[awesomeTome] Base classes

[RadiantPhoenix]

If we're going with, "make your own PrCs," as the plan going forward, we need guidelines for what constitute the abilities required for characters at certain levels, and how "wide," "tall," etc. those abilities should be.

I did make this, but when I applied it to creating my Adventurer class, it all felt really vague and I wasn't really sure what constituted "too much" or "too little"

[Kaelik]

Substantially more digestable, actually, if I'm looking to run a specific level game. Instead of running through the entire list and checking their level caps I can just look at 16-20 and quickly see that the Wizard is the only class suitable for my 17th level game.

Oh, so it has successfully deceived you. What a compelling argument for not using that system.

A Knight 10/Bone Knight 7 is also acceptable in your game. A Snowscaper 12/Conduit 5 is also acceptable.

[Koumei]

I could perhaps see merit in specifically adding a few Knight prestige classes that you automatically qualify for just by hitting Knight 10 and joining the relevant Order. I mean, "Requirements: Order of _____ Class Feature", and you're done. Or BAB +10 and Special: (specific trait granted by the Order), if you want other people to have a way to qualify perhaps.

That creates a sort of simple progression so that you can just go "Knight, Bane Knight" or whatever. But let's be honest here: people plan ahead. You don't hit level 5 as a Wizard and then randomly pick a Prestige Class, you go "I want to be a Squigglemancer" and make sure you take "Spell Focus: Squiggly" before level 5.

It's an option though, and probably keeps people happy.

[codeGlaze]

I don't see the point really, not unless you're going to put them in different books anyway.

That's why I asked if it'd be worthwhile to have a cap of 10 levels in Tome Core.

Levels above 10 could potentially be split into books focused on advanced levels. But that brings up the problem of classes that only run to levels 11 or 12. Why would you bother placing one or two extra levels in an extra supplement?

Which is pretty much Kaelik's point.

Along that same line of thinking, though, is this question:
Should base classes have set cut off points? (ie 10 lvls, 15 lvls, 20 lvls)

This has already been discussed to a point, but if you were to focus a whole Tome around 10 level characters, then having characters stop at 11, 12, 16, 17, etc would really fuck with things.

Which leads to the simple solution of just throwing them all in together.
An all-in-one approach could be indexed. Meaning you could flip to a page and run through a list that shows you what levels all the base classes run to, in ascending/descending order.

[Whatever]

The PDF should not be organized for the convenience of people creating level 17 characters from scratch.

[Username17]

The reality is that people mixing base classes works really shitty, and everyone really wants you to just make more base classes until the character they want to play can be made without multiclassing. The other reality is that the longer the game goes, the more likely any character is to PrC. Even if there isn't one the player was fixated on before starting the character, one will be made for their character by the time they get to level 10 at the latest.

So if you were writing a new game and you wanted to actually learn from 3e's mistakes instead of making something shitty, you'd bring out short base classes and have an absolute classplosion of them. And then you'd have Paragon classes that were mandatory at a specific level and had no prereqs, and then have a secondary classplosion of those.

-Username17

[Emerald]

If people are going to complain so much about mandatory PrCing for knights, is there a particular reason the PrCs can't just be incorporated into the knight class itself as a set of ranger-combat-style-like ability chains?

Something like "Knightly Order: At 11th level, the knight chooses a knightly order to join from among the following options: [Order A], which grants [Ability A]; [Order B], which grants [Ability B]; or [Order C], which grants [Ability C]." And then they all get the same ability at 12th, then 13th is "Fancy Ability: At 13th level, a knight gains [base effect]. A knight of [Order A] also gains [extra effect A]. A knight of [Order B] also gains [extra effect B]. A knight of [Order C] also gains [extra effect C]." or whatever, then the same at 14th and 15th, then a split at 16th, etc.

It makes the high-level knight paths a lot more same-y than they would be as separate PrCs, but it addresses the feel and organization problems.

[...You Lost Me]

I vote for 10-level base classes with mandated PrCs.

[erik]

10 levels is a long time to wait for prestige classes. Do basic classes really deserve to keep going past level 5? I'd think around then you should be shifting gears.

[Username17]

10 levels is a long time to wait for prestige classes. Do basic classes really deserve to keep going past level 5? I'd think around then you should be shifting gears.

If you're going to go with the 3e model where the entire game is 20 levels long and the last 5-10 levels are possibly illusory, then having the base classes end at level 5 is clearly the right idea. If you're going to go the 4e route, where levels are handed out even faster and the game theoretically goes to level 30, then having 10 level starter classes was a fine idea.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

Strongly in favor of 10-level base classes followed by PrCs. Also fix your tags.

