Bringing a few classes up to tier 3.

[Bobbybobby99]

Ideas for bringing various classes up to tier 3, free for discussion, that have been bouncing around in my head.

Fighters. Increase skill points per level up to 4+int, and add a bonus feat, of any type, every odd level other than the first. At first level, gain a Cantrip from the wizard/sorcerer list, usable at will. At third level, gain a first level spell; at fifth level, a second level spell; at seventh level, a third level spell, and so on.

Barbarians. Increase skill points per level up to 6+int, and add casting as a spirit shaman, minus any spells of the transmutation and conjuration schools.
Give wild-shaping as a Druid.

Rogue. Add casting as a Beguiler, with spells per day (and maximum spell level) as a Bard.

Warlocks. Increase skill points per level up to 4+int. Give an invocation every level, and an extra invocation at first level, sixth level, eleventh level, and sixteenth level. They're still not game breaking, but they have quite a few options with twice as many invocations.
Rather than having increased invocation number, have invocations changeable at dusk.

Monk. Increase skill points to 6+int, and increase BAB to that of a fighter. At first level, gain a Cantrip from the cleric or wizard list, usable at will. At third level, gain a first level spell; at fifth level, a second level spell; at seventh level, a third level spell, and so on.

Paladin. Increase skill points to 4+int. Increase casting to the equivalent of a bard's, with levels 0, 5, and 6 being from the cleric list. If there is overlap, use the lower leveled of the two spells. Smite is per encounter, rather than per day.

I'll add any other suggestions in spoilers underneath the involved class, or straight up alter the default idea, upon suggestion. What do you think?

[OldTrees1]

I notice that all of these include adding casting (even to classes like Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Monk) although I noticed that Fighter and Monk got At-Will versions. This casting may or may not qualify as a buff depending on the player in question.*


@Fighter
I would suggest accepting some player created feats since the system of bonus feats is good in theory but WotC had problems designing individual feats (problems in quantity and in quality).




*For example, I would consider the At-Will spells to be a buff since I valued the At-Will nature of the Fighter but someone that valued the non-spells part would not consider it a buff.

[Bobbybobby99]

That's mostly because there are four types of tier threes; the types with casting, the type with binding (and that one's often debated), the type with maneuvers (which are often seen as undesirable for various reasons), and the one with wild-shape. So adding one of those or enhancing an existing spell-like mechanic seems like a must if you're going to do any elevating.

[Jormengand]

The thing is, if I want to play a spellcaster, I play a spellcaster. Although, having at-will spells the way the fighter now does kinda just turns you into a mildly janky sorcerer. You're like the wilder of arcane spellcasting.

What's the paladin doing with 4 mounts? Does he get a celestial chariot to go with them?

[Chronos]

All you need to do to make the fighter better is to make feats better. You don't need more of them; you just need feats that are as good as two levels worth of class abilities.

[Zaq]

I don't know if this is necessarily the most elegant fix. I 100% respect that spells are the most powerful thing in D&D, but I don't know if it's actually going to help to just slap spells on everything.

The Barbarian, in particular, doesn't seem to make any sense. First off, Rage still interferes with casting, so you either need to houserule that away or accept that their two main class features are actively fighting each other. Second, what stat or stats does this casting use? Does the Barbarian (who previously needed STR, CON, and maybe DEX) now need to also care about WIS and CHA, since that's what the Spirit Shaman has? Third, I'm not sure that giving them the Druid list minus Transmutation and Conjuration will really make for a cohesive character. I understand that Transmutation and Conjuration are generally among the most powerful schools, so that's a way to make the original Spirit Shaman still matter, but look at what you actually get out of that. Just glancing at the PHB Druid spells, you remove things like Entangle and Wall of Thorns (good), but you also remove things like Longstrider and Shillelagh, which would seem to fit a Barbarian's style. You lose Bull's Strength, but you keep Flaming Sphere—I understand that the Barbarian already has ways of boosting STR, and that this fix is meant to expand their capabilities, but was the Barbarian's problem really that they couldn't cast Flaming Sphere and Flame Strike? They don't get Air Walk (which would actually plug a gap in their repertoire), but they do get Ice Storm. Is that really making the Barbarian a better-designed class?

Why give the Paladin additional mounts? They can only ride one at a time. Are they summoning mounts for their friends, or are they supposed to have different mounts for different scenarios? (If they're supposed to be adding versatility, then the penalty to effective Paladin level isn't going to help one bit, since lower-leveled mounts can solve fewer problems.) Cleric spells are generally way the hell more powerful than Paladin spells, so there's going to be a massive spike in power when they get access to 5th and 6th level spells. Battle Blessing exists and is already a must-take feat for anyone with enough Paladin casting to notice; with the Paladin as written, this is a good thing, because it gives their normally lackluster spells an edge that other classes can't easily replicate, but with a Paladin with greatly expanded spellcasting, the feat goes from "prime choice" to "indisputably mandatory," and it should be taken into consideration (either removed, nerfed, or accounted for and rolled into the expectations). The Paladin is still MAD, and arguably more so (they need STR and CON to be frontline fighters, they need CHA for their CHA-based class features, and they need WIS for spells; of those, WIS was traditionally the easiest to sacrifice since you didn't really need all that much, but if their spells are more important, it becomes harder to drop WIS and still be effective).

Making the Monk more magical does make them stronger, but I don't know if it really makes them T3. What stat or stats are these spells based off of? Having spell access in the way you describe is going to make them a bit stronger, but it won't help with a lot of their fundamental problems—Flurry and Fast Movement are incompatible, their AC is pitiful, their unarmed damage isn't enough to make up for not being able to wield a magic weapon, they require too many stats to function, they can't take advantage of worthwhile reach weapons or ranged weapons, and most of their class features are replicated elsewhere for less investment. The spells you're granting them might help a little bit with some of these problems (at-will Mage Armor helps their AC a bit, native access to Fly helps them deal with flying things a bit, etc.), but I'm not convinced it would actually put them on par with, say, a Swordsage or a Tashalatora PsyWar.

The Fighter and the Monk are also offering really broad choices; it's not automatically going to break the game to offer access to spells at-will, but there's still a lot of spells that really shouldn't be at-will with no guidelines about who can take them or how they can be used. Lots of divinations get really weird when there's no limit on how often you can cast them, for example. XP components or expensive material components should also be accounted for. The Monk has access to at-will healing; I personally am fine with at-will healing, but some GMs freak out at the prospect of no longer being able to have attrition combats, so be aware that you've made this possible.

I'm not saying that your ideas are unworkable, but to be honest, I'm not convinced that they'd have the effects you want if you just applied them as you've written right now. In general, I think you're applying fixes that are both too broad (offering nearly unrestricted access to a massive pile of spells) and insufficiently tailored to the weaknesses of the classes in question (the Barbarian being the biggest case in point, but not the only one). You're making the classes stronger without necessarily addressing what made them stumble in the first place.

I appreciate that you're not afraid to hand out magic (so many people just give the Monk full BAB and extra skill points and act like that fixes everything, when that is very much not the case), and I'm in favor of giving classes the tools they need to do their jobs, but I don't think that offering indiscriminate spell access is going to actually have the results you're looking for.

[ComaVision]

Fighters. Increase skill points per level up to 4+int, and add a bonus feat, of any type, every odd level other than the first. At first level, gain a Cantrip from the wizard/sorcerer list, usable at will. At third level, gain a first level spell; at fifth level, a second level spell; at seventh level, a third level spell, and so on.

I added a class feature to them at level 3 that lets them change out their bonus feats once per day with an hour of training. I also added in bonus feats specifically for Martial Study and Martial Stance. I've turned them into a Tome of Battle-lite class that can drastically change its fighting style after a small amount of practice.


Barbarians. Increase skill points per level up to 6+int, and add casting as a spirit shaman, minus any spells of the transmutation and conjuration schools.

I just gave them wildshape as a wildshape Ranger. That alone makes them Tier 3.


Rogue. Add casting as a Beguiler, with spells per day (and maximum spell level) as a Bard.

Exactly what I did. I have a rogue using these rules in my IRL game right now.


Warlocks. Increase skill points per level up to 4+int. Give an invocation every level, and an extra invocation at first level, sixth level, eleventh level, and sixteenth level. They're still not game breaking, but they have quite a few options with twice as many invocations.

I let them change out their invocations at dusk instead. That way they have their full toolbox but not all of it at once.


Monk. Increase skill points to 6+int, and increase BAB to that of a fighter. At first level, gain a Cantrip from the cleric or wizard list, usable at will. At third level, gain a first level spell; at fifth level, a second level spell; at seventh level, a third level spell, and so on.

I never bothered trying to fix the monk. There's just too many random, incoherent features. Anyone that wants to gish a monk already can with the prestige classes. I did give them full BaB and 6+Int skills though, and highly recommend Tashalatora.


Paladin. Increase skill points to 4+int. Increase casting to the equivalent of a bard's, with levels 0, 5, and 6 being from the cleric list. If there is overlap, use the lower leveled of the two spells. At tenth level, gain a second mount at paladin level minus five; at fifteenth level, gain a third mount at paladin level minus ten; at twentieth level, gain a fourth mount at paladin level minus fifteen.

I made Smite per encounter rather than per day and made the casting match the Mystic Ranger, rather than the Bard. The extra mounts won't add much versatility or power, they'll just waste time in fights.

[Zancloufer]

So, HUGE problem with much of this fix. It's pretty much slapping spell casting onto non-casters.

On to actually constructive ideas:

Fighter: There's like 4 things you can do to fix them without changing their flavour AT ALL, and two of them will benefit EVERY martial class, so bonus points.
First Weapon Aptitude. You know that Warblade skill that let's them chance their weapon specific feats once a day IF they spend a few minutes at the beginning/end of the day training with said weapon. Now you can take 3-4 feats that are weapon specific and NOT be married to that Longsword +1 you found.
Second skills. Something as simple as 4 skill points instead of 2 a level goes a long way. Also more skills. Things like Balance, Diplomacy, Spot, Listen, Search, Sense motive and Tumble. Makes NO SENSE that they are lacking any sort of perception skills and don't even have all the "Physical" ones.
Third weapon groups. It's an alternate rule in Unearthed Arcana. Essentially weapons are grouped into more vauge types. Like Small blade, long blades, Two handed blades etc. If you know how to swing a Long Sword you know how to Swing a Bastard Sword. They're practically the same thing.
Fourth floating feats: Maybe make it so they can retrain their bonus feats every so often. Maybe once a day, or they can retrain up to class level feats per week, but only from their fighter bonus feats.

Monk, Paladin, Ranger: There is a ton of fixes out there. I'm partial to This Monk Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150122). Also have there's like 10 Paladin fixes, my personal one being essentially per encounter smites, Lay on Hands becoming the Dragon Shaman's touch of Vitality, slightly better spell casting/turning/mount (Paladin level = Caster level, turning level, Mount HD goes a long way). Few other trinkets iirc.

Warlocks: More Skill points and Evocations are pretty much right on. Though I might give them more than 3-4 extra ones. Something like 3 at first level and up to about 16-17 at 20th. Or let them swap something like 1+Cha mod of them out every day. That would work well to.

Rouge: Make trap sense USEFUL. Maybe make it a bonus the rouge can apply to a list of things, and each time they can increase the bonus that or choose a new thing to +1. Also making their special ability more useful (thing the Pathfinder rouge had some nice ones iirc) and making it start 5 levels earlier would go a long way.

Not sure about the Barbarian though. I always thought they where okay. Yeah they are fairly limited to their shtick, but when that shtick is being hard to kill and hitting something for OH GAWD WHY damage, it's not a bad role and simple enough. Well, fix trap sense that ability just sucks.

[Bobbybobby99]

Hmm. I suppose the extra mounts might of been a tad random, and the Smiting being per encounter seems like a good idea. I'm aiming more for being relatively quick, rather than being very elegant; it's interesting to see that someone already thought of the rogue fix, though. Having barbarians wild-shape seems a bit too... Ranger and Druidy. Having shapechanging doesn't seem like something every other person should have. I'll add it in a spoiler, though. The ruling 'Must pay expensive material or experience costs' seems common sense to me. I would say having monks use wisdom for cleric spells and intelligence for wizard spells seems sensible; when the spells are at will, you only have to worry about saves, and it's a good thing for them to be geared away from spells that require saves.

I'm also not certain what the monk would actually do that would be too terribly unbalanced with the at will spells (at least that couldn't be done by, say, a wizard two levels lower).

[ComaVision]

Having barbarians wild-shape seems a bit too... Ranger and Druidy. Having shapechanging doesn't seem like something every other person should have. I'll add it in a spoiler, though.

All the Barbarians have a totem animal anyway which their class features are based off of (see the UA variants) so I just thought of it as an extension of that theme. I can understand where you're coming from though.

[johnbragg]

Hmm. I suppose the extra mounts might of been a tad random.

I assumed you meant some sort of a mount upgrade. IF not, maybe some kind of planar cohort?

[Bobbybobby99]

I assumed you meant some sort of a mount upgrade. IF not, maybe some kind of planar cohort?

I'm not really certain how to make mounts that much better. Perhaps automatically applying the Celestial template?

[OldTrees1]

That's mostly because there are four types of tier threes; the types with casting, the type with binding (and that one's often debated), the type with maneuvers (which are often seen as undesirable for various reasons), and the one with wild-shape. So adding one of those or enhancing an existing spell-like mechanic seems like a must if you're going to do any elevating.

As a designer, you surely must recognize that just because something has be successfully achieved X, Y, and Z ways does not mean it can only be done X, Y or Z ways.

Ex: There is nothing inherent in the maneuvers that grants tier 3 status that cannot be ported to non initiator systems.


Furthermore I would advise anyone looking moving classes through tiers should reference the tier definitions rather than the tier lists. The definitions give you everything you need for how to make Class X a Tier Y without needing to become a copy of Class Z.



All you need to do to make the fighter better is to make feats better. You don't need more of them; you just need feats that are as good as two levels worth of class abilities.

Writing feats that are worth 2 levels is rather hard. I can find a decent handful that are worth 1 level apiece but none that are worth 2 levels. All in all I think it is easier to give them more feats and then focus on feats worth 1 level than it is to design feats worth 2 levels.

[Cosi]

Fighters. Increase skill points per level up to 4+int, and add a bonus feat, of any type, every odd level other than the first.

Rogue bonus feat (no prerequisites) or Fighter bonus feat (yes prerequisites)?

Also, probably swap the actual bonus feats to 1/day Persistent heroics to make the Fighter marginally less terrible.


At first level, gain a Cantrip from the wizard/sorcerer list, usable at will. At third level, gain a first level spell; at fifth level, a second level spell; at seventh level, a third level spell, and so on.

Should probably limit the schools. The Fighter doesn't really lend itself to getting animate dead or planar binding. wraithstrike or heroics seems fine.

Overall: Still probably not good enough. Fighter feats mostly blow, and the spellcasting very minor.


Barbarians. Increase skill points per level up to 6+int, and add casting as a spirit shaman, minus any spells of the transmutation and conjuration schools.

Overall: That works. Should probably let it cast while raging. Also, why that set of spells?


Give wild-shaping as a Druid.

The Wild Shape Ranger exists already. Wild Shape Barbarian isn't different enough to matter much.


Rogue. Add casting as a Beguiler, with spells per day (and maximum spell level) as a Bard.

Overall: The Beguiler spell list isn't really what the Rogue wants. A bunch of decent combat spells is good, but the Rogue would really rather have gravestrike or vinestrike. Also, what about spells known. Is the Rogue just a pocket Beguiler now?


Warlocks. Increase skill points per level up to 4+int. Give an invocation every level, and an extra invocation at first level, sixth level, eleventh level, and sixteenth level. They're still not game breaking, but they have quite a few options with twice as many invocations.
Rather than having increased invocation number, have invocations changeable at dusk.

Overall: I don't think getting all the invocations would make the Warlock good.


Monk. Increase skill points to 6+int, and increase BAB to that of a fighter. At first level, gain a Cantrip from the cleric or wizard list, usable at will. At third level, gain a first level spell; at fifth level, a second level spell; at seventh level, a third level spell, and so on.

Overall: Pretty much the same as Fighter.


Paladin. Increase skill points to 4+int. Increase casting to the equivalent of a bard's, with levels 0, 5, and 6 being from the cleric list. If there is overlap, use the lower leveled of the two spells. Smite is per encounter, rather than per day.

Overall: Seems fine. Basically just a Mystic Ranger.


The thing is, if I want to play a spellcaster, I play a spellcaster. Although, having at-will spells the way the fighter now does kinda just turns you into a mildly janky sorcerer. You're like the wilder of arcane spellcasting.

So what are the mundanes are supposed to get that is:

a) Not a huge commitment to write.
b) Not spells.

Also, why is getting abilities a deal breaker?

[nedz]

I just thought I'd point this out.

Warlock
The following line implies that they can change their invocations at 11 points in their career.

At any level when a warlock learns a new invocation, he can also replace an invocation he already knows with another invocation of the same or a lower grade.
The fact that the next three lines give examples for this only at levels 6, 11 and 16 is usually taken to imply that they can only swap invocations three times in their career - but that isn't what the rules say.

[Jormengand]

So what are the mundanes are supposed to get that is:

a) Not a huge commitment to write.
b) Not spells.

The Hypermundane classes I've made have some of the things I used to aim for T1 - you don't roll to damage someone a bit, you coup de grace them and they fort or die. No I don't care that they're not helpless. You don't sit there twiddling your thumbs while the wizard obliterates a small army, you pick up a bow and personally block out the sun. You're paralysed? Oh, no, you pay a few hit points to prevent being paralysed because you're just that hard. You casually poke a stick inside of a lock and it springs open.

For tier 3, you just have to throw in a bunch of generally neat stuff that's nebulous enough to have lots of uses. Like, say you're a rogue. Maybe you have a bunch of contacts that you can mysteriously find wherever you go? My Adventurer class has something similar.


Also, why is getting abilities a deal breaker?

It's not, nor did I claim it was. Fighters have abilities after all, they're just all feats. Monks have abilities, they're just all crap. Or feats. Or both. But they don't get spells, because that's not really the point of a fighter. I mean, this fix gives comparable spells known to a wilder's powers. C'MON!

[Cosi]

The Hypermundane classes I've made have some of the things I used to aim for T1 - you don't roll to damage someone a bit, you coup de grace them and they fort or die. No I don't care that they're not helpless. You don't sit there twiddling your thumbs while the wizard obliterates a small army, you pick up a bow and personally block out the sun. You're paralysed? Oh, no, you pay a few hit points to prevent being paralysed because you're just that hard. You casually poke a stick inside of a lock and it springs open.

For tier 3, you just have to throw in a bunch of generally neat stuff that's nebulous enough to have lots of uses. Like, say you're a rogue. Maybe you have a bunch of contacts that you can mysteriously find wherever you go? My Adventurer class has something similar.

Did you read requirement a) at all? Writing entire classes to balance things is way more work than OP seems to want to do.


It's not, nor did I claim it was. Fighters have abilities after all, they're just all feats. Monks have abilities, they're just all crap. Or feats. Or both. But they don't get spells, because that's not really the point of a fighter. I mean, this fix gives comparable spells known to a wilder's powers. C'MON!

