D&D 3E/3.5 The Red Avenger

[Bestbake]

The Red Avenger is a monk-adjacent prestige class from Sword and Fist, and it's a hot mess.

I just want to go over it's many odd points. I understand that this sourcebook was released pretty early into 3e and this isn't a dig at the author, design team, or editor. The book also received an errata that I'll be going over (and a web enhancement that I won't be), so there were multiple eyes on this book.

The class is pretty easy to enter, some BAB, some skill ranks, and some feats. The most difficult prerequisite is having the Stunning Fist feat, but otherwise most classes won't have an issue entering. You don't need monk abilities, it just gives you some monk-like abilities. Cool
The first odd thing to note is that it grants proficiency in simple weapons, light and medium armour, and shields. Nothing weird or broken, just odd for a monk skewed prestige class. The studded leather equiped avenger illustration is rad, I'm into it.

The biggest thing to note is the class table, specifically its base attack progression. It uses the medium 3/4 progression, which can be expected for a monk-like class. However, the progression starts a +1, as if starting a level higher on that usual progression. The base attack bonus ends up at +8 at level 10 of the class. I could think that this is just a mistake in editing, but the errata touches up on other classes base attack progressions, so maybe it's intentional. If that's the case, this is a very unique boon to give a class like this- almost like an in-between of 3/4 and full BAB.

The next issues are the ki save, ki skill, and ki healing class features. Going by the table, these abilities are usable one or two times per day depending on the class level, though the actual text of the abilities says otherwise (they're usable 1 per day, per level). I understand that text trumps table, so it's not an issue, it's just curious that in the errata this mistake was addressed..... for only ki healing. The errata removes the 1/day and 2/day entries from the table, gives a "greater ki healing" when the avenger would get 2/day, and cleans up the ability's text to accomodate this change. The editor must have been aware of the disconnect of uses per day between table and text as this errata specifically addresses it, but again only for ki healing!

None of these points are issues for me, it just gets me thinking. Are there any oddly written/edited classes you like?

I'm sorry for this long ranting post about this class. I can't get enough of it, it's great.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

I started playing D&D with the 3.5E, so learning about the quirks of the original 3E and its supplements is fascinating.

I don't have any examples myself to add, but will come back if I think of any.

 

[Dioltach]

Thos early 3.0 splatbooks...! So many theoretically wonderful ideas, and I don't think I've ever used a single one in 20+ years of playing 3.0/3.5.

 

[Voadam]

The Halfling Outrider, also from Sword and Fist, was a bit bizarre too. A purely defensive rider whose big recurring thing is they can get defensive bonuses when mounted by doing nothing else in a sort of reverse rage. They give up good BAB advancement for 1/2 as a warrior class.

The purpose of the class as a PC class seems obscure, to turn a D&D warrior into a nonwarrior who can be optimized for a pony express escape with no counterattacks?

 

[Celebrim]

When Monte Cook announced and described the concept of a Prestige Class and why he wanted to include them in core 3.0, I was intrigued by the concept. It was obviously based on something important to his homebrew game, which were the fronts and factions that he liked to describe and give special powers, and which a PC could also join to access these special powers. And that sounded potentially interesting.

The example PRCs in the DMG were not all that problematic and were somewhat interesting, but they notably lacked at some level the flavor and color that Monte described as the impetus for the rules.

By the time the class splatbooks came out, I was having strong misgivings about the entire concept of PRCs because it was increasingly clear that PrCs weren't be written for the purpose they were pitched or intended to have. I started thinking about all the different things I could see the designers using PrCs for, and those purposes were just all over the place - fix problems in multi-classing, provide for character concepts the base character creation rules didn't provide for, provide for balancing character concepts that would be weak in base character creation rules, provide for things that looked something like NPC classes where balance wasn't being considered, provide for concepts similar to the old specialty priest, and meta concepts like increase the attractiveness of the book to perspective players who weren't GMs (which often involved making an existing strong concept even stronger).

And well, I immediately revolted against that. My first house rules for 3.0 essentially were just a list of which PRCs I would allow in the campaign, but the more started refining that list and the more experience I had with players choosing PRCs the less I liked them.

And so I banned all PrCs from my table and it was probably the best decision that I made running 3e. PrCs were the source of the majority of things that were wrong with 3e.

You note things like:

However, the progression starts a +1, as if starting a level higher on that usual progression. The base attack bonus ends up at +8 at level 10 of the class. I could think that this is just a mistake in editing, but the errata touches up on other classes base attack progressions, so maybe it's intentional.

And you are right, it's intentional. It's a recognition that the multiclassing rules as written strongly discourage 3/4 BAB classes from multiclassing with other 3/4 BAB classes because you lose a BAB in your progression you don't regain when you do so. So to make it actually attractive to multiclass into a 3/4 BAB PRC, you had to make a special exception to the normal class for BAB.

