New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    So, I've had a thought floating in my head for awhile and I wanted opinions on it. For awhile I've debated is one of the reasons D&D seems to always have balance issues. Originate with the flawed base classes? Now, I'm not talking what #s were given to what class. That's crunch you could remove names from the classes and optimization would still exist in vacuum inherently from the #s. I'm talking is the fluff behind each class creating a flaw that causes the design errors.

    Examples I've debated for awhile. What is the defining separation between a Cleric and a Paladin? They're both "holy warriors" in D&D. Vs to me Paladin/Priest of WoW a very distinct separation but both users of Holy power. Considering PrC paladin eventually got made, couldn't they have just made. "Cleric" and skipped on paladin entirely. They wear armor, they hit things, they cast holy spells. One has a special mount. Paladin could've been a well written PrC and Priest could've been a different one spell focused vs melee focused creating the distinctions just as an example. This comes down to, less is more at the base level.

    Fighter and Barbarian. They wear armor, they hit things. One has anger problems the other doesn't. That's BARELY a class difference at best. Could just be "Warrior" and then one could go into advancements that differ them, tactician vs recklessness.

    Other classes rather than having split identity, seem to have LACK of an identity. What is a Ranger? Honestly apologies for another WoW reference but the Hunter takes the "tracker with pets and weapon versatility" idea into a better direction. Ranger > Pet Master, Archer, Scout (Melee version of tracker)

    Monk in itself is just an Asian stereotype that punches things. Mostly bad 80s movies stereotypes to... it needs a complete rewrite to exist better I haven't come up with any ideas there yet though.

    Mage > Archtype into Sorc blaster, Artificer magic crafter / ? The kicker is honestly the difference between Wizard/Sorcerer comes down to spontaneous vs prepared and realistically I would kill prepared entirely if possible. It's just a weird design nobody at our table likes and everyone has used ACFs to go spontaneous on prepared casters or simply gets a 0% play rate (Tons of Sorcs here, 0 Wizards)

    Now 3.5 seems to function almost entirely off of prestige classes. So i know looking at the base classes itself is partially a flaw. But honestly (some hate maybe for the 5e mention but..) I think 5e while being a stripped down numerically shrunk 3.5.. had a FEW good ideas. One being the archtype spread for variations of base classes. If you could take that type of system, but then create prestige classes that had "advance existing class features" similar to the existing advance existing spells we have for caster prcs...So people could further customize on top of that. We would have a better variety. I imagined the level spectrum as 1-5 base. 6-10 archtype. 11-20 PrC to make more unique.
    Last edited by Lorddenorstrus; 2022-01-04 at 12:24 AM. Reason: Friend helped me figure out a few continuations to the idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    Wizards are weak because they need to read! Sorcerers can take the Illiterate trait to minmax themselves to extremes that other classes can only dream of!
    Spoiler: Current Ongoing Campaigns
    Show
    DM- Overlord Campaign - Ainz wiped the floor but they did manage to clear several floor guardians. Playing - Gestalt game character WIP.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    The base classes aren't balanced but I think there's enough differentiation between them to make them flavourful and interesting choices and to help bring all sorts of different character concepts to life. Not everything is about power.

    Let's take the mundane fighter concept. There's a lot of difference how Barbarian and Fighter feel, their gear, their skills, and so forth, without customising them through race and feats. Boiling it all down to Warrior kind of misses the point of 3.5. If I wanted that level of simplicity I'd play 5e.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by pabelfly View Post
    The base classes aren't balanced but I think there's enough differentiation between them to make them flavourful and interesting choices and to help bring all sorts of different character concepts to life. Not everything is about power.

    Let's take the mundane fighter concept. There's a lot of difference how Barbarian and Fighter feel, their gear, their skills, and so forth, without customising them through race and feats. Boiling it all down to Warrior kind of misses the point of 3.5. If I wanted that level of simplicity I'd play 5e.
    It feels like you didn't really read what I wrote. Because I still pointed out, that inherently the separation would exist when I pointed out that minor variations to "guy who uses STR to swing a weapon" can be Archtype modifications.. but if you boil it down they're both just warriors who swing weapons. The point I was making is trying to create extra base classes based on half concepts is basically bloating the system. Even 5e has balance issues and that's why numbers shrunk intentionally to try and avoid it. They kept the same issues 3.5 had and just made #s smaller fixing nothing really.

    You also managed to miss the second point from thinking that gear which are items anyone can buy or wear with little effort is somehow a separating factor between fighters and barbarians. It isn't and never was. You can buy and use the same items on both characters. The only inherent difference is mechanical. One rages one has extra feats. Which is barely a difference ie my point. Their feel therefore is basically the same. Unless you RP them differently which has no real effect on the discussion because you could choose toRP a smart Barbarian like Conan, or a dumb drunk fighter. Also the suggestions I made were wildly complex options that vastly strip the options of 5e which inherently make the suggestion not simple.

    Games, require systems to be games. RP isn't a structure inherent to game design as the game is mechanical and there to assist with combat or situations that require a skill usage. It would be easier to balance, and design if the classes were more organized. Str warrior - then after you choose Str + Warrior you diverge from there into your specific niche you wanted to design. Be it Barbarian, protector etc something else. Considering a barbarian could still be created effortlessly with the thought process I pointed out. I don't see anything from your point.
    Last edited by Lorddenorstrus; 2022-01-04 at 03:23 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    Wizards are weak because they need to read! Sorcerers can take the Illiterate trait to minmax themselves to extremes that other classes can only dream of!
    Spoiler: Current Ongoing Campaigns
    Show
    DM- Overlord Campaign - Ainz wiped the floor but they did manage to clear several floor guardians. Playing - Gestalt game character WIP.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    What is a Ranger? Honestly apologies for another WoW reference but the Hunter takes the "tracker with pets and weapon versatility" idea into a better direction. Ranger > Pet Master, Archer, Scout (Melee version of tracker)
    WoW, and basically all computer RPGs, trace their roots back to DnD. The 3.x Ranger is supposedly Aragorn from Lord of the Rings- or I think more accurately, the movie portrayal adding TWF as a thing, and then the 3.5 version letting you trade that for archery so you can be Legolas instead.

    Are you aware there's a 3.x Warcraft setting book series, which then was updated/remade into a "WoW RPG?" Funny thing is it has terrible "wilderness" base classes and then uses essentially Prestige Ranger for all its "Hunter" stuff, IIRC, and isn't any better at it than 3.5.

    It sounds like what you're saying is you want to condense a couple of the base classes which you don't think should be separate, remove and/or rebuild some you don't like, and then have a split focus between ACFs/Archetypes/whatever you want to call them and also Prestige Classes. If you want help working on such a rebuild project, that would go on the Homebrew Forum.
    Fizban's Tweaks and Brew: Google Drive (PDF), Thread
    A collection of over 200 pages of individually small bans, tweaks, brews, and rule changes, usable piecemeal or nearly altogether, and even some convenient lists. Everything I've done that I'd call done enough to use in one place (plus a number of things I'm working on that aren't quite done, of course).
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    Examples I've debated for awhile. What is the defining separation between a Cleric and a Paladin?
    The Cleric can represent the spider cultists of Lolth, the warrior-prophets of Kord, and the thief-priests of Olidammara. The Paladin, conversely, represents exclusively the holy warriors of devoted Lawful Good faiths. So the answer is that Cleric should not be a class (because a class that tries to cover all the religions of D&Dland will either be too broad, fail horribly, or both), and Paladin should be opened up so we don't need a separate Blackguard.

    Fighter and Barbarian. They wear armor, they hit things. One has anger problems the other doesn't. That's BARELY a class difference at best. Could just be "Warrior" and then one could go into advancements that differ them, tactician vs recklessness.
    Barbarian is fine. The issue is that "Fighter" is a bad class concept. What does it do? It fights. Well, everybody fights, the game comes with an entire book of things to do that to. What else does it do? How does it fight? I dunno.

    Other classes rather than having split identity, seem to have LACK of an identity. What is a Ranger? Honestly apologies for another WoW reference but the Hunter takes the "tracker with pets and weapon versatility" idea into a better direction. Ranger > Pet Master, Archer, Scout (Melee version of tracker)
    The Ranger also notionally has specialization against particular enemies, which is an interesting niche, just one that has been explored poorly. What the Ranger should do is, rather than getting generic numeric bonuses, it should get broad abilities that happen to be generally useful against specific enemy types. So Favored Enemy (Dragons) gives you energy resistance or Evasion, not bonus damage against dragons. That way it's useful when you fight a blaster mage or an outsider with blasting SLAs, not just dragons.

    Monk in itself is just an Asian stereotype that punches things. Mostly bad 80s movies stereotypes to... it needs a complete rewrite to exist better I haven't come up with any ideas there yet though.
    I don't know that "Asian stereotype" is really fair when there's plenty of media from Asia (well, at least China, Asia is obviously huge and has a lot of different stuff in it) that depicts characters who are very much like Monks. If you want to be able to include the protagonists of Chinese fantasy stories in your games, you are going to need something that is a good deal like a Monk. The primary issue is that it doesn't go nearly as gonzo as the source material does.

    It's just a weird design nobody at our table likes and everyone has used ACFs to go spontaneous on prepared casters or simply gets a 0% play rate (Tons of Sorcs here, 0 Wizards)
    Unless you play almost more than is humanly possible, there are always going to be things you don't play. That's fine. You don't need to cut them from the game. Prepared casting is a reasonable mechanic that is interesting for some people, it just shouldn't be on a lot of the classes that have it. Leave it on the Wizard (planning in advance fits for the knowledge-focused caster), and use it for whatever Artificer/Gadgeteer class you write. It makes sense there, it just doesn't make sense for Clerics or Druids.

    One being the archtype spread for variations of base classes. If you could take that type of system, but then create prestige classes that had "advance existing class features" similar to the existing advance existing spells we have for caster prcs...
    Archetypes are a good idea, but I don't really see why you need that for PrCs to advance base class features. Just ... declare that PrCs do that. It would barely even matter if you made PrCs a Gestalt add-on, as they're already functionally that for the most powerful classes (setting aside lost caster levels, which are just a bad idea).

    But, yes, archetypes are good. There are a lot of customization options that don't have a level minimum, and they allow you to handle multiclassing in a better way than 3e ever did. Instead of an Open Multiclassing system that doesn't work, and various feat and PrC epicycles on top of that, multiclassing should just mean taking the appropriate class archetype and moving on with your life. Don't figure out how to cobble together Wizard, Rogue, Unseen Seer, Arcane Trickster, and whatever Wizard/Rogue multiclass feat there is, just play a Rogue-archetype Wizard. That way, it even scales so that you could combine Incarnate and Warblade or Binder and Dragonfire Adept without needing custom material.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    Snipped for size
    Well, for one I think you have to acknowledge the existence of Alignment variants to paladins. Restricting the class to just L-G was really a design mistake that further limited their existence. But yes Cleric i agree to be hugely flawed. Trying to have one class somehow cover every religious follower and the abilities they could get bestowed on them does seem reaching.

    As for Fighter/Barb yeah 100% the Fighter is bare bone and has no real gimmick. The only reason I suggested stripped back to "Warrior" rather than Barbarian as a base is because it would otherwise shoe horn everyone into using Rage who designed a melee magicless character. Rather than my thought which was Design up. I want Str + Melee. ok Rage yes/no etc because I really feel if Warrior split say 3 ways right now. #1 Tactician (A revamped smart fighter maybe), #2 Fury/Barbarian smash #3 Crusader but non magical a protector the Sword n Board. Rather than instead having multiple base classes from a balance perspective.

    @others ; Only reason I didn't post in homebrew is I haven't actually done any work on this. I just wanted opinions on the thoughts around it. Rather than trying to make my entire own RPG system I was debating the idea itself. Would having classes start from a smaller base pool before splitting into their stricter design paths create the environment necessary to balance the classes as a whole easier. Reason being, I see people create concepts to characters like guy who punches things to solve problems. But rather than jumping to the monk, it's so terrible people are jumping across multiple other classes to try and create a 'functional' character to their concept.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    Wizards are weak because they need to read! Sorcerers can take the Illiterate trait to minmax themselves to extremes that other classes can only dream of!
    Spoiler: Current Ongoing Campaigns
    Show
    DM- Overlord Campaign - Ainz wiped the floor but they did manage to clear several floor guardians. Playing - Gestalt game character WIP.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Honestly it sounds like you are describing an expanded/modified version of the Generic Classes and then turning a lot of base classes into either 'architypes' or PRCs which seems like a fine idea.

    I would personally add 'spells' to all three of the generic classes and just separate it into three spell progression tracks of 'spells', skills, 'bonus feats', and bab then make all other class features into 'bonus feats' at that point you would get a very basic group of classes that can turn into just about anything. For the weirder stuff you turn them into PRCs.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    That is a potentially very long discussion you are about to start

    A few points I would like to make bassed on my own views, personal preferences and things I have viewed here and there in several forums and as such have formed certain beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    Examples I've debated for awhile. What is the defining separation between a Cleric and a Paladin? They're both "holy warriors" in D&D. Vs to me Paladin/Priest of WoW a very distinct separation but both users of Holy power. Considering PrC paladin eventually got made, couldn't they have just made. "Cleric" and skipped on paladin entirely. They wear armor, they hit things, they cast holy spells. One has a special mount. Paladin could've been a well written PrC and Priest could've been a different one spell focused vs melee focused creating the distinctions just as an example. This comes down to, less is more at the base level.

    Fighter and Barbarian. They wear armor, they hit things. One has anger problems the other doesn't. That's BARELY a class difference at best. Could just be "Warrior" and then one could go into advancements that differ them, tactician vs recklessness.

    Other classes rather than having split identity, seem to have LACK of an identity. What is a Ranger? Honestly apologies for another WoW reference but the Hunter takes the "tracker with pets and weapon versatility" idea into a better direction. Ranger > Pet Master, Archer, Scout (Melee version of tracker)

    Monk in itself is just an Asian stereotype that punches things. Mostly bad 80s movies stereotypes to... it needs a complete rewrite to exist better I haven't come up with any ideas there yet though.

    Mage > Archtype into Sorc blaster, Artificer magic crafter / ? The kicker is honestly the difference between Wizard/Sorcerer comes down to spontaneous vs prepared and realistically I would kill prepared entirely if possible. It's just a weird design nobody at our table likes and everyone has used ACFs to go spontaneous on prepared casters or simply gets a 0% play rate (Tons of Sorcs here, 0 Wizards)

    Now 3.5 seems to function almost entirely off of prestige classes. So i know looking at the base classes itself is partially a flaw. But honestly (some hate maybe for the 5e mention but..) I think 5e while being a stripped down numerically shrunk 3.5.. had a FEW good ideas. One being the archtype spread for variations of base classes. If you could take that type of system, but then create prestige classes that had "advance existing class features" similar to the existing advance existing spells we have for caster prcs...So people could further customize on top of that. We would have a better variety. I imagined the level spectrum as 1-5 base. 6-10 archtype. 11-20 PrC to make more unique.
    Quite a few information to unpack here, prepare for a wall of text

    (Before I start, I would like to point out that I may have gotten some or all of the things you are about to read wrong, as I have not performed an exaustive research on those issues and I may have misunderstood a few things)

    For starters, the Paladin/Cleric discrepancy. I am actually of the opinion that you are right on this one! The existence of Paladin always stroke me as odd/unnecessary! The Cleric already fulfills that role thematically and performs even better mechanically, even when a Paladin seems to be the better fit. I mean, if Paladins are a church's military branch, why not make them a PrC of said church as you suggested (which has always been my desired fix for this class)? If they belong to certain combat-inclined gods, then a Cleric with the War domain (which said gods ought to offer) would be an even better fit (and also perform better)! And if we view it as a melee version of a caster, then why not do the same thing for arcane casters and have base gish classes like Duskblade and Hexblade be as common [I realise gish base classes are often used in builds, but mostly as dips, and the Paladin is supposedly far more prevalent in official settings (lots of published adventures hav Paladin NPCs)]? Well, a few years ago I was searching for unrelated stuff and i think I may have an answer to that particular question, which surprisingly is a historical one
    (I appologise for any mistakes I may have made in the matter I am about to discuss and invite any person more knowlegable than me to correct me, this is just my understanding of DnD history from what I have managed to find online)
    It all begins somewhere between 2e and 3e, with one of the then most popular settings (and my personal favourite), DragonLance
    The world of Dragonlance is a captivating one, with incredible stories and fantastic heroes [as a person who has read about 50 of them and still going, most of them are remarkable (there are exceptions, of course...)]. Since it's debut, many fans have critisized it for being to restrictive (to me, this adds to its credibility as it makes it look more real, enhancing verisimilitude, but to each their own), but back then it wa one of the most popular settings and many people chose to run games in it. Now, Due to it's rich and abundant history, in many cases the settings fluff intervened in gameplay and vice-versa. One such strong lore element that was very much part of the game where a couple Knightly orders that occupied a large part of the world (and the continent in which most action took place), a single one at first with a couple additional ones in later ages. That first one were the Knights of Solamnia, and they were as knightly as they get (one of their first class features was called "Strenght oh Honor", which gave about the same benefits as a Barbarian's Rage but supposedly brought forth through rightiousness instead of uncontainable fury). There were a total of three Orders within the knighthood, and if you wanted to reach the last one you had to at least partially go through the others (PrC multiclassing), eventually leading to an end game build that contained most of 3.5e's Paladin's stape class features. Now the problem was that then DnD owner TSR did not completely own the setting (look it up if you are interested, the specifics are too many too write down and not particularly related to the topic), so they had a fallout with the creators which they took to court and eventually lost, losing access to the setting altogther. Now, people were enamored with these Knights (the whole setting basically run on Knights and Wizards, so the support and popularity they had was tremendous), so when the new books were rolling out after the fallout, the DnD owners apart ffrom a new setting needed a way to appeal to all the people who had adored the Knights and wanted to keep playing as them. Problem was, the developers didn't understand what it was that drew people to the consept, so they hastily made a base class (so that you could be a knight right from the get go) expressing the same principles in theory with an assortment of the features they thought people were drawn to and called it a day, which led to the steaming pile of developer dung that 3.X Paladin is. And since it was a PHB base class and the dust from the lost court battle had not settled, they needed to provide supplemental support as for the other classes (also, not supporting a base PHB class would have been weird), plus some people were still amicable towards the effort and thus Paladin has stuck as a class to this day and edition
    Again, if I am mistaken and this is not how things went down, I do expect someone to enlighten me!!!!!

    Monk is in about the same venue...it was first conceived around the time when broader audiences were being introduced to all types of content form Asia (well, China and Japan at least), so in order to capitalise on the hype they created the Monk, failed miserably, again could not abandon a PHB base class that at least some people liked (or the possibility of drawing audience with a liking for the concept) and thus the class has stuck, even though it stands as the least appropriate base class in a medieval europe-esque Sword-and-Sorcery game (to me at least)

    Fighter and Barbarian. Now this is a point where the fluff and crunch meet. You see, a Fighter is supposedly trained in what he does. He didn't just pick up a greatsword one day, he has received "formal" combat training in the use of multitude weapons and armour (represented by his proficiencies) as well as tactical fighting (represented in no way whatsoever) in camps, armies, under wealthy lords and whatever anyone's backstory wants. On the other hand, a Barbarian comes straight out of a wilderness tribe camp and fights on instinct rather than training (which is why I always found the greataxe to be a more appropriate weapon for a Barbarian than a greatsword). There have been afforts to accentuate the tribal aspect of Barbarian through stuff such as animal totems (even 5e has such options), and even their trademark "Rage" is supposed to represent this difference between learnt and "natural", feral fighting. It may feel the same to you as big strenght reliant hitters, but a lot of people see this distinction and like the difference in feeling based on those assumptions and supposed backstory (on a side note, it is possible to build Dexterity-focused Barbarians and Fighters, but that is anoother topic)

    Ranger, as other people have said, is an interesting idea that was never done well. I wouldn't say it lacks class identity so much as it doesn't justify the one it has. Lot's of room for improvement here

    Now, not having an analogue in the real world, it is innately hard to differentiate casters, so it stands to reason that they made the fundamental difference between Wizards and Sorcerers a mechanical one. You may dislike prepered casting (and indeed, who wouldn't want to unload their spell selection on a whim), but other people are hooked into the concept of vacnian casting, which not only exists in other media but poses different challenges than spontaneous one. And although as someone said it makes zero sense for Clerics and Druids whose spells are basically divine interventions to need to prepare, there are base spostaneous classe for both of them. In a potential DnD 6e, there could be 6 base casters classes, Cleric, Druid, Wizard and their spontaneous version, each with their own class identity, and that is before we touch Bard and Warlock or other stuff. Appropriate class features, lore and optimization could go a long way in setting them apart, and frankly this is probably what it takes. If the Bards role as a buffer/face was more directly supported than picking the right feats and spells, with interestin class features (even more than it already has) and if a Wizard could be made to point out that the are a different breed than Sorcerers [for example, as a full-round action to crack open their spellbook and cast a spell they have not prepered in advance (probably too strong)], then class identity could be cemented instead of implied or one having an almost always clear advantage toward the other

    Archetypes are indeed a cool idea. They can be used to further define a class. It is not necessary to have PrCs that advance base class class features. In fact, I wuld argue for the opposite. It is often observed how some PrCs are too strong, that getting into them is basically a no cost power up save for (maybe) prerequisites. Base class features could be the needed cost, giving up these powers for others, either specialised, broader or just plain different

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Raven777's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dominion of Canadia

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    The Ranger also notionally has specialization against particular enemies, which is an interesting niche, just one that has been explored poorly. What the Ranger should do is, rather than getting generic numeric bonuses, it should get broad abilities that happen to be generally useful against specific enemy types. So Favored Enemy (Dragons) gives you energy resistance or Evasion, not bonus damage against dragons. That way it's useful when you fight a blaster mage or an outsider with blasting SLAs, not just dragons.
    I'm so stealing this. This is beautiful. What a nice boon for a Ranger. So obvious, too. I love it. Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    The professionally offended will always find something to be angry about.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by liquidformat View Post
    Honestly it sounds like you are describing an expanded/modified version of the Generic Classes and then turning a lot of base classes into either 'architypes' or PRCs which seems like a fine idea.

    I would personally add 'spells' to all three of the generic classes and just separate it into three spell progression tracks of 'spells', skills, 'bonus feats', and bab then make all other class features into 'bonus feats' at that point you would get a very basic group of classes that can turn into just about anything. For the weirder stuff you turn them into PRCs.
    Basically yeah. I debated making my idea into a 'alternate rule set' for a setting or something. Play test it and see what others thought. I just haven't fully ironed out the thought line for it yet. If I get things more thought out, I'll probably post it to homebrew if I make it that far. Still debating the idea. Although I think it may require more than just the 3 generic base classes. Casting is the one hurdle that's throwing me a pause, I haven't figured out how to properly add Gishes.
    But thank you for both the input and reading my idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    Wizards are weak because they need to read! Sorcerers can take the Illiterate trait to minmax themselves to extremes that other classes can only dream of!
    Spoiler: Current Ongoing Campaigns
    Show
    DM- Overlord Campaign - Ainz wiped the floor but they did manage to clear several floor guardians. Playing - Gestalt game character WIP.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DwarfBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2016

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    I think there are three primary issues that cause "class" imbalance:

    First, any class that cannot adapt to a magical environment is fundamentally flawed. Fighter and rogue are the primary examples that come to mind. Even paladin and ranger, which can adapt somewhat, come up short because they cannot adapt well enough. This could be corrected by giving the paladin and ranger a couple of more feats and opening up the feat pools for martials to include some feats that adapt the martials to the magical environment (or doing the same thing by adding features to the classes).

    Second, item creation for casters makes the playing field even more uneven -- item creation essentially multiplies wealth. This is most noticable at mid levels -- for example, an 8th level character who can create wondrous items and/or magical armor/weapons with the same "base wealth" as a 9th level character actually has more "actual wealth" because item creation feats allow that character to create items for half the price at a negligible experience cost. The paltry experience cost is recovered many times in survivability and effectiveness for the character. At high levels, this is much less of a factor (but the impact is actually larger because of the WBL amounts involved).

    Finally, spells are not of the correct level based on their effects. Just one example: Glitterdust is as powerful as fireball but is lower level. Adjusting the level of some key spells would do a lot to correct imbalance. Spells were ported from 2nd edition to the same level and then new spells were added between the power levels to fill the gaps. If wish, gate, miracle, shapechange, and their ilk were all epic spells and the levels of spells in the middle were modified so that the power level of the spell was truly represented by level, the game would essentially play the same from 1 to 20 with the universe just starting to bend around 15th level or so (and not truly getting twisted until epic levels). Any spell that's considered a "must have" at its level is probably too powerful for its level.

    So, amp up the power of the martial characters and tamp down the power of the magical characters and you'll have a lot closer game in terms of balance between classes. It's fair IMO to say that the balance between classes is most equal (i.e., the "sweet spot") around level 6. If we can up that to level 15 or so, the game would be more enjoyable for the stabbers and less broken for the blabbers.

    Of course, this is all just my opinion.
    Last edited by Feldar; 2022-01-04 at 05:18 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    As for Fighter/Barb yeah 100% the Fighter is bare bone and has no real gimmick. The only reason I suggested stripped back to "Warrior" rather than Barbarian as a base is because it would otherwise shoe horn everyone into using Rage who designed a melee magicless character.
    I don't see how that's the case. There are plenty of other martial classes you could have. People could be Champions or Swashbucklers or Samurai or Warlords or Knights or Gunslingers.

    Rather than instead having multiple base classes from a balance perspective.
    I'm afraid I don't really see what balance has to do with it. You split up classes because people like to write "Necromancer" or "Scout" rather than "Wizard (Necromancy)" or "Rogue (Nature)". It's not particularly more balanced to pick from a list of pre-selected themes than to build a theme you like, it's just easier to get people hooked on concrete concepts. The reason the classes aren't balanced is that the designers didn't do destructive playtesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raven777 View Post
    I'm so stealing this. This is beautiful. What a nice boon for a Ranger. So obvious, too. I love it. Thank you.
    Well, I can't take all the credit. I got the idea after reading this. But it's such an obviously-better implementation of the Ranger that I'm shocked the idea is not more popular.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feldar View Post
    Fighter and rogue are the primary examples that come to mind.
    Fighter I'll give you, but I don't think Rogue really fits that. There are three core PrCs aimed at Rogues. Every single one gets some kind of magic. The class itself may not get any mystical abilities (though building UMD gets to a workable archetype), but the concept absolutely scales that way.

    Second, item creation for casters makes the playing field even more uneven -- item creation essentially multiplies wealth.
    Not really. If you get your wealth in magic items (which sell for half), all magic item creation feats let you do is get your WBL in exactly the items you want. In any case, the real problem is that WBL is A) a bad mechanic and B) not high enough to cover gear needs at most levels.

    Adjusting the level of some key spells would do a lot to correct imbalance.
    I think if your pitch is "adjust some key spells", but your details go all the way down to "glitterdust needs to be higher level", your approach is probably not workable. There are at least a dozen 2nd level spells on par with glitterdust, and probably more (certainly if your reference point for a 3rd level spell is fireball, you'll find a lot of things out of line). If you need to adjust all of them, you're better off just adjusting up the Fighter class.

    the game would essentially play the same from 1 to 20 with the universe just starting to bend around 15th level or so (and not truly getting twisted until epic levels).
    I am strongly opposed to proposals that want to push the game out into Epic. Not only do those levels not work at all as printed, it's simply too many levels. Twenty levels is more than enough for any reasonable range of power points. Adding more than that just means dragging things out in a way that is not fun in practice.

    Any spell that's considered a "must have" at its level is probably too powerful for its level.
    This is bad analysis. Something that is a "must have" is not necessarily overpowered. As a trivial example, anyone going on a wilderness adventure is going to buy trail rations. That doesn't mean we need to bump up their cost, it means that characters need to eat. Similarly, before declaring a spell overpowered just because everyone takes it, there are other things you need to ask. Are there effective alternatives at this level? Does the spell fill a specific niche? Does the spell over-perform against expected challenges?

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DwarfBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2016

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    Fighter I'll give you, but I don't think Rogue really fits that.Fighter I'll give you, but I don't think Rogue really fits that.
    Rogue certainly does better than fighter over the long term, but if you restrict the comparison to base classes (refer to the subject line), rogue still has issues. Evasion is very helpful and the game also does a better job providing feats that help the rogue overcome some limitations, but beyond that rogues do worse than paladins and rangers in terms of adapting to the magic environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    Not really. If you get your wealth in magic items (which sell for half), all magic item creation feats let you do is get your WBL in exactly the items you want. In any case, the real problem is that WBL is A) a bad mechanic and B) not high enough to cover gear needs at most levels.
    Assumption on your part. Not everyone gets their wealth this way. Furthermore, the martial classes do not get to have their WBL exactly to their taste. This gives an advantage to those who can craft items. It may be a small imbalance, but it's still an imbalance and one that's easily corrected.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I think if your pitch is "adjust some key spells", but your details go all the way down to "glitterdust needs to be higher level", your approach is probably not workable. There are at least a dozen 2nd level spells on par with glitterdust, and probably more (certainly if your reference point for a 3rd level spell is fireball, you'll find a lot of things out of line). If you need to adjust all of them, you're better off just adjusting up the Fighter class.
    I'm not making any pitch. I'm sharing my opinion. Furthermore, despite your ludicrous assertion, I never set up fireball as the basis for comparing all third level spells. Finally, you cannot balance the spells without looking at the details.

    My reference for glitterdust is fireball; one is second level and the other is third level. Glitterdust is overpowered for a second level spell. (For Pathfinder, it's fine as a second level spell because of the save per round mechanic that is missing in 3.5.)

    Also, I doubt you will find anyone who agrees that glitterdust is not a "key spell".

    I will grant you that perhaps amending the spells to make them more balanced, as opposed to changing the level, is an acceptable solution as well. I will also grant you that evaluating all spells and adjusting them to to correct level would be a huge project.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I am strongly opposed to proposals that want to push the game out into Epic.
    Good for you! Balance is, however, balance -- buffing the fighter to a T1 class in the interest of balance would further break the bounds of playability and probably (depending on the approach) take the fighter away from its intended function. To achieve balance, T3 must go up AND T1 must come down. Then you have balance (or something closer to it than what we have now).

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    This is bad analysis. Something that is a "must have" is not necessarily overpowered. As a trivial example, anyone going on a wilderness adventure is going to buy trail rations. That doesn't mean we need to bump up their cost, it means that characters need to eat.
    Your use of a specious comparison to support your bad analysis is not overlooked.

    My analysis is correct. A spell of X level that is unquestionably better than all other X level spells is not a high enough spell level, but again I will grant that an alternative to raising the spell's level is reducing the spell's power.

    It it's too good not to take for the cost, it's either too cheap or too powerful. It really is quite that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    Similarly, before declaring a spell overpowered just because everyone takes it, there are other things you need to ask. Are there effective alternatives at this level? Does the spell fill a specific niche? Does the spell over-perform against expected challenges?
    Let me get this straight -- now you are in favor of looking at details? Two paragraphs earlier you were opposed to looking at much less convoluted details. Which one is it -- should we look at details or not?
    Last edited by Feldar; 2022-01-04 at 07:41 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Feldar View Post
    beyond that rogues do worse than paladins and rangers in terms of adapting to the magic environment.
    UMD alone makes that not true.

    Assumption on your part. Not everyone gets their wealth this way. Furthermore, the martial classes do not get to have their WBL exactly to their taste. This gives an advantage to those who can craft items. It may be a small imbalance, but it's still an imbalance and one that's easily corrected.
    It's an imbalance in a system that is fundamentally flawed. You should not be looking for ways to tweak whatever problems you see in WBL, you should be replacing it wholesale with something that is not problematic.

    My reference for glitterdust is fireball; one is second level and the other is third level.
    Except that you want glitterdust to not be second level. Why does your argument not equally prove that fireball should be 2nd level? Indeed, outside the extreme range, fireball is in many ways less impressive than 1st level spells like color spray and sleep.

    Also, I doubt you will find anyone who agrees that glitterdust is not a "key spell".
    I would disagree with that. If you nerf glitterdust, I'll just take web. If you nerf glitterdust and web, I'll just take cloud of bewilderment. If you nerf glitterdust and web and cloud of bewilderment, I'll just take ghoul touch. I will grant you that it is a powerful spell, but I hope I don't need to go further (though to be clear, I can go plenty further) to demonstrate that glitterdust is by no means "key" to anything in particular. It sits at an intersection of power, simplicity, and accessibility, which puts it at the forefront of the conversation. But nerfing it alone won't fix everything. You have to nerf all the spells at its power level to get casters off that power level.

    To achieve balance, T3 must go up AND T1 must come down. Then you have balance (or something closer to it than what we have now).
    And this has what to do with your proposals exactly? If we want T3 to come up and T1 to come down, the logical place would seem to be T2, which contains classes that A) modify how exactly zero spells function and B) progress over only twenty levels.

    Your use of a specious comparison to support your bad analysis is not overlooked.
    What, exactly, makes it specious? Your argument is that something that is taken universally is necessarily overpowered. Trail rations constitute a disproof by counterexample that this is a sufficient criteria by which to mark something as overpowered. If you'd like, we could go on to talk about how a lot of people take Cloaks of Resistance or Headbands of Intellect or magic weapons of various sorts, but I suppose those comparisons are "specious" too, for whatever unspecified reasons.

    A spell of X level that is unquestionably better than all other X level spells is not a high enough spell level
    That's the kind of design logic that gets you the Monk. Options shouldn't be balanced against other options, they should be balanced against challenges. A spell is underleveled if it allows people to defeat challenges they shouldn't. If it doesn't do that, its level is fine and being better than other spells simply makes them underpowered.
    Last edited by RandomPeasant; 2022-01-04 at 08:21 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Kind of sounds like you want to do something similar to what Legend and Throwing Dice Games' Character Customization- They breakdown classes into tracks, so like going berserk would be a track, casting spells would be a track, martial arts, etc, are tracks, and multiclassing is by picking and choosing tracks.

    So if you want a Barbarian with an animal companion they talk to, or comes from a tribe where they fight barehanded in a style modelled after the animals of the jungle, no problem.

    As for prestige classes advancing abilities, it has amazed me how long it took for someone to run with that, but someone did four years ago- Little Red Goblin Games Alternate Paths: Prestige Classes adds groundwork feats that allow one to count prestige classes as continuing desired class features with the idea that all prestige classes should give you groundwork feats.

    I've never liked how specific prestige classes were, to tell you the truth. I mean I fail to see how it breaks the game if say the Arcane Archer was remade something generic that would allow you to advance shadowcasting or invocations or whatever. Oh a shadowarcher, OP, please Nerf! Yeah right.

    So it only took nine years after the great migration to Pathfinder for someone to get around to that.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonsworn View Post
    For starters, the Paladin/Cleric discrepancy.
    ...
    Again, if I am mistaken and this is not how things went down, I do expect someone to enlighten me!!!!!
    Paladin appeared in OD&D supplement Greyhawk and existed in the Core rulebooks since 1e AD&D, years before Dragonlance was conceived. While Dragonlance knights may or may not have given the concept a popularity boost, I think there is little doubt that Solamnian Knights would not exist as we know them without Paladin class already existing for half a decade.
    Last edited by Saint-Just; 2022-01-04 at 11:50 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Re priests and paladins, I don't think it matters that much whether classes overlap, as long as they have distinct gameplay and are fun in themselves. After all, you could write two classes that cover the exact same conceptual ground but do so through very different mechanics, and it would be fine to have both in the same game. Definitely should have low-BAB cleric be default though (not like they'll miss it if you keep divine power).

    @RandomPeasant, is that different from saying one class could never span the variety of magical traditions in D&D or real folklore, so there shouldn't be a wizard class? You say gruumsh's priests would be barbarians or whatever, but in post-agricultural societies the priesthood has traditionally been its own profession which makes it an intuitive class.

    That doesn't mean you can't have character options for people of other classes who are especially devoted to a god. In a game with open-ended content, rather than a strictly policed meta, conceptual redundancy isn't much of a concern.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    PrCs should always have been cross-compatible with all base classes. There's just no reason you should have to write "Shadow Master" separately for Rogues, Wizards, and anyone else who might want to go around mastering shadows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    (not like they'll miss it if you keep divine power).
    I would argue that if you're going to give the Cleric divine power they should get full BAB, just as the Druid should either get Natural Spell by default or not get to cast in animal form at all. Having these things be secret class features just increases the gap between low-op and high-op characters.

    @RandomPeasant, is that different from saying one class could never span the variety of magical traditions in D&D or real folklore, so there shouldn't be a wizard class? You say gruumsh's priests would be barbarians or whatever, but in post-agricultural societies the priesthood has traditionally been its own profession which makes it an intuitive class.
    The Wizard doesn't try to span the full breadth of magical traditions. Don't get me wrong, it does a lot of stuff (and I would not be opposed to narrowing it to something like Evocation + Conjuration + Divination), but Wizard is not trying to support both backline artillery and frontline tank. Or both healer and necromancer. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any "is a priest" option, but the way the priests of Nerull, Lolth, Pelor, Kord, and Obad-Hai overlap seems far better handled by having them be Necromancers, Warlocks, Healers, Barbarians, and Druids with a common Priest feat or archetype than by having a single Cleric that can spit out passable versions of each of those.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I would argue that if you're going to give the Cleric divine power they should get full BAB, just as the Druid should either get Natural Spell by default or not get to cast in animal form at all.
    Divine power and skillful weapons definitely shouldn't exist if BAB is a meaningful part of a class's power budget.

    I'm not saying there shouldn't be any "is a priest" option, but the way the priests of Nerull, Lolth, Pelor, Kord, and Obad-Hai overlap seems far better handled by having them be Necromancers, Warlocks, Healers, Barbarians, and Druids with a common Priest feat or archetype
    It could be done but I don't share your sense that it's clearly better. Any set of class features can be rendered as feats, and many are. Priests of all stripes share a basic expectation as to power set -- rites, consecrations, blessings, magical protections, curing diseases and curses, concern with the afterlife -- that isn't shared by all the classes you name, and is too hefty to fit in a feat or, in a fantasy game, to write off as flavor. And the shared idea that priests gain magical powers by praying to and pleasing their gods is plenty of fodder for a unifying class mechanic.

    than by having a single Cleric that can spit out passable versions of each of those.
    If you look at real world cultures, the greatest expert in a field usually isn't also the high priest of that profession's patron deity. They're different jobs.

    The game has space for both. You can have a Proselyte of War feat for martials, a Favored of Pan feat for bards (or the appropriate theurge PRCs, like the existing game has) and also have a dedicated priest class with an intricate faith mechanic. Domains and customized channel divinity powers are a completely serviceable way of representing different faiths.

    PrCs should always have been cross-compatible with all base classes. There's just no reason you should have to write "Shadow Master" separately for Rogues, Wizards, and anyone else who might want to go around mastering shadows.
    Except that those classes have different abilities that might be augmented by shadow in different ways. A shadow barbarian might enter a shadow rage where they emanate darkness and become partly incorporeal, a wizard might gain the ability to summon shadows with summon monster. And of course, the base chassis is different, which is why I know you favor making PRCs overlays like 4e PPs. But one reason 4e PPs worked for most classes is because 4e classes had such homogenized capabilities to begin with. Also, that does take away the ability for a PRC to modify the chassis values of a base class, as well as increasing complexity by adding a parallel advancement track (if you allow multiclassing on this track, that's a lot more complexity, while if you don't, you're really constricting the character options).

    Trying to eliminate redundancies runs against the grain of the d20/3e system, because the system is full of redundancies. There's no reason any particular concept couldn't be rendered as a PRC, feat, ACF or template. I share the desire for a spiffier, patched up game, but the d20 System is fundamentally made for content inflation rather than a controlled, tightly balanced meta. That's intentional, it's why they made it open content and it led to the publication of hundreds of 3rd party sourcebooks.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    Priests of all stripes share a basic expectation as to power set -- rites, consecrations, blessings, magical protections, curing diseases and curses, concern with the afterlife -- that isn't shared by all the classes you name, and is too hefty to fit in a feat or, in a fantasy game, to write off as flavor.
    Most of those are mechanisms, not effects. You can declare that the Illusionist-priest of the shadow god is doing an "illusion rite" without needing him to share more mechanics with the Berserker-priest of the war god than he does with the secular Illusionists of the Order of Shadows. The remainder are the status removal suite, and I would argue that it is much better for the game if the "you need this to continue adventuring" tax is a single feat rather than a class selection.

    If you look at real world cultures, the greatest expert in a field usually isn't also the high priest of that profession's patron deity. They're different jobs.
    Sure, but if you look at real world cultures the high priest of the god of death isn't commanding a squad of zombies and the high priest of the god of the sun doesn't have the ability to blast zombies out of existence.

    Domains and customized channel divinity powers are a completely serviceable way of representing different faiths.
    I will grant you that they are serviceable. But are they ideal? When you design a plant-themed (or rage-themed or ice-themed) class, you don't just give it a bunch of plant powers. You (ideally) give it mechanics that make you feel like you are doing "plant magic" that is conceptually distinct from the "lightning magic" or "squirrel magic" you could be doing instead. Why should the priests of the God of Plants, who are presumably just as interested in a plant theme as whatever you called that chunk of the Druid, be stuck with generic mechanics?

    Except that those classes have different abilities that might be augmented by shadow in different ways. A shadow barbarian might enter a shadow rage where they emanate darkness and become partly incorporeal, a wizard might gain the ability to summon shadows with summon monster.
    And that does not scale. Fundamentally, it just doesn't. If you have to write a PrC for a specific base class, you cut the number of available PrCs for any given character by 90%. And that's assuming you have less classes than any edition of D&D other than 4e. You can recover something by writing PrCs for groups of base classes, but that's only a constant factor of improvement. It is true that certain PrCs will be more tempting to certain characters. That's fine. If Magma Master is better for Warmages than Barbarians, that's okay. As long as it's not breaking the game for Warmages, and as long as Barbarians have something they can do, the game is better off for letting the suboptimal combinations exist, especially because any campaign that gets to the point where people are picking PrCs is likely to have ad hoc tuning anyway.

    And of course, the base chassis is different, which is why I know you favor making PRCs overlays like 4e PPs.
    I would phrase it differently, and say that I favor making them like 3e caster PrCs. Which are by far the most successful PrCs. Very few martial prestige classes get the time of day. But if you're a full casting PrC, players are interested pretty much regardless of whether you have any direct synergy with their base class. A Dread Necromancer might not get a whole lot out of Divine Oracle, but she's got no reason not to take it.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    And that does not scale. Fundamentally, it just doesn't. If you have to write a PrC for a specific base class, you cut the number of available PrCs for any given character by 90%. And that's assuming you have less classes than any edition of D&D other than 4e. You can recover something by writing PrCs for groups of base classes, but that's only a constant factor of improvement. It is true that certain PrCs will be more tempting to certain characters. That's fine. If Magma Master is better for Warmages than Barbarians, that's okay.
    Agree when it comes to PRC reqs. If a PRC has a feature that augments some ability, it's often redundant to require that ability to enter, because the feature is already an incentive to have it if you enter the class -- but to some characters who don't the PRC may be appealing regardless for other reasons.

    Where I would challenge you is, why does it need to scale? Sure, it's good if PRCs appeal to multiple classes. But is there an actual problem with the apparent inefficiency of having multiple shadow-themed PRCs if that allows them to offer more tailored abilities? "You get +2 on d20 rolls while in darkness and can plane shift to the plane of shadow 1/day, that should cover everybody" isn't as fun as gaining the traits of a shadow while you rage.

    I would phrase it differently, and say that I favor making them like 3e caster PrCs. Which are by far the most successful PrCs. Very few martial prestige classes get the time of day. But if you're a full casting PrC, players are interested pretty much regardless of whether you have any direct synergy with their base class. A Dread Necromancer might not get a whole lot out of Divine Oracle, but she's got no reason not to take it.
    You could replace the "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" column with a "features advanced" column. Issue would be might not scale well when you add subsystems. What they did with warlocks and PRCs wasn't bad though. Also remember that in digital age you can just go back and revise content to account for new subsystems.

    You could also just fold PRCs into ACFs and sub levels. It's certainly possible.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    My thoughts:

    Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian originated as subclasses of the Fighter and were popularized in Ad&d 1e. Maybe they could be represented as alternate class features for the fighter in 3.5?

    Also note the initial classes in odnd were fighter & wizard and the cleric was added as a hybrid between them I think. After this the thief was in an expansion in odnd. I could easily see kinda folding the thief into the fighter, then treat cleric as a hybrid. You end up with two archetypical classes. From this two adding different feats, skills, alternate class features, prestige classes, multiclassing and magic items you should be able to create enough diversity in the pc's to satisfy most people. You will also perhaps have a more solid basis with only two classes.
    Ofcourse if you have classes only and basically no other choice in your pc, then ofcourse you need a multitude of classes.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2021

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    Where I would challenge you is, why does it need to scale? Sure, it's good if PRCs appeal to multiple classes. But is there an actual problem with the apparent inefficiency of having multiple shadow-themed PRCs if that allows them to offer more tailored abilities?
    The problem is that you get to write a finite amount of content. Having a generic shadow PrC is less fun than having one that's tuned exactly to your class, but it's a lot more fun than having no shadow PrC that fits your class. It's also not really clear to me that having PrC mechanics that exactly fit your class is inherently cooler than having PrC mechanics that exactly fit whatever the PrC's concept is.

    You could also just fold PRCs into ACFs and sub levels. It's certainly possible.
    I don't think it's an either-or thing. Certainly some things should be done through a subclass mechanism, because there's no reason you should have to wait until 6th level to be a Purple Dragon Knight instead of just a Knight. But it does make a great deal of sense to force someone to wait to call their Wizard an Archmage. And if you give people an obligatory Paragon Path, you get a very clean way to reconcile "the Fighter should be mundane" and "you need magic to contribute to high level adventures" -- people can just get their magic from their Paragon Path.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by StSword View Post
    Kind of sounds like you want to do something similar to what Legend and Throwing Dice Games' Character Customization- They breakdown classes into tracks, so like going berserk would be a track, casting spells would be a track, martial arts, etc, are tracks, and multiclassing is by picking and choosing tracks.

    So if you want a Barbarian with an animal companion they talk to, or comes from a tribe where they fight barehanded in a style modelled after the animals of the jungle, no problem.

    As for prestige classes advancing abilities, it has amazed me how long it took for someone to run with that, but someone did four years ago- Little Red Goblin Games Alternate Paths: Prestige Classes adds groundwork feats that allow one to count prestige classes as continuing desired class features with the idea that all prestige classes should give you groundwork feats.

    I've never liked how specific prestige classes were, to tell you the truth. I mean I fail to see how it breaks the game if say the Arcane Archer was remade something generic that would allow you to advance shadowcasting or invocations or whatever. Oh a shadowarcher, OP, please Nerf! Yeah right.

