Author Topic: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]  (Read 250292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #240 on: September 18, 2008, 09:42:22 AM »
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.
Something else I thought of, after reading some of these comments on Jump and similar things:

What if we gave monks either a Power Point or the Wild Talent feat.  This opens up the door to feats like Mental Leap and Up the Walls, which I think fit the theme.  Whether we freely give out such feats, put them on a bonus feat list, or leave them for the player to take is a matter for debate.  Still, with an existing mechanic like Psionic Focus and [psionic] feats, we may have some work already done for us.

Also, another options is to give out some of those abilities as class features and scrap the psionic portion of it entirely.  Simply give out the text of Up the Walls sans the psionic focus in a class feature at level X.
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]

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #241 on: September 18, 2008, 09:46:17 AM »
I agree with your second suggestion far more - monks aren't all psionic.

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #242 on: September 18, 2008, 10:22:56 AM »
I agree with your second suggestion far more - monks aren't all psionic.
Yeah, that's why I suggested it.  I had a feeling it'd be easier to swallow.
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]

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #243 on: September 18, 2008, 10:49:27 AM »
I agree with your second suggestion far more - monks aren't all psionic.
+1
Though...
-1 about the fluff/crunch thing.
Meh.

I still think I'd like to minimize the impact of skills on the game.

The tumble/Jump/balance thing kurko spoke of is totally not in line with what its already doing mechanically.
right now theres like a 90ft slow fall... why?
I say again we shoud expand on whats already there and avoid needless complication and fail chances. 3 skill checks to keep from taking fall damage? Nah.
Economy of actions. Its is a far simpler solution to chage the progressiong from slow fall to swift fly (up to your move speed) by 10th level where I propose instituting this. . . we're already the fucking Avengers.
So lets be serious here and let people be wuxia.
Please compare to the Swordsage or Binder ability potential at a similar level.
I know SS gets a Burning Charge a level 9 in which you get fly when you charge and deal an extra 5d6.
The binder can Bind geryon as low as level 8 which means neither of these guys ever has to worry about falling to their death at those levels.

Despite what Jaronk said earlier if at the end of this collective building, I can sit down and say "there's no real reason to play a Monk, mechanically, because I can sit down and build an character with all the same abilities but with more and arguably better options" then we have failed.
This is why I hate talk of fluff. You hate people building peicemail paladins but thats the only way they work barring OWa stlye conversion. So I suggest Owa style conversion.
Simple Matches to the fluff make it easier. Hating on crunch make things harder to compare.
Hmm... I can phrase that better but I gotta get to school...
M_V
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #244 on: September 18, 2008, 11:47:17 AM »
M_V, you have just made all the points I have been making since my joining of this project. Why are we arguing past each other again?

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #245 on: September 18, 2008, 02:08:42 PM »
Quote
I agree with your second suggestion far more - monks aren't all psionic.

Thirded. In fact I feel like those should be options available to everyone, not just psionic characters, but that's just me.
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!


RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #246 on: September 18, 2008, 02:24:27 PM »
Thirded. In fact I feel like those should be options available to everyone, not just psionic characters, but that's just me.
Running up walls?

Even still, anyone can do it, but it costs an extra feat.  That cost keeps everyone else out.
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]

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #247 on: September 18, 2008, 03:19:57 PM »
Quote
Running up walls?

Even still, anyone can do it, but it costs an extra feat.  That cost keeps everyone else out.

The very same. But what really keeps people out is the psionic requirement.
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!


JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #248 on: September 18, 2008, 04:09:02 PM »
Here's a thought.  Let's look at all the demi-magical martial arts movies out there, and give Monks abilities from those.  Huge jumping, running on water, running up walls, breaking objects with your fists, incredible dodging abilities, and so on... most of these we're talking about already.  But let's look around and find more, as many should make cool utility abilities that would be very helpful.

Orion

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #249 on: September 18, 2008, 04:27:52 PM »
This is our goal with fluff-crunch integration, as ultimately, the latter is a mechanical representation of the former.

Thank you for saying that so clearly, Sin! The impression I'd gotten up to now was that fluff was immaterial, didn't matter, should be ignored, etc. I'm glad to see that this is the goal.

Despite what Jaronk said earlier if at the end of this collective building, I can sit down and say "there's no real reason to play a Monk, mechanically, because I can sit down and build an character with all the same abilities but with more and arguably better options" then we have failed.

Well, there's one other thing to bare in mind there: some players don't have all the books or don't have the inclination to go hunting for all those mechanically superior combinations. So to a certain degree, making a Paladin or a Monk is a service to the players, so that they don't have to go and build a "holy warrior" or a "spiritual wuxia fighter" themselves. My only point here is that it's not quite accurate to assume that anyone who's dissatisfied with the Monk will just build their own. Not everyone's into that.

Its is a far simpler solution to chage the progressiong from slow fall to swift fly (up to your move speed) by 10th level where I propose instituting this. . . we're already the fucking Avengers.

I think flying by 10th level is a great idea, but in the mean time, between 1st and 9th, the fluff aspect of the Monk (as it appears in film) really does call for mad acrobatic skills, and we have this convenient "skill" system in place already that can represent that. What we're looking to replicate is what I've seen referred to as "hing gong," the ability to make their bodies literally lighter than normal, which means not only can they make ridiculous leaps, but they can do things like run along tree branches and stuff like that. In fact, reducing your body weight really should be a part of the class, but that's a whole other mechanic that would be just crazy to try to simulate in D&D.

For cinematic examples to look at, I recommend:

Twin Warriors (HK title: Tai Chi Master), stars Jet Li and Michelle Yao, no flying, but lots of work with props
Hero, again, Jet Li and a smattering of really shit-hot HK fighters whose names I don't know, lots of weapon work
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Chow Yun Fat, Michelle Yao, Xian Xi-Ye, lots of flying and wall-jumping, mix of weapon work and open-hand
« Last Edit: September 18, 2008, 04:30:33 PM by Orion »

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #250 on: September 18, 2008, 04:41:26 PM »
M_V, you have just made all the points I have been making since my joining of this project. Why are we arguing past each other again?

Hmm.. okay I'll bite let me ... point out specifically what irks me about some of what you say...


Quote
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.
See I think another thing is... you don't realize that we have all the same information as you and simply don't agree, I actually come into this thinking "Everyone working on this project is relatively equally informed" which is why I had such a hard time communicating with EL at first because he really wasn't about the tiers we were shooting for.
 You seem to think that we dont' know about the "toughness was made to punish bit". Well, I do know that what I think is this: basically what you're saying is accurate however any decsion we make about based in fluff is "completely arbitrary" and disjointing. Disjointing because well our concept of a "Ninja" is different.
One person thinks hanzo hattori
The next thinks ...uhm... Naruto.
So that's why I want them disjoined and to use what is already mechanically existing but enhanced, because I don't want to get into frame of reference argument. Which is what I believe fluff driven changes will ultimately lead to. It leads to people intentionally adding things that the monk may or may not should have because "I think" on what precedent will vary. So I choose to stick as close to
1. What the 3.5 monk is already doing
2. The fluff that is already established (i.e we might find a better way to express or enhance what its already doing.

Part 2
Quote
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.
I don't think it will work that way, basically... to me.. you're saying something to effect that the generic paladin should be equal to a tricked out optimized build. Earlier Elensarr said something about removing muticlassing. Which to me is the same game, different ball park.
Frankly, if someone has taken all those levels of different shit and piece it together to make thier pc awesome mechanically, the actually DESERVE, to have a better "mechanical" pc.  Why because they put more work in to make you feel small in the pants.
I.E. Correct muticlassing, would/should always lead to combinations more powerful (generically speaking) that remaing in one class (this doesn't apply to wizards of course except in the case of full spell advancement and/or metamagic pcs. So thats one part of it.


fluff-crunch relation. Frankly we have and issue there. I'm not caring what the text says, only the table we can fill in the text after the existing mechanics have been made competative.
Basically the class is what it is and I just want to make it better. I'm just looking at the Phb monk and the classes that are monk like from the tier system, and then the ones that are transforming... and trying to establish a baseline for what monks are doing vs. them and what we can do to use the existing mechanics equall up.

... More fighting later.... :debate  :rolleyes
\\\"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 #251 on: September 18, 2008, 06:21:31 PM »
I.E. Correct muticlassing, would/should always lead to combinations more powerful (generically speaking) that remaing in one class (this doesn't apply to wizards of course except in the case of full spell advancement and/or metamagic pcs. So thats one part of it.
That's a very different design philosophy than Wizards used to build multiclassing, if I understand their motives correctly. My understanding is that you trade power (single class) for variation (multi-class). That's the theory anyway. Whether it holds true in practise is a whole other question, and whether that's a better theory than the one you've just expressed is whole other other question.

On the one hand, I can see the logic that if you want to be a jack-of-all-trades, then you're going to be a master of none. That's the idea behind the Bard. It does a little bit of everything, just not very well. The Bard is, at base, a fighter/wizard/thief. In fact, I believe in 1st Ed., the Bard was kind of like a prestige class that you had to do 7 levels of fighter, wizard, and thief in to even qualify to become a Bard. I digress.

On the other hand, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I don't know that it's something we want to encourage. If the goal is balance between the classes, then shouldn't that include multi-classing? That said, I think you're right that the nature of 3.x is that a tricked-out, multi-class character will probably be more powerful simply by virtue of being the product of a bunch of strategic choices.

So my position on this is that you strive for balance as much as you can and you resign yourself to the fact that (a) you'll never get perfect balance because you can't compare some abilities and players will always do things you couldn't have predicted, and (b) multi-class characters, in the right/wrong hands, will probably be more powerful (by the numbers), but you don't go out of your way to encourage that, either.

Quote
fluff-crunch relation. Frankly we have and issue there. I'm not caring what the text says, only the table we can fill in the text after the existing mechanics have been made competative.

But the class is based on a fundamentally fluffy concept: the shaolin monk. This rebalance we're doing is based on 3.5 monk, and I see the wisdom in just trying to tweak it and not totally rewrite it. Doesn't change the fact that it's all based on fluff, eventually. So it's not whether you consider the fluff to be part of the equation. It's how much you acknowledge the fluff. It's there whether we like it or not, just like the hard rules are there whether we like it or not.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #252 on: September 18, 2008, 06:49:40 PM »
Quote
But the class is based on a fundamentally fluffy concept: the shaolin monk. This rebalance we're doing is based on 3.5 monk, and I see the wisdom in just trying to tweak it and not totally rewrite it. Doesn't change the fact that it's all based on fluff, eventually. So it's not whether you consider the fluff to be part of the equation. It's how much you acknowledge the fluff. It's there whether we like it or not, just like the hard rules are there whether we like it or not.


Needless to say I won't be designing from the perspective of "the fluff"... wait... re reading the thread there are several people throughout who have verbally stated that they don't want the monk in the game, don't think it should be the equal of unarmed fighters, don't want it to do X or X because of fluff (de-buffing for example).
If by fluff you mean "an example of generally the power level were shooting for from a non mechanic sense" I don't agree with the second part, but let me try.
Levels
1-3 Kane from kung fu.
4-5 Saturday morning Shaw brothers 36 chamber of the wutang style fighting / Bruce lee
6-8 Ken and Ryu / Danny Rand "Iron fist" (note that your still walking but a fall won't kill you) Captain America
9-10 Super Akuma.  Short range/Teleportation, short bouts of flight, crounching Tiger hidden dragon. Spiderman
11-14:  crounching Tiger hidden dragon. Spiderman / Venom. 
15-19: "Ghost twins from the Matrix reloaded"
20: Neo (post ascension), Avatar: The last airbender

Like that but not specifically those powers, generally that level of power. Note that the only real life human is level 5?
Now in translating that to D&D, is a lot of different things to a lot of peoples minds. Some people have completely different grouping ideas in there head, also. Which is generally wrong as this is a suvivable path in the game
« Last Edit: September 18, 2008, 07:11:52 PM by Midnight_v »
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #253 on: September 18, 2008, 06:57:28 PM »
Quote
I think flying by 10th level is a great idea, but in the mean time, between 1st and 9th, the fluff aspect of the Monk (as it appears in film) really does call for mad acrobatic skills, and we have this convenient "skill" system in place already that can represent that. What we're looking to replicate is what I've seen referred to as "hing gong," the ability to make their bodies literally lighter than normal, which means not only can they make ridiculous leaps, but they can do things like run along tree branches and stuff like that. In fact, reducing your body weight really should be a part of the class, but that's a whole other mechanic that would be just crazy to try to simulate in D&D.

We already do. It's called Epic Climb, Balance, Tumble and Jump. Seriously, it covers all those things already.

Balance DC 90 = Tread on liquids or fragile branches.
Climb DC 70 + Legendary Climber = Run up perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surfaces. At DC 100, you run over the ceiling.
Tumble DC 100 = Ignore falling damage. Tumble DC 50 = Bounce off walls a la Prince of Persia and climb stuff.

Granted the DCs are awfully high for pre-epic... but that can be arranged (maybe it's a smaller DC for monks?).
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!


JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #254 on: September 18, 2008, 07:05:22 PM »
So, some thoughts on fluff and mechanics in class design.

The best fluff for a character is the fluff the player makes.  That's always going to match what they want better than anything an outside designer could create.  As such, the goal is not to force fluff on people, but rather to make mechanics that best facilitate the fluff the player wants to write.  This is why classes like the Red Wizard of Thay are bad... they force you into one specific fluff.  What if you wanted to have a good wizard who believes in teamwork and works together with other Wizards much like a Witch's coven?  Well, too bad, because Red Wizards can't be good.  At the same time, mechanics should work in a way that matches up with a lot of possible fluff ideas... Fighters have the trouble that "Bonus feat, bonus feat, bonus feat" doesn't exactly inspire anything, and there's very few character concepts that really call for "lots of feats," generally, though luckily a lot of feats themselves can work with fluff.

So really, the idea here is to make mechanics that fit will with a genre of fluff, and make sure the players can then fit in with it.  This is one reason the Swordsage is so good.  Depending on the build, you can easily make his mechanics match a fantasy ninja (Shadow Hand/Tiger Claw manuevers) or a realistic ninja (Setting Sun, Diamond Mind) or a fantasy Shaolin monk (Shadow Hand, Diamond Mind, Tiger Claw) or a fantasy desert dervish (Desert Wind) or a wide host of other fluff concepts.

So, that's the kind of thing we want in fluff.  The fluff of a class should inspire and compliment the fluff that players create, not stifle or restrict it.  As such, with a Monk specifically, we want mechanical abilities that encompass the fantasy eastern monk in general, while taking care not to force people to play one one specific kind of fantasy eastern monk.  This is why I don't like the multiclass restrictions on Monks (maybe I want to play a more martial monk, what's wrong with alternating Fighter and Monk levels?) or the Lawful requirement (I can't play a renegade monk with natural talent instead of iron discipline?  Why not?).

Anyway, I thought I'd get that out there.

JaronK

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #255 on: September 18, 2008, 07:15:24 PM »
I also provided lots of alternative fluff earlier in the thread for people who hate eastern flavor.
Work it in.
I hate elves... but I left em.

I hated warforged so I changed the imagery completely. I actually perfer the Idea of the transcendants, regardless of the flavor, the mechanics matter more. "To me"
*shrug* to each his own
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #256 on: September 18, 2008, 07:16:02 PM »
This is why I don't like the multiclass restrictions on Monks (maybe I want to play a more martial monk, what's wrong with alternating Fighter and Monk levels?) or the Lawful requirement (I can't play a renegade monk with natural talent instead of iron discipline?  Why not?).
Actually, with that sort of design principle, there's little reason to have any multiclassing restrictions on classes, other than for alignment.

If we stop viewing a monk or paladin as such a rigorous path that you can't deviate from, then we can drop the restrictions.  Besides, that concept has always been stupid.  If a monk can't multiclass out and back in, why can a wizard?  Why is it that the suckiest classes are the most pinned down?  They're extremely focused at sucking!
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]

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #257 on: September 18, 2008, 07:20:20 PM »
Well yeah, I don't think multiclass restrictions are good as a rule.  Classes should be designed such that multiclassing is an acceptable and characterful option, but not much of a power change one way or the other.  If all the classes are actually balanced, and they're not too frontloaded, that should work great.

JaronK

Mister_Sinister

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • For some people, four walls are three too many.
    • Email
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #258 on: September 18, 2008, 07:52:23 PM »
@ Midnight: The variance of opinion you have just explained can easily be represented with different builds and different levels on each. My suggestion for specialisations was also designed to achieve the precise thing you indicate with the ninja. I am not, in any way, encouraging for any kind of stifling of player creativity with my suggestion of fluff-crunch integration. What I am saying is that ultimately, we must have one represent the other, or, more precisely, be ABLE to represent the other. I actually want a class to be able to represent the ninja in both the forms you present (albeit likely at different levels) - what I want to avoid is people deliberately avoiding a class because it sucks mechanically, not because it doesn't fit their concept.

On multiclassing, I think you are well off-base. You are essentially in the same paradigm as Monte Cook and the other designers, because you are essentially claiming that 'mastery of the system' is a good thing with what you have said. If this is truly your opinion, then I'm afraid we will never agree, and should probably just leave it at that, and not argue back and forth and clutter this thread (or this project).

The reason why I dislike this 'dumpster-diving' principle in DnD is that it's highly labour-intensive (and book-intensive). Not everyone has the time or inclination to go hunting through 10+ books to build a character that is competent (which some classes or class combinations plain-out require you to do), and not everyone can, or wants to, focus so heavily on mechanics to make a character that keeps up. Unlike what many people think, there is an objective measurement of character power, which some characters reach more easily than others. What this does is essentially force people to work mechanics-up, rather than fluff-down. I find this sad and problematic, as this simply results in certain concepts being unplayable, regardless of how cool they are, and it also keeps people without a heavy mechanical focus from playing the same game as people who do have one.

Your mileage may, and seemingly does, vary on this issue, but I cannot see any way that what I have outlined above is a positive thing for the game, at all.

In my opinion, multiclassing shouldn't outpower a base class - I'm with an 'equal, but different' solution here.

@ JaronK: You have just said precisely what I think.

@ The issue of alignment restrictions: As I have described here (WARNING: This read is dryer than a 70-year old virgin), some alignment reqs do make sense, while others (such as the monk) do not. However, I don't believe that 'departing the path' should be something you are punished for - that's just daft. It's basically saying that 'if you stop training as a paladin, you stop being one', which is just ass-backwards and a fistful of stupid.

Everything I learned about DnD I learned from Frank Trollman at The Gaming Den... but nowadays, my work space is the New DnD Wiki.

Check them both out!


Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]
« Reply #259 on: September 18, 2008, 08:26:05 PM »
@ Midnight: The variance of opinion you have just explained can easily be represented with different builds and different levels on each. My suggestion for specialisations was also designed to achieve the precise thing you indicate with the ninja. I am not, in any way, encouraging for any kind of stifling of player creativity with my suggestion of fluff-crunch integration. What I am saying is that ultimately, we must have one represent the other, or, more precisely, be ABLE to represent the other. I actually want a class to be able to represent the ninja in both the forms you present (albeit likely at different levels) - what I want to avoid is people deliberately avoiding a class because it sucks mechanically, not because it doesn't fit their concept.

On multiclassing, I think you are well off-base. You are essentially in the same paradigm as Monte Cook and the other designers, because you are essentially claiming that 'mastery of the system' is a good thing with what you have said. If this is truly your opinion, then I'm afraid we will never agree, and should probably just leave it at that, and not argue back and forth and clutter this thread (or this project).

The reason why I dislike this 'dumpster-diving' principle in DnD is that it's highly labour-intensive (and book-intensive). Not everyone has the time or inclination to go hunting through 10+ books to build a character that is competent (which some classes or class combinations plain-out require you to do), and not everyone can, or wants to, focus so heavily on mechanics to make a character that keeps up. Unlike what many people think, there is an objective measurement of character power, which some characters reach more easily than others. What this does is essentially force people to work mechanics-up, rather than fluff-down. I find this sad and problematic, as this simply results in certain concepts being unplayable, regardless of how cool they are, and it also keeps people without a heavy mechanical focus from playing the same game as people who do have one.

Your mileage may, and seemingly does, vary on this issue, but I cannot see any way that what I have outlined above is a positive thing for the game, at all.

In my opinion, multiclassing shouldn't outpower a base class - I'm with an 'equal, but different' solution here.

@ JaronK: You have just said precisely what I think.

@ The issue of alignment restrictions: As I have described here (WARNING: This read is dryer than a 70-year old virgin), some alignment reqs do make sense, while others (such as the monk) do not. However, I don't believe that 'departing the path' should be something you are punished for - that's just daft. It's basically saying that 'if you stop training as a paladin, you stop being one', which is just ass-backwards and a fistful of stupid.
  No. We won't agree, I didn't think we would and I realized it was leading up to this.
However, we're not really going to avoid each other if were both here working in two different directions. Both vocal both opinionate from completely opposite veiw points.
  System master, you say it and in my head I hear those people saying "Roll-players" or "Min-maxers"...

 :(  I think that veiw is sad, Optimization is a function of system mastery. I'd like to say I'm appalled but I guess I'm used to it.
People generically opposed to multiclassing, opposed to min/maxing. I didn't expect it here in the rebalancing thread though. Why play a game that doesn't reward you for being "good" at it?

No. I didn't expect in in a balancing thread, because balance is acheived by people who have a heavy investiture in system mastery.

For example. If no one thought about it, Clerics would still be heal bots, that no one wants to play cause they get to be the band-aid.
All the people without system mastery ... dont actually have a clue as to what goes on.

I'm not saying encourage it.
However, as a statment of fact Multiclassing in the right hands will produce combonations that are more powerful that we come up with.

This is good for the game: because it allows the specialzation of Pc's in the fine tuning sense so people can play what they want.
If you want to play a "Knight in shining armor" a pally or a crusader should be fine. However the guy who has more knowledge and resources will invariably out shine you.

It is a product of the level based game.
(not that there aren't examples of superpowered single classes most benifit from dipping, changing that is one of the reasons. One of the main reasons... I don't play 4th edition.
*sigh*
I suppose there's not much I can do to convince someone who has made up thier mind to think differently.
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"