So? Feats literally include 1/day SLAs. There are, what, half a dozen feats that give you a 0th level spell 1/day? If the point of the Fighter is to get feats, that already includes SLAs. Also, the point of the Fighter is to fight. Whether that's with Tome-style scaling feats, ToB maneuvers, or spells doesn't matter. The fighting matters.

[nedz]

Fighters. Increase skill points per level up to 4+int, and add a bonus feat, of any type, every odd level other than the first. At first level, gain a Cantrip from the wizard/sorcerer list, usable at will. At third level, gain a first level spell; at fifth level, a second level spell; at seventh level, a third level spell, and so on.
Fighters really need a better skill list, the extra skill points by themselves are unhelpful without this.
The spellcasting looks exploitable: after mid-levels they cease to be fighters and become attenuated Sorcerers.
Maybe, with a more limited spell list, this would be a more interesting Warlock feature ?
What's their casting stat ? Have we not just made them MAD ?

Barbarians. Increase skill points per level up to 6+int, and add casting as a spirit shaman, minus any spells of the transmutation and conjuration schools.
Spirit shaman is either Tier 1 or Tier 2 depending upon how you look at it. You have knocked out the two most useful schools though — actually there's not much left on the Druid list after you take these two out. In practice these are likely to have the same issues as the fighter fix. I'd consider just giving them the Transformation spells from the Druid list — this is closer to your other idea anyway.


Rogue. Add casting as a Beguiler, with spells per day (and maximum spell level) as a Bard.
Rogue 1 / Beguiler 4 / Unseen Servant 10 is strictly better

Warlocks. Increase skill points per level up to 4+int. Give an invocation every level, and an extra invocation at first level, sixth level, eleventh level, and sixteenth level. They're still not game breaking, but they have quite a few options with twice as many invocations.
Rather than having increased invocation number, have invocations changeable at dusk.
Warlocks do need more options. Consider adding something like the Half fey SLA progression instead — with a menu of different options: Fey,Fiend,etc.

Monk. Increase skill points to 6+int, and increase BAB to that of a fighter. At first level, gain a Cantrip from the cleric or wizard list, usable at will. At third level, gain a first level spell; at fifth level, a second level spell; at seventh level, a third level spell, and so on.
Same problem as your fighter fix: Wuxia-fail then Spam-bot.

Paladin. Increase skill points to 4+int. Increase casting to the equivalent of a bard's, with levels 0, 5, and 6 being from the cleric list. If there is overlap, use the lower leveled of the two spells. Smite is per encounter, rather than per day.
This is kind of like Mystic Paladin, in terms of structure, or Bardadin out of the box.
A Bardadin does get music though, albeit with worse BAB and spells.

[Arbane]

A possible start on a Fighter Fix: Pathfinder's Martial Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/martial-master). (And more skill points, for mercy's sake...)

[Bobbybobby99]

Casting stats for fighters and monks would be as appropriate for the list they draw from; so either charisma or intelligence for the wizard list, and wisdom for the cleric list. However, you would not have them be limited to a maximum level; it would just affect saves. This would encourage them to use buffs, and general things that don't require saves, which certainly fits. Generally speaking, you would encourage the fluff of the spell cast to match the theme of the class. For example, a Monk casting polar ray might be having some sort of chi blast, a monk with heal might be repairing chakras, etc. A fighter might cast animate dead by stabbing his (onyx) sword into the eye of his fallen foe and commanding him to pay his dues, or cast a lightning bolt by swinging said sword and invoking the rights of Thor. Or something.

[Jormengand]

Did you read requirement a) at all? Writing entire classes to balance things is way more work than OP seems to want to do.
Yes, I read it. How much work does it take to
throw in a bunch of generally neat stuff that's nebulous enough to have lots of uses. Like, say you're a rogue. Maybe you have a bunch of contacts that you can mysteriously find wherever you go?


Adventurers have contacts almost anywhere that they go, and in fact they can almost always count on having someone available for the specific problem that they need solved! From 6th level, they can consult a contact once per day, and they can do so an additional time per day per 6 levels after that.

A contact is an NPC with up to 1 hit die per full 3 adventurer levels the adventurer has, and the appropriate social status for a character of that many hit dice (hit dice may be limited by settlement size: a hamlet will not randomly produce 3 different level 6 characters in a day), and can be consulted in any location where it is reasonable to find members of their race and class (you should always be able to consult a contact in any kind of settlement). For example, it is reasonable to consult an elf cleric in a shrine to Larethian, even if that shrine is deep in the woods far from a settlement.

Contacts won't join you on your adventure or do anything with a more than routine chance of causing them harm (A soldier will happily enter a battle he thinks he's prepared for, but a merchant, even one who is uncannily good at combat, won't because they aren't used to putting themselves in harm's way). However, they will happily provide any services they offer, cast spells for you such that their total levels (cantrips count as half) are no more than half your adventurer level, and let you take up to 30 minutes/level of their time.

Here are some examples of possible contacts and the services they might provide:


A thief you once adventured with (Rogue 3 Adventurer 1) agrees to steal an item you need for your quest.
The captain of the guard in a small city (Fighter 5) sends a squad of men (8 Warriors 2) to raid a criminal base after you tip him off.
A smuggler (Bard 2 Rogue 1) shows you a selection of wares not normally available in this location.
A master smith (Factotum 2) agrees to sell you items that other stores aren't stocking at the moment.
A powerful wizard (Wizard 6) agrees to show your party's wizard his spellbook to allow his spells to be copied.


Like the list of items that can be withdrawn from a Bag of Useful Items, this list is by no means exhaustive.

See, that didn't take me excessively long to write, and it's a nebulous enough ability to be pretty useful. Just as an example. It wouldn't take forever to write ten or twelve of these (I'll do it if you like) and they allow you to be generally more competent without being a really janky arcane wilder thing.


Also, the point of the Fighter is to fight. Whether that's with Tome-style scaling feats, ToB maneuvers, or spells doesn't matter. The fighting matters.

Weird, because when I read a class and it's called "Fighter" I think "Ooh, maybe this is a guy who hits people with sticks" not "Ooh, this is a guy who magically mends things at level 1, summons undead armies at level 7 and can copy almost any spell in existence at level 19."

[Cosi]

See, that didn't take me excessively long to write, and it's a nebulous enough ability to be pretty useful.

Or, you know, completely useless. While all useful abilities allow you to get the ability to do a thing, actually getting the ability "do a thing" is insultingly useless.

Also, I'm totally unconvinced the ability you've provided is useful.


Weird, because when I read a class and it's called "Fighter" I think "Ooh, maybe this is a guy who hits people with sticks"

But that's not what the class concept is. The class is literally called a Fighter. Not a "hitter with sticks" not a "doesn't cast spells" not a "has melee attacks" a Fighter.

[Jormengand]

Or, you know, completely useless. While all useful abilities allow you to get the ability to do a thing, actually getting the ability "do a thing" is insultingly useless.

...

What?


But that's not what the class concept is. The class is literally called a Fighter. Not a "hitter with sticks" not a "doesn't cast spells" not a "has melee attacks" a Fighter.

Right, it fights. It doesn't turn invisible and start resurrecting people.

[Cosi]

...

What?

I'm saying the quoted section where you've basically written "you can get people to do stuff" is essentially meaningless.


Right, it fights. It doesn't turn invisible and start resurrecting people.

So is the Wizard not fighting when he casts cloudkill? Because I imagine many people would see that as fighting. Or is there some definition of fighting you've seen which excludes everything except hitting people with sticks?

[nedz]

Casting stats for fighters and monks would be as appropriate for the list they draw from; so either charisma or intelligence for the wizard list, and wisdom for the cleric list. However, you would not have them be limited to a maximum level; it would just affect saves. This would encourage them to use buffs, and general things that don't require saves, which certainly fits. Generally speaking, you would encourage the fluff of the spell cast to match the theme of the class. For example, a Monk casting polar ray might be having some sort of chi blast, a monk with heal might be repairing chakras, etc. A fighter might cast animate dead by stabbing his (onyx) sword into the eye of his fallen foe and commanding him to pay his dues, or cast a lightning bolt by swinging said sword and invoking the rights of Thor. Or something.

I think that the unlimited usage might be a problem, and there are several spells which are very flexible. Also you would need to define their CL.

[Jormengand]

I'm saying the quoted section where you've basically written "you can get people to do stuff" is essentially meaningless.

So I guess the diplomacy skill and charm person don't really mean anything?


So is the Wizard not fighting when he casts cloudkill? Because I imagine many people would see that as fighting. Or is there some definition of fighting you've seen which excludes everything except hitting people with sticks?

No, but there's nothing stopping a "Fighter" from taking Mending, Protection from Chaos, Levitate, Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, Major Creation, Quest, Sequester, Discern Location and Disjunction.

[Cosi]

So I guess the diplomacy skill and charm person don't really mean anything?

Nothing good or objective. Those both cite to the Diplomacy rules, and the Diplomacy rules are the vaguest rules in the entire game. By a lot.


No, but there's nothing stopping a "Fighter" from taking Mending, Protection from Chaos, Levitate, Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, Major Creation, Quest, Sequester, Discern Location and Disjunction.

Oh, so the Fighter's character concept isn't just that he fights, it's that he doesn't do anything but fight?

Also, like half of those (mending, protection from chaos, dispel magic, major creation, and disjunction) are pretty applicable to fighting, particularly in D&D.

[Jormengand]

Nothing good or objective. Those both cite to the Diplomacy rules, and the Diplomacy rules are the vaguest rules in the entire game. By a lot.

