(Tier-3)* 2

[Lans]

Often enough people for some reason want to play a monk or barbarian and no amount of arguing will convince them that those are trash classes and they should just play a warblade instead.

This is an issue because these classes just drag the rest of the party down so, something needs to be done to make these classes and much too many classes like them viable to play.

To attempt to fix all these classes individually is going to be a massive amount of work only to be scrutinized for a little bit to then be forgotten. If only there was a way to fix every class in a way that even a decade after the apocalypse you can easily remember what the fix is.

This is that fix in three steps

1 when ever a character would make a selection or assign points that character assigns or selects an additional (tier-3)*2 selections or points.

2 when preparing spells for the day prepare an additional number of spells equal to (tier-3)*2.

3 when activating or deactivating an aura, activate or deactivate an additional (tier-3)*2 auras.

4 commoner is tier 7



Now this may lead to some balance and multiclassing issues that I will address here


1 No early access to spell levels
2 when assigning ability score increases for a level you must assighns a point in every ability score before you put a second point into a score
3 when dealing with multiclassing average the tiers out for a period and round down.



The first part is just rhetoric and not meant to be taken too seriously

[Troacctid]

I think you might have forgotten that prestige classes exist.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho balancing each single class is not really possible in 3.5. And not needed either.

There is no reason to balance em (imho) because of several reasons:

1. playing low/no magic campaigns
2. your class doesn't need to fit your ingame description. E.g. cleric pretending to be a paladin
3. thx due to multiclassing, all those classes still see some use.
4. PRC also balance out many thing

If you wanna play a fighter 20 in a group full of t1-2 casters, the problem is you insisting on a weak build (F20) instead going at least for some good melee multiclassing and maybe even a gish.

But that doesn't mean that those classes are useless/never played. In fact, in most groups I played so far, T1-2 are barely played (and sole optimized for fluff it at all). Most play T3-5 classes and optimize em slightly. And the DM is happy because he doesn't need to bother with spells that might skip things that he had prepared (making his preparation time invested obsolete).

Imho investing time into balancing classes can be spent better into system mastery to make more optimized builds. Because with enough system mastery you can distinguish strong and weak classes and know which one should get more optimization and which one should be held back with optimization (e.g. availability of preferred items/scrolls or maybe straight denial of certain PRC like Incantarix..) depending how the rest of the party looks like.

I personally like that the DM and Players have somewhat the balancing keys themselves in 3.5
You can choose to play at the optimization/power lvl you want. It's up to the DM and Players to have an acceptable balance.

[icefractal]

So, like, a CW Samurai (Tier 6) would get seven feats whenever they'd normally get one feat, and ditto for ability score increases? Presumably they'd get this choice for class abilities also, but most of the bad-tier classes don't have much in the way of selectable class abilities.

I mean, I guess it's fine, but I don't know how much it helps them without optimization of those feats. And if you do optimize, seems like Expert 1 or Warrior 1 becomes a really good first level dip - six extra feats. Does this apply to skills too? At first level, is it an extra six skill points, or an extra 24?

[Curbludgeon]

As an example, consider a human Commoner1/Survivor3(both 2+int skill points/level) with an Int of 10, with Draconic Aura as one of their nine 3rd level feat selections.

How many skill points and feat slots do they have? Are the human bonus skill point and feat slot independent of those otherwise received in terms of receiving the tier multiplier? Do they simultaneously activate 9 auras?

[Lans]

As an example, consider a human Commoner1/Survivor3(both 2+int skill points/level) with an Int of 10, with Draconic Aura as one of their nine 3rd level feat selections.

How many skill points and feat slots do they have? Are the human bonus skill point and feat slot independent of those otherwise received in terms of receiving the tier multiplier? Do they simultaneously activate 9 auras?
It should be 19 feats, yes they would simultaneously activate 9 auras, just add 8 skills each level



I mean, I guess it's fine, but I don't know how much it helps them without optimization of those feats. And if you do optimize, seems like Expert 1 or Warrior 1 becomes a really good first level dip - six extra feats. Does this apply to skills too? At first level, is it an extra six skill points, or an extra 24?

It would just be an extra 6.


