PDA

View Full Version : [D&D 3.5] The new eleven base classes?



Kensen
2010-03-10, 11:41 AM
In D&D 3.5, there are eleven core base classes: barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer and wizard. Outside core, there are dozens more which may be considered "better" or "worse" than some of the eleven core classes for various reasons. If you had to choose your "new eleven" from among core and non-core base classes without changing them radically, what would they be?

Below are some points to that I deem important to consider, but feel free to disagree or add more.


The classes are as balanced as possible, i.e. their power level is approximately the same.
The classes cover all roles and give you a wide variety of character options. E.g. there should be at least one class with healing abilities, at one skill-monkey, and so on.
Despite the variety of options, the mechanics should be as consistent as possible. E.g. having a manifester, incarnum user, martial adept, invocation user, etc. in your "eleven" at the same time would be a bad idea because you'd have to learn a new set of rules every time you choose a new class.
Last but not least, the classes should be fun to play from level 1 to 20.

Defiant
2010-03-10, 11:44 AM
The classes are as balanced as possible, i.e. their power level is approximately the same.

So... replace them all with casters or non-casters?

Sliver
2010-03-10, 11:46 AM
The 3rd tier oddly has 11 classes.. And I would actually go with most of them..

Apropos
2010-03-10, 11:47 AM
I don't think that there are that many casters...

Dusk Eclipse
2010-03-10, 11:48 AM
Monk replaced by Swordsage (unarmed or armed)
Fighter replaced by warblade
Paladin replaced by Crusader
....
Maybe ban wizard and substitute with beguiler, warmage, dread necro?

Draz74
2010-03-10, 11:49 AM
I've tried this a number of times. I've never been completely satisfied with the results. :smallannoyed:

Here's an approximation, to get the ball rolling:

Warblade
Crusader
Swordsage
Psion
Ardent
Dragonfire Adept
Warlock
Factotum
Totemist
Bard
Ranger

EDIT: Took out Psychic Warrior, which is a great class mechanically but fluff-wise overlaps a lot with Swordsage; and put in Bard, because none of the classes on my list could fill his archetype very well.

Pluto
2010-03-10, 12:13 PM
I'd try to avoid the classes like Paladin, Bard and Samurai, which have a tendency to one archetype and those like Swashbuckler and Healer, that have no choices in class abilities.

Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage for all the ToB goodness. They fill in most of the common warrior niches.

Ranger fills a role that ToB doesn't do so well out of combat and brings Sublime Way/WS/Mystic variants to the table. Add some of the Dragon Magazine alternate fighting styles and you end up with a very versatile class (in terms of character building) that can stand up alongside ToB.

Duskblade nicely packages the fighter/wizard into one class without the awkward 3.5 multiclassing system.

Rogue presents an interesting skillmonkey that doesn't suck, without the Factotum's mechanical hodgepodge, which I find incredibly inelegant.

Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage and Shugenja add spellcasting in thematic and relatively impotent packages. (Though I'd prefer to present the the prior three as sperate options for a single class.)

And then maybe Warlock. Just because it's so damned easy.

...I think that covers just about every common archetype, between multiclasses and straight builds.


And there are only 2 mechanical systems are going on here: Spontaneous casting and ToB.
(Warlocks don't really have a new mechanics system to learn. They just do their thing.)
--And the Ranger, but you can patch him up as a spontaneous caster easily enough, if you like.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-10, 12:52 PM
I've tried this a number of times. I've never been completely satisfied with the results. :smallannoyed:

Here's an approximation, to get the ball rolling:

Warblade
Crusader
Swordsage
Psion
Ardent
Dragonfire Adept
Warlock
Factotum
Totemist
Bard
Ranger

EDIT: Took out Psychic Warrior, which is a great class mechanically but fluff-wise overlaps a lot with Swordsage; and put in Bard, because none of the classes on my list could fill his archetype very well.

I'd actually drop the Ardent and Psion. Both are Tier 2 classes. Replace them with Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, and then allow some PrCs to make up for the utility lost.

DeltaEmil
2010-03-10, 01:04 PM
And make it that everybody gets 8 skill points without Intelligence modifier being able to change that. Let classes who in theory should be more skill-focused have 10 points, and be done with it.

Eurus
2010-03-10, 01:17 PM
And make it that everybody gets 8 skill points without Intelligence modifier being able to change that. Let classes who in theory should be more skill-focused have 10 points, and be done with it.

I've always liked the way Iron Heroes does skills, to be honest. Eliminate class and cross-class skills, but give different classes access to skill groups to give them a discount for training in multiple related skills. I think that a fighter should be just as much of a skill-monkey as a rogue, though, just with different skills.

Amphetryon
2010-03-10, 01:27 PM
Warblade
Crusader
Swordsage
Psion
Ardent
Dragonfire Adept
Warlock
Factotum
Totemist
Bard
Ranger


replace the crossed-off classes with Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Binder, and I'd be happy with that campaign.

DragoonWraith
2010-03-10, 01:40 PM
Hmm...

Bard → Bard (good class, obvious replacements [Marshal, Dragon Shaman] weak)
Barbarian → Barbarian (rage mechanic is solid, archetype is meaningful, multiclasses well)
Cleric → Binder (Pacts can be refluffed similarly to prayers; makes a very good fit for alignment-worshipping or pantheon-worshipping cleric)
Druid → Totemist (natural warrior type)
Fighter → Warblade (mundane warrior type)
Monk → Swordsage (mystic warrior type)
Paladin → Crusader (religious warrior type)
Ranger → Psychic Warrior (martial half-caster type)
Rogue → Factotum or Rogue (skillmonkey)
Sorcerer → Beguiler (spontaneous spellcaster, Charisma use)
Wizard → Warlock (don't need two arcanists, Warlock is a good class)

Indon
2010-03-10, 02:01 PM
Well, we've seen a few Tier 3-centered versions already, I'd like to give a Tier 4ish version. Classes without noted replacements are unchanged.

Barbarian -
Bard - Marshal
Cleric - Incarnate
Druid - Totemist
Fighter -
Monk -
Paladin -
Ranger -
Rogue -
Sorceror - Warlock
Wizard - Warmage

Draz74
2010-03-10, 02:02 PM
I'd actually drop the Ardent and Psion. Both are Tier 2 classes. Replace them with Beguiler and Dread Necromancer, and then allow some PrCs to make up for the utility lost.


replace the crossed-off classes with Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Binder, and I'd be happy with that campaign.

Psion I can see dropping for being too powerful. Dragonfire Adept I can see dropping for being too narrow fluff-wise. (Better choice than Warmage, at least, though.)

But Ardent? It's Tier 3 if you just don't allow the dumb ways that it got expanded in website material. (Customizing Mantles is SO contrary to the whole idea of the class ...) And nothing else really does the Cleric archetype nearly as well. (Including the Cleric.)

Is the idea to fill the Cleric archetype with Binder? Because Binders really are crappy healers. (Plus their bookkeeping just gives me a headache.)

If Beguiler is included (which I don't recommend, as I think they tend to overshadow the other skillmonkeys), it should be taking over the Bard's spot, not any of the ones you guys crossed off.

Warlock does the "necromancer" archetype good enough for my taste.

All IMHO of course.

DragonOfLies
2010-03-10, 02:20 PM
I'm a big fan of Psionics and ToB so here are my picks:
A lot of them don't really fit their "counterparts" much though

Fighter - Warblade
Paladin - Crusader
Monk - Swordsage
Wizard - Psion (okay Psions might be powerful compared to the others but i think it's more balanced than Wizard compared to the other core classes)
Cleric - Ardent
Sorceror - Wilder
Rogue - Rogue is fine
Druid - I don't know anything about Totemists but other people seem to think it's a good idea
Bard - Warlock (i just like Warlocks)
Barbarian - Psychic Warrior
Ranger - Scout. or not.

the humanity
2010-03-10, 02:22 PM
trade out monk for duskblade, druid for beguiler, and sorcerer for warlock.

leave it the same otherwise.

Zeta Kai
2010-03-10, 02:31 PM
Bard
Barbarian
Beguiler
Crusader
Dread Necromancer
Factotum
Psion
Swordsage
Totemist
Warblade
Warlock

That describes most of my recent campaigns anyway. That's 11 great tastes that taste great together. What else do you really need?

Optimystik
2010-03-10, 02:35 PM
But Ardent? It's Tier 3 if you just don't allow the dumb ways that it got expanded in website material. (Customizing Mantles is SO contrary to the whole idea of the class ...) And nothing else really does the Cleric archetype nearly as well. (Including the Cleric.)

No, drop Ardent. Even without the ACF they can customize their mantles, it just costs feats instead (for Tap Mantle.) They don't get the granted power, but can still mix and match their power selections as desired.

sonofzeal
2010-03-10, 02:43 PM
Hmm...

Bard → Bard (good class, obvious replacements [Marshal, Dragon Shaman] weak)
Barbarian → Barbarian (rage mechanic is solid, archetype is meaningful, multiclasses well)
Cleric → Binder (Pacts can be refluffed similarly to prayers; makes a very good fit for alignment-worshipping or pantheon-worshipping cleric)
Druid → Totemist (natural warrior type)
Fighter → Warblade (mundane warrior type)
Monk → Swordsage (mystic warrior type)
Paladin → Crusader (religious warrior type)
Ranger → Psychic Warrior (martial half-caster type)
Rogue → Factotum or Rogue (skillmonkey)
Sorcerer → Beguiler (spontaneous spellcaster, Charisma use)
Wizard → Warlock (don't need two arcanists, Warlock is a good class)
Actually, I'd replace Ranger with Warlock, as it captures the "archer" roll a heck of a lot better. Scout could also work, but I prefer the mechanics of the Warlock class. You've already got Totemist and Barbarian for the nature side.

Wizard, then, would go to Wu Jen, which is appropriate in general power level and far more wizardly. And you do need two arcanists, when one is as narrowly focused as Beguiler.

Also, I think Favoured Soul would be a great option for Cleric. As much as I love Binders, you'd have to do a lot of cosmology work to make them fit for Clerics, and even then you have issue when they start binding multiple vestiges. Doesn't really fit for a priestly of one particular god. Favoured Soul, on the other hand, is the right power level and right fluff.

Otherwise, I agree entirely.

Akal Saris
2010-03-10, 02:59 PM
Alright, we've got a few T3 sets and a T4 one, so here's one aimed at roughly T2 or very high T3 balance.

The martial classes are still behind the full casters, but each of the gestalts fills holes in their builds that help them to perform their roles better by slapping on full maneuver progression and better saves/skills/extra class features, while the full casters are limited to their spontaneous caster variants.

Fighter - Gestalt Warblade/Fighter
Paladin - Gestalt Crusader/Paladin
Monk - Gestalt Swordsage/Monk
Wizard - Dread Necromancer
Cleric - Favored Soul
Sorcerer - Sorcerer
Rogue - Gestalt Rogue/Any ToB
Druid - Spirit Shaman
Bard - Beguiler or Gestalt Bard/Crusader, depending on character focus
Barbarian - Gestalt Warblade/Barbarian
Ranger - Gestalt Swordsage/Ranger

Nero24200
2010-03-10, 03:03 PM
Barbarian - Keep as Barbarian
Bard - Keep as Bard
Cleric -Ardent (Though with cleric fluff)
Druid - Binder (Re-Fluffed as nature spirits) or Spirit Shamen
Fighter - Warblade
Monk - Psychic Warrior
Paladin - Knight
Ranger - Keep as Ranger
Rogue - Keep as Rogue
Sorcerer - Warlock
Wizard - Psion

Granted, the ones marked "Keep as" I still probably wouldn't use as written. Not the most balanced list, but still better balanced than normal core by miles.

Godskook
2010-03-10, 03:03 PM
The classes are as balanced as possible, i.e. their power level is approximately the same.

Reasonable requirement, if you're speaking 'tier'-wise, but it contradicts with your later conditions


The classes cover all roles and give you a wide variety of character options. E.g. there should be at least one class with healing abilities, at one skill-monkey, and so on.

Reasonable.


Despite the variety of options, the mechanics should be as consistent as possible. E.g. having a manifester, incarnum user, martial adept, invocation user, etc. in your "eleven" at the same time would be a bad idea because you'd have to learn a new set of rules every time you choose a new class.

HAH! The most varied set of options I know of that all utilize the same mechanic and sit on the same tier is ToB, but that's only 3 classes long. All the mechanics achieved widely varied power-levels.


Last but not least, the classes should be fun to play from level 1 to 20.

That's the exact opposite direction of mechanically similar, you know?

---------

Personally, I wouldn't dare trim it down to 11 base classes. Most of the originals have made unremoveable impressions on the system that'd feel 'empty' if they were removed, while others are arguably 'updated' by newer material that performs the same roles with better mechanics.

Augmented Lurk
2010-03-10, 03:53 PM
Ardent
Beguiler
Crusader
Dread Necromancer
Duskblade
Factotum
Psychic Warrior
Shugenja
Swordsage
Warblade
Warmage

Kensen
2010-03-10, 03:56 PM
HAH! The most varied set of options I know of that all utilize the same mechanic and sit on the same tier is ToB, but that's only 3 classes long. All the mechanics achieved widely varied power-levels.


That's the exact opposite direction of mechanically similar, you know?

I'm well aware that it's nigh-impossible to have a system with 11 classes that are nearly identical in power level and mechanics but are still fun to play and different enough to be unique. 4e was an attempt at that, but whether it was successful is not within the scope of this thread.

And that's not the idea of this thought experiment either. Rather, think of it as an optimization challenge - it's a process of give and take and making the best with what you have. If you look at the sets of eleven presented above, I'm sure you'll agree that some of them are more successful at pursuing my four goals than others. Which set is the best, then? Well that is a matter of opinion, which is why it's fun to discuss the matter. :smallwink:


Personally, I wouldn't dare trim it down to 11 base classes. Most of the originals have made unremoveable impressions on the system that'd feel 'empty' if they were removed, while others are arguably 'updated' by newer material that performs the same roles with better mechanics.

I see what you mean. Eleven is not a sacred number that must be kept at all costs, just a parameter for this thought experiment. In an actual campaign, (in my humble opinion) the DM should use whatever number feels right if he wants to limit his players' options in this manner.

Anyway, thanks, I appreciate your input. :smallsmile:

Draz74
2010-03-10, 04:01 PM
No, drop Ardent. Even without the ACF they can customize their mantles, it just costs feats instead (for Tap Mantle.) They don't get the granted power, but can still mix and match their power selections as desired.

And I fail to see how this brand of customization makes them T2 instead of T3. So it doesn't bother me.

Godskook
2010-03-10, 04:05 PM
And I fail to see how this brand of customization makes them T2 instead of T3. So it doesn't bother me.

Because versatility is one of the hallmarks of moving up a tier? (Wizard Vs. Sorcerer, Warblade Vs. Fighter)

subject42
2010-03-10, 04:10 PM
I think that to do this right, every class would need a role in which they shine, a role that they can cover in a pinch, and a role in which they kinda suck.

What are the archetypical roles? Once we know what they are, it shouldn't be too hard to find classes that can cover them.

I have some ideas below, but I'm not wedded to them. Does anyone see better descriptions or ideas?


1. The guy that snaps his fingers and makes everything catch on fire.

2. The guy with a weapon running at the enemy while screaming unintelligibly.

3. The third is the guy standing in front of a huge monster while screaming "YOU SHALL NOT PASS".

4. Next is the sneaky guy that gets around his physical weakness by negating his opponents strengths (hamstringing, bleed attacks, nimble dodges)

5. Another is the guy that knows things, and uses that to his advantage.

6. The last one I can think of is the guy that improves everyone else.


How do we break that up by classes, or do we need different archetypes?

Pluto
2010-03-10, 04:11 PM
Something else that might work is:

Archivist, Binder, Cleric, Druid, Erudite, Factotum, Incarnate, Totemist, Wizard and, um, Wu Jen.

The power potential of the classes might vary pretty significantly, but the classes all play the same game:
Every day every character can pick several situations to completely and totally obliterate (either through skill use or by having the precise specialized spell necessary for the job).

These are also, incidentally, some of the classes I most hate to see in my games.

----

Or:
Adept, Expert, Fighter, Healer, Marshal, Ninja, Samurai, Soulborn, Soulknife, Spellthief, Swashbuckler.
:smalltongue:

Optimystik
2010-03-10, 04:54 PM
And I fail to see how this brand of customization makes them T2 instead of T3. So it doesn't bother me.

Because they can do everything a Psion can do to break the game. (They can also get 9th-level powers with only 13 ML, though it's not wise to go below 16.)

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-10, 05:19 PM
Do we still have access to non-core? Because if so, that changes things.
Also I think Dread Necro is too specialized to be one of the base classes.

Barbarian - Duskblade
Bard - Change to a class that has bard progression, but can cast from the entire wiz/sorc list (and has nothing else)
Cleric -Ardent
Druid - Remove Wildshape and animal companion
Fighter - Warblade
Monk - Psychic Warrior / Swordsage (I can't decide)
Paladin - Crusader
Ranger - Wildshape Ranger / Druidic Avenger variants
Rogue - Factotum
Sorcerer - Warlock / Warmage
Wizard - Beguiler

Tackyhillbillu
2010-03-10, 06:13 PM
Because versatility is one of the hallmarks of moving up a tier? (Wizard Vs. Sorcerer, Warblade Vs. Fighter)

Not true.

Tier 2 actually are less versatile then Tier 3. But the one thing they are good at is so powerful that it can break the campaign. The difference between T1 and T2 is versatility, same with T3 and T4. The differences, between T2 and T3, T4 and T5, and T5 and T6 is power.

Accersitus
2010-03-10, 08:37 PM
I would say Pathfinder does a good job at a new core 11.


The classes are as balanced as possible, i.e. their power level is approximately the same.

The non casters get some nice buffs, and the casters are slightly nerfed, all in all it is not completely balanced, but a good adjustment is your group prefers core only.


The classes cover all roles and give you a wide variety of character options. E.g. there should be at least one class with healing abilities, at one skill-monkey, and so on.

You actually get more flexibility when choosing skills in pathfinder because of the new way to handle class-skills, and you have plenty of classes to handle all the roles.


Despite the variety of options, the mechanics should be as consistent as possible. E.g. having a manifester, incarnum user, martial adept, invocation user, etc. in your "eleven" at the same time would be a bad idea because you'd have to learn a new set of rules every time you choose a new class.

It only uses the core mechanics, and special attacks like trip, grapple,...,and so on have been streamlined


Last but not least, the classes should be fun to play from level 1 to 20.

The big plus for pathfinder in my opinion, is the variety of new goodies the different classes get, and the diversity you can get from some of the classes now (if your group prefers core only)

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-10, 09:32 PM
I would say Pathfinder does a good job at a new core 11.

Let us examine this statement in detail.


The non casters get some nice buffs, and the casters are slightly nerfed, all in all it is not completely balanced, but a good adjustment is your group prefers core only.
Sorcerers got a bump, and so did wizards, although some spells are slightly nerfed. All in all around the same.

Bards are pretty much the same, so are clerics, rogues, rangers and barbarians.

Monks and fighters both got a small boost, and paladins got a large one. (this is probably my favorite thing Paizo did, i really like the new pally)

Druids got wildshape nerfed, and are now probably tier 3.

All in all, not much has changed. The only significant thing is that druids went down and pallys went up a tier or two. Not even remotely balanced.


You actually get more flexibility when choosing skills in pathfinder because of the new way to handle class-skills, and you have plenty of classes to handle all the roles.
... Don't see what this has to do with the base classes


It only uses the core mechanics, and special attacks like trip, grapple,...,and so on have been streamlined
Have you seen the grapple flowchart? it's literally 5 pages long. CMD/B is nice, but the maneuvers are the same.


The big plus for pathfinder in my opinion, is the variety of new goodies the different classes get, and the diversity you can get from some of the classes now (if your group prefers core only)
You see, I just don't understand this, because the classes got very little in the way of interesting new things.

Barbarian - Rage powers are terrible.
Bard - Songs got edited slightly.
Cleric - Channel energy and some interesting new domain powers -this is nice.
Druid - Removed Wildshape - well I guess it's new...
Fighter - Some minor mechanical bonuses
Monk - Ki pool is nice, but there was so much more that could be done with it.
Paladin - This is nice
Ranger - Favored enemy is now terrain, ok...
Rogue - Gets talents earlier, but they're in the same boat as rage powers, 90% of them suck.
Sorcerer - Heritages are really cool, I have to admit - what the sorcerer allways should have been
Wizard - School powers, yay! most of these are pretty lackluster though.

If you're going to get your group to look at new material, buy ToB. Your melee will thank you.

Zeta Kai
2010-03-10, 09:42 PM
Not true.

Tier 2 actually are less versatile then Tier 3. But the one thing they are good at is so powerful that it can break the campaign. The difference between T1 and T2 is versatility, same with T3 and T4. The differences, between T2 and T3, T4 and T5, and T5 and T6 is power.

Uh, what? No, that's not how the tier system works, & in everything that I've read, I've never seen class tiers interpreted in that way. Also, saying that Sorcerers & Psions are less versatile than Beguilers & Warblades is rather perverse. I can make up stuff, too, but that doesn't make it true.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-10, 10:01 PM
I think that I'll try to address this with more of an eye towards mechanical minimalism and simplicity. (I don't really know all that much about the balance of all the classes.)

If allowed to tweak the Healer class -- It's a significant change to its functioning, but it can be spelled out in a few sentences, so I dunno if it counts as a "radical change" -- I think that I'd go with:

- Spellcasters who can each cast any spell on their spell list spontaneously: Healer, Beguiler, Warmage, Dread Necromancer

- Tome of Battle classes: Swordsage, Warblade, Crusader

- Skill monkeys with situational bonus damage: Rogue, Scout

Hmm, that's only nine. Missing anything important?

How would these changes be implemented? For example, would magic items that no allowed class can craft still exist? Would creatures that cast as Clerics or Sorcerers be removed or altered? Et cetera.

Petrocorus
2010-03-11, 03:18 AM
In a world without ToB, i would say:

Barbarian -> Barbarian with all the totem and spiritual totem variant
Bard -> Bard
Cleric -> Shugenja
Druid -> Shugenja with the druid spell list
Monk -> Psychic Warrior
Paladin -> Favoured Soul without spontaneous spellcasting except for healing
Ranger -> Ranger with the animal companion at full lvl
Rogue -> Factotum
Sorcerer -> Warlock
Wizard -> Sorcerer

And for the fighter, i don't really know maybe giving him more skill points and even more bonus feats, or replacing him by the duskblade.

Gnaritas
2010-03-11, 04:30 AM
Hmm...

Bard → Bard (good class, obvious replacements [Marshal, Dragon Shaman] weak)
Barbarian → Barbarian (rage mechanic is solid, archetype is meaningful, multiclasses well)
Cleric → Binder (Pacts can be refluffed similarly to prayers; makes a very good fit for alignment-worshipping or pantheon-worshipping cleric)
Druid → Totemist (natural warrior type)
Fighter → Warblade (mundane warrior type)
Monk → Swordsage (mystic warrior type)
Paladin → Crusader (religious warrior type)
Ranger → Psychic Warrior (martial half-caster type)
Rogue → Factotum or Rogue (skillmonkey)
Sorcerer → Beguiler (spontaneous spellcaster, Charisma use)
Wizard → Warlock (don't need two arcanists, Warlock is a good class)

I agree with this one!

a typical hero
2010-03-11, 05:42 AM
Despite the variety of options, the mechanics should be as consistent as possible. E.g. having a manifester, incarnum user, martial adept, invocation user, etc. in your "eleven" at the same time would be a bad idea because you'd have to learn a new set of rules every time you choose a new class.


I think it would be quite good to have several different mechanics in your core classes.

This way your classes are mostly unique in playstyle (e.g. a greatsword using Fighter and a greatsword using Barbarian are too similar for my taste) and their mechanics are somewhat.."refreshing".

Yes, you have to learn new rules with each new class but that is good imho.

:smallcool:

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-11, 07:43 AM
I think it would be quite good to have several different mechanics in your core classes.

This way your classes are mostly unique in playstyle (e.g. a greatsword using Fighter and a greatsword using Barbarian are too similar for my taste) and their mechanics are somewhat.."refreshing".

Yes, you have to learn new rules with each new class but that is good imho.

:smallcool:

+1, If you want each class to be meaningful and actually different, have different mechanics for each class.

Kensen
2010-03-11, 08:24 AM
This way your classes are mostly unique in playstyle (e.g. a greatsword using Fighter and a greatsword using Barbarian are too similar for my taste) and their mechanics are somewhat.."refreshing".

Yes... if the DM has time to familiarize himself with all these different mechanics, and if you play mostly single class characters. But... if you multiclass, it'll get hard to keep track of all your abilities and your character sheet will be two miles long because the same layout/format cannot be used to write down all your abilities.

I like classes that mesh well together. In Star Wars Saga (in my humble opinion), the classes are both unique and consistent in their mechanics. In 3.5 they aren't consistent. In Pathfinder they aren't consistent. In 4e they are consistent but it's the multiclassing rules that I don't like so much.

Tinydwarfman
2010-03-11, 08:34 AM
Yes... if the DM has time to familiarize himself with all these different mechanics, and if you play mostly single class characters. But... if you multiclass, it'll get hard to keep track of all your abilities and your character sheet will be two miles long because the same layout/format cannot be used to write down all your abilities.

I like classes that mesh well together. In Star Wars Saga (in my humble opinion), the classes are both unique and consistent in their mechanics. In 3.5 they aren't consistent. In Pathfinder they aren't consistent. In 4e they are consistent but it's the multiclassing rules that I don't like so much.

Uhh, I don't how this is any different than non-core 3.5. Even so, I'd rather have people actually want to stay in the class and have complicated multiclass stuff than have everybody multiclass out because thier class doesn't offer anything good/cool after X level.

Optimystik
2010-03-11, 08:39 AM
Hmm...

Bard → Bard (good class, obvious replacements [Marshal, Dragon Shaman] weak)
Barbarian → Barbarian (rage mechanic is solid, archetype is meaningful, multiclasses well)
Cleric → Binder (Pacts can be refluffed similarly to prayers; makes a very good fit for alignment-worshipping or pantheon-worshipping cleric)
Druid → Totemist (natural warrior type)
Fighter → Warblade (mundane warrior type)
Monk → Swordsage (mystic warrior type)
Paladin → Crusader (religious warrior type)
Ranger → Psychic Warrior (martial half-caster type)
Rogue → Factotum or Rogue (skillmonkey)
Sorcerer → Beguiler (spontaneous spellcaster, Charisma use)
Wizard → Warlock (don't need two arcanists, Warlock is a good class)

This is good for the most part, but the Bard and Beguiler fill similar niches. I would add one more class - the Warmage, to be the blaster type. If you must have exactly eleven, merge the Bard and Beguiler or drop the Bard. (Core doesn't need singing that badly.)

There is also no necromancer type - I'd add in Dread Necro or the weaker Death Master class from Dragon Compendium.

a typical hero
2010-03-11, 09:05 AM
Uhh, I don't how this is any different than non-core 3.5. Even so, I'd rather have people actually want to stay in the class and have complicated multiclass stuff than have everybody multiclass out because thier class doesn't offer anything good/cool after X level.

^ This.

I'd rather have some interesting mechanics in my base classes with additional paperwork for multiclassing than to "I'm a fighter, I hit things with my sword. Now i multiclass to barbarian and hit things with my sword...WITH RAAAGE!:smallfurious:"


:smallwink:

Steelblood
2010-03-11, 09:48 AM
barbarian -
bard -beguiler
cleric -ardent
druid -
fighter -warblade
monk -swordsage
paladin -crusader
ranger -
rogue -
sorcerer -warlock
wizard -
I'm not the best at this but i kinda like it as such.

Edit: What tier is Ardent btw?

DragoonWraith
2010-03-11, 09:57 AM
This is good for the most part, but the Bard and Beguiler fill similar niches. I would add one more class - the Warmage, to be the blaster type. If you must have exactly eleven, merge the Bard and Beguiler or drop the Bard. (Core doesn't need singing that badly.)

There is also no necromancer type - I'd add in Dread Necro or the weaker Death Master class from Dragon Compendium.
Hmm, you're right about Bard/Beguiler, so Warmage does make sense.

In reality, I'd probably do something like this:
Wizard:
Generalist → Wu Jen?
Abjurer →
Conjurer → PF Summoner? Not familiar with it, but only non-homebrew that works, AFAIK
Diviner →
Evoker → Warmage
Illusionist/Enchanter → Beguiler
Necromancer → Dread Necromancer
Transmuter → ???
There aren't really enough of those specialized classes out there, but I think having them would be a much better way to replace the Wizard than any single class, for the desired power level.

Kensen
2010-03-11, 10:20 AM
^ This.

I'd rather have some interesting mechanics in my base classes with additional paperwork for multiclassing than to "I'm a fighter, I hit things with my sword. Now i multiclass to barbarian and hit things with my sword...WITH RAAAGE!:smallfurious:"


:smallwink:

True, the fighter and barbarian are boring. Alternate class features from UA, the completes and other splatbooks help the barbarian somewhat, but it's not much.

But having (for example) 7 different sets of class mechanics to cover the 11 classes is worse than having just 5, 4 or 3 sets if you can fulfill the other requirements adequately. In your opinion, how many sets do you need to get 11 classes that are reasonably balanced and unique enough?

I guess three is the absolute minimum. (For example, 3 martial adepts, 4 spontaneous casters and 4... something :smallbiggrin:)

How many is enough and how many is too much? Personally, I think I'd start with three and take a fourth if three is not many enough.

DragoonWraith
2010-03-11, 10:22 AM
I think I'd be happiest with 11 different mechanics, honestly. Variety is the spice of life, and is D&D 3.5's only real strong suit, anyway.

a typical hero
2010-03-11, 10:49 AM
True, the fighter and barbarian are boring. Alternate class features from UA, the completes and other splatbooks help the barbarian somewhat, but it's not much.

But having (for example) 7 different sets of class mechanics to cover the 11 classes is worse than having just 5, 4 or 3 sets if you can fulfill the other requirements adequately. In your opinion, how many sets do you need to get 11 classes that are reasonably balanced and unique enough?

I guess three is the absolute minimum. (For example, 3 martial adepts, 4 spontaneous casters and 4... something :smallbiggrin:)

How many is enough and how many is too much? Personally, I think I'd start with three and take a fourth if three is not many enough.


I don't know how much mechanics are the right amount.
But I do know that this is what keeps 3.5 D&D interesting for me from a mechanical standpoint.
I'm playing this edition for 4 years now and just recently discovered the awesomesauce from Tome of Battle / Magic of Incarnum / Tome of Magic.

Never going back to core. :smallsmile:

DragoonWraith
2010-03-11, 10:57 AM
Hmm, I'm curious how many different mechanics there are in 3.5:
Basic stats (BAB, saves, skills, etc)
Scaling ability/damage bonuses (Sneak Attack, Sudden Strike, Skirmish, etc)
Daily/Encounter use unique abilities (Rage, Bardic Music, Turn Undead, Wildshape, Lay on Hands, etc)
Prepared Spells (differences between Arcane and Divine are insignficant)
Spontaneous Spells
subset: Spirit Shaman-like Readied/Spontaneous spells
Powers
Invocations
Inspiration
Infusions
Pacts
Mysteries
Truespeech
Soulmelds
Maneuvers
Am I missing any?

a typical hero
2010-03-11, 11:05 AM
Maybe differ between prepared and spontaneous casting.

If you want so seperate them.

DragoonWraith
2010-03-11, 11:36 AM
Ah, that's a good point, those are meaningfully different. Will update.