@excalibur: Yeah, but effective druid level is totally equal to goodfellow class level.
EDIT: Rogue alternate class'd.
The Goodfellow counts as a Druid of level-0 for purposes of the Animal Companion. NOT A Druid-3.@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.
ohhhh. I misread and was confused.
There's a bit of confusion in the class: I apologize for some class features not being crystal clear in the way they're written. I get how getting the AC at level 4 seems to imply a non-full effective druid level.
I also think I might've misunderstood Gadget. What you're proposing is that we come up with a full suite of abilities for each focus, right? It almost sounded like you had some nifty way of making the foci a little less world-altering for the class: like archery fiddles a bit with BAB and things, beast with the faerie beast's evos, primal with...er, not sure? Anyway, it just strikes me that the class has quite a lot of abilities already, so maybe it might work if the focuses only did slight things like that? Might even only be necessary to have one focused on being archery fighty and one on boosting your pet, and leave the seeming, wings, long step type things as is: part of the core of the class.
@Ethereal: Don't forget that there's potential for a melee class here.
@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.
Oh man. So many posts appeared at once that I did not even notice this.
Well, I think you can definitely stand to increase this class back up to full BAB if you aren't going to expand the casting. I am not sure I have heard a good argument as to why this class would be appreciably better than a ranger at full BAB. <===
I think Spell trick could stand to be reworked, even if you don't want to turn it into just casting. First: at level 1, it needs to cost more than one use of greentouched. For reference: a sorceror can cast about 4 1st level spells a day while this Goodfellow can cast its first level spells 2+cha times a day (potentially 5 or 6 times a day). That is not a desirable outcome.
I would also remove cha from the number of "spells known". I would just make it 2 spells known at level 1 and an additional spell every two levels thereafter (to a max of 11 spells at level 20 which is essentially what you could be looking at by level 20 anyways). This way, it does not so obviously overshadow every spontaneous casting class at the first two levels. This should clear up most of the problems, imo.
I am going to be honest, though: I really don't like the spelltrick ability. It is weird in that it is not like any other system in the game, it gives a class a maximum spell level of 5 (making it hard to compare to things like paladins OR bards), and it is unclear to me what is "gained" over the normal style of spellcasting.
Maybe I would replace this with a list of spell-like abilities that a goodfellow can choose from at different levels? Like each one could be usable once a day but you could use it more if you fed the power your greentouched ability. I dunno.
<=== Edit: I mean this for level 10 versions of both classes. At level 1, this class is O to the P in some ways.
Oh, no, that's a fair point. I'm just at a bit of a loss regarding how 2-3 fey focuses might look with the current incarnation of the class. BTW, any love for feykith? Otherwise I think we'll just go with Gadgeteer's Feywarden; it was the first new name on offer, and I think I like it best otherwise.
Er...I'm just not sure. It feels like a lot of work cobbling together three Bloodline-level-of-amount-of-new-stuff paths for this class, when in a lot of ways I feel it works fine the way it is. There's a lot under the combat style, sure, but you have to pick. You can't get all of it. I'd rather relegate excessive specialization to archetypes. Like in a way I dislike how much an Oracle's Mystery alters the whole class, because that leaves little room for fun Oracle archetypes. I'm still wondering whether or not to just boost spell tricks to 3 + 1/2 class level and go back to d8 HD and full BAB and call it a day at this point.
@Excaliburproxy: Your dislike of the core mechanic of spelltricks is fair enough, but other people seem to like it and so do I. It's different from other systems in the game, but that's neither a net positive or negative in my book; to each their own. I never really liked Vancian casting in the first place.
Now, for some points of agreement: I think I'll make spell tricks equal to 2 + 1 every two levels thereafter. That sounds like it'd be a lot easier than the current system, and balancewise works better.
Further, yeah, I had my suspicions about the BAB all along, and we'll be settling on full BAB for now on. If someone actually builds one of these and finds full BAB + 3/4 BAB on the critter makes these dudes completely blow druids and pallies out of the water, I might change it later. As of yet I have not been convinced that 4 points of Base Attack Bonus at level 20 for the AC is what will decide whether a full BAB Goodfellow can fly or not (faerie wings aside, drumroll).