[Username17]

Strongly in favor of 10-level base classes followed by PrCs.

Why?

What purpose is served by locking players out of their planned prestige class progression until the game is likely over?

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

Considering that E6 is something folks do talk about on the internet and maybe play, I figure the level 5 mark is the best place for a base class to end and PrC/Paragons to begin, with PrC's shared between similar classes so there's less work overall.

[...You Lost Me]

Strongly in favor of 10-level base classes followed by PrCs.

Why?

What purpose is served by locking players out of their planned prestige class progression until the game is likely over?

-Username17

Because 10 is such a nice number. It just... looks so good.

[Chamomile]

Strongly in favor of 10-level base classes followed by PrCs.

Why?

What purpose is served by locking players out of their planned prestige class progression until the game is likely over?

-Username17

Let me clarify: I am strongly in favor of classes that go up to 10 or less followed by PrCs. Too many concepts don't last into high levels to dedicate an entire class to them, and it's much easier to get people to swallow "everyone caps their base class at 5/7/10/whenever and then PrCs" than "Knight has to PrC at level 10 but Wizard can go to 20."

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think that at this point, we should just include a suggested 20-level progression for each base class, so people know they aren't going to someday find themselves in the position of gaining a level but having nothing to do with it because they have no idea how to design a level-appropriate prestige class.

e.g., "a 13th level Adventurer can progress into the Dungeon-Maker prestige class." (the prestige class in this example is totally made up, but would be a 7-level prestige class in the book, requiring the "Pocket Lint of Doom" class feature, and with class features based around building a dungeon out of stuff pulled out of your pockets or something)

We can make bigger changes later, because this one is probably way bigger than it might seem.

[OgreBattle]

So with the existing base classes going up to level 5, what should these "anyone can take them" PrC's look like? From lvl 6 and onward.

Wizard: Continue being a wizard
Cleric: Continue being a cleric
Super Berserker: spirits go inside, you have warp spasms
Reality Cleaving: Your sword is so sharp it cuts dimensions
Ironman: You build yourself a super suit
Exalted: You are the chosen one and may or may not glow
Saiyan: Your saiyan heritage is revealed
Thor: You are the next god of thunder

etc. etc. etc.

How would spell progression be affected though, as a lvl5 wizard would also be able to take whatever PrC is suppose to power up Fighters.

[erik]

I think it is a mistake to have

"Wizard: Continue being a wizard
Cleric: Continue being a cleric"

You already noted that you will have prestige classes out of sync if you don't stop them. So stop them at 5. They need to switch up if they want to progress further just like all the other starter classes.

Make a pact with a demon. Become an avatar for a spirit. Alchemical transformation. Bond with an elemental. Enchant yourself via tattoo magic. Whatever. There are tons of sources for caster advancement that could also apply to other classes.

Take Harry Dresden [spoilerrrrs]

He doesn't just become more wizard, he gets a fallen angel riding along with him in his mind. He later gets Winter Knight powers. His cohort with awesome veils and mind control also continues to advance similarly.

[sabs]

5 levels for base classes is a good spot.
You just have prestige classes, or advanced classes past level 5.

Wizard: Goes on to Archmage, SongSmith, Enchanter, blahblahblah
Cleric: Goes on to Holy guide, Holy Warrior, Hieorphant, Healer, Blasphemer.

also, you don't have to use cleric as a base class. You could have a sort of generic supplicant class, that at level 5 branches out into various prestige classes based on the religion.

Wizard could start as "Apprentice" and then at level 5 open up magus, gun magi, and many others.

You could also go the opposite, and have a multitude of base classes, that give you access to some overlapping prestige classes.

So, Order of the Kraven Knight can be gotten to from the Knight base class, and the Man at Arms base class, or even potentially the Cleric base class.

[erik]

The names "Cleric" and "Fighter" totally need to die an abrupt death in the footsteps of the Thief and Magic User. Abandoning names can help in the transition out of their baggage. Bard and Druid are a muddled concepts and could stand to be re-examined from as well.

Base classes (replaces):
Acolyte (cleric)
Brute (barbarian)
Jester (bard)
Man at Arms (fighter)
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Shaman (druid)
Sorcerer
Wizard

It may not be necessary for any particular advanced class to be locked into just one base class. A Shaman who becomes a Archmage is basically an Archmage with hedge magician roots. A Jester who becomes a SongSmith is basically a Bard. A Man-at-Arms who becomes a Healer is a combat medic. I'm not ruling out that some may be best fits for certain classes, but there should definitely be many advanced classes that are explicitly open to multiple base classes.