The game actually gets much better if you remove PrCs and then start altering the base chargen rules to address all the problems that PrCs were trying to address.

 

[Voadam]

And you are right, it's intentional. It's a recognition that the multiclassing rules as written strongly discourage 3/4 BAB classes from multiclassing with other 3/4 BAB classes because you lose a BAB in your progression you don't regain when you do so. So to make it actually attractive to multiclass into a 3/4 BAB PRC, you had to make a special exception to the normal class for BAB.

I was more partial to the Unearthed Arcana fix of fractional BAB and saves.

I prefer a fighter/barbarian to be just as good on their strong and weak saves as a straight classed fighter or barbarian and to reduce the incentive for a rogue or monk to choose to multiclass at multiples of four for levels to keep up with their already poor BAB progression.

 

[Celebrim]

I was more partial to the Unearthed Arcana fix of fractional BAB and saves.

While I never adopted it, I liked it, and it is an example of what I'm talking about where you fix the base game rather than trying to patch it with PRCs.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

I remember a weird prestige class. Green Star Adept.

I can't remember which supplement it was in, but it requires acquiring a special material that's only important to this one prestige class, and you have to keep consuming it to gain levels in the class. So the DM not only has to OK the prestige class, they also need to have the special substance be provided regularly in the adventure loot you can find, or allow it to be bought somewhere or you can't advance.

 

[Voadam]

I remember a weird prestige class. Green Star Adept.

I can't remember which supplement it was in, but it requires acquiring a special material that's only important to this one prestige class, and you have to keep consuming it to gain levels in the class. So the DM not only has to OK the prestige class, they also need to have the special substance be provided regularly in the adventure loot you can find, or allow it to be bought somewhere or you can't advance.

From Complete Arcane.

RAW it takes 2 ounces to get level 1, then one pound for each level from 2-10. So if they start with 10 pounds and save it for advancing (instead of using it to make special material weapons or armor) they never have to find it again.

 

[Bestbake]

By the time the class splatbooks came out, I was having strong misgivings about the entire concept of PRCs because it was increasingly clear that PrCs weren't be written for the purpose they were pitched or intended to have. I started thinking about all the different things I could see the designers using PrCs for, and those purposes were just all over the place - fix problems in multi-classing, provide for character concepts the base character creation rules didn't provide for, provide for balancing character concepts that would be weak in base character creation rules, provide for things that looked something like NPC classes where balance wasn't being considered, provide for concepts similar to the old specialty priest, and meta concepts like increase the attractiveness of the book to perspective players who weren't GMs (which often involved making an existing strong concept even stronger).

I agree with pretty much all you're saying, though maybe I tackle the issues in a different way.

The introduction of PrCs within the DMG was good, and it should have stayed that way. PrCs are a DM tool, and a potential option for them to give to the players/table should the situation arrive.
I think the biggest issue with PrCs (and feats) is the "culture" that developed around them, they were presented as player options in the splats not as DM options. They promote build paths and other out of character nonsense, decision paralysis, and sometimes even feel bads (though this last issue I have not had in the games I've run). All these issues are fixable, I'm sure every DM has their own fixes and alternate rules, as they should.

I'm going to get a bit more off topic here, sorry.
In contrast to banning all PrCs, I keep them as options to present ad offer to players should the opportunity arise. I remove all requirements of entry, it's all story/world stuff that needs be met. Some PrCs, like the red avenger, I even allow players to take from 1st level should it be fitting, though I've only had a single player take up the offer
Feats have their own issues, but I think there is a lot of crossover. Many feats are "free" in my house rules, like the improved disarm/trip/feint lines. Players do get to pick some feats, but I also award them as I see fit. Don't worry, everyone at the table is into it.
I do also use fractional BAB and myriad other house rules- like we all probably do.
What handy things do you do to help fix key issues for your games?

I remember a weird prestige class. Green Star Adept.

I can't remember which supplement it was in, but it requires acquiring a special material that's only important to this one prestige class, and you have to keep consuming it to gain levels in the class. So the DM not only has to OK the prestige class, they also need to have the special substance be provided regularly in the adventure loot you can find, or allow it to be bought somewhere or you can't advance.

See, I really love this PrC. True, it does require you fit it into the world, but all the small details can be changed to suit, plus all the weirdness is thought provoking. Acolyte of the skin is similar in that it's totally bizarre and provocative. I think concepts like these make for good PrCs as they need to worked into the story/world.
I've used green star adepts as a cabal of alchemist-knights who cannibalise outside entrants to the PrC, taking the star metal from their blood.

Has anyone used the Fang of Lolth PrC, from Song and Silence, in their games? Both the DM and player would want to explore the idea of a forced-upon class, which sounds like an interesting dynamic.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree with pretty much all you're saying, though maybe I tackle the issues in a different way. The introduction of PrCs within the DMG was good, and it should have stayed that way. PrCs are a DM tool, and a potential option for them to give to the players/table should the situation arrive.

The way Monte Cook pitched PrCs was almost like way Gygax did with artifacts. Cook style PrCs would be almost campaign level secrets that were uncovered in play and granted as options to players through play as part of joining these secret societies. And that's a cool idea I can get behind, albiet not one that I think was ever really realized during 3.X D&D's run.

I think the biggest issue with PrCs (and feats) is the "culture" that developed around them, they were presented as player options in the splats not as DM options.

This is in a nutshell probably the biggest problem with 3.X generally. The brand managers of 3.X D&D were more focused on short term profits than they were on protecting the integrity of the game. This came out in decisions like every splat book had to have both player options and DM material, and in the very aggressive production schedule that saw books being printed vastly faster than the material in them could be play tested.

Feats have their own issues...

Feats were I thought the real genius of 3e, in that feats allowed you to build a class in a way that was much less broken than other 'do it yourself' class options were. D&D kept with its core strength of class based design, but customizable feats and skill expenditures allowed you to have some of the benefits of point buy based chargen as well.

The biggest trouble with feats is that martials weren't given enough feats (and skills) to compete in coolness with spellcasters who got lots and lots of spells as they leveled up, and that feats were much much harder to write well than was generally recognized. The short terseness of a feat made it seem like they were easy to design, but in fact I'd say feat design was probably the hardest thing to do in 3e. This resulted in as many badly written feats as there were badly written PrCs - indeed most 3rd party material for 3e D&D was focused heavily on badly written feats and PrCs.

What handy things do you do to help fix key issues for your games?

I have extensive house rules, but next to banning PrCs the one that has probably helped my game the most was removing the spell level from the DC to resist a spell. That is to say, in my game a 1st level spell, 3rd level spell, and 9th level spell all have the same DC to resist. This goes a very long ways toward all on its own balancing martials against spellcasters. "Save or Suck" gets a lot harder to pull of consistently, and as a result spellcasters are more reliant on being support classes in my game, as often their best move is to buff a martial class rather than debuff bad guys. They can still be decent artillery, but artillery was never what made 3e spell casters broken.

 

[Bestbake]

That's super interesting to hear, Celebrim. An idea like that is something I've been mulling over too. I like the idea of teamwork and spellcasters appreciating a warrior be present from a mechanical sense and not just by being a meat-shield/distraction. It hasn't been a problem in games yet, though I think laying a good foundation to be the right thing to do.

I really like how Trailblazer, by Bad Axe Games, developed the "spine"- breaking down the stats of 3.5 so we can make educated guesses at where numbers should be. The saving throw portion of the spine shows some pretty abysmal numbers, especially considering how D&D up until 3.X handled saving throws.
An option I had considered was increasing the rate that good and poor saving throws improve. Rates I wanted to try were +2/3 for good saves and +1/2 for poor saves (with some type of 1st level bonus, like how good saves start at +2). A fix like this would also alleviate any issues that come from the DCs of non-spell sources. Had you thought of using something like this to fix the spell DC problems?
I'm yet to trial this though, after a hiatus I've returned to 3.X intent to lean much more heavily towards 3.0 because I like its monster design more. I'd like to see (or create) a 3.0 spine, because the numbers are different enough from a quick glance between the two. I know to take the idea of the spine with a large pinch of salt because of the challenge rating clause can be out of place, but still, a rough idea is better than none........ though in typing all this out, there is no harm in implementing better save progressions and trialing it.

 

[Bestbake]

The Halfling Outrider, also from Sword and Fist, was a bit bizarre too...

And the damned table doesn't show a BAB progression! Hahaha oops

It is very odd, and until you pointed it it out I thought it to be pretty much the same class as the 3.5 version.
It's interesting that they gave it the Deflect Attack ability, it's already so similar to the mounted combat feat. It's actually interesting how similar it is to the Devoted Defender I the same book. I guess the designers wanted to explore the defensive end of combat. The duelist is also in the book, though I think that PrC first showed up in a dragon mag.

 

[Voadam]

I used a bunch of house rules in my d20 games.

Here is a list of House Rules I used in Freeport game I ran here in 2007.

Some were for my general preference in game style (multiclassing and prerequisite hacks), some were to get characters more appropriate for the specific D&D pirate game theme (a number of the AC ones to encourage lightly armored swashbuckling types and make them effective without heavy armor tanks).