Yeah, vague rules allow you to do a lot, because they're very applicable. If you play a game where charm person doesn't do anything, you and I are playing very different versions of 3.5




Oh, so the Fighter's character concept isn't just that he fights, it's that he doesn't do anything but fight?

"Oh, so the wizard's concept isn't just that he casts spells, it's that he doesn't do anything but cast spells?" Well, yeah, I'd say that was pretty much it. If you can make a fighter who is better at building castles than actually fighting, I regard that as a design flaw.

[johnbragg]

Nothing good or objective. Those both cite to the Diplomacy rules, and the Diplomacy rules are the vaguest rules in the entire game. By a lot.



Oh, so the Fighter's character concept isn't just that he fights, it's that he doesn't do anything but fight?

Also, like half of those (mending, protection from chaos, dispel magic, major creation, and disjunction) are pretty applicable to fighting, particularly in D&D.

Qiuck rule of thumb: Does it seem stupid if D&D Chuck Norris casts the spell by roundhouse kicking the target, or by positioniing his guard arms?

Mending? Should not be a high-level fighter thing.
Protection From Chaos? That works.
Dispel magic? Cast on an enemy, yes, cast on self, yes. Area effects, probably not.
Major creation, no. Just no.
Disjunction? Punching so hard that all magical effects in the area are negated? At level 18, everything is stupid and nothing matters so maybe?

Fireball probably not, lightning bolt arrows hell yeah. Enervation through a grapple attack?

[Cosi]

Yeah, vague rules allow you to do a lot, because they're very applicable. If you play a game where charm person doesn't do anything, you and I are playing very different versions of 3.5

Everyone who uses charm person plays a different game. Because it doesn't objectively do anything. Can you Diplomacy people under it? Maybe. Will people under it fight for you? Maybe, probably not. What about people who are Friendly from Diplomacy? Maybe. It's like polymorph, except you only have to read one book before you start having arguments with your group.


"Oh, so the wizard's concept isn't just that he casts spells, it's that he doesn't do anything but cast spells?"

Please, describe a challenge you can't solve by casting spells. Do that as often as you can. Then do the same thing with fighting.


If you can make a fighter who is better at building castles than actually fighting, I regard that as a design flaw.

No one is suggesting that the Fighter should be better at non-combat stuff. My stance has always been that people should have combat and non-combat abilities which are level appropriate.

[Jormengand]

Quick rule of thumb: Does it seem stupid if D&D Chuck Norris casts the spell by roundhouse kicking the target, or by positioning his guard arms?

Can I sig this? I find it important.

[johnbragg]

Can I sig this? I find it important.

Sure. I say that Chuck Norris memes are the best model for how to think of high-level mundane characters.

[Jormengand]

I say that Chuck Norris memes are the best model for how to think of high-level mundane characters.

Actually, this looks like a better candidate for sigging. :smalltongue:

[nedz]

If it's Chuck Norris sig-bait you are looking for, this (http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/) is relevant.

[Jormengand]

If it's Chuck Norris sig-bait you are looking for, this (http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/) is relevant.

Some of these would actually make decent abilities.

"When there are terrorists that are causing trouble, the police call Chuck Norris in and the terrorists stop as soon as they hear he's coming."
"Chuck Norris can climb a tree without using his hands"
"When you play hide and seek with Chuck Norris he's already found you."
"If Chuck Norris had to he could give CPR to himself."

[Apricot]

Something I've always considered for mundanes is giving them set ability bonuses at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 to their choice of the three mental scores, with the caveat that the resulting bonus is utterly useless for spellcasting. And not just a tiny bonus, either: maybe as high as 4, given that the usual limitations are based on not making casters broken. One of the bigger problems for mundanes is that they have to put a lot of their points into all three physical abilities, while casters only have to devote themselves to their casting ability, Con, and their choice of Dex, Int, or Wis for touch spells, skill bonuses, or will saves respectively. The resulting lack of flexibility makes it really hard to play a mundane with any real character or out-of-combat potential. Allowing for this, and then maybe a bonus to skill gain and their choice of a couple of class skills to add, probably wouldn't suffice to bring them to T3, but it could make them a lot more fun to play. It feels like this would be best suited to the Fighter, as well. There's potential for abuse with Diplo cheese or what have you, I'm sure, but it might give mundanes the kind of flavor and character that they often are seriously lacking in.

[johnbragg]

We're getting into the metaphysics of fantasy worlds, but my schema is that everyone is magical, they just express that magic in different ways.

Let's call willpower paragravity. Just as everything in the real world is part of an interacting gravity field or set of fields, etc.

Different classes channel paragravity differently.
Casters channel their magic through known, established ritualized formulae.
Warrior-types channel their magic through their combat abilities. (D&D Wayne Gretzky holding a hockey stick shrugging off a fireball? I could see that, actually.)
Skillmonkeys channel their magic through their skills, and through increasingly direct manipulation of luck.
Some skilled types channel more through their skill (master craftsmen, artificers, scholars, etc), some more through manipulation of luck.

LEvel (and/or hitdice) corresponds to mass. Same level should be the same amount of power. (See Xykon's speech to Dark V)

My rogue fix idea lets the rogue play with dice. He or she intuits what the characters in the Matrix learn, that their world can be expressed as a set of probability fields. The trick is to manipulate those probabilities to your advantage.

So the core Rogue ability is to roll 3d6 instead of a d20 on any d20 roll. It's the same principle as taking 10, but not limited to non-pressure situations. The advanced Rogue ability is to add more d6's to roll 4d6, 5d6, 6d6. ("OMG broken!" because True STrike isn't a 1st level spell.)

[Cosi]

Something I've always considered for mundanes is giving them set ability bonuses at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 to their choice of the three mental scores, with the caveat that the resulting bonus is utterly useless for spellcasting. And not just a tiny bonus, either: maybe as high as 4, given that the usual limitations are based on not making casters broken.

A +4 bonus to a stat is tiny. That's a +2 on rolls. Nice if you're already stacking bonuses, but not enough to dig you out of a hole. Also, just boosting attributes isn't likely to do nearly enough.


So the core Rogue ability is to roll 3d6 instead of a d20 on any d20 roll. It's the same principle as taking 10, but not limited to non-pressure situations. The advanced Rogue ability is to add more d6's to roll 4d6, 5d6, 6d6. ("OMG broken!" because True STrike isn't a 1st level spell.)

Exactly, true strike is a 1st level spell. Not a 9th level spell, not even a 2nd level spell. How is getting progressively better versions of that something high level characters should be excited about?

[Telonius]

Possibility for the Warlock: Allow them to Bind a single vestige (Binder Level = Warlock Level). Eldritch Blast changes from d6 to d8.

[johnbragg]

Exactly, true strike is a 1st level spell. Not a 9th level spell, not even a 2nd level spell. How is getting progressively better versions of that something high level characters should be excited about?

I failed to convey sarcasm. Some people have seen my idea to "GURPSify the rogue", spending Power Points to roll fistfuls of d6s instead of a d20, and thought it was unfair to let the Rogue cheat the d20 RNG that way.

The advantage over true strike is flexibility. It applies to saving throws, and skill checks (which a Rogue should be doing fairly often), critical hit confirmation rolls, etc. It's also more granular, you'd only spend the points to buy the dice you'll probably need to beat what you think the DC/AC is.

It doesn't make the Rogue a Tier 1, but it's the sort of thing that appeals to the sort of players who like playing Rogues, I think.

EDIT: Also, action economy. True strike is a standard action, d6 shenanigans is a free action.

[Cosi]

The advantage over true strike is flexibility. It applies to saving throws, and skill checks (which a Rogue should be doing fairly often), critical hit confirmation rolls, etc. It's also more granular, you'd only spend the points to buy the dice you'll probably need to beat what you think the DC/AC is.

So as you level up, you get bonuses to saves, attack rolls, and skill checks? Isn't that exactly what literally everyone gets for leveling up? The Wizard gets that, and also teleport.

[Jormengand]

So as you level up, you get bonuses to saves, attack rolls, and skill checks? Isn't that exactly what literally everyone gets for leveling up? The Wizard gets that, and also teleport.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Numbers don't really make that much difference to your versatility, until those numbers become high enough to add extra options (hitting the skeleton harder isn't extra options, being able to break down the wall that you previously couldn't is extra options).

If you had +1000 to all ability scores and nothing else, you could probably have a vaguely versatile character just because you've trained (and have a +500 bonus to) literally every skill in existence and can pick up, break, throw, kill, or do pretty much anything else to pretty much anything you liked. Lack of ability to go places (barring epic SoH shenanigans which quite obviously aren't meant to work that way) is probably the main thing that's going to get you down with this character, though.

This is actually a pretty funny character idea, though.

[johnbragg]

So as you level up, you get bonuses to saves, attack rolls, and skill checks? Isn't that exactly what literally everyone gets for leveling up? The Wizard gets that, and also teleport.

Tier 1 classes break the game and cannot be matched. I'm not trying to match wizards. I'm trying to create a mechanic that relates to how Rogues interact with the game world, and that gives the Rogue player fun options.

Everyone gets increasing BAB, saves, skills by level. My rogue option also gets power points that can be spent to further boost those numbers for specific rolls, when the player thinks it's important, by rolling Xd6 instead of a d20 and adding the same modifiers.

The Rogue fix does better than the Rogue on the Same Game Test, because he can "cheat" on d20 rolls. The Rogue player also gets to feel that he accomplished something by using his class abilities when he spent the points to roll 7d6 instead of d20 for that target AC or target DC that he needed a natural 17 to hit.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that's a bad thing. It's not designed to be insanely powerful, it's designed to be fun to play, vaguely like Action Points or Hero Points except with rolling dice.

[Cosi]

Tier 1 classes break the game and cannot be matched.

Umm, no. There are spells that Wizards (et al) get which break the game to various degrees. planar binding, simulacrum, polymorph, SLA wish, and charm monster spring to mind. Actually being a Wizard and running around casting web or stinking cloud is not on any level game breaking, and can easily be matched.

The idea that Wizards = Broken is profoundly wrong, and reiterating it does no favors for you.


I'm trying to create a mechanic that relates to how Rogues interact with the game world, and that gives the Rogue player fun options.

Your mechanic doesn't do either of those things. Bigger numbers (except in truly extreme cases) don't change how you interact with the world. They certainly don't give you options.

[OldTrees1]

Umm, no. There are spells that Wizards (et al) get which break the game to various degrees. planar binding, simulacrum, polymorph, SLA wish, and charm monster spring to mind. Actually being a Wizard and running around casting web or stinking cloud is not on any level game breaking, and can easily be matched.

The idea that Wizards = Broken is profoundly wrong, and reiterating it does no favors for you.

And when you accurately remove the campaign smashing abilities Wizard ceases to qualify as Tier 1 or even as Tier 2 (although it would remain a high Tier 3).

Saying Tier 1 = Broken is not profoundly wrong since it is derived from the definition.

[Cosi]

And when you accurately remove the campaign smashing abilities Wizard ceases to qualify as Tier 1 or even as Tier 2 (although it would remain a high Tier 3).

Saying Tier 1 = Broken is not profoundly wrong since it is derived from the definition.

You'll notice that I literally never used the word "tier" in that description at all, because the tiers are terrible and useless.

Also, those aren't the "campaign smashing" abilities of the Wizard. teleport, scry, plane shift, travel mode gate, and major creation all smash campaigns (well LotR-style campaigns), but none of those are broken.

[bekeleven]

I've built two high-powered mundane classes. NO CASTING ALLOWED.

The first one is the Professional. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?332829) It's a generic class that can be built as a tier 3 Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Marshal, Scout, Swashbuckler, or any combination thereof, also incorporating mechanics from Rangers and Factotums. It's a high-powered mundane with a bunch of abilities at its disposal that, while it doesn't exactly scale up to level 20, is powerful for a solid 10-15 levels and a presence at any level. If you seriously want a tier 3 mundane, use this class. Oh, and the class fits on one page. I allow it in all of my campaigns and thus far it's a powerful alternative to casters without overshadowing them (obviously it overshadows things like fighters, barbarians, rogues...)

The second one is the Wuxia Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428004). It's Chuck Norris Facts: The Class. It's either a solid tier 3 or a weak tier 2, and it's designed to transition between the 4 quartiles of play with some amount of grace (a feat more or less impossible to most mundane classes; as I said above, The Professional fails in the 4th quartile, or "Superhero-level play").

[OldTrees1]

You'll notice that I literally never used the word "tier" in that description at all, because the tiers are terrible and useless.

I noticed that you rebuked a comment that used and was centered around the words "tier 1". Are you claiming that your chastising of the poster was due to you intentionally misrepresenting their post?

Please don't try to defend yourself to me by admitting to using a strawman fallacy.

[Cosi]

I noticed that you rebuked a comment that used and was centered around the words "tier 1".

Actually, you'll recall that the specific phrasing was:


Tier 1 classes break the game and cannot be matched. I'm not trying to match wizards.

That's not "tier 1 characters", it's "tier 1 classes". Or specifically, Wizards. And the things that are actually unique to the Wizard (as opposed to broken parts of the rules like "minions" or "SLA wish").

Also, remember that JaronK says the tiers hold across levels of optimization. So a Wizard with no polymorph should still be tier 1.

Finally, my actual post wasn't about the idea of tier definitions per se. It was about the notion that Wizards are 'broken" in some inherent sense.

[OldTrees1]

Actually, you'll recall that the specific phrasing was:

That's not "tier 1 characters", it's "tier 1 classes". Or specifically, Wizards. And the things that are actually unique to the Wizard (as opposed to broken parts of the rules like "minions" or "SLA wish").

Also, remember that JaronK says the tiers hold across levels of optimization. So a Wizard with no polymorph should still be tier 1.

Finally, my actual post wasn't about the idea of tier definitions per se. It was about the notion that Wizards are 'broken" in some inherent sense.

English lesson: Phrases and Sentences are often written in context of each other. johnbragg's post was in the context of wizards in the context of Tier 1 classes in the context of Tier 1. So congrats, your response was merely a wildly off topic strawman and thus not technically incorrect.

[Cosi]

English lesson: Phrases and Sentences are often written in context of each other. johnbragg's post was in the context of wizards in the context of Tier 1 classes in the context of Tier 1. So congrats, your response was merely a wildly off topic strawman and thus not technically incorrect.

Look, the actual author of the tiers has literally and explicitly stated that the tiers hold outside optimization. So according to the standards by which the tiers are defined, it doesn't matter if your Wizard gets polymorph or not. He's still tier one. That is the claim the tiers make. Is it a stupid claim? Probably. But rejecting it requires rejecting the tiers.

That said, me calling out his claim as being based on a stupid standard isn't straw-manning him. It's just responding to a different level of the argument.

[OldTrees1]

Look, the actual author of the tiers has literally and explicitly stated that the tiers hold outside optimization. So according to the standards by which the tiers are defined, it doesn't matter if your Wizard gets polymorph or not. He's still tier one. That is the claim the tiers make. Is it a stupid claim? Probably. But rejecting it requires rejecting the tiers.

That said, me calling out his claim as being based on a stupid standard isn't straw-manning him. It's just responding to a different level of the argument.

The Author also defined the Tiers and gave us definitions to reference in addition to the examples. Your calling johnbragg out about wizards when he was talking about Tier 1(defined by the actual author as being defined by game breaking abilities) is classic Strawman.

Your rejection of the Tier system is irrelevant to your intentional misrepresentation of what johnbragg was saying in your rush to contradict him.

[Cosi]

(defined by the actual author as being defined by game breaking abilities)

No, because JaronK claims that the tiers hold for Healbot Clerics or Blaster Wizards, which do not use game breaking abilities like planar ally or polymorph. Again, it is totally okay for you to call that stupid or inconsistent. But that is what the tiers actually claim.

And to be totally honest, John is arguing against a massive strawman. Specifically, the idea that ice assassin or shapechange represent how Wizards are actually played, and what you must compete with to be balanced against them.

That is a strawman in a way that no claim I made could ever be.

[OldTrees1]

No, because JaronK claims that the tiers hold for Healbot Clerics or Blaster Wizards, which do not use game breaking abilities like planar ally or polymorph. Again, it is totally okay for you to call that stupid or inconsistent. But that is what the tiers actually claim.

And to be totally honest, John is arguing against a massive strawman. Specifically, the idea that ice assassin or shapechange represent how Wizards are actually played, and what you must compete with to be balanced against them.

That is a strawman in a way that no claim I made could ever be.

It is totally okay for you to personally believe in your misrepresentations, but the fact remains that you do misrepresent. Goodnight.

[Cosi]

It is totally okay for you to personally believe in your misrepresentations, but the fact remains that you do misrepresent. Goodnight.

You might make more headway if you actually responded to points rather than simply block quoting me and repeating your accusations.

[johnbragg]

No, because JaronK claims that the tiers hold for Healbot Clerics or Blaster Wizards, which do not use game breaking abilities like planar ally or polymorph. Again, it is totally okay for you to call that stupid or inconsistent. But that is what the tiers actually claim.

And to be totally honest, John is arguing against a massive strawman. Specifically, the idea that ice assassin or shapechange represent how Wizards are actually played, and what you must compete with to be balanced against them.

That is a strawman in a way that no claim I made could ever be.


Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level.

JaronK doesn't say that the tiers hold outside optimization, he says they hold at equal levels of optimization. Polymorph is not a high-op spell to pick, it's a fairly obvious, powerful option. (Especially if your Druid friend picked up the same basic ability 2 levels ago.)


The Wizard gets that, and also teleport

Your argument against my Rogue fix' dice shenanigans is that numerical boosts don't matter. Most players would disagree. I'd say the ability to effectively guarantee the d20 roll you need N times a day is a level appropriate ability, even if it is not full casting or the equivalent.

[The Insanity]

A Healbot Cleric is Tier 1 because it's a Cleric.
A Blaster Wizard is Tier 1 because it's a Wizard.

[Waazraath]

johnbragg is correct. The blaster wizard is compared to a fighter that took dodge, toughness and the weapon focus feat tree. Then a blaster wizard is more powerfull and versatile, cause even if 80% of his spells are direct damage, he still probably will have the occasional illusion, wall of fire, invisibility, fly, gaseous for, and mirror image. And has a familiar. In general, this wizard (at the higher levels) will still be much more powerfull and versatile then this fighter.

But you can debate endlessly how a character looks like at a 'low optimization level', because everybody has different experiences with how to build 'em and what 'low op' is. Somebody who played 10 fighters has a different idea on what a low optimized fighter is that somebody who never played one.

[HammeredWharf]

In this case, "why" is a rather important question. What would you want from a T3 Fighter? Do you just want a T3 melee guy and don't care about him having spells or not? Then there no need for fixes. Just play a gish. Do you want a guy who beats things up with his sword real good? Play a Warblade. Don't like Warblades? Why don't you like them? And so on.

Without good answers to these questions the design goals of such fixes remain unknown, so each fix could be simply "give them the casting of a T3 caster". That's entirely feasible, but I don't see how it solves anything.

[Cosi]

JaronK doesn't say that the tiers hold outside optimization, he says they hold at equal levels of optimization.

So, "no infinite loops" level of optimization. Or, a level where Wizards aren't broken.


