing on tablet):
Rage: At first level the Skald gets rage identical to Barbarian
Chants: At first level and every three levels after (or second if you want to prevent Barbs from dipping if multiclass is allowed) the Skald can choose to add a chant to his raging. Performances that affect all willing allies within 60 feet while the Skald rages. Adding chsnts is like rage power you get to pick one "chant known" at 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19.
Example chants:
(1st level)
Vigor: Fast healing 1 +1/5 levels
Resistance: Energy Resistance (chosen at start of perfirmance) equal to Skald level
Beast hide: +1 Nat armor bonus increased at 7 and 14
Fury: +2 Damage +1/5 levels
Speed: +5ft base speed +5/5 levels
Luck: +1 to saves +1/5 levels
(4th)
Night: Allies gain darkvision
Iron hide: DR 1 Adamantine +1/6 levels
Fangs: Allies gain a 1d4 bite primary attack.
Rage: Allies gain the benefit of the Rage spell
(7th)
Deathless: Allies gain Diehard, unconscious ones due to -hp may awaken.
Feral Heart: Allies transform into a single type of animal of the Skald's choosing as Beast Form II, the Skald can continue to chant and cast spells while so transformed.
Not perfect, needs tweaking and more ideas, but I think it is a more versatile direction and would make the Skald wanted amongst more types of groups.
At levels 8 and 16 the Skald can do an additional chant during his rage.
My Skald (using some shorthand since typing on tablet):
Rage: At first level the Skald gets rage identical to Barbarian
Chants: At first level and every three levels after (or second if you want to prevent Barbs from dipping if multiclass is allowed) the Skald can choose to add a chant to his raging. Performances that affect all willing allies within 60 feet while the Skald rages. Adding chsnts is like rage power you get to pick one "chant known" at 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19.
Example chants:
(1st level)
Vigor: Fast healing 1 +1/5 levels
Resistance: Energy Resistance (chosen at start of perfirmance) equal to Skald level
Beast hide: +1 Nat armor bonus increased at 7 and 14
Fury: +2 Damage +1/5 levels
Speed: +5ft base speed +5/5 levels
Luck: +1 to saves +1/5 levels
(4th)
Night: Allies gain darkvision
Iron hide: DR 1 Adamantine +1/6 levels
Fangs: Allies gain a 1d4 bite primary attack.
Rage: Allies gain the benefit of the Rage spell
(7th)
Deathless: Allies gain Diehard, unconscious ones due to -hp may awaken.
Feral Heart: Allies transform into a single type of animal of the Skald's choosing as Beast Form II, the Skald can continue to chant and cast spells while so transformed.Not perfect, needs tweaking and more ideas, but I think it is a more versatile direction and would make the Skald wanted amongst more types of groups.
At levels 8 and 16 the Skald can do an additional chant during his rage.
To a point, this is what I was talking about. At the same time, I picture your description of what the class should do be a lot like this guy right here.
There's already a Words of Power mechanic in the game, and we aren't looking to replace it. The idea of Chants isn't a bad thing, but we aren't including the Bardic Performances the Skald should be able to do as well.
Unless of course you're referencing these could be sample Chant Powers, in which case some of them are good; others are extremely powerful given their level acquisition. Hardly any characters, creatures, or abilities give DR/Adamantine at 4th level, and Fast Healing at 1st level is unheard of in Pathfinder (although a 1st level Vigor spell functions as this in 3.X).
In addition, the "Rage Powers" in which the Skald acquires that I substitute Chant Powers for, starts at 3rd level, not 1st level. Raging Song is acquired at 1st level, which is supposed to be the Skald's performance in which the Chant Powers affect. So it should scale as 3/6/9/12/15/18.
vigor sounds great until you realize what it costs versus what it offers. It may be worth it at higher levels when you have more rounds, but I'm not even certain of that.
Fast Healing is fine if it's round-limited, which basically just makes it normal healing, but slow. Even if you were to use all six or so rounds of your rage healing people, that's a lot of healing, but not an unprecedented amount. If you're worried about it then you could just bump it up to a higher level.
Never posted on these forums before but feel I have to weigh in because of how attached I am to the old BardBarian.
Unfortunately I feel like this class is still far inferior in performing the duty of a BardBarian / Skald to a mix of Barb 1 / Bard 19.
