Can Prestige Classes Be Salvaged?

[Kaelik]

Having damage bonuses based on critical hits vs having damage bonuses based on falt footed vs having damage bonuses based on flat footed vs having damage bonuses based on yes all the time vs having damages based on not being hit last round are mostly mechanically different, but it's a VERY small mechanical differences.

I definitely don't think it's a failure of "descriptive elemets" to see all these characters as fundamentally not that different in effect as compared to the other things characters can do. There are other Martial Types like Monk or Soldier who do in fact do different things and create real distinction while still hitting people for piles of damage.

[deaddmwalking]

"Descriptive failure". What. So you want the GM to just name the class on sight for you? Or if they for some reason do not do that say "your description did not allow me to identify the class from their action, please add more fluff description until I can identify the game mechanical class".

Good or bad ways to manage fluff descriptions or reveal game information can be debated. But you are trying to exploit fluff to win an argument about rules.

Having a bunch of classes that primarily just add d6s to damage is not having a sufficiently diverse and interesting class list. You do NOT get to say you make your class list more diverse and interesting by adding more flowery fluff descriptions alone.

I fundamentally disagree. Rage dice and Sneak Attack dice are sufficiently distinct from both a player perspective (which is most important) and from a character perspective (which only matters when either is a member of the opposition).

It actually does matter if your extra dice come from flanking or raging.


Edit - Added Quote I was responding to

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

It actually does matter if your extra dice come from flanking or raging.

Except it doesn't. Because all of the conditionals for the damage dice are always easy ones to meet. The explicit intention being that these classes almost always get their damage dice if they want to. Because the entire set of mechanics were based on the explicit admission that they had tied the Tomes to a system in which raw damage dealers were not viable unless they could at least deal amounts of damage as large as, and reliably as, a Rogue.

So they just made everyone Rogues. With a slightly different edge case for losing damage dice, which might as well have been a fixed percentage chance roll, a low chance.

Now, the way I describe it, it sounds like a really shoddy set of decisions and a really shoddy result. Which, lets be honest, it kinda was, and was doomed to be by nature of the legacy rules they decided to shackle the Tomes to. But compared to alternatives it was still a step forward, and it worked, kinda.

But the fact that we are here 20? (sounds about right) years later and you DeadDM STILL don't actually seem to know how or why these classes function says a lot. Just, not a lot about the classes.

[deaddmwalking]

I don't play Tome. But it was definitely an influence.

We have 4 martial classes, 3 of which use bonus dice mechanics and have different requirements to get their dice. We have a Rogue which you're familiar with; we have a Knight that designates a foe and gets damage dice and other benefits, and we have a Berserker who enters a rage and gets bonus dice against everybody. Action costs and how each attack qualifies make them distinct in combat - again for our taste.

But 20 years ago Username17 was explicit - 200 classes or a half-dozen classes with 100+ selectable abilities are the same, but either way you go, some people get unreasonably angry.

[Kaelik]

I fundamentally disagree. Rage dice and Sneak Attack dice are sufficiently distinct from both a player perspective (which is most important) and from a character perspective (which only matters when either is a member of the opposition).

It actually does matter if your extra dice come from flanking or raging.

We have a Rogue which you're familiar with; we have a Knight that designates a foe and gets damage dice and other benefits, and we have a Berserker who enters a rage and gets bonus dice against everybody. Action costs and how each attack qualifies make them distinct in combat - again for our taste.

I mean you can certainly say that for your taste, before you were fundamentally disagreeing with even the idea that other people could see these minor mechanical differences as not signficantly different.

Like not even that I said X and you said not X. But that I said "some people could X" and you fundamentally disagreed that anyone could X.

Always having bonus dice vs wearing a ring of blinking to always have bonus dice for a different reason is pretty minor as compared to the wealth of actions you can take in a D&D game, and one reason that even when I make martial characters, they aren't about getting bonus damage dice on all their attacks.

The Samurai is probably the most distinct of the "maximum damage" tomb classes, but also the least balanced or interesting to play around.

[deaddmwalking]

I edited my comment to make it clear I was responding to PL.

Kaelik, I don't know what your argument is and unless you want to restate it succinctly, I don't care.

I believe that a character that does a pile of d6s because they're a fire mage and they do fire damage is sufficiently distinct from a rogue that does a pile of d6s because they do sneak attack damage that very few people will think they're the same. But I absolutely believe that some people will believe they're the same. I also believe that some people will think that all of these classes were built by aliens. People say and do stupid shit all the time. But if an idiot can't tell the difference between rage and sneak or sneak and fireball, I don't accept that they're right and that no difference exists - or even that the differences are so minor that it is unreasonable to expect them to tell the difference.

