Character Classes, Vital Aspects gained sooner?

[Gwazi Magnum]

This is something I've tried to tackle via homebrew a lot.
But have struggled finding a method that didn't simply encourage people dipping in a ton of classes.

Basically, the idea where a Class Ability that makes a Class function how it's meant to isn't gained until several levels in.
This can mean if the DM start's low, a lot of sessions/encounters where your character is barely even built.

Examples of this being


Druid and Wild Shape
Unchained Rogues/Gunslingers DEX to Damage
Rangers Combat Style
Bard's Skill Synergy's with Versatile Performance
Monks Ki Pool
Paladin's Mount


Basically either unique abilities central to the character, or certain bonuses (ex: Dex to Damage) that might be needed to make the character actually usable.

So what are some suggested ideas (Other than simply starting higher level) players have for how to address this?

[Vhaidara]

Honestly? I just tell my players "If you're just dipping for this, you have to deal with it. If you actually plan to run the class, go ahead and get it early."

My games generally run on trust, since our rule 1 is don't be a ****.

[Kurald Galain]

Druid and Wild Shape
Unchained Rogues/Gunslingers DEX to Damage
Rangers Combat Style
Bard's Skill Synergy's with Versatile Performance
Monks Ki Pool
Paladin's Mount




I disagree that dex to damage or versatile performance are vital aspects; there's nothing vital about getting some bonus to a thing you can already do.
Rangers get combat style at level 2, so not seeing the problem there.
For the monk, the unchained monk gets ki pool at level 3; if you really want it at level 2, use the Ninja class, which has enough of an overlap in fluff to pull this off.
Paladins can have a regular mount at level 1, they'll just get a special bond a few levels later; not seeing the problem there either.
For druids, yes, it would be nice if there was an archetype that gave them shapeshift at level 1 in exchange for e.g. nature bond. Then again, certain races (e.g. kitsune) can already do this.


But yes, overall the point of leveling is that you gain certain abilities at a higher level than first. Otherwise, players may lose the sense of development in their character. It's good to have a cool ability to look forward to.

[Vhaidara]

The problem is: what does a level 1 ranger have? Track and a Favored enemy.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So I've been working on a Homebrew solution for this since I posted the thread.
What do people think of this?

With DM approval, at character creation a player may take a single class ability from one of their current classes up to the 5th Class level and use it. However, doing so locks the character into that class where each level up they are required to level in that class until unlocking it.

Ex: Aqua is a Druid, but doesn't get Wild Shape until Level 4. Since that is a 4th Level Class Ability, she can take it at Level 1 with DM approval. However, by doing so each level up she is required to level up as a Druid until she reaches Druid Level 4.

A player cannot use this to unlock a higher spell level. Neither can they use this to get a stronger version of an earlier ability (Ex: 2nd Favored Enemy).



I disagree that dex to damage or versatile performance are vital aspects; there's nothing vital about getting some bonus to a thing you can already do.
Rangers get combat style at level 2, so not seeing the problem there.
For the monk, the unchained monk gets ki pool at level 3; if you really want it at level 2, use the Ninja class, which has enough of an overlap in fluff to pull this off.
Paladins can have a regular mount at level 1, they'll just get a special bond a few levels later; not seeing the problem there either.
For druids, yes, it would be nice if there was an archetype that gave them shapeshift at level 1 in exchange for e.g. nature bond. Then again, certain races (e.g. kitsune) can already do this.


But yes, overall the point of leveling is that you gain certain abilities at a higher level than first. Otherwise, players may lose the sense of development in their character. It's good to have a cool ability to look forward to.


They're abilities that encourage players as to where to invest or not invest points. But leave them with a sizable waiting gap. Where they're forced to compromise points for a temporary low level benefit, or slug through the low levels because of something they'll get later.
There's still level 1 to consider.
Which is basically telling someone not to play the class, which should never be the case.
It's the smallest of them I'll admit, but most Paladins try to focus themselves around their specific special mount.
But players shouldn't be forced to be a specific race in order to feel like the class they are at lower levels


I'm all for waiting for cool abilities later on.
I'm strictly addressing the one's where they're more central to a character, and more of a vital piece than a really cool extra.

[Kurald Galain]

Ex: Aqua is a Druid, but doesn't get Wild Shape until Level 4. Since that is a 4th Level Class Ability, she can take it at Level 1 with DM approval. However, by doing so each level up she is required to level up as a Druid until she reaches Druid Level 4.
Gondolf is a wizard, but doesn't get ninth level spells until Level 17. However...


Which is basically telling someone not to play the class, which should never be the case.
Oh, there are plenty of reasons to tell someone not to play a monk, of all things :smallbiggrin:

[Vhaidara]

Gondolf is a wizard, but doesn't get ninth level spells until Level 17. However...


A player cannot use this to unlock a higher spell level. Neither can they use this to get a stronger version of an earlier ability (Ex: 2nd Favored Enemy).



Oh, there are plenty of reasons to tell someone not to play a monk, of all things :smallbiggrin:

But you're talking about Unchained Monk, which is an awesome class with very distinct abilities from Ninja (competent when unarmed/unarmored, to start with)

[Kurald Galain]

But you're talking about Unchained Monk, which is an awesome class with very distinct abilities from Ninja (competent when unarmed/unarmored, to start with)

Well, yes. The monk's vital aspects are being an unarmed/unarmored combatant, and it can do so straight from level one.

[Bluydee]

Investigator's Studied Combat is mostly the staple of the investigator's combat, and without it, before level 4, they play rather mediocrely.

[Kurald Galain]

Investigator's Studied Combat is mostly the staple of the investigator's combat, and without it, before level 4, they play rather mediocrely.

I think the problem is not so much that many classes at low level deal 1d8+str damage, but that a low-level barbarian deals so much more than that. It's hard to compete with 1d12+12 per hit at level one.

[Grod_The_Giant]

With DM approval, at character creation a player may take a single class ability from one of their current classes up to the 5th Class level and use it. However, doing so locks the character into that class where each level up they are required to level in that class until unlocking it.
I like it. Ideally you'd scale the ability down with level- in the case of the Druid the duration is lower, for example, while the monk's ki pool is only Wis mod at level 1.

You might do something similar with feats- there are too many builds (especially archers) where you have to slog through multiple prerequisites and required feats until you can actually function as intended.

[Faily]

I wouldn't exactly call the Paladin's Mount a Vital Aspect of the Paladin class. Smite Evil, Divine Grave and Lay on Hands are all much more highly wanted... in 3.5, most try to find an ACF to replace the Mount with. :smalltongue:


How would you treat someone like Fighter, whose class features is only Feats (in 3.5) or marginal bonuses (Pathfinder)? What about Cleric, Sorcerer and Wizard, whose class features are spells? Is Combat Style really the most Vital Aspect for a Ranger (I've personally always thought of it more in terms of Favored Enemy and Animal Companion + the good wilderness abilities like Woodland Stride)?

While I've often been annoyed with a lot of dipping in PrCs, I've come more to terms with it and rather look at how the PrCs compliment eachother as a whole. Some PrCs give out their best stuff at level 2-3 and then progress into nothing for the rest of the levels, which isn't fun for the players since they probably invested in gaining access to that PrC (through Feats and Skill points).

[Gwazi Magnum]

I like it. Ideally you'd scale the ability down with level- in the case of the Druid the duration is lower, for example, while the monk's ki pool is only Wis mod at level 1.

You might do something similar with feats- there are too many builds (especially archers) where you have to slog through multiple prerequisites and required feats until you can actually function as intended.

Scaling down world work, would have to be up to the DM as well though.

As far a feats go, I usually get rid of Point Blank Shot as a pre-req.
Not sure what else to do to help other builds other than throwing free feats at people.

[N. Jolly]

I disagree that dex to damage or versatile performance are vital aspects; there's nothing vital about getting some bonus to a thing you can already do.

I disagree here, dex to damage for rogues and gunslingers is easily their most vital aspect. Grit's nice, but the things you can do with it are rather small, and sneak attack is probably more iconic, but mechanically less vital.

Talking about the GS, it's amusing that in a 'guns anywhere' game, you get Gun Training at 1st level, thus leap frogging everything else. Gun Training at 5th level is such an annoying hurdle due to the fact that it's a massive jump in power that adds anywhere between 3-5 damage per shot at the point where you're most likely getting two shots (from rapid fire or TWF shenanigans) on touch attacks, making it a jarring increase.

What makes it vital is that it makes the damage of the gunslinger competitive as well as making guns a worthwhile weapon to use as opposed to where they normally sit, which is a crappier close range crossbow that's nearly a melee weapon for everything but a musket, and even a musket has pretty garbage range. Nothing else the GS gets is really that special, so dex to damage (especially considering it's the drop point for the class for most optimizers thanks to the Ultimate Combat nerfs) really is the most vital class feature for the GS.


Investigator's Studied Combat is mostly the staple of the investigator's combat, and without it, before level 4, they play rather mediocrely.

As long as everything was pushed down 1 level, I think the entire class would level a lot more smoothly. Talents at 2nd level, studied combat at 3, and everything feels a lot more cohesive. 4th level feels so late to get something so vital to me.

