I had an idea for a squishy type melee character who is focused on countering and positioning, which spawned the idea of this class, the Fencer. I am aware of both the potential ability to do some of this with a swashbuckler (parry and riposte, that kind of stuff) as well as the prestige class duelist, but neither of those fit quite what I had in mind.
I also am aware that a full BAB class is not supposed to have a hit die lower than a d10, but I felt like it was appropriate in this case because the point of this class is not to take hits and keep going, it's to redirect hits.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kww0tqce2h6njum/Fencer.docx?dl=0
Go as hard as you want, all criticism is helpful... Except for yours. Yeah, I see you typing. That's rude and inappropriate and will not have that in my thread.
The "deflection" section uses the word "monk". Mistype, or copy/paste? Also, perhaps use a word besides deflection, as deflection implies deflection bonus.
The deflection ability gives you far superior AC over a Monk.
Are you proficient with shields?
Does Dueling Challenge add your WIS twice, because WIS is part of your Sense Motive modifier?
For Perfect Feint, take a look at this. Also, how exactly do you use your lunge feats with a feint? Does that mean you can make an attack while lunging as a swift action?
Yeah, that was a mistype, my bad. And fortunately, deflection AC actually functions exactly as the ability states, so I believe it should be fine.
The Deflection AC bonus is actually exactly the same as the monk. The only advantage a fencer has is they have the ability to wear light armor. And no, not proficient with shields.
The light armor is exactly what makes it far superior to a Monk. You can be rocking a +5 Mithral Chain Shirt, which is +9 AC and much cheaper than Bracers of Armor, which can only give up to +8.
Also, Graceful is a bit excessive. You probably have good Dex already. What I'm a bit surprised at is that you can't get Dex to damage, and that Combat Reflexes and Lunge aren't bonus feats you can pick up before 7th level.
I'm not seeing a feat called Exceptional Deflection anywhere. Is it 3rd party or 3.5?
I'm not entirely convinced why this class has a good Will save. Can you justify it?
The adding 1d6 1/day to a parry could be replicated (and surpassed) by taking a 1-level dip in Investigator, as an Investigator can add 1d6 to a skill check multiple times a day.
Take a peek at Martial Artist monk, especially the Defensive Roll and Greater Defensive Roll features. You might like that.
Overall, I totally get where you're going with this, but it seems to be more of a swashbuckler/fighter hybrid, without the things that made the swashbuckler really shine (precise strike). You have a lot of feats, but they don't quite come together at the end. You might end up with a really good AC, but you'll be severely lacking in damage. Also, the wisdom score is lacking in integration- I get how it can be important, but you only use it for an AC bonus, a replacement for INT, and Sense Motive. To completely replace INT for feats, you only need a WIS of 13. Also, Dueling Challenge seems a bit weak. You basically get the ability to block using your skill check (good if you maximize your skill checks, but questionable otherwise), but don't get any sort of damage from it. Swashbuckler gets +level to damage, Paladin/Antipaladin gets +level to damage, Cavalier/Samurai gets +level to damage, Rogue gets +1.75x level to damage. Even Monk can pull out a way to make a single touch attack for +2x level to damage. Why not this class?
So I'd recommend:
Get a core mechanic and stick to it. I like how the class can lunge and attack. Being able to skill-check AC is fine. Improve upon something and make it unique.
Don't rely on feats to be class features. The Fighter did that, and is considered one of the weaker classes in PF.
Create ways for your class to be versatile. Sure, you can avoid damage well, but you can't hurt people, you can't debuff them, you can't fly or pseudo-fly, you can't self-heal or retake saves, etc. Monks, Barbarians, and Paladins can do all of the above, same with Wizards and Clerics.
Give your class a little bit of love and more than a little bit of damage.
Just realized I sent the old version. My bad.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kww0tqce2h6njum/Fencer.docx?dl=0
But yeah, thanks for all that feedback. it's definitely useful.
Most of the suggestions still apply. Defensive Roll would be awesome on this class. Consider using Slayer sneak attack scaling instead of 1/2 Rogue scaling. Maybe some abilities to distinguish you from a fighter, like ways to debuff and move around better.
Consider removing the extra bonus to AC (the +0 to +5). Swashbuckler, Brawler, and Gunslinger have light armor and a scaling bonus to AC, Monk gets wisdom and a scaling bonus to AC, Duelist prestige class gets light armor and intelligence to AC, you get light armor AND wisdom AND a scaling bonus to AC.
duelist wrote: Canny Defense (Ex)
When wearing light or no armor and not using a shield, a duelist adds 1 point of Intelligence bonus (if any) per duelist class level as a dodge bonus to her Armor Class while wielding a melee weapon. If a duelist is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
I'm still questioning the good will save. Why?