I think you might have forgotten that prestige classes exist. I am not sure as what to do with them at this point.

[pabelfly]

So a Tier 5 Divine Mind, for example, gets 6 + INT skill points, can activate three auras at once at first level, can prepare as many abilities as a Psion and has more power points (after adding bonus power points), not to mention better BAB and hit dice, and has the powers of twelve mantles to boot, and that's before we start picking any feats that net that 4x multiplier our character would earn.

I don't know, this doesn't seem really balanced to me.

[noce]

So a Tier 5 Divine Mind, for example, gets 6 + INT skill points, can activate three auras at once at first level, can prepare as many abilities as a Psion and has more power points (after adding bonus power points), not to mention better BAB and hit dice, and has the powers of twelve mantles to boot, and that's before we start picking any feats that net that 4x multiplier our character would earn.

I don't know, this doesn't seem really balanced to me.

It doesn't seem easy either.
Usually players sticking with bad builds have low system mastery. This "fix" forces them into making an enormous number of choices in their career, and in addition to this they'll have to keep track of an enormous number of floating numbers and options in combat that will slow down the combat significantly.

Giving more options isn't going to help a low system mastery player, while a competent player doesn't need it and instead could abuse the hell out of it.

[Gruftzwerg]

So a Tier 5 Divine Mind, for example, gets 6 + INT skill points, can activate three auras at once at first level, can prepare as many abilities as a Psion and has more power points (after adding bonus power points), not to mention better BAB and hit dice, and has the powers of twelve mantles to boot, and that's before we start picking any feats that net that 4x multiplier our character would earn.

I don't know, this doesn't seem really balanced to me.


It doesn't seem easy either.
Usually players sticking with bad builds have low system mastery. This "fix" forces them into making an enormous number of choices in their career, and in addition to this they'll have to keep track of an enormous number of floating numbers and options in combat that will slow down the combat significantly.

Giving more options isn't going to help a low system mastery player, while a competent player doesn't need it and instead could abuse the hell out of it.

That's what I've tried to say. Newbies either will have problems with the amount of options, or sooner or later discover optimization potential and start to break the game on other ends.

Imho, it will always boils down to system mastery and gentlemen's agreement to have a balanced table. Sure houserules are nice, but the more you try to fix (entire classes), the more increases the risk to break other things.

[icefractal]

Something that might be simpler is to give VoP-like bonuses, as in scaling by level, based on tier.
This could cover many of the 'necessary magic item' functions, plus some bonuses which would put their potential maximum a bit higher.

So for a non-mechanically-inclined player, their bases are covered even if their item selection is questionable, and the bonuses give them decent numbers without maximizing synergy.

For an optimizer, the effect is less noticeable, but it frees up magic item usage for more flexibility, and the bonuses mean they can at least exceed more generally-powerful characters in specific areas.

[Twurps]

It doesn't seem easy either.
Usually players sticking with bad builds have low system mastery. This "fix" forces them into making an enormous number of choices in their career, and in addition to this they'll have to keep track of an enormous number of floating numbers and options in combat that will slow down the combat significantly.

Giving more options isn't going to help a low system mastery player, while a competent player doesn't need it and instead could abuse the hell out of it.

This. People (at least at our tables) don't really pick a class based on their power level, as much as on the number of options one has to go through each round. Some people don't like having to track 'uses per day' or track/figure out the weak save of each opponent, or duration and impact of short term buffs, or god forbid: figure out all the stats whilst wild-shaped and party buffed. Some of them like being a 'one trick pony' because after a week of hard work they're tired, and whether they have system mastery or not, they either can't or don't want to muster the energy to use their system mastery to full potential. Others do like to have different options, and to spend a lot of time (on other players turns preferably!) to ponder these options and do the math on each of them. On our table, both type of players are aware of the power-difference caused by their choices, both will try to 'optimize' to balance the difference out. We will succeed to some extend and accept the remaining difference.


Imho balancing each single class is not really possible in 3.5. And not needed either.

There is no reason to balance em (imho) because of several reasons:

1. playing low/no magic campaigns
2. your class doesn't need to fit your ingame description. E.g. cleric pretending to be a paladin
3. thx due to multiclassing, all those classes still see some use.
4. PRC also balance out many thing

If you wanna play a fighter 20 in a group full of t1-2 casters, the problem is you insisting on a weak build (F20) instead going at least for some good melee multiclassing and maybe even a gish.

But that doesn't mean that those classes are useless/never played. In fact, in most groups I played so far, T1-2 are barely played (and sole optimized for fluff it at all). Most play T3-5 classes and optimize em slightly. And the DM is happy because he doesn't need to bother with spells that might skip things that he had prepared (making his preparation time invested obsolete).

Imho investing time into balancing classes can be spent better into system mastery to make more optimized builds. Because with enough system mastery you can distinguish strong and weak classes and know which one should get more optimization and which one should be held back with optimization (e.g. availability of preferred items/scrolls or maybe straight denial of certain PRC like Incantarix..) depending how the rest of the party looks like.

I personally like that the DM and Players have somewhat the balancing keys themselves in 3.5
You can choose to play at the optimization/power lvl you want. It's up to the DM and Players to have an acceptable balance.

Couldn't agree more.

[Gnaeus]

It doesn't seem easy either.
Usually players sticking with bad builds have low system mastery. This "fix" forces them into making an enormous number of choices in their career, and in addition to this they'll have to keep track of an enormous number of floating numbers and options in combat that will slow down the combat significantly.it.

You aren't wrong. But you can't assume that low tier classes will get low system mastery. A guy who normally plays CoD Zilla because he likes beating face in an optimized environment might decide that fighter with 55 bonus feats and 6 skills/level is playable and this is his chance.

So, how would this work with dragon shaman say? Clear T5. So 5 auras, good skills. Does he select 5 types of dragon? When he gets to pick one of 3 skill focuses, does he get all 3? Do you expand the list? There are low tier classes that get few selections and some that get lots.

[RandomPeasant]

Trying to balance classes by applying a fixed formula for all classes generally doesn't work super well. Classes are at particular power levels for different reasons, so applying the same set of changes is going to have different impacts. For instance, these benefits do very little for a Barbarian (who doesn't get to select any abilities as part of their class), but a great deal for a Ranger (who has spells and also a variety of different selected abilities). If you want to balance the classes, you need to balance the individual classes, well, individually. Either by modifying them mechanically, allowing different players different levels of optimization, or by purely ad hoc methods like the old fashioned Artifact Sword.

[Lans]

So, how would this work with dragon shaman say? Clear T5. So 5 auras, good skills. Does he select 5 types of dragon? When he gets to pick one of 3 skill focuses, does he get all 3? Do you expand the list? There are low tier classes that get few selections and some that get lots.

He would select 5 types of dragons, he would get skill focus just once, but he would apply the bonus to 5 skills. At 5th level he would be able to trade an aura for 5 invocations



Trying to balance classes by applying a fixed formula for all classes generally doesn't work super well. .

This was not meant to balance the classes, it is meant to raise all classes to a minimum amount of power. That is why it does nothing mto balance tiers 3 to1 as these classes are considered viable enough

[Gnaeus]

I think it would have the desired effect. Some classes (like soulknife, truenamer, dragon shaman, divine mind and marshal) will benefit A LOT more than others. I still think low tier gestalt is a simpler, more elegant way to achieve your goal, but if you go this route, I think you would need to give extra stuff to classes like Samurai and Swashbuckler which don't get many choices (maybe give T-3*2 extra thematic bonus feats DM choice). I'm also not sure what happens with monk for example when they get to pick 5 options between 2 choices.

[Lans]

I think it would have the desired effect. Some classes (like soulknife, truenamer, dragon shaman, divine mind and marshal) will benefit A LOT more than others. I still think low tier gestalt is a simpler, more elegant way to achieve your goal, but if you go this route, I think you would need to give extra stuff to classes like Samurai and Swashbuckler which don't get many choices (maybe give T-3*2 extra thematic bonus feats DM choice). I'm also not sure what happens with monk for example when they get to pick 5 options between 2 choices.

You need to consider ACFs, and they would still get 4 bunus feats every 3 levels and additional ASIs.

I know this is far from perfect, but it's easy and covers everything. My only concern would be with truenamersnor swashbucklers still not being good enough.

If they get close, taking into account half tiers would be an additional thing to consider

If you max out on choices you would just get all of them as it stands

[Mike Miller]

I think it would probably be easier to tweak the classes at your table that you feel are too weak. As noted, there are a lot of issues here, especially multiclassing. Tier Awful class 1 / Tier Great Class 19 means all sorts of extra feats/skills for little downside.

[RandomPeasant]

This was not meant to balance the classes, it is meant to raise all classes to a minimum amount of power. That is why it does nothing mto balance tiers 3 to1 as these classes are considered viable enough

Tomayto, tomahto. "Balance" doesn't mean "exactly the same power level" it means "in some intended power band". Which is what this is trying to do. But I just don't think it's a great way to do it. Your thesis is that there are some people who want to play specific classes, even if those classes are underpowered as-implemented. But what this does, especially for classes that don't have class-specific choices or spells or auras, is mostly squish everyone towards "a big pile of feats" as a source of power. It's not really clear to me that the guy who views "play a Warblade" or "Barbarian gets maneuvers" or "Barbarian gestalts with Warblade" as "not Barbarian" is going to view getting his power from a giant pile of feats as "still Barbarian". A better approach is to try to improve the classes in ways that align with their class fantasy, which is more work, but also substantially more likely to please the people who aren't satisfied with "play a better class".

[Gnaeus]

You need to consider ACFs, and they would still get 4 bunus feats every 3 levels and additional ASIs.

I know this is far from perfect, but it's easy and covers everything. My only concern would be with truenamersnor swashbucklers still not being good enough.

If they get close, taking into account half tiers would be an additional thing to consider

If you max out on choices you would just get all of them as it stands

Oh I think Truenamers would be QUITE strong. 5 selections for 1 essentially gives every truenamer their entire list. Aside from flexibility, that adds longevity, as each utterance gets its own DC progression with use. It's an int based skill monkey with 4 extra skills/level and at level 2 and multiple points later you get to add +3 to 5 knowledges. Let's say level 1 feats are skill focus truename, medium armor, hidden talent, focused skill user (including Truenaming), and wild cohort. Level 3 we take knowledge devotion, item familiar, heavy armor, craft wondrous items, and extend utterance. 5 first, 5 second level utterances. I'd feel pretty good about that character next to a cleric or druid 3.

[ericgrau]

I think it really varies group to group, and even player to player with optimization level and splatbooks used. I also can't find a full consensus on any tier list for similar reasons, and even the most popular ones have severe demonstrable flaws. In at least half of groups I've played in I've even see casters struggle to keep up among easier classes. With players that have low or even moderate amounts of experience. Those with high experience pulled ahead with casters only barely; most people in person don't have nor choose to use the aid of the entire internet.

I do think it is a great idea to make adjustments on a case by case basis, especially if you have people who really know what they're doing and use a lot of books. I think it's a very difficult thing to balance so overall LA or "LA" only for class feature purposes like casting purposes is the simplest way. In one of my current groups I'd probably give a lost caster level every 6th level for example. They have a lot of offline experience but zero online experience and most know few of the major tricks. And none spend 20 hours making a character. Other groups may be vastly different, especially online.

[pabelfly]

If you're going to stick with this flawed premise to "fix" lower-tier classes, I would suggest a much simpler fix of giving extra base stat bonuses. Something like two extra stat points per level for a tier 4 class, and four for tier 5 (I don't care about Commoner, if you pick that you deserve whatever happens to your character), and you need to pick between four different stats before you can reinvest in a stat you've already invested in. It's a lot simpler mechanically in adding power and running a character in-game, and lower-tier classes generally have more MAD issues.

EDIT: I'd also make Pounce a (Fighter Bonus) feat, just to let classes that want it get off a full attack after a charge.

I'd want to trial this further to see how it works, but at initial glance I'm not unhappy with this idea.

[Lans]

I think it would probably be easier to tweak the classes at your table that you feel are too weak. As noted, there are a lot of issues here, especially multiclassing. Tier Awful class 1 / Tier Great Class 19 means all sorts of extra feats/skills for little downside.

True, this is one issue that I don't have a good work around for. Maybe if the feat /stat bonuses were gotten over 3/4 levels and took an average tier into account.


Tomayto, tomahto. "Balance" doesn't mean "exactly the same power level" it means "in some intended power band". Which is what this is trying to do. But I just don't think it's a great way to do it. Your thesis is that there are some people who want to play specific classes, even if those classes are underpowered as-implemented. But what this does, especially for classes that don't have class-specific choices or spells or auras, is mostly squish everyone towards "a big pile of feats" as a source of power. It's not really clear to me that the guy who views "play a Warblade" or "Barbarian gets maneuvers" or "Barbarian gestalts with Warblade" as "not Barbarian" is going to view getting his power from a giant pile of feats as "still Barbarian". A better approach is to try to improve the classes in ways that align with their class fantasy, which is more work, but also substantially more likely to please the people who aren't satisfied with "play a better class".
I don't argue that this is a better approach, but is much more work. It also has the advantage of being something that can easily be recalled from memory
If you're going to stick with this flawed premise to "fix" lower-tier classes, I would suggest a much simpler fix of giving extra base stat bonuses. Something like two extra stat points per level for a tier 4 class, and four for tier 5 (I don't care about Commoner, if you pick that you deserve whatever happens to your character), and you need to pick between four different stats before you can reinvest in a stat you've already invested in. It's a lot simpler mechanically in adding power and running a character in-game, and lower-tier classes generally have more MAD issues.

I'd want to trial this further to see how it works, but at initial glance I'm not unhappy with this idea. I like this but I don't think it does enough for a shadow caster.

[RandomPeasant]

I don't argue that this is a better approach, but is much more work. It also has the advantage of being something that can easily be recalled from memory

It's much more work if you decide to fix all the classes from scratch, but you don't need to do that. Realistically, you're probably going to have at most one person who is dead-set on playing an extremely underpower class because it matches their concept, and chances are you'll be able to find a fix for that which hits about the power level you want by spending a few minutes on google. I don't think "recall from memory" is a particularly important metric here, as you're applying this fix to stuff that is (except for auras) largely calculated only during downtime, when people can just look it up. Ultimately, this doesn't seem like it offers enough in the "allow the Barbarian to still feel like a Barbarian" department to justify the amount of additional effort it takes over just giving people free Gestalts (which I don't think is a particularly good solution, but is definitely the easiest fix to apply).

[pabelfly]

True, this is one issue that I don't have a good work around for. Maybe if the feat /stat bonuses were gotten over 3/4 levels and took an average tier into account.


I don't argue that this is a better approach, but is much more work. It also has the advantage of being something that can easily be recalled from memory I like this but I don't think it does enough for a shadow caster.

Shadow caster is an interesting one.

So if I was working with this rule and had a Shadow Caster at level 20, the bonuses would be something like...
+10 in CHA, which gives +5 to spell DCs and Intimidate,
+10 in DEX, which gives +5 to Initiative, AC, Reflex saves, Hide, and Move Silently
+10 in CON for an extra 100HP and +5 Fort saves and Concentration checks

The last one is probably WIS to get better Will saves and Spot checks, but INT could be chosen for extra skill points.

So you're a bulky caster with pretty decent saves, likely slightly underpar AC, and very limited spell slots. It's better than regular Shadowcaster but I'm not sure how compelling I would find it against regular T3 options.

[Lans]

Shadow caster is an interesting one.

So if I was working with this rule and had a Shadow Caster at level 20, the bonuses would be something like...
+10 in CHA, which gives +5 to spell DCs and Intimidate,
+10 in DEX, which gives +5 to Initiative, AC, Reflex saves, Hide, and Move Silently
+10 in CON for an extra 100HP and +5 Fort saves and Concentration checks

The last one is probably WIS to get better Will saves and Spot checks, but INT could be chosen for extra skill points.

