Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4996342" data-attributes="member: 48520">Hey Wulf Ratbane: It's true, damage dealing is their primary class feature, but the way they set it up, it needs to be used strategically. - The need for FULL BAB goes down if the opponent has to be flat footed for it to work.- While their main 'ability' is a damage dealer, they're simply ineffective strikers. They're more useful for their utility features, which is why theyre all skill-based.That's why most people don't build them as strikers in core D&D right? To be clear, when I say striker, I'm thinking, "Highest damage output to single opponents, on a consistent basis." The difference is the rogue is more of a "highest damage output, but not consistently, only in certain situations." Where the fighter/barbarian does better damage consistently. (I could be remembering trailblazer rules wrong, I dont have them right in front of me this instant.) And Wulf, don't get me wrong, I really like trailblazer, it has some really cool Ideas and I'm glad I bought it. I'm even okay with changing the rogue INTO a striker. I'm just saying I don't think theyre designed as good strikers normally. Likewise with the Monk. Their damage output is designed to be lowed than the fighter, and their toughness is lower, but they get utility skills to make up for it. Honsetly, I'd probably use the trailblazer rules wholesale if I could make them compatible with many of the other things I want to use, without ramping up the power levels of all the things that end up using Trailblazer mechanics (and then having to bump up the power of everything else to compensate). It would save me a good chunk of work, which is involved in trying to make rules alot like the ones you have in Trailblazer (particularly for class changes) without raising the power of everyone (IE keep the average power level about the same). I like the Idea of making Monks and Rogues into strikers, and making Fighter types be the tough frontline take damage and deal less damage types. It's just not how the core game is designed. Maybe if we assigned roles to the classes like in 4e just for design purposes, that would make class design easier. If someone just said outright: Rogues/Monks are fragile, but they do great strategically placed damage. (as opposed to consistant damage).Fighters/Barbarians are tough, and they fight consistently, but their damage is lower.Wizards are (hard to classify because it all depends on spell selection. Wizards CAN be controllers like in 4e, but I always avoid playing those kinds of wizards.) I guess what I'm saying is, while I'm okay with the Idea of redesigning classes to fit the roles that make sense for them, it's mainly the power level bump that I see as a problem. Hmm. Maybe a thread classifying roles could be useful, and then see how the classes could be changed to fit the roles we want them for. Final thing about trailblazer: (This is just my opinion) Trailblazer is an awesome rules fix. The one downside (which is quite significant), is that while it looks to be balanced with itself, it ramps the power level for the game up well above other books. If you want to run a game using things Trailblazer doesn't cover, you need to up the power to match trailblazer (which can be a big chunk of work to rebalance it all). Hey Kerrick: Yeah, the monk turned out fantastic. I'm glad alot of my suggestions got in there, too. It was a pretty huge class overhaul, and I think it turned out much more satisfactory than the core monk, or pathfinder monk. IMO your next best revision isnt your sorcerer though (I'm inclined to like the pathfinder sorcerer), it's the Druid.</blockquote>

Verification