Albions_Angel
2019-11-01, 09:00 AM
Hi all,
I am looking for help, but some of you may wish to view this as "training" for competitions, if you will. For months now, I have been slowly augmenting classes that I have found "perform poorly" in low op games. Specifically my low op games. Often I am dealing with either new players, or players from different systems or editions, and min-max isnt on their agenda. This has resulted in a rather strange mix of changes, that never-the-less work. The goal was never to make everything tier 1, or even raise everything to at least tier 3. In fact, very rarely have I increased utility. Instead, I have looked to "fix" broken things, and make a few more things more fun, with little regard for balance. I am not worried about players outshining each other, when often I am running at a level where base fighters are considered the competent ones, and base wizards dither too much to be useful.
The changes I have brought have sought to either modify existing class features, or add a few more, without drastically rewriting the classes. For example, for Sorcerers I gave them metamagic feats as wizards, or heritage feats at those same levels, because I saw people either bored with the base progression of a sorc, or passing over them because of the apparent lack of options. I also "fixed" the truenamer by lowering the DC scaling, removing one of the resistance things (cant remember its name, but the one that makes it harder to cast the same thing twice), and gave them power words as SLAs at dead levels.
While this is fine, sometimes I find myself looking at a class and thinking it would take an entire rewrite to fix it, something I refuse to do. So I have had an idea. For a few "concepts", I could have a "preset" collection of classes, feats, and items, that could be taken to "emulate" a given class or prestige or idea. Players could follow the path of the "preset", making any changes they want, and would understand what each bit did. The only thing is, my own mastery of the system is a little lacking. And so I turn to the Playground.
Maybe this will turn into a regular thing. I will come up with a concept, the playground will post its presets, and I will move on to another one, but for now, I have one idea: The Drunken Master. The concept is fantastic. Improvised weapons, better at dodging, better at attacking unexpectedly, lucky rather than good, etc. We all know the fluff. The prestige class however is dreadful. Even with my upgrades to the base monk class. And I cant see a way to salvage it. I have already had players ask me how to play one and the answer is, I dont know.
Before I set you all loose, I do need to mention my Monk changes, as they will probably be relevant. It looks like it could be abused, but remember, this is low op. The changes make the monk playable and enjoyable at my tables, and barbarians and fighters (with extra skill points) are still very much common.
Full BAB
Flurry as a standard
No flurry pentalties
(Spiked) Gauntlets as monk weapons - use unarmed damage but can be enchanted
Ok, on to the task at hand:
I would like people to suggest a (fairly simple) build to emulate the CONCEPT of a master of drunken fighting. It does not need monk as a base, but it would be flavourful to do so. Rules are as follows.
All 3.5e neutral setting books and 3.5e Dragon Mag (with reference) as standard EXCEPT Psionic options, ToB Base Classes, Manouvres, Stances (for lore reasons - sorry, there is a point to this)
3.0 generally acceptable, settings less so, and for now no savage species
No Pathfinder
Preset needs to start to FEEL like the concept by level 5 or 6. Make of that what you will.
Builds can go to any level, but my games rarely run past 10.
Multiclassing is fine, but please explain (briefly) why each class is needed. Same for feats.
Character must be playable from level 1, but concept doesnt need to be there from the start (if the classes are literally usless together until you add level 5, then its pointless as a preset path)
Assume race-neutral. Certainly assume non-human. Race suggestions are fine though (LA0).
No flaws. No BoED feats. No templates. All that is subject to the individual campaigns and cant be relied upon.
No Homebrew. Thats the whole point of this, so I dont have to.
I have left the concept deliberately open ended. While I might not agree with your idea of a drunken master, my players might. I will aim to take your presets and build essentially a new "class" from them (which is easier than making the class from scratch myself!), and if one preset emphasizes one aspect of the concept over another, there will just be 2 presets. Hopefully you can have fun with this.
So, I say its a lore reason, but really its a lore reason hiding a practical one. I have grown to like ToB, and Psionics as much as I like Incarnum. But to new players, the two systems can seem a bit of a shock.
You need to remember that in my games, wizards are weaklings with very limited resources. Do I want them like that? No. Are they like that 99% of the time? Yes. Fighters and Barbarians arnt just workable, they are powerhouses WITHOUT using cheese. These are the games we are talking about.
When I let people run wild with Psionics, its about 50/50 as to whether it goes bad. Half the group is scared of the perceived potential. The other half like it, but struggle not to nova in the first fight of each day. This does 2 things. "Confirms" to the others that psionics is OP, and leaves the "Psion" bored or dead for the rest of the day.
And the same is true of ToB. Can a barbarian outdamage any ToB class? Hell yes it can. Will it in one of my games? Probably not. ToB is very complex to get your head around the first few times, but once you do, its very easy to outshine a poorly optimized martial character. So you get half the beatsticks ignoring it, and the other half embracing it, and then you get arguments. Time and time again. No matter what I say in session 0.
So, I wrote the lore for my world in such a way that most psionics and ToB stuff is only found in one area that is hard to get to. This allows me to "gate" it behind story and progression, and also behind experience of the players. And I let them know this. So far, we havnt gone to that part of the world, but they all know its there, and are free to say "Lets all go there and multiclass" or even "lets ditch this story and start new characters there".
So thats why I disallow those books for things like this. I cant rely on them always being accessible.
I am looking for help, but some of you may wish to view this as "training" for competitions, if you will. For months now, I have been slowly augmenting classes that I have found "perform poorly" in low op games. Specifically my low op games. Often I am dealing with either new players, or players from different systems or editions, and min-max isnt on their agenda. This has resulted in a rather strange mix of changes, that never-the-less work. The goal was never to make everything tier 1, or even raise everything to at least tier 3. In fact, very rarely have I increased utility. Instead, I have looked to "fix" broken things, and make a few more things more fun, with little regard for balance. I am not worried about players outshining each other, when often I am running at a level where base fighters are considered the competent ones, and base wizards dither too much to be useful.
The changes I have brought have sought to either modify existing class features, or add a few more, without drastically rewriting the classes. For example, for Sorcerers I gave them metamagic feats as wizards, or heritage feats at those same levels, because I saw people either bored with the base progression of a sorc, or passing over them because of the apparent lack of options. I also "fixed" the truenamer by lowering the DC scaling, removing one of the resistance things (cant remember its name, but the one that makes it harder to cast the same thing twice), and gave them power words as SLAs at dead levels.
While this is fine, sometimes I find myself looking at a class and thinking it would take an entire rewrite to fix it, something I refuse to do. So I have had an idea. For a few "concepts", I could have a "preset" collection of classes, feats, and items, that could be taken to "emulate" a given class or prestige or idea. Players could follow the path of the "preset", making any changes they want, and would understand what each bit did. The only thing is, my own mastery of the system is a little lacking. And so I turn to the Playground.
Maybe this will turn into a regular thing. I will come up with a concept, the playground will post its presets, and I will move on to another one, but for now, I have one idea: The Drunken Master. The concept is fantastic. Improvised weapons, better at dodging, better at attacking unexpectedly, lucky rather than good, etc. We all know the fluff. The prestige class however is dreadful. Even with my upgrades to the base monk class. And I cant see a way to salvage it. I have already had players ask me how to play one and the answer is, I dont know.
Before I set you all loose, I do need to mention my Monk changes, as they will probably be relevant. It looks like it could be abused, but remember, this is low op. The changes make the monk playable and enjoyable at my tables, and barbarians and fighters (with extra skill points) are still very much common.
Full BAB
Flurry as a standard
No flurry pentalties
(Spiked) Gauntlets as monk weapons - use unarmed damage but can be enchanted
Ok, on to the task at hand:
I would like people to suggest a (fairly simple) build to emulate the CONCEPT of a master of drunken fighting. It does not need monk as a base, but it would be flavourful to do so. Rules are as follows.
All 3.5e neutral setting books and 3.5e Dragon Mag (with reference) as standard EXCEPT Psionic options, ToB Base Classes, Manouvres, Stances (for lore reasons - sorry, there is a point to this)
3.0 generally acceptable, settings less so, and for now no savage species
No Pathfinder
Preset needs to start to FEEL like the concept by level 5 or 6. Make of that what you will.
Builds can go to any level, but my games rarely run past 10.
Multiclassing is fine, but please explain (briefly) why each class is needed. Same for feats.
Character must be playable from level 1, but concept doesnt need to be there from the start (if the classes are literally usless together until you add level 5, then its pointless as a preset path)
Assume race-neutral. Certainly assume non-human. Race suggestions are fine though (LA0).
No flaws. No BoED feats. No templates. All that is subject to the individual campaigns and cant be relied upon.
No Homebrew. Thats the whole point of this, so I dont have to.
I have left the concept deliberately open ended. While I might not agree with your idea of a drunken master, my players might. I will aim to take your presets and build essentially a new "class" from them (which is easier than making the class from scratch myself!), and if one preset emphasizes one aspect of the concept over another, there will just be 2 presets. Hopefully you can have fun with this.
So, I say its a lore reason, but really its a lore reason hiding a practical one. I have grown to like ToB, and Psionics as much as I like Incarnum. But to new players, the two systems can seem a bit of a shock.
You need to remember that in my games, wizards are weaklings with very limited resources. Do I want them like that? No. Are they like that 99% of the time? Yes. Fighters and Barbarians arnt just workable, they are powerhouses WITHOUT using cheese. These are the games we are talking about.
When I let people run wild with Psionics, its about 50/50 as to whether it goes bad. Half the group is scared of the perceived potential. The other half like it, but struggle not to nova in the first fight of each day. This does 2 things. "Confirms" to the others that psionics is OP, and leaves the "Psion" bored or dead for the rest of the day.
And the same is true of ToB. Can a barbarian outdamage any ToB class? Hell yes it can. Will it in one of my games? Probably not. ToB is very complex to get your head around the first few times, but once you do, its very easy to outshine a poorly optimized martial character. So you get half the beatsticks ignoring it, and the other half embracing it, and then you get arguments. Time and time again. No matter what I say in session 0.
So, I wrote the lore for my world in such a way that most psionics and ToB stuff is only found in one area that is hard to get to. This allows me to "gate" it behind story and progression, and also behind experience of the players. And I let them know this. So far, we havnt gone to that part of the world, but they all know its there, and are free to say "Lets all go there and multiclass" or even "lets ditch this story and start new characters there".
So thats why I disallow those books for things like this. I cant rely on them always being accessible.