PDA

View Full Version : D&D v3.75 [Classes]



Vorpal word
2009-05-09, 04:45 PM
After some time to revise things, I came to a few conclusions about my v3.75 homebrew plan. The first of which is the fact that it should be posted in several different threads for different topics. There are now five threads, for races, classes, mechanics, skills, and feats. Please post comments on appropriate threads only.

This thread is on classes. After some thought on the matter, I decided to change my previous list of classes to include the following:



Casters
-Wizard (d4 HD; Prepares arcane spells)
-Sorcerer (d4 HD; Spontaneous arcane caster)
-Cleric (d4 HD; Prepares divine spells)
-Favored Soul (d4 HD; Spontaneous divine caster)
-Druid (d4 HD; Spontaneous nature caster [I've made nature casters spontaneous only with wild shape and such being separate from spells; It makes more sense for nature casters to be as random as nature itself])
-Psion (d4 HD; Prepares psionic powers [For similar reasons, since learning the powers of the mind requires diligence and practise, psionic casters are preparers only])

Hybrid Casters
-Psychic Warrior (d8 HD; Combined Fighter/Psychic Warrior)
-Ranger (d8 HD; Combined Fighter/Druid)
-Warpriest (d8 HD; Combined Fighter/Cleric)
-Warmage (d8 HD; Combined Fighter/Sorcerer)

Fighting Classes
-Fighter (d12 HD; Tank)
-Barbarian (d12 HD; Attack Specialist)

Miscellaneous
-Rogue (d6 HD; Thief, Assassin, Skillmonkey, etc)
-Bard (d6 HD; Party Leader who boosts allies' stats)
-Monk (d10 HD; Anti-Caster)
-Archer (d10 HD; Nonspellcasting ranged attacker [Ranger is now a hybrid])
-Warlord (d8 HD; Party Leader who focuses on movement)
-Warlock (d8 HD; Striker class with at-will arcana-like attacks)

Ouranos
2009-05-09, 10:11 PM
No paladin? the warpriest (who i assume to be the pally version) only a d10 but an ARCHER d10? A little off-balance if ya ask me.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-05-09, 11:02 PM
Ugh, if you MUST have classes... I heavily suggest that they get set numbers of skill points, but that all skills are available to every class. The concept of class skills irks me to no end.

Lappy9000
2009-05-09, 11:07 PM
Ugh, if you MUST have classes... I heavily suggest that they get set numbers of skill points, but that all skills are available to every class. The concept of class skills irks me to no end.Some of us love classes and class skills, you know :smallwink:

I propose a compromise, namely, skill sets. They're more customizable, but they still keep everyone from being able to do everything. Hadrian is happy; Lappy is happy. It's a win-win!

Fax Celestis is making excellent use of these in d20r [link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107629)]

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-05-09, 11:33 PM
My issue with classes and class skills is that they are both limiting factors on creativity. A large part of why multiclassing/level dipping takes place is because the system is just not adaptive enough. This is why I tend to favor point buy systems. Sure, it'd be nice to have pre-made "class" builds to use as build foundations or default builds for new players, but the class concept is far more trouble than it's worth. I appreciate the spirit of wanting to find a middle ground, and thank you for the consideration, but I think I just named what would make us both happy: default builds for you, with tools to modify, or make from scratch, one's abilities if one so chooses.

Lappy9000
2009-05-10, 12:08 AM
Err...not really. But it's Imp_Fireball's call anyways. :smallcool:

Orzel
2009-05-10, 02:32 AM
Personaly I'd remove the Archer and give the primary weapon users a ranged option much like the 4.0 Rogue.

arpin
2009-05-10, 05:52 AM
I liked barbarians because they got more hitpoints than anyone else. I liked monks, and I don't think that they should be "anti-casters." Druids can't do anything out of the middle of combat. They need more hp.

imp_fireball
2009-05-10, 06:21 AM
Err...not really. But it's Imp_Fireball's call anyways. :smallcool:

When the heck did it become my call? :P

Vorpal word
2009-05-10, 07:35 AM
Sorry, my mistake. I completely forgot about paladins yesterday :P

So as an alternative, how about dropping the archer for paladin (as a party leader/fighter, same HD), removing warlords entirely, and giving druids and psions d6 HD since they're not as flexible as casters? Not sure about warlock, they'll either stay d8 or become d6 again. As for barbarian vs fighter, I was kinda looking at barbarians favoring attack over defense with super strength, as opposed to fighters having the best armor and shields.

Vadin
2009-05-10, 10:20 AM
So as an alternative, how about dropping the archer for paladin (as a party leader/fighter, same HD)

Why drop archer? Can't they both exist? They have different functions and different ways of influencing the battle. Unless you mean you're dropping archer in favor of giving most martial classes the option to become one. That would be acceptable.


removing warlords entirely

Again, why drop something if there's no need? Warlord doesn't have to be like the paladin (if that's why you would remove them), it could be a martial bard.


and giving druids and psions d6 HD since they're not as flexible as casters?

No. No, no no. First off, "not being able to do anything outside the middle of combat" is NOT a reason to give them more hp. That's exactly like saying "well, he can't do anything but make really good skill checks, so let's give him a bonus to skills".
Second, trading flexibility for power was 3.5's downfall. Someone there thought that the fighter would be stronger because it was more flexible, and divine casters would be weaker because their spells had them get close to things, and that put them in danger. 3.5's solution? Make sure the fighter has less power overall, give all divine casters a better attack than arcane and give them armor or powerful melee abilities too.
The rationale there was that if the fighter is flexible, he shouldn't be as strong, and if the cleric is more powerful, he shouldn't be as flexible.

At the end of the day, though, only power ends up mattering in combat. The goblin enemy doesn't care if your robe is red or blue, he only cares that you deal 3d6 damage per round and are about to leave his kids fatherless.

In short, trading flexibility for power and vice-versa is a bad idea. 1d6 cold/fire damage is not the same as 2d6 piercing damage if the enemy doesn't care what kind of damage you're using. Balance the classes' power, then look at flexibility.

Lappy9000
2009-05-10, 10:35 AM
When the heck did it become my call? :PSince you started the project?

KaganMonk
2009-05-10, 02:14 PM
While it could be fun to watch Lappy try to pin this on I_F for a little bit longer, I feel compelled (since I'm watching for ideas) to point out that Vorpal Word (whose project this is) has the same avatar as Imp_Fireball, thus the confusion.

Maerok
2009-05-10, 02:25 PM
Hmm. Archer seems a bit too much. Ranger and Fighter can do anything that could do.

I would think that the Fighter would be the Attack Specialist and the Barbarian would be the Tank. Fighters should be the ones receiving military training and tactical advice in order to work, at the most extreme, as commandos. Barbarians would be the ones to toss on armor, grab something heavy, and start swinging away. It could also represent any sort of informal militia-type. From there, I would expect to see Warlords leading Fighters and Warpriests leading Barbarians.

Going back to the Ranger, rangers seem to be the survivalists of the world.

Each class should be properly justified and have its own unique, purposeful niche. Warlocks need something to differentiate them between Rogue/Sorcerer multiclasses, as do all others. Why not just multiclass X and Y? It'll only make more work for you and add drag to the entire system. Psionic Warrior definitely sticks out in this regard (and once again, the Archer).

I also believe that DnD 3.5 and followers have to address the issue of the Big Point of the game. Starting off by defining how each class goes about fighting and killing each other just makes it all seem like it's taking a step back into Wargaming.

Lappy9000
2009-05-14, 04:07 PM
While it could be fun to watch Lappy try to pin this on I_F for a little bit longer, I feel compelled (since I'm watching for ideas) to point out that Vorpal Word (whose project this is) has the same avatar as Imp_Fireball, thus the confusion.Aww, you should have let me keep going for a few more posts. That would have been hilarious :smallbiggrin:

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-15, 05:21 PM
The concept of class skills irks me to no end.
Is it because e.g. Fighters theoretically have to pay more skill ranks for Bluff because Bluffing isn't something that Fighters do and train in, yet if a given Fighter is putting ranks in the skill it clearly is something he does and trains in, so the whole concept is clearly stupid and why did they come up with that BLARGH?

:smalltongue::smallwink:

I say, if you want to enforce archetypes, give characters a reason to pick their stereotypical thingies, don't make them spend extra feats and skill points for them. A Rogue should use a rapier and light armor because they work with Weapon Finesse and Evasion, not because he's non-proficient with greatswords and full plate.

