D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Kuroimaken]

Y'know, one suggestion that has been tossed my way while I was discussing this thread with my GM was giving Rangers the favorite terrain variant rather than FE. It requires less compromise than coming straight up to your DM and asking, "So I'm making a ranger. Which FE should I put up first?"

[Elennsar]

I'd support that. Though to be honest, I'd also say "only one terrain, not five".

You can switch after spending some time in the terrain you intend to switch to.

That way, you can adapt to any environment, but going into one you're not prepared can be unpleasant.

FE as a feat wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea if this is done, since that way it would only be taken if you did want to focus on undead/demons/minotaurs/whatever.

[JaronK]

A quick note on the Wild Shape Ranger:  He's limited to Medium or smaller animals only.  As such, he's not turning into a Tiranosaurous or Large Elemental any time soon.  He's far more balanced, though Fleshraker is still an option.

So no, it's not unlimited Wild Shape like a Druid.  It's far more toned down, and between the limited options and lack of spells, it's actually right now perfectly balanced with Warblades and the like.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

Unfortunately, Wild Shape only fits some rangers (and some druids, for that matter), so...

Even if this is the most balanced ranger at the moment ever, we need to tweak things.

[JaronK]

Well, that's why it should be one of three options... TWF, Archery, and Wild Shape.  It's not for everybody, but it makes a wilderness shapeshifter character possible that's more melee oriented than caster oriented.

JaronK

[Midnight_v]

Well, that's why it should be one of three options... TWF, Archery, and Wild Shape.  It's not for everybody, but it makes a wilderness shapeshifter character possible that's more melee oriented than caster oriented.

JaronK

Okay... sure. It's on the table then.

and skirmish?

[Elennsar]

Definately good for lycanthropes who don't want the specific D&D template but like the idea.

Were it not for the possibility of being overpowered, I'd add large animals. (Beorn.), but this seems fine for those who want it.

Skirmish...hm.

My problem with skirmish is that skirmish is in conflict with full attacks. This doesn't feel right. Something needs to be adjusted.

[SiggyDevil]

Since I'm not reading through this entire thread...

Did anyone change the blackguard at all?

Pff. Lazy. I won't tell you yes or no but I will tell you how to find out.

1. Go to top or bottom of this thread and look in the blue bar that says "Reply  |  Notify  |  Mark unread  |  Send this topic  |  Print"
2. Click Print.
3. CTRL+F and type "blackguard", keep searching each occurrence. You'll see every mention of the word.

[JaronK]

Okay... sure. It's on the table then.

and skirmish?

Well, you know my feelings about Skirmish.  I think it might be too much (sure, you can get it now, but you burn a feat and a point of BAB, plus animal companion progression for four levels and casting loss and whatnot).  I think Favored Enemy is enough for bonus damage, really.  I'm not super opposed or anything, I'd just like to keep those classes seperate. 

I don't mind the feat still existing, especially if we boost the Scout in ways other than skirmish (as we're doing with the Ranger).  If you have that, there's a choice to be made and a price for the damage boost.  In theory, the goal would be that it's a tough decision as to whether to do the Scout/Ranger multiclass or not.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

The problem is that both (other than the scout being more rogue like) are "wilderness savvy light warrior".

They blur and overlap too much fluffwise.

Note: I'm not exactly in favor of "rangers get skirmish". I just don't want two classes that are really covering the exact same people.

[JaronK]

That's like saying the Crusader and Fighter overlap because they're heavy tank melees.

The Scout is a highly mobile precision focused skillmonkey, basically a more mobile and more nature oriented Rogue.  The Ranger is a hybrid of divine caster, warrior, and skillmonkey, also with a nature theme.  They're really not the same at all.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

Quote "fluffwise". Unquote.

Jaron, I know that it causes you agonizing pain to actually read what I write, but please do it before responding.

[SiggyDevil]

Jaron, I know that it causes you agonizing pain to actually read what I write, but please do it before responding.

Ufufufufuuuu

[Elennsar]

Well, when I specifically said "fluff", not "crunch"...

I reserve the right to be less than polite at pointing out that he completely and totally misread (or neglected to read).

Now, if I said "Blur and overlap too much" and that was the end of the sentence, that would be one thing.

[SiggyDevil]

Alter Self gives you:
Movement modes (if they are Ex)
Natural AC
Natural attacks (but not more than 2 arms or however many arms your original form has)

That would be fine for a Wildshape replacement/alternative for Rangers (or anyone really).
Essentially the ability would fill in for weapons, armor, maybe a new movement type, a new sense method, and later on a size change. Clothing would NOT change with the user; ordinary clothing is shredded and armor is pushed off.

Most importantly, and as mentioned earlier, these types of abilities don't need stat boosts AT ALL. That's probably the biggest fail of normal Wildshape.

[JaronK]

Alter Self, IIRC, also gives you spells.  Not an issue with animals, luckily.

I think the Wild Shape issue is far less significant, when limited to medium sized forms.  There aren't that many crazy stat boosts.  That said, we have to fix the Druid anyway.  Either they'll change over to the Shapeshift Varient or we'll have to mess with Wild Shape a lot... one easy solution is to say that your physical stats gain an enhancement bonus when you wild shape equal to the amount the animal would have over 10 or 11 (always an even number).  Thus, if you turn into something with a strength of 20, you get a +10 enhancement bonus to strength.  That means it never stacks with the easiest forms of bonus to stats, and you have to actually worry about more than just Wisdom and Con.

JaronK

[AndyJames]

Gives spells? Where did you get that from, Jaron?

I hope it not that stupid "spellcasting is an Ex ability" crap WotC tried to pull right at the end of 3.5's reign, probably a parting "OMGWTFSUXXOR!" shot at 3.5 before tauting their new 4.0 as the "improved" game that stops all the 3.5 borkenness...


BTW, I won't even give Wildshape a single point in boost to stats. That is still too abusable, since a 8+16 Str Bear is still Str 24...

[Elennsar]

Well, here's a question:

What exactly is the supposed reason why druids have wild shape? That is, is it to make them better in combat? Is it something that supposedly fits that no one tried to balance?

Is it just a dumb idea?

[JaronK]

Gives spells? Where did you get that from, Jaron?

I hope it not that stupid "spellcasting is an Ex ability" crap WotC tried to pull right at the end of 3.5's reign, probably a parting "OMGWTFSUXXOR!" shot at 3.5 before tauting their new 4.0 as the "improved" game that stops all the 3.5 borkenness...

Yes, it's because Spellcasting is indeed Ex, which it's always been, they just didn't spell it out before.  Note page 190 (IIRC) of the PHB, which says that all abilities must be Supernatural, Spell Like, Extraordinary, or Natural.  Spells can't be Supernatural, because they'd ignore spell resistance if that were so.  They can't be Spell Like, because they'd never have component cost.  Thus, the ability to cast spells must be Ex or Natural.  It was never properly defined which until MMV, but since Natural Abilities are inhearent to all creatures and much of the time spells were class given, it was always more reasonable to call them Ex.  MMV then defined them as such, though CustServ also ruled as much (not that CustServ is terribly useful, but it's something I guess).

BTW, I won't even give Wildshape a single point in boost to stats. That is still too abusable, since a 8+16 Str Bear is still Str 24...

I can understand this sentiment.  If so, the Wild Shape Ranger will still be okay as long as he gets the full caster level and animal companion that the others get.  Still, if Wild Shape worked exactly as is without stat changes it would be fine, I think.

@Elennsar:  The playtesters were REALLY poor optimizers, and as such just didn't think about these things.  Note that the sample Druid (which was a playtest Druid) had Weapon Focus: Scimitar as a feat because that's actually what she was wielding in combat... Wild Shape was being used to be stealthy and look like an animal only.    So yeah, the ability was something the playtesters simply didn't try to use in combat, and as such it was never playtested that way.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

My conviction that 3e was developed by drunken monkeys is strengthened. Hooray.