The Gaming Den

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:48 am**

Alright so the issue of base classes has started a pretty good conversation over in v2 clarification, so let's devote a thread to it.

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?

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:53 am**

At the very least, I think Knight, a 10 level class, should be included. Though I also think that the Knightly Orders should have actual defined benefits.

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:16 am**

No. Some classes are cool, but run out of steam at high levels
The difference between a PrC and a base class is that you can enter a base class at level 1
No.
No, but in the class heading it should mention something like whether it's a "low-level class (doesn't go over 10)", a "name-level class (goes over 10)," or goes to 20th level

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:33 am**

No. Because some concepts don't go to 20 without supplemental and prestige support, and that's completely fine.
Fuck no. Class powers are determined by level appropriateness and nothing else. If a class grants level 1 appropriate powers, it's a base class even if it's only 1 level long.
Maybe, but only if you're planning on splitting the book into multiple level range books.
Same chapter. Separate is inherently unequal.
For sure: Assassin, Barbarian, Cleric (possibly replaced with Favored Souls), Druid, <*> Mage (Fire certainly, maybe 2 or 3 varieties even), Knight, Monk, Thief Acrobat, Wizard. Possibly: Bard (requires one worth having), Fighter (requires lots of system knowledge, and doesn't provide much new conceptually IMO), Jester (on the fence here admittedly), Marshal (for the leader fighter guy, if the fighter's out), Paladin (assuming one can be agreed upon), Ranger (assuming one can be agreed upon), Rogue (not sure what it covers that isn't already handled by thief-acrobat or assassin), Sorcerer (again with the system knowledge, reasonably well covered thematically by <*> mages, and you'd still need one worth including), or anything sphere based (more subsystem to write, sort of covered by <*> mages conceptually). Probably no more than 12 if they go to 20 in the base book, maybe more if they only go to 10 or whatever.

Posted: **Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:21 pm**

One particular definition I like for "base class" is identity. Your character's identity as a person is defined by the dominant base class, and other classes or PrCs add flavor to this. A wizard self-identifies as a wizard, even if he's also a mystic theurge and a true necromancer. As such every base class should have an identity that your character can adopt, keep, develop, and be proud to have regardless of what other classes they gain.

Then again there's the d20 modern approach where identity comes from non-mechanic character information, and the classes are a totally generic collection of rules. That's fine by me, but D&D seems to want classes to be both at the same time and it would be better if they were one or the other.

1 - If any class goes to 20, there should be a reason why you'd want to stick with it. As in, if I'm a player and I don't want to read about any PrC at all, and my goal is to be the most wizard the rules let me be, then taking wizard from 1 to 20 can be in no way a trap option. So I'm in favor of classes being great for all the levels available, and having no levels after that.

The actual number of levels is important for only one reason: BAB/Saves progression. If your class ends on a +0 and you're not combining progression tracks into one (which is the best way to go) then your next level might very well be more +0 and that sucks. But really this is a problem with 3rd ed's very poor interaction between progressions and multiclassing, so the number of levels isn't important if this gets solved.

2 - Base classes take up a lot of space, both in the book and in our memories as we try to keep everything straight. It makes more sense to add options to an existing base class than it does to make a very similar short-depth class. There's no point in making a 1 to 4-level base class when it would be less effort, less reading, and less complexity to just add whatever shtick that short class possesses as options for a similar class. If in coming up with a base class you can't make it a good option past level 4, it doesn't deserve to be a base class.

And I'm saying base classes should be a minimum of 5 levels sort of arbitrarily. My preference is actually closer to 9 or 10, because if I want to play the concept the class presents to me, I want to stick with that for at least 15 game sessions before I have to change my character concept.

3 - All? No. There are no wasted levels for a level 20 wizard. Every level is a good choice. Fighter, even F&K's version, should be shorter because those higher levels just aren't as good a choice as others available to you.

4 - Base20 and sub20 classes should be presented side-by-side. In the character creation or advancement section it should be made clear that some class choices make it necessary to multiclass for higher-level characters. You could even include a little thing in the beginning of the class description that tells you how many levels the class provides. Imagine coming to D&D new and seeing a base12 fighter next to a base20 cleric. That is by no means confusing.

5 - Obviously as OGL material the D&D base classes need not be the list, or even on the list. However, you also want to be able to use Tome with other WotC materials without hiring an assistant to convert things for you. So you need classes to fill certain roles. I don't think ranger or paladin fill a role - the difference between a paladin and a multiclassed cleric with optional abilities is minimal, for instance. It would probably be ideal to include paladins and weak role-fillers like them as PrCs and optional abilities. Then again, that's starting from scratch for paladins, so that kind of sucks.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:05 am**

Kaelik, I'm responding to you over in this thread because to try and keep shit tidy. I'm sure you're reading both.

