Talk:Adamantine Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Ex, Su, or Sp[edit]

The class features need to be labeled as Ex, Su, or Sp. —Sledged 10:53, 26 September 2006 (MDT)

Rating - 1/10[edit]

I give this PrC a 1/10 at the moment, it is very overpowered. It can gain +1 Caster Level every level, gains amazing abilities, and the requirments are easily worth this PrC. Not balanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Green Dragon (talkcontribs) 19:57, 5 October 2006 (MST). Please sign your posts!

In-depth Review[edit]

Requirements:

The alignment requirement is fine.

Feat requirement is far too great. A human would have to take Initiate of Honor and Initiate of Humility at first level, Initiate of Spirituality at third, Leadership at sixth, Initiate of Valor at ninth, Initiate of Compassion at twelth, Initiate of Honesty at fifteenth, Weapon Focus at eighteenth and Weapon Focus at 21st, making this an epic-level prestige class. Furthermore, the knight would have to be: Nonchaotic, Heal 6 ranks, Wis 13, Sense Motive 6 ranks, Dex 13, Con 13, own only what is carried, Cha 13, Diplomacy 6 ranks.

Why the Special requirement? No one knows what the Order of Mithral or the Coreanic Knights are.

Suggestions: Alignment: Any good. Feats: Must have at least three Exalted feats, Leadership.

Class Skills:

There's no reason for having 4 + Int skills.

Class Features:

Persisting soul is unnecessary. Prestige classes offer their own benefits to offset the loss of others.

Natural commander is simply excessive - followers aren't that useful, but that doesn't mean people should have four times as many. The Leadership feat is mighty good on its own.

Armor of adamant gives too much damage reduction. 1/- per class level is sufficient.

Prestige classes shouldn't give bonus feats. Instead, they should grant unique abilities.

Virtue of adamant - see bonus feat and natural commander.

Mettle is not a bad ability to give a class like this. --Khuxan 18:46, 14 January 2007 (MST)

I really like what you are doing here, and I would love to help make this better. First off we need to ask ourselves "What is this PrC trying to do??" My opinions of this are:
  1. Continue to be like their original class but gain fighting oriented abilities.
  2. Be a very good fighter
  3. Become a Charismatic "Savior" and have many follows that love this fighter
What do you think this PrC is trying to do?
Second, go ahead and make all the changes you stated above (requirements (with a link to the Exalted feats), class skills to 2 + Int (4 + Int for a already overpowered class is way to much), get rid of Persisting soul & Natural commander, change the DR to 1/-). After we know the aim of this PrC we can get a better ground to work off. Please continue to help with this and soon we can make this an okay PrC. --Green Dragon 23:37, 15 January 2007 (MST)

dlpc table change[edit]

I just thought I'd let you all know about it - I saw the problem that the Homebrew Prestige class with Description page is having, and realized that it appeared the names were off. So, going to what would be the first to see if it had a problem (as the information is there, as far as I can tell) - this one. Well, it did appear to have a problem (in that what should be in the table was being shown on the page. This is why I changed it back to the edit before that. As that was the only change, and didn't appear to help, I went ahead and tried it, but if there was a reason, feel free to change it back.

While this took care of the Adamantine Knight page, it doesn't seem to have helped the Homebrew Prestige class with Description page. So, I'll see what else I can come up with and let you all know. Passer 03:53, 20 January 2007 (MST)

This problem has been known for a while... The DLPC does not work with templates. Sorry. For more information see Talk:Arcanist (DnD Prestige Class)#Rating and please feel free to fix every PrC. --Green Dragon 21:39, 20 January 2007 (MST)

DLPC[edit]

What did you find out in your DPLC tests, Sledged? I am rather curious... --Green Dragon 23:13, 11 February 2007 (MST)

Just what we already know that my Dick is big::You did get the link to it, right? --Green Dragon 10:25, 12 February 2007 (MST)
Yup, I looked at it a bit over the weekend. —Sledged (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2007 (MST)
What do you think about it (limitations/weaknesses/strengths)? --Green Dragon 10:47, 12 February 2007 (MST)
Here's my analysis. —Sledged (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2007 (MST)

Rating - 6/10[edit]

I'll give this guy an 6. Amazing bonuses, but very tough requirements. Quite worth it for any melee character, and spellcasters should consider giving it a nod if they don't mind losing some of their spellcasing ability. However, the requirements are MUCH too stringent - nine feats is far too many to easily meet for a non-epic prestige class, and many of them require ranks in skills, which means your skills distribution is going to be disrupted as well. Perhaps any five initiate feats, and maybe a (low) requirement for Heal, Diplomacy, or a specific three or four feats?