Given that Pathfinder removed the requirement to concentrate in order to maintain bardic music, Barbarian / Bard multiclass is not only viable but incredibly fun to play. You get insane skillpoints, enough of a bonus to strength to contribute and partially offset your 3/4 BAB from Bard, and full bard songs and spells minus one level. You also get Barbarian speed for an extra bonus.
I feel like the Skald needs to offer more to a party than a full BAB character who can marginally increase the damage of other players while REDUCING their AC, and acting as a healing sponge due to his lower than barb hit points, lack of rage temporary HP and abilities that penalize his and his allies AC.
By contrast a Barbarian / Bard would be able to offer almost full bard songs to a party, a substantially greater increase in damage (due to bonuses to both hit and damage), can sing while raging and swinging at people with power attack on and can cast a whole bunch of spells while not raging.
TLDR:
I feel if the Skald is trying to replace the Barbarian role, he's not tough enough and his benefits to his allies aren't meaty enough.If he's trying to fill the role of the Bard, the bard is an infinitely better 5th man in the party due to his variety of (without any argument) more powerful abilities than those of the Skald.
Philosophically, I don't think it should be able to "replace" the parent class in either position. It should do both, but perhaps neither quite as well. That or do one just as well but in a way that reflects the influence of the second parent class.
Right now, I think the Skald is essentially a not-as-good bard. A bard can already buff himself and fight in melee and he gets more rounds of buff and the buff is useful to more allies. The main additional bonus from the skald is that allies get rage powers. That is super cool, but I am up all night worrying about how situational it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think something similar to the bard's Inspire Greatness would be a good place for the skald to be. Increase effective level (including caster level), attack bonus, damage bonus, and temporary hit points. Still feels like a sort of rage, and everyone benefits from it, some more than others, but temporary hit points are nice for everyone.
Just have to get around the Inspire Greatness cycling bards can do, granting new temporary hit points each round.
@MPLIndustries: Sounds like Inspire Courage 2.0, instead of just hit and damage, it's health and spell DCs as well. Also, that's a big sign of power creep
+1
What is suggested by Darksol the Painbringer is broken.The class needs to be different, but include elements of both of the classes listed in its hybrid classification.
I think you are somewhat right, but I’m not sure it must entail dropping inspire Courage. The whole “must be new for the sake of it!” is not an argument I find appealing or useful.
This 'problem' regarding Performances and Animal Companions has stemmed back with the Core Bard and several of his performances that are also Language Dependant. It is nothing new and there is no point in bringing this up regarding this class because the issue is old and has little bearing on fixing the class itself.
Inspire Courage does not have that problem since it can use audible or visual components and IC is the bread and butter of the bard. As for the other performances, well the rest of them (with the possible exception of Dirge of Doom Frightening Tune) are not that fantastic.
You have chance to fix some of the problems the Bard also has to deal with so I disagree on dropping the issue.
I think the class is shaping up, but it needs to be able to grant different effects/bonuse to different allies or it needs more than one performances.
Right now the ability is problematic when allies are:
So yes, I do think you have a problem that need to be addressed.
I’ve played many bards, 3.0, 3.5, Beta-bard, Core Bard, Arcane Duelist, etc. so my knowledge stem from playing the class and seeing the class in actual game play (we now have an archaeologist in the party).
I like that the Devs have set a direction for the class, even though I had hope for something different. I do however think the class could be cool if it also could use IC or something similar.
Anyway, it is obvious that my input in this thread isn’t appreciated so I leave you to it.
A piece of advice. Any fix that require the you to be level xxx, use magic items, use spells or is overly complicated isn’t a fix, anything that is more powerful that IC won’t happen unless you nerf something else.
Best of luck.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a simple truth: you cannot base a class around debuffing one's allies.
Making people Rage will never work. If someone wants to rage, they will be a Barbarian (or Bloodrager) or take the appropriate domain. Very, very few others will ever want it or wish they had it.
You need a strength based combatant that never uses spells, controls a pet, Rages themselves (since it won't stack), or otherwise uses any ability that requires concentration. Basically, you're looking at buffing Fighters (and not even all of them, since finesse fighters and archers won't want it, and Vikings already have it) and uh...
Maybe Paladins if the GM thinks you can Lay on Hands and/or Smite while Raging? Cavaliers--if people actually played those? Melee Rangers that ditched the pet for some other ability?