Polymorph is not a high-op spell to pick, it's a fairly obvious, powerful option. (Especially if your Druid friend picked up the same basic ability 2 levels ago.)

That's not true. polymorph is crazy high op for the simple reason that is this is the process for actually using it:

1. Read polymorph citation to alter self.
2. Read rules for alter self.
3. Read PHB errata to alter self.
4. Read PHB II Polymorph school changes.
5. Read errata to those changes.
6. Determine which parts of those changes can actually overwrite alter self.
7. Read Rules Compendium changes to alter self.
8. Read errata to those changes.
9. Determine how those changes overwrite alter self.
10. Have a long, and fundamentally subjective, argument about how the rules you have determined for alter self inherit to polymorph.
11. Repeat 3 through 10 for polymorph.
12. Determine how those rules interact with monster abilities.
13. Determine the inheritance structure for polymorph stacking with other form changing magic.
14. Comb through every single Monster Manual, adventure, and setting splat for good monsters.
15. Actually copy over those statistics to your character.

That's literally more than twenty steps to figure out what the spell does, and you aren't even using the FAQ or Rules of the Game psuedo-rules. And I've grouped debates like "what are natural abilities" and "dire wolf fu or octopus fu" into single headings. polymorph is crazy high op by any sane definition of the term.


Your argument against my Rogue fix' dice shenanigans is that numerical boosts don't matter. Most players would disagree. I'd say the ability to effectively guarantee the d20 roll you need N times a day is a level appropriate ability, even if it is not full casting or the equivalent.

I never said it didn't matter, I said it's not as good as other abilities. Even the 6d6 version is only a +11 bonus relative to 1d20. Compare that to, say, jump, which is a +20 bonus (at 5th level) for a 1st level spell. It doesn't compare to getting scrying, or true creation, or gate.


In this case, "why" is a rather important question. What would you want from a T3 Fighter? Do you just want a T3 melee guy and don't care about him having spells or not? Then there no need for fixes. Just play a gish. Do you want a guy who beats things up with his sword real good? Play a Warblade. Don't like Warblades? Why don't you like them? And so on.

This is true. Design goals are important, because they allow you to evaluate whether or not rules are good in a meaningful way.


Without good answers to these questions the design goals of such fixes remain unknown, so each fix could be simply "give them the casting of a T3 caster". That's entirely feasible, but I don't see how it solves anything.

It's super easy and it fast tracks all those characters into level appropriate abilities for the whole game. It's actually a very elegant solution, and I think something like it is a good fix for the game (I'd rewrite the classes to 10 levels, then give casting at 10th for entry to a PrC).

[johnbragg]

So, "no infinite loops" level of optimization. Or, a level where Wizards aren't broken.

Polymorph is crazy high op by any sane definition of the term.

OK. My possibly insane definition of the term "high op" is "favored by experienced players with system mastery" and low op is "favored by players with limited experience and system mastery, but a vague idea of how D&D has been played in the past." (Low-op play can also be mimicked by high-op players). Polymorph, while very complicated to adjudicate and difficult to use to its fullest extent, is something that beginning players can easily see the advantages of and try to use, even if they don't know about the availability of velociraptors and stick to snakes and bears and eagles.

Almost any spell that is inherited from 1st edition and is still in widespread use would be, by my definition, low-op.


I never said it didn't matter, I said it's not as good as other abilities. Even the 6d6 version is only a +11 bonus relative to 1d20. Compare that to, say, jump, which is a +20 bonus (at 5th level) for a 1st level spell. It doesn't compare to getting scrying, or true creation, or gate.

Again, not trying to compete with or duplicate the higher-level LOTR-plot breaking abilities of full spellcasters. But, for this encounter, our rogue finds that he needs jump. He either has his scroll of jump, or he doesn't (because he used it yesterday). The alt-Rogue at 5th level, using the SRD Spell Points table for the Wizard, has 16 spell points to play around with, plus let's say a 15 in his casting stat for another 4, total 20 points. He can blow 3 extra dice to jump the chasm (6d6 ~ 21 plus modifiers), while still having 17 extra dice left for later on to disarm traps, or guarantee a critical hit (6d6 for the attack roll, 6d6 to confirm, both should be safely above 20), or beat a save-or-die, or make a glibness-level bluff check, or an epic diplomacy roll if he wants to blow all the dice when it REALLY counts.

[Cosi]

Almost any spell that is inherited from 1st edition and is still in widespread use would be, by my definition, low-op.

You mean like gate? Because I totally agree that the Solar cascade is low OP. According to this (http://pandaria.rpgworlds.info/cant/rules/adnd_spells.htm) list, gate existed in 1e.


Again, not trying to compete with or duplicate the higher-level LOTR-plot breaking abilities of full spellcasters.

Then what is the point? The Rogue can already compete in other fields (i.e. combat), why are you giving him new abilities that don't address the problems the class actually has? The Rogue needs a set of abilities that allow him to contribute out of combat in high level settings/adventures. If you aren't going to fix that problem, why are you trying to fix the Rogue?


or an epic diplomacy roll if he wants to blow all the dice when it REALLY counts.

Oh, so the Rogue is supposed to abuse that bit of broken rules?

[johnbragg]

OK. My possibly insane definition of the term "high op" is "favored by experienced players with system mastery" and low op is "favored by players with limited experience and system mastery, but a vague idea of how D&D has been played in the past." (Low-op play can also be mimicked by high-op players). Polymorph, while very complicated to adjudicate and difficult to use to its fullest extent, is something that beginning players can easily see the advantages of and try to use, even if they don't know about the availability of velociraptors and stick to snakes and bears and eagles.

Almost any spell that is inherited from 1st edition and is still in widespread use would be, by my definition, low-op.



Again, not trying to compete with or duplicate the higher-level LOTR-plot breaking abilities of full spellcasters. But, for this encounter, our rogue finds that he needs jump. He either has his scroll of jump, or he doesn't (because he used it yesterday). The alt-Rogue at 5th level, using the SRD Spell Points table for the Wizard, has 16 spell points to play around with, plus let's say a 15 in his casting stat for another 4, total 20 points. He can blow 3 extra dice to jump the chasm (6d6 ~ 21 plus modifiers), while still having 17 extra dice left for later on to disarm traps, or guarantee a critical hit (6d6 for the attack roll, 6d6 to confirm, both should be safely above 20), or beat a save-or-die, or make a glibness-level bluff check, or an epic diplomacy roll if he wants to blow all the dice when it REALLY counts.

I guess if you use Diplomancy on the Balrog(balor), blow all 20 bonus dice for around a 90 on the diplomacy check, against the Balor with a +30 for an average 40, that moves a "Hostile" reaction to "Friendly", and maybe the Balrog lets the Fellowship proceed through Moria after all.

[johnbragg]

You mean like gate? Because I totally agree that the Solar cascade is low OP. According to this (http://pandaria.rpgworlds.info/cant/rules/adnd_spells.htm) list, gate existed in 1e.

It's not broken, or less broken, if you get it at level 17. It's a 9th level spell. What is high-op is using exploits and shenanigans to gate in minions at level 10.

I'd say that a Wizard 17 casting wish is not high-op, it's high-level play. Using a [i]candle of invocation to summon an Efreet to grant you wish loops is high-op.



Then what is the point? The Rogue can [I]already compete in other fields (i.e. combat), why are you giving him new abilities that don't address the problems the class actually has? The Rogue needs a set of abilities that allow him to contribute out of combat in high level settings/adventures. If you aren't going to fix that problem, why are you trying to fix the Rogue?

The point is to fix the fact that Rogue skills are obsoleted at mid-levels by spells, which are a more cost-effective way of doing almost anything you'd want a mid-level rogue to do. (And because Real Gamers(TM) like rolling fistfuls of dice.) Rogue Classic can be replaced by a Hewards' HAversack full of low-level scrolls for less than the cost of the Haversack. HEck, in 3X that's the right way to play the Rogue, with a few ranks in UMD. That's not elegant design, is it?


Oh, so the Rogue is supposed to abuse that bit of broken rules?

If your table is playing with broken diplomancy, it's the sort of thing that a rogue should be good at.

[OldTrees1]

OK. My possibly insane definition of the term "high op" is "favored by experienced players with system mastery" and low op is "favored by players with limited experience and system mastery, but a vague idea of how D&D has been played in the past." (Low-op play can also be mimicked by high-op players).
Your definition is partially insane and here is how:

High/Low OP is usually used to reference a range on the sliding scale of power. The sliding scale is always a contextual reference. Sometimes it refers to the entire scale from Nup-Nup to Pun-Pun while other times it refers to a smaller range like Fighter floor to Fighter ceiling.

Obscurity of a source is independent of its relative power. However system mastery tends to allow better estimates of power level. So legacy options like Gate and Fireball (low obscurity) are not all examples of low-op. Otherwise your definition has good correlation with the common usage despite not having a strong causal link.

[Apricot]

A +4 bonus to a stat is tiny. That's a +2 on rolls. Nice if you're already stacking bonuses, but not enough to dig you out of a hole. Also, just boosting attributes isn't likely to do nearly enough.


A +2 to a set of mental-related skills (Knowledge, Diplomacy, Sense Motive come to mind as potentially worthy for not playing as a simple bruiser) ranked up 5 times succeeds in basically doubling the individual's skill total throughout the entire game, given what Int usually sells for in those classes, and even more if you let the bonus stack to granting extra skills/level. And, if you read my post, you would realize that it wasn't precisely about rebalancing in the sense of asking how this character brings adventures to a close, but how much freedom you actually get to play any character at all as opposed to something that could be replaced favorably with a golem. Expand your vision beyond the simple number-crunch, because mundanes are severely restricted in other ways as well. I mean, what use would it be to buff their numbers until they can even hit T2 if they've still got all the character of an inanimate object?