This is really a Fighter archtype, much like the Archmage is to the Wizard or Sorcerer. Something about Persisting Soul seems to degrade that, though... I'm not completely sure what. But given that the main requirement is the feats (Human Fighter is the first thing that springs to mind when I want a lot of feats...), I'm not completely sure that there should be such a bonus to spellcasting (maybe only get the bonus at second level?).

I'm just throwing out ideas here, and to be honest I'm not completely sure they're balanced. Comments please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Armond (talkcontribs) 12:19, 6 March 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts!

Before I worry too much about the other (minor) balance issues with this class, we should talk about Persisting Soul. I've already put in my two cents here and here. As with the other classes, I think the ability has some merits, but either needs a total rewrite or a deletion. Go ahead a look at the other two pages for my reasoning. —EldritchNumen 01:27, 8 March 2007 (MST)
Rating downgraded to 6 after reconsideration (and learning how to rate >.>). Armond 19:57, 9 March 2007 (MST)

Rating - 4/10[edit]

Okay,

  1. Persisting Soul is not a reasonable, balanced ability. It should go.
  2. DR 2/- per level is extremely high!
  3. The entry requirements are far too steep.
  4. The abilities concerning followers are very, very broken. You get 4x as many follower all +4 higher in level? This, in effect, makes your followers 166% as powerful and gives you four times as many... these two abilities are very powerful. Extremely powerful.
  5. Mettle is an interesting ability, and I quite like it. It's probably not as good as could be, though (by this point the Knight will have a ridiculously high fortitude save, so it basically gives insurance that he won't take damage from a disintegrate spell...).

Overall, a 4/10. —EldritchNumen 01:35, 8 March 2007 (MST)

