Complete Warrior to have new base classes

[Ranger REG]

Actually, looking at the Star Wars Hero's Guide, it occurs to me that WotC should experiment with some class combinations with variant special abilities to simulate other archetypes.

For example, a wizard/bard could be tweaked a little bit [maybe adding a pinch of Smart Hero?] to create a sage, or a fighter/druid in a loincloth could be a beastmaster.

Well, as a Star Wars gamer, I made it loud and clear that I like character archetypes since it was featured in almost every issues of Star Wars Gamer magazine. Of course, it helps to have other people putting their vote in as well.

But among the D&D community, not many voiced in favor of them, when they were featured frequently in Dragon magazine. That's too bad.

Again, concepts that can be expressed in other ways, but variant classes are an area that WotC really hasn't explored thus far.

Maybe it's me. I just still don't see the need.

 

[jasamcarl]

Two words: Mystic Theurge.

Andy Colins even admits to "pushing the envelope" with it. The problem is, you shouldn't be pusing the envelope in the core rules. You should be setting the base line. Like it or not, power creep is here. Power levels are being ratcheted up in the core rules, and they'll be ratcheted up further in the next few years.

According to the dictionary, when you "push the envelope," you increase the operating capabilites of a technological system. In other words, you set a new high-end benchmark. However, in a game system like 3e, if you assume the system is balanced before, when people constanly push the envelope, you end up with power creep - arguably *massive* power creep in the case of the Mystic Theurge.

Each time someone pushes the envelope, the next person to do so will push it further.

I was really hoping 3.5 would take the opportunity to sort of "reset" the power creep and demonstrate what should be considered a baseline for PrCs, feats, ect. Instead, if what I've seen is any indication, they've simply upped the ante on power creep.

Two letters: BS

There hasn't been a significant argument that has demonstrated how this class is unbalanced, especially in light of the rebalanceing of metamagic feat and certain low-level 'must haves', as well as spell focus and greater spell focus.

 

[rounser]

All IMO:

Regardless of it's balance, the Mystic Theurge should not exist. It's a workaround, a hack for a more fundamental design problem which has been solved clumsily and inappropriately using the class system. It deliberately has no archetype and no flavour, and yet it has a name, making a mockery of what classes are meant to stand for....or what they were once meant to stand for, perhaps.

 

[hong]

I was really hoping 3.5 would take the opportunity to sort of "reset" the power creep and demonstrate what should be considered a baseline for PrCs, feats, ect. Instead, if what I've seen is any indication, they've simply upped the ante on power creep.

How on earth could anybody have managed to avoid the six million "wizards got teh shaft" threads?

 

[Deadguy]

Originally posted by hong

How on earth could anybody have managed to avoid the six million "wizards got teh shaft" threads?

By seeing the world through one of those nice little filters that cuts out all those things that disagree with our thesis. That's how most of us do it.

 

[JPL]

Well, as a Star Wars gamer, I made it loud and clear that I like character archetypes since it was featured in almost every issues of Star Wars Gamer magazine. Of course, it helps to have other people putting their vote in as well.

But among the D&D community, not many voiced in favor of them, when they were featured frequently in Dragon magazine. That's too bad.

Well, I think D&D needs to go the next step and give some alternate abilities [as was done with the Star Wars archetypes]. Otherwise, it's just a half-page chart breaking down the progression of a ranger/barbarian, plus a little flavor text.

But take that same ranger/barbarian and give him something different --- say, instead of getting his barbarian damage reduction, he gets powers related to his totem animal --- and then you have something interesting.

 

[mmu1]

Right and the lumps got bigger. There is a much bigger difference between 13/14 to 15 versus 7/8 to 15. A lot of veteran D&D players I know will not play spellcasters in 3.0 (forget 3.5) because they feel they got overcompensated for.

But since this is a complete warrior discussion, I do think we've gone a bit off track.

No such thing as going too far off track on a message board.

The lumps have gotten bigger? Multi-classing was a complete no-brainer in 2E - within the range of levels most people played in, it meant being one level behind everyone else, but having the complete abilities of two classes. Pure gravy, no lumps.

If that's someone's idea of a fair trade-off for being a multi-classed spellcaster, I can see why they have problems with 3E multi-classing...

 

[jmucchiello]

If that's someone's idea of a fair trade-off for being a multi-classed spellcaster, I can see why they have problems with 3E multi-classing...

I can remember many times in 2e when my multiclass clr/wiz would be "only" a level or two behind the wizard and I would be out of offensive spells before him because he had access to the next level up spells and the extra spells down the line. Granted, I had the clr spells to fall back on, but in 2e most of my clr slots where cure this, cure that, remove blindness, etc.

Just try sending a party of Ftr20, Rog20, Clr10/Wiz10, Clr10/Wiz10 up against a few CR 20 encounters. If the Critter has spell resistance, those 10th level spell casters are totally ineffective unless they are designed for only support. The party lacks artillery. Send the same critters agains a Ftr20, Rog20, Clr20, Wiz20 and by comparison the second party has a cakewalk.

It is not a fair trade off. At a minimum all spellcasting levels should stack for spell resistance purposes. (Or SR should be divided into divine SR and arcane SR, but that's not a simple solution.)

 

[mmu1]

Just try sending a party of Ftr20, Rog20, Clr10/Wiz10, Clr10/Wiz10 up against a few CR 20 encounters. If the Critter has spell resistance, those 10th level spell casters are totally ineffective unless they are designed for only support. The party lacks artillery. Send the same critters agains a Ftr20, Rog20, Clr20, Wiz20 and by comparison the second party has a cakewalk.

It is not a fair trade off. At a minimum all spellcasting levels should stack for spell resistance purposes. (Or SR should be divided into divine SR and arcane SR, but that's not a simple solution.)

That's like complaining you can't send a Fighter 20, Rogue 20, Bard 20 and Paladin 20 at a bunch of CR 20 encounters and have them be as effective as a "core" party with all the bases covered.

Saying that a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 or Wizard 10/Cleric 10 aren't up to a Wizard 20 is not a valid argument, since pretty much every other class or combination of classes in the game is a joke compared to a 20th level spellcaster.

The point isn't really what a (for example) Fighter 10/Wizard 10 loses compared to a Wizard 20, it's what he gains and loses compared to a Fighter 20.

 

[WizarDru]

And I for one cant figure out what is wrong with a wizard 10/cleric 10.

I'm guessing you've never played a spellcaster in 3E up to 20th level, then. The loss of a few spell levels is a HUGE disadvantage. Low DCs, lesser power, and a host of other reasons why a Wiz10/CLR10 is much less effective. You should lose some power, certainly, but here, you lose far too much, IMHO.

And as for the mystic theurge...he hardly is the uber monster that he was originally expected to be, after the details of the various changes to buff spells and different feats became known. Strong, perhaps, but he's not going to outperform a Wiz20 or CLR20 at equivelant levels. He'll always be behind the curve..but more versatile than either one. He sacrifices power for flexibility. As it should be.

Is the MT a patch over a hole in the multi-classing rules? Yes, he is. But I have yet to hear of a better solution, so there we are.