| 2 people 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.
That is super interesting!
And increase the rounds of song by a bunch right? (4+cha+2 (every level after 1).
Might be too good, though, unless it took song rounds and had a limited number of uses per day. For the limited version, dropping to 4/9 spellcasting with bard spell list might be in order rather than a whole drop.
As long as Superstition exists, any version of the Skald that can grant rage powers can grant Superstition. I'm honestly sort of okay with that, at least conceptually. There's no rule that says that the Skald isn't allowed to be the best at something, and maybe the thing the Skald is the best at is giving everybody gigantic save bonuses. I haven't played with a Skald that has the ability to give everybody Superstition without also sticking them with unworkably strict rage drawbacks, so I don't really know if it's too powerful, but it might be okay. Probably not, but might be.
If it is too powerful, potential solutions might be
- Have the Skald count as a half-level barbarian for scaling rage power effects (clunky, but it limits the bonus to +4 instead of +7). Heck, under this system, assuming the current rage effects stay more or less the same, then after level 4 the Superstition bonus to Will Saves is irrelevant because you're getting a larger bonus from the song itself.
- Give the Skald a separate "Rage List", similar to how some classes have their own spell lists or how the various "trick" classes have overlapping lists of tricks or how animal companions are partitioned differently among different classes. Don't put Superstition on that list.
- Come up with some weird wording about which rage powers a Skald can take that somehow hedges out Superstition. The current wording is pretty weird, so it's not like they have a problem with weird wordings. Maybe the Skald can't take Rage Powers that have additional drawbacks. (Whiiiich I think might just be Superstition.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just having a problem with the skald conceptually. The whole idea of barbarian rage is that they go into a frenzy beyond the norm, even by the standard of fighting adventurers. So, this guy's schtick is turning people into psychopaths. One minute, your paladin is a righteous, deity-fearing knight, the next minute he's biting people in dim illumination. That seems less like a skald and more like a "maenad" or some kind of "warlock." Berserk-caller is not a normal professional activity for a skald. A skald is a philosopher-minstrel in a furry vest.
I think song of rage is a valid song, but building the whole class around a feature called ragesong just seems weird to me. Honestly, not all barbarians are even that focused on rage, at least at lower levels.
Sorry to jump in late, I came from this Skald playtest thread, and wandered over to this thread, stopping by the sticky post to see what the latest is. I'm also sorry I don't have much constructive to say, but I hope you will all find this of interest….
I'm not impressed conceptually by the very specific nature of the class name, nor the developer note in the stickied post to make the weapons more appropriate for Viking characters. Is there someone out there controlling this playtest that laid down a hard rule: "Marketing tells us x% of players will be inspired by/up for a Viking theme, so we'll create this one super specific class and give it a super specific name"? It just seems really weird - I get that there is the viking flavor with the skald name, and if the weapons aren't there it kinda harshes the viking buzz, but aren't there way more ways to depict a cultural war-poet? Of any culture - real or fictional?
* I would suggest a whole bunch of alternatives for ragesong, and diluting the uber-specificity of the concept. Given the primal Barbarian nature of the concept, perhaps Commander and Marshal aren't really the best archetypal directions, but the failure of the concept to approach them is slightly disappointing.
* Rather than make the weapon list appropriate to viking characters, how about making the entire class concept appropriate for pan-cultural/mythic archetypes, without resorting to mechanical class archetypes….
* Barbarian and Bard do not have to make a viking - I'm sure this isn't baked in by the devs, but it sure feels like it.
I think that the developer note about making the weapon list more appropriate for viking characters is a response to the fact that it was noted early in the thread that the current weapon list is very UN-viking. It's not like they're going to say that Skalds are limited to using exactly +1 Shocking Anarchic Battleaxes, just that they're going to add some proficiencies so that that concept is supported. Right now, the weapon list is pretty unthematic. (It's just the bard weapon list.) Regardless of exactly the extent to which the class is vikingish, "longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow, and whip" is a pretty unthematic list of proficiencies for it (aside from the longsword and short sword.)
I'm not impressed conceptually by the very specific nature of the class name, nor the developer note in the stickied post to make the weapons more appropriate for Viking characters.
I think the concern is enabling Viking characters, not squelching other concepts.
* I would suggest a whole bunch of alternatives for ragesong, and diluting the uber-specificity of the concept. Given the primal Barbarian nature of the concept, perhaps Commander and Marshal aren't really the best archetypal directions, but the failure of the concept to approach them is slightly disappointing.
