Author Topic: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]  (Read 250294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #140 on: September 15, 2008, 06:38:32 PM »
I don't know enough about binders to talk about them with any experience.  All I know is they use vestiges and are found in ToM.  It also sounds like they're either weak, or super awesome if you allow in some new vestiges.  Still, we could probably discuss them in the Other Classes thread, if anyone has any opinions on this.  Personally, I won't use them in my games, but that's only because I don't own ToM.

Giving monks Mettle could work.  Mettle + Evasion + all good saves + good touch AC might be enough to drop Spell Resistance entirely.  Really, very little gets past that.  Thoughts?
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #141 on: September 15, 2008, 07:40:50 PM »
Dude, please stop this numbering thing and just quote. I can't tell what the hell you're responding to half the time.

1) I don't know what action movies you're judging from. I know that the ones I'm looking at...it's not that the Hero(es) can take mountains of damage, it's that they don't get hurt to begin with.

Usually the damage that they take is merely "flesh wounds" (see Last Action Hero for a meta-commentary on that phenomenon), whereas bad guys drop like flies.

In fact, most action movies behave as if they had D&D-style HPs by level. High-level characters (good guys and bad guys) can take punch after punch, even stabbings and shootings, but they're never portrayed as serious injuries. If low-level good guys/bad guys take any hits at all, the injures are portrayed as more serious or even fatal. They fall down and stay there. Similarly, fighter types can take a pounding while thinker-types drop like sacks of wheat; note, for example, that Giles gets cold-cocked more than anyone else in Buffy.

To switch to Wuxia, the blows of the cinematic HK martial artists can break six-inch-thick hardwood, but they hit each other dozens of times per fight. Thus, logically, those fighters have way, way more physical fortitude than the hardwood, stone, and metal that the fighters punch into scraps for effect. If we are to try to emulate this behaviour in a rule-bound game, gobs and gobs of HPs works quite well, but we have to utterly abandon all notions of how much damage certain kinds of attacks or weapons actually do in the real world.

That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it.

Quote
2) Mmhm. But "demigod" should be pushed into epic levels. As noted, even Cuchulain is going to be outclassed by an Epic Barbarian, which is weird.

Sure, I agree. The progression would be something like this:

Low-level (1-5): nearly human
Low-Mid (6-10): genuinely above average
Mid-level (11-15): Big Damn Heroes
High-level (16-20): legendary
Epic (21-30): god-like

Quote
3) I'd rather have requirements. That way it's clear what the minimum to do X well is. If you don't have that, you're going to fail. "Good scores" is too vague. Is a 14 good? Yessss..but you don't want to have only 14 Charisma as a paladin if you can help it.

Best of both worlds: specify a recommended score. "Do not play a Paladin unless you have a minimum Str 17 and Cha 15" (or whatever number you think is appropriate). That way people still have the option if they want to play the character with lower stats than the recommended numbers (because playing under-powered characters can actually be fun if that's what you're into; yes really it can), but they have a clear idea of what they really ought to have to play the class to its fullest.

Quote
4) Social freaks, yes. Mutants, no. And having the PCs be one of a fraction of a percentage point of people is good for some campaigns (and power levels), not for others.

I think we just disagree on this, then. To me, adventurers/heroes just are those gifted lunatics who decide to step outside of the normative social order and are physically/mentally/spiritually capable of surviving the sword-and-sorcery lifestyle. It's the only way I can think of to justify a functioning game world. The vast majority of people in it have to not be in PC classes.

Quote
5) No, but saying "You can do up to X damage with a dagger, dragons have  DR Y/-" would be quite simple and reasonable.

Sure, that'd work, but you're no longer saying "you can't kill a dragon with a dagger." What you're saying is "if you get really good with a dagger, you might overcome the dragon's inherent toughness."

Quote
6) I don't mind if other people play god-like at very high levels (since D&D level progression can theoretically reach 1 short of infinity), I do mind having the levels I want to play in forced to be 1-8 because 9-20 becomes increasingly demigodic in a hurry.

Okay, that's reasonable. But having just finished a campaign that went to level 17, I don't think we got anywhere near god-like. I think the warrior types arrived at a few notches above the kind of ridiculous skills that you see in, say, Lord of the Rings. The spell-casters (Cleric and Wizard) became pretty damn crazy powerful, but that to me could be addressed by taking spell-casters down a few pegs. I don't think we actually have that much to worry about in regards to the non-magic classes.

Quote
9) Not really. There are hundreds (thousands?!) of spells out there. I wouldn't be in favor of cutting them down to "ten or less per level", but "hundreds" of options is excessive.

Sorry, I misread that. I thought someone was referring to keeping the number of castable spells per day down to a more reasonable amount, which is why I suggested a different "curve" to the per-day progression: more low-level spells (lots of Magic Missiles and Mage Armour spells), but very few of the upper-level spells. That's just off the top of my head, though.