So...yeah. Them's my thoughts right now. Of course there should be ways to have an even more magical faerie beast or other stuff like that, but I really think I want to leave that to archetypes.
Awesome class. I'd love to play it.
Green touch healing others should be a standard action. For balancing you want them to be less effective healers. It's also pretty solidly established with all other classes.
Unless they have some method of generating some +hit, they should be full bab. Almost all 3/4 bab have some way to gain hit. Judgements, songs, imbuing your sword, etc.
I really like green touch uses powering everything. They do stand to be comparable /overtake paladins in usefulness. Maybe make it d4?
Edited for typos
So I've changed greentouch to a standard unless you're healing yourself or your faerie beast. I'm not sure it needs a drop in healing dice, though. I mean, at the end of the day you'll probably have less greentouch uses than a pally has LoH, since you're using them for everything.
EDIT: Also, thank you for thinking something that I made up in my head and put into an electronic document is awesome. That's really wonderful to hear. :) I'm overjoyed people even think this class is good enough that they'd want to try to play it.
Sorry for double post.. but:
I'm not sure how the faerie beast works. You pick an animal companion from the druid list, yet it needs a summoner base form? What if I pick a Roc? There's no base form with wings, and that is a highly desirable evolution.
Well, the only thing about the faerie beast that relates to base form is that it has an effective base form for the purposes of qualifying for evolutions. The document states it's up to GM discretion, but that it should be the one most like the critter's natural form. A roc has two legs. I'd say it counts as a biped for the purposes of qualifying for evos. Fair?
EDIT: Changed the text to this: "For the purposes of selecting evolutions, the faerie beast counts as having the base form most closely resembling its natural shape, subject to GM discretion." Clearer?
That edit clears it up nicely. You might want to add a clause saying the Goodfellow (and he only) can consider his faerie beast as an animal for spells he casts upon it. That way you have access to the Druid animal spells, like animal growth. Or perhaps you don't want that, just a thought.
Oh, no, that's a good catch. That was definitely part of the idea. Really appreciate the perspicacity, Beopere. I just hope people haven't been reading the class assuming faerie beasts can never have strong jaw etc. cast on them and would think it OP if that were the case...
Again, sorry for double posting. It seems I'm not very co-ordinated. And this time I won't say this is the final version, because clearly things need to be threshed out:
Renamed in honor of Gadgeteer Smashwidget's original suggestion for a less...odd name. I've just included the various changes discussed above. My stance is still to relegate further specilization within the class to archetypes, rather than to rehash the old fey focus idea, which I don't think I have the energy for. If anyone else wants to have a crack at it or post an archetype, that'd be great.
Well, the only thing about the faerie beast that relates to base form is that it has an effective base form for the purposes of qualifying for evolutions. The document states it's up to GM discretion, but that it should be the one most like the critter's natural form. A roc has two legs. I'd say it counts as a biped for the purposes of qualifying for evos. Fair?
EDIT: Changed the text to this: "For the purposes of selecting evolutions, the faerie beast counts as having the base form most closely resembling its natural shape, subject to GM discretion." Clearer?
When we did the Beast Summoner (Sum/Drd) multiclass archetype, we used the druid's animal companion (1st level) as the base form (typically they're already quadrupeds, serpents, or bipeds) for its Beastial Eidolon. Then it gained HItDice and evolutions as a normal eidolon, but at -1 evolution to the total. However, a reduced evolution pool is certainly required for this one with your d10/full BAB chassis.
Well, as it currently stands the faerie beast receives an evolution pool equal to its HD, ending up at 16 evo points at level 20. That's 10 less than an eidolon and feels balanced in my mind. I don't think the faerie beast needs to progress as an eidolon beyond that though. It now has d6 HD, 16 Hit Dice total, with BAB 3/4, ending up at 12 at level 20 like a regular animal companion. I think that, combined with the d8 HD/Full BAB of the Feywarden himself makes for a rather powerful class. I certainly wouldn't wish to increase the faerie beast's power level further.