Something I think is important right out the gates. Everyone gets magic starting out. Man at Arms may have a simple rite that they recite to make their blades glow and sharpen, but you need to have something that establishes everyone is able to use magic in one way or another. If you don't have magic you aren't a professional adventurer. Nip that right in the fuckin bud.

This could be a nice way to bring in monster classes as well.

A 5 level Ogre/Giant class who then can join right up at level 6 into the Advanced class game.

Some potential 5 level base class monster PCs:
Centaur
Changeling
Giant
Golem
Rakshasa
Sprite
Vampire
Werewolf
Yuan-Ti

[edit:Vampire and Werewolf were never here. Parthenon retrowerewolfed them.
Also, this list was not meant to be exhaustive, just examples. And my feeling wouldn't be hurt if Centaurs were omitted... but some people want to play them, for reasons.]

[sabs]

THere is one minor problem with Werewolf and Vampire as base classes.
If you go with the idea of lycanthropy and vampires turning others.. then those don't make sense as a base class, because. What do you do with a level 8 Man-at-arms/Mage Hunter, who is bitten by a werewolf?

Now, if you go with the idea that werewolves and vampires are born, (ie Upir) then you're all set. But that does mean that noone ever becomes one.
The other races seem perfectly fine though.

[erik]

I did ignore that in my thought process. Oops.

I'd make them ECL zero versions and let you take levels in Vampire or Werewolf levels to amp up your uberness in their regard.

If a 5 Man-at-Arms/3 Mage Hunter gets bitten by a Werewolf then I reckon there are 3 ways to go with it:

• 1. Nothing happens because Mage Hunter mojo, like all advanced classes, prevents Werewolf/Vampire bites from taking hold.
  2. They gain the ECL zero features, and have the option of taking a Werewolf Lord Advanced class... but I don't know if this has enough staying power to merit being an advanced class unless there is a 3rd tier of classes after that, maybe not even then
  3. They gain the ECL zero features, and have the option of trading in Man-at-Arms levels for Werewolf base levels if they cannot get cured.

I'd go with #3.

My big unanswered questions so far for class design are:
Multiclassing within class tiers, yay/nay? [edit](I'm leaning towards nay, and instead encouraging to make enough classes that there's really no reason to multiclass[/edit]
How many tiers? And how many levels per tier? (I'm pretty set on 5 levels for first tier, but all others are negotiable)

I'm thinkin 5/10/5. Most people probably would not get to 3rd tier level in play same as in 3e. That'd be when the craziness is the order of the day, abilities like creating your own demi-plane and reshaping geography for fun and profit.

[edit 2: I forgot. where the fuck are we going with this? Nobody really wants to rewrite 3e classes wholecloth and such again right? At least not right now. Maybe when 5e finishes failing.

Until then, this is mostly just a wank about which classes to include in a compilation of tome stuff and about how to group/present them. In which case, just ignore me, since I could care less about that and my talking points have nothing to do with that. Take what you take, group them alphabetically and just include a tag referencing how many levels they potentially take. Ta-da.
I guess interested people can nominate classes to include and critique classes that aren't worth including.

to answer the first post...

1 - Should awesomeTome house only base classes with 20 levels? Why?
2 - If sub-20 base classes are included, should there be a minimum level they must meet to be considered a base class and not a PrC? Why?
3 - Should all the original base classes be rewritten to a sub-20 template if that's the route being taken?
4 - How do you think base20 and sub20 classes should be presented? Separate chapters?
5 - Which classes should Core awesomeTome support?

1. No. Because you'd leave out the Knight and maybe useful stuff.
2. No. Why would you?
3. They should be re-written, clearly, but that is outside the scope of organizing a catalog.
4. Alphabetically. Same chapter.
5. Whatever people care about. Or whatever you care about since you're doing it.

If we're done with that silliness though, I am game for discussing theory for a superior 3e class/level system]

[ishy]

Can centaurs even function as adventurers?

[erik]

In living greyhawk there actually was a limited option to make centaur characters, so I have some experience playing 3e with a centaur in the party.

95% of the time they function, okay.

Trouble centaurs had other than being really awful character options due to LA costs. This isn't totally horrible since covering for other player's weak characters is the order of the day in LG:

• • A module expected us to fly to some location using giant eagles loaned by a noble. We instead hoofed it through the mountains because they weren't large enough to carry the Centaur. An aerial Griffon "random" encounter was instead ad hoc adjusted into an ambush upon us during night watch.
  • One dungeon technically had an entrance that was too small to allow admittance, so it was fudged to allow Centaur entrance.
  • Stairs.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Can centaurs even function as adventurers?

Maybe if they can do this:


There's still a little problem with climbing ladders, I suspect, but...