Talk:Pirate, Alternative (3.5e Class)

Ratings

	Tarkisflux is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	This is a perfectly serviceable Moderate balance class, but it's not one that I'm be excited by. The abilities mostly fit but don't grab my attention, the high end of the class looks a lot like the low end, and the fluff isn't particularly inspiring. But if I were going to run a Moderate balance game, I'd let people play this pirate alongside a fighter or barbarian.

Careful with those titles

Writing it as Pirate (alternative) (3.5e Class) is gonna make the wiki think that the name of this class is Pirate and it belongs in the non-existent (alternative) section. We should change that. I'll do it for you but.... oh god, what... what happened to the formatting on the class? Where's the table? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT: Found your formatting problem. Now just waiting a moment so you realize I'm gonna move this with a proper title. Hope I don't disrupt your work.) -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT: And the move is done.) -- Eiji-kun (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Um... I've been drinking coffee all day and I feel a little zonked out right now. Thanks for the help though. --Nolanf (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended to Spazalicious Chaos

Hi, everyone. I was thinking that I wanted to include a proper pirate in a game I'll be starting soon. There was nothing in the PHB about one (unless you just wanted to put a rogue or a swashbuckler on a ship), so I went to the wikis.
Well, what do you know, but there was a Pirate homebrew sitting right here. I read it and I liked... parts of it. I don't want to come off as harsh, but the Pirates of the Caribbean thing that was obviously going on there just didn't fit any concept that I wanted to use.
If you're reading this, Spazalicious Chaos, please believe me that I didn't want to step on your toes or insult you in any way by making up my own pirate. I even hope you take it as a compliment that I stole some of your concepts (with some minor tweaks).
So, credit where credit is due: Some of the core "piratey" features (i.e. Pirate Specialty, Snatch Attack or "Snatch Steal", and Pirate Specialty Perfection) were written by Spazalicious Chaos first. Most of the other concepts came from the original Swashbuckler from the Complete Warrior (3.5), and Sneak Attack came from the rogue class.
The only crap that I came up with myself was Pirate Bluff, Drink Like a Pirate, and the upgrade to Lucky. Oh yeah, and I also downgraded Sneak Attack a little bit for this class (and I might get some hate messages for that).
Thank you. Good night. --Nolanf (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Balance

Between the sneak attack and all the feats that you get automatically (many of which you definitely want as a sneak attacker), I'd say this sits quite comfortably at High balance. --Ghostwheel (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. This class is now totally high. --Nolanf (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Begging for Feedback

Now that i have tagged this class "Complete," I'd like some constructive feedback from the community. My first question is this: What is the minimum you would eliminate from this class to change it from high balance to moderate? Second, is this class versatile enough, and conceptually open enough, that you would want/allow one of these characters in your game? Thanks for your thoughts. --Nolanf (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this moderate?

I'd like this class to be in the Moderate range, but keep the dumbed-down sneak attack and some of the other cool piratey stuff.
Here's what I'm thinking: I'm getting rid of Insightful Strike, Acrobatic Skill Mastery, Weakening Critical, and Wounding Critical.
I don't know if anyone's actually reading this, but if someone is, please let me know if you think this is enough to take it down to Moderate.
Thank you --Nolanf (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless you cut the Sneak Attack further, and got rid of some of the more feats (especially the ones that are actually useful all the time, forcing the character to use their actual feats on them), I still think it's in High level range. This is especially true with full BAB. --Ghostwheel (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Losing those things probably puts it right on the line between High and Moderate according to the current wiki guidelines. I'd peg it as moderate already, but it's a fuzzy line and we've been known to disagree about it before. Full BAB + 2/3 sneak attack is roughly equal to 3/4 BAB + full sneak attack, or about equal to the Rogue's progression... but the rogue has UMD to boost him a lot and this doesn't. Still, if you wanted to be more Moderate you could also afford to lose Weapon Finesse and the Dodge bonus. Especially the dodge bonus, since this is a class that is focused on Dex that already gets to use light armor and isn't going to have AC problems. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yeah, players probably won't be using their Bluff all that often (Should I add Diplomacy and/or Intimidate to the mix?), and the Con modifier only really comes into play once in a while... Still, I thought it would be fun to have, and this whole pirate thing is all about having fun, right?

I was thinking about using the 3/4 BAB since the beginning, but I just didn't have the courage to do it until now. Dodge Bonus is now gone. I agree that if this character is set up right, his Dex bonus ought to be high enough that a little Dodge wouldn't matter much.

Sooooooooo, moderate now? --Nolanf (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually meant that either (full bab and 2/3 progression sneak attack) or (3/4 bab and full progression sneak attack) were a good baseline for moderate. You've gone with (3/4 bab and 2/3 progression sneak attack), and that's a bit low. I'm not sure it's actually down in Low balance land, but I'm concerned about it.

And sure, add in intimidate and/or diplomacy. Random boosts to social skills on a per day basis are not a very big deal. Diplomacy can get weird, but your numbers are small enough that it should be ok. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So it would seem the two of you (Tarkisflux and Ghostwheel) disagree on what makes a moderate balance. Personally, I just like the full BAB, so I'll go with that.

