Here's a new class I just designed, loosely inspired on the Dragoon from the Final Fantasy franchise.
First of all, there is no explanation of the zephiric fall ability (although I believe it is like slow fall). Then, the zephir's charge, I think it is a bit too soft for an 11th level ability. Moreover, I'm pretty sure there are ways, be it feats, magic items, etc, to gain those things. Finally, I think that the zephiric armor mastery is a bit too powerful, at least compared with existing stuff. I don't know if this is in the same level as the hybrid classes.
I think it is a good concept, I prefer a character that is agile and mobile in the battlfield to a hulking brute that only hits. Not only I like brains over brawn, but also skils over brawn. That's why I like the dervish magus. Have you read this thread about the mobile fighter? I haven't. Maybe you should put more stuff regarding mobility, such as more speed, bonus against paralysis (which I think is the ultimate counter measure to this, like a feeblemind to a wizard), being able to charge through difficult terrain, just to name a few
Yet another class that should be an archetype because it doesn't have enough fleshed out mechanics and class features.
@Lich Bard: Thanks for the heads up, I fixed it. And I'll be sure to read on that.
@Cyrad: The fighter basically only has 4 class features... Feats, Bravery, Weapon Training and Armor Training...
@LazarX: It wouldn't kill you to read it before making assumptions from the name... Sephyrus, sounds like zephyr? Also, its based on the name of a greek god Zephyrus. God of wind.
@Cyrad: The fighter basically only has 4 class features... Feats, Bravery, Weapon Training and Armor Training...
The fighter isn't that well designed, but even it has more than your class. If your class is just a fighter with a few bonuses to charging, then you might want to reconsider its design. Additionally, the obvious lack of proofreading make this appear as a first draft. If you want to be a game designer, you need to put much more effort and consideration into your work than this.
As I've said to many that posted classes on this forum, classes are one of the hardest things to design in this game. It takes plenty of experience, skill, time, and effort to create a good class. It always baffles me why many individuals on this forum think they can crank out a class in a few hours in a single draft without any dry playtesting. With most of them looking like existing classes with only one or two minor class feature differences, it baffles me why they make classes in the first place. One of Pathfinder's best features stems from the numerous ways you can use existing classes to make new character concepts, such as with archetypes and talent pools.
@LazarX: It wouldn't kill you to read it before making assumptions from the name... Sephyrus, sounds like zephyr? Also, its based on the name of a greek god Zephyrus. God of wind.
A person's first impression provides very powerful insights into the quality of your work. Don't discredit it.
CLASS SKILLS
Add "and" before Swim.
PROFICIENCIES
It would be simpler if it were all martial weapons.
LEAPING CHARGE
The wording is clumsy. How about: "When using the charge action, a sephyrus deals an additional +1d8 points of damage on a successful attack. This additional damage does not multiply on a critical hit. At 3rd level and every two levels thereafter, this additional damage increases by +1d8." Also, you should decide whether or not you want to include wording on how this ability interacts other abilities, such as Pounce and Spirited Charge.
HIGH JUMP
You spelled it "height". Change it to "A sephyrus adds his level to all Acrobatics checks made to jump." Keep out the part about vertical and horizontal. It is redundant information.
TACTICAL CHARGE
Good start but you should work on it some more. For example, a 90 degree turns seems abrupt. Maybe he first he gains the ability to make a smaller turn before learning the 90 degree trick. Ignoring all difficult terrain should be a higher level ability. A lower level ability could be the ability to charge even when there is difficult terrain. I would also move the 17th level "withdraw/charge" ability to 13th level.
LEAP ATTACK
Keep the concept but change the wording, maybe to "Beginning at 4th level, as a full-round action, the sephyrus can make an melee attack that deals an additional +1d8 points of damage. This additional damage does not multiply on a critical hit. At 7rd level and every four levels thereafter, this additional damage increases by +1d8.
@Cyrad: Everybody starts somewhere.
@Ciaran: Duly noted and am working on all that right now, thank you for the feedback.
@Cyrad: Everybody starts somewhere.
I'm not ridiculing you. I'm recommending starting small and utilize the existing design spaces as much as possible. Actually, have you considered entering into the RPG Superstar competition? The forums there can really help you build up your design skills. They have mine.
I'm not ridiculing you. I'm recommending starting small and utilize the existing design spaces as much as possible. Actually, have you considered entering into the RPG Superstar competition? The forums there can really help you build up your design skills. They have mine.
I uploaded a design two days ago actually. And believe it or not I take notes on almost EVERYTHING people suggest on my classes and I fix accordingly and the people in these forums have helped me a LOT with my writing. And I am VERY thankful for that. Sadly my gaming group is just me and 2 other friends so we have small games and I rarely get to play test my stuff.
You can still do dry playtesting by playing out the class in your mind or creating a character using the class and seeing how they measure up compared to core classes.
This is another plus with making archetypes or talents over whole classes. With an archetype, you don't need as much testing. I test my classes by making NPCs with them.
This is another plus with making archetypes or talents over whole classes. With an archetype, you don't need as much testing. I test my classes by making NPCs with them.
That something I do as well whenever I get to run a game, I playtest my classes against my PCs
I agree that many of the classes presented by you would work better as archetypes to existing classes. The game already offers a lot of options. Before you start creating something new, check out if your idea can be implemented within the existing framework. Being able to do just that is a very important quality for every game designer.
A new class should not only cater to a specific build. If you are unsure, ask yourself if you can imagine creating several archetypes for this new class. If the answer is no, it probably works better as an archetype to an existing class.
That being sad, I think many of these would make interesting archetypes.
By the way, you got the iterative attacks wrong (in all cases).
That being sad, I think many of these would make interesting archetypes.
By the way, you got the iterative attacks wrong (in all cases).
Thank you, I'll jot all of that down.
Also, iterative attacks?
The full-BAB-classes should have: +20/+15/+10/+5 at 20th level.
The medium-BAB-classes should have: +14/+9/+4 at 19th level and +15/+10/+5 at 20th level.
Compare them to the existing classes and you'll know what I mean.
The full-BAB-classes should have: +20/+15/+10/+5 at 20th level.
The medium-BAB-classes should have: +14/+9/+4 at 19th level and +15/+10/+5 at 20th level.
Compare them to the existing classes and you'll know what I mean.
Ah! I saw, thanks a bunch!
Writing and editing on a mobile device isn't as easy as I thought :3
And here's the latest re-write of the class!
Thanks to everyone for their amazing support!
It does seem that there are lots of versions of the jumping Dragoon concept in Homebrew - it gets difficult to tell which ones have been play tested and which ones have made the jump mechanic simple and easy to use.
* So on your blog it is Zephyrus, but here Sephyrus. Which do you prefer?
* I like the concept of the Lancets, though I would possibly rename them - I see a lancet is a term referring to cutting, so it's probably ok.
* A typo:
the longbow and heir composite versions;
* I don't understand the difference between leaping charge and leap attack:
A sephyru’s knows how to put more force behind his charge by leaping at the moment of impact. At 1st level, as a full-round action the zephyrus can do a special charge called a leaping charge, the leaping charge deals an additional +1d8 points of damage on a successful attack roll. This damage increases by 1d8 every two levels after 1st level. This additional damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.
So skilled in charging, the zephyrus has developed an attack that allows them to jump high in the air and crash on their foes. Starting at 3rd level, as a full-round action a zephyrus can attack a foe he threatens dealing an additional +1d8 points of damage. At 7th level and every four levels thereafter, this damage increases by an additional +1d8. This additional damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.
So the first is on a Charge (with concomitant post charge/leap AC penalty), the second is a regular attack against a threatened foe, but both are full round actions?
* Is there a height restriction for either Leap Attack or Leaping Charge?
[threadjack]@Rallaster: Also, I see on your blog you are working on a Berzerker monk/barbarian hybrid class that gets extra attacks in a berserk rage. If you're looking for more ideas, I'm happy to gift you a copy (either here or thru Drivethru) of the Savage Alternate Class for monks and barbarians dubbed " the monk/barbarian-class the ACG should have delivered, but didn't." by endzeitgeist in his 5 star review…[/threadjack]
[threadjack]@Rallaster: Also, I see on your blog you are working on a Berzerker monk/barbarian hybrid class that gets extra attacks in a berserk rage. If you're looking for more ideas, I'm happy to gift you a copy (either here or thru Drivethru) of the Savage Alternate Class for monks and barbarians dubbed " the monk/barbarian-class the ACG should have delivered, but didn't." by endzeitgeist in his 5 star review…[/threadjack]
Oh wow that sounds very interesting!