Quote
11) There's no point doing a rewrite so minimal that all it does is patch the biggest holes and make it so that anyone who doesn't like VERY HIGH FANTASY is shit out of luck. If I wanted to play solely Earthdawn or GURPS, I would. I would like to be able to play D&D and do things at a moderately cinematic level but not be forced to either stop advancing really early on or play characters who create empires by personal fighting ability.

Part of that choice is up to the players and the DM. As a DM you can say "no splat books without my explicit permission" or "I, as DM, will open access to only certain prestige classes," and etc. The Core books aren't nearly perfect, but it's a hell of a lot easier to keep the power-level of a game down to a reasonable limit by not going into The Complete Book of Eye-Gauging. Similarly, you can just not give out all that many magic items, if you want to. If the players choose or allow a game to get insane in its power level, then that's largely on them. The rule system will never, I repeat never be able to keep people from finding ways to go above and beyond the intended power level. Somebody with the will and time on their hands can find ways to break any rule-bound system eventually. You're much better off just seeking out players who share your preferred power level.

All that being said, I do actually agree with you. I think a lot of "balancing" efforts result in power creep. What I'd like to see is a full range of options, from "gritty realistic" to "ridiculous/god-like," and not just by playing certain level ranges (although that is definitely among your options!), but relatively easy ways to keep characters from getting crazy as they progress through the levels. As I said, though, unless you start to introduce really ludicrous levels of "optimisation," that's not all that much of a problem; and if you actually play with "optimisers" (people who enjoy building characters as much as playing them), then you either resign yourself to that style of play, your find new players. No use trying to ice-skate uphill.

Quote
I have nothing against epic/superhuman level, Exalted is an interesting game that I wouldn't mind trying at some point. But I mind the tier system being set up so that the majority of the pre-epic game is like that, and

I thought the general idea was to bring everything to Tier 3, going by JaronK's Tier system. That seems reasonable to me.

Quote
any pretense towards being realistic is abandoned simply because actually getting hurt is unfun.

That's not an explanation that anyone has offered. Please don't put words in people's mouths. If you're looking for realism, D&D is not your game. I'm sorry. It's just not.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #142 on: September 15, 2008, 07:45:48 PM »
Quote
Drop Binders, because they're increasingly seeming entirely broken.

Please. Tell me you're joking.

Binders are strong, but not outright abusable. Their strength partially lies in versatility (though by no means Wizard-level versatility) but not in flexibility - that is, on the spur of the moment, you gotta work with the hand you're dealt. Swapping vestiges around is not exactly a cakewalk and often CANNOT be done in the heat of battle. Their strengths are heavily reliant on the choice they make for the day (and some vestiges only really work in conjunction with others). Much of their power is reliant on DM approval ("Hey, can I use a vestige from here or there?"). A quick trip to the Consolidated Binder's handbook can give you a more realistic outlook on these guys.
Quote
Giving monks Mettle could work.  Mettle + Evasion + all good saves + good touch AC might be enough to drop Spell Resistance entirely.  Really, very little gets past that.  Thoughts?

Sounds great to me. Pretty much every single spell targets those (with very, very few exceptions). Mettle doesn't account for spells with no numeric variables, though (Charm Person? Suggestion?). Maybe an ability to reroll Will saves, too?
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Risada

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • Wearing this outfit in the name of SCIENCE!
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #143 on: September 15, 2008, 07:56:57 PM »
Quote
Giving monks Mettle could work.  Mettle + Evasion + all good saves + good touch AC might be enough to drop Spell Resistance entirely.  Really, very little gets past that.  Thoughts?

Sounds great to me. Pretty much every single spell targets those (with very, very few exceptions). Mettle doesn't account for spells with no numeric variables, though (Charm Person? Suggestion?). Maybe an ability to reroll Will saves, too?


I like this. I guess this one should be on the "balanced" Monk...

I just had an idea to the capstone for the Monk.... how about immunity to mind-affecting effects? It's strong, but at level 20, it might not be so gamebreaking....

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #144 on: September 15, 2008, 08:01:10 PM »
Well, I suppose what it says gives absolutely nothing away.

Usually the damage they take is merely "flesh wounds".
Or they don't get hit to begin with. Wuxia fighters do a heck of a lot of parrying and dodging, and people shooting at Clint Eastwood have an uncanny tendancy to miss.

As to mooks...mooks suffer from the "If you hit someone 'right', you can kill them pretty quickly."

No need for massive amounts of hit points...just don't get hurt to begin with.

The progression should be something like this.
I agree with that. I'd want to tinker around to make sure it works right in all ways, but that looks good at a glance.