You're aiming for one target and completely ignoring others which could be around. For reference, I'm thinking of how to rebalance for a friend of mine, who loves the brute in-your-face combat style of the melee classes but is understandably bored out of his mind in non-combat situations because his character has literally zero ways of interacting. I strongly recommend you consider how limiting the required balance to the ability to end encounters skews your view of the game. Ending encounters is critical to the game proceeding, and imbalance in how characters can accomplish it has the potential to be devastating, but it's only part of the picture.

[johnbragg]

Your definition is partially insane and here is how:

High/Low OP is usually used to reference a range on the sliding scale of power. The sliding scale is always a contextual reference. Sometimes it refers to the entire scale from Nup-Nup to Pun-Pun while other times it refers to a smaller range like Fighter floor to Fighter ceiling.

Obscurity of a source is independent of its relative power. However system mastery tends to allow better estimates of power level. So legacy options like Gate and Fireball (low obscurity) are not all examples of low-op. Otherwise your definition has good correlation with the common usage despite not having a strong causal link.

Hmm. My definition fits poorly with high-system-mastery players playing in low-op campaigns while behaving themselves and not ruining everyone else's fun. (Although they're often doing high-op things like optimizing Monks or building uberbuffbot Bards or what have you). Your definition fits poorly with how low-system-mastery players tend to choose options. I think we'd agree that LSM players are automatically low-op players. But if you invite one to roll up a character for a one-shot session, if they're playing a Wizard they're likely to take polymorph at 7th and teleport at 9th and wish at 17th.

See also "the most broken stuff is in Core," and isn't hard at all for noob players to spot, even if they don't know how to fully exploit it yet.

EDIT: I suppose I see high-op and low-op as fundamentally an attribute of players, rather than an attribute of the game environment.

[HammeredWharf]

It's super easy and it fast tracks all those characters into level appropriate abilities for the whole game. It's actually a very elegant solution, and I think something like it is a good fix for the game (I'd rewrite the classes to 10 levels, then give casting at 10th for entry to a PrC).

It turns everyone into gishes. If I wanted something like a Fighter fix, I wouldn't be looking into a gish, because I can already make a good gish. I can make a melee Bard. I can make a Suel Arcanamach. Just giving Fighter some spells is redundant and would only help newbie players who have so little system mastery they don't want to multiclass.

[OldTrees1]

Hmm. My definition fits poorly with high-system-mastery players playing in low-op campaigns while behaving themselves and not ruining everyone else's fun. (Although they're often doing high-op things like optimizing Monks or building uberbuffbot Bards or what have you). Your definition fits poorly with how low-system-mastery players tend to choose options. I think we'd agree that LSM players are automatically low-op players. But if you invite one to roll up a character for a one-shot session, if they're playing a Wizard they're likely to take polymorph at 7th and teleport at 9th and wish at 17th.

See also "the most broken stuff is in Core," and isn't hard at all for noob players to spot, even if they don't know how to fully exploit it yet.

EDIT: I suppose I see high-op and low-op as fundamentally an attribute of players, rather than an attribute of the game environment.

Huh, optimization level and the corresponding terms high-op, medium-op, and low-op are almost always used in reference as a function of player, build, and environment (Ex: A Wishing Wizard is probably too high OP for a party of Monk 20s). When used as such it is a useful term for describing compatibility/power. The way you are trying to use the term strongly correlates with compatibility/power but the counterexamples* show that it is not a perfect correlation. It is still a good correlation (although system mastery has an even higher correlation with your usage).

*The counter examples:
1)High system mastery players choosing to play characters that are low OP relative to all D&D/mid OP relative to their group/high OP relative to their character's class. (Ex: A martial character with lots of dips)
2)Low system mastery players accidentally playing characters that are mid OP relative to all D&D/high OP relative to their group/low OP relative to their character class. (Ex: A Wizard with powerful/broken spells from the PHB)

[johnbragg]

Huh, optimization level and the corresponding terms high-op, medium-op, and low-op are almost always used in reference as a function of player, build, and environment (Ex: A Wishing Wizard is probably too high OP for a party of Monk 20s). When used as such it is a useful term for describing compatibility/power. The way you are trying to use the term strongly correlates with compatibility/power but the counterexamples* show that it is not a perfect correlation. It is still a good correlation (although system mastery has an even higher correlation with your usage).

*The counter examples:
1)High system mastery players choosing to play characters that are low OP relative to all D&D/mid OP relative to their group/high OP relative to their character's class. (Ex: A martial character with lots of dips)
2)Low system mastery players accidentally playing characters that are mid OP relative to all D&D/high OP relative to their group/low OP relative to their character class. (Ex: A Wizard with powerful/broken spells from the PHB)

That seems about right to me. So we could say that polymorph is a high-op spell, frequent chosen by low-op players. (Usually leading to a high-tier-gap game.)

[OldTrees1]

That seems about right to me. So we could say that polymorph is a high-op spell, frequent chosen by low-op players. (Usually leading to a high-tier-gap game.)

Yes, we could generally say that.

[Bucky]

I'm a fan of the Domain Monk homebrew archetype for Pathfinder; The basics are that the monk trades out most of its Ki-using class features in favor of a Cleric domain, including 1 slot per spell level as a Cleric, and gets the ability to spend Ki (from a pool of Wis modifier+level/2) for extra casts of domain spells or uses of domain powers. This is roughly in line with your original Fighter/Barbarian changes, but in general only boosts the Monk to upper Tier 4.

Admittedly, I mostly like it for fluff reasons.

[Cosi]

I guess if you use Diplomancy on the Balrog(balor), blow all 20 bonus dice for around a 90 on the diplomacy check, against the Balor with a +30 for an average 40, that moves a "Hostile" reaction to "Friendly", and maybe the Balrog lets the Fellowship proceed through Moria after all.

And the Wizard casts teleport and bypasses Moria. Rolling some dice and defeating the encounter is the solution used in LotR. It cannot possibly be a higher level solution.


It's not broken, or less broken, if you get it at level 17. It's a 9th level spell. What is high-op is using exploits and shenanigans to gate in minions at level 10.

It's broken depending on how you use it. The travel version of gate is basically fine. It could be like 7th level if you really wanted. Calling a creature might be balanced. The Free Vacation: No Save trick is overpowered, but not game destroying. The Solar Cascade (or, I suppose, the anything with gate cascade) is certainly broken.


I'd say that a Wizard 17 casting wish[i/] is not high-op, it's high-level play. Using a [i]candle of invocation to summon an Efreet to grant you wish loops is high-op.

That's actually a false equivalence. Casting wish as a spell is very much less good than Chain Binding or More Wishes. Also, SLA wish is absurdly more broken than spell wish.


The point is to fix the fact that Rogue skills are obsoleted at mid-levels by spells, which are a more cost-effective way of doing almost anything you'd want a mid-level rogue to do.

Yes, but that's not because those spells grant the casters bigger bonuses. It's because those casters get better abilities. scry isn't a +10 or +100 or even +1000 bonus to Listen, it's an entirely different ability.


If your table is playing with broken diplomancy, it's the sort of thing that a rogue should be good at.

That's a non-answer.


You're aiming for one target and completely ignoring others which could be around. For reference, I'm thinking of how to rebalance for a friend of mine, who loves the brute in-your-face combat style of the melee classes but is understandably bored out of his mind in non-combat situations because his character has literally zero ways of interacting.

I don't understand how bigger bonuses helps with that.


It turns everyone into gishes. If I wanted something like a Fighter fix, I wouldn't be looking into a gish, because I can already make a good gish. I can make a melee Bard. I can make a Suel Arcanamach. Just giving Fighter some spells is redundant and would only help newbie players who have so little system mastery they don't want to multiclass.

Yes, it turns them into gishes. Because that is what high level sword based characters are.


That seems about right to me. So we could say that polymorph is a high-op spell, frequent chosen by low-op players. (Usually leading to a high-tier-gap game.)

Some applications of polymorph are high-op. Basically all the crazy inheritance stuff, also some of the nastier combat forms. But just turning into a Dire Wolf and biting people until they die is essentially fine.

[johnbragg]

Yes, but that's not because those spells grant the casters bigger bonuses. It's because those casters get better abilities. scry isn't a +10 or +100 or even +1000 bonus to Listen, it's an entirely different ability.

I don't mean LOTR-plot bypassing spells. I'm talking spider climb, invisibility, silence, jump, knock, find traps and the standard issue trapmonkey-in-a-wand, summon monster i. Even if the rogue is popping those spells off of scrolls, I like the solution where the rogue using his own class abilities to do his job.



That's a non-answer.

Intentionally. There can be diplomancy, or there can not be diplomancy. But if diplomancy is on the table, the rogue, AKA #1 skillmonkey, should get a piece of that action before anybody except the Bard or Begiuler.

[Apricot]

I don't understand how bigger bonuses helps with that.

Did you read my initial post? I explained that. It's a way of giving mundane characters skills, which are, while less effective at ending encounters than spells, angles into many situations. The typical Fighter/Barbarian isn't able to do anything besides hit things. Giving them other things that they can do besides hitting things fixes the problem of them only being able to hit things. Whether they hit things hard enough is a different question entirely: an important question, the one you seem to be focused on, but absolutely not the one I was addressing. I specified that I was not addressing it in my initial post.

I swear, it's like you're not paying attention to most of what I'm saying or something. Your responses aren't incorrect, not exactly, they just aren't even referring to the same things at all.

[Cosi]

I'm talking spider climb, invisibility, silence, jump, knock, find traps and the standard issue trapmonkey-in-a-wand, summon monster i. Even if the rogue is popping those spells off of scrolls, I like the solution where the rogue using his own class abilities to do his job.

