D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[JaronK]

Jaron (and others): I'm serious. If "dipping" is a problem, prohibit it. If its not a problem, don't. I have nothing against people wanting to do a fighter who is a "little bit barbaric", but "a little bit barbaric" is more like a Trait than a class.

*facepalm*

That's horrible design practice right there.  Absolutely horrible.  I'm sorry, but that's a complete failure.  That's like saying "melees do too much damage when charging.  To solve this problem, instead of lowering the amount of damage until it's reasonable, let's ban all melees." 

This is exactly the same.  There's nothing wrong with dipping, it's just that a few classes are poorly designed such that you gain everything you'd ever want from the class in the first few levels (Swashbuckler, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, etc).  Such classes have drastically different performance if you dip or not.  The solution to this is to space out the abilities in those classes so that there's a point to taking more than 1-3 levels of them... not to just say "no you can't."

If you remove flexibility from players as a way of fixing design problems instead of just fixing the actual design problem, especially if it's as easy as it is here, you've failed as a designer.

JaronK

[RabidPirateMan]

Elennsar- Stormwind Fallacy.  We are smart enough to make classes good all the way through without front loading them like WotC did.  My point wasn't that we have to make dipping a thing of the past, it was if we have the monk gain the majority of its abilities by level 3, people will dip 3 levels and go no more.

Kuro-  I like it, but really REALLY think it should be a prestige class.

About jumping-  If the monk has 6 skill points, I think he can invest a few into Jump, Tumble and Balance.  If he needs Hide, MS, Spot, Listen, Tumble and Concentration off the bat, he has one more point to put somewhere else if he wants to (unless he's dumping int to 8 ).  I was ready to keep the monk at 4 skill points if he got a natural bonus to physical skills- and I think he could just as easily go back without it being broken.  I wouldn't say +1 per monk class level, thats huge and means you don't need to put any points in at all for most of the checks you need.  I'd say +10 is a safer bet.

RisAda (sorry bout that)- I dislike the +4 AC at level one plus wis to AC.  This is a huge dip feature if I ever saw one.  What fighter wouldn't want 4 AC?  Thats a chain shirt with no max dex or armor penalties, even if he does dump Wis.  If we keep it Wis to AC and +4 over 20 levels, we make sure that if you want to dip into monk, you need stats to support it- Fighters cant have 10 Wis and get +4 AC off the bat.

JaronK-  fu.

M_v-  How about adding a permanent Foresight onto your template?  Fits thematically, I think- grand master kung fu artist walks across the street when he suddenly ducks, easily escaping an arrow, which will probably hit an innocent by standard but hey, Monks ok.

EDIT-  Sorry Risasa, I should use an example.  A fighter has 13 dex at level 1.  He buys scale mail and his AC goes up to 15.  If he buys a Large Shield, his AC goes to 17.  A monk with 15 wis and 13 dex gets 14 AC, but with your +4 bonus gets 18 AC.  He's beating the monk without even trying.

[Elennsar]

Jaron: No, its like saying "If you don't want people to dip, then don't permit them to dip." Plain and f--king simple. There is no reason that multiclassing as you see fit no matter how little sense it makes or how unbalanced it makes things MUST be permited.

Sure, one should find reasons to take 1-20 in a class. One should also, if one wants to discourage people from taking one level because it has goodies they want to enhance their primary build, discourage that.

Its that simple. God-Emperor forbid a "No, you're not allowed to do this." ever be said in any rpg EVER. Why, players will start to think that they're not able to compensate through gaming anymore.

Personally, I'm more worried about "I'm going to take a level in fighter because I get a bonus feat, +2 to Fort saves, and +1 BAB" (to look at the class as written now, not the replacement) for a what we get for Rangers/Barbarians/Paladins than frontloading, which is a seperate kind of bad design from letting people abuse the multiclassing system.

[RabidPirateMan]

Elennsar's point about BAB and Fort is sound.  Thats why I've been pushing for making the fractional system implemented into core.  I see no reason why a barbarian 1/fighter 1 has double the fort of a fighter 2, or why a monk 1/rogue 1/scout 1 is worse at fighting than a monk 3.  That makes dipping more a matter of class level than it does saves and bab.

