Talk:Clockwork Knight (3.5e Class)

I can't get no...

Satisfaction. This is an attempt to make a different take on the Autoplate Pilot concept. However, I feel dissatisfied and I'm not entirely sure why. Opinions? -- Eiji-kun 08:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't finished reading the whole class, but this stood out and is worth mentioning. The anima mechanics look extremely boring. You can't use more anima points in a round than your level, and you automatically recover points equal to your class level each round. So for single classed characters you never actually get to use your pool since you just recover up to what you could have spent at the end of the round. Multi-classed characters might dip into it slightly if you mean character level instead of class level in the spending section (boo unclear), or they might not. Even if they do though, it's a very small difference that isn't likely to matter unless you have lots more non-clockwork knight levels.

So the resource management here doesn't actually work. And I find that pretty unsatisfying. You might get more out of it by letting them spend up to class level per rune per round, or just twice class level per round (with upgrades in limit as class features later). I don't know if changing the limits would require adjustments of the rune abilities. You could also cut the recharge rate or make recharging take an action. - Tarkisflux 19:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Recharging taking an action sounds pretty good, but what amount of points recharged should I do? -- Eiji-kun 21:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe your int mod, max up to your class levels? --Leziad 21:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think full recharge with 5 full-round actions, or half level as swift (max int mod) is pretty reasonable, but I'm not honestly sure it's going to matter most during combat. You start off being able to use max anima for 3 rounds before you're out, and that grows as you level. By level 20 you can use it for 12 rounds before you're out. As you're aiming for wizard level with the class, those numbers should be enough to finish / decide a fight without recharging at all. You could make it an out-of-combat, hourly, or even daily recharge and it wouldn't affect combat much, since recharge in combat already looks somewhat unnecessary and unlikely. Recharging or holding back is only really useful for workday management or in weird attrition / really long fight cases. - Tarkisflux 22:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I could do 1 point a round, which is generally too slow to recover in combat but strong over the course of out-of-combat, or do it as an by/encounter basis. I did expect some will have points locked away in permenant things, so 12 max rounds isn't entirely accurate, but I get your point. The alternative: I lower the amount of points available. I am aiming for low wizard, well really rogue but I figured by the nature of the class it would end up being wizard anyway. -- Eiji-kun 23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Did not know you could permanently lock it. I should probably read the rest of the class at this point so any further suggestions are actually useful :-p - Tarkisflux 00:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case I just made some edits, adding a lot more runes (finally remembered what I was gonna use) and changing the recharge to an action. On balance concerns I always worried that the Spell Rune was obviously the most useful, though tempers that you can only reach 6th level spells before epic so it's not quite so uber. It does simply a lot of the process though so I only need one example of a blasty beam, and magic has enough variations for the rest.

Yeah, you can lock away points. I think what bugged me is the wording, but I did want to conceal that this is basically the same concept as I did with the gate knight. Some of these 'maneuvers' are quasi-stances which take anima to activate but last forever until you release the energy again. -- Eiji-kun 01:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey there IP 98.21.99.253

Tis rude to change mechanics on a page without first consulting the Talk page. I saw you changed the +2 armor to +4. I haven't changed it back yet, since it's a pretty minor change and may still work, but you should make note of it here before you change things. Just a friendly FYI, and an alert that I may revert it later. Feel free to justify your decision in the meantime. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Mr. Eiji-kun. I merely intended to keep a bit of uniformity within the article. I believe it to be good, and i like some of your work. Mainly only based off the Autoplate Pilot and this article, but then again i am a mechanical guy, i like machines and magic, and pairing the two is awesome to me. Just as a note.Kylem2013 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Eiji, Kylem2013 didn't actually change anything, they just modified some reminder text to be consistent with the statement where the +4 armor bonus is originally granted. --Foxwarrior (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Was it that way? Well then I feel bad, I thought the class had it listed at +2 and he was buffing it to +4. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, i noticed something new. The X-blaster rune has no damage type listed - Kylem2013 (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Intentional. Like an eldritch blast, it is typeless. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldnt you mention it is typeless then? - Kylem2013 (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah. The nature of unmentioned damage is typeless damage, that seems to be the modus operandi for how its written. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)