    So it only took nine years after the great migration to Pathfinder for someone to get around to that.
    Tracks actually sounds like a really great way to look at it. I like the idea because it bakes into the design the thought that you aren't going to just right Ranger. 1, 2, etc to 20 and will break into variations that will make you very different. One, I think it will create more balance because people won't be in the environment of. "Is that guy who just lazy moded a fighter 20 going to be even useful vs the guy who used PrCs and has a good build." Vs this scenario. "oh I finished my X lvls of Warrior I have to choose to variation path to go down." At very high levels this could be Mage - "I want to be Archmage for 15-20" and we would be looking INSTEAD at how balanced is Archmage vs X. X being what ever we somehow figure out to be a viable option for martials as a high end 15-20 "path" for them to go down. Because ultimately shrinking the comparison pool is what'll make things achieve a closer state to balance. That and I think digital mediums should become more of a thing, print has to stay exactly the same forever... but a digital medium would allow like bi yearly updates or something incase of mistakes or unintended interactions being discovered.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    Wizards are weak because they need to read! Sorcerers can take the Illiterate trait to minmax themselves to extremes that other classes can only dream of!
    Spoiler: Current Ongoing Campaigns
    Show
    DM- Overlord Campaign - Ainz wiped the floor but they did manage to clear several floor guardians. Playing - Gestalt game character WIP.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPeasant View Post
    I don't think it's an either-or thing. Certainly some things should be done through a subclass mechanism, because there's no reason you should have to wait until 6th level to be a Purple Dragon Knight instead of just a Knight. But it does make a great deal of sense to force someone to wait to call their Wizard an Archmage.
    Many sub levels/ACFs do have reqs. Archmage substitution levels would have the same reqs as the PRC, just replacing levels in any arcane spellcasting class. Basically, you're just slotting PRC levels into the main class table. And sub levels do often change chassis values (bab/saves/hd/skills).

    This saves conceptual space by not having PRCs as a separate concept, but I wonder if in practice it's simpler to just refer to different class tables.

    The reason I'd be open to this kind of solution is that unlike a singular subclass choice, it allows mixing and matching. I can take multiple sets of sub levels and multiple ACFs on top of them.

    And if you give people an obligatory Paragon Path, you get a very clean way to reconcile "the Fighter should be mundane" and "you need magic to contribute to high level adventures" -- people can just get their magic from their Paragon Path.
    What looks clean in a system designed around it looks messy when you slap it on something else. In 4e, PPs/EDs were a clean way to provide that conceptual escalation, but if using 3e as the base, I'm opposed to adding yet another layer of character complexity when you could do it in the existing framework.

    One 3e take on the 4e tiers system would be to have every class be 10 levels; PPs can only be taken from 11th level or higher (sublime chord is an example of how this kind of class would look), EDs from 21st or higher. Another would be to have it work like gestalt > tristalt, with a paragon track and a destiny track that each have full class tables with chassis values that only replace your base chassis values if they're higher.

    But in the system as-is, it's also not hard to make fighter feats/ACFs/etc that provide that kind of escalation.
    For players who really want to be a guy without any neon glow effects, you could probably turn concepts like "the chosen warrior" or "fate-blessed hero" into visually neutral high-level fighter concepts, albeit more likely to be focused on countering magical effects than proactively offering equivalents. Warblades, who are as bland as can be if you give the maneuvers less exciting names, already do a sort of decent job at being high level fighters in 3e. You could expand upon that lane.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Elves View Post
    Size Snip
    You know I've never tried 4e ever and the lot that.. trained.. taught? Me how to play/dm always bashed it as paper video game that wasn't worth looking at.. But I'm starting to wonder if I should at least give it a fair look. It might have some of the ideas I was thinking of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    Wizards are weak because they need to read! Sorcerers can take the Illiterate trait to minmax themselves to extremes that other classes can only dream of!
    Spoiler: Current Ongoing Campaigns
    Show
    DM- Overlord Campaign - Ainz wiped the floor but they did manage to clear several floor guardians. Playing - Gestalt game character WIP.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2013

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    The problem with archetypes is that they result in needing to get annoyingly redundant and specific, and have issues mixing "twists". Having "3rd level spells" as a prerequisite means that you can funnel Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers through the same thematic PRC, so long as they meet other requirements, and thus a lot of the difference of "Nature Shadow Magic" and "Studied Shadow Magic" can be loaded into the base class you enter the PRC with. Meanwhile, with 5e style archetypes, you have to make a separate one for each, so even though you get it early on and it interfaces fully with the class, it dramatically increases the page-space used and adds distance between versions of one concept.

    Having PRCs be formalized as a mandatory factor also has issues, because it fundamentally demands that specialization come later, that you can't "properly" be a shapeshifter or a shadow-mage or a necromancer in the first session. This is also where spells come in, as low-level presence of the right stuff gives some competence in a field right at the start of the game, something that feats and skills could have done as well. But the point of base classes is to be the "core concept" of the character, in the sense that 4e formalized into "power source" + "party role". The central issue keeps coming back to unspecialized magic versus specialized martials, in that Wizards keep getting to take best-of while Fighters have to follow long chains.

    The two ways to go about that are to either have it so that spells occur in thematic groupings that need followed to "properly" work, or have it so that martials have a lot more one-and-done feats. I, personally, would lean towards benefits for learning thematically-related spells for those with specific Spells Known, confining by use of expanded Domains with only the most core functions present in the base Cleric and Druid lists, and the Wizard faces truly absurd base DCs for learning from scrolls, otherwise getting one freebie per level after the Int bundle of 1st.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
    Paladin appeared in OD&D supplement Greyhawk and existed in the Core rulebooks since 1e AD&D, years before Dragonlance was conceived. While Dragonlance knights may or may not have given the concept a popularity boost, I think there is little doubt that Solamnian Knights would not exist as we know them without Paladin class already existing for half a decade.
    1e? I knew Paladin was an old concept, but I had figured late 2e at best. I guess I will have to change my viewpoint a bit

    So form another comment in this thread I see Paladin was originally a Fighter archetype. What was it like? I mean in terms of class features. Did it start with its most trademark ones (Smite, Detect Evil, Lay on Hands/healing, Divine Grace, Mount), did it have some sort of spellcasting? How did it evolve (and yes, part of this question is so I can see to what extent Dragonlance/Solamnia influenced its later iterations)?

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    I am joining this thread quite late. And the reason most classes exist in 3.5 is for D&D historical reasons. The designers were afraid to stray too far from previous versions of the game because they felt it would drive away players (see, 4th ed). I feel as though you have made certain observations without enough historical context.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    Examples I've debated for awhile. What is the defining separation between a Cleric and a Paladin? They're both "holy warriors" in D&D.
    No, they are not. Go look at the class text of paladin. In 3.5 it specifically states a paladin doesn't need to follow a deity. A paladin is the BIG DAMN HERO that will always stand up for the little guy even when out numbered. For some reason they can fight oppression and evil better than the fighter next to them. Special abilities to smack evil come in the form of spells not learned from a book or inherit to one's blood. So it fell into divine. This also explains why paladin is always LG. BIG honorable hero. All those variants of alignment on paladin are clerics who follow their deity's code very closely. Oh the lay on hands ability is a reference to the King's power to heal in LotR:The Return of the King.

    Cleric is servant to a deity. That deity could be good but the cleric doesn't. A cleric can choose to not help the oppressed, can fail to stand up for what is right and no real issues will come of it unless they go directly against the deities tenants.

    But in 3.5 all the good smack down the evil bad guy skills/powers/spells are tied to good deities and most are available to clerics. So it took no time for the paladin class to get tied to churches and clerics and holy orders of knights. And like you said prestige paladin is based on cleric and make a better paladin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    Fighter and Barbarian. They wear armor, they hit things. One has anger problems the other doesn't. That's BARELY a class difference at best. Could just be "Warrior" and then one could go into advancements that differ them, tactician vs recklessness.
    No, or not always. The barbarian is a brute strength no tactics no education warrior that in some cases has no armor or very weak armor. A fighter is skilled in techniques, tactics, and schools of fighting. Also, fighters have been shown and trained in many types of armor. But 3.5 didn't implement schools of fighting until the book of 9 swords and fighters didn't have a parry. A trained fighter can trip, disarm, bull rush, parry, feint, but a barbarian isn't skilled in the right way to do any of those things.

