| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wrathblood archetype was made with the following mechanical objectives:
- Full BAB melee focus
- Tier 3 versatility/power (comparable to for example inquisitor or magus)
- Easy to play (especially in combat)
- Versatile and effective utility/non-combat abilities
- Enables several effective mechanically different character builds
- Retain relative effectiveness/usefulness in higher level games
In short, the wrathblood archetype replaces 17 of the 35 bloodrage features, most notably:
- Uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge and spell casting are replaced by the ability to gain eidolon evolutions while bloodraging, starting with 2 evolution points at 2nd level and increasing to a maximum of 8 points at 20th level.
- Blood casting and eschew materials are replaced by the ability to trade rounds of bloodrage to gain the effects of the beast shape spell for 1 hour/day at 4th level, similar to the druid's wild shape ability but not useable in combat and limited to a maximum of 5 uses/day of beast shape IV at 20th level.
- Bloodline bonus feats are replaced by bonus style feats and the ability to use two styles simultaneously at 10th level (prerequisites and fuse ability near identical to the master of many styles monk archetype).
- Bloodline bonus spells are replaced by the ability to trade rounds of bloodrage to gain the effects of each evolution surge spell 1/day during a bloodrage (starting with the lesser spell at 7th level and ending with the greater spell at 16th level) or the displacement or stoneskin spell for one round while bloodraging (at 13th level).
I would especially appreciate your help, input and views with regards to five questions:
Q1:
Is the wrathblood on about the right power level for tier 3? (Note that the archetype is intended to be more capable than the bloodrager and other full BAB classes designed by Paizo.)
Q2:
Does the wrathblood meet the other mechanical objectives?
Q3:
Does the wrathblood live up to its intended flavor and is that flavor sufficiently unique, interesting and fun in your view?
Q4:
Do the wrathblood abilities have the potential to cause any new obviously OP/broken combinations (by themselves or combined with a certain bloodline/feat/race or other PC option)?
Q5:
A (DM) - Do you think any of your players would be interested in playing a wrathblood character and would you like to make the archetype available to them?
B (Player) - Would you be interested in playing a wrathblood character if the archetype was available?
Naturally, I would also be grateful for any improvement ideas/suggestions/tips and critique/praise/comments you may have!
Nobody? Not even a short uninspired "Sucks."? It's really that bad/uninteresting/boring, huh? :(
Anyhow, made some slight tweaks, clarifications and additions to the wrathblood, the most significant being:
- the style feats no longer replaces bloodline bonus feat, but may instead be selected instead of a bloodline feat
- the maximum number of natural attacks allowed at each level has been altered and now differentiates between primary and secondary at certain levels, creating a more smooth power curve
- added options for games using the Path of War, including the Martial Training feats as possible bonus feats
Aww...
I've linked to the standard bloodrager and all other elements by Paizo as they get mentioned in the text, so every reference is at your fingertips. It doesn't get much more convenient.
*shameless bump*
Feedback? Just a little?
Please?
Q1: I'm not very good at comparing mechanics of different classes and seeing the balances, but I think you've created a monster here, pun intended. You're drawing on the Bloodrager (itself a Barbarian/Sorcerer hybrid), Monk AND Summoner classes to create this archetype. To me, that screams "Too Much!" in a loud voice. Reading over it though, you seem to have limited the changes quite a bit, which might help balance it out. But I'm not sure, mechanics are hard for me to wrap my head around.
Q2: Check on the full BAB focus, check on the versatility (evolutions plus a bloodline and spells0, the rest I'd have to see during a playtest, but I'd say it will scale pretty well into higher levels, if it isn't OP.
Q3: Definitely.
Q4: Again, not really sure, but based on the classes you're drawing from here, I would say yes, that is definitely a possibility. Of course, I've witnessed players do that with most other classes as well, so there is that.
Q5: I tend to DM, and I know what my players like. They like to murder things. If I allowed this, I'd have at least two vying for it, maybe more. As a player however, I like the skill monkeys. Less combat, more everything else.
Thanks for the feedback! And sorry for my late reply.
Q1: I'm not very good at comparing mechanics of different classes and seeing the balances, but I think you've created a monster here, pun intended. You're drawing on the Bloodrager (itself a Barbarian/Sorcerer hybrid), Monk AND Summoner classes to create this archetype. To me, that screams "Too Much!" in a loud voice. Reading over it though, you seem to have limited the changes quite a bit, which might help balance it out. But I'm not sure, mechanics are hard for me to wrap my head around.
Yeah, there are quite a few components originally belonging to other classes. The main reason for this being that I wanted natural attacks to remain viable, flexible and balanced even in higher levels (without being OP in lower levels), and I've being trying to use already existing components rather than making up completely new ones.
Q2: Check on the full BAB focus, check on the versatility (evolutions plus a bloodline and spells0, the rest I'd have to see during a playtest, but I'd say it will scale pretty well into higher levels, if it isn't OP.
Great. From my own limited playtesting at levels 6 and 11, it seems to work out pretty nicely.
Q3: Definitely.
Nice! That's what I'd hoped to hear.
Q4: Again, not really sure, but based on the classes you're drawing from here, I would say yes, that is definitely a possibility. Of course, I've witnessed players do that with most other classes as well, so there is that.
Well, as long as it's not an open goal, something that easily happens by mistake, I'm OK.
Q5: I tend to DM, and I know what my players like. They like to murder things. If I allowed this, I'd have at least two vying for it, maybe more. As a player however, I like the skill monkeys. Less combat, more everything else.
Cool. BTW, you did notice "Feral Form" at level 4, the out-of-combat/utility only "wild shape"-light?
Thanks again for the feedback, means a lot to me!
Honestly, it seems like it's trying to do too many different things.
Why does it have mini-evolution abilities and mini-wild shape and style feats?
Here's my condensed answers:
Mini-evolutions - because evolutions provide the most powerful/versatile (and IMO tactically fun) melee tools available to PCs in the game, and because I believe they fit with the "monster-rager" flavor better than any other Paizo player option.Mini-wild shape - because it's useful in a larger number of out-of-combat situations than any other existing class feature besides prepared casting, and the wrathblood would be largely reduced to just killing and/or intimidating NPCs without this kind of strong, flexibel utility feature. To me, Feral Form also fits well with at least the archetype's "bio-transformer" feel and doesn't step on any toes of other classes (the druid's toes are way too big for the wrathblood to step on, the fluffy as well as the crunchy ones). That said, I'd be happy to replace the effects of the beast shape line of spell with something able to provide an equal amount of out-of-combat usefulness while also having a more "monster" feel to it. I'd like to hear any suggestions you may have.
Style feats - because there's a serious lack of other PC options which can provide meaningful benefits to melee other than dealing damage. This is a problem for melee combatants in general and natural attackers in particular, but quite a few of the style feats manages to enable tactics which would otherwise be plain stupid or simply impossible. They now also offer the best solutions in the game to some of the serious inflexibility/action economy problems a natural attack based PC combatant faces in mid and high levels (notably concerning mobility, DR and full attacks). Most style feats are also relatively easy to use in play since their benefits can be treated as permanent in a large majority of combats, and they already have an established connection to natural attacks (via FCT).
Fluff-wise, the wrathblood is intended to be more focused on natural attacks than any Paizo class/archetype, the definitive expert on "monstrous combat" if you will, and AFAIK there are no existing options having more suitable mechanics than the style feats for illustrating this.
(Because of the above reasons, the strongest natural attack martial PC build possible with Paizo options is also very likely a barb with a 2-level dip in MoMS monk.)
Because of that it honestly doesn't seem like it meets the 'easy to play' thing. For an experienced player, sure, you can work out your combination of styles + shapes + evolutions that pan out best for you, but that 'for an experienced player' clause seems to kill the appeal.
This is a good point, I think. Though it should be noted my aim was not to make an archetype relatively easy to build, but one which is relatively easy in play in general and in combat in particular. I've therefore been trying to tie the more complex choices to level ups, while hoping to avoid much of the record-keeping required for highly dynamic, very time limited and/or situational abilities, without sacrificing too much of the archetype's versatility/flexibility.
Still, maybe it would be a good idea to reduce the number of available options certain features offers, as several of them would actually be very sub-par and become traps for less experienced players. I'm primarily thinking of numerous evolutions, beast shape options and style feats. Do you think that could be a solution?
The Style Feats in particular seem out of place. Why is a class based around fighting like a monster learning martial arts?
See above and have a look at the style feats intro text again (my emphasis):
For centuries, great warriors have looked to nature and the multiverse to find inspiration in battle. Countless monastic and contemplative orders have crafted intricate unarmed fighting styles based on the deadliness and grace of natural and supernatural creatures. Although many such fighting techniques were created by secretive orders, they have since spread to practitioners the world over.
So, since style feats are often "based on the deadliness and grace" of actual monsters and other creatures using only natural attacks, I'd say style feats are some of the most, if not THE most suitable category of existing options for a "monster" PC archetype also using only natural attacks. I can agree that a natural attack "monster" PC inspired by the fighting techniques of monastic orders who in turn were originally inspired by actual monsters may seem like a needlessly roundabout way for a "monster" to master "monster fighting", but in terms of both fluff and crunch, there are no better existing options available IMO.
I also don't view them as much as martial arts in the "east-asian disciplines of unarmed fighting" sense, but more like the trademark moves of very different types of martial arts, in its actual meaning (in RL referring to fighting disciplines/traditions as different as capoeira and the german school of longsword fencing).
I'd also consider tweaking the wild shape effect to either become bloodline-based or much more flexible in general. Dragons, Elementals, and Undead all have their own series of polymorph spells, so it seems odd that you're getting the ability to turn into an eagle instead. It's particularly grating for Draconic, since they get their Polymorph spell via bloodline... making either that or your class ability useless to you.
Eh? First off, the "polymorph" abilities of those bloodlines are powers, not bloodline bonus spells, so they are not replaced by the wrathblood archetype in any way. Second, the Feral Form ability can not be used in combat, whereas you'd typically be wasting your bloodline "polymorph" powers if using them at any time except when in combat. Third, this ability is not grating for draconic - they're more likely to cry tears of joy if they'd able to choose this archetype as their bloodline powers would gain tremendously from the wrathblood's natural attack boosts and evolutions. (And though it has nothing to do with the Feral Form ability, note that draconic also don't gain any polymorph spells at all from their bloodline).
I can understand the desire to not be "Bloodrager, but with Wild Shape" or "Bloodrager, but with Evolutions", but the Style feats really don't fit and only having 8 points and Beast Shapes makes those underwhelming.
Ah, I think I understand the reason for your doubts much better now, and it's my fault. I'd hoped my text would be easy to read and understand, and not just to experienced players with superior rules-fu, but it needs to be much clearer.
I've noticed the following concrete details you've mentioned that does not correspond to what I believed my document said:
- Feral Form mechanics
- Replaced bloodline features
- Evolution points (a level 20 wrathblood would very rarely manifest evos worth less than 15 points while raging, and typically at least 20 points in tougher combats)
I would be very grateful if you could let me know which parts of my text you found the most unclear or confusing.