"Modding" classes vs multiclassing

[Desdichado]

double post

 

[Geoff Watson]

It would sound like that if I said I wanted the things you seem to think I want. Since I didn't say that, I don't see what the point of your post is.

Some people have claimed that a Swashbuckler should have as good hit points and AC as a tank fighter; but better skills and special abilities.

Geoff.

 

[Tsyr]

Who?

 

[drnuncheon]

I, too, wonder who Geoff Watson is arguing with.

Also I wonder who's saying that the swashbuckler should do as much damage as the fighter, as Jester alleges.

As near as I can tell these people aren't reading the same posts I am on this forum, because I don't think that anyone's said a swashbuckler ought to have huge HPs, ACs, and do as much damage as a two-handed sword.

What people have said is that the swashbuckler ought to have enough hp to engage in front-line combat (which a rogue does not), enough BAB to be a primary fighter (which a rogue does not), and something that helps them out on the AC front so they're not stuck with a 14 AC when their buddies are in the 30s. How you get from that to 'as much AC, hp, and damage as a tank fighter' I have no idea.

The problems with the swashbuckler as a fighter/rogue is that it's not a very good representation, any more than a paladin is a fighter/cleric. (If you're one of the people who subscribes to the 'four core only' mentality, then I suppose that it's consistent, at least...but I'm certainly not in that camp, and neither are most D&D players.) There are roguelike things about the swashbuckler, there are clericlike things about the paladin, but they are more than you would get from just adding rogue or cleric levels to the fighter class.

J

 

[takyris]

Middle track, myself. I can see both sides. I'm not against multiclassing as JD seems to be, at least partially because I fixed the 9th-level-character with +0 BAB problem.

JD, for what you want, though, it sounds like a point buy system would work better for you. I know that there are a few point-buy classless d20 engines out there, and people are always cranking away. They don't map exactly to D&D archetypes (you can't recreate, say, the cleric with one) because in most cases, the D&D designers lumped a few very powerful abilities in there along with a bunch of stuff most people don't want.

I haven't seen Monte's AU. I probably won't any time in the near future. So I'm not qualified to talk about whether or not it's overpowered.

But I will say that all the core D&D classes contain things that I don't see myself using. I didn't want to use my paladin's mount even before it became a summoned creature (and I might be MORE likely to use it now that it can go away). There were all kinds of wizard spells, for which I was giving up hit points and attack bonuses and all kinds of nice stuff, that I didn't want. And so on.

For now, I'm playing d20M, and can make just about any character concept I want with the mixture of talents, bonus feats, and occupations. By the time I come back to D&D, UA may be on the market, and who knows? It darn well better include more customization information, and it might well offer a Point Buy classless option. And then we'd all be happy, until the powergamer munchkins post "The Best Build" and make us all annoyed.

 

[Umbran]

The DMG even essentially says that when it gives rather extensive examples and suggestions for modding classes. Despite that, however, it seems few people actually believe that's a good way solve the problem, which seems quite unusual to me.

What I argued against was a proliferation of core classes, not an occasional modification. Doing some mods instead of the standard core classes makes me worry far less than doing them in addition to the core stuff.

This suggests to me a somewhat mindless slavery to the rules, and a blatant ignoring of the modding classes section of the DMG (how's that for exchanging one half-hearted insult for another! )

You mean, aside from the fact that you felt the need to post it twice? And the fact that I'm somehow slavishly devoted to the rules while simultaneously ignoring the rulebook? Other than that, it's pretty good.

IIRC, the rulebook also cautions against doing it too lightly, or too much. It's a "do this when you need it, not on a whim" thing. And I prefer it's use in such a manner. And if you have to use it a lot, as I already said, perhaps it's time to look for a different game.

 

[Desdichado]

For now, I'm playing d20M, and can make just about any character concept I want with the mixture of talents, bonus feats, and occupations. By the time I come back to D&D, UA may be on the market, and who knows? It darn well better include more customization information, and it might well offer a Point Buy classless option. And then we'd all be happy, until the powergamer munchkins post "The Best Build" and make us all annoyed.

I do really like the d20 Modern approach to classes. It avoids many of the pitfalls inherent with "archetypical" classes that I struggle with.

 

[Gez]

* Elementalist = Wu Jen.
* Swashbuckler = Unfettered
* Urban Ranger = Rogue, maybe Ranger/Rogue
* Robin Hood = Rogue/Ranger, or Unfettered/Ranger/Rogue
* Non-Supernatural Unarmed Warrior = Fighter
* Knight in Shining Armor = Fighter, Paladin, Samurai, Warmain
* Hedge Wizard = Adept
* Witch = Witch (For the hag-like witch, my own Decay Witch with its emphasis on curses, diseases and poisons is especially appropriate)
* Pirate = Unfettered

 

[Desdichado]

What I argued against was a proliferation of core classes, not an occasional modification. Doing some mods instead of the standard core classes makes me worry far less than doing them in addition to the core stuff.

What's wrong with a proliferation of core classes, anyway? Not that that's really what this thread was about anyway.

You mean, aside from the fact that you felt the need to post it twice? And the fact that I'm somehow slavishly devoted to the rules while simultaneously ignoring the rulebook? Other than that, it's pretty good.

IIRC, the rulebook also cautions against doing it too lightly, or too much. It's a "do this when you need it, not on a whim" thing. And I prefer it's use in such a manner. And if you have to use it a lot, as I already said, perhaps it's time to look for a different game.

In many ways, that's exactly what I've done. I don't consider myself a D&D player so much as a d20 player.

 

[Gez]

I like proliferation of core classes. It can't be as bad as proliferation of prestige classes.

I have nearly 40 bases classes IMC. Not counting classes with subclasses (like, the nine wizards, the six psions, my twenty totem warriors)...

Things that help prevent the mess: Restriction by cultures (races or regions). There's a kernel of classes that are always allowed (bard, cleric, fighter, ranger, rogue, sorcerer), the other have requirements. (Not strict and rigid requirements, like "dwarves can't be wizard", rather "wizardly studies are really developped only in country A, B and C, which are populated with a vast majority of humans, gnomes and halflings, elves tend to be rather elementalists (wu-jen), dwarves prefer the runethane and the iron witch traditions...")