Hello, everyone!
So, this is an alternate class for the ranger I've been working on, sort of inspired by the more "magical" kinds of forest warriors seen, for instance, among the Wood Elves of the Warhammer universe and so forth. The idea was to create a more magical and tricksy version of the ranger, with a fey theme to the flavor and some of the abilities. Alternatively it can be looked on as a Druidic paladin.
Anyway, I'd appreciate any notes on the balance of the class abilities, some of which I suspect might be in need of nerfing (I tend to err on the side of OP rather than UP, as I find cutting abilities down easier than bolstering supbar ones most of the time). All constructive criticism is more than welcome! I am rather pleased with the feel of the class, but am also aware that the finer points of mechanical balance aren't always my forte. Lastly, I did pick the name as a sort of corny Midsummer Night's Eve reference, and would gladly take any suggestions for a more awe-inspiring moniker for these guys.
So, without further ado: The Goodfellow.
EDIT: Despite the stated nature of this as an alternate class for the ranger, I would not be averse to, for example, dropping it to 3/4 BAB if its class features are too strong to warrant a full BAB chassis. Though I'd probably prefer paring down or excising altogether a few of the more magicky abilities rather than drop the BAB, if possible.
This looks like something I'd be excited to play in place of either a Ranger or a Druid. Very interesting to see a Ranger alternate class that doesn't give strict numbers bonuses. Greentouch being useful on its own while at the same time being used as a resource to power other abilities is pretty cool too, similarly to a Paladin's Lay on Hands ability, but with more ways to spend it. I like it.
Thank you very much for reading, and I'm glad you enjoy it. Yes, the basic idea was, in part, something halfway between a ranger and a druid, but without veering into a sort of "Druid-ish Inquisitor/Bard/Magus" since that's what the upcoming Hunter in the ACG is, pretty much. You might have noticed that Greentouch's uses per day are basically double what a Paladin gets for Lay on Hands; the thinking behind this was of course because greentouch uses are employed to power pretty much everything else the class does. Furthermore, it was the intention to make the base greentouch ability, while more plentiful, less powerful than lay on hands; i.e. it doesn't come with automatic mercies tacked on and its always a move action to use; never a swift action to heal yourself.
EDIT: Probably the bits I'm most uncertain about are the wild tricks and the bandersnatch ability at level 19, since these represent more original work. I'd be interested to hear if any of the wild tricks seem too strong or weak, especially considering the existence of the Extra Wild Trick feat.
This is literally exactly the class I was trying to make a few months ago. I love it.
Bookmarked, Gnomish Badger Rider character is being readied.
I think you could bump the Fey Beast up to 3/4 BAB if you made the Goodfellow 3/4 BAB; with 1/2 BAB, it ends up with a mere +8 BAB at max level.
Cheers. Thanks for reading and enjoying. I'm actually rolling up one of these myself in a game shortly; a gnome on a crazy fey badger sounds awesome.
Yeah, I agree that giving both rider and steed 3/4th would balance things out; I guess I had some sort of idea of staying true to the BAB of the fey creature type and also thinking that since the critter gets evolutions and such it'll still be good even if weaker with half BAB. But you might be right. If you do a gnome on a badger, you should definitely have both of them at equal BAB. :)
I'm only suggesting because the First Worlder Summoner archetype also tries to stay thematically tied to the Fey type with its Eidolon, but the 1/2 BAB ends up making the Eidolon useless, thus making it so that many players actually play a regular summoner and roleplay as a First Worlder.
By the way, where did you get that art?
No, I totally see your point. I'm definitely switching them back to regular 3/4 BAB, but I think I'll keep the d6 HD for now; I'm still trying to decide if the actual good fellow needs to drop down to 3/4 BAB to account for this? I've never played any non-full-BAB archers; how do they tend to fare? Maybe I'm not taking buff spells and combat style feats into account when I'm fearing they'll not be good enough at filling folks full of arrows without full BAB?
The art I should've probably given props for: I found two separate pictures on RavingDork's site where he's compiled a lot of random PF art, and I made both images' white backgrounds transparent so I could splice them together like so. I am really rather fond of the iconic; it's exactly how I'd want this class to look.
Yeah, the d6 HD definitely makes sense for a Fey creature. The 3/4 BAB should be fine for the Goodfellow; especially with abilities like Sapling Shot and the Spelltricks, he can definitely make up for lost attacks with his SLAs. Also, Sapling Shot seems much more powerful than Oblivion Arrows; I think the levels you can select them at should be switched.
On an unrelated note, Faerie Wings should be buffed, or the Seeming ability nerfed. As it is, the Goodfellow could transform into a bird for an indefinite amount of time with Seeming, which seems to outweigh the minutes/use duration of Faerie Wings.
Well, you've convinced me I think; at least I'll make the one I roll up for my next character 3/4 BAB and try that out. I'd be really excited to hear from you if you if your gnome sees any play time in the future. I am very fond of Sapling Shot; I think it's a powerful but balanced ability. I tried to make a lot of abilities consume move actions, since I figured archers have such an easy time getting full attack rounds anyway, it's not as hard for them to swallow foregoing a few of those to make their tricks happen; rather than have everything work off of swifts for buffs and small bonuses and standards for really powerful tricks.
Looking over the spelltricks again, they seem incredibly powerful for a feature that isn't the focus of the class. I think they should keep their current progression rate, but start at 1st level spells and end at 5th level spells - i was just making a goodfellow test character sheet, when I noticed I could potentially cast Summon Nature's Ally V at first level.
