D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Orion]

Like that but not specifically those powers, generally that level of power. Note that the only real life human is level 5?

That's exactly what I think Sin was talking about in his fluff post; at a certain point, all of these classes are based on cinematic/literary "types," and those types are great as a reference point. I'd like to think that we've now arrived at something of a sense of what the monk is supposed to be, what kinds abilities it's supposed to have, based on those cinematic/literary antecedents. So if we agree on them (and I think we do? I hope we do?), then we can proceed with tweaking the class the class so that it does three specific things. 1) It reflects the fluffy reference points from lit/movies. 2) It keeps some kind of balance with other core classes, not just in terms of combat efficacy, but that is the most easily quantifiable element of balance. Finally, 3) it stays recognisable as a 3.x D&D-style Monk.

That all make sense?

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?).

Cool! My apologies for not knowing about this already. This is perfect. I think the simplest solution is just to throw massive amounts of class-based bonuses at the Monk's Climb, Balance, Jump, and Tumble skills. That is, if it's not diverging too much from the D&D monk...?

JaronK: Well put! The goal is provide enough of a basis that most players can then run with it. Make something too generic, and it gives people nothing to work with. Make something too specific, and it limits rather than inspires imagination. I agree with everything you said.

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!

The honest answer is because in most cinematic examples, when Monks significantly deviate from their spiritual path, they don't come back. Check out the evil monks in Twin Warriors or Iron Monkey, for example. I'm not saying that's a good answer, in the context of D&D, but that's the historical answer, as far as I can tell.

[Elennsar]

I would say that a monk or paladin should be difficult to multiclass into, and what's permited to multiclass from would depend on the kind of paladin or monk.

For instance, any monk can probably justify some levels in Fighter (if Fighter means "expert warrior")

Monk/barbarian is probably leaving the Way, however.

Similarly, a Paladin/Sorcerer is...not very likely.

I'm personally a believer in making some things very strict (regarding what you can do to make it "your own") and some not so strict. For instance, Fighters should able to play a knight in shining armor, an archer, an axeman (like Druss...for those who don't know who Druss is, ask), etc.

On the other hand, Paladins should not be "any concept you can come up with". They're specifically Lawful Good Champions of all that's Good And True And Holy And Righteous.

I can grudgingly live with the idea of "Paladin of Freedom" (though with much dislike), or "Paladin of Tyranny" (maybe slightly less), but "Paladin of Slaughter" is...missing the point. What's next? Paladin of Balance? Paladin of Greed? Paladin of Anarchy? Please. No.

Similarly, if you want to be a Red Wizard, you're limited by the fact the Red Wizards are a nasty bunch of assholes.

Something like that shouldn't be a class, however. Unless the Red Wizards do things other wizards don't do that has to be represented by a seperate (prestige?) class.

[Kuroimaken]

Cool! My apologies for not knowing about this already. This is perfect. I think the simplest solution is just to throw massive amounts of class-based bonuses at the Monk's Climb, Balance, Jump, and Tumble skills. That is, if it's not diverging too much from the D&D monk...?

No biggie. You can't expect everyone to keep every single rule in mind, after all. 

Monk/barbarian is probably leaving the Way, however.

That depends on what you consider a Barbarian to be. If you consider a Barbarian to be a "warrior who relies on the raw power of anger", then learning how to focus that anger through martial training (while not losing the means to access it), then Monk/Barbarian is actually a feasible concept.

[Elennsar]

The problem is that a barbarian rage is not a "focused" fury...its a consuming fury.

Zen and the art of going berserk (shield chewing and all) don't mix.

[JaronK]

Monk/barbarian is probably leaving the Way, however.

 

So you think you should disallow other players from using that if they'd have fun with it?  Maybe I want to play a savage warrior who learns to find a balance between the power of rage and the control of discipline, and in that balance point finds something greater than both.  Maybe I just want to play a feral warrior who doesn't need weapons or armour, only his own strength and ability.  Who are you to tell me I can't do that?  By removing those choices, you remove something from players.  I don't see why that's needed.

Similarly, a Paladin/Sorcerer is...not very likely.

