This product contains two new base classes with full 20-level progressions -- the Noble, a master of rhetoric and charm, and the Skirmisher, who prides himself on fighting creatively.
Before I explain my rating, I want to note that LRGG really does deserve some credit for making this product "pay what you want," in that even supporting the developers just a little bit can't hurt you that much and is worth doing if you're the least bit curious about the content of this rules packet. On the other hand, though, it's also a gesture that says "we're not really confident in estimating the value of this product, and we hope you have just as bad an idea as we do." The danger of selling products like this on a pay-what-you-want basis is that you could pay a little and feel like it was money well spent to sate your curiosity, but you could also overpay significantly and feel a bit slighted. Having a discrete price point would give potential readers a much better idea of what they're getting into.
So, what WOULD be a good price for this product, then? I'd suggest about $2.50, give or take, as it has a bit less content and much lower production values than other base class packets available from DrivethruRPG, like LJP's Machinesmith, or TPK Games' Deductionist. To be specific, there are two classes contained in this packet, but neither of them is accompanied by any supporting material; there are no archetypes or even any racial favored class bonus options listed. The Skirmisher has a few feats, but otherwise this makes both classes a bit thin on options compared to other products and Paizo's own base and core classes, and thus a bit of a hard sell. I feel like I'd have preferred it if each class were sold separately in their own packet, with expanded supporting material included to make them more fully-featured. As this product is currently sold, I feel like I've bought a half each of two different products.
Meanwhile, the writing and formatting are a bit on the sloppy side. To give an idea of how bare-bones the packet is, there is no introduction -- it drops you right into the Noble's class entry as if you'd paged to the middle of a core rulebook. The body content of the packet takes a two-column format with a neat, period-appropriate backdrop and font -- the graphic design is just lovely -- but the sidebars are denoted by the same headers as class abilities, with only the word "Sidebar>> " to denote otherwise. It seems like a bug, like whoever was editing this just didn't get the memo to apply the "Sidebar" style to everything marked "Sidebar>>". Apart from that, the ability descriptions are mostly clear, but then after having these very elegant line breaks to put the reader in the Noble's cultured mindset, the level-up tables are unformatted, basic, solid black line tables. It all gives the impression that the editing and formatting are all somehow half-finished.
To discuss further we need to look at both the classes in turn.
NOBLE
The Noble is a class based around wit, charm, other social skills, and morale. It features a d8 hit die, good will, bad reflex, bad fortitude, 4 skill points per level, and proficiency with light armor and everything through martial weapons. Perplexingly, despite having a d8 hit die, it has the bad base attack bonus progression -- +10 at level 20. For those wondering exactly what I'm harping about, one of the conventions Paizo established in the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder was to tie base attack bonus to hit die, meaning that d6 has +10, d8 has +15, and d10/d12 have +20. It might seem like a nitpick, but the discrepancy feels a bit sloppy. Even disregarding the convention, it feels like a mistake given all of the Noble's combat proficiencies and abilities, and this class should be operating on the +15 attack bonus.
The Noble's role otherwise is very strongly skill and social skill-based, benefiting strongly from a high Intelligence for more skill points and a high Charisma for better Diplomacy. The core of a Noble's class abilities is the use of social skill checks, including the ability to impose morale damage on an opponent as a sort of alternative rule to nonlethal damage; thus, demoralizing an opponent into dropping their weapons is not only a possibility, but key to how a Noble operates in a fight, essentially monologuing his opponents into submission. Otherwise, it gets substantial bonuses to social skills, a number of social feats, and a few perks regarding teamwork feats, operating as a leader-type in a similar position to a Bard.
This class leaves me a bit torn. On one hand, I like the idea of having a class that can represent a social character like this, and I'm a sucker for a class that can literally monologue opponents into submission. I think the concepts behind morale damage are very applicable, and I think the foothold on Teamwork feats is very strong. On the other hand, the mechanics behind how the Noble does morale damage are either extremely weak or outrageously broken, depending on how a GM chooses to run the game.
For instance, it specifies that the "Talk Down" ability requires the Noble to simply make a Diplomacy check, DC of 15+target's hit die+target's Wisdom modifier. Opponents need to be able to hear and understand you for it to work, and they need an intelligence greater than 3 to appreciate your scathing remarks. If it succeeds, they deal a number of morale damage depending on their level, comparable to a Rogue's sneak attack damage in scale. There are no limits to how often this can be done, and the rules packet doesn't specify what kind of action it is -- simply that it DOESN'T count as an attack action, but does count as a Diplomacy check. So, either this is a standard action, per the "Request" use of the Diplomacy skill, or it's an "Influence Attitude," and therefore takes a full minute to do. Or, since talking is a free action, that might mean this, too, is a free action. It's all very unclear, but given how enormous skill check bonuses can get even WITHOUT the Noble's perks to Diplomacy, you're almost guaranteed to nail an opponent equal to your CR every time. Morale damage compounds with lethal damage the way that nonlethal damage does, so even at low levels a Noble with a stiff tongue can tear through opponents' morale quickly.