Edit: wait, nevermind, you accounted for that. I completely misread it.
I like the flavor, but it strikes me as being a LOT more powerful than a regular ranger. The AC gets a lot more powers than a druid's AC, and Elision also looks rather powerful to me.
I think it's supposed to be that way. This class strikes me as being Tier 2, while the ranger is tier 4. Also, you're forgetting that the Druid gets wildshape, which is far more versatile than a fey-type animal companion with an evolution pool.
@Gadgeteer: Yeah, sorry about the spelltricks class feature being a bit unclear. I know it might seem pointless to give them SLAs rather than just regular spellcasting, but I wanted to keep their "spell" resources very limited in terms of scope. I.e., no Goodfellow will probably ever exceed a total of under 10 spells known at any one time, more likely 8-9 at absolute maximum.
@Ascalphus: Thanks very much for reading it, Ascalaphus, and I totally see your point. This is a powerful class. Like I said in the original post, I do tend towards the high end of the power spectrum. I agree the class has a powerful AC, not on par with an eidolon, but better than a regular ranger; it also lacks wildshape and 9 levels of spellcasting, while, in its current form, still having the same BAB and HD as a druid. I'm leery of someone putting this in Tier 2; That's where the Master Summoner belongs, and I honestly don't think you can compare the Goodfellow's power level with that. Elision is good, yes; it's gained at the same level (or thereabouts) as an inquisitor gets Stalwart, and it's basically that ability but with Reflex and Wisdom instead of Fortitude and Wisdom. I'm not sure I'm convinced it's OP, but I guess I could look it over.
In general, I suppose I made a bit of a mistake as labeling this too hard as a ranger alternate class. While it started out that way and still has a lot in common with the ranger, it's clearly a different beast. If the Goodfellow occupies the upper half of Tier 3, where I guess Inquisitors and Magi chill out, I don't mind. It's actually my favorite level of power for classes: Versatile but not game-breaking. I still feel like these guys will play different than most 3/4 BAB + 6th-level caster-combos.
I'm not dismissing your criticism, mind; I realize the class is powerful. Do you have any suggestions for replacing elision, or any nerfs for the AC? The AC ends up with 16 evo points at level 20; an eidolon has 26. Should the pool be even smaller? I'm more interested in making changes like that if it's because the class as a whole seems unbalanced; if they're only necessary to bring it in line with the ranger, I'm not so sure. I might be off here, but I would say rangers are low tier 3, and this one is high tier 3. Maybe I'm overestimating a ranger's versatility?
Actually I really like the Spelltricks feature. It's a very good way to limit spellcasting while still letting it be incredibly versatile.
I actually wasn't thinking about the fact that this is a Ranger alternate class. Since it's so different, however, you should just relabel it as a standalone homebrew class. The name Feywarden might suit it, too, so that we don't have to agonize about what a female Goodfellow would be called.
Yeah, I agree. My homebrew projects very often start out as little tweaked alternate class features or archetypes or alternate classes but then spiral into uniqueness as I start replacing copy-pasted class features with original stuff. If I show this somewhere else I'll definitely relabel it.
I do actually think the spelltricks are a neat way of limiting spellcasting too. I've used similar mechanics (i.e. spell-like abilities fuelled by a point pool that also powers other class features) for other classes I've created and it's worked rather nicely. In a way it's similar to psionics or spell points of course, but not being a true spellcaster somes with interesting pros and cons both (i.e. no spell failure chance, but also no metamgic, etc.)
Hrm...the name, yeah, I know. I actually don't dislike Goodfellow because of the reference point, although the gendered nature of it is a bit awkward. But what I really don't like are compound names for base classes. Those feel like they're meant for archetypes and prestige classes. In that sense I think feywarden also falls a bit short of the mark. Then again, at this point I guess we're running out of original single-word names for classes, so maybe I won't come up with anything better. In the interim, feel free to call your gnome a feywarden and let her wear the moniker with pride, Gadgeteer!
Will do!
|
I don't have any alternatives ready unfortunately.
I do very much like the idea of taking the "natural" chassis of an AC and "feying it up" with evolutions. Definitely keep that concept, it's great.
But I think it would be good to tweak it so it ends up on-par with the druid, not ahead of it. While the druid has a lot of other things going for it, having THE animal companion is also a significant part of the druid.
At first I thought "why not set the AC back 3 levels, like a ranger", but then you get the Boon Companion shenanigans. I think a normal progression that you can't Boon Companion would be good. I think a d6 HD/BAB progression with evolution points would probably work. The idea being that you're a bit weaker than a normal AC without evolutions, but that the evolutions balance that out to break just about even with a normal AC.
I think the mount should not end up more powerful than the PC itself; that's one of the issues with the summoner, that you're more playing your pet than yourself. 40/60 would be the proportion to aim for I guess.
Oh, one idea. Since this is a fey mount, it's fair to fudge a little bit: give an (optional) ability to have a medium PC ride on a medium mount. That'll make it more indoors-friendly.
---
Another thing. I think I like the greentouch idea, but that is a LOT of abilities. This class has a lot of "moving parts". If you can simplify that a bit it'd be handy.
What would also help is make one reference table with all abilities, sorted by level, along with the cost. That way you have a one-page menu from which to pick when actually playing.
At first I thought "why not set the AC back 3 levels, like a ranger", but then you get the Boon Companion shenanigans. I think a normal progression that you can't Boon Companion would be good. I think a d6 HD/BAB progression with evolution points would probably work. The idea being that you're a bit weaker than a normal AC without evolutions, but that the evolutions balance that out to break just about even with a normal AC.