Best of both worlds: Specify a recommended score.
I disagree. Sure, it can be fun. However, to use paladins as an example, no God, knightly order, or priest is going to pick someone who isn't quite qualified for the job. This isn't such a big deal with say, Fighters, but for paladins, monks, wizards, and clerics...I think they'd have to meet at least basic minimums. (14+, yes. 16+ recommended.)

To me, adventurers/heroes...
The problem is that while it makes sense for some campaigns for the PCs to well above and beyond their peers, it does not fit all. Having that be a default encourages people to think the world revolves solely around their PCs, which makes even less sense. Sure, the PCs are important. Sure, they're the stars of their stories. But if you run into the King's Champion, you ought to generally feel he's a pretty serious opponent, even if you wind up being able to beat the snot out of him.

Dragons and daggers. If I did it that way, I'd set it up so that the maximum damage you could do with a dagger, no matter how good you were or how good the dagger was, was less than the dragon's DR. People kill dragons with longswords, not daggers.

Godlike or not. I would probably write Aragorn and the like at 10th level or so. I'd want to test this skillwise before commiting to that number, however.

The problem is that D&D characters at that level (17) are enormously more capable of dealing with monsters and surviving damage than the quasi-semi-realistic heroic level of LotR and the like. This needs to be toned back a notch. Not too far, but enough that "Giant slayer" is a Great Feat, not a common (as things PCs and their peers do go) profession. At least on the <15 level scale. 16+, not so bad, necessarily.

Spells. I'd like to see both limited. A smart wizard knows when to use magic and when to rely on mundane things. Making him able to cast magic missile at whim doesn't fit with that. Still, I'd want to make sure the class has the strength to do mundane things before cutting down that far.

Balance and realism and...other stuff. No, but the rule system as written can certainly do a better job of supporting something other than people who will ascend to Godhood if the players stay interested long enough.

Tiers. I meant tier as in "Realistic: 1-3, semirealistic: 4-7, etc." Jaron's is fine. Just not the fact "PC power level" is in the superhuman range for too much of the game.

Realism. I don't mind D&D being Larger than Life. I do mind it throwing out any pretense towards anything like reality without reason or necessity.

If I wanted to play a truly realistic system, I'd stick with GURPS. I'd like D&D to be able to represent the level of "larger than life, heroes definately getting more chances than anyone in real life has, but not superhuman.", which is not impossible if the system is actually set up to do it.


Risada: I presume that would be all "hostile" mind-affecting effects. That is, a monk could still benefit from say, inspire courage.

I'm not sure if that's balanced or not, depends on how spells play out, but it sounds fitting to me offhand.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 08:04:08 PM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

Risada

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • Wearing this outfit in the name of SCIENCE!
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #145 on: September 15, 2008, 08:05:59 PM »
Risada: I presume that would be all "hostile" mind-affecting effects. That is, a monk could still benefit from say, inspire courage.

I'm not sure if that's balanced or not, depends on how spells play out, but it sounds fitting to me offhand.

Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant  :P

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #146 on: September 15, 2008, 08:08:26 PM »
Just making sure. There are people, most of which work for WotC, who would find a way to argue that it has to include both for "balance".

The only reason I'm leery about supporting this, other than fluff and the like, is that "immunity" as a good idea is debatable.

I'm not personally in favor of giving them +20 when the goal is the same, but it should be mentioned.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #147 on: September 15, 2008, 10:39:56 PM »
I just had an idea to the capstone for the Monk.... how about immunity to mind-affecting effects? It's strong, but at level 20, it might not be so gamebreaking....
It certainly seems reasonable, and I wouldn't call it gamebreaking.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

RabidPirateMan

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #148 on: September 15, 2008, 11:40:12 PM »
I am sorrowed that my suggestions were ignored.  Following the tradition of my Swedish ancestors, I, having been shamed from not been giving attention, shall kill myself.

Also, since its modern times, I'll make a post on my livejournal first.

Buuuuuuut before I go, I think this talk of capping weapon damage should go into the Equipment thread.

Risada

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • Wearing this outfit in the name of SCIENCE!
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #149 on: September 15, 2008, 11:54:43 PM »
I am sorrowed that my suggestions were ignored.  Following the tradition of my Swedish ancestors, I, having been shamed from not been giving attention, shall kill myself.

Also, since its modern times, I'll make a post on my livejournal first.

Buuuuuuut before I go, I think this talk of capping weapon damage should go into the Equipment thread.

You mean this one?

I came late to this monk party- sorry.  I know, nothing was getting done without me, and you're all glad I'm back.  I'll accept flowers and chocolates later.

So here are just some thoughts:

The monk suffers from MAD- it needs good Str, Dex, Con, Wis, and alright Int since it has such a good skill list.  Lets trim this down.  Monks also have good Saves; its probably the Monk's best class feature.  Lets make them reliant more on Dex, Con and Wis, and less on Int and Str.

I think Monks represent a sort of Vow of Poverty Light- they don't need to spend money on armor or weapons (theoretically), so they spend it more on stat boosting items and the like. 

That being said, here are my old fixes to the monk.  They take the skeleton given in the PhB and rework the numbers.  I tried to look at is as more of a mechanic deal than a fluff thing (and I whole heartedly support we all do this, since fluff is one reason 3.5 is imbalanced).

[spoiler]SR needs to scale and do better.  30 SR is laughable at 20, and 23 is laughable at 13.  Probably should get it at Level 3, 5, 7 or 8, since these levels are considered dumb dumb dumb.  I'd do it two ways: SR equal to 10+Monk level+Wis or Con modifier, or an instant "force field" equal to a Concentration Check (why do they have concentration as a class skill and nothing to use it on?) usable some number of times per day.  Each way has a stacking bonus, and is still easily bypassed by using no SR spells.

Attack options need to be better.  For some reason, the Monk has fast movement AND flurry of misses- why?  One denotes skirmishing and one denotes standing still...  The monk has a bunch of exotic light weapons that give bonuses to disarm... when having a light weapon means you get penalties to disarming...  which makes sense...  Anyway, to fix this:  Monks are suggested in the PhB to take Spring Attack, which is a basically useless feat for them.  The point was that they could move in, Stun/Trip/Disarm, then spring back if it didn't work, or stay and flurry a bunch of pitiful attacks.  Easy to change up:  Exotic monk weapons suffer no penalties for being light weapons for the purpose of tripping and disarming, and Stunning Fist attempts aren't burned if you miss or if they make the save (I was also thinking of changing the feat to add Str to the DC, and having Wis being a monk bonus to the DC- make it better for fighters to take, since they wont have as much MAD for wanting to be a brawler).  At level 4, Monks get a +1 bonus to Tripping, Disarming and Stunning, and +1 more every 4 levels.  Eh, basically a +5 bonus, but that's a size category +1.  Since Monks will be walking around with Enlarge Person potions, I'm thinking it would help a bit.

Grappling sucks because DDoor and Teleport are Verbal only, and the Monk needs two checks to pin their mouths shut (unless they are a CHOKER!).  Even so, Ring of Freedom of Movement negates this entirely.  I dunno how to fix this...  Grappling is confusing to me because I am stupid.

Monks AC sucks.  +4 at level 20 is a joke.  Double the bonuses over the levels:  Monks get AC bonuses at 3 and one more every two levels.  +9 AC isn't that bad, is it?

Clarify that Monk's Fists are capable of using TWF.  And get rid of this "Oh but I can make ten billion attacks with multiattack because jackie chan uses his hair as a weapon and I can too lol."  Clarification is nice:  How many US attacks does a monk get?

+6 skill points.  Reduce MAD:  A monk already needs Str, Dex, Con and Wis- don't add Int into the mix.  Either that or a scaling bonus to 'acrobatic' skills like Balance, Jump, Swim, etc equal to Monk Level/2 (like we ever need those checks to be that high.  I know the Ninja gets less of a bonus, but he'll come next- we cant fix the Monk/Rogue class until we fix the Monk).

Monk weapons should scale along side Unarmed Strike for damage, but not as much- there should be a reason to PAUWNCH someone in the face.  Scale it off the original damage dice and size it up equal to Monk level -4?  Heck, flurrying Shurikens might actually be useful then!

Speaking of clarification, make it so Monk's fists can be enchanted or allow them to use Gauntlets with their US damage.  Big thing right thar.

DDoor.  Make it 1+Dex mod per day, ala Jaunter.

[/spoiler]

Also, even though this really should go to the feat thread, Stunning Fist is so tied to the monk that its basically a class feature.  I'll add my fix here, changes in bold-

[spoiler]Stunning Fist
Prerequisites

Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6.StrIf the defender makes his save, you do not use up one of your daily attempts, bitch. You may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every three levels you have attained (but see Special), and no more than once per round. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned.

Special

A monk may select Stunning Fist as a bonus feat at 1st level, even if she does not meet the prerequisites. A monk who selects this feat may attempt a stunning attack a number of times per day equal to her monk level, plus one more time per day for every three levels she has in classes other than monk.  In addition, a monk adds his Wis modifier to the DC.  Shit, go stun something.

A fighter may select Stunning Fist as one of his fighter bonus feats. [/spoiler]

- The +9 to AC seems.... a lot.

- 6+ Skill Points is almost a must.

- the weapon scaling idea is nice.... do you have anything in mind?

- the DDoor is something to think about, I guess.... and maybe allowing a single attack at the end of the movement...

- nice tweak in Stunning Fist. I like it.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #150 on: September 16, 2008, 12:35:46 AM »
Drop Binders, because they're increasingly seeming entirely broken.

As to monks:

Mettle (Evasion but for Fort/Will) and Improved Mettle (not sure if this exists as is, but it should)

Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge.

Making it so that it is worse to stand toe to toe with a monk (despite the fact monks are skirmishers) is a very bad idea. Not arguing with giving them enough stunning attempts and the like to seriously ruin their opponent's day, but skirmishers should be weak in toe-to-toe...their strength is avoiding being forced into it.

The Run feat, instead of the current bosot to movement speed (slow them down a little. "Faster than a speeding bullet" is a bit much. Sure, monks should be fast, but not this fast.)

Nothing else comes to mind offhand.
I hate almost everything you say.

1. Drop binders.
2. Trying to manipulate the tier to being vague instead of specific.
3. Not wanting monks because of flavor

1. DO Not drop binders. You're saying drop binders, you freely admit than you've never played the class and clearly haven't researched it because of statements like "THE MORE I HEAR about binders the more they seem increasingly broken." -get educated, do some research. Its one of the "more balanced" classes

2. I want to point out that El Doesn't want a specfic comparison of tiers so we dont' have a comparison of things he doesn't have a full understanding of.
Also, if you notice he wants to go off of this...
Quote
Tiers. I meant tier as in "Realistic: 1-3, semirealistic: 4-7, etc." Jaron's is fine. Just not the fact "PC power level" is in the superhuman range for too much of the game.
Realistic in his cast is totally relative.  Its not cool. It's counter productive. Its a step in the wrong direction.

I love the tier system (tier 3) because its so specific, it give us a clear target group of classes that we're gunning for.
Having vague commentary like, realistic semi realistic won't work having so many people involed.

Having, benchmarks to meet, is very important in an argument of balancing.
Elennsar, slowly attempting to nudge the crowd toward, generic "what we feel" as a balancing point.

I believe this is terrible design.

3. Which he said from the begining so, saying he generically doesn't want an unarmed person to be the equivalant of an armed person in armor. Despite the fact that monks are doing something different with thier advancment.
Putting that together, along with things he's said in other threads. . . I'm dubious of his suggestions of balance.

The only reason I respond to him at all is because he's so vocal in these threads. I feel like he's being detrimental, to the discussion of the monk, and maybe to the rebalancing effort in general.

I don't know if its simple lack of knowledge, or stuborness, coupled with willful ignorance, but may of his suggestions "actually" run contrary to our goal.

Risada, I'm interested in hearing from you about what you specifically liked about Szatany's Ultimate Monk.
Also is there anything we should take from frank and K?

I like some of what Rabid Pirate suggests,  I just need a day to do a comparative analysis, vs the rest of the tier 3 stuff to check for power level up or down. Sorry about not commenting sooner, sir.

 
Quote
the DDoor is something to think about, I guess.... and maybe allowing a single attack at the end of the movement...
  LOVE It. A simple shadow pouncer tecnique.
It makes me more hopeful.

What do you think about the fist that immobilizes you?
The reflex save fist.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2008, 12:48:49 AM by Midnight_v »
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #151 on: September 16, 2008, 12:48:18 AM »
Quote
No need for massive amounts of hit points...just don't get hurt to begin with.

So what does this mean to you? Would you like characters to not earn HPs? I don't see how your interpretation of the "reality" (ha ha ha) of the situation helps us to rebalance a game that has always had HPs per level.

Quote
I disagree. Sure, it can be fun. However, to use paladins as an example, no God, knightly order, or priest is going to pick someone who isn't quite qualified for the job. This isn't such a big deal with say, Fighters, but for paladins, monks, wizards, and clerics...I think they'd have to meet at least basic minimums. (14+, yes. 16+ recommended.)

Being "qualified for the job" and having high scores are not necessarily the same thing. Give people the freedom to play the game as they see fit. What difference does it make to you?

Quote
The problem is that while it makes sense for some campaigns for the PCs to well above and beyond their peers, it does not fit all. Having that be a default encourages people to think the world revolves solely around their PCs, which makes even less sense. Sure, the PCs are important. Sure, they're the stars of their stories. But if you run into the King's Champion, you ought to generally feel he's a pretty serious opponent, even if you wind up being able to beat the snot out of him.

I misspoke. Let me clarify. There are two kinds of people in any RPG world, people who take PC classes (including bad guys), and "innocent bystanders," who have maybe a half-dozen HPs and a BA of -6. Your average peasant will never earn more HPs or get a higher BA or have saves go up. That's only way I can make any sense of a D&D world.

Quote
If I did it that way, I'd set it up so that the maximum damage you could do with a dagger, no matter how good you were or how good the dagger was, was less than the dragon's DR. People kill dragons with longswords, not daggers.

The average difference between the damage is 2 HPs (1d4: avg. 2.5, 1d8: avg. 4.5), and can fluctuate in a given damage roll to be as different as 7HPs (or more if you score a crit). Good luck making that math work, buddy.

Quote
I would probably write Aragorn and the like at 10th level or so. I'd want to test this skillwise before commiting to that number, however.

The problem is that D&D characters at that level (17) are enormously more capable of dealing with monsters and surviving damage than the quasi-semi-realistic heroic level of LotR and the like. This needs to be toned back a notch. Not too far, but enough that "Giant slayer" is a Great Feat, not a common (as things PCs and their peers do go) profession. At least on the <15 level scale. 16+, not so bad, necessarily.

I don't think that comparison is going to help us much. Middle-Earth just doesn't work according to the same rules as D&D (which is ironic, given that D&D is half based on Rings). There's very little "magic" in Middle-Earth. When Sam asks if the Elvish rope and cloaks are magic, they say "We don't know what that means. We just made it according to our techniques." Anduril isn't ever described as an enchanted sword. It's just made really, really, really well by Elvish blacksmithes. That's really compelling in fiction, but in an RPG, I really need to know what's "magic" and what's not. I mean, even in the movie (which increases the magic significantly), how in the hell does Aragorn defeat (but not kill) a gang of wraiths with a mundane sword and a torch? The implied "rules" of Middle-Earth just don't match D&D enough to make that comparison.

Quote
I'd like to see both limited. A smart wizard knows when to use magic and when to rely on mundane things. Making him able to cast magic missile at whim doesn't fit with that. Still, I'd want to make sure the class has the strength to do mundane things before cutting down that far.

Ah, now that's an interesting thought. Give them more mundane abilities, but less flash-bang magic. That's a great idea for a rewrite. So let's see... way more skills, more "bubble bubble, toil and trouble" abilities (like making potions and things ahead of time, instead of in-the-moment spells), more abilities that border on the magical but aren't quite actually. "Detect Magic" should be something that wizards can almost do by instinct, like they can smell dweomers. Man, throw a rough version of that together and I'd be happy to work on it with you.

Quote
No, but the rule system as written can certainly do a better job of supporting something other than people who will ascend to Godhood if the players stay interested long enough.

You keep saying that as if you've already demonstrated that it's true, but you haven't actually provided any examples of abilities that are out of proportion or established what qualifies as "god-like." Make an actual argument to support your claim and then maybe we'll have something to talk about.

Quote
If I wanted to play a truly realistic system, I'd stick with GURPS. I'd like D&D to be able to represent the level of "larger than life, heroes definately getting more chances than anyone in real life has, but not superhuman.", which is not impossible if the system is actually set up to do it.

Yeah, but it's not, is it? Currently, D&D, in none of its many forms (all of which I've played at some point), actually creates the kind of realism that you seem to want. So maybe it's time to stop barking up that tree, eh?

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #152 on: September 16, 2008, 12:50:00 AM »
Aragorn was more like level 7, with heavy deus ex Machina. . .
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Risada

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1827
  • Wearing this outfit in the name of SCIENCE!
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #153 on: September 16, 2008, 12:51:45 AM »
Risada, I'm interested in hearing from you about what you specifically liked about Szatany's Ultimate Monk.
Also is there anything we should take from frank and K?

Mainly the Sixth Sense and mostly all abilities from the Way of the Beasts, Way of Might, Stay on Path, and more bonus feats...

Frank and K.... they have too much stuff.... I'm lazy to read large walls of text... so that one will have to wait till I get to read it...

RabidPirateMan

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #154 on: September 16, 2008, 01:05:08 AM »
Well, the monk weapon damage goes like this:

Say we have a Monk, who we will call Suk King.  Suk King is in 3.5, and wants to be a shuriken thrower.  Too bad for Suk King, huh?

But wait! Suk King just heard of this awesome thing- he now stacks his bonuses to unarmed strike to his weapons!  Hooray for Suk King!

At level 1, Suk King throws a Shuriken for 1d2 damage.  Pitiful, Suk King.

At level 4, along with his fists, Suk King gets a boost to all his weapons.  In this case, the Shuriken does 1d3 damage now.

At 8, 1d4.  At 12, 1d6.  At 16, 1d8.  At level 20, when Suk King throws a Shuriken, he deals 1d10 damage with it.  Damn, Suk King, you're pimp- you should change your name to Gay Ting Sukt.

However, this may be too much, since there are weapons that already do as much damage as a monk's base unarmed strike at level one.  Perhaps taper it off by monk level -4?  In the end, Shurikens do 1d8 and a quarter staff will do 2d8- fists still do 2d10, making them the best damage weapon, but they also don't get the bonuses to trip, disarm and stuff like his other weapons (which, by the way, need to be treated as medium in the hands of a monk, since it makes no sense to wield them for that purpose as a light weapon- you take a -2 penalty to disarming when using a nunchuck.  Stupid).

And for the Reflex Fist- I like :D  There'd have to be some kind of limit to it though, since Stunning Fist does that and more- say, quarter your level/d4?

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #155 on: September 16, 2008, 02:23:09 AM »
Quote
I hate almost everything you say.

1. Drop binders.
2. Trying to manipulate the tier to being vague instead of specific.
3. Not wanting monks because of flavor

You should see him in the 4e justifications thread then. It gets worse because Azbo is there.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #156 on: September 16, 2008, 05:02:24 AM »
In order.

(To) Midnight:
1) Judging by what it has been said Binders can do, they sound ill-balanced. Hence the comment to drop them.

2) Not trying to manipulate to vague instead of specific.
3) Not wanting monks because of flavor, but being perfectly interested if they can be made to fit flavorwise.

You seem commited to misreading what I type. As for the tiers, the comment was "I used tiers to mean _____". I'm not objecting to Jaron's, but the word "tier" can be used to mean something other than that system of tiers.

(To) Orion:
1) It means that characters will have a reasonably generous amount of hit points but not an excessive amount.

Say 50, on a from-thin-air guess.

2) Being "qualified for the job" means that you are someone competent enough to be able to actually do it. A paladin with weak ability scores is not going to be chosen by a God to be His/Her standardbearer and champion. A wizard with a poor Intelligence is very unlikely to be trained in how to use magic.

3) Certainly. However, there are plenty of people who can and should take PC classes other than the PCs and the Big Bad Evil Boss of Doom characters.

4) Simple enough fix to do the math for DR and limiting weapon damage. A weapon can do no more than base maximum x critical mulitiplier +1 (that is, a dagger can do no more than 4 x 2+1 = 4 x 3 = 12 damage.)

5) You said that your 17th level characters were in roughly the same range as the LotR ones. I'd write Aragorn as no more than 10th level given what he did...nothing he did requires being very high level.

6) Sure. It'd be a nice option if nothing else.

7) Okay, I'll put it this way. In order to replicate what Jesus Christ, Son of God, did in the Bible, you'd have to be a 9th level cleric. In order to represent Sir Lancelot or the like, you'd probably be within a few levels of that. Being able to do the things 15th-20th level characters do is doing the things that are usually reserved for beings well above and beyond anything human, i.e. gods. (Wish and miracle being the most obvious examples offhand)

8) No, maybe its time that D&D be changed a little. As stated, if I wanted completely realistic, there are systems to do that. I'd like to tweak D&D into being one that is neither mundane-Earth level or "I can shatter the world and rebuild it."

(To) Kuro: Oh that's right. I forgot. No one who doesn't like D&D and think its a great system with maybe a couple minor areas that might be adjusted to make an even better game is allowed to comment on D&D. And of course, unless you own the 4e books, you're not allowed to assume that the game has anything in common with 3e. Totall unacceptable.

Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #157 on: September 16, 2008, 05:48:09 AM »
El:  You've never played a Binder.  You've never even read up on them.  Please don't comment about them.

Binders are in fact one of the best balanced of the Tier 3 classes.  Since this project is asking people to aim classes at Tier 3, they're right in the sweet spot.  If your (uninformed) knowledge says they're too powerful, then you're way off base and need to re-evaluate everything.  Binders are actually in many ways an excellent class, and one of the great things about them is that regardless of build they have a pretty consistant power level.  An optimized Binder 20 is stronger than a non optimized Binder 20, but not by a huge amount (not like the difference between an optimized Fighter 20 and an unoptimized Fighter 20, which is huge).  And both the optimized and non optimized versions are potent without being game breaking.

Furthermore, for the purposes of this particular project, which has the outright stated goal of using my Tier system and aiming for Tier 3, the word "tier" CANNOT be used to mean anything other than that system of tiers.  It's quite specific.  What you're doing is like going to a computer expo and advertising that you're selling Apples for $200, and then when people come up to your booth you're selling fruit and not computers.

JaronK

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #158 on: September 16, 2008, 02:23:34 PM »
1) It means that characters will have a reasonably generous amount of hit points but not an excessive amount.
Say 50, on a from-thin-air guess.
Back that from-the-air guess with an argument, and then we might have a conversation.

Quote
2) Being "qualified for the job" means that you are someone competent enough to be able to actually do it. A paladin with weak ability scores is not going to be chosen by a God to be His/Her standardbearer and champion. A wizard with a poor Intelligence is very unlikely to be trained in how to use magic.
A creative player with an interesting take can make a lot out of a "sub-optimal" build; an optimiser with no creativity can make an extremely boring, ineffectual character. Stats aren't everything.

Quote
3) Certainly. However, there are plenty of people who can and should take PC classes other than the PCs and the Big Bad Evil Boss of Doom characters.
There ya go, misquoting again. I said all the villains (g'head, scroll up), not just the Big Bads. Unless an NPC is going to become an active part of combat or needs specific, in-game stats of some kind, there's just no reason to give them an actual class. But sure, if you really want the guy tending bar to be a 10th-level fighter as part of his backstory, knock yourself out, but the fact remains that the vast majority won't have "classes" because they don't need them.

Quote
4) Simple enough fix to do the math for DR and limiting weapon damage. A weapon can do no more than base maximum x critical mulitiplier +1 (that is, a dagger can do no more than 4 x 2+1 = 4 x 3 = 12 damage.)
Sweet jebus, I'm not even an optimiser: Sneak attack +5d6 (potentially), Str modifier (let's say) +6 (x2 for crit), Weapon Specialisation +2 (x2 for crit), need I go on? The base damage of the weapon quickly becomes immaterial in D&D.

Quote
5) You said that your 17th level characters were in roughly the same range as the LotR ones. I'd write Aragorn as no more than 10th level given what he did...nothing he did requires being very high level.
Actually I said we were a few notches above, and Aragorn (in the film) defeated three or five wraiths with a mundane sword and a torch. That requires some skill.

Quote
7) Okay, I'll put it this way. In order to replicate what Jesus Christ, Son of God, did in the Bible, you'd have to be a 9th level cleric. In order to represent Sir Lancelot or the like, you'd probably be within a few levels of that. Being able to do the things 15th-20th level characters do is doing the things that are usually reserved for beings well above and beyond anything human, i.e. gods. (Wish and miracle being the most obvious examples offhand)
There's a huge difference between "well above human" and "god." Batman is "well above human." You seem to be treating this like it's a simple tipping point, "Oh, crap, dangit... I just be a god! Right then. Didn't you notice?" It's a slower transition than that.

Quote
8) No, maybe its time that D&D be changed a little. As stated, if I wanted completely realistic, there are systems to do that. I'd like to tweak D&D into being one that is neither mundane-Earth level or "I can shatter the world and rebuild it."
You're just talking in extremes, now. The options you're offering are your way or ridiculous bullshit godhood oh no!. I'm sorry, but your position just isn't complex enough for me to be convinced by it. Good luck!

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #159 on: September 16, 2008, 03:21:24 PM »
Jaron, to quote Midnight:
Quote
I've run into another problem.

At every level, everything the monk does, a binder does better. I'm actually at a wall with it. I was going to give the monk a set of static abilities that were really good. Then I realized that a binder could have the same set of abilites if they wanted and then be something completely differnt the next day.[/unquote]

If that's the case, not good. If that's not the case? Then ignore my comment. I've no particular desire to remove them or include them.

As for the use of the word "tier"...then I'd like to know what the best word to be used when it would fit but is used for something else.

Orion:

1) Simple. It is relatively reasonable to be able to be hit about six times and still be conscious. An average hit from a longsword is roughly 7-9 damage. (Not counting magic, or power attack, or any thing but Strength and the d8). 8x6=48. Thusly, roughly 50 hit points.

2) No, but stats determine whether or not someone is capable of being a wizard (which requires Intelligence in order to use magic) and such. This isn't about optimal or suboptimal. This is about how being Int 12 is not enough to be taken seriously by someone who teachs wizards.

3) The vast majority? No. 99.99% of knights and the equivalants? Yes. (Incidently, at least by Pendragon, that's <2% of Britain's population. So less than 10% of the population will be in "PC" classes.)

4) You're missing the point. The suggestion is to say that you can do no more with the weapon than that. At least as I'd calculate it, sneak attack would apply if the weapon penetrates DR. Since it represents hitting soft and squishy vitals with good effect, doesn't it? Or something like that.

5) 10th level and taking advantage of them being afraid of fire. Not that hard. You notice that they're not swinging at him?

6) It is a transition that has occured by the time you are about 15th level, however. A good part of Batman's edge (and depending on what version we're using, I'm referencing the most recent movies because I don't know the detailed canon) is his gadgets, not him. Relative to any ol' Larger than Life human, that is.

7) I'm talking in extremes because after mid-teen levels, you are doing things that are done by gods or demigods in myth and legend.

Defeating armies, for instance.

I could probably build a 15th level fighter that, assuming the average soldier is a warrior or low level fighter, who could slaughter thousands of them.

Effortlessly (as in, without fatigue).

Even for Cuchulain, that would be a bit much.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.