D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[RobbyPants]

The version I have currently is in this post in the Combat & Rules thread.  Basically, my attempt was to simplify the rules and make them more fun.  Under the current (PHB) system, there are at least two problems:

1) The mechanic is clunky.  It involves rolling to see what your cleric level is in terms of the highest HD undead you can affect, followed by rolling to see how many HD are actually affected.

2) If you're not destroying the undead, they run away.  That's a real pain in the ass!  Then you have to go chase them down.

What I'd posted just converts it to raw damage, which averages out to the original "destroy undead when your level is double their HD).  You can take a feat to force the undead to roll a Will save.  Failure makes them dazed for several rounds.  Thus, they still don't attack you, but at least they aren't running away!

[SiggyDevil]

I'd say do it for a set 10 damage per level, heal living beings by half.

[RobbyPants]

The 1d6 per level is based off of the 1d12 undead Hit Die.  That way, every two cleric levels roughly translates into one undead HD of damage.  It balances out well with the power level of the existing mechanic.

Of course, with this mechanic, damage from subsequent turnings would stack, which gives the cleric a boost in that regard.

[Sunic_Flames]

Summary of every Elennsar post here: Fighters (Rangers) Do Not Get Nice Things. Thank you, that is all.

[Elennsar]

False. Now, if "nice things" meant "GREAT POWER!", then yes, I don't think fighters or rangers or anyone else should have "great power!".

I do think they should have nice abilities.

[Sunic_Flames]

True.

You: Blah blah blah, that's not REALISTIC!

Wizard: *bends reality over table, fucks hard*

Cleric: *divine bitchslaps everyone, except his allies*

Druid: *turns into a T Rex and eats the BBEG*

And you're still whining about 'realistic'. Realistic ensures no non caster will ever be relevant beyond level 5.

Ergo, Fighters (Rangers) Do Not Get Nice Things.

QED.

[Elennsar]

And of course, the assumption is that fighters should be shanked but druids and wizards and clerics should have reality shattering power because of magic...why?

Sorry, that's not how I think. If all characters are limited to a plausible level of power, then "I use magic!" is not superior to "I use swords!".

Realistic...is it 5th level or 10th level? Maybe its 15th? Seriously. There needs to be some decision on when the line between human and superhuman is, and I've heard both.

I favor setting things to be at 10th+, minimum, but that's not the point. And arguing over you misreading and/or ignoring what I write is clogging Robby's thread.

[Kuroimaken]

Elennsar's Notion of What D&D Should Be, meet Miss Suspension of Disbelief.

Carry on.

[Elennsar]

Suspension of disbelief only works to the extent it is possible to believe that Batman could do such things.

If and when he starts flying by the power of his own muscles, my suspension of disbelief will die in agony.

Wouldn't necessarily be at all unbelievable for him to glide with some Batgadget.

[Midnight_v]

That paradigm only works if he's guaranteed such things as an impicit class feature.

Though lets not mince words here. Batman has very little to do with it unless its to say "well he doesn't really belong on the justice league" batman is largely Deus Ex Machina.
Since that's the purview of the writers in comics or the Dm in D&D its largely irrelavent to the conversation.

Thing is we all know that king arthur shit ends early on. If we try to extend it you're fucking over anyone whose power set reflects that, mosters stop caring how well you fight (barring being a one of us CO bastards) even then opposition isn't worried about you that much.
"Target the spellcasters first is a general rule of thumb for surviing the game."
Changing that mean everyone gets some measure of great power. . .
... or...
Or we rewrite the monster manual.
Knights don't slay dragons in this game. *shrug*
At level 10 you join the avengers. Or die.
Suspension of disbelief...
It just becomes progressively a weaker and weaker argument, as a basis for game rebalance.
Since it seems so many people have answers and point out that it may simply be a personal weakness.
Fighters I think have to be something like the "fantasy themed" anime guys at the mid high levels , and/or superheroes. . .
You know I was reading ... I think it was Commune or divination or something it actually says a "legendary character is someone who's around 10th level" fuck it might have been scry...
... *sigh* must sleep.

[RabidPirateMan]

What was wrong with 3.5?

Was it that Goblins were usually NE?

Was it that Archivists were librarians of the holy faith?

Was it that Kenku in Forgotten Realms didn't play a big enough political role?

Or was it the mechanics?

I've always said to leave reality out of it all.  Maybe it can be a creative source for ideas, but its the mechanics that matter in REBALANCING 3.5.

Realistic...is it 5th level or 10th level? Maybe its 15th? Seriously. There needs to be some decision on when the line between human and superhuman is, and I've heard both.

The line between human and super human is that a human is someone playing DND, and a super human is the character he's playing.  This is a game, not a life simulator, and we should approach it as if we were fixing the game's mechanics, not the portrait of realism it paints.

M_v, I think we SHOULD rewrite the MM, but not for the reasons you state- the more balanced this game becomes on the players side, the less balanced it becomes on the DMs side.  Fleshrakers still own at their CR, and Ogre Magi still suck.  Once we balance the classes, we can make appropriate monsters for their CR.  I'm hesitant to start it NOW, since we might change abilities throughout the balancing process.

But my point is realism is a false god for this project; a mechanic fixes a car by working the engine, not the paint job.  If we really wanted to make the game realistic, someone start number crunching how we can take into account a Halfling's high pitched voice when it comes to listen checks.

[AndyJames]

You know I was reading ... I think it was Commune or divination or something it actually says a "legendary character is someone who's around 10th level" fuck it might have been scry...

Legend Lore?

[Elennsar]

Legendary =/= realistic.

The Red Baron was a legendary ace.

Moving on.

On Turning: Robby, is the idea that "undead run away is bad for the game", or "unfun"? Curious, here.

Personally, I don't mind them running away, but I like your rules better than the default. I'd prefer more of "repeled and forced backward" than "run away" effect truthfully. That way if they run away, its because scary people (like guys with turn undead) tend to encourage people not to stick around, but that's a conscious decision...which means the mindless undead don't make it.

Would the number of turning attempts per day be adjusted as part of this, including how much that could be boosted?

[RobbyPants]

On Turning: Robby, is the idea that "undead run away is bad for the game", or "unfun"?

Unfun.  It's a pain in the ass chasing them down.  If you blow a feat, you can daze them for a while, which also takes them out of combat, but they get a Will save (their strong save).

Curious, here.Would the number of turning attempts per day be adjusted as part of this, including how much that could be boosted?

I was not going to adjust it.  The healing it provides to living creatures actually isn't that much.  We're looking at 3.5 HP per level.  I know it works on several PCs at once, but in general, a level-appropriate Cure spell will outpace Turn Undead.

[Elennsar]

Just checking, on both counts. I've stated how I'd like to see it done, but the mechanics for it would have to be worked out, and I think your idea has handled that aspect.

So, consider this a vote for "turning hurts undead and heals allies".

[Midnight_v]

You know I was reading ... I think it was Commune or divination or something it actually says a "legendary character is someone who's around 10th level" fuck it might have been scry...

Legend Lore?

Thanks.

But my point is realism is a false god for this project; a mechanic fixes a car by working the engine, not the paint job.  If we really wanted to make the game realistic, someone start number crunching how we can take into account a Halfling's high pitched voice when it comes to listen checks

I absolutely agree. I'm not helping re-write the monster manual. Good luck to you.

Legendary =/= realistic.

Well duh.
In D&D it definately fucking does.
Realistically =/= Well balanced game.
Which is our goal, infact in many cases as much as I can determine it seems to be a hinderance.

[Elennsar]

Not at all. You can have perfectly realistic characters without magic unbalancing anything.

It'd be tricky, but it'd be doable.

Regardless, back on topic. Turn undead method as Robby suggested...good, bad, in need of work but basically sound?

[SiggyDevil]

The 1d6 per level is based off of the 1d12 undead Hit Die.  That way, every two cleric levels roughly translates into one undead HD of damage.  It balances out well with the power level of the existing mechanic.

Of course, with this mechanic, damage from subsequent turnings would stack, which gives the cleric a boost in that regard.

Aha, I was on the direction that Turn should still be like a SoD but since such things are too powerful as-is anyways the damage would default to 10 per level, much like Disintegrate, Heal, and Harm do now.

2d6 vs 1d12 does work nicely, even if not all Undead have that HD type (some have classes)

Turning should also create Fear effects or Fear-like debuffs even though mindless Undead aren't normally affected.
Hey, it's all fair, since living beings are hit by Fear, there should be a counterpart.

[Elennsar]

Do undead with classes use d12s or not? I seem to recall that they do (liches, for instance), but that's a template.

I'm not sure what you get if you have a ghoul with ranger levels, say.

[JaronK]

Undead with classes always use D12s.

JaronK