Then you run into the First Worlder problem, where the AC becomes essentially useless for anything besides being a scout/auxillary spellcaster. I think a 4 HD setback(at max), combined with a medium BAB is enough to keep the AC in line.
Thanks for the input, Ascalphus.
If I take your meaning correctly, you dislike the power level of the AC partly because 1) it's more powerful than a Druid's, and having a powerful AC is the Druid's "thing" and 2) the beast itself might outshine the Goodfellow (i.e. Summoner Syndrome).
This is a point I'm sensitive to, hence my original conception of a full BAB Goodfellow and a 1/2 BAB companion (Rather than 3/4 BAB as is standard). However, when you get right down to it I think Gadgeteer might be right in that 1/2 BAB will set the AC back so far in the to-hit department (especially since it can't bump its STR via evolutions) it'll hardly see any combat use. I admit to vacillating a little on this point. On the one hand one doesn't want the AC relegated to some sort of squishy oversized familiar with a few evo-based tricks. On the other, no, it shouldn't be completely overshadowing the Goodfellow. Yet I think we can agree that full BAB character and a 3/4 BAB AC is too much. I also happen to think that 3/4 BAB character and 1/2 BAB AC is too weak. It's possible the current constellation is the only feasible compromise. I'm still convinced the Goodfellow can do a lot in combat, even if his beast might pack a harder punch DPR-wise. I suppose I might just have to try it out and see if a 1/2 BAB AC might be workable.
Regarding greentouch, well...I suppose it's a lot of moving parts in a way, but without seeming too defensive, I think it just might be that it's a "new" mechanic. I mean, it's a single pool of points (greentouch uses), and the class has abilities that cost a variety of points; this makes it not that much different from a Barbarian with rage powers, say. I mean, spell tricks are very straight forward: a spell costs its level in points to cast. Other abilities cost between 1-3 points usually, and you'll only end up with about as many of them as a barbarian has Rage Powers at 20th level; probably less, since there're only five wild tricks to pick up via feats, whereas a Barb can spend every feat he gets almost on Extra Rage Power.
I suppose I could draw up a table, though, sure; I realize it'll make things easier. I just really think the greentouch system is quite streamlined and simple when you get your head wrapped around it; moreso than spellcasting to someone unfamiliar with that, I would wager.
Maybe a table listing all the abilities that work off of greentouch, including the wild tricks, including how many daily uses (would just having a pool of so-called 'green points' somehow make it more relatable? Each greentouch use costing a green point, and other abilities consuming said points as well?) they consume and at what level they're gained (or at what minimum level they can be selected, in the case of wild tricks) would be sufficient?
EDIT: As a point of order, I don't think I want to set the AC back beyond Boon Companion's reach to rectify it. I'm sort of opposed to creating pre-nerfed class features that you have to alleviate by wasting your feats on them. In my book regular rangers should've always gotten full companions, and free companion selection, from the get-go. I never saw the point of making them jump through hoops to get what is, at the end of the day, a class feature that druids, with all their crazy buff spells, can utilize a whole lot better anyway. Though I realize that since the Goodfellow's AC has all these other perks, something might need to be done. Maybe a -3 level, though I'd rather it were something less clunky.
|
|
I haven't actually played summoners, so I can't speak to the effectiveness of First Worlders. But don't evolutions allow you to fix most of those weaknesses?
What are you looking for in the mount? A really effective mobile archery platform, or something that does a lot of fighting on its own?
You give a lot of pre-set abilities with this class. Maybe this is a good place to put in more customization. Basically, unless the player wants to spend a lot of feats to get more, he can pick one thing for the mount to be good at;
- high mobility
- good offense
- weird powers
Give the mount sufficient AC and saves that it won't be too fragile, whichever route you go. But you can't have everything.
That's actually better for the class: it means there isn't just one way to play it. You can splurge to get a mount that is mobile anywhere, or you can make a steamroller, or a pet with funky scout powers. But since you don't get all of it, you won't be 90% the same as the other Goodfellow PC.
There was actually an old version of this class that got to choose between three so-called 'fey focuses': archery, beast and primal. Archery gave you all the wild tricks for free. Beast gave you some AC-boosting powers (evolution surge-type SLA, etc.) Primal gave you all the fey things the Goodfellow now gets for free (seeming, wings, fey heritage, etc.). I rather foresook that approach though because I wanted to make a more streamlined, and actually less customizable class. I know people like customizing out the wazoo, but being rather simple in that sense seemed to make sense for the class' theme. If people think the fey focus idea sounds cool, though, I might rethink that.
I haven't actually played summoners, so I can't speak to the effectiveness of First Worlders. But don't evolutions allow you to fix most of those weaknesses?
What are you looking for in the mount? A really effective mobile archery platform, or something that does a lot of fighting on its own?
You give a lot of pre-set abilities with this class. Maybe this is a good place to put in more customization. Basically, unless the player wants to spend a lot of feats to get more, he can pick one thing for the mount to be good at;
- high mobility
- good offense
- weird powersGive the mount sufficient AC and saves that it won't be too fragile, whichever route you go. But you can't have everything.
That's actually better for the class: it means there isn't just one way to play it. You can splurge to get a mount that is mobile anywhere, or you can make a steamroller, or a pet with funky scout powers. But since you don't get all of it, you won't be 90% the same as the other Goodfellow PC.
No, actually. Evolutions are almost entirely melee combat focused, and having such a low to-hit severely cripples the Eidolon/Beast.
