|
I've been working on a custom class for the past two days and I wan't to make sure it's a balanced and viable option. The main class focus was a lofty aerial fighting style with Cavalier-esque features.
Dragonaut
/
/
/
----BaB---------Fort---Ref---Will
1----1-----------0------2------0--
2----2-----------0------3------0--
3----3-----------1------3------1--
4----4-----------1------4------1--
5----5-----------1------4------1--
6---6/1----------2------5------2--
7---7/2----------2------5------2--
8---8/3----------2------6------2--
9---9/4----------3------6------3--
10--10/5---------3------7------3--
11--11/6/1-------3------7------3--
12--12/7/2-------4------8------4--
13--13/8/3-------4------8------4--
14--14/9/4-------4------9------4--
15--15/10/5------5------9------5--
16--16/11/6/1----5------10-----5--
17--17/13/7/2----5------10-----5--
18--18/13/8/3----6------10-----6--
19--19/14/9/4----6------10-----6--
20--20/15/10/5---6------12-----6--
Class features:
Bonus Feat at 1st 2nd and every 4 levels after.Must be combat feats.
Evasion
High Jump
Flight (via natural wings, Animal companion/mount, or magic) 1min/level 1+CON times a day
Flight at will (see flight, subtract time constraints)
Eventually the Dragonaut will be allowed to choose a Cavalier class Order to join, until then he/she is considered a Knight Errant.
The Dragonaut will not make use of the Cavalier class feature Challenge, and is considered mounted whilst amid flight.
Bonuses applied to a Cavaliers mount do not apply to the Dragonaut.
HD: D6
Skill ranks: 4+INT per level
Proficient with Light and medium armor, all shields excluding Tower shields, as well as with Simple and Martial Weapons.
(Still deciding wether or not to make them ineligible for the 2 Weapon Fighting and improved 2 Weapon Fighting feats)
As much as I do understand the sentiment of wanting to build a glass cannon, Pathfinder really has codified BAB progression to HD size. There isn't anything in any published material (that I know of) that breaks the current trend, so perhaps it would be better to turn your class into a d10 class and then just not give it any (or very few) defensive abilities. If they're easy to hit, hit die size means a whole lot of nothing in the long run.
I don't see the need to disallow them from using Two-Weapon Fighting, having more options for martials is never a bad thing. On that note, the Dragonaut needs to have a fuller list of class abilities. Martial classes should get SOMETHING (and preferably not just a feat) every level of their class progression. As it stands, it looks about as empty as a Sorcerer, who gets spells to make up for that. Perhaps include an alternative attack method (it's called the Dragonaut so maybe an eventual breath weapon is in order?) and another non-combat centric ability to start with and see how that fleshes out the class. It would be nice to see a level progression on the abilities you've listed as well, especially for flight and flight at will.
An important thing to remember though, anything you post to the forums becomes legal property of Paizo. I highly HIGHLY recommend you transfer your class to a google doc and then just post a link to it instead of posting the class directly here, otherwise you can't do anything if Paizo decides to take your class and publish it as their own material (the class still needs some pretty heavy editing at this point, but the point still remains)
Firstly, in Pathfinder the only classes that are D6 HD are the purely arcane casting classes of wizard and sorcerer (which are balanced for d6 by having access to all the arcane spells). Every other class, that is not full BAB, are d8 in HD, and unless building another full arcane spellcasting class, d8 should always be the lowest HD for any class.
Secondly, looking at 3PP, there are several classes and class archetypes that fit flying mounted cavalier-like classes, and all of them are full BAB, so I see no reason your version needs to be squishy at all.
I'm all for creating brand new classes to fit needed niches for your game, but wouldn't go to trouble of building one that is intentionally underpowered, unless concept deems it necessary. There is no conceptual necessity to weaken flying mounted warriors that I can even imagine.
If you choose d6 HD, you ARE creating a built-in punishment (and I cannot see it any other way...)