Kaelik wrote:The problem with your system, besides that you are a retard, is that when you are level 8, you can easily get into PrCs that became available at level 5.

There is no reason to exclude a 12 level class because it qualifies for PrCs that other classes qualified for at level 8 or 10 or 6.

Kaelik wrote:And no, taking PrCs a couple levels behind the earliest level possible is not a big fucking deal when your class is designed around that.

Bullshit. Most PRCs have requirements that can be qualified for at 5th or 6th level (31 out of 48 PRCs in the Tome PDF). If you have a class that ends at fucking ninth level and some dope ends up taking it to max level, their options are to take start taking levels in a PRC three or four levels behind them, or to take the first level in a base class so they can start taking some awesome PRC they qualify for at tenth level. That's not acceptable. Some PRCs have abilities that scale well to all levels, this is especially true of caster advancement PRCs. Where it fucking matters though is for non-casters. For non-casting base classes (including shit like fire mage) that end early, you have three options to keep them on schedule in terms of continuing to gain level appropriate abilities: automatically qualify them for casting PRCs, automatically qualify them for specific PRCs wether they would normally meet the requirements or not, or end them at a standardized point so that they have a fuck-ton of PRCs that start up next level such that they practically have to qualify for one.

There are only four PC base classes (not stuff for monsters or specific races) in the Tome PDF that end before 20. There's the Knight, which ends at 10 and has several PRCs that it automatically qualifies for. The Fire Mage, which ends at 15, and is sort of awkward but can probably manage with some martial PRC. Then there's the Marshall and Puppeteer, who pretty much get shafted by ending at level 12 with no obvious path to advance their core schtick. You could make 8 level PRCs for them, but at that point why wouldn't you just roll the PRC into the base class?

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:18 am**

It's not going to happen, but it would be cool to see Tome with base classes that go 1-10, then 'Paragon' classes that go 11-20 from the base classes.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:06 am**

Sigil wrote:There are only four PC base classes (not stuff for monsters or specific races) in the Tome PDF that end before 20. There's the Knight, which ends at 10 and has several PRCs that it automatically qualifies for. The Fire Mage, which ends at 15, and is sort of awkward but can probably manage with some martial PRC. Then there's the Marshall and Puppeteer, who pretty much get shafted by ending at level 12 with no obvious path to advance their core schtick. You could make 8 level PRCs for them, but at that point why wouldn't you just roll the PRC into the base class?

The marshal is a decent fit with several of the knight's PrCs, but doesn't have anything particularly marshaley to grab. It could be merged with the legendary strategist to get it to 15 though, if you were willing to drop that PrC. The puppeteer could be extended to 15 along Fire Mage lines, and then roll with a martial PrC for the last 5 which is admittedly non-ideal. Any PrC that grants sphere access scales nicely for these capped classes though (which I have mixed feelings on), and could be suitably fluffed for them if you don't want to go with the standard 'those power sources just run out at those levels and you need infusion of new powers' line.

OgreBattle wrote:It's not going to happen, but it would be cool to see Tome with base classes that go 1-10, then 'Paragon' classes that go 11-20 from the base classes.

While I basically suggested that in the other thread, it's not really a great plan. Lots of the tome PrCs are written for entry at 6 or 7, and asking people to wait until 11 to get their power specialization/fluff change is probably asking them to wait too long. So while it could be done, it would probably be better done as the full dungeon crusade where each class was only 5 levels long and you just picked a new one that you qualified for when those levels were up (and there was no open multiclassing). That requires splitting up a bunch of classes and truncating / expanding a couple of them that don't have levels in a multiple of 5, but it's pretty workable otherwise.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:21 pm**

Who the fuck cares what happens after level 15? Or level 12 for that matter? The world of level 12 is already "The Wizard agrees to not crush the campaign under planar binding for More Wishes and the Cleric agrees to not crush the campaign under create undead for Shadow Over the Sun, and the MC agrees to not insta gib the party with CR abuse monsters or enemy mages with contingencies". I mean, you can't even play the game without detente and sandbagging, because the Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue all have infinite power tricks available to them. There might be a warrior class character at the table who can't pull off an infinite loop at those levels, but if so they are probably so outclassed by everything that they are competing for resources and praise with the Druid's animal companion.

