Effective Classes Following the Designers' Intent

[veekie]

That's a very valid point, one thing that might be better would be to split druids into two classes, one with wild shape but losing a lot of other class abilities, and another without WS

That might do as a general rebalancing druid thing, but I think whats being attempted here is to stick to their original vision of the designers.

[ThisGuy01]

In that case, I think they need to get more on with the tree hugging and less on with the shapeshifting   On that note...why not just let them turn into different plants   It's easier to hug a tree when you are a tree.

[Carnap]

I'm jealous, your classes are perfect. I got only one point - Fighter's Threaten quickly loses its steam due to feat-effect immunities.

[bkdubs123]

I'm jealous, your classes are perfect. I got only one point - Fighter's Threaten quickly loses its steam due to feat-effect immunities.

Huh. For some reason I was thinking that intimidate worked just fine against fear-immunes. I'll edit Threaten.

[bkdubs123]

So... taking a quick look at the classes Druids and Monks stand out as the biggest offenders when it comes to the designers having no real intentions on what they were supposed to contribute to a party. Even Bards were clearly meant to constantly buff his companions and Sorcerers were meant to spam Fireballs all day, though in the face of the Wizard's intended role, the Sorcerer is mostly obsoleted (of course we know that the designers hated Sorcerers).

That puts a kind of hitch in my plans. I suppose I just won't redesign the Druid or Monk, and probably not the Sorcerer either, because the designers didn't intend on them being played (at least not properly).

The Rogue plays as it was intended to as far as I can tell, but what do you guys think? I have a couple ideas like maybe folding in some Factotum stuff, or the other thought was merging the Rogue with the Spellthief and the Swashbuckler.

[ThisGuy01]

Yeah...I think any fix on the monk will be get scores of replies about how it 'doesn't fit the theme' because they're so...odd? i guess is the best word that comes into mind.  I think one way to help them might be to put them closer to the 3.0 monk.  To me and my group members, the 3.0 monk was better in a lot of respects.  A big help would be upping BAB IMO, but again even that would gather a bunch of angry replies probably.  In my campaigns, I allow a few things for monks;
   1) Monks have d10 HD
   2) Monks can wear light armor and lose no benefits of the class
   3) No multiclass restriction (which it seems a lot of people agree with)
   4) I allow slow fall to act like feather fall except they can fall 20ft/level, and at 20th level I up it to unlimited.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Multiclass restrictions were added because playtesters thought they fit the flavor, not because the designers originally wanted them.

[veekie]

Well, I did make one of them monk fixes myself, how true to the spirit of the designers though, I can't be sure.

[bkdubs123]

Well, the Monk was given absolutely nothing that it's good at. Oh, wait, it can run fast. Except that running fast doesn't solve a single problem or contribute anything at all to the rest of the party. That's what I mean when I say that the designers didn't expect it to be played, well that and it didn't fit the balance paradigm that they built the rest of the game around.

The expected party is Healer, Blaster, Tank, and Trapfinder. But then of course, one member of the party also needs to be the "Toolbot," which is the role that deals with esoteric situations like invisible foes, or interdimensional travel, or other odd things. This is more a "fifth wheel" type role, but it is not enough to focus a class around.

Classes like Barbarian, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Bard do not fit the expected party roles and thus their balance was an afterthought at best as it pertained to the balance of the rest of the game especially.

And then of course, basically no class other than the Rogue actually functions in its intended role and the Rogue's intended role is really lame. Literally, if the Expert NPC class had Trapfinding it would function equally well in the role the Rogue was intended to fulfill.

[Carnap]

In core there feats related to feinting and rogue is only class able to utilize them properly (access to bluff + melee fighter). Think about it I'm not sure about the spell-stealing thing. Some of the people would have more mundane rogues. Spell-stealing is a nice option, but more as ACF than standard class feature.

And I think that designers planned monk as extremely mobile glass cannon, so you could choose this route.

[ThisGuy01]

It seems that the monk was supposed to run up, punch a little, and run away.  Spring attack seems almost made for them, at least our party's monk player loved the feat.  When I think of what the monk is supposed to do, i always imagine Bruce Lee just beating people while dodging everything that gets close to him.  Now that's an unarmed fighter.

[bkdubs123]

In core there feats related to feinting and rogue is only class able to utilize them properly (access to bluff + melee fighter). Think about it

Well, sure, but... how far can I really push the "I feint people" role?

I'm not sure about the spell-stealing thing. Some of the people would have more mundane rogues. Spell-stealing is a nice option, but more as ACF than standard class feature.

I guess I probably agree with you there. Sadly. I mean, like I said the standard Rogue plays the way it was intended, but Trapmonkey is a lame role. Also the standard Rogue is Tier 4 and I was hoping to bring it up to Tier 3.

I'll keep working on it.

[Carnap]

Well, sure, but... how far can I really push the "I feint people" role?

I feint people into stabbing other people. Cinematic and potent.

I guess I probably agree with you there. Sadly. I mean, like I said the standard Rogue plays the way it was intended, but Trapmonkey is a lame role. Also the standard Rogue is Tier 4 and I was hoping to bring it up to Tier 3.

I'll keep working on it.

Class with UMD isn't T4 by any means. And disarming traps is boring, but setting traps (as Combat Trapsmith) on the fly is quite a fun.

[Shadeseraph]

I agree that it's very possible that they wanted the druid to be an offensive minded cleric. The lack of armor combined with the amount of powerful offensive spells and buffs seems to point that way.

The monk... I frankly think that they just put together what they though were a bunch of cool features and went along with the result. For instance, they liked the flurry of fails feature, but though that giving him full BAB was too much because the number of attacks they could get was "too much", and decided that the number of attacks would make up for the lack of BAB.

If I had to choose some role for the monk, I'd say that if they wanted him to be something, it would be some kind of "special ops". Kind of a scout specialized on dealing with softer, more dangerous enemies (such as casters or illithids). While the fighter and the rogue work together, the monk is kind of a solo character who goes forward avoiding enemies thanks to his "awesome" defenses and "superior" mobility in order to reach the squishy casters. The huge amount of defensive abilities, combined with an improved stunning blow, at least, point to this.

If you want a more serious role, I'd make him either a mobile BFC or a fast striker, as some have said before.

BTW, love what you are doing.

[Prime32]

The monk was supposed to be a skirmisher. Probably. Give it standard-action flurry, Spring Attack, ability to ignore difficult terrain, a fly speed, and teleportation/etherealness in that order. Watch Dragonball Z.

If you want a mage-killer, let him use his Stunning Fist to dispel and throw in the epic feat upgrades to Deflect Arrows. Watch Fist of the North Star.

Also let him count as a larger size category so he can trip/grapple effectively (unarmed damage could be subsumed into this), and maybe grant freedom of movement.


EDIT: Kenshiro from FotNS is very close to a D&D monk in abilities. To the point where the class could actually have been based on him. His combat style is based on striking weak points, he can catch and return projectiles, his signature move is a barrage of rapid punches, and his ultimate technique turns him intangible.

However, Kenshiro takes things a bit further. He can make people explode by poking them with his little finger, or force them to tell the truth, or cure poisons, or erase their memories. He can catch bullets and throw them harder than they were fired. His punches can destroy tanks. His intangibility fills him with the fighting skills of everyone he has fought and causes anything he passes through to explode. Plus he can carry enormous loads, withstand absurd amounts of damage, travel faster than sight, and copy the techniques of others.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Yeah, the serene guardian goes closer to Kenshiro.  Honestly, I'd say that monks should probably gain all of that PrC's abilities.

[bkdubs123]

Well the point is to determine what the designers expected from the classes and redesign them so that they perform well within those constraints without exploding out and doing anything or everything else. When I can't figure out what a class was supposed to do (likely because the designers didn't care about the class or playtest it (or even more likely BOTH)), well, I've decided that I'm just going to pretend it doesn't exist.

I've already rewritten a lot of the classes and assigned them whatever roles I expected of them, but that's not within the scope of this project.

When it comes to the Druid and Monk specifically, I agree that I think they just threw on a bunch of class features that they thought were cool, never once thought about a role they were supposed to fill in a 4 man party, and I'm about 97% sure they didn't playtest them.

The Barbarian functions as intended, but, like the Rogue, I might try and bring it up to Tier 3. The Bard functions as intended as far as I can tell. The Druid and Monk didn't even have an intended function, so theeeeyy're out! The Paladin doesn't function as it was intended and will get a rewrite. The Ranger... barely functions as intended and will likely get a rewrite. The Sorcerer sort of functions as intended, but it probably needs a slight rewrite.

[veekie]

Well, its arguable that the druid has a function, but they underestimated the oomph of the function. The monk is hopeless though.

[bkdubs123]

Well, its arguable that the druid has a function, but they underestimated the oomph of the function. The monk is hopeless though.

I would argue that just because the Druid is really powerful doesn't mean that it ever had any intended party role. Being able to obsolete every other member of the party isn't a party role, and it surely wasn't the intention of the designers. I have a feeling the designers probably thought the Druid was one of the weaker core classes.

Now, I'm thinking about the Paladin. It needs a reboot to enable the designers' original intention. Does anyone here have an issue with my initial assumptions toward the Paladin's role? Frontliner, Tank, Off-healer?

I know a Paladin without Smite isn't going to sit well with at least 90% of D&D fans, but really, Smite is a striker mechanic, it's DPS, not tanking. Plus, calling on divine power to smite foes seems more like a warpriest action to me, a la Cleric. I don't think the Paladin needs to be smiting people if I want to rebuild it to be a Tank/Off-Healer.

[Carnap]

Now, I'm thinking about the Paladin. It needs a reboot to enable the designers' original intention. Does anyone here have an issue with my initial assumptions toward the Paladin's role? Frontliner, Tank, Off-healer?

I know a Paladin without Smite isn't going to sit well with at least 90% of D&D fans, but really, Smite is a striker mechanic, it's DPS, not tanking. Plus, calling on divine power to smite foes seems more like a warpriest action to me, a la Cleric. I don't think the Paladin needs to be smiting people if I want to rebuild it to be a Tank/Off-Healer.

Just make smite forcing enemies to attack paladin. It would help him in tanking.

What would you do with a special mount?