How condensed would bad classes be to consider taking them over good classes?

[Pinkie Pyro]

In the "classes that you wanted to like but where mechanically bad" thread, I brought up the idea that a failure of class design was that you'd often get a class feature that was irrelevant or bad (or sometimes none at all, fighter 3) as your only class feature for that level.

As we know, the classes in 3.5 are not balanced, and while that's not a bad thing necessarily, the level of the imbalance stands out harshly, and has lead to revamps and rewrites of classes hundreds of times since 3.5's release.

But what if instead you just squished the bad classes? would fighter be worth taking for 5 levels if you got all 11 combat feats in that amount of time? or on the other hand, how much more could martials keep up if a full caster's power was spread over 30 levels?

This extends to PRCs too: the arcane archer could reasonably be a 3 level dip, and would be much more attractive for it's small feature list.

So just how much do you have to squish classes for certain tiers of classes to work together more evenly? what are the big winners and losers of such a change?

[RandomPeasant]

Squishing classes doesn't really help. At low levels, classes are already pretty well balanced. Giving a 1st level Fighter the abilities of a 2nd level Fighter is genuinely more than you need to do to make the game balanced at 1st level. At high levels, the reason classes are imbalanced is that low-tier classes don't get the abilities the need to keep up with high-tier ones at all. It's not that the Fighter gets his raise dead-caliber ability when the Cleric already has true resurrection, it's that he never gets it at all. There is no number of Fighter or Barbarian levels you can give someone that will match the flexibility and strategic impact of even a 10th level caster. There is probably a point in the middle where you can extend the viability of martial classes by accelerating progression, but I'm not convinced that gets you any further than just playing ToB classes.

Squishing PrCs helps a little bit more. I could imagine a Rogue 5/Assassin 5 being a viable character if that character got 10 levels worth of Assassin casting. They'd even be overpowered if they got the full +5d6 Sneak Attack progression from Assassin on top of their Rogue Sneak Attack. But you run into the same basic sort of issue that the Fighter has: it doesn't scale. At some point, that character is going to have to take an 11th level, and it's not really clear what that level could be to continue at the same relative effectiveness they enjoy as a 10th level character. And, of course, there are plenty of PrCs that probably aren't viable even if you do compress them. Spymaster, for instance, is only going to be worthwhile if you turn it in to effectively a Rogue ACF.

[Particle_Man]

Maybe go another route: Let one dip into Wizard, but instead of only getting Wizard 1 (a number of first level spells), get the wizard level benefits that match that character level: So taking fighter 7/wizard 1 would get you the benefits of a 7th level fighter, plus the ability to cast a third and a fourth level spell per day (more if you have high enough int) at caster level 8, plus a familiar with benefits as if you were an 8th level wizard.

Cue the screaming at me stopping fighter on an odd level. :smallsmile: It is just an example, folks!

[Saint-Just]

Maybe go another route: Let one dip into Wizard, but instead of only getting Wizard 1 (a number of first level spells), get the wizard level benefits that match that character level: So taking fighter 7/wizard 1 would get you the benefits of a 7th level fighter, plus the ability to cast a third and a fourth level spell per day (more if you have high enough int) at caster level 8, plus a familiar with benefits as if you were an 8th level wizard.


Sounds like "when everybody is a wizard no one will be". No, seriously, this is essentially a limited gestalt (presumable one full-casting class and one not). It would make sense that charaters would be identified by the most distinctive part - a fighter, rouge, ranger, whatever; but in actual gameplay wizard/sorcerer/cleric part would be more impactful.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Maybe go another route: Let one dip into Wizard, but instead of only getting Wizard 1 (a number of first level spells), get the wizard level benefits that match that character level: So taking fighter 7/wizard 1 would get you the benefits of a 7th level fighter, plus the ability to cast a third and a fourth level spell per day (more if you have high enough int) at caster level 8, plus a familiar with benefits as if you were an 8th level wizard.

Cue the screaming at me stopping fighter on an odd level. :smallsmile: It is just an example, folks!

Whaaaaat!?? You stopped fighter at an odd level? What were you even thinking? That's so unoptimized!

Also, that may help, but really, what that does is turn every class into ToB-style classes where even one dip can give you a heck of a lot of power. I really don't think 3.5 needs dips to be even more advantageous.

[Troacctid]

It would help a ton. A large part of why these classes are bad is because they have too few class features in too many levels. That's their biggest weakness: they get some great stuff early on, and then after that, it just...stops. But condense the levels, and suddenly the value of the class increases dramatically.

This shouldn't be too surprising—most options get more powerful when you reduce the cost you have to pay to get them. The chaos diamond is horribly overpriced at 190,000 gp, but bring it down to 2,000 gp and every adventurer would have one in their pack. Meteor swarm is underpowered as a 9th level spell, but it would be wildly overpowered if it were reduced to 2nd level. Craw Wurm is unplayable at six mana, but it would be tearing up tournaments if it cost two mana. That's just how game balance works. Everything has its knobs and dials that you can twist and tune to increase or decrease how strong something is. Compress more goodies into fewer levels, power goes up. Spread them out over more levels, power goes down. Pretty basic. Finding the sweet spot where they're fun and healthy for the game, that's the tricky part.

[Mordante]

Or you could do what they did in past. (I never liked the idea though). Is to have classes level at different speeds. When a fighter reaches level 20, the sorc is level 16, and the wiz is level 12.

I don't like this since no one I know uses XP in DnD. Tracking XP is neigh useless.

[Biggus]

If you're looking for a single, simple mechanic to help level out the classes, squishing and/or stretching is probably the best you're going to find. A Fighter who gets a feat every level is much better than a Fighter who gets one every other level. But, they're still basically a dip class, the class doesn't stand alone as something you'd want to take lots of levels of because more feats isn't the main thing it's lacking: what it needs is some actual class features, such as better defences against magic.

Classes won't generally move up by more than one tier by squishing them, because if they lack versatility they still will without their dead levels. Ultimately if you want a tier 5 class to work well in a campaign with tier 1 classes this won't do it, you'd need to rewrite the classes individually. But if your goal is just to make weak classes more playable rather than actually equal, it should work fine.

[Kurald Galain]

But what if instead you just squished the bad classes?

It's a good idea for the non-casters. For example, the Pathfinder rogue gets a "rogue talent" every other level. The catch is that these are nice abilities for level two, but not so much for level ten. So if the rogue would get one every level, and could access the "advanced" talents at level 5 instead of level 10, that would be an improvement.

The fighter does not need more feats really, but it would definitely help him if feats that are gated behind high level (high BAB, high skill points, whatever) would be available much earlier. A number of feats are high level for no other reason than that high level feats need to exist (and they do, but high level feats need to compete with high level spells in terms of power level).

[Lans]

Try a cumalative 20% more levels, so when a fighter gains a level he's at 2.2, next level 3.44, at 4 4.78 then at 5 he'd be at 6.07 and is a full level ahead. So as a 5thlevel character he'd have an extra 2 feats, BAB,and HD.

[AvatarVecna]

In the "classes that you wanted to like but where mechanically bad" thread, I brought up the idea that a failure of class design was that you'd often get a class feature that was irrelevant or bad (or sometimes none at all, fighter 3) as your only class feature for that level.

As we know, the classes in 3.5 are not balanced, and while that's not a bad thing necessarily, the level of the imbalance stands out harshly, and has lead to revamps and rewrites of classes hundreds of times since 3.5's release.

But what if instead you just squished the bad classes? would fighter be worth taking for 5 levels if you got all 11 combat feats in that amount of time? or on the other hand, how much more could martials keep up if a full caster's power was spread over 30 levels?

This extends to PRCs too: the arcane archer could reasonably be a 3 level dip, and would be much more attractive for it's small feature list.

So just how much do you have to squish classes for certain tiers of classes to work together more evenly? what are the big winners and losers of such a change?

I don't think it would help, for complicated reasons.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that D&D was massively condensed in complexity. Now, the game is 20 skills, and that's it. Every class is "good" at a skill on a rating from 1 to 20 - 1 being awful, 20 being perfect.

Fighter is rated 1 in 16 of the skills, and 16 in 4 of the skills (melee dpr, ranged dpr, tanking). The fighter has 80 points in total.

Wizard works different from fighter. They have a 20 in 1 skill (lore) and 1 in the other 19 skills, but each day, the wizard can choose to assign 200 points to skills however he pleases. This means the wizard effectively has 239 points in total, but also the wizard has a lot more flexibility than the fighter: the wizard could be overwhelmingly perfect at whatever it wants to be good at, but also it can be reasonably competent at a whole bunch of things.

"What if we tripled the fighter's numbers in all categories?"

If we tripled the fighter's numbers in all categories, the fighter is now 3 in 16 skills, and 48 in 4 skills. This puts the fighter at 240 points, just barely better than the wizard. Is that more balanced? Well...not really. The fighter was already really really good at what it does. The balance problem is that fighter was bad at everything else. This "change" doesn't really change that. Fighter still can't really sneak around, or scout out dungeons, or craft items, or heal people, or tell if the baron is lying. He's just...dealing even more damage and tanking more hits...the things he was already doing fine. I will admit, it is now harder for a mage to outperform the fighter at his one job even if the mage is really really trying. But gishes aren't really the balance issue with the game, even if they were a really straightforward "why bring a fighter when mage does the same job better and also does other things" example.

What you have suggested can sort of maybe work in two particular ways:

1) Skills
If taking a "level" in fighter gave you 3 hit dice, sure that's giving BAB and feats and Fort save, but it's also giving you three HD worth of skill points, including Int bonus. This could allow you to be super-high rank in a few skills of your choice, but it could also give you the opportunity to spread your skill points around, even into cross-class skills. If 3 HD per fighter level is insufficient, make it 4, or 5, or 10. Whatever you do, you'll be giving the fighter far more skill points to cover skill roles, and while base ranks aren't the end-all-be-all, the do make up a big portion of skill capabilities.

2) Items
If taking a "level" in fighter gives you 3 levels worth of WBL, basically nothing else matters. There's another thread where this is being discussed, but the long and short of it is that if you're getting waaaaay more money than everybody else, you can be the commoner to their wizard and still remain competitive with very little effort. WBLmancy is a thing.

EDIT: I don't think the skills thing would help Fighter specifically all that much unless you were super-condensing, but it would still help a bit. Even a 3:1 ratio would probably bump them a tier.

Monk probably gets the most out of this: they're just generally a bit behind where they really should be at a given level - BAB, HP, skills, it's all not quite where it needs to be for them to be good, which makes them kinda bad at everything instead of a rogue-like class with a handful of specialties. A monk with a 3:1 ratio could easily be T3 even without a change regarding items.

[StSword]

It would take substantially more work, certainly, but I think a better option is to give classes a choice of options at every level, like say Radiance d20, Dungeons and Delvers OSR, or the FATE/OSR hybrid Monsters and Magic.

[RandomPeasant]

Or you could do what they did in past. (I never liked the idea though). Is to have classes level at different speeds. When a fighter reaches level 20, the sorc is level 16, and the wiz is level 12.

I don't like this since no one I know uses XP in DnD. Tracking XP is neigh useless.

I know you're not really endorsing it, but that's a bad idea. It's the same as this idea, with the same problems, except that it's more of a pain to track and causes weird questions about multiclassing. If you can figure out that Fighter 20 == Wizard 12, just make that Fighter 12.


But, they're still basically a dip class, the class doesn't stand alone as something you'd want to take lots of levels of because more feats isn't the main thing it's lacking: what it needs is some actual class features, such as better defences against magic.

That's the thing. It helps a little, but only in a very limited way. It's like turning the Ranger into the Mystic Ranger. The Mystic Ranger is viable longer, but at some point it hits 12th level and stops getting new spell levels, then falls behind very rapidly. You can probably make the martial types work slightly longer doing this, but you can also do that by just having people play ToB classes instead, or giving people a free ToB Gestalt (which I think is the actual easiest solution).


A number of feats are high level for no other reason than that high level feats need to exist (and they do, but high level feats need to compete with high level spells in terms of power level).

They do if you are going to have a class that gets feats instead of class features. I'm not really convinced the performance of the Fighter over 20 years and three versions of the 3e engine demonstrates that to be a good idea. At this point, I think we should scuttle the "Fighters get only feats" class feature, replace them with something that gets class features, and move on with feats doing the thing most feats currently do: being minor bonus people take for character customization.

[Kurald Galain]

At this point, I think we should scuttle the "Fighters get only feats" class feature, replace them with something that gets class features,

Yes, such as the weapon and armor specialty abilities that fighters get in Pathfinder :smallcool:

[Troacctid]

That's the thing. It helps a little, but only in a very limited way. It's like turning the Ranger into the Mystic Ranger. The Mystic Ranger is viable longer, but at some point it hits 12th level and stops getting new spell levels, then falls behind very rapidly. You can probably make the martial types work slightly longer doing this, but you can also do that by just having people play ToB classes instead, or giving people a free ToB Gestalt (which I think is the actual easiest solution).
Mystic ranger is a full tier and a half above the standard ranger, so if you're trying to show that speeding up progressions doesn't work, you picked a real poor example.

[Pinkie Pyro]

There seems to be a disagreement on what metrics we need to use, so I'd just like to point out the obvious:

1: obviously making fighter a 5 level class that gives 11 feats doesn't make it more versatile in a meaningful way. that's not a good measurement of the change. A wizard is more useful in combat than a fighter of the same level due to both versatility and power, but a wizard will always be more useful than a fighter in a non combat encounter because the fighter gets literally no tools to deal with it. So the question is how much closer is the fighter to the wizard in terms of the thing it's supposed to be doing anyway: combat.