The idea of getting your panties wound up because the players would have to write content in order to continue playing at level 13 is totally beyond understanding. You have to write content if you play at level 13. There's absolutely no escaping that. If you play a caster, you can write content out of sandbags by cherry picking a set of spells that doesn't skull fuck the game, but even though there are building blocks for you to use, you still have to write some fucking content.

-Username17

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:49 pm**

FrankTrollman wrote:Who the fuck cares what happens after level 15? Or level 12 for that matter? The world of level 12 is already "The Wizard agrees to not crush the campaign under planar binding for More Wishes and the Cleric agrees to not crush the campaign under create undead for Shadow Over the Sun, and the MC agrees to not insta gib the party with CR abuse monsters or enemy mages with contingencies". I mean, you can't even play the game without detente and sandbagging, because the Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue all have infinite power tricks available to them. There might be a warrior class character at the table who can't pull off an infinite loop at those levels, but if so they are probably so outclassed by everything that they are competing for resources and praise with the Druid's animal companion.

The idea of getting your panties wound up because the players would have to write content in order to continue playing at level 13 is totally beyond understanding. You have to write content if you play at level 13. There's absolutely no escaping that. If you play a caster, you can write content out of sandbags by cherry picking a set of spells that doesn't skull fuck the game, but even though there are building blocks for you to use, you still have to write some fucking content.

-Username17

There's no good reason why the Tomes should have to repeat the over-a-decade-old PHB's failure to provide level 13+ content. Why did you and K write Tome Fighter or Tome Monk past level 12 if that's your attitude?

That's not entirely rhetorical, if you have an answer I'd love to hear it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:15 pm**

Because people won't let you play a Jester if the class doesn't go to 20, and it's fuck-easy to write.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:19 pm**

When we first started, we wrote base classes to 20 levels and Prestige Classes to 10 levels because that is "how things were done". We also had dreams of someday writing epic rules overhauls to fix that flaming fuck nest. But the truth is that no one fucking used that material.

The first place where we broke the cycle was with the Knight. We just stood up and said "You know what? This concept doesn't go up to 20th level. Even if there were 20th level abilities that were worth writing, there still wouldn't be any 20th level abilities for a knight." And that was our test balloon. Our line in the sand, as it were.

And people squealed like stuck pigs. But their objections didn't make any sense. People complained simply because not going to 20 wasn't the way things were done. They couldn't actually point to any example of it actually impeding play in any way. And that was it for me. I took a lot of internet abuse over it, but never once fielded a coherent argument about why it even fucking mattered. Nowadays, if I make a class that goes all the way to 20, it is just so that I can have an inane joke where the "capstone" ability is that the character "wins D&D".

-Username17

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:51 pm**

So would a level 10 cap for Tome Core be something worthwhile?

Or is it better to just list a base10 with base14 and base20?

Ooooor... maybe split a class entry into sections for 1-10, 11-15, 16-20 (if it exists)?

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:58 pm**

codeGlaze wrote:So would a level 10 cap for Tome Core be something worthwhile?

Or is it better to just list a base10 with base14 and base20?

Ooooor... maybe split a class entry into sections for 1-10, 11-15, 16-20 (if it exists)?

No you idiot, it is better to just list the classes as long as they are. Why would you fucking increase the amount of worthless confusing bullshit on most of the classes for no reason? The different levels of content are already separated into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ect. There is no reason that 11 more properly belongs in a set with 15 than with 10, and your further division into sets does fucking nothing.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:14 pm**

So, I think the answer is: classes go to whatever level, but every class needs a "power source" (like spellcasting) that ensures that you keep getting level-appropriate abilities, and it should be assumed that characters are only taking PrCs that advance that power source (like "+1 level of existing spellcasting class").

It would be beneficial if the "power source" of each class was spelled out in the class. The power source does not need to come online immediately, but it needs to be online once you've taken the final level of the class.

We could also make prestige classes that give you a forcibly level appropriate power source at level 1 or 2 of the PrC. (e.g., "a bullshit-o-mancer casts spells as a sorcerer of her character level")

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:51 pm**

RadiantPhoenix wrote:So, I think the answer is: classes go to whatever level, but every class needs a "power source" (like spellcasting) that ensures that you keep getting level-appropriate abilities, and it should be assumed that characters are only taking PrCs that advance that power source (like "+1 level of existing spellcasting class").

It would be beneficial if the "power source" of each class was spelled out in the class. The power source does not need to come online immediately, but it needs to be online once you've taken the final level of the class.

No, Knights do not need a bullshit power source in the class, they can be Knights, then they can PrC to obtain a fucking power source that takes them higher.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:54 pm**

Kaelik wrote:No, Knights do not need a bullshit power source in the class, they can be Knights, then they can PrC to obtain a fucking power source that takes them higher.

What I think I'd do with Knights is make the knightly orders grant power sources, and have them take PrCs that key off of that.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:06 pm**

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Kaelik wrote:No, Knights do not need a bullshit power source in the class, they can be Knights, then they can PrC to obtain a fucking power source that takes them higher.
What I think I'd do with Knights is make the knightly orders grant power sources, and have them take PrCs that key off of that.

And then you would be dumb as shit.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:07 pm**

Kaelik wrote:No you idiot, it is better to just list the classes as long as they are. Why would you fucking increase the amount of worthless confusing bullshit on most of the classes for no reason? The different levels of content are already separated into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ect. There is no reason that 11 more properly belongs in a set with 15 than with 10, and your further division into sets does fucking nothing.

Because you're thinking in terms of theorycraft.
Most people who play the game don't really delve very deep into the 'hows' and 'whys'.

The point of putting this shit together into an actual 'Tome' is so it's more readily accessible by "people"; not just rules lawyers and theorists.

People really are confused pretty easily, especially when they're expecting one thing and instead encounter another. Having 10 different classes with 6 different level caps is easily confusing.

Creating PrCs specifically for each and every class that doesn't go to 20 is a lot of extra work, and definitely won't cover even most of the bases people are going to want.

That's why people keep coming back to ideas that break things down into digestible chunks.

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:21 pm**

codeGlaze wrote:That's why people keep coming back to ideas that break things down into digestible chunks.

You aren't breaking anything down into digestible chunks. You are just grouping existing chunks in completely arbitrary an unhelpful ways.

What does it fucking matter that you have levels 1-10 of all the classes together, and then you cut to the next section and some classes are literally one level long, and others are 5 and continue into the next section.

What the fuck is the point of having three sections of the class book that go:

1) Levels 1-10:
Knight, 1-10
Wizard 1-10
Snowscaper 1-10

2) Levels 11-15:
Knight: Fuck right off.
Wizard 11-15.
Snowscaper 11-12.

3) Levels 16-20:
Wizard 16-20.

How is that in any fucking way more digestible than just listing the three fucking classes with three fucking level limits?

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:27 pm**

The point of what I'm saying (but maybe not of what other people are saying, though) is, once you've taken all the levels of Knight, how do you make sure that you keep getting level appropriate abilities?

Posted: **Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:59 pm**

RadiantPhoenix wrote:The point of what I'm saying (but maybe not of what other people are saying, though) is, once you've taken all the levels of Knight, how do you make sure that you keep getting level appropriate abilities?

By taking level appropriate levels in Prestige Classes.

Do you not fucking get this, the rules allow you to take a level of Wizard 1 after Knight 10. Even if you do something stupid, like make them not qualify for any non Knight PrCs, and only qualify for one non Knight PrC, they can still take a level of Wizard.

There is no way in the 3e multiclassing paradigm to make sure that all possible class selections are equal. You have to fucking count on the players to have a base level of being not fucking retarded for any system to not generate wildly divergent powers.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:14 am**

By having sections I had meant sections within that class entry. Not separate chapters.

So a table broken up into different colors or something visually distinct past levels 10 and 15.

I'm sort of mixing gaming theory and presentation... proper presentation can help a LOT in getting people to accept something.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:45 am**

Kaelik wrote:
codeGlaze wrote:That's why people keep coming back to ideas that break things down into digestible chunks.
You aren't breaking anything down into digestible chunks. You are just grouping existing chunks in completely arbitrary an unhelpful ways.

What does it fucking matter that you have levels 1-10 of all the classes together, and then you cut to the next section and some classes are literally one level long, and others are 5 and continue into the next section.

What the fuck is the point of having three sections of the class book that go:

1) Levels 1-10:
Knight, 1-10
Wizard 1-10
Snowscaper 1-10

2) Levels 11-15:
Knight: Fuck right off.
Wizard 11-15.
Snowscaper 11-12.

3) Levels 16-20:
Wizard 16-20.

How is that in any fucking way more digestible than just listing the three fucking classes with three fucking level limits?

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.

Posted: **Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:46 am**

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

The Gaming Den

[awesomeTome] Base classes

[awesomeTome] Base classes