So you're a bulky caster with pretty decent saves, likely slightly underpar AC, and very limited spell slots. It's better than regular Shadowcaster but I'm not sure how compelling I would find it against regular T3 options.
At !evel 20 shadow caster is almost fine as it is, but this version would still be very shaky at low levels

[pabelfly]

At !evel 20 shadow caster is almost fine as it is, but this version would still be very shaky at low levels

Which is another problem with any blanket tier-based fix. The tier of a class can change, and quite dramatically, even forgetting about player optimisation efforts. Your fix of Shadowcaster is similar in that it greatly amps the character up when it ends up being around Tier 3 at level 20 and suddenly has a bunch of extras it doesn't really need.

Anyway, back to the stat-based fix. You've got four +1s by level 2, and that could help boost a stat to an even number, depending on dice rolls or stat allocations. At worst, starting at level 3 and into level 4, you've got extra HP and +1s to a bunch of core player stats, which the player is going to occasionally notice. Not bad for something that was already a high Tier 4, and almost at Tier 3

[RandomPeasant]

At !evel 20 shadow caster is almost fine as it is, but this version would still be very shaky at low levels

The core of the Shadowcaster's problem is that you start life as a Wizard who gets one spell per day and is not allowed to learn sleep or color spray. You end up with vaguely reasonable numbers of "spells" per day, which are themselves vaguely reasonable, but the issue is that getting there is a pretty hard sell. If you want a quick fix for the Shadowcaster, just let the Beguiler trade their spells known for mysteries if they want. Maybe give them some of the class features to make it less tempting to PrC out.

[pabelfly]

The core of the Shadowcaster's problem is that you start life as a Wizard who gets one spell per day and is not allowed to learn sleep or color spray. You end up with vaguely reasonable numbers of "spells" per day, which are themselves vaguely reasonable, but the issue is that getting there is a pretty hard sell. If you want a quick fix for the Shadowcaster, just let the Beguiler trade their spells known for mysteries if they want. Maybe give them some of the class features to make it less tempting to PrC out.

Which is why targeted class fixes are better than blanket fixes. There are plenty of playtested class fixes for weaker classes like the Shadowcaster already, including one by Mouseferatu, who apparently worked on Tome of Magic.

[Gnaeus]

It's much more work if you decide to fix all the classes from scratch, but you don't need to do that. Realistically, you're probably going to have at most one person who is dead-set on playing an extremely underpower class because it matches their concept, and chances are you'll be able to find a fix for that which hits about the power level you want by spending a few minutes on google. I don't think "recall from memory" is a particularly important metric here, as you're applying this fix to stuff that is (except for auras) largely calculated only during downtime, when people can just look it up. Ultimately, this doesn't seem like it offers enough in the "allow the Barbarian to still feel like a Barbarian" department to justify the amount of additional effort it takes over just giving people free Gestalts (which I don't think is a particularly good solution, but is definitely the easiest fix to apply).

Maybe you can. But your complaint about barbarians not feeling like barbarian because gestalt or feat makes it feel different or whatever would bother me way way less than that non solution. If I don't know what all the classes do, I can't reasonably pick between them. But more importantly, if we fight a group of NPC barbarians, I want them playing by the same rules as PC barbarians. Only fixing the classes the PCs are playing would poison the entire game for me. That's like, I'm playing a cleric, Joe is a warblade, and Steve is a swashbuckler//cheater.

[RandomPeasant]

But your complaint about barbarians not feeling like barbarian because gestalt or feat makes it feel different or whatever would bother me way way less than that non solution.

That's not my complaint, that's the stated thesis of the thread. My view is that I don't believe that the set of people who won't accept "you are a Warblade with Rage", but will accept "you are a Barbarian//Dragon Shaman" or "you are a Barbarian with 30 extra feats" is very large. If you are the type of person who would be satisfied playing a gestalt Barbarian, I don't think you're the type of person OP is trying to help here.


If I don't know what all the classes do, I can't reasonably pick between them.

A reasonable point. But one that, at best, suggests that the DM should go out and proactively find alternatives, rather than working with players individually (of course, my view is that the phrase "rather than working with players individually" is itself a red flag). But I don't think most people are considering all the classes in any meaningful sense. I don't have any kind of clear data, but my experience is that the dominant approaches for picking classes are "I like this" and "this sounds cool". The latter is quite amenable to ad hoc alterations, as long as they don't change the concept, and the former may require a tailored solution in any case, as there's no way of knowing whether a solution you choose beforehand preserves the things they like about the class or not.


