PDA

View Full Version : The most 'well-made' class (3.5)



Eloel
2010-01-18, 10:56 AM
We often see people screaming about how overpowered wizards are, or how useless soulknives are, or even how broken truenamers are. I want to ask the fellow playgrounders the following question.

What class do you think is the most well-made class? One that does what it does good enough, without overpowering or being underpowered, with a fun mechanic.

To me, that is the Rogue. Sneak Attack for the sneaky aspect, Trapfinding for the trap-killer aspect, UMD for casting in a pinch, and generally awesome due to skills. Granted, it does lag behind the casters, but it can emulate even the mightiest spells in time, even though it hits its resources. But with the skills (Hide/Move Silently/Open Lock - Diplomacy/Bluff), he can earn that cash right back.

Ernir
2010-01-18, 11:01 AM
Warblade. And the other two ToB classes too, really. Psychic warrior.

Optimystik
2010-01-18, 11:02 AM
Generally the classes in Tier 3 are well-made. Powerful without being broken, useful at multiple tasks, and they work well together as a team.

Note that all three ToB classes are on this tier, as is Factotum.

Rogue has its high points, but I wouldn't call it well-made. Rogues are rendered irrelevant in many common situations (vs. oozes, undead, constructs; vs. large groups of enemies; conditions where stealth is difficult, etc.) They rely on the DM to be effective, both by hoping he sends them matchups that play to their strengths, and by hoping he provides useful items for them to UMD. Any class that relies on the DM to that degree can't be realistically called "well-made." A well-made class should be able to stand on its own.

Eloel
2010-01-18, 11:10 AM
There are ways (and ACFs) for the Rogue to sneak attack pretty much anything. There are also PrCs helping Rogue focus on stuff - in case your DM is being evil and sending undead through all the campaign, or making you fight in open plains all the time.

Eldariel
2010-01-18, 11:12 AM
Rogue is the best of the Core Classes, but it has two issues:
- A number of dead levels
- One of them is level 20

If you use Penetrating Strike, the immunities are less of a problem, but that doesn't address the design problem the class suffers of. Especially the level 20 is a painful issue.


Purely class design-wise, I adore Knight. There's a nice flow to the abilities and nice rewards for staying in the class along with an awesome capstone. Of course, it suffers of the issue of being...well, quite weak and forced into a niché. But I think it really nails the kind of progression you should have in abilities (though stuff that progresses by class levels really should have Practiced Spellcaster-like feats to make multiclassing doable; I prefer basing DCs and such off Character Level).

Other than that, yeah, Tier 3 classes tend to be well-made balance-wise. I don't like the large holes in many of their progressions, but those are generally made up by progressing power system, be it maneuvers, bindings or spells (in the case of Factotum). I don't think their class design is perfect, but I think it's quite good, and being balanced helps a great deal.

Optimystik
2010-01-18, 11:25 AM
There are ways (and ACFs) for the Rogue to sneak attack pretty much anything. There are also PrCs helping Rogue focus on stuff - in case your DM is being evil and sending undead through all the campaign, or making you fight in open plains all the time.

PrCs, items, spells etc. are all well and good, but I wasn't aware they were the focus of this discussion (i.e. which classes are well-made "out of the box," so to speak.)

I mean, the right PrCs can elevate a Monk to a rather high tier. That doesn't mean monk is well-made.

BenTheJester
2010-01-18, 11:30 AM
Duskblade, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, well, pretty much every tier 3 class

Eloel
2010-01-18, 11:30 AM
PrCs, items, spells etc. are all well and good, but I wasn't aware they were the focus of this discussion (i.e. which classes are well-made "out of the box," so to speak.)

I mean, the right PrCs can elevate a Monk to a rather high tier. That doesn't mean monk is well-made.

You have a point there. :smallredface:

Kurald Galain
2010-01-18, 11:34 AM
I like the PHB2 classes, in general.

Grifthin
2010-01-18, 11:37 AM
Fighter. Yes Seriously.

The Feats - you can uber specialize, Generalize take crap tons of cool roleplaying feats. You can wear any armor - I just love fighters.
Coolest fighter I ever envisioned was one that dual wields crossbows with the feats that allow you to use your fort save for will and reflex.

Think robot ninja pirate implacabale butler of doom!

Fail
2010-01-18, 11:38 AM
Beguiler, dread necromancer, rogue, spirit shaman. Yes, they do have some big slip-ups, but they're still less failtastic than everyone else's. Namely, they're all relevant in and out of combat from level 1 to 20, all are quite hard to screw up, and pretty much everything they do have of wrong isn't intrinsically theirs (was unfortunately inherited from somewhere else, mostly broken spells) - no other WotC class can claim all 3. BTW, anyone who'd be interested in 3rd parties should look up Dreamscarred Press (psionics) and Radiance House (pact magic) - while they do have a non-0 failure rate, it is way lower than WotC's (or ... any other 3rd party).

Lycanthromancer
2010-01-18, 11:39 AM
Fighter. Yes Seriously.

The Feats - you can uber specialize, Generalize take crap tons of cool roleplaying feats. You can wear any armor - I just love fighters.
Coolest fighter I ever envisioned was one that dual wields crossbows with the feats that allow you to use your fort save for will and reflex.

Think robot ninja pirate implacabale butler of doom!Uh...no. Fighters get half their levels as dead levels, they have to be one-trick ponies to even be relevant, need all the feats they can get because they don't have any class features, have no way to deal with magic at all, can't work out of the box because they don't have enough decent feats in core, don't scale well at all, and have nothing to do outside of "I hit it with a stick."

Fighters are horrible.

Psychic warriors are considerably better, despite only having a 3/4 BAB and not as many feats.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 11:40 AM
Fighter. Yes Seriously.

The Feats - you can uber specialize, Generalize take crap tons of cool roleplaying feats. You can wear any armor - I just love fighters.
Coolest fighter I ever envisioned was one that dual wields crossbows with the feats that allow you to use your fort save for will and reflex.

Think robot ninja pirate implacabale butler of doom!

If only. If only.

FMArthur
2010-01-18, 11:44 AM
I'm gonna go with Psion. Maybe a little on the powerful side, but there is so much flexibility in character creation and flexibility in powers at the time of manifestation that I think it's really wonderful that it actually comes together and works no matter where you go with the character.

AshDesert
2010-01-18, 11:50 AM
Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, Factotums, and the rest of the tier 3s, those are just my favorites :smallbiggrin:.

aje8
2010-01-18, 11:54 AM
+1 on the tier 3 thing. Espically ToB and Factotum IMO..... all those classes aren't too hard to play and give you alot of options in combat.

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 12:05 PM
I'm quite partial to the Fighter myself, mostly for the bonus feats. Psychic Warrior comes in at a close second, but the lowered Base Attack Bonus is a turn-off; plus they don't have my favorite psionic powers.

I've always found them flexible enough to do a good many things, combated related or otherwise.

SilveryCord
2010-01-18, 12:23 PM
The best class designs are the ones that give player lots of options, both in play and during character construction, while still not being at the top of the power curve.

I think the best designs in 3.5 are the Warlock, the ToB classes, the Psychic Warrior, the Totemist, and the Factotum, not in any particular order.

Honorable mention goes to Spellthief, Wilder, Binder, and Incarnate.

Aldizog
2010-01-18, 12:39 PM
I like fighter, because it's so customizable. Not sure it's my favorite, but I absolutely do not care about this so-called problem of "dead levels."

Scout and Bard are also up there as favorites.

jiriku
2010-01-18, 12:41 PM
If I had to pick just a single one, I'd go with swordsage. It has enough options to surprise the DM from time to time, but not "oh god there went my campaign" kind of surprises. As a DM-optimizer, I often give my monsters levels in swordsage because it has the tools to improve just about anything I want a monster to be able to do.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-18, 12:41 PM
I absolutely do not care about this so-called problem of "dead levels."

You really don't mind that half of your levels just make a few numbers slightly bigger?

FMArthur
2010-01-18, 12:44 PM
Wait, I'm confused. Is this a "favourite class" thread with a misleading title? :smallsigh:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-01-18, 12:45 PM
I'm quite partial to the Fighter myself, mostly for the bonus feats. Psychic Warrior comes in at a close second, but the lowered Base Attack Bonus is a turn-off; plus they don't have my favorite psionic powers.

I've always found them flexible enough to do a good many things, combated related or otherwise.

Yes, they do. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#expandedKnowledge)

Blas_de_Lezo
2010-01-18, 12:45 PM
Beguiler.

I used to like warlock, until I realized that designers had such a good and popular idea that they overused it, corrupting the warlock into full 4th ed.

I also vote for Swashbuckler as the worst designed core class ever. It was so dumb it even hurted me. :smallannoyed:

Sliver
2010-01-18, 12:49 PM
I'm quite partial to the Fighter myself, mostly for the bonus feats. Psychic Warrior comes in at a close second, but the lowered Base Attack Bonus is a turn-off; plus they don't have my favorite psionic powers.

I've always found them flexible enough to do a good many things, combated related or otherwise.

Yeah! With their 2 skill points per level... Barbarians can do more things then fighters...

I don't get all that fighter flexibility talk.. Sure, you can have your feats all over the place, but you are then OK at attacking and can do some random stuff, but you aren't really doing anything in any reliable way.. You probably going to do things worse then a barbarian, except for things he doesn't care about and you don't really do them well, just better then someone not investing in that at all..

Gnorman
2010-01-18, 12:50 PM
Wait, I'm confused. Is this a "favourite class" thread with a misleading title? :smallsigh:

Yes...?

But seriously, I believe the Beguiler is the best-designed class in 3.5. Powerful without being obviously broken, focused without being irrelevant. Fills two of my favorite roles well (arcane caster & skillmonkey), though other classes outshine it at each one. Flavorful, interesting abilities, a noticeable increase in power at every level, and unique customization that makes sure that every Beguiler 19 / Mindbender 1 (because let's be honest, everybody takes that dip) is unique. Even against mindless creatures, you've got spells like Haste and Solid Fog.

A hallmark of a well-designed class, to me at least, is in how many players take it to straight 20 or near that (okay, so the Druid sort of breaks this rule). Even with that great Mindbender dip for Telepathy, the Beguiler's capstone is so useful that I struggle with the choice.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-18, 12:50 PM
A two-level fighter dip allows many more builds to be mechanically feasible.

Fail
2010-01-18, 12:54 PM
Yes, they do. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#expandedKnowledge)What's the maximum power level a psychic warrior can pick via Expanded Knowledge? What's the maximum power level a psion can pick? Is it impossible for his favorite powers to be level 6-9? Even if somehow yes - how many campaigns actually get played in the levels where psychic warriors can pick level 4-5 powers with EK?

Nothing of that is a viable defense of the fighter, of course, only of the egoist psion. :D

Yukitsu
2010-01-18, 12:56 PM
They're all good, but only when held next to ones of a similar level.

Flickerdart
2010-01-18, 01:02 PM
Beguiler 19 / Mindbender 1 (because let's be honest, everybody takes that dip)
The capstone of Beguilers is actually worth going for, though. Because they actually get class features, unlike more traditional casters.

Starscream
2010-01-18, 01:05 PM
Might just be my love for skillmonkies talking, but I think both Rogue and Factotum are great.

Rogue is the most balanced of the core classes. It doesn't excel in every situation, but your party needs one in a core game. As more supplements were added, however, spellcasters got more and more spells that could handle things like traps and stealth, and Rogue's became known mostly for having Sneak Attack and nothing else. And since SA doesn't work in every situation, it kind of stinks.

Bring on the Factotum, which is an even better skillmonkey than the rogue (due to being so intelligence based), and gets some nice utility spellcasting on the side. Very well done, balanced, and fun to play.

AstralFire
2010-01-18, 01:05 PM
Out of the Core Classes, Bard.

Out of them all, ToB.

Sliver
2010-01-18, 01:06 PM
A two-level fighter dip allows many more builds to be mechanically feasible.

And that makes the class well-made?

So Paladin's are well made, because even if they don't have anything worth it 3/4th of the class, they can be a nice dip sometimes..

Gnorman
2010-01-18, 01:09 PM
The capstone of Beguilers is actually worth going for, though. Because they actually get class features, unlike more traditional casters.

You'll notice I've mentioned that.

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 01:10 PM
Yes, they do. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#expandedKnowledge)No (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/crisisofLife.htm), no (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/crystallize.htm) they (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/dreamTravel.htm) do (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/timeRegression.htm) not (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/fuseFlesh.htm).


Yeah! With their 2 skill points per level... Barbarians can do more things then fighters...

I don't get all that fighter flexibility talk.. Sure, you can have your feats all over the place, but you are then OK at attacking and can do some random stuff, but you aren't really doing anything in any reliable way.. You probably going to do things worse then a barbarian, except for things he doesn't care about and you don't really do them well, just better then someone not investing in that at all..Other people have opinions as to what constitutes a well-made class, and yours are not decidedly correct. Deal with it :smallsigh:

Aldizog
2010-01-18, 01:11 PM
You really don't mind that half of your levels just make a few numbers slightly bigger?
Considering that I grew up on B/X, it's my favorite system ever, and I'd love to play it again, no, I don't mind at all.

Sliver
2010-01-18, 01:12 PM
Other people have opinions as to what constitutes a well-made class, and yours are not decidedly correct. Deal with it :smallsigh:

Because I said I am correct.. I said I don't get the "fighters are flexible" talk.

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 01:18 PM
Because I said I am correct..Well, people typically believe what they say is correct, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered :smallwink:

I said I don't get the "fighters are flexible" talk.You repeated in your post the very reason why I personally believe fighters are flexible. Our opinions, apparently, are just different.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 01:20 PM
Being able to do many things poorly isn't flexibility.

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 01:21 PM
Being able to do many things poorly isn't flexibility.Do I need to keep quoting my previous post? 'Cause I'll do it :smallwink:

Eloel
2010-01-18, 01:26 PM
Fighters 'can' be flexible. When they spend all their feats on Martial Study & Martial Stance.

But then, why not play a Warblade?


Also, under a different reading of 'flexible', they ARE flexible, in that 2 fighters can be absolutely different to each other. Though that doesn't say anything on the actual 'amount of things it can do' kind of flexibility.

Aldizog
2010-01-18, 01:27 PM
Because I said I am correct.. I said I don't get the "fighters are flexible" talk.
It's a class you can make into whatever you want. It follows a "class-light" design principle, where the choice of class only loosely dictates your role and abilities. Feat rogue would be similar (I don't like the core rogue as much because it's pushed too hard into the "striker" role).

It's not that any individual fighter can fill a great variety of roles, but that a great variety of roles can be filled by various fighter builds. Archers, defensive tanks, offensive powerhouses, trippers, light-armored skirmishers, there are fighter bonus feats for any of these archetypes. An individual fighter can be good at many roles, very good at a few, or exceptional at one. Again, freedom and flexibility. How good you need to be depends on your campaign's level of optimization; there are plenty in which the straightforward fighter does fine at the "very good at 3 roles" level.

I like that approach better than trying to create a new base class for every niche.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 01:30 PM
It's a class you can make into whatever you want.
Though in many cases, it will end up sucking because there's not sufficient support for the character concept.

Sliver
2010-01-18, 01:30 PM
Well, people typically believe what they say is correct, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered :smallwink:

There is a different between thinking that my beliefs are correct and saying "I'm right and there is no other valid opinion", which is what you claimed I said. And then added a sigh. To me it seems like I'm not the one who has issues with other's opinions..


Our opinions, apparently, are just different.

I know that.. Otherwise you wouldn't feel the need of saying "Your opinion is not the only valid one! Deal with it! :smallsigh:"

If you wanted to achieve anything with your post, you could have tried to convince anyone of the claim they can do many things.. But as in your opinion, "flexible" means "has the option of attempting to do something with low chance of success", I don't think there is a point.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 01:32 PM
Do I need to keep quoting my previous post? 'Cause I'll do it :smallwink:

Repeatedly repeating something won't make it true.

Eloel
2010-01-18, 01:32 PM
To me, the 'can make into what you want' based class is the Ranger. With the different combat styles in Dungeon issues, it has the versatility of spells (although few), can choose to be an archer/grappler/twf/thf, has an AC it can choose (scout/flanker/mount).

That, in my eyes, is good ideas & good design principles.

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 01:35 PM
If you wanted to achieve anything with your post, you could have tried to convince anyone of the claim they can do many things.. But as in your opinion, "flexible" means "has the option of attempting to do something with low chance of success", I don't think there is a point.'Xactly. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone; the OP asked for our opinions on what we viewed on a well-made class, and I picked Fighter and Psychic Warrior. Well, actually that's not quite true. I am trying to defend the point that my view is only an opinion, and that I don't appreciate anyone trying to make me justify a thing that I never claimed to be fact. Heh.


Repeatedly repeating something won't make it true.It isn't true. It isn't false either. That's pretty much the verbatim definition of an opinion.

Gnorman
2010-01-18, 01:37 PM
Bah, the "Can make into what you want" class is definitely the friggin' wizard. Given the right spells, a wizard can be a rogue one day, a fighter the next, a psion on Tuesday, and those are just the classes it gets to directly mimic.

But that's not good design. It's just power.

EDIT: Seriously, guys, this whole "Let's blow a semantic issue waaay out of proportion, try to define 'opinion', repeat ourselves ad infinitum, and generally end up hostile, combative, and irrelevant" thing? Not helping the point of the thread.