And I think that's it. I know neither of you are in the habit of throwing around a lot of high ratings, but I would feel good if you gave a rating to this class. Thanks. --Nolanf (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll start falling behind published monsters around level 8 with this class, which is pretty standard for Moderate balance. Ghost is of the opinion that sufficiently large quantities of damage will push you up into High (or at least the sorts of games that he enjoys anyway), and I don't think that's enough on its own. But he'd probably agree with me that the remaining class features are pretty much Moderate balance, and that even if the damage pushed it into High (which it doesn't) it's on the bottom end of the balance range.

As for rating it, sure, why not. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at what makes for moderate balance. I don't see a fighter ever making the same kind of damage as this class, and UMD isn't hard to pump for most classes to the point needed to make effective use of tricks. Heck, even going with something like that Halfling Hurler build, this would steal deal way more damage than a fighter could ever hope to put out use moderate-level feats. Even ignoring the Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting trick, this gets the TWF feats earlier and is more accurate than the rogue equivalent. That's what I'm basing my analysis on, and I don't see a fighter even coming close to competing with this. If you can show me a fighter with moderate-level feats doing as much damage as this using the Halfling Hurler, I'd change my mind. --Ghostwheel (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at what makes for moderate balance shall we? On the actual balance guideline page even. The obvious point of comparison is with the actual Rogue, which only gets a High balance pass because it has a higher damage option via touch attacks, a broader range of non-combat abilities, and UMD. It's explicitly called out that if you're not playing to a rogue's strength that it's likely down at Moderate instead, and even when this plays to it's strengths it's less good than a Rogue. Putting this at the same balance point as a class that is roughly equal to it in damage (when not using touch attacks) and pretty superior to it in lots of other ways is ignoring everything else that matters in a game. Barbarians are probably a better direct comparison, as they can get to similar levels of damage with rage and power attack and not too much work. Spirited chargers are also listed on the balance page as the higher end of Moderate (and has been there since Surgo wrote the page back in the day), and probably deals more damage than a hurler build with this class would. Uberchargers are probably in there too, though not explicitly listed, based on the charger line. These are not High balance builds, even if their damage values are keeping up with creature HP, and so the hurler build here isn't either.

But even if the damage option was enough to be High, you'd still be basing your opinion on a higher end optimized build rather than on the more general case. That does not make it a higher balance class, and every class not in VH (which has nowhere to go) is explicitly written in such a way that you could extend their life to a higher balance with a bit of solid optimization above and beyond just making non-silly option choices. This should be no different. So what's the general case look like for this class (outside of internet boards where it's obvious anyway)? Hurler builds with this class will probably be rare compared to ginsu builds. The full BAB takes away their need to rely on touch attacks, they get a bonus to flanking that is non-trivial, and they get a bigger hit die and Con advancement. And a ginsu build is pretty clearly Moderate based on wiki guidelines. Yeah, you could optimize this a little bit higher (there's a pretty low ceiling here though), but that's not relevant for its balance placement. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The only thing you mentioned in there that does similar damage would be the ubercharger, and I'm very much of the thought that Combat Brute and Shock Trooper (which make that which is the ubercharger) are H-level, as is written on article balance page. While a little less strong than the rogue, I'd still say this is H-level (towards the low end, to be sure), and I'd also argue that the damage of the aforementioned builds doesn't keep up with monster HP, especially when you grab the TWF chain and flasks/fire. Also, note that the hurler build actually loses out on a lot of damage that flaming and similar abilities bring to the table. Plus, as soon as you found some way to grab easy flanking (Martial Study: Island of Blades), I'd say both this and a ginsu build enter the H-level category. The problem with both is that they don't have that in-built, which puts them lower on the range of what H consists of, but still within that range. --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have remembered the ubercharger was H, having been on the page and all. Apologies, I should probably not be writing these things out while sick and filled with cold meds.

But I'm already invested and have my foot in my mouth, so whatever. It seems straight up ridiculous to me that a class would get a H pass on damage and H feats alone, and that seems to be what you're arguing. There are M classes that can take those H options and play in H games, but that does not make them H classes. Martial Study is an H option (that I can honestly say I have never seen anyone take btw, not to offer irrelevant anecdotal evidence but to frame my position that it's not obvious or even general case optimization and shouldn't be accounted for or assumed), and taking it with this class should boost it up in the same way - it gets to deal H damage in general instead of once in a while and still lacks most the options associated with H classes. Without it they occasionally deal a bunch of damage because they're flanking or undetected or something, and that's not consistent enough to count as H damage IMO. Further, giving them two melee weapons is generally considered a money trap, and they're going to be missing out on a lot of other things to get those extra damage sources. So while it could deal H damage, it does so with H feat options and piles of money, and afterwards doesn't have any of the other hallmarks of an H class. That sounds more like barbarian or another M class than any of the H classes.

I'd feel better about putting this with any of the M classes than any of the H ones; I probably wouldn't let someone play this in an H game even with the optimizations you've mentioned. It has 1 feature that could be leaned on to deal H damage consistently with H feats that are better than most of its class features (like a few other M classes), and lots of other class features that are solidly M. On average it's M, it behaves like other M classes when it starts to optimize above its balance, and it lacks the range of other H classes. The damage thing just pushes it to high M IMO, instead of low H, because you need to take non-general case H feats to get it up there. It could afford to go down to 1/2 SA progression instead of 2/3 though, and that would better center it in M balance, but I don't think it needs to. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)