[Risada]

RisAda (sorry bout that)- I dislike the +4 AC at level one plus wis to AC.  This is a huge dip feature if I ever saw one.  What fighter wouldn't want 4 AC?  Thats a chain shirt with no max dex or armor penalties, even if he does dump Wis.  If we keep it Wis to AC and +4 over 20 levels, we make sure that if you want to dip into monk, you need stats to support it- Fighters cant have 10 Wis and get +4 AC off the bat.

Meh, I guess it IS a bit overpowered and easily abusable...
Maybe increasing the AC bonus given over the levels?

EDIT-  Sorry Risasa, I should use an example.  A fighter has 13 dex at level 1.  He buys scale mail and his AC goes up to 15.  If he buys a Large Shield, his AC goes to 17.  A monk with 15 wis and 13 dex gets 14 AC, but with your +4 bonus gets 18 AC.  He's beating the monk without even trying.

You did it again ...

[RabidPirateMan]

You did it again ...

Aaaaaah!

[Elennsar]

Fractional saves and BAB are good, though the point still stands. Any class with a good feature at level 1 that would boost playing something else is tempting to "dip" into it that regard. Making it so that no one gets anything worth anything at level 1 would be a bad solution.

Risada: If "I multiclass into monk" is harder to do, then I don't see it as a problem. And if requires being unarmored, it limits the abusibility even more (though why it should fluffwise is a mystery. Monks don't -need- armor, but that doesn't mean they -can't- use armor.)

Monk (Wis 15/Dex 13, +4 Risada bonus): AC 17
Fighter in scale mail with Dex 13 and a large shield: AC 17.

[RabidPirateMan]

Wow, my math sucks.

[Risada]

Risada: If "I multiclass into monk" is harder to do, then I don't see it as a problem. And if requires being unarmored, it limits the abusibility even more (though why it should fluffwise is a mystery. Monks don't -need- armor, but that doesn't mean they -can't- use armor.)

Monk (Wis 15/Dex 13, +4 Risada bonus): AC 17
Fighter in scale mail with Dex 13 and a large shield: AC 17.

Well.... as I said before, I was half awake when typing that so a lot of critical stuff was left out...

Gonna edit it now...

[Orion]

About jumping- I wouldn't say +1 per monk class level, thats huge and means you don't need to put any points in at all for most of the checks you need.  I'd say +10 is a safer bet.

For me, the thing that makes monks special is the ridiculous things they can do with their bodies alone. They're very capable with weapons, of course, but it's the ability to make 10-foot leaps and land on the top of a flagpole that make them really fun to watch, and therefore fun to play. I think a +1 / level is pretty reasonable for Jump, especially considering the DCs for vertical leaps.

Re: Dipping

The only problem is if you build a class that no one wants to take past fourth level. Then you've built a sucky class. Dipping isn't an inherently bad thing.

I actually really encourage it as a way to tailor-build something that doesn't exist in the rules already. You can whip together a decent ninja out of a fighter/rogue, for example, but you can also make a good swashbuckler out of that same combination, fighter/rogue.

Some of the base classes are basically multiclasses with special class features. Ranger: druid/fighter. Paladin: cleric/fighter. Bard: fighter/rogue/wizard. Never forget that the original four classes were cleric, fighter, thief, and wizard. Everything else really tumbled out of that.

Elennsar's point about BAB and Fort is sound.  Thats why I've been pushing for making the fractional system implemented into core.  I see no reason why a barbarian 1/fighter 1 has double the fort of a fighter 2, or why a monk 1/rogue 1/scout 1 is worse at fighting than a monk 3.  That makes dipping more a matter of class level than it does saves and bab.

Well, one school of thought is that if you multiclass, you simply don't get the full benefit of focused study/experience in a particular class, therefore you lose those fractions. By the same token, a really slick multiclasser can work those numbers to her advantage.

Ultimately, though, I agree with the other school of thought that if you play through a level in a class, you should earn the equivalent fraction of skill you learned in that class, so I really like the fractional system. The only problem is that it's a huge pain in the ass to implement. It's just fully of fiddly math. Speaking as someone who doesn't like numbers, I can see why Wizards would say "Oh sweet jesus, just make it whole numbers for the love of god!" So here's the challenge, then, come up with a simple, clear way to resolve it, like find a way to tabulate it somehow, and I think it's a great idea. It has to be worth the headache of implementation, though, or else no one will use it.

BTW, I wouldn't get your hopes up on Rebalanced becoming a discreet system. It will be cannibalised as a series of optional rules, if it's used at all. Sorry to burst the bubble, but I've been pushing a home-brew system for a couple of years now, and people just don't jump on stuff until its sold in a store and has a cool cover.

[JaronK]

Jaron: No, its like saying "If you don't want people to dip, then don't permit them to dip." Plain and f--king simple.

But faulty, because no one's saying we don't want people to dip.

What we don't want is for dipping to be the only optimized choice.  If you want to play a Monk/Fighter/Rogue, that's fine... there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.  The problem comes if playing a Monk 2/Fighter2/Rogue 3 is always better than playing 7 levels of any of those three classes... if so, the classes are overly front loaded.

So, let me repeat: dipping itself is not wrong.  In fact, it being available is a good thing, because it lets people customize their characters more.  What's wrong is classes that give out everything worthwhile in the class (or at least the best parts) in the first few levels so that there's never a very good reason to do anything more than dipping.  The goal here is to make both dipping and not dipping be perfectly viable (and in theory, perfectly balanced, but that's a bit hard), so that the decision for the player is "does Fighter/Barbarian fit my character concept more, or does pure Barbarian do it more" as opposed to "Fighter/Barbarian is totally better, so how do I justify that in my build?"  We're trying to balance the options... removing one doesn't count as balance.

Therefor, removing dipping as a solution is a complete failure.

There is no reason that multiclassing as you see fit no matter how little sense it makes or how unbalanced it makes things MUST be permited.

Why does Fighter/Barbarian not make sense?  Why does Swashbuckler/Fighter not make sense?  You're acting like dipping is somehow nonsensical, but remember that classes are simply assemblies of mechanics... the fluff is yours to play with as you see fit.  Perhaps I want to play an intelligent Fighter (and haven't heard of Warblades) so I go Swashbuckler 3/Fighter 4/Duelist 10.  What's wrong with that?  Maybe I want a Fighter who gets possessed by the spirit of battle, and I decide to represent that with rage, so I make him a Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 with Extra Rage.  What's wrong with that?  Maybe I just want to make a guy who's all about charging, so I make him a Barbarian 1/Fighter 6.  What's wrong with that?

JaronK

[Kuroimaken]

For me, the thing that makes monks special is the ridiculous things they can do with their bodies alone. They're very capable with weapons, of course, but it's the ability to make 10-foot leaps and land on the top of a flagpole that make them really fun to watch, and therefore fun to play. I think a +1 / level is pretty reasonable for Jump, especially considering the DCs for vertical leaps.

Hmmm... I think I got something. We can always cannibalize the Acrobatics class feature out of the Ninja Spy/Blade Dancer from OA. It offers a fixed +10 bonus to Jump, Balance, Climb and Tumble at irregular intervals (capping at +20 for the Ninja Spy at 14th level and +30 for the Blade Dancer at 19th level) and allows them to take 10 on those checks. Minimum level for it seems to be 10. This could really work.

[Midnight_v]

For me, the thing that makes monks special is the ridiculous things they can do with their bodies alone. They're very capable with weapons, of course, but it's the ability to make 10-foot leaps and land on the top of a flagpole that make them really fun to watch, and therefore fun to play. I think a +1 / level is pretty reasonable for Jump, especially considering the DCs for vertical leaps.

Hmmm... I think I got something. We can always cannibalize the Acrobatics class feature out of the Ninja Spy/Blade Dancer from OA. It offers a fixed +10 bonus to Jump, Balance, Climb and Tumble at irregular intervals (capping at +20 for the Ninja Spy at 14th level and +30 for the Blade Dancer at 19th level) and allows them to take 10 on those checks. Minimum level for it seems to be 10. This could really work.

Meh.
Just let them swift fly.
Why make it more complicated than needed.  When were just discussing various mechanics to achieve the same goals.

something instead of slow fall 50++, Air walk or immediate action fly is better and mre simple and we can replace the already existing progression.
I mean fly is like what really ability for 5th level wizards? Its hardly even an issue.
I'm against the skill check. Swift fly/or air walk. Seriously its not even a "deal".

[Elennsar]

1) I don't have anything against characters not being too "Front loaded". But if you don't want people taking only one level of X, getting its goodies, and saying "I'm going to be Y", then you need to stop that, not make it so that 1 level of X grants no desirable goodies to take for something else.

The problem is both A) frontloaded with nothing else worth a damn, and B) too easy to take one level for its benefits (as noted on the fighter-as-written, even with fractional base saves, you still get a bonus feat, which is never unwelcome for a barbarian or ranger or paladin or swashbuckler or anything like that.)

2) Jaron, you'rs misreading. The point is that there are times it doesn't make sense...for instance, to use a character I made on NWN to take advantage of how Tumble works (+1 to AC for every 5 ranks, which is nice)...a Fighter 6/Monk3/Dwarven defender4 is hard to justify.

Now, the Barbarian/Fighter might well make sense. In fact, it might suit the particular PC better than either pure Barbarian or a variant Fighter. This is good.

That's only a problem if its unbalanced (see point 1). But the monk levels in Gram (my dwarf) are there because they grant useful abilities...not because there's any good justification for him to have monk levels.

The fluff should not be totally independent of the mechanics. A paladin should be a holy champion, not simply a good way to play a battle sorcerer (as the UA variant) with better saves.

Personally, as a fan of nonclass based systems (which I'm not proposing D&D become), I think that if classes have to exist, they should be something that means something outside "hey I get this bonus to X", because playing like that encourages mixing and matching to get the most powerful possible character, which is not always a believable mix of abilities.

While I have no desire to dictate (as a rulebuilder) all possible "this makes sense" builds, it ought to be encouraged for the DM to insist that things do so and for the players to work with that.

As for flight: Flying doesn't fit. Being able to do amazing feats of acrobatics bordering on the magical, yes. Being able to FLY, no.
I'd vote for the acrobatics class feature. And speaking of which, something worth looking at: http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/
In my opinion, the martial artist here is a good replacement for the monk. Particularly with feats and prestige classes to allow for getting some stuff like hitting harder unarmed or mystic powers.

[Kuroimaken]

Meh.
Just let them swift fly.
Why make it more complicated than needed.  When were just discussing various mechanics to achieve the same goals.

something instead of slow fall 50++, Air walk or immediate action fly is better and mre simple and we can replace the already existing progression.
I mean fly is like what really ability for 5th level wizards? Its hardly even an issue.
I'm against the skill check. Swift fly/or air walk. Seriously its not even a "deal".

Mechanically, it works the same. With a ridiculous bonus to Tumble you can mitigate a lot of falling damage. With a ridiculous bonus to Jump you can go REALLY high without necessarily flying (and hey, that way we don't have to figure out how often they should be able to do that in a day). It also works for horizontal movement. With balance, you can fight on a hair-thin thread on epic. Those are all things you can do with Acrobatics that you can't do with Swift Fly.

[Orion]

If you're going to give them Fly, it has to be at a later level. In the meantime, give out gobs of Jump/Tumble/Balance. It really seems appropriate, given all the wire-fu.

[JaronK]

1) I don't have anything against characters not being too "Front loaded". But if you don't want people taking only one level of X, getting its goodies, and saying "I'm going to be Y", then you need to stop that, not make it so that 1 level of X grants no desirable goodies to take for something else.

Once again, since you've still missed it: it's not that we don't want people taking one level of X, getting its goodies, and saying "I'm going to be Y."  Now, go back up and read what I and others have wrote, and see if you can figure out what the issue actually is.  Since it's been stated so many times, there's no use stating it again.  If you can't figure it out, then forget it... I'm done trying.

2) Jaron, you'rs misreading. The point is that there are times it doesn't make sense...for instance, to use a character I made on NWN to take advantage of how Tumble works (+1 to AC for every 5 ranks, which is nice)...a Fighter 6/Monk3/Dwarven defender4 is hard to justify.

Hey, if you like having a Fighter/Monk/Dwarven Defender, and you're having fun, why should I stop you?  Perhaps you wanted a defensive martial type who could fight armed or unarmed.  It's not like that class combo is broken or something.  I'm not here to tell you how to roleplay, after all, and if the character works for you, why should I stop you from having fun?

The fluff should not be totally independent of the mechanics. A paladin should be a holy champion, not simply a good way to play a battle sorcerer (as the UA variant) with better saves.

If fluff is too heavily enforced (such as in the case of Red Wizards, Paladins, and such) that's a problem.  Fluff is maleable so that players can use whatever character concept they want to play.  The reason there is so many classes is because we want to make as many character concepts playable as possible.  Any move to make fewer available is a step in the wrong direction.

JaronK

[RabidPirateMan]

If fluff is too heavily enforced (such as in the case of Red Wizards, Paladins, and such) that's a problem.

Update for the Paladin- Paladins of Tyranny, Slaughter and Freedom become core?

[Elennsar]

1) The issue is both having classes where there's no reason to go beyond low levels, and classes where dipping into them grants an excessive power boost if multiclassing.

2) Because being a monk doesn't fit with that? Because being a monk is entirely unrelated to anything else about what the character is or does? Because this little thing called fluff should get in the way?

3) If fluff is "too heavily enforced"?! What the fuck?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. We have to allow for every possible imaginable possibility no matter how absurd or otherwise inconcievable.

As to number of classes: What's the point of a class based system? What is the reason for using classes? If the goal is to be able to play whatever you want, then they don't serve that particularly well. If the goal is to play an X, classes work. If the goal is to tweak X to be something very different than X, they don't work particularly well.

I'm not against players being able to pick what kind of characters they want. But saying "I want to be a Red Wizard, but I don't want to be Evil." is entirely missing what being a Red Wizard is about.

Entirely and completely.

[Mister_Sinister]

Many people are confusing the fluff-crunch issue. The reason for the disjoinment of fluff and crunch in 3.5, and our approach of 'reflavouring' and 'ignoring fluff' is because some options are worse than others on a purely arbitrary basis that is not grounded in anything whatsoever. I have linked it umpteen times, and will link it as many times as it is necessary to show that it was intentionally made that some options would be arbitrarily worse than others, for the purpose of rewarding 'mastery of the system'. Fluff-crunch disjoinment is NOT a natural or positive thing - it a symptomatic reaction to designer stupid which should never have had to be invoked.

We want options to be real, connected to what they represent, and not arbitrarily made of suck because the designers don't know their brain from their ass. Therefore, ideally, we should aim for a system where a fighter CAN indeed stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a wizard and a monk and contribute evenly, and where Toughness is not a feat for 1st level elven wizards, and where Weapon Focus is not made utterly redundant after level 4 or so. This is our goal with fluff-crunch integration, as ultimately, the latter is a mechanical representation of the former.

This has nothing to do with reflavouring for the purpose of making your concept awesome - like, for example, describing a fireball as being a burst of magical steam - this is fine. What I hate is having to create paladins out of a weird mishmash of classes because the paladin as written sucks donkey penis after level 4 or so. That level of disjoinment is stupid. If people wanna play paladin 20, they should be able to stand with paladin 4/sorcerer 6/whatever-the-fuck-else 10, and feel like they are playing the same game, and not be made to feel small in the pants for being thematic as opposed to focusing on mechanics, which not everyone is able or inclined to do.

Make more sense now?