As much as I like the the Skald, I have cried myself to sleep literally every night since the list came out due to the fact that there was no Marshall or Warlord like class (Cavalier/Bard or Fighter/Bard or something).
I guess I will just have to use my home brew Warlord (smart leader fighter guy) and Prince (magical lazy lord) classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* I would suggest a whole bunch of alternatives for ragesong, and diluting the uber-specificity of the concept. Given the primal Barbarian nature of the concept, perhaps Commander and Marshal aren't really the best archetypal directions, but the failure of the concept to approach them is slightly disappointing.
As much as I like the the Skald, I have cried myself to sleep literally every night since the list came out due to the fact that there was no Marshall or Warlord like class (Cavalier/Bard or Fighter/Bard or something).
I guess I will just have to use my home brew Warlord (smart leader fighter guy) and Prince (magical lazy lord) classes.
Agreed. 4e did not do much for me personally (though it is totally valid and fine and I am not saying anything mean here please do not start anything up, I have to reference this) I really did like the Warlord concept (though perhaps not the name) of handing out actions to other characters and generally making everyone better.
I even like this for a Skald... he does not form the center of the legend, he makes his allies legendary!! I would love to see that concept put to work. The warlord stuff would be so great.. and there is precedent in the Sensei archtype... but this would be a full class based around it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poor skald hasn't gotten any posts today. I have akready said all I can until the next playtest round, but I am very hopeful.
I believe everyone has said all they can on the matter. The ball is in the Devs' court, and until they hit it back to us, we're kind of left sitting on our thumbs.
Poor skald hasn't gotten any posts today. I have akready said all I can until the next playtest round, but I am very hopeful.I believe everyone has said all they can on the matter. The ball is in the Devs' court, and until they hit it back to us, we're kind of left sitting on our thumbs.
Yep
*looks around*
Mmmm-Hmmm
*wanders off*
I think the concern is enabling Viking characters, not squelching other concepts.
I'm not impressed conceptually by the very specific nature of the class name, nor the developer note in the stickied post to make the weapons more appropriate for Viking characters.
I think that the developer note about making the weapon list more appropriate for viking characters is a response to the fact that it was noted early in the thread that the current weapon list is very UN-viking. It's not like they're going to say that Skalds are limited to using exactly +1 Shocking Anarchic Battleaxes, just that they're going to add some proficiencies so that that concept is supported. Right now, the weapon list is pretty unthematic. (It's just the bard weapon list.) Regardless of exactly the extent to which the class is vikingish, "longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow, and whip" is a pretty unthematic list of proficiencies for it (aside from the longsword and short sword.)
Thought I'd put both responses in here as they both aren't quite catching the point of MY concern:
Why is there the "un-viking" concern if the "Skald" label isn't viking? There are plenty of other cultural warsingers whose cultural weapons aren't represented by the bard's dilettante-warrior courtly weaponset. I would hate to see the other cultural tropes of the battlechanters and rebel-yellers being described as archetypes when the base chassis should be able to accommodate all of them. That is why I'm disapointed in the term Skald for the class. On the one hand I like that it is one word, and as a child of the frozen north I love me some Nordic culture. On the other hand, I would have preferred a broader design space.
Give them more weapons that aren't specifically viking oriented and I'll be happy.
There. Another post for the Skald. Yiiiiiiiiieeeeeraaaaaaaaagh!
I'm hoping they actually decide to put some barbarian into this so called hybrid. I want this guy to be awesome, but I am foreseeing the next rogue class in the making here.
|
Re: Armor and Weapon proficiencies, I would like the armor restriction to be the same as Druid rather than just saying no heavy armor. There is a good fluff rrason why druids can't wear metal armors but I can't see an ingame justification fir banning just heavy armors from the Hunter.
I too would like either all martial weapons or at least expand the list. A klar or scizore wielding Hunter is just too cool.
Re: Armor and Weapon proficiencies, I would like the armor restriction to be the same as Druid rather than just saying no heavy armor. There is a good fluff rrason why druids can't wear metal armors but I can't see an ingame justification fir banning just heavy armors from the Hunter.
I think you meant to post this in the hunter thread.
