Talk:Pirate (3.5e Class)

Ratings

	Nolanf is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	Much of this class is just silly (a chaotic class saddled with a code of ethics?). The rogue stuff is always good, the Pirate Specialty is very good, and the Pirate Trick is interesting enough to be called good, in my opinion... although even that skews silly in some cases. As argued in the discussion, this class might be fun if no one takes it too seriously.

Ex-Pirate

"but may regain their lost abilities through an atonement cast by a cleric with at least 5 levels in pirate, though atonement does not restore the ability to advance in pirate levels. "

So you have to find a 15th level character (10 levels cleric, 5 levels pirate) to atone, and even then, you have to multiclass? Allow pirates to continue even if they break the code and they atone, or else enchantment spells will be vile on them.

Furthermore, I'd remove the 5 levels of pirate condition for clerics to atone. 10 level cleric/5 level pirate makes not a good character, and it is unlikely to exist for PCs and extremely rare for NPCs unless you find a DM that still believes that because a class says you are 'this' by name, you are 'this'. --Havvy 08:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd personally remove restrictions on multi-classing and behavior in total. They don't really add much to a game, and the way I would only be able to see them being justified would be a super-powered paladin. I don't think it fits mechanically or thematically for a pirate; after all "the Code is more like guidelines than actual rules", no? - TG Cid 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WAY after the fact, but I fixed the multiclassing and the atonement to the point I'd call good. However, I am not getting rid of the code or alignment restrictions. The abilities lost by the code are the social abilities and a mystical power, leaving a perfectly good flank fighting ass kicker with the ability to thread a needle by sailing, flying or riding something. So really, they have lost the backing of their organization when they break the code.

Hey, wait a minute! I DID make a freaky chaotic evil super paladin thingy! CRAP! --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 03:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What part of a pirate is ever mystical unless he's cursed by stolen treasure or some similar cliche shit? The idea that he has supernatural powers from swearing a code to rape and pillage every port he comes across or just generally be an asshole is just stupid beyond the point of being plausible as a premise for a class (limited alignment=bad for mechanics and bad for roleplaying, but codes are even more limiting than that). I don't think a single feasible reason can be given for any of this class' abilities to be particularly supernatural (not even Sea Turtles, which is also so situational I can scarcely think of any actual use for it). Besides, even as written, the only thing the Pirate loses from becoming an Ex-Pirate is the contacts (only usable a couple times a week, it's loss will not be felt) and Sea Turtles (which as I've already said is not a big deal). So you're really not losing anything important as you implied above.

Purely thematically speaking, Paladins actually have a reason to have a code; they are the envoys of the fucking GODS, who have deific moral standards. Pirates are not so blessed and therefore there's no reason to really have any code. As of now, a dressed-up rogue plays a pirate just as well as this does and can be an absolute dick about if he wanted to. Which means this class has a distinctly not preferable feature. - TG Cid 04:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The code is there to keep a chaotic evil society from absolutely destroying itself. I know what the pirate loses is not a big deal, and I intended it that way. The difference between a code keeping pirate and a non-code keeping pirate is that other pirates are willing to trust a code keeper. Thats it. You lose the trust of the society that has taught you your skills and it turns it's back on you if you are lucky enough for them to not kill you outright. I agree the code is not binding game mechanics wise, but I intended it that way. I even gave examples of how the truly evil pirates twist the code to absolutely fuck over their own.

As you pointed out above the code is just guidelines, and so is the paladins code in a well run game. But just because they exist does not make it a roleplaying straitjacket. I hate how people do that to paladins, and I never intended some fuck head of a GM to do this to the pirate.

Finally, alignment is the most retarded roleplaying crutch I have ever run across. If there weren't so many spells and mechanics tied to it I would rip it out as the puffy, swollen, role-play killing wound on the face of D&D it is. I gave the pirate a restriction to chaotic alignments because if you are resigned to that retardedness, then no matter how you look at a pirate it is chaotic. Even the two most lawful pirates in fiction, Captain Hook and Captain Barbosa, were chaotic evil pieces of shit that pretended to follow the rules because it helped when it help. But notice how they ditch those same rules when they get in the way. Pirates are chaotic, though if you you looking for retardedness to kill, I will gladly give gasoline and a lighter to anyone willing to kill the fuck head on the coast who built mechanics on alignments.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 05:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Martial Maneuvers?

Your properties says you use them, but the class obviously doesn't. An error? -- Eiji-kun 03:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Which section are you refering to? Quoting it would be helpful.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The properties block I modified just now. --Havvy 04:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct Havvy, you win explosions! (BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM!!!!!)

Would have done it myself but I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking some aspect of the class that related. -- Eiji-kun 05:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what the hell were you guys refering to?!? The pirate was never intended to use martial manuevers and (to my knowledge) never had any reference to martial manuevers. So what was fixed?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a line early in the page, "|Class Ability=Maneuvers", that got removed (you can see it in the history if you like). You were telling the wiki that this class used martial maneuvers by setting the class ability property to that value, hence the confusion. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay... sorry, I was using that to refer to the pirate tricks and stunt attack abilities. My mistake.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 23:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)