2: While I originally meant only class got squished, meaning that after 5 levels of fighter you'd move onto barbarian or whatever else you wanted, It's also an interesting thing to see if other level derivatives get accelerated. Getting much stronger saves and higher BAB can shut down some early level caster low-mid optimization pretty hard, because you aren't using things that entirely get around the concept of saves or being attacked.

3: I'm not asking about specifically fighter here, and not only about squishing. Ranger is pretty bad, what if you got max level in it at level 4? sorcerer gets 9ths at level 13 and is a total 15 level class, how big a power creep is that over wizard since they still have a limited spell list? What if wizard got a new spell level every three levels instead of two?

[RandomPeasant]

Mystic ranger is a full tier and a half above the standard ranger, so if you're trying to show that speeding up progressions doesn't work, you picked a real poor example.

It seems like you completely missed the point of the thing I said. Mystic Ranger is a huge improvement over Ranger at 3rd level or 10th level. But it's a pretty marginal one at 20th level. Which is the issue with the proposal. You can fix things a little bit by compressing classes. Fighter 10 is better if it gets a bonus feat at every level. But Fighter 20 isn't meaningfully fixed, and if you want a Fighter that works for slightly longer, Warblade is right there.


Yes, such as the weapon and armor specialty abilities that fighters get in Pathfinder :smallcool:

If you think the PF Fighter is viable without the bonus feats, then sure. If not, I don't see those as any more relevant than the 3.5 ACFs that technically give the Fighter non-feat class features.


So the question is how much closer is the fighter to the wizard in terms of the thing it's supposed to be doing anyway: combat.

If that is your understanding of the problem, you're not going to solve the problem. The Fighter is not supposed to be doing combat instead of non-combat. Characters are all supposed to be able to contribute both in and out of combat.


Getting much stronger saves and higher BAB can shut down some early level caster low-mid optimization pretty hard, because you aren't using things that entirely get around the concept of saves or being attacked.

Again, that's misunderstanding the problem. It doesn't matter if the Fighter can beat up on the Wizard or the Wizard can beat up on the Fighter. It matters how characters deal with challenges, and "NPC with class levels" is only a tiny subset of those challenges. The Wizard's color spray still beats a bunch of wolves or whatever, even if the Fighter can now semi-reliably pass the save.


I'm not asking about specifically fighter here, and not only about squishing. Ranger is pretty bad, what if you got max level in it at level 4? sorcerer gets 9ths at level 13 and is a total 15 level class, how big a power creep is that over wizard since they still have a limited spell list? What if wizard got a new spell level every three levels instead of two?

I understand that, but you've got fundamentally the same problem everywhere. Is Ranger better if you compress it a bunch? Sure. That's basically the Mystic Ranger, and the Mystic Ranger can play with the casters up to 10th level. But then you stop getting new spell levels, and you fall behind the people who are still doing that. Going in to another compressed class doesn't help you, because two 10th level characters are (roughly) a 12th level character, not a 20th level one.

Sorcerer getting 9ths at 13th level is completely absurd. People massively overrate how much the Wizard's extra spells known matter. It's like 60/40 "faster progression" and "more spells", and maybe more skewed than that.

Staggering out the Wizard is equivalent to squishing other classes. It will give you a slightly larger number of levels where playing a Fighter is not a joke, but since that doesn't let the Fighter contribute in any new situations, it's effectively the same logic as amps that go to 11. Things don't get better because you measure them in smaller units.

[Pinkie Pyro]

If that is your understanding of the problem, you're not going to solve the problem. The Fighter is not supposed to be doing combat instead of non-combat. Characters are all supposed to be able to contribute both in and out of combat.


and if that's your understanding of the thread, you're missing the point.

Fighter will never be able to stay on terms with the wizard. that's been discussed to death. what the point of this thread is discussing any meaningful differences in the scale of the power difference. but if you want to keep saying fish can't climb trees, so they'll never be better than monkeys, you're not really adding anything new.

[RandomPeasant]

Fighter will never be able to stay on terms with the wizard. that's been discussed to death. what the point of this thread is discussing any meaningful differences in the scale of the power difference. but if you want to keep saying fish can't climb trees, so they'll never be better than monkeys, you're not really adding anything new.

If the problem is that you need to get to the top of the tree, making fish swim faster isn't adding anything.

The Fighter absolutely can be made to stay on terms with the Wizard. You just take the Warblade, make maneuvers better at high levels, and give them non-combat abilities based on various disciplines. You could outline that in an hour. The gap between casters and non-casters is not uncrossable. You just have to be willing to do the thing that WotC was not willing to do and give people abilities that cross it.

I'm not saying this idea is useless. You will make some classes better for some amount of time. But if it's all you do, you're going to end up with a bunch of classes that are like the Mystic Ranger. They'll be viable for a while, then hit a wall and end up only marginally better than the originals. Maybe that works for you, but acting like it fixes the problem, or pointing out that it doesn't is off topic is a bad way to approach the problem.

[Pinkie Pyro]

The Fighter absolutely can be made to stay on terms with the Wizard. You just take the Warblade, make maneuvers better at high levels, and give them non-combat abilities based on various disciplines. You could outline that in an hour. The gap between casters and non-casters is not uncrossable. You just have to be willing to do the thing that WotC was not willing to do and give people abilities that cross it.

At that point you're not a fighter. we're not talking about the entire martial type here, we're talking specific classes, so saying you can fix this by just doing a different class is meaningless.

And I'm not suggesting this like it's actually going to fix everything, I wanted to discuss how this would affect the system as a whole. So you think it won't make a meaningful difference because of the same reason every other balance thread devolves into: magic OP. cool. we already know that. But what situations would a faster class progression for lower tier classes end up mattering in? If you don't have to waste 4 extra levels to get one half-decent class feature from an otherwise forgettable class/PRC, what builds does that open up?

[RandomPeasant]

At that point you're not a fighter. we're not talking about the entire martial type here, we're talking specific classes, so saying you can fix this by just doing a different class is meaningless.

"Fighter but twice as fast" is also a different class from Fighter.


I wanted to discuss how this would affect the system as a whole.

And I have. It would help in a marginal way in the middle, where there are already existing solutions, but would not address the fundamental issues. As I said in my first post in this thread (also known as: the first reply to this thread). If you want to propose a cool build that does something cool with a fast progression PrC, you could post any build at all like that and I would be happy to say things like "that seems like it could be cool" or "that still seems like it kinda sucks" or "I think that's OP because of how much you've condensed the progression". But if you ask open-ended questions, people aren't wrong for responding in open-ended ways.

[Kurald Galain]

If you think the PF Fighter is viable without the bonus feats, then sure.
Yes, I do. Fighter (with assorted archetypes) is the most popular class in PF, by a fair margin, so I consider it viable.

[AvatarVecna]

Yes, I do. Fighter (with assorted archetypes) is the most popular class in PF, by a fair margin, so I consider it viable.

This is kind of a logical fallacy. Being popular doesn't make it good. Fighter is popular because it's simple and easy to get into for somebody whose unfamiliar with the system and wants to get progressively more complex as the game goes on. "Lots of people play fighter" doesn't actually mean fighter is balanced against wizard.

(I'm not saying that Fighter is unfun, especially PF Fighter. I'm just saying that popularity and balance are unrelated.)

[liquidformat]

I have played around with this idea and it can help certain classes, I have turned swashbuckler and soulborn into 10 level prcs for example and that has worked out well.

[Troacctid]

It seems like you completely missed the point of the thing I said. Mystic Ranger is a huge improvement over Ranger at 3rd level or 10th level. But it's a pretty marginal one at 20th level. Which is the issue with the proposal. You can fix things a little bit by compressing classes. Fighter 10 is better if it gets a bonus feat at every level. But Fighter 20 isn't meaningfully fixed, and if you want a Fighter that works for slightly longer, Warblade is right there.
First off, the level 20 mystic ranger is still +1 tier above the level 20 standard ranger, so there's that. Secondly, if you compress fighter into 10 levels, then there is no fighter 20. It's 10 levels long. That's the point.

[Kurald Galain]

Being popular doesn't make it good.
I said viable, not good, and certainly not "balanced against a wizard". Moving the goalposts much?

Being popular does make it viable.

[Jervis]

It’s been said before in this thread but liner x2 or x3 doesn’t equal quadratic. It would make those classes better early on but still make them get outscaled eventually. That being said some classes just should have been 10 or 5 level PrCs. Soul knife is my favorite example. I’d trade 2 levels of manifesting to be able to take all of its class features in 10 levels along with progressing a good class. It would even be good all things considered, not meta but pretty fun for a psionic Gish. Same with monk honestly but WotC did that with Tashlatora and the myriad of monk ability progressing caster PrCs.

[RandomPeasant]

First off, the level 20 mystic ranger is still +1 tier above the level 20 standard ranger, so there's that. Secondly, if you compress fighter into 10 levels, then there is no fighter 20. It's 10 levels long. That's the point.

There being no Fighter 20 is my point, not yours. Because that guy who has 10 levels of Double Fighter still has to become a 20th level character at some point, and simply adding 10 levels of Double Barbarian is not going to solve the problems he has to an appreciable degree.

As far as the Mystic Ranger goes, it's not a full tier better than Ranger at 20th (maybe it's ranked that way, but I don't really care about that). You get a few extra spell slots, and you get 5th level spells. But your list is uninspiring, and you lose the animal companion, which is not worth nothing. I'd be skeptical of someone arguing that it's not better, but it's "high T4" better, not "low T3" better.


Being popular does make it viable.

Being popular makes it popular. Frankly, I would be more inclined to give you "good" than "viable" here, as "designed in a way that appeals to people" is a plausible definition of "good" in a way that it is not for "viable".


I’d trade 2 levels of manifesting to be able to take all of its class features in 10 levels along with progressing a good class. It would even be good all things considered, not meta but pretty fun for a psionic Gish. Same with monk honestly but WotC did that with Tashlatora and the myriad of monk ability progressing caster PrCs.

I don't see why you would even need to give up manifesting. It amounts to giving you a backup plan that is kind of okay when you are out of power points. That's not even going to come up in some substantial number of games. One lost level of manifesting gets you most of the good stuff from Thrallherd, and a mook that's only a level behind you is way the hell better than anything the Soulknife is doing.

[AvatarVecna]

I said viable, not good, and certainly not "balanced against a wizard". Moving the goalposts much?

Being popular does make it viable.

I think reading "if you think it's viable" as "if you think it's fun" when everybody but you is having a balance discussion, it's not my fault that I didn't magically understand that when you said "viable", you had changed definitions to something completely off-topic.

[Troacctid]

It’s been said before in this thread but liner x2 or x3 doesn’t equal quadratic. It would make those classes better early on but still make them get outscaled eventually.
If "eventually" is late enough, then the linears are just not going to get outscaled.

[icefractal]

I would squish them nonlinearly. So as an example, say we took Fighter but doubled the effective levels every level -

1 - bonus feat
2 - bonus feat
3 - two bonus feats, counts as Fighter 7 for feat requirements
4 - four bonus feats, counts as Fighter 15 for feat requirements
5 - eight bonus feats, counts as Fighter 20 for feat requirements

I don't know that I'd call that a well-designed class, but I think a lot of people would take all five levels of it. Let's take a look at Barbarian scaled the same way:

1 - Fast Movement, Rage 1/day
2 - Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense +1
3 - Rage 2/day, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense +2, DR 1/-
4 - Greater Rage 4/day, Trap Sense +5, DR 3/-, Indomitable Will
5 - Might Rage 6/day, Trap Sense +6, DR 5/-, Tireless Rage

Possibly too squished, in fact. Let's consider a slower squishing that models the CR system (counting each level of features as a CR 1 creature, total CR = ECL), and we'll also pull in the non-feat Epic progression:

1 - Fast Movement, Rage 1/day
2 - Uncanny Dodge
3 - Trap Sense +1
4 - Rage 2/day
5 - Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense +2
6 - Rage 3/day, DR 1/-
7 - Greater Rage 4/day, Trap Sense +4, DR 2/-
8 - Greater Rage 5/day, Trap Sense +5, DR 4/-, Indomitable Will
9 - Mighty Rage 7/day, Trap Sense +8, DR 6/-, Tireless Rage
10 - Mighty Rage 9/day, Trap Sense +10, DR 9/-

[Thane of Fife]

Staggering out the Wizard is equivalent to squishing other classes. It will give you a slightly larger number of levels where playing a Fighter is not a joke, but since that doesn't let the Fighter contribute in any new situations, it's effectively the same logic as amps that go to 11. Things don't get better because you measure them in smaller units.

I don't think that's true. Imagine the edge case where we stretched Wizard out to be 200 levels long, where you're finally getting a 1st level spell around level 10, and a second one (ignoring bonus spells) at level 20. Such a character might not be totally hopeless, but they're not much more than a WBL-delivery system.

[RandomPeasant]

I don't think that's true. Imagine the edge case where we stretched Wizard out to be 200 levels long, where you're finally getting a 1st level spell around level 10, and a second one (ignoring bonus spells) at level 20. Such a character might not be totally hopeless, but they're not much more than a WBL-delivery system.

I think that's misunderstanding what I was saying. Yes, you can effect relative power. You can do things that make the Wizard really bad. But those things don't make the Fighter good. He still doesn't have any abilities that deal with challenges like "the bad guy's base is on another plane" or even "convince the guards to let you in to the party". So you can slow the Wizard down to that, but doing so doesn't add anything to the game. It just subtracts the thing where some characters eventually progress to having abilities that advance the plot.