By the same token, the evolutions allow you to pick between those three focuses anyways.
Cheers for the summation, Gadgeteer. That's pretty much my conclusion as well. For now the class runs on 3/4 BAB for both rider and beast; specialized focus abilities might be added later if the overall power level proves too extreme, though I doubt it. Hopefully elision won't be a huge balance issue at higher levels, and I think the greentouch system will be intelligible if I supply a little summation table as Ascalaphus suggested. Thank you everyone for reading. I won't say no to further commentary if anyone else finds anything they wish to point out or suggest, but I feel this baby is ready for a bit of playtesting.
As it happens, I just entered my Gnome Goodfellow into a PbP recruitment, although she has a lynx instead of a badger now, because lynxes are cool.
Yeah, lynx is nice. In the homebrew setting my group runs our campaigns in, I've created a Tiny PC race called Mousefolk; basically smaller, mousier cousins of ratfolk. I'm thinking a mousefolk goodfellow mounted atop a faerie elephant has some sort of absurdist appeal. :)
Just looked at the link - the PDF indicates d8 HD and Full BAB. Is this intentional?
We decided to make it 3/4 BAB and d8 HD instead.
I like the idea and the general flavor. Your spelltricks are an awesome way to introduce divergent spellcasting, I like that.
However, it seams like your are still tweaking the class, which is needed in my opinion. The general balance of this fellow is still problematic.
I personally wouldn't increase the fey creature BAB, but giving it Intelligence 6 and fey skill points could made this companion a good skill support. In addition of evolution points (a strong boost) and the full druid level of this class, this animal companion is a better than the one of an ordinary ranger: more versatile and immune to animal oriented spell and s$##ty animal weakness (the handle animal check to fight undead is a pain on the ass)...and damn, it can talk !
I would adjust the greentouch to follow the same action economy than the Paladin (standart on others, swift on himself). Because healing in move action is something we don't see often.
I am, as others, very uncomfortable with the seeming ability. To follow the path of a whimsical/funny fey ranger, I would restrict the beastshape aspect to Tiny animals only, using beast shape II as a reference. However, at the difference of a druid, being Tiny isn't a good combat option for martial characters as the goodfellow...and Tiny animals usually don't have awesome abilities. It would turn seeming more like a sneaking/funny ability than a possible game breaker. Using standard action to shapeshift also seams more logical to me. All creatures in the bestiary need standard to change shape, as the druid.
On the opposite, I would boost Fairy wings and copy paste the Alchemist Wings discovery instead of your greentouch using idea.
About Longstep, I think you should specify that this ability emulate dimension door. The actual wording seams to allow move/teleport/attack combo, which no one can do without the Dimensional Agility feat normally, not even the monk (that poor soul).
About Elision, I find the idea very interesting (as you said, this is a variant of stalwart form the inquisitor), but it does include the benefit of Evasion. So, I would, as with the ranger, restrict the ability to light and medium armor, because actually, a goodfellow wearing an ironwood full-plate could still use an Evasion-like ability.
@Oceanshieldwolf: It was intentional, yeah. However, as Gadgeteer stated, the class has since been changed to have its BAB match its HD as per Paizo gospel on that topic.
@Kelazan: Thank you for reading through this and I appreciate your thoughtful critique. I do have some questions, though:
Are you saying you think the class would be fine at 3/4 BAB with the AC lowered back to 1/2 BAB? Because my balance intuition tells me either both goodfellow and faerie beast have 3/4, or the goodfellow has full BAB and the beastie gets half. Is this assumption erroneous in your view?
I might consider adjusting greentouch, though I'm unsure of the meaning of your criticism. I gave this class a lot of abilities that work off of move actions. I assume you don't dislike the move-action heal simply because it's not seen in PF: You mean it's not seen because it's too good, yes? If that's the case, is changing it to work like lay on hands the only solution? Would not lowering the healing dice be an option?
Thank you for pointing that out about seeming. The idea was never to turn the ability into a combat beast trick. I'll restrict it to a Tiny animal or another humanoid of the same size category as the goodfellow and have it work off beast shape II. Again I'm uncertain if your argument against its activation time is simply "because that's how we've always done it" or if changing shape as a move action (which kitsune can do via a feat, I think) is somehow OP? I'd appreciate some elucidation here.
Yeah, I might consider boosting faerie wings. I did of course look at things like the Flight Hex and the Wings Discovery before designing it. I suppose I like it thematically that all the goodfellow's fey-ish powers consume greentouch uses. Maybe make him give up one greentouch use to activate the ability, and that grants him a number of non-consecutive minutes equal to his class level, but then the ability cannot be used again until next day?
Long Step, which I actually cribbed from the fey creature template, I wanted to work like the dimensional hop power from the travel domain? Does that work like dimension door? I'd love some clarification on this. Teleportation isn't my area of expertise, and I wouldn't want this ability to veer into the overpowered.
Regarding elision, hmm...I see your point. It just seems rather inelegant to me that goodfellows have all their abilities restricted to druid armor and then just this one random ability restricted to light and medium armor. Maybe the whole class should just be restricted to light and medium non-metal armor? I think I'd like that more if that's not too much of a nerf?
Again, thanks for a very thoughtful and incisive critique. I'd love to hear back from you regarding my questions, because you really seem like you know what you're talking about.
|
|
The idea of ultra-heavy armor and good reflex saving throws always seemed a bit off to me. As does the idea of ultra-heavy armor and fae. On the other hand, armor that's super-lightweight and still ultra-hard is well-established in fantasy (mithril!).