Why is there the "un-viking" concern if the "Skald" label isn't viking? There are plenty of other cultural warsingers whose cultural weapons aren't represented by the bard's dilettante-warrior courtly weaponset. I would hate to see the other cultural tropes of the battlechanters and rebel-yellers being described as archetypes when the base chassis should be able to accommodate all of them. That is why I'm disapointed in the term Skald for the class. On the one hand I like that it is one word, and as a child of the frozen north I love me some Nordic culture. On the other hand, I would have preferred a broader design space.
Give them more weapons that aren't specifically viking oriented and I'll be happy.
There. Another post for the Skald. Yiiiiiiiiieeeeeraaaaaaaaagh!
I'm not talking about archetypes. I'm not concerned about un-Vikings. I would just prefer that, at a minimum, a Viking skald was possible. My preferred solution is to give them martial weapon proficieny. I feel that once you have listed at least half a dozen martial weapons in a class's allowed weapons list, you should just go all the way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say, for anyone who may be watching this thread, that I am still very excited about the concept of this class. I just think that the execution is falling short at the moment.
The Skald should be a significantly better melee combatant than the core bard, and if that means that they go down to 4 spells per spell level maximum I think that most of us would be okay with that (though I can only really speak for myself). It seems that the general consensus is that the skald should be a little more beefy in terms of combat prowess and a bit more durable as well. 3/4 bab and a 1d8 HD are big obstacles to overcome when wading in to melee combat.
SO the Skald needs to play nicer with more classes, and be a bit more of a martial class than it currently is. I still want to see this class be a huge success. I love the idea.
For those unaware, there was a podcast last night by Know Direction with Jason Bulmahn as a guest and they talked about the Advanced Class Guide and the playtest and spoilered some of the upcoming changes to the classes.
There is a thread with mine, and others', notes here: Podcast Notes.
I should add, there was nothing mentioned about the Skald directly in the Podcast. But Jason did mention that all of the classes got some changes in the upcoming playtest document.
I'm not talking about archetypes. I'm not concerned about un-Vikings. I would just prefer that, at a minimum, a Viking skald was possible. My preferred solution is to give them martial weapon proficient. I feel that once you have listed at least half a dozen martial weapons in a class's allowed weapons list, you should just go all the way.Why is there the "un-viking" concern if the "Skald" label isn't viking? There are plenty of other cultural warsingers whose cultural weapons aren't represented by the bard's dilettante-warrior courtly weaponset. I would hate to see the other cultural tropes of the battlechanters and rebel-yellers being described as archetypes when the base chassis should be able to accommodate all of them. That is why I'm disapointed in the term Skald for the class. On the one hand I like that it is one word, and as a child of the frozen north I love me some Nordic culture. On the other hand, I would have preferred a broader design space.
Give them more weapons that aren't specifically viking oriented and I'll be happy.
There. Another post for the Skald. Yiiiiiiiiieeeeeraaaaaaaaagh!
[Emphasis mine] Exactly. Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, once you have one or two very good weapons listed you might as well go all of the way, or at least all of the way in terms of categories (e.g., "one-handed martial weapons.") Bards, for instance, aren't really missing out mechanically by having so few martial weapons available (as opposed to all of the light and one-handed ones), since Longswords and Shortswords are around as good as anything on the list anyway. It's mostly a thematic thing. Given Skald thematics, they might as well just get all martial one-handers and light weapons, and I think there's more than enough headroom to just give them all melee martial weapons period.
I just want to say, for anyone who may be watching this thread, that I am still very excited about the concept of this class. I just think that the execution is falling short at the moment.
The Skald should be a significantly better melee combatant than the core bard, and if that means that they go down to 4 spells per spell level maximum I think that most of us would be okay with that (though I can only really speak for myself). It seems that the general consensus is that the skald should be a little more beefy in terms of combat prowess and a bit more durable as well. 3/4 bab and a 1d8 HD are big obstacles to overcome when wading in to melee combat.
SO the Skald needs to play nicer with more classes, and be a bit more of a martial class than it currently is. I still want to see this class be a huge success. I love the idea.
+1 on this. Class I looked forward to the most was the least palatable. However it was the last class to be put forward I think, so I am optimistic about the next playtest batch.
• We will discuss revisions to the weapon proficiencies to make them more suitable for viking-type characters.
This was going to be my primary suggestion, so absolutely this. :)
Basically, the Skald just needs to feel more different from the Bard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, the Skald just needs to feel more different from the Bard.
