Designing a good PF class is hard

[pawsplay]

Designing a good PF class is relatively more difficult than designing a base class for straight up 3.5. The first difficulty is that Hit Die and BAB are generally tied together; while logical, and rarely much of an issue in 3.5, these were areas where last ditch adjustments could be made, such as the ranger and scout's anomolously low and high HD, respectively. A second problem is that the goal of filling every level with an ability not only requires that classes be given plenty of stuff, but also restricts the kinds of ability that can be handed out on a repeating basis. In 3.5, if an ability was about twice as potent as sneak attack, for instance, you could have it advance half as quickly, but in PF, this would leave dead levels.

Taken together, it is very difficult to do an Unearthed Arcana cut-and-paste class design. For instance, transplanting fighter feats onto a rogue would require some fiddling with the progression, while an ability that advances every five levels cannot be swapped for one that advances every three. It is not sufficient for the total to be roughly equal, but the abilities must also be lain out level by level.

 

[Azgulor]

My hope is that, if your analysis is true (and at first glance I can't argue with it), it will simultaneously lead to fewer broken or sub-par classes and prestige classes. I don't think there's a direct correllation between the two, mind you, I'm just hoping that the errors will be easier to spot and correct.

 

[pawsplay]

It's still relatively easy to fill up dead levels until the overall result is decidedly more powerful than a member of a normal class.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Well the HD BAB thing is not written in stone, so I would ignore that first. The ToS has, as have the Barbarian (who I know is a special case)

 

[rgard]

Designing a good PF class is relatively more difficult than designing a base class for straight up 3.5. The first difficulty is that Hit Die and BAB are generally tied together; while logical, and rarely much of an issue in 3.5, these were areas where last ditch adjustments could be made, such as the ranger and scout's anomolously low and high HD, respectively. A second problem is that the goal of filling every level with an ability not only requires that classes be given plenty of stuff, but also restricts the kinds of ability that can be handed out on a repeating basis. In 3.5, if an ability was about twice as potent as sneak attack, for instance, you could have it advance half as quickly, but in PF, this would leave dead levels.

Taken together, it is very difficult to do an Unearthed Arcana cut-and-paste class design. For instance, transplanting fighter feats onto a rogue would require some fiddling with the progression, while an ability that advances every five levels cannot be swapped for one that advances every three. It is not sufficient for the total to be roughly equal, but the abilities must also be lain out level by level.

Maybe we could start (somebody probably already has) plugging in the PF classes into 'Buy the numbers' or one of the other classless systems build for D20 use.

I own 'Buy the Numbers' I think. I'll look for it and start playing with PFRPG in it when I buy PFRPG later this week.

 

[Alzrius]

A second problem is that the goal of filling every level with an ability not only requires that classes be given plenty of stuff, but also restricts the kinds of ability that can be handed out on a repeating basis. In 3.5, if an ability was about twice as potent as sneak attack, for instance, you could have it advance half as quickly, but in PF, this would leave dead levels.

It's worth noting that the idea of Pathfinder classes having no dead levels is a myth. There are lots of places where a class doesn't gain an ability. That said, this is oftentimes mitigated by gaining a new spell level or a feat (from normal character advancement) at the dead level.

That said, here are the dead levels for all of the PF core classes:

Bard: Dead levels at 4th, 13th, and 16th levels.

Cleric: Dead levels at every even level (and thus no capstone ability at 20th).

Druid: Dead levels at 5th, 7th, 11th, 17th, and 19th levels.

Sorcerer: Dead levels at every even level except 20th.

Wizard: Dead levels at 2nd-4th, 6th-9th, 11th-14th, and 16th-19th levels (notwithstanding when their arcane school powers are gained).

 

[an_idol_mind]

It's worth noting that the idea of Pathfinder classes having no dead levels is a myth. There are lots of places where a class doesn't gain an ability. That said, this is oftentimes mitigated by gaining a new spell level or a feat (from normal character advancement) at the dead level.

That said, here are the dead levels for all of the PF core classes:

Bard: Dead levels at 4th, 13th, and 16th levels.

Cleric: Dead levels at every even level (and thus no capstone ability at 20th).

Druid: Dead levels at 5th, 7th, 11th, 17th, and 19th levels.

Sorcerer: Dead levels at every even level except 20th.

Wizard: Dead levels at 2nd-4th, 6th-9th, 11th-14th, and 16th-19th levels (notwithstanding when their arcane school powers are gained).

It seems that the designers felt that gaining new spells was a class feature in and of itself. Non-spellcasting classes, or classes that have limited spellcasting like the paladin and ranger, don't have the dead level issue - unless one considers getting a bonus feat a dead level as well.

 

[pawsplay]

It seems that the designers felt that gaining new spells was a class feature in and of itself.

Of course. An extra spell slot is definitely something.

 

[Alzrius]

Of the examples that I posted, a new spellcasting level fills in the dead levels for the bard, druid (except at 19th level), and sorcerer (except at 2nd level) - the designers clearly felt that a new level of spells was something that filled in a dead level; I'm not so sure they felt that way about gaining another slot for spell levels that you already had.

Presuming that level of reasoning, the cleric still gets nothing at every even level (barring a domain power, usually at 6th or 8th level), as does the wizard (since he gains new spell levels at odd levels; notwithstanding his school powers which are also usually gained at 6th or 8th level).

I'm just pointing out that dead levels have been greatly reduced, but not eliminated - all the moreso if you let spellcasting and level-based feat progression take on some of the weight in that area.

 

[pawsplay]

AFAIK, there is not a single level where a full caster does not get either a new spell level or a new spell slot.