Any chance you could make your parry a bit more powerful? It's already competing with the monk and the swashbuckler.
choons wrote: But yeah, thanks for all that feedback. it's definitely useful. No problem. I like the direction you're heading, but your class could use a little love. What you need is something unique, not just ways to duplicate other classes abilities. In particular, the challenge seems a bit weak.
Maybe a 1/2 level bonus on sense motive or skill checks against enemy feints?
Perhaps a way to 5-foot step around when your opponent withdraws or advances? So, as an immediate action when your opponent moves somewhere, you can 5-foot step up and take an AOO, or when you're attacked, you could 5-foot step back to get +2 or +4 or 1/3 level to AC?
Maybe a way to take multiple 5-foot steps or something?
Also, maybe a way to make your challenge thing more than just a way to parry?
You have a good point on the AC bonus. So, just adding Wisdom to deflection sounds good. I'll look into getting a debuff kind of mechanic into it, but I'm not sure how to approach it. Any suggestions?
Swashbuckler and Monk are the places to start looking for debuffs. Unchained Rogue has some fun ones, too. If none of them appeal to you, perhaps a way to mix combat maneuvers and regular attacks as part of a full-attack action would be nice. Especially if you got a class bonus to make the maneuvers.
Take a look at this guy's maneuver mastery.
Oh yeah, is this class DEX and WIS or STR and WIS? Because it seems like you could build it to be STR and just take armor proficiency feats or something.
I originally had the challenge also add half the class level (minimum 1) to the AC roll, but a friend mentioned that seemed a tad powerful, but it seems the consensus for others is it is now too weak, so I'll add that back in, just for a small boost.
When it comes to the 5 foot step suggestion, there is the combat style tree "Mobility Training" which gives the ability to five foot step anytime someone misses (including a successful parry) or the ability to five foot step anytime someone tries to five foot step within your range, as well as better versions of such abilities later down the line.
Does adding some damage to the challenge sound too outrageous? Such as, "You become more aware of your opponent's weak points during a challenge. Your attacks now increase by one size category/deal scaling damage." One of those two, not sure.
choons wrote: but it seems the consensus for others is it is now too weak, so I'll add that back in, just for a small boost. Not consensus, just me. Notice the poster names on this thread. But Martial Artist monk can do that as a swift action against a single enemy, so it's not entirely broken.
Adding damage to the challenge is not outrageous. Not to crib too much from the Swashbuckler, but they do get a constant flat +level to damage at 3rd level. This is precision damage and doesn't multiply on a crit, but they get the benefit of that AND weapon training. Daring Champion cavaliers get both a cavalier challenge (+level to damage, multiplies on a crit) AND the swashbuckler precise strike (constant +level to damage, doesn't multiply). If you think that's broken, you could always just decide for 1/2 level to damage, which is about the same bonus as an Investigator's Studied Combat.
Should've clarified, others as in you plus various other friends I have asked.
Alright, now that that's put into perspective, I suppose adding a bit of damage isn't too ludicrous. Sounds good, I'll put a bit more love into this class, possibly just make the dueling challenge a bit more unique, and I'll come back in due time. Still open to more feedback, but thanks so much.
Alright, no problem. Hope your class goes well.
1) Needs a d10 Hit Die. Hit Die are directly tied to Base Attack Bonus in Pathfinder. I don't care if you want them to be more "squishy." There's smarter ways to do that than "hardcode" how many hit points they get per level.
2) Dueling Challenge is an interesting idea, but the mechanics are sloppy and the math is totally broken. It's insanely easy to min-max a skill bonus. Never let a character use a skill bonus for a roll that's not a skill check.
3) There's no such thing as a "Sense Motive modifier." Use language like "total bonus to Sense Motive checks," but I never recommend using the total for anything that's not a skill check.
4) Why do the 14th and 18th level abilities of the Feint Training class feature have names? The same goes for the 15th and 19th abilities of Lunge Training
5) Honored Duel: Again, never use the full skill bonus on statistics and rolls other than skill checks. That breaks the math.
6) The class is mostly bonus feats. It has so many feats that the document reads more like a character build than a class description.
7) Diplomacy and Stealth as class skills feel out of place on this class when the class does absolutely nothing but fight and duel.
8) There's not much to this class at all. It's mainly just a broken challenge ability and a bunch of bonus feats. It feels like it should be a cavalier archetype, not a whole class.
Cyrad wrote: Never let a character use a skill bonus for a roll that's not a skill check.
But... but... does that mean monks don't get nice things?
My Self wrote: Cyrad wrote: Never let a character use a skill bonus for a roll that's not a skill check.
But... but... does that mean monks don't get nice things? I never make the argument that [INSERT CLASS HERE] shouldn't get nice things. I only argue [INSERT CLASS HERE] should get well designed things.
Though, Snake Style was a better calculated risk with that regard, since it requires an immediate action. At best, you're blocking a single attack as an immediate action.
Cyrad wrote: My Self wrote: Cyrad wrote: Never let a character use a skill bonus for a roll that's not a skill check.
