OK, to expand on the ideas begun here,
I think that we should have a little heart-to-heart about what classes we actually want. There's several ways to go about such a project:
* Oodles of classes. I'm talking one class for every ability anyone could ever want. People who jump really high get levels in "Jumper" - every form of attack is represented by a unique class, and classes do not have selectable features at all. Everyone is going to be multiclassed, because classes end as soon as they get to the point. A spellcaster might be a multiclassed "Master Mind/Frost Mage/Speaker with the Dead", for instance, and would have very different powers from another spellcaster who was a "Snake Lord/Fire Starter/Geomancer".
* Two classes. Might. Magic. All might abilities are selectable class features of taking levels of "might". All magical abilities are selectable class features of "magic". Multiclassed characters would include Death Knights and Fire Warriors and all the other archetypes who have Might and Magic abilties.
* Some intermediary between those extremes. Perhaps 4 - Warrior, Stealther, Offensive Mage, Protection Mage. Maybe six. Or eight. Maybe even something crazy like eleven. Each class would have a small collection of selectable class features available in it.
----
Second consideration: How big is a level?
This is something which is often not talked about, but it is really important. It determines how multiclassed people can be expected to be - the smaller a level is, the more of them people would be expected to have. You could easily have the starting level of a player character be 3 - or twenty. There's nothing magical about the number one in this case.
Advantages to having smaller levels: With people starting with a lot of levels, you can legitimately have people start games already multiclassed. You can create your archetypal mix on chargen, essentially tossing out the paradigm where you don't get the stuff you want because you have to be seventh level before you can be a "mindbender" or whatever.
Advantages to having bigger levels: More levels is more things that can go wrong. 20 levels is 20 chances for things to screw up, 100 levels is 100 chances. 5 levels is only five chances. Furthermore, since the entire game is generated on a d20 - there are profound limits to how far you can cut things down. Assuming that a level means anything, the guy with 20 levels on your ass is going to be one entire random number generator better than you whatever you do.
---
So, what do people want to see written on a character sheet? Do people want to see Cattle Mutilator 1/ Lycanthrope 2/ Battle Rager 1 / Eagle Warrior 3/ Rune Blade Attuner 1? Do people want to see Rune Smith 2/ Fire Lord 1?
Do people want to see "Might 17" (followed by a long list of crackassed abilties)? Do people want to see "Might 1/Magic 2" (likewise)?
Do people want to see "Ranger 4/Paladin 2/Fighter 3" (followed by a list of abbreviated abilities)? Do people want to see "Wizard 2/Druid 2" (followed by a list of abbreviated abilties)?
The future is wide open. what would people like to have in it?
-Username17
What classes are needed?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
This is just off the top of my head, so I reserve the right to change my opinion later on when (rather than 'if') someone suggests something better.
I generally like the 20-level model all right, although I'm not married to it. I'd like to see the system accomodate 4-5 levels of play ranging from "heroes of your local village" on up to "heroes of the entire world", and having 20 levels accomodates that reasonable well while still permitting some advancement /within/ a particular level of play. 15 or 16 would also be okay, and possibly preferable. I wouldn't want to go to fewer than about 12-15, mostly for traditional reasons.
As far as number of classes -- I like having selectable abilities more than I like a profusion of classes -- and I'm okay with that meaning that nobody ever takes the last level of a base class.
I'd actually kind of like to resurrect the scheme bruited about a bunch of pages back, where there are about six types of 'combat' class and four types of 'noncombat' class, and you just get one of each -- because I feel strongly that your noncombat and combat roles should be decoupled.
--d.
I generally like the 20-level model all right, although I'm not married to it. I'd like to see the system accomodate 4-5 levels of play ranging from "heroes of your local village" on up to "heroes of the entire world", and having 20 levels accomodates that reasonable well while still permitting some advancement /within/ a particular level of play. 15 or 16 would also be okay, and possibly preferable. I wouldn't want to go to fewer than about 12-15, mostly for traditional reasons.
As far as number of classes -- I like having selectable abilities more than I like a profusion of classes -- and I'm okay with that meaning that nobody ever takes the last level of a base class.
I'd actually kind of like to resurrect the scheme bruited about a bunch of pages back, where there are about six types of 'combat' class and four types of 'noncombat' class, and you just get one of each -- because I feel strongly that your noncombat and combat roles should be decoupled.
--d.
-
RandomCasualty
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
I'm actually for producing classes that relate to the type of characters people want to make. A class should be a standalone thing that people can be expected to take for 20 levels assuming their character concept is simple, like swashbuckler or Conan.
Classes should represent some specific concept about how a character does something, not necessarily with any flavor to it. I think a fundamental problem with current D&D is the absolute necessity to multiclass, especially for fighters. When we design fighter classes it should be assumed that most fighter classes won't synergize very well. For instance, taking an archer level shouldn't really help you as a cavalier.
The goal should be creating classes that give people what they want, not spreading random beneficial abilities over several different classes. A swashbuckelr isn't a complex concept and you should be able to do it with a single class. ANd that class should be the best possible swashbuckler you can build. You should be able to write swashbucker 20 on your sheet and be sure that nobody can be better at swashbuckling than your character.
Magic is the tricky one, because it's inherently linked to your magic system. If everyone casts off the same list, you might as well just have one "Magic" class, and let people multiclass it to use it well. If you want an armored caster, you'd be an armored warrior 4/magic 4 or whatever.
If you want warlocks, armor prohibitive mages, and armored psions/clerics and you want them all to do and feel different, then you need separate classes for those. But this is actually an entirely different question, which is "how many types of magic do we want."
Once we've answered that, we just have one type of caster class for each type of magic.
For number of levels, I think it depends on what range of fantasy you want.
You should have at least 10 levels devoted to classical low power fantasy. You should have another 10 levels devoted to high magic and possibly another 10 devoted to epic level, with another 10 beyond that devoted to divinely powered beings.
People want places to advance to, and 10 levels is pretty good overall to tell your story without forcing the PCs to level too slowly or too quickly.
Classes should represent some specific concept about how a character does something, not necessarily with any flavor to it. I think a fundamental problem with current D&D is the absolute necessity to multiclass, especially for fighters. When we design fighter classes it should be assumed that most fighter classes won't synergize very well. For instance, taking an archer level shouldn't really help you as a cavalier.
The goal should be creating classes that give people what they want, not spreading random beneficial abilities over several different classes. A swashbuckelr isn't a complex concept and you should be able to do it with a single class. ANd that class should be the best possible swashbuckler you can build. You should be able to write swashbucker 20 on your sheet and be sure that nobody can be better at swashbuckling than your character.
Magic is the tricky one, because it's inherently linked to your magic system. If everyone casts off the same list, you might as well just have one "Magic" class, and let people multiclass it to use it well. If you want an armored caster, you'd be an armored warrior 4/magic 4 or whatever.
If you want warlocks, armor prohibitive mages, and armored psions/clerics and you want them all to do and feel different, then you need separate classes for those. But this is actually an entirely different question, which is "how many types of magic do we want."
Once we've answered that, we just have one type of caster class for each type of magic.
For number of levels, I think it depends on what range of fantasy you want.
You should have at least 10 levels devoted to classical low power fantasy. You should have another 10 levels devoted to high magic and possibly another 10 devoted to epic level, with another 10 beyond that devoted to divinely powered beings.
People want places to advance to, and 10 levels is pretty good overall to tell your story without forcing the PCs to level too slowly or too quickly.
-
Alansmithee
- Apprentice
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
If I were able, I would make all classes similar to hulking hurler/master thrower/exotic weapon master; they would be very few levels, and most (if not all) would have choices for abilities. Or you might have base classes be around 5 levels, and PrC's be 3 with class features chosen from a group. I think that would lead to more diverse and organic characters. Obviously, I think that all powers in each PrC should be fairly balanced against each other (which I think the above PrC's have some problem with). So you might start out fighter 5, then if you want to be a barbarian take levels in "Crazy Zerker dude" where each level gives you choices how you want to rage, be it the reckless frenzy, durable rage, etc.
I've been getting more and more fed up with PrC's that don't get full caster level. Those seem the only classes that gain something every level. Too many 10 level classes have levels like fighter 5 that give next to nothing, and have too many clear breakpoints.
As for how many levels, going by the current paradign I think 20 is ok. It gives semi-clear divisions between low/mid/high level, and it allows for quite a bit of customization. I don't think it should be over 25-30 for non-epic play (which really should have their own set of rules) or less then 15. More generally would lessen the value of a level, I think and I also think less wouldn't allow the same level of customization.
Also, could someone tell me what book cattle mutilator is from? I've not heard of it before, and I've read most of the WotC books. It doesn't seem to mesh with the rest of D&D's generally serious tone.
[btw, the above was a joke]
[now watch there be a cattle mutilator class]
I've been getting more and more fed up with PrC's that don't get full caster level. Those seem the only classes that gain something every level. Too many 10 level classes have levels like fighter 5 that give next to nothing, and have too many clear breakpoints.
As for how many levels, going by the current paradign I think 20 is ok. It gives semi-clear divisions between low/mid/high level, and it allows for quite a bit of customization. I don't think it should be over 25-30 for non-epic play (which really should have their own set of rules) or less then 15. More generally would lessen the value of a level, I think and I also think less wouldn't allow the same level of customization.
Also, could someone tell me what book cattle mutilator is from? I've not heard of it before, and I've read most of the WotC books. It doesn't seem to mesh with the rest of D&D's generally serious tone.
[btw, the above was a joke]
[now watch there be a cattle mutilator class]
Re: What classes are needed?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: dump classes. In fact, Frank's Might X /Magic X is pretty much a classless system because presumably you'd be getting most of your character-defining abilities from something analgous to skills and feats.
Also, I'm going to say that smaller levels are better. 20 sounds about right, but that might be a Gygax-imposed fallacy impinging upon my limited mental faculties.
Also, the following needs not be a problem:
Frank said:
"Furthermore, since the entire game is generated on a d20 - there are profound limits to how far you can cut things down. Assuming that a level means anything, the guy with 20 levels on your ass is going to be one entire random number generator better than you whatever you do."
Like I've said before: have everyone improve on all d20 roll-dependent attributes at an equal rate. That way your system can go to level 20000000000000000 and the d20 roll will still make a difference. What you would do instead of having different rates of attribute improvement (a bad legacy mechanic BTW) is simply start characters off with a deficiency.
That is, if you took Magic Weakness in exchage for Uber To Hit, then you're pretty much stuck that way from the get-go (eg: assuming equal levels, you have a 75% chance to hit something that's average at dodging but you have only a 50% chance of resisting an average DC mind spell thrown your way).
The system seems to have a flaw: no character development allowed. But that need not be true. You could feasibly spend 1 'feat' (or whatever) in order to improve one d20 roll influencing attribute, or perhaps choose to stop progressing in one attribute to 'train' another when you level up. These options would not allow you to push a d20 influencing attribute above your level (so no +11 to hit for a 10th level character) or retard development for another attribute by too much (no +1 to Will Saves at level 10).
End of Rant.
Also, I'm going to say that smaller levels are better. 20 sounds about right, but that might be a Gygax-imposed fallacy impinging upon my limited mental faculties.
Also, the following needs not be a problem:
Frank said:
"Furthermore, since the entire game is generated on a d20 - there are profound limits to how far you can cut things down. Assuming that a level means anything, the guy with 20 levels on your ass is going to be one entire random number generator better than you whatever you do."
Like I've said before: have everyone improve on all d20 roll-dependent attributes at an equal rate. That way your system can go to level 20000000000000000 and the d20 roll will still make a difference. What you would do instead of having different rates of attribute improvement (a bad legacy mechanic BTW) is simply start characters off with a deficiency.
That is, if you took Magic Weakness in exchage for Uber To Hit, then you're pretty much stuck that way from the get-go (eg: assuming equal levels, you have a 75% chance to hit something that's average at dodging but you have only a 50% chance of resisting an average DC mind spell thrown your way).
The system seems to have a flaw: no character development allowed. But that need not be true. You could feasibly spend 1 'feat' (or whatever) in order to improve one d20 roll influencing attribute, or perhaps choose to stop progressing in one attribute to 'train' another when you level up. These options would not allow you to push a d20 influencing attribute above your level (so no +11 to hit for a 10th level character) or retard development for another attribute by too much (no +1 to Will Saves at level 10).
End of Rant.
Re: What classes are needed?
A. I want the core classes represented with a 20 level progression with fixed abilities.
B I want multiclassing to work so that when you take a 5th level of Rogue, you get a level 5 ability, not a level 1 ability.
B2. I want each class level to add one skill to your combined class skill list. A Paladin might start have choices like Ride and Diplomacy, while a Fighter has stuff like Ride and Survival. Not having a skill as a class skill just means you have a reduced max rank, but each rank costs the same.
C. I want each feat to be equal to a class feature of the level you gained the feat (so your third level feat is worth a level 3 class feature in another class).
D. I want the oodles of spells in the back of the book to be the basis for class abilities and not just wasted pulp. A level 1 Fighter might be like a Sorcerer, but he's got Divine Favor and True Strike while the Sorcerer has Silent Image and Burning Hands.
E. I want a section at the back of the book that says: BUILD YOUR OWN PRESTIGE CLASS. It will have rules where the spells are divided into a bunch of themes so that you can make a Flame Warrior as easily as a Death Mage and a Holy Singer. Each class gets like 2 themes. PrCs can be taken at level 1.
F. Everyone gets free multiclassing in core classes, and a lifetime average of 1 PrC(PrC).
This is my dream.
B I want multiclassing to work so that when you take a 5th level of Rogue, you get a level 5 ability, not a level 1 ability.
B2. I want each class level to add one skill to your combined class skill list. A Paladin might start have choices like Ride and Diplomacy, while a Fighter has stuff like Ride and Survival. Not having a skill as a class skill just means you have a reduced max rank, but each rank costs the same.
C. I want each feat to be equal to a class feature of the level you gained the feat (so your third level feat is worth a level 3 class feature in another class).
D. I want the oodles of spells in the back of the book to be the basis for class abilities and not just wasted pulp. A level 1 Fighter might be like a Sorcerer, but he's got Divine Favor and True Strike while the Sorcerer has Silent Image and Burning Hands.
E. I want a section at the back of the book that says: BUILD YOUR OWN PRESTIGE CLASS. It will have rules where the spells are divided into a bunch of themes so that you can make a Flame Warrior as easily as a Death Mage and a Holy Singer. Each class gets like 2 themes. PrCs can be taken at level 1.
F. Everyone gets free multiclassing in core classes, and a lifetime average of 1 PrC(PrC).
This is my dream.
-
Desdan_Mervolam
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
I like d20 Modern, so dump me in the "Lots of Classes" camp. I think that we should have a small handful of flavor-free classes that players can build their characters with. They should be mostly to entirely flavor free so that players can decide why their character has this ability. These should be equally as good as any other class-tiers you have so that if a player comes to you with an oddball idea you couldn't have anticipated, they can have an at least playable character.
Then, you throw in a second tier. This tier represents core concepts you expect players to emulate regularly. They should be made to be gotten into early (in d20 terms no later than your fifth character level if you're even trying). Ideally these should have only enough flavor to dictate a role, but not so much that players fall into the trap of thinking that they are not "a fighter" because they have "Strong Hero 3" written on their character sheet. This tier should in no way be any more powerful than tier one. Making PrCs better than core classes was a bad idea which leads to situations where people who don't have PrCs have no recourse but to cry. Don't get people into your class by bribing them with extra shinies, folks. Make it as good as what they're getting and the fact that it fits their character better will be all the incentive you need.
Third tier is entirely optional, in any game the first two should be more than sufficent. However, the third tier is there to represent unique paths dictated by organizations, specializations taught by epic mentors, and dark secrets found in mouldering books in forgotton vaults. These should be heavily flavored, entirely campaign specific, and probably custom tailored for the player and attained through roleplay rather than marking off checkboxes.
How big a level should be is actually something I can't actually answer, because it depends on GM's style, game genre, and setting. Generally the lower the power, the bigger a level should be. In a world where people can actually be killed by real muggers on the street, and where you'll likely never see a magic spell cast much lest wield magic yourself, levels should be big. They should represent milestones in your career and they should hand you power in line with that milestone - a full level might mean the difference between beating a foe and not. In this situation, levels take quite some time to gain.
In epic-scale games, where you can toss the kingdom's champion with a distracted flick and not even spill your tea in the process, levels shouldn't mean much. They grant access to smaller abilites or improve upon older ones, and you may have to level five or ten times before you can overcome the adventure's BBEG, which is fine because you probably level once every session or two.
REVERSAL
On the other hand, while I don't actually care too much for the superhero genre on more than a meta-whatever level, I really admire those games, and games that try to emulate many settings at once, such as BESM and GURPS. Actual mechanical problems aside, these games have an unparalelled flexability, and by nature eschew instituionalized flavor for letting the player decide for his own damned self why Sir Richard can ignite his sword blade (Is it a magical sword that was passed to him as an heirloom? Has he studied ancient techniques that let him be able to use the fabled Pheonix Claw attack? Does Sir Richard's family have a secret and shameful link to the reviled psionicsts that once ravaged the land?)
Such a situation would be easiest dealt with on a level-less method, though it could also work with a class-light system ("Your choices are Might or Magic", or "Your choices are Agressive or Defensive") where you're given a framework, and a buttload of abilities you can choose and flavor to your liking.
-Desdan
Then, you throw in a second tier. This tier represents core concepts you expect players to emulate regularly. They should be made to be gotten into early (in d20 terms no later than your fifth character level if you're even trying). Ideally these should have only enough flavor to dictate a role, but not so much that players fall into the trap of thinking that they are not "a fighter" because they have "Strong Hero 3" written on their character sheet. This tier should in no way be any more powerful than tier one. Making PrCs better than core classes was a bad idea which leads to situations where people who don't have PrCs have no recourse but to cry. Don't get people into your class by bribing them with extra shinies, folks. Make it as good as what they're getting and the fact that it fits their character better will be all the incentive you need.
Third tier is entirely optional, in any game the first two should be more than sufficent. However, the third tier is there to represent unique paths dictated by organizations, specializations taught by epic mentors, and dark secrets found in mouldering books in forgotton vaults. These should be heavily flavored, entirely campaign specific, and probably custom tailored for the player and attained through roleplay rather than marking off checkboxes.
How big a level should be is actually something I can't actually answer, because it depends on GM's style, game genre, and setting. Generally the lower the power, the bigger a level should be. In a world where people can actually be killed by real muggers on the street, and where you'll likely never see a magic spell cast much lest wield magic yourself, levels should be big. They should represent milestones in your career and they should hand you power in line with that milestone - a full level might mean the difference between beating a foe and not. In this situation, levels take quite some time to gain.
In epic-scale games, where you can toss the kingdom's champion with a distracted flick and not even spill your tea in the process, levels shouldn't mean much. They grant access to smaller abilites or improve upon older ones, and you may have to level five or ten times before you can overcome the adventure's BBEG, which is fine because you probably level once every session or two.
REVERSAL
On the other hand, while I don't actually care too much for the superhero genre on more than a meta-whatever level, I really admire those games, and games that try to emulate many settings at once, such as BESM and GURPS. Actual mechanical problems aside, these games have an unparalelled flexability, and by nature eschew instituionalized flavor for letting the player decide for his own damned self why Sir Richard can ignite his sword blade (Is it a magical sword that was passed to him as an heirloom? Has he studied ancient techniques that let him be able to use the fabled Pheonix Claw attack? Does Sir Richard's family have a secret and shameful link to the reviled psionicsts that once ravaged the land?)
Such a situation would be easiest dealt with on a level-less method, though it could also work with a class-light system ("Your choices are Might or Magic", or "Your choices are Agressive or Defensive") where you're given a framework, and a buttload of abilities you can choose and flavor to your liking.
-Desdan
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
Re: What classes are needed?
None.
I want no classes. I hate the idea of class skills. I really dislike having flavor forced upon me. I want as much flexibility as possible for anyone to create the character they have in mind.
My current model for freeform d20 is having 3 archtypes:
Tough
+1 BAB/1 level
+1 Def/1 level
3 feats/level
Good Saves |3|2|1|
Skill Points |4|6|8|
Polymath
+3 BAB/4 level
+3 Def/4 level
4 feats/level
Good Saves |3|2|1|
Skill Points |4|6|8|
Expert
+1 BAB/2 level
+1 Def/2 level
5 feats/level
Good Saves |3|2|1|
Skill Points |4|6|8|
I'm working with 3 types of casters (primary caster requires 3 feats/level, secondary=2/level, tertiary=3/level). Spellcasting being somewhat altered for purposes of balance.
I'm still sticking with the 20 level progression, though further advancement won't be hard to work out. Spells are the easiest flags to mark what kind of ballgame you're in per various levels, IMGO. I'm for pushing spell abilities back some so that everybody and their grandmother isn't flying at level 5.
Levels 1-5 would be relatively low fantasy magic (Conan), 6-10 for middling magic (LotR), 11-15 high magic realm (teleporting, city nukin, dragon dominating good times), 16-20 crazy go nuts.
I'm not married to anything yet, but it seems to be shaping up nicely.
I want no classes. I hate the idea of class skills. I really dislike having flavor forced upon me. I want as much flexibility as possible for anyone to create the character they have in mind.
My current model for freeform d20 is having 3 archtypes:
Tough
+1 BAB/1 level
+1 Def/1 level
3 feats/level
Good Saves |3|2|1|
Skill Points |4|6|8|
Polymath
+3 BAB/4 level
+3 Def/4 level
4 feats/level
Good Saves |3|2|1|
Skill Points |4|6|8|
Expert
+1 BAB/2 level
+1 Def/2 level
5 feats/level
Good Saves |3|2|1|
Skill Points |4|6|8|
I'm working with 3 types of casters (primary caster requires 3 feats/level, secondary=2/level, tertiary=3/level). Spellcasting being somewhat altered for purposes of balance.
I'm still sticking with the 20 level progression, though further advancement won't be hard to work out. Spells are the easiest flags to mark what kind of ballgame you're in per various levels, IMGO. I'm for pushing spell abilities back some so that everybody and their grandmother isn't flying at level 5.
Levels 1-5 would be relatively low fantasy magic (Conan), 6-10 for middling magic (LotR), 11-15 high magic realm (teleporting, city nukin, dragon dominating good times), 16-20 crazy go nuts.
I'm not married to anything yet, but it seems to be shaping up nicely.
Re: What classes are needed?
Of the two given choices, I prefer the 'fuckloads of classes' system of d20 Modern as outlined by Desdan_Mervolam (And I like how d20 modern handles spellcasters too). I also like the 'fuckloads of prestige classes' system of Dragon magazine and the splat books.
I don't have a problem with a classless system, but I do have a problem with a two-class system. I don't want to choose whether my character is a Republican or Democrat. I don't think that there is a meaningful distinction.
And I think that you, Frank, having (half-way) designed a half-way decent skill-based system, should know that best of all.
I don't have a problem with a classless system, but I do have a problem with a two-class system. I don't want to choose whether my character is a Republican or Democrat. I don't think that there is a meaningful distinction.
And I think that you, Frank, having (half-way) designed a half-way decent skill-based system, should know that best of all.
-
RandomCasualty
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
The problem with tons of classes and tons of PrCs is that it creates far too many things that can go wrong.
First and foremost, the system is unbalanceable in any meaningful way and you're going to end up with lots of plain out inferior choices (if not inferior classes outright), and other classes that tend to be overpowered.
Remember that "tons of classes" is essentially what we have now, and in that ton of classes we have crap like the dread pirate, which really might as well not be printed.
In addition, tons of classes serves the purpose of benefitting the min/maxer and kicking the casual gamer in the balls. When the best barbarian is no longer a barbarian 20, but rather a cleric 1/barbarian 4/ fighter 4/ frenzied berserker 10/ weapon master 1, then you're really just shafting the casual gamer with all the complexity and there's no need for it.
Class overlap is dangerous, because when you start overlapping, you start giving people metagame choices. If there's only one class that's an expert with two handed weapons, then the greatsword wielder takes that, and there's no problems. You don't have to worry about any interaction between class abilities, because there really isnt' any.
Now when you have 4 different greatsword wielding classes, now you have to make sure that all the different combos of them are balanced at all stages of the game. And that's extremely difficult because you've got over 1000 combinations of different levels in those classes alone, not couinting what other overlapping classes may synergize with that. And you really can't balance that out. In the end you're going to have shitty greatsword wielders and powerful greatsword wielders, based on how well people can cherry pick the class abilities.
And that's what happens with tons of classes, for every barbarian that took frenzied berserker, there's one that stayed a single classed barbarian or took levles in Forsaker. And they don't even belong in the same game. But that's what happens when you have tons of choices. Most of the choices actually end up screwing you over.
First and foremost, the system is unbalanceable in any meaningful way and you're going to end up with lots of plain out inferior choices (if not inferior classes outright), and other classes that tend to be overpowered.
Remember that "tons of classes" is essentially what we have now, and in that ton of classes we have crap like the dread pirate, which really might as well not be printed.
In addition, tons of classes serves the purpose of benefitting the min/maxer and kicking the casual gamer in the balls. When the best barbarian is no longer a barbarian 20, but rather a cleric 1/barbarian 4/ fighter 4/ frenzied berserker 10/ weapon master 1, then you're really just shafting the casual gamer with all the complexity and there's no need for it.
Class overlap is dangerous, because when you start overlapping, you start giving people metagame choices. If there's only one class that's an expert with two handed weapons, then the greatsword wielder takes that, and there's no problems. You don't have to worry about any interaction between class abilities, because there really isnt' any.
Now when you have 4 different greatsword wielding classes, now you have to make sure that all the different combos of them are balanced at all stages of the game. And that's extremely difficult because you've got over 1000 combinations of different levels in those classes alone, not couinting what other overlapping classes may synergize with that. And you really can't balance that out. In the end you're going to have shitty greatsword wielders and powerful greatsword wielders, based on how well people can cherry pick the class abilities.
And that's what happens with tons of classes, for every barbarian that took frenzied berserker, there's one that stayed a single classed barbarian or took levles in Forsaker. And they don't even belong in the same game. But that's what happens when you have tons of choices. Most of the choices actually end up screwing you over.
Re: What classes are needed?
RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1102417149[/unixtime]]The problem with tons of classes and tons of PrCs is that it creates far too many things that can go wrong.
First and foremost, the system is unbalanceable in any meaningful way and you're going to end up with lots of plain out inferior choices (if not inferior classes outright), and other classes that tend to be overpowered.
Remember that "tons of classes" is essentially what we have now, and in that ton of classes we have crap like the dread pirate, which really might as well not be printed.
In addition, tons of classes serves the purpose of benefitting the min/maxer and kicking the casual gamer in the balls. When the best barbarian is no longer a barbarian 20, but rather a cleric 1/barbarian 4/ fighter 4/ frenzied berserker 10/ weapon master 1, then you're really just shafting the casual gamer with all the complexity and there's no need for it.
Class overlap is dangerous, because when you start overlapping, you start giving people metagame choices. If there's only one class that's an expert with two handed weapons, then the greatsword wielder takes that, and there's no problems. You don't have to worry about any interaction between class abilities, because there really isnt' any.
Now when you have 4 different greatsword wielding classes, now you have to make sure that all the different combos of them are balanced at all stages of the game. And that's extremely difficult because you've got over 1000 combinations of different levels in those classes alone, not couinting what other overlapping classes may synergize with that. And you really can't balance that out. In the end you're going to have shitty greatsword wielders and powerful greatsword wielders, based on how well people can cherry pick the class abilities.
And that's what happens with tons of classes, for every barbarian that took frenzied berserker, there's one that stayed a single classed barbarian or took levles in Forsaker. And they don't even belong in the same game. But that's what happens when you have tons of choices. Most of the choices actually end up screwing you over.
I don't really care if there are a bunch of shitty PrCs out there.
The way I see it, publishers are pretty fallible, and individual designers rarely agree on what an appropriate power level is. The more PrCs that get published, the more Oozemasters you get, and the more Hulking hurlers and Dweomercheaters.
That doesn't concern me at all. More material will always lead to more munch, whether is comes in the form of magic items, spells, skills, feats, or classes.
In most games that I've played in, the outliers get ignored. No one plays a Hulking hurler, because if they did the DM would have to say, 'Ok, you win D&D. Everyone make new characters."
And most people can tell from the get-go if they're playing an oozemaster. If someone who doesn't know any better decides to take levels of oozemaster, the other players and DM are there to say, 'Um, bad idea.'
And some people don't care, and thats fine. There is enough room in D&D to be productive beyond class features.
I'm not worried that players will make too 'good' or 'bad' choices with their PrCs, becase they can do that with base classes, spells, items, and skills too. The game functions on the assumption that they won't.
But the huge advantage of having 57,098 PrCs floating around is for people like me, who are too lazy or not creative enough to invent that great a variety of PrCs.
I can look at the Belly Dancer of Seven Veils and go, 'Cool, I never would have thought of that!'
And the more PrCs that get churned out, the more PrCs here are that lie within the bell curve of reasonable power.
Re: What classes are needed?
I prefer the "fuckloads of classes" option as well, but I prefer the PrC-less option, where every class is a base class, and every class is about 5 levels long, with every level handing out absolutely defining abilities.
I like the "total number of character levels <= total number of sides you roll on the how-to-do-shit die" paradigm. OTOH, I have no problem making it the d30 system.
I think every character should end up being a Swashbuckler 5/Courtier 5/Rogue 5/Assassin 5/Ranger 5/Fop 5, or some such. Or a Barbarian 1/Berzerker 2/Wilderness Scout 1 at low levels.
I like the "total number of character levels <= total number of sides you roll on the how-to-do-shit die" paradigm. OTOH, I have no problem making it the d30 system.
I think every character should end up being a Swashbuckler 5/Courtier 5/Rogue 5/Assassin 5/Ranger 5/Fop 5, or some such. Or a Barbarian 1/Berzerker 2/Wilderness Scout 1 at low levels.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
Desden: What's the point in having specific classes at all if the generic classes are selectable? That is, if I take a level of "Strong Hero", I get to take a strong hero ability for that level (or maybe two or three abilities, depending upon what kind of level paradigm we are working with here) - such abilities might include fearsome charge or berserking, or whatever.
So why would I ever take a level of "Berserker"? What's that even there for? It doesn't do anything more "powerful" than a level of "Strong Hero", so why would I select the berserker level over selecting the berserking power of a Strong Hero level?
It sounds like you are giving everyone a long list of selectable class abilities - some of which are arbitrarily segregated out and given their own flavor. This seems superficially like it would have the drawbacks of both an oodles of class system (in that information would be hard to find and the class description at the top of the character sheet wouldn't necessarily ring any bells at all - how many people know what the Runescar Berserker does?), while still having the disadvantages of a profoundly limited class system (in that your class description would not uniquely describe your character's abilities or flavor, and would have to be accompanied by additional explication of both to explain what kind of "Fast Hero" you were). I'm just not seeing the advantage over transfering completely to a limited character class system or transfering completely to an extensible class system until you get to tier 3.
Tier 3, of course, can jolly well do whatever it wants - since it's designed to directly modify individual characters, and actually is supposed to be "all crazy", and operate as a power shunt to beef up underperforming characters and such.
---
clikml: Just looking at your math, I think it has the multicaster problem hardwired in.
That is to say, the game is run on a d20. Every level you don't get to add something to your bonuses, you fall a point behind on the d20. If you fall enough behind on the d20, you are going to interact with that die roll as poorly (or worse) than the henchmen of the party.
So if you multiclass as an Expert/Tough for 10 levels of each, you'll be 5 points short on your BAB. Your attack bonus will be the same as a Tough Henchman who is five levels lower than the rest of the party. Your Expert side is going to have a total of 20 feats less than he could, which means that he has comparable Expertting to a henchman 4 levels lower than the party.
So superficially, it looks like you've hard wired in the multicaster dilemma, where in the long run multiclassed characters always suck.
----
Rapanui: Smaller class levels usually comes with people having more of them. While everyone who is 35th level can potentially be balanced with everyone else at 35th level (especially if you hardwire a maximum disparity of some kind), you are still going to be jacked over by someone who is 55th level.
And that's basically going to happen. If people are "10th level", someone is going to throw an occassional 15th level enemy at them for the PCs to fight. If people are 30th level, many DMs are going to throw out the 45th level enemy - and feel that this is somehow equivalent. It's not equivalent, but there you go.
Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill here, certainly I know people who've had to encounter 30th level vampire psions while they were level six (basically the DM just sort of chewed on the furniture and ranted for a while, as the entire experience was way over their ability to do a damned thing). So to an extent you might be able to get things back on track by just saying "Don't put in monsters more than a constant number of levels N more powerful than the PCs. Really, don't do it." and that would be as good as anything else.
I have the suspicion, however, that having more levels will lead to more people doing stupid crap with CR. I'm not positive, but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest this.
-Username17
So why would I ever take a level of "Berserker"? What's that even there for? It doesn't do anything more "powerful" than a level of "Strong Hero", so why would I select the berserker level over selecting the berserking power of a Strong Hero level?
It sounds like you are giving everyone a long list of selectable class abilities - some of which are arbitrarily segregated out and given their own flavor. This seems superficially like it would have the drawbacks of both an oodles of class system (in that information would be hard to find and the class description at the top of the character sheet wouldn't necessarily ring any bells at all - how many people know what the Runescar Berserker does?), while still having the disadvantages of a profoundly limited class system (in that your class description would not uniquely describe your character's abilities or flavor, and would have to be accompanied by additional explication of both to explain what kind of "Fast Hero" you were). I'm just not seeing the advantage over transfering completely to a limited character class system or transfering completely to an extensible class system until you get to tier 3.
Tier 3, of course, can jolly well do whatever it wants - since it's designed to directly modify individual characters, and actually is supposed to be "all crazy", and operate as a power shunt to beef up underperforming characters and such.
---
clikml: Just looking at your math, I think it has the multicaster problem hardwired in.
That is to say, the game is run on a d20. Every level you don't get to add something to your bonuses, you fall a point behind on the d20. If you fall enough behind on the d20, you are going to interact with that die roll as poorly (or worse) than the henchmen of the party.
So if you multiclass as an Expert/Tough for 10 levels of each, you'll be 5 points short on your BAB. Your attack bonus will be the same as a Tough Henchman who is five levels lower than the rest of the party. Your Expert side is going to have a total of 20 feats less than he could, which means that he has comparable Expertting to a henchman 4 levels lower than the party.
So superficially, it looks like you've hard wired in the multicaster dilemma, where in the long run multiclassed characters always suck.
----
Rapanui: Smaller class levels usually comes with people having more of them. While everyone who is 35th level can potentially be balanced with everyone else at 35th level (especially if you hardwire a maximum disparity of some kind), you are still going to be jacked over by someone who is 55th level.
And that's basically going to happen. If people are "10th level", someone is going to throw an occassional 15th level enemy at them for the PCs to fight. If people are 30th level, many DMs are going to throw out the 45th level enemy - and feel that this is somehow equivalent. It's not equivalent, but there you go.
Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill here, certainly I know people who've had to encounter 30th level vampire psions while they were level six (basically the DM just sort of chewed on the furniture and ranted for a while, as the entire experience was way over their ability to do a damned thing). So to an extent you might be able to get things back on track by just saying "Don't put in monsters more than a constant number of levels N more powerful than the PCs. Really, don't do it." and that would be as good as anything else.
I have the suspicion, however, that having more levels will lead to more people doing stupid crap with CR. I'm not positive, but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest this.
-Username17
Re: What classes are needed?
I´d like smaller levels too. And while things like using level 45 opponents will happen, they do happen now and there is little we can about it, apart from repeatedly telling DM´s not to do it. This is a problem of logarithmic advancement not being very intuitive, where you want an opponent to be twice as strong as a player and not give him twice the levels. Looks good on first view, but has the consequences you mentioned.
I´d still like to have small levels, or at least some way of gaining something new after every session. Having different classes for combat and noncombat could help with this, as you could advance twice as often before leaving your random number generator of choice.
This would give players like me who don´t get to play often to actually advance their character more often tha every couple of months, and not have him sit in one level for ages.
Sma
I´d still like to have small levels, or at least some way of gaining something new after every session. Having different classes for combat and noncombat could help with this, as you could advance twice as often before leaving your random number generator of choice.
This would give players like me who don´t get to play often to actually advance their character more often tha every couple of months, and not have him sit in one level for ages.
Sma
Re: What classes are needed?
Basicially, all the variation of BAB and saves is a joke.
Really. When the fighter has a Str 20 and Rogue has a Str 10, we know that the fighter is hitting with a +5 over the Rogue and is substantially a better fighting guy. Sure, we can have crazy "switcheroo" feats where the Rogue can use his Dex for a To Hit bonus and then we end up with crap where the rogue is down a feat and needs some crazy damage type(sneak dice) and unbalanced attack routine(exploding Two-weapon madness or Octopus-foo) to keep up.
But why? Give the same BAB and in general the Rogue is the "great dex, low Str" guy and we know that the variation between him and the fighter is no more than 5-6 points of to-hit, and we are all happy.
----------------
Class abilities have to be appropriate to level.
For a multiclassing system to work, you must get level-appropriate stuff each level.
So lets say that I am a level 7 Wizard. As my 8th level, I take a Rogue level.
Its my 8th level. Why am I getting 1st level abilities?
I should be getting an 8th level Rogue ability.
Look at Sorcerers. The spell list that they get(and can potentially get with crazy feats) runs the range of sneaking, meleeing, blasting, talking, ect, and they do just fine with a grab bag of abilities.
They do just fine because at each level they get new higher level stuff. Just because you took Invis at 4th level does not mean that it was a waste of your time at 8th level to take Improved Invis, or took Fireball at 6th level. Each of the abilities is fundamentally useful, scales nicely with an increase in caster level, and doesn't need some crazy synergy with other stuff to work as intended.
By that token, I don't see a problem with a guy taking Rage at level 1, Evasion at level 2, Death attack at level 6, and Polymorph at level 9. Sounds pretty good to me actually.
Sure, some people will pick bad spells/abilities. Some people can't play the game well, and there is little a DM can do about it except make sure the monsters don't attack that guy too often.
Keep the skills as "out of combat" abilties and "out of combat" spells off the "by level" choices, and you get guys that have stuff that works at theuir level in a pretty decent way, unlike a Rogue 1 Sorcerer 1, Wizard 1, Fighter 1, Cleric 1(which I actually saw once in play), who is not a 5th level character at all.
Really. When the fighter has a Str 20 and Rogue has a Str 10, we know that the fighter is hitting with a +5 over the Rogue and is substantially a better fighting guy. Sure, we can have crazy "switcheroo" feats where the Rogue can use his Dex for a To Hit bonus and then we end up with crap where the rogue is down a feat and needs some crazy damage type(sneak dice) and unbalanced attack routine(exploding Two-weapon madness or Octopus-foo) to keep up.
But why? Give the same BAB and in general the Rogue is the "great dex, low Str" guy and we know that the variation between him and the fighter is no more than 5-6 points of to-hit, and we are all happy.
----------------
Class abilities have to be appropriate to level.
For a multiclassing system to work, you must get level-appropriate stuff each level.
So lets say that I am a level 7 Wizard. As my 8th level, I take a Rogue level.
Its my 8th level. Why am I getting 1st level abilities?
I should be getting an 8th level Rogue ability.
Look at Sorcerers. The spell list that they get(and can potentially get with crazy feats) runs the range of sneaking, meleeing, blasting, talking, ect, and they do just fine with a grab bag of abilities.
They do just fine because at each level they get new higher level stuff. Just because you took Invis at 4th level does not mean that it was a waste of your time at 8th level to take Improved Invis, or took Fireball at 6th level. Each of the abilities is fundamentally useful, scales nicely with an increase in caster level, and doesn't need some crazy synergy with other stuff to work as intended.
By that token, I don't see a problem with a guy taking Rage at level 1, Evasion at level 2, Death attack at level 6, and Polymorph at level 9. Sounds pretty good to me actually.
Sure, some people will pick bad spells/abilities. Some people can't play the game well, and there is little a DM can do about it except make sure the monsters don't attack that guy too often.
Keep the skills as "out of combat" abilties and "out of combat" spells off the "by level" choices, and you get guys that have stuff that works at theuir level in a pretty decent way, unlike a Rogue 1 Sorcerer 1, Wizard 1, Fighter 1, Cleric 1(which I actually saw once in play), who is not a 5th level character at all.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
K wrote:Basicially, all the variation of BAB and saves is a joke.
Yes. In a logarythmic advancement set-up you by definition do not need to expand the numerical disparity between any two characters. Ever.
This can, as Rapanui pointed out, lead to a problem where it is difficult to model character growth - but you can do it to some extent by handing out selectable numeric enhancements with a built-in maximum difference. If people can add linearly to Might or Magic, but can't raise either to more than 4 more than than the other - you've got a system in which a Might character can grow into being a Might and Magic guy, or even just a Magic guy, if that's what you want to do. Everything stays on the same scale at the same level and people can still choose their direction of character growth.
Now, it is an extra layer of complication, but there you go.
K wrote:Class abilities have to be appropriate to level.
Yes. But you aren't going far enough. All of your class abilities have to be appropriate for your level. Not just the ones you got this level - all of them. Simply speaking, Invisibility has some utility at 12th level. Not a whole lot of utility, and there are better spells available. But if your level 2 spells include Invis, you will occassionally care. OTOH, if your spell is Flaming Sphere, you will not care. Ever.
Rather than giving people merely the ability to select a class ability relevent to their character level at each level - people should have their abilities scale to character level. Otherwise you get into a situation where somebody might have 15 different levels, but only the last three or so actually count. At that point we're basically playing "Caterpiller: The Transformation", and I don't really want to do that. I don't want to have 12 levels of class features that only take up space on my character sheet, and I don't want all my old adventures to be superfluous when I get to the new levels.
----
On More and Less Classes:
So there has been some spirited debate between Random Casualty and Catharz about this subject, and I think you guys are talking past each other a bit.
It doesn't make any difference to how many abilities there are how many classes there are.
If there are less classes, say "Strong Heroes" and "Tough Heroes" and such, there will be a lot of selectable class features. When new stuff is written, and it will be written, it will take the form of new class abilities you can select. If there are more classes, such as "Wilderness Scout" and "Drunken Warmaster", there will be a lot of selectable classes. In fact, there will be the same number of classes to choose from as level abilities to choose from out of the various limited class options. And people will write new classes at approximately the same rate as they would write new selectable class features.
So what's the difference? Not much. And everything.
The difference is "The Gist". If someone has "Fast Hero: 8" written on their character sheet, people can immediately get the "gist" of what their character does - he does "fast stuff". Her might be a swashbuckler or a jewel thief or a time wizard or whatever, but people will understand that he has some sort of dexterity dependent powers. They will understand that the character will probably benefit from a dex boost, etc. On the other hand, if someone has "Shadow Stalker 2/ Time Mage 4/ Cat Burglar 2" written on their character sheet, this will specify exactly what their character can do - to anyone who happens to remember off hand what exactly it is that a Shadow Stalker or Time Mage does - but if you are one of those people who doesn't know what those classes do, you won't have gained any information at all as to what the character is capable of.
And that's basically the debate you should be having. Would you rather know exactly what every character who had an ability you were familiar with was capable of, or would you rather know generally what every character was capable of?
And for that matter, how finely would you like that general knowledge? Knowing that a a guy is a "Fast Hero" and has Speed Powers of some kind is not perhaps as specific as knowing that a guy is a "Bard" and that they therefore have Charisma-based music powers - assuming that you are familiar with the Bard class. In short, if you want general information about a character's role - how specific can it get before it's not general anymore?
-Username17
-
The_Hanged_Man
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
I think it'd be better to have 6-10 classes. Modern seems much cleaner to me w/ 6 basic "classes" that are very optimizable. You know what the Tough guy is about, but you aren't hamstrung into any specific way of being "Tough."
IMO, after a few levels, even knowing classes isn't that helpful for giving character knowledge. For instance, a Wizard13 could be a blaster guy, a polymorph guy, or a save or die guy, a Fighter 13 could be an archer guy, a melee guy, or a charge guy.
OT, but here's the thing I wonder about. In 3.5, for instance, there are dozens of spells that basically do the same thing - damage. There are hundreds of feat/weapon/class ability combos that do the same thing - damage. There's a certain amount of kewl in casting a fireball instead of a lightning bolt or a Cone of Cold, or doing SA damage instead of a massive charge, but is that kewl worth all the rule complexity?
IMO, after a few levels, even knowing classes isn't that helpful for giving character knowledge. For instance, a Wizard13 could be a blaster guy, a polymorph guy, or a save or die guy, a Fighter 13 could be an archer guy, a melee guy, or a charge guy.
OT, but here's the thing I wonder about. In 3.5, for instance, there are dozens of spells that basically do the same thing - damage. There are hundreds of feat/weapon/class ability combos that do the same thing - damage. There's a certain amount of kewl in casting a fireball instead of a lightning bolt or a Cone of Cold, or doing SA damage instead of a massive charge, but is that kewl worth all the rule complexity?
Re: What classes are needed?
I'd rather know in general what everyone does, rather than in specific what people whose abilities I am familiar with does. The reason I say this is because -- if I want to know in specific what people whose abilities I am familiar with do, that's what the names of the abilities are for.
In particular, I want to know what role a character fills, and then, by looking at his abilities, I want to be able to determine how he fills it. For instance, if a character's role in the party is "melee/damage sponge, wilderness/information" -- let's give him a name that indicates that. If I want to know how he fills his role as a melee combatant who sucks up a bunch of damage, I can look further down at what abilities he has and see stuff like "Roll With It", "Bloodthirsty Rage", "Fast Healing" -- whatever.
--d.
Re: What classes are needed?
The_Hanged_Man at [unixtime wrote:1102449943[/unixtime]]
OT, but here's the thing I wonder about. In 3.5, for instance, there are dozens of spells that basically do the same thing - damage. There are hundreds of feat/weapon/class ability combos that do the same thing - damage. There's a certain amount of kewl in casting a fireball instead of a lightning bolt or a Cone of Cold, or doing SA damage instead of a massive charge, but is that kewl worth all the rule complexity?
It probably will not surprise you to learn that my opinion on this is "no".
In fact, I think the kewl could be enhanced by just letting the player specify all that stuff. So instead of having a boatload of weapons out of which there are about four that are used by every character ever -- we can totally just make doing good damage or knowing cool tricks or whatever an ability that you can select, and then you basically just make up whatever weapon is associated with that.
So if you want to be the guy who fights orcs with a big sword and does massive damage when he connects solidly (big crit multiplier) -- you can. And if you want to be the guy who fights orcs with a big sword and causes serious wounds regularly because of the wavy blade of his weapon (broad threat range)_-- you still can. If you want to be the guy who fights with twin daggers and still keeps up with the axe-wielding barbarian -- you can. And if you want to be the wizard who straps on a sword because it's a cool accessory even though he doesn't actually know how to do it and therefore continues to do wizard-level damage whenever he actually hauls it out and whacks people with it -- you totally can, because the system just doesn't give a damn what weapon you use.
--d.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
THM wrote:OT, but here's the thing I wonder about. In 3.5, for instance, there are dozens of spells that basically do the same thing - damage. There are hundreds of feat/weapon/class ability combos that do the same thing - damage. There's a certain amount of kewl in casting a fireball instead of a lightning bolt or a Cone of Cold, or doing SA damage instead of a massive charge, but is that kewl worth all the rule complexity?
That's so close to being on topic that unless we get really sidetracked by it, I see no reason to split it off as a new thread.
The short answer is: No. Not even close.
The longer answer is: To an extent, but that extent is less than the extent that D&D currently takes it to.
---
Here's the deal:when you are playing Diablo II, it is cool that the Lightning/Cold Sorceress plays a bit differently from the Cold/Fire Sorceress, right? But on the other hand, the game mechanical differences between that Ice Dart and the Ice Comet are not cool, right? There's no particular reason why there should be different "choices" about which little direct fire ice thingy you shoot at people, because those are all thematically the same (and one of them is game mechanically superior anyway, so it even more doesn't matter).
So there's room in this world for damage over time strategies, damage that comes with making enemies weaker, and just bigger damage. There's room for more smaller attacks and less bigger attacks. There's room for attacks that are bigger sometimes and smaller other times. And so on and so forth.
In short, there is room in the game for Scorching Ray and Acid Arrow, there's room for Ice Burst and Sneak Attack. But there's no room for Scorching Ray and Lesser Fire Orb - that's just stupid. The existence of Sneak Attack precludes there being any room in the world for Ambush and Iajitsu Focus.
---
As long as something has its own unique schtick, that's fine. If, on the other hand, an attack is just like some other attack except that it uses slightly different mechanics - screw it. If you can't easily explain the difference between two attack forms to your mom (or someone else who doesn't have any idea how the game mechanics of D&D work, if your mom is a bad example here), it has no bussiness being two attacks in the game.
I would really be totally OK with having some set number of attack types that all hurt people and had general rules that covered them. Acid might all be lingering, and the degree to which it lingers could be extrapolatable from the strength of the attack. You might even have a set-up in which Cold or Lightning stunned opponents and/or had an inherently faster rate of fire. It's not terribly important what it is, it just has to be consistent.
And once it is consistent, making new classes or ability sets for a class would by definition become a lot easier.
-Username17
-
RandomCasualty
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1102427501[/unixtime]]
But the huge advantage of having 57,098 PrCs floating around is for people like me, who are too lazy or not creative enough to invent that great a variety of PrCs.
I can look at the Belly Dancer of Seven Veils and go, 'Cool, I never would have thought of that!'
The problem with this is that it's a trap. Most of the time it ends up being cool flavor text and an overall crap class. Because if you take most of these classes that look cool, the majority of the time you'll be screwing your character over powerwise unless the DM rewrites it.
The fact of the matter is that rewriting classes is hard. They stil have yet to get the core classes right. More classes simply means more problems with balance.
If you just want character ideas, why not just have a "book of character ideas" Maybe with a few unique feats for each character idea or what not. But still using the basic core classes.
Should a dervish really be all that different from any other dexterity based warrior? Shouldn't we just have a single dex based warrior class that handles dervishes, tempests, bladesigners (the non-magic part anyway) and swashbucklers?
The main thing I really hate about PrCs is the absolute need to take them. It raises the power bar to the point that if there's no PrC for your character concept, it just can't work. For every new idea PrCs spawn there's another ten that they take away because the PrC for that specialty is either too shtty to consider or nonexistent.
I'd like to have a game where PCs can make the characters they want without adding huge blocks of new content like new classes.
-
RandomCasualty
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1102453308[/unixtime]]
So if you want to be the guy who fights orcs with a big sword and does massive damage when he connects solidly (big crit multiplier) -- you can. And if you want to be the guy who fights orcs with a big sword and causes serious wounds regularly because of the wavy blade of his weapon (broad threat range)_-- you still can. If you want to be the guy who fights with twin daggers and still keeps up with the axe-wielding barbarian -- you can. And if you want to be the wizard who straps on a sword because it's a cool accessory even though he doesn't actually know how to do it and therefore continues to do wizard-level damage whenever he actually hauls it out and whacks people with it -- you totally can, because the system just doesn't give a damn what weapon you use.
This would actually be a pretty interesting idea. Getting rid of the idea of inherent weapon damages and making everything totally class based. This would probably go best with the MIght/Magic idea, because things would seem to be fairly black and white in this system.
That is you wouldn't see much difference between a barbarian and a duelist, The duelist would just choose to have better threat range and the barbarian would choose damage bonuses.
Re: What classes are needed?
Keep in mind from a marketing perspective, WotC continues to pump out PrC after PrC after PrC for a simple reason ... 3.5 D&D fans *love* them.
Whatever final system you guys finally create, it simply must have limitless PrC potential ... or limitless "customizable" PrC potential with an absolutely staggering amount of class ability permutations. A newly constructed game that concentrates on minimalist core roles such as martial types, spellcaster types, and skill-based types may be easier to create, but flies in the face of mass diversity and specialty niches that the D&D pubic seems to like.
The D&D fans love this crap ... even though I don't particularly care for excessive PrC's. A fistful of PrC's in every D&D sourcebook is one of the biggest selling points for future publications.
How do I know this? Well, my brother-in-law is a Hasbro/WotC marketing exec who just happens to actually play D&D. Poll after poll of buying customers shows PrC's sell big-time. Moreso than new feats, new spells, new core classes, new game mechanics, or new magical items.
Just thought I would pass that on as I admire the intent of what you guys are trying to accomplish.
Good luck!
Whatever final system you guys finally create, it simply must have limitless PrC potential ... or limitless "customizable" PrC potential with an absolutely staggering amount of class ability permutations. A newly constructed game that concentrates on minimalist core roles such as martial types, spellcaster types, and skill-based types may be easier to create, but flies in the face of mass diversity and specialty niches that the D&D pubic seems to like.
The D&D fans love this crap ... even though I don't particularly care for excessive PrC's. A fistful of PrC's in every D&D sourcebook is one of the biggest selling points for future publications.
How do I know this? Well, my brother-in-law is a Hasbro/WotC marketing exec who just happens to actually play D&D. Poll after poll of buying customers shows PrC's sell big-time. Moreso than new feats, new spells, new core classes, new game mechanics, or new magical items.
Just thought I would pass that on as I admire the intent of what you guys are trying to accomplish.
Good luck!
-
RandomCasualty
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
PrCs are popular but overall bad for the game as a whole, because they're unbalanceable. Why a game system that can't even balance its own core classes would go haphazardly producing a class for every little concept that comes to mind is beyond me.
Now, I realize that you can publish a book with PrCs and people will buy it, just like WotC can sell endless packs of M:tG cards and people buy them.
But PrCs are just not good for the game. And what I'm trying to do is build a better game, not necessarily produce the latest version of 'paper crack' that we can sell to people. Sure if you want to get rich, PrCs are the way to go, but as far as designing a good game that actually works, PrCs suck.
Now, I realize that you can publish a book with PrCs and people will buy it, just like WotC can sell endless packs of M:tG cards and people buy them.
But PrCs are just not good for the game. And what I'm trying to do is build a better game, not necessarily produce the latest version of 'paper crack' that we can sell to people. Sure if you want to get rich, PrCs are the way to go, but as far as designing a good game that actually works, PrCs suck.
-
The_Hanged_Man
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: What classes are needed?
Well, my brother-in-law is a Hasbro/WotC marketing exec who just happens to actually play D&D. Poll after poll of buying customers shows PrC's sell big-time. Moreso than new feats, new spells, new core classes, new game mechanics, or new magical items.
That's a good point, but it's largely there b/c PrC's are the only "product" WotC puts out that actually feeds the main attraction of RPG's - IMAGINATION. Everything else is dry numbers, lists of names, and descriptions almost completely free of those annoying details and stuff that drive players' imaginations. Even campaign sourcebooks contain little interesting stuff these days.
Here's the thing. You don't need to have hordes of PrC's to pump out product that feeds the imagination. You just need hooks for people to think about.
You could have a relatively small list of classes and/or abilities, but provide interesting ways for those powers to be used. For example. you could have the "Tough" class, w/ abilities that involved surviving variosu attacks. Pretty generic and boring. But now you have tons of options for publishing.
You could then pump out books w/ ways to make that "Tough" class slightly different. "Tough" could give you the basic ability to have additional hit points or Damage Resistance or something. Small tweaks to the rules. For example, you could be "armor-based" Tough, and have lots of options for using armor in kewl ways to avoid damage. You could be "regeneration-based" Tough, replacing DR w/ various sorts of regeneration. You could be a more offensive Tough, and turn some of the damaage back against your opponent.
-or-
You could just pump out idea books, ways to make Tough kewl and original w/o really altering the mechanics at all.
-or-
You could pump out books w/ "generic" campaign-specific Tough archetypes. The modern Tough, the classical Tough, the Medieval Tough, the Renaissance Tough, the dwarf Tough, etc.
Pen and Paper has to compete w/ computer RPG's, and doing that by pumping out lots of classes is going to be self-defeating eventually. The only advantage PnP has is imagination - PnP isn't limited by the imagination of the game developers. I think Frank and Crew are going the right way to find an evolving niche for PnP RPG's.