The Rogue already has a way to compete with those. It's totally true that casting knock is better than having X ranks in Open Lock. But casting knock has different costs from ranks in Open Lock. There are challenges you can beat as a Rogue (for example, iterated locks/sentries/walls) that you can't as UMD/spell skill-monkey.


Intentionally. There can be diplomancy, or there can not be diplomancy. But if diplomancy is on the table, the rogue, AKA #1 skillmonkey, should get a piece of that action before anybody except the Bard or Begiuler.

That's not really true. The Wizard is the #1 spellcaster. animate dead is a spell. Should it logically follow that the Wizard gets animate dead before the Dread Necromancer?


I explained that. It's a way of giving mundane characters skills, which are, while less effective at ending encounters than spells, angles into many situations.

Many low level situations. No amount of ranks in Survival solve the adventure "get to Ysgard". No amount of ranks in Heal raise the dead. No amount of ranks in Spot let you cast scry. You will never pull teleport out of your Hide ranks. More skill ranks are necessary for mundanes to compete at low levels, but they are not sufficient to compete at high levels.

[johnbragg]

...the rogue, AKA #1 skillmonkey, should get a piece of that action before anybody except the Bard or Begiuler.


That's not really true. The Wizard is the #1 spellcaster. animate dead is a spell. Should it logically follow that the Wizard gets animate dead before the Dread Necromancer?

Rogue is to Bard & Beguiler as Wizard is to Dread Necromancer.

EDIT: And man, it's really stupid that Dread Necros don't get Animate Dead for 3 levels after clerics do.

[HammeredWharf]

Yes, it turns them into gishes. Because that is what high level sword based characters are.

That's incorrect. I've ran and played in plenty of high-level, high-op games with melee chars who weren't gishes. For example, Warblades aren't gishes. Master of Many Forms offers plenty of good options. I've even had archers who acted as party snipers. Then there are various size tricks, Hulking Hurlers, etc.

[Cosi]

Rogue is to Bard & Beguiler as Wizard is to Dread Necromancer.

EDIT: And man, it's really stupid that Dread Necros don't get Animate Dead for 3 levels after clerics do.

I don't understand how this is an argument in favor of the Rogue getting more Diplomacy than the Bard or Beguiler. He's the generalist, they're specialists. They should be better in their specialty.


That's incorrect. I've ran and played in plenty of high-level, high-op games with melee chars who weren't gishes. For example, Warblades aren't gishes. Master of Many Forms offers plenty of good options. I've even had archers who acted as party snipers. Then there are various size tricks, Hulking Hurlers, etc.

Master of Many Forms is indistinguishable from a polymorph based Gish.

I don't see the rest of those as being particularly good in anything approaching "high-level, high-op games". The high level Warblade abilities are things like "stun a guy for a round" (8th level), "lightning bolt" (also 8th level), "get 20 points of DR" (also 8th level). FFS, flight is 8th level in ToB. And none of those builds get non-combat abilities half as good as 9th level spellcasters (not spellcasters with 9th level spells, spellcasters who are 9th level).

And the solution to that is actually "give them magic". In the source material, that is what happens to sword guys. Aragon gets an army of ghosts, Elric and Anomander both have magic swords and a great deal of personal magic, and powerups like that are the trend throughout the source fiction.

That solution is the easiest to implement, seeing as how there are already spells written up for high level melee-ers. Now, you can do it a different way, and there is source material for that. But the default solution within the context that D&D operates is to give sword based characters a pile of magic at high levels.

[johnbragg]

I don't understand how this is an argument in favor of the Rogue getting more Diplomacy than the Bard or Beguiler. He's the generalist, they're specialists. They should be better in their specialty.

It's not. We agree on that. The Bard and Beguiler SHOULD be better than the Rogue at Diplomacy. But the Rogue should be at least as good as the Sorcerer, Paladin or Cleric or Wizard.

[Apricot]

Many low level situations. No amount of ranks in Survival solve the adventure "get to Ysgard". No amount of ranks in Heal raise the dead. No amount of ranks in Spot let you cast scry. You will never pull teleport out of your Hide ranks. More skill ranks are necessary for mundanes to compete at low levels, but they are not sufficient to compete at high levels.

I literally just explained this. You're listing ways to end encounters, not ways to get into them. Survival can help you cross the wilderness to the secret portal that Plot-Sage told you about. Heal can... okay, it's pretty poorly designed, because healing is literally the most boring and unrewarding part of any adventure, but it's just as uninteresting to use any other game-mechanic method of healing people. Spot and Hide together can let you see basically anything you want to see, albeit with more action involved, and can get you close enough that Teleport becomes convenience rather than necessity.

Can't you see the difference? You're trying to find ways to simply negate scenarios. Wonderful; Ice Assassin cheese does that by definition. You can have characters for whom absolutely nothing is a challenge, and they can be boring as sin to play. I'm talking about something completely different, which is finding a place to start on these things. This is about starting adventures, not ending them. Mundanes, especially Fighters and Barbarians, currently have no way into many situations except by being told bluntly by an NPC to go kill things. I'm aiming to fix that. Their inability to end adventures and encounters successfully, while it is extremely problematic and a black mark on the game's balance, is a completely separate issue.

Do you not understand this? Is this all slipping through your mind? What is going on inside your skull? I'm trying really hard to explain all this, but nothing I say seems to have the slightest bit of traction in your brain. Help me out here. What does playing D&D mean to Cosi? Is it literally just combat encounters and spellcasting?

[Cosi]

You're listing ways to end encounters, not ways to get into them.

Yes. I'm listing ways for high level characters to trivialize low level encounters. Just like a pack of Orcs is a threat to a low level party but a joke to a high level party, an overland trek should be a challenge for a low level party but not a high level party. Compare LotR with late-series WoT.


Survival can help you cross the wilderness to the secret portal that Plot-Sage told you about.

No it can't. You got a DM pity NPC to point you to a DM pity portal because you don't have the abilities you need to complete the adventure. How did your Survival ranks impact that in any way at all?


Mundanes, especially Fighters and Barbarians, currently have no way into many situations except by being told bluntly by an NPC to go kill things. I'm aiming to fix that.

And yet, your solution to "how does the Fighter get to another plane" was "an NPC points him there" rather than "he has some ability that allows him to travel to other planes".


Do you not understand this? Is this all slipping through your mind? What is going on inside your skull? I'm trying really hard to explain all this, but nothing I say seems to have the slightest bit of traction in your brain. Help me out here.

Well, I might start with being a little less full of yourself. Maybe try reading the arguments people actually make or thinking through the consequences of your positions. It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that your position is stupid and doesn't actually solve the problems the game has.


What does playing D&D mean to Cosi?

I've always thought that the best way to talk about design problems with D&D (or other RPGs) is to talk about the source material. The source material for D&D is fantasy stories. So something like this:

Low Level:
-Lord of the Rings
-Conan
-King Arthur
-Robin Hood
-Prince of Thorns

Mid Level:
-Avatar: The Last Airbender/Avatar: Legend of Korra
-The Mistborn Trilogy
-Lord of Light
-The Powder Mage Trilogy
-The Night Angel Trilogy

High Level:
-The Codex Alera
-The Wheel of Time
-The Dresden Files
-Malazan Book of the Fallen
-The Elric Saga

Epic Level:
-"High End" characters from the above series (endgame Rand, various gods from Malazan, Ruin/Preservation/Harmony)
-Creatures of Light and Darkness
-Dominions
-Lore MTG, particularly Oldwalkers
-Cosmic Marvel

Disclaimer: Obviously, that's not set in stone. I haven't read as much as some of those as I'd like, and there are outliers in both directions in most series, but that should be a good outline. Lord of Light in particular could plausibly be higher.

What D&D looks like should vary with level.

At low levels, you face mundane challenges that are essentially personal in nature. Maybe you have to go destroy a castle (Prince of Thorns) or a ring (Lord of the Rings), or fight local law enforcement (Robin Hood).

At mid levels, you can face supernatural challenges or larger mundane challenges. Maybe you have to topple an evil empire (Avatar: The Last Airbender, Mistborn: The Final Empire), or overthrow the local gods (Lord of Light, The Powder Mage Trilogy).

At high levels, you face challenges that are both large scale and supernatural. Like an invasion by the Tyrannids Zerg Vord (The Codex Alera), establish an empire in a world full of powerful casters and literal gods (Malazan Book of the Fallen), or defeat Satan (The Wheel of Time).

At epic level, you do crazy crap and have powers that are absurd. Ruin is the embodiment of destruction who fought a war against Preservation (guess) that lasted thousands of years and used forces that could destroy the world. Creatures of Light and Darkness follows gods who control the flow of life throughout the universe, harness black holes, and use combat time travel gathering their power to defeat the Thing That Cries In The Night. Dominions empowers you to summon dead gods, archangels, demon lords, or elemental royalty, perform rituals that turn off the sun, summon a second one, unleash Earthdawn horrors against the world, or simply cause everyone to rapidly age and die, has combat magic which can buff legions, unleash the fires of hell, or empower single champions to destroy entire armies, and has artifacts of every stripe. MTG features generations long plans to defeat alien invaders, imprison elder gods, or repair the time stream. Cosmic Marvel defeated a universe full of undying superheroes ruled by The Many Angled Ones.


Is it literally just combat encounters and spellcasting?

Exactly insofar as your vision is just combat encounters and making skill checks.

[LoyalPaladin]

Although, having at-will spells the way the fighter now does kinda just turns you into a mildly janky sorcerer.
I don't have a lot to add in here, since most of it has been said. But I will pop in to point out that Jormengand used the word janky. For some reason, that has made today worth while haha.