But... but... does that mean monks don't get nice things? I never make the argument that [INSERT CLASS HERE] shouldn't get nice things. I only argue [INSERT CLASS HERE] should get well designed things.
Though, Snake Style was a better calculated risk with that regard, since it requires an immediate action. At best, you're blocking a single attack as an immediate action. This was a deliberate appeal to emotion/logical fallacy. 1/round as a free action would be fairer, considering that it is a primary class feature. *Maybe* even an increase to 2/round at 10th level and 3/round at 20th.
Yeah, I agree that using an immediate action is too harsh for a limited use class feature.
My Self wrote: This was a deliberate appeal to emotion/logical fallacy. Don't kid about that! Many on these forums genuinely make arguments like that. I was once demonized as a promoter of the wizard/fighter disparity simply because I thought giving blanket immunity to all mind-affecting effects to a mid-level fighter was a bad idea.
Cyrad wrote: Yeah, I agree that using an immediate action is too harsh for a limited use class feature.
My Self wrote: This was a deliberate appeal to emotion/logical fallacy. Don't kid about that! Many on these forums genuinely make arguments like that. I was once demonized as a promoter of the wizard/fighter disparity simply because I thought giving blanket immunity to all mind-affecting effects to a mid-level fighter was a bad idea.
Ouch.
Cyrad wrote: ... because I thought giving blanket immunity to all mind-affecting effects to a mid-level fighter was a bad idea. But you can already do that at level 1.
1) I understand that that's how "it's supposed to work," but if there's no argument other than that, why not? Is there some mechanic I am not aware of that relies on the fact that these two things are directly dependent? I just don't see why the fact that someone hits something a bunch REQUIRES that same person to be able to have a higher hit die. It's kind of arbitrary.
2) What My Self said. It was modeled after Snake Style, and as it reads, it's pretty tame. You don't get a bonus to Sense Motive with Dueling Challenge, and, while you can do it multiple times a turn, it's only against one individual until level 11, which is then against two. Not very impressive since you have no means for defense until then against even one extra enemy.
3) Yes, that one was my bad. Didn't know how to write that.
4) Because custom abilities! (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ If you read the new doc I put up (that I should've had up in the first place), it explains all of the custom abilities in each feat tree at the bottom of the document.
5) Previously discussed. Not too terrible since it's pretty much just "here's Snake Style without the bonus."
6) That was fixed upon the new document. I realized the huge problem with that. Thank you, though.
7) Stealth makes sense with the updated document as there is a stealth-esque tree, so, while it's just one tree, I'd rather not punish people that go down it. Diplomacy is just kind of crunch fluff as fencers are typically from wealthier traditions. Kind of the same logic as to why Paladins have Knowledge Nobility.
8) Yeah, ability not really broken, but okie dokie. New document though, maybe it'll change your opinion on some things. c:
My Self wrote: Oh yeah, is this class DEX and WIS or STR and WIS? Because it seems like you could build it to be STR and just take armor proficiency feats or something. You could build either, really, and I don't think it'd get too out of hand in either case.
By the way, I kept forgetting to answer your Will save question. I've been on the fence about a high or low will save for a long while (which is why it's currently at a really weird middle ground), but it's mainly because of the class's focus on wisdom. I understand that being focused on a stat shouldn't automatically grant a high save of the same type, but that's why I've been unsure.
1) There's very good reasons why using Hit Die to make a fighter class more squishy is a bad idea. These reasons involve advanced game design principles beyond the scope of this thread. But I'll try to explain anyway.
Generally, a player's build decisions play a huge role in a character's durability (and other aspects). If you want a player to build a class a certain way, you need to design the class to encourage that type of build. Lowering the Hit Die does not actually do that. To the contrary, it encourages the player to invest more in Constitution to make up for their lower Hit Die. In fact, with statistical variance, you will more likely find a character with 14 CON and d8 Hit Die having more hit points than a character with 12 CON and d10 Hit Die.
This is why official Pathfinder classes use other means to encourage skirmisher-type characters. They typically limit the character to using light armor and have some offensive or defensive class features scale off of a mental score. This encourages the player to build higher Dexterity scores at the expense of Constitution. Ranged fighters are also another example. The fact that ranged combatants need two scores for attacks and can play safely leads to players building ranged specialists with lower hit points overall.
It's all about managing emergent gameplay. As I said, this is some advanced game design stuff. There's much more to it than this. At the very least, understand that you can't design a class the same way you build a character. Many 3.5e classes ended up becoming garbage or overpowered because the designers did not understand the above principles.
Cyrad wrote: To the contrary, it encourages the player to invest more in Constitution to make up for their lower Hit Die. In fact, with statistical variance, you will more likely find a character with 14 CON and d8 Hit Die having more hit points than a character with 12 CON and d10 Hit Die.
That's actually a really good point. Consider it changed to a d10. Thanks for the explanation.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