[Troacctid]

I think that's misunderstanding what I was saying. Yes, you can effect relative power. You can do things that make the Wizard really bad. But those things don't make the Fighter good. He still doesn't have any abilities that deal with challenges like "the bad guy's base is on another plane" or even "convince the guards to let you in to the party". So you can slow the Wizard down to that, but doing so doesn't add anything to the game. It just subtracts the thing where some characters eventually progress to having abilities that advance the plot.
I guarantee you that if you put the fighter's 11 feats into 3 levels, it would be good.

[RandomPeasant]

I guarantee you that if you put the fighter's 11 feats into 3 levels, it would be good.

It would be good for three levels. Do you know how many levels there are in the game? I'll give you a hint: it's more than three.

[Ulsan Krow]

If you condense Rogue and Fighter from say, level 5 onwards, you still get outscaled by Wizards but at least you can do things.

Gestalt Rogue and Fighter sits at tier 3 I think. Relative to a pure Fighter this Gestalt is better at combat, has two good saves, and can do things (just not that well) outside of combat.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Hmm. What if you squished all non-casters and partial-casters (like paladin, etc) into 5 or so levels, then had the abilities they grant scale based character level once you reach the end? So 5 levels of fighter (each with 1 feat at 1-3 and 2 feats at 4-5), then for each character level after that you gain another 2 feats, but only if you reach fighter 5. Use that design philosophy for all such classes, so you're forced to multiclass on non-casting classes. You just choose which classes you take in order to expand the niche(s) your character fills. I could see it being expansive enough and scaling well enough to at least be useful in the long-term, even compared to relatively optimized full-casters.

[Soranar]

How to make players pick underpowered base classes by scrunching/tweaking them.

Paladin

-smite to hit bonus, turn undead bonus, bonus spells, spell DC and bonus saves are keyed off your WIS and CHA bonuses added up
-smite works against anything not lawful good
-Give spellcasting progression starting at level 1, add a bracket of spells (4 slots maximum instead of 3)
-Give mount progression starting at level 1, add a bracket (1-2 0 HD bonus, 3-5 +2, rest the same) so you finish with +12 HD,+ 12 nat armor, +6 STR and 10 INT) and make it immune to dismissal and the like

Ranger

-give spellcasting progression starting at level 1, again add a bracket of spells that caps at 4 instead of 3
-give druid animal companion progression

Fighter
-your BAB bonus is = to your fighter level x2
-you saves progression is also twice as fast so your max saves are +24(high x2) /+12 (high) /+12 (high)
-your maximum skill ranks is 3+ 2x your fighter level
-weapon focus and weapon specialization gives +2 to hit and +4 to damage

Rogue

-give rogue special abilities at level 4/7/10/13/16/19, skill mastery works with any skill including UMD
-your maximum skillrank is 3+ 2x rogue level and you get x12 skillpoints per level
-penetrating strike (1/2 sneak attack vs crit immune in melee) can be taken as a special rogue ability
-improved penetrating strike (full sneak attack damage) can be taken as a 2nd rogue ability
-ranged penetrating shot (1/2 sneak attack vs crit immune ranged) can be taken as a rogue ability
-improved ranged penetrating shot (full sneak attack damage) can be taken as a 2nd rogue ability

Monk

-Flurry of blows can be combined with a charge (pounce but only with monk weapons)
-you get full BAB
-you get d12 hitpoints per level
-your maximum skillrank is 3+ 2x monk level
-you get x8 skillpoints per level
-your saves progression is twice as fast (+24 over 20 levels)

barbarian

-your BAB bonus is = to your barbarian level x2
-you saves progression is also twice as fast so your max saves are +24/+12/+12
-your maximum skillrank is 3+ 2x barbarian level and you get x6 skillpoints per level
-double your rages/day progression
-add a rage bracket (+12 capstone instead of +8) and divide it like this : +4 level 1-4, +6 level 5-9, +8 level 10-14, +10 level 15-10, +12 level 20)
-indomitable will is a level 11 ability and it makes you immune to spells requiring a will save

[Curbludgeon]

I suppose I'd want to see an incorporation of feats and abilities which scale by character level. Each caster level compounds in value for a dedicated caster to facilitate a 'quadratic' progression, so something similar for martial sorts seems like the least one could do. I like the example above of Fighter being a 5 level class, save that in lieu of a 5th level character gaining, for example, 8 feats at once, they'll gain some number of feats that level and 1 combat feat per additional level regardless of class selection. Additionally more combat feats would have to have level-dependent scaling benefits. The Dungeoncrasher ACF, for example, should just be a feat gated behind a [fighter only] tag, and whose benefits only become realized upon total character level 6.

Even then one's going to have to add sufficient utility to high level martials through a combination of gear, granted/imbued abilities, or outright superpowers that they can keep up. At a certain level everything needs some ability to move freely within a playspace and target different defenses, and in a great many games needs to have trivial access to transdimensional effects.

[Pinkie Pyro]

Hmm. What if you squished all non-casters and partial-casters (like paladin, etc) into 5 or so levels, then had the abilities they grant scale based character level once you reach the end? So 5 levels of fighter (each with 1 feat at 1-3 and 2 feats at 4-5), then for each character level after that you gain another 2 feats, but only if you reach fighter 5. Use that design philosophy for all such classes, so you're forced to multiclass on non-casting classes. You just choose which classes you take in order to expand the niche(s) your character fills. I could see it being expansive enough and scaling well enough to at least be useful in the long-term, even compared to relatively optimized full-casters.

That seems pretty interesting, and as Curbludgeon said, this makes it so that you can get a somewhat similar scaling to caster level.

however, I think that the capstone thing could instead be expressed at each level, so bowing out of a class early still gives you some, but not as much, scaling.

ie: fighter 1: "you gain a fighter feat, and an additional fighter feat for every five character levels" > fighter 5 "you gain two additional fighter feats, and instead gain an additional fighter feat each character level."

not sure exactly how verbose you'd have to write that up for the other classes but seems an interesting take on this.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If someone wants to do this, then there ought to be some note about ACFs. Dungeon crasher 6, for instance, would be unavailable with the 5 level squishing, otherwise, and that would be sad.

[Morphic tide]

Monkadins become Gods among Martials with remarkably little compression. Monk 3 picks up their entire Grapple or Trip package, +1 flat AC, +20 ft. Move speed, Flurry at -1, 1d8 Unarmed Strike that bypasses magic, and of course a pack of saving throw value. Paladins with double rate on Lay on Hands are scarily close to dumping Constitution, as a melee character, because they'll not take long to hit the point where they can replace their entire health pool more than once a day. Definitely don't need a 14 in it, at least, especially with a Monk back-end giving good saves.

Sure, the actual kill-power would still be limited, but who cares about that when you make it ridiculously difficult for monsters to kill anyone in the party? And as an NPC you are narratively required to deal with, they already somewhat break encounter math because those defenses make it so they can devour party resources in ridiculous disproportion. Double their level-based scaling and good luck taking out a boss-Paladin a few levels above you as Team Evil without some serious work to deal with the save and HP inflation.

[Troacctid]

It would be good for three levels. Do you know how many levels there are in the game? I'll give you a hint: it's more than three.
Can you give an example of any 3-level class that is good for 20 levels?

[Jervis]

Can you give an example of any 3-level class that is good for 20 levels?

Abjurant champion if you can stretch it out

[RandomPeasant]

Can you give an example of any 3-level class that is good for 20 levels?

Incantatrix 3.

[Seward]

Yes, I do. Fighter (with assorted archetypes) is the most popular class in PF, by a fair margin, so I consider it viable.

Martial classes are popular because a lot of D&D is combat and martial classes (well built) can be extraordinarily efficient at killing things while not dying in combat.

The entire tier system considers that to be what makes you tier 4 instead of tier 5 (Tier 5 suck in combat without massive system mastery by the player, AND suck at everything else).

Tier 3 is mostly "obviously not as good at most tier 4s at combat most of the time, but versatile". The tier 2 and tier 1 are normally strong contributors in combat AND can do lots of other things (basically anything given a rest cycle for the tier 1s, anything you planned for at levelup with spell known selection or equivalent with tier 2).

The tier 4 martials can still outdamage most tier 2 and tier 1 characters unless they're specifically built for that, and even then the casters only keep up while high tier spell slots last, but even the most pointy "I kill stuff with my spells" wizard CAN scribe spells into her spellbook that lets her do information gathering, find everything hidden in a dungeon, expose and spring all the traps and camp comfortably AFTER she's killed everything in the dungeon. (I have literally played this character. Wizard Tier 1). And the Tier 2 Sorceress can choose a lot of multipurpose spells that have both in-combat and out of combat utility and still have a few spells known for purely noncombat stuff once she's past low levels. And both can carry scrolls and such for situations where the spellbook/prepped spells or spells known leave gaps the party can't otherwise fill. (I've also played the described sorceress, and two flavors of Pathfinder Oracle in this sort of mode, although one oracle was strictly a support character, just an exceedingly efficient one if normally performing in combat at a tier 3 level).

I've found even a splash of magic (as in my 1 level of wizard for arcane archer) can broaden the out of combat utility way out of proportion to the investment. For 6 levels his out of combat contributions were strictly in "outdoorsman/scout" types of things, plus occasionally doing a strength related or climb/jump/swim type thing without burning party resources. At level 7, he had a bat familiar to pinpoint invisible targets, benign transposition to save a party member's butt while simultaneously putting the tank in position to defend and kick ass, extra scouting capability (due to familiar and things like detect magic to know what is around a corner without looking), and, if he'd been in a party without another arcane caster for an extended period, ability to provide lower level arcane utility like invisibility, unseen servant, detect thoughts etc via scrolls. Although if he was casting anything but "guided shot" in combat outside the surprise round it was a sign the GM had taken him out of his game, because he had a mentality that if he wasn't full attacking, he wasn't doing his job in combat. A splash of a tier 1 class doesn't make you a tier 1 caster, and forgetting your actual strength in combat is normally a bad idea. But it can both boost roles you are already good at and expand your out of combat role to completely new areas.

Don't get me wrong. Martials are fun to play (indeed half or more of my characters have been tier 4-5ish classes, although with enough system mastery to make even unpopular classes stand out in combat) and you can work around their out of combat limitations with some thought and roleplay and still have fun in those periods that don't involve combat but they can't contribute like a cleric or wizard or bard can in those challenges at the same level any more than my 5 strength dex tank could open a stuck door. That is what the tier system is all about. NOT combat power. Solid contributor in combat while also doing lots and lots of other things is what higher tiers bring to the table.

[RandomPeasant]

Tier 3 is mostly "obviously not as good at most tier 4s at combat most of the time, but versatile".

I would not agree with that characterization at all. T4 has classes like the Incarnate and Marshal, which are absolutely garbage at dealing damage (and, in the case of the Incarnate, have a pretty high level of versatility). T3 has pretty much all the best martial classes (Warblade, Crusader, Duskblade at certain level ranges, Totemist), and it has the Warmage and Wilder, which are quite capable with the blasting portions of their respective magic systems. Pretty much the only class in T4 that is particularly good at dealing damage relative to T3 is the Rogue, and it probably should move up if you think it is a reliable damage-dealer. Fighter and Barbarian show up in optimized martial builds, but the fact that your Ubercharger starts life as a Fighter 2/Barbarian 1 says more about how frontloaded those classes are than anything about them being particularly effective damage-dealers. You still end up with mostly Warblade or PrC levels by the time you hit 20.

[Seward]

Can you give an example of any 3-level class that is good for 20 levels?

There are some that are strictly better than many alternatives. Ruathar is a full casting class that gives 2/3 bab and two good saves (plus some iffy class abilities but hey, they're free). That's better than any 3 levels of sorcerer, about equal to any 3 levels of cleric and better than any 3 levels of wizard unless said wizard is going to hit a L5 breakpoint in those 3 levels and get the feat. It's better than a lot of PRC 3 level brackets too.

If you use an exotic weapon, exotic weapon master gives 3 solid abilities over 3 levels that can't be found elsewhere and are useful forever (which abilities vary by weapon, but uncanny blow, close combat shot, flurry on a 2 handed weapon and a thing where you can take aoo's through cover spring to mind without even checking)


Both PRCs have no significant feat or skill point tax, which is a lot of what makes them good. PRC's that waste feats automatically fail at this sort of thing.


Master thrower by contrast suffers from not fixing the fundamental problem with thrown weapons (what do you do for your ammo supply when returning weapons give you only 1 attack per round?) and the only 3.5 solution to that problem (gloves of endless javelins) doesn't work for most of the feats it gives because javelins aren't light weapons.

For a gish build, magical trickster gives you a free twin or quicken spell once/day for loss of 1 caster level. Not a good trade for a primary caster but it can open up some interesting stuff early, similar to what quick casting perk does for duskblade every 5 levels.

I only wish master of the unseen hand was 3 levels to the payoff at level 4. Before that the abilities are meh, but improved violent thrust is how every TK user wanted TK to work from the moment they could cast it.


Fighter and Barbarian show up in optimized martial builds, but the fact that your Ubercharger starts life as a Fighter 2/Barbarian 1 says more about how frontloaded those classes are than anything about them being particularly effective damage-dealers.

Allright that's fair.