The silly thing is, even if I was one of those rare classes that benefit, I'd still rather have Inspire Courage than weak-rage.
Inspiring Rage as a core feature will not work unless that Rage is fundamentally altered to be distinctly un-ragelike or way too Inspire Courage-like, at which point, why not just give Inspire Courage?
While I think there's more room for a spell-less, full BAB/martial proficiency class with bardic music (and I suppose Raging, and maybe the ability to share rage powers without requiring that the targets rage), I understand that probably won't happen.
As much as "Chant Powers" or whatever sound cool, let's also say Paizo doesn't want to get involved with an extensive change like that. So, how about something simple?
Give the Skald Rage with a slower Rage Power progression. Then, while Raging (possibly only while raging), the Skald can Inspire Courage and later on, grant Rage Powers. Done.
@MPLIndustries: Sounds like Inspire Courage 2.0, instead of just hit and damage, it's health and spell DCs as well. Also, that's a big sign of power creep+1
What is suggested by Darksol the Painbringer is broken.The class needs to be different, but include elements of both of the classes listed in its hybrid classification.I think you are somewhat right, but I’m not sure it must entail dropping inspire Courage. The whole “must be new for the sake of it!” is not an argument I find appealing or useful.
This 'problem' regarding Performances and Animal Companions has stemmed back with the Core Bard and several of his performances that are also Language Dependant. It is nothing new and there is no point in bringing this up regarding this class because the issue is old and has little bearing on fixing the class itself.Inspire Courage does not have that problem since it can use audible or visual components and IC is the bread and butter of the bard. As for the other performances, well the rest of them (with the possible exception of Dirge of Doom Frightening Tune) are not that fantastic.
You have chance to fix some of the problems the Bard also has to deal with so I disagree on dropping the issue.
I think the class is shaping up, but it needs to be able to grant different effects/bonuse to different allies or it needs more than one performances.
Right now the ability is problematic when allies are:
Animal companions
Archers
Bards (Bardic performances, spells, etc.)
Characters that mainly rely on dexterity (as oppose to strength).
Druids or any class that needs to use handle animal (or any restricted skill).
Full casters, but especially the 4 arcane casters and the Shaman.
Hybrid classes that occasionally rely on spell casting (Inquisitor, Summoner, Hunter, etc.)
Hybrid classes that constantly rely on casting (Magus and...
Being new for the sake of things isn't the issue here. Flavoring stuff to be different from X thematically doesn't change the fact that we're running into redundant stuff mechanically. Giving [random New class] the same exact feature as [random Core class] and calling it their main feature is a silly sell-out for trying to make the class "new" and "different" like Paizo advertises them out to be (aside from spellcasting, which is much more vast, open to playstyles, and player-friendly than any class feature in the game).
The point is not only hypocritical advertising and creation, but also redundancy of mechanics. If I wanted to have an Inspire Courage performance (and not some knockoff which functions exactly the same way), I'd play a Core Bard, not the Skald that the Devs are trying to flesh out.
The Core Bard only makes one mention of a performance that is language-dependant; Suggestion. I am certain there are other performances from other archetypes that may fall under such category, of which are of the same uselessness, since Inspire Courage is practically the only performance a Bard ever needs, period.
But the game isn't built around Mr. I Solo The Game kind of playstyling. There are plot involvements where these other abilities are important, and the Bard covers some of these bases with the other performances. What if the Bard were to try and convince an NPC's Animal Companion to not eat the party Wizard's familiar (or something along those lines)? The only thing is that this problem has never happened to such an important class feature before until now.
As far as I'm concerned, ditching the Language-Dependant feature (who talks Common when they're mad? Wouldn't they just cuss up a storm?) would fix this problem altogether, since it's not like Animal Companions are deaf. (Or are they? If they are, that's a whole separate issue.)
@ MPL: So in other words, they might as well just make this class function exactly like the Core Bard, just maybe call it a Core Bard 2.0, since it actually has the single most important features of the Core Bard, and the single most important features of the Barbarian. Why even bother with a Core Bard now, when the Skald (now Core Bard 2.0) is so much better?
Difference without superiority is key. This is exactly why nobody plays Rogues and everybody plays Ninjas; because Ninjas outshine Rogues in every category: Availability of Talents, better weapon choice, more open playstyle, superior mechanics and features, you name it, it's better. And that's exactly what we're doing with the proposed changes you cite.
Obviously nobody wants to start classes from scratch or make super big changes, and Paizo isn't any different on the subject, but that doesn't mean that for the class to be, well, a class, and not a waste of time, that big things need to happen, old things need to be scrapped up and prepared with something new and improved. Are we at that point? Arguable. Are we getting to that point? Most definitely.
Here is a simple truth: you cannot base a class around debuffing one's allies.
Making people Rage will never work. If someone wants to rage, they will be a Barbarian (or Bloodrager) or take the appropriate domain. Very, very few others will ever want it or wish they had it.
You need a strength based combatant that never uses spells, controls a pet, Rages themselves (since it won't stack), or otherwise uses any ability that requires concentration. Basically, you're looking at buffing Fighters (and not even all of them, since finesse fighters and archers won't want it, and Vikings already have it) and uh...
Maybe Paladins if the GM thinks you can Lay on Hands and/or Smite while Raging? Cavaliers--if people actually played those? Melee Rangers that ditched the pet for some other ability?
The silly thing is, even if I was one of those rare classes that benefit, I'd still rather have Inspire Courage than weak-rage.
Inspiring Rage as a core feature will not work unless that Rage is fundamentally altered to be distinctly un-ragelike or way too Inspire Courage-like, at which point, why not just give Inspire Courage?
While I think there's more room for a spell-less, full BAB/martial proficiency class with bardic music (and I suppose Raging, and maybe the ability to share rage powers without requiring that the targets rage), I understand that probably won't happen.
As much as "Chant Powers" or whatever sound cool, let's also say Paizo doesn't want to get involved with an extensive change like that. So, how about something simple?
Give the Skald Rage with a slower Rage Power progression. Then, while Raging (possibly only while raging), the Skald can Inspire Courage and later on, grant Rage Powers. Done.
I said this earlier, so I guess I totally agree. :)
I think that change would certainly make them better at combat buffing, but the skald is already far less versatile a skill character. I don't think that is a small trade off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having tried higher-level Skaldery, I think that the one part of the Skald that I'd care more about getting preserved through whatever else changes is granting Rage Powers. Tying them to something that actually benefits more classes without the help of Rage Powers would be great, but I definitely want to keep that part.
Yeah for sure. I think its cool. Im pretty sure its not any more powerful to tack it onto an effect that everyone can benefit from like Inspire Courage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think granting rage powers is fine (although group wide superstition scares me a little)
The issue is with the very limited list of classes that play well with the rage restrictions.
Going for inspire-type bonuses, but keeping the rage powers.. totally fine. The mechanical benefit for classes that want strength is pretty similar, but it also helps everyone else, which is realy the issue.
After that, I would like to see fewer spells per level in exchange for some martial help.
Just throwing this out there: what if instead of inciting rage, they just granted rage powers to people who benefit from their inspire courage?
Just throwing this out there: what if instead of inciting rage, they just granted rage powers to people who benefit from their inspire courage?
This has been suggested a bunch.
But I don't know if I like that. The incite rage makes the skald interesting. I like earlier suggestions of giving the Skald more rage powers (perhaps even skald-exclusive rage powers) that makes their rage ability somehow useful for spellcasters and dex builds as well.
Just throwing this out there: what if instead of inciting rage, they just granted rage powers to people who benefit from their inspire courage?This has been suggested a bunch.
But I don't know if I like that. The incite rage makes the skald interesting. I like earlier suggestions of giving the Skald more rage powers (perhaps even skald-exclusive rage powers) that makes their rage ability somehow useful for spellcasters and dex builds as well.
That's definitely a minimally invasive solution, although I think you'd want to give the Skald a much more aggressive schedule of rage powers if you were doing that. It might also not be the worst to soften some of the drawbacks by default; at the very least, broaden the types of skills you can use. I actually think it's okay if not everybody wants the rage all of the time (before you invest in it), but I don't think it's okay where it is now.
Also, I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but it might be nice if the class had some built-in protections against zero-to-dead. (The interaction that's currently sorta-covered for Barbarians by Raging Vitality.) On one hand, it's less of a big deal for Skalds because their Con bonus isn't as big in the first place, but it's incredibly feel-bad, and it's something that can affect allies too, which feels worse. I can't think of an elegant solution that isn't abusable with ragecycling for temp HP, but I feel like eliminating the unconsciousness buffer isn't the intent of rage-like features. I can see somebody enjoying that style, but it seems like a weird thing to have as intrinsic to a base class.
Just throwing this out there: what if instead of inciting rage, they just granted rage powers to people who benefit from their inspire courage?This has been suggested a bunch.
But I don't know if I like that. The incite rage makes the skald interesting. I like earlier suggestions of giving the Skald more rage powers (perhaps even skald-exclusive rage powers) that makes their rage ability somehow useful for spellcasters and dex builds as well.
That's definitely a minimally invasive solution, although I think you'd want to give the Skald a much more aggressive schedule of rage powers if you were doing that. It might also not be the worst to soften some of the drawbacks by default; at the very least, broaden the types of skills you can use. I actually think it's okay if not everybody wants the rage all of the time (before you invest in it), but I don't think it's okay where it is now.
Also, I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but it might be nice if the class had some built-in protections against zero-to-dead. (The interaction that's currently sorta-covered for Barbarians by Raging Vitality.) On one hand, it's less of a big deal for Skalds because their Con bonus isn't as big in the first place, but it's incredibly feel-bad, and it's something that can affect allies too, which feels worse. I can't think of an elegant solution that isn't abusable with ragecycling for temp HP, but I feel like eliminating the unconsciousness buffer isn't the intent of rage-like features. I can see somebody enjoying that style, but it seems like a weird thing to have as intrinsic to a base class.
I agree. I would do away with the powerful complex nightmare that is Spell Kenning and give them full rage power progression.
I think granting rage powers is fine (although group wide superstition scares me a little).
A group wide Superstition buff is extremely powerful, no doubt about it; it makes Save or Suck/Die spells a complete joke, but it does come with drawbacks:
The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.
The first noticable drawback is that those who are under the effects of the Raging Song must always make saving throws against spells, including buffs and healing. Some healing can be done without spells (Witch Hex can, if I remember correctly), though spell healing is the most common form of healing that's readily available for use.
The second noticable drawback is that this is only active while the Bard is doing the performance; once the Bard is silenced, the Performance ends and we can say goodbye to Superstition and whatever Rage Powers the Bard grants.
Another drawback (which many may not notice) is that this is a bonus to Will Saves, and a Morale Bonus at that. Other spells/buffs that give Morale Bonuses to Saves (Heroism comes to mind) does not stack with this bonus. Although this isn't an issue by the end-game (an extra +3/5 by level 20 V.S. Spells/Supernatural is still a great increase), by mid level this can trivialize the usefulness of Heroism regarding Saves increasing.
Just throwing this out there: what if instead of inciting rage, they just granted rage powers to people who benefit from their inspire courage?This has been suggested a bunch.
But I don't know if I like that. The incite rage makes the skald interesting. I like earlier suggestions of giving the Skald more rage powers (perhaps even skald-exclusive rage powers) that makes their rage ability somehow useful for spellcasters and dex builds as well.
Pretty much this. The Raging Song feature is the Skald's defining performance, just like Inspire Courage is the Core Bard's defining performance; replacing it with something that I might as well just be another class for makes the creation of the Skald absolutely pointless. That's what Archetypes are for, and the Skald is a Base Class, not an Archetype.
I agree. I would do away with the powerful complex nightmare that is Spell Kenning and give them full rage power progression.
Nooooooo! Spell Kenning is one of the coolest abilities they have!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nooooooo! Spell Kenning is one of the coolest abilities they have!
Agreed. I would go so far as to suggest that they remove normal spell casting, and expand Spell Kenning to 1st or 2nd level. Give them access to the Sorc/Wizard list, cap them at their equivalent caster level, and base it off of spending Song rounds per spell level.
They'll be a rare, but effective "toolkit" caster.
Nooooooo! Spell Kenning is one of the coolest abilities they have!I agree. I would do away with the powerful complex nightmare that is Spell Kenning and give them full rage power progression.
Yeah. But I would prefer to be useful at my main job than sometimes having a spell to solve a problem. I think it is cool as well, but it strikes me as the thing to cut to justify something like rage powers every two levels.