Aldizog
2010-01-18, 01:37 PM
To me, the 'can make into what you want' based class is the Ranger. With the different combat styles in Dungeon issues, it has the versatility of spells (although few), can choose to be an archer/grappler/twf/thf, has an AC it can choose (scout/flanker/mount).

That, in my eyes, is good ideas & good design principles.
I'm not familiar with those alternate combat styles you mention, but that would go a long way towards making the class more flexible. As well, there are ACFs to swap out the casting and the AC for other benefits. None of those are "out-of-the-box" but they do improve the class.

Optimystik
2010-01-18, 01:41 PM
It isn't true. It isn't false either. That's pretty much the verbatim definition of an opinion.

The problem is that your opinion has nothing to do with the thread's premise.

Here is the criteria for "well-made" as laid out by the OP:



What class do you think is the most well-made class? One that does what it does good enough, without overpowering or being underpowered, with a fun mechanic.

Fighters do not do what they do "good enough." They are underpowered. They have no fun mechanics, unless announcing "I attack X" is fun to you.

So while your opinion is valid in and of itself, it is not valid in this discussion.

Eloel
2010-01-18, 01:43 PM
I'm not familiar with those alternate combat styles you mention, but that would go a long way towards making the class more flexible. As well, there are ACFs to swap out the casting and the AC for other benefits. None of those are "out-of-the-box" but they do improve the class.

There is Bear-Wrestling, which gives IUS/Imp Grapple/Stunning Fist
Mounted Combat for Ride-By Attack/Spirited Charge/Trample
Piscator for EWP(net)/Imp Trip/Imp Crit
Strong Arm for PA/Imp Sunder/Great Cleave
Throwing for Quick Draw/PBS/Far Shot

Sliver
2010-01-18, 01:46 PM
There are 2 ways to define a flexible class.. One that allows a character to do many things competently, or one that allows a player make many builds that do their thing competently. The first definition is pretty much Tier 3 characters, while the second one are for lower Tiers, but still relevant ones. The fighter can do many things OK, but not in a single build, and even focused builds could be found lacking, with other classes doing it better.

Also, an opinion can be false. I think I live in a yellow submarine, but I don't. If you aren't willing to point out why your opinion is valid, you aren't contributing to a discussion..

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 01:50 PM
The problem is that your opinion has nothing to do with the thread's premise.The class does what it does good enough, without overpowering or being underpowered, in proportion to my typical party, and in my opinion, uses a mechanic similar to a combative generic class, which I personally find to be fun.


Also, an opinion can be false. I think I live in a yellow submarine, but I don't. If you aren't willing to point out why your opinion is valid, you aren't contributing to a discussion..That's not really an opinion, but that also really isn't the point. Granted, focusing on me isn't contributing to the discussion either.

**I have an idea:** The things I find fun in a fighter/psychic warrior/cheddarmonk/whatever are all relative to myself and I cannot prove them to you, so why don't we all just get back to posting what we believe the most 'well-made' class to be, instead of focusing on what other people think? Cool, everybody? Hugs all around :smallcool:

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-18, 02:01 PM
Do I need to keep quoting my previous post? 'Cause I'll do it :smallwink:

What can the Fighter do that the barbarian can't?


Answer that, and you're one step closer to being correct. And the Weapon Focus line isn't a valid answer due to Rage.


That's not really an opinion, but that also really isn't the point. Granted, focusing on me isn't contributing to the discussion either.

In your opinion, his statement is not an opinion. But if he doesn't know what an opinion actually is, he's freely capable of claiming he believes his statement is an opinion, which makes that very claim an opinion. It doesn't make his claim a fact, it just means he has an opinion about a statement.

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 02:03 PM
**I have an idea:** The things I find fun in a fighter/psychic warrior/cheddarmonk/whatever are all relative to myself and I cannot prove them to you, so why don't we all just get back to posting what we believe the most 'well-made' class to be, instead of focusing on what other people think? Cool, everybody? Hugs all around :smallcool:That was the important part of that post. Hence the bolding and asterisks.

Danin
2010-01-18, 02:10 PM
Binder. It is well balanced, flexible enough to be played a few times and not be used the same way twice, you can change day to day so you won't pigeon hole yourself into a poor build, and the fluff is fantastic. Combined with the fact that it gets some support (Web Enhancements, Dragon, etc) and has some solid PRCs designed for it (Knight of the Sacred Seal, Anima Mage) and no dead levels, and you're groovy.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 02:11 PM
So what part of Fighter is well made again?

ShippoWildheart
2010-01-18, 02:12 PM
So what part of Fighter is well made again?

They get more feats than anyone well. :thog:

Longcat
2010-01-18, 02:15 PM
Druid

It's the single most versatile class, without dead levels, that can fill in many roles. You're not forced into taking PrCs, unlike other classes. The class is fun to play at all levels, and its complexity will scale with the sources allowed.

Before anyone flames me, think of all the guys who said "fighter", "soulknife" or similar. They started it!

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 02:16 PM
But it doesn't get tons of feats.

Gnorman
2010-01-18, 02:16 PM
They get more feats than anyone well. :thog:

Except, you know, feat rogues.

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 02:20 PM
So what part of Fighter is well made again?

Quite a bit, actually. It has plenty of space for customisation, and it has a role.

No class in the PHB is especially well made. The fighter certainly isn't bad by comparison to the others, however.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-18, 02:20 PM
That was the important part of that post. Hence the bolding and asterisks.

So you think the Fighter is well-made because you enjoy playing one? I can tell you right now that you'r stance is a personal opinion, not a measure of good class design. Someone else can say the same exact thing about the Warmage. I can nearly guarantee you that the Warmage is not an example of good class design.

Just because you enjoy playing one doesn't mean the class is well-made. Well-made means mechanically capable of contributing to any situation without completely outshining other players. The Fighter is mechanically capable of hitting things, Intimidating, and making things bleed (did I mention that part all ready?). I can think up half a dozen scenarios where those three mechanical advantages are worthless. The same cannot be said of a Warblade (though I'll give you the Barbarian; it suffers many of the same problems the Fighter does).

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 02:21 PM
Someone else can say the same exact thing about the Warmage Monk. I can nearly guarantee you that the Warmage is not an example of good class design.


Fixed it for you.

Aldizog
2010-01-18, 02:21 PM
Druid

It's the single most versatile class, without dead levels, that can fill in many roles. You're not forced into taking PrCs, unlike other classes. The class is fun to play at all levels, and its complexity will scale with the sources allowed.
I believe "not overpowering" was in the criteria. I have been in games where a straightforward 3.5 fighter was not underpowered. I have not been in games where a straightforward 3.5 druid was not overpowering.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-01-18, 02:23 PM
It's a class you can make into whatever you want.

See also: anything with spells, all Tome of Battle classes, the Warlock, the Binder, the Factotum, Psionics (sans Soulknife, because, really, they aren't using the psionics), and Incarnum (sans Soulborn for similar reasons to the Soulknife).

Sure, you'll probably have difficulty pulling off something like Jack B. Quick with these classes instead (except for Psychic Warrior, but it takes a slightly different route with the build), but most everything else these guys can cover and without having to eat gigantic amounts of feats.

sonofzeal
2010-01-18, 02:23 PM
Qualities of a Well Made Class (imo)

1) Able to be effective in most games and at most levels
2) Unlikely to render someone else ineffective
3) Encourages being played in different ways (ie different builds)
4) Variety of tactical options, even within one build (ie encounter-to-encounter)
5) Some degree of utility / out-of-combat effectiveness



Breakdown of Base 11 Classes (imo)
Numbers represent traits they have at least moderately, numbers in bold are traits they have solidly, numbers that aren't written are traits they only have weakly or less. Every class can represent every trait to some extent, but some are definitely sup-par in particular categories.

Barbarian - 1, 2
Bard - 2, 4, 5
Cleric - 1, 3, 4, 5
Druid - 1, 4, 5
Fighter - 2, 3
Monk - 2, 3, 5
Paladin - 1, 5
Ranger - 1, 2, 3, 5
Rogue - 1, 2, 3,4, 5
Sorcerers - 1, 3, 4, 5
Wizards - 1, 3, 4, 5


Conclusion - Rogue wins, follows by Wizards, then Sorcerers and Clerics. Honourable mention goes to Ranger. Huh.

....as a side note, the non-Core classes most likely to top out this scale are Binders, Incarnates, and Factota, so there may be a bias towards skillmonkeys here.

Zexion
2010-01-18, 02:23 PM
I also prefer fighters, because they can shine in almost any situation, plus they are more flexible than any other melee combat class. Although clerics are excellent choices as well...

arguskos
2010-01-18, 02:23 PM
I'm going to go with Binder and Shadowcaster as the most well-put together classes in 3.5. They're creative, balanced, fun to play, versatile (binder more than shadowcaster, to be fair), and can fit into any style of play or party. This to me says that they should be the hallmark of class design and the level to which the game should be balanced. Course, that's just my thought (and someone's gonna come along and tell me my opinion is wrong in a moment, for sure). :smallwink:

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 02:26 PM
Just because you enjoy playing one doesn't mean the class is well-made. Well-made means mechanically capable of contributing to any situation without completely outshining other players.

No. That has nothing to do with the quality of the class, just its power. That's why we have a tier system in the first place.

Sure, maybe you could award a few points for the class being balanced. It's less important than actually being interesting in its own right.

Sure, the fighter isn't interesting in its own right, but at least it has some customisation, and actually has a role that it can fulfill in practice.

Ninja edit:

It's true that the best-made classes generally end up around tier 3 or tier 4. That isn't some kind of indication that "power=quality". It probably has more to do with something underlying both.

Good classes are likely to be produced by designers with more skill, time, motivation, or all three. Those designers are also quite likely to be pretty good at balancing things.

Flickerdart
2010-01-18, 02:27 PM
The thing with Fighters is that they aren't unique. Feats are something that everyone gets, and while Fighters get many of them, that alone doesn't give them any interesting capabilities that any other class couldn't have. The very same Barbarian gets Rage, which is unique to him, Fast Movement, and generally interesting abilities, as well as a better HD. Paladins get their mount, smites, etc. Knights get the ability to actually control the battlefield. Tome of Battle characters get a wide array of martial powers. Fighter? Aside from Dungeouncrasher, it's got nothing unique or interesting about it that couldn't be done with any other class. Hell, even Monks are more interesting than the Fighter, and they can't even do anything!

Longcat
2010-01-18, 02:28 PM
I believe "not overpowering" was in the criteria. I have been in games where a straightforward 3.5 fighter was not underpowered. I have not been in games where a straightforward 3.5 druid was not overpowering.

"Overpowered" is, as you have mentioned, a term that lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Let me reassure you that in a party of Wizard, Cleric and Beguiler, the Druid is most certainly not overpowered.

Gnorman
2010-01-18, 02:30 PM
"Overpowered" is, as you have mentioned, a term that lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Let me reassure you that in a party of Wizard, Cleric and Beguiler, the Druid is most certainly not overpowered.

As a side note, a party with a Wizard, a Cleric, a Druid, and a Beguiler/Artificer is pretty much the ideal 3.5 four man band.

Sir Giacomo
2010-01-18, 02:30 PM
For me, probably bards and rogues are most interesting for the game at large, due to their ability to focus on combat, skills and - including a rogue's UMD - magic (with all the possible variants of different emphasis on different kinds of builds and characters). Both rogue and bard are proverbial adventurer classes in fantasy settings.
Beguiler is also a very nice concept. A bit too focused maybe when true seeing and mind blank hit the table, though.:smallwink:

- Giacomo

Eldariel
2010-01-18, 02:32 PM
As a side note, a party with a Wizard, a Cleric, a Druid, and a Beguiler is pretty much the ideal 3.5 four man band.

Lacks Artificer.

Eloel
2010-01-18, 02:33 PM
For me, probably bards and rogues are most interesting for the game at large, due to their ability to focus on combat, skills and - including a rogue's UMD - magic (with all the possible variants of different emphasis on different kinds of builds and characters). Both rogue and bard are proverbial adventurer classes in fantasy settings.
Beguiler is also a very nice concept. A bit too focused maybe when true seeing and mind blank hit the table, though.:smallwink:

- Giacomo
Wait, not Monk?
Meh, bored, picking on you :)

Aldizog
2010-01-18, 02:35 PM
See also: anything with spells, all Tome of Battle classes, the Warlock, the Binder, the Factotum, Psionics (sans Soulknife, because, really, they aren't using the psionics), and Incarnum (sans Soulborn for similar reasons to the Soulknife).

Never actually used most of those resources in a game. The 3.5 campaigns I've been in as a player and DM have used Core, PHB2, DMG2, Completes, and some material from Races. So Warlock I understand, although the Eldritch Blast does kind of push them towards a role; might have been nice to just add that as an invocation like any other and let Warlocks take it or leave it as they choose. (Much as I prefer Feat Rogue to standard Rogue.)

Anything with spells, yes, sort of. Sorc and Favored Soul have flexibility in that you can make a PC to do anything, but you cannot make a PC to do everything (at most levels). That's what it should be. Wizard and Cleric have the wrong kind of flexibility, in that you can make a single PC that can do everything very well. That's not good design IMO.

sonofzeal
2010-01-18, 02:36 PM
The thing with Fighters is that they aren't unique. Feats are something that everyone gets, and while Fighters get many of them, that alone doesn't give them any interesting capabilities that any other class couldn't have. The very same Barbarian gets Rage, which is unique to him, Fast Movement, and generally interesting abilities, as well as a better HD. Paladins get their mount, smites, etc. Knights get the ability to actually control the battlefield. Tome of Battle characters get a wide array of martial powers. Fighter? Aside from Dungeouncrasher, it's got nothing unique or interesting about it that couldn't be done with any other class. Hell, even Monks are more interesting than the Fighter, and they can't even do anything!
Well, the flexibility of the class is still a good trait to see, and Fighters are pretty much the definitive version of that. There's hardly any class that represents the "build it yourself" philosophy more than Fighter (Generic Warrior is even better obviously, and Wizards/Psions are pretty close), so you have to give them at least some credit. Paladins, Druids, Bards, Barbarians, Rogues... when you hear about one of these guys, you usually know pretty much what to expect. With Fighters you could have mounted combat, or lockdown, or ubercharger, or grapple, or archery, or tanking, or skirmishing, or something even more exotic. Most importantly, that's what the class explicitly encourages. Most other classes allow for that, but you have to finagle the details yourself. Fighter just hands you that freedom, and that's good class design.


....of course, for a lot of players, hand them some slack and they'll use it to hang themselves. Fighter is not a "great" class (see my previous post), and there's a lot of other factors to consider that it does poorly in, but it does score top marks in that one category, and that's at least something.

Zore
2010-01-18, 02:37 PM
Echoing the Incarnum, TOB, Factotum and Warlock and adding the Dragonfire Adept whos a lot of fun and built of the same chassis as the Warlock but slightly more powerful with awesome low level battlefield control and the ability to contribute every level.

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 02:39 PM
Wait, not Monk?
Meh, bored, picking on you :)

While there are people whose beliefs twist reality such that they actually become wrong simply because of who said them, Giacomo is not one of them.

The monk is almost completely one-track, does nothing special, and the only reason not to get right out is that you can't get back in. Which isn't even that good a reason.

You can argue about its practical mechanical power all you want, because everything changes in play. It's harder to claim that it's not guilty of poor design.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 02:41 PM
Character Class: Dead Levels
(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a)
MONK

The monk is the only other core class, aside from the barbarian, that has no dead levels. Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, which boasts the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes.

Longcat
2010-01-18, 02:43 PM
Well, at least WotC seems to have a sense of humour.

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 02:43 PM
Character Class: Dead Levels
(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a)

I'm don't quite get what you're trying to say there.

NINJA EDIT: And that article predates the current definition of a dead level.

Dead levels are levels where there isn't much change in the class. Junk abilities are precisely that.

Classes should genuinely grow in flexibility - players should feel like they have more options.

Flickerdart
2010-01-18, 02:45 PM
Sonofzeal, arguably, a Fighter can't even qualify for a "well-made" class because it's hardly made at all. You just get a bunch of feats and are told "make your own class". Dunno about you, but being able to do something not quite as well as a class that's properly dedicated to it isn't a very appealing concept for me. The versatility at character generation doesn't matter, really, because you can choose any class you want at that point. Want mounted charging? Paladin. Skirmishing? Scout. Tanking? Knight. Choosing Fighter doesn't actually give you anything, you still have to choose what to do, but you won't be as good at it. If Fighters could change their feats on a regular basis, that would make them a reasonably designed class. As is, you're forced to specialize at the beginning to be effective, so you might as well take a proper specialist class.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-18, 02:46 PM
I'm don't quite get what you're trying to say there.

You mean you didn't see what I did there?

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 02:47 PM
You mean you didn't see what I did there?

That article fails in its basic purpose. 'Junk level' is just a really pedantic term for a level which is functionally dead.

I spotted the irony, I just didn't recognise it as your intent.

Chrono22
2010-01-18, 02:49 PM
Throw in another vote for beguiler. Functional at all levels of play, flexible, but not overpowered.

Fail
2010-01-18, 02:52 PM
Druid

It's the single most versatile class, without dead levels, that can fill in many roles. You're not forced into taking PrCs, unlike other classes. The class is fun to play at all levels, and its complexity will scale with the sources allowed.

Before anyone flames me, think of all the guys who said "fighter", "soulknife" or similar. They started it!If not for confusing writing on alter self-wild shape inheritance, it would be the best-designed class. For pretty much the reasons stated.


Lacks Artificer.Artificers are crap. They don't do anything, there's 2 kinds of artificers: useless and broken. Druid (and others) are not the same, by far.

---

On druids being overpowered and thus not respecting OP criteria: it's the other classes' fault, not the druid's. Because cleric, wizard, rogue, beguiler and dread necromancer aren't much behind*, and it's entirely possible to make druids sweat by using MM monsters (or the classes above).

*: poor spirit shaman, I admit, but that's the unfortunate coincidence of being in the book that power-creeped clerics while offering a weaker cleric, a weaker wizard and a weaker druid.

Eloel
2010-01-18, 02:54 PM
If not for confusing writing on alter self-wild shape inheritance, it would be the best-designed class. For pretty much the reasons stated.

Artificers are crap. They don't do anything, there's 2 kinds of artificers: useless and broken. Druids are not the same, by far.

Indeed.

There are two Artificers; Those that break WBL, those that are overpowered.
There is only a single Druid; They are overpowered.

So, Artificer is more 'versatile' - at least they can choose how they kill the game.

sonofzeal
2010-01-18, 02:55 PM
Sonofzeal, arguably, a Fighter can't even qualify for a "well-made" class because it's hardly made at all. You just get a bunch of feats and are told "make your own class". Dunno about you, but being able to do something not quite as well as a class that's properly dedicated to it isn't a very appealing concept for me. The versatility at character generation doesn't matter, really, because you can choose any class you want at that point. Want mounted charging? Paladin. Skirmishing? Scout. Tanking? Knight. Choosing Fighter doesn't actually give you anything, you still have to choose what to do, but you won't be as good at it. If Fighters could change their feats on a regular basis, that would make them a reasonably designed class. As is, you're forced to specialize at the beginning to be effective, so you might as well take a proper specialist class.
Well... thing is, if you're just going for those combat styles, Fighter can actually beat many of the specialist classes.

Take archery. Scouts are 3/4 BAB, and don't even get Longbow proficiency. Fighters start out more accurate (and get even more accurate over time), shoot farther, take more hits, and that's before they start grabbing archery feats from 20 different sources. They traditionally don't do as much damage per shot, but with higher BAB and the ability to full-attack where the Scout is mostly restrained to standard action attacks, a good archery fighter can often out-shoot most Scouts. And that's before we get into the weakness of precision damage, or how Skirmish has a horribly limited range.

That said, I think Scout is overall more "well-made" than Fighter, because it has greater tactical variety and out-of-combat utility, while still having a degree of flexibility built in, in the form of Choose Your Own Bonus Feat.

sonofzeal
2010-01-18, 02:59 PM
Indeed.

There are two Artificers; Those that break WBL, those that are overpowered.
There is only a single Druid; They are overpowered.

So, Artificer is more 'versatile' - at least they can choose how they kill the game.
Artificer 1 - "I'll craft items for my party, and use my infusions to buff in combat!"

Artificer 2 - "Split Twinned Seeking Ray ftw!"

Artificer 3 - "...what's the biggest, baddest construct I can build and ride around in?"

Artificer 4 - "Let's just make oodles of useful tools and knickknacks, and try to be clever about using them."


...of course, most artificers can do all four at the same time, depending on gp income. That's probably the biggest problem with the class, after a certain level they're restrained only by value owned.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-18, 03:00 PM
No. That has nothing to do with the quality of the class, just its power. That's why we have a tier system in the first place.

Sure, maybe you could award a few points for the class being balanced. It's less important than actually being interesting in its own right.

Sure, the fighter isn't interesting in its own right, but at least it has some customisation, and actually has a role that it can fulfill in practice.

Quality in a game like this is severely subjective. Well-Made means it has a mechanical advantage in several common and major situations.

Fighters have no class features. Period. there's variants and alternates, but their "class features" are numerical bonuses to various stats and a number of bonus feats. It isn't a class, it's a Racial Hit Die with a bonus feat progression. None of it's class features are unique. At all.

Longcat
2010-01-18, 03:00 PM
There is only a single Druid; They are overpowered.


You do realize that there is a Shapeshifter variant of the druid class?

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 03:01 PM
Sonofzeal, arguably, a Fighter can't even qualify for a "well-made" class because it's hardly made at all. You just get a bunch of feats and are told "make your own class"...(snipped)...Choosing Fighter doesn't actually give you anything, you still have to choose what to do, but you won't be as good at it. If Fighters could change their feats on a regular basis, that would make them a reasonably designed class. As is, you're forced to specialize at the beginning to be effective, so you might as well take a proper specialist class.

That's true. It fails on most of the "good design" points.

It does hit at least one nail on the head (customisation), however.

It utterly fails at uniqueness, however, which is possibly the most important element. Does it do something new? No. Does it do something old in a new way? No.


Quality in a game like this is severely subjective. Well-Made means it has a mechanical advantage in several common and major situations.

Not so. How well a class adheres to an 'ideal' balance point is pretty hard to pin down. There are plenty of simple guidelines (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3149139&postcount=1) you can use to judge a class, and power shouldn't really be one of them.

Flickerdart
2010-01-18, 03:02 PM
Well... thing is, if you're just going for those combat styles, Fighter can actually beat many of the specialist classes.

Take archery. Scouts are 3/4 BAB, and don't even get Longbow proficiency. Fighters start out more accurate (and get even more accurate over time), shoot farther, take more hits, and that's before they start grabbing archery feats from 20 different sources. They traditionally don't do as much damage per shot, but with higher BAB and the ability to full-attack where the Scout is mostly restrained to standard action attacks, a good archery fighter can often out-shoot most Scouts. And that's before we get into the weakness of precision damage, or how Skirmish has a horribly limited range.

That said, I think Scout is overall more "well-made" than Fighter, because it has greater tactical variety and out-of-combat utility, while still having a degree of flexibility built in, in the form of Choose Your Own Bonus Feat.
Except that without the bonus damage, a Fighter's bow deals diddly-squat, while a Scout can make more attacks per round that are better and still move, thanks to feats like Greater Manyshot and Travel Devotion. If Fighters had Skirmish, they could be useful in this way, but they don't. In a similar vein, a mounted Fighter's horse has a piddly amount of HPs, kill it and he's worthless. A Paladin's beastie grows with him in power, and is a formidable opponent in its own right.

Fail
2010-01-18, 03:03 PM
Indeed.

There are two Artificers; Those that break WBL, those that are overpowered.
There is only a single Druid; They are overpowered.

So, Artificer is more 'versatile' - at least they can choose how they kill the game.That's why spirit shaman deserved nomination in my first post, instead of druid. That said, a druid has real abilities that make it actually different from other classes, and that allow it to address pretty much every scenario. Artificers, OTOH, are only a pile of accounting: they don't do anything that other class doesn't, and their power comes strictly from breaking metagame caps - therefore, useless design.

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 03:06 PM
What can the Fighter do that the barbarian can't?Potentially qualify for Lawful-aligned prestige classes :smalltongue:

Grifthin
2010-01-18, 03:06 PM
Uh...no. Fighters get half their levels as dead levels, they have to be one-trick ponies to even be relevant, need all the feats they can get because they don't have any class features, have no way to deal with magic at all, can't work out of the box because they don't have enough decent feats in core, don't scale well at all, and have nothing to do outside of "I hit it with a stick."

Fighters are horrible.

Psychic warriors are considerably better, despite only having a 3/4 BAB and not as many feats.

Hey - it's a thread on the most well designed class in *your* opinion. Me likey stabby/dakka/beat/grapple/headbutt my way into and out of things.

Longcat
2010-01-18, 03:09 PM
Potentially qualify for Lawful-aligned prestige classes :smalltongue:

Play a Barbarian of a race with the "Lawful" subtype, and the Barbarian can too!:smallwink:

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-18, 03:10 PM
Potentially qualify for Lawful-aligned prestige classes :smalltongue:

It depends on if you want to keep Rage or not. If not, then yeah, they can. And there's alternative reasons to take levels in Barbarian than Rage 9like, you know, Pounce?).

Lappy9000
2010-01-18, 03:11 PM
Play a Barbarian of a race with the "Lawful" subtype, and the Barbarian can too!:smallwink:Ah, touché, you clever devil you :smallwink:


It depends on if you want to keep Rage or not. If not, then yeah, they can. And there's alternative reasons to take levels in Barbarian than Rage 9like, you know, Pounce?).And woah, dude, I'm joking :smalltongue:

sonofzeal
2010-01-18, 03:19 PM
Except that without the bonus damage, a Fighter's bow deals diddly-squat, while a Scout can make more attacks per round that are better and still move, thanks to feats like Greater Manyshot and Travel Devotion. If Fighters had Skirmish, they could be useful in this way, but they don't. In a similar vein, a mounted Fighter's horse has a piddly amount of HPs, kill it and he's worthless. A Paladin's beastie grows with him in power, and is a formidable opponent in its own right.
I really don't know what point you're trying to argue with me. Seriously.

Fighters are not "overpowered". They're not even particularly effective a lot of the time. They're customizable, and each Fighter is potentially very different from most other Fighters. I think that's a good thing. It's not the only thing, it's not even necessarily the most important thing. But it's a good thing for anyone who doesn't like cookie cutter characters. I think more classes should have that sort of flexibility and choice when making them, without having to mine splatbooks for variant class features.



As to Fighter/Scout, I try to forget that CChamp even exists, but you're right that there's other options (Cyran Gliding Boots, Martial Study: Sudden Leap, etc). But it's not a straightforward "oh scouts are an archery class so let's forget Fighters can pick up archery feats altogether". Sometimes, the Fighter flexibility is key. Here's a good example (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7716465&postcount=61), the second one at least. Good times. Honestly, I think Scouts are the better class overall in terms of design, as I absolutely hate the lack of non-combat options for most Fighters. I still like to see customizability though.

Optimystik
2010-01-18, 03:40 PM
Hey - it's a thread on the most well designed class in *your* opinion. Me likey stabby/dakka/beat/grapple/headbutt my way into and out of things.

No it's a thread on which class best falls between "underpowered" and "overpowered," as per the OP. It is not about personal preferences independent of power level.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 03:43 PM
I like the power level of the T3 classes, but a lot have little bugs so I can't really call most of them the best at being "well made." Warblades and Crusaders are awesome as a fix to how melee classes function, but the stance progression was a mistake and the D2 infinite damage Crusader was a clear screw up. Dread Necromancers are all kinds of fun and probably have the most interesting ability progression in the game from 1-8, but Fear Aura lacks a duration, and they've got a spell found in two of their spell levels.

Beguilers are definitely strong contenders for me, as are Binders (though I get the feeling they sort of got bored and didn't quite finish the vestiges, as the high level ones feel very lackluster).

In the end, I have to go with Factotum. My first love was Rogues, but that class has all kinds of problems (primary attack form is useless against too many classes... they've tried to fix this in a number of ways but it never quite worked. Spells trump skills too much, such as the case of Arcane Lock vs Open Lock. Flanking is dangerous for a d6 HD Light armor class. And so on). Factotum actually managed to fix every single Rogue issue and yet still feel like the same sort of class, much like the Warblade did for the Fighter and the Crusader did for the Paladin and Knight. But unlike those ToB classes, I don't think the Factotum actually has any glitches in how it's made (except perhaps the fact that Font of Inspiration was printed online instead of in the same book where it should have been). The Factotum really is an impressive replacement for the Rogue, and it covers the Assassin PrC quite nicely too.

Something can also be said for the Swordsage. It's a bit less glitchy, IIRC, than the Warblade and Crusader, and it successfully replaced the Ninja and Monk. It's the first class to make a solid ninja despite the fact that many classes have tried (Rokugan Ninja, CA Ninja, Ninja Spy), and it's all kinds of fun and flexible. Like the other ToB classes it's incredibly customizable and flexible. And man, I love Shadow Jaunt/Cloak of Shadows. It's a shame it doesn't have trapfinding (so you pretty much have to do something like Rogue 1/Rokugan Ninja 1/Unarmed Swordsage X to be a Ninja) but otherwise it's a really nice combat skillmonkey class.

JaronK

Fail
2010-01-18, 04:07 PM
On factotums being well-designed ...

Inspiration: Let's talk about the Inspiration system. You get Inspiration points every time you have an "encounter" (whatever that means). But some of the abilities you run off of Inspiration are separately limited in uses per day. Inspiration lasts until spent, so as written you can have a bunch of meaningless encounters (social encounters in stores, for example) and build up a huge store of Inspiration points because you "gain inspiration points" you don't "refill your inspiration pool". I have honestly no idea whether that's intentional or not, because the class is very very weird.

Weird Spellcasting: he Factotum has weird spellcasting. You prepare spells like a Druid off of the Wizard list, and then you cast them like a Warlock. So you can use Extend Spell, but you can't use Sudden Extend. Also, casting costs Inspiration points in addition to using up spell slots, so you have to figure out what an "encounter" is supposed to mean before you cast your spells out of combat anyway because despite knowing all Wizard spells you only get very low level spell slots for most of your life.

Broken Stuff: For 3 Inspiration points an 8th level Factotum can buy an extra Standard Action. At that level the Factotum gains 5 Inspiration points every time the combat music starts. So the Factotum really can pull so abusive teleportation loops: I suggest rubbing it in by getting yourself some Incarnum so that you can d-door at will . Then hop in and out with the extra actions... you get the idea. At really high level you can dumpster dive through classes to get any class feature available to any "Standard Class" of up to 15th level that is Extraordinary. That could be 8 dice of sneak attack, or get an Animal Companion. I don't even know what all you can get because "standard class" isn't a game term. I think they mean "non-prestige, non-epic" - but honestly I don't really know because there's actually a game term for that: "Base Classes".

---

A separate issue: "balanced" and "well-designed" aren't the same. Whether it's possible to be well-designed and [b]unbalanced is something I regard as an open question, but it's definitely possible to be balanced and badly-designed.

Draz74
2010-01-18, 04:10 PM
I agree that Tier 3 is best overall, but I definitely have beefs with some of the classes within it.

Binder? Not one of the best-designed classes. Much too much bookkeeping.

Beguiler? Also not one of the best-designed. One class shouldn't be able to be a full skillmonkey and be that good at casting, too. (Much as I love the Factotum, it also suffers from this criticism to a lesser extent -- plus the poor way Font of Inspiration was handled. Plus the need for better editing in general.)

Duskblade? Meh, this one's more arguable, but IMHO a caster should be able to do more than just do massive damage.

Some of my top votes would have to go to:

Ardent. Full caster (manifester), but still manages to be Tier 3 through limited selection of powers, not-too-uber base stats, and -- what most casters need more of -- magic powers that come in themes! Still a very flexible class -- can be a melee monster, a healbot, a Batman, or whatever. Just not all at once.

Dragonfire Adept. Feels like a caster, but is Tier 3 and involves very little bookkeeping.

Warblade. Its flexibility is really amazing, but none of the many options are really a problem to the game on either end of the power scale.

Psychic Warrior. Dunno what to say, it just works.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 04:37 PM
On factotums being well-designed ...

Inspiration: Let's talk about the Inspiration system. You get Inspiration points every time you have an "encounter" (whatever that means). But some of the abilities you run off of Inspiration are separately limited in uses per day. Inspiration lasts until spent, so as written you can have a bunch of meaningless encounters (social encounters in stores, for example) and build up a huge store of Inspiration points because you "gain inspiration points" you don't "refill your inspiration pool". I have honestly no idea whether that's intentional or not, because the class is very very weird.

You get inspiration points per encounter. You don't have a pool that can shoot up above that value... when you "gain inspiration points" you gain them up to your per encounter limit. It's actually pretty clear. The inspiration system is just like ToB's manuever mechanic. It's per encounter, because that's really how abilities used in encounters should be balanced, solving the primary flaw of vancian casting (abilities that are used per encounter but given per day can become over or underpowered depending on the number of encounters in a day).


Weird Spellcasting: he Factotum has weird spellcasting. You prepare spells like a Druid off of the Wizard list, and then you cast them like a Warlock. So you can use Extend Spell, but you can't use Sudden Extend. Also, casting costs Inspiration points in addition to using up spell slots, so you have to figure out what an "encounter" is supposed to mean before you cast your spells out of combat anyway because despite knowing all Wizard spells you only get very low level spell slots for most of your life.

I don't see how this is a problem. Any time you're doing something, you've got an encounter, but if you're doing it outside of a DM created encounter, your points will immediately refresh so it's only spells per day that limits you. And yes, you have fewer and weaker spells than a Wizard... thank goodness. That's why Factotums aren't horrifically overpowered (at least until level 19... that's probably the one thing I'd call a screwup). You're a skillmonkey with supplimental casting, not a full caster. If you wanted to be a full caster skillmonkey, you could be a Beguiler or in a way an Artificer.


Broken Stuff: For 3 Inspiration points an 8th level Factotum can buy an extra Standard Action. At that level the Factotum gains 5 Inspiration points every time the combat music starts. So the Factotum really can pull so abusive teleportation loops: I suggest rubbing it in by getting yourself some Incarnum so that you can d-door at will . Then hop in and out with the extra actions... you get the idea.

Yeah, but you don't have THAT many inspiration points to burn, and if you did burn all your feats on it then you have no other abilities, which really hurts. Factotums have enough solid feats they want anyway, so it's unwise to try and do this. If you really want to set yourself up as a Nova class you can of course, but I wouldn't recommend it.


At really high level you can dumpster dive through classes to get any class feature available to any "Standard Class" of up to 15th level that is Extraordinary. That could be 8 dice of sneak attack, or get an Animal Companion. I don't even know what all you can get because "standard class" isn't a game term. I think they mean "non-prestige, non-epic" - but honestly I don't really know because there's actually a game term for that: "Base Classes".

Standard Classes is actually in the DMG, it just means Base Classes. The terms are interchangable. But yes, the Factotum 19 ability is the one area that I can honestly say is off the charts in power, where Factotums go from "skillmonkey with enough magic to function in a magical world" to "skillmonkeys with the ability to have phenominal cosmic power that overwhelms their skillmonkey abilities." Luckily, by the time you get this ability, the full casters are so broken anyway that if you're in a game that would allow you to break the level 19 ability, everyone else is broken too and you're catching up. The worst of it is that spellcasting is defined as being extraordinary, which leads to the obvious "I get the casting of a level 19 Sorcerer or Favored Soul" and thus all the brokenation that comes with that.


A separate issue: "balanced" and "well-designed" aren't the same. Whether it's possible to be well-designed and [b]unbalanced is something I regard as an open question, but it's definitely possible to be balanced and badly-designed.

Since D&D has no central balance point, balance is relative. When I call a class balanced, I mean it's balanced where I think it should be... and that's what everyone else means too, whether they know it or not. For some, the Monk is totally balanced and the ToB classes are a raging pile of brokenation. For others, the Wizard is balanced and the Fighter sucks. Both of these are true statements, relative to the campaign world, playstyle, and preferences of those players. I consider the T3 classes balanced because they're balanced at the power level I personally prefer to play at (though I prefer to DM for the T4 classes, just because I have a very creative group).

I actually think the Monk is a rather well made class that just doesn't fit with the rest of the D&D classes. There's a reason so many people out there love that class. It does get new abilities at every level without getting horribly overpowered (mostly because many of the abilities are "cool" but not powerful). High run speed is a lot of fun at low levels, and the fact that it doesn't synergize with flurry is okay... you can hit and run or stand and fight. Unfortunately, once you start putting the poor Monk in a party with a Sorcerer or something that Monk has all kinds of problems. Very rapidly you run into a situation where something that challenges the rest of the party turns the Monk into a guy that just misses with all his attacks and whose super run speed means nothing because the rest of us are flying. But if you ended up with a party that was Healer, Monk, Ninja, Fighter you'd find that the Monk was a quite solid class that was by far the most fun at its balance level (though the Ninja can be fun too).

Really, I'd say the Monk is probably the best designed class in all of core. It's actually at the power level it was supposed to be at (Druids, Wizards, Clerics, and Sorcerers are MUCH stronger than they were supposed to be). It's fun and flavorful. It's easy to play while still having all kinds of cool abilities (like Fast Movement and Safe Fall... both fun abilities that aren't actually powerful). Its abilities don't synergize, but they don't have to (lack of synergy means you have more options, since it forces choices between your abilities). The Monk is more a victim of the bad design of other classes than its own design.

But in the end, since we're voting on what we personally think is the best designed class, I just don't like the Monk because it's too weak for how I want to play. The T3 classes are balanced where I want the power to be balanced... strong enough to go solo for a while, be useful in all situations, and to be flexible, weak enough to still want a team with them and let each party member take the spotlight at appropriate times. The Monk is down at the level where each team member shines because no team member has enough abilities to even be useful in all (or even maybe most) situations. That may be what the designers wanted, but it's not what I like.

JaronK

Fail
2010-01-18, 04:38 PM
Beguiler? Also not one of the best-designed. One class shouldn't be able to be a full skillmonkey and be that good at casting, too.Why? Various classes and various monsters can have fair fights with it, it doesn't obviate various classes as companions (no, not even rogue), and a number of classes can be about as relevant as it in downtime.

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 04:55 PM
It's per encounter, because that's really how abilities used in encounters should be balanced, solving the primary flaw of vancian casting (abilities that are used per encounter but given per day can become over or underpowered depending on the number of encounters in a day).

I'd dispute the "this is how it should be balanced" argument. It sounds like a great idea, until you realise that you've just put a constraint on what an encounter can be which wasn't there before.

Per-day is ineffective as a balancing mechanic, but it's actually pretty useful.


The worst of it is that spellcasting is defined as being extraordinary, which leads to the obvious "I get the casting of a level 19 Sorcerer or Favored Soul" and thus all the brokenation that comes with that.

I usually read it as "not a special ability". There is no rule anywhere that everything in the game has to be one, and it's worth noting that one of the categories of special ability amounts to "things that behave almost exactly like spells except they can't be countered".


Since D&D has no central balance point, balance is relative...

Snipped for length, but there is wisdom here.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 05:23 PM
I'd dispute the "this is how it should be balanced" argument. It sounds like a great idea, until you realise that you've just put a constraint on what an encounter can be which wasn't there before.

Per-day is ineffective as a balancing mechanic, but it's actually pretty useful.

Obviously it would be nice if they better defined "encounter" but for the most part it's fine... an encounter just continues until the DM says it's done. Encounters are just vignettes, really. I do think the manuever mechanic is a bit better, though. Still, it's a lot better than a per day mechanic for deciding how many times you can use an ability per encounter.


I usually read it as "not a special ability". There is no rule anywhere that everything in the game has to be one,

Page 180, bottom right paragraph. Yes, I've memorized it by now, after the polymorph debates.

JaronK

Aldizog
2010-01-18, 05:34 PM
Still, it's a lot better than a per day mechanic for deciding how many times you can use an ability per encounter.

I like per-day mechanics in general because it can give you that dramatic scene of the heroes being worn down, weakened, and running low on resources, then having to turn to make a last stand. If all mechanics are per-encounter, you can't do that; everybody is back to 100% for each fight. So I was uncertain about the movement away from per-day mechanics in late 3.5 and in 4E (although I understand that in 4E, healing surges are the really critical per-day ability, and monsters can drain them). Of course, some games never see that kind of scene, but I don't think per-day mechanics are necessarily bad game design.

sonofzeal
2010-01-18, 05:40 PM
I like per-day mechanics in general because it can give you that dramatic scene of the heroes being worn down, weakened, and running low on resources, then having to turn to make a last stand. If all mechanics are per-encounter, you can't do that; everybody is back to 100% for each fight. So I was uncertain about the movement away from per-day mechanics in late 3.5 and in 4E (although I understand that in 4E, healing surges are the really critical per-day ability, and monsters can drain them). Of course, some games never see that kind of scene, but I don't think per-day mechanics are necessarily bad game design.
Well, our groups usually rule "per encounter" as "needs a five minute rest to recharge". But a five minute rest often isn't practical or safe in the middle of a mission, and it's still possible to wear people down that way. Healing also becomes harder over time, as most sources of infinite healing simply don't work fast enough for combat.

About the only class you can't wear down gradually over time and push into a heroic last stand is the Crusader. That's pretty much a part of its class design though, half their distinctive elements have names like "Never Give Up, Never Surrender"*. Everyone else starts suffering the longer the fight goes, even if it's only hp. Crusader's aren't invulnerable, and there's still things you can do to wear them down, but they're absolute beasts in an endurance match.







* note: AFAIK, this exact phrase is never actually used, but you get the idea.

Fail
2010-01-18, 05:40 PM
You get inspiration points per encounter. You don't have a pool that can shoot up above that value... when you "gain inspiration points" you gain them up to your per encounter limit. It's actually pretty clear. The inspiration system is just like ToB's manuever mechanic. It's per encounter, because that's really how abilities used in encounters should be balanced, solving the primary flaw of vancian casting (abilities that are used per encounter but given per day can become over or underpowered depending on the number of encounters in a day).Problem 1: they don't work the same - initiators "regain expended maneuvers" (clearly works as intended), factotums "gain points" (read literally, the actual rules do mean they could stack).
Problem 2: "encounter" being an entirely undefined term was a problem for ToB too. Partly sidestepped there by initiators having so little to care about out of combat (which bodes ill for their class design, BTW), but there was/b] the issue with Devoted Spirit healing, for example.
Problem 3: even taking "per-encounter" to mean something not retarded, certain abilities don't even make sense in that context (e.g. major creation). Largely not relevant to the classes mentioned above, of course, but still a reason why per-encounter isn't and can't be the sole resource model of D&D.


I don't see how this is a problem. Any time you're doing something, you've got an encounter, but if you're doing it outside of a DM created encounter, your points will immediately refresh so it's only spells per day that limits you. And yes, you have fewer and weaker spells than a Wizard... thank goodness. That's why Factotums aren't horrifically overpowered (at least until level 19... that's probably the one thing I'd call a screwup). You're a skillmonkey with supplimental casting, not a full caster. If you wanted to be a full caster skillmonkey, you could be a Beguiler or in a way an Artificer.The part where spells are in limited supply isn't a problem, but the part where "encounter" has been [b]used but never defined most surely is.


Yeah, but you don't have THAT many inspiration points to burn, and if you did burn all your feats on it then you have no other abilities, which really hurts. Factotums have enough solid feats they want anyway, so it's unwise to try and do this. If you really want to set yourself up as a Nova class you can of course, but I wouldn't recommend it.UMD for using the standard actions, restarting the encounter to get inspiration back (even dismissing the RAW stacking as a typo, which it is).


Standard Classes is actually in the DMG, it just means Base Classes. The terms are interchangeable. But yes, the Factotum 19 ability is the one area that I can honestly say is off the charts in power, where Factotums go from "skillmonkey with enough magic to function in a magical world" to "skillmonkeys with the ability to have phenomenal cosmic power that overwhelms their skillmonkey abilities." Luckily, by the time you get this ability, the full casters are so broken anyway that if you're in a game that would allow you to break the level 19 ability, everyone else is broken too and you're catching up. The worst of it is that spellcasting is defined as being extraordinary, which leads to the obvious "I get the casting of a level 19 Sorcerer or Favored Soul" and thus all the brokenation that comes with that.The few uses of "standard" could be taken to imply "core", as well. As for cunning brilliance, the in-topic question isn't even it being unbalanced (which it is, as well, and it matters, of course), but being amazingly badly written, which's a problem unfortunately not exclusive to it (inspiration and factotum spellcasting as well). And the other characters might actually not be broken (in terms of power, or clarity), while cunning brilliance lies on a level of intractability only surpassed by wild shape (IIRC at least), out of base class abilities.


Since D&D has no central balance point, balance is relative.The encounter guidelines. And while not even the classes I named as being well-designed nail it perfectly, they do come close, and are well-designed in ways other than balance as well.


There's a reason so many people out there love that class.Rather, there's an unreason. While liking the monk concept's perfectly reasonable, liking the actual execution (I mean thinking it's adequate - not your case) only shows lack of knowledge of the system: people like monks mostly because they've been told monks are about kung-fu, and didn't yet notice the wrongness of it (e.g. fighting incorporeals, and it's only the tip of the iceberg). On why it's actually a bad design, see below.


Unfortunately, once you start putting the poor Monk in a party with a Sorcerer or something that Monk has all kinds of problems. Very rapidly you run into a situation where something that challenges the rest of the party turns the Monk into a guy that just misses with all his attacks and whose super run speed means nothing because the rest of us are flying. But if you ended up with a party that was Healer, Monk, Ninja, Fighter you'd find that the Monk was a quite solid class that was by far the most fun at its balance level (though the Ninja can be fun too).It's not any class that crushes the monk. It's the encounter guidelines - monks can't actually win against pretty much anything in their nominal power level.


Really, I'd say the Monk is probably the best designed class in all of core. It's actually at the power level it was supposed to be at (Druids, Wizards, Clerics, and Sorcerers are MUCH stronger than they were supposed to be).This is close to true, but would only actually be true if one assumed either A) that the classes were intended to be unbalanced or B) that fighters overshot the intended level, because even they are actually way better. :D


But in the end, since we're voting on what we personally think is the best designed class, I just don't like the Monk because it's too weak for how I want to play. The T3 classes are balanced where I want the power to be balanced... strong enough to go solo for a while, be useful in all situations, and to be flexible, weak enough to still want a team with them and let each party member take the spotlight at appropriate times.Probably the single biggest problem with your tier "system" is that "Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Wildshape Variant Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior" aren't even close to the same power level.

---

Oh - Jaron's defense of the monk design reminded me of something: no class achieved its design intent as well as the healer. Which is: "letting a non-gamer girlfriend play a healbot with an unicorn".

JaronK
2010-01-18, 05:44 PM
There's that aspect, and I think that's why they wanted per days. I think in the end that's why 4e used a mix of per day and at will and whatnot. But overreliance on per days in the end isn't very flexible in that you have to have a certain number of encounters per day for it to work as expected. Meanwhile, if you just keep hammering on the party with a neverending series of attacks it's possible to have one continuous encounter that still leaves the PCs exhausted. Consider a dungeon where you're constantly under attack, even if just by traps... the encounter never ends (remember the DM basically decides when the encounter ends). You could for example do a dungeon that's slowly filling with water as the PCs race to escape it, and thus say that the encounter isn't ending.

And it's REALLY nice to be able to say "okay, now it's break time, you get your abilities back." It stops you from having to just break from the action and take a nap in a rope trick partway through an adventure. Most DMs I know were at first very thrown off by the idea of endless healing per day and regeneration abilities (Crusaders, Warblades, etc) but all of those changed their minds very quickly once they got used to it.

JaronK

Temotei
2010-01-18, 06:00 PM
Factotum or warblade.

Coidzor
2010-01-18, 06:06 PM
I believe "not overpowering" was in the criteria. I have been in games where a straightforward 3.5 fighter was not underpowered. I have not been in games where a straightforward 3.5 druid was not overpowering.

I have, because he played it as a straight caster (when he wasn't whacking people with a flaming scimitar) and had a scout animal companion (hawk) which couldn't contribute much to combat and quickly became counter balanced by the amount of straight combat and inside-jobs we had to deal with. And he used up his best spells on blasting. He was pretty good at blasting though, but we were dealing with waves of enemies and general combat scenarios where blasting, while helpful, was not overpowering. Especially since we ended up almost having all of us dying in all of our boss fights(did ok versus minibosses though).

JaronK
2010-01-18, 06:11 PM
Problem 1: they don't work the same - initiators "regain expended maneuvers" (clearly works as intended), factotums "gain points" (read literally, the actual rules do mean they could stack).

They have a maximum number of inspiration points per encounter, and gain up to that level. They have no way to gain more than that.


Problem 2: "encounter" being an entirely undefined term was a problem for ToB too. Partly sidestepped there by initiators having so little to care about out of combat (which bodes ill for their class design, BTW), but there was/b] the issue with Devoted Spirit healing, for example.

Encounter could use better definition, yes. But at least in our group, we've never found this to be a problem at all. The moment we drop out of initiative, have dealt with the threat, have finished talking to the guy, or basically gotten to the point where the DM says "okay, now that you're done with that, what do you do now?" we know the encounter is over.


Problem 3: even taking "per-encounter" to mean something not retarded, certain abilities don't even make sense in that context (e.g. major creation). Largely not relevant to the classes mentioned above, of course, but still a reason why per-encounter isn't and can't be the sole resource model of D&D.

Oh, I'm not saying it should be the only resource model. Abilities that actually create things for longer than one encounter (such as the creation spells) shouldn't be on a per encounter model (part of why the Factotum casting isn't only on per encounter, it's also per day). The point is that abilities that are effective only during one encounter (such as most attack spells) really should be on a per encounter basis. Though it would still be nice to have a more strict definition of encounter.


The part where spells are in limited supply isn't a problem, but the part where "encounter" has been [b]used but never defined most surely is.

Yes. We've had no trouble figuring it out in context, but "encounter" should be in the glossary at the end of the PHB if they're going to use it this much. "Monster" and "Creature" and "Race" should all be better defined too (some of those actually do have definitions, but those definitions are not always followed).


UMD for using the standard actions, restarting the encounter to get inspiration back (even dismissing the RAW stacking as a typo, which it is).

Restarting the encounter? If you can actually do that somehow, you've got full control of the encounter anyway. Unless you mean situations like "I'm building a wall, so I cast Wall of Stone and Fabricate, then wait till that encounter is done." There's really nothing wrong with that. Inspiration points measure how many actions of specific types you can do when under attack... anything you do outside of that really doesn't matter in terms of inspiration points. That probably could have been spelled out better, but inspiration is all about deciding how much you can dedicate to dealing with a specific problem in a limited time frame. If you've got time to kill, it's not supposed to limit you at all.


Rather, there's an unreason. While liking the monk concept's perfectly reasonable, liking the actual execution (I mean thinking it's adequate - not your case) only shows lack of knowledge of the system: people like monks mostly because they've been told monks are about kung-fu, and didn't yet notice the wrongness of it (e.g. fighting incorporeals, and it's only the tip of the iceberg). On why it's actually a bad design, see below.

I dunno, I feel like the execution is okay, it just isn't balanced (in the way I like of course). Stuff like "monks can't hit incorporeals" is how the game was originally supposed to be... each class was supposed to be pretty worthless in some areas. Fighters just fight, and suck everywhere else. Clerics just heal and blow up undead. Wizards just blast. Of course, it didn't turn out that way, but that's because they really didn't notice what they'd given casters.


It's not any class that crushes the monk. It's the encounter guidelines - monks can't actually win against pretty much anything in their nominal power level.

I haven't had that problem, actually. Admittedly, I don't play core only. But I think compared to a Fighter that can't use power attack effectively (no Shock Trooper) and all that, they don't seem too bad. Again, that's assuming that as an entire team you should have trouble beating up a CR+4 enemy, which is the balance point the designers wanted. I don't like playing that way, but that's how the game was supposed to be.


This is close to true, but would only actually be true if one assumed either A) that the classes were intended to be unbalanced or B) that fighters overshot the intended level, because even they are actually way better. :D

Remember, it started out core only. Core Fighters ain't that great anyway.


Probably the single biggest problem with your tier "system" is that "Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Wildshape Variant Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior" aren't even close to the same power level.

This isn't the place to start a fight over the Tier system, but I'm playing a party that tries to stick to T3. We've been right about the same power level. Some are stronger and some are weaker due to various factors (mostly optimization level and DM nerfing of specific abilities), but we're pretty darn close.


Oh - Jaron's defense of the monk design reminded me of something: no class achieved its design intent as well as the healer. Which is: "letting a non-gamer girlfriend play a healbot with an unicorn".

Heh, that's true enough. You can totally see that design process too. "Here, we need a healer. I made you a Cleric."
"I don't want to be religious, and there's too many abilities."
"Fine, here, you're a 'Healer.' It's the same but less religion and I took away most of the non healing stuff."
"Wait, this class is really boring. This sucks."
"Well what do you want then?"
"I want a unicorn!"
"Fine, you get a unicorn."

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 06:36 PM
The real issue with per-days is that they don't do their job in 3rd edition. They don't add an additional balancing factor to the game, and they don't add the utility they should have (that the party can sometimes be forced to retreat and recover, or change how they use resources) either. 4e fixed the second part, and did enough to fix the 15-minute workday.

It's not so much that 3rd edition characters burn themselves out before resting, it's that they can almost invariably afford to do so. That ruins a lot of proactive adventures, seriously limiting the DMs options.

Per-encounter isn't something I like - while most people have heard of narrative time, it basically puts a limit on how much you can do with a single scene or encounter.

I also like per-round (at-will or per-day) or fast recovery mechanics, because they do allow for many different kinds of encounters, and players aren't completely screwed if they end up in a massive fight like the ones that punctuate most sessions my IRL group plays.

Optimystik
2010-01-18, 06:46 PM
Ardent. Full caster (manifester), but still manages to be Tier 3 through limited selection of powers, not-too-uber base stats, and -- what most casters need more of -- magic powers that come in themes! Still a very flexible class -- can be a melee monster, a healbot, a Batman, or whatever. Just not all at once.

Ardent is delightful. Dripping with flavor, powerful as both a gish and primary caster, full of unique psionic effects. Their unique way of acquiring powers gives them a great deal of leeway when multiclassing and prestiging, as well, and they mesh seamlessly with Practiced Manifester as a result.

There's also quite a bit of support for it online - Psychic Theurge, Soul Manifester, the ACF, and power substitution for their mantles.

They're easily my favorite psionic class (with Erudite a close second.)

Fail
2010-01-18, 06:56 PM
They have a maximum number of inspiration points per encounter, and gain up to that level. They have no way to gain more than that.I know how it's supposed to work. I also know that's not how it does work by RAW. Merely an example of awful writing, not my actual belief that it should stack.


Encounter could use better definition, yes. But at least in our group, we've never found this to be a problem at all. The moment we drop out of initiative, have dealt with the threat, have finished talking to the guy, or basically gotten to the point where the DM says "okay, now that you're done with that, what do you do now?" we know the encounter is over.There are - many - people who never found a problem with the monk.


Yes. We've had no trouble figuring it out in context, but "encounter" should be in the glossary at the end of the PHB if they're going to use it this much. "Monster" and "Creature" and "Race" should all be better defined too (some of those actually do have definitions, but those definitions are not always followed).I don't think "monster" should be a game term (and yes, the "[verb] monster" spells might well be called "[verb] creature"). Otherwise, agreed.


Restarting the encounter? If you can actually do that somehow, you've got full control of the encounter anyway.If one assumes encounters to be tied to, say, the rules for starting an encounter when the sides preceive each other/surprise rounds/etc. (which's the closest to an answer 3.x gave), simple teleportation suffices. In a timeframe shorter than relevant most of the time.


I dunno, I feel like the execution is okay, it just isn't balanced (in the way I like of course). Stuff like "monks can't hit incorporeals" is how the game was originally supposed to be... each class was supposed to be pretty worthless in some areas. Fighters just fight, and suck everywhere else. Clerics just heal and blow up undead. Wizards just blast. Of course, it didn't turn out that way, but that's because they really didn't notice what they'd given casters.If that was the design intent (likely), it was absurdly bad intent. Essentially, it leads to playing Nintendo games.


I haven't had that problem, actually. Admittedly, I don't play core only. But I think compared to a Fighter that can't use power attack effectively (no Shock Trooper) and all that, they don't seem too bad. Again, that's assuming that as an entire team you should have trouble beating up a CR+4 enemy, which is the balance point the designers wanted. I don't like playing that way, but that's how the game was supposed to be.The encounter guidelines crush fighters too, sure. And remember that actually beating a CR+4 enemy is generally the spellcasters' work (even if no one notices) by a large margin, and carried on an action disparity that wasn't correctly playtested. Another valid encounter by the guidelines is bebilith/vrock/noble salamander/aboleth - try that with a fighter and a monk in the party. :D


Remember, it started out core only. Core Fighters ain't that great anyway.Better than monks by a large margin. :D


This isn't the place to start a fight over the Tier system, but I'm playing a party that tries to stick to T3. We've been right about the same power level. Some are stronger and some are weaker due to various factors (mostly optimization level and DM nerfing of specific abilities), but we're pretty darn close.To cut it short, that game might involve the subset that actually is close.


Heh, that's true enough. You can totally see that design process too. "Here, we need a healer. I made you a Cleric."
"I don't want to be religious, and there's too many abilities."
"Fine, here, you're a 'Healer.' It's the same but less religion and I took away most of the non healing stuff."
"Wait, this class is really boring. This sucks."
"Well what do you want then?"
"I want a unicorn!"
"Fine, you get a unicorn."Better than the design process behind 3.5 shapechange:

"My druid isn't good enough."
- Ed Stark.

---

lesser_minion: daily abilities come close to doing one of their jobs - making major creation and teleport not be at-will. Which is sorely needed.

Knaight
2010-01-18, 07:10 PM
Character Class: Dead Levels
(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a)

Because, while +5 Hp, +1 BAB, and +1 to Fort is boring, +5 Hp, +1 BAB, +1 to Fort, and +1 to DR is a fascinating barbarian ability. Give me a break. The rogue abilities that only work for a trap rogue are wonderful too. Particularly given the whole selection of tricks they already have, just 2 more short selections that are more powerful could work well.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 07:26 PM
If you think "my Druid isn't good enough" is bad, check out the online article where they introduced the spell "Guidance of the Avatar." The justification for adding the spell boils down to "Hey Clerics, are you annoyed that Rogues can do something you can't? Here's a spell to fix that!"

Damn. I mean... Damn.

And yes, the balance concept of "Fighters should be useless sometimes, Monks should be useless sometimes, it promotes teamwork" is annoying as heck. It's what they used and what they wanted, but I certainly don't claim it's a good idea. It's where the whole "you need a Rogue to deal with traps" concept originally came from too.

JaronK

Baidas Kebante
2010-01-18, 07:26 PM
Because, while +5 Hp, +1 BAB, and +1 to Fort is boring, +5 Hp, +1 BAB, +1 to Fort, and +1 to DR is a fascinating barbarian ability. Give me a break. The rogue abilities that only work for a trap rogue are wonderful too. Particularly given the whole selection of tricks they already have, just 2 more short selections that are more powerful could work well.

Take a look at what you're comparing here: Increase HP (every class gets that at a new level), increase BAB (every class gets that almost every level), increase save (again, every class). The one extra thing that Barbarians get listed here: Increase damage resistance. How many other classes have that same ability? How useful is this ability to a barbarian? That's probably why it isn't boring.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 07:27 PM
But it doesn't do anything! God that dead levels article made me cry (much like the Guidance of the Avatar article). I mean sure, you take one less damage, but that's not fun. At least monk does stuff like "now you can run down walls."

JaronK

Wings of Peace
2010-01-18, 07:39 PM
We often see people screaming about how overpowered wizards are, or how useless soulknives are, or even how broken truenamers are. I want to ask the fellow playgrounders the following question.


Broken good or train wreck between orphanages bad? Because broken is a term I usually associate with being powerful which is not what I think when I think Truenamer.

Deepblue706
2010-01-18, 07:42 PM
Take a look at what you're comparing here: Increase HP (every class gets that at a new level), increase BAB (every class gets that almost every level), increase save (again, every class). The one extra thing that Barbarians get listed here: Increase damage resistance. How many other classes have that same ability? How useful is this ability to a barbarian? That's probably why it isn't boring.

DR just saves you from spending money on Adamantine Armor, which it doesn't fully surpass until 16th level. While it's flavorful, I think that's quite a small perk.

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 07:45 PM
lesser_minion: daily abilities come close to doing one of their jobs - making major creation and teleport not be at-will. Which is sorely needed.

Because consequence-limited casting and use of (genuine) rare resources aren't good enough?

(and the spells in question are actually Fabricate, Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, the Teleport line, and arguably the healing spells*. Major Creation, IIRC, actually has the target vanish after a few hours)

Teleport is actually one of the 'flow control' spells that wrecks daily abilities as a balance.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 07:51 PM
But Major Creation still creates effects that last longer than one encounter, therefor it can't be limited by any per encounter restriction. It's actually a great example of something that should be restricted by a "per day" limit.

Fabricate is worse, because the effects last longer than days. Per Day is a start, but Fabricate should have an associated cost. Right now you have the perfect deal where you spend a renewable resource (per day slots) to get a permanent benefit (whatever item you just made). That's a problem. But per day is better than nothing.

JaronK

Aldizog
2010-01-18, 07:56 PM
But it doesn't do anything! God that dead levels article made me cry (much like the Guidance of the Avatar article). I mean sure, you take one less damage, but that's not fun. At least monk does stuff like "now you can run down walls."

JaronK
Dude, you're totally forgetting about Trap Sense. Now that's a fun ability, and it completely prevents five of those barbarian levels from being "dead levels." Or an extra use of rage per day -- that's so awesome that it's half as good as an actual feat. And most importantly, it fills up a line on the table.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 08:07 PM
You're trying to make me cry again aren't you?

JaronK

Doc Roc
2010-01-18, 08:09 PM
I would say psion and, curiously, ardent.....
I'm not sure many will agree with me.

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 08:10 PM
But Major Creation still creates effects that last longer than one encounter, therefor it can't be limited by any per encounter restriction. It's actually a great example of something that should be restricted by a "per day" limit.

Fabricate is worse, because the effects last longer than days. Per Day is a start, but Fabricate should have an associated cost. Right now you have the perfect deal where you spend a renewable resource (per day slots) to get a permanent benefit (whatever item you just made). That's a problem. But per day is better than nothing.

JaronK

You seem to have missed the comment about the use of genuine rare resources or a consequence inherent to the spell.

Major Creation could be reasonably well balanced by an "objects created at any one time" limit without too much trouble.

As for the Guidance of the Avatar spell, there are a couple of vague balancing factors - firstly, that it works better cast on a rogue, and secondly, the principle that a caster who blows a round doing something that could have been done by someone else is a chump. Leave it on a wand. Then give the wand to the rogue.


I would say psion and, curiously, ardent.....
I'm not sure many will agree with me.

I'd be tempted to agree with you on psionics, but I have ambivalent feelings towards points. While you can get some incredibly elegant systems out of them, on their own, I think they feel a little boring.

Gamerlord
2010-01-18, 08:12 PM
Spellthief always seemed well-made, has almost everything the rogue has, but also has the ability to steal spells, and can cast a few at higher levels, never saw anything in it that scream "OVERPOWERED".

JaronK
2010-01-18, 08:13 PM
You seem to have missed the comment about the use of genuine rare resources or a consequence inherent to the spell.

Major Creation could be reasonably well balanced by an "objects created at any one time" limit without too much trouble.

You could, but that would mean you'd have it up all the time. I mean, you can almost do that already, but still. Per Day is sufficient. It's not the only solution, but it's a solid one.


As for the Guidance of the Avatar spell, there are a couple of vague balancing factors - firstly, that it works better cast on a rogue, and secondly, the principle that a caster who blows a round doing something that could have been done by someone else is a chump. Leave it on a wand. Then give the wand to the rogue.

The larger point was the reasoning behind the spell as pointed out by the designer in question. Regardless of the spell itself, the mentality was horrific. And no, a level 5 Rogue could not have a +20 to any skill check as needed. There's a reason Cloistered Clerics are better skillmonkeys than Rogues, and spells like Divine Inspiration and Guidance of the Avatar are a big part of that (Kobold Domain helps).

JaronK.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 08:14 PM
Spellthief always seemed well-made, has everything the rogue has, but also has the ability to steal spells, and can cast a few at higher levels, never saw anything in it that scream "OVERPOWERED".

It was... a nice try. But making a weaker version of a Rogue who's sole strength was that he could steal stuff from mages if he could actually sneak attack them? Dangerous. It's like a predator who's only prey is bears and who is the size of a dog. It just doesn't work (until you put a Factotum in the party. Then holy crap, spellthieves got good).

And no, Spellthieves do not have everything a Rogue has. Not even close.

JaronK

Toliudar
2010-01-18, 08:22 PM
For me, the well-made classes are the ones that allow you to create significant character around, blending crunch and fluff. Warlock and fighter do this to a certain extent, with invocations and feats, but it's the ToB classes, sorcerers and favoured souls that really do that, with maneuver/spell selection.

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 08:42 PM
It was... a nice try. But making a weaker version of a Rogue who's sole strength was that he could steal stuff from mages if he could actually sneak attack them? Dangerous. It's like a predator who's only prey is bears and who is the size of a dog. It just doesn't work (until you put a Factotum in the party. Then holy crap, spellthieves got good).

And no, Spellthieves do not have everything a Rogue has. Not even close.

JaronK

I know Fax really likes the spellthieves. The main advantage to them is that they score epic points from being interesting.

The main rules for a good class are, IMO (mostly developed by reading through Fax's thread on the matter):


The class must have an identity. It needs to be distinct enough in terms of mechanics that there is a point to its existence, and it needs to do something of use to a party. You also need a good idea of what you intend to portray, and you need to portray it well.
The class should be fun and interesting - whatever the class adds, it doesn't have to be shiny, but it does have to keep the player's interest.
The way the class responds to different ability scores needs to be well thought out and accounted for in the design. There isn't necessarily any right or wrong answer to the ability dependency question, but it's seriously worth bearing in mind.
The class should have room for personalisation over and above the things everyone has in common. There shouldn't be a dominant route, however.
Support in the form of feats and prestige classes should be well thought out. As with the class' own build options, there shouldn't be any dominant route.
The class should have an even progression. Players don't want to spend four levels crying themselves to sleep at night before they get the good stuff, nor do they want to spend four levels rocking out before spending the rest of the game crying themselves to sleep at night.

Aquillion
2010-01-18, 08:47 PM
The Psychic Warrior is great, definitely. All their abilities are well-planned out to support each other. You get a bunch of customization options, especially since you can even grab a few general-purpose psionic powers using Expanded Knowledge if you want. It's one of the few 3/4ths BAB combat classes that works (and was the template for the Swordsage, I think.)

I'd also say that the Rogue is pretty good, even if other options sometimes outshine it. There's a wide variety of possible Rogue builds focusing on different stats, and lots of room for customization. The class needs more skill points and perhaps a few other tweaks (especially if you want it to compete with tier-1 casters), but overall it's well-made.

JaronK
2010-01-18, 09:14 PM
The class must have an identity and a role. It needs to be distinct enough in terms of mechanics that there is a point to its existence, and it needs to do something of use to a party. You also need a good idea of what you intend to portray, and you need to portray it well.

I don't like the idea of giving a class a "role." They must be useful to be sure, but a specific role? I guess it depends on what you mean by role. I'm not sure how distinct the mechanics must be either. There's nothing wrong with two classes being quite similar as long as each class adds something the players want.

The rest I agree with though.

JaronK

Fail
2010-01-18, 09:23 PM
The main rules for a good class are, IMO (mostly developed by reading through Fax's thread on the matter):The best measure of a philosophy is the results it produces. And his classes ought to be named after me - they aren't even devoid of dead levels.

lesser_minion
2010-01-18, 09:34 PM
The best measure of a philosophy is the results it produces. And his classes ought to be named after me - they aren't even devoid of dead levels.

They're done pretty carefully though. A character doesn't have to have an entry in the special column for every level - in fact, that can be worse than having dashes, because it gives a false impression. The rule that every class grants a bonus feat every four levels is fairly interesting.



I don't like the idea of giving a class a "role." They must be useful to be sure, but a specific role? I guess it depends on what you mean by role.

Fax gives a wide range of roles, and I kept it because that's how he worded it. In reality, all that's really required is that the designers know what the class will actually do, and that it's something worthwhile. It's really the mechanical side of what I referred to as 'identity'.

Mechanically distinct is one of Fax's points - each class should be able to produce at least some effects that are functionally unique. The basic idea is that character classes shouldn't feel like modified versions of another character class - for example, one of the problems with the sorcerer is that it's functionally a spontaneous wizard, which didn't really need a separate class, just an adaptation note.

I wrote those guidelines by looking at what Fax and OW4 had to say about the matter - you might want to read their original thoughts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3149139#post3149139) as well.

I basically did the editing, and changed MAD and PrCs to "Well-thought out ability dependencies" and "Well thought out feat and PrC support"

Fail
2010-01-18, 10:14 PM
They're done pretty carefully though. A character doesn't have to have an entry in the special column for every level - in fact, that can be worse than having dashes, because it gives a false impression.Like dreadnought 8/11/14/17, for example? Also, people attempting to design classes well can just not do it like WotC and put a real ability at each level (or, you know, 2, like wizards or - mostly - psions).


The rule that every class grants a bonus feat every four levels is fairly interesting.I came to know this now (bonus feats at class levels divisible by 4). Then I verified my vague recall of the dreadnought having its literal dead levels (besides the factual, misleading, ones pointed above) at levels divisible by 3. Then I ROFLed.

DementedFellow
2010-01-18, 10:36 PM
I'm really sad to see that Bard isn't listed as much in this thread.


Bardic Knowledge removes the need for those tedious knowledge skills.
Glibness is awesome.
Makes excellent "face" character.
Makes great skill monkey character
Diplomacy is good and the Bards take to it like cancer to a prostate.
3/4th BAB makes melee possible.
Useful buffer.
Cure Light Wounds is on the spell list. This is the only core arcane class that gets this spell.
Performances can be used to gain access to the king's castle, make money, and opens up the possibility for some of the best impromptu songs by players.
Less chance for Arcane Spell Failure.


Why again is the Bard not considered the most 'well-made'?

Optimystik
2010-01-18, 10:50 PM
It was... a nice try. But making a weaker version of a Rogue who's sole strength was that he could steal stuff from mages if he could actually sneak attack them? Dangerous. It's like a predator who's only prey is bears and who is the size of a dog. It just doesn't work (until you put a Factotum in the party. Then holy crap, spellthieves got good).

And no, Spellthieves do not have everything a Rogue has. Not even close.

JaronK

You're right. They're better.

a) They get spells of their own.

b) They still have the stealth skills, trapmonkey skills, enough to learn them (6+int) and trapfinding.

c) They have sneak attack, and can actually do something worthwhile with the dice besides minus 6 HP.

d) They can steal spells (up to 9th-level!) denying enemy casters actions, and giving their party members a boost.

e) With a level check, they can become immune to harmful spells they save against, even being able to return them to sender.

f) They have UMD too, so they can duplicate all a rogue's tricks.

Seems to me a bit more useful than just being able to poke somebody in the liver.

HCL
2010-01-18, 11:02 PM
You're right. They're better.

a) They get spells of their own.

b) They still have the stealth skills, trapmonkey skills, enough to learn them (6+int) and trapfinding.

c) They have sneak attack, and can actually do something worthwhile with the dice besides minus 6 HP.

d) They can steal spells (up to 9th-level!) denying enemy casters actions, and giving their party members a boost.

e) With a level check, they can become immune to harmful spells they save against, even being able to return them to sender.

f) They have UMD too, so they can duplicate all a rogue's tricks.

Seems to me a bit more useful than just being able to poke somebody in the liver.

You can also steal your own party spellcaster's spells prebattle. Meaning that you can lay down those touch spells for him so he can focus on battlefield control and buffing.

Draz74
2010-01-19, 12:19 AM
IMHO, the "spellcasting = [Ex] Ability" thing is rules lawyering that should go die in a fire alongside "Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes." Just so obviously anti-RAI.

And with that simple, obvious fix (and similarly obvious ones) made, the Factotum Level 19 ability actually becomes surprisingly fair. Still terribly flexible, but hey, that's the point. Sneak Attack +8d6 is one of the better options you can select with it. Doesn't sound broken at Level 19 to me.


Why? Various classes and various monsters can have fair fights with it, it doesn't obviate various classes as companions (no, not even rogue), and a number of classes can be about as relevant as it in downtime.

Meh, I haven't actually played with a Beguiler, so I shouldn't pretend to be an expert. But I've heard enough Rogues complain about how they felt useless around a Beguiler to poison me against the class.


I would say psion and, curiously, ardent.....
I'm not sure many will agree with me.

I will! Ardent, as I posted earlier, is possibly the best-designed class. Psion is the third-best designed full caster class, after Ardent and Dragonfire Adept. :smallbiggrin:


Why again is the Bard not considered the most 'well-made'?

The only reason I didn't nominate Bard is because PrCing out of it (into Sublime Chord, mostly) is too obvious of a choice. You could argue that's Sublime Chord just being too darn good, though.

Oh yeah, and the fact that Bards just aren't any fun in Core-only. (No good feats specifically for them, only one good unique spell, and Song of Courage just doesn't do enough to feel worthwhile.)

Aldizog
2010-01-19, 12:35 AM
Oh yeah, and the fact that Bards just aren't any fun in Core-only. (No good feats specifically for them, only one good unique spell, and Song of Courage just doesn't do enough to feel worthwhile.)
I think bard could be a pretty good swashbuckler-gish in Core-only. Haven't played a bard this way, but would like to.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 12:47 AM
The only reason I didn't nominate Bard is because PrCing out of it (into Sublime Chord, mostly) is too obvious of a choice. You could argue that's Sublime Chord just being too darn good, though.

Oh yeah, and the fact that Bards just aren't any fun in Core-only. (No good feats specifically for them, only one good unique spell, and Song of Courage just doesn't do enough to feel worthwhile.)

Prestige classes shouldn't really have a bearing on how good or bad the class entering the PrC is.

In Core, yes, Bard is weak compared to other classes, but like I said, they can fulfill many roles. Again, having another person being able to cast Cure Light Wounds spontaneously isn't a bad thing and that does set them apart from the other arcane casters.

Outside of Core, certain feats/PrCs can make Bards monsters of melee, capable spell casters, and all around badasses.

Bards are one of the most balanced classes out there.

Kallisti
2010-01-19, 01:08 AM
Binder is very cool and manages to be pretty effective without being overpowered.

I've found that the MoI classes were well worth learning the MoI system for,

And, of course, ToB is pretty awesome.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-19, 01:09 AM
Broken good or train wreck between orphanages bad? Because broken is a term I usually associate with being powerful which is not what I think when I think Truenamer.It's a class whose central mechanic does not function. You can either cheese the skill as much as possible or be useless. And if you do cheese the skill, you're still weak(because most of the utterances suck), but the primary balancing factor no longer applies, which makes no sense at all.

Draz74
2010-01-19, 01:21 AM
It's a class whose central mechanic does not function. You can either cheese the skill as much as possible or be useless. And if you do cheese the skill, you're still weak(because most of the utterances suck), but the primary balancing factor no longer applies, which makes no sense at all.

Truenamer is by no means a strong class, but it's really annoying how terribly exaggerated are the constant reports of its utter uselessness.

Level 20, you have to expect CR 20 foes. That's Truespeak DC 55. Or let's assume the foe has good Spell Resistance, so you have to hit DC 60. Let's say you don't use anything that any DM (who would allow Tome of Magic at all) would consider cheese. It's still easy to get a Truespeak check of +49, and I'm not even trying. (23 ranks, a conservative 32 Intelligence, Skill focus, and skill-boosting items found in the DMG and Tome of Magic.) Congrats, you can now affect even a Balor with your Utterances on a roll of 11.

That's not great, no. And you're right that the Utterances' effects are somewhat underwhelming anyway. And you run into problems if you have many encounters in the day or try to Quicken your Utterances. But still ... Truenamer is far from the weakest class in the game.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-19, 01:25 AM
Truenamer is by no means a strong class, but it's really annoying how terribly exaggerated are the constant reports of its utter uselessness.

Level 20, you have to expect CR 20 foes. That's Truespeak DC 55. Or let's assume the foe has good Spell Resistance, so you have to hit DC 60. Let's say you don't use anything that any DM (who would allow Tome of Magic at all) would consider cheese. It's still easy to get a Truespeak check of +49, and I'm not even trying. (23 ranks, a conservative 32 Intelligence, Skill focus, and skill-boosting items found in the DMG and Tome of Magic.) Congrats, you can now affect even a Balor with your Utterances on a roll of 11.

That's not great, no. And you're right that the Utterances' effects are somewhat underwhelming anyway. And you run into problems if you have many encounters in the day or try to Quicken your Utterances. But still ... Truenamer is far from the weakest class in the game.There's a reason it's tierless rather than tier 5/6. It's not the weakest, but...the balancing mechanisms fail to work as intended. And keep in mind you're still looking at a failure chance just to cast a spell, which is annoying. Not to mention the MAD. It's more poorly designed than useless.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 01:29 AM
Truenamer is MAD? I thought all you needed was INT up the wazoo. CON and DEX are useful to any classes. How is the Truenamer MAD?

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-19, 01:32 AM
Truenamer is MAD? I thought all you needed was INT up the wazoo. CON and DEX are useful to any classes. How is the Truenamer MAD?IIRC, save DCs are Cha-based.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 01:36 AM
If Zaq's thread taught us anything, choosing utterances that don't allow a save DC is pretty easy. Some utterances are simply better than others.

ZeroNumerous
2010-01-19, 01:38 AM
Congrats, you can now affect even a Balor with your Utterances on a roll of 11.

That's not great, no. And you're right that the Utterances' effects are somewhat underwhelming anyway. And you run into problems if you have many encounters in the day or try to Quicken your Utterances. But still ... Truenamer is far from the weakest class in the game.

So. 45% of the time: You are failing to do anything. For all intents and purposes, you have taken a bard, removed all his useful spells and singing ability, then given him plate mail without any buffs to AC? Oh, and lowered his meager BAB and hit dice as well.

I would, honestly, much rather play anything else at all than a truenamer. Even the warrior NPC class has full BAB and can, with a bit of effort, much more reliably hit his enemies at least once.

Draz74
2010-01-19, 01:58 AM
There's a reason it's tierless rather than tier 5/6. It's not the weakest, but...the balancing mechanisms fail to work as intended. And keep in mind you're still looking at a failure chance just to cast a spell, which is annoying. Not to mention the MAD. It's more poorly designed than useless.

I still think it's Tier 5.

Definitely very poorly designed. No argument there. To hear some people around here talk, though, you'd think it was a Commoner whose Utterances actively hurt their user.


So. 45% of the time: You are failing to do anything.
Meh, that's not so unusual. Low-level martial classes have to deal with it all the time. Same with 4e characters of all levels in a somewhat tough campaign, when they're not using their Dailies.

And keep in mind, this is where the Truenamer is supposed to be at his worst. At earlier levels, which is the vast majority of most campaigns, Truespeak DCs are more manageable. And even at Level 20, who says you won't ever fight a pack of CR 15 critters instead of a single CR 20? (It's rare, but I'm pretty sure this kind of situation is exactly what they had in mind when they designed the Truenamer. Else why even write the high-level Speak Unto the Masses ability?)


For all intents and purposes, you have taken a bard, removed all his useful spells and singing ability, then given him plate mail without any buffs to AC? Oh, and lowered his meager BAB and hit dice as well.

I don't get the plate mail comment.

And ... lower HP and BAB than the Bard? :smallconfused: They're freaking identical. Comments like this are what make me suspect people condemn the Truenamer without even having read it, just because it's unpopular. :smallconfused:

Eloel
2010-01-19, 02:13 AM
The thing is, you have a 45% chance at your first try.
Next try? You have a 35% chance.
After a few tries/encounters?
You have 'no' chance.

JaronK
2010-01-19, 02:13 AM
You're right. They're better.

Have you played one? I have. I was incredibly underwhelmed... and I've played every skillmonkey class there is (except Expert), usually many times.


a) They get spells of their own.

They do. And this is a nice asset.


b) They still have the stealth skills, trapmonkey skills, enough to learn them (6+int) and trapfinding.

A shame about the intense MAD though, since they're expected to be like a Rogue (needs Int and Dex at least) but are a Cha based caster, plus with their weak defense they really need Con if they plan to live. The result is a decreased Int score since something has to give, combined with only 6 + Int skills, meaning they just don't have enough skill points to actually utilize those class skills. Hide, Move Silently, Concentration, UMD, Diplomacy, Spot, Listen, Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Spellcraft... there's a lot of skills they need, and they just don't have the points to get them.


c) They have sneak attack, and can actually do something worthwhile with the dice besides minus 6 HP.

They get HALF sneak attack, and their special abilities only work (for the most part) against casters, which are very difficult even for a normal Rogue to attack. Add in the MAD issue and Spelltheives are often worse on the offensive against casters than normal. Plus they've got all the usual Rogue problems with immune enemies.


d) They can steal spells (up to 9th-level!) denying enemy casters actions, and giving their party members a boost.

Again, you have to actually be able to land sneak attacks against enemy casters for that to work. That's hardly a gaurentee.


e) With a level check, they can become immune to harmful spells they save against, even being able to return them to sender.

You have to make the save first (and note that their only good save is will, which is also based on their only actual dump stat). That's actually pretty unlikely. Then you have to make a level check, which is actually pretty tough to optimize (a 10th level spelltheif trying to absorb a 5th level spell needs to roll a 10 or above on a D20 to get something to work). It's not reliable for the same reason Phantasmal Killer is unreliable... too many rolls that can go badly for you. If they had charisma to saves, this would be a lot better, but as it stands they're more likely to just have the spell hit them. And all this only works if a spell directly targets them, as opposed to an AoE. It's hardly "immune" when you need to save first and then make the level check and it doesn't work on AoEs.


f) They have UMD too, so they can duplicate all a rogue's tricks.

...UMD is not the only trick Rogues have. It's a good one in some specific types of campaigns. In most, it's a terribly overrated skill (at least, for classes that don't make their own wands like Warlocks and Artificers). Consider this: if you're not playing in a game where you can buy whatever loot you want, you're unlikely to get a UMDable thing that's actually any good. In a game where you can buy whatever you want, it's quite likely that you could just buy some nice gear for yourself with that money that didn't require UMD anyway. Anything you could buy to use UMD with that's actually better than anything else you could buy is often walking straight into DM nerf territory (good luck actually purchasing that Eternal Wand of Explosive Runes). So it's really quite rare that UMD is going to be any good for a Rogue or a Spellthief. Admittedly, their Charisma casting helps them a little here, but it's not much.

Anyway, claiming that UMD gives Spellthieves all Rogue tricks is quite false.

Basically, it's only in games where you've got a Factotum to play with that spellthieves shine. Or when combined with Master Spellthief and Shadowcraft Mage. Otherwise... I'm just not seeing it, and I've played them. In the end, it feels like you're playing a cut rate crappy version of a Factotum or Beguiler.

As for the Truenamer, it's just broken. Not good, not bad, just not functional. The basic concept is not workable (skill checks deciding how often you can do something, with an expected DC that gives you a reasonable target number with your D20). Either you don't optimize a lot and you can't effect anything, or you optimize like crazy and now your utterances almost always land and you're basically a Warlock that spent too much money on your gear. It's far too difficult to hit the middle ground that was intended. Meanwhile, if you do get all the necessary custom gear to be able to spam your utterances (items of +10 Truespeak, Item Familiars, and so on)... wouldn't you have been far stronger with some other class that had all the perfect gear it ever wanted anyway?

As such, even optimized they come off pretty weak, until level 20 when they can suddenly spam Gate. Who makes a class like that? It's terrible. Oh wait, I just remembered: the Healer. Ugh. Weak for most of your career and then suddenly you have one cheesy trick is SUCH bad design.

JaronK

ZeroNumerous
2010-01-19, 02:20 AM
I don't get the plate mail comment.

And ... lower HP and BAB than the Bard? :smallconfused: They're freaking identical. Comments like this are what make me suspect people condemn the Truenamer without even having read it. :smallconfused:

My bad. I thought Full Plate was a 45% spell failure chance, but it's only 35%. I also remembered the truenamer as a d4 HD and 1/2 BAB.


Meh, that's not so unusual. Low-level martial classes have to deal with it all the time. Same with 4e characters of all levels in a somewhat tough campaign, when they're not using their Dailies.

Not really. A fighter at level 1 with 18 strength would have a +5 to hit a wolf's AC of 14. He hits on a 9, and with flanking he needs only 7 to hit. On the other hand, a truenamer at level 1 with INT 18 and full ranks would also be hitting on a 9. At level 2 the fighter is swinging +6(+7 if he's got a MWK sword) and hitting against a Large Monstrous Spider on an 8(or 7). Versus the truenamer's +9 against a DC of 19, or hitting on a 10.

The most common monsters lack any appreciable AC, but a truenamer's DCs start at requiring a 9 then move upward. Even if we give really common feats(skill focus[truenaming] and weapon focus(whatever)) to the truenamer/fighter then the fighter needs only to flank to put them back on equal ground. And this is intentionally ignoring any possibility of saves, repetitive uses of an utterance or the usefulness of an utterance.

The fact is: The truenamer starts his day off poorly and gets progessively worse as he goes. Even the fighter, who scales linearly, is not any worse off from level 1 to level 20.


(It's rare, but I'm pretty sure this kind of situation is exactly what they had in mind when they designed the Truenamer. Else why even write the high-level Speak Unto the Masses ability?)

The thing is; saying "My class is great against groups of monsters we should have fought five levels ago" is like saying "I can survive six seconds longer than average while on fire." In the end: Your skill still sucks. Plus, you're putting faith into Wizards to write a balanced class without playtesting it. Hopefully you have ceased doing as such, or your good faith will continue to be abused.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 02:21 AM
The thing is, you have a 45% chance at your first try.
Next try? You have a 35% chance.
After a few tries/encounters?
You have 'no' chance.

With THAT utterance. At Level 20 you have 19 other Utterances to use.

And keep in mind it's more than just a try. You have to succeed to get the increase in DC.

Coidzor
2010-01-19, 06:23 AM
And at level 20 you're supposed to be so superhuman it hurts.

lesser_minion
2010-01-19, 08:56 AM
Like dreadnought 8/11/14/17, for example? Also, people attempting to design classes well can just not do it like WotC and put a real ability at each level (or, you know, 2, like wizards or - mostly - psions).

I came to know this now (bonus feats at class levels divisible by 4). Then I verified my vague recall of the dreadnought having its literal dead levels (besides the factual, misleading, ones pointed above) at levels divisible by 3. Then I ROFLed.

Then you read the prowess per level, the article explaining what Prowess is (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Investing_Feats), what it does, and how it's used, and the various articles on Style Feats.

There won't be any dead levels once it's done.

As for the levels divisible by 3 thing, I get the impression that Fax intends to change it so that every class has a pause every four levels. Previously, yes, Fax did plan to add a pause to the progression wherever the class would normally gain a common feat (it still gains those, BTW).

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 09:01 AM
So let me get this straight. Rogue is a bad class because it's main class feature even at level 20 doesn't work against undead or constructs?

At level 20, a Truenamer does not suck. Let's say through circumstances your Utterances of the Evolving Mind are all used up and you cannot land any utterances on you, your allies or your enemies. Utterances of the Perfected Map, especially the gate one are easily spammed. Gate in something that can handle what you're facing.

If your DM has caused you to have that many encounters in a day, he is trying to kill your character.

And besides, Speak My Name And I Am There is AWESOME. Conceivably, you can teleport on the other side of the world with no expenditure on your part aside from trusting someone with a nickname for you. If your enemy finds out your nickname, you can choose to ignore it.

Penitent
2010-01-19, 09:21 AM
The most well made class is Wizard.

It's the class best balanced against monsters. It is versatile, presents lots of good archetypes to choose from. Your main RNG is saving throws, and that's a lot harder to break than AC/AB or Damage.

It also leaves a lot of room to grow in PrCs while still progressing your main schtik. And that's important if you are going to have a PrC heavy system.

Comparably, the Rogue is a poorly designed class. Even if it where the best balance point to strike (and it's at least close) it's still terribly designed.

They have an ability that increase every odd level, and yet they still have a bunch of dead levels. Special abilities are often poorly worded and unclear, and don't even really start to come online until level 10+, meaning most games never even see them.

And finally, their main schtik: SA, forces them to come up with elaborate methods of satisfying conditions (flanking or dex denied) and then they have to hope that their opponent isn't immune to something that everyone and their dog is immune to. Or they can dumpster dive like crazy to attempt to bypass every possible restriction, but they still go sit in a corner when facing elementals until level 12, and by then, they are higher level than the CR of the highest level elemental in the Core books.

And they can never do anything about oozes, but who even cares.

arguskos
2010-01-19, 09:23 AM
And they can never do anything about oozes, but who even cares.
Ooze Puppet. Sor/Wiz 6. Makes an Ooze your bitch for 1 day/caster level.

Eloel
2010-01-19, 09:26 AM
Just get Penetrating Strike ACF - now they can SA normally immune stuff for half 'dice'. Craven is not dice, so it doesn't halve.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 09:28 AM
Call me crazy but a 'well-made' class shouldn't have to rely on an ACF in a variant rulebook in order to be relevant in battle when basically they are a DPS class.

Eloel
2010-01-19, 09:30 AM
Call me crazy but a 'well-made' class shouldn't have to rely on an ACF in a variant rulebook in order to be relevant in battle when basically they are a DPS class.

ACFs, to me, are part of the class.

Optimystik
2010-01-19, 10:03 AM
A shame about the intense MAD though, since they're expected to be like a Rogue (needs Int and Dex at least) but are a Cha based caster, plus with their weak defense they really need Con if they plan to live. The result is a decreased Int score since something has to give, combined with only 6 + Int skills, meaning they just don't have enough skill points to actually utilize those class skills. Hide, Move Silently, Concentration, UMD, Diplomacy, Spot, Listen, Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Spellcraft... there's a lot of skills they need, and they just don't have the points to get them.

You're making an unfounded assumption here. Why do you need a high CHA? You're not an offensive caster. 14 cha gets you all your spell levels, use items to boost it the rest of the way for the bonus slots if you really want. Rely on self-buffs and no-save spells, there's plenty. You have the entire wiz/sorc spell list, (minus evocation and conjuration) - that's every splat book, including SpC on your table, and you can UMD any other spells you need just like a rogue can.

One class can only mimic being a caster - the other is just as good at doing the same thing, and has spells of its own - no contest.

They get charm - no need for diplomacy. They get polymorph and alter self. They get invisibility and darkness. They get... you get the point.


They get HALF sneak attack, and their special abilities only work (for the most part) against casters, which are very difficult even for a normal Rogue to attack. Add in the MAD issue and Spelltheives are often worse on the offensive against casters than normal. Plus they've got all the usual Rogue problems with immune enemies.

As above, the so-called "MAD issue" is a non-issue.
This is not 4e - the rogue has more jobs than just striker. Utility > rolling more d6s.


Again, you have to actually be able to land sneak attacks against enemy casters for that to work. That's hardly a gaurentee.

It's easier for a spellthief to do so than a rogue - the former can dispel their buffs, has buffs of his own (like flight), and EVERY spell used against him is potentially "save negates" unlike a rogue, who can still be extremely hampered or killed even if he makes a non-reflex save.


You have to make the save first (and note that their only good save is will, which is also based on their only actual dump stat). That's actually pretty unlikely. Then you have to make a level check, which is actually pretty tough to optimize (a 10th level spelltheif trying to absorb a 5th level spell needs to roll a 10 or above on a D20 to get something to work). It's not reliable for the same reason Phantasmal Killer is unreliable... too many rolls that can go badly for you. If they had charisma to saves, this would be a lot better, but as it stands they're more likely to just have the spell hit them. And all this only works if a spell directly targets them, as opposed to an AoE. It's hardly "immune" when you need to save first and then make the level check and it doesn't work on AoEs.

a) There are many ways to buff your saves, especially with all the spells they have access to.

b) They still have more ways to be immune to a spell than a rogue does - seeing as rogues get NONE besides Evasion, and "reflex half" are not the spells that you need to be worrying about.


...UMD is not the only trick Rogues have. It's a good one in some specific types of campaigns. In most, it's a terribly overrated skill (at least, for classes that don't make their own wands like Warlocks and Artificers). Consider this: if you're not playing in a game where you can buy whatever loot you want, you're unlikely to get a UMDable thing that's actually any good. In a game where you can buy whatever you want, it's quite likely that you could just buy some nice gear for yourself with that money that didn't require UMD anyway. Anything you could buy to use UMD with that's actually better than anything else you could buy is often walking straight into DM nerf territory (good luck actually purchasing that Eternal Wand of Explosive Runes). So it's really quite rare that UMD is going to be any good for a Rogue or a Spellthief. Admittedly, their Charisma casting helps them a little here, but it's not much.

In a game with no magic items to UMD, the Spellthief shines even more. Now the Rogue has no magic at all. The Spellthief? Still does. You're widening the gap here, not closing it.


Anyway, claiming that UMD gives Spellthieves all Rogue tricks is quite false.

Well, they don't get Evasion. Oh wait, they do. (http://www.imarvintpa.com/DnDLive/spells.php?ID=4945)

Your point has yet to be proven.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-19, 10:06 AM
Because consequence-limited casting and use of (genuine) rare resources aren't good enough?

(and the spells in question are actually Fabricate, Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, the Teleport line, and arguably the healing spells*. Major Creation, IIRC, actually has the target vanish after a few hours)

Teleport is actually one of the 'flow control' spells that wrecks daily abilities as a balance.

Ok, you clearly do not know what broken is if you think At Will Healing is a bad thing. It actually encourages the players to continue traveling instead of resting constantly to heal up.

lesser_minion
2010-01-19, 10:52 AM
Ok, you clearly do not know what broken is if you think At Will Healing is a bad thing. It actually encourages the players to continue traveling instead of resting constantly to heal up.

Strictly speaking, it's not unbalanced. However, I can see why a lot of people don't like it, I would rather respect their views than dismiss them out of hand, and I don't see how it's too much to ask for others to do the same thing.

Kaiyanwang
2010-01-19, 10:55 AM
Call me crazy but a 'well-made' class shouldn't have to rely on an ACF in a variant rulebook in order to be relevant in battle when basically they are a DPS class.

Rogue = DPS is a recent concept IMO. I doubt it was a basic assumption when the game was made, or 3.0 was made.

The 10d6 SA was just the old backstab, at start, but more common.

AllisterH
2010-01-19, 11:03 AM
My problem with the Factotum is actually Font of Inspiration.

There's a problem there when the best option every time a character gets a feat is to take Font of Inspiration.

Binders are cool but like others have noticed, the high level vestiges seem lacking and I think it took a few readings to actually UNDERSTAND the class properly.

I think a good class has to have one defining point.

What is it about and this should be unique.

For example, the Samurai is literally the PHB fighter. Why again was this created?

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-19, 11:16 AM
Strictly speaking, it's not unbalanced. However, I can see why a lot of people don't like it, I would rather respect their views than dismiss them out of hand, and I don't see how it's too much to ask for others to do the same thing.

You can respect someone's views while still disproving them. You just need to be crafty with your words.

lesser_minion
2010-01-19, 11:18 AM
Call me crazy but a 'well-made' class shouldn't have to rely on an ACF in a variant rulebook in order to be relevant in battle when basically they are a DPS class.

DPS Class? No. Not the case at all.

Rogues weren't designed to do especially well in a fight. I think the designers worked on the assumption that different classes would get MVP at different times. Combat isn't the rogue's time.


You can respect someone's views while still disproving them. You just need to be crafty with your words.

But there is no disproof. Availability of healing is a matter of style, not balance.

That's why it's worth restricting. The point is that different DMs and different gamers want different sorts of 'feel' from their games, and one aspect of that is how injuries are dealt with in the world. At-will healing makes some people feel like injuries are too trivial, or that they make it harder for parties to lose without being wiped out.

The solution actually used was to give characters three or four different variants they could use for handling this sort of thing. The alternative I would probably suggest is a "resource gathering" mechanic, where the availability of certain effects is determined by the availability of whatever it is you have to collect.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-19, 11:18 AM
You can respect someone's views while still disproving them. You just need to be crafty with your words.

Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad!

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 11:20 AM
Rogue = DPS is a recent concept IMO. I doubt it was a basic assumption when the game was made, or 3.0 was made.

The 10d6 SA was just the old backstab, at start, but more common.

For the record, I'm not against the rogue class being called well-made, but it seems people in this thread like to point out one problem with a class and say it is not well-made. I was playing devil's advocate.

Rogue gets some pretty decent abilities that doesn't distract from gameplay.

Kaiyanwang
2010-01-19, 11:49 AM
For the record, I'm not against the rogue class being called well-made, but it seems people in this thread like to point out one problem with a class and say it is not well-made. I was playing devil's advocate.

Rogue gets some pretty decent abilities that doesn't distract from gameplay.

I was clarifying that I don't think Rogue is simply a DPS. IMHO Rogue i a GREAT class, barring the last dead level. Maybe is right who says is well-made.

About fighter: Even if I REALLY love fighters, and what I like of them is the bonus feat thing and customization, they are not a well-made class because of dead levels. Fullstop.

One could ague that is difficult to built them, are effective, are not effective, are one-trick, and so on, and stay hours about "level of power"discussions but to be considered well made a class cannot have dead levels in that amount.

BardicDuelist
2010-01-19, 11:51 AM
Factotum is probably the best designed class. I've grown to appreciate ToB, and all three of those classes are well built, even if I don't necessarily like using them. I also like how Beguilers are built.

EDIT: Oh, and for what it does, the barbarian really isn't bad.

Fail
2010-01-19, 12:10 PM
And with that simple, obvious fix (and similarly obvious ones) made, the Factotum Level 19 ability actually becomes surprisingly fair. Still terribly flexible, but hey, that's the point. Sneak Attack +8d6 is one of the better options you can select with it. Doesn't sound broken at Level 19 to me.Even if no single choice was, having them all is.


Meh, I haven't actually played with a Beguiler, so I shouldn't pretend to be an expert. But I've heard enough Rogues complain about how they felt useless around a Beguiler to poison me against the class.Most likely causes: 1) not playing rogues well, or 2) campaign not following wealth-by-level. And sure, the latter happens a lot and is the group's prerogative, but it makes talking about balance literally impossible - as in: campaigns exist where "monks are good" because treasure gotten grossly favors them. Again, people doing that might not be "playing wrong", but their experiences mean nothing with regards to the common reference point.

Assuming WBL: beguilers and rogues overlap. A lot. Which isn't always, or even necessarily often, bad: there's ... lots of situations where having similar skill sets is somewhere between adequate and ideal. Besides that, rogues doing well do use UMD to pick beguiler staples (ironically, they might do it less if paired with beguilers), yes, and where they do differ's mainly free spellcasting as opposed to ridiculous damage - both have lots of distinct uses. :D


Then you read the prowess per level, the article explaining what Prowess is (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Investing_Feats), what it does, and how it's used, and the various articles on Style Feats.

There won't be any dead levels once it's done.I already knew those. Not only it's perfectly possible, and even likely, to only gain deceptive (as per your original description, which I agree with) "abilities" via prowess, it's also possible to barred from investing all of it, and thus losing the remainder - more bad design.


(it still gains [the regular feat progression], BTW).Irrelevant. Fighters gain 11 feats, not 18.


Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad!Your Trollman impersonation is misplaced, and you should feel bad. :D

Eldariel
2010-01-19, 12:16 PM
With THAT utterance. At Level 20 you have 19 other Utterances to use.

And keep in mind it's more than just a try. You have to succeed to get the increase in DC.

Well, CR 20 on 20 is only an average encounter. Try CR 24, which is supposed to be a tough encounter, but something you might still face. DC 63. When your abilities are needed the most. And that's only to affect the opponent. Still no guarantee it actually DOES anything.

Draz74
2010-01-19, 12:21 PM
My bad. I thought Full Plate was a 45% spell failure chance, but it's only 35%. I also remembered the truenamer as a d4 HD and 1/2 BAB.
I wonder why people misremember the Truenamer as being weaker so often. Last week I had to refute a comment that the Expert was better than the Truenamer, because it had UMD as a class skill. :smalltongue:


Not really. A fighter at level 1 with 18 strength would have a +5 to hit a wolf's AC of 14. [snip] The most common monsters lack any appreciable AC, but a truenamer's DCs start at requiring a 9 then move upward.
Animals, and their low ACs, aren't "the most common monsters" in every campaign. Try these martial characters out against, say, humanoids with class levels and armor equipment. And those still have easy ACs compared to the Will-o-Wisp (shudder).


[other stuff]
What Truenamer doesn't take Skill Focus at Level 1? And yeah, possibly at some levels the Truenamer will need some minor cheese to keep his skill checks competitive. Again, I must repeat: I'm not saying the Truenamer is a strong class. Just that it's about as good, maybe slightly better than the Monk; as opposed to a plethora of comments that claim it's worse than the Commoner.


The thing is; saying "My class is great against groups of monsters we should have fought five levels ago" is like saying "I can survive six seconds longer than average while on fire."

See, thing is, game rules say that eight CR 14s is just as valid a challenge for a Level 20 party as one CR 20.

That's not true, of course. But this isn't a problem with the Truenamer class design; it's a problem with the CR system in general. (And part of me wonders how many things besides the Truenamer might actually be more balanced in a campaign where the DM threw less solos and more hordes of weak monsters at the party. Wizards might actually prepare Meteor Swarm instead of single-target save-or-sucks ... well, except obviously Maw of Chaos is still better than Meteor Swarm ...)


Well, CR 20 on 20 is only an average encounter. Try CR 24, which is supposed to be a tough encounter, but something you might still face. DC 63. When your abilities are needed the most. And that's only to affect the opponent. Still no guarantee it actually DOES anything.

Yeah, that's when you switch to buffing your party instead of hitting the Big Bad. And/or using UMD constantly like the Rogue is doing anyway. And/or finding cheesy ways to buff up your Truespeak skill -- 63 is easy to hit when you start allowing Item Familiars or custom items.

lesser_minion
2010-01-19, 12:22 PM
I already knew those. Not only it's perfectly possible, and even likely, to only gain deceptive (as per your original description, which I agree with) "abilities" via prowess, it's also possible to barred from investing all of it, and thus losing the remainder - more bad design.

Wasted prowess is a problem, but it's just a bug. It will be ironed out given time.

Complaining about being allowed to bomb your points into higher numbers isn't really worthwhile. You don't necessarily have to - you can take two or three style feats and mine those for everything they have, for a start.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-19, 12:27 PM
Well, CR 20 on 20 is only an average encounter. Try CR 24, which is supposed to be a tough encounter, but something you might still face. DC 63. When your abilities are needed the most. And that's only to affect the opponent. Still no guarantee it actually DOES anything.

Yeah, no kidding. It wouldn't be so bad if the Truenamer had a class feature that boosted their Truespeech checks, or if there were more items/soulmelds/feats that could bolster the result, but as is the only methods are Item Familiar and Custom Magic Items (and we all know how those end).


On a side note, my SHIFT key is screwing up a little. This is the third post where I've had to correct a capitalization error.

Eldariel
2010-01-19, 12:27 PM
Yeah, that's when you switch to buffing your party instead of hitting the Big Bad. And/or using UMD constantly like the Rogue is doing anyway. And/or finding cheesy ways to buff up your Truespeak skill -- 63 is easy to hit when you start allowing Item Familiars or custom items.

For a normal character though, not having the ability to affect the opponent can be a bit annoying, especially if it's the BBEG where your contribution is needed the most. There's a place for buffing, but that's hardly optimal all fight. Item Familiar helps, of course, but ideally Truenamer should be playable without it.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 12:31 PM
CR 24 creatures can have tons of abilities and immunities that would make them difficult for any class to face. They can have SR, Spell Immunity, high AC, SLAs.

AC and DR can make an unoptimized fighter damn near worthless.
A construct or undead can do the same to a rogue.
SR and Spell Immunity can do almost the same to a blasty sorcerer.

By your admission, it's a tough encounter, so what's the problem in the party having a tough time? I really don't see why people hate on the Truenamer so much. They act as if he can't even wipe his own ass.

A Truenamer could disarm the opponent if a weapon is wielded, provide cover if the enemy is using AoEs, chain gate in others to help. There are more than one type of utterances at his disposal. Or he could send a message to a friend that they should whisper his nickname so he can get out of dodge of the TPK. There he can rez them and then they try for round two.

Draz74
2010-01-19, 12:37 PM
For a normal character though, not having the ability to affect the opponent can be a bit annoying, especially if it's the BBEG where your contribution is needed the most. There's a place for buffing, but that's hardly optimal all fight. Item Familiar helps, of course, but ideally Truenamer should be playable without it.

Yeah, I can't argue with any of that.

Does that mean we can quit derailing the thread and get back to discussing classes that are actually well-designed?

Eldariel
2010-01-19, 12:39 PM
CR 24 creatures can have tons of abilities and immunities that would make them difficult for any class to face. They can have SR, Spell Immunity, high AC, SLAs.

AC and DR can make an unoptimized fighter damn near worthless.
A construct or undead can do the same to a rogue.
SR and Spell Immunity can do almost the same to a blasty sorcerer.

By your admission, it's a tough encounter, so what's the problem in the party having a tough time? I really don't see why people hate on the Truenamer so much. They act as if he can't even wipe his own ass.

A Truenamer could disarm the opponent if a weapon is wielded, provide cover if the enemy is using AoEs, chain gate in others to help. There are more than one type of utterances at his disposal. Or he could send a message to a friend that they should whisper his nickname so he can get out of dodge of the TPK. There he can rez them and then they try for round two.

A level 20 Fighter with level-appropriate equipment should have absolutely no trouble hitting a level 20 creature's AC and its DR is only in the 15s on a bad day; a level 20 Fighter can easily deal twice that without any optimization so he'll be getting through.

A Sorcerer simply uses no-SR spells; maybe some Force-effects if it's immune to everything? Why not. Truenamer...has to make a roll to see whether he gets to do anything. Spells connect pretty much automatically and then you might roll to see how much it does, and attacks are easily in the +40s by then so your average CR 24 is gonna get hit quite automatically.


EDIT: And yeah, let's let Truenamer rest in pieces. It's...best if we don't talk of him. He's kinda sensitive about his past.

Draz74
2010-01-19, 12:43 PM
EDIT: And yeah, let's let Truenamer rest in pieces. It's...best if we don't talk of him. He's kinda sensitive about his past.

Eh. I still say he's decent enough as Tier 5 classes go; it wasn't my intent to undermine my own argument in that area. But he certainly has no place in a thread discussing well-designed classes.

Fail
2010-01-19, 12:44 PM
Wasted prowess is a problem, but it's just a bug. It will be ironed out given time.

Complaining about being allowed to bomb your points into higher numbers isn't really worthwhile. You don't necessarily have to - you can take two or three style feats and mine those for everything they have, for a start.That old, and still full of (obvious) bugs? Be wary of any advice from the author.


AC and DR can make an unoptimized fighter damn near worthless.
A construct or undead can do the same to a rogue.
SR and Spell Immunity can do almost the same to a blasty sorcerer.How does citing: the fighter, the evoker (literal or sorcerer), and a rather severe rogue issue that eventually was kinda-fixed - defend the truenamer design?

Eldariel
2010-01-19, 12:49 PM
Eh. I still say he's decent enough as Tier 5 classes go; it wasn't my intent to undermine my own argument in that area. But he certainly has no place in a thread discussing well-designed classes.

I was referring to the class design (which is...in pieces), not his tier. I'm...not going to comment on the tier-part. I'll leave that to people who truly care and stick to the points. And this is the last off-topic post I make in this thread, I swear!

EDIT: Demented, I said it's not what you should be doing ALL fight... And Bard not being able to do anything but buffing? That's utter bull; they have 6th level spells by default and 9th with Sublime Chord. That can do a LOT.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 12:51 PM
Eh. I still say he's decent enough as Tier 5 classes go; it wasn't my intent to undermine my own argument in that area. But he certainly has no place in a thread discussing well-designed classes.

It is a decent class. Certain things are bass-ackwards like Obscure Personal Truename. Truenamers can give untyped damage. This can or cannot ignore DR (based on your DM's interpretation). Truenamers can lock down opponents by causing them to stop flying, stop charging. Truenamers can un-dispel spell effects. Truenamers can do a lot. People who hate on the Truenamers assume the worst, in much the same way people who hate on fighters assume the figher doesn't have access to boots of flying or some other such magic item.

Truenamers can do plenty of other things that other classes cannot.

Also buffing has no place in battle? Well then I guess the bard is just useless. Whoever heard of providing bonuses to allies while in a melee? That's just nonsense!

Gnaeus
2010-01-19, 02:27 PM
I think the real weakness for bards and beguilers is how some DMs seem vastly biased against their core abilities. Both classes rely heavily on enchantment, which works fine in many games, but if you have a dm who doesn't like it and twists words or allows additional saves at the drop of a hat it doesn't help much. Same with illusions. If you make an illusion of a simple wall and the DM gives will saves to everyone in the room to disbelieve it, you are hurting. Not that bards and beguilers are entirely useless without disbelievable illusions or enchantments, but they both take a big hit in power. Both are also heavy on save or dies, which many DMs simply fudge anyway.

As for their other powers, UMD is big for both, but relies on DM fiat to give you the stuff to UMD. Bluff/diplomacy is powerful, if your DM actually uses the diplomancy rules, but most of the time in my experience whenever a PC throws out a +25 social skill check the DM throws those rules out the window and bases NPC reactions on roleplaying, maybe with a little modifier for the huge check. Performance for money? I've seen it pay for the PC's drinks, but I have never seen or even heard of a character that pulled a significant % of his WBL out of performance checks. Bardic knowledge often doesn't give much more than where the dungeon is, which is information that the DM would likely have given you anyway.

Both classes can still get by with buffs and skill support, but I wouldn't play either one without having a pretty good idea of how the DM will treat my core class abilities.

JaronK
2010-01-19, 02:57 PM
You're making an unfounded assumption here. Why do you need a high CHA? You're not an offensive caster. 14 cha gets you all your spell levels, use items to boost it the rest of the way for the bonus slots if you really want. Rely on self-buffs and no-save spells, there's plenty. You have the entire wiz/sorc spell list, (minus evocation and conjuration) - that's every splat book, including SpC on your table, and you can UMD any other spells you need just like a rogue can.

Considering the limited number of spells you get, you're really going to want those Charisma based bonus spell slots. The MAD definitely hurts. Charisma is one of very few stats a Rogue can dump safely, and suddenly it's your casting stat. Now Wisdom is the only one you can dump completely and Str is going to have to go as well, and your other stats won't be as high.

The spells are good. I do like them, it's the spelltheif's one saving grace. But at the end of the day, the Spellthief is just the first stab at the concept of a magical Rogue, and they were too afraid of upstaging the Rogue so they made it too weak by comparison. Eventually, the Factotum and Beguiler came out after it was decided it's okay to have skillmonkeys stronger than Rogues because Rogues themselves were outdated and had a lot of issues, so the new magical skillmonkeys were actually solid classes.


One class can only mimic being a caster - the other is just as good at doing the same thing, and has spells of its own - no contest.

The contest lies in where the Rogue is stronger. Less MAD (they can dump Charisma) means higher Dex and Int, areas where Rogues can really use the higher stats (Dex is critical for a 3/4BAB class that intends to get into melee, Int is needed for the skills). Rogues certainly have more skillpoints than Spellthieves, with their higher Ints and more starting skill points. In fact, they've got enough to actually take UMD and still grab all the scouting skills (Move Silently, Hide, Search, Disable Device, Spot, Listen) and then have a few left over for other areas (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc). Skill Mastery and Crippling Strike are great abilities (a shame they have to wait so long to get them). Penetrating Strike lets them deal with undead and the like, and while it's not great you still do as much sneak attack damage as a Spelltheif.


They get charm - no need for diplomacy.

Surely Diplomacy is better than charm. Besides, weren't you just saying they didn't need charisma because they don't use spells that need saves? Now you're saying a spell that needs a save replaces their need for diplomacy. Pick one!


They get polymorph and alter self. They get invisibility and darkness. They get... you get the point.

Yes, some of that is quite nice, but it does mean they need charisma if they actually want to cast this stuff. At the end of the day, they just feel like low budget Beguilers and Factotums.

JaronK

lesser_minion
2010-01-19, 04:35 PM
That old, and still full of (obvious) bugs? Be wary of any advice from the author.

It's not actually finished or especially old. This is a pretty huge project. Don't dismiss it out of hand.

Optimystik
2010-01-19, 04:48 PM
Considering the limited number of spells you get, you're really going to want those Charisma based bonus spell slots. The MAD definitely hurts. Charisma is one of very few stats a Rogue can dump safely, and suddenly it's your casting stat. Now Wisdom is the only one you can dump completely and Str is going to have to go as well, and your other stats won't be as high.

So what if you have to dump Str and Wis? Wis is useless for spellthieves; as you've pointed out their good save is will. And if I need to be bashing something I'll polymorph into something that can bash, so strength is meaningless.


The spells are good. I do like them, it's the spelltheif's one saving grace. But at the end of the day, the Spellthief is just the first stab at the concept of a magical Rogue, and they were too afraid of upstaging the Rogue so they made it too weak by comparison. Eventually, the Factotum and Beguiler came out after it was decided it's okay to have skillmonkeys stronger than Rogues because Rogues themselves were outdated and had a lot of issues, so the new magical skillmonkeys were actually solid classes.

And? I don't recall ever saying a Spellthief was better than a Factotum or a Beguiler. I'm saying it's better than a Rogue.

Any class that can cast 9th-level spells can beat a rogue, even if said class has to poke the caster first. Any class that gives the party casters more actions (by doing their buffing for them) AND is able to pull off the skillmonkey role, will beat a class that is restricted just to the latter.


The contest lies in where the Rogue is stronger. Less MAD (they can dump Charisma) means higher Dex and Int, areas where Rogues can really use the higher stats (Dex is critical for a 3/4BAB class that intends to get into melee, Int is needed for the skills). Rogues certainly have more skillpoints than Spellthieves, with their higher Ints and more starting skill points. In fact, they've got enough to actually take UMD and still grab all the scouting skills (Move Silently, Hide, Search, Disable Device, Spot, Listen) and then have a few left over for other areas (Diplomacy, Bluff, etc). Skill Mastery and Crippling Strike are great abilities (a shame they have to wait so long to get them). Penetrating Strike lets them deal with undead and the like, and while it's not great you still do as much sneak attack damage as a Spelltheif.

Are those really strengths?

Rogues have higher Dex and Int, so they can open locks better. Oh look, Spellthieves have Knock. Rogues hide and spot better - Spellthieves can turn invisible, or make themselves quiet, or flood the hallway with darkness, or use magical detection. Rogues have Penetrating Strike, Spellthieves have Grave Strike. And because Spellthieves are innate casters, they don't need UMD checks to use magic items with these spells either.

The skill point gap is not as large as you think. Rogues need all those skill points, but Spellthieves can quite easily get by without them, and be far more effective in combat.

Spells > skills, in D&D.


Surely Diplomacy is better than charm. Besides, weren't you just saying they didn't need charisma because they don't use spells that need saves? Now you're saying a spell that needs a save replaces their need for diplomacy. Pick one!

Because will saves are so unbeatable at level 4. :smallsigh:


Yes, some of that is quite nice, but it does mean they need charisma if they actually want to cast this stuff. At the end of the day, they just feel like low budget Beguilers and Factotums.

As above, they need exactly 14 charisma to "do this stuff." Throw on a nymph's cloak after if you want the bonus spells that much.

I'm sorry, were we comparing Spellthieves to Beguilers and Factotums? I was comparing them to ROGUES., who are a low-budget... well, they aren't really a low-budget anything, now are they?

Penitent
2010-01-19, 07:33 PM
Ooze Puppet. Sor/Wiz 6. Makes an Ooze your bitch for 1 day/caster level.

Um... It was Rogues that can't do anything about Oozes. Not Wizards.

When I look at my PHB, Rogues don't get 6th level spells.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-19, 07:35 PM
But they can UMD it.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-19, 08:13 PM
But they can UMD it.

And cry when it saves.

JaronK
2010-01-19, 08:43 PM
So what if you have to dump Str and Wis? Wis is useless for spellthieves; as you've pointed out their good save is will. And if I need to be bashing something I'll polymorph into something that can bash, so strength is meaningless.

It's not as though you have Polymorph for a while... you don't get it until VERY late in the game. The majority of Spellthief players will never get Polymorph, from what I've seen. They'll get Alter Self, but that won't help with stats.

And remember, when you dump Wis, think about the Absorb Spell that we heard so much about earlier. It's useless if you can't actually save against the spell in the first place. How do you plan to do that?


And? I don't recall ever saying a Spellthief was better than a Factotum or a Beguiler. I'm saying it's better than a Rogue.

And having played both, I find that it's just not true. You come off weaker than a Rogue in combat and as a skillmonkey (ESPECIALLY as a skillmonkey) and very weak as a caster as well.


Any class that can cast 9th-level spells can beat a rogue, even if said class has to poke the caster first. Any class that gives the party casters more actions (by doing their buffing for them) AND is able to pull off the skillmonkey role, will beat a class that is restricted just to the latter.

The thing about spells is that you can plan them out and do whatever you want with them. Spellthieves just get random spells, based on whatever they randomly happen to find (at least as far as 9th level spells are concerned). It's not like you're going to suddenly steal Genesis or Shapechange most of the time.

And Spellthieves are one of the worst skillmonkeys at actually fulfilling the skillmonkey role, tied perhaps with Ninjas.


Rogues have higher Dex and Int, so they can open locks better. Oh look, Spellthieves have Knock.

More to the point, so they have far more skills and have a better chance to actually hit their opponents and stay alive. Knock, meanwhile, is great to have, but they have limited castings per day of it and can't rely on that spell to cover locks endlessly (unless someone else in the party is getting through most locks another way, which is a possibility).


Rogues hide and spot better - Spellthieves can turn invisible, or make themselves quiet, or flood the hallway with darkness, or use magical detection.

Hide and Invisibility both get negated by the same stuff, and while Darkstalker fixes hide, Invisibility is just completely screwed by Blindsight and the like. Plus, Spellthieves have very limited spells per day... they can't rely on them. They're like a Factotum that way, except without the generally superior skills.


Rogues have Penetrating Strike, Spellthieves have Grave Strike. And because Spellthieves are innate casters, they don't need UMD checks to use magic items with these spells either.

Certainly, the spellthief casting is useful. However the claim was that STs have ALL the Rogue tricks, and that's just false.


The skill point gap is not as large as you think. Rogues need all those skill points, but Spellthieves can quite easily get by without them, and be far more effective in combat.

I disagree, as you seem to be assuming they can cast a lot more spells than they actually can. They can't "easily get by without them." I mean, you've claimed that can use Charm Person instead of Diplomacy, but you've also claimed they can keep their Charisma no higher than 14 because they don't cast spells that need saves (and let's face it, a good Diplomacy score is a LOT better). If spellthief casting were better, or if their non casting abilities were better, I might agree, but right now they're just sort of bad at everything.


Spells > skills, in D&D.

Generally yes, but Spelltheif casting is quite poor.


As above, they need exactly 14 charisma to "do this stuff." Throw on a nymph's cloak after if you want the bonus spells that much.

See, there you go again. You only need a low Charisma, but spells can take over where skills fail. You're relying massively on spells and then keeping a shockingly low Charisma. How's that supposed to work?


I'm sorry, were we comparing Spellthieves to Beguilers and Factotums? I was comparing them to ROGUES., who are a low-budget... well, they aren't really a low-budget anything, now are they?

Rogues are arguably a low budget Factotum or a high budget Expert. And the point is, you were claiming that spellthieves can do everything a Rogue can do (specifically, they have all the Rogue tricks). That's just not true. They're inferior as skillmonkeys and inferior in combat (poorer stats, half the sneak attack). They have to use that spellcasting to make up for those deficiencies, but said spellcasting is arguably the worst of any casting class out there (4th level spells, and as you say yourself they can't pump their casting stat). On paper they look great, but in practice? I really don't see it.

JaronK