...well, that plus they need a core feature that doesn't nerf 90% of potential party-mates so that people actually want to utilize the buff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...well, that plus they need a core feature that doesn't nerf 90% of potential party-mates so that people actually want to utilize the buff.
Yeah...that would be the other elephant in the room. It might be a big boon for maybe a Fighter or a Brawler, but most classes - even the other big combat classes - have tactical abilities. Class features they employ to gain advantages. Or some spellcasting.
You're absolutely right in that raging song doesn't feel like a very party-benefiting ability.
...well, that plus they need a core feature that doesn't nerf 90% of potential party-mates so that people actually want to utilize the buff.Yeah...that would be the other elephant in the room. It might be a big boon for maybe a Fighter or a Brawler, but most classes - even the other big combat classes - have tactical abilities. Class features they employ to gain advantages. Or some spellcasting.
You're absolutely right in that raging song doesn't feel like a very party-benefiting ability.
what if the rage powers applied regardless of weather they accept the "full rage" or not. that way even squishy magic stick man elf can benefit from hearing the skalds music even if he doesn't want to lose himself in it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what if the rage powers applied regardless of weather they accept the "full rage" or not. that way even squishy magic stick man elf can benefit from hearing the skalds music even if he doesn't want to lose himself in it?
Pass on the rage but accept the rage powers? Now that sounds useful! Who wouldn't want to temporarily gain +DR/-, or elemental damage added to their melee, or extra movement? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what if the rage powers applied regardless of weather they accept the "full rage" or not. that way even squishy magic stick man elf can benefit from hearing the skalds music even if he doesn't want to lose himself in it?...well, that plus they need a core feature that doesn't nerf 90% of potential party-mates so that people actually want to utilize the buff.Yeah...that would be the other elephant in the room. It might be a big boon for maybe a Fighter or a Brawler, but most classes - even the other big combat classes - have tactical abilities. Class features they employ to gain advantages. Or some spellcasting.
You're absolutely right in that raging song doesn't feel like a very party-benefiting ability.
I think that'd be "ok."
Personally, I'd prefer if they could just Inspire Courage while they rage and add Rage Powers to Inspire Courage--well, actually, I'd prefer if they were the spell-less, Full-BAB, Bardic-Music using class I think many people wanted (Spell Kenning is awesome, though, and could maybe be a performance that lets them trade performance rounds to get the effects of spells), but I guess that's neither here nor their.
I don't know, even though Warpriest and Hunter are currently just inferior versions of the Cleric and Druid respectively, they're at least playable and useful in a party (even though they'd be more useful as their parent class)--but the Skald just strikes me as such an incomplete and useless class. I can't ever see it coming up except as an NPC (though it is kind of dangerous as an NPC, for sure).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My bottomline is this: Drop the spellcasting.
what if the rage powers applied regardless of weather they accept the "full rage" or not. that way even squishy magic stick man elf can benefit from hearing the skalds music even if he doesn't want to lose himself in it?Pass on the rage but accept the rage powers? Now that sounds useful! Who wouldn't want to temporarily gain +DR/-, or elemental damage added to their melee, or extra movement? :)
I think thats an excellent compromise that the dev's may consider.
Spell Kenning in exchange for Bard spells! It costs 1 round of performance per turn, times spell level, to create a spell effect from The bard school. Buff spells only?... Hmm, how would you make that work? Sounds wicked in my head... I think Kirth did something like that, I'll see how he did it.
Edit Probably would have to increase there rounds per day to three per level to compensate for the loss of spells entirely though...
Spell Kenning in exchange for Bard spells! It costs 1 round of performance per turn, times spell level, to create a spell effect from The bard school. Buff spells only?... Hmm, how would you make that work? Sounds wicked in my head... I think Kirth did something like that, I'll see how he did it.
Edit Probably would have to increase there rounds per day to three per level to compensate for the loss of spells entirely though...
Grrrrrrrrr I love Spell Kenning the way it is. Bard/Sorc/Wizard spells and you have a deal YOU...
I'd be surprised if they pulled spellcasting entirely at this point, not because I think that it's super important for something starting from the Barbarian + Bard idea to be a spellcaster, but because they didn't mention the Skald as a class getting major changes, and removing a class's main feature entirely certainly seems like major changes to me. (Raging Song is the class's marquee feature, but more of its oomph is tied up in spellcasting than anywhere else, although it's debatably close.) Pulling spellcasting is pulling more than half of the class's power budget; you'd have to throw a lot of extra stuff on there to compensate (the Skald is already sufficiently niche that I don't think you can take away most of what it has going for it and not give it lots of new stuff) at which point it's basically an entirely new design (especially because we know that Raging Song is changing at least a little bit too.)
