Low Tier Gaming

[candycorn]

Ok, I recently started a IRL game with some friends, to experiment with some houserules and such, see what works and what doesn't.

Current rules being used:

First: Tier 1-3 Classes are banned outright.
Second: Power Attack is always 1:1, but functions with any weapon.
Third: Shock Trooper: Penalty for Heedless Charge is evenly split between attack and AC.
Fourth: Leap Attack: Instead provides +1d8 damage per 2 ranks in jump to the first melee attack made in each round, provided you move prior to the attack, and that movement includes a jump. Minimum BAB Requirement for feat is +3.
Fifth: No creature type is immune to sneak attack. Even creatures magically animated have areas more susceptible to damage.
Sixth: To be able to sneak attack, if you cannot fly, your vertical reach must be at least half the height of a bipedal creature, or 1/3 the height of a quadruped. When wielding a reach weapon, double your vertical reach for this calculation.
Seventh: Sneak attack dice are increased to 1d8.
Eighth: Darkstalker is effective against Mindsight and Touchsight.
Ninth: All classes get a bonus feat every 4 levels.
Magical Training: is banned. The point of this is to reduce the influence of magic, not have commoners walking around with 9th level spells.

What I'm looking for is other problem areas that would cause issues.

To head certain things off right now:

No, we're not interested in using another system for this.
No, we don't think that restrictions based on size for sneak attack are unreasonable.
Yes, we think that having broad groups of creatures that nullify class features is silly.
Yes, we believe that uberchargers should not exist in this power structure... At least, not at the 1:4 power attack without penalty to attack level, or higher.
Yes, we think that magic shouldn't have a powerful influence in this game. Same goes for other magiclike systems.

Disputing any of these things won't meaningfully impact the game. I won't consider such disputes, as the group has all discussed the above issues, and reached a consensus on these points.

I am looking mostly for ways to tweak this a little, by identifying areas not dealt with that can unbalance this. By and large, I want players to be able to have options, I just want to tweak those options to bring them more in line with a balanced playing field.

[Greenish]

More skillpoints for non-rogues be able to do things beside their one focus?

[candycorn]

Skill points for non-rogues could be an issue. The current structure does make it challenging for most T3-6 classes to really have more than a couple skills at a time.

[Tavor]

Two quick comments and a few questions, mainly because I am interested in your reasoning behind those choices:

You are buffing Sneak Attack damage, something that usually is more than keeping up till about 12th level anyway. Interesting. Remember that the Rogue is only listed in Tier 4 because of the Factotum stealing it's Tier 3 spot. Acording to the guy who made the tier-listing anyway.

At the same time you are nerfing THF, to a point where you might aswell remove it from the game.

How are magic items created in your setting? Adepts only?
How do you plan to recover lost hp after a fight? Healing Belts? 5 days of resting? again, Adepts?
Warlocks will be the only class with access to flight. How will the group handle anything that flies? (Or moves faster than the group)

[TurtleKing]

If you want healing take a look at the class Healer in Miniatures Handbook. Healer sits in the 5th Tier.

[Tavor]

True, the Healer. Is there anyone who seriously wants to play that class? But yea, you could probably have one tag along via Leadership.

[TurtleKing]

I would play a Healer. Also in certain campaigns such as a zombie apocalypse they get much more powerful as the cures could be used offensively. Not only that if you know about God Wizards with the best way being battlefield control or debuffing then the Healer is a thorn in their side has they can counter the debuffing quite easily. Counter as in heaqling them of a condition or stat damage and more. I also heard they get Gate...

[Greenish]

True, the Healer. Is there anyone who seriously wants to play that class?Well, there's the unicorn, and then exalted spells. The unicorn can get pretty good, I've heard it said. And it's not like you'd have lots of options for a divine character in this game.

[TurtleKing]

Other classes that can heal are the Ranger and Paladin with the Paladin have Lay on Hands as well. The Marshal as an ACF that grants temp hp. So you have options still.

The Healer and Warmage are the only casters tier 4 and below that get 9th level spells. Granted they are focused to a fault but still as they only ones they are powerful.

[limejuicepowder]

I see immense favoritism for rogues: why is that? Virtually ever other class has been nerfed to some degree by these changes (if not outright eliminated), except rogues who get two pretty significant buffs, and one mostly insignificant nerf. They are "buffed" further by virtually eliminating their THF-ing melee competition. Reasons?

I actually like most of rules - I think it would encourage players to use some classes and strategies that are usually subpar, and that can be fun. But I also see rogues getting completely unnecessary improvements; combined with the doing away of the classes that overshadow them, and that might lead to TWF rogues cutting everything in the world to ribbons rather effortlessly.

I second the other poster's feelings about skills. If damage dealing and spells are being heavily regulated, it makes sense to increase skill ranks.

Also, I recommend modifying the Heal skill to let characters actually heal themselves a very limited number of times per day (maybe it should be HD size + heal skill - barbs would get 1d12 + heal 1/day). If magic is largely out, healing can become a problem.

[DonDuckie]

I don't understand the size restrictions to Sneak Attack. What's the idea behind this?
A foot or knee is usually a vulnerable spot.

And it really takes the punch out of the "hamstring" feat(not sure about name). And the rules already state you have to be able to reach a vulnerable spot.

[Tavor]

I also heard they get Gate...

True, at level 17 they break the game. :smallcool:
At that point it would be fair to say you play a Gated Monster of choice with a Healer companion though. I doubt that is in the spirit of the OP.

[TurtleKing]

Tavor that depends on when you started play. If started play at high levels then yes that would be the case. If at low levels then not so.

[Tavor]

Of course. I was using hyperbole.
I assume the idea behind "low-magic" "low-tier" is playing low level adventures. Or pretending that low level adventures still matter when you hit level 17. Which is fine and fun when you can pull it off, but at that point a class with Gate breaks that illusion. So you will have to ignore it.

Which brings me to another question: At what level range do you plan to play with these rules?

[candycorn]

You are buffing Sneak Attack damage, something that usually is more than keeping up till about 12th level anyway. Interesting. Remember that the Rogue is only listed in Tier 4 because of the Factotum stealing it's Tier 3 spot. Acording to the guy who made the tier-listing anyway.The damage buff is minor, and other classes will be getting expanded skills to make up for it.


At the same time you are nerfing THF, to a point where you might aswell remove it from the game.Nerfing to the point that it's marginally better than sword and board, and somewhat close to TWF?

Mission Accomplished.


How are magic items created in your setting? Adepts only?Warlock, Warmage, Ranger, Adept, Spellthief, Healer, and Paladin, if memory serves.


How do you plan to recover lost hp after a fight? Healing Belts? 5 days of resting? again, Adepts?Same way most people recommend. Wands of Cure X. Healing belts are another option.


Warlocks will be the only class with access to flight. How will the group handle anything that flies? (Or moves faster than the group)Low power is the idea here. Still, ranged attacks, whether by weapon or spell classes such as the warmage, should take care of most flying creatures in the power level envisioned.


I see immense favoritism for rogues: why is that? Virtually ever other class has been nerfed to some degree by these changes (if not outright eliminated), except rogues who get two pretty significant buffs, and one mostly insignificant nerf. They are "buffed" further by virtually eliminating their THF-ing melee competition. Reasons?Because rogues require a high degree of optimization to contribute in combat. I find it ridiculous that rogues need to invest in Gravestrike and Golemstrike wands to even be viable. The damage boost is not significant, averaging +1 damage per 2 levels.


I actually like most of rules - I think it would encourage players to use some classes and strategies that are usually subpar, and that can be fun. But I also see rogues getting completely unnecessary improvements; combined with the doing away of the classes that overshadow them, and that might lead to TWF rogues cutting everything in the world to ribbons rather effortlessly.Not as effortlessly as you'd think. They're still a 3/4 BAB class, and there's less magic items envisioned in the overall world. We're talking low magic.


I second the other poster's feelings about skills. If damage dealing and spells are being heavily regulated, it makes sense to increase skill ranks. Already addressed.


Also, I recommend modifying the Heal skill to let characters actually heal themselves a very limited number of times per day (maybe it should be HD size + heal skill - barbs would get 1d12 + heal 1/day). If magic is largely out, healing can become a problem.
Limited healing with available classes. Thank you for bringing that up.


I don't understand the size restrictions to Sneak Attack. What's the idea behind this?
A foot or knee is usually a vulnerable spot.No moreso than any other part of the body. I'd like to be very clear on one thing.

A knee is not vulnerable in the sense that the heart is. The text in the sneak attack description stating, "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach" shall be interpreted under this ruleset as "limbs are not considered vitals".

That said, I am not looking to debate the rules considered. It's been done to death, and I'm frankly sick of it. They're a done deal, discussed in my playgroup and agreed upon by everyone that's relevant to the game (the players of this game, and the DM). I am looking for how these rules will impact the game world, and am seeking to address as much of the problematic areas as I can before it becomes an issue. That's what I'm seeking assistance with.

[Drathmar]

I don't get the whole... let's ban all tier 1-3 classes then buff rogues so they would be at least tier 3 if not tier 2 system used here...

Especially while nerfing straight THFers down a tier... if not 2.

vertical reach isn't that big of a deal really, there are ways to get around it.

The most creative one I have seen is a rogue in a campaign where the vulnerable spot rules were enforced... becoming a monster climber.

[candycorn]

I don't get the whole... let's ban all tier 1-3 classes then buff rogues so they would be at least tier 3 if not tier 2 system used here...
Even if you multiplied rogue damage by 10, they wouldn't go to tier 2. Let's be realistic here.

And you don't have to 'get it'. The players do. The DM does. I'm not trying to convince anyone of the good or bad of any of this. I've said what I'm looking for.

vertical reach isn't that big of a deal really, there are ways to get around it.
Correct.

[IdleMuse]

Well, I think what people are trying to say is, the consequence of these rules are that rogues are now the only melee build anyone should ever consider.

[Drathmar]

Even if you multiplied rogue damage by 10, they wouldn't go to tier 2. Let's be realistic here.

Tier 2 is an exaggeration, yes, but the changes you made would clearly put rogue tier 3 IMO. The damage they can potentially do to enemies they can do it against without your rules is great, allowing them to do that kind of damage to everyone can cause a problem in a low power game.

Just my opinion. But it seems to really favor rogues is all, and will probably make rogues or some kind of multiclass rogue, the best non-magic damage dealers in the game.

[Randomguy]

I think this is a great idea. It gives people a chance to play the flavourful but weak classes like shadowcaster and monk.

That said, you haven't done much to mitigate theurges. You could still play a shadowcaster 3/warmage 1/noctumancer 10/MT 6 and be more powerful than intended.

You should also ban rainbow servant to avoid rainbow warsnakes.

[FMArthur]

What are the advantages of two-handing now? Slightly higher base damage from two-handed weapons and getting half your strength mod to damage? I guess that's not too bad at first, but as soon as someone takes TWF and has a source of bonus damage, a THFer gets outclassed and doesn't seem to have anywhere to really take his style beyond what he can do at 1st level. It doesn't scale anymore, when TWF, spellcasting and other damage abilities still do. Is Leap Attack supposed to be his path here? It doesn't actually benefit THF more than it does any other weapon style.

Also, sword-and-board and one-handing are still useless and that needs to be addressed at some point if you intend to even out the weapon styles. THF and TWF being T4-T5 melee's only thing to do is part of what makes them kind of dull.

[Drathmar]

What are the advantages of two-handing now? Slightly higher base damage from two-handed weapons and getting half your strength mod to damage? I guess that's not too bad at first, but as soon as someone takes TWF and has a source of bonus damage, a THFer gets outclassed and doesn't seem to have anywhere to really take his style beyond what he can do at 1st level. It doesn't scale anymore, when TWF, spellcasting and other damage abilities still do. Is Leap Attack supposed to be his path here? It doesn't actually benefit THF more than it does any other weapon style.

Also, sword-and-board and one-handing are still useless and that needs to be addressed at some point if you intend to even out the weapon styles. THF and TWF being T4-T5 melee's only thing to do is part of what makes them kind of dull.

Another reason that taking some amount of rogue is going to be almost required for any type of straight melee build in that campaign.

[candycorn]

Well, I think what people are trying to say is, the consequence of these rules are that rogues are now the only melee build anyone should ever consider.
I disagree. Sneak attack still has to be qualified for, via flank or hiding, and multiple attacks on a sneak attack pretty much require the former. Otherwise, you're looking at, essentially, 1 attack. If the fight relies on moving, at all, you're still limited to one attack.

Let's be honest. What this is boiling down to is, "Oh, I can't play an ubercharger or a psywarrior combat engine from the bowels of the nine hells, so every melee build sucks forever". The idea is that combat maneuvers are emphasized over, "charge, power attack for full, dump it into shock trooper, do 733 damage, fight over".

If the power level is going down, well that's the whole point. Limiting sneak attack to once per round is an option, but you're overstating this. By your logic, without these rules, DMM Clerics and Druids are the only melee build anyone should ever consider... right?

And yet, people consider.

Examples of what I'm looking for:

"with damage decreased, skills will take an increased focus. Increasing skills of most classes would be beneficial."
"with many of the classes that craft items and perform healing gone, available party healing will be drastically reduced. How will you address this?"

Examples of what I'm not looking for:

"why are you doing that thing with the rogue and reach?"
"players will only build rogues for melee"

See, the first two address the classes and the impact they have on the game world. The last two attempt to address the players and the DM.

I am looking for the former. As the DM, the optimization of the NPC's is within my purview. Not every cleric has the Undeath and Planning domains in most settings. Not every druid builds to planar shepherd, and not every wizard has eyes set on Incantatrix early entry. By that token, not every melee enemy will be a ninja rogue assassin cheesed to the high heavens.

[Slipperychicken]

The language of your fourth point seems to encourage leap-attackers to take "5-foot jumps" prior to full attacking. Since a 5ft step is movement, and jump checks are made as part of movement, one may be able to activate leap attack by "hopping" next to opponents prior to full attacks.

Do you allow your players to take Martial Study and/or Martial Stance? Because those might become more potent under this system.

These rules seem to encourage TWF Rogues and Leap Attack, since there isn't much benefit to power-attacking, and the initiator classes are out. I forgot whether Iaijutsu Focus can be taken cross-class. If it can, that could be a supplemental source of damage for a Rogue with skillpoints to spare. I think trippers are still as potent as before.

[candycorn]

What are the advantages of two-handing now? Slightly higher base damage from two-handed weapons and getting half your strength mod to damage? I guess that's not too bad at first, but as soon as someone takes TWF and has a source of bonus damage, a THFer gets outclassed and doesn't seem to have anywhere to really take his style beyond what he can do at 1st level. It doesn't scale anymore, when TWF, spellcasting and other damage abilities still do. Is Leap Attack supposed to be his path here? It doesn't actually benefit THF more than it does any other weapon style.Leap attack was intended as a nerf, to prevent it from being multiplied. It's not intended to be a path. The primary advantage of two-handing? Bonuses on combat maneuvers, reach (no kusari-gamas in this setting), and the like. In other words, versatility.


Also, sword-and-board and one-handing are still useless and that needs to be addressed at some point if you intend to even out the weapon styles. THF and TWF being T4-T5 melee's only thing to do is part of what makes them kind of dull.Excellent point. Sword and shield is something we're working on, as well as ranged combat.

The language of your fourth point seems to encourage leap-attackers to take "5-foot jumps" prior to full attacking. Since a 5ft step is movement, and jump checks are made as part of movement, one may be able to activate leap attack by "hopping" next to opponents prior to full attacks.

Do you allow your players to take Martial Study and/or Martial Stance? Because those might become more potent under this system.

These rules seem to encourage TWF Rogues and Leap Attack, since there isn't much benefit to power-attacking, and the initiator classes are out. I forgot whether Iaijutsu Focus can be taken cross-class. If it can, that could be a supplemental source of damage for a Rogue with skillpoints to spare. I think trippers are still as potent as before.
Martial Study/Stance is still in, but Iaijutsu Focus is not.

The 5 foot jump is possible for leap attack, but you still only get the bonus damage on the first attack.

[DeAnno]

Warmages are actually pretty good in this system. Using their ACF they can grab a couple action-economy spells like Celerity and Spellsurge and do a very decent imitation of a Mailman at later levels, vastly outperforming most of the other builds in this system which will be competitive for ranged damage dealing (Warlocks and Archers). Of course, this will be very slow getting online and won't really supernova until the last five levels, though it will at least look respectable in this context almost from the start. As a side note you should make sure to explicitly disallow Rainbow Servant BS as it will destroy your ecosystem.

With no Power Attacking THW is indeed in a lot of trouble. In most situations now it will be exceeded by reasonably built unarmed or natural weapon use (are Totemists and Incarnates tier 3 here?). You will still get some mileage out of big monstrous brutes but most of them will be going with more control-esque builds now with grapple and tripping featured.

Thri-kreen is a very good race in this system (quite possibly the very best at melee). They are natural multiweapon users, the LA/HD hurts much less with no high tiers, and even their jumping ability is probably quite useful with the height restrictions on sneak attack.

Healers are in general a pretty interesting proposition now, and you probably want to just remove Gate from their spell list or alter the spell for them to be reasonable in this system. Lack of easy healing in general will force alternative solutions in parties without Healers or Adepts, and templates which provide fast healing may see more use than usual. Dragon Shamans and their Fast Healy aura might also come into some demand.

If Dragonfire Adepts are T4 like Warlocks they are the kings of AoE and very good in general. While Warlocks are competing tooth and nail with tweaked Warmages for ranged supremacy the DFA has a much more comfy lead in its niche over the Warmage and will see much less competition.

Depending on gear prevalence, Invisibility is both much harder to get and much harder to counter now. Adepts do have See Invisibility, but the general lack of Glitterdust and the inability of Adepts to do much about the problem once they see it means Invisible people can really run wild in a way they couldn't before. Assassins with their pretty ok spell list flushed with invisibilities will be a very loved PRC here.

[Ernir]

I am looking for how these rules will impact the game world, and am seeking to address as much of the problematic areas as I can before it becomes an issue. That's what I'm seeking assistance with.

Out of combat, healing, and more importantly, removal of status conditions, is going to be a PITA unless someone plays a Healer.

In combat, flying (and other mobile) monsters, encounters requiring battlefield control, encounters requiring solutions aside from HP damage, invisible creatures and incorporeal creatures are going to be brutal.

[CIDE]

In response to one of your rules and to be fair fluff-wise most magic users shouldn't be "commoners" anyway with the exception of maybe a Sorcerer.

Beyond that...are there even any healing classes outside of tiers 1-3?

[Slipperychicken]

It looks like a lot of arcane casting isn't going to be available, so your players will likely have trouble with utility elements like travel.

I don't think Bags of Holding or similar will exist, since there won't be characters able to cast Secret Chest or Plane shift.

Flight, teleportation, and travel between planes will be much harder (if at all possible) without aid from outsiders.

Creatures with "casting as Xth level Sorcerer/Cleric", like Dragons or Outsiders, will be pretty much unstoppable.


EDIT: Any kind of fast travel is going to be hard. Your party's mostly going to be hoofing it and looking for boats or flying mounts.

[Grim Reader]

You're going to need to keep an eye on feats and PrCs that expand spells known. A Warmage with a Sand Shaper dip gets a lot of spell utility at the cost of losing another caster level. Not sure if thats going to be enough to push her over the line.

Fiend Blooded adds far less spells, but does not lose caster levels. Bloodline Feat...etc.

[Helldog]

Beyond that...are there even any healing classes outside of tiers 1-3?
Yes. They were already mentioned earlier in this very thread.

[DarthPeleus]

Just giving it a quick once-over, looks like somebody hates uberchargers but likes rogues.

IMO Uberchargers are at the most 3rd tier(usually 4th, 5th if they didn't do it right), they suffer from Crippling Overspecialization (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CripplingOverspecialization). They are too easily stopped by anyone who knows what the heck they're doing.

Huge rogue buffs, though that is somewhat understandable, considering how weak the class is, but the fact that you killed all the tiers above it, you probably just made rogue the best option for anyone in this system.

I agree with JaronK's view that 3rd tier is a good balancing point. Its a rather happy medium where no one is good at everything, but no one is useless in any particular situation either.

The way you have it now, every member of the party is likely to end up being a superstar for particular parts of an encounter and sitting on their thumbs for the rest.

[Rossebay]

Wall of response.

The point isn't that you can't ubercharge, we see that.

The point is this:

Level 10: Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 6/Barbarian 1 (pounce), Daring Outlaw.

5d8 Sneak Attack when flanking with the party Barbarian, right? Alright. The Swashbuckler gets the Rogue's Int. to damage, so, let's assume +3. Wielding a Rapier, so d6, then d6 enchantment, using Two-Weapon Fighting.

So the Swash gets a full attack, and hits with all four (which shouldn't be too hard, full BAB -1 and all, dex synergy, etc.). The swash now deals 8d6+20d8+12.

Average Damage per Attack: 2d6+5d8+3=32.5

The Barbarian, with 12 ranks in jump, Leap-Attack Pounces. He gets a 2d6 Greatsword, strength for +9 damage, and a 1d6 enchantment, as well as 6d8 via Leap Attack.

Hits with both, so... 6d6+6d8+18.

Swashbuckler Average Damage: 130

Barbarian's Average Damage: 66

Both of them can do this reliably, every turn. Even if they miss with half of their attacks, the Swash/Rogue/Barb is still going to double the normal Barbarian's damage. And if you rule out Pounce cheese, you're still dealing with less output in damage from the Barbarian's THFing via the Swash/Rogue and Two-Weapon Pounce. Due to the Swashbuckler's high hit die, he won't be trailing the Barbarian by much in health anyway. And there are plenty of ways to deny a target its dex mod to AC.

Flanking Positions are easy to set up, let's not kid ourselves. Just delay initiative until the party fighter rushes in, then rush around and hit. Rogues are going to be reliably dealing more damage than any other class, including the Warmage. Only advantage there is hitting multiple opponents.

Rogues are the top dogs in single-target damage, and Warmages win out in mobs. Just throw in a Healer, and your party should look something like: Roguex2, Healer, Warmage.

The Rogue is going to be stealing the Melee spotlight. He only loses 1 base attack if played correctly, and can do everything the martial characters can do, only better.

Rogue: Tier 3 here. Great in melee, great skills, ability to really do anything that any non-caster could do in the first place.

Putting all AC penalty instead of splitting it evenly gives the barbarian a reliable +18 to damage here, making it 84. x2 for THF? 102, still not measuring up to the Rogue.

And who says that the Rogue can't do Leap-Attack Power Attack Pounce? PA now works with all weapons, right? So a pouncing Rogue matches the Barbarian for his damage every turn. And nothing's stopping a Rogue from throwing in that extra 6d8 for Leap Attack, which they undoubtedly have enough ranks for. And the base attack for it. So, add another 36 average damage to the rogue, making it 166. I didn't factor PA in, but if we do, it's +20 to the Barbarian, and with the Rogue's Base Attack of 8... +32.

Edit: Math in the above section is slightly off, but was redone for the below section.

Final:
Rogue Sneak Attack Mix: 193 reliable points of damage per round.

Barbarian THFer: 86 damage.

Rogue WITHOUT Sneak Attack: Still gets 103 damage average per turn.


See an issue here? Rogues can do everything, are great at one thing, match up with the rest of the party, and can even (using Daring Warrior or whatever) qualify for Fighter Feats of their level.

So... Your Rogue/Swash mix beats out any Barbarian/Fighter mix there is.



P.S.: My math may be off by 10 or 20 at most for each class, because of all of the damage mods in there.

[Randomguy]

I don't think that's too unbalanced. It just proves optimized builds are still capable of damage dealing. Rogues are good strikers now, they're supposed to do high damage, but they still don't have as much hp as the standard fighter.

The problem is that now, this is much harder to counter. Maybe you still shouldn't be able to power attack with light weapons?

[Rossebay]

I don't think that's too unbalanced. It just proves optimized builds are still capable of damage dealing. Rogues are good strikers now, they're supposed to do high damage, but they still don't have as much hp as the standard fighter.

The problem is that now, this is much harder to counter. Maybe you still shouldn't be able to power attack with light weapons?

Well, that's the thing. Rogue with Swash gives 3d6, xd10's. That, along with only needing Dexterity and Constitution because of all of your bonus damage sources, means a very SAD character, while the fighters still need Strength, Dexterity, and Consitution.

But then, a fighter who stands around with high HP isn't really getting much out of gaming...

So, no, not as much HP, and AC is a little harder to get.

I definitely think that no PA on Light Weapons would help out a lot, because PA and TWF shouldn't work so well together.

[FMArthur]

So THF is all about reach and combat maneuvers now? That's basically just tripper characters.

If your players happen to know about Dungeon Crasher and the race+feat combo that makes it work - which are from different books which aren't widely owned - then that too. You might want to actually draw attention to Dungeon Crasher as a main Fighter option, and let creatures of any size use the Knockback feat (it's not like big guys don't already get an advantage with it). With that and Dungeon Crasher on the table where everyone can see it (that's important), THF can keep up decently and still do awesome stuff despite the setbacks. Dungeon Crasher becomes a primary asset to the style for those that don't want to stand around with a reach weapon and trip people for moving nearby (something that not everyone who wants to two-hand will want to do with their character).

[Tvtyrant]

You know, you might have an easier time just getting rid of shock trooper and making multipliers no longer stack. There, no uberchargers anymore and you don't need to make THF strictly worse than TWF at everything.

Going on to your requests for the effects on the game:
1. Everyone is going to be standing still and full attacking under this system. The primary source of damage is TWF with SA, which needs a full attack to pull off and flankers.
2. A lot of enemies with energy drain/poisocaine abilities are going to simply smash your groups, since there is no equivalent to a Heal spell.
3. Constructs (especially Golems) and Undead are now easy pickings, due to being relatively small and low on health. A good full attack will crush them. Take an Iron Golem at CR 13, with 130 HP. A level 13 Rogue has 7d8 SA under this system, which is 84 average damage over 3 attacks (65% of his HP). The golem does 34 damage on a full attack against the Rogues 59 health (assuming a +2 con mod), or 57% of his HP. A Rogue with a flanker that does nothing but not die can win in a one on one melee with a CR appropriate enemy.

[FMArthur]

1. Everyone is going to be standing still and full attacking under this system. The primary source of damage is TWF with SA, which needs a full attack to pull off and flankers.
This is just not true. Anyone can dip Barbarian for Pounce. Anyone can take the Travel Devotion feat. A lot of this list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358) still applies in a T4 and down game.


2. A lot of enemies with energy drain/poisocaine abilities are going to simply smash your groups, since there is no equivalent to a Heal spell.

Really, no equivalent to the Heal spell below Tier 3? What about the Heal spell, from the Healer class that has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread?

[Tvtyrant]

This is just not true. Anyone can dip Barbarian for Pounce. Anyone can take the Travel Devotion feat. A lot of this list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358) still applies in a T4 and down game.


Really, no equivalent to the Heal spell below Tier 3? What about the Heal spell, from the Healer class that has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread?

So, lets get this straight. Your telling me you think people whose best bet for damage is SA, which needs flankers, is going to be a highly mobile form of combat? If you pounce and there isn't someone already flanking them, you get pathetic damage. You could be right, but my bet is that combat looks like a bunch of core fighters taking 5 ft. steps, except as Rogues.

And again, this implies someone is willing to play a straight healbot.

[Curious]

So, lets get this straight. Your telling me you think people whose best bet for damage is SA, which needs flankers, is going to be a highly mobile form of combat? If you pounce and there isn't someone already flanking them, you get pathetic damage. You could be right, but my bet is that combat looks like a bunch of core fighters taking 5 ft. steps, except as Rogues.

And again, this implies someone is willing to play a straight healbot.

Well, if you are playing with Pathfinder material included, going to level 4 in the Rogue Scout (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/scout) archetype and then taking a dip in Spirit Lion Totem means you can pounce and get all your sneak attacks off.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, if you are playing with Pathfinder material included, going to level 4 in the Rogue Scout (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/scout) archetype and then taking a dip in Spirit Lion Totem means you can pounce and get all your sneak attacks off.

That is really up to Candycorn, I am just pointing out that SA is under their system the best form of damage, but it also requires flanking and full attacking.

[Rossebay]

That is really up to Candycorn, I am just pointing out that SA is under their system the best form of damage, but it also requires flanking and full attacking.

Actually, if you paid any mind to my number-crunch above, you'd see that a rogue can be made who, even without Sneak Attack, is dealing decent damage. Sneak Attack does almost double damage output, but even the lead charger still gets something accomplished.

Pounce is easily obtained, and, with Whirling Frenzy, Barbarian even adds another attack to the mix.

Sneak Attack is the best form of attack, but a flanking position can be easily set up.

[Metahuman1]

Suggestions for sword and shield.

1: Give all shields a miss chance that they grant too there wielder that is fluffed as the guy with a 3ftx3ft board keeping it in between you and your blade, and his vitals most of the time in combat.

2: Alternatively, give them the ability to make Parry rolls at assorted modifiers according to shield type and what other kinds of actions there taking.



I base both of these on having used shields in Re-enactment group activity's before. Course I'm the guy who also thinks the way Tower shields should work is they should grant Full cover and there Bonus to your AC at the same time by virtue of having it equipped and that the -2 attack penalty you suffer when using them should not exist if your proficient, though I could see giving them an extra -2 if you try to use one with out proficiency.



Other Implications.

Warmages and Adepts and lower tier Psionic classes (I hear there are one or two of them that aren't tier 3 or better, but I'm not terribly familiar with) that do Blasting are Viable now if you use them half way decently and adjust the encounters to be less formidable then normal game play. Same thing with Dragon Fire adept and Warlock.

Incarnum classes are now more useful. Much more useful. So is the Shadow Adept.

TrueNamers have a CHANCE to be viable but still need some house rules to bring them up to playable.

The monk now has a half a chance if you'd be willing to let it get access to Buff magic somehow. Creating a feat or PrC to let it Gish with something else is a good idea at this point.



Other classes now are gonna REALLY need those variants and AFC's. Dungeon Crasher, Spirit Lion Totem, Whirling Frenzy, Trap Breaker, Mystic or Wildshape Ranger ext.

Suggested house rule: Give rangers all knowledge Skills as class skills. Since there whole thing is knowing there foe, might as well take it all the way.



Fire arms and Archers seem like they might be more useful, but I'm not 100% sure of that one so don't quote me there.


And BTW, Congrats, you just made Pally really good to have in the party if your either
A) Freindly in General to mounted combat
B) gonna let it use it's dungeonscape AFC or
C) gonna play a small race like halfling or Gnome and go Mounted on a medium Mount

It can now be either a reliable healer for the party, something there lacking a lot of the time, will need under this rule set, and have fewer options on, or it can be the only class that can reliably have a useful mount and be able to use that + a lance to Multiply Power Attacks.

Which is GOOD. It makes the Paladin, a core image of western Fantasy, WORK MOSTLY OUT OF THE BOX!!!!! Don't nerf it. It still has enough Weaknesses to content with. Smite is still painfully limited, Terrain is all to easily against him even if he goes small which drops his damage in exchange for extra mobility, He still need's 4-5 attributes depending on your approach, ext.

[kardar233]

I know you weren't looking for another system, but Monte Cook's Iron Heroes system is a very good, martial-dominant system based on 3.5.

I have a feeling that PalaClawLocks are going to be the top damage dealers in this system, more than Warmages. Warlock6/Paladin2/Barbarian Deluxe1/Hellfire Warlock3/Legacy Champion 8 is one nasty build, especially with Beast Strike and Rapidstrike.

[Tr011]

By and large, I want players to be able to have options, I just want to tweak those options to bring them more in line with a balanced playing field.
It looks more like you want players not to multiclass much. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but I personaly like dipping classes, which is very bad if you loose almost half your feats vs. single class builds. You should think about that.


TrueNamers have a CHANCE to be viable but still need some house rules to bring them up to playable.

I totally don't agree with you here. Why do you think that truenamers are not viable? If you read a bit in ToM about the rules of truenamers and think about what Utterances are good and what aren't and think about how you get your truenaming skill high you can have more spells/day than sorcerers and rock in Tier 3 games. You only need level 9+. Think about casting two Slows (one extended) without a save in one round while still moving. That is IMO pretty viable. Of course it isn't if your mates are optimized in damage and just instantkill their enemies via Ubercharge or metamagic reducers.

@topic: I think it's pretty sad not to allow that ranged rogue style of characters that are quiet hard to play because you have to shift weapon crystals in your throwing daggers to be able to sneak attack undeads or if you have to think how you can get into 30ft. without beeing detected by Mindsight and then get the idea to ask your caster for a nondetection spell. You pretty much make the rogue to some sort of easy to play easy to create glasscannon that can rock in and out of combat. Regular rogues in DnD are not the crap some people think they are - they are skill monkeys that have to use their brain and prepare themself with lots of utility magic items to be some sort of batman who has a tool to deal his damage vs any opponent in any situation. To me it looks like you (or someone in your party) are just too lazy to think how you can play a rogue so that he is useful and can do something against a crit-immune monster or how you can sneak behind someone with Mindsight.

[Metahuman1]

I totally don't agree with you here. Why do you think that truenamers are not viable? If you read a bit in ToM about the rules of truenamers and think about what Utterances are good and what aren't and think about how you get your truenaming skill high you can have more spells/day than sorcerers and rock in Tier 3 games. You only need level 9+. Think about casting two Slows (one extended) without a save in one round while still moving. That is IMO pretty viable. Of course it isn't if your mates are optimized in damage and just instantkill their enemies via Ubercharge or metamagic reducers.



Provided you can make the check with out a Custom magic Item, an Item Familiar, Master Work tool, Skill Focus: True-speak, Member ship in a special Organization and a maxed by any means available Int, yes. Even more so if you can do it more then one or two times a day with out all of the above.

That's the core problem Truenamers would have in a game with these rules. There Utterances are still gonna Insane DC scaling that requires insane work to manage.

Tone down the DC's scaling and the starting point a notch or two, and either weaken the negative effects of the Law of Resistance or get rid of it (I'm in strong favor of the latter for a number of reasons.), and there still a low tier class, but, now, there playable in the tier 5-3 range depending on optimization and player style.

[Suddo]

Rule 10) Ban pounce barb varient.
I'm sorry but this variant is way to above the intended power curve and is easily snatched up with little to no penalty. Hell I like playing Tier 3 games and outright ban it.

Lets see beyond that...
*What levels are you playing this at?
*Are Prestige Classes (PrCs) on a case by case basis?
*Are you going to make magic items on a case by case basis. Sense there are no tier 1 classes some spells maybe non-existent at which point the items corresponding to them would be non-existent too. I don't have a item off the top of my head but I bet someone can find one.
*Just to double check the free feat is based off of going Monk 4 right? So if I go Monk 1/ Paladin 1/ fighter 1/ Barb 1 I would be down a feat compared to a straight build. This is an interesting idea.
*You are basically making THF a spike-chain only fighting. Which I'm not particularly arguing it wasn't before but it should be noted.
*Level Adjusted Races allowed?
*You talk about buffing Ranged fighting? Do you consider it lacking? A Warlock is a perfectly good ranged fighter in this system.

I think that's all.

[Tr011]

Provided you can make the check with out a Custom magic Item, an Item Familiar, Master Work tool, Skill Focus: True-speak, Member ship in a special Organization and a maxed by any means available Int, yes. Even more so if you can do it more then one or two times a day with out all of the above.

Ok, I agree that you will either all of the above but not an Item Familiar or you need an Item Familiar (which is pretty cheesy IMO). But with this afford to optimize your skill check it looks pretty balanced to me. If you lower the DCs so that "any noob" can play a Truenamer you have one problem: If any player takes an hour or two to think about his character and think about his truenaming check and how awesome it would be to have it higher... he will get OP very fast. I think it is better to allow truenamers as written and recommend your players who do not optimize their chars that it would be better they either do not play truenamers or they take the ressources above so they do not suck.

//edit: one more question to the topic: A sorcerer is Tier 2 and thus banned. A sorcerer 6/Minbender 10 is Tier 4 and thus allowed. If you start playing at level 10+ this is true and you know that, right?

[Metahuman1]

Suddo: Gotta Disagree. Melee's Nerfed hard enough as is in this variant with the heavy handed downgrades of Power Attack, Leap attack, Shock Trooper and the banning of Tome of Battle.

More so if The Dm doesn't wanna be friendly to Sunder builds, Mounted Combat, or Builds that make good use of Knock back/Knock down/Dungeon Crasher. Banning the Barb Pounce Variant is just playing absolute Blatant Favorites with the Rogue.


Tr011: It rather just say that the Truenamer can't have more then X of things that boost there skill, and make the class work with out heavy optimization. If something needs heavy optimization to work at the CR's the party's of this variant should be fighting, not be good, to work, then there is a problem.

Yes, he can still get fairly powerful by the standards of this set up, but that just means he finally matches the fluff in Tome of Magic and in any other medium where True Name Magic is heavily employed. Heck, at this point it really just means there's a class that can Solidly Compete with the Rogue as the best in class class if the DC's and Law of Resistance are the only adjustments you make to the class and you do them well.

[candycorn]

The point isn't that you can't ubercharge, we see that.

The point is this:

Level 10: Rogue 3/Swashbuckler 6/Barbarian 1 (pounce), Daring Outlaw.

5d8 Sneak Attack when flanking with the party Barbarian, right? Alright. The Swashbuckler gets the Rogue's Int. to damage, so, let's assume +3. Wielding a Rapier, so d6, then d6 enchantment, using Two-Weapon Fighting.

So the Swash gets a full attack, and hits with all four (which shouldn't be too hard, full BAB -1 and all, dex synergy, etc.). The swash now deals 8d6+20d8+12.

Average Damage per Attack: 2d6+5d8+3=32.5

The Barbarian, with 12 ranks in jump, Leap-Attack Pounces. He gets a 2d6 Greatsword, strength for +9 damage, and a 1d6 enchantment, as well as 6d8 via Leap Attack.

Hits with both, so... 6d6+6d8+18.

Swashbuckler Average Damage: 130

Barbarian's Average Damage: 66

Both of them can do this reliably, every turn. Even if they miss with half of their attacks, the Swash/Rogue/Barb is still going to double the normal Barbarian's damage. And if you rule out Pounce cheese, you're still dealing with less output in damage from the Barbarian's THFing via the Swash/Rogue and Two-Weapon Pounce. Due to the Swashbuckler's high hit die, he won't be trailing the Barbarian by much in health anyway. And there are plenty of ways to deny a target its dex mod to AC.

Flanking Positions are easy to set up, let's not kid ourselves. Just delay initiative until the party fighter rushes in, then rush around and hit. Rogues are going to be reliably dealing more damage than any other class, including the Warmage. Only advantage there is hitting multiple opponents.

Rogues are the top dogs in single-target damage, and Warmages win out in mobs. Just throw in a Healer, and your party should look something like: Roguex2, Healer, Warmage.

The Rogue is going to be stealing the Melee spotlight. He only loses 1 base attack if played correctly, and can do everything the martial characters can do, only better.

Rogue: Tier 3 here. Great in melee, great skills, ability to really do anything that any non-caster could do in the first place.

Putting all AC penalty instead of splitting it evenly gives the barbarian a reliable +18 to damage here, making it 84. x2 for THF? 102, still not measuring up to the Rogue.

And who says that the Rogue can't do Leap-Attack Power Attack Pounce? PA now works with all weapons, right? So a pouncing Rogue matches the Barbarian for his damage every turn. And nothing's stopping a Rogue from throwing in that extra 6d8 for Leap Attack, which they undoubtedly have enough ranks for. And the base attack for it. So, add another 36 average damage to the rogue, making it 166. I didn't factor PA in, but if we do, it's +20 to the Barbarian, and with the Rogue's Base Attack of 8... +32.

Edit: Math in the above section is slightly off, but was redone for the below section.

Final:
Rogue Sneak Attack Mix: 193 reliable points of damage per round.

Barbarian THFer: 86 damage.

Rogue WITHOUT Sneak Attack: Still gets 103 damage average per turn.


See an issue here? Rogues can do everything, are great at one thing, match up with the rest of the party, and can even (using Daring Warrior or whatever) qualify for Fighter Feats of their level.

So... Your Rogue/Swash mix beats out any Barbarian/Fighter mix there is.



P.S.: My math may be off by 10 or 20 at most for each class, because of all of the damage mods in there.
Recalculate it under the assumption that people don't enjoy standing there and taking full attacks while flanked (which is true, last I checked). While full attacks are a good source of damage, and full attack TWF sneak attacking is, as well, the ability to get both Full Attack and Sneak Attack on the same attack is by no means assured. Even with charge pounce, it's not assured, as you have to charge in a straight line.

If you're assuming charges, or move + single attack, I think you'll find the numbers start to match up a bit more. And if a group works as a good team to set up advantageous situations?

Good for them. I think teamwork is a good thing to encourage.

The fighter types will feature more things like tripping, disarming, and the like. Combat debuffing, where they are best. The rogue types will focus on damage, as they are less suited for the debuff ability.

[Rossebay]

Recalculate it under the assumption that people don't enjoy standing there and taking full attacks while flanked (which is true, last I checked). While full attacks are a good source of damage, and full attack TWF sneak attacking is, as well, the ability to get both Full Attack and Sneak Attack on the same attack is by no means assured.

If you're assuming charges, or move + single attack, I think you'll find the numbers start to match up a bit more. And if a group works as a good team to set up advantageous situations?

Good for them. I think teamwork is a good thing to encourage.

Delaying of Initiative and careful placement means Full Attack+Sneak Attack every round...

Unless I've suddenly forgotten how Pounce works.

Undoubtedly, the numbers match up more with Single Attack on a charge or something, but, with Pounce, Single Attacks won't be very common in situations with BAB higher than 5.

[candycorn]

Delaying of Initiative and careful placement means Full Attack+Sneak Attack every round...

Unless I've suddenly forgotten how Pounce works.

Undoubtedly, the numbers match up more with Single Attack on a charge or something, but, with Pounce, Single Attacks won't be very common in situations with BAB higher than 5.

That's a valid interaction concern. Removing pounce from the barbarian class would help alleviate that. With that modification, would damage begin to come in line more?

[DementedFellow]

Provided you can make the check with out a Custom magic Item, an Item Familiar, Master Work tool, Skill Focus: True-speak, Member ship in a special Organization and a maxed by any means available Int, yes. Even more so if you can do it more then one or two times a day with out all of the above.


Why is Skill Focus: Truespeak out? The others are iffy to be sure, but come on.

[Slipperychicken]

would damage begin to come in line more?

Then the charger has a single, powerful attack. Removing Shock Trooper makes Power Attacking the tradeoff that was intended to be, rather than rocket-tag.

Also, it might make more sense to say "Power attack cannot go above a certain ratio" than "Power Attack is always 1:1". I recommend setting the cap where damage approximates Sneak Attack, to balance it.

[Rossebay]

That's a valid interaction concern. Removing pounce from the barbarian class would help alleviate that. With that modification, would damage begin to come in line more?

Oh, definitely. Leap-Attack would seem more relevant, and it would help stop Rogues from making full use of their TWF and Sneak Attack every round. This would keep the charging Barbarian/Dungeoncrasher relevant, while still giving rogues their niche.

The Barbarian gets 3d6+6d8+18, was it? On his charge.

The Rogue would get (after the careful placement and sneak attack attempt) 2d6+5d8+3. Now, the Rogue could (and probably should) use Leap Attack, so we can bump that up to 2d6+11d8+12.

Barbarian is dealing 55 damage per round (about), and the Rogue (with Sneak and Leap) is dealing 68.5 on average.

Actually, that brings them much closer than I thought it would... That almost destroys the gap between them.

The rogue is still dealing more damage, and will continue to get scaling damage, as will the Barbarian. Since Sneak Attack can now be used on anything, careful tactics will allow you to see it used almost every round. Now, when that Rogue gets a Full Attack off and hits with 3 attacks or so, you'll see that huge damage jump show up again.

This encourages party tactics for the rogues to get their maximum damage off, and the party will rely heavily on the Fighter or Barbarian to bring down big targets. They need him as the anchor. A lockdown build will do fine. With the Fighter acting as the anchor, the Rogue being a large source of damage, the Warmage doing battlefield control and spread-damage, and a Healer on healbot duty, you have yourself a happy and balanced party. In my view, anyway. Definitely take the other posters points into account, I realize that my perspective may easily be skewed.

Mind you, for the sake of this test, I'm assuming decent optimization (as should be encouraged, with characters of such low tier and all.)

[HunterOfJello]

I would recommend allowing Rangers to take the Mystic Ranger alternate class feature since it would allow some spellcasting to get reintroduced without forcing someone into the horrific Healer class. Also, you could allow Bards contingent on a ban of Glibness or something. It may be technically possible, but I've never heard of a bard breaking the game.

[Eldest]

The bard's way to break the game is by making their party members awesome.

So the rogue is damage, the fighter is battlefield control... Where does that leave the paladin, ranger and barbarian? The barbarian is much less useful, since it's main tactic is the one you nerfed hardest.

[Metahuman1]

Why is Skill Focus: Truespeak out? The others are iffy to be sure, but come on.

Because I was listing absolutely everything I could think of that can be used to jack up a true speak check modifier with out homebrew.

Personally, the Master Work Tool and the Skill Focus are both the least powerful and least dubious Items. A True-Namer with a book of commonly encountered true names (Masterwork Tool) and Skill focus on the skill that makes him better then a commoner is fine and makes sense in and of itself, as does trying to make sure your Highest Stat is Int and that you do invest in improving it.

That said, The DC's and Law of Resistance should still be adjusted in the manner I've already described.

[candycorn]

The bard's way to break the game is by making their party members awesome.

So the rogue is damage, the fighter is battlefield control... Where does that leave the paladin, ranger and barbarian? The barbarian is much less useful, since it's main tactic is the one you nerfed hardest.

Ok, so rogue and fighter are brought in line with power levels, and given cohesive roles that they favor.

I'll likely try to work the barbarian in around DR penetration, and the ranger will likely get a druid strength Animal Companion, along with the ability to make 2 melee or ranged attacks with a standard action attack.

Paladin, I'll need to think on. I'll probably augment smiting, and make it X/encounter, not X/day.

[Acanous]

Do recall that a Rogue/Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian/Swash is going to have a ridiculous init, and probably improved init to boot.

You can partial charge on a surprise round.
You are denied your Dex until you've acted in combat.

Encounters are over, before they start.

In this system, if your rogue is sneaking all over the place, most enemies are going to be surprised, full attacked, then full attacked again, all with SA damage. The usual counter to this sort of thing is constructs or undead (The former also counters most instant-win spells, which makes them doubly effective) but both are now subject to SA damage.

So... you're going to need to give the players encounters made of large numbers of enemies, probably with fewer hit dice, in which case the Warmage is just going to Fireball FTW.

Encounter design is going to be very difficult for your DM. Things will either steamroll the party, or suck and die. Unlike encounters with a T1 group, you won't be expending player resources with lesser encounters. They can keep this up all day.

[NeoSeraphi]

Oh, the poor monk. His one niche, getting Improved Disarm/Trip, now long forgotten. His spell resistance, now not so relevant. His fists, unable to be greater magic fanged by the sympathetic party druid.

You should give the monk some boosts too, if you're giving the ranger a fighter as a class feature.

[candycorn]

I know you weren't looking for another system, but Monte Cook's Iron Heroes system is a very good, martial-dominant system based on 3.5. You are probably correct on both fronts, but my main concern is with the first.


Rule 10) Ban pounce barb varient.
I'm sorry but this variant is way to above the intended power curve and is easily snatched up with little to no penalty. Hell I like playing Tier 3 games and outright ban it.Already discussed and implemented.



*You talk about buffing Ranged fighting? Do you consider it lacking? A Warlock is a perfectly good ranged fighter in this system.
To clarify, I'm referring to MARTIAL ranged fighting being buffed.


Do recall that a Rogue/Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian/Swash is going to have a ridiculous init, and probably improved init to boot.The thread has already addressed spirit lion totem, which is being removed.


You can partial charge on a surprise round.If you make multiple attacks as part of an action that isn't a full round action, you only get precision damage on one of them, per the Rules Compendium.


You are denied your Dex until you've acted in combat.

Encounters are over, before they start.Incorrect, by several different ways, outlined above.


In this system, if your rogue is sneaking all over the place, most enemies are going to be surprised, full attacked, then full attacked again, all with SA damage. The usual counter to this sort of thing is constructs or undead (The former also counters most instant-win spells, which makes them doubly effective) but both are now subject to SA damage.Incorrect. Even if Spirit lion was on the table (which it's not), partial charge full attacks can't grant SA more than once.


So... you're going to need to give the players encounters made of large numbers of enemies, probably with fewer hit dice, in which case the Warmage is just going to Fireball FTW.This would be true, if the prior assumption was.


Oh, the poor monk. His one niche, getting Improved Disarm/Trip, now long forgotten. His spell resistance, now not so relevant. His fists, unable to be greater magic fanged by the sympathetic party druid.

You should give the monk some boosts too, if you're giving the ranger a fighter as a class feature.
Monk is probably the only class that needs a complete overhaul to work.

[NeoSeraphi]

Monk is probably the only class that needs a complete overhaul to work.

Glad you agree. Here are some suggestions I have:

Make Stunning Fist a class feature instead of an optional feat, and make it usable at-will instead of 1/day/class level. (If you're making Smites per encounter, you might as well make Stuns at-will)

Let non-good monks take Intuitive Strike if they want.

Give the monk a +1 AC bonus at level 1 instead of +0, and from 5th level on, grant them triple the bonus on the table. (+3 at 5th, +6 at 10th, +9 at 15th, +12 at 20th).

Give the monk's unarmed strike an automatic +1/4 level enhancement bonus to attacks and damage.

Use the Pathfinder monk's Flurry of Blows ability.

Just a few ideas to help get you started.

[candycorn]

Not that familiar with Pathfinder, so references to it won't be helpful in getting your idea across. That said, I intend to overhaul the stunning blow ability. It'll still be a feat, but monks will have additional benefits with it. I'm thinking usable x/encounter, additional status effects able to be given, generally increased functionality. For example, a low level monk would be able to stun or daze, a mid level monk would also be able to do short term deafness, blindness, and at higher levels, paralysis and nausea would be able to be imposed.

[Tr011]

Ok, so rogue and fighter are brought in line with power levels, and given cohesive roles that they favor.

That is so not true. Even if many rogue players like their rogues to do as much damage and as reliably as a Barbarian, they shouldn't. A classic rogue is first a skill monkey and second a sneak attacker. A Barbarian is first a DD and second a DD. If a rogue does every turn in every encounter more damage than a barbarian, you can call the barbarian a sucker and ban the class outright to prevent players from playing them and being sad after.

Human Rogue 3/Sneak Attacking Drow Fighter 2/Swashbuckler 4 with Lion Tribe Warrior (Shining South), Darkstalker, Craven (Champions of Ruin), Leap Attack and a Ring of Invisibility can still instant kill anything in the first two rounds of combat solo. Using said Rapier for 1d6 (rapier)+6d8+9 (SA)+6d8 (leap attack) +str+int+dex (assuming str 10, int 16 and dex 16) for a total of 72,5 per hit. Without haste, this build does two attack per round on a Pounce, but you even could dip Monk 1 for extra attacks. As you are gaining items for +int and +dex, the damage increases even more. But I think an average of 72*2*2=288 damage before your opponent can even interact is too much for a level 9 character (make sure to get improved ini and that ring for rolling ini twice).

You have to see what you are doing there: You ban out all Tier 3 and better. Nice. You give free feats fore single classer. OK. Then you take one of the best feats for a Tier 4 class, a class feature of said Tier 4 class and improve both. Hm, seems strange. Now you add another completly overpowered feat variant (Leap Attack) for the same class, make a minor debuff (melee only/needs reach) and a major buff (can sneak anybody). And so that no other guy ever will go nonrogue melee again you debuff the other melee DPSler.

Why don't you just leave Power Attack as it is (2:1 ratio so THW-style is viable) and debuff Uberchargers by taking away completely Shock Trooper, let charge-effects only work on the first hit of a Pounce and be happy? Works for my group at least (without shock trooper no one can just take full power attack charges).

[candycorn]

That is so not true. Even if many rogue players like their rogues to do as much damage and as reliably as a Barbarian, they shouldn't. A classic rogue is first a skill monkey and second a sneak attacker. A Barbarian is first a DD and second a DD. If a rogue does every turn in every encounter more damage than a barbarian, you can call the barbarian a sucker and ban the class outright to prevent players from playing them and being sad after.I said rogue and FIGHTER. Not rogue and barbarian. Fighter is an actual class in D&D, and Barbarian does not fit within that. Barbarian, as it exists in the vacuum of RAW, is a DD primary. I'm working on giving each class a decidedly distinct flavor, without shoehorning Barbarians into Ubercharge.

So, when I say that Fighter is in line, I don't mean Barbarian.

That said, rogue can be what you want it to. That's the beauty of having a versatile chassis. I'm simply focusing things towards combat, as that is what the players like.

I understand if you like your rogues relegated to trapfinding and scouting. My players don't. So what you envision a rogue should be is not what works in my neck of the woods. Also, I don't believe classes should be relegated to competence only in or out of combat. Almost all classes are getting increased skill points and an expanded skill list.


Human Rogue 3/Sneak Attacking Drow Fighter 2/Swashbuckler 4 with Lion Tribe Warrior (Shining South), Darkstalker, Craven (Champions of Ruin), Leap Attack and a Ring of Invisibility can still instant kill anything in the first two rounds of combat solo. Using said Rapier for 1d6 (rapier)+6d8+9 (SA)+6d8 (leap attack) +str+int+dex (assuming str 10, int 16 and dex 16) for a total of 72,5 per hit. Without haste, this build does two attack per round on a Pounce, but you even could dip Monk 1 for extra attacks. As you are gaining items for +int and +dex, the damage increases even more. But I think an average of 72*2*2=288 damage before your opponent can even interact is too much for a level 9 character (make sure to get improved ini and that ring for rolling ini twice).This is precisely why you wouldn't have a seat at this table. We're more casual and less "RAWR I WANT TO CREATE TEH UBERKILLAH OF ALL THINGS RAWR". I don't anticipate my players looking to break my game because I ask them not to, and speak with them privately when they begin using more cheddar than is in the recipe for my game.


You have to see what you are doing there: You ban out all Tier 3 and better. Nice. You give free feats fore single classer. OK. Then you take one of the best feats for a Tier 4 class, a class feature of said Tier 4 class and improve both. Hm, seems strange. Now you add another completly overpowered feat variant (Leap Attack) for the same class, make a minor debuff (melee only/needs reach) and a major buff (can sneak anybody). And so that no other guy ever will go nonrogue melee again you debuff the other melee DPSler.Your complaints about the existing rules will, now and forever, fall on deaf ears.

I cannot stress that enough. Complaining on the ruleset based on your personal opinion of what players you do not know will do, or how you think classes should be played? Is going to have no impact, simply because you DON'T know my players, and what envision a class should be is different than what we do. I'm not knocking your preferences, but this game will not conform to them.

Issues that need addressing "Barbarians have no defined role that they excel at" are GOOD. I like those. Things like "Spirit Lion is too easily accessible for low level dipping by any class, and distorts the power balance towards rogues under your rules" is also GOOD.


Why don't you just leave Power Attack as it is (2:1 ratio so THW-style is viable) and debuff Uberchargers by taking away completely Shock Trooper, let charge-effects only work on the first hit of a Pounce and be happy? Works for my group at least (without shock trooper no one can just take full power attack charges).
Because your game is not my game. I'm sorry if this comes across a bit brusque, but I've said it several times, and included it in the OP. I am not looking for you to explain why I shouldn't have a rule that I've set. What I am looking for, is insight into what else needs to be looked at, as a result of these changes.

I have no, repeat, no interest in imposing Power Attack as a feat tax for all strength based combatants. I want it to be an option that is useful, but not so useful that characters rely on it and nothing else.

[Tr011]

Because your game is not my game. I'm sorry if this comes across a bit brusque, but I've said it several times, and included it in the OP. I am not looking for you to explain why I shouldn't have a rule that I've set. What I am looking for, is insight into what else needs to be looked at, as a result of these changes.

Ok, then what do you think about my suggestion that you just quoted to use on-charge-effects only on the first hit of a Pounce?


I have no, repeat, no interest in imposing Power Attack as a feat tax for all strength based combatants. I want it to be an option that is useful, but not so useful that characters rely on it and nothing else.

If you debuff strength-based characters that hard you should not stop thinking about the balance of... ok... a FIGHTER and a rogue. A rogue can be a decent debuffer when he trades sneak attack vs. debuffs (usually fighting style vs. crit immune). On the other hand Fighter can be played as DDs as well. To balance this, you should consider taking the Drow Fighter variant out of the game, or make it drow-only or increase the level to get it (maybe Fighter 3 or Fighter 4).
Another thing... If you say you change sneak attack, is the same thing true for Skirmish? And for Sudden Strike?

[candycorn]

Ok, then what do you think about my suggestion that you just quoted to use on-charge-effects only on the first hit of a Pounce?Spirit Lion Barbarian no longer exists. Most shapeshift means of gaining pounce no longer exist. There's sphinx claws via 2 feats, still, for natural weapons, requiring level 6, and preventing the use of TWF with it... and a few other mid level ways to get pounce.

With the removal of the only 1 level no prereq dip for pounce, the need to mitigate pounce is gone. With the existing rules in place, further weakening charge in those tertiary cases wouldn't be a wise decision.


If you debuff strength-based characters that hard you should not stop thinking about the balance of... ok... a FIGHTER and a rogue. A rogue can be a decent debuffer when he trades sneak attack vs. debuffs (usually fighting style vs. crit immune). On the other hand Fighter can be played as DDs as well. To balance this, you should consider taking the Drow Fighter variant out of the game, or make it drow-only or increase the level to get it (maybe Fighter 3 or Fighter 4).Not worried about Drow fighter. My group has a distaste for elves of all breeds and stripes.

I'm not arguing that a rogue cannot debuff. I'm not arguing that a fighter cannot deal damage. Both, with optimization, are still possible. I'm establishing the things that classes shine at through these rules. If someone wants to take it a different way, that's cool.

The fighter, as originally created, was supposed to know a dozen techniques that other warriors didn't, making up for a barbarian's fury or a rogue's precision with additional maneuvers. That's what I'm working to make it do. It's more than Damage, it's technique. By diminishing the power attack damage, you shift the incentive to make it more attractive to use techniques.


Another thing... If you say you change sneak attack, is the same thing true for Skirmish? And for Sudden Strike?
Sudden Strike, yes. For Skirmish? Probably, but I need to review it. At a minimum, it will apply to all creature types. Damage increases, I'd need to check the feature specifics, and I'm AFB right now.

For those that say I discourage multiclassing, that's not true. I simply discourage small dips. If a player takes 4 levels of a class, they get a feat. If they take 1, that class doesn't contribute towards a feat. It's an incentive designed to discourage 1-2 level dips, not to prevent multiclassing entirely.

[Rossebay]

Lets of yadda.


It has already been established that Rogue and Fighter are happy where they are. Let's leave them be.

Rather, we should focus on Barbarian.


Anyway...
Candycorn, Barbarians could punch through DR equal to their own DR, if you like.

And the two attacks on a charge could be obtained at level 11 (when three attacks are gained total) so you aren't playing rocket tag all game from levels 6-11. It gives them a reason to stay, and a reason to Charge.

If that barbarian can make 2 attacks on a charge, can he make 4 attacks via TWF?

I'll do the math for it later, but right now, I daresay that we're bordering on the Barbarian dealing huge DD here. I suggest that PA be taken away from light weapons alltogether, preventing abuse via TWF for +20 damage per turn at level 10, when they're only downgrading from 2d6 to 1d6 to gain that. Light Weapons, then, are optimal damage-dealing sources.

Light weapons and TWF should be ways of getting precision damage out onto enemies, not PA and Str damage.

Just a suggestion.

[Suddo]

You still haven't answered 2 key questions of mine, unless I missed them in which case I apologize.
1) PrCs? Are they taken on a case by case basis?
2) What level are you intending this to be played through? Is this a 1-20? Is it a 1-10? 1-15? It all makes a difference.

For number 1 a good place to at least set a threshold is this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0). Simply ban all +2 Prestige Classes. That gets rid of your Ur-Priests and Sublime Chords, and even the hulking hurler.

[Greenish]

Shields could allow for adding BAB to AC, or maybe half-BAB. That'd make an easy scaling way to make people use shields for the reason they were actually used. Animated shields should probably be out of the picture entirely.

Making barbarians will be tricky, since their whole shtick is to grab a big weapon and wade into melee, smashing faces…


Same thing with Dragon Fire adept and Warlock.

Incarnum classes are now more useful. Much more useful. So is the Shadow Adept.DFA and Totemist are arguably tier 3. If not, the warrior nerfs and low magic item environment will probably make totemists the kings of melee.

[Tyndmyr]

So, basically, whoever made these rules plays the rogue, and didn't bother to actually read all the way through the tier system, right?

[Clawhound]

My experience of barbarians is that they lose hit points fast.

A usual optimized tactic for barbarian is to get the best of both worlds, both protection and aggression. I suggest limiting the following:


Never let a buckler work with a two-handed weapon
Never allow an animated shield
Never allow the proficient use of mithril plate without the heavy armor feat, even if mithril seems to allow it.


This will help keep a line between fighter and barbarian. If the barbarian wants to opt for big damage, he gets a big AC exposure.

[Greenish]

A usual optimized tactic for barbarian is to get the best of both worlds, both protection and aggression.Usual optimized tactic for barbarians is killing the enemy before the enemy kills you. This they generally achieve by preferring two-handed weapons (loses shield AC), charging (AC penalty), raging (AC penalty) and using Shock Trooper (AC penalty). Seeing a theme there? :smallamused:


Never let a buckler work with a two-handed weaponBucklers are already pretty much useless. Using one with a two-hander means you take -1 penalty to hit to have +1-+6 AC if you don't attack. If you attack, you take the penalty, but don't gain the bonus. If you don't attack, well, why are you wasting your actions?

Imp. Buckler Defense gets around that, yes. But then you're using a feat and taking a penalty, so you should get something in return.


Never allow the proficient use of mithril plate without the heavy armor feat, even if mithril seems to allow it.Meh, mithral full plate comes online quite late, and there are plenty of other ways to gain AC by dumping gold into it. Though maybe not in low-magic campaign, but still.


If the barbarian wants to opt for big damage, he gets a big AC exposure.Where does the barbarian get said damage, though, given the rule changes in the OP?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I can see Suel Arcanamach being a big deal. Something like (Full BAB, class skills) 6/ Suel Arcanamach 4/ Abjurant Champion 5/ Spellsword 1/ Dragon Disciple 4 is extremely good for a low-tier game, especially if you pick up Magical Training for Luminous Armor.

Paladin 4/ Bone Knight 3/ Divine Crusader (Wrath) 1/ Bone Knight 7/ PrCs 5 is extremely good for low tiers, especially considering the possibility for access to additional spells via additional domains in those last five levels.

How would you feel about a Martial Study Warmage going Jade Phoenix Mage, or anything similar, considering he'd have no recovery mechanic? Or just anyone picking up Martial Study twice for Wall of Blades and Iron Heart Surge?

A Sneak Attack Thug Fighter would be far superior to a Rogue in combat ability, assuming someone else can fill the role of skillmonkey. PHB Fighter is still a badass archer with the right array of feats, especially with the proper bow enchants (via Ancestral Relic or an OA Samurai dip or Item familiar).

I can say I actually think this type of game is a good idea, I hope you guys have a lot of fun with it.

For the 2H Power Attack nerf, I think allowing extra damage up to the attacker's Str bonus (+size bonus to trip/grapple/etc.) at 2:1 would be fair, and anything beyond that is still 1:1. That would leave Barbarians in the not-so-screwed camp, and enemies like giants would be rightly feared.

[Eldest]

Ok, so Rogue: Direct Damage.
Fighter: Battlefield Control
Barbarian: I would suggest given them secondary damage and lots of health and enduring abilities. Maybe enough damage to match the rogue, since they would still be incredibly different archetypes: the barbarian swings the axe once for massive damage, the rogue strikes many times, hitting weak points.
Ranger: Since you stated he would be getting a much better pet, maybe give him abilities that would focus on working with his pet, using TWF or archery.
Paladin: Give him a divine tank feel, maybe?

[Tr011]

Ok, so Rogue: Direct Damage.
Fighter: Battlefield Control
Barbarian: I would suggest given them secondary damage and lots of health and enduring abilities. Maybe enough damage to match the rogue, since they would still be incredibly different archetypes: the barbarian swings the axe once for massive damage, the rogue strikes many times, hitting weak points.
Ranger: Since you stated he would be getting a much better pet, maybe give him abilities that would focus on working with his pet, using TWF or archery.
Paladin: Give him a divine tank feel, maybe?

Pretty strange to say how you "have" to play the classes. A rogue can either be melee glasscannon, debuffer, sniper or throwing master in combat. The last two things are forbidden now. Maybe make some rules for ranged sneak attacking, like 1d8 sneak for melee and the rules you gave and 1d4 sneak for ranged.

And I'm also interested how you like to allow PrC. If you simply go by the Tier system, a player who starts as a sorcerer 5/mindbender 10 is completly legal.

[Gwendol]

Let monks flurry as a standard action. No PA using light weapons.

Re-introduce the Powershot feat for archers.

Allow one off-hand attack as part of standard action if the PC takes the TWF feat.

Keep the PA advantage for THF, but remove the other feats that makes charging the one and only strategy for melee (shock trooper, I'm looking at you).

[Greenish]

And I'm also interested how you like to allow PrC. If you simply go by the Tier system, a player who starts as a sorcerer 5/mindbender 10 is completly legal.You can't start as a sorcerer, since tier 3 or above are banned.

Also, the PrC tier system doesn't work like you seem to think. Tier 2 class + -2 tiers PrC ≠ tier 4.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Not that familiar with Pathfinder, so references to it won't be helpful in getting your idea across. That said, I intend to overhaul the stunning blow ability. It'll still be a feat, but monks will have additional benefits with it. I'm thinking usable x/encounter, additional status effects able to be given, generally increased functionality. For example, a low level monk would be able to stun or daze, a mid level monk would also be able to do short term deafness, blindness, and at higher levels, paralysis and nausea would be able to be imposed.

This is a nice coincidence, really, because Pathfinder's monk does flurry almost exactly like this (minus use per encounter). Since you've mentioned non-familiarity, I'll give a link and repost the relative information:

"At 1st level, the monk gains Stunning Fist as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. At 4th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the monk gains the ability to apply a new condition to the target of his Stunning Fist. This condition replaces stunning the target for 1 round, and a successful saving throw still negates the effect. At 4th level, he can choose to make the target fatigued. At 8th level, he can make the target sickened for 1 minute. At 12th level, he can make the target staggered for 1d6+1 rounds. At 16th level, he can permanently blind or deafen the target. At 20th level, he can paralyze the target for 1d6+1 rounds. The monk must choose which condition will apply before the attack roll is made. These effects do not stack with themselves (a creature sickened by Stunning Fist cannot become nauseated if hit by Stunning Fist again), but additional hits do increase the duration."

I don't think I'd make it usable at will: at early levels, that's a lot of stunning, and with most spellcasters gone I can't really think of many better debuffs. It also reopens the long discussion everyone just had on rogues: if the monk can stun, moving in for a full attack sneak attack would be simple. Now that I think about it, a monk 1/rogue 19 would be able to flurry of blows with power attack while stunning fairly consistently.

[Eldest]

Pretty strange to say how you "have" to play the classes. A rogue can either be melee glasscannon, debuffer, sniper or throwing master in combat. The last two things are forbidden now. Maybe make some rules for ranged sneak attacking, like 1d8 sneak for melee and the rules you gave and 1d4 sneak for ranged.

And I'm also interested how you like to allow PrC. If you simply go by the Tier system, a player who starts as a sorcerer 5/mindbender 10 is completly legal.

This is not how I envision the classes. I actually disagree with what the OP is doing. However, it's his game, and so I am trying to help him instead of telling him why it's a bad idea. That list was a list of suggestions for the OP to have to change each class so that each has it's own niche, as he stated he wanted.

[Randomguy]

Another bonus of this system is that prestige classes that used to suck now become viable. For example, mindbender: seven levels of mindbender now get you access to the equivalent of a 9th level spell that can otherwise only be attained by high level shadowcasters. Also, the only way to get mind blank, the main preventive measure to dominate monster, is through a magic item made by a warlock of above 12th level, making it much harder to become immune.

[Tyndmyr]

Another bonus of this system is that prestige classes that used to suck now become viable. For example, mindbender: seven levels of mindbender now get you access to the equivalent of a 9th level spell that can otherwise only be attained by high level shadowcasters. Also, the only way to get mind blank, the main preventive measure to dominate monster, is through a magic item made by a warlock of above 12th level, making it much harder to become immune.

Or, yknow, extra spell.

Hell, most spells are available through domains, and domains are the province of a few different PrCs.

[Tr011]

You can't start as a sorcerer, since tier 3 or above are banned.

Also, the PrC tier system doesn't work like you seem to think. Tier 2 class + -2 tiers PrC ≠ tier 4.

That's why I wrote you can START as a mindbender. Like, if you start at level 10+.
And how does, in your oppinion, the Tier of someone with a PrC work?

[Randomguy]

Or, yknow, extra spell.

Hell, most spells are available through domains, and domains are the province of a few different PrCs.

You can't use extra spell to pick up 9th level spells like dominate monster until you're already an epic caster. You could use it to pick up mind blank though, but the only caster capable of doing that in this system would be warmage, at level 18. And that's only through a very cheesy interpretation of the rules.
Warmages with 18 wisdom and the fate domain could get mind blank though, though, but with enchantment spells as rare as they are, not many people would bother, so it's still a valid tactic. Much more valid than it is under normal rules, at any rate.

[Greenish]

And how does, in your oppinion, the Tier of someone with a PrC work?Like it says it does:
The goal is merely to make it clear that an "up two" is better than an "up one", and that both are only in reference to the starting point as given by the "logical entry". To repeat: the ranking is not literal. It's just a guideline to help novice or intermediate players know where to start looking.(The bolding is present in Zeal's GitP version, but lost in transition to BG. The text is the same, though.)


[Edit]: It should be obvious a warshaper doesn't make wildshape ranger into tier 1, nor champion of Gwynharwyf a barbarian to tier 2, just for example.

[Lans]

True, the Healer. Is there anyone who seriously wants to play that class? But yea, you could probably have one tag along via Leadership.
I suggest giving the healer the healing and one other domains.