May I point out that first you say the class features are too powerful, and then comment on the uber-steep entry requirements? They generally cancel each other out. In my (relatively humble) opinion, the two cancel each other out. (I do believe the DMG says something to the same effect when giving guidelines on creating prestige classes, as well.) Armond 20:00, 8 March 2007 (MST)
Basically, the DMG says no such thing (the guidelines are on p. 197 of the 3.5 book). Overly powerful class features, in fact, should not be justified with "uber-steep" entry requirements. The two do not "cancel" each other out; on the contrary, they stack. Both are poorly designed aspects of a class, and two poor aspects simply combine to make the class even worse; they don't magically cancel each other out and make the class suddenly balanced. This is akin to making a rogue class that gets +5d4 sneak attack damage each level but only has a d2 for a hit dice; the weakness does not "cancel out" the benefit. Or, to offer a more exact example but one taken further to the extreme, imagine a prestige class that required a 25 in all the stats to join (non-magically enhanced) and then gives an ability that allows the character to automatically do 20d12 damage to any creature as a standard action (Fortitude save for half). Is the class now balanced because 20d12 damage isn't that much to do for a character with 25s in each ability? In the end, the answer is no. The class abilities are still too powerful and the requirements still make the class near unusable (and, thus, not balanced). If you are still unconvinced, take a look at an epic level prestige class like this: SRD:Legendary Dreadnought (Epic Class). The class still only requires a BAB, 4 feats, and 1 skill (with only half of the possible ranks for the minimum level of entry). This class, which is not an epic-only prestige class, requires a restricted alignment, 9 feats, two virtually maxed-out skills, and a special requirement. And, in its three levels, the class gains abilities faster than the epic level class. All that considered, along with the ambiguous usage of Persistent Soul, certainly does not make this class any more balanced. Too powerful class features in too short a span of levels is a problem no matter what the entry requirements, and cannot be excused in any way. —EldritchNumen 12:15, 9 March 2007 (MST)
But if you've taken all those feats, have the alignment and skills, shouldn't you be a bit rewarded for that? If you have those nine feats you've pretty much given up on every other feat before level 20 unless you're a human fighter, but then fighters won't get the skills. Don't you think the devotion to getting those stringent requirements deserves some reward?
If you really think this class is way overbalanced, you should propose that this class be epic-only in a new heading. (I'm not too sure I'll disagree.) Armond 22:09, 11 March 2007 (MDT)
Making the class Epic won't solve the problem which you have very nicely outlined, i.e. the inability to access the class unless you exclusively plan for it. We need to talk, I think, about the concept behind using requirements. The point is to make a prestige class specialized and... well... prestigious. But *not* unusable. Unlike any other class, not just anyone should be able to take a prestige class. One the other hand, the class also has to be able to be taken by some variety of people; the class is simply not useful if there is only one (or a very few several) way(s) of accessing it. Think about it; a normal character gets seven feats all the way from first to 20th level. Like you said, you need bonus feats to even achieve the (9!) feats for this class. If the class is going to be so ridiculously restrictive, you might as well make it a 20 level class: the first 17 levels can be the exact same as a fighter, except with the normal fighter bonus feats exchanged for the feats necessary for this class, and the last 3 can be this class. Or does thinking about it that way finally show how absurd this is?
