3.5 Classes that Broke Your Heart [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Chronos

2015-05-22, 03:38 PM

Quoth Jormengand:

Every martial class ever to come to be, including the ToB/PoW ones. I want decent fighting ability without casting a spell to do it, is that so hard? I actually feel less dirty using a truenamer to do it because using a maneuver feels more like casting a spell than using an utterance (even though an utterance is literally a spell-like ability). Maybe it's because I'm actually rolling to use the utterance instead of putting my utterances in slots and spending them and recovering them after enough rest? I dunno, but seriously, c'mon, guys!
Amen to that. I wouldn't mind the Tome of Battle classes if they had just fixed the standard martial classes first: Give us a choice between a cool fighter and a cool warblade. But as it is, it's just another insult to the conventional fighters.

And I'll second the vote for the truenamer. Not only is the fluff great, but I like the idea of a skill-based casting system. In the abstract, at least, but the Truenamer's implementation of it is terrible.

Shadowcaster, though, never interested me in the first place, largely because, while there's great fluff potential there, the book never really touches on it. Don't just tell me that their magic is based on shadows and darkness; show me! Just what does being based on shadows mean for them?

Vizzerdrix

2015-05-22, 03:38 PM

I have 5 offenders on my list of classes that make me sad. Either from lost potential or not quite pulling off what it was trying for.

Gnome Artificer PrC. Amazing fluff. Crippled crunch. Even the entry is wonky.

Sandshaper makes little sense in form or function. Regular shape sand doesn't have half the limitations its ability has and why the extra buff spells?

Reaping Mauler. Yup.

Spellfire Channeler. Is it for casters? Skill monkeys?

Beastheart Adept. I wish it was a base class so much.

Psyren

2015-05-22, 03:42 PM

The class is great against a single powerful enemy that takes many rounds to beat, but I can't see how it would ever be effective against many weaker opponents.

Witches get plenty of AoE control spells. Glitterdust, Web, Sleet Storm, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Confusion, Fear... And when you've nothing better to do you can always summon, and even buff your summons with Fortune or Ward to conserve slots.

Karl Aegis

2015-05-22, 03:43 PM

Ninja.

How many weebs committing seppuku is WotC responsible for?

Complete Adventurer Ninja is copypasta from Paizo. Not one word was changed from Dragon #318. They even used the same art: some random dude in pajamas. Pure black clothing only works if the enemy can't see you in the first place. It stands out pretty well in moonlight and torchlight. I guess D&D light doesn't work like real light?

LentilNinja

2015-05-22, 03:43 PM

Demonbinder. A Drow exclusive demonic themed Warlock supportive class, when Drow & Warlock are my favourite Race & Class? This HAS to be good!

And alas. :(

Pex

2015-05-22, 04:07 PM

Truenamer

Terrific flavor text. Awful mechanics that make it not work.

Incarnum classes

Terrific concept and mechanic. Personal opinion you don't get enough Essentia points and the Essentia Feats are weak. Spending your very limited feat resource allocation spot just to get 1 Essentia point is insulting.

Tome of Battle classes

Everything about them is wonderful. Then you get to the stance progressions. :smallfurious:

Hexblade

Cool idea. Too weak in abilities to be worth playing over other classes. (Better than Truenamer and Samurai :smallyuk:) The designers would later admit they were still afraid combining arcane magic with warrior fighting was too powerful so they intentionally nerfed the class. They would realize their mistake and give us Duskblade which is a fine class.

Zaydos

2015-05-22, 04:12 PM

Truenamer. Just... truenamer. So much lovely fluff (Wizard of Earthsea, anyone?), so many interesting powers, such bungled mechanics.

So much this. I mean there are others which make me sad (Fighter) but truenamer was the one I wanted to love so badly, bought the book primarily because "Ah yeah truename magic, I can be Ged!" And then got home and read it in detail and went 'This just obviously doesn't work right' then I tried it in play and... it obviously didn't work right :smallsigh:

Vhaidara

2015-05-22, 04:22 PM

Almost everything from 3.5, to be honest. It's easier to name things I am happy with, namely the Dreamscarred Press classes. Their Psionics are great, PoW classes are very complete to the point where I will gladly play them without maneuvers, and akashic is almost everything Incarnum should have been.

But, if we're restricted to 3.5 and not PF, then the closes thing to not disappointing is ToB, Binder, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Bard, and Warlock for me.
ToB: At least they get to be competent and have more things than just ubercharging. Also, Setting Sun is hilarious.
Binder: It really does blend the fluff and crunch very effectively. However, it is also on the borderline of the crunch being too bad to make the list.
Beguiler: Again, the failing with this class is with the Enchantment/Illusion schools, not the class. The class itself was very well implemented
Dread Necro: Hey, I want to play a necromancer! Let's make a good Necromancer class! Done.
Bard: A personal favorite, just because I have fond memories of Ranborg, the gnome bard who was derailment personified. Like, I actually derailed the entire campaign onto a nonsense sideplot I never intended to take anywhere.
Warlock: Another personal favorite. I acknowledge that they aren't amazing. But I enjoy my rain of eldritch javelins, thank you very much.

ComaVision

2015-05-22, 04:27 PM

@ Keledrath

You like the Warlock but not DFA? I'm just curious why that would be.

Jormengand

2015-05-22, 04:27 PM

See, I liked the truenamer. Yes, you have to optimise it to make it do things, but that's okay, because then it does things. Like, a truenamer that you optimise no more than one would expect someone to do by default (Come on, full ranks in truespeak and an Amulet of the Silver Tongue, skill focus (Truespeak)... come on, we could have expected that much from even a fairly new player's OP-fu, right?) can out-heal a similarly optimised cleric, out-DPS a similarly optimised blaster (though you might need Mortalbane for that one -not compulsory, though) and out-knowledge everyone in existence. There's a reason that my fix for the truenamer was "Do everything you're doing, only more of it."

Telonius

2015-05-22, 04:33 PM

The one that really broke my heart was a PrC: Master of Masks. It looks awesome, and the first couple of levels are fantastic. But then you look at the caster progression (if you entered as a Bard) or the skills (if you entered as a Rogue). And you look at the rest of the masks and are kind of underwhelmed at their abilities. If you go into it really wanting it to work for the long haul, you're just going to have your heart broken. I wouldn't regret a one-night-class-dip, but it's not one to take home for all ten levels.

Vhaidara

2015-05-22, 04:34 PM

@ Keledrath

You like the Warlock but not DFA? I'm just curious why that would be.

I like DFA. I just don't have fond memories of it like I do with Warlock, which leads to it not really springing to mind. Warlock I've actually gotten to play, and gave rise to one of my favorite characters (Nalin Fiendborn). The most memorable thing I've done with DFA was a Half Red Dragon Warforged DFA knowledge monkey with Maug Rollers. He was a living library. And a flamethrower tank. In a PbP that died within 2 pages.

lsfreak

2015-05-22, 04:36 PM

Hexblade probably takes it for me. Interesting concept, and I've seen some excellent homebrews that build off it, but the base class can't decide what niche it's supposed to fill and it's one of many classes that has almost nothing to do round-to-round except what you give it with feats.

Shadowcaster as it just doesn't work. Like the concept, like a lot of the mysteries (though there's too few of them), but the basic mechanics are extremely restrictive bordering on nonfunctional, especially if you're unlucky enough to actually be started at 1st level.

Duskblade is probably in there as well. It appears like such an upgrade over eldritch knight/spellsword for the magic knight archetype - one that actually casts spells at people rather than buffing themselves like crazy - yet once you start playing it it's still a limited class where you spend most of your time doing the same thing over and over, and most duskblades end up looking pretty similar to each other.

Thealtruistorc

2015-05-22, 04:39 PM

Swashbuckler... I just wanted to have a sweet Swashbuckler/Scarlet Corsair. *heartbreak intensifies*

Try the privateer class template from PoW:Expanded. It's everything you ever wanted in a swashbuckling hero (complete with the ability to add your Cha modifier to attack rolls),

Extra Anchovies

2015-05-22, 04:47 PM

Try the privateer class template from PoW:Expanded. It's everything you ever wanted in a swashbuckling hero (complete with the ability to add your Cha modifier to attack rolls),

I don't see anything in either the Warlord or the Privateer that gives Cha to hit. The closest that I can find is that one of the Warlord gambits gives +1d6+Cha to damage against targets you use Acrobatics to avoid the AoOs of.

OldTrees1

2015-05-22, 05:26 PM

Seerow

2015-05-22, 05:31 PM

Fighter

Honestly I liked the bonus feat idea. It would allow acceleration, specialization, versatility, generalization, flexibility, and qualitative difference between member of the same class.

But all that fell flat when WotC failed to make enough quality feats.

It's honestly impossible to make feats high enough quality that 11 of them can be equivalent to 9 spell levels. Much less 6 of them (since the Wizard gets 5 bonus feats). And even if it was possible, you then remember that every character gets at least 7, and realize that the level of power you're talking about is basically letting every character in the game gestalt a high tier class... just to bring the Fighter up to par.

The Fighter as presented just doesn't work. And it has nothing to do with feat quality.

chaos_redefined

2015-05-22, 05:41 PM

I don't see anything in either the Warlord or the Privateer that gives Cha to hit. The closest that I can find is that one of the Warlord gambits gives +1d6+Cha to damage against targets you use Acrobatics to avoid the AoOs of.

Tactical Flanker would be +charisma to hit, as long as you have a flanking buddy. And there is also Brave Gambit, Cavalry Gambit, Outrider's Gambit, Pinhole Gambit and Victory Gambit.

Curmudgeon

2015-05-22, 05:56 PM

It's honestly impossible to make feats high enough quality that 11 of them can be equivalent to 9 spell levels.
Oh, nonsense.

Fighter's Little Wish [General]

Prerequisites: Fighter level 4th.

Benefit: You gain Limited Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm) as a Spell-like ability, usable 3 times per day.

A fighter may select Fighter's Little Wish as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Fighter's Bigger Wish [General]

Prerequisites: Fighter level 8th.

Benefit: You gain Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) as a Spell-like ability, usable 3 times per day.

A fighter may select Fighter's Bigger Wish as one of his fighter bonus feats.

BilltheCynic

2015-05-22, 05:57 PM

Master of the Unseen Hand. A class that specializes in telekinesis? Awesome! Wait, it has NO spellcasting advancement? Uh, no.

Pluto!

2015-05-22, 06:15 PM

And even without heavy handed Fighter Level X prerequisites, something with, for example, 10 specific feats and 8 BA as prerequisites could give powerful abilities that are limited to mid-level fighters or very high-level members of other classes (or to builds jumping through enough hoops that they probably have very powerful abilities anyway).

Sir Chuckles

2015-05-22, 06:16 PM

Duelist.
Just...as the guy who loves Swashbucklers and smarmy Rogues, it makes me cry. So many things that sound like good ideas, but with so many restrictions and fine print that they end up doing jack all once it hit the table.

OldTrees1

2015-05-22, 06:20 PM

It's honestly impossible to make feats high enough quality that 11 of them can be equivalent to 9 spell levels. Much less 6 of them (since the Wizard gets 5 bonus feats). And even if it was possible, you then remember that every character gets at least 7, and realize that the level of power you're talking about is basically letting every character in the game gestalt a high tier class... just to bring the Fighter up to par.

The Fighter as presented just doesn't work. And it has nothing to do with feat quality.

2 presumptions to your conclusion
1) Extant number of feats
Dead levels should not exist. This is common knowledge now and thus one ought to presume that Fighter ought to have no dead levels.
2) Extant 9th level spells
It is common knowledge that WotC failed to balance spells. If the target for a balanced fighter is equaling the unbalanced spells then we would be going backwards. So we should aim at competing with the balanced spells correct?

That said, I think [Combat] feats (martial feats with prerequisites that are satisfied by martial characters) could have/can be designed so that 15 of them compete with 9ths like Time Stop, Mage’s Disjunction, Summon Monster IX, Dominate Monster, Wail of the Banshee, Etherealness, and similarly powered spells.

I mean all you need is scaling* feats with qualitative benefits in areas of offense, defense, action economy, and mobility(Reading note: Remember these words have qualitative differences between low level and high level play). While this would take time to develop, WotC spent time on making their feats.

*I believe prerequisite based quantitative and qualitative scaling alone addresses your "gestalt" comment.

Invader

2015-05-22, 06:35 PM

Every fun, interesting monster with prohibitively restrictive LA and HD.

Kazyan

2015-05-22, 06:40 PM

Insert every Tier 4 or worse class in the game here, under the justification that they're not as powerful as other classes. There, now we don't have to continue this thread.

Vhaidara

2015-05-22, 06:42 PM

Insert every Tier 4 or worse class in the game here, under the justification that they're not as powerful as other classes. There, now we don't have to continue this thread.

Honestly, I find T1/T2 classes more disappointing. The line between weak and useless and broken as hell if disturbingly fine. And once you cross it, everyone knows that you're holding back.

elonin

2015-05-22, 06:58 PM

Dervish. Spent many hours trying to make that work. Also, Swashbuckler.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-05-22, 07:09 PM

I'll throw on "everything with lots of dead levels." Because when you only get new stuff every few sessions, it really sucks when "new stuff" just means +1 to a few (already large) numbers.

Hawkstar

2015-05-22, 07:14 PM

I find T2 classes to be the most disappointing, because they're Terrible Versions of T1 classes.. and are often screamed at to get their power truncated along with T1 classes.

Marlowe

2015-05-22, 07:15 PM

Try the privateer class template from PoW:Expanded. It's everything you ever wanted in a swashbuckling hero (complete with the ability to add your Cha modifier to attack rolls),

But Swashbucklers are Int-based...:smallconfused:

Anyway;

Factotum. I like the idea, but the execution is so atrociously bad that the class ends up being worthless. Like Cunning Surge, an Extraordinary ability you can use to get an extra standard action.
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)
...
Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.
This is worth than useless, because it costs a standard action and 3 Inspiration Points to get a standard action. It would have taken one extra clause to insert "as a swift action" (or whatever), but they dropped the ball (and kicked it hard) Of course, for it to default to a STANDARD ACTION, it still has to BE AN ACTION and say so, which it doesn't.

It's probably not even worth getting into a debate about how many other classes would become useless if your reading was taken as standard.

Then again, you could always use the Monster Manual definition of EX where it says all are free actions unless stated otherwise.

Really, this is a problem with sloppily written core rules more than it is the class.

Pluto!

2015-05-22, 07:20 PM

Re: tier3+ classes,

Artificer.

I never realized how many minute+ casting times their infusions had, how limiting the hour/level duration of spell trigger item is or how cumbersome 8 hour crafting periods are until I spent my first two sessions as a glorified Expert.

squiggit

2015-05-22, 07:31 PM

Insert every Tier 4 or worse class in the game here, under the justification that they're not as powerful as other classes. There, now we don't have to continue this thread.

Most T4s are actually probably fine and more than a couple T2s are "T1 class but missing stuff" and that's a lot more underwhelming than most other things.

Naez

2015-05-22, 07:39 PM

Spellthief. You wanna be a sorcerer/rogue? be a sorcerer/rogue. spellthief doesn't live up to what it could have been.

Curmudgeon

2015-05-22, 07:42 PM

Of course, for it to default to a STANDARD ACTION, it still has to BE AN ACTION and say so, which it doesn't.
The bolded part is your addition. The actual game rule requires no such explicit statement; the Extraordinary ability merely needs to not be an automatic reaction. Cunning Surge is no reaction, but a conscious choice to spend 3 IPs: thus, an action (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_action&alpha=).
action: A character activity.

Pluto!

2015-05-22, 07:57 PM

The bolded part is your addition. The actual game rule requires no such explicit statement; the Extraordinary ability merely needs to not be an automatic reaction. Cunning Surge is no reaction, but a conscious choice to spend 3 IPs: thus, an action (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_action&alpha=).

Unrelated, but do you actually play by any of the rules interpretations you post here?

Marlowe

2015-05-22, 07:58 PM

The bolded part is your addition. The actual game rule requires no such explicit statement; the Extraordinary ability merely needs to not be an automatic reaction. Cunning Surge is no reaction, but a conscious choice to spend 3 IPs: thus, an action (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_action&alpha=).

That's...not a definition. That's just more evidence they needed a Thesaurus.

nedz

2015-05-22, 08:16 PM

Wizard, and to a lesser extent Cleric.

They can just trivialise challenges — it's like playing the game in easy mode.

Honest Tiefling

2015-05-22, 08:29 PM

I see that the Hexblade has been mentioned. Often has the 14 year old within me wanted to play a dark themed gish, and I like the idea of using the abilities to aid allies in landing spells. But no.

I don't think I saw Arcane Trickster be mentioned, through the Spellthief was. Why can I not play a thief type with spells in place of stabbing? Then again, I was always dissatisfied with the rogue in general, so maybe that is a problem? Never again will I be seduced by the skill points.

Zaydos

2015-05-22, 08:31 PM

I don't think I saw Arcane Trickster be mentioned, through the Spellthief was. Why can I not play a thief type with spells in place of stabbing? Then again, I was always dissatisfied with the rogue in general, so maybe that is a problem? Never again will I be seduced by the skill points.

Isn't that what Beguiler is supposed to be?

Honest Tiefling

2015-05-22, 08:36 PM

Yes and no. Is it a good class? For most cases, yes. Overall, I like Beguilers. But the lack of flexibility in spells is really unappealing to me. I get why it is for the sake of balance, but I love my battlefield control and buff spells, so it doesn't really scratch that itch.

Darkweave31

2015-05-22, 08:36 PM

Ranger. I feel like it's one of the iconic character concepts, but falls flat mechanically when trying to build it without extensive use of multiclassing and alternate class features.

Thealtruistorc

2015-05-22, 08:41 PM

I don't see anything in either the Warlord or the Privateer that gives Cha to hit. The closest that I can find is that one of the Warlord gambits gives +1d6+Cha to damage against targets you use Acrobatics to avoid the AoOs of.

Gambits add your charisma modifier to the attack/combat maneuver/ability check roll. I like to houserule that they require some sort of catchphrase to be yelled whenever somebody executes them.

Taveena

2015-05-22, 08:46 PM

Soulborn honestly makes me sad. I'm a huge sucker for Paladin types and I love Incarnum so much more than casting, but...

... a Divine Mind makes for a more mobile higher-damage character WITHOUT Ectoplasmic Ally. A /divine mind/.

Milo v3

2015-05-22, 08:57 PM

Druid surprisingly. Its just such a grab-bag of abilities, I could never work out a character with a theme with it.

Urpriest

2015-05-22, 09:00 PM

Sha'ir. Such a cool concept, but it doesn't specify whether it counts as a spontaneous caster or a prepared one, despite there being a large number of character options that hinge on that distinction.

Shin

2015-05-22, 09:11 PM

I'm honestly disappointed by the rogue. This was the class I wanted to get my hands on when I was about to start playing 3.5/D&D in general, and boy, did it feel...incomplete. (Ofc I had no knowledge of rings of blinking, penetrating strike, and other stuff back then, but still, I think the class isn't built well) There are just so many classes that do better what the rogue is supposed to do and stand for. An empty 20th level (to look forward to), really!? No capstone!? Almost any level filled "just" with +1d6 SA or +1 trap sense? Not Mighty! Not Special!

Don't even let me get started about the "all-your-ass-are-belong-to-us" ninja *turns away and cries silently*.

Would've played a martial adept then, but no, every group thinks that martial adepts are op and outright bans them :smallfurious:

nyjastul69

2015-05-22, 09:13 PM

Oh, nonsense.

Fighter's Little Wish [General]

Prerequisites: Fighter level 4th.

Benefit: You gain Limited Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm) as a Spell-like ability, usable 3 times per day.

A fighter may select Fighter's Little Wish as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Fighter's Bigger Wish [General]

Prerequisites: Fighter level 8th.

Benefit: You gain Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) as a Spell-like ability, usable 3 times per day.

A fighter may select Fighter's Bigger Wish as one of his fighter bonus feats.

You pobably should indicate sarcasm/jk in some way in a post like this. I *almost* thought you were quoting rules text. The dead giveaway is no citation, but some may not realize that.

Pluto!

2015-05-22, 09:27 PM

Story

2015-05-22, 09:30 PM

Pathfinder witch.
It just bored me. Never got to the major hexes, so maybe I'm missing something. The two best/most used hexes are evil eye and slumber. One is underwhelming and the other.. I just feel dirty using over and over again. The class is great against a single powerful enemy that takes many rounds to beat, but I can't see how it would ever be effective against many weaker opponents.
I like the shaman so much more.

I haven't played one myself, but aren't you supposed to be using Misfortune and Cackle to perma-debuff enemies?

Curmudgeon

2015-05-22, 10:06 PM

Unrelated, but do you actually play by any of the rules interpretations you post here?
Every one of them. I've got 2 house rules for the Factotum: Cunning Surge taking a swift action rather than a standard action is one of them. Resolving silliness (FAQ "answers" in conflict with actual rules being a big part of it) regarding the Factotum, without adding any house rules, requires many additional paragraphs of citations.

That's...not a definition. That's just more evidence they needed a Thesaurus.
They're citations of actual game text. Some people are content to do a lot of squinting and hand-waving when it comes to D&D rules, but I don't work that way. I take things exactly as they are, and if necessary I add house rules. Monks really aren't proficient with their unarmed strikes. That's silly, but it's the RAW; so another house rule.

RedMage125

2015-05-22, 11:23 PM

Soulknife. Just, Soulknife. Such a cool concept and so badly executed.

Als0 Truenamer.

Monk broke my heart but PF Unchained Monk and Pummeling Style mended it.

Agreed on Soulknife. Although I liked it enough that when Dragon Magazine had their Prestige Class concept, I made a PrC that required the Mind Blade class feature (this was before the Complete Psionic came out, and we had ZERO PrCs that improved a soulknife's ablities).

I must say, Psyren, that I had yet to check out the Unchained classes until I read this from you.

WOW, the Monk looks good. Rogue changes look good. The Barbarian...I understand the desire to make changes to Rage so players are not constantly recalculating their math, but it seems to me that 2h-weapon barbarians lose out on some damage there.

Saintheart

2015-05-22, 11:36 PM

Scout, in particular. My dreams of playing Genghis Khan died the day WOTC decided to rule that a scout's mount's movement did not count for skirmish damage.

kellbyb

2015-05-23, 12:27 AM

You missed the point.

Those feats are an argument that powerful fighter feats are easily possible within the existing rules without just scaling up the system's power level outside the fighter class.

But at that point, we're moving out of the territory of feats and into that of highly variable class abilities.

Curmudgeon

2015-05-23, 12:34 AM

But at that point, we're moving out of the territory of feats and into that of highly variable class abilities.
No, we're still firmly in the area of feats, following the pattern of Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Savvy Rogue. Adding a requirement for 8 levels of Fighter or 10 levels of Rogue doesn't keep these from being feats.

eggynack

2015-05-23, 12:52 AM

Druid surprisingly. Its just such a grab-bag of abilities, I could never work out a character with a theme with it.
I think the trick is moving away from standard druid flavor. Like, if you're just "Druid who art of nature", then everything in all the books is a part of your existence, and you're picking for reasons separate from theming, because everything is on theme. Even with a cool underlying concept, you're still ultimately beholden to vast swaths of text from a mechanical standpoint. Like, sure, you're trying to destroy cities because you love nature so much, but that doesn't mean you're not just casting entangle and kelpstrand.

Thus, a good way to go is to pick something unorthodox. My favorite druid concepts are the ones you wouldn't necessarily expect, like the necromancy/aberrations druid, which actually just picked up some new minionmancy synergy when I found deepspawn and great old master neogi forms, or the really city focused druid using piles of cityscape web enhancements, or the dragon themed druid running all the cool stuff that that's party to. Each plan cuts down options on the character design side, giving a lot of focus to feats, ACF's, and even prestige classes, and they also grant some direction to your more day to day build decisions.

In any case, I can respect the idea that the class can be a bit much. It's a lot of power, and a lot of book keeping, and a hell of a lot of plain old fashioned looking through a lot of books. Understanding the class means understanding just about every facet of the game, with the possible exception of subsystem stuff, and it can be tricky to reduce all of that down to something workable if you want to do things right. I do think it's very much possible, however.

Zordran

2015-05-23, 01:45 AM

General Sajaru

2015-05-23, 02:22 AM

Swashbuckler; when you can't become a Dread Pirate before level 13, a Legendary Captain before level 7, or a Scarlet Corsair before level 13, there's something wrong with a class that's supposed to embody daring deeds and pointy one handed weapons. Then again, I guess I shouldn't have gone looking for a class with skills in the book entitled Complete Good at Hitting Things and Nothing Else.

Story

2015-05-23, 02:28 AM

bekeleven

2015-05-23, 02:29 AM

squiggit

2015-05-23, 02:58 AM

I'd probably want to add Warmage to my list too.

The class isn't terrible and you can do nice things with it.

But it was definitely heartbreaking the first time I started reading up on Warmage optimization and the whole thing could basically be summed up as "Do everything you can to be as unwarmagey as possible".

Chronikoce

2015-05-23, 03:01 AM

I'd have to say wizard. The whole vancian spell system combined with needing to prepare spells ruined it for me. In concept I'm an all powerful wizard who can bend the cosmos to my will. In reality I can do all of that in 15 minutes as soon as I prepare the proper spell...

It's not that it's not good. It's that it runs counter to story progression and leads to short adventure days or empty slots being filled during 15 minute breaks.

Now if I can just find a DM who will houserule wizard spell progression onto sorcerer casting. I'll gladly trade knowing all spells for being able to spontaneously cast the few I know, especially if it means the story can keep moving along!

Darkweave31

2015-05-23, 04:57 AM

Also my long distance relationship with psionics is trying at times. I love the system but my DMs always ban it.

Socratov

2015-05-23, 06:39 AM

my disappointments:

Truenamer. This class is the end all and be all of fail. With the best fluff in all of the books it fails to actually even work as a class.

Shadowcaster. It barely works, but too little, too late.

Duelist PrC (DMG): so cool fluff, such great options, such a big letdown. It would have great synergy with Swashbuckler, but ultimately failed

Invisible Blade: are you kidding me? this is barely playable, but if it actually worked, it would have been soooooo cooooool.

Seeker of the Song: As cool as it seems, it's got nothing good for Bard to use at the time it comes on-line.

Dragon Shaman: Most of what DS has is actually BS

I think we can conclude that the more flavourful a class is, the more disappointing it will be. It's like a disillusionment paradox.

ExLibrisMortis

2015-05-23, 07:21 AM

Theurgic necromancer prestige classes: True Necromancer and Yathrinshee (latter has a drow requirement, too >.>). More generally, all theurgic prestige classes (some more than others, hi mystic theurge).

I really like the fluff of mixing arcane and divine magic, and manipulating magic in ways lost since the destruction of the X empire/newly discovered from the libraries of Y/so precise that even Z wears glasses to do it. You get that with geomancer, dweomerkeeper, incantatrix and so on (geometer, too, runecaster, ultimate magus, and StP erudite has a bit as well). For some reason, none of the actual theurgic classes have anything like that. You just get to advance casting twice. Well, great.

LA -- templates/races with awesome powers, too. Phantoms, for example.

Extra Anchovies

2015-05-23, 07:45 AM

Theurgic necromancer prestige classes: True Necromancer and Yathrinshee (latter has a drow requirement, too >.>). More generally, all theurgic prestige classes (some more than others, hi mystic theurge).

I'm going to call out Noctumancer as the exception here, they get some really cool stuff. Plus you can go Wizard 1 (with Precocious Apprentice)/Shadowcaster 3/Noctumancer 10/Mystic Theurge 6 and actually progress both casting types the whole way rather than randomly stopping like you have to do with MT alone.

ericgrau

2015-05-23, 07:51 AM

Ever found a class that just didn't do what you wanted it to do, for whatever reason? This thread is so you can pour out your heartbreak and relate to others.

My heartbreak was Monk, of course. So many cool options, no empty levels... But it SUCKS! If only monks got pounce, or had a way of obtaining pounce through a prestige class!
Dip for pounce?

Rogue. I like the concept but too many DMs hate skills with an unwarranted passion. Skills are minor. If you can auto-pass with minimal optimization and/or taking a 10 that's a good thing. Stop thinking that skills need to have a good chance of failure on every check for D&D to be a gamey game, and stop thinking it's hilarious every time a failure screws over the player. Why should I even try if I have a 50:50 chance of utter character destroying suck 10 times a day, and if I pass I only accomplish something minor?

I once had a campaign where the DM decided to extend it to concentration checks. He thought it was too easy to pass concentration checks and introduced a harsher scaling factor. Our instant solution for all our casters was to stop casting in melee altogether. We'd take a 5 foot, withdraw, buy anklets of translocation ASAP, pick up flight, etc. but never actually attempt the check. Frequently failing on skills with bad consequences for failure is utterly stupid.

Chronos

2015-05-23, 08:16 AM

Better feats, even without requiring fighter levels like weapon specialization, can absolutely fix the fighter. Yes, the wizard can get feats, too, but the wizard probably isn't going to be interested in feats that make her better at hitting things with sharp pieces of metal, and even if she is, she isn't going to be able to make as effective use of them as a dedicated warrior will. And yes, barbarians, paladins, monks, rangers, etc. also get feats, and they will be interested in the same feats as fighters and will be able to leverage them. So by improving fighters, we'll also improve those other classes (though not by as much, since they don't get as many). Is this a problem?

Now, we won't be able to improve fighters all the way up to Tier 1. But that's a problem with Tier 1, not with the fighter. Being less powerful than overpowered is a good thing. Everything should be less than overpowered.

ShurikVch

2015-05-23, 10:10 AM

Not only is the fluff great, but I like the idea of a skill-based casting system.Do You know about the Force Skills in Star Wars D20?

A Tad Insane

2015-05-23, 11:17 AM

Acolyte of the skin
The singular most metal class that isn't a bloodrager or literally uses metal, and you can't even dip it without feeling dirty. I've had so bbeg ideas where I thought "if only aots was good, I would so use it right now"

RolkFlameraven

2015-05-23, 11:30 AM

Healer, yes it does what it says it does but not any better then others can be made to do and its boring. Vitalist is what that class should have been in a lot of ways.

Knight, an attempt at tanking and the base for how to pull it off in later games but, ug. Thank god for Warder in PoW.

Gnaeus

2015-05-23, 11:40 AM

I've seen Spirit Shaman mentioned, but mostly in the context of arguments about whether it should be Tier 1 or not. It's strange how noone ever talks about actually playing one.

I did not enjoy my spirit shaman. I didn't like how half the spells on my list are only really decent for someone who can wildshape or who has an animal pet. And another big chunk were long duration spells that you only cast once per day, which made me not want to take them for my top 2 levels of spells, since I only retrieved one spell per day, so I wanted it to be something I could use more than once. Worst, if I didn't know precisely what I was going to be fighting, I had to pick generalist spells for the top two levels that I knew I I was going to be able to use. Every time I picked Heal, for example, because it was almost always going to be helpful, I found myself wishing I was playing a Favored Soul, who gets it at a lower level and has more spells known at every level.

Admittedly, part of my bad experience was campaign based. Something like half of that game wound up being on pocket planes, trap dimensions, and the like, so while I did take the feat that let me cast Summon Natures Ally spontaneously (and Augment summoning, and rapid summon) I was all the time being told that there were no animals, elementals or fey to summon on that plane, or the evil fortress was shielded from conjurations to keep people from scry & dying into it, or I would summon something and it would turn out to be some Borgified cybernetic T-Rex or Demonic Dire Tiger that just attacked us, or the like. I'm willing to admit it may not have been the fairest view of the class, but I wish I had played any other T2, T3, or a strong T4 instead. There were fights where I really felt like a T5, and found myself hiding and hoping that something would happen that would make me useful. I ultimately saved enough money for a domain staff with Animal domain, which helped, in the same sense it would have helped a Beguiler or Dread Necro.

Forrestfire

2015-05-23, 11:41 AM

Do You know about the Force Skills in Star Wars D20?

Or this homebrew mini-system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18415310&postcount=2) for 3.5. I'm a huge fan of skilled casting, and Truenamer is probably the biggest heartbreaker for me, as well :smallfrown:

So much potential for coolness...

Leon

2015-05-23, 11:46 AM

Any of the numerous PrCs that tried to be lightning or storm based, they all were frankly bad at best and often much worse.

Disappointed somewhat with Warlock, it opens so well about the different origins of the powers and then totally ignores that bit of text ever happened in any further related text ~ true enough you can refluff spells but its not the same when Everything is pointing at Evil outside influence only (like the "redeemed" PrC assuming that all warlocks are inherently evil and blah...)

I must be the outlier in that ive never had a problem with the Monk class ~ played it a few times and seen it played more and they have never been lacking in anything comparably to the others in the group.

Vhaidara

2015-05-23, 11:49 AM

I was all the time being told that there were no animals, elementals or fey to summon on that plane, or the evil fortress was shielded from conjurations to keep people from scry & dying into it, or I would summon something and it would turn out to be some Borgified cybernetic T-Rex or Demonic Dire Tiger that just attacked us, or the like.

Um, that's also 100% houserule from the GM. None of those things are relevant/can happen

Drezius

2015-05-23, 11:51 AM

Shadowdancer.
I dont like spellcasting, not even UMD.
Oh look, a living shadow! With shadows! Walking in the shadows!
Hey! No spellcasting! Shadow walk and stab!
3/4 bba, no SA, no extra feats. Hmmmm no thx.

Gnaeus

2015-05-23, 11:58 AM

Um, that's also 100% houserule from the GM. None of those things are relevant/can happen

They can happen. They DID happen.

Regardless of whether they should have happened, to me, they really emphasized how that class is focused. If you NEED summon natures ally to be T2/1, you aren't really T2. Barely T3. A druid would have laughed and turned into a face eater. A Favored soul would have had more spells at every level. A focused specialist conjurer would have used all the other awesome conjuration spells. A Spirit Shaman goes "Crud, I can't use SNA X? Can I reroll as a Healer? Please?" Thats an exaggeration, but not much of one.

Vhaidara

2015-05-23, 12:04 PM

I meant within the rules. That wasn't Spirit Shaman/SNa being bad. That was your GM saying screw you. Could have happened to anyone else just as easily.

And Spirit Shaman isn't reliant on SNA. The druid list, while not the strongest, is still amazing. You just need to know what the right spells are. Beyond that, SS has the second strongest spell method (the strongest being list casters like beguiler/DN/warmage). You're a sorcerer who repicks spells known every day.

Blackhawk748

2015-05-23, 12:12 PM

Spirit Shaman is an excellent BFCer, Kelpstrand, Entangle, Wall of Thorns, they're all on the list and SNA is the Icing on that delicious nature cake. Now Chastise Spirits is a weird class feature. but i like it, because screw incorporeal undead.

In short, your DM was a jerk and made you hate a decent class by being a jerk. Seriousl SNA doesnt summon an actual animal, as it isnt a calling effect, it would be more accurate to say that it summons a thing made out of magic that looks like an animal (or fey or elemental etc) Summon Monster works similarly.

GreatDane

2015-05-23, 12:22 PM

Now if I can just find a DM who will houserule wizard spell progression onto sorcerer casting. I'll gladly trade knowing all spells for being able to spontaneously cast the few I know, especially if it means the story can keep moving along!
It's not wizard casting per se, but my group is currently playing with the house rule that sorcerer spellcasting is moved up one level (so they get new spell levels at the same time as wizards).

Rogue. I like the concept but too many DMs hate skills with an unwarranted passion. Skills are minor. If you can auto-pass with minimal optimization and/or taking a 10 that's a good thing. Stop thinking that skills need to have a good chance of failure on every check for D&D to be a gamey game, and stop thinking it's hilarious every time a failure screws over the player. Why should I even try if I have a 50:50 chance of utter character destroying suck 10 times a day, and if I pass I only accomplish something minor?

I once had a campaign where the DM decided to extend it to concentration checks. He thought it was too easy to pass concentration checks and introduced a harsher scaling factor. Our instant solution for all our casters was to stop casting in melee altogether. We'd take a 5 foot, withdraw, buy anklets of translocation ASAP, pick up flight, etc. but never actually attempt the check. Frequently failing on skills with bad consequences for failure is utterly stupid.
This makes me cry. It's just bad DMing. Skills are supposed to be useful; in fact, I'm pretty sure it says somewhere (I'm AFB at the moment) that extremely high skill checks should be able to accomplish nearly impossible tasks.

Most of my let-downs are in core. Monk and paladin are both great, niche concepts that require a lot of work to realize at the table.

A lot of the core prestige classes have the same issue: too much effort to accomplish what the class nominally sets out to do. Main offenders are duelist and shadowdancer.

Gnaeus

2015-05-23, 12:22 PM

I meant within the rules. That wasn't Spirit Shaman/SNa being bad. That was your GM saying screw you. Could have happened to anyone else just as easily.

Anyy Tier 4-5? Yes. Any T2-1 would just use a different trick.

And Spirit Shaman isn't reliant on SNA. The druid list, while not the strongest, is still amazing. You just need to know what the right spells are. Beyond that, SS has the second strongest spell method (the strongest being list casters like beguiler/DN/warmage). You're a sorcerer who repicks spells known every day.

The Druid list IS amazing. For a druid.

Remove all the melee combat buff spells that suck on a mid BAB chassis with medium armor, simple weapons, and mediocre physical stats. Then remove all the spells that buff animals. Then remove all the long duration spells that the S Shaman can't utilize well. What you are left with is SNA and a pile of mediocrity.

You are NOT a sorcerer that repicks spells every day. The sorcerer has more spells at almost each level, and his spells are individually more versatile. The Favored soul has spells that are roughly equal or better in power and versatility, and he knows more of them. Unless you get really lucky and you know exactly what you are fighting, and the druid list happens to have an I win button for that specific thing, I found it to always be worse than Favored Soul which is usually worse than sorcerer. For example, at level 11 (using an odd level, because using even levels is embarassing for the Spirit Shaman), the shaman has one 6, one 5, 2 4s. The favored soul has 3 5s, 4 4s. The 7 best spells off the cleric list are usually just better than the 4 best spells from the druid list (with the restrictions listed above) And really he has more than that, because HE can use metamagic on the fly, while the S Shaman has to give up his actual high level slots if he wants metamagic.

Regardless, I was consistently underwhelmed. While using my extensive experience as a druid player, multiple splat books, and every s shaman and druid guide I could find. It totally broke my heart. The Swift Hunter and the houseruled swashbuckler outperformed me, regularly.

Vhaidara

2015-05-23, 12:26 PM

Anyy Tier 4-5? Yes. Any T2-1 would just use a different trick.

And the GM, if he wanted to say screw you, would just have you end up conjuring orcus. Seriously, there was no grounds in any rule for what your GM did. It's on par with "I cast Magic Missile" "It explodes in your face and you die"

Jormengand

2015-05-23, 12:32 PM

Truenamer is probably the biggest heartbreaker for me, as well :smallfrown:

So much potential for coolness...

So much actual coolness when you optimise...

Though let's add to the list every single truespeak PrC in the book except possibly the first two levels of Acolyte of the Ego. Seriously, guys.

Gnaeus

2015-05-23, 12:35 PM

And the GM, if he wanted to say screw you, would just have you end up conjuring orcus. Seriously, there was no grounds in any rule for what your GM did. It's on par with "I cast Magic Missile" "It explodes in your face and you die"

I'm not thrilled with it either. And yet, the Dread Necro I played in the first half of that campaign (who died in a boss battle saving everyone from TPK) never felt useless, even when his main tricks didn't work. The Chameleon, who could use the long duration spells on the druid list that sucked for me, was always useful. A tier 1, denied their best line of tricks, is a tier 1. A tier 2, denied their best tricks, will usually still be at least tier 3. A Spirit Shaman, denied SNA, wishes for a different class a LOT.

Curmudgeon

2015-05-23, 12:49 PM

Skills are supposed to be useful; in fact, I'm pretty sure it says somewhere (I'm AFB at the moment) that extremely high skill checks should be able to accomplish nearly impossible tasks.
From Player's Handbook, page 65:

Practically Impossible Tasks
Sometimes you want to do something that seems practically impossible. In general, a task considered practically impossible has a DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more to the DC).

Catching Yourself When Falling: It’s practically impossible to catch yourself on a wall while falling. Make a Climb check (DC = wall’s DC + 20) to do so. It’s much easier to catch yourself on a slope (DC = slope’s DC + 10).

It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

t’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to move silently while running or charging.

Story

2015-05-23, 01:02 PM

Beyond that, SS has the second strongest spell method (the strongest being list casters like beguiler/DN/warmage). You're a sorcerer who repicks spells known every day.

I think that's debateable. One big advantage that Wizard/Cleric/Druid style casting gets over Spirit Shamans is the ability to devote single slots to long duration buffs every day without any loss in versatility. If you pick Foresight on a Spirit Shaman, that's your only 9th level spell for the day.

Speaking of practically impossible tasks, is there any DC for making a bluff check while being forced to telling the truth? It seems like the kind of thing that should be possible with a +20DC.

ShurikVch

2015-05-23, 01:52 PM

Speaking of practically impossible tasks, is there any DC for making a bluff check while being forced to telling the truth? It seems like the kind of thing that should be possible with a +20DC.This question reminded me about Randall Garrett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Garrett)'s short story
"The Best Policy" (1957) also as David Gordon. A smart Earthling is abducted by a reconnaissance group of hostile aliens, but convinces them that Earthlings are a far more advanced and superior race, so they end up sending humble ambassadors instead of conquering the planet. The catch is these aliens have a perfect truth detector, so the hero has to phrase his every comment very carefully so that he can pull off such a huge lie while being literally honest.

bekeleven

2015-05-23, 01:53 PM

Socratov

2015-05-23, 02:00 PM

I think that's debateable. One big advantage that Wizard/Cleric/Druid style casting gets over Spirit Shamans is the ability to devote single slots to long duration buffs every day without any loss in versatility. If you pick Foresight on a Spirit Shaman, that's your only 9th level spell for the day.

Speaking of practically impossible tasks, is there any DC for making a bluff check while being forced to telling the truth? It seems like the kind of thing that should be possible with a +20DC.

This question reminded me about Randall Garrett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Garrett)'s short story

As in magically compelled, or as in telling someone the truth word-for-word while making them believe a specific different thing?

Most of the time a good bluff is all about the control of information. As long as you can make someone think that you have something they don't know of, you can hold them off or have them do your bidding. Until you say what you have up your sleeves, the other party can't call you on your exact bluff...

BladeofObliviom

2015-05-23, 02:42 PM

Though let's add to the list every single truespeak PrC in the book except possibly the first two levels of Acolyte of the Ego. Seriously, guys.

Eeeyup. I spent a lot of time trying to make Fiendbinder work. It can be cool when it does, but you either need fourth-level spells (which is enough that you're probably too dedicated to being a full caster to lose four caster levels) or you need to be able to get Summon Monster IV as a spell-like, which is...fairly difficult without some real shenanigans. (I found out that you can use Master of Masks for this, which is kind of interesting. Don't know any other ways that don't involve playing a monster though.)

eggynack

2015-05-23, 05:38 PM

Beyond that, SS has the second strongest spell method (the strongest being list casters like beguiler/DN/warmage).
Y'know, I'm inclined to think that the underlying method at work is somewhat arbitrary with regards to strength. It's ultimately the job of the underlying numbers, like how many spells known/retrieved you get, and what spells show up on your list, to determine how powerful you are. For example, the spirit shaman technically does have a spell use method that's strictly better than prepared casting, because you're spontaneously casting spells that you prepare, but the extremely low number of spells retrieved, especially at the highest levels, means that I think you'd be better off with the druid method. For a more extreme example, consider a sorcerer with as many spells known as a list caster has on their list. That'd be nigh on strictly superior to a list caster, and, of course, the sorcerer as is is already stronger than the list casters on the basis of lists that are inferior to what few spells known you get to pick on a sorcerer. My conclusion, then, is that most spell methods are pretty similar, perhaps with a divide between those that keep themselves to a fragment of the full list and those that can use the whole thing (though even that is questionable), and the execution is inevitably what defines strength.

dextercorvia

2015-05-23, 05:52 PM

How do you all think the Spirit Shaman mechanic would work if you retrieved spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list instead of the Druid list?

Seerow

2015-05-23, 06:04 PM

How do you all think the Spirit Shaman mechanic would work if you retrieved spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list instead of the Druid list?

Honestly I think Spirit Shaman's casting from the druid list is fine as it stands, but think that the spirit shaman gains a lot from making the casting single stat and letting chastise spirit count as turn undead for feats.

Besides that, the spell access could do with some tweaking, but nothing as major as changing the spell list to Sorc/Wizard. But something like 1-2 bonus spells known at every spell level that are much more restricted. For one, think something like "how Druids always have SNA available" or "Clerics always have C_Ws available". Find or a create a spell line that is in a similar vein but thematically linked to spirits, and give that to them. Maybe a modified summon monster line? For the other, possibly a mechanic similar to domains/bloodlines/mysteries where they have a handful of options to choose from and gain 1 spell per spell level thematically linked to that option. These would be set spells known independent of spells retrieved, giving them some baseline competencies so their spells retrieved can be more free for utility options.

eggynack

2015-05-23, 06:07 PM

How do you all think the Spirit Shaman mechanic would work if you retrieved spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list instead of the Druid list?
My suspicion is that they'd be a less ambiguous tier one than the spirit shaman is, because the wizard list is sweet like that, but I figure they'd still be worse than wizards. The fact that you're limited to one spell in a given spell level for so frigging long is a big problem, and it means you have a lot less day to day versatility. Your long term strategic versatility is pretty similar, however, so you're a lot like a wizard in that respect, especially at high levels when that's at its most relevant.

The Viscount

2015-05-23, 06:32 PM

I think we can conclude that the more flavourful a class is, the more disappointing it will be. It's like a disillusionment paradox.
Binder would like a word with you.

I've seen Spirit Shaman mentioned, but mostly in the context of arguments about whether it should be Tier 1 or not. It's strange how noone ever talks about actually playing one.

I'll throw in my 2cp, since this is halfway to becoming a thread about Spirit Shaman. I'm currently playing one, and I'm seeing some of the reasons people don't talk about it much. The spell list is druid's with less spells available at a time. This is mildly irritating, as people have pointed out, because it means that when you first get access to spells, you only have one, so you're not likely to waste it on a long-term buff because it feels like waste. I can understand why you wouldn't play one, since the casting is obviously worse than (though simpler than) normal Druid casting, and the class features don't have the Druid's broad appeal. Skills are a mite better than Druid, but that's cold comfort. It is true what has been said that a fair number of your spells are focused on your animal companion or you in wildshape, but there's still plenty and to spare in terms of good spells. The druid list still has a great amount of BFC and straight up blasting (maligned though it may be). Two-stat casting is just straight up annoying.

I'm playing a Spirit Shaman right now, in a Ravenloft Campaign. I focus mostly on damage and focused debuffs like call lightning, sudden stalagmite, blinding spittle, murderous mist, etc. It helps that our other bases our covered. In terms of class features, 80% of the time they might as well not exist. But that rare time that my class features actually apply (of the spirits, incorporeal undead are essentially all of them, I doubt I'll ever encounter more than the single fey I've seen) I feel like a king. Chastise spirit is quite ruinous to the low-hp incorporeal undead, and blessing of the spirits gives immunity to enchantment (of all sorts, so that's a solid point above druid). In most ways it's worse than Druid, but it's far less work. I quite enjoy it.

On topic of the thread, my real disappointment is Dread Necromancer. The spell list is embarrassingly limited (smaller even than warmage or beguiler), and so many things are just poorly worded or poorly thought out. In combat, you have near no offense vs undead, save rebuking. Against creatures immune to your main shtick (like constructs) you are essentially useless without relying on scads of animated dead to fight for you. On that subject, if you do pursue undead making, you will clog up action economy and make the martials feel sad. It's all so frustrating.
I can't say Marshal's broken my heart because I haven't actually played one to see its faults, but I know its bad for me and I still love it. After a few levels it all becomes so undesirable, and its only real place seems to be in optimization builds, but I've still used it in Iron Chef several times.

eggynack

2015-05-23, 06:49 PM

Blessing of the spirits gives immunity to enchantment (of all sorts, so that's a solid point above druid).
It looks like it only gives immunity against the narrow swath of enchantments that protection from evil stops. The duration is sweet though. However, in the broad sense, druids do have ways to emulate that stuff. Protection from winged fliers from shining south is basically protection from evil when it comes to the enchantment stopping impact. There are also some ways of gaining far more thorough versions of immunity to enchantment, ranging from ones of questionable legality (enhance wild shape applied to plant forms, especially ones that have plant traits listed as a special quality), to ones from obscure sources (dragon wild shape for dzalmus form from dragon 349), to the aberration themed (neogi adult and grand old master from lords of madness get it, and not attached to type), to the just straight up mind blank (gatekeeper initiate adds it to your list). You can also emulate the double save thing with shifter druid substitution levels.

Edit: I forgot the various external magic circle effects. That means summoning up a unicorn, calling one up with valorous steed, or summoning but kinda calling one of the many good outsiders that has one with animate with the spirit. Probably other creatures that can do that too.

Gnaeus

2015-05-23, 07:03 PM

How do you all think the Spirit Shaman mechanic would work if you retrieved spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list instead of the Druid list?

Much better.
Planar Binding on non adventuring days and polymorph when adventuring alone would make a huge difference. Their buffs are better, assuming your party members are not Animals. They have better ranged options, better ways to deal with SR no.

Think about it. As a general rule (dont hit me, there are exceptions)
Wizard spell list>Cleric Spell list>Druid spell list.
This is why Favored Soul has one additional spell known at every level, on a much better chassis, and is still usually regarded as weaker than a sorcerer.
Remember that level 11 comparison? Where S Shaman has 1 6, 1 5 and 2 4s, vs the Favored soul with 3 5s and 4 4s? By comparison, Sorcerer 11 has 2 5s and 3 4s. In general, is a level 6 slot worth a 5 and a 4? Yes. In this case specifically, where you can change spells daily? I'd try the Spirit Sorcerer.

eggynack

2015-05-23, 07:14 PM

Think about it. As a general rule (dont hit me, there are exceptions)
Wizard spell list>Cleric Spell list>Druid spell list.
I don't know if the assessment holds up without class features to provide spell targets (basically ignoring the companion itself and just considering it as a surface to use animal growth on, as an example), but the way I've generally seen it listed has the druid list higher than the normal cleric list, but lower than the cleric list with domains. My suspicion is that that ranking holds up quite well at most levels, but falls apart a bit when you get to 7th's and 8th's, where druid casting is at its worst.

Gnaeus

2015-05-23, 07:22 PM

I don't know if the assessment holds up without class features to provide spell targets (basically ignoring the companion itself and just considering it as a surface to use animal growth on, as an example), but the way I've generally seen it listed has the druid list higher than the normal cleric list, but lower than the cleric list with domains. My suspicion is that that ranking holds up quite well at most levels, but falls apart a bit when you get to 7th's and 8th's, where druid casting is at its worst.

I've had enough pointless side fights today, and you are better with Druid than I am (although I'm not a novice). Lets agree that the Wizard>Cleric>Druid ranking is valid when you are looking at the spells on a base class with no companion, and no good combat abilities other than spells, and the other limitations mentioned above. Even if Wizard>Cleric=Druid, Shaman would still be far better with sorcerer spells. They just have such a hard time picking a single level 4 spell with the versatility of polymorph for example.

nyjastul69

2015-05-23, 07:42 PM

The Arcane Archer PrC is one that annoys me. For one, racial prerequisites shouldn't exist. On top of that, no spell casting progression!?! The fact that the designers thought someone would ever choose that class stuns me.

nedz

2015-05-23, 07:53 PM

Honestly I think Spirit Shaman's casting from the druid list is fine as it stands, but think that the spirit shaman gains a lot from making the casting single stat and letting chastise spirit count as turn undead for feats.
You can argue this already because Chastise works like the Channelling TU variant — it does require a house-rule though.

Besides that, the spell access could do with some tweaking, but nothing as major as changing the spell list to Sorc/Wizard. But something like 1-2 bonus spells known at every spell level that are much more restricted. For one, think something like "how Druids always have SNA available" or "Clerics always have C_Ws available". Find or a create a spell line that is in a similar vein but thematically linked to spirits, and give that to them. Maybe a modified summon monster line? For the other, possibly a mechanic similar to domains/bloodlines/mysteries where they have a handful of options to choose from and gain 1 spell per spell level thematically linked to that option. These would be set spells known independent of spells retrieved, giving them some baseline competencies so their spells retrieved can be more free for utility options.

Something like Summon Monster (Spirit) ?

You can take Spontaneous Summoner and Spontaneous Healer/Wounder — but both are limited to Wis mod times per day. The last one is interesting in that it works as per Cleric, which means you get the curing/inflict spells a level lower FWIW.

It is possible to access domains via PrCs, if only they were added to your spells retrieved (like a spontaneous cleric) rather than your list — this would be easy to fix.

Also the Metamagic access would be more useful if it worked as per spontaneous casters, even if it extended the casting time.

Seerow

2015-05-23, 08:07 PM

You can argue this already because Chastise works like the Channelling TU variant — it does require a house-rule though.

You can take Spontaneous Summoner and Spontaneous Healer/Wounder — but both are limited to Wis mod times per day. The last one is interesting in that it works as per Cleric, which means you get the curing/inflict spells a level lower FWIW.

Yeah, the time I played a spirit shaman, we actually did houserule chastise as channeling, and I took both of the feats you mentioned. Combined with a generous stat array that left me with 16+ in both wis and cha, the character played really well and held its own through the levels I played him, though that was an E6 campaign so I never hit that 4th level hump that a lot of people seem to be referring to.

Something like Summon Monster (Spirit) ?

Yeah. I'm not sure if the Summon Monster list actually supports Summon Monster(Spirit) as it stands, but some template to summon elemental/fey versions of monsters instead of fiendish/celestial, and add some high level incorporeal summons would be totally awesome.

eggynack

2015-05-23, 08:24 PM

Chronikoce

2015-05-23, 10:19 PM

It's not wizard casting per se, but my group is currently playing with the house rule that sorcerer spellcasting is moved up one level (so they get new spell levels at the same time as wizards).

This is all I really want.

ericgrau

2015-05-24, 06:19 AM

I've had enough pointless side fights today, and you are better with Druid than I am (although I'm not a novice). Lets agree that the Wizard>Cleric>Druid ranking is valid when you are looking at the spells on a base class with no companion, and no good combat abilities other than spells, and the other limitations mentioned above. Even if Wizard>Cleric=Druid, Shaman would still be far better with sorcerer spells. They just have such a hard time picking a single level 4 spell with the versatility of polymorph for example.
I can agree with that ranking, though 4th level in particular is a particularly bad level for both divine spell lists and especially druid. I'd probably pick up flame strike simply because it's something I could actually use frequently. But it should still be an effective spell list with very careful spell selection. As someone else said go with battlefield control. Sleet storm in particular is almost always useful in any location wider than 40 feet across. Others are more restricted by terrain but you can get a few to be ready for more. Wall of thorns is another versatile option and it's 5th level. Flaming sphere (2nd level) gets you past the low levels. Entangle (1st level) is famous of course and though it doesn't always work you can always fall back to a shillelagh (1st level) quarterstaff as a backup. So while 4th level is suck there are still good options at other levels.

So shaman seems significantly worse but not unplayable.

The Arcane Archer PrC is one that annoys me. For one, racial prerequisites shouldn't exist. On top of that, no spell casting progression!?! The fact that the designers thought someone would ever choose that class stuns me.
Protip: Not for full casters.

It is an odd animal because it gets made fun of for being weaker than a heavily buffed fighter, yet very frequently in real life you can't get the party casters to cast 4+ buffs on you, and if you only have 1 buff who says it always has to be greater magic weapon? You can get it as a class feature and get different buffs instead. Actually for archery (only) it goes core heavily buffed fighter > core arcane archer > core cleric archer with multiple buffing rounds > core unbuffed fighter > core cleric archer in a surprise fight or only 1 buff round. Plus for versatility you can use staffs while getting an attack bonus that makes up for lost BAB. Also note that in core you only have 1 turn per round, so a core cleric archer might only be better as long as he doesn't use his bow and then what you really have is mainly a core cleric not-archer. Just occasional backup bow damage I suppose. An arcane archer with only 1 wizard level makes a great core archer. Straight wizards usually shouldn't enter the class except maybe as a dip for some major imbue arrow tricks, and even that's more interesting than effective.

As for the racial requirement I suppose it might be slightly better to ditch it, but it's not a huge obstacle.

eggynack

2015-05-24, 06:24 AM

I can agree with that ranking, though 4th level in particular is a particularly bad level for both divine spell lists and especially druid.
Druid 4th's have their moments. I'm a fan of animate with the spirit, boreal wind, sometimes dispel magic, enhance wild shape, eye of the hurricane, friendly fire, passage of the shifting sands, stone metamorphosis, and wall of salt. Best of that list, and the one where the access is most questionable within the parameters, is definitely enhance wild shape, because it enables a solid percentage of druid chicanery, but the rest of the set is quite good.

Edit: Considered directly through the lens of spirit shaman, animate with the spirit and stone metamorphosis are very much out of combat spells, and thus relevant when considering the totality of spirit shaman capabilities, and for my one spell, I'd maybe go with boreal wind. That spell just does a lot of things.

Marlowe

2015-05-24, 07:12 AM

It surprised me when I realized that the Complete series added twelve new classes, and only the Scout and Warlock (and occasionally Wu Jen) are ever talked about. Has anybody ever played a Shugenja? I've never even heard anybody mention the Spirit Shaman, not ever.

For me, it was the Hexblade and especially the Dragon Shaman. OK, so I'm not a shaman, and I'm certainly not a dragon, and everybody thinks I'm a Fighter, but I'm worse than a Fighter in a lot ways... and I'm optimized, so I have Spider Climb?

Sorry to be so late here. Yes, I have played a Shugenja and it isn't that bad. It's more like playing a Sorceror than a Cleric though.

It's inherently a dysfunctional class, because it can never get all the spells you're supposed to know because of the banned element rule. It gets Sorc/Wiz spells on its list, but at a level we're they're only helpful rather than powerful.

It doesn't help that most mention I've ever seen of Shugenja on this board revolves around using Water as your default element choice.Because of the unimaginative way they set out the spell lists, Water is a complete trap option. Turns the Shugenja into a healer and nothing else. Most potent (I won't say optimized. I don't have a clue about optimization) Shugenja builds use Earth or Fire as the chosen element and then go into Sacred Exorcist. Air has a harder time, but it's still streets ahead of Water.

Really, the problem with most of non-core Divine casters, be they Favoured Soul, Spirit Shaman, Mystic out of Dragonlance, or Shugenja is that the basic Cleric and Druid were so powerful. Archivist manages to rise above the pack due to its potential to eventually learn any spell that ever featured on a Divine list, but if you want a divine caster, there's no good reason to not play a Cleric or Druid except to experiment.

Psyren

2015-05-24, 08:25 AM

I don't know who is advocating for Water Shugenjas, but the Shugenja Handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4367.0) agrees that this is a trap, so whoever is using that probably hasn't read it. Earth and Air are the best options because they (a) each have a lot of buffs and utility between them and (b) allow you to both blast with fire and heal with water since you haven't banned either of them.

The handbook also recommends picking an Order that doesn't actually match your element. This may not strictly have been intended, but as long as the order isn't full of banned spells, it usually helps you diversify your spell list.

Marlowe

2015-05-24, 08:52 AM

Oh, no-ones actually advocated playing Water Shugenja. It's more that every single mention of the class on these boards based on playing experience has obviously been based on somebody playing just that.

Air is a powerful element. The only reason I listed it as weaker than Fire and Earth is that it has a harder time getting into good PrCs.

My (low-level) experience with a Shugenja was based on going Fire with a lot of Air spells on the side. I spent a lot of my time making Knowledge Checks (I was the only member of the party to get all Knowledge skills), using illusions to flush out enemy ambushes and taking care of myself in combat with low-level fire and electricity attacks. I could have done much the same thing with a low-op sorceror, but it wouldn't have been as fun.

Taveena

2015-05-24, 09:19 AM

IIRC Water Shugenja is recommended not because the Water spells are good, but because you lose neither Air nor Earth spells and Water has slightly more utility than Fire? I could be wrong there.

EDIT: I was totally wrong. Water is less useful than fire. Why would you play Water.

SimonMoon6

2015-05-24, 10:26 AM

Pluto!

2015-05-24, 10:49 AM

Water Shugenja misses out on divine Lightning Bolt, the single most important spell on the Shugenja spell list.

ericgrau

2015-05-24, 11:18 AM

I was disappointed with Master of Many Forms. I've always wanted a character who specializes in shape-changing abilities. But the problem is that it's *really* hard to justify giving up full-casting just to be good at this one thing, when I could be a druid or wizard instead and be good at *everything*.

In the opposite direction is Planar Shepherd. I'd love to have a character who can transform into outsider forms (which I think even the so-called Master of many forms can't do), but Planar Shepherd has so many other tricks (including giving up none of their druidic abilities) that it's so clearly broken that I can't imagine anyone ever letting me play a planar shepherd (unless they have no clue what they're doing).

The one big advantage I found in MoMF is to get the extraordinary special qualities of the form. But there's a 4th level druid spell for that, enhance wildshape. Otherwise it's a permanent polymorph or PAO. I suppose if you don't have both a wizard and a druid in the party then the combo is a small advantage. Now you can get the extraordinary special qualities of forms that a normal druid can't usually take. A fairly large portion of this guide is devoted to extraordinary special qualities: http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1060931

Other than that it does gain next to nothing and I can see the difficulty of accomplishing anything else useful with the class... the guide actually suggests leaving the PrC at level 7 after getting extraordinary special qualities and picking a different PrC that advances wildshape. I suppose it is also nice to effectively have polymorph and enhance wildshape on for 24 hours without any cheesy trick. Since you can change forms so rapidly, maybe what we need is a library of Ex abilities and those can act like your "spells" after your druid spells fall behind. Also it's cool fluff to rapidly change to a new form every round purely to use some special ability it has.

Blackhawk748

2015-05-24, 11:21 AM

Threadnaught

2015-05-24, 01:11 PM

The Arcane Archer PrC is one that annoys me. For one, racial prerequisites shouldn't exist.

Dwarven Defender.
Warforged Juggernaut.

Both are something with Racial prereqs. Dwarven Defender is something I was disappointed by, as I had hoped for defence to have an effect during combat.
Fighter I expected to, well, be a Warblade, before I read the Class.

Monk, Bard, Totemist, Incarnate, Crusader, Sword Sage, Warblade, Dread Necromancer, Factotum, the Psionic Classes (yes even Soulknife) and the Tier 1 Classes. These all have something to look forward to at every level, besides HP, Skill Points and Save progression.
Everything else I have experience with, I am disappointed by the lack of cool stuff. The playground may not like the Monk, but I don't like any of you guys either, except you Rudisplorker I got you a pogo stick.

I do dislike the lack of PrCs for Artificer that focus on boosting Artificer stuff, and the environment/weather based PrCs are either limited in number or abilities.

eggynack

2015-05-24, 04:37 PM

Most people i see go into it go in with Wildshape Ranger for this exact reason.
Yeah, druid entry probably yields a more powerful character, but the progression from ranger to MoMF feels a whole lot better.

ShurikVch

2015-05-24, 05:06 PM

YossarianLives

2015-05-24, 05:16 PM

Fighter's make me want to stab my eyes out with a pencil. Centuries of legends and stories written by humanity and so much potential for epicness. Yet it was handled so poorly.

General Sajaru

2015-05-24, 08:55 PM

I feel it's more like they never did much of anything to fighter since AD&D. It's a fighter; it hits stuff with its club and wears heavy armor. End of story.

atemu1234

2015-05-24, 09:40 PM

Scout, in particular. My dreams of playing Genghis Khan died the day WOTC decided to rule that a scout's mount's movement did not count for skirmish damage.

I will forever ignore this ruling.

FOREVER.

Blackhawk748

2015-05-24, 11:20 PM

I will forever ignore this ruling.

FOREVER.

What ruling are we talking about? :smalltongue: I actually know this is just my reaction to it.

squab

2015-05-25, 01:22 AM

Every one of them. I've got 2 house rules for the Factotum: Cunning Surge taking a swift action rather than a standard action is one of them. Resolving silliness (FAQ "answers" in conflict with actual rules being a big part of it) regarding the Factotum, without adding any house rules, requires many additional paragraphs of citations.

They're citations of actual game text. Some people are content to do a lot of squinting and hand-waving when it comes to D&D rules, but I don't work that way. I take things exactly as they are, and if necessary I add house rules. Monks really aren't proficient with their unarmed strikes. That's silly, but it's the RAW; so another house rule.

You... you aren't following your rules interpretation (or RAW) if you house rule it. Besides, what effective difference is there between "RAW looks like monks aren't proficient with their unarmed strikes but that's stupid so I'm gonna assume the rules says they are" and "RAW says monks aren't proficient with their unarmed strike but that's stupid so I'm just gonna add a house rule that says they are." Both examples are a person noticing that RAW says monks aren't proficient with unarmed strike but ruling that they are.

Really, I just don't think lawyers should play D&D.

As for what disappoints me, I'm gonna say vancian magic and low level casters. In my experience, level 1 full casters really don't have a whole lot to do. Yay I can cast 3 effective spells! And there's still a dude left and 3 encounters to go and I can't do anything useful magic-wise until tomorrow. Instead of running around throwing fire at people all day, which is what I expected when I signed up to be a wizard.

(Yes I'm aware of things like sleep, but they could pass their saves or not all be in range or I don't have enough spell slots for 4 encounters or I just didn't prepare sleep because there should be more then one effective first level spell at first level. I'm also aware that you can do stupid things with templates and make broken level 1 wizards.)

Curmudgeon

2015-05-25, 02:19 AM

You... you aren't following your rules interpretation (or RAW) if you house rule it.
The difference is I acknowledge the actual rules and follow them nearly always. When I don't follow them it's because I've got a written house rule instead. That means there's no reliance on expectation from someone else's game where the differences between RAW and actual play aren't explicit; you always know that there's a written rule to follow in my game.

Many players attempt to expand the power of spells beyond what's written in their descriptions. For instance, they'll claim that "one solid object" could refer to anything that's neither liquid nor gas for Shatter. That's nonsense, because that Target line is equated in the spell description to a "brittle, nonmagical object". So a "solid" target for Shatter must be "brittle". That requires no house rule — just attention to detail.

I could let someone play a Factotum with Cunning Surge working exactly as stated (i.e., completely failing to work). I chose to add a house rule (activate it as a swift action) instead. That's not the only possibility, of course; I've seen other DMs make Cunning Surge a move action or a free action. I've also seen players bring a Factotum into a game and have their expectation of using Cunning Surge as a free action fail because they'd already used up the move action that the DM required. Having an expectation is different from having a written rule. Written rules avoid in-game disappointment.

lsfreak

2015-05-25, 02:24 AM

As for what disappoints me, I'm gonna say vancian magic and low level casters. In my experience, level 1 full casters really don't have a whole lot to do. Yay I can cast 3 effective spells! And there's still a dude left and 3 encounters to go and I can't do anything useful magic-wise until tomorrow. Instead of running around throwing fire at people all day, which is what I expected when I signed up to be a wizard.

To a great extent this is a problem endemic to 3.5. It's probably what bothers me most, moreso than rampant balance issues and the poor editing that enables some(many) of them. If you start at low levels, you don't have much to do. Period. Across every class. Either you can do a lot during the day, but it's from the same tiny subset of abilities day after day (warlocks, ToB), or you can do a lot of different things, but you're dry after just a few rounds (clerics, druids), or you're even worse off than that (barbarians have a single 1/day ability that's just a numbers boost, shadowcasters have a single spell/level/day, rogues don't even getactivated abilities). As a rough example, I would considering quadrupling a sorcerer's spells known, using twice their normal spells known as those available for the day (chosen on the fly per erudite casting), and giving a flat +3 spells/day of each level to make sorcerer tolerable in low/low-mid-level play. Barbarians, rogues, and a lot of others would require complete rewrites, though, because they don't really even have a framework to build off of.

Marlowe

2015-05-25, 02:33 AM

I take it you never played a 1st level wizard in AD&D if you think being a low-level caster in 3.5 is bad.:smallbiggrin:

Milo v3

2015-05-25, 02:34 AM

Many players attempt to expand the power of spells beyond what's written in their descriptions. For instance, they'll claim that "one solid object" could refer to anything that's neither liquid nor gas for Shatter. That's nonsense, because that Target line is equated in the spell description to a "brittle, nonmagical object". So a "solid" target for Shatter must be "brittle". That requires no house rule — just attention to detail.
Actually, it does mean solid when it says solid. The brittle bit is for the spread. You're houseruling.

Shatter creates a loud, ringing noise that breaks brittle, nonmagical objects; sunders a single solid, nonmagical object; or damages a crystalline creature.
Those are three seperate functions. The brittle objects bit is seperate to the solid object bit.

nedz

2015-05-25, 03:05 AM

I feel it's more like they never did much of anything to fighter since AD&D. It's a fighter; it hits stuff with its club and wears heavy armor. End of story.
It always was a dull class to play, but in AD&D many of it's abilities were ring fenced. In 3.5 those signature abilities became feats which anyone could take. They kind of did the same thing with Thieves and the skill system, but never with spells. You cannot just take a feat, or spend a few skill points, to acquire spellcasting.

I take it you never played a 1st level wizard in AD&D if you think being a low-level caster in 3.5 is bad.:smallbiggrin:

Many of the changes to spellcasters which were done to make low level casters more useful also had the effect of making high level ones much more useful.

Socratov

2015-05-25, 04:03 AM

Actually, it does mean solid when it says solid. The brittle bit is for the spread. You're houseruling.

Those are three seperate functions. The brittle objects bit is seperate to the solid object bit.

and apparently bone is not on the list of solid objects, brittle or not...

Milo v3

2015-05-25, 04:08 AM

and apparently bone is not on the list of solid objects, brittle or not...

What? Where is bone mentioned?

Socratov

2015-05-25, 06:05 AM

well, IIRC skeletons don't take damage from shatter, even though they actually should

Spore

2015-05-25, 06:14 AM

Most "multiclassing" prestige classes. They're always terrible in comparison to the AD&D counterparts of multiclassing. They either loose too much casting power: Particularly the Mystic Theurge, a MT is behind two SPELL levels in on both sides while a dual classed Wizard/Cleric in AD&D is behind one spell level (which is still a hefty amount if you think about how they reverse gestalt you picking the worse etw0, making it unable to wear armor and don't let you pick a wizard specialization or provide domains.

I'd love to have a MT basic class that ignores domains or specialist schools in favor of dual casting. It would even be fine if the casting was capped at 7th level.

Milo v3

2015-05-25, 06:17 AM

well, IIRC skeletons don't take damage from shatter, even though they actually should

Maybe in an old edition, but I've never seen that in 3.5e. Though, you would have to target individual bones unless they are brittle.

dextercorvia

2015-05-25, 08:45 AM

I take it you never played a 1st level wizard in AD&D if you think being a low-level caster in 3.5 is bad.:smallbiggrin:

Quoted for so much truth. A moderately optimized wizard* gets one 1st level slot per encounter in the average day in 3.5.

In 2ed, if a wizard had bonus spells available, you needed a 19+ to get even 1. So you either got 1 (generalist) or 2(specialist) 1st level spells. Oh, and cantrips were not 0 level spells during 2e. So, you had 2 spells until useless, but there was no expectation of a 4 encounter day. We often slogged through 6 or more with nothing but a staff or dagger (no Xbow proficiency) saving our precious spell until we thought it might make a difference.

*moderate here is defined as getting a +2 Int race for a 20, or taking one of the options like Focused Specialist that gets 2 extra spells per day.

Chronos

2015-05-25, 08:55 AM

Bone is solid, but a skeleton (at least the animated undead kind) is not an object, it's a creature. And creatures are only affected by Shatter if they're crystalline, which skeletons are not.

Marlowe

2015-05-25, 09:02 AM

Quoted for so much truth. A moderately optimized wizard* gets one 1st level slot per encounter in the average day in 3.5.

In 2ed, if a wizard had bonus spells available, you needed a 19+ to get even 1. So you either got 1 (generalist) or 2(specialist) 1st level spells. Oh, and cantrips were not 0 level spells during 2e. So, you had 2 spells until useless, but there was no expectation of a 4 encounter day. We often slogged through 6 or more with nothing but a staff or dagger (no Xbow proficiency) saving our precious spell until we thought it might make a difference.

*moderate here is defined as getting a +2 Int race for a 20, or taking one of the options like Focused Specialist that gets 2 extra spells per day.

Also, Con didn't help your hit points, and Dex didn't help your AC or your attack rolls. So you'd have about 3 hit points and AC 10. Oh, and no battle grid, so if the DM wanted to say "All the Orcs attack the wizard", they could and would.

SimonMoon6

2015-05-25, 09:10 AM

And, at least in first edition, your class had the dorky name of "magic-user" instead of the cool name of "wizard".

Spore

2015-05-25, 09:17 AM

Bone is solid, but a skeleton (at least the animated undead kind) is not an object, it's a creature. And creatures are only affected by Shatter if they're crystalline, which skeletons are not.

But undead are immune to Fort saves unless it can target objects. Which brings the interpretation of undead as animated objects closer to the gaming reality.

dextercorvia

2015-05-25, 09:38 AM

And, at least in first edition, your class had the dorky name of "magic-user" instead of the cool name of "wizard".

I believe it was 'mage' in 2e.

Lvl45DM!

2015-05-25, 09:43 AM

Also, Con didn't help your hit points, and Dex didn't help your AC or your attack rolls. So you'd have about 3 hit points and AC 10. Oh, and no battle grid, so if the DM wanted to say "All the Orcs attack the wizard", they could and would.
Con gave up to a +2 bonus and dex gave up to a -4 bonus :smallconfused:

Gnaeus

2015-05-25, 09:51 AM

The one big advantage I found in MoMF is to get the extraordinary special qualities of the form. But there's a 4th level druid spell for that, enhance wildshape. Otherwise it's a permanent polymorph or PAO. I suppose if you don't have both a wizard and a druid in the party then the combo is a small advantage. Now you can get the extraordinary special qualities of forms that a normal druid can't usually take. A fairly large portion of this guide is devoted to extraordinary special qualities: http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1060931

Other than that it does gain next to nothing and I can see the difficulty of accomplishing anything else useful with the class... the guide actually suggests leaving the PrC at level 7 after getting extraordinary special qualities and picking a different PrC that advances wildshape. I suppose it is also nice to effectively have polymorph and enhance wildshape on for 24 hours without any cheesy trick. Since you can change forms so rapidly, maybe what we need is a library of Ex abilities and those can act like your "spells" after your druid spells fall behind. Also it's cool fluff to rapidly change to a new form every round purely to use some special ability it has.

It's actually worse than that. It takes 2 feats to enter. I can take Dragon Shape and either Aberration or Frozen Wild shape, get most of the best parts of MOMF, and get some nice wild shape tricks they lack, like the dragon's SU abilities.

Gnaeus

2015-05-25, 09:54 AM

Con gave up to a +2 bonus and dex gave up to a -4 bonus :smallconfused:

Yeah, it's Monk that couldn't get an AC bonus from dex. Creating the problem that the unarmored wizard had a better AC than a monk and would beat him up with his staff. Poor monk.

Agincourt

2015-05-25, 12:11 PM

Really, I just don't think lawyers should play D&D.

I assume you mean rules lawyers and not literal lawyers. Nonetheless, I'm going to take a moment and defend the standard lawyers. A lawyer is accustomed to deference to a judge (DM). Also, no matter how clear a law or precedent appears to the lawyer, there is always the chance that a judge disagrees with you. As a lawyer, you have to move on. Your goal is to win the case. You can seethe about a bogus ruling or you can move on and focus on the ultimate goal.

And sometimes, as a lawyer, even the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. You have to accept that there is more than one way to interpret words, which do not have the precision of mathematics, and figure out how to win your cases anyway.

Urpriest

2015-05-25, 12:25 PM

I assume you mean rules lawyers and not literal lawyers. Nonetheless, I'm going to take a moment and defend the standard lawyers. A lawyer is accustomed to deference to a judge (DM). Also, no matter how clear a law or precedent appears to the lawyer, there is always the chance that a judge disagrees with you. As a lawyer, you have to move on. Your goal is to win the case. You can seethe about a bogus ruling or you can move on and focus on the ultimate goal.

And sometimes, as a lawyer, even the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. You have to accept that there is more than one way to interpret words, which do not have the precision of mathematics, and figure out how to win your cases anyway.

Note that Tippy's group famously contains at least one lawyer.

Agincourt

2015-05-25, 12:34 PM

Note that Tippy's group famously contains at least one lawyer.

And therefore, what?

YossarianLives

2015-05-25, 12:40 PM

To a great extent this is a problem endemic to 3.5. It's probably what bothers me most, moreso than rampant balance issues and the poor editing that enables some(many) of them. If you start at low levels, you don't have much to do. Period. Across every class. Either you can do a lot during the day, but it's from the same tiny subset of abilities day after day (warlocks, ToB), or you can do a lot of different things, but you're dry after just a few rounds (clerics, druids), or you're even worse off than that (barbarians have a single 1/day ability that's just a numbers boost, shadowcasters have a single spell/level/day, rogues don't even getactivated abilities). As a rough example, I would considering quadrupling a sorcerer's spells known, using twice their normal spells known as those available for the day (chosen on the fly per erudite casting), and giving a flat +3 spells/day of each level to make sorcerer tolerable in low/low-mid-level play. Barbarians, rogues, and a lot of others would require complete rewrites, though, because they don't really even have a framework to build off of.
Yes, casters sure do need a buff in 3.x.

squab

2015-05-25, 01:06 PM

Yes, casters sure do need a buff in 3.x.

No, they need their power to increase linearly. And probably completely revise the spellbook while we're at it, lower the level of some spells, raise the levels of others, and some just remove.

As for my lawyer comment, it's more that completely following the letter of the law in rulebooks generally leads to some bad or silly things.

Honest Tiefling

2015-05-25, 01:09 PM

Yes, casters sure do need a buff in 3.x.

Actually, I don't think the fact that the class goes from 'Crap' to 'God-King of the Universe' really makes anything better. If anything, it makes some newer DMs assume casters suck and try to favor them because of early experiences.

Seerow

2015-05-25, 01:16 PM

Actually, I don't think the fact that the class goes from 'Crap' to 'God-King of the Universe' really makes anything better. If anything, it makes some newer DMs assume casters suck and try to favor them because of early experiences.

I once had a DM whose solution to the 5 minute workday was to give casters more spells per day. Specifically, any spell you prepared you could cast a number of times equal to the spell's spell level before the spell slot was lost.

Yeah think about that for a few minutes and marvel at how awful some people can be at 'fixing' mechanics.

Vhaidara

2015-05-25, 01:23 PM

I once had a DM whose solution to the 5 minute workday was to give casters more spells per day. Specifically, any spell you prepared you could cast a number of times equal to the spell's spell level before the spell slot was lost.

Yeah think about that for a few minutes and marvel at how awful some people can be at 'fixing' mechanics.

Wait, if I'm reading that right, it does nothing until you get second level spells, at which point you double the slots. Then you triple thirds, and so on.

Seerow

2015-05-25, 01:31 PM

Wait, if I'm reading that right, it does nothing until you get second level spells, at which point you double the slots. Then you triple thirds, and so on.

Yep, you're reading that right.

Edit: This was also the same DM who during the transition from 2e to 3e didn't quite understand the difference between a feat and a skill, since he was used to non-weapon-proficiencies, but still insisted on houseruling everything. Which led to really weird stuff like 1 feat cost 1 skill point (and thus the Fighter had fewer feats than just about anyone in the game), being able to take multiple ranks in a feat to improve its benefits, and custom skills/feats (most notably was "Trains of Thought", which for every rank you took you gained an extra full round action every round, but that extra action could not use your body in any way. So a caster preparing silent/still spells was legit getting 20-40 spells per round at high levels, and had the spell slots to back it up).

Oh and none of his houserules were ever actually written down, so anything on your character sheet could mean something totally different from one session to the next. One player's favorite minigame was convincing the DM that he had ruled in a certain way in a previous session (whether he actually had or not) to be able to pull off some stupidly ridiculous stunt.

The game was interesting for no other reason than a brilliant example of what not to do while homebrewing.

Vhaidara

2015-05-25, 01:33 PM

http://i.imgur.com/fnXx9DX.jpg

Seerow

2015-05-25, 01:37 PM

Check the edit if you want more facepalmery. I really wish I had kept a campaign log while playing with this DM, it was an even mix of frustrating and insane back then, but today it would be pretty hilarious to read through.

Honest Tiefling

2015-05-25, 01:41 PM

I was going to say that you sorta proved my point, but ah...I don't think he was very good at houseruling so nevermind.

Oh, and here's another one to add to the old pile: Assassin. I don't really know why I cannot make a good aligned assassin, and I am not terribly fond of prestige classes with their own spellcasting. Death attack is very much an NPC ability.

lsfreak

2015-05-25, 01:48 PM

Yes, casters sure do need a buff in 3.x.

They do, really, along with everything else. Not a buff in terms of raw power, but a buff in terms of available actions. I find the options are staggeringly dull if you're starting at 1st level unless your DM speeds up progression, and heaven forbid you'd prefer to go the other direction and slow it down. I'm not saying the amount of spells casters get should be increased without considering carefully what other classes get, or without taking into consideration changes to spells to balance them out (both those on the low end and the high). I was also careful with my wording, such a blanket increase in spells available isn't appropriate for games that progress beyond low/low-mid levels and much more nuanced changes would be needed. For some other examples, binders need to be able to switch vestiges multiple times other than a 1/day feat, ToB classes need an increase to known and available maneuvers just as spellcasters, and both need a (significantly) larger number of vestiges/maneuvers to choose from. Paladins needs encounter-available smite with rider effects, significantly more spells starting from 1st level, and probably some other additions; PF's rage powers are a good starting point for barbarian but need to change from predominantly passive effects to 1/rage or always-available-to-activate abilities and the speed at which they're gained needs to be doubled or tripled. The default combat maneuvers need to be worth using for any (martial) character without needing significant investment, too; if they were actually functional that alone would go a long way towards making martial characters more interesting to play.

Like I said, I think this problem is endemic to 3.5, not something limited to particular classes.

Story

2015-05-25, 01:58 PM

Binders can change vestiges an extra time per day with a Vestige Phylactery (15k). Admittedly the cost means that you can't get it until mid to high levels.

NomGarret

2015-05-25, 02:31 PM

By that token, Binders need an extra vestige at level 1, maybe 2. If so many cool tricks have a recharge, let me cycle between them.

YossarianLives

2015-05-25, 02:38 PM

snop
I see your point but since casters are just so incredibly powerful in 3.5 I'm very reluctant to do anything to buff them, even if I'm houseruling other classes to make them better and I think the RAW mechanics for casters are broken and stupid.

PairO'Dice Lost

2015-05-25, 03:56 PM

Death attack is very much an NPC ability.

I disagree. It may not be a combat-time ability, but it's certainly useful for PCs in any instance where the party ambushes their enemies or at least can see them beforehand (such as having flying enemies approaching from the distance while the assassin is hidden), which can be quite frequently depending on party composition and general tactics. It could certainly stand to see an enhancement at higher levels to allow it to be used when the target knows the assassin is an enemy, so it could be used to turn the tables on pursuers, used multiple times against the same target in longer combats, and so forth, but it's not strictly necessary.

I find the options are staggeringly dull if you're starting at 1st level

Class-based options, yes, but that's because the low levels are the "normal people and animals with a few handy tricks" tier. You don't need to rage in every encounter when one or two plain ol' two handed weapon attacks will be lethal to most things you'll face, you don't need a bunch of long-duration buffs to protect you from ambushes when special senses and movement modes don't come online for a while, you don't need a lot of slots for blasting spells when HP inflation from high Con hasn't kicked in and a single burning hands or shocking grasp is still fairly effective, and so forth. The intention is, and has been since 1e, for players to use their mundane gear, their environment and positioning, and their creativity to explore dungeons, make allies, and win fights at low levels, with class features serving as limited-use abilities to get past certain obstacles or overcome particularly difficult challenges; everything is about using tactics effectively to survive. Not to mention that only having 1 rage/combat spell/smite/music/etc. per day at the early levels isn't a problem when you're probably only going to have one combat encounter per day, since a single 1d6 goblin attack can seriously mess up your 6 average HP wizard and three of them can put a crimp in the plans of your 12 average HP fighter, so a handful of cantrips/orisons and skills for out of combat use is perfectly serviceable.

And then this phases out in the low-mid levels (5-8) in favor of a setup where mundane gear and environments are helpful but not dominant in comparison to class features and multiple encounters per day without serious risk of death are a possibility, and thinking about strategy becomes important along with the tactical side of things. That then phases out in the mid levels (9-12) in favor of a setup where everyone slowly stops caring about encumbrance or high-ground bonuses because magical gear and class features are more effective, and strategy becomes more important than tactics when running out of rations isn't a problem anymore, pretty much everyone is flying most of the time, and controlling the pace and location of engagements is more important than ever. In the mid-high levels (13-16) logistics begins to replace strategy, as plot concerns start involving nations rather than towns, the casters can teleport all over the place and martial types can run cross-country between cities, and class features become a binary matter: either you have the thingy that lets you get to X in time/avoid getting killed by Y/find out Z or you don't, too bad. At the highest levels, logistics rules everything: if you want an army and/or stronghold, you have them; if you need money or certain gear, you can get them; if you want to be somewhere in the multiverse, you can go there.

The changes you proposed making would remove this progression of foci as you level, which I argue is not at all a good idea; if you don't like the playstyle in a particular level range, just don't play there. Except when introducing the game to new players who need the tutorial, I haven't run a game that started below 6th level in years, because I (and most of my groups) prefer more strategic play, whereas the other DM in my current group likes keeping things in the 1-9 range because he doesn't want mundane concerns to ever stop mattering. Drastically increasing spells per day, making smites and rages spammable, and so forth removes the resource management that's a big part of D&D; it's only starting in 3e that people started to think that you need to use cast a spell (or multiple spells) every single round to contribute, when in fact casting fewer spells more judiciously can have a bigger impact.

Binders need to be able to rebind vestiges frequently only if you view not having the right vestige for every encounter as a bad thing, rather than as a tradeoff for making the decision "I'm going to turn myself into a skirmisher today with Andras and Paimon, and if socializing with Naberius and Dantalion or stealth with Malphas and Marchosias would've been better, oh well" just like Vancian casters have to make tradeoffs in their spell prep. Paladins need a lot more spells per day only if you view them as clerics with a stunted spell progression, rather than as warriors who have some spells for self-buffs and whose primary differentiating features should be their smites and their mount. Some of your points I certainly agree with--martial characters should get combat maneuver enhancements out of the box, ToB characters should have more discipline choices if they're going to be well-rounded martial characters instead of backported-4e-playtest experiments, barbarians need to have more round-by-round choices to make them more interesting to play for those players who like that--but what you view as an "endemic problem" in 3e is simply a clash of desired playstyles.

By that token, Binders need an extra vestige at level 1, maybe 2. If so many cool tricks have a recharge, let me cycle between them.

The problems here, I think, are that (A) the designers overestimated the average combat length, expecting binders to be able to use each ability 2 or 3 times when in fact they only get them once or maybe twice per combat most of the time at lower levels, and (B) vestiges have too high of a passive-ability-to-active-ability ratio in general, with many having just one active ability and that ability having a recharge. Dropping the recharge to every 3 rounds and ensuring that every vestige has at least one recharge and one at-will active ability, at least one of which is usable in combat (I'm looking at you, Andras, Eurynome, Haagenti, Ipos...) would go a long way towards making each vestige more interesting to use.

Seerow

2015-05-25, 04:42 PM

The problems here, I think, are that (A) the designers overestimated the average combat length, expecting binders to be able to use each ability 2 or 3 times when in fact they only get them once or maybe twice per combat most of the time at lower levels, and (B) vestiges have too high of a passive-ability-to-active-ability ratio in general, with many having just one active ability and that ability having a recharge. Dropping the recharge to every 3 rounds and ensuring that every vestige has at least one recharge and one at-will active ability, at least one of which is usable in combat (I'm looking at you, Andras, Eurynome, Haagenti, Ipos...) would go a long way towards making each vestige more interesting to use.

While this would work, I'd rather have the higher variety of ability use than have the abilities you do have used more often. NomGarret suggesting an extra Vestige at level 1 is something I agree with, though giving each vestige a second active cooldown ability is another possibility. Either way I wouldn't want to see the cooldown go below 4 rounds. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a class ability that lets you reset cooldowns on a vestige ability X times per day, so you can mix stuff up occasionally.

ShurikVch

2015-05-25, 04:58 PM

I don't really know why I cannot make a good aligned assassinI think it's because
Special

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.Still, there is Avenger (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a), and Aleam Valassar, Paladin Assassin (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060609a)
Death attack is very much an NPC ability.Deathsight spell fix it a bit

PairO'Dice Lost

2015-05-25, 05:33 PM

While this would work, I'd rather have the higher variety of ability use than have the abilities you do have used more often. NomGarret suggesting an extra Vestige at level 1 is something I agree with, though giving each vestige a second active cooldown ability is another possibility. Either way I wouldn't want to see the cooldown go below 4 rounds. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a class ability that lets you reset cooldowns on a vestige ability X times per day, so you can mix stuff up occasionally.

Why wouldn't you want a shorter cooldown? Making everything usable at-will would certainly make the binder too warlock-y and inclined to spam abilities, but 3 rounds seems to be a nice sweet spot to keep switching things up while allowing them to be used frequently enough: crusaders can recharge maneuvers every 3rd round with Extra Granted Maneuver and dragon breath weapons recharge every 2.5 rounds on average, and they don't seem to be too repetitive.

As for the variety vs. repetition question, I suggested both in conjunction, not one or the other. Each vestige is theoretically supposed to make you good at one thing, whether archery or necromancy or skirmishing or whatever, so each vestige should give you more tools to feel like you're doing that one thing well...but if the cooldowns are too long, then binding multiple vestiges feels more like "This round I'm a charger, now this round I'm a skirmisher, now this round I'm a diplomancer, now this round I'm a scout..." than "Today I'm a mobile guy who can talk, scout, charge, or skirmish."

Chronos

2015-05-25, 05:40 PM

Functionally, most vestige abilities are 1/combat, but by putting them on an explicit cooldown, they avoid the arguments about when one combat ends and the next begins. I'm fine with that.

nedz

2015-05-25, 05:51 PM

Assassin. I don't really know why I cannot make a good aligned assassin, and I am not terribly fond of prestige classes with their own spellcasting. Death attack is very much an NPC ability.

Perform Evil act
Become Assassin
Heal turn
Redemption makes you good

Why wouldn't you want a shorter cooldown? Making everything usable at-will would certainly make the binder too warlock-y and inclined to spam abilities, but 3 rounds seems to be a nice sweet spot to keep switching things up while allowing them to be used frequently enough: crusaders can recharge maneuvers every 3rd round with Extra Granted Maneuver and dragon breath weapons recharge every 2.5 rounds on average, and they don't seem to be too repetitive.

As for the variety vs. repetition question, I suggested both in conjunction, not one or the other. Each vestige is theoretically supposed to make you good at one thing, whether archery or necromancy or skirmishing or whatever, so each vestige should give you more tools to feel like you're doing that one thing well...but if the cooldowns are too long, then binding multiple vestiges feels more like "This round I'm a charger, now this round I'm a skirmisher, now this round I'm a diplomancer, now this round I'm a scout..." than "Today I'm a mobile guy who can talk, scout, charge, or skirmish."
So special snowflake syndrome - player wants the character to be good at everything ever.:smallsigh:

PairO'Dice Lost

2015-05-25, 06:16 PM

Functionally, most vestige abilities are 1/combat, but by putting them on an explicit cooldown, they avoid the arguments about when one combat ends and the next begins. I'm fine with that.

The other way to avoid arguments about when combats end, of course, is to explicitly define it, like they did in ToB:

End of the Encounter: When an encounter ends, a martial adept automatically recovers all expended maneuvers. Even a few moments out of combat is sufficient to refresh all maneuvers expended in the previous battle. In the case of a long, drawn-out series of fights, or if an adept is out of combat entirely, assume that if a character makes no attacks of any kind, initiates no new maneuvers, and is not targeted by any enemy attacks for 1 full minute, he can recover all expended maneuvers. If a character can’t avoid attacking or being attacked for 1 minute, he can’t automatically recover his maneuvers and must use special actions to do so instead.

But all ambiguity about encounter lengths aside, none of the abilities the vestiges have are strong enough to be relegated to a 1/combat thing; most if not all could be at-will, if it weren't for the potential boredom issue (and the fact that they were explicitly trying out different resource management schemes in the late-3e books). I'd argue that 1/encounter abilities are less tactically engaging than recharged abilities, since once you use a 1/encounter ability it's gone and no longer under consideration, but recharged abilities let you keep a broader pool of possible actions in any given round and you need to consider the timing of them coming back in addition to the timing of when best to use them.

So special snowflake syndrome - player wants the character to be good at everything ever.:smallsigh:

I'm not sure how you got that out of my example, since in the default rules someone binding Amon, Paimon, Naberius, and Malphas already gets abilities relating to charging, skirmishing, diplomancing, and scouting. However, if you want to really be a mobile combatant, for instance, Paimon doesn't give you enough to do that for a whole combat; extra Dex, Tumble, and Uncanny Dodge are great for moving around a bit, but the Whirlwind Attack he gives you is incompatible with moving (just like the monk's Flurry of Blows vs. its speed boost) and once you've used your Dance of Death you have no other move-and-attack abilities like Spring Attack.

It feels fairly schizophrenic to use Invisibility to attack one round, then Dance of Death the next round, and then be out of active skirmishing stuff for 3 rounds and instead have the decidedly non-skirmish-y Persuasive Words and Fire Breath as your active options in combat--and that particular vestige combo is one of the more synergistic ones, since Ram Attack, Dance of Death, and Invisibility are all good for mobile combat; compare with Paimon/Buer/Savnok/Halphax, which makes you 1/4 rogue-y skirmisher, 1/4 cleric-y healer, 1/4 fighter-y tank, and 1/4 wizard-y battlefield controller. Giving a few more abilities to better synergize between vestiges and shortening cooldowns to give more options in any given round would make a binder feel like a more cohesive, almost multiclassed character rather than a random assemblage of ability packages.

Velaryon

2015-05-25, 11:43 PM

Ranger. I feel like it's one of the iconic character concepts, but falls flat mechanically when trying to build it without extensive use of multiclassing and alternate class features.

I agree with this. A lot of it is because both two-weapon fighting and archery both being extremely feat-intensive and underpowered combat styles, but it's more than that. They really should have gotten the stronger version of animal companions that druids get (if anything, give druids the weaker one). And they could use more spells/day as well.

Do You know about the Force Skills in Star Wars D20?

Ugh. Presumably you're referring to the version that came before Saga Edition? That system was broken in so many ways. Because of how Force powers were treated as skills, Force users had to invest so heavily into them that they basically couldn't have any other skills, and they also had to pick and choose just a few Force powers to be any good at. It sounded like a good idea on paper, but the execution was absolutely horrible.

Anyway, the classes that disappoint me:

Reaping Mauler springs to mind. What should've been an awesome grappling-based class turned out to be poorly thought out and actively makes them worse at the one thing they're trying to do. That's fixed easily enough with the simple house rule of making Improved Grapple a prerequisite and Clever Wrestling their 1st level ability, but even with that change it's still an underwhelming class whose entire fighting style is completely negated by a 4th level spell.

Several caster prestige classes that don't advance casting (or only halfway) definitely fall into this category as well. Mindbender is such a cool idea, but it gets treated as a one level dip because nobody wants to lose five levels of casting. As if tons of creatures having blanket immunity against their schtick wasn't bad enough. Acolyte of the Skin is another cool concept that no one is ever going to use because it loses too much casting.

I also feel the need to mention a couple of old 3.0 classes that never got updated to 3.5 here:

The Ghostwalker from Sword & Fist is basically custom-made to be a recurring villain, thanks to his Painful Reckoning ability. The fluff of the class is really cool, but it requires three garbage feats to get in and offers little in the way of combat features except for the aforementioned Painful Reckoning, and that's only good if you live through the first battle to fight another day. Abilities like Feign Death, Etherealness, and Shadow Walk are great for escaping, but not much good for actually battling with.

And then there's the Master of Chains, one of the most poorly designed classes I've ever seen, and such a waste of a cool idea. It requires six feats to get into, shutting out basically everyone but fighters (especially since Weapon Specialization is one of the feats), but it also requires 14 skill ranks, more than half of which are cross-class for fighters (and since I don't think fighters actually had Intimidate in 3.0, at the time they were all cross-class). If you manage to meet these insanely high requirements you get... basically nothing useful. You get to use one 4th level spell 1/day (as an Ex ability for some reason), a few trivial combat bonuses, a couple of new actions that are way inferior to full attacking, and your capstone is a 1st level spell that you can use a few times a day, based on your Charisma (because fighters are renowned for having good Charisma scores, right?) Such a cool idea, but such an abortion of a class.

lsfreak

2015-05-26, 12:12 AM

Class-based options, yes, but that's because the low levels are the "normal people and animals with a few handy tricks" tier.
I don't think "normal people and animals with a few handy tricks" is incompatible with having enough options that you're not doing basically the same thing round after round, encounter after encounter, day after day. At particularly low levels, this is largely true regardless of circumstances... when all you have is a hammer, etc (and to stretch the analogy, if all you have is a hammer but you're supposed to be painting a wall...). It's not that characters need the ability to do everything at low levels, but pure and simple if you're doing largely the same thing for a month of sessions it's not nearly as enjoyable as if you could mix things up a bit.

Venger

2015-05-26, 12:24 AM

I think it's becauseStill, there is Avenger (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a), and Aleam Valassar, Paladin Assassin (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060609a)Deathsight spell fix it a bit

don't forget slayer of domiel

Oh, and here's another one to add to the old pile: Assassin. I don't really know why I cannot make a good aligned assassin, and I am not terribly fond of prestige classes with their own spellcasting. Death attack is very much an NPC ability.

check out the death attack handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8273.0;msg=131157)

it's not too hard, but the problem is finding stuff that isn't immune at midhigh lvls.

or your DM could jut be reasonable and let you roll a Good assassin. this is D&D, just spend a couple buck and rez whoever you killed to get into the gang or nix the requirement since it does nothing mechanically.

squab

2015-05-26, 12:33 AM

I see your point but since casters are just so incredibly powerful in 3.5 I'm very reluctant to do anything to buff them, even if I'm houseruling other classes to make them better and I think the RAW mechanics for casters are broken and stupid.

Don't buff them without debuffing them in some areas. Wizards get double spells per day! And max out at learning 6th level spells! I'm not sure if this idea would work out in practice, but it's an example.

Class-based options, yes, but that's because the low levels are the "normal people and animals with a few handy tricks" tier. You don't need to rage in every encounter when one or two plain ol' two handed weapon attacks will be lethal to most things you'll face, you don't need a bunch of long-duration buffs to protect you from ambushes when special senses and movement modes don't come online for a while, you don't need a lot of slots for blasting spells when HP inflation from high Con hasn't kicked in and a single burning hands or shocking grasp is still fairly effective, and so forth. The intention is, and has been since 1e, for players to use their mundane gear, their environment and positioning, and their creativity to explore dungeons, make allies, and win fights at low levels, with class features serving as limited-use abilities to get past certain obstacles or overcome particularly difficult challenges; everything is about using tactics effectively to survive. Not to mention that only having 1 rage/combat spell/smite/music/etc. per day at the early levels isn't a problem when you're probably only going to have one combat encounter per day, since a single 1d6 goblin attack can seriously mess up your 6 average HP wizard and three of them can put a crimp in the plans of your 12 average HP fighter, so a handful of cantrips/orisons and skills for out of combat use is perfectly serviceable.

And then this phases out in the low-mid levels (5-8) in favor of a setup where mundane gear and environments are helpful but not dominant in comparison to class features and multiple encounters per day without serious risk of death are a possibility, and thinking about strategy becomes important along with the tactical side of things. That then phases out in the mid levels (9-12) in favor of a setup where everyone slowly stops caring about encumbrance or high-ground bonuses because magical gear and class features are more effective, and strategy becomes more important than tactics when running out of rations isn't a problem anymore, pretty much everyone is flying most of the time, and controlling the pace and location of engagements is more important than ever. In the mid-high levels (13-16) logistics begins to replace strategy, as plot concerns start involving nations rather than towns, the casters can teleport all over the place and martial types can run cross-country between cities, and class features become a binary matter: either you have the thingy that lets you get to X in time/avoid getting killed by Y/find out Z or you don't, too bad. At the highest levels, logistics rules everything: if you want an army and/or stronghold, you have them; if you need money or certain gear, you can get them; if you want to be somewhere in the multiverse, you can go there.

The changes you proposed making would remove this progression of foci as you level, which I argue is not at all a good idea; if you don't like the playstyle in a particular level range, just don't play there. Except when introducing the game to new players who need the tutorial, I haven't run a game that started below 6th level in years, because I (and most of my groups) prefer more strategic play, whereas the other DM in my current group likes keeping things in the 1-9 range because he doesn't want mundane concerns to ever stop mattering. Drastically increasing spells per day, making smites and rages spammable, and so forth removes the resource management that's a big part of D&D; it's only starting in 3e that people started to think that you need to use cast a spell (or multiple spells) every single round to contribute, when in fact casting fewer spells more judiciously can have a bigger impact.

Where are you getting all of this? Like, literally all of this? It sounds like a great way to make good use out of the different levels PCs have, but seriously where are you getting all of this?

Also as a new player without any knowledge of D&D, my expectations for a wizard is throwing around a fireball (well not an actual D&D fireball more like scorching ray) around as often as fighter swings his sword. Cantrips just don't cut it.

Venger

2015-05-26, 12:45 AM

Where are you getting all of this? Like, literally all of this? It sounds like a great way to make good use out of the different levels PCs have, but seriously where are you getting all of this?

Also as a new player without any knowledge of D&D, my expectations for a wizard is throwing around a fireball (well not an actual D&D fireball more like scorching ray) around as often as fighter swings his sword. Cantrips just don't cut it.

literally everything dice said is accurate. he got it from observation of actual games and participation in the same. the breakdown of functionality at the levels listed is indeed how resource management turns out in practical play. countless threads back these things up, as do all of our experiences playing the game.

you admit you're "a new player without any knowledge of D&D," so why not listen when someone with a lot more experience answers your questions? maybe your expectations aren't wholly accurate. dice said exactly that: after mid levels, spells are really not that rare, so they don't need to be made more plentiful. wizards and their ilk actually can throw around spells without worrying about running out at all but really low levels.

Marlowe

2015-05-26, 12:52 AM

PairO'Dice Lost

2015-05-26, 12:56 AM

I don't think "normal people and animals with a few handy tricks" is incompatible with having enough options that you're not doing basically the same thing round after round, encounter after encounter, day after day. At particularly low levels, this is largely true regardless of circumstances... when all you have is a hammer, etc (and to stretch the analogy, if all you have is a hammer but you're supposed to be painting a wall...). It's not that characters need the ability to do everything at low levels, but pure and simple if you're doing largely the same thing for a month of sessions it's not nearly as enjoyable as if you could mix things up a bit.

On the other hand, having a bunch of abilities at game start disincentivizes players from using the creative mundane tactics that are intended for those levels. People have complained for years that having lots of stuff on your sheet makes players more inclined to try to shoehorn some ability you have to fit the situation instead of trying other solutions, and we have firsthand evidence from 4e that starting people off at 1st level with two at-wills and an encounter ability means they'll practically never try anything aside from their powers because in the vast majority of cases using a power is strictly superior to not doing so (and the 4e DMG's bizarre insistence that using the environment creatively repeatedly/once per combat shouldn't give better results than using an at-will/encounter power doesn't help things at all).

Low levels are probably the time where it's most possible to "mix things up a bit," really. When the wizard is within +3ish points of attack bonus of the fighter, the cleric is within +5ish points of skill bonuses of the rogue, the fighter's skills are roughly as effective at overcoming obstacles as a cleric's spells, and the rogue's sneak attacks are roughly as lethal as a wizard's spells, going outside of one's specialty to mix things up is a lot more worthwhile than later on when capabilities diverge much more. If a group is getting bored with their characters after several sessions at those levels, the problem isn't necessarily a dearth of options, it could also be a dearth of creativity.

Venger

2015-05-26, 12:56 AM

I've often thought that the Rogue and the Ranger are the same class (that being "Gentlemen and Ladies that live by their wits, their reflexes, and knowledge of their environment"), that the only real difference is the trimmings, and that splitting them has created two overspecialised, underperforming classes that only stay useful by the DM being nice to them.

Really, I feel they should have combined them into one class with a combination of their best features. Call it the "Scout" or something. But it'll never catch on.

sorry, poe's law is slamming me pretty hard. I can't tell if you're talking about a class that actually combined the traits of ranger and rogue (that'd be cool!) or lamenting how badly the scout sucks (which I also agree with) scout is shambolic.

I'm going to put in another vote for incarnate. its list is embarrassing, it doesn't have enough essentia, and the existence of the wholly irredeemable soulborn means that it doesn't get BA, because when we introduce a batch of new classes, only one of them can get full BA (except the initiators, they're special)

Marlowe

2015-05-26, 01:14 AM

sorry, poe's law is slamming me pretty hard. I can't tell if you're talking about a class that actually combined the traits of ranger and rogue (that'd be cool!) or lamenting how badly the scout sucks (which I also agree with) scout is shambolic.

I'm going to put in another vote for incarnate. its list is embarrassing, it doesn't have enough essentia, and the existence of the wholly irredeemable soulborn means that it doesn't get BA, because when we introduce a batch of new classes, only one of them can get full BA (except the initiators, they're special)

I love the way they made the Chaotic Incarnate Avatar boost your Ranged Attack, then made the Chaotic Incarnate Weapon a Battleaxe. Awesome synergy there.:smallsmile:

Venger

2015-05-26, 01:18 AM

I love the way they made the Chaotic Incarnate Avatar boost your Ranged Attack, then made the Chaotic Incarnate Weapon a Battleaxe. Awesome synergy there.:smallsmile:

(weeping inconsolably)

honestly, for my money, it's go Evil or go home. they get access to all those sweet necrocarnum melds, all their bonuses are to melee damage, and their weapon's the flail. pretty great deal.

incarnate's interaction with alignment's all kinds of screwed up. they should all get access to all melds. good has access to two unique melds, evil has six, and law and chaos each have a whopping zero. great design there, guys.

Marlowe

2015-05-26, 01:38 AM

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/incarnate.jpg

Venger

2015-05-26, 01:43 AM

tiefling's racial incarnate sub levels are gorgeous. if only I didn't need the human feat so badly

Marlowe

2015-05-26, 01:58 AM

http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo121/Joncharlesspencer/incarnate2.jpg

Venger

2015-05-26, 02:06 AM

man, I love this episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh1CqCAc2fE)

Endarire

2015-05-26, 02:41 AM

Greetings, all!

SORCERERS

Every time I've tried playing one in 3.x, I felt gimped compared to a Wizard. I even wrote in the "Why Each Class Is In Its Tier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-%28Rescued-from-MinMax%29)" how the Wizard and Sorcerer compare - the Wizard more favorably. By far.

So, I made a fix.

I know it's homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?415704-D-amp-D-3-5-The-Fun-Powerful-Sorcerer-%28FPS%29-seeks-critique!). I wanted optimizers' opinions on how to break the Fun, Powerful Sorcerer (FPS) based on its class features. Yes, that's its official name, and, yes, this is a serious class unlike the Lightning Warrior. Yes, the FPS is powerful, and based on my comparisons, approximately as powerful as a Wizard/Incantatrix/Archmage of equal primary casting attribute (CHA for the FPS, INT for the Wizard). Yes, this FPS is meant to coexist in the same party and world as the other current classes, such as Wizard, Cleric, Archivist, Artificer, Psion, and Druid.

I've wanted to like Sorcerers since 3.0, maybe early 3.5. (I played a Human Sorcerer on DDO from level 1 to the then-level cap of 28. I tolerated it more than I wanted and liked it less than I wanted.) In their current form, even considering all official splat, the 3.5 Sorcerer's best ability is 'ahead of the curve' casting via White Dragonspawn, Dragonwrought, etc.

I go into much more detail in the intro tab of this revision document.

nedz

2015-05-26, 03:36 AM

I'm not sure how you got that out of my example, since in the default rules someone binding Amon, Paimon, Naberius, and Malphas already gets abilities relating to charging, skirmishing, diplomancing, and scouting. However, if you want to really be a mobile combatant, for instance, Paimon doesn't give you enough to do that for a whole combat; extra Dex, Tumble, and Uncanny Dodge are great for moving around a bit, but the Whirlwind Attack he gives you is incompatible with moving (just like the monk's Flurry of Blows vs. its speed boost) and once you've used your Dance of Death you have no other move-and-attack abilities like Spring Attack.

It feels fairly schizophrenic to use Invisibility to attack one round, then Dance of Death the next round, and then be out of active skirmishing stuff for 3 rounds and instead have the decidedly non-skirmish-y Persuasive Words and Fire Breath as your active options in combat--and that particular vestige combo is one of the more synergistic ones, since Ram Attack, Dance of Death, and Invisibility are all good for mobile combat; compare with Paimon/Buer/Savnok/Halphax, which makes you 1/4 rogue-y skirmisher, 1/4 cleric-y healer, 1/4 fighter-y tank, and 1/4 wizard-y battlefield controller. Giving a few more abilities to better synergize between vestiges and shortening cooldowns to give more options in any given round would make a binder feel like a more cohesive, almost multiclassed character rather than a random assemblage of ability packages.
Sorry, my comments were more a summary of NomGarrett's position.

Greetings, all!

SORCERERS

Every time I've tried playing one in 3.x, I felt gimped compared to a Wizard. I even wrote in the "Why Each Class Is In Its Tier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-%28Rescued-from-MinMax%29)" how the Wizard and Sorcerer compare - the Wizard more favorably. By far.

So, I made a fix.

I know it's homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?415704-D-amp-D-3-5-The-Fun-Powerful-Sorcerer-%28FPS%29-seeks-critique!). I wanted optimizers' opinions on how to break the Fun, Powerful Sorcerer (FPS) based on its class features. Yes, that's its official name, and, yes, this is a serious class unlike the Lightning Warrior. Yes, the FPS is powerful, and based on my comparisons, approximately as powerful as a Wizard/Incantatrix/Archmage of equal primary casting attribute (CHA for the FPS, INT for the Wizard). Yes, this FPS is meant to coexist in the same party and world as the other current classes, such as Wizard, Cleric, Archivist, Artificer, Psion, and Druid.

I've wanted to like Sorcerers since 3.0, maybe early 3.5. (I played a Human Sorcerer on DDO from level 1 to the then-level cap of 28. I tolerated it more than I wanted and liked it less than I wanted.) In their current form, even considering all official splat, the 3.5 Sorcerer's best ability is 'ahead of the curve' casting via White Dragonspawn, Dragonwrought, etc.

I go into much more detail in the intro tab of this revision document.
My solution was to ban Wizard :smallamused:
And all other T1's for that matter.
Sorcerer doesn't look too bad if you do that.

Banjoman42

2015-05-26, 06:32 AM

I know it's 3.0, but I haven't seen anyone mention it yet.

The 3.0 psion.

It was the first rule book I bought after the Core ones, and I was so exited.

*cries*

ShurikVch

2015-05-26, 07:42 AM

SORCERERS

Every time I've tried playing one in 3.x, I felt gimped compared to a Wizard. I even wrote in the "Why Each Class Is In Its Tier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-%28Rescued-from-MinMax%29)" how the Wizard and Sorcerer compare - the Wizard more favorably. By far.Not everybody share that opinion:
[3.5] When is a Sorcerer better than a Wizard? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?324286-3-5-When-is-a-Sorcerer-better-than-a-Wizard)
Who is better, Optimized Wizard or Optimized Sorcerer? Yes, Sorcerer is a GOD. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?414050-Who-is-better-Optimized-Wizard-or-Optimized-Sorcerer-Yes-Sorcerer-is-a-GOD)

Komatik

2015-05-26, 07:44 AM

Binder, Warlock, Dragonfire Adept. Hey, flavorful casting that's maybe not broken ten ways to Sun-- I have to wait until eighth level to get more than one vestige or to know more than four spells period? Ah, I guess I'll roll that Druid then.

Everything ever that gives flight - races, Incarnum powers. It's always a hop, never actual flight, because real things are scary and everything that's not 1/day must SUCK.

Compulsory mention of every martial class ever, sans ToB.

Socratov

2015-05-26, 08:24 AM

Binder, Warlock, Dragonfire Adept. Hey, flavorful casting that's maybe not broken ten ways to Sun-- I get one vestige for eight levels or to know more than four spells period? Ah, I guess I'll roll that Druid then.

Everything ever that gives flight - races, Incarnum powers. It's always a hop, never actual flight, because real things are scary and everything that's not 1/day must SUCK.

Compulsory mention of every martial class ever, sans ToB.

Except that everyone of them, with a little knowhow and reading handbook to know what one's doing, can make for very freightening and effective characters. The soulknife just plain sucks, the Truenamer is only actually relevant form lvl 18 and upwards, the CW samurai can only do stuff with Never Outnumbered. The binder, at the start, can at least adapt to the stuff he is planning to do. In a city he is best off using Naberius for his social boosts. In a battle he can go for Paimon. Later he can combine them and be even awesomer. The warlock, while seriously constrained by the lacking number of invocations, can have decent abilites low level: how about an always on spider walk? Shatter at will? A ranged touch attack that at low level kills in one or two shots (especially with mortal bane feat). Then at lvl 6 you have charm at will (1 target at the time, but still) or animate dead at will. If you can't abuse that you aren't trying. Then at lvl 12 we get the end-all and be-all of the warlock's powers: Imbue Item. If you can't find a way to take this puppy to pound town you haven't read hte description. Adn then we have the dragon fire adept. The DFA is not a shappy invoker himself, and, as a bonus, gets a breathweaponwhich he gets to trick out in pretty much any way you can think of. On par with the warlock at battlefield control if the warlock chooses Chilled tentacles of spiked and forced intrusion. Can you say "no, you do not move!"? Sure, their effects are not as powerful as a T1 or T2 caster, but they both have 1 advantage over T1's which boils down to 2 words: all day, every day. No such thing as a 15 minute workday because the resources are endless. So unless you have a DM which accomodates the vancian casters by allowing for 8 hours of uniterrupted rest with a (couple of) hours to prepare for every encounter the warlock will show his strength soon enough. Fatigued? No problem. If you really want to create an implacable man (if you want to know what I mean here, go look it up at tvtropes, you have been warned): go for a warforged warlock or undead warlock Or something else that doesn't need to eat, sleep, rest, repair, or what have you.

The only reason they don't usually excell in DnD is because a DM rarely enforces the party going on instead of resting, allowing the the vancian casters to catch up and repeatedly let caster tell reality to sit down and shut up.

nedz

2015-05-26, 08:26 AM

Everything ever that gives flight - races, Incarnum powers. It's always a hop, never actual flight, because real things are scary and everything that's not 1/day must SUCK.
Half Fey - LA +2 = flight plus a bunch of SLAs and stat boosts
Also Warlock 6 etc.

elonin

2015-05-26, 09:00 AM

I'll vote Arcane Archer. First, the most thematic progression would lend to a ranger entry. Except that rangers are divine casters and thus don't meet the requirements for the class without that single sorcerer or wizard level. Worse still most if not all the features of this prc are cheaper to get by buying item properties.

hewhosaysfish

2015-05-26, 09:18 AM

It's often said on this forum that the first Commandment of optimising a spellcaster is "Thou shalt not give up caster levels". I wish I had known of this forum when I first started D&D because I learnt this lesson the hard way.

My first D&D character I created was a Sorceror. I had wanted to be a Wizard at first but the more experienced player helping me make the char steered me away from the prepared casters (and I think he was right to do so). I picked Magic Missile and Ray of Enfeeblement as my first level spells. As I levelled up I learned Glitterdust (which was awesome), Blindness/Deafness (which was redundant) and Lightning Bolt (because I thought it would be easier to avod friendly fire with that than withFireball).

I loved the 3.5 SRD because I was a student and poor and the SRD could give me all the core rules for free. And in the SRD I found the concept of Prestige Classes and a PrC which would gradually turn my Sorceror into a Dragon.

A DRAGON.

Ok, a half-dragon but never-the-less scaly-skinned, fire-breathing and winged.

Several adventures later, I had a Sorceror 6/Dragon Disciple 3 and I was wondering where it had all went wrong: The Cleric and the Wizard were casting 5th level spells in front of me while I had level 3s; the strength boost improved my claw/claw/bite from "very sucky" to "mostly sucky"; and I could only breath fire once per day.

I was still 2 levels of Sorc away from getting my 4th level spells and by then my friends would be casting level 6s. I was 6 levels of DD away from having wings. I considered taking levels of barbarian to turn myslef into some sort of Gish but even with my undeveloped understanding of character building I could see that it was too little, too late- my stats were all wrong for that I couldnt' repick enough spells.

I was a Dragon Disciple and I regretted it.

Komatik

2015-05-26, 09:18 AM

*SNIP*

The core point is: Very limited selection of abilities. Nothing else at all. The abilities are good enough, by and large, some even amazing. But being able to have only one vestige bound for seven levels and knowing a grand total of four spells for that same span - for half of which it's actually 1 or 2 - is just disappointing and dull. Magic is fun because you get a bunch of cool powers, bad because it breaks the game ten ways to Sunday with Core casting classes. These don't break the game but everything must still be starkly limited in amount AND of a lower power level than the real stuff because it's not 1/day.

Half Fey - LA +2 = flight plus a bunch of SLAs and stat boosts

Yeah, Half-Fey is a pleasant exception. LA still sucks though, all the cool races ever have LA.

Story

2015-05-26, 10:07 AM

Unseelie Fey potentially gives flight with no LA. You might get a book thrown at you though.

Socratov

2015-05-26, 10:33 AM

The core point is: Very limited selection of abilities. Nothing else at all. The abilities are good enough, by and large, some even amazing. But being able to have only one vestige bound for seven levels and knowing a grand total of four spells for that same span - for half of which it's actually 1 or 2 - is just disappointing and dull. Magic is fun because you get a bunch of cool powers, bad because it breaks the game ten ways to Sunday with Core casting classes. These don't break the game but everything must still be starkly limited in amount AND of a lower power level than the real stuff because it's not 1/day.[snip]

the one vestige is one at the same time. You can end a pact early, and yes you can bind another vestige, as long as you bind someone of the appropriate level. You can bind vestiges six ways to sunday, bu tonly 1 at a time until lvl 7 or 8 where you can bind 2 simultaneously. Still very versatile, still a great ability. But if you are going to compare every class that has a magic ability to T1 and 2 casters then you are going to have a bad time. I also think that the warlocka and DFA get more then just their invocations, without making the martial characters look like chumps along the way.

lonewulf

2015-05-26, 11:46 AM

Im not saying anything new here but my list is...

Warmage past level 8. In low level games a Warmage can be amazing...but then they suck unless you turn them into something that isnt a warmage.

Dragon Disciple prc. Awesome idea. Looks great at first glance but look again...cuz its a trap. A suckfest of a trap.

Vow of Poverty. I know its not an actual class but it simulates one. Looks like it would be great for a Monk but ITS A TRAP. This will ruin at least 75% of all classes. Psionic classes can handle it but only if you roll some great stats...makes you MAD as hell.

Monk. Not as bad as some say but fails to really deliver as a martial arts master.

Fighter. I still play them in low level games but feats alone are not enough. Some class features would go a long way towards fixing the fighter.

lsfreak

2015-05-26, 02:05 PM

the one vestige is one at the same time. You can end a pact early, and yes you can bind another vestige, as long as you bind someone of the appropriate level.

You can only do this 1/day and only if you have a feat. Otherwise you must have a particular vestige for a 24 hour period before you can change.

CrazyYanmega

2015-05-26, 07:41 PM

Alienest from Complete Arcane broke my heart recently. Gives you control of Pseudonatural creatures?! That will be AWESOME at epic levels! What's that fine print? "Doesn't... apply... to ELH... Pseudonaturals..." =.=

Well, fudge.

Also Zerth Cenobite. A monk prestige class revolved around stopping time?! YES WAY! You can only use the individual abilities once per day? ARGH! Why not let it upgrade to 3 times per day at higher levels?

Marlowe

2015-05-26, 07:47 PM

I'm going to put a vote in for Shadowcaster.

Fussy, overengineered, underdesigned, lacking in stamina and so finicky that you can't fix it easily without breaking something else about it. Even the unofficial fix that's been printed messes things up by breaking the order of bonus feats and creating yet another Mysteries/day pool you of which you have to keep track.

I had a post a while back about how to make a better Shadowcaster using classes that aren't the Shadowcaster. I think we came to the conclusion that you could take your pick, and that a Beguiler could make a better Shadowcaster just by not using half its spell list.

J-H

2015-05-26, 09:17 PM

Stonelord, from CW. Great flavor, but the abilities are pretty much all 1x/day. Class level/day for each would work better.

Socratov

2015-05-27, 07:40 AM

You can only do this 1/day and only if you have a feat. Otherwise you must have a particular vestige for a 24 hour period before you can change.

ok, and then still, you get to prepare yoruself for the coming day, if you get the feat, you can rewire the stuff you can do, allow for a bit of flexibility. The fighter and barbarian are still stuck with the same schtick ever. Same goes for Warlock who needs to get creative with what he can do.

Maxium

2015-05-27, 09:59 AM

I would have to say abjurant champion. Such and amazing prestige class on in book, horrid on the table.

Extra Anchovies

2015-05-27, 10:06 AM

I would have to say abjurant champion. Such and amazing prestige class on in book, horrid on the table.

I've never seen anyone select it for its class features. Only because it's full casting and full BAB.

Seerow

2015-05-27, 10:08 AM

I've never seen anyone select it for its class features. Only because it's full casting and full BAB.

Free quickened abjurations and big bonus to shield made it pretty attractive for a couple of players in my group at different times. Personally I try to avoid it when building a gish just because it has become such a standard.

SimonMoon6

2015-05-27, 12:23 PM

Actually, I don't think the fact that the class goes from 'Crap' to 'God-King of the Universe' really makes anything better. If anything, it makes some newer DMs assume casters suck and try to favor them because of early experiences.

My favorite experience was a 1e game which was supposedly set in an Arthurian setting. The rules for this setting were created by one guy, but he wanted to play in the setting, so he gave the rules to another guy to run for us. Both of them looked at the druid spell list and found it lacking. So, the first guy improved the druid spell list and then the second guy improved it even more.

And I was playing a druid (well, ranger/druid with rules from Dragon magazine, iirc). What neither of these two guys had realized was that druids (in 1e) got their high level spells a lot faster than other casters. So, pretty soon, my druid was casting fireballs all over the place (well, until he got some artifact wand thing that made pretty much everything else irrelevant).

Anachronity

2015-05-27, 12:50 PM

The pyromancer from Expanded Psionics Handbook. It's such a cool class, but who the guulvorg is supposed to take it???

8 ranks of concentration and a power point reserve as requirements, but the class punishes casters for taking it worse than a strict no-nonsense father figure punishes his son for ruining his stereo system (I'm sorry, dad!)

The easiest entry is rogue or factotum, but at 2+int skillpoints per level you're freezing your skills by doing so. Its abilities scale completely independently of any other class, so I'm left to assume it was intended for particularly high-level xeph commoners who want to get their zen on... and have set fire to a structure of any size just to watch it burn...

Even worse is the cryokineticist from frostburn. This time they made sure that you had to have manifester levels by throwing in a 2nd-level power as a requirement. As a reward for the harsher requirement you get a copy/pasted class with limited uses per day of powers that don't even scale with your level anymore! The only redeeming factor is your bizarre ability to create an unlimited number of ice walls at 9th level, which would be way more fun than just killing people with fire like the pyro does at 9th.

Nerd-o-rama

2015-05-27, 12:53 PM

Hexblade. Hexblade Hexblade Hexblade.

Also Paladins, but I'll never be satisfied with the implementation of Paladins so it doesn't really break me up anymore.

Flickerdart

2015-05-27, 12:55 PM

The pyromancer from Expanded Psionics Handbook. It's such a cool class, but who the guulvorg is supposed to take it???
The pyrokineticist is for people who want to make a fire whip and/or punch people with fire fists - melee combatants that got a PP reserve through a dip or Wild Talent. Even for them it's not spectacular, though; the 3.0 version, which granted a power progression, was better in that regard but worse in many others.

Forrestfire

2015-05-27, 01:40 PM

I would have to say abjurant champion. Such and amazing prestige class on in book, horrid on the table.

:smallconfused:

Are you looking at the same class I am? It's got full casting, full BAB, cool thematics, and incredibly useful class features. Free extends on lots of utility buffs like Anticipate Teleportation, Ray Deflection, Resist Energy, Alarm... Massive bonuses to AC when combined with (Greater) Luminous Armor and Shield, freeing up wealth for cooler things, or letting you buy a suit of armor without the high cost of mithral and then stock up on armor and shield enhancements, since your bonus is good already. Free quickens on many useful abjurations, giving a bit more versatility with stuff like Resist Energy (put it up when you know what color the dragon is or something, rather than before)...

Its 5th level ability is underwhelming for the standard entry, but the class itself is amazing. Combine it with 9 levels of Swiftblade and the result is everything I could want out of a gish. Every time I've played one, it's been incredibly fun and powerful.

ShurikVch

2015-05-27, 01:42 PM

Also Zerth Cenobite. A monk prestige class revolved around stopping time?! YES WAY! You can only use the individual abilities once per day? ARGH! Why not let it upgrade to 3 times per day at higher levels?To fix it, take all 10 levels in Dragon Disciple (Time Dragon) - you will get Time Stop at-will

The pyromancer from Expanded Psionics Handbook. It's such a cool class, but who the guulvorg is supposed to take it???
...
Even worse is the cryokineticist from frostburn.The old (3.0), but good PrC for Pyro/Cryo/... psionicists is Kineticist (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20030328b) - it have 7/10 psion manifesting progression

Venger

2015-05-27, 02:14 PM

I would have to say abjurant champion. Such and amazing prestige class on in book, horrid on the table.

abjchamp is a great class! what exactly happened to the player at your table who used it?

CrazyYanmega

2015-05-27, 02:19 PM

What the heck is a time dragon? Where can I find this awesome dragon that lets me Time Stop at WILL?!

Oh, and what's a dragon disciple?

Forrestfire

2015-05-27, 02:54 PM

The Time Dragon is an epic dragon from Dragon 359. As far as I know, there is no rules for how half-time dragons work. A Dragon Disciple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/dragonDisciple.htm) is a fairly bad prestige class from the Dungeon Master's Guide.

nedz

2015-05-27, 03:02 PM

The Time Dragon is an epic dragon from Dragon 359. As far as I know, there is no rules for how half-time dragons work.

They're probably covered in advertising.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-05-27, 03:04 PM

To fix it, take all 10 levels in Dragon Disciple (Time Dragon) - you will get Time Stop at-will
I fail to see where Dragon Disciple or half-dragon gives SLAs.

The old (3.0), but good PrC for Pyro/Cryo/... psionicists is Kineticist (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20030328b) - it have 7/10 psion manifesting progression

The updated Pyrokineticist is not too bad, mostly because Acetokineticist isn't commonly resisted and Sonokineticist can ignore hardness, allowing it to bust through objects efficiently (and all its dice dropping a step isn't a huge deal).

LoyalPaladin

2015-05-27, 03:06 PM

Also Paladins, but I'll never be satisfied with the implementation of Paladins so it doesn't really break me up anymore.
Words hurt, you know...

CrazyYanmega

2015-05-27, 03:57 PM

nedz

2015-05-27, 03:58 PM

Words hurt, you know...

Hmmm, maybe someone should make a class based around that concept ?

Jormengand

2015-05-27, 04:00 PM

Hmmm, maybe someone should make a class based around that concept ?

Bard. It's called the bard.

IT'S CALLED THE BARD DON'T QUESTION IT.

LoyalPaladin

2015-05-27, 04:02 PM

Hmmm, maybe someone should make a class based around that concept ?

Bard. It's called the bard.
I think the 4e Bard got an ability called "Cutting Words".

Forrestfire

2015-05-27, 04:03 PM

It's not a class, but the Ectopic Form line of feats recently broke my heart. They look so cool, and they have neat abilities that would synergize great with the menu options, but NOOOOOOO, you burn feats to nerf your constructs.

Can we just... Put Complete Psionics as a whole into this? Barring Soulbow and Ardent, that book seems like it's better-off being attributed to a strange nightmare about D&D.

CrazyYanmega

2015-05-27, 04:14 PM

Can we just... Put Complete Psionics as a whole into this? Barring Soulbow and Ardent, that book seems like it's better-off being attributed to a strange nightmare about D&D.

You know what, you're right. Now that I think about it, practically the entire book broke my heart. Except for the Stygian powers, those are frikkin' sweet.

ShurikVch

2015-05-27, 04:53 PM

I fail to see where Dragon Disciple or half-dragon gives SLAs.
What's you suggest instead it?
Damage Reduction? No other Dragon Disciple gets it, despite literally every single True Dragon have it
Time Control? Come on, it's only 5 turns/day! Even weakest of Lung half-dragons are get their Water Breathing all day long!

Flickerdart

2015-05-27, 04:57 PM

What's you suggest instead it?
Damage Reduction? No other Dragon Disciple gets it, despite literally every single True Dragon have it
Time Control? Come on, it's only 5 turns/day! Even weakest of Lung half-dragons are get their Water Breathing all day long!
There are lots of crappy templates and crappy PrCs. This doesn't mean you should start handing out Time Stop to them for free.

Hawkstar

2015-05-27, 05:07 PM

Bard. It's called the bard.

IT'S CALLED THE BARD DON'T QUESTION IT.

Okay. I laughed at this. :smalltongue:

ShurikVch

2015-05-27, 05:09 PM

There are lots of crappy templates and crappy PrCs. This doesn't mean you should start handing out Time Stop to them for free.But it's Time Dragons we're speaking about
Control over time is very important thing to them
Even their hatchlings have Time Stop at will (with 2d4 rounds cooldown)
It's like deny Fire Immunity to Dragon Disciple (Red), because "So many monsters have fire-based attacks! And don't forget about the environmental hazards too! It's overpowered!" :smalltongue:
Anyway, you will get it no earlier than 15 ECL - not all games go that far

Flickerdart

2015-05-27, 05:16 PM

But it's Time Dragons we're speaking about
Control over time is very important thing to them
Even their hatchlings have Time Stop at will (with 2d4 rounds cooldown)
It's like deny Fire Immunity to Dragon Disciple (Red), because "So many monsters have fire-based attacks! And don't forget about the environmental hazards too! It's overpowered!" :smalltongue:
Anyway, you will get it no earlier than 15 ECL - not all games go that far
Red Dragon Disciples get Fire Immunity because the Half-Dragon Template says they do. Time Dragon Disciples get Time Stop because...you really, really want them to?

Jormengand

2015-05-27, 06:04 PM

Okay. I laughed at this. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, the IT'S CALLED THE BARD DON'T QUESTION IT isn't actually as bad as people think it is. Some of their IT'S CALLED BARDIC MUSIC DON'T QUESTION IT are actually pretty powerful, especially if you play with some of the silly RAW but even if you don't.

Marlowe

2015-05-27, 08:15 PM

Bard is pretty damn shiny compared to a lot of the rubbish out there. Like, half the other core classes.

Anachronity

2015-05-27, 09:23 PM

Seriously, though, the IT'S CALLED THE BARD DON'T QUESTION IT isn't actually as bad as people think it is. Some of their IT'S CALLED BARDIC MUSIC DON'T QUESTION IT are actually pretty powerful, especially if you play with some of the silly RAW but even if you don't.

Honestly, yes. The only three problems are getting the ridiculous PERFORM (ORATORY) bonuses (or having your DM nerf the DCs), the fact that you don't matter much after about level 12 until level 20, and of course the silly scaling of the PERFORM (ORATORY) DCs.

Quickening a BARDIC MUSIC ABILITY for free every round is way more powerful than people admit, and since there's no saving throw for many of the BARDIC MUSIC ABILITIES and they don't offer spell resistance, boss fights become pretty easy when the boss can't move and is constantly slowed.

Of course I guess a fourth problem would be how useless BARDIC MUSIC ABILITIES become when you can't see your target.

nedz

2015-05-27, 10:01 PM

The trouble is that BARDIC MUSIC ABILITY is so unrealistic since we know that PERFORM (ORATORY) improves with repetition. The rules just don't support this though.

Forrestfire

2015-05-27, 11:04 PM

At least they made good on the ability to attract extraplanar attention (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/perform.htm) with a good enough PERFORM check :smallamused:

ShurikVch

2015-05-28, 08:06 AM

Red Dragon Disciples get Fire Immunity because the Half-Dragon Template says they do. Time Dragon Disciples get Time Stop because...you really, really want them to?Just like Werewolf is just a specific case of Lycanthrope template, Red Half-Dragon is just a specific case of Half-Dragon template
Just like text of Lycanthrope template don't describe every possible Animal, Half-Dragon template don't least every True Dragon; - beyond the fluff and appearance they all differ in only 2 points: 1) Breath Weapon or special ability, 2) Immunity or other special ability (special abilities - because not every True Dragon have Breath Weapon or specific Immunity)
What's we see in case of Time Dragon?
It have two Breath Weapons: line of ravaging time, and cone of time expulsion
By using Metallic Half-Dragons example, "select damage over incapacitation", thus line of ravaging time
Now we need to select "Immunity or other special ability". There is a bit of problem - Time Dragon don't have any (specific) strait Immunities, so it should be "special ability"
What's to select?
Time Control? But it's only 5 turns/day, and Half-Dragon's "other special ability" is always something constant - be it Water Breathing or Burrow
Damage Reduction - it's actually last all day long, but Time Dragons are not the only specie of Dragons who have it - every possible Dragon have DR at some point, but Half-Dragons never get it
Time Stop at will (2d4 round cooldown)...
Yes, Half-Dragons usually don't get (Sp) abilities, but look at it like this: Immunity supposed to protect Half-Dragons against their one Breath Weapon, and what is defense against the Time?..