In fact, how about limiting Elision to medium armor, with a reminder that per RAW, mithril heavy armor counts as medium armor for everything except proficiency?
It's not much of a limit, but I think it fits the flavor. You could then follow up by introducing some faerie special materials like armor made of living plants that also fudges the armor weight categories. For example, "Living Leaves" armor might count as one category lighter than it actually is, have generous reductions on penalties, but also have 1 AC less than its metal equivalent. While being significantly cheaper than mithril, which should remain the undisputed queen of lightweight armors.
---
I do like only changing into small animals. That seems right.
---
I still think the AC needs to be more "delicate" than a regular AC, because faerie creatures ARE more delicate. I support giving it more intelligence and speech abilities; that's also in line with the faerie idea.
Maybe an idea is to use the Fey Creature Template instead of evolutions? With the note that appropriate special abilities (related to moving around, especially) also benefit the rider, and giving the creature Intelligence 6+ like a paladin's mount.
This does give you a creature that's slightly more powerful than a normal AC though, so maybe there should be a downside in there somewhere. I think starting at -3 like a Ranger would be appropriate then; with the same possibility of using Boon Companion to catch up.
The nice thing about the template is that it doesn't alter BAB, HD or saves, so if you also get an AC from another class, it works fairly smoothly.
This is what I've done now:
Greentouch stays as is: move action to use. Neither standard nor swift.
All (su), (sp) and (ex) abilities (inclusing elision) are limited to non-metal light and medium armor. I might include an addendum about mithral, as I agree it rather suits the fey feel.
Long step now works like Dimension door (no actions after teleport), but is still a move action to activate, so you can shoot + teleport, for instance.
Seeming now only allows you change into Tiny animal (beast shape II) or humanoid of the same size as your own size (alter self). It's still a move action to activate; don't think that's OP.
Wings work like alchemist wings, but you need to spend a greentouch use to summon them. Then you can use them for non-consecutive minutes equal to character level during the day. Usable once per day, plus an additional time per day at 15th level.
Regarding the animal companion, I did already look at the fey creature template, but basically it's a lot of stuff from there that the goodfellow already gets. I'm sticking with the evolutions; I like them for versatility and I don't think they're OP considering the limitations I've put on them. On this I have to put my foot down.
The only thing left really is deciding on whether the AC drops down to 1/2 BAB, making it basically only useful for utility and as a mount, or whether to keep it at 3/4 and equal with the Goodfellow. Remember it already has a d6 HD, so that makes it more 'delicate' than a regular AC. I might consider dropping it to effective druid level -3, though, just as a sort of homage to the ranger. Let people Boon Companion it away. If I were to drop its BAB, or both drop its BAB and set its effective druid level back, I really feel like the Goodfellow would need to go back to full BAB to compensate for that, though.
Thoughts?
Sorry to clutter this thread up with double posts, but for anyone interested, here's the new and (I think) final version of the Goodfellow, based upon suggestions and so forth:
Because I spaced a bit when I copy-pasted the ranger's class skills and cut out those that seemed to "hunter warrior-y" and replaced them with more tricksy, fey ones. Consider it added to the class' class skill list.
EDIT: Yeah, the two pics I found to splice together into the Goodfellow's "iconic" were a stroke of luck, really. I think both the dude and his faerie beast look exactly like I imagine the class.
I'm currently at the top of the recruitment for a fairy-tale campaign with my Goodfellow; so far, in the pre-game banter, it's very fun to make the faerie beast a foil of the Goodfellow.
|
Looked it over, and it definitely looks pretty cool, but there's a LOT to consider here.
The biggest problem here is that there's a lot of choice overload. The combat style, for instance, lets you choose from a list of bonus feats longer than any of the ranger's style lists, OR any teamwork feat, OR any summoner evolution, OR the wild tricks? I can see a player staring at the book this gets published in for a solid hour when he hits level 2. And the wild tricks themselves feel like the kind of thing that should be tied to the greentouch ability and naturally acquired as you level up, like a gunslinger's deeds, instead of chosen in place of a style feat.
And speaking of greentouch, it seems like a lot of the goodfellow's class features expend a use of it. At higher levels, it seems like you're going to have a lot of different abilities to track, but only one resource pool with which to make use of them, and it's going to be difficult to figure out which ones to use. Especially since using spelltricks to cast a 3rd-level spell expends three uses, which you could have used on three different 1st-level spells.
I also agree that the faerie beast is stronger than it needs to be. If it's supposed to be a mount, I'd say limit the choice to just a few animals suitable for riding. (A unicorn should be a choice.) Then you could keep the eidolon evolutions, but still let the druid claim its title as King of the Tamed Beast.
These are all valid concerns, Silent Saturn, but again I think you might be confusing encountering a new mechanic for encountering an objectively over-complicated one. I will not deny that this is a rather complex class, and that, indeed, the wild hunt combat style provides the goodfellow with a plethora of options, depending on whether he wants to focus on archery, focus on tag-teaming with his faerie beast or focus on just boosting the beast alone. But then again, a fighter gets to choose HIS bonus feats from every single combat feat in the game, so I don't really see how the Goodfellow's options are any more overwhelming than that.