Yeah, It would be a weird balance point. Still, I think having access to bard buff spells as auras and the like would be a wicked way to differentiate a class. I don't know if removing spell casting would be the way to go, but something like activating a spell without burning the slot and just paying rounds times spell level to keep it up for a round.
I like it conceptually anyhow.
|
|
Re: Armor and Weapon proficiencies, I would like the armor restriction to be the same as Druid rather than just saying no heavy armor. There is a good fluff rrason why druids can't wear metal armors but I can't see an ingame justification fir banning just heavy armors from the Hunter.I think you meant to post this in the hunter thread.
I did, and flagged it for deletion to hopefully prevent public embarassment. Too late now, but at least I kniw you read it =p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say, for anyone who may be watching this thread, that I am still very excited about the concept of this class. I just think that the execution is falling short at the moment.
The Skald should be a significantly better melee combatant than the core bard, and if that means that they go down to 4 spells per spell level maximum I think that most of us would be okay with that (though I can only really speak for myself). It seems that the general consensus is that the skald should be a little more beefy in terms of combat prowess and a bit more durable as well. 3/4 bab and a 1d8 HD are big obstacles to overcome when wading in to melee combat.
SO the Skald needs to play nicer with more classes, and be a bit more of a martial class than it currently is. I still want to see this class be a huge success. I love the idea.
I agree with almost all of this -- as I said in my first post, I think that this was the class I was most excited about conceptually.... and I do think it's lacking martial abilities due to the hit die, BAB, armour and weapon profs, as we've discussed (many times).
Personally, though, I'm thinking that one way to "strike balance" between the 3/4 BAB and full BAB of the origin classes would be to have the class be 3/4 by default, but gain Full BAB while doing the War Chant (in the same way that flurrying monks are Full BAB) -- this also makes the warchant/ragesong/whatever a bigger part of the class beyond the buffing the party -- the character literally works itself into a martial frenzy.
|
Ok so when I read this class I think of multi-classing it with cavalier. that way you can give your allies rage and teamwork feats. combine that with orc (or half orc) specifically the feats from the Orcs of Golarion the issue is at the moment they would not qualify for these feats as they don't have the Rage class feature can you stipulate that the rage song counts as the rage class feature for feats.
Not sure if it's been mentioned/debated before here, but I know there are some who dislike the flavor of singing/instrument playing in battle. Maybe if this class wants to distance itself flavor-wise from the bard and seem less like a bard archetype, this "raging song" should be called something else, like a war cry.
As I haven't had the opportunity to play test anything, this is purely a fluff issue and not a mechanical one.
Not sure if it's been mentioned/debated before here, but I know there are some who dislike the flavor of singing/instrument playing in battle. Maybe if this class wants to distance itself flavor-wise from the bard and seem less like a bard archetype, this "raging song" should be called something else, like a war cry.
As I haven't had the opportunity to play test anything, this is purely a fluff issue and not a mechanical one.
...bit that's kind of the whole idea of the class, same as bard. I mean if some people don't like the fluff of the Bard class they don't have to play it and this one is no different.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...bit that's kind of the whole idea of the class, same as bard. I mean if some people don't like the fluff of the Bard class they don't have to play it and this one is no different.Not sure if it's been mentioned/debated before here, but I know there are some who dislike the flavor of singing/instrument playing in battle. Maybe if this class wants to distance itself flavor-wise from the bard and seem less like a bard archetype, this "raging song" should be called something else, like a war cry.
As I haven't had the opportunity to play test anything, this is purely a fluff issue and not a mechanical one.
Also, the Skald has Perform (Oratory). You can play this as a war cry,
"RRRAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHH!"
Or even bust out the War Poetry,
"In the dark and cold of winter / Ice and snow can bite as wolves / battle's fury warms the body / but endless sleep awaits with hunger!"
bonus points for improvising it, but you can easily write up a whole bunch ahead of time, and chant out a line per round. It's pretty fun seeing people reactions. :D
Lead Designer
|
In anticipation of a revised version of the playtest document going live, this thread is locked. A new thread will be created to discuss the revised version of the class. Please refrain from carrying over existing discussions to the new thread to avoid confusion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer