Changing The Game By Limiting Class Choice

[IronWolf]

I am a player in Crothian's group and while we are still relatively early into the campaign it has worked out well so far. Of course he is aware we lack a full BAB class or full on spellcaster, so he takes a bit of that into account I believe. Though some of taking into account was just giving the bard and inquisitor a freebie slot for the cure spell of appropriate level.

It has been fun. Makes you think a little bit more during encounters to play them a bit smarter. One session we actually devised an escape plan if something in an upcoming encounter went bad. As he said, I think that is the first time in our years of gaming we've actually developed an *escape* plan!

I don't think I'd want to play every campaign this way, but it definitely works for the occasional campaign - at least in our group.

 

[Kaodi]

One other option that would open it up a bit is if it were decided that what really counted was the result, not the class per se, and that thus you could use any class as long as your base attack bonus was not higher than a 3/4 class of the same level, and that the level of spells available to you was never higher than that available to a mid-caster (6 levels). This would mean you could have multi-class characters like a cleric 12/rogue 8, or a sorcerer 6/fighter 6/eldritch knight 8, or even an oracle 3/sorcerer 3/mystic theurge 10/fighter 4.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

What is your problem w/ the full BAB classes? Seriously, the only classes suckier than them are rogue and monk, and by leaving them out of your plans, it just sort of highlights the power disparity between those two and the "2/3 casters" even more.

 

[concerro]

I would do it for one campaign, but not as a permanent rule. If the GM was not skilled enough to handle a high level game with at least all the core classes I would prefer for the GM to end the game at a lower level.

 

[Kaodi]

What is your problem w/ the full BAB classes? Seriously, the only classes suckier than them are rogue and monk, and by leaving them out of your plans, it just sort of highlights the power disparity between those two and the "2/3 casters" even more.

I guess my concern is that at the highest levels, you are going to end up either with monsters that only the full attack classes can hit with weapons, or with monsters that the full attack classes can hardly miss. Unfortunately I do not have much experience first hand with high level play.

In this same vein, should the monk and rogue not suck less, relatively speaking, if encounters are all going to end up being designed for them to be able to hit a good amount of the time, as opposed to the current situation where they are essentially melee classes with caster attack?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The full BAB classes don't have spells (or many spells) and such. Hitting is their "thing." Is it so OP at higher levels or mid levels to have classes that can hit with all but a 1 on their first attack? The game assumes such in assigning its attack disparity. Medium BAB classes have a reasonable (IME 60-75% or even better) chance of hitting on highest BAB attack, full BAB characters, it becomes nearly automatic. But that's why you have things like Power Attack and TWF and such to trade that attack bonus for other things. Or if all you care about is not whiffing, you don't. It's a great set up.

 

[Kaodi]

I suppose. If that is the case, and the idea is then to just disallow classes that take the power disparity too far, then I guess the thing to do would be to just remove the cleric, druid, oracle, sorcerer, summoner, wizard, and witch? Making the character classes "lower magic" rather than "low magic" per se.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

That sounds fine. Perhaps buff rogue and monk as well. Only issues would be from the sudden lack of all that magic that the game assumes a party has and other intrigues. Like magic items that need new spells assigned otherwise they can't be created (or not w/o the +5 DC) and so forth.

I'd be fine playing in such a game.