Check out Geek Industrial Complex Companions of the Firmament for multiple fly mounted classes, better aerial combat rules, all of PF falling/flying rules in one place, new flying monsters, added stats to all flying monsters in Bestiary 1 - 3, new mechanics for many niches in aerial games that never previously existed, but should have.
I'm being honest, not impolite.
Another dragoon class?
The big problem with having a class all about flying is that characters shouldn't get flight at 1st level. Flight at rounds per level is a 5th level ability.
Another dragoon class?
The big problem with having a class all about flying is that characters shouldn't get flight at 1st level. Flight at rounds per level is a 5th level ability.
Honestly, since I don't run APs, I cannot remember the last time I started a new character at 1st level, most of my campaigns begin at 3rd, 5th or 7th level. So including features that don't show up until higher levels isn't a problem in my games.
There are several fairly balanced 3PP classes/archetypes that offer a flying mount at 1st level.
If you plan to run an entirely aerial based campaign with flying PCs and flying mounted PCs, why wouldn't you tweak to allow an earlier entry into flight possibilities? In a mixed party of ground-pounders and flight capable PCs this would not be fair, but in an entirely aerial game it only makes sense.
It's like..whatever, but it's still not good general design to give flight at 1st level. A strong jumping ability would be good. In fact, that would be rather cool.
On an unrelated note, if you want the class to be more fragile, then why did you give them an ability that scales with Constitution?
It's like..whatever, but it's still not good general design to give flight at 1st level. A strong jumping ability would be good. In fact, that would be rather cool.
On an unrelated note, if you want the class to be more fragile, then why did you give them an ability that scales with Constitution?
But if you're running a game of where the world is so dangerous that the PC's home community exists on a remote mountain top or cliffside keep, and the only means of traveling out of your community is via flight, being a standard character build and have to remain at home, incapable of going on any adventures until they are high enough level to get access to a flying mount, well that wouldn't be enjoyable to play. What's the value of jumping, if flight is the only way to leave town.
I completely get if its a normal setting, where flight might simply be a perk, then granting access to flight too early is unbalancing. However, it is good game design when used in an appropriate game.
My only recent aerial based campaign, I used Companions of the Firmament as the primary resource, aside from PF manuals, and the home community is as I described, a cliff-based community of survivors in a post-holocaust world, whose only means of long distance travel was on flying mounts or flight by spell. The community was a thousand feet off the ground on a pinnacle of rock with a kind of pterodactyl that nested on the same pinnacle. In that game, playing a character unable to fly early enough meant that character couldn't go adventuring until they could. So in that game, everyone had access to some means of flying very early on.
|
|
Reading the class builder didnt help. They explained the BAB Hit die and Save progression. but to shorten it they basically said no class should be the best of all 3 so just mix and match.
I want to design the class to NOT be easy to hit. but at the same time i dont want it to be a "I got you! ""nuhuh!"" " class. It has to have an element of mortality, hence low hit die.
Class features are incomplete. I just don't know how to handle it at the moment but i'm still working on it. that was just a post to give everyone a feel for what i had in mind.
I am not Thread/forum/netdocument/coding blah blah blah savvy. I understand you're trying to help but i have no idea how to do any of that junk. lol
So to summarize the whole premise. I had a DEX centric martial class in mind that wouldnt step on the toes of rogues, but could fill a decent support role.
And they do not get flying at first level. Until they earn their flying most of their mobility is acrobatics based. the flight ability has to scale so that the player doesnt hideously break the campaign by being unhittable. there has to be a limit at lower levels.
As long as the new class is not a spellcaster, and you don't introduce crazy over-powered abilities, a cavalier on a flying mount isn't all that over-powered. No need to hamstring a class usually at a distance from their opponent (because they are on a flying mount), but with such a low BAB that they can't consistently hit anything. As long as the new class doesn't have spellcasting ability, you can't make an "I got you" class.
I always recommend making an archetype instead of a class whenever possible, especially if the concept uses a lot of mechanics another class has. This is especially true for a first time. Classes are the hardest thing to design for this game.