But more importantly, if we fight a group of NPC barbarians, I want them playing by the same rules as PC barbarians.

I don't understand how using a homebrew Barbarian class prevents that. In fact, as a DM, I would find it much easier to stat up NPC Barbarians if the procedure for doing that was "use this Barbarian fix" rather than "pick a Gestalt for each Barbarian" or "find a double-digit number of extra feats for each Barbarian to have".


Only fixing the classes the PCs are playing would poison the entire game for me.

Why? Does it poison the game if you encounter non-Gestalt NPCs in a Gestalt game, or if NPCs in a game that allows LA buyoff haven't bought off any LA? NPCs are always going to get less effort and attention put into them than PCs, I fail to see why that applying to class tuning is somehow game-ruining.

[Lans]

@Paebelfly I like where you are going with the stat boosts per level. I think you're idea is better than mine as it fits all classes equally based on tier. I would add additional choices beyond just the stat boosts and give tier 6 classes an additional choice after level 2. The additional choices would be either a feat or a class feature of level taken or lower. This fits classes like the shadow caster much better than just stat boosts. This would let it stay fairly relevant at low levels with out noticable deviation from it's mechanics or flavor unless the player chooses to do so.

[Gnaeus]

Why? Does it poison the game if you encounter non-Gestalt NPCs in a Gestalt game,? NPCs are always going to get less effort and attention put into them than PCs, I fail to see why that applying to class tuning is somehow game-ruining.

Yes. Absolutely. It doesn't feel like an X is entirely subjective, especially when there are almost always gestalt combinations that are perfectly in keeping with the spirit of a class. We play by the same rules as the other guys, OTOH, is entirely not subjective. If PC barbarians get a T5 gestalt, NPC barbarians get a T5 gestalt. if PCs are all rewritten to T3, fighting a book swashbuckler is just as legitimate as changing the numbers on my character sheet.

[pabelfly]

@Pabelfly I like where you are going with the stat boosts per level. I think you're idea is better than mine as it fits all classes equally based on tier. I would add additional choices beyond just the stat boosts and give tier 6 classes an additional choice after level 2. The additional choices would be either a feat or a class feature of level taken or lower. This fits classes like the shadow caster much better than just stat boosts. This would let it stay fairly relevant at low levels with out noticable deviation from it's mechanics or flavor unless the player chooses to do so.

I've had a think about this myself. Most low-tier characters are mundane martials or gishes and have pretty similar problems - weak abilities, underwhelming class stats, and/or being MAD - and these can all be fixed by pumping base stats. In contrast, there are a few classes, Shadowcaster and Truenamer spring to mind most readily - that are low-tier classes with their own unique problems that are probably best addressed individually. There are online fixes for these, if you're of the opinion that all classes need to be playable at a reasonable level.

Giving out feats and/or class features is also very dependent on player optimization ability, whereas stats are really hard to mess up.

As for Tier 6 classes, there are only three of these - Aristocrat, Warrior and Commoner. I wouldn't overly concern myself with those since they're primarily intended for use for NPCs.

[Lans]

Giving out feats and/or class features is also very dependent on player optimization ability, whereas stats are really hard to mess up.

As for Tier 6 classes, there are only three of these - Aristocrat, Warrior and Commoner. I wouldn't overly concern myself with those since they're primarily intended for use for NPCs.

I don't have a problem with giving stat boosts, but I think giving the option of a feat or class ability is superior. There is also an issue of just being bigger numbers which could lead to a different sort of lopsidedness. Limiting the stat boosts to the tier of the character would work, that's 6-8 levels of just selecting the stat boosts for tier 4 and 3-5 for T5.

I don't think I am overly concerned .Even if nobody plays or intends to play them I believe extending the system to account for them let's us another comparison point where fixes can occur. Like if the soul knife is still underperforming but the aristrocrat is doing fine then we would have a framework where the fix or the SK's tier ranking is working.

It also just lets me play around with how a hypothetical just fears class would fair as a character in a reasonable manner.