Because seriously, someone with a magical bloodline deciding to dedicate their life to service of others is a horrible idea, right?  A Paladin/Sorcerer multiclass could easily represent that... magical abilities manifesting along with the abilities gained by devout martial training.  Heck, doesn't that make perfect sense for a Kobold champion of Tiamat?  Just because you can't think of a character that the class combo works for doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, Paladins should not be "any concept you can come up with". They're specifically Lawful Good Champions of all that's Good And True And Holy And Righteous.

I can grudgingly live with the idea of "Paladin of Freedom" (though with much dislike), or "Paladin of Tyranny" (maybe slightly less), but "Paladin of Slaughter" is...missing the point. What's next? Paladin of Balance? Paladin of Greed? Paladin of Anarchy? Please. No.

Why?  In real life, a "Paladin" was just an elite guard dedicated to a lord (specifically, in France, a long time ago).  The very idea of a Paladin as servant to a great god comes only from the divinity of kings and the idea that whatever the king said was good.  In fact, the Paladin of Tyranny is closer to reality than the Paladin of Honor... their goal was to uphold the king's wishes.  But why should that concept of a devoted servant to something be to things other than being a boyscout?  Why can't you be a Paladin of <insert god here> and, by extension, a Paladin of <insert part of god's portfolio here>?

You say it's missing the point, but what justification do you have for your point, and why is anyone else's idea of fun wrong to you?  Isn't the point that the mechanics allow people to, in a a balanced and easily representable manner, play whatever sort of character they want to play?  And thus, aren't you the one missing the point when you say "anyone who wants to play a paladin different how I would is wrong, and shouldn't be allowed to do it?"

Similarly, if you want to be a Red Wizard, you're limited by the fact the Red Wizards are a nasty bunch of assholes.

But why are all potent circle magic classes assholes?  How does that benefit anything.

Something like that shouldn't be a class, however. Unless the Red Wizards do things other wizards don't do that has to be represented by a seperate (prestige?) class.

Circle magic, IIRC.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

1) I think it should be disallowed if it fails to make sense. Not all things are valid possibilities, simply because they can be imagined. If, for instance, iron interfers with magic, "I want to play a mage that wears full plate!" is probably not a reasonable idea.

2) Because seriously, someone being a Paladin is a path that would demand a great deal of focus and concentration on that path (though not necessarily the class by that name).

3) No, the very idea comes from the theory (unfounded, perhaps) that Charlemagne's "paladins" were upholding Go(o)d and King. The peers were supposed to be heroic, not merely warrior vassals. In fantasy, the term has been used to mean specifically the Lawful Good by-whatever-name chivalric and pious ideal, as a general rule. A person dedicated to selflessly serving a God bent on destroying all life is not closely enough related to this kind of champion to merit the same class being used.

4) I have nothing against having a "Circle Mage" prestige class (or even variant/option/feat for a regualr wizard). But if you want to be a "Red Wizard", you have to take the rest of the package.

5) ^ Circle Magic is supposedly not unique to Thayans in Faerun. Make a generic "Circle Mage" class if you're focusing on that, and leave "Red Wizard" for the whole issue.


Giving players the option to do anything, no matter how absurd, because "they'd have fun with it" is not a good idea. Now, what fits a given DM's setting is up to the DM, and I'm not positive I know what the people behind Greyhawk and Faerun would deem fitting, if they were dictating it.

It would be ludicrious to ask to play a paladin (the standard, LG, etc. kind) in Middle-Earth or Conan's world, or settings inspired by one of those. It would be equally ludicrious to deny permission to play one in a setting inspired by the tales of King Arthur.

It would not be a good idea to allow wuxia-style monks in a game telling adventure/horror in something equivalant to Dark Ages Scandinava.

It would be a terrible idea to allow sorcerers whose power comes from being dimly part dragon (though not necessarily sorcerers at all) in a game where dragons are monsters in the old (European) sense.

Fluff is important. Crunch on its own is a set of blobs with numbers and no color or substance. And when fluff is important, not all aspects are things that will bend simply because one wants to bend them. There is no reason for the (game) world to work like that.

As noted elsewhere, as well: What's the role of a class if a class-based system is designed to be able to potentially do any kind of character imaginable? Why not just use a system like GURPS? Once you strip the classes of anything other than crunch, you either have to make many, many, many, many classes, or watch some concepts wind up being hard to pull off because the class combination that would come closest fits in some ways and not in others. (For instance, a fighter/monk as a swordmaster has several abilities that don't fit that vision at all, but in order to change them, you have to rewrite much of the class.)

I don't think "I don't like this, therefore it should not exist", I simply don't believe that players should be allowed to choose anything they want, no matter what it is. There are plenty of things I find interesting and likeable that I don't think should be included. (For instance, a Knight class, as distinct from a Fighter.) There are things that I don't like that should be out there, if not readily available necessarily (horse archery).
There are things that I don't care one way or another for that I'm willing to support if they can be made to work well (circle mages).

[JaronK]

1) I think it should be disallowed if it fails to make sense. Not all things are valid possibilities, simply because they can be imagined. If, for instance, iron interfers with magic, "I want to play a mage that wears full plate!" is probably not a reasonable idea.

If it doesn't make sense to you you mean.  You want to be the judge of what character concepts are reasonable and what aren't without even looking at the concepts.  Iron, by the way, doesn't interfere with magic in D&D, unless that's your personal house rule.  Cold Iron does, a little, but it's just that it's hard for mages to cast without full mobility.  However, with training they can do it just fine (see Duskblades).

2) Because seriously, someone being a Paladin is a path that would demand a great deal of focus and concentration on that path (though not necessarily the class by that name).

Why?  That's not what historical paladins were.  They were just loyal warrior servants of someone (originally, the king of france).  That's it.  Just warrior servants.  Now, you who think you are judge of all character concepts may say "I think paladins require great focus and concentration" but that's how you should play your paladins, not how everyone else should play theirs. 

3) No, the very idea comes from the theory (unfounded, perhaps) that Charlemagne's "paladins" were upholding Go(o)d and King.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.  Here, I'll quote myself:  "a "Paladin" was just an elite guard dedicated to a lord (specifically, in France, a long time ago).  The very idea of a Paladin as servant to a great god comes only from the divinity of kings and the idea that whatever the king said was good."  Charlemagne's paladins were guards who followed his orders loyally, and thus were serving God due to the divine right of kings.

The peers were supposed to be heroic, not merely warrior vassals. In fantasy, the term has been used to mean specifically the Lawful Good by-whatever-name chivalric and pious ideal, as a general rule. A person dedicated to selflessly serving a God bent on destroying all life is not closely enough related to this kind of champion to merit the same class being used.

No, historically in D&D and a few other offshoots Paladins were lawful good.  However, that hasn't been true since Unearthed Arcana, which already introduced other sorts of paladins.  And again, that's your opinion that paladins can't be evil.  So, you shouldn't play evil paladins.  But if others are having fun with evil ones, they should be allowed.  After all, the point is to have fun.  I have one in my party, actually... a Paladin of Tyranny/Hexblade/Ur Priest/Bone Knight who is a loyal guard of my Necromancer. 

4) I have nothing against having a "Circle Mage" prestige class (or even variant/option/feat for a regualr wizard). But if you want to be a "Red Wizard", you have to take the rest of the package.

This is exactly why having too much fluff ruins classes.  The "Red Wizard" could easily be renamed "Circle Mage" and lose a few alignment requirements and suddenly it would be a better class, because it could still be used to create a Red Wizard concept, but it could also be used to create other concepts (namely, good ones).  That's exactly the point.  A class that has a bunch of extra fluff thrown in that forces you to do something if you take the class that, fluff wise, you don't want is a problem.  This is the same issue with paladins... just change it from "they have to be lawful good servants of god" to "they have to be servants of something" and now it can do all the same character concepts as before, plus a bunch more.  You oppose this because you're used to the problematic class.

Giving players the option to do anything, no matter how absurd, because "they'd have fun with it" is not a good idea.

Yeah, how dare players have fun.  And remember, it's the DM's call whether something is absurd.  You're trying to judge absurdity without even hearing the character concepts.  You just think a Monk/Barbarian must be absurd, despite the fact that you hadn't even heard character concepts that fit it.  Better to let the DM decide if a character doesn't work after hearing it than for you to decide when you are acting, once again, from ignorance.

It would be ludicrious to ask to play a paladin (the standard, LG, etc. kind) in Middle-Earth or Conan's world, or settings inspired by one of those.

Why?  I want to be a Rider of Rohan who's dedicated to serving his lord, and through his faith finds power.  Maybe take the spell-less varient to match the magic light setting.  Is that ludicrous?  It seems to me you just once again banned a large number of character concepts because you didn't think about them.

It would not be a good idea to allow wuxia-style monks in a game telling adventure/horror in something equivalant to Dark Ages Scandinava.

I want to play a savage warrior who can take on fully armoured knights with his bare hands.  Bad idea?  Why?  I wasn't aware that, stripped of weapons, Beowulf was a pansy.

As noted elsewhere, as well: What's the role of a class if a class-based system is designed to be able to potentially do any kind of character imaginable?

I answered that last post:  "Isn't the point that the mechanics allow people to, in a a balanced and easily representable manner, play whatever sort of character they want to play?"  You want to play a thief character who's strong with a rapier.  Your buddy wants to play a shapeshifting nature character.  Now, how do you do that in a way that's balanced?  If the classes are balanced, you be a Rogue 12/Swashbuckler 8 and your buddy plays a Wild Shape Varient Ranger 10/Master of Many Forms 10 and now you have mechanical representations and rules for what you wanted to play that balance out.  That's the point.

I don't think "I don't like this, therefore it should not exist", I simply don't believe that players should be allowed to choose anything they want, no matter what it is.

That's a contradiction.  You just stated a bunch of things you didn't like (various paladin types, for example) and said they shouldn't exist.  What you believe is that you're the judge of what character concepts are reasonable, not the DM who actually hears the concepts.  You think it's the job of mechanics to constrain fluff to within the perameters that you think are proper.

JaronK

[Kuroimaken]

The problem is that a barbarian rage is not a "focused" fury...its a consuming fury.

Hence the monk side providing the focus.

Zen and the art of going berserk (shield chewing and all) don't mix.

Contrary to popular belief, Zen is not a state of absolute calm or inner peace. That is a common misconception from the selling out of a misguided concept of Zen.

Zen is, in fact, a state of full-time awareness. You always mantain awareness of your surroundings. You are always ready. No circunstances prevent you from being completely effective, and you strive for perfection. There is ALWAYS something you can make better, and you make it a point to discover and correct it.

Rage is just a power source, as natural to one's mind as breathing is natural to one's body. Ineffective and short-lived, perhaps, when not controlled - but incredibly destructive, and with a bit of focus it could become capable of destroying anything.

Join the two, and you have perfection in its most primal state.

Now, I've heard your arguments on fluff before, and while I doubt you can't pull some BS out of your ass to continue justifying your line of thought, I'm not really sure I've got the patience to sift through a discussion that will eventually lead us from the beginnings of Nowhere to the ends of Nothing. So why don't we just get back to the mechanics, hmmmm?

[Mister_Sinister]

I agree kids. Break it up, and let's get back on track to what this thread is designed to be doing.

One thing I have seen notable absence of discussion on are the psionic classes - these are core too, you know!

[Kuroimaken]

I agree kids. Break it up, and let's get back on track to what this thread is designed to be doing.

One thing I have seen notable absence of discussion on are the psionic classes - these are core too, you know!

Psionics need rebalancing? When was that? (Also: up or down?)

[Elennsar]

1) No, it doesn't make sense. The magic and iron example is not meant to say "this is a good idea" or in the game or a house rule I'd prefer, its an example of something that if it is the case, would limit some concepts.

2) Warrior-servants who were supposed to be exemplars of something other than the Art of Killing People With Swords.

3) There is no reason to bend the "Paladin class" to fit any possible "warrior of ____". At that point, it becomes a "I want to play a fighter/cleric, but don't like the spellcasting."

4) No, this is exactly why fluff is important but any restrictions it places should be ones that are fitting and justified. Saying only Dwarves can be Dwarven defenders is a poor idea...why can't human knights have an equivalant to the class? There's nothing that requires being dwarven to do in it, and no obvious reason in fluff why they'd be the only ones choosing to do it. On the other hand, having the arcane archer be elves only because only elves are familiar enough with both archery and magic to blend them together is a lot more well founded.