As regards greentouch, again I see what you mean. You'll certainly have to choose whether you want to play more like a paladin, expending your GT uses mostly to heal or to power your handful of fey powers (seeming, wings, fey heritage and possibly wild tricks) or whether you want to rely more heavily on your spell tricks. The idea behind having a spelltrick cost one use per level was of course to encourage Goodfellows to, when they do cast spells, to focus on low-level ones. Using a 5th-level spell should be a far bigger deal for them than it is for either a full caster or even a 6-level caster like the magus. While I don't deny GT uses involve some resource management, I put it to you that it's no more resource management than playing, say, a psychic warrior from DSP or even a Magus, who has to track both arcane pool points and full spellcasting.
Lastly, regarding the faerie beast, I think the conclusion we've arrived at is that it is not supposed to be just one thing. With the right evolutions, you can build it as a mount (start with the mount evolution, is my tip), and then combine that with selecting mounted combat-focused combat style feats. You can also build it as a scout (it can be affected by your Seeming to become Tiny, you might have noticed), a skill monkey or a rather scary (though not eidolon-level scary) combat brute.
I do apologize for sort of mislabeling this class at the outset, and that I have been trying to rectify throughout the thread. I hope I don't come off as too defensive; I see the validity of your critique from a certain vantage, but I have other views on the matter, which I hope I clarified above. This class is not meant to share the Ranger's power level, or even necessarily its role. It's not a good tracker or hunter or specific-monster slayer. In truth it plays more like a mixture between a ranger, a paladin and a nature-themed summoner. I must politely state flat out that I don't really care for maintaining the druid as "the class that has the best AC", as firstly I don't see the AC as crucial to the druid's power level, nor do I necessarily think that full casters are best suited to be accompanied by powerful pets. I like the way I think this class has turned out, with the Goodfellow and his beastie on roughly equal footing power-wise. In a way that makes the class somewhat akin to the upcoming ACG Hunter, but executed in a radically different fashion.
Anyway, pardon the somewhat rambling post. I have had a few cups of coffee. Thank you for reading the class and caring about it enough to offer up a critique, which I hope I've answered rather than dismissed.
EDIT: @Gadgeteer: That's definitely a role I envision the faerie beast fulfilling as well. Though they can be fearsome, I certainly foresee quite a bit of comic relief potential in a surreal badger from the world of the fey.
@Ethereal Gears - I think you make a good point - the thread title is now kind of outdated. I would just call this a new Base Class. Makes for the potential of archetypes, though the name is a little specific for the ease of making archetypes, and the gender specificity kinda bugs me, but I totally get the Midsummer Night's Dream/Puck reference.
* As for being complex, I do not mind a complex class. Regardless of whether it is martial or not. In many ways I find martial classes more complex than casters, but then I'm not much for playing casters.
Gadget here, posting on my Goodfellow in case you're interested.
I can definitely see an Archetype focused on Spelltricks being made - perhaps making it so the Eidolon can also cast them?
@Ethereal: He's a Centaur-Lynx who also happens to be a skilled archer. Kinda different from a Badger. XD
@Arwyne: Oh, that's quite a leap from the original concept mentioned earlier, aye. Yeah, one could create all sorts of interesting fey mongrel things by combining the right base animal with the right evolutions, I daresay.
That sounds like a really cool idea for an archetype; maybe one would even want to take it a step further and make the goodfellow himself less magical and bestow more casting-ish capacity upon the faerie beast. It might be a cool subversion of the summoner dynamic, having a martial character with a mage-y pet. I might get started on something like that, though if you or anyone else would rather take a crack at it I wouldn't mind that. I rather like making archetypes for other people's homebrew stuff myself, and having ones made for mine.
Furthermore, @oceanshieldwolf: Yeah, I mean, I've just internalized all the different figther builds so much that they seem easy and straightforward to me, e.g., archers are always superior to crossbows, which are inherently useless, reach is king, Dex-based martial doesn't really work, etc.. But in reality all of this is stuff one learns over the years through trial and error and reading angry forum rants. I would submit that PF contains a lot fewer "trap spells" than trap feats.
Lastly, yeah, the name is really bugging me more and more, for all it seemed a clever reference joke at the time. I'm rather picky about names, but if anyone can come up with something that beats Goodfellow I'm definitely open to changing it. If it's a non-compound word that'll even earn you a gold star. ;)
EDIT: I can't change the thread title at this point though, right? I don't post a whole lot on these forums so I'm not sure about this stuff. It might seem a bit much to create a whole new thread just to alter that; this is hardly a huge discussion, after all.
I'm trying to figure out what to swap out for the Spelltrick archetype... Combat Style is the first thing that comes to mind. Maybe swap the bonus feats for more spells available or extra uses of Greentouch. Probably both.
And Bandersnatch can probably be replaced with something more thematic to the archetype, like the unlock of level 6 spells.
The Faerie Beast can be made to 1/2 BAB, give an extra boost to Intelligence and Charisma at the expense of Strength and Constitution (-2/+2 ratio, methinks), and an Evolution that allows it to use Spelltricks in some capacity. If this is done, then there could probably be one or two combat style feats left in the build.
...
Lastly, yeah, the name is really bugging me more and more, for all it seemed a clever reference joke at the time. I'm rather picky about names, but if anyone can come up with something that beats Goodfellow I'm definitely open to changing it. If it's a non-compound word that'll even earn you a gold star. ;)
Feyfriend, Feyist, Feybound, Feyborn, Feymaster, Feyheart, Feyborn Hunter...noncompund are tough.
If you are giving this class the d8 and 3/4 BAB then why not just give it bard spell progression at that point? And you say that you want to give this class just a few spells, but at level 1, he will have more spell access than a sorceror anyways (who only starts with 2 level 1 spells). LIke: the class starts out as one of the most versatile casters in the game and then becomes less and less relatively versatile as he levels up. I find it weird.