Just to clarify, the faerie beast only counts as having a base form for the purposes of qualifying for evolutions. It doesn't gain any free evolutions or anything like that. In addition, it's limited by the natural attack cap of an eidolon of equivalent level, counting any natural attacks it has simply by virtue of being an animal towards that cap.
Why the name Goodfellow? When I think of fey I think of chaotic and selfish. In Pathfinder selfishness is linked to neutrality or evil, never good.
Well, it was actually a reference to Puck from a Midsummer Night's Dream, but since you feel that way you'll be happy to learn the class has been renamed the Feywarden; the latest version is a few posts up from this one.
@Excaliburproxy: Your dislike of the core mechanic of spelltricks is fair enough, but other people seem to like it and so do I. It's different from other systems in the game, but that's neither a net positive or negative in my book; to each their own. I never really liked Vancian casting in the first place.
Now, for some points of agreement: I think I'll make spell tricks equal to 2 + 1 every two levels thereafter. That sounds like it'd be a lot easier than the current system, and balancewise works better.
Further, yeah, I had my suspicions about the BAB all along, and we'll be settling on full BAB for now on. If someone actually builds one of these and finds full BAB + 3/4 BAB on the critter makes these dudes completely blow druids and pallies out of the water, I might change it later. As of yet I have not been convinced that 4 points of Base Attack Bonus at level 20 for the AC is what will decide whether a full BAB Goodfellow can fly or not (faerie wings aside, drumroll).
So...yeah. Them's my thoughts right now. Of course there should be ways to have an even more magical faerie beast or other stuff like that, but I really think I want to leave that to archetypes.
Well, I did list my reasons for disliking it and even with that change, and I am of the mind that design should be a conscious process rather than just a feeling. That is more a philosophical point though. And I do value new mechanics in and of themselves to a certain extent.
Also: The class may still be casting too many level 1 spells in a day early on. Like I said before: a sorcerer can expect to cast her spells about 4 times a day, but your feywarden can plausibly get up to 4 to 6 castings a day at level 1. This increases to 5 to 7 times a day at level 2. And these "spells" are even better than the sorcerer's as the feywarden can turn these spells into healing and confusion as well!
Have you considered moving the fey companion to level 1 and moving spelltricks to level 4?
If you step up the BAB back to full then you still have the valid criticism of "+1 bab AND spells at level 1 is madness", while over by level 4, full and 3/4 casters have had a few more levels to differentiate themselves in terms of power and versatility.
Valid points. You would also have more spells known at level 2 than a sorcerer, in a addition to, plausibly, more spells per day.
You certainly did list your reasons for disliking the mechanic. I thought I made mine for liking it clear as well? I didn't mean to make it sound like I created that mechanic out of some gut feeling.
The idea behind spelltricks is that they give you a far more limited amount of spells to choose from at any particular level than any of the existing spellcasting paradigms (4-, 6- and 9-level casting) offer. Secondly, because they are tied to a point pool rather than to a preset number of spells per level per day, they allow you to choose more freely whether you want to dish your magic out in small portions or if you want to blow it all on one (or two or three) big booms. In essence this system isn't that different from psionics or spellpoints; some people don't like those as opposed to Vancian casting, but again, as you said, that might be more of a philosophical issue.
In all honesty, just as I don't tend to consider the late game (level 12+), I usually don't start campaigns at level 1 either. (3-5 is a more common starting level for our group). You definitely have a point regarding the class getting too many tricks at 1st level (I rather forgot about that in the flurry of replies earlier). Yeah, I think the faerie beast and the spelltricks switching places is actually a really good idea. I'll still give them full caster level and they'll still unlock new spell levels at the current rate (ending at 5th-level ones at 17), but it'll all start at level 4. I actually think an earlier draft of the class works like that. Fair?
Edit: actually, I'll put in the spelltricks at 3rd level, just so you don't get 1st-level spells at 4th and then 2nd-level at 5th.
