FFG Legendary Class contest submissions

[Khur]

Warrior of the Broken Wake comments...

What if a reversal resulted in a disarm instead of a counter-grapple?

Good idea! How about, a successful reversal allows just a disarm attempt? Or is that putting the poor sod on the receiving end at too much of a disadvantage?

So the intent now is to make the saves harder to make when the warrior does do 50 points of damage in a hit.

I've seen a very tough paladin with a "burst" magic hammer and smite added in do almost forty points of damage with one blow, and nearly twenty regularly. When he hit with every attack (3) he'd do over fifty in a round at 10th-level. My interpretation of this rule was that the designers wanted to give the option, but with the variable of high–damage spells, it was too hard to make the rule "realistic" and not take a huge amount of space.

On the flip side, death blows upset players very much and can upset DMs too. It's hard to balance these types of abilities.

Heres a shot:

• Sever Life (Su): If the warrior of the broken wake rolls another threat with any melee attack that is already a threat for a critical hit, he may elect to have the hit become a death blow. The second roll must be high enough to actually hit the target in question. If hit, the victim of this attack must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + power level + 2 per 10 points of damage suffered, rounded up) or die instantly. Regardless of the death blow result, the victim takes normal damage from the critical hit. Creatures immune to critical hits or death by massive damage are immune to this ability as well. A warrior of the broken wake may use sever life once per day per power level.

Is 1/day per power level too much? Consider that an assassin may use his ability an unlimited number of times per day, limited only by 3 rounds of studying the opponent and remaining unperceived as a threat.

This ability is better than the Instant Kill variant found in DMG Chapter 3, and comparable to the assassin's Death Blow, though better than that as well. (It is legendary, after all.) Perhaps a reference can be added that such a warrior can take the Improved Death Attack epic feat at epic levels, regardless of meeting the requirements.

 

[Khur]

Re: Maitre additional quest: Scene 1, take 2...

Here's the revised additional quest...

What are the consequences of losing the duel in the quest? Must it then be repeated (90 more days studying the same or differing style)? Perhaps the maitre should spend time on several different styles (at least three). Those styles need not be sword styles, for the maitre is exposing herself to variant combat techniques that she may face in battle.

The 500 mile thing seems arbitrary, perhaps the rule should be that the maitre study a culture different from her own. (If she's English, Italy would count, even though it's not 500 miles.)

I still say that the maitre should have a Knowledge (war: personal combat tactics) skill requirement for this quest (even at a low number of ranks). Perhaps she is required to acquire this skill while studying, and raise it by one rank per group studied. Note that such a focused skill should get a bonus, while granting a penalty to any roll to know more general knowledge (+2/-4 or something). (Yes, it's a problem when not even Knowledge (war) is within the purview of a fighter's class skills.)

The DC for the analysis of the style in question should be higher and the bonuses yielded should only last for the first round of combat, as the maitre surprises her opponent by anticipating his first move. Afterward, good fighters would adjust to the maitre's familiarity with their style.

Finally, do challenged maitre refuse to duel an obviously ignorant aspirant (one that has not completed the first quest)?

 

[RedCliff]

Re: Warrior of the Broken Wake comments...

Good idea! How about, a successful reversal allows just a disarm attempt? Or is that putting the poor sod on the receiving end at too much of a disadvantage?

I don't really think so. The warrior has to give up all but one attack per round to maintain the hold, and is denied the possibility of a critical, so he loses a big potential to damage. I think it balances out. So saying a reversal becomes a disarm in this case works in my mind.

This ability is better than the Instant Kill variant found in DMG Chapter 3, and comparable to the assassin's Death Blow, though better than that as well. (It is legendary, after all.) Perhaps a reference can be added that such a warrior can take the Improved Death Attack epic feat at epic levels, regardless of meeting the requirements.

Okay. I've heard a lot of people griping over the 50 points in a single hit means Fort save or die rule. Peronsonally, I don't have a problem with it, but I also haven't dealt with it in game yet. My party has just recently gotten members who wouldn't be killed by 50 points of damage outright anyway. So I speak purely from hypotheticals.

However, thinking over my particular gaming group, I like your idea. I know a few of my players get really excited when they roll a threat. When they roll a second one on the confirmation roll, they get a tad disappointed that it doesn't mean anything. So adding this in as a bonus seems to be a good way of keeping the excitement high. I'll go with that.

One thing though: how attached are you to making it an invoked power? I rather like the idea of it being an automatic thing. I have no mechanical reason to back that up, only an image. If this ability is invoked, it means the warrior must intentionally summon the power, making the blow extra hard. If it happens automatically, it means that theoretically every blow is this powerful, as every single strike is imbued with this power.

Actually, I lied, I do have a mechanical reason. The odds of rolling a threat are poor. The odds of rolling two in a row are worse than doubly so (though some people I know can roll seven 1's in a row repeatedly, but I digress). If this is an invoked power, I fear it might quickly become useless. Since double threats are rare enough as it is, I don't think there's a play balance issue in letting it happen each and every time. But again, I haven't playtested this version, so I'm certainly open to feedback.

 

[RedCliff]

Sever Life

You know what? I have no idea why, but for some reason I read the revised Sever Life completely differently. I thought the revised power worked as such:

If you score a threat, roll the critical check as normal. If you roll within the threat range on this confirmation roll, you force the opponent to make a save or die.

Now, that's not what you wrote at all, but maybe it's worth considering. With the rarity of the conditions however, maybe the tie to the power needs to be beefed up a bit (maybe +2/power level to the DC). I realize this places the DC much higher, but considering how rarely the power is likely to manifest in the first place, I don't think it risks game balance too much.

Thoughts?

 

[Khur]

MDK

...saying a reversal becomes a disarm in this case works in my mind.

Fine, it works for me.

Sever Life: One thing though: how attached are you to making it an invoked power? I rather like the idea of it being an automatic thing.

The odds of rolling a threat are poor. The odds of rolling two in a row are worse than doubly so. If this is an invoked power, I fear it might quickly become useless. Since double threats are rare enough as it is, I don't think there's a play balance issue in letting it happen each and every time. But again, I haven't playtested this version, so I'm certainly open to feedback.

I didn't mean for the power to be invoked. The wording of the power, even though it's a supernatural ability (normally a standard action to use), suggests to me that the deathblow is a potential any time the hero rolls two threats ("with any melee attack that is already a threat...."). The "choose" part of the ability means to me the character/player can forgo the deathblow if he wants to. I realize that it'll be rare for anyone to want to forgo a deathblow, but it could happen. I made the ability supernatural, so it's kind of a spiritual thing that's suppressed by an antimagic field. It could be argued that this is an extraordinary ability, however.

The times per day limitation just means that the character can't go about killing everything all day long. Once he's done it X times per day (where X is the power level), he can't use the ability anymore -- spiritual reserves are exhausted.

The odds of two threats are exponentially worse, you're right. For example, if the threat range for the weapon is 20, then the chance of rolling two 20s is 5% of 5%, or .25%. Keep in mind that the smart player will have the Improved Critical feat (especially after setting his sites on this power) and may have magic items that also improve the threat range. The ability, as written, doesn't restrict the potential threat range, only that the threat be an actual hit. That's how it should be, in my opinion. But, a smart player will likely have a better threat range than 20. Perhaps instead of Weapon Focus: Two handed, the class could have Weapon Focus: any bludgeoning weapon or axe of Large size or with a critical multiplier greater than x2.

Maybe I'll playtest it before we go to final design, but I'll at least run it past another editor pal o' mine.

If you score a threat, roll the critical check as normal. If you roll within the threat range on this confirmation roll, you force the opponent to make a save or die.

...maybe the tie to the power needs to be beefed up a bit (maybe +2/power level to the DC).

That's what I thought I wrote. How is what I wrote not this?

As for the save DC, I don't have a problem with your suggestion. Maybe the "round up" portion of the DC determination should be left off, however, so it's assumed one rounds down. This keeps the average DC around 20 (power level 3, 20 points of damage), or 18 if you lower the damage bonus to +1 per 10 points. When considering this, however, remember that an average 20th-level fighter probably has a +14 Fort without magical augmentation – he dies 30% of the time. A wizard, on the other hand, has around a +6 – he dies 65% of the time. However, a troll as +11 Fort (die 45%) and a mature adult dragon has around a +19 (die 5%, older dragons never die, unless in your campaign 1 is an automatic failure).

 

[RedCliff]

Re: MDK

I made the ability supernatural, so it's kind of a spiritual thing that's suppressed by an antimagic field. It could be argued that this is an extraordinary ability, however.

No, I like it as a supernatural ability. I don't think there's any reason to change it.

