New/Revised Prestige Classes

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Xzoltar mate!

Monk I dont think they should gain full Bab because they have so many other abilities.

I'll be balancing the classes against one another - so they won't be unbalanced for having too many abilities.

However, I just think that the Monk class is the only class specifically designed for combat that doesn't have the fighter BAB progression.

Theres no logical reason why Monk's wouldn't have the fighter BAB progression. Bards and Rogues don't have it because, although they 'fight', thats not the only thing they have up their collective sleeves. But if the Monk doesn't fight, then the Monk basically has nothing to do.

They also have flurry of blows that give 2 more attacks , add dual-weild and it start to become pretty tough, so if you add full bab...

Thats a good point, although whether Flurry will function exactly the same under the revised iterative attack rules is another matter.

Ranger I can see them without spells, but I would prefer them to retain spell, because it fit the concept of a hybrid fighter-druid what I think the ranger is. However if you come with a really good concept for ranger without spell. It may still be a good idea, if I want my hybrid then I only have to multiclass druid-ranger...

I have a few ideas for the Ranger but haven't decided on everything yet.

Also I'll have to fill in for Ranger Spellcasting at epic levels, unless I decide to continue that progression.

Did you see the Ultimate class made by Szatany on Wotc board ? It was really a great idea, basiclly you have core class that have so much possibilities, you dont need to have prestige class. I had made adaptation of is class for my world once, and everyone that have played those was enchanted with the result. Problem beeing each class have dozen and dozen of pages (the wizard had like 100 pages of abilities to choose from) You could take a look at what Szatany have done (since I can't show my own stuff as its not written in english)

I'll do a search for it later today. The name 'Ultimate Class' sounds familiar, so I've probably seen it at some point in the past.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey WarDragon dude!

Missed this earlier.

So.... they can't scream loud enough to deafen somebody until after 20th, but.... they can bring back the souls of the dead from their eternal rest at 10th? Please tell me I'm not the only one to see the contradiction here.

True, its a contradiction, initially it wasn't going to happen until 20th, but the 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th progression symmetry just reeled me in. However I suppose I could always swap around a few powers to change this.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

Found an interesting thread over at the WotC forums.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=781643

It looks like the Warblade has the equivalent of 33 feats to the Fighter's 11.

Incidently, my revision of the Fighter was deemed to need 32 feats instead of 11, although the final build I may have settled for 30.

 

[Xzoltar]

The Monk

Beside renaming some abilities, this version dosent seem to get enough change from the D&D Monk. Not really better, not really worst.

But there's one thing I really like. Its Ki Defense and Ki Offense (or strike, dont remember). These two abilities really shine. Now you can still get the abilities from armor on yourself. Of course there's a couple of armors/shield/weapons abilities that just seem wrong if you put in on a person, but overall seem good. These ability will certainly be included in the new monk of our campaign.

We just discuss and test your fighter variant today and it seem worth it, we then decide to level it up to lvl 30 and it was still good. Still of no match to the wizard, but was much stronger than the standard Fighter of the playtest. Continue to work, what is next , ranger ? (im a lot interested in the Soulknife, because it really need a boost in power, do you think you will also make a variant soulknife as it is in the srd ?)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Xzoltar mate!

The Monk

Beside renaming some abilities, this version dosent seem to get enough change from the D&D Monk. Not really better, not really worst.

I sort of see what you mean, but thats more a testament to the fact that the Monk didn't need that much work to be honest.

One thing I sort of left out at the 11th hour was Ki [Effect]. Which would have come in at epic levels, and made for a more DragonballZ type martial artist.

Another idea I left out was for monk ability score bonuses to be gained at every 2 levesl rather than every 4.

But there's one thing I really like. Its Ki Defense and Ki Offense (or strike, dont remember). These two abilities really shine. Now you can still get the abilities from armor on yourself.

Glad you like them.

Of course there's a couple of armors/shield/weapons abilities that just seem wrong if you put in on a person, but overall seem good. These ability will certainly be included in the new monk of our campaign.

I would only suggest you allow those with a market modifier rather than those with a cost modifier.

We just discuss and test your fighter variant today and it seem worth it, we then decide to level it up to lvl 30 and it was still good. Still of no match to the wizard, but was much stronger than the standard Fighter of the playtest.

Well I think the Wizard works out at roughly 86 feats worth, while my revised Fighter works out at about 78 (so it still needs a bit of work; 80+ is the target figure). Also the martial classes are more dependant upon magic items of course.

I don't really see what could be done to bring the Wizard into line other than removing their bonus feats. The way I would work that would be to allow metamagic for free, as I do metamartial maneouvres.

The cleric needs to have its HD dropped to d6 and its Good Fortitude save removed.

Continue to work, what is next , ranger ?

The Rogue is next, and it does need major work. I have increased HD to d8's, but it still needs something like 33 feats worth of class features. Taking into account that sneak attack is 10 of these (by 20th-level) and you have a massive 23 feats to play about with. Thats more than one feat per level on top of the sneak attack damage.

I have a few ideas at this point, but I think I am going to be struggling to fill all of them. So if anyone has any ideas, feel free to chime in.

Areas I am currently exploring will be the ability to Test Your Luck, and some Sneak Attack variants (although you could easily handle the latter with metamartial maneouvres). Dodge and Self-Concealment may also have to play a part.

(im a lot interested in the Soulknife, because it really need a boost in power, do you think you will also make a variant soulknife as it is in the srd ?)

Lets get the Core Classes done and dusted and then we can worry about Soul Knife and stuff like that.

 

[Pssthpok]

Adaptability is a big thing for rogues, IMO; so maybe an Anyfeat every ten levels? That would be what?... 12 feats right there. If you went with a 1 + 1/10 (i.e. granting an Anyfeat at 1st, 10th, and 20th) that would account for 18 of those 23 feats, leaving you five to play with; make those bonus feats every 4 levels and I think you've got it. Of course, an Anyfat at 1st is some serious dipping incentive, so I'd probably go with a 1/6 rate for that.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Flexibility does seem to be the safest thing to bet on with rogue. It helps them quite a bit, because there other two sticking points (Sneak Attack and trap skills) are mutually exclusive in most adventures. IE 'Most' people don't trap their own homes (kobolds might, but they have ways of avoiding or disarming them) so when in a heavily poplulated locale where Sneak Attack would be of use, there will be few traps (but they may be cunningly placed). Conversely, In a locale like a dungeon where traps are abound, there are few 'living' or sneak-attack-able monsters, because undead, constructs, oozes, and plants almost never have to worry about traps. Over the course of an adventure, a rogue will most likely use both his sneak attack and trap skills, but almost never at the same time. Flexibility like the Anyfeat abilities could help the class not get pigeonholed into either A: An assassin, or B: The party's trap springer finder.

 

[Yartiniu]

Throwing out some ideas for the Fighter

Hey U_K!

First off, it seems that the discussion has moved away from the Fighter revision. If I'm derailing the thread, I apologize. That's not my intention. And before I move on, I should mention that I mostly play mages (and warlocks!), mostly because I find that to make a viable fighter one has to 'cherry-pick' feats from all over the place, and the interaction between all these confuses me. On a similar note, I don't yet have Ascension, so I'm just making up numbers for the metamartial maneouvers. Sorry.

*1. First off, only fighters receive metamartial maneouvers for free; they automatically get all of them. Semi-martial classes like Bard and Rogue receive a few of them, say every five levels or so. Casters like sorcerers, clerics, druids, and wizards receive none without paying a feat for each they want. Battle sorcerers and warmages might receive a few, maybe 1 per 10 levels. I'll leave the number crunching to people better than me at it.

*2. Next, a potential ability. I'm rubbish at balancing things, so don't beat me too harshly about this. Combat Mastery (ex): A fighter with this abilty may take ten on attack rolls. Doing so provokes an attack of opportunity.

*3. Finally, some ability that lets a fighter attempt (possibly as a move action) to determine what an opponent's AC is, so he knows what target number he should attempt.

Before I get hanged, take this example: Bogroll the 10th level Dwarven fighter has a BAB of +10, a Str. of 20, and is up against four goblin warriors, ie. cannon-fodder. His weapon is a +3 War-axe of Goblinoid Bane, so his attack roll against one of them would be 1d20+10+5+5 or 1d20+20. However, he can't allow these guys to get past him to his friends behind him; he has to take them out. Knowing that, he decides to invoke Combat Mastery, knowing that he has little to fear from their AoOs. He then splits his BAB pool into five attacks at +2 each, to double up on one of his foes. His five attacks that round, then, are each 10+2+5+5, enough for him to clear the floor of the annoying goblins. The next round, however, he's up against a big boss of considerably greater power. Thus he decides to go for broke, rolling as normal and devoting his full BAB to one attack.

Or, perhaps instead Bogroll takes a move action to determine what his foe's AC is, and decides that he can hit it, but his friends might not be able to (the party's rogue is about to flank the bad guy). He asks for, and receives, a bull's strength spell from his friend the cleric and so decides to invest part of his BAB pool (perhaps 5, I really don't know) into a shattering strike, to damage his enemies armor. So his attack is now 1d20+5(BAB)+7(Str.)+5(weapon). He rolls a 16 and hits, and weakens his foes AC, so that the rogue with his lower BAB can strke next round. On Bogroll's next turn, he decides to finish off the enemy, and so devotes his BAB pool to power attack (a metamartial maneouver, I think) and uses Combat Mastery to make sure he hits. His attack roll for this last attack is 10+7+5, and he does 1d10+7+5+2d6 damage.

Mind, I'm just throwing ideas out there. Martial classes really aren't my specialty, but I must admit I sorta like the idea of BAB as a 'pool' that you split up as you choose each round. Almost like the AMC feats. So, what do you guys think?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys - just wanted to say thanks for the feedback. I am still working on the Rogue which is the class which needs the most revision.

Hey U_K!

Hello there Yartiniu...and welcome to the boards.

First off, it seems that the discussion has moved away from the Fighter revision. If I'm derailing the thread, I apologize. That's not my intention.

No apology necessary - you are not derailing anything and even if you were, no real harm done.

And before I move on, I should mention that I mostly play mages (and warlocks!), mostly because I find that to make a viable fighter one has to 'cherry-pick' feats from all over the place, and the interaction between all these confuses me.

I think better feat structure (akin to feat trees) would be helpful. I think in a way the multitude of sources for feats parallels that there are so many divine abilities in Ascension, in that the choice can be overwhelming.

If I was doing things again I might rework a lot of the structure of those abilities into 'Ability Trees'.

On a similar note, I don't yet have Ascension, so I'm just making up numbers for the metamartial maneouvers. Sorry.

Thats okay.

*1. First off, only fighters receive metamartial maneouvers for free; they automatically get all of them. Semi-martial classes like Bard and Rogue receive a few of them, say every five levels or so. Casters like sorcerers, clerics, druids, and wizards receive none without paying a feat for each they want. Battle sorcerers and warmages might receive a few, maybe 1 per 10 levels. I'll leave the number crunching to people better than me at it.

Well thats okay, but remember that metamartial maneouvers are fuelled by BAB, so if you continue BAB progression for all the core classes - they will balance themselves out no problem.

*2. Next, a potential ability. I'm rubbish at balancing things, so don't beat me too harshly about this. Combat Mastery (ex): A fighter with this abilty may take ten on attack rolls. Doing so provokes an attack of opportunity.

Thats interesting, but the problem with take '10's is that then you are unlikely to miss...like ever!

*3. Finally, some ability that lets a fighter attempt (possibly as a move action) to determine what an opponent's AC is, so he knows what target number he should attempt.

'Battle Gauge'...Hows that for a title?

Before I get hanged, take this example: Bogroll the 10th level Dwarven fighter

That name made me chuckle!

has a BAB of +10, a Str. of 20, and is up against four goblin warriors, ie. cannon-fodder. His weapon is a +3 War-axe of Goblinoid Bane, so his attack roll against one of them would be 1d20+10+5+5 or 1d20+20. However, he can't allow these guys to get past him to his friends behind him; he has to take them out. Knowing that, he decides to invoke Combat Mastery, knowing that he has little to fear from their AoOs. He then splits his BAB pool into five attacks at +2 each, to double up on one of his foes. His five attacks that round, then, are each 10+2+5+5, enough for him to clear the floor of the annoying goblins. The next round, however, he's up against a big boss of considerably greater power. Thus he decides to go for broke, rolling as normal and devoting his full BAB to one attack.

Or, perhaps instead Bogroll takes a move action to determine what his foe's AC is, and decides that he can hit it, but his friends might not be able to (the party's rogue is about to flank the bad guy). He asks for, and receives, a bull's strength spell from his friend the cleric and so decides to invest part of his BAB pool (perhaps 5, I really don't know) into a shattering strike, to damage his enemies armor. So his attack is now 1d20+5(BAB)+7(Str.)+5(weapon). He rolls a 16 and hits, and weakens his foes AC, so that the rogue with his lower BAB can strke next round. On Bogroll's next turn, he decides to finish off the enemy, and so devotes his BAB pool to power attack (a metamartial maneouver, I think) and uses Combat Mastery to make sure he hits. His attack roll for this last attack is 10+7+5, and he does 1d10+7+5+2d6 damage.

Mind, I'm just throwing ideas out there. Martial classes really aren't my specialty, but I must admit I sorta like the idea of BAB as a 'pool' that you split up as you choose each round. Almost like the AMC feats. So, what do you guys think?

What I like about it is that its simple, flexible, customisable and it promotes tactical play.

 

[WarDragon]

Reading it got me mad all over again, so here we go.

Fighter shouldn't be pigeonholed as a one-weapon master, or even doing nothing but studying weapons in general. Don't design the class so retards can play it, design it so it's worth taking. Because this one isn't. Your excuse of being more "tactical" is a flimsy one for weakening it overall, with the lowered attack bonuses, and lack of the class's hallmark versatility.

Summon Ancestral Spirits makes no damn sense at all. Barbarians suck up damage, and they hit things, end of story, and it doesn't matter if you think that's boring, because yes, base classes are supposed to be generic! Not everyone who gets really mad in a fight is going to come from a tribal society that reveres its ancestors. Assuming that they do is more pigeonholing, when D&D is about choices.

And yes, I was very tired when I typed this, making me both cranky and slightly incoherent.