Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 1623992" data-attributes="member: 141">I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.  Though perhaps it makes sense to agree on what exactly we disagree on:I regard the monk as canonical, so saying that the monk shouldn't have three good saves- that makes no sense to me.  If your intuition tells you the monk is unbalanced, I think that is a sign that your intuition is off-base.  So that is an area of dispute that will remain unresolved between us.Since we are in house rules territory, I suppose I could change how pre-reqs are satisfied, or tinker with the ur-priest works, or whatever.  But I am choosing to design a base class instead, and leave the other bits constant.  Yeah, it's arbitrary, but I've decided that I'm not designing a PrCl, I'm making a base class.  Those are my self-imposed restraints.I don't think the design procedure I'm using is something we've really discussed, though.  The first approximation to my new base class is a mixture of core classes; rogue and wizard, with a splash of ranger.  The second approximation smooths out the saves and BAB and hit dice, swaps out a few abilities, and extrapolates the first few hit dice to higher levels.  The third approximation fine tunes this.Now there might be some deep reason why this approach will never work.  And there are ways in which I have not applied this procedure consistently; otherwise I would have a class that works like a Wizard 8/Rogue 8/Ranger 4, instead of what I have.  But that isn't the direction of your comments, so the point is moot.Comparing a new base class to all the core classes and not just the similar ones; I don't understand how your position could be correct.  Suppose the PHB didn't have a barbarian.  None at all.  But suppose someone on the message board decided to design a "savage warrior"- not a fighter, ranger or paladin, but something different.  Would you really have to compare this new class to rogue, wizard, druid etc. to decide whether or not it was balanced?  I can't see how you would compare a barbarian and a sorcerer directly.  I think you would just compare it to the fighting classes, and maybe not all of them.And I cannot understand why you cannot compare a base class to a prestige class.  Surely to understand if Mystic Theurge is balanced you have to compare it to single classed clerics and wizards, wouldn't you?  And if someone were to design a "universal spellcaster" who cast divine and arcane spells, wouldn't you want to compare it to Mystic Theurge?  You have to consider the "wasted" feats and skill points- that's a given.  But to say that base classes and prestige classes are incomparable?  I just can't accept that.And the (level-3) thing.  The character level you get access to a spell level is important.  A 5th level wizard can cast 3rd level spells.  A 5th level sorcerer can't.  That is a significant difference.  Even if it is only a 1 level difference, it is still important.  With the occultist the difference is 3 levels.  That is a lot, and I think you undervalue its importance.  Maybe that's something we will continue to disagree on.  I admit I don't have a lot of experience with higher level gaming.  If we confined our discussion to the first 10 levels, would we be in agreement about whether the spellcasting is appropriate?  Anyways, thanks for your feedback.  Even if I don't agree with you, your comments have been helpful and thought-provoking.</blockquote>

Verification