So, I've been working on a class that (I hope) makes a scholarly character actually fun to play as well as not pathetically under-powered. Here's what I have come up with. Please comment, criticize, and basically tell me how I did and how to improve. Let me know if it's too powerful or not powerful enough. I haven't come up with a spell list yet, but it'll mostly come from the wizard spell list and the bard spell list. I'll post it once it's done. Thanks, all!
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Scholar Character Class
- Thread starter Tomn
- Start date
cjosephs1s
First Post
Maybe I misread it but the section on where you make a knowledge check and then use the table is confusing. I don't understand it. is it just a formatting issue? Do I really need to roll a 55 or better to get a bonus to outsiders?
Also I disagree with how you have your monsters grouped up. Its my opinion so take it as you will but I would group your monsters the following way
Arcana: Dragons, Magical Beasts, Constructs
Nature: Animals, Plants, Vermin, Beasts, Fey
Dungeoneering: Aberrations, Oozes
Local: Humans, Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants
The Planes: Outsiders, Elementals, (any other planar creature native to something other than the material plane)
Religion: Undead, Deities
As for Psionics I'm not that familiar with them but if their TYPE is psionic then have a knowledge for it or classify it under dungoeneering. But just becuase its a psionic creature doesn't mean that's its type (mindflyers are psionic creatures but are actually aberrations..Humans that take the psion class are still humans so I'd bet they fall under one of the above already and don't need their own)
This classification goes more in line with general DnD rules. For example: knowledge history will tell you about the history of things. Like if I wanted to know about a civil war that happened 200 years ago. Knowledge local will tell me about the population in the area and what kinds of humanoids inhabit the area now though and would be more useful for gaining an insight into how to defeat a Minotaur. Knowledge Geography is great for telling me where the capital city is and how to get there, but Elementals aren't from this plane so knowledge in this area will only tell me they are from their respective planes and I need to find out information about those planes. Knowledge engineering will tell me how to build a castle or even construct a statue, but only knowledge arcana will help me figure out what spells are necessary to turn that statue or construct to life. I may not even know how to build a statue but magic will take care of the rest as long as someone else builds the parts.
Maybe your world works on a different set of rules than normal though.
Also while it might seem balancing it just doesn't make sense. This is a scholar but they only know a few spells and can only cast a few spells? I'd say they can either cast a lot of spells and know a few or they know a lot and can cast a few. So I'd go with either the Sorcerer or wizard progression. Also what are his spells going to be? This is going to be a huge factor. If he's mainly going to be a caster (which I imagine this character will be unless you limit his spells to only useful ones out of combat) then some of your options are nullified. People are only going to boost the DCs and durations on spells and very rarely take the combat or defense option except in dire circumstance.
Also why fighter bonus feats?
The character concept is good and I like the idea. The above are just my thoughts on what you have in your text file (which is kinda hard to read due to formatting so some of it may have been misunderstood..my bad on that if that's the case). Also your campaign is going to be different than the one I play in so the rules may be different too. I'm just using mostly WotC standard concepts and stuff I'm used to seeing so take that into consideration. But like I said, I like the concept so this is hopefully constructive. Good luck with this...sounds like a fun class.
Also I disagree with how you have your monsters grouped up. Its my opinion so take it as you will but I would group your monsters the following way
Arcana: Dragons, Magical Beasts, Constructs
Nature: Animals, Plants, Vermin, Beasts, Fey
Dungeoneering: Aberrations, Oozes
Local: Humans, Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants
The Planes: Outsiders, Elementals, (any other planar creature native to something other than the material plane)
Religion: Undead, Deities
As for Psionics I'm not that familiar with them but if their TYPE is psionic then have a knowledge for it or classify it under dungoeneering. But just becuase its a psionic creature doesn't mean that's its type (mindflyers are psionic creatures but are actually aberrations..Humans that take the psion class are still humans so I'd bet they fall under one of the above already and don't need their own)
This classification goes more in line with general DnD rules. For example: knowledge history will tell you about the history of things. Like if I wanted to know about a civil war that happened 200 years ago. Knowledge local will tell me about the population in the area and what kinds of humanoids inhabit the area now though and would be more useful for gaining an insight into how to defeat a Minotaur. Knowledge Geography is great for telling me where the capital city is and how to get there, but Elementals aren't from this plane so knowledge in this area will only tell me they are from their respective planes and I need to find out information about those planes. Knowledge engineering will tell me how to build a castle or even construct a statue, but only knowledge arcana will help me figure out what spells are necessary to turn that statue or construct to life. I may not even know how to build a statue but magic will take care of the rest as long as someone else builds the parts.