[Gwazi Magnum]

While I've often been annoyed with a lot of dipping in PrCs, I've come more to terms with it and rather look at how the PrCs compliment eachother as a whole. Some PrCs give out their best stuff at level 2-3 and then progress into nothing for the rest of the levels, which isn't fun for the players since they probably invested in gaining access to that PrC (through Feats and Skill points).

Yea, this is also a rather consistent issue.
Generally why I don't even tend to look at Prestige Classes because of it. :/

[Psyren]

Seconding Kurald on basically everything.


I disagree here, dex to damage for rogues and gunslingers is easily their most vital aspect. Grit's nice, but the things you can do with it are rather small, and sneak attack is probably more iconic, but mechanically less vital.

It's vital, sure, but not at level 1. Remember, level 1 is when even a shortbow can kill a kobold or goblin in one shot with no damage bonuses. While I do think it becomes more necessary later when monster HP starts hitting triple digits, I find its presence on the OP's list to be questionable.

Also seconding Kurald on the ki pool - while it would definitely be nice to have at 1st level, that would also mean a 1st-level monk can get 3 full-BAB attacks at level 1, including ranged ones with a shuriken or rope dart. That seems like a bit much.

[N. Jolly]

It's vital, sure, but not at level 1. Remember, level 1 is when even a shortbow can kill a kobold or goblin in one shot with no damage bonuses. While I do think it becomes more necessary later when monster HP starts hitting triple digits, I find its presence on the OP's list to be questionable.

To be fair, by that metric few things are vital at 1st level since an expert with a shortbow has a reasonable chance of killing a kobold or goblin. No GS talents are really 'vital' at any point in their progression, so the only thing that could be considered vital for the GS is dex to damage.

[Psyren]

To be fair, by that metric few things are vital at 1st level since an expert with a shortbow has a reasonable chance of killing a kobold or goblin. No GS talents are really 'vital' at any point in their progression, so the only thing that could be considered vital for the GS is dex to damage.

Right, but the whole premise of this thread is having to wait too long for so-called vital things. If dex-to-damage is not truly vital until the levels when you'd get it anyway, you're not actually waiting too long.

It would be nice to have at level 1, certainly.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair, by that metric few things are vital at 1st level since an expert with a shortbow has a reasonable chance of killing a kobold or goblin. No GS talents are really 'vital' at any point in their progression, so the only thing that could be considered vital for the GS is dex to damage.

No. Becoming somewhat better at something you could already do is not, by any stretch of the word, "vital".

Vital for a GS would be, you know, shooting guns. And possibly crafting/repairing them.

[Vhaidara]

Psyren, I think you're confusing vital to performance with vital to the feel. When you take class X, you are usually looking for feature Y (for example, ranger and Combat Style). Would it make sense if Barbarian didn't get Rage until level 3?

To put it another way, what makes a class different from the rest of the crowd at level 1? How can you tell a Fighter from a Barbarian from a Gunslinger from a Paladin from a Ranger when they're all level 1?
Barbarian is the guy screaming his head off in a fight
Paladin is the guy who just blew up that demon 3 CR over him
Gunslinger is the guy who can afford a gun (really not a good distinguishing trait, imo)
Ranger is the guy who, while focused on combat, is just worse than the Fighter unless he's fighting the one enemy he doesn't like. And then they're about even.

Oh, and Ranger is the one who can't use a bow right without being human at level 1 (can't get Precise Shot, while the Fighter can)

[Faily]

You could argue that the PF Bard's Jack-Of-All-Trades class ability is also a Vital Aspect of a skill-monkey class, and thus should be accessed earlier than level 10.

Or the Cavalier's Charge class ability which is accessed normally at level 3. The cavalier's shtick is mounted combat, so why not give it right away?


I'm kinda in the middle of not seeing the point of giving the best toys to start with, and thinking that it's one slippery slope to determine the "Vital Aspect" of a class. For the first, what do I have to look forward to with certain levels now if I already have some of the best stuff already. For the second, a matter of balance (like the aforementioned monk with three attacks on level 1).

[N. Jolly]

No. Becoming somewhat better at something you could already do is not, by any stretch of the word, "vital".

Vital for a GS would be, you know, shooting guns. And possibly crafting/repairing them.

It is if you need it to keep up with the curve that enemies are increasing by. If a gunslinger didn't get dex to damage, they wouldn't have enough damage to be a factor later game, full stop. It'd be like using a crossbow, and we all know how useful those are. Scratch that, a crossbow that has a 5-20% chance of jamming per shot, a range increment in melee distance for the majority of legal weapons (some as small as 10 feet, like seriously 10 feet), expensive ammo, expensive enchantments needed to overcome any of these issues, and lackluster talents.

Dex to damage is the only mechanical reason to play a gunslinger, it is 'vital' to them to continue being able to deal enough damage to matter. Hell, by 3rd level their damage is being eclipsed by anyone with a bow, at a much greater distance with cheaper ammo, more common drops for the majority of games, manyshot, and tons of other benefits.

Your statement is saying the only thing that's vital to gunslingers is exotic weapon prof (firearms), that's the class. It's a feat, the only thing that makes the class genuinely worth

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are two things that really need to come from the start, and I don't know that either has to do with "feel".

The first are abilities that drastically affect how you invest permanent resources. Skill replacement is a good example- you either don't put points in at first and have weird gaps in your capabilities, or you do and they wind up wasted. Dex to melee attack and damage is another- if you don't put points in strength you'll be painfully bad until the ability kicks in, but if you do you just wasted a bunch of your point buy/roll. Dex to ranged damage is NOT, because it isn't replacing anything- you were already investing in and benefiting from dex.

The other category is abilities that remove crippling penalties. Precise Shot, for instance- without it you'll have a real hard time as an archer. Improved Grapple. The musket master's quick reload. Things that your character doesn't function without. (I see more of these as feats, though)

[Kurald Galain]

It is if you need it to keep up with the curve that enemies are increasing by. If a gunslinger didn't get dex to damage, they wouldn't have enough damage to be a factor later game, full stop.

Later game, full stop.

Ergo, not at level one, full stop. Which is what we were talking about.

[Psyren]

Ranger is the guy who, while focused on combat, is just worse than the Fighter unless he's fighting the one enemy he doesn't like. And then they're about even.

I disagree that a one feat difference makes him "just worse," even when he's not fighting his FE. He has a better reflex save, more skills, and wild empathy + track (both of which do plenty to make him "feel like a ranger" even at level one.) That's three feat-equivalents up (two of which are actual feats - Lightning Reflexes and Skill Focus: Survival). Sure they're fixed, but you get more of them. And neither of them can afford plate yet, so the armor proficiency difference is a non-starter. And all that is before the FE shows up, with all the attendant bonuses that come with it, that the fighter can't buy for love nor money.

Also, Precise Shot doesn't do d**k if you're shooting at an enemy who's not in melee with one of your allies yet either, so not having it doesn't automatically make you "not able to use a bow right."

[ylvathrall]

So I see a couple of issues coming up with this.


Not every class has a "Vital Aspect" of the sort you're describing. Wizard, for instance, pretty much just wants higher spell levels. Or what if I'm playing one of the classes you're describing, but I do get the important thing that I want at first level (e.g., Investigator that mostly focuses on Inspiration)? It seems like at that point I'm getting penalized for playing a class/concept that doesn't get to advance at an accelerated rate.
Some abilities aren't gained until higher levels for valid reasons of balance. To use Investigator as an example again, is it terrible at combat at first level? Yep. But should it be good at combat at that point? I don't think so. The class isn't really about combat, it's about skills, and with Inspiration it can be very good at skills at first level. For it to also be competitive with a fighter or barbarian in combat at that point would feel odd, and also a little too powerful for my taste.
Your fix to prevent dipping doesn't address balance at all, I don't think. Let's look at druid and Wild Shape for a moment. Is druid more powerful if it gets Wild Shape at level 1 instead of 4? Yes, obviously. But does it lose anything by having to then take another 3 levels of druid? Not really. Druid doesn't need to dip to be powerful; druid 20 is a very solid build, no elaborate multiclassing necessary.


Basically, I think this would skew things in favor of some classes over others, in ways that are as likely to be detrimental to game balance as they are to fix problems with it. This is especially true if there's no penalty associated with getting early entry. The only way I can think of to implement this that wouldn't cause this problem is with archetypes, which is more work to design. Ideally I think you'd have to have individual archetypes for each class feature, and then you have to determine what penalties are appropriate for getting early access to any given class feature.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Also, Precise Shot doesn't do d**k if you're shooting at an enemy who's not in melee with one of your allies yet either, so not having it doesn't automatically make you "not able to use a bow right."
Once you get past the first round or two, there are going to be enemies in melee. Period. There might be some who aren't, depending on the makeup of the encounter, but fighters both ally and enemy will be closing with each other ASAP. At best, your tactical options are greatly limited. At worst, your party is in trouble because the fighter is flanked and the wizard has an orc in his face and you can't do d**k about it because a -4 is huge at level 1

[Faily]

So I see a couple of issues coming up with this.


Not every class has a "Vital Aspect" of the sort you're describing. Wizard, for instance, pretty much just wants higher spell levels. Or what if I'm playing one of the classes you're describing, but I do get the important thing that I want at first level (e.g., Investigator that mostly focuses on Inspiration)? It seems like at that point I'm getting penalized for playing a class/concept that doesn't get to advance at an accelerated rate.
Some abilities aren't gained until higher levels for valid reasons of balance. To use Investigator as an example again, is it terrible at combat at first level? Yep. But should it be good at combat at that point? I don't think so. The class isn't really about combat, it's about skills, and with Inspiration it can be very good at skills at first level. For it to also be competitive with a fighter or barbarian in combat at that point would feel odd, and also a little too powerful for my taste.
Your fix to prevent dipping doesn't address balance at all, I don't think. Let's look at druid and Wild Shape for a moment. Is druid more powerful if it gets Wild Shape at level 1 instead of 4? Yes, obviously. But does it lose anything by having to then take another 3 levels of druid? Not really. Druid doesn't need to dip to be powerful; druid 20 is a very solid build, no elaborate multiclassing necessary.


Basically, I think this would skew things in favor of some classes over others, in ways that are as likely to be detrimental to game balance as they are to fix problems with it. This is especially true if there's no penalty associated with getting early entry. The only way I can think of to implement this that wouldn't cause this problem is with archetypes, which is more work to design. Ideally I think you'd have to have individual archetypes for each class feature, and then you have to determine what penalties are appropriate for getting early access to any given class feature.


+1 to this.

[Psyren]

Once you get past the first round or two, there are going to be enemies in melee. Period. There might be some who aren't, depending on the makeup of the encounter, but fighters both ally and enemy will be closing with each other ASAP. At best, your tactical options are greatly limited. At worst, your party is in trouble because the fighter is flanked and the wizard has an orc in his face and you can't do d**k about it because a -4 is huge at level 1

Orc in the wizard's face at level 1 is the meatshield's job, not the archer's. By the time that happens, you should have dropped a couple (i.e. kept that orc from being 2 or 3) and thus contributed to the battle.

And worst case scenario - this is the level when switch-hitting is actually viable. It's not like whipping out a longsword and wading in yourself will cause you to lose a +5 enhancement from your bow and a glut of archery feats. So get in there and shank it, then get back to shooting.

"I can't bow without Precise Shot at level 1" feels pretty specious to me.

[Kurald Galain]

Once you get past the first round or two, there are going to be enemies in melee. Period. There might be some who aren't, depending on the makeup of the encounter, but fighters both ally and enemy will be closing with each other ASAP. At best, your tactical options are greatly limited. At worst, your party is in trouble because the fighter is flanked and the wizard has an orc in his face and you can't do d**k about it because a -4 is huge at level 1

Sure you can.

Use your tactics. Ask the wiz to five-step backwards, then ready an action to shoot the orc when he does. Problem solved.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think it'd be better to get lesser forms of the abilities sooner. I dislike playing low level druids because I lack such an iconic ability. But getting it at level 1? Uh...No, I think that might be too much. Getting something like lesser Wildshape where you only get weaker special abilities like Low-Light seems far more fair. Some usage, but probably not going to overpower the game at that level.

[Psyren]

Sure you can.

Use your tactics. Ask the wiz to five-step backwards, then ready an action to shoot the orc when he does. Problem solved.

The best part with this one is a standard action attack and a full-attack are indistinguishable at this level anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it'd be better to get lesser forms of the abilities sooner. I dislike playing low level druids because I lack such an iconic ability. But getting it at level 1? Uh...No, I think that might be too much. Getting something like lesser Wildshape where you only get weaker special abilities like Low-Light seems far more fair. Some usage, but probably not going to overpower the game at that level.

How about getting Animal Aspect as a spell by level 3? Or being able to use a scroll thereof even before that?

[Honest Tiefling]

How about getting Animal Aspect as a spell by level 3? Or being able to use a scroll thereof even before that?

Yes and no. I think it is a quick and dirty fix, but there's something about being a DRUID at level 1 as opposed to 5 or 3. Using a spell would also feel moderately different. But maybe I am picky? It's better then the alternative.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So I see a couple of issues coming up with this.


Not every class has a "Vital Aspect" of the sort you're describing. Wizard, for instance, pretty much just wants higher spell levels. Or what if I'm playing one of the classes you're describing, but I do get the important thing that I want at first level (e.g., Investigator that mostly focuses on Inspiration)? It seems like at that point I'm getting penalized for playing a class/concept that doesn't get to advance at an accelerated rate.
Some abilities aren't gained until higher levels for valid reasons of balance. To use Investigator as an example again, is it terrible at combat at first level? Yep. But should it be good at combat at that point? I don't think so. The class isn't really about combat, it's about skills, and with Inspiration it can be very good at skills at first level. For it to also be competitive with a fighter or barbarian in combat at that point would feel odd, and also a little too powerful for my taste.
Your fix to prevent dipping doesn't address balance at all, I don't think. Let's look at druid and Wild Shape for a moment. Is druid more powerful if it gets Wild Shape at level 1 instead of 4? Yes, obviously. But does it lose anything by having to then take another 3 levels of druid? Not really. Druid doesn't need to dip to be powerful; druid 20 is a very solid build, no elaborate multiclassing necessary.


Basically, I think this would skew things in favor of some classes over others, in ways that are as likely to be detrimental to game balance as they are to fix problems with it. This is especially true if there's no penalty associated with getting early entry. The only way I can think of to implement this that wouldn't cause this problem is with archetypes, which is more work to design. Ideally I think you'd have to have individual archetypes for each class feature, and then you have to determine what penalties are appropriate for getting early access to any given class feature.


I never said every class had this. This is only in regards to the classes which do apply. If you are one of those classes though, getting something like that (even if nerfed) at level 1 wouldn't be a penalty. I'm not suggesting giving the entire class at level 1 just a basic core element that addresses the general feel and purpose of the class. Or in other words, what makes the class stand out. It'd be like saying "I'm penalized as a Barbarian because I get rage at level 1. I really wish I could get it later instead because I want something to level into".
Then do nerfed versions of them, like only Wis Mod Ki points, or only small sized Wild Shape.
Balance isn't the main concern in this topic. The concern being addressed here is firstly does a class feel worthwhile and enjoyable at low levels. And secondly, getting rid of ways someone is forced to build strictly for early game, shooting themselves in the foot for late game or vice-versa.

[N. Jolly]

Later game, full stop.

Ergo, not at level one, full stop. Which is what we were talking about.

Nothing needs anything at 1st level, since the difference between full BAB and 3/4th or 1/2 BAB is 1, making a decent dex/strength investment the only real determining factor. Also the original post never said '1st level', it said earlier, so I'm not sure where you've decided we're all talking about 1st level here.

I think steinulfr said it best, not every class has a 'vital' class feature, at least in the same way as others. A barbarian doesn't need rage at 1st level because any martial weapon can crush anything that stands in front of it, a fighter doesn't need a feat for the same reason, and so on. Really, there's very few class features I would actually call vital at 1st level, and most of them are spells for 1/2 BAB casters, as everyone else can do their job fine at 1st level due to the low HP totals.

So when talking about something being vital, it's more about being vital to the 'feel' of the character, and gunslingers only really have one thing that makes them unique, which is dex to damage for ranged firearms. That makes it pretty vital for their character concept. Besides, it can be vital depending on what weapon you're using, as a buckler gun really needs the damage to be competitive with anything else.

[Kurald Galain]

Nothing needs anything at 1st level, since the difference between full BAB and 3/4th or 1/2 BAB is 1, making a decent dex/strength investment the only real determining factor. Also the original post never said '1st level', it said earlier, so I'm not sure where you've decided we're all talking about 1st level here.
Ok, how about you read that first post again? Because you're clearly talking about a different thing than everybody else here.

[N. Jolly]

Ok, how about you read that first post again? Because you're clearly talking about a different thing than everybody else here.

Just give me a sec to check it...


Basically, the idea where a Class Ability that makes a Class function how it's meant to isn't gained until several levels in.

This can mean if the DM start's low, a lot of sessions/encounters where your character is barely even built.

Examples of this being


Unchained Rogues/Gunslingers DEX to Damage

Basically either unique abilities central to the character, or certain bonuses (ex: Dex to Damage) that might be needed to make the character actually usable.

So what I'm talking about is directly in line with the first post, especially the parts that I put in bold. I'm answering the OP's question, which I did earlier in the thread by saying that I give dex to damage at 1st level, but limit the addition damage of it by the GS's level. Not really sure what I'm missing here, since the OP's statement was that dex to damage is vital, to which I agreed with them. What am I missing here? My reply might not fit your definition of 'vital', but it does fit the OP's.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Nothing in my OP specifically state Level 1 (admittedly because I forgot to state so).
The closest it got was listing a Ranger feature at level 2, where is level 2 needs to be made sooner that leaves it to level 1 by default.

However, as we got into the thread it became rather focused on making a class unique and usable right at the first level.

[Psyren]

Nothing in my OP specifically state Level 1 (admittedly because I forgot to state so).
The closest it got was listing a Ranger feature at level 2, where is level 2 needs to be made sooner that leaves it to level 1 by default.

However, as we got into the thread it became rather focused on making a class unique and usable right at the first level.

Then this is rather poor communication; you specifically mentioned for instance the Ranger's Combat Style, which they get at 2nd level. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume you were focusing on level 1.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Then this is rather poor communication; you specifically mentioned for instance the Ranger's Combat Style, which they get at 2nd level. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume you were focusing on level 1.

... Yes?

You just repeated my post there.
I even admitted the fault in the post you quoted.

[Psyren]

... Yes?

You just repeated my post there.
I even admitted the fault in the post you quoted.

You edited right after I hit the quote button but before it grabbed your post, thus I missed the Ranger callout that wasn't there when I was replying. But yes, that's what led us to believe anything after 1st level was apparently too late for the purposes of this thread.

[ylvathrall]

I never said every class had this. This is only in regards to the classes which do apply. If you are one of those classes though, getting something like that (even if nerfed) at level 1 wouldn't be a penalty. I'm not suggesting giving the entire class at level 1 just a basic core element that addresses the general feel and purpose of the class. Or in other words, what makes the class stand out. It'd be like saying "I'm penalized as a Barbarian because I get rage at level 1. I really wish I could get it later instead because I want something to level into".

The problem is that giving nice things to some classes and not others is effectively a penalty to the classes that don't get nice things. Suddenly I'm being actively encouraged to select only classes that have a useful ability to automatically receive. Should I be penalized for preferring a class which already has the abilities that make it unique at level 1? I don't think so. This is more the equivalent of playing a barbarian and then hearing that because fighters aren't as powerful as barbarians at level 1, the fighter has been given three extra bonus feats. Your character is still as good as it was, but it's comparably less powerful because other characters have been given extra abilities and yours hasn't.


Then do nerfed versions of them, like only Wis Mod Ki points, or only small sized Wild Shape.

This is a step in the right direction. But it's incomplete, I think. The only way that a nerfed ability doesn't change the relative capabilities of different classes is if it's so heavily nerfed that it contributes nothing at all, like having a ki pool but no ability to use ki points for anything. In which case you've actually made things worse, because that bait-and-switch is more annoying than not having a ki pool at all.


Balance isn't the main concern in this topic. The concern being addressed here is firstly does a class feel worthwhile and enjoyable at low levels. And secondly, getting rid of ways someone is forced to build strictly for early game, shooting themselves in the foot for late game or vice-versa.

Acknowledged, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered at all. Balance is important.

For your first concern, I think that that's a valid concern. There are two points I would raise, though. First, not everyone needs the same things to feel like their character is worthwhile. To use myself as an example, I'm currently playing a level 1 investigator in a game. Is she useless in combat? Yep, pretty much, but I'm okay with that. The whole reason I chose that class was that combat skills weren't that important to me. She's good at what I wanted to be good at, and that's what matters.

My second point is that there are times when a character concept simply doesn't work at lower levels. For example, I've made barbarian builds that are completely focused on having the full beast totem line of rage powers. Having multiple natural attacks and pounce is absolutely essential to the feel of the character I'm going for with those builds. But that just means that those builds are only appropriate to higher-level play, because that concept just doesn't work at low levels.

And to address your second concern, have you though about offering retraining? Because that might get around a lot of issues with things that were essential at early levels becoming obsolete at higher ones.

Basically, I still feel like the only way to do this effectively would be to have some meaningful penalty to go along with the advantage. Offer archetypes that get some class feature early (probably in a nerfed form) in exchange for later access or no access to other abilities.

[Vhaidara]

Stein, I think you're missing the point. The goal isn't to do this and keep classes at the same power level. It's to do this so that you can play the class you want sooner.

How would you feel if barbarian didn't get Rage until level 2? Kind of makes level 1 barbarian seem like a waste, doesn't it? Then why does ranger, who is supposed to be the class for TWF/Archery, stay behind fighter in both of those for so long? The difference between having Precise Shot or not is the same as being proficient or not, and most combats are going to be in melee within the first two rounds. Further, Ranger is going to stay behind fighter for a while, because while a level 2 Ranger finally got his Precise Shot, the Fighter just grabbed Rapid Shot.

If Monk gets Ki Pool at level 1, does that change the power of a level 3 Monk? No. But it makes the level 1-2 monk more bearable to play, since you have your thing.

[Psyren]

The difference between having Precise Shot or not is the same as being proficient or not, and most combats are going to be in melee within the first two rounds.

And over in three. It's first level. You're blowing this way out of proportion.

You also ignored Kurald's suggestion, it's called 5-foot step and readied actions.

[Faily]

I just don't agree that the Combat Styles is the "Vital Aspect" of Ranger. Anyone with the right feat investement can do the same, and a Fighter can do it really easy.
The shtick of the Ranger is the wilderness stuff. So that means Track feat (3.5), Favoured Enemy (choose Goblinoid and that +2 on the first levels is really going to pay off), Animal Companion, Favored Terrain (PF), ability to track faster, Woodland Stride, etc. With 6 Skill Points, the Ranger is a good secondary skill-monkey in case the group don't have a Bard or Rogue, and chances are the Ranger will have much higher chance of managing those pesky Spot/Listen/Perception rolls, as they usually have an ok Wisdom score + the skill points available to invest into it.

Also, choosing between Precise Shot or Rapid Shot at first level (given the character is human and spent his other Feat on Point Blank Shot), it's more of a matter of what you think you might need the most. Rapid Shot is -2, but you get to attack twice. Precise Shot will help you in case things get messy on the battlefield, but you hope things don't last long enough for that. Level 1 is also the period where people more often switch between ranged attacks and melee attacks, as they're not yet hyper-specialised and the casters don't have that many spells yet.

Frankly, I don't see many of the later class abilities as vital. I see them as abilities that are learned by experienced practicioners within each field. I'm probably a minority that don't think of Wild Shape as the most Vital Aspect of the Druid class; for me, that is the Animal Companion and nature-themed spells and other class abilities.

A class isn't one ability (most of the time); it's a package of bits and pieces that make a whole product... each representing your knowledge and skills improving over time. Gotta learn to crawl before you learn to walk, and all that.

If you want a class to have a specific "feel" to it from early on, I personally think that Pathfinder's Archetypes did a good job of it. Want to be a plant-focused druid? Treesinger will give you your very own pet-plant friend. Want to be Indiana Jones? Archaeologist got you covered. Want to be a shining knight? Warrior of the Holy Light makes you shine. Literally.

[ylvathrall]

No, I get the point. I just don't think the point should be considered in a vacuum. When you're changing something like this, I think it pays to consider how it alters the game in ways other than what you set out to accomplish. This change would dramatically alter game balance and the relative power of different classes at early levels, and while you're free to ignore that, there's a huge difference between choosing to ignore something and not realizing that it exists.

Also, I think that my suggestion (archetypes trading out earlier access to one feature for delayed or limited access to another) would actually accomplish the stated objective better than just giving out the abilities for free. Even within the same class, different characters/builds will prioritize different abilities more highly. To use your example, Keledrath, maybe a given monk gets a ki pool at level 1, but doesn't get Wisdom to AC until 4th. That way there's a distinct feel to reflect how this monk is special and differently trained than most monks, rather than just a general boost to all monks.

[Quertus]

I want to play a necromancer. The only vital part of the build is the ability to animate the dead. Controlling the undead (turning, command undead, etc) could be nice, but not necessary - probably an opt-in ability or prestige class. Evening else - spellcasting, saves, combat abilities, religion - is unimportant, or perhaps even detrimental to the concept of the character.

Does it make sense to try to make this character work at 1st level?

[Vhaidara]

I want to play a necromancer. The only vital part of the build is the ability to animate the dead. Controlling the undead (turning, command undead, etc) could be nice, but not necessary - probably an opt-in ability or prestige class. Evening else - spellcasting, saves, combat abilities, religion - is unimportant, or perhaps even detrimental to the concept of the character.

Does it make sense to try to make this character work at 1st level?

Yes. Spheres of power did it, have fun

[Gwazi Magnum]

I do agree that creating more Archetypes might actually accomplish this better than simply swapping the base class like I was doing in the OP.
Mainly because this thread is making it apparent that a persons image of a specific class still varies a ton, so manner now vanilla is tweaked someone will feel unrepresented.

That being said though, I'm still not too concerned about balance here but one reason.
Pathfinder is not a balanced game to begin with.

This is evident with the Tier System and how there's almost no dispute among the community in regards to which classes belong where.
Classes are not just unbalanced already, they're unbalanced enough that entire communities can universally categorize it.

In which case, some classes such as Rangers and Monks who tend to be seen on the weaker side might need the buff simply to keep up with the rest of the classes.

Now, there is a hole here with Druid though.
Druid is a Tier 1 already, and not even an Arcane one.
Where Arcane Tier 1's you can at least argue have so little spells at 1st level it lowers their early game effectiveness... Druids get the Animal Companion.
Plus better saves, plus more skill points and higher HD and BAB.

So especially in the case of a Druid, a variant might be more appropriate than simply assigning it early.
But lower Tier classes could afford to get some wiggle room.

[ylvathrall]

I do agree that creating more Archetypes might actually accomplish this better than simply swapping the base class like I was doing in the OP.
Mainly because this thread is making it apparent that a persons image of a specific class still varies a ton, so manner now vanilla is tweaked someone will feel unrepresented.

That being said though, I'm still not too concerned about balance here but one reason.
Pathfinder is not a balanced game to begin with.

This is evident with the Tier System and how there's almost no dispute among the community in regards to which classes belong where.
Classes are not just unbalanced already, they're unbalanced enough that entire communities can universally categorize it.

In which case, some classes such as Rangers and Monks who tend to be seen on the weaker side might need the buff simply to keep up with the rest of the classes.

Now, there is a hole here with Druid though.
Druid is a Tier 1 already, and not even an Arcane one.
Where Arcane Tier 1's you can at least argue have so little spells at 1st level it lowers their early game effectiveness... Druids get the Animal Companion.
Plus better saves, plus more skill points and higher HD and BAB.

So especially in the case of a Druid, a variant might be more appropriate than simply assigning it early.
But lower Tier classes could afford to get some wiggle room.

Eh. I've been waiting for this to come up, largely because I disagree with it. I mean, I disagree with the tier system in general, I think it oversimplifies things dramatically, but I particularly disagree with it in this case, because at this point we're only discussing lower levels. And at levels 1-5 the tier system looks dramatically different.

Wizard is considered a tier 1 class, one of the strongest there is. But at level 1 it isn't all that great. At that point in the game you don't have enough spell selection to start doing the things that make people describe wizard as a game-breaking class. You have at most five first-level spells per day (six is the absolute most I know how to get, and that requires that you use sin magic out of the Inner Sea books). The more likely number for most builds is 3-4. So you're going to be using cantrips and a crossbow a lot of the time, probably. You also don't have access to the ridiculous things you can do at higher levels, and you don't have the spare slots to pick up the really ridiculous first level spells. Yes, things like charm person and silent image can be devastatingly powerful...but most of the time low-level wizards can't afford to use spell slots on them.

From what I've seen on this forum, and my own experience, wizards aren't a tier 1 class at levels 1-3 for sure, and I would say not even until 5 or 7. Until then your tier 1 classes are going to be things like druid, barbarian, cleric, some fighters. Even monk isn't half bad in the first few levels (there's a reason that a 1-2 level dip in monk is seen as a good thing in a lot of builds, after all). So giving handouts to classes in the early game because they'll lag in the late game is kind of worsening the problem you pointed out about having to build for one or the other.

Also, concerning your statement that you don't worry about balance because Pathfinder isn't balanced, I see that argument a lot and I find it specious. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean that no care should be taken for not making it worse.

[Tuvarkz]

Actually, at level 1 a Wizard can levelup really easy. The average CR 1/2 enemy (namely a level 1 warrior) gives a total of 200 exp, but has a -1 Will save. A Sin Magic Illusionist Wizard with 17 (Assuming a harsh 15 PB) Int has a +3 bonus to Int, and thus 3 daily spells, plus two fixated choices (He does loose Conjuration and Transmutation but that's beyond the point, as we are at level 1 and Color Spray is OP). He grabs his component pouch, rations for a day, silver alchemical power component, and any weapon that can reliably deal 7 damage on a crit, and prepares Color Spray 3 times, and Shield+Hypnotism Once; with Improved Initiative as feat (so he doesn't get instagibbed). After this, he goes looking for 3-4 Warrior packs, colorspraying each, and CdGing (So his nonproficiency doesn't matter) all of them, getting 200 exp a pop per enemy. Assuming he kills all of them, with one day's worth of work he gets to level two. Of course, if he gets in trouble, he casts shield or hypnotizes the enemy, and proceeds to either Ray of Frost them to death, or escape.
Thus, a Wizard at level one is significantly powerful too. Of course, he can take more days, or hire a level 1 Fighter as bodyguard, and make it all easier.

[Anlashok]

I don't really like the argument that somehow making classes feel less awful and incomplete at level 1 is inherently punishing to other classes because it seems to somehow imply that being unfun to play at low levels is somehow a good design goal and the perk of playing certain classes.


I also think part of the problem is that vital aspects are subjective to character concept. So someone arguing Wildshape isn't important because their druid doesn't rely on wild shape is true, but the someone who wants to play a shapeshifting focused character who simply can't at low levels isn't wrong either.

Likewise a lot of people will consider the magus' armor proficiency abilities to be unimportant or unnecessary, but for the guy looking to play a heavily armored arcane caster, having his character not do what he wants it to do until level 13 is utterly unacceptable.

I think it's worse for certain classes than others too. Dex to Damage is a big deal, but not gamebreaking, but, say, Zen Archery forces the character in question to either be nonfunctional in combat (as a combat class) at levels 1 and 2 or makes choice they wouldn't otherwise want to make with their stat distribution and that's awful.

[Psyren]

I don't really like the argument that somehow making classes feel less awful and incomplete at level 1 is inherently punishing to other classes because it seems to somehow imply that being unfun to play at low levels is somehow a good design goal and the perk of playing certain classes.

Your logical leap here though is that not having the features in the OP at 1st-level is somehow "unfun." A monk with three attacks at first level might indeed be fun, but "only" having two instead is not some gross miscarriage of justice. And a druid who simply doesn't have wildshape yet is neither awful nor incomplete, he is still T1.

[Anlashok]

Your logical leap here though is that not having the features in the OP at 1st-level is somehow "unfun." A monk with three attacks at first level might indeed be fun, but "only" having two instead is not some gross miscarriage of justice. And a druid who simply doesn't have wildshape yet is neither awful nor incomplete, he is still T1.

Well, yeah, when you pick two particular instances where it's not in any way a power issue, you have a point. But there's no reason an investigator or zen archer should be functionally useless in combat because the game doesn't start at the right level for them.

And, again, in the case of the druid (and other options) it's more a matter of perceptions and playability than balance. If I want to play a character themed around certain abilities and concepts, being prevented from accessing them for sometimes upwards of half a campaign because Paizo is terrified of making low level characters interesting is pretty bad, regardless of power.

[ylvathrall]

I don't really like the argument that somehow making classes feel less awful and incomplete at level 1 is inherently punishing to other classes because it seems to somehow imply that being unfun to play at low levels is somehow a good design goal and the perk of playing certain classes.

I don't think anyone is actually making that argument. At most, I've been saying that providing perks to some characters and not others is effectively an encouragement to play the characters that get a perk, and a penalty to those who choose not to. To illustrate my point, imagine that this was based on something other than class. Hypothetically, let's say I decide that all female characters get a free +1 to Charisma to reflect the fact that they're seen in a more positive light by society in a given setting. Do you see how that would be awkward? If you wanted to play a male character you'd feel like you're being pressured to choose something that you don't actually want to.

That is admittedly a lot more extreme than what's being discussed here, but the point still stands. Offering benefits to some characters and not others is essentially a penalty to the characters that don't get a benefit. It's the equivalent of me giving everyone in a room $100 except you. Even though I didn't actually take anything away from you, you might still reasonably feel that you've been treated unfairly, since everyone else got something.

I'm not sure how to address the rest of this sentence, since I don't think that anyone is making the argument you're trying to oppose.


I also think part of the problem is that vital aspects are subjective to character concept. So someone arguing Wildshape isn't important because their druid doesn't rely on wild shape is true, but the someone who wants to play a shapeshifting focused character who simply can't at low levels isn't wrong either.

Ah, but there are ways to play a shapeshifter at low levels. There are races that get shapeshifting from the start (e.g., kitsune, skinwalker). Or if you want it as a class ability, feral hunter gets unlimited partial shapeshifting from level 1.

If the complaint is that you can't have shapeshifting at level 1 and have an animal companion and have the suite of racial abilities you wanted without giving up anything to make room for shapeshifting abilities, that's where I start to question it. Not every single aspect of a class can be so profoundly important to your character concept that you simply can't do without it for a single level.


I think it's worse for certain classes than others too. Dex to Damage is a big deal, but not gamebreaking, but, say, Zen Archery forces the character in question to either be nonfunctional in combat (as a combat class) at levels 1 and 2 or makes choice they wouldn't otherwise want to make with their stat distribution and that's awful.

First off, it's 2 levels. It isn't that long, okay? Like, I get that having fun abilities from the start of the game is important, but if there are some you don't have early on, it isn't the end of the world.

Second, it isn't like you're crippled by the lack with something like Zen Archer. You aren't supremely powerful, but you can function, especially at level 1 or 2.

Third, since it seems to have been overlooked so far, I'll again mention the possibility of retraining. It wouldn't solve all of these issues, but it would solve some of them, I think.

[Psyren]

Well, yeah, when you pick two particular instances where it's not in any way a power issue, you have a point. But there's no reason an investigator or zen archer should be functionally useless in combat because the game doesn't start at the right level for them.

Hyperbole like "functionally useless" is why I can't take the premise of this thread seriously.

A zen archer gets two shots at 1st level, at a lower penalty than Rapid Shot, at a level when few other classes have access to Rapid Shot anyway. They're fine.
An Investigator, even before considering his extracts or his usefulness to a low-level party faced with traps (or investigation, for that matter) can just cook up a bunch of dirt cheap acid flasks at 4gp a pop at the start of the game for combat use. You won't even need to spend any inspiration to take 10 and make the checks.

[Vhaidara]

First off, it's 2 levels. It isn't that long, okay? Like, I get that having fun abilities from the start of the game is important, but if there are some you don't have early on, it isn't the end of the world.

As someone dominantly stuck using PbP to game, yeah, it is that long. The number of games I've actually leveled up in can be counted on one hand.


Second, it isn't like you're crippled by the lack with something like Zen Archer. You aren't supremely powerful, but you can function, especially at level 1 or 2.

Actually, it makes a huge difference with stat replacement. A Zen Archer doesn't need Dex after he hits level 3. Like, at all. I actually encountered this recently with a game where I'm playing a Soulknife. At level 2 I get to swap my hit and damage to Wisdom. Which means it is going to jump by 4 points each. To me, that kind of proficiency spike is incredibly jarring. I hate it when you suddenly become immensely more powerful all at once, without visibly gaining anything. For a barbarian, the spike would come from a new rage power, which is something they built towards and already had a base with rage.

It also ties in to my dislike of vancian casting. Wizard 19 has never touched Necromancy. Level 20 he takes Greater Create Undead completely out of the blue. There's no progression, just a spike.


Third, since it seems to have been overlooked so far, I'll again mention the possibility of retraining. It wouldn't solve all of these issues, but it would solve some of them, I think.

I don't see it solving pretty much any of the issues. Retraining won't make an investigator able to fight before level 4, it won't let a druid turn into an animal any earlier, it won't enable the Zen archer who works purely through strength of mind, not body. It won't make the ranger a viable combat option compared to Fighter before level 3 (when their feats are even)

[ylvathrall]

As someone dominantly stuck using PbP to game, yeah, it is that long. The number of games I've actually leveled up in can be counted on one hand.

This is a valid point, and in hindsight I was too cavalier in stating that it wasn't a long time. My apologies. It is a relatively minor segment of the character's possible lifespan, and the one that is likely to go by most quickly, but it was wrong of me to dismiss it.


Actually, it makes a huge difference with stat replacement. A Zen Archer doesn't need Dex after he hits level 3. Like, at all. I actually encountered this recently with a game where I'm playing a Soulknife. At level 2 I get to swap my hit and damage to Wisdom. Which means it is going to jump by 4 points each. To me, that kind of proficiency spike is incredibly jarring. I hate it when you suddenly become immensely more powerful all at once, without visibly gaining anything. For a barbarian, the spike would come from a new rage power, which is something they built towards and already had a base with rage.

It also ties in to my dislike of vancian casting. Wizard 19 has never touched Necromancy. Level 20 he takes Greater Create Undead completely out of the blue. There's no progression, just a spike.

This is why I conceptually prefer systems that don't include "levels" as a representation of character power. Gradual progression works better for me than sudden jumps. That said, though, I think this is a systemic problem in Pathfinder. There are ways I've seen of reducing it (e.g., parceling out levels piecemeal throughout a level's progression rather than all at once at the end), but they go well beyond anything under discussion in this thread.

Even that's just mitigation, though. I don't see how you would remove it without completely overhauling the game. This kind of jumpy progression is inherent in the system; it's just going to be a matter of where you draw the line between "reasonable" and "too much," which you're never going to get everyone to agree on. Like, you say that rage powers work for you because they're an extension of a preexisting ability. I say that the difference between "doesn't have pounce" and "has pounce" in play will be just as dramatic as that +4 to hit and damage, and it's jarring to go from one state to the other.


I don't see it solving pretty much any of the issues. Retraining won't make an investigator able to fight before level 4, it won't let a druid turn into an animal any earlier, it won't enable the Zen archer who works purely through strength of mind, not body. It won't make the ranger a viable combat option compared to Fighter before level 3 (when their feats are even)

It wouldn't solve any of these. But there were other issues being raised earlier in the thread that were lumped in with them. Things like feats that were only viable at early levels, or bards taking ranks in skills that were then rendered pointless by versatile performance, which retraining does address.

[Anlashok]

Hyperbole like "functionally useless" is why I can't take the premise of this thread seriously.

A zen archer gets two shots at 1st level, at a lower penalty than Rapid Shot, at a level when few other classes have access to Rapid Shot anyway. They're fine.
I don't think there's anything particularly hyperbolic about calling a guy who's making those two attacks at something like a -1 or +0 unless he's pumping dex (which goes back to my original point about stat distribution) and only hitting for 1d6 per attack is going to be pretty damn bad. That's 2-3 rounds for a CR1/3 common orc and 9-11 for a completely normal CR 1 lizardfolk.

[Psyren]

I don't think there's anything particularly hyperbolic about calling a guy who's making those two attacks at something like a -1 or +0 unless he's pumping dex (which goes back to my original point about stat distribution) and only hitting for 1d6 per attack is going to be pretty damn bad. That's 2-3 rounds for a CR1/3 common orc and 9-11 for a completely normal CR 1 lizardfolk.

1) He has longbow proficiency, so that's actually 1d8, not counting composite.
2) How is this different from, like, every other 1st-level archer? Except the ones who spent the feats to get Rapid Shot are hitting at -2, and the ones who didn't are only shooting once because no iteratives yet.

So all archers are "functionally useless" in Anlashok-land. Gotcha.

[Vhaidara]

Psyren, point of order, check monk starting wealth. 1d6x10. Max 60. Longbow costs 75

[Psyren]

Psyren, point of order, check monk starting wealth. 1d6x10. Max 60. Longbow costs 75

Point, but Rich Parents or Heirloom Weapon takes care of that, no problem.

[Edenbeast]

How about just waiting?
In real life you don't always get the best immediately. You need to work towards it. Looking forward to it. To me it's part of the roleplaying experience. Enjoy the class and appreciate what you get when you get it. And the early low level struggles can be fun too.

[Kurald Galain]

How about just waiting?
In real life you don't always get the best immediately. You need to work towards it. Looking forward to it. To me it's part of the roleplaying experience. Enjoy the class and appreciate what you get when you get it. And the early low level struggles can be fun too.

Indeed. If you would get all the cool stuff at level one, that defies the point of having levels in the first place.

Now getting iconic abilities at level one (possibly in weaker form and in exchange for something else) is something I can get behind. Getting numerical bonuses at level one because your character has to meet some arbitrary DPR threshold? Not so much.

So yes, let's have a druid archetype that gets wild shape at level one but no nature bond. Or a necromancer archetype that can animate a 1 HD skeleton once per day instead of a familiar. Things like that are actually interesting.

[Vhaidara]

Now getting iconic abilities at level one (possibly in weaker form and in exchange for something else) is something I can get behind. Getting numerical bonuses at level one because your character has to meet some arbitrary DPR threshold? Not so much.

I wouldn't mind this, if it weren't for the fact that combat classes generally don't GET non-numerical iconic abilities. How would you feel if Barbarian or Paladin had to wait until level 5 to Rage/Smite?


So yes, let's have a druid archetype that gets wild shape at level one but no nature bond. Or a necromancer archetype that can animate a 1 HD skeleton once per day instead of a familiar. Things like that are actually interesting.

See? Casters. The only thing noncasters get IS numerical bonuses.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't mind this, if it weren't for the fact that combat classes generally don't GET non-numerical iconic abilities. How would you feel if Barbarian or Paladin had to wait until level 5 to Rage/Smite?



See? Casters. The only thing noncasters get IS numerical bonuses.

His main point though was "arbitrary DPR threshold." You guys feel that the level 1 abilities martials get don't matter because they don't all guarantee you can one-shot every orc and lizardfolk you come across. It doesn't matter if doing that is indeed possible with a lucky roll, or if some of these abilities are aimed at defense or utility - no, it isn't good enough and the classes don't "feel" right.

[Gwazi Magnum]

It should be noted that Level 1 is also rather important for another reason not mentioned yet.

New players.
If someone is trying out Pathfinder, or simply a class for the first time it's a pretty poor introduction if what they get is "Hey, you know that ability this Class revolves around? well you can't use it for a while" isn't going to add any sort of encouragement to play but rather make them feel like the class or worse yet the game is boring.

Especially if the campaigns are only about 3 hours long.
You don't tend to get much done in that small amount of time, where it could be a good month or so before reaching level 2.
Even more so if the DM is the type of focus more on the roleplay than the combat, which isn't bad by any means.
But it does spell even more time before a character has access to things that are iconic to then.

Though I think everyone here does already seem to agree that this problem can be addressed through variants.
But that doesn't address feats like Zen Archery, in which case I'd just say lower the requirements.

As for numerical bonuses, let me give an example.
I was making an Unchained Rogue Goblin.

Naturally he's meant to be Dex Based, where by level 3 Strength is useless.
So Strength would end up being ignored, especially with it being a Goblin.
However, this STR of 6, and being small sized made it so melee he could only do 1 point of damage half of the time.

His only semi-reliable way to fight was to use a Hand Crossbow, even then it barely contributes.
But if Dex to Damage came sooner? Yes it's a number boost, but he'd then be able to actually take part effectively.

+Also, expecting players to just 'buy' the right gear at level 1 to substitute is also not going to work for two reasons.

1) Some Classes are too poor, so they rely on traits and feats... Which is a permanent build choice for a temporary fix.
2) If the DM is semi-realistic with stuff like sleep fatigue, disease, carrying goods etc you need that gold for camping supplies, food, soap etc.

[Psyren]

New players.
If someone is trying out Pathfinder, or simply a class for the first time it's a pretty poor introduction if what they get is "Hey, you know that ability this Class revolves around? well you can't use it for a while" isn't going to add any sort of encouragement to play but rather make them feel like the class or worse yet the game is boring.


And giving them wild shape at level 1 is better? "Here's over 7 paragraphs on the polymorph rules, enjoy!" They'd run screaming.



Naturally he's meant to be Dex Based, where by level 3 Strength is useless.
So Strength would end up being ignored, especially with it being a Goblin.
However, this STR of 6, and being small sized made it so melee he could only do 1 point of damage half of the time.

Gosh, it's almost like the game is teaching him that flanking is something rogues should be trying to do. Shocking :smalltongue:

[N. Jolly]

His main point though was "arbitrary DPR threshold." You guys feel that the level 1 abilities martials get don't matter because they don't all guarantee you can one-shot every orc and lizardfolk you come across. It doesn't matter if doing that is indeed possible with a lucky roll, or if some of these abilities are aimed at defense or utility - no, it isn't good enough and the classes don't "feel" right.

Okay, let me ask this. Do you feel that aside from weapon proficiency, do pure martial classes have any vital features at 1st level? (EDIT: Or also, which level do they actually need a vital class feature?) As Keledrath said, most martial class features are numerical bonuses, so is there any class feature for a martial class you think they should actually receive at 1st level? I mean honestly we could even remove weapon proficiency since as you said, it's just another number increase, but I'm assuming that effective +4 to hit with a weapon is considered vital enough. You're feeling pretty anti martial here and I'm not really sure why.

Like by that logic, things that should be pushed back are barbarian rage, paladin smite, cavalier mount and challenge, rogue sneak attack, monk's flurry of blows, fighter bonus feat, slayer studied target, and brawler martial flexibility.

Seriously, the feel of a class is important, it helps people feel like their class is different from others, and that it has some mechanical differences.

[Psyren]

Seriously, the feel of a class is important, it helps people feel like their class is different from others, and that it has some mechanical differences.

Obviously this is true, but this isn't where we disagree. Rather, why does a Ranger who has to wait one level for Combat Style not feel like a ranger to you, when they have Favored Enemy, Wild Empathy and a boatload of nature-y skills? Why does a monk without a ki pool not feel like a monk, when they have IUS, a d6 punch, Wis to AC and flurry? Why does a barbarian without... actually I can't think of anything barbarians don't have at 1st level that could make them not feel like a barbarian?

[Kurald Galain]

Seriously, the feel of a class is important, it helps people feel like their class is different from others, and that it has some mechanical differences.

...which is precisely why we're disagreeing with the notion that every class should do the exact same amount of damage at first level.

[squiggit]

It feels like both sides of this argument are arguing completely different points.

[N. Jolly]

Obviously this is true, but this isn't where we disagree. Rather, why does a Ranger who has to wait one level for Combat Style not feel like a ranger to you, when they have Favored Enemy, Wild Empathy and a boatload of nature-y skills? Why does a monk without a ki pool not feel like a monk, when they have IUS, a d6 punch, Wis to AC and flurry? Why does a barbarian without... actually I can't think of anything barbarians don't have at 1st level that could make them not feel like a barbarian?

I can agree on ranger, I never saw combat style as their 'thing'. Same with paladin and mount, really. The whole sticking point here for me is with gunslinger, although I feel like it's been turned into a larger issue than it really is. I like the mechanical feel of it because it makes the gunslinger feel better with guns than anyone else who uses guns, as normally they're really not any better with them than a fighter/ranger/etc. It boils down to opinion, so we can leave it at that.

Instead, let's get to the question at hand for the things that we do agree about, like early level necromancers and such. Wasn't there an old unearthed arcana variant that let you trade out a familiar for a skeleton companion?

[Psyren]

I can agree on ranger, I never saw combat style as their 'thing'. Same with paladin and mount, really. The whole sticking point here for me is with gunslinger, although I feel like it's been turned into a larger issue than it really is. I like the mechanical feel of it because it makes the gunslinger feel better with guns than anyone else who uses guns, as normally they're really not any better with them than a fighter/ranger/etc. It boils down to opinion, so we can leave it at that.

I think you're being a little harsh on Gunslinger though. Starting with a firearm, even a battered one, without it counting against your wealth is a big deal; guns are extremely expensive. If the fighter and ranger can't even afford one without traits or feats, the question of who is "better" with it at 1st level largely becomes academic. And while they can go "Rich Parents!" and get a pistol that way, your gun is free, so you can use that trait on ammo cartridges and a set of masterwork armor or something instead. And if theirs misfires and gets broken, they have a nice fat repair bill to look forward to, but not you.

But even if you do focus on facility, the level 1 gunslinger still has an advantage the fighter and ranger don't - Deadeye, which lets them target touch AC at any range. Early Firearms have dangerously short range increments, plus these are the levels when even firing at someone on a horse can cancel out your BAB. Given the penalties for staying out of harm's way, a fighter or ranger would likely just stick with a bow, while the gunslinger can stand right beside them at 60+ feet and have an equal if not better chance at hitting. (A lizardfolk for instance has touch AC 7 lower than his regular AC, so even at 3 range increments with an ordinary pistol, the gunslinger is winning out over the shortbow.)



Instead, let's get to the question at hand for the things that we do agree about, like early level necromancers and such. Wasn't there an old unearthed arcana variant that let you trade out a familiar for a skeleton companion?

Yes, but I always saw the "army of the dead" as the cleric's thing - something the Wizard could do if they put their minds to it, but not something they should be equal at if not better all the way from 1st level.

[BWR]

I can agree on ranger, I never saw combat style as their 'thing'. Same with paladin and mount, really.

The paladin's mount is possibly the most iconic class feature of the paladin, right up there with detecting evil and laying on hands.

[Psyren]

The paladin's mount is possibly the most iconic class feature of the paladin, right up there with detecting evil and laying on hands.

But it's also one that it's not unreasonable to have to "earn." A paladin learning how to ride and care for a normal horse before being trusted with the welfare/partnership of an intelligent celestial version makes sense. You can ride at 1st level without needing a divinely-provided mount.

[Kurald Galain]

The paladin's mount is possibly the most iconic class feature of the paladin, right up there with detecting evil and laying on hands.
Really? I've seen plenty of paladins played in the past decade, and only one of them was mounted. Doesn't strike me as iconic at all.

[BWR]

Really? I've seen plenty of paladins played in the past decade, and only one of them was mounted. Doesn't strike me as iconic at all.

If we're talking 3.0/.5 mechanics, sure. If we're talking the paladin ideal in D&D as a whole plus related literature, then the mount is definitely an iconic element while Smite Evil is not.

[Vhaidara]

If we're talking 3.0/.5 mechanics, sure. If we're talking the paladin ideal in D&D as a whole plus related literature, then the mount is definitely an iconic element while Smite Evil is not.

Literature paladins are usually closer to knights or cavaliers who happen to be religious.

[Psyren]

If we're talking 3.0/.5 mechanics, sure. If we're talking the paladin ideal in D&D as a whole plus related literature, then the mount is definitely an iconic element while Smite Evil is not.

"Related literature" is a specious appeal though; lots of iconic class tropes are singular to D&D. The fact that paladins from other sources don't have an ability analagous to smite evil does not make it any less iconic to the D&D paladin.

Take the ranger - in other media, woodsmen/elves like that are usually just portrayed as being really good with a bow, no matter who their enemy is. D&D is the one that came along and gave them favored enemy and spellcasting. In Tolkien for example, the only bad guys Legolas turns into pincushions are orcs, because that's all there is. Then you have Aragorn's healing gifts, which are implied to be from race/heritage rather than training. And the dual-wielding thing definitely came from Salvatore, yet there it has sat ever since, persisting past 3.x/PF to 4e and 5e.

[BWR]

"Related literature" is a specious appeal though; lots of iconic class tropes are singular to D&D. The fact that paladins from other sources don't have an ability analagous to smite evil does not make it any less iconic to the D&D paladin.

d20 paladin. Important distinction. The paladin as a D&D class is older than d20 and the mount was an iconic and unique class feature longer and more widespread than smiting - just look at the most important source for D&D paladins: Poul Anderson's Three hearts & three lions.
As for the impact of the mounted paladin in the time after D&D was created, you have The Deed of Paksenarrion, an explicitly D&D-inspired story. The mount is noted in both stories, laying on hands and detecting evil in one, no smiting apart from normal weapon skill in either book.


Take the ranger - in other media, woodsmen/elves like that are usually just portrayed as being really good with a bow, no matter who their enemy is. D&D is the one that came along and gave them favored enemy and spellcasting. In Tolkien for example, the only bad guys Legolas turns into pincushions are orcs, because that's all there is. Then you have Aragorn's healing gifts, which are implied to be from race/heritage rather than training. And the dual-wielding thing definitely came from Salvatore, yet there it has sat ever since, persisting past 3.x/PF to 4e and 5e.


Are you addressing me? Because I don't recall making any points about the ranger.

[Kurald Galain]

If we're talking 3.0/.5 mechanics, sure. If we're talking the paladin ideal in D&D as a whole plus related literature, then the mount is definitely an iconic element while Smite Evil is not.
Well, I agree that there should be an archetype that gives Divine Bond at level one, in exchange for something else.

That said, as far as I can tell, most iconic or literary paladins simply ride a regular horse, instead of having a mystical bond with a supernaturally called mount. That appears to be mostly a D&D-ism (just like Smite Evil, really).

[Psyren]

Are you addressing me? Because I don't recall making any points about the ranger.

Yes - I brought up Ranger to demonstrate that other "iconic abilities" became that way through D&D. The fact that they are not iconic outside D&D is irrelevant when we are talking about conventions of the D&D game, such as what class gets what ability and when.


d20 paladin. Important distinction. The paladin as a D&D class is older than d20 and the mount was an iconic and unique class feature longer and more widespread than smiting - just look at the most important source for D&D paladins: Poul Anderson's Three hearts & three lions.
As for the impact of the mounted paladin in the time after D&D was created, you have The Deed of Paksenarrion, an explicitly D&D-inspired story. The mount is noted in both stories, laying on hands and detecting evil in one, no smiting apart from normal weapon skill in either book.

As noted above, all this is irrelevant - smiting is iconic now, no matter when that came to pass. Its continued existence in the game after 3e proves that. If there is a 6e paladin, I can guarantee you he will be smiting.

[Endarire]

OP: D&D 3.0 did a lot of what you (the OP) described. People dipped 1 level to get the best class benefits for many martial classes. D&D 3.5 (and Pathfinder, by extension) purposely spread out a class's benefits to prevent people from getting all the iconic stuff with a level or 2 dip. Because people did that.

[Faily]

For beginning players, I advise to *not* give too much at once. Especially for classes like Druid who actually have a lot of stuff to digest. As mentioned above, you do not want to dump the Polymorph rules in the lap of a new player. I've played 3.5 for a handful of years now, and those rules still terrify me, even as a seasoned player.

When pitching classes to new players, I will describe the basics of the class and how they evolve. Like Druids for instance, I would explain that they are "priests" of nature who forge close bonds to creatures of the wilderness, meaning that they can summon them in combat (Summon Nature's Ally) easily as well as an animal companion that support them in their adventure. As they grow in power, they traverse the wilds with little trouble (Woodland Stride, Resist Nature's Lure), and they eventually learn to emulate the animals (various spells), to the point where they can change shape into a beast themselves (Wild Shape).

While it can be fun to have front-loaded classes sometimes (one-shot adventures, PbPs stuck eternally in the limbo of level 1), most games will hit level 2 after the first couple of sessions and continue steadily onwards from there. Or be like one of my groups and have a level each session because of super-efficient players. For new players, it is especially important that they get enough time to grow comfortable with each level and its class features, while also balancing giving them something new and shiny... the latter can be achieved through interesting magic items and loot.


As a side note: playing in a fast-progression PF adventure these days, I often feel I don't get to explore my powers enough before I level up yet again.

[Kurald Galain]

OP: D&D 3.0 did a lot of what you (the OP) described. People dipped 1 level to get the best class benefits for many martial classes. D&D 3.5 (and Pathfinder, by extension) purposely spread out a class's benefits to prevent people from getting all the iconic stuff with a level or 2 dip. Because people did that.

Yeah, I remember this was one of the first things I realized when reading the 3.0 PHB, how you could e.g. dip one level in Bard to get its full range of performances (since they were based on skill ranks in perform, not bard levels). So it was a good thing that 3.5 changed that.

Once more, I'm not suggesting that all abilities that someone finds iconic be given at level one; I'm suggesting that for each iconic ability, an archetype should exist that gives that ability at level one in some form, but not necessarily the other ones.

[Edenbeast]

Indeed. If you would get all the cool stuff at level one, that defies the point of having levels in the first place.

Now getting iconic abilities at level one (possibly in weaker form and in exchange for something else) is something I can get behind. Getting numerical bonuses at level one because your character has to meet some arbitrary DPR threshold? Not so much.

So yes, let's have a druid archetype that gets wild shape at level one but no nature bond. Or a necromancer archetype that can animate a 1 HD skeleton once per day instead of a familiar. Things like that are actually interesting.

I agree on that. That's something that would work and would be nice. And it will be rewarding since it is something that scales only if you take more levels of the same class. It also makes 1 level dips for that specific power less interesting.

[Spore]

And giving them wild shape at level 1 is better? "Here's over 7 paragraphs on the polymorph rules, enjoy!" They'd run screaming.

And that is only the groundwork. "You want to be a tiger? So first you add 4 to your strength score, then you get a two claw attacks, can attack fully on a charge, and DON'T ask me what a full attack is, you should know this by now. If you hit twice you can do additional damage. Natural attacks add Strength onto them. Oh, you haven't got power attack but if you had it you should start thinking about probability of hitting vs. gained damage by then. Of course your armor class as well as your to-attack changes because you switch sizes as well. Have I mentioned the scent ability and its interaction with wind already?"

"You grasp the tiger now? Good, to be a mediocre druid, try and do this for a large bird, a small bird, some aquatic creatures, a monkey, a large wolf, a small dog and 4 elementals á two size categories. 12 elementals if you count nontrue ones."



Gosh, it's almost like the game is teaching him that flanking is something rogues should be trying to do. Shocking :smalltongue:

To be honest the iconic rogue you'd know from various videogames is mostly TWFing (or using a bow that somehow behaves like a medieval sniper rifle). You know that mobility is discouraged when TWFing. Also when the enemy is flanked and takes a 5 foot step to the side but your flanking partner does not follow you are forced to either move or stand still to full attack. What I want to say is that flanking is a two (three) people game.

[Psyren]

And that is only the groundwork. "You want to be a tiger? So first you add 4 to your strength score, then you get a two claw attacks, can attack fully on a charge, and DON'T ask me what a full attack is, you should know this by now. If you hit twice you can do additional damage. Natural attacks add Strength onto them. Oh, you haven't got power attack but if you had it you should start thinking about probability of hitting vs. gained damage by then. Of course your armor class as well as your to-attack changes because you switch sizes as well. Have I mentioned the scent ability and its interaction with wind already?"

"You grasp the tiger now? Good, to be a mediocre druid, try and do this for a large bird, a small bird, some aquatic creatures, a monkey, a large wolf, a small dog and 4 elementals á two size categories. 12 elementals if you count nontrue ones."

Indeed - on top of the magic rules that explain polymorph, you then have to open up the bestiary to explain primary vs. secondary natural attacks, gamemastering to explain their changed senses and movement modes, if another player wants to ride them you'll need to flip to encumbrance rules and mounted combat...

Delaying all that mess to 4 is not just reasonable, it's sensible.




To be honest the iconic rogue you'd know from various videogames is mostly TWFing (or using a bow that somehow behaves like a medieval sniper rifle). You know that mobility is discouraged when TWFing. Also when the enemy is flanked and takes a 5 foot step to the side but your flanking partner does not follow you are forced to either move or stand still to full attack. What I want to say is that flanking is a two (three) people game.

Why would your partner not 5-foot step after them? Flanking helps them too. And if you go before they do, the enemy's already gone too, so just delay. These are basic tactics.

Flanking also keeps the enemy from withdrawing as they can only prevent AoO from one attacker, plus it restricts the directions they can try to escape. It's just a useful low-level strategy all around.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Ok, I'm seeing a lot of people still set on being terrified of any class change that involves changing numbers... In D&D. >.<

I think whoever compared that to removing Fighter Proficiencies because it's "just numbers" hit the nail on the head.
Just because numbers are involved doesn't mean it's just a power grab, and just because numbers are involved doesn't mean we're doing something stupid like "everyone does the same amount of damage".

Seriously, D&D is a game full of Numbers. If you're terrified about any house rule, fix, variant etc. just because numbers get tweaked you're not only playing the wrong game, but you're making the game a living hell for anyone who isn't a Caster.

+That "Gunslinger hits Touch AC therefore he feels unique" argument?
Guess what? All Touch AC means is lowering a targets AC, which is still a number tweak.
And like was highlighted above, the same goes for just about every martial ability there is.
So if we can stop going "No, this is bad because numbers" that'd be great.

@People Not Number-Phobic:

Still agreed that Variants are a strong implementation to fixing this issue.

As for the Druid Wild Shape being complicated?
True, it is a pretty complex ability.

However I feel the need to highlight that it is already a Caster Class, meaning it's already at the high end of being complicated.
Like D&D has differing Tiers of power level, it also has differing layers of complexity.

Fighter? Easy, grab a weapon and hit stuff.
Barbarian? Slightly tougher, apply some limited duration buffs and then hit stuff.
Bard or Rogue? Situational Abilities, positioning needed etc.
Sorcerer? Introduction to managing a list of spells that share a common pool of spells per day.
Wizards or Cleric? Now introducing having to Prepare spells in advance.

And some new players are already advised away from certain classes like Cleric, Wizard and Druid because of this.
So Druid you could stand to argue getting wild shape at level 1 would simply make it more complex, and therefore not for the faint of heart.

And remember, if this is done through a variant there's no balance concern because they'd lose something else till later like Animal Companion.

[Psyren]

The heck does "number-phobic" even mean? :smalltongue:

My only stance is "ranger doesn't feel like ranger until Combat Style!" and similar declarations are silly. Granted, people can choose to feel however they want.

[BWR]

My only stance is "ranger doesn't feel like ranger until Combat Style!" and similar declarations are silly. Granted, people can choose to feel however they want.

Oh I certainly believe there are iconic abilities that mechanically define classes, flavor-wise. Remove Detect Evil and Lay on hands (and mount and Smite, just so we aren't excluding the Wrong Believers) from the paladin and are you left with anything that feels much like a paladin, mechanically speaking? Remove animal companions and the wilderness focus from a Ranger and is there much ranger feeling left?
It's just I don't believe they need to all show up early on for those who for whatever reason can't stick around in a class long enough to get the goodies, and I disagree with some people on what exactly the most iconic abilities are.