I reject the principle that PL claims that classes must be conceptually distinct with no (or minimal) overlap. I agree that is a design goal you could have, and even that it is generally a good design goal in the abstract, provided that you are giving players other options to play the character they envision.

But a small number of classes with a large number of selectable abilities is not meaningfully different than a large number of classes with a large number of pre-selected abilities that can be freely multi-classed.

[Kaelik]

I guess it was very silly of me to expect any kind of engagement from you in good faith.

I leave it up to the reader to divine the difference between "It is literally impossible to tell these things apart" and "I full attack every turn and do bonus damage on every attack but the conditions that produce that bonus damage are slightly different from other ways of doing the same thing. Maybe it would be good to design classes to have more diverse actions."

[deaddmwalking]

Kaelik,

I don't know what sets of actions you are trying to compare and contrast that seem the same to you. The way I play nobody gets bonus damage on every attack because the conditional requirements are different. Even in a world where theoretically everyone does get their bonus damage on every attack, I still contend that players will understand WHY they get their bonus damage and that matters, too.

Flavor does matter. People will play a bad mechanical class because they like the flavor. People will play flavorfully distinct classes that have the same bonus damage without a problem because every character being able to contribute in a meaningful way to hit point attrition means that every class is going to have ways of doing level-appropriate amounts of damage. Once you define level-appropriate as 2d6x10 damage it doesn't matter whether you're doing that with a spell slot or a Fighter sword-swing - if you're not doing it you're not doing level appropriate amounts of damage; full stop.

Anyway, since it came up again in a pithy quote:

Game mechanically, all of the Fighter Variant Classes (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Thug, etc.) could all be separate classes which are freely multiclassable, or selectable abilities off of a single Fighter class. There is no actual difference at all. In one you write "Samurai 1" into your "character classes" line on your character sheet, in the other you write "Samurai Package 1" into your "special abilities" box on your character sheet.

Unless you are fetishistic about where you write the word "Samurai" on your character sheet, there is no difference. Your character in actual play will be precisely the same degree of a Samurai regardless of where you write the word Samurai on your character sheet.

---

Now, honestly I don't really care whether these are made as classes or selectable abilities.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

But a small number of classes with a large number of selectable abilities is not meaningfully different than a large number of classes with a large number of pre-selected abilities that can be freely multi-classed.

Well. First all your claim that those two things are not different is based on fundamental innumeracy.

But secondly who said anything about giving the "small" number of classes a large OR small sets of selectable abilities.

I'm talking classes period.

A Class based system with less than 20 classes is better than a Class based system with more than 100 classes. Period.

Why should I mention selectable abilities in either scenario, we all know the suckers who write more than 100 classes do not have the design discipline to reduce the number of selectable options anyway. Or are you telling me Tome++ doesn't use spells and feats and items now?

You have of course as usual been talking entirely orthogonally aiming at your own made up strawmen. And even then you miss.

[deaddmwalking]

A class based system with 20 classes is only better than a class based system with 100 classes if it provides the options expected in the play space.

Soulknife (as printed in the Psionic Handbook) is a bad class, but it's an interesting concept. It's one that people want to play, and in some settings ought to expect to play. In a completely hypothetical game system with fewer than 20 classes, I'm skeptical that you support the character concept without a large number of selectable abilities.

Classes provide class features. If you have 100 classes with 20 abilities each (2000 abilities) or you have 10 classes that select 20 abilities from a list of 100 for each class, the important point is that you have 2000 class abilities. In the first case, every class x is going to be exactly like every other class x and in the other it's entirely possible to have two of the same class that don't share any abilities at all. That might erode the concept of 'class' but it doesn’t have to. A wizard with 20 abilities related to pyromancy and a wizard with 20 abilities related to Necromancy can both be called wizards and that's a perfectly valid design choice. But if you decide to make those separate classes, that's fine, too. It's a semantic shell game where in one case you say what class you are, and the other you say what type of class you are.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

A class based system with 20 classes is only better than a class based system with 100 classes if it provides the options expected in the play space.

No. A class based system with anything is only better if a lot of things. But you don't get to bring in those lot of things, because we are talking about the specific effect of class bloat. Well, I say "we". You aren't. You never restrict yourself to the subject you are pretending to address.

Soulknife (as printed in the Psionic Handbook) is a bad class, but it's an interesting concept.

Is it? You seriously are going to "personal taste" that soulknife is a worthy concept? At all, let alone in a system with both multiclass Psion/Fighters and Psychic Warriors already?

If that's your chosen example just fucking fuck right off, you lose by means of selecting the stupidest fucking example you could possibly have chosen to support your non-argument.

If you had come up with a good example to support your bad argument of "but what if personal taste + class system?" I might have said "Sure, Psions, I guess, but thin edge of the wedge for some dumb fuck wanting something fucking dumb like Soulknife!"

Fucking hell. Soulknife. No really. I just... wow.