And yes, the ACG class design guide is not that great. It's an okay starting point, but not very practical.
|
|
The "I got you" line was just referring to how children play tag, there's always that one kid that insists he wasn't tagged.
I thought of minor spellcasting but trashed the idea.
I guess I could just make it a Cavalier or Fighter archtype. I couldn't really think of my own class features so i borrowed from cavalier until i could.
Still tweaking. I may just knock down the BAB advancement, get rid of the cavalier mechanics and add spellcasting.
D6 because it's not meant to take punishment, I want it to be just a little squishy. What it lacks in durability it makes up for in damage. I'm still new to creating classes and this is my FIRST attempt.
in pathfinder BAB and HD size are locked together.
Ditching the concept. Not even worth it anymore. Use it, dont use it, I don't care.
if you;re interested in the idea of the class, i think i've seen this in some 3pp as a racial archetype somewhere...
wait yeah, i remembered before i pressed submit :3
the Wyvaran Racial booklet has a cavalier archetype that does basically all of this, but they also get some lightning themed stuff.
Ditching the concept. Not even worth it anymore. Use it, dont use it, I don't care.
Hey Lanaryu, I hope you are still checking the thread, and not put off by folks adice or approach (though I don't seen any disrespect here) - if you are interested in building homebrew classes generally, I have some notes for you.
Just a note on BAB, HD and Saves and the Class Builder.
Firstly the Class Builder isn't a class builder. It is a bunch of guidelines. Without much direction. I found it almost completely useless.
HD and BAB are locked together. D6 = Half BAB. D8 = 3/4 BAB. D10 (and he outlier Barbarian's D12)= Full BAB. Now there are mechanical ways to enhance these "locked" strictures - giving a d8 3/4 class an ability to be treated as Full BAB with a certain abilit or weapon for example, or giving any class Toughness for free.
I'm not sure, but when you said the builder said that no class should have the best of all three it was referring to the fact that only the Core Monk (d8, 3/4 BAB) gets three good saves. A Full BAB, d10 Class that had all good saves would lose other class features to compensate. Again, you can synthesise higher saves with class features.
Making something squishy on purpose, while an admirable theme just isn't very viable in Pathfinder.
|
I keep finding it annoying the insistence that HD and BAB are _must_ be locked together. I consider it a unnecessary requirement, especially since there are exceptions... the big one being the Barbarian. I would like Monk to also be an exception, which is why I would houserule that, taking after Unchained Monk, has d8 HD.
I can understand not having HD all the way down to d6 if not a full caster, but I would resist such insistence involving HD and BAB.
I keep finding it annoying the insistence that HD and BAB are _must_ be locked together. I consider it a unnecessary requirement, especially since there are exceptions... the big one being the Barbarian. I would like Monk to also be an exception, which is why I would houserule that, taking after Unchained Monk, has d8 HD.
I can understand not having HD all the way down to d6 if not a full caster, but I would resist such insistence involving HD and BAB.
The unchained monk has a d10 Hit Die. Because he has a full BAB.
Barring templates, dragons and the barbarian are the only exceptions to the hit die standards.
It would be easier to critique your class if the class features were written out, along with what levels they are gained at. I'm afraid I must chime in with raising the hit die or lowering the BAB. While this class could focus on ranged attacks, I imagine the intention is for melee attacks. He's going to need some hit points. As suggested, make the class vulnerable by not offering defensive abilities, and not having class features keyed off of Constitution.
it's not an exception though, all D12s have full BAB...
And I argue that there is no good reason why that is the case, it is a restriction and lock I fully disagree with.The unchained monk has a d10 Hit Die. Because he has a full BAB.
Barring templates, dragons and the barbarian are the only exceptions to the hit die standards.
It makes perfect sense to me that your ability to endure pain and shrug off harm is directly tied to your combat skill. If you want to design class that discourages building like a tank, there's smarter/better ways to do that than nerfing their hit die. Tying BAB to Hit Die creates a framework that leads to smarter design and ultimately more fun classes.
|
|
It makes perfect sense to me that your ability to endure pain and shrug off harm is directly tied to your combat skill. If you want to design class that discourages building like a tank, there's smarter/better ways to do that than nerfing their hit die. Tying BAB to Hit Die creates a framework that leads to smarter design and ultimately more fun classes.