I've never done a build using more than 12 levels of fighter, 8 levels of barbarian (urban pathfinder variant), 11 levels of ranger, 12 levels of monk and while I've playtested paladins to about level 16 as a pure class (because mount+smite etc scales better without mutting, especially in Pathfinder) and found it fairly effective it still tops out in the teens. Even with the best use of the options those classes bring to the table, they bring nothing worthwhile in the primary combat role after those levels (which is to say your bab will be the same, your saves better and you will have more random capabilities if you multiclass or PRC beyond those levels than if you continue with the class, barring some desire to continue in epic as a 20 level class, and epic feats aren't actually good enough to justify that). Ok maybe ranger12 might get taken if I've already taken 11 levels because it gives +1 to all 3 saves and bumps the caster level progress - it feels inefficient to end on a dead level in terms of saves and casting. I often take level 6 in wizard or sorcerer eventually for similar reasons (+1 bab too for them) after PRCing out after level 5 earlier in the build.

I also agree that 4 level dips or less are far more common, and poor Barbarian often stops at level 2. Although since a lot of campaigns end about level 6 for one reason or another, a lot of people think one of these classes when they think "martial" or something like fighter2/ranger2/barbarian2.


OTOH a lot of folks see Wizard as a 5 level class and both Cleric and Sorcerer as a "take as few levels as you can because you get nothing after level 1" in 3.5. Sorcerers got enough love in Pathfinder that folks often stick with it a little longer. So I'm not entirely sure blaming a class for PRCing out off it as a flaw is something you can ascribe to martials that doesn't also happen to all the spellcasters except Druid (bard folks leave at level 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9, depending on how they value inspire courage, inspire greatness and different spellcasting tiers before moving away)

[RandomPeasant]

I've playtested paladins to about level 16 as a pure class (because mount+smite etc scales better without mutting, especially in Pathfinder) and found it fairly effective it still tops out in the teens.

After Rogue, Paladin (and maybe Ranger) is probably the most effective class at martial-ish roles in T4. But that's still only like a quarter of the classes in the tier. Contra your original point, a lot of it is stuff like the Adept, which cannot justify itself on the basis of damage output.


OTOH a lot of folks see Wizard as a 5 level class and both Cleric and Sorcerer as a "take as few levels as you can because you get nothing after level 1" in 3.5.

The difference is that people are PrCing out of those classes into things that advance their primary class features. No one really cares that you're losing your bonus feats or favored enemy progression when you become a Frenzied Berserker because (Troacctid's assertions to the contrary), the high-level abilities of martial classes are just not things that matter to high level characters. But a PrC that costs you even one level of casting is a hard sell for a Wizard or a Sorcerer.

[Troacctid]

Abjurant champion if you can stretch it out

Incantatrix 3.
Doesn't seem like 3 levels of either of those on their own stacks up especially well against 20 levels of some other class.

[RandomPeasant]

Doesn't seem like 3 levels of either of those on their own stacks up especially well against 20 levels of some other class.

I refuse to believe you have misunderstood what people have been saying to you this badly.

[Troacctid]

I refuse to believe you have misunderstood what people have been saying to you this badly.
Listen, you're the one who was saying that the 3-level fighter is not worth it because there are more than 3 levels in the game. If you think I misunderstood what you meant, then what did you mean? That having eleven bonus feats will somehow stop being useful after ECL 8, because things like initiative and DPR and prerequisites don't matter at high levels? That no possible builds exist that would synergize with them? That it's bad to take a class unless it has enough levels to fill out your entire build without multiclassing further? That it doesn't count as solving a balance problem unless you can skyrocket the weak class all the way to tier 1?

I guess the fact that the only example you could come up with was incantatrix (in the running for literal #1 most powerful class in the game) points toward the last one, but I don't think you come out of it sounding very persuasive.

[RandomPeasant]

Listen, you're the one who was saying that the 3-level fighter is not worth it because there are more than 3 levels in the game.

No, I'm the one saying that a class being viable for three levels does not make it useful to a 20th level character. Fighter 3 is pretty close to viable now. Warblade 3 is not just viable, but strong. If all you can do is make a viable 3rd level character, what good have your changes done?


That no possible builds exist that would synergize with them?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? If you think there is a build that makes it obvious I am wrong, why not present it instead of posting exclusively in one-liners that make it look like you don't understand my argument? If I am wrong, and I acknowledge I might be, I certainly would have found it less frustrating for you to simply say "how about X build", me to say "yeah, that seems pretty good", and then both of us to move on with our lives. But despite that, the only build I've seen here (though I'm not going to go back through all the posts right now, so perhaps I missed one) is the Rogue/Squished Assassin I mentioned in my first post.


That it doesn't count as solving a balance problem unless you can skyrocket the weak class all the way to tier 1?

It doesn't count as solving a balance problem if you haven't solved any problems that couldn't be solved with existing tools. People have jumped over themselves trying to prove to me that this does anything at all, despite me acknowledging that it does in my first post in this thread, that they seem to have forgotten the step where they explain how it lets martial characters stay viable any longer than simply playing ToB classes, a thing you can already do.


I guess the fact that the only example you could come up with was incantatrix (in the running for literal #1 most powerful class in the game) points toward the last one, but I don't think you come out of it looking much better.

I picked Incantatrix because it gets a class feature that is relevant throughout the whole game at 3rd level. There are other classes that do that, like Shadowcraft Mage, and classes that do similar things at levels other than 3rd. They are, generally, casters. You can take that to mean that I am some sort of evil powergamer, but perhaps you should instead take it to mean that casters are well designed, because they provide abilities of lasting consequence that are meaningful to the characters that acquire them.

[Troacctid]

No, I'm the one saying that a class being viable for three levels does not make it useful to a 20th level character. Fighter 3 is pretty close to viable now. Warblade 3 is not just viable, but strong. If all you can do is make a viable 3rd level character, what good have your changes done?
I assure you, there is no combination of 3 levels that will be viable in a 20th level game without adding at least an additional 12–15 levels on top of them first. Warblade 3 is certainly not viable at level 20.


Are you asking me to prove a negative? If you think there is a build that makes it obvious I am wrong, why not present it instead of posting exclusively in one-liners that make it look like you don't understand my argument? If I am wrong, and I acknowledge I might be, I certainly would have found it less frustrating for you to simply say "how about X build", me to say "yeah, that seems pretty good", and then both of us to move on with our lives. But despite that, the only build I've seen here (though I'm not going to go back through all the posts right now, so perhaps I missed one) is the Rogue/Squished Assassin I mentioned in my first post.
Are you arguing the negative? Because if so, yeah, I'd love to see you prove it.


It doesn't count as solving a balance problem if you haven't solved any problems that couldn't be solved with existing tools. People have jumped over themselves trying to prove to me that this does anything at all, despite me acknowledging that it does in my first post in this thread, that they seem to have forgotten the step where they explain how it lets martial characters stay viable any longer than simply playing ToB classes, a thing you can already do.
So, you're saying underpowered classes aren't a balance problem as long as no one plays them? The solution is to effectively delete them as a character creation option.


I picked Incantatrix because it gets a class feature that is relevant throughout the whole game at 3rd level. There are other classes that do that, like Shadowcraft Mage, and classes that do similar things at levels other than 3rd. They are, generally, casters. You can take that to mean that I am some sort of evil powergamer, but perhaps you should instead take it to mean that casters are well designed, because they provide abilities of lasting consequence that are meaningful to the characters that acquire them.
Are you going to tell me you can't think of any fighter feat chain that would be relevant in a 20th level game? Improved Initiative, Shock Trooper, Martial Study/Stance, Pierce Magical Concealment/Protection...nothing?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

A factotum 1/shaper psion 1/ghost savage progression 1 with ghost touch gloves could be viable at level 20, assuming enemies not immune to psionic minor creation-produced poison or other materials and items that power can make (which is a surprisingly large swath of extremely useful things). Very much a glass cannon, though.

Alternatively, factotum 1/shaper 2/ghost savage progression 1 with the LA bought off would be better. Linked Power would allow you to use psionic minor creation as a standard or swift action. But that's with LA buyoff.

[RandomPeasant]

I assure you, there is no combination of 3 levels that will be viable in a 20th level game without adding at least an additional 12–15 levels on top of them first. Warblade 3 is certainly not viable at level 20.

So are you going to explain what those intervening levels are supposed to be, or is this just the most drawn-out and obnoxious way you could find to admit you agree with me?


So, you're saying underpowered classes aren't a balance problem as long as no one plays them? The solution is to effectively delete them as a character creation option.

If you're really attached to the prospect of letting people write Ranger on their character sheet, you could always let them be gestalt Ranger//Swordsages. It's not really obvious to me that such a proposal is worse for people who desire to play a Ranger than being told they have to stop being Rangers at 6th level or 11th level or whenever it is that the squished class runs out.


Are you going to tell me you can't think of any fighter feat chain that would be relevant in a 20th level game? Improved Initiative, Shock Trooper, Martial Study/Stance, Pierce Magical Concealment/Protection...nothing?

Sure, I can think of Fighter feats I might take as a part of a 20th level character that was good. But I can do that now. If I want to, I can go make a 20th level character who has Improved Initiative and Mage Slayer and Martial Study. The question, which you seem incapable of answering, is how "moar Fighter feats" solves the problems 20th level characters actually have.

[Seward]

There are some builds that are remarkably feat intensive that attract fighter builds. TWF and Archery in particular benefit from the 10 fighter bonus feats, plus extra epic feats if you go down that road.

While I personally prefer an arcane archer chasse in epic to a fighter chasse, and TWF is problematic pretty much no matter how you build it, there are builds that wish they had more feats even when getting 10 extra+2 extra bonus feats.

The problem of course is that what they're doing with all those feats is a complicated "kill a balor in half a round" kind of thing. More damage usually, in the end, and using WBL to overcome most things that interfere with them doing that damage. If we talk L20, we need to talk about how nearly all noncombat challenges are trivialized by pure wealth, even without UMD, and the rest are trivialized if you spend 1 feat on leadership to get a cohort to cover any crafting or spellcasting you need outside of combat.

Tier discussions assume more damage is a pointless role, in the same category as more AC or more hitpoints or higher saves. It's assumed you'll have "enough" with a basic T1-2 class of any type that spent normal amounts of WBL on items that support your basic defenses that your class abilities/spells can't already cover.

So of course this kind of discussion assumes the high level fighter feature of "more feats" is useless. I happen to agree that favored enemy is a ****ty mechanic and Rangers stop getting anything that matters after 11, and I think spell resistance is an actual detriment to most monk builds that are not deeply focused on being a self-sufficient cockroach vs anything but physical threats and who don't expect to receive incombat healing or buffs from a party. (I did play a character like that in Pathfinder, who had a weaker but similar thing when raging called superstition - boosted saves but you save against all friendly spells, so healing was generally halved in combat and if I somehow failed a save, putting the remedy on me was freaking difficult).

Paladins are better designed sort of - almost all of their significant class features benefit by more paladin levels (lay on hands, smite, mount) in a way kind of similar to why druid multiclassing weakens at least one of spellcasting, animal companion or wildshaping. The problem with 3.5 is those class features are very slow to develop and in many tables overshadowed by even fighter feats or monk class abilities for the first 12 levels. The PF paladin is better and retained most of the same "think before you multiclass" flavor, but of course PF fighter gets more class abilites too, and so does the poor ranger (favored enemy remains weak, although it at least works on to-hit, favored terrain is weak, but improved evasion and hide in plain sight are in fact desirable at the levels you get them).

[Malphegor]

Truenaming probably could be a feat or a 2 level prestige class

[Lord Foul]

Hm. I'd probably play a truenamer if it was gestalted with say, fighter, ranger, rogue or bard, even if my party was playing tier 1-2 characters like wizard, cleric or druid

[Troacctid]

So are you going to explain what those intervening levels are supposed to be, or is this just the most drawn-out and obnoxious way you could find to admit you agree with me?
They can be whatever you want. It doesn't matter because the new condensed class is only being compared against that many levels. Not all the levels. Put 11 fighter feats into 1 level and poof, it's now mathematically better than warblade. Put 20 levels' worth of sneak attack into 2 levels and poof, it's a busted class that everyone is going to take. Put 20 levels' worth of monk into 3 levels and it's a veritable smorgasbord of bonuses and cheap prerequisites for any build that can support it. If it's not strong enough for you, you can just keep squooshing the class into fewer and fewer levels. But it's not like you need to take it to the full extreme. You can just keep going until you're on par with whatever your desired balance point is. "But troacctid, my desired balance point is druid!" Well then, great, you can use this strategy to buff all the cool-but-marginal druid prestige classes like wavekeeper and daggerspell shaper, and while you're at it, you can open up a greater variety of multiclass builds like Swift Avenger and Sacred Fist.


Sure, I can think of Fighter feats I might take as a part of a 20th level character that was good. But I can do that now. If I want to, I can go make a 20th level character who has Improved Initiative and Mage Slayer and Martial Study. The question, which you seem incapable of answering, is how "moar Fighter feats" solves the problems 20th level characters actually have.
Well, I don't know, maybe you can tell me how more maneuvers solves the problems 20th level characters actually have, seeing as you're so keen on initiators.

[noob]

I was imagining to prevent excessive frontloading to make so that a single level in a very bad class gives all the bonuses it would give you at level X when you reach level X.
So if you are a level 1 fighter you would have only the bonuses from one fighter level, then you become a fighter 1/barbarian 1 you have all the bonuses from two levels of fighter and two levels of barbarian then when you become fighter 1/barbarian 1/monk 1 you get all the bonuses from three levels of fighter of monk and of barbarian.
It is a quadratic progression which matches the "quadratic wizards" up to a point without having broken level 1 characters.

[RandomPeasant]

The problem of course is that what they're doing with all those feats is a complicated "kill a balor in half a round" kind of thing.