    Back in 2e with the fighters kits and splat books weapon specialization was +1 to hit AND +2 damage. the second time one took weapon spec it was an additional +2 to hit and +1 damage. Up to +6/+6. Untyped stacked with everything against everything. But in 3.5 they broke those small bonuses out across multiple feats and then highly limited it. Imagine a 2nd level human fighter with +6/+6 with all swords. That is a major difference instead of a +1/+2 at level 4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    What is a Ranger? Honestly apologies for another WoW reference but the Hunter takes the "tracker with pets and weapon versatility" idea into a better direction. Ranger > Pet Master, Archer, Scout (Melee version of tracker)
    A ranger an actual backstory/class/reasonable template to exist. Fighter in 3.5 has no skills and only 2+int. A lvl 1 fighter cannot succeed at the role of soldier, mercenary, or guard as they lack everything needed to to that job competently. A ranger could be a peasant that learned to hunt in the local woods. Learned to track animals, has a bow, learns to use a hawk to assist with hunting game. Gets really good at avoiding or sniping the goblins/orc/undead/gnolls that roam those woods.

    Also in 3.5 rangers have crap animal companions. 1/2 lvl as druid is insulting. Rangers are skilled warriors who aren't fully trained in the concept of armor and battlefield warfare. Ranger is my favorite base class that isn't straight spellcaster because it is well rounded with options and skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    Monk in itself is just an Asian stereotype that punches things. Mostly bad 80s movies stereotypes to... it needs a complete rewrite to exist better I haven't come up with any ideas there yet though.
    When they introduced the monk way back in the early days of D&D it was overpowered broken nonsense. Hard to hit but hit you hard. Ignored spells and moved around like lighting. 3.5 was a insane disservice. There is a full base attack prestige class for physics called War Mind. At the 5th lvl of that prestige class they get an ability called sweeping strikes. Whenever the WM makes an attack it applies to 2 squares equally. That is what a MONK was supposed to be. A few physic powers due to constant meditation and focus ( many many choices and combinations) , followed up with super fast group-wide attacks. A single monk would be able to take on groups of fighters and be at no disadvantage.

    Also, monk was supposed to be disciplined warrior trained in mysterious arts and techniques but 95% of that trope is Kung Fu movies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    Mage > Archtype into Sorc blaster, Artificer magic crafter / ? The kicker is honestly the difference between Wizard/Sorcerer comes down to spontaneous vs prepared and realistically I would kill prepared entirely if possible. It's just a weird design nobody at our table likes and everyone has used ACFs to go spontaneous on prepared casters or simply gets a 0% play rate (Tons of Sorcs here, 0 Wizards)
    A wizard is supposed to have dozens of tools at their fingertips but must carefully pack and prepare each one for use ahead of time. Other spell cases have far fewer tools but don't need to prepares days ahead of time. The play style of the 2 methods is wildly different. I say methods because it is a playstyle not really a class. Any and all ACF on a wizard that gives them spontaneous casting is flat stupid as it misses the ENTIRE point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorddenorstrus View Post
    Now 3.5 seems to function almost entirely off of prestige classes. So i know looking at the base classes itself is partially a flaw.
    Prestige classes wanted to limit entry until a later level but gated that entry based on choices made in those early levels. It is a TERRBILE design. Archetype systems from PE1 and 5th are so much better. But even then as other posters have stated there are still lots of problems. But for 3.5 you are correct, all the fun tools are locked behind PCl so anyone has to play the PCl game to get what they want. There are plenty of examples that to enter a PCl at lvl 8 a player has to select certain skills and feats at lvl 1 or take their classes in a very specific order. In 3.5 it is impossible to have unplanned or natural character growth due to this. One must plan for 4+levels to gain entry to cool abilities via a PCl.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on the design of the base classes

    Quote Originally Posted by Morphic tide View Post
    The two ways to go about that are to either have it so that spells occur in thematic groupings that need followed to "properly" work, or have it so that martials have a lot more one-and-done feats. I, personally, would lean towards benefits for learning thematically-related spells for those with specific Spells Known, confining by use of expanded Domains with only the most core functions present in the base Cleric and Druid lists, and the Wizard faces truly absurd base DCs for learning from scrolls, otherwise getting one freebie per level after the Int bundle of 1st.
    Enter the Shadowcaster: where all spells are divided into 3 level chains based on theme (with three tiers as you go, covering 9 standardized spell levels), and where learning all the spells of a themed chunk instead of diversifying gives you bonus feats (which can themselves be daily free metamagic Sudden feats) (edit: actually that's backwards but see further post). If it had a whole book to it with more than just shadow themes it. . . still would have been deliberately less powerful and be denigrated as not matching the rest of the edition, but would have been quite a thing (Fax_Celestis I think it was tried to do a homebrew expansion project, but stalled out before finishing all the spheres).

    And the martial adepts also have a great big pile of abilities to choose from, with some light prerequisites forcing you to make multiple lower level picks in the same theme before you can take the high level one you really want.

    And of course, plenty of homebrew and tweaks like to gut prerequistes and/or collapse feat chains specifically so that you can just take one thing and do a bunch of stuff. Far more than taking an individual spell normally does, but then with around 1 feat/level vs 2 spells/level, I suppose the (known or unknown) feeling is that you need 2-3 feats per "feat" for martials to "compete."

    Quote Originally Posted by gijoemike View Post
    Back in 2e with the fighters kits and splat books weapon specialization was +1 to hit AND +2 damage. the second time one took weapon spec it was an additional +2 to hit and +1 damage. Up to +6/+6. Untyped stacked with everything against everything. But in 3.5 they broke those small bonuses out across multiple feats and then highly limited it. Imagine a 2nd level human fighter with +6/+6 with all swords. That is a major difference instead of a +1/+2 at level 4.
    Very interesting. And then PHB2 brings in Weapon Mastery- the total feat cost is 3 picks instead of 2 (and I presume for the full +6/+6 that would be 4 picks), but that gives you +3/+4 at 8th, and then you can further build it up to +4/+6 at a total of 5 feats. The 3.x cost is higher and the final bonus a little lower, but Fighters also have up to 10 bonus feats in addition to the up to 7-8 given to all characters. The difference is that you're saying that was allowed at 2nd level, and yeah obviously that's a huge difference. But also sounds like there's no growth after. In a system without multiclassing maybe you can frontload the entire class, but in 3.x that would never be a good idea, so it has to be broken up appropriately over time.

    A lvl 1 fighter cannot succeed at the role of soldier, mercenary, or guard as they lack everything needed to to that job competently.
    I'd say that should be "excel" rather than "succeed." The difference is only 4 points which can be made up for with other feats, raw ability, and leveraging of the rules. General occupations like "soldier, mercenary, or guard" should not require specialized bonuses, as they're not specialists.

    Also in 3.5 rangers have crap animal companions. 1/2 lvl as druid is insulting. Rangers are skilled warriors who aren't fully trained in the concept of armor and battlefield warfare. Ranger is my favorite base class that isn't straight spellcaster because it is well rounded with options and skills.
    This is a result of the "animal companion" system not originally being a system. It was originally a control spell you used on a normal animals which remained normal animals, controlling HD based on caster level, and Rangers have half caster level. It was also doubled if you stayed in a small home area (read: are an NPC), and there flat-out weren't any animals suitable for high level combat (dinosaurs and dire animals were Beasts) until splatbook creep immediately began with Masters of the Wild adding "legendary" animals that would spontaneously generate if a high level Druid wanted them to. As originally written, a high level Druid's "animal companion" is just a bunch of chaff. And the spell says you have to actually want to be the animal's "friend," so the DM can cut you off the moment you try to replace animals you know are going to die fighting things they can't survive.

    Converting this into a "companion" progression roughly meant to get the animal to HD near your level would seem to make normal animals sufficient, but it's combined with deciding the ranger should have 1/2 because they had 1/2 the spell's capacity (so 1/2 piles of chaff which didn't matter), and also letting all the powerful dinos and dire animals on the druid list, which the ranger isn't allowed because of the table (if it was still a spell they could tech up with Practiced Spellcaster).
    Last edited by Fizban; 2022-01-06 at 06:21 PM.
    Fizban's Tweaks and Brew: Google Drive (PDF), Thread
    A collection of over 200 pages of individually small bans, tweaks, brews, and rule changes, usable piecemeal or nearly altogether, and even some convenient lists. Everything I've done that I'd call done enough to use in one place (plus a number of things I'm working on that aren't quite done, of course).
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •