Class revisions

[hong]

I wish people could get it into their heads that RANGERS ARE NO MORE FRONT LOADED THAN ANY OTHER CLASS!

Yes, they are. But it depends on your intended schtick.

They're not frontloaded _if_ you intend to continue with ranger levels. However, if your schtick revolves around two-weapon fighting, then the ranger is the definition of the term. From what I've seen, there are a lot more dual-wielding rgr1/rogX's or rgr1/ftrX's out there than there are straight rangers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The sneak attack damage becomes weak to non-existant at high levels with Fortification on armour and all the elemental, undead and other types immune to sneak attack.

Not really. There are enough creatures that are still not immune to sneaking. Not every creature / NPC can and will afford an armor of Fortitification (it is a +5 enhancement to become completely immune). Some cannot even carry such an armor. (Monks, Wizard/Sorcerer)

*** minor spoiler ***







In City of the Spider Queen, many "targets" are NOT immune to sneak attacks. Our Swirfneblin Rogue proved it...



*** spoiler end ***






Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Darklone]

At higher levels, demons, devils and other outsiders are nice targets for sneak attacks...

 

[Li Shenron]

The frontloading occurs because the designers want every 1st level character to be a fully functional archetype. That melds badly with the multiclassing rules.

Exactly.

I think the variant rules for apprentice characters could be interesting to investigate (I really didn't read them carefully), but the game revolves around heroes who, if you look at their abilities at 1st level, have already shown an attitude of becoming powerful. That's not too bad, in D&D PCs get very powerful very fast, acquire tons of magic gear and more... not that I necessarily like it, but that's how the game seems to be.

Anyway, I believe that all classes are equipowerful, but not all multiclass combinations are, and in fact that's where people usually find weaknesses to hurt you (e.g. caster level doesn't stack) or power-springs to exploit (e.g. our Ranger case). It's multiclassing that should be revised, not the classes themselves (minor tweaks are fine of course...), but if they wanted to do it seriously they'd better playtest every class combination.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I know it's highly unlikely, but I'd like to see Wizards follow the d20 Modern track, with every class getting some kind of cool, worthwhile benefit at every level.

That would, of course, completely break backwards compatibility.

But, instead of Fighter simply having the bonus feat every other level, they'd get an extra feat every three levels (like everyone else), and better skills. They'd also get special combat abilities, like some of the stuff from the Weapon Master PrC, or some other combat-related class ability.

Spellcasters would get metamagic and bonus feats, and something else to both flavor and enhance their spellcasting. And more skills. Clerics would gain the ability to turn/rebuke creatures other than Undead-- Outsiders seems a likely choice, though this should be alignment-linked and only apply to Outsiders with alignment subtypes. (I don't think either Gith subrace should be turnable, nor should the Planetouched).

Rogues would keep their skills, and gain bonus acrobatic abilities, new stealth powers, and such. Rangers would have stealth abilities, though leaning more towards the wilderness, hunting, and combat.

And so on down the list. It could be kept balanced, and there'd always be a tradeoff involved when choosing which class to advance. Then, multiclassing could be more common, without being as particularly noticeable or offensive-- it would just be the natural progression of the character over time. Even better, none of the classes would become pointless or boring at a specific level-- like every Sorceror level, or Paladin past 5, or Ranger past 1.

 

[hong]

Even better, none of the classes would become pointless or boring at a specific level-- like every Sorceror level, or Paladin past 5, or Ranger past 1.

Don't be an idiot.

Uh, oops, you posted to the Hivemind, didn't you?

Damn, so much for yelling. Oh well, what I REALLY meant was, sorcs (and paladins and rangers, to a lesser extent) get plenty of cool and worthwhile benefits at every level. These are called "spells". In fact, so much of a sorc's power comes through spells that it's led to the common refrain that sorcs lose nothing by taking PrCs that grant full spellcasting.

Furthermore, _every_ class gets benefits at every level to some extent, via BAB, save and HD increases, and other level-based abilities (eg turning undead). Just because there's nothing listed on the "Specials" column of the level progression table doesn't mean they actually get nothing.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Furthermore, _every_ class gets benefits at every level to some extent, via BAB, save and HD increases, and other level-based abilities (eg turning undead). Just because there's nothing listed on the "Specials" column of the level progression table doesn't mean they actually get nothing.

Eh.

Sure, they get something. But they don't get anything exciting. New spells are somewhat exciting, the Sorceror more than the Wizard, because they have Spells Known at level. BAB does not increase at every level, nor do Saving Throws, and neither BAB nor Saving Throws are particularly exciting. A 5% greater chance of surviving one specific attack or hitting a specific Armor Class doesn't get my heart racing.

Also, since every spellcasting class gets new spells at every level, and other benefits at points that are few and far between, they are less distinct as classes. Even with dissimilar spell lists, all the spellcasting classes simply resemble each other too much in play. Druid stands out somewhat because of their special abilities, and I consider Druid one of the better classes in D&D-- even though I don't normally play them.

Give the Sorceror, Wizard, Bard, and Cleric new special abilities at every level, and give each class a separate set. I think all four classes need more skill points (four/level for the primary casters, six for the Bard), and their skill lists should be distinct from each other-- and from other classes. I think Clerics should only gain one Domain at first level, though they should gain more Domains as they progress.

Paladins, though they get spells, are the worst offender for boring progression. While the Ranger can improve Favored Enemy (which is, on its own, a pretty boring ability), the Paladin is stuck with more chances to Remove Disease in any given week, and a numeric increase in their smiting damage. Their spells help, but I think spell progression alone is as boring and as drab as BAB progression.

If Paladins gained more smite attempts per day, automatically gained divine feats, and started picking up Domains at higher levels, they suddenly become much more interesting-- whether they gain relative power or not-- and much more plausible as a representative of the forces of Good and Light on the Prime Material Plane.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It would also give the Wizard, Sorceror, and Cleric "something to lose" for taking a Prestige Class, since the Prestige Classes would have their own special abilities-- which leaves players the decision of whether or not to take an actual Prestige Class.

 

[Pickaxe]

Comment on front-loading:

I agree (and have already said) that rangers are front-loaded. Yes, every character gets a bunch of things at first level, but rangers are different in two ways:

1) Hardly any of their initial abilities changes with ranger level. That's generally not true of other classes. (Barbarian probably comes closest, with fast movement. Paladins also have a lot of 1st level abilities that don't change with level, but they also have new abilities at second level.) Turning, familiars, bardic music, even many domain granted powers all have level-dependent features. Track and Ambi/TWF do not. (Track is based on Wilderness Lore, but once you have it as a class skill, you don't have to take ranger levels to advance it.)

The only level dependent power of a 1st level ranger is Favored Enemy, and the problem here is that a) it advances slowly, and b) the advancement is not very attractive. What ranger is really looking forward to seeing his +1 vs. goblinoids become +5 at 20th level?

2) The other difference is that rangers are getting good BAB and d10 hit die to boot, so that there is no big loss to a fighter who multiclasses as a ranger, and a ranger who takes a level of fighter at 2nd is essentially trading a couple of skill points for two feats.

A very simple fix is to change Favored Enemy. Make it advance every level and give it a +5 cap. Now you've given rangers a reason to become second level, and third level for that matter. If the FE bonuses still aren't attractive enough, I'd consider including attack rolls in the list of things that get bonuses, or make the damage bonus equivalent to sneak attack.

--Axe

 

[Andion Isurand]

Also, since every spellcasting class gets new spells at every level, and other benefits at points that are few and far between, they are less distinct as classes.

I agree with this comment that the spellcasters look too much the same........ ON PAPER!

Sure, they look the same on paper and in the rule books, but I thought most of you guys were interested in actually playing the game, and not comparing the appearances of your respective character sheets.