And you can hit whatever damage target you want right now with an Ubercharger build. Maybe you can deal 2,000 damage instead of 1,000 damage on your charge if you squish things enough, but 1,000 damage is already enough to kill anything you encounter, so it's not really clear to me what problems this is supposed to fix. Since the person who is most vocal about this definitely fixing real problems that characters have won't explain which ones they are, I am forced to conclude that it does not fix problems people have. Just as I believed initially.


If we talk L20, we need to talk about how nearly all noncombat challenges are trivialized by pure wealth, even without UMD, and the rest are trivialized if you spend 1 feat on leadership to get a cohort to cover any crafting or spellcasting you need outside of combat.

I think if your approach to "how does a Fighter solve non-combat problems" is "get a caster", you're basically conceding that a Fighter can't solve non-combat problems. Your cohort contributes more to the party without you than you do without your cohort.


Tier discussions assume more damage is a pointless role, in the same category as more AC or more hitpoints or higher saves. It's assumed you'll have "enough" with a basic T1-2 class of any type that spent normal amounts of WBL on items that support your basic defenses that your class abilities/spells can't already cover.

You will. Damage is genuinely not an important role. You can build an Ubercharger that nukes things to death, but you can build a Mailman that nukes things to death too, and it will generally be better since it doesn't need to charge people. The role of damage-dealer isn't something that is enormously important, it's a thing you do to mop up fights that have either been BFCed into irrelevance or were irrelevant to begin with, and a bear Druid, Cleric Archer, or even a bunch of minions is perfectly capable of dealing that sort of damage.


Truenaming probably could be a feat or a 2 level prestige class

So you can have at-will gate as a 2nd level character?


They can be whatever you want. It doesn't matter because the new condensed class is only being compared against that many levels.

Okay, that was in fact the most drawn-out and obnoxious way you could find to agree with me. Because I have never claimed that the squished classes weren't good for some number of levels. I have claimed, and people have expressed dismay at but never disproven, that they are not good enough to address the issues that high level martials have.


Well, I don't know, maybe you can tell me how more maneuvers solves the problems 20th level characters actually have, seeing as you're so keen on initiators.

They don't, really. But they do as good a job as squishing does, and it's way less work to just say "you get maneuvers" than it is to try and figure out how you need to compress everything. To fix the problems martial characters have at 20th level, you need to write new content, because there is not existing content that fixes the problems martial characters have at 20th level. Plus, if you give everyone maneuvers, you can write content that fixes the problems for people with maneuvers and then you're done.

[Pinkie Pyro]

Since the person who is most vocal about this definitely fixing real problems that characters have won't explain which ones they are, I am forced to conclude that it does not fix problems people have. Just as I believed initially.

You are so incredibly far off point here it's just...

The point of this was to discuss just how different the game would be if classes like fighter weren't changed mechanically, but you just leveled them faster. How does a level 3 wizard fair against a level 20 fighter with the WBL of a 3rd level fighter?

what if we start mixing things up, making it so cool as hell but mechanically useless prestiges classes are expected to be 1-3 level dips instead of 5-10?

3.5 has some core issues with balance. this is not supposed to fix that in any way. this is supposed to make playing already less attractive options more attractive.

So you're trying to apply this to fix the wrong problems.

So I think I'm going to try this at my next experimental 3.5 game. Class squishing seems fun and maybe martial can have a good time hitting their stride in the first 5 levels instead of after the wizard has fly, teleport, and finger of death.

I'll probably do it ad hoc for each class, like fighter can just be 3 levels. I'm going to keep level-based stats consistent (so still BAB 3 after 3 fighter levels, etc) and see what my players come up with.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Would it be alright to apply something a little similar to casting classes, as well? Say, if you multiclass a wizard into something else, the character keeps gaining CL bumps, but not spells known, additional spell levels, or class features. Sort of an auto-Practiced Spellcaster. That way, people taking crappy casting PrCs at least don't have to worry quite as much about losing caster levels without burninating feats on the problem.

[Lans]

Uber chargers are incredibly narrow, you have to be able to reach your target, and heaven forbid there be a table, mud or high ground in your way. Not to mention your defenses are junked meaning multiple enemies can p unish you

If you condense a rogue have the SA come no more than 1 a level.

Truenaming requires a skill check so that would limit the Gates

[Seward]

Uber chargers are incredibly narrow, you have to be able to reach your target, and heaven forbid there be a table, mud or high ground in your way. Not to mention your defenses are junked meaning multiple enemies can p unish you

Most of the obstacle problems can be overcome with air walk or equivalent (paladin with flying mount spell, any lancer with a L12 phantom steed, any wildshape build with L4 druid casting or less+scroll, or just having a friendly cleric in the party and maybe a promise someday that you'll buy a lvl 4 pearl of power). A few ranks in balance, perhaps cross-class, can let you charge up and down slopes, also important if using the air walk route. (the DC is 10). Defenses are junked if you use shock trooper, yes. If you are that kind of glass cannon, you pick targets on the edge of the fight (again, easier with air walk). I've seen mounted charger builds that are also tanks and want everybody around the victim to flail away at them instead of hurting the rest of the party, but light cavalry builds can use rideby to mitigate most risk of counterattack.

Also the thing to remember about just about any charge build is they ALSO can rip your face off with a full attack, just like any other full bab class with power attack and appropriate Wbl purchases. The charge feats etc is just to keep your damage up to snuff when you need to move. When making such a build you have to work out your obstacle strategy (some charge builds can turn corners, or leap obstacles, or cast a spell like free movement+ Zeal to move through some sorts of obstacles).

One thing not mentioned is that blocking vision blocks charges, so charge builds also value stuff that lets them see in the dark, see invisible etc. Fog is a real problem, and blindsight the only good solution in 3.5, which usually has limited range. If the opposition fogs up, you gotta suck it up, do crappy damage on the close and rely on your close combat full attack strengths to carry you through the fight.

If you are good enough at your job, other party members may well clear the way for you (dim door you to a charge lane, dim hop somebody else out of the way, gust of wind a fog obstacle away etc) because it's a better use of an action than just trying to kill the opposition themselves.

[Gnaeus]

Hm. I'd probably play a truenamer if it was gestalted with say, fighter, ranger, rogue or bard, even if my party was playing tier 1-2 characters like wizard, cleric or druid

Yeah, this entire conversation seems like a weird way to avoid gestalt. Like what if we squished fighter so it got feats faster? Or you could just be fighter//ranger and get feats faster and better saves, favored enemy, a few spells, decent skills... Does it match wizard 20? No. But it's pretty viable through most levels, and if it doesn't match your team's optimization curve, fighter//ranger//monk or divine mind or truenamer present themselves.

If you really feel the need to add classes as you go up, get your first gestalt at 5, second at 10, third at 15. Maybe play with that to make it slower for T3s like initiators, so they gestalt with a low tier at 7 and 14. Adding 14 or 15 levels of hexblade or ranger casting to a muggle at 15 won't make them a cleric or wizard but it will solve a lot of their problems.

[AvatarVecna]

Yeah, this entire conversation seems like a weird way to avoid gestalt. Like what if we squished fighter so it got feats faster? Or you could just be fighter//ranger and get feats faster and better saves, favored enemy, a few spells, decent skills... Does it match wizard 20? No. But it's pretty viable through most levels, and if it doesn't match your team's optimization curve, fighter//ranger//monk or divine mind or truenamer present themselves.

Yeah, something I've seen suggested elsewhere is a tier gestalt system, where your gestalt side's tiers need to add to 6 or more. Gestalting a T1 and a T5 (Fighter//Wizard) is ultimately going to be a slightly stronger version of a T1 class (it's essentially just a wizard with d10 HD, good Fort, and full BAB...and Improved Initiative I suppose?). Whereas if you go with something like T3//T3 (Bard/Warblade?), even if the two classes don't really mesh all that well, you've still got a T3 character. There's nothing wrong with a high-tier or low-tier game, the issue is when you try to mix high and low tiers in the same game - the discrepancy can be a bit much. The gestalt approach, at absolute worst, shrinks the tier discrepancy to a manageable level.

Whereas here, we're just tripling or whatever the fighter's numbers and hoping that somehow gives the fighter new things to do.

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, something I've seen suggested elsewhere is a tier gestalt system, where your gestalt side's tiers need to add to 6 or more. Gestalting a T1 and a T5 (Fighter//Wizard) is ultimately going to be a slightly stronger version of a T1 class (it's essentially just a wizard with d10 HD, good Fort, and full BAB...and Improved Initiative I suppose?). Whereas if you go with something like T3//T3 (Bard/Warblade?), even if the two classes don't really mesh all that well, you've still got a T3 character. There's nothing wrong with a high-tier or low-tier game, the issue is when you try to mix high and low tiers in the same game - the discrepancy can be a bit much. The gestalt approach, at absolute worst, shrinks the tier discrepancy to a manageable level.

Whereas here, we're just tripling or whatever the fighter's numbers and hoping that somehow gives the fighter new things to do.

My experience with that is that the 1//5 still comes out a lot better than the 3//3 with good opti-fu. The wizard//Kung Fu genius monk with alter self, shield, mage armor and Int to AC and greater mighty wallop can just hit numbers a bard//warblade can't match. Or the Druid//monk kung Fu bear. I had to quit in low teens because I just couldn't find challenges to threaten the T1//T5s that didn't roll the T3//3s. It's too easy for a full caster with a muggle base to have no relevant weaknesses.

But I'm a strong proponent for gestalt as a tool to fix low tiers. Its an easy way to get numbers up and utility up across a range of optimization.

[Troacctid]

Tier-based gestalt gets suggested a lot, and I think that it's not a very good use of the tier system, which is based on average expected power level of a wide range of builds across levels 1–20 but weighted towards levels 5–15, with no consideration for prestige classes or multiclassing. Different classes can land in the same tier for different reasons, and they can go up or down based on the level range of the campaign or the optimization level of the build. I don't think there's enough granularity in the tierings for tier gestalt to feel balanced, rather than feeling like a test of what classes are over- or under-valued by the tier list relative to the circumstances of the campaign.

[RandomPeasant]

You are so incredibly far off point here it's just...

And here's the thing where, again, the thing I acknowledged in my first post is presented as something I've never considered. Yes, this does something at some point. I have never claimed it was worthless. I have claimed it is less effective than simply having people play ToB classes, perhaps as a free Gestalt if folks are especially attached to Favored Enemy or Rage. It would be nice to have the claim I made engaged with at some point: where is the evidence this does better than just replacing Marshal with Marshal//Warblade?


Would it be alright to apply something a little similar to casting classes, as well? Say, if you multiclass a wizard into something else, the character keeps gaining CL bumps, but not spells known, additional spell levels, or class features. Sort of an auto-Practiced Spellcaster. That way, people taking crappy casting PrCs at least don't have to worry quite as much about losing caster levels without burninating feats on the problem.

If you are going to houserule casting PrCs, just make them all full progression. The best PrCs for people are already full progression, there is zero reason to demand that an Acolyte of the Skin give up casting in addition to also giving up being a Mage of the Arcane Order.


Truenaming requires a skill check so that would limit the Gates

Less than you might imagine. Skill check results correlate very little with character level, particularly for optimized characters. That's why the Truenamer is such a bad idea to begin with.


Yeah, something I've seen suggested elsewhere is a tier gestalt system, where your gestalt side's tiers need to add to 6 or more.

I'm more inclined to just give the lower-tier classes a free Gestalt. Let the T3s gestalt with anything T3 or below, and let the T1s and T2s luxuriate in the fact that they get full casting from good lists. That way the guy who really wants to play a Ranger or a Monk can write that on his sheet, and he is required to have a set of abilities that are at least workable. People have claimed class squishing is some kind of easy fix, but it seems like way more work than just declaring that people can gestalt and maybe writing some ToB utility options.


Whereas here, we're just tripling or whatever the fighter's numbers and hoping that somehow gives the fighter new things to do.

Which is exactly my point. The Fighter's issue isn't that his uber charge doesn't do enough damage. It can do enough damage to kill any printed opposition if you cheese it up fully already. It's that it's way past the point of diminishing returns. Giving people additional feats helps a little, in that your Ubercharger can now also be a Tripstar or whatever the name is for an archery build, but in the end you still don't have the defensive or mobility options of a Warblade and you don't have non-combat options at all.


My experience with that is that the 1//5 still comes out a lot better than the 3//3 with good opti-fu.

I suspect that has more to do with T1 being better than T3 than T5 gestalts being particularly valuable. A non-gestalted T1 is better than most double-T3 gestalts already (though close in practice), giving them a T5 booster somewhere is just rubbing salt in the wound. The better comparison is something like 1//5//5 versus 1//3, which I think swings to the latter more often than not. Wizard//Monk//Soulborn gets some neat defenses, but the ones Wizard//Warblade gets are largely better and come with one of the best action economy breakers in the game.

[Troacctid]

And here's the thing where, again, the thing I acknowledged in my first post is presented as something I've never considered. Yes, this does something at some point. I have never claimed it was worthless. I have claimed it is less effective than simply having people play ToB classes, perhaps as a free Gestalt if folks are especially attached to Favored Enemy or Rage. It would be nice to have the claim I made engaged with at some point: where is the evidence this does better than just replacing Marshal with Marshal//Warblade?
All that does is make every class play the exact same way with no meaningful variation. You might as well say the real answer is to upgrade to 4e.

[RandomPeasant]

All that does is make every class play the exact same way with no meaningful variation. You might as well say the real answer is to upgrade to 4e.

If Ranger//Warblade is not meaningfully different from Barbarian//Warblade, why is Ranger meaningfully different from Barbarian?