Vorpal word
2009-05-15, 05:39 PM
After much thought, I've decided to do the following:

a) Reduce the number of classes to the core 3.5 classes plus the psion, warlock, favored soul, and some tactical class (Warlord? Crusader?)

b) Make Cleric, Favored Soul, and Druid HD d6's and make them proficient with less armour.

c) Make Rangers non-casters, but give them more abilities, kind of like 4e.

d) Remove spell failure but make wizards, sorcerers, and psions have no armour proficiency, and give clerics and druids proficiency with leather/studded leather and hide armour only.

e) Make druids separate from divine casters; they should be in a league of their own, and I'm tempted to remove their casting abilities entirely and make them fully rely on spell-like effects (ie. Wild Shape)

lesser_minion
2009-05-15, 06:08 PM
Those are mostly reasonable ideas.

I'd be tempted to change the bard to 'Adventurer' and make bard into a potential build for the Adventurer class - a baseline class for a "jack-of-all-trades skillmonkey" is always nice.

I think Satyr wrote one, actually.

StormingMarcus
2009-05-19, 01:57 PM
-Wizard (d4 HD; Prepares arcane spells)
-Sorcerer (d4 HD; Spontaneous arcane caster)
-Cleric (d4 HD; Prepares divine spells)
-Favored Soul (d4 HD; Spontaneous divine caster)
-Druid (d4 HD; Spontaneous nature caster)
-Psion (d4 HD; Prepares psionic powers) Give everyone d6 hitdie. I think d4 was a joke, a very bad joke (unless your 1st level characters gain more than a single full HD). I don't like vancian system, but i think that's not in topic (btw, use a spellpoints variant, please!).


Hybrid Casters
-Psychic Warrior (d8 HD; Combined Fighter/Psychic Warrior)
-Ranger (d8 HD; Combined Fighter/Druid)
-Warpriest (d8 HD; Combined Fighter/Cleric)
-Warmage (d8 HD; Combined Fighter/Sorcerer) If they are just "combined classes", find some way to multiclass at lvl1 and you're done, and got rid of all these.


Fighting Classes
-Fighter (d12 HD; Tank)
-Barbarian (d12 HD; Attack Specialist) I'd merge them into a single class, or at least call the barbarian Rager or something more appropriate.


Miscellaneous
-Rogue (d6 HD; Thief, Assassin, Skillmonkey, etc)
-Bard (d6 HD; Party Leader who boosts allies' stats)
-Monk (d10 HD; Anti-Caster)
-Archer (d10 HD; Nonspellcasting ranged attacker [Ranger is now a hybrid])
-Warlord (d8 HD; Party Leader who focuses on movement)
-Warlock (d8 HD; Striker class with at-will arcana-like attacks) Why monk necessarily anti-magic? Also archer sounds like a rogue or fighter build.

Dienekes
2009-05-19, 06:20 PM
I think monk's work well as anti-magic folk. Partially since there isn't any on the list. And partially because monk's as they are can't do anything well. I understand this is homebrewing and you can try and fix up the class to make it legitimately useful as something else, but anti-magic seems to keep with the mysticism of the monk ideal.

And can you give a reason why to get rid of d4's other than to make casters even more powerful than they already are?

StormingMarcus
2009-05-20, 04:58 AM
As you said, it's homebrew, so you can find plenty of solutions to make casters less powerful, other than the HD.

At first levels, d4 is a really pain in the groin... You're not an adventurer, you're like a farmer (commoner).

Pathfinder has bumped up the HD of every class as far as i know, so could you.

Dienekes
2009-05-20, 10:00 AM
That has always annoyed me. I know a few farmers, they're generally the toughest people I know, other than soldiers.

But to be fair, I think the d4 works well in showing that an individual has shunned physical activity.

And I like (and partially use) Pathfinder, but it did not fix the balance and magic is still far too powerful. Now you can find other ways to completely retool the magic system, but that does not mean that the d4 isn't legitimate as a means to limit classes.

StormingMarcus
2009-05-20, 10:10 AM
Breaking News: Enraged housecat kills 1st level wizard! I think that's enough to drop that hd.

btw, casters have not shunned physical activities. They get xp by adventuring, and physical activities are greatly involved in adventuring...

lesser_minion
2009-05-20, 10:23 AM
I'm with the drop d4s crowd - I still hate the idea of characters who literally die to a stiff breeze.