I am going to say that this class is pretty far on the weak side in its current form. Greentouched feels like a more-restictive lay-on hands with the added ability to maybe confuse an enemy for a round. I will admit that this and spelltrick do grant the class a bit of interesting utility, but maybe TOO much early on and not enough later on.
I will also note that you might as well give this class the animal companion from level 1. As it stands, Boon Companion is essentially a feat tax. People have mentioned it before, and maybe that was a reasonable balancing factor before the d8/3/4 BAB nerf, but now they should maybe just get it.
I will also note that the 3/4 BAB effectively nerfs the the fighting style. With 3/4 BAB, actually fighting will be a less useful option at higher levels (and thus these combat feats will be less useful too). I am not saying that you should replace the feats or go back to the d10 and full BAB. I am just saying that you should keep that change in power in mind going forward.
@ Ethereal Gears
Sorry if my critics were not very clear, i'm not as fluent in English as I should be.
To explain my point about the Greentouch : even if healing isn't generally overpowered, move action healing is very powerful. In general, the only flaw to burn a move action is that it remove the possibility to do a full-attack this round, but with spelltricks and wild tricks, normal standard action are still very effective for a Good fellow, especially a ranged one. In addition, swift actions are generally rated higher in the action economy than move action (you can't burn a move action to turn it in a swift). Also, mechanically, healing on others is most of the time a touch, and all touch effect (attack or not) tend to require a standard action or to be part of an attack action. This is the reason why I think that the greentouch should work like the Lay on hands. Don't forget that your Goodfellow gains Fey Foundling at 3th level, making casting greentouch on himself a lot better than a paladin's Lay on Hand. Doing it with a move action just seems a bit over the top to me. I don't think nerfing the healing is the solution, but following the path traced by Paizo here about healing could be a better idea than going with a move action healing.
About the BAB of the AC vs the Goodfellow, my personnal preference would be a full BAB character with a real fey companion, with 1/2 BAB. The goodfellow isn't a true caster: Inquisitor, Bards and Magus have a lot more spell per day and other tools to boost their offense. Giving a 3/4 BAB to this class would reproduce the rogue mistake and make it hard to our Goodfellow to rapid-shot and still hit something.
About Long Step, after reading the Travel domain, I think the ability is good and balanced. No need for dimensional agility here. Poor monk, no one likes him...
@Elghinn: I like those! You should be an expert at this by now I suspect. Cheers for the suggestions. I'll have to mull it over.
@Arwyne: Oh, that sounds like a good start. Though possibly it might be worth considering trading out a few of the fey-ish powers the goodfellow itself gets in exchange for giving spelltricks to the faerie beast, rather than nerfing his combat ability?
@Excaliburproxy: I suppose spelltricks are weird, but I rather like the feel it has as opposed to regular spellcasting. It won't be everyone's cup of tea, naturally. I might perhaps consider extending the spelltricks known as the class levels up (3+1/2 class level instead of 3+charisma, perhaps) but I do like keeping the casting tied to greentouch uses. Basically what I want these guys to have is spell points, so that they can "nova" (for a certain given value of nova) in times of crisis but thereby giving up a lot of their smaller utility abilities (seeming, wild tricks, healing etc.) later in the day. Maybe their tiny amount of spelltricks prohibits this from being viable, as one wouldn't dare waste a precious spelltrick spot on a powerful spell in case of boss fight? In that case starting the spelltrick amount out lower and progressing it up to 13 at level 20 might be alright.
Greentouch is not as good as lay on hands, no; though you can get mercies added onto it with feats if you like. It's possible the class loses a bit of oomph as it levels up. Should perhaps long step be made to allow you teleport then attack? Should bandersnatch be cheaper to use or even upgraded? Should the fey heritage ability be boosted or at least have its usage restrictions stripped? Are the later-level wild tricks a bit too wimpy? I must admit I rarely play games in the later levels and so abilities for beyond levels 8-12 are not my forte.
The class definitely doesn't get -3 on effective druid level for the AC, so that's no worry. I suppose there's no reason for them to wait to get the critter until 4th level since that's the case. Good catch.
Yeah, the BAB is still something I'm fretting over, and I did express my worries earlier in the thread that dropping to 3/4 would cripple the whole archery side of these guys too much. In my heart of hearts I still believe the Goodfellow wouldn't be OP if it returned to full BAB but kept the d8 HD (in analogy with its pet, who does a d6 HD with 3/4 BAB), however the consensus in the thread thus far seems to be that full BAB won't fly. I'm the sort of guy who thinks the power level of PF rogues are a joke (my group uses a vastly improved rogue who gets ToB-style maneuvers and far better rogue talents), that fighters are seriously underpowered and that rangers, while a dynamic class, could also use a boost to bring them up to at least the level of barbarians and paladins. So from that perspective...would giving this class full BAB but changing nothing else from the 2.0 version I posted above make them so superior to barbars and pallies as to invalidate either of those classes from a mechanics standpoint? Otherwise I might almost be tempted to go for it.
Lastly...
Feykith? For the name? Is that too obscure? Meaningwise I think it works wonders.
I originally called these dudes Wyldlings, but it felt too damn Game of Thrones-ish...
@ExcaliburProxy: The AC is treated as a full companion, even though it's gained at level 4. There is no feat tax because boon companion isn't needed.
As a general thing, I feel like you should bring back the "fey focus" thing you mentioned earlier and make them into separate combat styles. As it stands, there are far too many options pushed into that one combat style. Each Focus could each give a perk, too, like: "Archery" focus would give you extra BAB, bringing you to 18. "Beast" would give your Animal Companion higher HD and give it access to more of your abilities (perhaps as a later-on Wild Trick) and give access to the Extra Evolution feats and various fun abilities. "Spelltrickster" could make the class closer to a true spellcaster. Bandersnatch should be moved to an earlier level or buffed and made part of the capstone.
Actually, if we run with this, then the AC could have a lower number of Evolution Points (let's say 12, equal to 3/4 level) for focuses outside of "Beast," and Beast will give it 20. Archery would make the class closer to an Archery Ranger. Spelltrickster would, of course, bring the class closer to a true Spellcaster. The base Goodfellow would pick a focus and still have access to certain goodies the other focuses get, and Archetypes would focus on the focuses more (heh).
Lastly, yeah, the name is really bugging me more and more, for all it seemed a clever reference joke at the time. I'm rather picky about names, but if anyone can come up with something that beats Goodfellow I'm definitely open to changing it. If it's a non-compound word that'll even earn you a gold star. ;)
Seelie Courtier. Greenfellow. Childe (a reference to "Childe Rowland", a legend in which a child is abducted by the fairy king; this is not to be confused with Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came which merely references the title of the classic fairy tail). Feyson. Greenbrother.
For childe: I will also note that "Childe" does not refer to an actual child but instead to an untested knight. [Edit: it can refer to an actual child OR an untrained night; in "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came," it refers to an untested knight; in Childe Rowland, it refers to an actual kid]
@Kelazan: Hmm. I'm still not convinced; I mean, if it's Fey Foundling that makes his greentouch so powerful, letting him heal himself as a swift action and then do a full-atack round with a bow in the same round seems like that'd just exasperate the problem. Yeah, okay, so he can use greentouch and some other greentouch-consuming ability in the same round, but that'll eat through his GT uses pretty swiftly. Also, that problem would not be alleviated by changing it to work like lay on hands; in fact it'd worsen it. He could use a spell trick, make a sapling shot and swift action heal in the same round then. Only when healing others would this be an advantage. Most goodfellows (feykith?) will be archers. Who'll he be standing adjacent to and healing all the time? The faerie beast is the only one I see especially benefitting.
Does that make sense? I don't know.
As I said, yeah, the BAB issue still worries me. I don't see an obvious solution to it. Both 3/4 BAB for both guy and critter and full for guy and half for critter seem to cripple the class a bit too much.
@ExcaliburProxy: The AC is treated as a full companion, even though it's gained at level 4. There is no feat tax because boon companion isn't needed.
As a general thing, I feel like you should bring back the "fey focus" thing you mentioned earlier and make them into separate combat styles. As it stands, there are far too many options pushed into that one combat style. Each Focus could each give a perk, too, like: "Archery" focus would give you extra BAB, bringing you to 18. "Beast" would give your Animal Companion higher HD and give it access to more of your abilities (perhaps as a later-on Wild Trick) and give access to the Extra Evolution feats and various fun abilities. "Spelltrickster" could make the class closer to a true spellcaster. Bandersnatch should be moved to an earlier level or buffed and made part of the capstone.
Actually, if we run with this, then the AC could have a lower number of Evolution Points (let's say 12, equal to 3/4 level) for focuses outside of "Beast," and Beast will give it 20. Archery would make the class closer to an Archery Ranger. Spelltrickster would, of course, bring the class closer to a true Spellcaster. The base Goodfellow would pick a focus and still have access to certain goodies the other focuses get, and Archetypes would focus on the focuses more (heh).
The number of evolution points are tied to HD and HD is tied to effective druid level.
This is to say that every single Goodfellow needs to take Boon Companion or is a chump most foul.
@Gadget: I really like we're you're heading with this. Seems you've found a way to incorporate the old fey focus class feature without me needing to create a bunch of new unique class feature (the hassle). Would you be interested in mocking up an idea of how this class feature would look and which old ones (combat style, etc.) it'd replace? Could either post it here or PM me. I wouldn't mind having it in the thread though.
@ExcaliburProxy: The AC is treated as a full companion, even though it's gained at level 4. There is no feat tax because boon companion isn't needed.
As a general thing, I feel like you should bring back the "fey focus" thing you mentioned earlier and make them into separate combat styles. As it stands, there are far too many options pushed into that one combat style. Each Focus could each give a perk, too, like: "Archery" focus would give you extra BAB, bringing you to 18. "Beast" would give your Animal Companion higher HD and give it access to more of your abilities (perhaps as a later-on Wild Trick) and give access to the Extra Evolution feats and various fun abilities. "Spelltrickster" could make the class closer to a true spellcaster. Bandersnatch should be moved to an earlier level or buffed and made part of the capstone.
Actually, if we run with this, then the AC could have a lower number of Evolution Points (let's say 12, equal to 3/4 level) for focuses outside of "Beast," and Beast will give it 20. Archery would make the class closer to an Archery Ranger. Spelltrickster would, of course, bring the class closer to a true Spellcaster. The base Goodfellow would pick a focus and still have access to certain goodies the other focuses get, and Archetypes would focus on the focuses more (heh).
The number of evolution points are tied to HD and HD is tied to effective druid level.
This is to say that every single Goodfellow needs to take Boon Companion or is a chump most foul.
The Goodfellow counts as a Druid of level-0 for purposes of the Animal Companion. NOT A Druid-3.