Maybe your world works on a different set of rules than normal though.
Also while it might seem balancing it just doesn't make sense. This is a scholar but they only know a few spells and can only cast a few spells? I'd say they can either cast a lot of spells and know a few or they know a lot and can cast a few. So I'd go with either the Sorcerer or wizard progression. Also what are his spells going to be? This is going to be a huge factor. If he's mainly going to be a caster (which I imagine this character will be unless you limit his spells to only useful ones out of combat) then some of your options are nullified. People are only going to boost the DCs and durations on spells and very rarely take the combat or defense option except in dire circumstance.
Also why fighter bonus feats?
The character concept is good and I like the idea. The above are just my thoughts on what you have in your text file (which is kinda hard to read due to formatting so some of it may have been misunderstood..my bad on that if that's the case). Also your campaign is going to be different than the one I play in so the rules may be different too. I'm just using mostly WotC standard concepts and stuff I'm used to seeing so take that into consideration. But like I said, I like the concept so this is hopefully constructive. Good luck with this...sounds like a fun class.
Dandu
First Post
cjosephs1s
First Post
Thanks for correction...I thought I was a little off but really didn't feel like spending an hour looking it up. And 14/16 from memory is still pretty good 
Okay, so here's my explanation of these things. If you still think that it would be better another way after I've explained, then please say so
First off, the table is actually two tables. This was just stupid formatting issues. Sorry. One of the tables relates your result to bonuses, and the other relates your knowledge skill to creature types.
Normally I would group them that way, too. However, I wanted each knowledge skill to have at least one creature type to go along with it. Also, consider the balance issues. With the suggested assignments, who would take the planes over, say, nature? These assignments make perfect sense, and I agree with them, but if they were used for the class then it would discourage the selection of some skills. I would like to have all of the knowledge skills be valid choices.
As for the whole thing about psionics... I'm not sure I understand you. Even though "psionic" isn't a type of creature per se, I thought that it would make sense to go with that knowledge skill. Also, there aren't too many psionic creatures anyways, so it doesn't seem too unbalanced.
About the spells... My idea was to have a class that could function as either a good caster, or a good fighter, but not both. I based both the BAB and the spell progression off of the bard. The Applied Studies class feature is supposed to pull the Scholar up to speed in one of the areas. Also; the area that Applied Studies applies to can only be selected once, at first level. Sorry if the wording was unclear. My hope was for the scholar to be almost as good as other classes in his area (dps, tank, caster) most of the time, then be a bit better than them when fighting creatures of his specialized type.
The fighter bonus feats (or the spells, depending on which you choose) are there so that the class can be a bit more flexible. The idea was that a scholar focusing on spellcasting would use them for spells, while a scholar focusing on mundane fighting would use them for feats.
Thanks for the criticism! If you still think that I need to address one of these issues, then let me know. I'll change things that people think need to be changed, as long as they know why I had them that way in the first place.
First off, the table is actually two tables. This was just stupid formatting issues. Sorry. One of the tables relates your result to bonuses, and the other relates your knowledge skill to creature types.
Normally I would group them that way, too. However, I wanted each knowledge skill to have at least one creature type to go along with it. Also, consider the balance issues. With the suggested assignments, who would take the planes over, say, nature? These assignments make perfect sense, and I agree with them, but if they were used for the class then it would discourage the selection of some skills. I would like to have all of the knowledge skills be valid choices.
As for the whole thing about psionics... I'm not sure I understand you. Even though "psionic" isn't a type of creature per se, I thought that it would make sense to go with that knowledge skill. Also, there aren't too many psionic creatures anyways, so it doesn't seem too unbalanced.
About the spells... My idea was to have a class that could function as either a good caster, or a good fighter, but not both. I based both the BAB and the spell progression off of the bard. The Applied Studies class feature is supposed to pull the Scholar up to speed in one of the areas. Also; the area that Applied Studies applies to can only be selected once, at first level. Sorry if the wording was unclear. My hope was for the scholar to be almost as good as other classes in his area (dps, tank, caster) most of the time, then be a bit better than them when fighting creatures of his specialized type.
The fighter bonus feats (or the spells, depending on which you choose) are there so that the class can be a bit more flexible. The idea was that a scholar focusing on spellcasting would use them for spells, while a scholar focusing on mundane fighting would use them for feats.
Thanks for the criticism! If you still think that I need to address one of these issues, then let me know. I'll change things that people think need to be changed, as long as they know why I had them that way in the first place.
cjosephs1s
First Post
Ok..tables make more sense now and that's cool. I like the way you did the bonuses for them.
As for the knowledge skills: Yes some are going to seem better choices than other but as the DM you have the counter to that and can choose what monsters to throw at your party. Plus while your reasoning makes sense, the way WotC and SRD group them makes more sense. Also keep in mind there are feats for givng bonuses to damage based on knowledge checks already in the game and use the WotC/SRD groupings. This means that if a player wants to take these feats they have to use two sets of rules instead of one. I'd still use the WotC/SRD groupings. And to coever all 6 areas the PC would still have to spend a good number of skill points to do it leaving other skill short on skill points so I think it balances out on its own.
How do you classify a psionic creature? Effectively you are going to have to make a house rule for this if you want to use it that any creature with Psionic or maybe even mental abiities falls under this catagory and supercedes all other catagories. Which comes into confilict with other feats such as planar turning or even ranger favored enemy stuff. I'd not use it and keep the original classification and save the headache and paperwork.
Like I said..just my opinion but some of the WotC feats and rules could get confusing since your system and their system don't always match up. Confusion slows game play and then it becomes a rules debate which is fine for forums but sucks when it eats up an hour of gameplay
I'd also make a Word Document for the class and lay it out neatly with your revisions so its easier to read. Other than that right now it looks pretty cool.
As for the knowledge skills: Yes some are going to seem better choices than other but as the DM you have the counter to that and can choose what monsters to throw at your party. Plus while your reasoning makes sense, the way WotC and SRD group them makes more sense. Also keep in mind there are feats for givng bonuses to damage based on knowledge checks already in the game and use the WotC/SRD groupings. This means that if a player wants to take these feats they have to use two sets of rules instead of one. I'd still use the WotC/SRD groupings. And to coever all 6 areas the PC would still have to spend a good number of skill points to do it leaving other skill short on skill points so I think it balances out on its own.
How do you classify a psionic creature? Effectively you are going to have to make a house rule for this if you want to use it that any creature with Psionic or maybe even mental abiities falls under this catagory and supercedes all other catagories. Which comes into confilict with other feats such as planar turning or even ranger favored enemy stuff. I'd not use it and keep the original classification and save the headache and paperwork.
Like I said..just my opinion but some of the WotC feats and rules could get confusing since your system and their system don't always match up. Confusion slows game play and then it becomes a rules debate which is fine for forums but sucks when it eats up an hour of gameplay
I'd also make a Word Document for the class and lay it out neatly with your revisions so its easier to read. Other than that right now it looks pretty cool.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
What Are The Changes In Pathfinder Remastered?