I also find the idea of tailoring classes to fulfil particular roles to be a little inelegant (OK, so who's doing heals and buffs? DPR? Tank?)

A better way to encourage teamwork might be to base character classes mostly on the archetype you are trying to define.

The thing is, you need synergies between characters - either the rule system itself, or the characters within it, still have to establish synergies between characters. I think this is better done by creating abilities that establish those synergies - allow targets of spells to alter them, reshape them and change them to better fit the situation, for example. Reduce the bearing of "rogues deal lots of damage very quickly while avoiding punishment" on the game (because it is NOT what defines a rogue, or a ranger, or a warlock, or a monk, or...), and replace it with abilities that function no matter who is in the party.

Who would you rather target with Foresight? Yourself, or the guy who can take that spell and turn it into a massive boost to everyone in the party.

Ouranos
2009-05-20, 10:29 AM
Common farmers in the medieval era were under-fed, busted their asses, and were generally at high risk for the plagues. Thus they weren't very hard to inflict grievus injury upon. casters, since they don't train their bodies through intense physical activity (I.E. COMBAT IN MELEE) they aren't much better off then common farmer Joe. The caster, provided we aren't using point buy, will likley have a higher con then our farmer, so he will be tougher, and the farmer's HD tends to be fixed, our wizard/sorcerer/etc. will gain HD.

All that said though, their ease of death if something gets in their face is why I HATE casters. "The evil ranger shoots you with his bow. You die" 0.0 That easy early on. No fighter or paladin will die to a single bow strike at level 1 unless it crits. But most casters very easily can. I'd suggest giving everyone either 2 HD at level 1, or giving everyone a base health bonus, a flat rate for everyone, then they get their HD+con. 10 points would suffice, that can be the "I'm an adventurer and thus am tougher then most of my proffession" bonus. Not a big bonus, but enough to prevemt one-shotting in most situations.

cherez
2009-05-20, 01:36 PM
-Psion (d4 HD; Prepares psionic powers [For similar reasons, since learning the powers of the mind requires diligence and practise, psionic casters are preparers only])

I'm afraid I don't see the connection between needing practice and needing preparation. I don't see why Psionics would have to be like cramming for a test. Flavor-wise it just doesn't feel right to me.

Mechanics-wise would this mean every power they'll use for the next day and all augmentations will be pre-selected? Would the Energy * powers have their energy type pre-selected? This seems like a lot of bookkeeping for the player, and would cripple swiss-army psions and heavily nerf blasting psions.

Roderick_BR
2009-05-20, 01:41 PM
I think monk's work well as anti-magic folk. Partially since there isn't any on the list. And partially because monk's as they are can't do anything well. I understand this is homebrewing and you can try and fix up the class to make it legitimately useful as something else, but anti-magic seems to keep with the mysticism of the monk ideal.
I'd go further and put the monk as an anti-anything, pretty much a debuffer, like Fax did here http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Monk . Yours don't need to be a strike/maneuvers user, but he could gain abilities to move through the battlefield and weaken foes with precision attacks, leaving pure damage to the warrior/rogue types.

Dienekes
2009-05-20, 08:21 PM
to Ouranos, I never really bought the sick and weak peasants in a highly magical dnd based realm where food is a 3rd level spell. But then, that can be fixed.

to Roderick, yeah that sounds interesting to me. I actually tried to make a monk fix based off of that concept as well called a pankratiast. Wasn't as good as Fax's however

Ouranos
2009-05-20, 08:24 PM
Depends on the campaign setting however. Not all campaigns are magic-user heavy. And what kind of mage would seriously sit there and just create food as many times a day as he can every single day? Not saying it HAS to be that way, but it's the reason why they assume average human doesn't have alot of health. And don't forget the second part of my statement, farmer's HD is fixed at 1, MAYBE 2, our mage friend is likely to achieve at least 4-5 HD before dieing, if he's good, 20 or more HD are possible.

Dienekes
2009-05-20, 09:14 PM
Actually to me it seems reasonable *since they're clerics* that several mother teresa figures would emerge to feed the poor. Or someone would get greedy and create surplus to sell.

But that is simply pointing out flaws in the system itself, which as you said depends largely on the setting.