D&D Other Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[JaronK]

A number of vestiges are demons and devils already.  Not sure about fey vestiges, but I think there's some of those too.  Really, the two classes are made for each other.

JaronK

[veekie]

True, I meant demons, devils and fey that are still around though.
But thats a purely fluff issue, not critical.

[RobbyPants]

It's a noble proposal so far but the casting-stat-to-spell concept needs a rethink: consider thusly that the average character does not usually put CON as their best stat.
They tend to put the best in something offensive, and CON as second or third best (especially warrior types, the ones difficult for blasters to take down with Evocations)

If you add casting stat bonus to spell damage for each dice that's comparing Single Ability Dependency to Multi Ability Dependency, of which the latter will be at disadvantage.

I suggest adding half the caster's stat to damage for each character level.

Actaully, that's pretty close to what I printed.  The cap on the damage for a spell isn't the spell's level, but rather the half the spell's level plus one (or half, round up, however you want to look at it). 

[spoiler]

The simple solution is to add the primary casing stat (Int for wizards, Cha for spontaneous casters, etc...) mod per damage die of the spell, capped at the spells level plus one, divided by two.  So, 1st level spells would add 1 point per damage die, 1 point for 2nd level spells, 2 points for 3rd level spells, etc, but capped at the casting stat mod.

So a few examples:

A 12th level wizard with an Int of 22 (mod +6) casts Fireball for 10d6+20 (+6 mod capped at +2 per die for a 3rd level spell).  The same wizard casts Cone of Cold for 12d6+36 (+6 mod capped at +3) and Magic Missle for 5d4+10 (an additional +5 on top of what Magic Missile normally does).

[/spoiler]

So the bonus damage per die cap per spell level is:

0 - 0
1 - 1
2 - 1
3 - 2
4 - 2
5 - 3
6 - 3
7 - 4
8 - 4
9 - 5

So, in pretty much every situation, this number should be lower than the caster's casting stat mod.  Actually, looking at it, those caps tied to those levels pretty much represent the base casting mod you need to cast a spell (one higher for the odd numbered spells though). I could probably just remove the casting stat mod cap, as it's useless.

Con is a good 2nd ro 3rd most important stat for about everyone.  If you look at the bonus damage per spell level, it's not that hard to get a Con mod at the same level to match.  All you need for a minimum Con score by character levle to match is:

Level    Con score
__________________
1-4      12
5-8      14
9-12     16
13-16    18
17+      20

So, you should pretty much have a high enough Con to offset the damage. 

[RobbyPants]

The binder warlock idea sounds interesting.  I don't own a copy of ToM, so I'm only loosely familiar with binders.

[RabidPirateMan]

I like the idea... its interesting...

Wouldn't it complicate things a little?  From what I've seen, the Warlock is a fairly easy class; like the fighter.  This could be me over simplifying things...

Well, if we do, should be go through the vestiges and try and see what we can tweak with them?  Certainly a fair few will be rendered useless by Warlock abilities.

[JaronK]

Well, Malphas's invisibility is somewhat beaten out by the Warlock version.  Meanwhile, his Sneak Attack works great, so it balances out (IIRC you can get Malphas invisibility long before Warlocks).  But for the most part they mesh together extremely well.

The Binder is a REALLY well made, well balanced class.  It doesn't synergize well with the Warlock, but that's good... it means it won't overpower it.  The fluff, however, fits perfectly.  I think just turning the other Warlock invocations into Vestiges would be enough to really do something cool.

JaronK

[SiggyDevil]

Here's a thought for gestalt since I genuinely believe it can be combined with normal classes:

I call this the Spellcaster Benchmark GestaltFull spellcastersSemi-spellcastersNon-spellcasters, which are pretty much any base class with full BAB (yes even Duskblade) or otherwise absolute sucktastic combat options (Monk) count as 1 class, which allows you to match any 2 every level.


Perhaps this should be codified in to a list for each category.
Not today though, it's a brother's birthday.


Robby: I see now that my proposal for "half-stat" really is the same as yours but in a differently worded way. Strange! We went about it differently but came to the same result.

[Elennsar]

Unrelated to anything else in the thread, but mentioning it here since you mentioned the day here:
Happy birthday to him.

I'm not fond of forced gestalts, but its an interesting idea if using them.

[SiggyDevil]

Unrelated to anything else in the thread, but mentioning it here since you mentioned the day here:
Happy birthday to him.

I'm not fond of forced gestalts, but its an interesting idea if using them.

I'll tell him, even though he'll raise an eyebrow and say "So, someone I've never met on an internet forum wished me a happy birthday?"

The gestalt concept here wouldn't be used in a truly gestalt setting, since one could easily compare PrCs to these same standards.
I meant it more as a method for comparing the balance between classes in order to make more balanced classes.
For instance, the advice I gave ZeroSum here http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2107.0 went by this very same assumption.
Warriors such as Gunslinger, Soulblade, and Thug all fit within that Non-spellcaster category. Might need to define the ranking with different terminology... I considered "Tier" 1 to 3 but discovered a similar system already used here.

[veekie]

Well, Malphas's invisibility is somewhat beaten out by the Warlock version.  Meanwhile, his Sneak Attack works great, so it balances out (IIRC you can get Malphas invisibility long before Warlocks).  But for the most part they mesh together extremely well.

The Binder is a REALLY well made, well balanced class.  It doesn't synergize well with the Warlock, but that's good... it means it won't overpower it.  The fluff, however, fits perfectly.  I think just turning the other Warlock invocations into Vestiges would be enough to really do something cool.

JaronK

Start looking for ones which clash or fail to mesh and fix them?

[JaronK]

Yeah, that's why I mentioned Malphas, which does both (the sneak attack is great, the invisibility is overwritten).  The online vestige that grants any item creation feat might be a bit much with the Warlock 11 ability too.  So far that's all I've found.

JaronK

[Midnight_v]

A quick thought on Warlocks:  as I understand it, for 4e they wanted a Binder/Warlock hybrid.  I think this is an excellent idea!  The two classes are thematically similar and can be virtually gestalted together without any problems, creating a pretty darn cool class overall.  You get the steady blasting ability of the Warlock with the adaptability of a Binder, and I don't even think it would be overpowered... just cool.

Just a thought.

JaronK

I don't like this idea.

Much like you didn't want the Scout-ranger hybrid. I opposes the Warlock Binder hybrid.

Or rather its cool as long as we still have BINDER and Warlocks as individual classes.

Basically, I'm gonna have to fight you on this. There's no reason for the change. If binders already work. and Warlocks already work whats the problem.
If you want to power up Warlocks. There are better ways of doing it than eating binder. . .
 I hope I'm not misunderstanding your intent about that.

...but if you want to feed warlock to binder...
I'm better with that...

why the change at all though?

[RobbyPants]

What other things would boost it?  I guess if I use your 4 question approach, Midnight_V:

1) I think the warlock as printed gets the gist of the idea across.  Unlimited use of invocations, which are weaker version of spells, and the use of Eldritch Blast, which makes the warlock sort of an archer.  I don't want to change the basic idea behind the class.

2) I think it does a lot well.  It's just some of the existing things could be done better.

3) A few features are somewhat weak.  The low number of invocations known hurts the warlock more than a sorcerer gets hurt by spells known.  The energy resistance and DR are both nice, but weak.  I'm not sure how much I even like Fiendish Resilience(fast healing).

4) This is a tough comparison.  Obviously, the at-will nature of the warlock makes him endure better than act spectacularly each round.  I think the direct damage capability should be lower than that of a dedicated caster, but not to the point of being weak or useless.  I think a dedicated blaster warlock should be similar to a dedicated archer in terms of damage (maybe a little behind due to having invocations).

So, that being said, here are a few suggestions (not all need to be used, necessarily):

• Add Cha to EB damage.  This is really only a low-level boost.
• EB scales like a rogue's Sneak Attack (this really only adds 1d6 later)
• Create an invocation (probably blast shape) that lets you do a full-attack with your EB for the round.  You'll still be behind Eldritch Chain in terms of number of targets, but each blast will deal full damage.
• Perhaps set the number of invocations known to the warlock's level.  This adds a total of 8 invocations over 20 levels.
• Have the DR scale at the same rate as the Dread Necromancer (roughly double that of the CA warlock).  It would start at DR 2/Cold Iron at 2nd level, and increase two points every four levels.
• Possibly drop Fiendish Resilience.  It seems weak to the point of being useful, and I'm not sure the flavor is all that good.  If anything, it could be used to call on some temporary HP in advance.
• Add in some new blast shape invocations to help out a bit.  Perhaps a 20' sphere at some range (60 feet?  Medium range?) would work nicely.

That's about all I can think of now.  If I get some other ideas, or ideas for better/new invocations, I'll post them.

[SiggyDevil]

[RobbyPants]

Warlocks already do get energy resistance, just not from the Fiendish Resilience ability.  They get resistance in any two energy types (their choice) of 5 at level 10, and 10 at level 20.  The package idea is interesting.  I suppose you could add in a fey package too.  I guess it depends on how much rewriting we want to do.

I was debating on increasint this to 5 every 5th level instead of every 10th level.  I wouldn't call it overpowered, but I just don't want to overdo it with changes.  I think giving them an invocation every level and creating a few more useful blast shapes will be about 80 - 90% of the fix we need.

[Midnight_v]

In the end, that's not even really gestalt; the result would be something that just might hold up against true spellcasters

Binder is actually one of the tier 3 classes used as an example of what were trying to create. The basis of this Rebalancing 3.5 was to get all the classes brought to the same level of power as the binder, Initiator Tob classes, and Dread necro. We don't want to make something that is on the same level as true spellcasters which we're powering down by attacking spells.
I suppose our shared assumptions aren't in tune. What are you trying to accomplish with this change siggy?
 I dont' think its just change for change sake but I've no idea what your designe goal is I'd like to, maybe we can stop constantly disagreeing if I know what you're shooting for. . .

[RobbyPants]

Midnight_V, what do you think of some of the suggestions I posted a few posts back.  I don't think we need to use all of them, but I wanted to throw ideas out there.  The two I see as most important (and probably able to do 80+% of the fix) are:

• Adding more invocations known.  Give the warlock an invocation every level (so 20 at 20th level instead of 12)
• Add in some new invocations, particularly some more useful blast shape invocations.  Also some eldritch essence invocations could be revisitied, improved, or created.

[Midnight_v]

Okay okay but I have to say I've only played 2 warlocks ever one was a warforged warlock...
Phyrexia or die...
So, that being said, here are a few suggestions (not all need to be used, necessarily):

Add Cha to EB damage.  This is really only a low-level boost.

Excellent and needed

EB scales like a rogue's Sneak Attack (this really only adds 1d6 later)

Not really that big a deal really, so it where does it make a difference exactly? hmm... Okay.

Create an invocation (probably blast shape) that lets you do a full-attack with your EB for the round. 

You'll still be behind Eldritch Chain in terms of number of targets, but each blast will deal full damage. Thats really interesting actually thats perfect. Its not even a big deal, they should be able to do this and then there's the eldritch glaive with this might help

Perhaps set the number of invocations known to the warlock's level.  This adds a total of 8 invocations over 20 levels.

Hm...
Yes. Yes... this... works I mean it keeps them from being sooo limited in thier choices

Have the DR scale at the same rate as the Dread Necromancer (roughly double that of the CA warlock).  It would start at DR 2/Cold Iron at 2nd level, and increase two points every four levels.

Thank you may I have another. All class ability related DR on spell casters should scale like that probbably

Possibly drop Fiendish Resilience.  It seems weak to the point of being useful, and I'm not sure the flavor is all that good.  If anything, it could be used to call on some temporary HP in advance.

Yeah... Make it a specific bonus invocation that you get at that level. Granting temporary hp.

Add in some new blast shape invocations to help out a bit.  Perhaps a 20' sphere at some range (60 feet?  Medium range?) would work nicely.

I"m not sure that the shapes really matter that much... maybe if we let it make a wall or something? It has potential...

If I don't respond to something its not because I disagree or don't like the idea... I just don't go running off at the mouth when I feel my knowledge base is incomplete on a topic, or its summed up pretty damn well already. This was a case of the latter.
I didn't have enough info to "rebalance" the warlock myself. I just knew the Binder was already tier 3 and basically balanced so why change what works.
I think that warlock design works.
But ... one thing that bones the warlock as I recall... the selection of invocations they get is sooo small.
The list would prolly need to grow but I suppose they have the essentials...

[RobbyPants]

No, I wasn't trying to pester you into an answer.  I was just looking for some feedback in general.

I agree that I'd rather not blend the warlock and binder, the same as I'd rather not blend the ranger and scout. 

I might try to work up a few new or fixed invocations and post them soon.  I think that will be the bulk of the warlock fix (that, and more invocations known).

[Midnight_v]

No, I wasn't trying to pester you into an answer.  I was just looking for some feedback in general.

I agree that I'd rather not blend the warlock and binder, the same as I'd rather not blend the ranger and scout. 

I might try to work up a few new or fixed invocations and post them soon.  I think that will be the bulk of the warlock fix (that, and more invocations known).

The internet!
I wasn't trying to imply you were. I was just saying I wasn't ignoring you post, cause I thought you were overwhelmingly right! Actually, I, probbably should throw in a "good job", or an "excellent Idea" now and again to the good ideas instead of speaking out against the bad ones.
"Good Job"