Quasiclass: Shadow Cloaker

[dodrudon]

SD + BG of some form, with concealment percentage (when shadow evade is on) according to the formula:

(current HP / total HP) * 2 * (SD + BG levels)

Dex based caster, with special BG spells of some sort? Dunno.

[johannhowitzer]

I'd rather not see another BG quasi, we have enough. What about mixing Ranger and SD into a quasi? A lot of people already use Ranger as SD's base due to Dual Wield and class skills for prerequisites... and Rangers kinda need a little love. As do SDs.

OOH! ooh! Here's an idea that would make SD all the more juicy and fun to play - if you quasi with Ranger, maybe HiPS could ignore True Seeing when used against FEs?

EDIT: Took my own suggestion and designed the quasiclass I mentioned, in a separate thread. By all means, continue discussion of SD/BG quasi here.

[FunkySwerve]

johannhowitzer said:

A lot of people already use Ranger as SD's base due to Dual Wield and class skills for prerequisites...

This is an excellent reason it'd be a poor choice for a quasi. Read the top of the quasiclass board.
Funky

[johannhowitzer]

You mean the thing at the beginning of each of the quasi books in the shop, the thing that claims they are "atypical class combinations"?? Then what would you call the Bloodfire Mage, which uses Sorc/RDD (a popular combo), the Lifethreader, which is a pretty standard option for Battle Clerics, or how about the Divine Slinger or Staffmaster, which only use one class, therefore not a combination at all?

Seems to me there's a double standard there. Don't enforce a standard unless you uphold it yourself... and you have to admit this would give some actual incentive to play the Shadowdancer class.

Also, since your reply was about my quasi, not Dod's, I think you should probably have replied in the other thread.

EDIT: Can you tell? I knew you were going to bring this up, and was already ready with my reply.

[FunkySwerve]

johannhowitzer said:

You mean the thing at the beginning of each of the quasi books in the shop, the thing that claims they are "atypical class combinations"??

Bingo!

Then what would you call the Bloodfire Mage, which uses Sorc/RDD (a popular combo), the Lifethreader, which is a pretty standard option for Battle Clerics,

Umm, let's see, what's the word, ah...yes, QUASICLASSES. Without the benefits of the quasiclass, you simply would never (and in fact DID never) see these class combinations, because they are atrociously weak - hence, substandard, aka 'atypical'. WITH the quasiclass, and the benefits, you get, in theory, a workable build. If the combinations were not atypical, the bonuses would have to be incredibly weak in order to balance out, and therefore not vary much from the standard, and therefore not be worth investing the effort of making a quasiclass.

or how about the Divine Slinger or Staffmaster, which only use one class, therefore not a combination at all?

Staffmaster uses wizard and weaponmaster, no idea what you are talking about there. Divine Slinger is the sole exception, but it recives serious spell nerfage in return for added ranged weapon abilities, in effect creating the mix of melee/caster class combos and their inherent nonsynergies. The sacrifice remains (and in fact is probably too great given player feedback). This is the hardest type of balancing to do, and most players simply lack the experience and distance necessary to guage the requisite sacrifice, as has been demonstrated time and again on these forums, and most recently by your suggestion.

Seems to me there's a double standard there. Don't enforce a standard unless you uphold it yourself...

Seems to me you don't understand what a double standard is. Allow me to elucidate. A double standard is when you apply TWO different standards to identical scenarios, typically out of some sort of bias. See also Rush Limbaugh. This is radically different from what is known as a STANDARD, or criteria on which a judgement may be based, and which is applied identically to different scenarios.

What we have here is the latter. Two different scenarios, in which the same standard is being applied. What is that standard? As stated in the beginning of the quasiclass book, and elsewhere, its an ATYPICAL class combo, for the purpose of creating enough nonsynergies to allow major bonuses without creating a overpowered quasiclass. All of the current quasis meet this standard; by your own reckoning your SD/ranger combo does not.

and you have to admit this would give some actual incentive to play the Shadowdancer class.

Indeed. So would hundreds of other overpowered quasiclass setups.

Also, since your reply was about my quasi, not Dod's, I think you should probably have replied in the other thread.

And yet you replied to me here. Did you say something about a double standard earlier? Leave forum moderation to the moderators.

EDIT: Can you tell? I knew you were going to bring this up, and was already ready with my reply.

No, I really couldn't. That has to be the most backwards logic I've seen this month. Perhaps you should have thought a little longer about WHY I would bring this up before you bothered to post it.
Funky

[johannhowitzer]

My mistake. I thought by "atypical class combinations" you meant "classes which are not typically combined." Bloodfire mage doesn't really fit that description, at least in my experience, as I've often seen Sorcerer and Red Dragon Disciple in the same build... in fact, the latter class requires either the former or Bard. Cleric/WM is a pretty common combination too, for those who want to play battle clerics, so nothing atypical there.

The reason I responded in such a fashion, I think, was because I got the impression from your post that you were essentially saying, "you didn't check your sources first, kid, come back when you know what you're talking about." Maybe that wasn't the intent, but that's how it came across. I like you, Funky, I don't want to drive a wedge, but I expected a less abrasive response to my idea, especially since I had done my homework. I read the top of the quasiclass board and saw the line about "atypical class combinations," and I figured that since you seemed to be using pretty common combinations for some quasis, not to mention only one class for the Slinger (and I missed WM for SM, sorry, don't know how I did that!), that that preface to the quasis was just something that had once been a standard but had gone the way of the poodle and never got taken out.

My intent in designing this quasiclass wasn't to be cool and jump to conclusions... it was honestly to offer a possible suggestion to better the module - you'll notice I even named the quasi after a creature from D&D, as I respect this module's great tributes to the PnP tradition and wanted to maintain that. I've heard a lot of people mention they'd like to see actual hiding from high-level enemies reintroduced, and Dod's quasi idea sparked something that I thought I could flesh out. I'm not dense, I KNOW my idea needs development... that was sort of why I even brought it up, so that players such as yourself with more experience would help me balance it a bit more, not just slap it down and imply I didn't think it through enough. That is, after all, all you did.

I suppose I can't blame you for jumping to conclusions about me, I jumped to (late) conclusions about you. I've had run-ins with you before and always, ALWAYS came away impressed; I also know you must deal with a ton of noobs, and you probably saw me as just another one. Oh well, sorry to get in your hair.

Have you any ideas to balance my quasi (not assuming you're going to accept it or anything, just asking advice)? I tried to build it in such a way that the hiding would be included, while sacrifices would also have to be made. In retrospect, it seems to me that if this quasi were added as is, no one would build any more Rangers or Shadowdancers without using it, so it needs gimping.

(Oh, pardon me, I just read Balduvard's post in the other thread. I had an inkling that the coding involved to make stealth mode bypass True Seeing for only some creatures would be rather nasty... it seems I was right. I'll shut up now.)

EDIT: I wasn't trying to moderate the moderator... I was kinda hoping poor Dod wouldn't get his topic overrun. Too late for that now, I guess, and I should have replied to you in the other thread and followed my own suggestion. What I meant by a double standard wasn't really a double standard, I guess, it was more of apparent unfaithfulness to the standard. Perhaps it bears rewording? But that's a topic for another day, and not really my business. Wow, I've admitted to being wrong a lot today; wonder if it's something in the water?

[FunkySwerve]

johannhowitzer said:

I suppose I can't blame you for jumping to conclusions about me, I jumped to conclusions about you.

I didn't jump to any conclusions. You still are failing to grasp the concept of a quasiclass, as aI pointed out above.

My mistake. I thought by "atypical class combinations" you meant "classes which are not typically combined."

That is precisely what I meant.

Bloodfire mage doesn't really fit that description, at least in my experience, as I've often seen Sorcerer and Red Dragon Disciple in the same build... in fact, the latter class requires either the former or Bard. Cleric/WM is a pretty common combination too, for those who want to play battle clerics, so nothing atypical there.

This would make a vague sort of sense if you weren't completely overlooking the level requirements of those classes. Of COURSE a level of sorc isn't atypical for a RDD build. But the quasi requires 10 levels OF EACH before 22. No one in their right mind would use that class combo absent the quasi.

The reason I responded in such a fashion, I think, was because I got the impression from your post that you were essentially saying, "you didn't check your sources first, kid, come back when you know what you're talking about." Maybe that wasn't the intent, but that's how it came across.

That's pretty much what I was saying, yes. You seemed to have thrown the entire core concept of 'quasiclass' out the window, for whatever reason, in making your suggestion.

I like you, Funky, I don't want to drive a wedge, but I expected a less abrasive response to my idea, especially since I had done my homework. I read the top of the quasiclass board and saw the line about "atypical class combinations," and I figured that since you seemed to be using pretty common combinations for some quasis, not to mention only one class for the Slinger (and I missed WM for SM, sorry, don't know how I did that!), that that preface to the quasis was just something that had once been a standard but had gone the way of the poodle and never got taken out.

Reading a single line is not 'doing your homework'. If you perceived what you thought to be a conflict with the quasiclass descriptor and the extant quasis, it would've behooved you to try to reconcile it before attempting to suggest your own quasis, and then foolishly accusing me of applying a double standard (which, by the way, is pretty much calling someone a hypocrite, and makes you appear hostile (and pretty bleeping silly in this case)). And clearly you did think you saw such a conflict, since you were expecting my response.

Have you any ideas to balance my quasi (not assuming you're going to accept it or anything, just asking advice)?

See my response to dod's inquiry about proposing new quasis.

I tried to build it in such a way that the hiding would be included, while sacrifices would also have to be made. In retrospect, it seems to me that if this quasi were added as is, no one would build any more Rangers or Shadowdancers without using it, so it needs gimping.

Perhaps now you see WHY they are designed using atypical class combos?

Funky

[johannhowitzer]

Funky, the double standard I thought existed was that it seemed that for the quasis that already existed, some typical class combinations were being allowed, while you seemed to dismiss my combination for being too typical. That was all... though I admit it's what it sounded like, I wasn't implying you yourself were being a hypocrite, and I apologize for giving that impression.

I am a little confused, things got way out of hand very quickly... of course, I reacted negatively, which was completely unacceptable and I also apologize for that, but I didn't know how annoyed you seem to be about people proposing new quasiclasses. I didn't just spit mine out there, I worked on it for a while, and I had hoped it would be commented upon and refined by those more familiar with the mod, not simply dismissed as "noobish." I hadn't read Dod's thread and didn't know you wanted us to -finish- our quasiclasses and balance them out completely before presenting them in any way... my mistake.

I hope this incident hasn't left too much of a bad taste in your mouth... I did get a little riled and said some things I probably shouldn't have, and for that I apologize. I do intend to become a veteran of this module, as I love playing here and I love the type of player you seem to attract (with a few exceptions, as anywhere else there are always a few bad eggs and good eggs having bad days). If I ever suggest something, you can bet my motives for doing so are pure, and if you approach me reasonably and explain things, you will only have to do so once. Not blaming you, I can imagine you've received many such noobish quasi suggestions in the past and I was pretty much just stepping into that curt denouncement. Anyway, I look forward to seeing the new quasis!

I meant that last post to be a sort of apology for the misunderstanding and the harsh words, but from your reaction I can see that purpose wasn't served - you even came out and said you did intend to be abrasive in your first response to my suggestion, which actually worries me a little since at that point I hadn't done anything (at least I don't think I did) to deserve it. I hope this post fills that void, as I certainly have done things since that deserved the kind of replies they got and I'd very much like to extend the olive branch and make up.