Classes provide class features.

No. They limit your selection of Options. That is how they function, their "methodology" remember? If you come up with a "Class" system that does not do that. It isn't a Class system. It isn't even really a mechanic.

If you have 100 classes with 20 abilities each (2000 abilities) or you have 10 classes that select 20 abilities from a list of 100 for each class, the important point is that you have 2000 class abilities.

No it isn't. In fact.. not only isn't it the important thing, you multiplied the wrong numbers at random and it isn't even fucking correct. Now go learn BASIC combinatorial math. Literally the FIRST THING from combinatorics, the one normally taught starting in primary school, learn what a Combination is. It's kind of important for this stuff specifically. The fact you have been designing RPG rules without apparently knowing it is deeply alarming.

[deaddmwalking]

I probably shouldn't post from my phone - it does lead me to make minor errors when throwing out example numbers but pointing out a calculation error isn't a refutation of the argument.

I am not arguing that a Soul Knife is a 20-level class as conceived. I am arguing that people like the idea of some weird shit and a robust class system with many options can support that and should.

A cooperative fantasy role-playing game should let you take your concept and translate it into the game. If your game only allows LotR character archetypes because that’s all you allow, it may have a place but it is very restrictive. I contend that a game like D&D is better if you can take your concept and bring it into the game supported with level-appropriate abilities.

I further contend that it doesn’t matter if you call it a class or you call those abilities something else - having them available is the defining metric - the things you select when you gain a level in a class are class abilities, too.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I probably shouldn't post from my phone - it does lead me to make minor errors when throwing out example numbers but pointing out a calculation error isn't a refutation of the argument.

You making a very significant error of multiplying the wrong numbers indicates a lack of understanding consistent with the actual criticism you are now trying to dodge because of that.

You do not understand combinationatorial math, and you do not understand the relevance of that to the argument you are trying to make.

Even if both your numbers were "2000" Those are not the numbers that matter, the numbers that matter are the COMBINATIONS of options. And your example compares 100 combinations up against (just a little less than) TWENTY THOUSAND. You innumerate moron.

As for your soul knife argument, yes I got what you were trying for, but you lost the argument by picking soul knife as an example, not just because it is a hilariously bad class idea to try and die on a hill for, but because if you MUST represent something that stupid you need to go as close to a classless system as you can. The 100 combinations may not be enough, you want soul knife level self sabotage opportunities you NEED to go to the 20,000 or higher.

No actual good class system has room for the god damn Soulknife as an actual class.

[deaddmwalking]

You contend that any good class system must have fewer than 20 classes. A good class system could have fewer than 20 (ours has 6) but it also could have more than 300.

Rigidly defining a unique role (as you advocate) is an option, but many people (myself inclided) like the idea of playing various degrees of 'mixed class' A gish that is more martial and less caster or a gish that is less martial and more caster really are gradations that you want to support one way or the other.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

You contend

You don't address or understand what I contend. You produce "examples" which mishmash a tightly controlled rigid class system with an excessive number of classes, and compare it to a disciplined small number of classes with massive freedom of option selection bordering on (but for no given reason not actually outright being) a free points based system.

A comparison which cannot possibly shine any light on a genuinely disciplined fairly rigid class system with a small number of classes, and well, ANYTHING else, but especially not compared to what you are actually defending, which is unlimited classes with a greater flexibility in additional options.

And you either don't even realize your hypotheticals are worthless or you are so intellectually dishonest AND stupid you think you can just slip that by and get away with a fast one.

You don't even understand that classes and their flexibility to represent different themes and roles you apparently want to represent is based on how many different combinations(or sub sets) of options you can select and how many choices you make in the process. NOT on the frankly irrelevant number of how many total abilities are in a gaming system. Seriously, who the fuck thinks that number is relevant? Again, what did you think you were trying to pull with that?

You demand the unlimited flexibility of an open points based system while advocating for a class system, which you clearly do not even understand the function of.

Even this...

many people (myself inclided) like the idea of playing various degrees of 'mixed class' A gish that is more martial and less caster or a gish that is less martial and more caster really are gradations that you want to support one way or the other.

No it is NOT an option you want to support "one way or another". The whole point of class based systems is some things are not options. And those things which are not options are ARBITRARY, NOTHING is something a class system should support "one way or another".

Infinite or even more than a tiny number of gradations of hybrid themes are things classless systems can generate fairly well.

They are NOT something class systems handle well. Class systems do not do that well and so should not do that and should focus instead on reinforcing their actual strengths. Trying to make them do what they cannot really do because you don't understand what they do makes them break.

(ours has 6)

And one of them is definitely a Soulknife right?

I mean there was no way you were talking ass when you were deciding to die for the Soulknife on that hill right?

[deaddmwalking]

Infinite or even more than a tiny number of gradations of hybrid themes are things classless systems can generate fairly well.

They are NOT something class systems handle well. Class systems do not do that well and so should not do that and should focus instead on reinforcing their actual strengths. Trying to make them do what they cannot really do because you don't understand what they do makes them break.

Your position is entirely based on hypotheticals. 3.x exists - class plosion exists. Writing hundreds of specific classes with fine gradations is one option. We know what it looks like. The problem with 3.x is not, nor has it ever been that there are too many classes.

And one of them is definitely a Soulknife right?

I mean there was no way you were talking ass when you were deciding to die for the Soulknife on that hill right?

No, any one of the classes could be a soulknife. We decided that having a magic sword ability is easily represented by a spell, so we made a spell that anyone could have. Because if you have a small number of tightly controlled classes, giving freedom to choose distinct class abilities was important to us. We recognized that having hundreds of different classes essentially did the same thing, but unless we're getting paid by the book it doesn't actually make any difference at all.

What matters is how many abilities your character has. It doesn't matter whether they come from the class with no choice or they come with your character level with lots of choice - but it does matter how many you get and whether they ensure 'appropriate power for your level'. With a class system it's easier to make sure that people don't take 'power only' without taking 'defenses'. It's also easier to make sure that they have at least one relevant power that is level appropriate.

I have seen a number of attempts to convert D&D into a points based system. I have not seen one that works. It turns out that making abilities selectable at an appropriate level is easier than costing them relative to other abilities.

[Foxwarrior]

In context, saying that every class in your game can be used to play a soul knife, and then saying that the classes in your game are tightly controlled, is pretty funny.

[deaddmwalking]

In context, saying that every class in your game can be used to play a soul knife, and then saying that the classes in your game are tightly controlled, is pretty funny.

PL is arguing that if you have a class system you need to have a small number of classes that rigidly adhere to a specific and unique role.

I argue the opposite - that whether you have a small number of classes or a large number of classes you need to be able to provide support for a large number of potential roles that support the genre. In fact, I argue that there's no meaningful difference between a small number of classes that allow great flexibility in choosing abilities versus a large number of classes that are rigid in what class ability you get at each level.

While we have a small number of classes, they're not at all like what PL is advocating for.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

In context, saying that every class in your game can be used to play a soul knife, and then saying that the classes in your game are tightly controlled, is pretty funny.

Look, there isn't a DeadDM post that goes by that he doesn't do some or all of the following.

1) DIsagree with a strawman
2) Disagree with himself
3) Make a statement of fact which is totally incorrect a foundation of his (current) position

Also. I get shit all the time for talking about my system. I got shit on this thread for not being sufficiently Tome++ relevant. And how many posts now has he been whining on about how his system with 6 classes proves that 100+ classes is the correct design goal?

At some point here I need to stop dunking on the idiot so that the thread can attempt to go on to ANYTHING actually relevant to, well ANYTHING, rather than DeadDM lying about how much he loves and supports Soulknife as a class.

But then again...

I argue that there's no meaningful difference between a small number of classes that allow great flexibility in choosing abilities versus a large number of classes that are rigid

The difference IS MATH. The difference is the number of subsets of selected abilities. Remember the 100 vs 20,000 YOU FUCKING DUNCE.

[Foxwarrior]

At some point here I need to stop dunking on the idiot so that the thread can attempt to go on to ANYTHING actually relevant to, well ANYTHING

There's only like four people here, everyone else died or is exclusively on Discord now. If you want to talk about something relevant to anything, that means at least 25% of denners want that, which is a pretty big percentage .

And the core concept of the thread was resolved, Prestige classes shouldn't be salvaged, nobody really cares about doing that apparently.

If you release your game maybe I can try to get my group to try it.

[Kaelik]

Fox you have to dm any new system. This is already established.

Darth is going to do FnF, Rad will only do DnD, and I'm going to cave and do shadowrun eventually.

[Foxwarrior]

We just had a long argument in discord where Kaelik made a pretty good argument why all social interaction systems are doomed to be bad, and usually actively hostile towards good conversations with NPCs, to a group of people who were mostly not convinced.

You're really missing out, Phonelobster.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I hate always disliked discord.

Perhaps because of all of the interactions with microphones it has made far worse than interactions with microphones should be.

I bought a new computer in January, I still haven't got around to installing discord on it largely because of my dislike of it, despite the fact that I SHOULD keep it installed and the microphone setup fucking dealt with and ready in case I need it since I do use it occasionally and with little warning.

[Foxwarrior]

Oh I was just referring to a text discussion on discord, no microphone needed.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Well. The main thing I ever actually use discord for does. I have used discord in a purely text based stuff as well. And not liked it. As I said already possibly the microphone association.

But then again. I hated IRC too. I don't know, these chat apps and communities just feel bad.