That probably works well enough, I think. Full BAB and full caster level is unprecedented, but I also don't think it is really broken (and I sort of think that is how Paladins et. al. should work to begin with).
No, but I get your point. I definitely think this works better. I hope I didn't come off as snippy earlier. All your comments have been very helpful and have resulted in some truly positive changes to the class. In fact, I'd just like to thank everyone for their very helpful commentary. I really feel like ye olde Feywarden's come a long way thus far.
|
And another thing... I wouldn't call rangers weak. They don't do the same things as paladins or barbarians, but they're not weak. They're excellent archers and they have a good bag of skills to play with. They suffer much less from "nothing to do outside of combat" than those other martial classes.
I think the power level of rangers is actually "just right". It's good at what it's meant for, without getting greedy.
No, but I get your point. I definitely think this works better. I hope I didn't come off as snippy earlier. All your comments have been very helpful and have resulted in some truly positive changes to the class. In fact, I'd just like to thank everyone for their very helpful commentary. I really feel like ye olde Feywarden's come a long way thus far.
Hey. I don't think you came off as snippy at all. If anything, I probably came off as snippy. I tend not to sensor myself on the internet (as I have to do that day-in and day-out as part of the politics of my work environment) and that often translates into rudeness.
Cheers, Excaliburproxy, and I don't think you came off as rude at all.
@Ascalaphus: Well, we'll probably still be calling them goodfellows in my home game, but some people were rightly concerned about the gendered nature of the name, especially since I can't some up with a good feminine counterpart. Feel free to play one of these fellows and call it a goodfellow to your heart's content. I rather enjoy the old fey superstition stuff about calling them the fair folk as not to anger them and all that. In my home country we have a little house goblin who, if you don't give him a bowl of porridge every evening, he'll milk your cows all night until they milk only blood and die. That's the sort of fey we have in our games.
You are right about the ranger, I think. They are more sensible than paladins and barbarians, and don't get me wrong, I love playing one under the right circumstances. Hopefully as things stand now the Feywarden/Goodfellow won't outpace them too drastically. In the end this class will probably be closer to barbars and pallies on the power curve, but I'm fine with that. It's not really suitable to a fey-based class to be shy about their powers, and the addition of more magic to a class concepts tend to up the power level.
Yeesh, Ethereal, that sounds really painful for the cows.
Luckily -I- wouldn't do that... I would just straight-up cook it. :D
I'm half way through reading the class...and it's extremely powerful. Maybe the later revisions tone it down a notch, but it seems like the best aspects of many classes all combined into one!
I would love for you to elaborate on that when you're done reading, Cheapy. I daresay reading the last and final version would be a good idea, though.
Is that Goodfellow 2.0?
I'm half way through reading the class...and it's extremely powerful. Maybe the later revisions tone it down a notch, but it seems like the best aspects of many classes all combined into one!
Relinking the latest PDF:
@Ethereal Gears - you could always start a new thread "Feywarden - New Base Class" or similar...
Try this one: Feywarden.
We changed the name. :)
Yeah, I'm still seeing d8 HD and Full BAB. Which is fine. Just noting it. ;)
Yeah, that's intentional. Want them a bit squishy, on account of the whole fey thing.
Praise is great, but criticism is useful. Nothing personal!
I'm not a huge fan of just how versatile Wild Hunt Combat Style is. It's 4 abilities in one. It combines the best parts of the archery style (Imp Precise Shot at level 6), a really nice teamwork feat sharing ability, extra evolution points (I was OK with this at first since I thought they didn't get them normally...nope.), and then some really really nice abilities. It just feels like too many good options.
Sapling shot...not sure how I feel about this one. It's really cool and an extremely visual ability, but it's damage (minor, I know), debuffing, control, and terrain manipulation all in one ability. Just the ability to make a tree where you want, so there's suddenly cover, would be sufficiently useful, I feel.
I still feel that fey foundling was just a bad idea for a feat, but at least you can't swift action Fey Foundling yourself. Fey Fondling? I like that name. But I don't like the idea of getting 1d6+2 / 2 levels healing.
