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="Kerrick" data-source="post: 5021445" data-attributes="member: 4722">Right... so what do you think? Are they interesting enough?Just as it is in any game.The reason I used a formula, as opposed to just eyeballing every class, is so they ARE balanced against each other. If everyone uses the same formula, there can be no claims of favoritism (unless you want to say that some class got more/fewer skills than it deserved). In point of fact, almost all the classes have exactly the same number of skill points as before. All the ones who got 2 + Int now get 4 + Int (except the wizard, for obvious reasons); bards get 8 + Int because their skill list expanded, and rogues get 6 + Int because theirs contracted.Which leads to my second point. I made several changes to the skill system: First, I eliminated cross-class skills, a la Pathfinder (though I came up with it before they did); second, I condensed a lot of the skills on the list. The rogue was the one most affected by these changes; they lost about a third of their list, but with all skills costing 1 point/rank, I felt comfortable dropping them a couple skill points/level.The reason I didn't is because I didn't want to eliminate an entire base class. Unlike PrCs, which many DMs restrict or outright prohibit, base classes are very rarely not made available unless the campaign dictates it. Thinking about it now, though, I could see multiple benefits for doing away with the barbarian: 1) Fighters could take the rage feats. Imagine a Wolverine (or even Bear) Style fighter with several rage feats. *shudder*  2) Rangers could get the totem abilities, with some adjustments. See below for more details.3) If you really wanted, you could make a Berserker PrC that requires one or more rage feats (and/or grants abilities that would take the place of some of the higher-level ones like Chaotic Rage) and grants d12 HD and fighter BAB.Ever seen someone on PCP? They're monsters - immune to pain, immensely strong, and with massive endurance. It's not just about getting really mad - it's about sending yourself into a different level of consciousness, where pain doesn't matter, physical limitations don't exist, and you're effectively invincible (at least until the rage wears off), but you don't think clearly and you aren't as concerned with protecting yourself as you are killing someone else. This is modeled by the increase in Str and Con and the reduction in Will saves and AC. By your argument, there's no need even for rage feats. By mine, they at least have a justification. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Which part - needing the overhaul or still needing work?True, but having a skill check be a DC for a save is overpowered. Buffing is certainly not meaningless... but that's all they do. I tried to diversify their repertoire so they could be more effective in a support role - healing, buffing, hindering enemies, etc.I wouldn't call that "more than enough". Sufficient, maybe. But what's wrong with adding more songs, with the ability to choose between them? Well, yeah. I messed up, anyway - levels are an abstract concept, and thus the PCs likely wouldn't be able to figure out how powerful another bard was by listening to him sing anyway (I suppose a DM could allow a Perform check to ID a song; I've never heard of anyone doing it, though).Hmm... you're right. I could just drop the bonus and leave the other part...I just don't like the "either you know it or you don't" thing 3.5 has. I like the concept of "well, I know some of this, and some of that, and a lot of the other". For example:(The PCs are in an old tomb).DM: You see some writing on the wall. Can anyone here read Old Sanskrit?Player A (the rogue): I can! (He's proficient) DM: Give me a check, then.Player A: *makes his roll*DM: It looks like a recipe for noodle soup.Player B (the bard): *sigh* Let me look at it, you nitwit. I'm at least passably fluent (conversant). *makes a roll*DM: It's instructions on how to mummify a corpse and prepare it for the afterlife.See... under the old binary system, someone could just read it and that would be the end of it - no suspense, no potential for humor or roleplay. Under the new system, you could potentially insult the orc warrior by accidentally calling his mother a gutter whore instead of complimenting him on his sword technique.Sure, if you didn't have max ranks and bonuses to boot. Those DCs were determined for a bard with, IIRC, 3/4 max ranks for the given level. Quite deliberately, obviously - one of the common complaints about the bard was having to max out Perform to gain new songs. This rewards bards who want to max out their skill while not penalizing those who don't - the first bard can reach higher levels, gaining greater benefits, while the other can still diversify his skill portfolio without feeling like he's ineffective at his job.Ignoring for the moment that I made many changes to spells (which may or may not inhibit the CoDzilla phenomenon), I recently added an <a href="http://project-phoenix.wikidot.com/classes:domains" target="_blank">alternative domain system</a> whereby domain spells go away - instead each domain grants a number of abilities, along with a granted power. It's an optional system, mainly because I never fleshed out all the domains; I only added it by request. Under this system, you'd get a new domain every 5 levels.Negligible how?AD&D was also 1E, not just 2E. I was confused what you meant until I figured that out. I'm assuming, however, that you're referring to lesser and greater domains?Technically, this is incorrect - I wrote this when I had planned an earlier version of the domain system, then later dropped it and forgot to change the discussion. Turning, as it stands now, is available to all clerics. Under the revised system, however, only Good and Sun domains get turn undead, and only Death and Evil can turn/rebuke. Several other domains have the ability to turn other creatures, but like I said - it's an incomplete system. If I ever go backto it, adding in a similar power for each domain would be nice. Not if it doesn't exist! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Seriously - I didn't add it for some reason, probably because it was intended for use with the system that never came to be.I'm assuming by "numbers augmentation" you mean something other than simply adding bonuses, but I can't imagine what.Just because bad weather is referred to as "the elements" doesn't mean it has anything at all to do with primal elemental forces, which is what the Elemental Mastery is. Elemental Lords control Earth, Fire, or Water; Storm Lords control Air.Natural Spell is part of what made druids so broken; the wildshape subsystem was the other. I ditched the first one and altered the other so that forms are based on ECL, not HD - a much more balanced solution. Sure, you can still buff up, wildshape, and have your companion, but that would make you effective in battle, not a CoDzilla. (Disclaimer: I haven't playtested the druid, so my claims may be false; finding a group in my area is about as easy as finding a virgin in a harem. I would, however, love to see some playtest reports on this to see how it works).Yeah... I wasn't too enthusiastic about that one either. It was really hard to fill that slot, and that was the best I could come up with.  1) Boring how?2) Loses the action economy?3) If you mean overcoming hazards, I addressed that in an earlier post.4) The base fighter can gain WF in multiple weapons at once (granted, not hugely powerful) and gets WS in multiple weapons for free. Each combat style also has several unique abilities that enable him overcome foes or set them up for teammates to handle.What annoys me is that people who criticize the fighter seem to think that he should be able to handle all threats on his own. Last time I checked, D&D is a game centered around teamwork, not solo play. Every class has a role to play, and when done well, a party can overcome any threat, obstacle, or hazard with a minimum of effort.True. The monk was intended to be the "unarmed fighter". It could be considered nothing more than a martial arts subsystem, I suppose... but when you add in things like the Wis bonus to AC, ki powers, and such, it really is best served as a separate class. Speaking of unarmed fighters... do you think giving the monk full BAB would be too much? I considered it a couple times, but eventually decided not to.A good designer uses any influence he can find and twists it to his own ends. I don't much care for anime either, but this isn't anime - it's simply a system based off a cartoon.I could have named the styles after animals, flowers, the seasons, or whatever, and it could still be called "Oriental" simply because the Chinese and Japanese gave everything poetic names based on any or all of those (and technically, Oriental elements include Metal and Wood). The elemental trope is an old favorite of mine that I've revisited time and again - the <a href="http://project-phoenix.wikidot.com/classes:elementalist" target="_blank">Elementalist PrC</a>, for example. It has nothing to do with an Oriental influence; that's just coincidence.Now that I look at the 2d10 damage, it was pretty balanced - compare to a rogue's +8d6 SA or a fighter's four attacks/round with a greatsword for 2d6 + bonuses eachTry telling that to Celebrim. He claims that the fighter is just fine with nothing but bonus feats. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> I could have just left those as dead levels, but I thought style-specific bonus feats (similar to a fighter's bonus feats) would be more useful. Thus, they're not filler, but serve a useful purpose.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />  You just described the paladin, but you didn't say that one should go too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I envision rangers as the paladin's equivalent for nature - that is, "knights of the earth". They're protectors of nature, given the ability to hunt down and kill those who despoil it. In effect, they're martial druids, just like paladins are martial clerics. Now, as I was saying earlier under the barbarian: I was thinking about this earlier, and I came up with an idea: Why not take the barbarian's totem abilities and give them to the ranger? Rename them as "Aspect of the xxx", tweak the abilities a bit, and add some flavor about the ranger bonding with/subsuming the spirit of/etc. a creature native to his favored terrain. For example: a ranger of the plains could have Aspect of the Lion; he'd get lion's roar, the charge ability, and the ability to converse with cats, and maybe even a minor shapeshifting ability (claws, for example).  Thanks. Like I said, this was one of my favorites.I originally had bonus MM feats every 5 levels, then I replaced them with the metamagic mastery abilities. You do have a point, though...I could add them at 4th, 9th, 14th, and 19th.  Ah... don't say that until you see the spells. I've nerfed or removed outright some of the most egregious offenders, though I probably have a bit more work to go.Eh. YMMV. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I added the extra abilities mainly because wizards have none. It's why players jump ship for a PrC with full (or even half) spellcasting ability at first chance - they keep getting spells along with cool abilities. Besides which, adding abilities to the base class a) eliminates the need for many PrCs with the same thing, and b) opens up the possibility of PrCs that build off said abilities. This is the reason the Archmage, Blackguard, Dragon Disciple, Duelist, Eldritch Knight (well, maybe not), Hierophant, and Thaumaturgist are gone. Well, okay, the Thaumaturgist got cannibalized for the Planar Binder, but still - same idea.I assume you mean the sorcerer? I think that was some oddball idea I had that sorcerers, since they're generally more used to "roughing it" than wizards, deserve a slightly higher Fort save. I changed it back to a low save.Eh? You mean sorcerers?I took a look through it and didn't notice anything obvious, beyond the cleric stuff I noted above. If you don't feel like posting it here, send me a PM so I can fix it. Most of those came about because I made changes to the class after writing the discussions and simply forgot to update the appropriate discussion section.</blockquote>

Verification