Dark Reaper Prestige Class (formerly Grim Reaper)

[Rae ArdGaoth]

As to why the PrC doesn't require Greater Demoralize, that is because it isn't a first tier feat. If you require Greater Demoralize, you also "require" Improved Demoralize, meaning the PrC would require four feats to enter.

Hm. I hadn't considered that GD was a tier 2 feat. The reason GD should be a prereq is to avoid all that contingency text, but really that doesn't come into play until L2... We want to have a lower level requirement for non-fighters/non-humans and the only way to do that is to get rid of a feat. Dropping Weapon Focus (Scythe) doesn't make any sense. The only real option, then, is to drop Persuasive, which is the "sacrifice" feat. I'm not totally averse to that idea, but I think Bront likes it how it is. I'd approve it either way, with or without Persuasive, as long as GD was required.

Let me mull on the class abilities a little more, but I think it's rather well balanced as is.

 

[Bront]

It's balanced as is, but I agree that it might be better to have the feat, or at least it's prereq on the requirements list, but I couldn't see a good feat to drop without giving up the sacrifice feat (which isn't much of a sacrifice as it synergizes with demoalize).

 

[Rae ArdGaoth]

Are there no more comments on this? I'd like to hear somebody else's opinion on the feats before I give it my approval.

 

[Manzanita]

This looks good to me. Would the 'competence bonus' on the scythe damage stack with the bonus damage of the weapon specialization feat? If so, I think that's excessive.

 

[orsal]

I think I can vote Yes to this.

 

[Dalamar]

By the rules, yes, it does stack. I don't think it is excessive, however, as a character is gaining essentially Greater Weapon Specialization a couple of levels early in exchange for significantly delaying Greater Weapon Focus and slightly delaying Improved Critical.
Though now that I think about it, it is possible for a character to gain GWS... when the character is 17th level.

 

[Knight Otu]

Shouldn't the 4th level ability refer to a swift action as well, rather than a free action usable once per round?
I suppose the first of the two Improved Demoralize feats makes sense as a prereq feat, true. Not both, though, I think that would be excessive. I'm not sure it's needed, though.

 

[Dalamar]

I thought about that, but in the end I thought it was a slight boost in usability as it allows, say, a psychic warrior to use some of their powers as a swift action and still make a demoralize attempt without eating into their other actions. Of course, it would mean much more if there were swift actions available to non-spellcasters/manifesters.

 

[Erekose13]

In looking over all the boosts to Intimidate, I'm wondering if shaken creatures affected by a fear affect that would make them shaken instead make them frightened. I seem to remember a rule like that. If that were the case and it were true that you could do it again to make creatures panic. This guy could at 4th level send an entire group of enemies fleeing in one round (3 greater demoralize attempts against a group of targets all within 10+cha mod feet). Is that what I'm reading or am I incorrect in my initial assumption?

 

[Rystil Arden]

In looking over all the boosts to Intimidate, I'm wondering if shaken creatures affected by a fear affect that would make them shaken instead make them frightened. I seem to remember a rule like that. If that were the case and it were true that you could do it again to make creatures panic. This guy could at 4th level send an entire group of enemies fleeing in one round (3 greater demoralize attempts against a group of targets all within 10+cha mod feet). Is that what I'm reading or am I incorrect in my initial assumption?

This was an even bigger issue with the older version--I made some comments that seem to have been lost in the crash. But yes, it does need a clause to indicate it doesn't stack. Also, I agree that it should be a Swift Action.