5) No. Fun is fine. "I want to do this and you have to let me do it!" is pretty pathetic. At no point have I stated "I, Elennsar, dictator of what makes sense, deem this to be forbidden, Bow before my will." I have stated examples of things that don't particularly make sense (to me) and saying "ah but I can come up with a fun character concept so therefore it makes perfect sense!" is being a tad obnoxious on your part.

6) Yes, it is ludicrious. There are no examples in Middle-Earth of anyone having any abilities that would justify being divinely blessed with the ability to do the things paladins do. Now, you might be able to justify that "Aragorn used lay on hands!" when building Middle-Earth characters in standard D&D, but it would be better represented as a part of the True King template than as a "I am a (class)." Nothing about him by training or experience has granted it.

7) Beowulf is not a monk. Simply a Fighter (possibly Fighter/Barbarian) who can do things unarmed beyond D&D's standard. Saying that anyone with unarmed skill must be a monk is an absurdity we don't need to keep.

8) That doesn't justify using classes. It shows very clealry that you have to bend and reshape and change them considerably in order to fit concepts in, or have scores and hundreds of classes (far too many to readily keep track of and see if they're balanced overall or not)

9) I don't like some things and don't think some things are fitting, at times those are the same things. At times, things I dislike are perfectly justified...does the fact I don't like ninja mean I'm proposing we ban anything with anything like a ninja power? No.

1) A barbarian rage does not permit the use of skills that require paitence or concentration. Monk levels do not suddenly remove that limitation.

2) I'm glad to know that you'd rather allow infinite character concepts, regardless of how dubious they may be, then accept that any character concept that I've criticized might ever have any reason that it could possibly be a bad idea.

If and when you're actually interested in looking at why I have a problem with it, I'd be more than willing to explain. Since you're determined to misread "I dislike" as "I want to ban", there'd be no point.

[Mister_Sinister]

Psionics need rebalancing? When was that? (Also: up or down?)

Three words: soulknife and wilder.

[Orion]

To me, "core" is from the PHB. Psionics are entire optional system. I'd rather stay with the actual core. But that's just my vote, and I wouldn't dream of stopping someone else from doing just because I'm not into it.

[JaronK]

Psionics is not truly core in the minds of most.  It really should be in the other thread on the topic.

JaronK

[Mister_Sinister]

It's in the SRD. Thus, it is core. But if you guys would rather discuss this on a different thread, sure thing.

@ Robby: What is our official stance on this?

[Kuroimaken]

Psionics is not truly core in the minds of most.  It really should be in the other thread on the topic.

Well, we DO 11 classes altogether to balance right now. The thread could seriously get VERY cluttered if we added Psionics to the mix.

[JaronK]

It's in the SRD. Thus, it is core. But if you guys would rather discuss this on a different thread, sure thing.

I wasn't aware that unearthed arcana was suddenly core. 

JaronK

[Kuroimaken]

I wasn't aware that unearthed arcana was suddenly core. 

C'mon, guys, focus! We're banging heads enough as it is. Psionics is a pretty darned big mutha to tackle, so let's leave it for later, mmmkay?

[Mister_Sinister]

Thanks Kuro, couldn't have said it better myself.

[RobbyPants]

2) Because seriously, someone being a Paladin is a path that would demand a great deal of focus and concentration on that path (though not necessarily the class by that name).

What about being a cleric?  Aren't they even more devout to their deity?  What about a wizard?  All the fluff you see on the class involves ass loads of study and patience.

I can see the arguement that it takes "less focus" to be a rogue, barbarian, or fighter, but I don't see what makes a monk or paladin so special that you can't freely multiclass.

It's in the SRD. Thus, it is core. But if you guys would rather discuss this on a different thread, sure thing.

@ Robby: What is our official stance on this?

You mean Psionics?  I figured those classes could be discussed in the Other Classes thread.  I'd like to work on them.  My basic stance on what needs to be fixed is:
- The wilder needs to suck less.
- The soul knife either needs to suck less or be scrapped and have it's mind blade turned into a level-1 psychic warrior power.
- A few abusable powers need to be addressed (possibly in the spells thread).

Anyway, I'll post this little section in that thread.