I understand what you are trying to say about the relationship between steep requirements and powerful abilities, and I can see it is rooted in logic. But put that aside for a moment and try to think about this like most people who would ever want to make this class might. Would you prefer a powerful class with extremely difficult entry requirements, or would you go for something else specialized by still flexible enough to match your character? Prestige class should fit some niche in a campaign, but they most definitely should not only be taken by cookie-cutter similar characters. That sort of attitude in designing a class is stifling to the very creativity that drives this game. We need to make sure not to think about this problem incorrectly. It is not a matter of trying to bribe players to overcome the difficult entry requirements by offering super-cool abilities; instead, the best thing we can do is create classes that simultaneously strive to use requirements to carve a niche while still retaining some degree of flexibility and adaptability. That sort of consideration is exactly what we mean when we talk about a class being balanced. It is a balance between requirements and flexibility, drawbacks and abilities, low-end and high-end abilities, and rules and concept.
In the end, even the epic level class I pointed to above uses requirements in this way; it insures that all members of the class have some defining characteristics in common, but it does not define them. This class does. Even if we make it epic, it will still have the same problems; it forces characters to be too alike.
So, what can we do about it?
  1. Reduce the necessary feats to Leadership and any 3 Initiate feats (or, alternately, simply choose 3 of the initiate feats).
  2. Remove Persisting Soul.
  3. Rework natural commander/virtue of adamant. Perhaps one of the abilities should simply give a bonus to the character's leadership rating. The other might be used in a manner similar to the bard's ability to inspire courage/competence, but on a much larger scale. These suggestion seem more in accord with good leadership than those currently written.
  4. Other suggestions from the community, as always, will continue to improve this class.
EldritchNumen 13:58, 13 March 2007 (MDT)
I think I'm actually leaning towards making this an epic class. I took a (very quick) look at the Iron and Silver Knights, and I'm thinking that since they sort of increase in power as the metals do, perhaps there should be a Mithral Knight for ~level 12-15 Fighter archetypes and make Adamantine for ~22-25th level ones. And, if we're going to keep up this "knights" theme, perhaps a Celestial Knight for Paladins? (I feel unhelpful - you leave these huge responses and I give you maybe four sentences of useful information :P) Armond 16:53, 13 March 2007 (MDT)
:) Don't worry about my long posts-- I'm just type fast and am used to writing a lot. And I probably like to hear myself talk! :) In any case, I like the idea of making this class epic (it's a good start on balancing it), and tying that change into the class concept (e.g. knight class that increase in power through the grades of metal) adds needed depth and welcome customization to the class. I think epic is exactly the right direction to go with this class (though it will, as always, entail some overhaul of the class! ;) ). —EldritchNumen 21:13, 24 March 2007 (MDT)
Ok. So what would the requirements be if it were epic? I'm thinking a BAB of +21 or so, for starters, Leadership, Good alignment, 18 Diplomacy/Knowledge (religion), and three/four initiate feats. --Armond (talk/contribs) 12:29, 4 May 2007 (MDT)
Maybe not even all that. I don't think the BAB is necessary. Maybe just:
  1. Good Alignment
  2. Leadership
  3. 3 Initiate Feats
  4. 23 ranks in Diplo/K(Religion)
What do you think? –EldritchNumen 03:15, 7 May 2007 (MDT)
Yeah, those sound good. I'm still a little worried about the BAB - should a wizard really get DR 2/- when they reach level 21? It's entirely possible as it's spelled out right now. --Armond (talk/contribs) 12:08, 8 May 2007 (MDT)
No it's not. If we require 23 ranks in Diplo and K(Religion), a straight wizard would have to be almost twice that level, since Diplomacy is a cross-class skill for a wizard. Really, only paladins, bards, monks, and clerics can easily access this class, and if we add the stipulation of BAB 21+ then only paladins will be able to immediately access it. I'd say leave off the BAB. If a wizard wants to multiclass for a few levels in paladin in order to access this class, let him; it's silly, anyway, since the loss of spell power necessary to pick up the necessary levels of paladin or bard overly compensates for some meager damage reduction. –EldritchNumen 01:29, 12 May 2007 (MDT)
Oh! I didn't realize that. I'm too used to Wizards having all the skills I could ever want, and a few I don't. :P That does seem balanced, then. --Armond (talk/contribs) 15:12, 16 May 2007 (MDT)

Class Concept Insufficiently Clear[edit]

After reading through the various mechanical comments, I find myself substantially in agreement with them:

  • entry requirements are absurd to the point of needing complete rethinking
  • class features are suboptimal
  • Persistent Soul is vague and open to abuse
  • Natural Commander is not well thought out
  • 'Armor of Adamant' is constructed as a gadget (from where?)
  • The Bonus Feat at 2nd level is gratuitous
  • 4+ level boost to followers is peculiar

etc, etc. but as correct as this analysis is, the real fault seems to be the lack of any description about what the class is, why it exists, and who would want to be an Adamantine Knight anyway. The only flavor to this class is the entry requirement of 8 exalted feats, and those feats don't have a clear connection to the class abilities.

That's frustrating, because I think there was some coherent concept behind this, but I just can't see enough of it to understand the why of the class, and without the why, I don't think the class is fixable except into a generic martial leader. --Roszlishan 11:07, 1 December 2007 (MST)

Feel free to change it to match what you just talked about above :). --Green Dragon 20:38, 6 December 2007 (MST)
Roszlishan, you've nailed the problem right on the head, and that's why neither Armond or I ever took on this class. Mechanical problems can be fixed, but-- at the danger of sounding pompous by quoting myself-- this class is not "flexible enough to match [ones] character... Prestige class[es] should fit some niche in a campaign... they most definitely should not only be taken by cookie-cutter similar characters. That sort of attitude in designing a class is stifling to the very creativity that drives this game." We played around with the idea of actually scaling this class with respect to the iron knight and silver knight, but-- in the end-- this class is really just about cool abilities and no depth. I'd you'd like to take on the project, feel free. I'd suggest beginning with a complete overhaul. Forget about the abilities and think about what the class is supposed to do, what it's role is in the world. Then fix the abilities (the problems of which I mentioned above and you summarized nicely). –EldritchNumen 20:50, 6 December 2007 (MST)
I will give the matter consideration. Roszlishan 22:33, 6 December 2007 (MST)
After consideration:
  • Entry feats: Require the candidate to serve the Upper Planes as a devoted servant.
  • Skills: 5 ranks in some Charisma-based skills (two of which are x-class for a fighter, one for a paladin, the two classes for whom this class should be the most attractive).
  • Saves: Class is about inspiring the soldiers of earth to follow the forces of the Upper Planes, so it's more about Will than Fortitude; make Will the good save. This imakes the class better for martial characters (for whom Fortitude is usually the good save).
  • Increase class to 5 levels to space out the abilities (which are very good) and increase the opportunity cost somewhat.
  • Consider: some rethinking to give a benefit at each level. Some additional charisma bonuses? Extra skill points that are spendable only on Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive? Skill Focus on those (or one of those?)
Class should not be extended beyond 5 levels, or the damage resistance becomes WAY too powerful.
Roszlishan 00:01, 7 December 2007 (MST)
I have nullified the ratings so this can be given another look at after you have finished changing it. Good work so far! --Green Dragon 16:35, 9 December 2007 (MST)
I'd actually meant changes to be a top-level comment, as they weren't really a response to the comments per se but a continuation of the commentary. Besides, all the text is getting squished to the side of the screen. Roszlishan 09:23, 10 December 2007 (MST)
Some further tweaks: Add Skill Focus ability. I'm not pleased with it, since it overlaps the Adamantine Mind class ability (I tweaked it so there wasn't that much overlap) but without expanding the class skills — which I do not want to do because they are a significant part of defining the class as a warrior who has turned to words — there just aren't a lot of skills to enhance. So I may alter this or the Adamantine Mind ability itself. Open to suggestions! Roszlishan 09:23, 10 December 2007 (MST)
And nothing better has occurred to me yet. Still looking for a better idea. Roszlishan 01:34, 13 December 2007 (MST)
I don't understand why this class has a connection to adamentine: it seems to be a diplomatic knight. Which has no connection to adamintine that I can see... --Sam Kay 12:33, 14 December 2007 (MST)
:) "I'd like to introduce you all to Cicero, our newest Quicksilver Knight..." Frankly, you're right; the only real "adamantine ability" is the body ability; the adamantine soul ability actually would be more thematically called quicksilver soul, since it involves a slipperiness of the will that might first seem to fail, but actually does so only as a clever ploy to conceal hidden strength. I agree that "adamantine" is not a very good description of this class. –EldritchNumen 18:08, 14 December 2007 (MST)
I think we should make it more ‘adamenty’. How about making it a sort of lord of adamant, gaining some kind of bonus for using adamentine or something? --Sam Kay 04:27, 15 December 2007 (MST)
Actually, making an adamantine knight like that is probably a very good idea. I am simply suggesting that we rename this class (since it is not really adamant-y) and change the first ability (adamantine body) (because the idea of the diplomatic-talking knight is not really a bad one, just rather insoluble with adamantine), and then start making an adamantine knight from scratch, working from the concept upwards in the way that will make the best class possible. That way we will not lose the idea of a diplo knight that was begun here. What do you think? –EldritchNumen 04:40, 15 December 2007 (MST)
Yes, I agree. Although I am not sure what to replace adamantine body with. I'll start trying to think up a new name... --Sam Kay 04:46, 15 December 2007 (MST)
The theme I was trying for was ‘resolve’ and determination, which seemed to me, at the time, many years ago, perhaps under the influence of perfectly legal intoxicants taken in moderation, entirely compatible with ‘adamantine’. From thence came the concept of hardening body, mind, and soul, in some attempt at indulging the conceits of knightly training. The skill focus feats were a sort of gravy, meant to give the class something at each level that complemented the core abilities of the class - something nice but not supremely powerful. A +3 bonus to targeted skills seemed innocent enough.
The comments above, if I may be so bold as to paraphrase, are that this is a lovely (thank you!) diplomatic-focused class for a fighter-type that does not (alas) scream ‘adamantine’. I will ponder, and take another, less metaphorical, more mechanical, stab at Adamantine Knight, attempting to merge that sullen, unforgiving, and unyielding metal with the shiny feudal ideals of Knighthood for a second time. Roszlishan 09:54, 15 December 2007 (MST)
The new incarnation of this class is much better and resolves most of these issues. However, I still like the idea of the diplomat knight. Roszlishan, are you at all interested in using some of your old ideas to try to fashion a knight of this sort? I still think that the idea of a Knight of the Word (as opposed to Knight of the Sword) class is quite interesting, and is another avenue of Paladinic achievement that is underdeveloped... –EldritchNumen 13:17, 15 December 2007 (MST)
Not sure such a thing is playable; but worth thinking about. I do agree that prestige classes for Paladins are underdeveloped, and I've had a couple of thoughts in that direction, at one time or another, but none of my games really needed anything like that at that point, so I didn't follow through with creating them. Roszlishan 15:20, 15 December 2007 (MST)

I think I know how we could, at least in description, could combine them. Where they basically have to earn the Adamantine Quaff as a completion of initiation into the order of Adamantine knights; Showing the unbreaking will and devotion to being lawful, and this earning them the "hardening and purification of The Order of Adamantine." Just my idea, I won't touch the wiki page for this. Also, am I the only one that thinks the Ex-Adamantine knight thing is a bit harsh? I mean, a day of throwing up and excreting Adamantine?

Adamantine Knight Mark III[edit]

The new! improved! AK has good Fort and Will, reflecting the devotion to Perfect Law and the slow uptake of adamantine into the body. I decided to try something a little different and give a negative reflex progression (ameliorated somewhat by the class's defensive powers). I think the class is more than good enough to make up for the reflex penalty.

Cognizant of previous comments, I tried to focus on the physical rather than metaphorical nature of adamantine. Gone is the peaceful talker; gone is the humble servant trying to show the path of righteousness to his fellow travelers. The NEW (hopefully improved) AK carefully scrutinizes the path ahead, ready to take off so much as a toenail that crosses the line of Firm Correctness into Wavering Inconstancy.

I did not focus on possession of adamantine equipment, other than making it quite likely that anything an AK has that _isn't_ adamantine is going to be blown up, blasted, disintegrated, or otherwise destroyed by some effect to which the AK himself is immune.

Other considerations: I left the class at 5 levels because further extension of some abilities that depend on AK class level would become unbalanced if extended further. I left the high BAB entry to restrict the class to martial types at non-epic levels. The BAB entry could be reduced, I think, as long as the class is left at 5 levels OR the unbalancing powers are capped.

Please let me know if this Adamantine Knight better resonates with the expectations the word 'ADAMANTINE' bestows on a class.

Roszlishan 12:02, 15 December 2007 (MST)

Wow. Well done. There are still a number of minor issues (I'll type them up a bit later today or tomorrow), but this class suddenly went from "train wreak" to "close to right on." With a bit of balancing, we can make it perfect. Well done! (P.S. I love the reflex negation; I think it is definitely in line with the class!). –EldritchNumen 13:11, 15 December 2007 (MST)
Thank you; I look forward to your comments. I'd just add that the class has some potent abilities, but it’s stealing the last five levels of Paladin, Ranger, or Fighter, pretty much, and the opportunities that go with them. Will check back later, am unable to get MoI working (probably browser settings). Roszlishan 15:26, 15 December 2007 (MST)


Rating[edit]

Power - <<<2>>>/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because because the class features come far too quickly and are far too powerful. Make it a ten level class with lower requirements, change the adamantine defense from reflex to fortitude (does adamentine really give you better reflexes?) and make it a reroll, not an auto success. The Damage reduction is also too much (DR 10 over five levels?) --123098zxcmnb 18:29, 14 May 2008 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording is fairly clear and grammatically correct, but could still be improved upon. --123098zxcmnb 18:29, 14 May 2008 (MDT)

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it follows most standards, but some of the class feature descriptions could be changed to be more like the SRD. --123098zxcmnb 18:29, 14 May 2008 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it is a unique concept and an interesting idea, but still needs more explanation. --123098zxcmnb 18:29, 14 May 2008 (MDT)

Well, I kinda almost agree. Somewhere between here and my last update of the class, the reflex modifiers got changed from negative to positive, and all-good-saves is neither appropriate nor balanced for this class. I'll set them back, since I don't see any Discussion here of why they got turned from negative to positive.
Although it is true that these powers/abilities are hefty, please consider that they are replacing the last 5 levels of a fighter-BAB-progression class, and so the 'best' powers/feats of a fighter, paladin, or ranger (or blackguard) simply don't get awarded. That's why they are - and need to be - so good. There's a huge sacrifice to acquire them. That's also why they're bunched up into a capped 5-level class - the class isn't available until CL 16. Roszlishan 23:16, 6 June 2008 (MDT)

negative reflex save progression[edit]

