What X should have been

[killianh]

I'm trying to put together a list of the alternative classes, types of spells, ACFs and the like that do what something else should have been able to do, but right.

For example (IMHO) the crusader, swordsage, and warblade are what the paladin, monk, and fighter should have been respectively.

The following posts will be reserved for any that the playground can hopefully help with compiling. Please wait until I'm done posting the reserved posts for commentary.

[killianh]

Scout: The archetypical ranged Ranger with a better focus on the actual role of ranged combat with both flavour and mechanics to support

Dragon Fire Adept: This is what the PrC dragon disciple should have been hands down, and is one of the best dragon-based full classes for a game called Dungeons and Dragons

Warblade: Accomplishes what the Fighter as per to trained warrior archetype was meant to do. A selection of abilities with some focus placed on the intelligence needed to proper win a fight.

Swordsage: A blade using version of the monk archetype. A well trained, wise warrior that has devoted himself to the art rather than simply to combat.

Crusader: while not a complete replacement, the Crusader is a non-magic upgrade of the Paladin in a number of ways, including over power between across all levels, and class abilities that fit both fluff and crunch.

Spirit Shaman: A version of the Druid that stays closer to the ideas of nature being supreme. A thematic upgrade in concept with a well needed nerf on the tier 1 Druid.

Totemist: A barbarian buff that brings the concept of a wildman powered by internal strength to a more efficient level with a mechanic system that evens the playing field with casters.

Factotum: Jack of all trades styled rogue with more synergy between abilities to be able to accomplish this role without falling behind the party. Also includes a unique class system to aid with this mechanically.

Beguiler: A social caster similar to the Bard, yet with a more focused spell list for the task. Drawback with the beguiler is that it is INT based rather than CHA based which is odd for a social character.

DuskBlade: The best rendition of a Gish-in-a-can. It loses out on the thematic side that Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, and other similar caster receive in exchange for a more open character concept and a more extensive spell list with abilities that are synergistic with said spell list

Psionics: Full system replacement to standard Vancian casting system with special mention to the relations of Psion=wizard, Wilder=Sorcerer, and Ardent=Cleric.

Warlock: For the feel and the at will abilities has been considered a viable alternative to the standard Sorcerer.

Warlock: again listed as a core class design of the arcane archer type

Wu Gen: A mechanical tone down of the Wizard with more of a focus on elemental magic.

Shugenja: as wu gen, but for divine casters.

[killianh]

Natural Spell: A feat for druids that allows them to cast spells while wildshaped. Generally considered to be less a feat and more as the 6th level class feature of the druid

Psionic Body and Incarnum-Fortified Body: These both do what toughness should have done from the get-go, with nice flavour added as well

[killianh]

Wildshape Ranger: improves overall power without hampering versatility.

Lion Totem Barbarian: Allows a Barbarian to full attack on a charge. I don't think that much more needs to be said for this one :smallbiggrin:

Unarmed Swordsage: A complete buff on the monk without losing the high saves, WIS bonus to armour, or other abilities that helped keep the relatively weak monk on par with other classes

Wall Run: an ACF for monks that nicely and properly replaces slow fall and give you something that better fits the martial artist aspect of the monk

[killianh]

reserved for spells

[killianh]

Archmage: A natural extension of the Wizard class from the flavour of magic being all powerful

Loremaster: A natural extension of the Wizard from the flavour of the devoted book worm.

[killianh]

Strong heart halfling: Considering that halflings are traditionally more like human except half the size rather than something off on their own; this halfling best fits that description.

[killianh]

Homebrewed system: Full attack as a standard action. This both improves the overall capabilities of melee classes in comparison to casters, and improves the quality of TWF to make it a more viable option

[killianh]

3.0 Graft rules: this set of rules for both pricing and mechanics seems to have been right on the money on the first try. The update was unnecessary

[Tvtyrant]

Wildshape Ranger without other ACFs. It gets Wildshape, making it tier 3 out of the box due to form flexibility, it can actually fight without needing to be buffed, gets spells and an animal companion but they need to be focused on to be good. Not one class feature which automatically reduces another character to pointlessness out of the box, but any of them can be potent if focused on.

[Mithril Leaf]

Wildshape Ranger without other ACFs. It gets Wildshape, making it tier 3 out of the box due to form flexibility, it can actually fight without needing to be buffed, gets spells and an animal companion but they need to be focused on to be good. Not one class feature which automatically reduces another character to pointlessness out of the box, but any of them can be potent if focused on.

I think keeping Combat styles as well as Wildshape would have been fair even.

EDIT: On topic, there's the obvious factotum that inspired this thread.

[killianh]

basic version added. Thank you! once I have a few more for each category I'll put it all in a nicer format and expand on each person's imput

[Tvtyrant]

I think keeping Combat styles as well as Wildshape would have been fair even.

Agreedo. It would let the player focus on archery or weapon melee if they wanted, without losing the naturey feel of the class.

[eggs]

In broad strokes, I'd say Psionics are what the basic magic system should have been, or for classes break it down Wizard should have been the Psion; Sorcerer, the Wilder; Cleric the Ardent.

On its own, the design principles are tighter and more limited: there's a consistent exchange rate of magical mojo into damage or effects; there are powerful abilities for everyone, but they're restrained with a strict tactical limit (Psionic Focus);no characters can rewrite their abilities daily*; and almost all powers scale meaningfully, so there's a reason for characters to keep using their defining schticks for long periods, instead of completely swapping them out every time they hit a CL cap.

*(Comp-what Psionic? <_<)

And on an individual basis, the classes are just designed in a way I think is more compelling than their core counterparts: for Psions, specialists are able to do things that other characters just can't. A Telepath can't shapeshift, a shapeshifter can't create monsters, a shaper can't teleport for transportation, etc.

The Wilder is also an improvement over the Sorcerer for a few reasons: it mechanically differentiates itself from the Psion in more than its casting mechanism and actually is better at the powers it manifests than the Psion; it comes with actual class features and a reason to take continued levels in the class, and its chassis at least provides some combat and skill options to partially compensate for its reduced magical versatility.

Let's sweep Dominant Ideal and Customize Mantle under the carpet for a second so I can say the Ardent is a notable improvement over the cleric for a couple reasons: first, a Chaos-worshiping, baby-eating Ardent of Evil, Life and Death and Fire does different things than a butterfly-pampering nature-worshipping Ardent of Earth, Natural World and Life and Death. And the class at least provides a somewhat good reason to take more levels (more mantles are always a good thing). Plus it's not as tangled in the ever-tricky alignment system.

I'd also say the Ardent is what the Divine Mind should have been, but that implies that the Divine Mind, well, should have been.

[Ashtagon]

Wildshape Ranger without other ACFs. It gets Wildshape, making it tier 3 out of the box due to form flexibility, it can actually fight without needing to be buffed, gets spells and an animal companion but they need to be focused on to be good. Not one class feature which automatically reduces another character to pointlessness out of the box, but any of them can be potent if focused on.

I'll respectfully disagree. While this does bring ranger up to a reasonable power level, it changes the flavour of the class so much that it's not really the same class anymore. Rangers in traditional literature did not have shapechanging powers after all.

Also, warlock is the sorcerer as it should have been.

[eggs]

I'll respectfully disagree. While this does bring ranger up to a reasonable power level, it changes the flavour of the class so much that it's not really the same class anymore. Rangers in traditional literature did not have shapechanging powers after all.
Agreed.

One of the DSP guys homebrewed a Sublime Way Ranger (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19519074) that was popular on the wizards boards for a long time, which traded casting for martial maneuvers, using a refresh mechanic that focused on mobility and stealth. I always thought that really hit what the Ranger "should have been" - when I think of a rugged outdoor warrior or huntsman in fantasy, I don't think of them conjuring three-armed frogs out of the air or turning into leopards; I think of them sneaking around in the underbrush, outmaneuvering enemies with their bows, spears or traps - a playstyle the Sublime ranger really hit.

[sonofzeal]

I'll respectfully disagree. While this does bring ranger up to a reasonable power level, it changes the flavour of the class so much that it's not really the same class anymore. Rangers in traditional literature did not have shapechanging powers after all.

Also, warlock is the sorcerer as it should have been.
......right, because Aragorn had a badger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm#animalCompanion)following him around and could make roots and vines rise up out of the ground to ensnare his enemies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/rangerSpells.htm#firstLevelRangerSpells). :smallbiggrin:



"Rangers" in "traditional literature" are the general men of the forests - and if you read any folklore older than Tolkien, changing into animal is a fairly common theme. Heck, even Tolkien does it. Take Beorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beorn) - he changes into a bear, but is neither stated nor implied to have any other sort of magics. Even in human form he's strong, tough, and lives by accumulated forest lore rather than druidic magics. He also eventually leads an order of rangers, the Beornings. He's far better modelled by Wildshape Martial Ranger than by Druid or even Werebear (unless Gandalf is right about his clan, but that's all speculation even in-universe).

[Zaq]

The Scout is what the Ranger should have been. Without ACFs, the Ranger doesn't really actually have a role, other than "vaguely woodsy guy who's less magicky than the Druid (but who still has magic)." The Scout actually defines the archetype a lot better, and I think they're a much more elegant class all around. The Ranger is a great chassis (full BAB, d8 HD, 6 + INT from a good list, and good Fort/Ref? Not bad!), but unless you get some heavy ACFs involved, that's really all they have.

(Admittedly, Swift Hunter is often a big boost to the Scout, but not always . . . and I'd still play a Scout without Swift Hunter. In fact, I have. I don't think I'd play a Ranger without Wildshape and/or Mystic.)

I do feel like we should mention Factotums and Rogues together, though I'm not comfortable thinking of the Factotum as a strict upgrade to the Rogue, even though they kinda are. Basically, if Jim says he wants to be a Rogue, and Bob says he wants to be a Factotum, and they're both halfway decent at optimizing, Jim is now basically forced to choose between "full blender" and "like Bob's character, only not as good." Full crazy SA damage is the only real advantage a Rogue has over a Factotum. You can make a Rogue as a primary damage dealer (if you have a way to SA most immune enemies, at least), and you can make them good skillmonkeys compared to many other classes, but you can't make them better skillmonkeys than the Factotum.

Also, Darkstalker, Power Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Point Blank Shot, and similar feats should just be baked into the system, but that's not 100% what this topic is about, huh?

[Kasbark]

To try something not specifically ranger related i'll mention one from my rather extensive homebrew: The full attack action should have been a standard action.

There are several reasons why i belive this, first off because it's a big boost to all non-caster classes. Secondly it makes combat (at least combat on a grid) a lot more dynamic. Lastly it makes two-weapon fighting suck less compared to 2-handed.

[Endarire]

The classes that came in the second half of 3.5, in general, are what the core classes should've been. (The tier 4-6 classes, most notably, should've been replaced by these adaptations. See Tome of Battle, Binder, Incarnate, and Totemist for some examples.)

Giving everyone Pounce, like from a Lion Totem Barbarian (Complete Champion) or making full attacking a standard action should've been standard for everything.

[Gwendol]

To try something not specifically ranger related i'll mention one from my rather extensive homebrew: The full attack action should have been a standard action.

There are several reasons why i belive this, first off because it's a big boost to all non-caster classes. Secondly it makes combat (at least combat on a grid) a lot more dynamic. Lastly it makes two-weapon fighting suck less compared to 2-handed.

Yes, yes, and yes. The whole full/standard attack distinction make players jump through hoops to trigger or avoid, and is quite simply the most important tactical aspect of (non-magical) combat in this edition. Furthermore, it makes no sense: I have accumulated a LOT of combat experience, so if I simply hold still, I can attempt to land three blows... arrgh! Had to move 20', now I can only hit once, just as when I started out as a squire...

[killianh]

I think with all of this talk about the full attack thing I'll use the last post for homebrew and third party information.

[killianh]

The classes that came in the second half of 3.5, in general, are what the core classes should've been. (The tier 4-6 classes, most notably, should've been replaced by these adaptations. See Tome of Battle, Binder, Incarnate, and Totemist for some examples.)

Giving everyone Pounce, like from a Lion Totem Barbarian (Complete Champion) or making full attacking a standard action should've been standard for everything.

What do you think Binder and Incarnate replace? I'll add the ACF for barbarian

[sonofzeal]

Barbarian -> Totemist (differentiate from Fighter and Ranger, buff)
Bard -> Beguiler (less reliant on splatdiving for effectiveness)
Cleric -> Evangelist (more deity-specific, nerf)
Druid -> Spirit Shaman (differentiate from Barbarian and Ranger, nerf)
Fighter -> Warblade (buff)
Monk -> Swordsage (buff, more build options)
Paladin -> Crusader (differentiate from Cleric, buff)
Ranger -> Scout (differentiate from Barbarian and Druid)
Rogue -> Factotum (buff, more build options)
Sorcerer -> Wilder (differentiate from Wizard, nerf)
Wizards -> Wu Jen (nerf)

[Ashtagon]

Barbarian -> Totemist (differentiate from Fighter and Ranger, buff)
Bard -> Beguiler (less reliant on splatdiving for effectiveness)
Cleric -> Evangelist (more deity-specific, nerf)
Druid -> Spirit Shaman (differentiate from Barbarian and Ranger, nerf)
Fighter -> Warblade (buff)
Monk -> Swordsage (buff, more build options)
Paladin -> Crusader (differentiate from Cleric, buff)
Ranger -> Scout (differentiate from Barbarian and Druid)
Rogue -> Factotum (buff, more build options)
Sorcerer -> Wilder (differentiate from Wizard, nerf)
Wizards -> Wu Jen (nerf)

Which book is the totemist in?

[sonofzeal]

Which book is the totemist in?
Magic of Incarnum. It's a melee class with Con as the primary attribute that draws power and inspiration from Magical Beasts, generating natural weapons through the awesomeness of Incarnum. Way more magical the the original Barbarian class, but traditional Barbarians are covered better by Warblades with Tiger Claw, and this captures the "ferocious savage warrior" thing from a different angle.

Evangelist is in DM #311. The rest are better-known.

[Gwendol]

I don't think the bard and beguiler share that relation. The bard is a very distinct class, and is doing fine on its own. Sure it gets a lot of help from books outside of core, but you can get by on core alone. The beguiler is a specific rogue/mage type class, along with the spellthief and daggerspell mage (and more?).

[sonofzeal]

I don't think the bard and beguiler share that relation. The bard is a very distinct class, and is doing fine on its own. Sure it gets a lot of help from books outside of core, but you can get by on core alone. The beguiler is a specific rogue/mage type class, along with the spellthief and daggerspell mage (and more?).
Bard and Beguiler approach it from different angles, but do share a solid relationship - they're both two of the only classes that really specialize in social interaction. And this is where your argument falls apart, since neither Rogues nor Mages have a focus there. Either can do it, sort of, but you need a mix of the two sets of skills to really excel. Bard does it fairly well, but Beguiler does it better, and more reliably.

And the thing is, Bard in and of itself kind of fails at everything. Seriously, what did WotC expect them to do in melee with a rapier, light armor, and 3/4 BAB? How are they supposed to cope with so few spells per day, of lower levels so the DCs are going to suffer? And there's not a single Core feat to help them along. But if you're optimizing, they can go straight from "useless" to "overpowered". There's so many boosters for various Bard abilities that they can hit the stratosphere with relative ease.

This, to me, makes the Bard poor design, even ignoring the old saw about prancing off into a dungeon to sing at monsters. Beguiler fills that social-specialist role much better; it's better right out of the box but scales much more slowly with optimization, and it's a more natural fit into the traditional adventuring group archetype. And if you want someone who sings at monsters, they do get perform as a class skill and you can always buy a lute or something. Nobody's stopping you.

[Eldan]

I still haven't seen any class that replaces what the wizard is supposed to do. Neither the Psion nor the Wu Jen have much in the way of mechanics that represent scholarship and the need for careful preparation. The wizard does, but no other class really emphasizes intelligence to such a degree. To a psion, it's just a casting stat. And the Wu Jen just has an extremely boring spell list you can't do much with.

[Gwendol]

I disagree. The beguiler uses INT for spellcasting, while the bard can get by on CHA alone. And yes, the performing part is central to the bard: they can inspire courage and whatnot with it. It is what they do and how they can excel at social interaction without necessarily dominating or tricking (though that may not be ruled out).

The rogue can be expected to be about as skilled as the beguiler in social interaction as long as magic is not involved.

[Telonius]

Warlock (maybe with a bit of a damage tweak) is what Arcane Archer should have been.

[sonofzeal]

I still haven't seen any class that replaces what the wizard is supposed to do. Neither the Psion nor the Wu Jen have much in the way of mechanics that represent scholarship and the need for careful preparation. The wizard does, but no other class really emphasizes intelligence to such a degree. To a psion, it's just a casting stat. And the Wu Jen just has an extremely boring spell list you can't do much with.
Wu Jen has a spellbook and is an Int caster - that's really all a Wizard has going for it in that area, and Wu Jen covers it entirely. The fact that it's a much weaker class overall doesn't come into it from a flavour standpoint, and is really more of a selling point than anything else given the reputation Wizards have.

[Telonius]

......right, because Aragorn had a badger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm#animalCompanion)following him around ..

That's no way to talk about Gimli! :smallmad:

:smallbiggrin:

[willpell]

Agreedo. It would let the player focus on archery or weapon melee if they wanted, without losing the naturey feel of the class.

Personally I could do with a Ranger that has less of a naturey feel. To me the Ranger is about one thing: Favored Enemy. I built an Incarnum-feat Ranger whose favored enemy was Undead - basically a D&D take on Buffy the Vampire Slayer - and it was really hard to strip out the nature stuff, since the Urban Ranger of UA is not very compelling (I may have ended up using it, but if so I would have been disappointed by how far it went). Likewise I've made a scientist who hates aberrations, a dwarf caver who hunts goblins, guys who stalk dragons, monsters that want to exterminate humans - none of them have especially naturey concepts. The Scout can't be a Ranger upgrade to me as long as it doesn't get Favored Enemy, and I really would like a character who gets Favored Enemy but not a tacked on druid half - if I wanted that I'd just multiclass to Druid (okay the armor thing is a nusance for doing that, but it's not like rangers spend much time in fullplate so all you really lose is the chain shirt).


Let's sweep Dominant Ideal and Customize Mantle under the carpet for a second

Forgive my ignorance, what is Customize Mantle? (I agree that Dominant Ideal largely deserves to be swept somewhere; not only is it probably broken, but it makes the character more one-note and less interesting.)


I'd also say the Ardent is what the Divine Mind should have been, but that implies that the Divine Mind, well, should have been.

I've gone on the record before defending the Divine Mind and I'll do so again. Yes it is terribly badly designed, probably the single worst class in that regard (at least the CW Samurai was limited on purpose since it represents a very specific archetype). But the general idea of a person who gains their psionic power from their belief in a god, not gaining spells from the god itself, just endlessly fascinates me. I think of them as a class of obsessive neurotics determined to force the world to conform to their ideology, with no direct channel to a higher being that can keep them grounded in reality. It's an interesting archetype that deserved better than to get stuck being the crappy psionic knockoff of the already-lacking Paladin.


Also, warlock is the sorcerer as it should have been.

Very much do not agree here. To me, the Sorcerer's shtick is being able to do what he wants, when he wants; he picks his favorite spells from the entire wizard list and goes nuts with them quite a few times a day. The warlock's pathetically short list of invocations just doesn't capture that at all; a warlock is little more than a spy with a raygun and a few gadgets picked out of a catalog, translated into magic, while the sorcerer in that situation would be a mad scientist who carries twice as many gadgets (some of which may or may not be rayguns), all of which he built himself with the entirety of Science as his shopping list. (And the wizard would by comparison be a non-mad scientist, who has to sign his gadgets out from the company and is only allowed to use each one once or twice because there's too much paperwork to fill out for every expenditure of resources.)


I have accumulated a LOT of combat experience, so if I simply hold still, I can attempt to land three blows... arrgh! Had to move 20', now I can only hit once, just as when I started out as a squire...

Personally what bugs me about this scenario is that when I think of a guy going Cuisinart with one or more big swords, I imagine him taking a step after each slice, sort of dancing across the battlefield and strewing enemies about him. Sticking with full attacks but allowing an extra 5-foot step between each slice might not be unfair, and it would further justify the reduced hit chances with the subsequent attacks.


Neither the Psion nor the Wu Jen have much in the way of mechanics that represent scholarship and the need for careful preparation. The wizard does, but no other class really emphasizes intelligence to such a degree.

Agreed. I like the Loremaster's flavor for this reason and wish it was a base class, and I also like the Truenamer that way, and wish it had ever existed. :smallwink: As it stands, the best alternative to the Wizard in representing the scholar archetype is the Archivist, who I would like better if I were not already up to my neck in alternate clerics (and in most cases I'd rather just have the standard Cleric, since he picks deities and domains and I enjoy doing those things).

[LTwerewolf]

Customizing mantles is when you add a few powers to mantles that have fewer powers than most others, as long as it follows the theme of the mantle (no adding greater metamorphosis to the light mantle).

I always considered psion to be what sorcerer should have been, and wilder as kind of like the rage mage PrC.

Wizards are what wizards should have been. Wu Jen may be more balanced, but the concept behind wizard fits what it is.

[Eldan]

Wu Jen has a spellbook and is an Int caster - that's really all a Wizard has going for it in that area, and Wu Jen covers it entirely. The fact that it's a much weaker class overall doesn't come into it from a flavour standpoint, and is really more of a selling point than anything else given the reputation Wizards have.

Weakness isn't the problem, interest is. I've written long posts about it, but it boils down to this: blasting very much seems like a waste of magical energy, when a fight could be decided otherwise or avoided completely. You have studied all the secrets of the universe, surely you can come up with a more interesting plan than "Burn it with fire, and then other, slightly hotter fire"?

Half the Wu Jen's spells are blast spells or combat buff spells.

Edit: looking at the list again, I must admit there's more non-combat spells on there than I remembered. Maybe it could work as a wizard. However, I also see Astral Projection, Dominate Monster, Shapechange and Polymorph any object on there, so it's not exactly much better than wizard.

[Khedrac]

I would say that the Duskblade is what the Hexblade should have been, but with enough twists to give it a different flavour.

Also the "Armored Casting - Light / Medium / Heavy" line of feats and class abilities is what the ASF reduction abilities in Complete Warrior should have been. That said they tend to make the ASF lowering enchantments/material less useful. After all does anyone ever play a character with ASF other than 0?

[Urpriest]

The Old Graft Rules are what the New Graft Rules should have been. :smalltongue:

[eggs]

I've gone on the record before defending the Divine Mind and I'll do so again. Yes it is terribly badly designed, probably the single worst class in that regard (at least the CW Samurai was limited on purpose since it represents a very specific archetype). But the general idea of a person who gains their psionic power from their belief in a god, not gaining spells from the god itself, just endlessly fascinates me. I think of them as a class of obsessive neurotics determined to force the world to conform to their ideology, with no direct channel to a higher being that can keep them grounded in reality. It's an interesting archetype that deserved better than to get stuck being the crappy psionic knockoff of the already-lacking Paladin.
I'm about as sympathetic to the Divine Mind as they come, but there's a four-drink minimum before their premise starts to make sense.

What you're describing isn't the Divine Mind's concept. The Divine Mind gets its power from its deity itself: it "channels the power of the divine" and it loses those powers if it doesn't fall in line with what its deity really wants. Its personal philosophies or innate abilities don't have any relation to its powers. You're describing something closer to the Ardent, which I agree is a very cool idea.

[Eldan]

The Old Graft Rules are what the New Graft Rules should have been. :smalltongue:

The Xenoalchemist is what the graft rules should have been. (And the Gramarist is what the artificer should have been.)

[navar100]

Archmage is a nice high level wizard prestige class. Heirophant mirrors it for clerics. Should have increased the spellcasting as well.

[Novawurmson]

The PF Oracle is what the Favored Soul should have been.

[willpell]

What you're describing isn't the Divine Mind's concept. The Divine Mind gets its power from its deity itself: it "channels the power of the divine" and it loses those powers if it doesn't fall in line with what its deity really wants. Its personal philosophies or innate abilities don't have any relation to its powers. You're describing something closer to the Ardent, which I agree is a very cool idea.

I didn't remember anything about losing powers. I agree that the base concept doesn't make much sense, which is exactly why I refluffed it to the version I described (and kinda forgot it was a refluff since it's so much more perfect than the RAW). The idea is distinct enough from Ardent; the Ardent isn't religious at all, but philosophical, while the Divine Mind is a dogmatist, drawing power from fervent conviction rather than from intellectual insight.

[Gavinfoxx]

Mystic: What Favored Soul should have been.

Psychic Rogue: What the Ninja should have been, maybe??

[Zaq]

Personally I could do with a Ranger that has less of a naturey feel. To me the Ranger is about one thing: Favored Enemy. I built an Incarnum-feat Ranger whose favored enemy was Undead - basically a D&D take on Buffy the Vampire Slayer - and it was really hard to strip out the nature stuff, since the Urban Ranger of UA is not very compelling (I may have ended up using it, but if so I would have been disappointed by how far it went). Likewise I've made a scientist who hates aberrations, a dwarf caver who hunts goblins, guys who stalk dragons, monsters that want to exterminate humans - none of them have especially naturey concepts. The Scout can't be a Ranger upgrade to me as long as it doesn't get Favored Enemy, and I really would like a character who gets Favored Enemy but not a tacked on druid half - if I wanted that I'd just multiclass to Druid (okay the armor thing is a nusance for doing that, but it's not like rangers spend much time in fullplate so all you really lose is the chain shirt).


Huh. That's kind of interesting. Personally, I tend to forget that Favored Enemy even exists. When I add Ranger to a build (usually, though not always, as part of Iron Chef or something similar), I have to be reminded to pick a Favored Enemy. It's basically a non-feature in my eyes, partly because I think of it as terrible, terrible design. (If I were ever going to GM 3.5 again, and I doubt I will, I'd say that Rangers get Knowledge Devotion for free somewhere around level 2, and a bonus to Knowledge checks made for KD equal to their class level, as a quick fix.)


The Old Graft Rules are what the New Graft Rules should have been. :smalltongue:

Really? There's some limits to the new graft rules that I don't think should be there, but otherwise, I'm quite fond of them. This is partly because new grafts are cheap enough that I can actually use them in real low- or mid-level play, whereas old grafts tend to be hilariously overpriced (with the rare outlier . . . hello, Feathered Wings) to the point of being unusable. Is it just the limitations that bother you, or is there more to it than that?

[killianh]

Made some improvement to the lists. I've left out the evangelist for now until I can sit and read the class over.

Also I would like to refrain from the inclusion of some PF classes due to the fact that over all they are more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts. Its easy to say that the PF rogue is what the 3.5 rogue should have been, but that misses the point slightly.

[sonofzeal]

Weakness isn't the problem, interest is. I've written long posts about it, but it boils down to this: blasting very much seems like a waste of magical energy, when a fight could be decided otherwise or avoided completely. You have studied all the secrets of the universe, surely you can come up with a more interesting plan than "Burn it with fire, and then other, slightly hotter fire"?

Half the Wu Jen's spells are blast spells or combat buff spells.

Edit: looking at the list again, I must admit there's more non-combat spells on there than I remembered. Maybe it could work as a wizard. However, I also see Astral Projection, Dominate Monster, Shapechange and Polymorph any object on there, so it's not exactly much better than wizard.
Yeah, Wu Jen spell list is pretty solidly in "generic Wizard" territory. There's a lot of that general flexible Wizardness going on.

The problem the class has is that inability to specialize tanks their spells-per-day, removes a number of excellent PrCs (not to mention ACFs), and even though it contains gems their spell list simply isn't a quarter the length and thus can't really keep up.

All of that isn't a terrible thing though. I think most of us can agree that Wizards ended up more powerful than they really should have been, and taking them down a few notches is probably for the best. Wu Jen does that. They're basically Wizards, just more limited.

[Eldan]

I don't think those are any of the areas wizards need to be taken down in. Spells per day and specializations were okay as they are, mostly. The problem were certain OP spells, and Wu Jen keeps all the worst offenders.

[killianh]

As interesting as this conversation about wu jens are, I would like to keep on point and see what other comparisons you guys can come up with to add to this list.

[Mithril Leaf]

Sonic Damage is what Fire Damage should have been. :smallbiggrin:

[sonofzeal]

Really? There's some limits to the new graft rules that I don't think should be there, but otherwise, I'm quite fond of them. This is partly because new grafts are cheap enough that I can actually use them in real low- or mid-level play, whereas old grafts tend to be hilariously overpriced (with the rare outlier . . . hello, Feathered Wings) to the point of being unusable. Is it just the limitations that bother you, or is there more to it than that?
The problem with New-Style Grafts is that ability score and hit point costs are often problematic (especially if you're getting several, which you need to get the synergy bonuses), each type requires its own feat, they don't work with Fleshwarper, they're restricted by body slot, there's a totally arbitrary ban on grafts of different types, and they're still often overpriced.

Both new and old have a mix of high and low pricing with little consistency. Among the old, many of the Undead grafts were good, as were the Maug ones. Illithid and Fiendish tended to be overpriced, and Silthilar were only worth it at epic levels, but even among those categories there's usually a couple winners.

It's not precisely that the New Style Graft rules are bad, just that they added a massive pile of restrictions and penalties halfway through that's completely incompatible with the older content. Either one is playable (though prices still need tweaking), but you pretty much have to choose one system or the other and go with it. And it's easier to revert to Old Style.

[killianh]

added the graft issue. Any other good thoughts?

[Gavinfoxx]

Hey, my Transhuman Guide uses, um...

...1 new style graft, and like 5 old style ones...

Huh.

Yea...

[willpell]

Sonic Damage is what Fire Damage should have been. :smallbiggrin:

I have no idea what you're suggesting here, unless it was just a random throwaway joke, in which case I don't get it.


Archmage is a nice high level wizard prestige class. Heirophant mirrors it for clerics. Should have increased the spellcasting as well.

The archmage's special powers cost him spell slots; the hierophant's don't. The archmage also has noticeably tougher feat prerequisites. While it'd be reasonable enough to design mirrors of the classes if you think uber-wizards should need to give up progression while uber-clerics shouldn't, you'd want to follow the examples of the printed classes in order not to make something overpowered (unless of course that is your goal, in which case it's not precisely hard with these classes).

[Eldan]

I think the prestige classes in the DMG are what all PrCs probably should have been: a trade-off. They give you new and unique abilities, but don't also give you everything your base class had (I'm looking at you, every caster PrC ever).
Archmage gives up spell slots. Shadow dancer gives up sneak attack. Dragon Disciple gives up spells.

Yeah, they are awful from a power standpoint, especially compared to much of what comes after. But I remember reading pretty clearly in one of the DMGs (either 3.0 or 3.5) that prestige classes should not just gain, they should also lose. Which many later designers seem to have forgotten.

[Gwendol]

But I remember reading pretty clearly in one of the DMGs (either 3.0 or 3.5) that prestige classes should not just gain, they should also lose. Which many later designers seem to have forgotten.

Word! It kind of spiralled out of control for some.

[willpell]

I think the prestige classes in the DMG are what all PrCs probably should have been: a trade-off.
Yeah, they are awful from a power standpoint, especially compared to much of what comes after.

Funny how that works.

I'm inclined to agree more or less, although Dragon Disciple is a really horrendous example. Having to be a sorcerer (or bard, or maybe a few of the later classes; Duskblade is probably about the best, assuming it works) to enter it, and then getting nothing but a couple spells/day to advance that class...you are gaining d12s for your squishy sorcerer self, but even so it's a rather harsh exchange. And while I haven't confirmed this, I find myself suspecting that Dragon Magic, Draconomicon, and Races of the Dragon all utterly failed to help make playing the DragDisc any happier an experience.

[Gnome Alone]

I have no idea what you're suggesting here, unless it was just a random throwaway joke, in which case I don't get it.

Immune or resistant to fire damage: freaking everything. Sonic damage: not so much.

[eggs]

And while I haven't confirmed this, I find myself suspecting that Dragon Magic, Draconomicon, and Races of the Dragon all utterly failed to help make playing the DragDisc any happier an experience.

Metabreaths, Entangling Exhalation, Rapidstrike, that recharging breath feat from Races of the Dragon... yeah, they do make DD less bad, but it's still a mostly-nonmagical melee PrC, so it's not in the best position to begin with.

[LTwerewolf]

dragonfire adept/dragon shaman are what dragon disciple should have been.

[killianh]

I've added the Dragon Fire adept to the list. As for fire damage I'm inclined to believe it does what it is suppose to: be the most common (and thus more easily avoided) energy type. Its also why Sonic spells generally do less damage due to less having resistance/immunity.

As for the PrCs...While I agree with the idea that a PrC should have a trade off to represent the unique powers, I'm not sure the best way to add this point to the list other than simply saying "Old PrC design was better" but with hundreds of PrCs that would be a difficult point to make or prove, especially considering that most of what will end up on this list will be a power up in some form or another.

I thank all of you so far and hope to hear more from you (especially in the spells, feats, and PrC sections (they're a tad skimpy at the moment :smallfrown:))

[Sgt. Cookie]

Wall run (Dungeonscape, Monk ACF) is clearly what Slow fall was meant to be.

[willpell]

Immune or resistant to fire damage: freaking everything. Sonic damage: not so much.

Except that most sonic spells (and all psionic powers that do your choice of energy damage, when you choose sonic) do less damage in the first place. Less damage is better than none, but still.

@ Killianh: I'll take the low-hanging fruit of the Feats section and say that Psionic Body and Incarnum-Fortified Body are what Toughness should have been. For that matter, IFB plus Azure Toughness right out of the gate improves on Toughness x2.

[Novawurmson]

Except that most sonic spells (and all psionic powers that do your choice of energy damage, when you choose sonic) do less damage in the first place. Less damage is better than none, but still.

@ Killianh: I'll take the low-hanging fruit of the Feats section and say that Psionic Body and Incarnum-Fortified Body are what Toughness should have been. For that matter, IFB plus Azure Toughness right out of the gate improves on Toughness x2.

...or Improved Toughness, or PF Toughness...

Really, anything but core 3.5 Toughness XD

[killianh]

added, and added. Thanks!

[Mithril Leaf]

Yeah, I had intended that the normal damage type of blasty spells shouldn't be something that everybody and their sister had immunity to. It's one of the reasons blasting kinda sucks.

[killianh]

I'll definitely agree with you on that one, but unfortunately that's more of a total game design flaw rather than something I can add to the list in a meaningful way.

[willpell]

The problem with New-Style Grafts is that ability score and hit point costs are often problematic (especially if you're getting several, which you need to get the synergy bonuses), each type requires its own feat, they don't work with Fleshwarper, they're restricted by body slot, there's a totally arbitrary ban on grafts of different types, and they're still often overpriced.

My thinking is that Grafts were probably intentionally made overpriced so that they would be unattractive to players; they're weird enough that you shouldn't ever use them just because they're useful, you should have to go out of your way for them. If you want your character to have +4 Strength, you might just buy a Belt of Giant Strength; you probably shouldn't be able to get your muscles ripped out and replaced with fiendish sinews for a comparable price, because then everyone would be doing it and normality would go straight out the window. Certainly if you *want* that effect you can houserule lower prices for the grafts, but this would have been unwise for the default (almost as unwise as making the Cleric a better fighter than the Fighter).

[sonofzeal]

My thinking is that Grafts were probably intentionally made overpriced so that they would be unattractive to players; they're weird enough that you shouldn't ever use them just because they're useful, you should have to go out of your way for them. If you want your character to have +4 Strength, you might just buy a Belt of Giant Strength; you probably shouldn't be able to get your muscles ripped out and replaced with fiendish sinews for a comparable price, because then everyone would be doing it and normality would go straight out the window. Certainly if you *want* that effect you can houserule lower prices for the grafts, but this would have been unwise for the default (almost as unwise as making the Cleric a better fighter than the Fighter).
Thing is, if we're talking about something like +4 Strength, you're not comparing to Belt of Giant Strength - you're comparing with a Manual of Gainful Exercise +4, since it doesn't consume an item slot and more importantly stacks with everything. That's why many grafts are expensive, and rightfully so. That's not a cheap thing being overpriced, that's an awesome thing that has an appropriately high price tag.

And again, there's a decent number that are still affordable, particularly ones that give special abilities that might not even be available in magic item form. I used to have a fleshwarper, and tabulated the number of reasonably-priced ones in each category; I remember that Undead was pretty much the winner out of old-style once Libris Mortis was on the table, and that most New Style were underwhelming except for Elemental, but that pretty much every type had a few viable if niche options.

[Dsurion]

Natural Spell: A feat for druids that allows them to cast spells while wildshaped. Generally considered to be less a feat and more as the 6th level class feature of the druid.I very strongly disagree with this. I don't think Natural Spell should have ever been printed.


I think the prestige classes in the DMG are what all PrCs probably should have been: a trade-off. They give you new and unique abilities, but don't also give you everything your base class had (I'm looking at you, every caster PrC ever).
Archmage gives up spell slots. Shadow dancer gives up sneak attack. Dragon Disciple gives up spells.

Yeah, they are awful from a power standpoint, especially compared to much of what comes after. But I remember reading pretty clearly in one of the DMGs (either 3.0 or 3.5) that prestige classes should not just gain, they should also lose. Which many later designers seem to have forgotten.Strong agreement here, too. Then again, I think most Prestige Class abilities should have just been feats, and everyone should have just gotten more of them.


The Scout is what the Ranger should have been.I think the two should have just been mashed together to start with, which is probably why I'm so fond of Person_Man's Ranger-Scout.

[willpell]

I very strongly disagree with this. I don't think Natural Spell should have ever been printed.

I'm glad the concept exists, but I really think it should have been sharply more limited - giving a limited number of spell-levels per day that are usable in wild shape, and perhaps having tougher prerequisites. The concept of casting spells in animal form is too cool not to do, but it should be less easy and automatic.


Strong agreement here, too. Then again, I think most Prestige Class abilities should have just been feats, and everyone should have just gotten more of them.

Everyone deserving more feats I definitely agree with; this is part of why I approved Flaws in my game, and I also gave away an extra feat on top of that. The result can get intimidating though - one of my players is a level 5 Cerebremancer-to-be and he has 8 freaking feats. Could have been 10 if he'd taken a second Flaw and been human.


I think the two should have just been mashed together to start with, which is probably why I'm so fond of Person_Man's Ranger-Scout.

I reiterate my disagreement with the idea that rangers should be automatically wildernessy. Their concept is "stalking hunter"; they shouldn't be nailed to the woodlands (or, for an Unearthed Arcana variant, the city) unless they've taken Favored Environment or the like. They should function equally well wherever they are, as long as they're in pursuit of their quarry.

[killianh]

My take on the Natural Spell feat is that (though like so much of the WotC material) it is badly written, though allows for both a flavourful and mechanical extension of the character concept. If a Druid draws their powers from nature why would one automatically disallow the use of another?

As for feats being granted...While I agree with the idea that there should have been more feats available, I think that considering some of the combination that WotC allows it would lead to even more of a silly power ramp than exists now. This is also why I like the Warrior, Expert, and Spellcaster base classes from UA.

For the last point I'm wondering if you think that adding favoured environment would make sense for the list under ACFs for the Stalker style of the Ranger?

[willpell]

For the last point I'm wondering if you think that adding favoured environment would make sense for the list under ACFs for the Stalker style of the Ranger?

I don't know what you're referring to here.

[killianh]

I don't know what you're referring to here.

I'm referring to the ACF favoured environment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm) and your comment about the misconception that rangers should be pinned to the wilderness. I'm wondering if you think that adding this variant to the list would make sense considering a ranger is generally considered to be more attached to their environment rather than a particular prey

[willpell]

I'm referring to the ACF favoured environment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm) and your comment about the misconception that rangers should be pinned to the wilderness. I'm wondering if you think that adding this variant to the list would make sense considering a ranger is generally considered to be more attached to their environment rather than a particular prey

Yes I know about Favored Environment, I was the one who brought it up.


For the last point I'm wondering if you think that adding favoured environment would make sense for the list under ACFs for the Stalker style of the Ranger?

This is what I meant.

[killianh]

Well this is a list of what X should have been and the stalker ranger seems to be a bit of an archetype. I was asking if you think that the ACF you mentioned should be added as a flavour upgrade to the standard favoured enemy since it seems to fit the ranger archetype a tad better

Sorry if there was confusion on what I was asking

[willpell]

Ah. In that case very much no. As I said before, I think that Ranger in general is all about Favored Enemy; Favored Environment is definitely a secondary alternative to that. It would fit if you wanted to build a character who fits the default Ranger fluff, but it wouldn't be what I consider to be the "proper" Ranger class, and I definitely wouldn't call it a Stalker. It suggests the character is more stationary, protecting a patch of turf rather than tracking and destroying his intended prey.

(Zaq said that he tends to forget about Favored Enemy; he doesn't clarify whether he's thinking in terms of a Standard Forest Ranger, but if so, Favored Environment is for him. It is not, for the most part, for me, though I might use it on occasion. If I want to get the general flavor behind it, I'm more likely to multiclass to Horizon Walker, even though it is a terrible, terrible PrC.)