The times per day limitation just means that the character can't go about killing everything all day long. Once he's done it X times per day (where X is the power level), he can't use the ability anymore -- spiritual reserves are exhausted.

I get that, and it makes sense, but I wonder about playability. The statistical chances you have statted out with various creatures place the overwhelming majority of them at death less than 50% of the time. With the low chances of rolling double threats, even when magically enhanced, and then a 1/3 - 1/2 success rate when you do manage to pull it off, I think giving the power unlimited charges might be better. How off does that sound?

Maybe I'll playtest it before we go to final design, but I'll at least run it past another editor pal o' mine.

Very cool. Thanks.

Maybe the "round up" portion of the DC determination should be left off, however, so it's assumed one rounds down.

Sure. I believe that's standard rules anyway, so it should conform.

One last question: You noted taking the improved death blow epic feat for free. I like that, but we're not allowed to use that yet, are we? Last I heard the epic content was going to go open content, but hadn't been approved yet. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Khur]

Death!

Improved Death Attack is not OGC, but referring to it shouldn't be a problem. All of the Epic stuff is probably going to be in the SRD eventually. We could take the samurai approach and be bold, changing the reference only if someone says to. If we think it shouldn’t be done, then we can always state that the power can (or cannot) be modified by feats that affect deathblows, at the DM's discretion.

On that note, lurking in a message board about the OGL, SRD, and such, I learned something new. DM is not a trademark of WotC (but the unabbreviated form is). That means we can use DM, if we like. I'll correct any writing that uses GM, if the author doesn't feel like it.

 

[Khur]

More Broken Wake!

...I wonder about playability. The statistical chances you have stated out with various creatures place the overwhelming majority of them at death less than 50% of the time. With the low chances of rolling double threats, even when magically enhanced, and then a 1/3 - 1/2 success rate when you do manage to pull it off, I think giving the power unlimited charges might be better. How off does that sound?

Actually it's worse and better than you state. The fact of the matter is, most creatures don't have huge Fortitude save totals. The average is well below 10, until you start including 'high-end" critters like giants, dragons, and powerful extraplanar entities. The overwhelming majority of creatures that a 13th-level hero will face will die when this power comes into play, assuming they're below CR13, as they should be.

With a threat range of 19-20, a character threats 10% of the time, presupposing that the roll is high enough to hit. With Sever Life, he forces the save 10% of 10% of the time, or 1% of the time (quadruple the chance of a 20 threat range). Of course, this exponential progression is staggered, because 18-20 is only a 2.25% chance to force the save, while 17-20 is a straight 4%. All of this presupposes a hit on the applicable threat range as well. 17-20 is probably the maximum threat range a DM would have to deal with from this character class, considering the new weapon restriction I suggested in the requirements section. That is, this is the threat range for a character using a keen greataxe with the Improved Critical feat. We have to make sure that the ability (perhaps all abilities) can only be used with said weapons.

I'm referring to my statement: Perhaps instead of Weapon Focus: Two handed, the class could have Weapon Focus: any bludgeoning weapon or axe of Large size or with a critical multiplier greater than x2. We might add heavy mace to the list. Or we could just say any medium or larger bludgeoning or slashing weapon with an unmodified threat range of 20, excluding the light flail. I know this change will screw up the fact that your iconic character has a longspear, but does it really make sense for a guy with a longspear to go around breaking stuff?

I don't really see a balance problem with unlimited usage given the statistical improbability of an actual deathblow with low threat range weapons. But if you start adding things like greatswords or falchions, huge problems start to crop up.

A falchion has a 3-factor threat range (18-20). If one manages to triple this (using the feat and magic allowed), to 12-20, the warrior is forcing the save 20.25% of the time. A middling estimate says that 10% of this warrior's blows would kill, regardless of a foe's hit points, especially if you consider the damage he does averages 26 points on a critical with the falchion, so the save DC is 22 (23 if rounded up) if the power is level 5.

I'm still thinking about it, but that seems too high, or too powerful.

 

[Khur]

Reddist!

Reddist,

Can you give me an opinion on keeping the druid spells and school restricitons in the guardian? Or do you favor the old power full stop?

Thanks!

 

[MythicJustice]

I'm editing the True King this week and it will be released completely OGC.

Khur - I'm writing a bit for Campaign magazine about Legendary Classes and the contest. Can you post or send me some information as to where this compilation will be housed? I know Morrus has the winners posted here and I'll be mentioning that.

-Chad