[Troacctid]

If Ranger//Warblade is not meaningfully different from Barbarian//Warblade, why is Ranger meaningfully different from Barbarian?
When you gestalt them with warblade, they both become warblade soup, because maneuvers are more powerful and prominent than anything else the classes are doing, and they steal all the spotlight. Every single turn playing an initiator is all about what maneuver to use and how to use it. That's what your play experience is about now. It's maneuvers and stances. The warblade list is pretty small, so it's probably at least 80% the same maneuvers as well.

[RandomPeasant]

When you gestalt them with warblade, they both become warblade soup, because maneuvers are more powerful and prominent than anything else the classes are doing, and they steal all the spotlight. Every single turn playing an initiator is all about what maneuver to use and how to use it. That's what your play experience is about now. It's maneuvers and stances. The warblade list is pretty small, so it's probably at least 80% the same maneuvers as well.

Oh, interesting, maneuvers are better than the things Ranger does. So maybe "moar Ranger" is not a solution to Ranger being worse than the ToB-using classes.

[Morphic tide]

Oh, interesting, maneuvers are better than the things Ranger does. So maybe "moar Ranger" is not a solution to Ranger being worse than the ToB-using classes.
Actually it can be, since Ranger does have spellcasting and an Animal Companion to begin with. The basic kinds of stuff are there to get remarkably good, just in such a low dose that it doesn't really "stick". Same goes for Paladin.

[Troacctid]

Oh, interesting, maneuvers are better than the things Ranger does. So maybe "moar Ranger" is not a solution to Ranger being worse than the ToB-using classes.
Mystic ranger is higher tier than warblade, so actually, it proves that "moar ranger" is a solution to ranger being worse than ToB classes. (Magewright and adept are proofs of this concept in the opposite direction, showing that "less wizard" does indeed depower the wizard.)

Your "just delete ranger" idea is technically a solution as well, in the same way that nuclear armageddon technically results in world peace.

[RandomPeasant]

Mystic ranger is higher tier than warblade, so actually, it proves that "moar ranger" is a solution to ranger being worse than ToB classes. (Magewright and adept are proofs of this concept in the opposite direction, showing that "less wizard" does indeed depower the wizard.)

Except that Mystic Ranger A) gets stuff regular Rangers never get (like 5th level spells) and B) exactly like I've been saying, isn't better than Warblade in the long run. Mystic Ranger is totally kick-ass when you are 4th level. When you are 20th level, I don't think there's a single T3 class that's worse. It's not even much better than regular Ranger 20.


Your "just delete ranger" idea is technically a solution as well, in the same way that nuclear armageddon technically results in world peace.

Well, no, because what you are describing as "delete" is actually "substantially improve". I suppose maybe you believe that nuclear war gives everyone a bunch of free candy, but unless you do the analogy isn't really apt.

[icefractal]

Oh, interesting, maneuvers are better than the things Ranger does. So maybe "moar Ranger" is not a solution to Ranger being worse than the ToB-using classes.A minimum wage income provides a better standard of living than only having someone pay for your phone bill and breakfasts (and no other income). But having someone pay all your bills and expenses is clearly a better standard of living by far.

Aka, quantitative different can become qualitative difference. Especially in a real campaign where "number of different ways you could break the game" is a thought exercise only, and "how well do you handle the specific challenges that the party faces" is what's relevant.

[Gnaeus]

I suspect that has more to do with T1 being better than T3 than T5 gestalts being particularly valuable. A non-gestalted T1 is better than most double-T3 gestalts already (though close in practice), giving them a T5 booster somewhere is just rubbing salt in the wound. The better comparison is something like 1//5//5 versus 1//3, which I think swings to the latter more often than not. Wizard//Monk//Soulborn gets some neat defenses, but the ones Wizard//Warblade gets are largely better and come with one of the best action economy breakers in the game.

2 T5s is generally a T4, so I won't dispute that 1//3 is better than 1//5//5. Closer to 1//5//5//5. But I dispute that the T5 gestalts are very powerful. Numbers actually do matter in most games. Something like T1//monk has a lot of passive bonuses that made him hard to challenge in ways that don't specifically kill the 3/3 for example. A wizard has to spend spells to make AC, hp, saves competitive. A monk wizard doesnt.

[Darg]

Actually it can be, since Ranger does have spellcasting and an Animal Companion to begin with. The basic kinds of stuff are there to get remarkably good, just in such a low dose that it doesn't really "stick". Same goes for Paladin.

This is exactly the issue. Martial classes tend to be combat only junkies. Another failure is that they don't scale as well. The problem is systemic in the concept of class design. A few easy conceptual fixes would alleviate much of the contention. Fighter and paladin and other similar classes should have 6+int skill points per level to increase their interaction with the world and show that they aren't as much of a hermit as a wizard. Paladin and ranger's spellcasting should scale by using level equivalent spells of 2/4/6/8. Bard maybe a 1/2/3/5/6/8. Increased combat application for skills without feats i.e. using jump to leap attack without the feat, using hide to gain concealment even though you are in sight, move silently to increase the benefit/or range of flanking bonus, etc. You could have feats improve on these instead of granting these. Remove special attack retaliation without a feat. Enemies are there to die so the DM can eat the trip if their attempt fails. A player however is impacted much worse. Another rule should be that mounts use the rider's HP first, uses the rider's defensive stats or it's own if higher, and can't be individually targeted unless the player allows it (can solve part of the "fly" issues if players have protected mundane options). These are just examples of what could be done.

[Troacctid]

Remove special attack retaliation without a feat. Enemies are there to die so the DM can eat the trip if their attempt fails. A player however is impacted much worse.
Tripping weapons can already do this without a feat.

[RandomPeasant]

2 T5s is generally a T4, so I won't dispute that 1//3 is better than 1//5//5. Closer to 1//5//5//5. But I dispute that the T5 gestalts are very powerful. Numbers actually do matter in most games. Something like T1//monk has a lot of passive bonuses that made him hard to challenge in ways that don't specifically kill the 3/3 for example. A wizard has to spend spells to make AC, hp, saves competitive. A monk wizard doesnt.

Numbers matter, but the Monk's numbers aren't as impressive as you're making out. Adding Intelligence to AC (and the Monk armor bonus) to a Wizard's AC certainly makes you harder to hit, but you're not going to match simply wearing heavy armor unless you are able to pump both your Intelligence and your Dexterity substantially. HP is pretty much the same story, with going from a d4 to a d8 being nice to have, but not some unassailable gap. The saves are nice, but there's a full caster with all good saves. It's called the Favored Soul, and it is still worse than most of the full casters. Are all those things good? Sure. But so is the Warblade's ability to just say "no" to saves he's worried about.

And beyond that, all this really demonstrates to me is that if you are someone who doesn't wear armor and has an appropriate synergy feat (which, as it happens, is buried in a deeply obscure source, and I doubt would pass the smell test for a lot of DMs), Monk does some good stuff. But that's one T5. Who is jumping over themselves for the opportunity to staple the Dragon Shaman's mediocre auras or the Knight's crappy tanking suite or the Truenamer's bad and hard to use psuedo-casting onto their full caster? Maybe there is some compelling argument for those things, but right now this mostly seems like a proof of Troacctid's claim that using the tiers to control gestalting is not particularly effective.


Aka, quantitative different can become qualitative difference. Especially in a real campaign where "number of different ways you could break the game" is a thought exercise only, and "how well do you handle the specific challenges that the party faces" is what's relevant.

But the Ranger doesn't handle the challenges the party faces at 20th level. Sure, there will be some number of levels where the squished Ranger is good where the regular Ranger is bad. But when you get down to it, the things you get for twenty levels of Ranger are not enough to solve problems at 20th level. And that means the character will have to get non-Ranger abilities to become a 20th level character. With the amount of squishing people are proposing, he will likely have to get them as a 7th level character. Troacctid is acting like the options are "let people be Rangers" or "force people to stop being Rangers", but there's no choice where you keep taking Ranger levels forever and that works out (at least, not without writing new content). The choice is giving Ranger an expiration date, or giving people a non-Ranger power suite to go with their Ranger abilities. It's really not obvious to me the latter is meaningfully "destroying the Ranger as an option" while the former is not.


Fighter and paladin and other similar classes should have 6+int skill points per level to increase their interaction with the world and show that they aren't as much of a hermit as a wizard.

I don't really understand why people think giving the martials more skills is going to help much. It'll do something, but there are like two skills that have any significant relevance in the face of mid-level magic, and one of those is the "get me some magic" skill. The Rogue already has 8 skill points per level, abilities that make skills more useful, and a workable combat strategy (with TWF adding extra attacks, Sneak Attack damage scales quadratically). It is T4.


Increased combat application for skills without feats i.e. using jump to leap attack without the feat, using hide to gain concealment even though you are in sight, move silently to increase the benefit/or range of flanking bonus, etc.

The problem with this is that casters get skills too. The Beguiler, in particular, seems like a real wrench in the plans of any "use skills to make martials good" proposal. A Beguiler is likely to have as many (and probably the same) skills as a Rogue, so it's not clear to me how whatever you try to do with skills brings the Rogue up without making the Beguiler nuts, or being so specialized as to functionally be a Rogue class feature.

[Gnaeus]

Numbers matter, but the Monk's numbers aren't as impressive as you're making out. Adding Intelligence to AC (and the Monk armor bonus) to a Wizard's AC certainly makes you harder to hit, but you're not going to match simply wearing heavy armor unless you are able to pump both your Intelligence and your Dexterity substantially. HP is pretty much the same story, with going from a d4 to a d8 being nice to have, but not some unassailable gap. The saves are nice, but there's a full caster with all good saves. It's called the Favored Soul, and it is still worse than most of the full casters. Are all those things good? Sure. But so is the Warblade's ability to just say "no" to saves he's worried about.

It isn't so much that it is unassailable, as that it stacks with all the wizards existing stuff. Int to AC is as good or better than heavy armor once you cast mage armor, and way better with Shield and alter self. Monk HP+false life =barbarian HP. And it isn't even that what you wind up with is unchallengeable. It's more that it has even less functional weaknesses than the wizard had alone, so you start walking down the list like "what if I got him in melee? No, with GM Wallop and polymorph he hits harder than the Warblade, with better HP and AC. SR no? Doesn't care. Spam SoL? Best saves in the group. He can see invis. Not afraid of fliers. Not afraid of AOEs....."

Warblade abilities, again, are only relevant if you are given the ability to freely gestalt. Warblade is T3. I wouldn't compare wizard//warblade with anything less than Wizard//monk//truenamer//dragon shaman. Roughly equivalent. As long as the warblade has both the correct maneuver readied and an immediate action he can nope bad saves. And that is an awesome ability. But from an action economy perspective, better saves+superior resistance + your swift or immediate for casting is often better.

And as usual you are way underselling truenamer. Truenamer are overly complicated yes. And they don't get enough uses per day of their best stuff, true. But some of the stuff truenamer does that is nasty requires a friendly caster to buff. Like, a Wizard//truenamer can buff his own caster level before casting his daily spells. They get some nice skill boosts, decent heals, a no save slow etc. They aren't enough to be a good standalone class, true. But they have plenty to offer as a T5 gestalt. Absolutely a set of powers a T1 can plan his daily spells prepared around. And regardless, as I said, I don't really advocate adding truenamer to Wizard. I advocate adding truenamer (or other weak classes) to rogue or fighter or the like. They have non trivial utility, just not good enough to stand by themselves through an adventuring day with their DCs going up every time they make an utterance.

Actually Dragon Shaman isn't exactly bad either in this context. Dragon Shaman problem as a class is that they don't get anything to DO. Lots of classes enjoy d10 HP, 2 good saves, stacking natural armor bonuses, a free movement type , a breath weapon (for anti swarms only), energy resist/immunity, some backup healing including status effects and a permanent party buff. The only reason DS is T5 is they have nothing worth an action to do on an average combat round. Pairs nicely with any active class. Wizards don't mind free damage buffs for all their summons and pets.

[Seward]

Pairs nicely with any active class.

Or any martial class that currently has only "do a ton of damage with my full attack" setup.

It isn't hard to build a martial that can do a metric ton of damage in the combat period but struggles to be relevant outside of combat. Gestalt with a class that has decent defenses/utility but is useless in combat (see also Warlock) seems like a good combination, as long as it doesn't weaken your ability to do that metric ton of damage in combat.

[Lord Foul]

Huh. A fighter/Truenamer gestalt would be solidly tier 3. Probably more fun to play than a wizard, though still not as powerful as one, and that's with the two weakest classes without much obvious synergy

it does one thing well (damage) and has other tools that work well enough when that thing isn't available

[Darg]

Tripping weapons can already do this without a feat.

You have to drop your weapon. I just find that players that don't specifically specialize in a special attack won't use special attacks because they benefit the opponent more than the one using them. It's a way to increase tactical options without requiring specialization and has been quite successful. It also doesn't make sense as a DM for characters to have such theoretically, possibly large amount of free actions considering a round is only supposed to be 6 seconds. Honestly it sounds like something a feat should give a character: If you win a trip attempt against you, you get an immediate free trip attempt against the opponent who tried to trip you.


I don't really understand why people think giving the martials more skills is going to help much. It'll do something, but there are like two skills that have any significant relevance in the face of mid-level magic, and one of those is the "get me some magic" skill. The Rogue already has 8 skill points per level, abilities that make skills more useful, and a workable combat strategy (with TWF adding extra attacks, Sneak Attack damage scales quadratically). It is T4.

Except it was accompanied with changes to skills to make them more relevant. I didn't want to type out an entire rewrite of the skill system, but it's suffice to say that just increasing the number of skill points is not the only change that would be made. There are possible "mundane" options for a variety of things that only spells are capable of doing that are just not available through the current system.

[darkdragoon]

When you gestalt them with warblade, they both become warblade soup, because maneuvers are more powerful and prominent than anything else the classes are doing, and they steal all the spotlight. Every single turn playing an initiator is all about what maneuver to use and how to use it. That's what your play experience is about now. It's maneuvers and stances. The warblade list is pretty small, so it's probably at least 80% the same maneuvers as well.


And yet you can probably condense that into Martial Study and a couple items (probably an Iron Heart Vest of Iron Heart Surge).

[RandomPeasant]

It isn't so much that it is unassailable, as that it stacks with all the wizards existing stuff. Int to AC is as good or better than heavy armor once you cast mage armor, and way better with Shield and alter self. Monk HP+false life =barbarian HP.

But consider the Druid. The only difference between the Druid's chassis and the Monk's is that the Druid gets a bad Reflex save. And the Druid gets basically as many self-buffs as the Wizard, plus it gets a free polymorph that lasts all day without cheese. They can even wear a monk's belt to add their casting stat to AC if that's important to them. This doesn't make the Druid the best class in the game. Certainly, there is value in playing a Monk, but if you want to cheese up your defenses as a Wizard, you can already do that. The Warblade's numbers aren't unhittable for a Wizard/Incantatrix who gets exactly 0 Monk class features.


Like, a Wizard//truenamer can buff his own caster level before casting his daily spells.

By 2. He can buff it by 2. What spells are you casting where that 2-point increase to your CL is a massive deal? You can hit certain breakpoints slightly earlier, but an extra two hours of overland flight (when the lowest duration it can normally have is 9 hours) or a +0.5 additional bonus from greater magic weapon hardly seem all that impressive. And, yes, it does stack with everything, and is therefore strictly better than whatever else you might be doing, but at the same time it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal compared to the stuff a Wizard can just do. All of the examples seem like that, really. Yeah, getting a Dragon Shaman's aura boost to all your minions is nice, but is it as nice as another minion? Two? At a certain point, what is happening is not "T5 gestalts cause casters to gain unreasonable power" but "T5 gestalts didn't trip our established gentleman's agreements for limiting caster power".


They get some nice skill boosts, decent heals, a no save slow etc.

I think if you have to sell "can do the job of a magic item" as an important benefit of the class, it isn't all that good. You heal with godsticks if you need to heal during the day, getting additional free healing is just not all that impactful. Especially since it isn't unlimited, so you still end up using the godstick eventually. Your "no save slow" is a single target effect, and (like everything the Truenamer does) requires you to dump a bunch of resources into boosting a skill you'd never care about otherwise. Consider the returns you might get from investing those resources in boosting Spellcraft and becoming an Incantatrix.


I advocate adding truenamer (or other weak classes) to rogue or fighter or the like. They have non trivial utility, just not good enough to stand by themselves through an adventuring day with their DCs going up every time they make an utterance.

The Rogue doesn't really want to be a Truenamer. They already have Diplomacy and UMD, which are better places to invest your skill boosting than Truespeak (the DC to use a single utterance once against a 10th level opponent activates a staff of holy word at CL 15). The Rogue really just wants to cast the random "remove Rogue weakness" spells a couple of times per day, and even that is just reducing their dependency on UMD.


Except it was accompanied with changes to skills to make them more relevant. I didn't want to type out an entire rewrite of the skill system, but it's suffice to say that just increasing the number of skill points is not the only change that would be made. There are possible "mundane" options for a variety of things that only spells are capable of doing that are just not available through the current system.

And I mentioned why I don't think that works very well. In a world where the Bard and Beguiler exist, you can't just make skills better to make mundanes better, because whatever you do will do more for the Beguiler than the Fighter. Even if you give the Fighter 6 or 8 skill points, the Beguiler still gets more, because they have a bigger incentive to pump Intelligence than any mundane (unless you count the Factotum as mundane).

[gijoemike]

Or you could do what they did in past. (I never liked the idea though). Is to have classes level at different speeds. When a fighter reaches level 20, the sorc is level 16, and the wiz is level 12.

I don't like this since no one I know uses XP in DnD. Tracking XP is neigh useless.

Thank you, Mordante. Everyone seems to ignore or forget this. One of the MAJOR design points in 1st, 2nd ed of the game was everyone leveled differently.
It isn't that we can just adjust class abilities and have fighter 12 = wizard 12. wizard 12 = the best a fighter can ever be. And the fighter can get to the max cap/ peek skill LONG before the wizard hits level 15.

We must also remember that each class got bonus xp for doing certain things. Specifically the rogue got 1 xp per gold their character had after splitting loot. It was completely possible for a group to have fighter 20 , a wizard 12, then have that fighter die/ascend/become legend/retire and the player roll up a level 1 rogue. Then that rogue could hit level 20 and be a peek power BEFORE the wizard got access to the last spell level.


If we truly want fighter 20 = wizard 20 that means completely redefining what fighter is and what they are capable of. A fighter 20 that is anything like a wizard would be something like Kenshin Himura + crouching tiger hidden dragon + extreme wuxia insanity. Personally, I cannot imagine it.

[Gnaeus]

But consider the Druid. The only difference between the Druid's chassis and the Monk's is that the Druid gets a bad Reflex save. And the Druid gets basically as many self-buffs as the Wizard, plus it gets a free polymorph that lasts all day without cheese. They can even wear a monk's belt to add their casting stat to AC if that's important to them. This doesn't make the Druid the best class in the game. Certainly, there is value in playing a Monk, but if you want to cheese up your defenses as a Wizard, you can already do that. The Warblade's numbers aren't unhittable for a Wizard/Incantatrix who gets exactly 0 Monk class features.

1. A basic wizard isn't an incantrix, and using the games most broken PRCs says less about monk than incantrix.
2. So if you can get a monks belt (druids can't make them) and if your game has MIC, and if Monks belts work that way (which I grant is RAW but not something I would assume) then ALL the monk AC feature gives is a 19500 gp equivalent (13k+50% because you will want other more expensive belts) on top of evasion (25kgp and a ring slot and improved evasion at 9), one good save, a bunch of free feats that directly contribute to a bear druid eating face, and arguably a full attack routine that stacks with unarmed strikes (which I wouldn't allow on a bear but is RAW and I would allow on some forms. Maybe at 20 it doesn't do much. But equivalent items would be a significant chunk of WBL in low teens.



By 2. He can buff it by 2. What spells are you casting where that 2-point increase to your CL is a massive deal? You can hit certain breakpoints slightly earlier, but an extra two hours of overland flight (when the lowest duration it can normally have is 9 hours) or a +0.5 additional bonus from greater magic weapon hardly seem all that impressive. And, yes, it does stack with everything, and is therefore strictly better than whatever else you might be doing, but at the same time it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal compared to the stuff a Wizard can just do. All of the examples seem like that, really. Yeah, getting a Dragon Shaman's aura boost to all your minions is nice, but is it as nice as another minion? Two? At a certain point, what is happening is not "T5 gestalts cause casters to gain unreasonable power" but "T5 gestalts didn't trip our established gentleman's agreements for limiting caster power".

Since it doesn't take away any minions I don't know why we are comparing it to minions. If you are allowing unlimited planar binding there isn't anything even most T1s can do to compete with unlimited outsiders. So yeah, you do probably have to start with the assumption that the game is playable by non wizards at all. I agree that without that, it doesn't matter, but neither does an arbitrary number of class abilities on any character unless those abilities include planar binding.



I think if you have to sell "can do the job of a magic item" as an important benefit of the class, it isn't all that good. You heal with godsticks if you need to heal during the day, getting additional free healing is just not all that impactful. Especially since it isn't unlimited, so you still end up using the godstick eventually. Your "no save slow" is a single target effect, and (like everything the Truenamer does) requires you to dump a bunch of resources into boosting a skill you'd never care about otherwise. Consider the returns you might get from investing those resources in boosting Spellcraft and becoming an Incantatrix.

1. Can your wizard use a god stick? No.
2. Did you start the game with a god stick? No. 4-5 5 point heals is very nice at low levels.
3. If you need other PCs to function, that's a major weakness. What if the party gets split and the cleric is on the other side? What if you have a couple of rounds between fights and the cleric with the wand is busy?
4. If incantrix is the optimization level you are playing at, you can still become an incantrix. If the DM thinks free metamagic is balanced, they are unlikely to draw the line at skill boost items, which are cheap and can blow those DCs out of the water.



The Rogue doesn't really want to be a Truenamer. They already have Diplomacy and UMD, which are better places to invest your skill boosting than Truespeak (the DC to use a single utterance once against a 10th level opponent activates a staff of holy word at CL 15). The Rogue really just wants to cast the random "remove Rogue weakness" spells a couple of times per day, and even that is just reducing their dependency on UMD.


At first level the rogue gets universal aptitude. +5 on any skill for 5 rounds. That's +5 Diplomacy, UMD, search, disable, hide, move silently, spot and however many other skills he has. That alone is worth more than 23 skill ranks over 20 levels. Level 2 he gets his emergency heals, cut the potion budget. Level 3 free concealment for sneaking past guards. And a +3 to his favorite knowledge (most rogues want at least know local). Level 4 +10 to all knowledge and bluff (also keen edge for some free pre-door buffing). Level 5 he ignores concealment (and can therefore sneak attack freely) for all his ranged attacks. He absolutely does not have a better place for skill boosting. Skill boosting is what truenamer is best at.

And that (3-5 potential combat buffs, depending on how you rate the situationally useful reversed versions, minor utility healing, and 2 powerful, flexible skill buffs, along with +4 will save) is on a character with 9000 WBL. You can't find ANYTHING better to do with 9000 WBL than duplicate all that? If the rogue has gloves of Dex+2 and a Magic Weapon he has under 3kgp.

[RandomPeasant]

Thank you, Mordante. Everyone seems to ignore or forget this. One of the MAJOR design points in 1st, 2nd ed of the game was everyone leveled differently.
It isn't that we can just adjust class abilities and have fighter 12 = wizard 12. wizard 12 = the best a fighter can ever be. And the fighter can get to the max cap/ peek skill LONG before the wizard hits level 15.

I don't understand how that's better than, or even really different from, squishing. If Wizard 12 = Fighter 20, why not just make that Fighter 12? Then we can have unified XP progression, level can have a consistent meaning, and we don't have to ask what happens when people try to PrC or multiclass.


If we truly want fighter 20 = wizard 20 that means completely redefining what fighter is and what they are capable of. A fighter 20 that is anything like a wizard would be something like Kenshin Himura + crouching tiger hidden dragon + extreme wuxia insanity. Personally, I cannot imagine it.

Have you seen Infinity War and Endgame? Because those have Thor (admittedly a Barbarian rather than a Fighter) and Doctor Strange (clearly a Wizard) at similar, if probably not identical, levels of power. I would venture to say that, for the vast majority of the public, it's the idea that sword guys can't scale up to spell guys that's weird, not the reverse. D&D has an extremely idiosyncratic view of the swordsman that hampers balance at high levels, but that view is so idosyncratic I don't see much value in committing to it.


1. A basic wizard isn't an incantrix, and using the games most broken PRCs says less about monk than incantrix.

The basic Wizard also isn't gestalted with Monk. My thesis here is that the problem isn't that gestalts are particularly powerful, but that (for whatever reason) you allowed them to bypass the things that normally kept casters in check. These gestalts are small potatoes compared to the things casters can already do, we just strictly control those things so they don't do them. But if you allow a Monk//Wizard to break your game, that's not really any different to how a Wizard/Incantatrix could already break your game.


ALL the monk AC feature gives is a 19500 gp equivalent (13k+50% because you will want other more expensive belts)

If I want more expensive belts more than I want +Wisdom to AC, doesn't that mean what the Monk is giving me isn't all that important? Now, yes, "you get it for free on top of the other belt with gestalt", but if it's not worth using the belt slot for when I have the option, it doesn't seem like it's really all that exciting.


a bunch of free feats that directly contribute to a bear druid eating face

Outside of ACFs that give you different feats, the only Monk bonus feat that's particularly good is Stunning Fist. And it is pretty good, especially if you're allowed to use it in bear form. You get it earlier and more often than people who aren't Monks. If there is a reason Monk is compellingly powerful as a Gestalt, that's probably it (though it's not all that exciting on a Wizard for various reasons). But the other feats aren't all that great. Yeah, you get Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip, which lets you do tripper stuff. But you can just take those, and Druid isn't exactly feat-starved.


If you are allowing unlimited planar binding there isn't anything even most T1s can do to compete with unlimited outsiders. So yeah, you do probably have to start with the assumption that the game is playable by non wizards at all.

"One" and "three" are both limits. But the difference between one bound minion and three is larger than the impact of also being a Dragon Shaman.


3. If you need other PCs to function, that's a major weakness. What if the party gets split and the cleric is on the other side? What if you have a couple of rounds between fights and the cleric with the wand is busy?

Sure, there are situations where it is relevant at all. Getting a gestalt is, as noted, strictly better than not getting one. But the situation you're describing is "what if the party is split and you're split from the Cleric and you need healing and it's enough to cover with your utterances and you have daily uses of your utterances left", which just doesn't seem all that compelling. What if you used your healing utterances first because, as was suggested elsewhere, they're being used to save resources? What if you didn't hyper-invest in Truespeak and you can't make your check reliably in a couple of rounds?


That alone is worth more than 23 skill ranks over 20 levels.