We will have to agree to disagree Cyrad, as while what you say could often be true I strongly believe it should not always be such. Especially since you can have highly skilled fighters that are not as resilient as other warrior types, having the skill of combat but not the same ability to shrug of pain and injury.
|
|
Because I'm a masochist I decided to check the thread. My only intent when posting my class was to double check that it wouldn't hideously break any campaign it was in because of it's ability to fly in combat.
The class was never meant to see the light of day as a Tank role. It was purely meant to be support.
I haven't revisited the drawing board since my last post so the class features are still incomplete and I have no idea what they should get at what level. Someone who visited the thread sent me a link to a page on a racial archtype for the Wyvaran race something called a storm lancer or something. It actually helped my perspective a little bit.
Though I don't want them to be the same thing just reskinned.
I'll knock the HD up to a D8 or lower the BAB if its such a sore thumb. Are there any OTHER suggestions someone would like to make?
Nobody was disrespectful, but all anyone wanted to talk about was Hit Die. It got old real fast. I'm open to advice or suggestions about Unique class features, features that can be borrowed from another class or any other method of making up for the design's shortcomings.
Don't get discouraged and keep in mind that everyone who takes the time to post here wants to see you succeed.
First of all, I think you have to elaborate on your concept. You have basically three different concepts here:
1) a concept focusing on a character's own flight ability,
2) a concept focusing on a flying mount,
3) a concept focusing on acrobatics and skirmishing tactics which does not necessarily presume flight.
It is propably a good idea to separate these concepts, since they would require very different sets of abilities.
I believe that option 1) should be limited to a setting where flight is really common and where a considerable part of the adventure takes place in the lofty heights above the clouds. Wings could be a common racial ability or flight could be obtainable through technological devices. Maybe the campaign world has lower gravity or completely defies the laws of gravity.
But I have problems seeing this working in a standard fantasy campaign. As others have mentioned, a PC isn't supposed to have flight at 1st level (and they aren't supposed to have permanent flight until their level reaches double digits). It might work as a racial archetype for a race with an evolving flight ability (like the raptoran race from Races of the Wild in 3.5) or as a prestige class for characters that have somehow obtained the ability to fly.
If you are looking for option 2), I agree with the others that creating a cavalier archetype would be the best solution. I would be okay with a flying mount at level 1 as long as the mount could not bear a rider while airborne until it has reached a certain number of HD.
If you are looking for option 3), a new archetype for a barbarian (mundane) or monk (supernatural) could fill this role really well.
Once you have decided what you want, narrowing down the abilities becomes a lot easier. If you are looking for inspiration for interesting aerial combat options, watch some documentaries on raptors or dogfights during WW1. You could also take a look at this template that I created, it offers special combat options for flying creatures.
mounts would be the best solution, gryphons for instance can't fly with a rider til level 7 i think.
Alright, assuming the class has its own flight ability: how does it gain this ability? Does it have a racial heritage that allows it to grow wings (dragon disciple)? Does it have mystical powers gained through meditation (monk)? Does it have the ability to transform its body (druid, alchemist)? Does it tinker with technological devices to become a cyborg?
honestly, I think this should be a race, that has some ability like natural jouster.
Because I'm a masochist I decided to check the thread. My only intent when posting my class was to double check that it wouldn't hideously break any campaign it was in because of it's ability to fly in combat
As I stated in my previous post, as long as your flight issues are for campaign specific (for a flying game only) and not intended as a general use class to be used in any game, there's nothing over-powered about it. As a general use class for any campaign then all the issues of flight shouldn't be available until higher levels holds true.
Nobody was disrespectful, but all anyone wanted to talk about was Hit Die. It got old real fast. I'm open to advice or suggestions about Unique class features, features that can be borrowed from another class or any other method of making up for the design's shortcomings.
You cannot design any class until you determine which HD you require. Sorry it got "old for you", but it wouldn't have to gotten old, if you listened to our critique, make a decision and move forward, instead of dragging your feet with your explanation of why you didn't make the change suggested. Just make the change and move forward - simple.
If you look at any of the existing classed the only ones that are D6 are full casters. If you're not creating a full caster, D6 is never an appropriate HD - and why the responders to the thread were so insistent that you choose a different HD. If you're going to build a class that's primarily a non-caster, then D8 or D10 is the only available option.
The way I learned to create new classes/archetypes is take an existing class (like Cavalier in your case) and start to take it apart. Any feature you want to replace should either be the same power balance as the one being replaced, or if you want a more powerful ability, you will need to accommodate that by making other existing class features weaker than the current ones.
Its an art, not a science, but you can build a fairly balanced class doing it this way. Once you build several classes, you will be more comfortable in doing future ones, but its not an easy process.
I'd ignore trying to make sure abilities are as powerful as what they replace. As long as the archetype overall isn't broken or over powered in some way then it's fine. archetypes often get caught up on not being too good, and then become horrible options.
As Amanuensis says, we all want your concept to succeed here. However, a solid class/archetype needs a solid high concept. What do you want from it? What kind of mechanics would you like to see at play? What would you want a character with this to do?
|
|
Okay, after an attitude adjustment because I'm fully aware that I was being belligerent.
I'll try to explain everything more clearly in one post.
He hit die is now a D8, I didn't change it right away because it was the least of my concerns at the time. the flight ability is NOT campaign specific, flight at will is a 20th class level ability, players DO NOT start with flying at level one (maybe level 7 like the sorcerer class). the player chooses their own method of flight (I built a 10rp harpy-ish player race for my own potential playtest, be it natural wings, flight spell or a flying mount), class features are still up in the air because I haven't had time to sit down for more than 5 minutes since my previous post.
Until the player obtains a method of flight the mobility feature would focus on acrobatics.(aided in any way they please)
I apologize for previous slights and ******'attitude.
Specifically what would you want the class/archetype to do?
How do you see this class operating out of combat?
What roles do you expect this class to fill on and off the battlefield?
Allowing the player to choose their method of flight would require some messy design choices. A mounted class has other needs than a class without a mount (class skills, bonus feats, special abilities). A mount also increases the character's power (compared to the flying character without mount), because the player basically runs two characters, each with their own actions (though admittedly, one might argue that in certain situations independency from a mount would be advantageous). You would have to create several 'paths' depending on the player's choice. So technically, you are really creating three different archetypes/classes/alternate classes (or at the very least subversions thereof).
Also, keep in mind that thematic choices open up design space.
A character with wings could use them in combat to damage or distract opponents (a character without wings could not).
An alternate version of the hunter class could gain a limited wildshape ability to assume certain aspects of its flying mount (including wings).
A monk with supernatural flight powers could perform awesome maneuvers as seen in wuxia movies.
Even if you want to make the class open for different concepts (generally a laudable idea), it might be easier to start with one at first.
this can be solved by making different schools/orders at first level that affect class skills and abilities gained.
edit: in fact this entire idea could be a cavalier order.
I haven't revisited the drawing board since my last post so the class features are still incomplete and I have no idea what they should get at what level. Someone who visited the thread sent me a link to a page on a racial archtype for the Wyvaran race something called a storm lancer or something. It actually helped my perspective a little bit.
Though I don't want them to be the same thing just reskinned.
Stormlancers are awesome
That said, they work because wyvarans have wings.
If you want to create a class that shares the same design space as the stormlancer archetype, then d8 combined with full BAB and an ability to fly at 1st level seems reasonable and balanced. You could very well do a fighter sorcerer-bloodline hybrid that just gives the ability to fly earlier than normal.
ETA
start with 1 round / level + CHA bonus and then at certain intervals boost that power by doubling it at levels 4 and 7. something permanent at 11th and than capping it off at 20th.