Woodsman is icing on an already good cake. And it's butter cream icing, made by a cake master.
Firstly, the feywarden's faerie beast shares the following class features with him: it gains half
his skill bonuses from his woodsman class feature whenever in forest or jungle terrain. It also
gains access to seeming, wild stride, elision and timeless body; all of these only function
when the faerie beast is within 1 mile per class level of the feywarden, and only while in
forest or jungle terrain. The feywarden must touch his faerie beast and expend uses of his
This is poorly worded, and should be changed. As it stands, the faerie beast gets everything at once. And is very powerful anyhow.
The faerie beast treats the feywarden's spelltricks, but not any of his other
spell-like abilities, as "spells from a class that grants an animal companion" for the purposes
of its share spells ability.
Great job catching this corner case.
These guys are mounted archers, but...I see nothing but some bonus feats to point in that direction.
Seeming: I kinda of get why, but...why?
Elision is really, really good. Specifically the Will saves part.
I love the idea of this class. We did something similar in a book I developed, except it was a cavalier archetype. The extension to mounted archer to further tie in the links to fey is a wonderful idea.
But the only half-way mediocre ability this class gets is Wild Empathy. Everything else is amazing for its niche, unlike most classes. Most classes will have their good abilities (Bane, Weapon Training, Bombs) and then a bunch of mediocre to ... not very good... abilities (track, bravery, poison resistance). But this guy gets amazing everything.
I usually try to give some constructive feedback as well, but I'm not sure where to even start on this one. I feel that you're overvaluing the "balance cost" of not getting a real damaging class feature. Damage isn't an issue for an archer anyways, so they barely even need such an ability. At first, I was against using full BAB, but I think it's necessary for this guy, if only because archery at 3/4ths BAB needs some to-hit boost.
If anything else comes to mind, I'll share.
I absolutely love the theme and ideas in this class.
I think that a lot of it is great, and all together its too great.
Problem is I have no idea where to trim or what. It's all good and it all fits the theme!
I know that's less than helpful...
|
What I would do is:
1) Don't allow Extra Evolution or wild tricks with the wild hunt combat style ability. Combat style feats should be combat style feats. Teamwork feats are OK, but I suggest requiring the Faerie Beast take the feat as well rather than automatically sharing the Feywarden's feat.
2) Take a lot of the unique abilities and put them into a "wild tricks" or "wild talents" ability modeled on Rogue Talents, Alchemist Discoveries, or Rage Powers. Split some of the abilities up into multiple tricks/talents/powers so each one is individually a bit weaker.
This should include: all the wild tricks, wild lore, fey foundling, seeming (split into alter self / basic, beast shape / improved, and invisibility / greater), Woodsman (minus trackless step) and Trackless Step separately, Faerie Wings, Wild Stride (basic and improved version applying to magical terrain), Long Step, Elision (or Evasion and a Will save equivalent separately), Fey Heritage (the three separately), Timeless Body, and Bandersnatch. Add one or two trickster-type Rogue Talents or Ninja Tricks. Add Extra Evolutions to the list, as well as Merciful Greentouch and an ability letting the Feywarden share Teamwork feats with their Beast for free.
Grant one of these abilities every 2-3 levels.
You mentioned avoiding too much customization earlier, but if you're approaching this as a new base class rather than as an alternate class you have room for customization, the Talents/Discoveries/Powers system is well-established, and people looking at homebrew classes are probably looking for more customization anyway. This allows a player to pick which of the fun and flavourful abilities to "trim" by not taking them. You can always provide a list of suggested power sets (perhaps based on the fey focus mentioned in the linked post) to make it easier for someone to dive in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Cheapy and Weirdo. You may have been a lot more constructive than you might have thought. Weirdo, I think all those are great suggestions, and to a large extent help to mollify some of Cheapy's concerns. I'll get cracking on a revamp and get back to y'all.
@Ethereal Gears - Perhaps in a new thread for the FEYWARDEN? You can always link to it from this thread so you don't lose people...
Yeah, that's probably a good idea, actually.