What's especially troubling is that there's no supplemental material for the morale mechanics apart from all the ways the Noble does damage. There's no way to heal morale damage, for instance, and there's no way to protect against it or reduce it. Other classes have nothing to contribute in the way of doing morale damage (though lethal damage is complimentary to it). Maybe worse than ANY of that, try and imagine turning the tables around and pitting a party against a Noble and some flunkies, and inflicting morale damage on the party -- how do you explain the party just dropping all their weapons before the scathing rhetoric, even if they wouldn't NORMALLY be in danger of losing? Shouldn't that decision be up to the players, and not this mechanic? If you rule it that way, then who's to say the Noble's word has any power anywhere?
Bear in mind that this is regarding just one mechanic introduced via the Noble; there are several other abilities that raise questions, like "Disarming," which allows the Noble to attempt a disarm maneuver using Diplomacy instead of CMB. Rules-wise this is explained clearly, but in-character there's no explanation given.
All in all I like the flavor and the idea of the Noble a lot more than I like LRGG's execution of it. It's nothing if not extremely creative, and the class is about well-rounded enough for play, but the holes in the morale system and the use of social skills in combat leave this in need of another design pass.
I could suggest two changes that would make this feasible to run, both in different directions:
A) Drop the morale damage system and instead impose a morale penalty system, making the Noble an offensive equivalent to the Bard, who imposes morale bonuses. This would be a lot more consistent with established conventions for the use of "morale" in combat, and when you want to go really extreme you can have the Noble cause opponents to become frightened, sickened, or shaken. Leverage those status conditions -- the idea that you can nauseate someone by talking at them is hilarious and fun.
B) Keep morale damage, but make it so that the Noble can only use it once per opponent in a day -- regardless of whether it succeeds or fails, the Noble can only attempt it one time on an opponent, and then can't do it again for 24 hours. What this does for the morale damage system is turn it from a nonlethal sneak attack damage crank with no limits into something that requires timing and precision to do effectively, the idea being that you want to try and use Talk Down SPECIFICALLY to finish an opponent off. This can be likened to how a Rogue needs to either get a solid flank or else get an opponent flatfooted in order to rack up sneak attack damage, which is an apt comparison since Talk Down's damage goes up the way Sneak Attack damage does. Otherwise, it would be a good idea to find some kind of rhythm to how the Noble is able to deliver morale damage; right now it just feels like a big beatstick.
Either of these would be a good start, though I'd lean towards dropping morale damage entirely as it's just too abstract and uneven. If I can't confidently or fairly apply it AGAINST players, then it probably shouldn't be a mechanic.
SKIRMISHER
The Skirmisher features a d10 hit die, a +20 BAB progression, good reflex, bad fortitude and will, 4 skill points per level, and a mess of skills to go with it. They've got light armor, bucklers, and anything up through martial weapons at their disposal. It's essentially a mobility-based fighter class, designed to run around a battlefield and hit as many different enemies as possible, as hard as possible.
The crux of this class lies in two mechanics: Skirmishing, and Creativity. Skirmishing is essentially a series of bonuses applied to attacks and damage done while the Skirmisher is moving. Unlike other classes, they can spread their attacks between as many enemies as they can run between on a full action. The Creativity ability is perhaps not so well-named, but interesting. Essentially, when you roll an attack, you can turn the die to a side adjacent to the one you rolled as long as it's lower. In exchange for taking the lower roll, if you do hit, you get a special bonus depending on which number you picked -- usually bad status... so long as you can substantiate the attack with a bit of roleplay explaining how you do it.
Oddly enough, neither of these aspects are the Skirmisher's problem. Over time a Skirmisher can get up to an 80 foot move speed, and the bonus they get to damage while skirmishing gets to be +10. In the meantime, they also get a goodly selection of combat feats as well as an innate bonus to critical hit range and multipliers. They get the benefits of critical focus while skirmishing... so, at level 1, with an un-enchanted scimitar, they've already got a 15-20/X2 critical. Over time, this'll become a 13-20/X4 and they'll be doing four attacks at everything within a generous 80 foot move speed.
This is all without anything done on the player's part to commit towards their character build. For a fighter to be comparable, he'd need dodge, mobility, spring attack, a set of boots of speed, a specific weapon with critical focus, and a pile of feats focused on amping up damage. This class can forego all of those and just go straight for power attack with a two-handed weapon, or two-weapon fighting to add more targets. Toe to toe on a full attack they're more powerful than a fighter by a ridiculously wide margin, so it hardly matters.
What I'm saying is that the concept is solid but the passives are all way too much, especially the crit boosts. It was MORE than enough to just have a fighter and add Skirmishing bonuses to damage and the Creativity ability. It'd make a great archetype. It DOES make a great archetype, in fact, called Mobile Fighter, which presents both a more flexible and more balanced means of doing the same thing. As this class is, though, it's outrageously overpowered.
CONCLUSION
If you're curious about the Noble it's worth putting down a few bucks, but as it is neither of these is something I'd recommend for anybody to use in a game. While not for a lack of effort on the designers' part, the rules for these are either too broad or too powerful. In the case of the Noble there's not enough support outside the Noble's own abilities for the morale mechanics and too many things about them are ambiguous; in the case of the Skirmisher, well, look at the math -- what it'd take a fighter many levels to do it's already capable of at level 1, and in the meantime you don't actually need the Skirmisher in order to create the type of character presented.
|