jmucchiello
Hero
So he wouldn't be a spellthief. He'd be a power borrower/suppressor.
When Splat Classes are Neglected... OR... What Happened with the Spellthief!?
- Thread starter Wik
- Start date
"Are you sure it's your power, I used to have one just like it."
"Oh, you must have dropped it. I didn't want you to lose it."
Mapshaker Wanderfuss- Kender borrower
Glade Riven
Adventurer
Didn't they essentually turn into the bulk of 4e?
That being said, I enjoy Bo9S and wished it was had been released under OLG. Not sure if game mechanics can be copyrighted (I think something like that would have to be covered under patent law), but the names would have to be changed to protect one from lawyers (if it was an actual product to be sold).
Storminator
First Post
I was thinking your at-wills deals a little damage and steals an at-will for the round so you can use it in the next, your encounter deals at-will level damage and steals an encounter power, and your dailies let you use another PC power you copied at the last extended rest (without stealing it from your friend). Perhaps you have a class power that lets you burn a utility to steal an interrupt.
PS
PS
ThatGuyThere
Explorer
I'd adore about six more books about Incarnum. I know not everyone liked it, but it was fantastic for me, personally.
I think it would have been ... interesting... to take the opposite approach from what Wizards did, and make the niche / never-updated classes a little better, instead of a little worse. So, yeah, you can be a Swashbuckler, with cool Swashing and such, but you only get the stuff from the one book.
Instead, they made all the 'secondary' classes just a little worse than core classes, and then supported the ones that caught on (Warlock, Scout... ...uh, Warmage, a little...), keeping them "also-rans". I understand their choice and perspective, and it's the more conservative way to go (...and probably, also, the right one). I just think the alternative would be interesting.
But yeah. More Incarnum. And Psionics. And Bo9S. And, other stuff.
Edit - Yeah, some of the 'supplement' classes were okay-or-better for power. I'm saying in general.
I think it would have been ... interesting... to take the opposite approach from what Wizards did, and make the niche / never-updated classes a little better, instead of a little worse. So, yeah, you can be a Swashbuckler, with cool Swashing and such, but you only get the stuff from the one book.
Instead, they made all the 'secondary' classes just a little worse than core classes, and then supported the ones that caught on (Warlock, Scout... ...uh, Warmage, a little...), keeping them "also-rans". I understand their choice and perspective, and it's the more conservative way to go (...and probably, also, the right one). I just think the alternative would be interesting.
But yeah. More Incarnum. And Psionics. And Bo9S. And, other stuff.
Edit - Yeah, some of the 'supplement' classes were okay-or-better for power. I'm saying in general.
Wik
First Post
I'm just gonna say right now... if someone released a book having a spellthief-like class, I'd be buying it in a second. Hell, if someone said to me "Wik, you need to play game X". I'd be all like "No thanks, dude" and then if they said "It has a spellthief", I'd be like "Okay! Let's go!"
there's something insanely fun about stealing a wizar'ds use of Clairvoyance during a fight, and then having to find a way to effectively use it to your advantage - often having only a few minutes to figure this out before your next turn comes up.
And I think ThatGuyThere got the gist of it right - they made the classes deliberately weaker, and then boosted up the ones that struck a chord. What's kind of annoying is that sometimes, this approach is very, VERY flawed. I mean, they made the Healer (minis handbook) a subpar choice, even compared to a cleric from PHB. It was, in all ways, worse. So who would play it? I imagine, if they had strengthened the class a bit, there would have been a significant number of players who would've enjoyed the class (it is, after all, a great "girlfriend class").
there's something insanely fun about stealing a wizar'ds use of Clairvoyance during a fight, and then having to find a way to effectively use it to your advantage - often having only a few minutes to figure this out before your next turn comes up.
And I think ThatGuyThere got the gist of it right - they made the classes deliberately weaker, and then boosted up the ones that struck a chord. What's kind of annoying is that sometimes, this approach is very, VERY flawed. I mean, they made the Healer (minis handbook) a subpar choice, even compared to a cleric from PHB. It was, in all ways, worse. So who would play it? I imagine, if they had strengthened the class a bit, there would have been a significant number of players who would've enjoyed the class (it is, after all, a great "girlfriend class").
Dice4Hire
First Post
I agree there were a lot of orphaned classes in 3.x. A whole lot.
But what to do about them? If the book (picking on these for example) Incarnum and Tome of Magic, did not sell well in the first place, then why would WOTC think a supplement to a poorly performing supplement would sell better. If anything it would sell worse, much worse.
Some of the classes in 3.x were just plain weak, and nigh unplayable. Again, to pick on the spellthief, this was one of them for me. With a mage or such, it could be interesting, but against any non-caster, he would spend more time sitting around than a rogue fighting undead.
Situational feats, I can understand, if the situation comes up frequently. But situational classes really turn me off.
But what to do about them? If the book (picking on these for example) Incarnum and Tome of Magic, did not sell well in the first place, then why would WOTC think a supplement to a poorly performing supplement would sell better. If anything it would sell worse, much worse.
Some of the classes in 3.x were just plain weak, and nigh unplayable. Again, to pick on the spellthief, this was one of them for me. With a mage or such, it could be interesting, but against any non-caster, he would spend more time sitting around than a rogue fighting undead.
Situational feats, I can understand, if the situation comes up frequently. But situational classes really turn me off.
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
I had typed up a brilliant response here, but a postthief came along and stole it. 
- I agree the Bo9S classes were pretty butch and became the model for 4Ed- I didn't like 'em, so OF COURSE they become the template for the new edition- but as far as 3.5 was concerned, they were one & done.
- Incarnum could have used a LOT more support. I was working on Incarnum-based Monks, Samurai and other classes when 4Ed was released- purely HR stuff, not commercial.
Last edited:
I loved all the 3.5e splat books with new base classes. Magic of Incarnum was my favorite 3e book; too bad my brother lent it to his friend and he joined the military and transfered to Osaka(I swear that someday I'll kill that porcine Orc that's my brother). I loved how Tome of Magic had 3 different new kinds of magic, and Book of nine Swords was the first book that made me want to play a martial character. Hell, Dragon magic with it's Dragon Adept(which was essentially a dragon themed version of the warlock, using a breath weapon as it's version of the eldrich blast) was great. For some reason I just tend to like splat book material better, perhaps because once the fundamentals are in place in the main books the writers can experiment and try new things in the splat books. Weird new spells, and unusual abilities are just cool.
Oh, and to answer a question on the first page, rules are not copyrightable. On their implantation, or how they're written, is copyrightable. Rewrite the rules and you're golden. To be honest I've had the idea of taking ideas from 4e and 3e to make a game that fixes some of the problems in 3e while avoiding some of the problems the 4e introduced; 4e seemed like an over-reaction to 3e's problems that fixed or eliminated most of them but created a whole host of new problems, so no real gain was made.
Oh, and to answer a question on the first page, rules are not copyrightable. On their implantation, or how they're written, is copyrightable. Rewrite the rules and you're golden. To be honest I've had the idea of taking ideas from 4e and 3e to make a game that fixes some of the problems in 3e while avoiding some of the problems the 4e introduced; 4e seemed like an over-reaction to 3e's problems that fixed or eliminated most of them but created a whole host of new problems, so no real gain was made.
Similar Threads