* I don't understand the difference between leaping charge and leap attack:
So the first is on a Charge (with concomitant post charge/leap AC penalty), the second is a regular attack against a threatened foe, but both are full round actions?
* Is there a height restriction for either Leap Attack or Leaping Charge?
Thanks for letting me know about the typo.
The class' name was changed to Zephyrus.Basically that's the difference between leaping charge and leap attack.
And when you mean height restriction, do you mean weather or not the zephyrus could attack a flying opponent flying over head?
I was actually meaning if there was a height needed, as in if you were in a low room or tunnel, but yes, why not?
So:
How high can you jump with Leaping Charge and Leap Attack (though I guess you still need to threaten with the latter) ?
AND
How high must you jump for any leaping charge or leap attack to be effective?
Considering you have to be threatening, not that high.
And for the latter, not that high either.
Very interested in this. Would love to see the final revision.
|
Considering you have to be threatening, not that high.
And for the latter, not that high either.
So how high? 10 feet or 2 feet. You need to define it. A charge is a min of 10 feet to move.
With the current rules, I'm going to hop in the air 1 foot high and stab a guy.
do you need to follow the rules of charge except that I have to jump off something? Your primary rule doesn't function and leaves vague openness to gamer table disputes.
Just call it a powerful charge.
Also I have a huge issue with the scaling d8. Why a d8?
Basically that's what it is a more powerful charge, he still needs to move at least 10 feet to do it properly. And the main reason I didn't place a minimum required jump distance was because I didn't want to add a jump check before the attack.
And a d8 because it balances better with the stereotypical two weapon rogues dealing d6's after every attack.
Yup - pretty much what I'm wondering too. That's exactly why I asked those specific questions.
What is the minimum height you need to jump?
How high can you jump?
And sure - why d8's - d6 works for sneak attack...
Garnath's an alter ego for Greg Larose of Amora Games, and I publish Forest Guardian Press - so we are asking as publishers that deal with these sort of things all the time - removing the need for table disputes about unspecified, vague or "grey area" mechanics and rulings is what we strive for...
As you saw from my above post linking the legion of other homebrew versions of this I like the concept. This one looks good too, just needs tightening up...
Also, d8's since you can only use Leaping Charge during a charge, so it has more restricted use. And d8's for leap attack because it gets much less dice. So it's mostly a thing of balance.
|
|
You don't need to require a jump check for leaping charge, but something that has jump and leaping in the description and title should have some sort of description as to how I am jumping. You don't have to require a jump check.
I like it so far, but the description is missing a bit. Something needs to be done different, change the name, or require at least jumping off something to get momentum for the charge
If he has the flavor of jumping over enemies and striking down from above, but I don't see the relative mechanics through out the class.
To me, as a player, just saying he jumps to make a leaping strike, doesn't do a visual.... unless we are talking about Achilles from the movie Troy. That's a leaping charge. Even at that, I have to "jump" around the opponent.
Now leaping attack is a decent visual and the wording is okay. However, I think again the words are a little loose for my taste. By threaten, does that mean only adjacent?
Can it be combined as an attack of opportunity if a feat is created?
Does leaping attack provoke?
(not trying to gang up on your class, just fundamental questions I have)
You don't need to require a jump check for leaping charge, but something that has jump and leaping in the description and title should have some sort of description as to how I am jumping. You don't have to require a jump check.
I like it so far, but the description is missing a bit. Something needs to be done different, change the name, or require at least jumping off something to get momentum for the charge
If he has the flavor of jumping over enemies and striking down from above, but I don't see the relative mechanics through out the class.
To me, as a player, just saying he jumps to make a leaping strike, doesn't do a visual.... unless we are talking about Achilles from the movie Troy. That's a leaping charge. Even at that, I have to "jump" around the opponent.
Now leaping attack is a decent visual and the wording is okay. However, I think again the words are a little loose for my taste. By threaten, does that mean only adjacent?
Can it be combined as an attack of opportunity if a feat is created?Does leaping attack provoke?
(not trying to gang up on your class, just fundamental questions I have)
Leap Attack does not provoke.
And I like the idea of making a feat for it to be combined with an attack of opportunity...
But I'll see what I can do with the wording...
Thanks again for all the feedback :)