Café de Nuit

Sounds interesting, Brass. Will love to see it when you have more details.

Ail wrote:That is nice for Rangers, and that was one of the classes I'd like to replace spells in, Alhoon. But do you have any suggestion for Bard, for example? Or is a spell-less bard just a plain old rogue, almost?

Easy:

What you want the bard to do? Sing and inspire allies?

Rogue with the following changes:
1st level, doesn't get sneak attack but inspires others just like the normal bard of 1st lvl.
5th, 9th, 13th, 17th lvl he inpires others by +1 more (to a max of +5 at 17th lvl).
3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, 19th lvl he gets sneak attack +1d6.
I.e at 10th lvl the "bard" would inspire for a +3 and would have +3d6 sneak.
Also the following become class skills for the "bard" variant of the rogue:
Perform, Knowledge(Local, nobility, history).

Want to make him more different, add the know-all quality?
1st lvl he doesn't get the ability to search/disable traps any better than any character.
He gets the bardic knowledge ability.
He loses search and disable device from class skills and instead gets
all knowledge skills + speak language as class skills.


REMEMBER: Make clear to any player opting for this, that he wouldn't be playing a bard actually, but a rogue that sings. Spells and supernatural abilities are very important for the core bard class.
More than spells for paladin or ranger.

Personally: I disagree with the bardic lore ability anyway (but I use it). I think the feat that gives a char the ability to roll for all knowledges untrained represents the background knowledge of bard better (But I don't use it).
Also, I think that the ability to search and disable traps should be a feat. Just like track is a feat and rangers get it for free, I think trap-disabling should be a feat that rogues get for free.
Actually I use this and the trap-harvester in one party is a dwarf fighter (that also got another feat to get disable device and search as class skills).

alhoon wrote: Personally: I disagree with the bardic lore ability anyway (but I use it). I think the feat that gives a char the ability to roll for all knowledges untrained represents the background knowledge of bard better (But I don't use it).
Also, I think that the ability to search and disable traps should be a feat. Just like track is a feat and rangers get it for free, I think trap-disabling should be a feat that rogues get for free.
Actually I use this and the trap-harvester in one party is a dwarf fighter (that also got another feat to get disable device and search as class skills).

Just on note on how pathfinder deals with these class features. Bardic knowledge is now just a bonus of half your level to knowledge skills and the ability to take untrained checks.

Track is now just a class feature that gives a bonus and everyone can attempt to follow track with survival.

On the whole I think they are positive changes.

You can read the pathfinder classes on their version of the SRD.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/

The Complete Warrior included spell-less versions of both the Paladin and Ranger classes, as well as a Swashbuckler and Samurai class (both fairly mediocre).

I'm a big fan of the Knight class in Player's Handbook II.

Garudos Celestar wrote:The Complete Warrior included spell-less versions of both the Paladin and Ranger classes, as well as a Swashbuckler and Samurai class (both fairly mediocre).

I'm a big fan of the Knight class in Player's Handbook II.

Knight class? Core class? Haven't seen it.

brass wrote:
Just on note on how pathfinder deals with these class features. Bardic knowledge is now just a bonus of half your level to knowledge skills and the ability to take untrained checks.

Track is now just a class feature that gives a bonus and everyone can attempt to follow track with survival.

On Bardic knowledge: Still, half the level because as you delve into dungeons you learn more stories about legends that you can literally pull out of your butt is bad idea IMO.
Yet... Sometimes you just need such an ability for an NPC or PC. To give them clues, to insert a legend, to add a story, to give them background on a cool NPC you just decided to insert.

But yes, I was using Bardic knowledge as level bonus on certain checks. I didn't even remember it has a separate (?) roll, that just happens to have the same DC as knowledge checks.

Track: Wow... I can't believe I haven't thought that. There are rules that everyone can follow some tracks. I never went exactly by that rule, but yes, giving rangers (or people with the track feat) a bonus and leaving it open for everyone is nice.

Edit: hmm the link gives me a 403 error. Why?

alhoon wrote:

Garudos Celestar wrote:The Complete Warrior included spell-less versions of both the Paladin and Ranger classes, as well as a Swashbuckler and Samurai class (both fairly mediocre).

I'm a big fan of the Knight class in Player's Handbook II.

Knight class? Core class? Haven't seen it.

It's there in PHB2, Alhoon. Right at the beginning there are some new base classes. The Knight is basically a tank, like in MMOs. Another interesting class, for me, is the Duskblade.

alhoon wrote:

brass wrote:
Edit: hmm the link gives me a 403 error. Why?

The link is a bit off. It lost the extension so the browser is trying to open a directory 'classes', which probably exists and can not be navigated because the site owner set it thus. It should be trying to open the page 'classes.html' instead.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes.html

Ail wrote:

alhoon wrote:

brass wrote:
Edit: hmm the link gives me a 403 error. Why?

The link is a bit off. It lost the extension so the browser is trying to open a directory 'classes', which probably exists and can not be navigated because the site owner set it thus. It should be trying to open the page 'classes.html' instead.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes.html

Apologies.

thanks guys. I checked it.

Nah, half the level doesn't suit me. It starts too low. I think it should be a flat +4 for the ranger and bard.

alhoon wrote:thanks guys. I checked it.

Nah, half the level doesn't suit me. It starts too low. I think it should be a flat +4 for the ranger and bard.

What does appeal to me is the untrained knowledge skills for bardic knowledge instead of a vague d20 roll and the fact anyone can now track. It made no sense that a druid couldn't have some basic knowledge of tracking without a feat, but would know what sort of tracks a type of animal left.

It's all alot tidyier.

Yeap. That's why I think an +4 for bard (history, nobility, local) or ranger (survival) is OK.