If all you invest in Truespeak is 23 ranks over 20 levels, it is literally impossible for you to successfully use an Utterance on yourself at 20th level or a CR 20 enemy (unless you coincidentally happened to have 34 Intelligence). But let's suppose you do invest enough to hit that DC 55 check reliably. That's more than the DC to turn someone from hostile to helpful, or helpful to fanatic. If you turned those resources towards UMD, you could activate a staff of holy word with a caster level that instant-kills a Balor or Pit Fiend, though you do have to do more to kill the Torrasque or Dragons that you fight at that level, as they have pretty inflated HD. That's what I mean when I say the Rogue has a "better place for skill boosting".

This also seems to be missing the point of what I said. Yes, a Truenamer gestalt isn't worthless for a Rogue. But it doesn't really do a lot to solve the Rogue's problems directly. If I wanted to fix the Rogue by giving it some magic, I would give it swift invisibility, swift haste, grave/golem/vine-strike and maybe wraithstrike for a higher-powered game a couple of times per day each. That addresses the core issue the Rogue has (needing to work around counters in combat), rather than giving it a bunch of random stuff that, while not useless, is not particularly relevant to its needs.

[Gnaeus]

The basic Wizard also isn't gestalted with Monk. My thesis here is that the problem isn't that gestalts are particularly powerful, but that (for whatever reason) you allowed them to bypass the things that normally kept casters in check. These gestalts are small potatoes compared to the things casters can already do, we just strictly control those things so they don't do them. But if you allow a Monk//Wizard to break your game, that's not really any different to how a Wizard/Incantatrix could already break your game.

My point is that in my experience wizard monk gestalt breaks the game compared with T3//T3 counterparts . Making a list of other things that also break the game and saying this breaks the game more doesn't change that. We would have said no to Incantrix and if I could do that campaign over I would have said no to wizard//gestalt



If I want more expensive belts more than I want +Wisdom to AC, doesn't that mean what the Monk is giving me isn't all that important? Now, yes, "you get it for free on top of the other belt with gestalt", but if it's not worth using the belt slot for when I have the option, it doesn't seem like it's really all that exciting.

No, it means that a melee druid wants a belt of Str or con and those are 16k. If you stack wis to AC on that, 19.5k extra. It doesn't mean it's worse, it means it's less expensive base price. You don't have to want one more than the other, you just have to want both more than the next option. Technically, I wouldn't probably buy the ring of evasion for 25 k. But I'd leap at it if it also gave good reflex saves and improved evasion.



Outside of ACFs that give you different feats, the only Monk bonus feat that's particularly good is Stunning Fist. And it is pretty good, especially if you're allowed to use it in bear form. You get it earlier and more often than people who aren't Monks. If there is a reason Monk is compellingly powerful as a Gestalt, that's probably it (though it's not all that exciting on a Wizard for various reasons). But the other feats aren't all that great. Yeah, you get Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip, which lets you do tripper stuff. But you can just take those, and Druid isn't exactly feat-starved.


Not really. Druid isn't feat starved, but it does have a lot of good feats to choose from. Improved trip requires 2 feats, combat expertise being useless, and a 13 int. Improved grapple is also a feat many druids want, because some forms have improved grab, or really benefit from making touch attacks. Improved trip isn't because you want to do tripper stuff, it is because you have charge pounce forms that trip and you want the bonus.



"One" and "three" are both limits. But the difference between one bound minion and three is larger than the impact of also being a Dragon Shaman.

No it isn't. Unprovable statement gets proof less response.



Sure, there are situations where it is relevant at all. Getting a gestalt is, as noted, strictly better than not getting one. But the situation you're describing is "what if the party is split and you're split from the Cleric and you need healing and it's enough to cover with your utterances and you have daily uses of your utterances left", which just doesn't seem all that compelling. What if you used your healing utterances first because, as was suggested elsewhere, they're being used to save resources? What if you didn't hyper-invest in Truespeak and you can't make your check reliably in a couple of rounds?

Then you have more money which you can use to get other stuff, because you used it to save other resources in every single adventuring day. I don't think "the cleric is busy or far or incapacitated" is some kind of crazy example.



If all you invest in Truespeak is 23 ranks over 20 levels, it is literally impossible for you to successfully use an Utterance on yourself at 20th level or a CR 20 enemy (unless you coincidentally happened to have 34 Intelligence). But let's suppose you do invest enough to hit that DC 55 check reliably. That's more than the DC to turn someone from hostile to helpful, or helpful to fanatic. If you turned those resources towards UMD, you could activate a staff of holy word with a caster level that instant-kills a Balor or Pit Fiend, though you do have to do more to kill the Torrasque or Dragons that you fight at that level, as they have pretty inflated HD. That's what I mean when I say the Rogue has a "better place for skill boosting".

Except that as mentioned, truenamer will make you hit those other targets more easily, because you can use it to buff skills. It isn't an either or, it's a both and. And why use a staff of holy word when you have free Gate.



This also seems to be missing the point of what I said. Yes, a Truenamer gestalt isn't worthless for a Rogue. But it doesn't really do a lot to solve the Rogue's problems directly. If I wanted to fix the Rogue by giving it some magic, I would give it swift invisibility, swift haste, grave/golem/vine-strike and maybe wraithstrike for a higher-powered game a couple of times per day each. That addresses the core issue the Rogue has (needing to work around counters in combat), rather than giving it a bunch of random stuff that, while not useless, is not particularly relevant to its needs.

Every single thing I listed benefits a rogue directly. Nothing you mentioned, for example would let a rogue sneak attack through concealment. Nothing helps him disarm a trap or appraise a jewel. But I can't compare rogue//truenamer with homebrew theoretical Random Peasant alternate class, so unless you care to write that up and make a thread for it, your ability to rewrite classes to your tables balance point doesn't help much. Gestalt does a pretty good job without rewriting classes.

[Endarire]

As with many or most other mechanics questions, the true answer depends on context. Making this more than a thought exercise requires specifying many things, as well as an understanding that 'theoretical' does not necessarily mean 'how this will work in practice.'

[Zombulian]

Maybe go another route: Let one dip into Wizard, but instead of only getting Wizard 1 (a number of first level spells), get the wizard level benefits that match that character level: So taking fighter 7/wizard 1 would get you the benefits of a 7th level fighter, plus the ability to cast a third and a fourth level spell per day (more if you have high enough int) at caster level 8, plus a familiar with benefits as if you were an 8th level wizard.

Cue the screaming at me stopping fighter on an odd level. :smallsmile: It is just an example, folks!

At the risk of having been completely beaten to the punch on this - this is essentially what PF2e did with the multiclassing question. But rather than keeping the concept that levels in classes are distinct values at all, you can just take Multiclass feats on top of your base class loadout. So, for example, a 20th Level Barbarian character who took enough of the Multiclass Wizard feats has the ability to cast up to 8th level spells.

[RandomPeasant]

No it isn't. Unprovable statement gets proof less response.

It is difficult for me to imagine a statement that is more provable than "this concrete change provides more than this other concrete change". What are you looking for here, a mathematical formalism for comparing Dragon Shaman auras to additional minions?


Then you have more money which you can use to get other stuff, because you used it to save other resources in every single adventuring day. I don't think "the cleric is busy or far or incapacitated" is some kind of crazy example.

It's not just "the Cleric is busy", it's "the Cleric is busy" and "you need HP back" and "it's a small enough amount of HP for your utterances to fix it" and "you haven't burned through your limited daily supply of utterances" and "you have enough time to keep trying to make Truespeak checks until your utterance goes off" (or "you invested enough build resources into Truenaming to have your utterances go off consistently"). That's pretty limited. It's not nothing, but if you gave me the choice between "gestalt with Truenamer" and "you get to take Spontaneous Divination", I'd be pretty tempted by the latter.


Except that as mentioned, truenamer will make you hit those other targets more easily, because you can use it to buff skills. It isn't an either or, it's a both and. And why use a staff of holy word when you have free Gate.

You start activating the staff of holy word at "kill you" CLs at 15th level. Admittedly, that's assuming CR = HD, which isn't always true, but it's also assuming the bare-minimum Truespeak check to use your abilities at all, and "no save, just die" is better than everything Truenaming does. And, yes, a Truenamer gestalt makes you hit that check slightly easier. But getting your Truespeak high enough to reliably hit the check on even five rounds notice takes resources, and I think you have to go pretty far before those resources couldn't get you more than +5 somewhere else. For reference, Shape Soulmeld (mage's spectacles) gets you +4, or +6 if you're willing to play an Azurin and a single level of Marshal lets you double your Charisma bonus. I understand that the bonuses you get from a Truenamer gestalt stack with everything, but they are not that impressive compared to the other bonuses you are allowed to have.


Every single thing I listed benefits a rogue directly. Nothing you mentioned, for example would let a rogue sneak attack through concealment.

And nothing you mentioned allows him to sneak attack a golem or a lich. It is true that getting random healing "benefits a Rogue directly", but it's hardly a particularly relevant benefit.


Nothing helps him disarm a trap or appraise a jewel.

The Rogue's problem isn't that he is not good enough at disarm traps or appraising jewels. The Rogue's problem is that there are a wide variety of monster types against which his attack routine simply does not work. You can already make the checks you need to make to disarm traps and identify loot.


But I can't compare rogue//truenamer with homebrew theoretical Random Peasant alternate class,

Maybe you're just bad at comparing things? Because "here is a specific list of things I would give the Rogue" seems like it should be easy to compare to other things. Do you really think the variance in "when you get these abilities" or "how many uses are in the daily pool" is so huge as to invalidate the possibility of giving productive feedback? Writing up an entire class is a lot of work, and I very much doubt you'd actually step in if I bothered, so it seems to me that asking for a "does this approach seem productive" is not unreasonable.


Gestalt does a pretty good job without rewriting classes.

No it doesn't. You yourself have admitted that you were unable to predict the effects gestalt was going to have on power levels. Plus, even if we iron out whatever balance issues, I'm skeptical that there are a lot of people who want to fix their Rogue by giving them language magic. There's probably people out there who would play a gestalt build as a balancing tool (I myself would probably be willing to play a Crusader//Factotum or Warlock//Factotum). But there are more people who want their Rogue fixed by making it better at being a Rogue. Which giving it access to the printed "remove the limits on the Rogue" abilities does in a way that "give it an arbitrary secondary ability suite" does not.

[Magikeeper]

Given how front-loaded martial classes tend to be, a similar comparison would be extremely optimized melee PCs that have 6-10+ classes over 20 levels including class substitutions / variants / etc from dragon magazine and such. Also a template or three.

It's been awhile since I've played 3.5, but I am probably one of the few that have been in an actual multi-year campaign with uberchargers, shadowpouncers, etc along with some other campaigns / one shots / etc where I personally played such builds at various levels (I was doing something else in the longer campaign). The ol' bowling build is something I miss from 3.5 (I play 5e now). Anyway, I think the versatility of a well-built optimized martial *in combat* is being understated a bit. Unless the DM is allowing infinite combos (or certain fast time plane shenanigans), there is nothing the casters can summon or create that is better than the high-op martial for beating face (aside from creating copies of the martial). This does include utilizing their wealth, as a high level PC's gear is far more important than their life, but the abilities they are bringing to the table are still a better use of that gear than the druid's animal companion*.

THAT SAID, those uberchargers had a morale issue at higher levels because they felt they weren't getting to contribute much. With optimized magic (and magic item use / wealth optimization) on both sides fights tended to just not happen, or retroactively stop because the enemy reversed time and fled the plane after their/our surprise round failed**. It's very possible for the game to reach the point where martials just cannot keep up because.. well, because vaporizing whatever is in front of you in 1 round just isn't enough! If they don't stay relevant via RPing they might not get to do much at all..

THAT ALSO SAID, at lower levels spellcasters (and PCs using their gear to pretend to be spellcasters) generally aren't playing 7D chess across time and space. Melee martials can get significant portions of their build going in the first couple levels, and basically have the core of their build (such as ubercharging) done by ~lvl8 IIRC. Then they have ~12 levels to branch out - maybe Ardent->gish PRC or something - as long as they don't let BAB fall much. Some of the fancier stuff takes longer. Theoretical optimization builds that waste 20 levels on increasing charging damage and the like have serious diminishing return issues.

*I considered "be better than the druid's animal companion" to be the most basic goal for martial PC optimization. In 3.5 that goal is not so easily met, and may not be possible if the DM doesn't allow rather extensive optimization or at least class dipping.. >.>
Edit: Eh, Initiators might be able to meet that without too much trouble. Maybe? I recall that one raptor druids could pick up being quite strong...

**Celerity had been nerfed, if you're wondering.

-------------

With that in mind, squishing would help people that didn't minor in "D&D 3.5 optimization" in college keep up with casters, sure. It would not solve high-opt+high-level D&D issues, no, as martials just never get the needed abilities without becoming gishes (or psuedo-gishes via gear). It might break the game in half if the casters are not optimized at all, however, or if the martials heavily optimize/multiclass the squished classes.

[Max Caysey]

I don't like this since no one I know uses XP in DnD. Tracking XP is neigh useless.

We do… in fact we have done so in every group I have ever played in…

[Remuko]

We do… in fact we have done so in every group I have ever played in…

same. ive never not used xp. the mathy-ness of gaining exp is part of what i like about rpgs (d&d and video game ones).

[Pinkie Pyro]

We do… in fact we have done so in every group I have ever played in…

Not the point of the thread.


Classes leveling up at different rates via squashing/xp rate is different mostly in the form of affecting multiclass.

[Lord Foul]

The pathfinder version of martial classes really helps this
getting things like advanced weapon/armor training and customizable archetypes.