The negative reflex save progression is intentional, part of the class design and balance. Although I'd be happy to reconsider this, I don't see why it keeps being reset to a positive progression. Roszlishan

Balance note[edit]

People above me are talking about how ridiculously awesome class features (whether they are or not) are balanced out by steep entry requirements. They are not. A prestige class is not like a credit card, where you take out a lot of power now to suck later. It's also not a savings account, where you put everything you have in it and suck now to be awesome later. You need to be balanced at every. single. level. of. play. Surgo 19:44, 25 December 2008 (MST)

Yes. This conversation was about previous versions of the class which were, in fact, vastly overpowered with the class itself practically impossible to qualify for. Would be delighted to hear what, if any, existing features you feel are overpowered, and why. Roszlishan 09:46, 26 December 2008 (MST)

Rating[edit]

Power - 3/5 Not overpowered nor underpowered but the class features are not correctly balanced. By example adamantine perfection is bested by a couple of class features. On similar classes I know the Abjurant Champion CM. The only thing good about adamantine perfection is the bonus against transmutation. The problem is that this bonus is far too strong while the others are crap. The class get powerful stuff too early and should be rebalanced.--Lord Dhazriel 13:05, 11 February 2009 (MST)

Wording - 4/5 The wording don't have obvious flaws but is not perfect.--Lord Dhazriel 13:05, 11 February 2009 (MST)

Formatting - 3/5 Some sections are missing.--Lord Dhazriel 13:05, 11 February 2009 (MST)

Flavor - 4/5 I like the flavor of the class, but nothing overly original.--Lord Dhazriel 13:05, 11 February 2009 (MST)

For Your Consideration[edit]

First off, I'm going to agree with everyone else and say that two points of DR per level for Adamantine Skin is quite high. Lowering it to 1 point would help with the balance while still offering a strong defense, since even heavy adamantine armor only offers a DR bonus of 3. In another direction entirely, you could offer him a natural armor bonus or ability score increases to show his increasing power.

Adamantine Body is an interesting idea, but I think if he chooses to reroll the die then he should be forced to take the second result even if it is worse than the first result. That might make people think twice before rerolling for every single class-related die.

Adamantine Perfection seems cool, but I would suggest making him an altered construct instead of an outsider, giving him many similar traits and immunities while also making more sense (in my mind) for a person made of metal. The Greenstar Adept prestige class (from Complete Arcane) could be used for ideas; it's for spellcasters but it's generally a similar premise. -ThunderGod Cid 09:42, 14 February 2009 (MST)

I don't think that DR 10/adamantine after 5 levels is too strong. At level 20, taking 10 less damage from attacks isn't superb.

As an aside, why isn't Adamantine Intracability labeled 'improved evasion', seeing as that's what it is? Apart from the exception about non-adamantine equipment, that is.--Scarge 05:01, 17 December 2011 (MST)

Consorting with Chaos[edit]

This really needs better definition. As written, it could be easily ruled that simply being in an adventuring party with Chaotic characters could result in your character being stripped of their powers (and having to vomit and excrete adamantine, which is really pretty awful). Not even a paladin's code of conduct is this strict; in its current form the the restriction is too easy to break unless you can guarantee that the rest of your party is Neutral or Lawful. Atypicaloracle 10:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think it really should either A: be only with NPCs, or just not have the consorting with chaos thing, since

  • Unless you work with your group to say no chaotic characters, you're screwed
  • You'd have to figure out a definition for "consorting with chaos"
  • If your character is going to throw up and excrete Adamantine metal; it really should be something you can avoid and keep your class.

On an unrelated note, how does the Adamantine thing work? [Signed; Cataru]

Erred.[edit]

I know it might be a bit frivolous to say so here, but I found the "You have erred. " to be highly amusing.

Just the blunt, matter of fact ness.

Multiclassing question[edit]

Is there a limit to multiclassing for this? I noticed you Made a Multiclassing note. Can Some classes not multiclass AK? Or can AK not multiclass any specific classes? (Not counting classes with a requirement of being nonlawful, as Duh.)

Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors