Quick thought, (looking for input)
Grand Eleven
really intersting things in here, but there are some things that I'm just
... unsure of.
First off, I'm glad they brought back the Monk and Barbarian. Looks
like the Assasin made it too. But why no Cavilear? It seems to be the only
one missing from the old 1st edition days ... why not just get them all?
Lifting the race prerequisits was a welcome change as well. Not that I ever
payed attention to them, but it was good to see that it was officially
decided to "not make sense".
But here's my problem: the new experience system. While I feel the
idea of a flat scale is good (It gives mages a chance of actually becoming
useful), it makes me very concerned about class imballance. I guess only
time will tell there. But what really bugs me is the XP per level. A level
20 character needs only 190,000xp? Even the quickest advancing thieves
needed 2,200,000xp to get this legendary status. I'm not sure how I like
this one yet.
On a side note: it's nice to see a much more balanced weapon system (there's
suddenly a reason to pick something other than a sword), but I think the
weapon speed should have stayed in. Especially sinse you only roll
initiative once now. It's a good deterant from everyone just scrolling down
the damage dice collumn and buying the one with the most dammage dice
(Doesn't matter if you hit harder when your dead first).
Lastly, it's good to see skills that play a much more active role in the
character to encourage players to use them. It gives the game a sort of
stream-lined Earthdawn feel (which, while much more complex, is IMHO one the
most successful skill based/level based hybrid of character advancement
systems I've seen). The game I think opens up character developmentto blur
class distinctions without making the system too complex.
Hey, I like the product, it almost didn't look like DnD anymore, which
scared me at first, but now the only conern I have is about the quick level
advancements.
What's everyone elses opinions?
Stephenls
They're dumb.
They're badly though out.
They indicate someone with no idea how weapon designs or melee combat
work wrote them in.
They add unnecessary complexity to the system.
To start with:
I have a longsword, you have a dagger. I guarantee that I'll hit you
first, and more often. Why? Because no matter how long it takes to
"swing a sword", I don't have to. I'll just hold it pointed towards you
and if you do something stupid (like try to hit me), I'll thrust. Then
you'll die.
To continue:
Weapons aren't designed like you think they are. It takes almost no
time to "swing a sword" because the center of gravity for a real weapon
(not a training qword, mind you) is in the middle of the handle, or
close to it. I just have to move my wrist, and it swings. For that
matter, it swings /faster/ than a dagger, because the tip is farther
from the center of rotation! I can really get a sword moving, in fact!
The same goes with polearms. All you do is hold with two hands and
/thrust/. And have you seen how fast people can swing quarterstaffs?
And to conclude:
In a cyclic initiative system (like 3e has) where after the first round,
no one goes "first" or "last", only "again", weapon speed is useless,
adding nothing to the game at all, because there is no "I go first" or
"last" without action declaration at the beginning of the round, which
3e emphatically /doesn't/ have.
Basically, if you account of weapon speed, you have to account for ten
million other things, and it's simpler just to ignore it.
This is not a flame, BTW. I'm saying this so that MSB doesn't have to,
because he /wouldn't/ be nice about it, and he might put you off a
little.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Life without pain isn't real" -Isamu Dyson, Macross Plus
Cerberus AOD
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 06:15:44 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, Grand Eleven, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:) >Well I finally picked up my copy of DnD3 and read it over. There are some
:) >really intersting things in here, but there are some things that I'm just
:) >... unsure of.
:) >
:) > First off, I'm glad they brought back the Monk and Barbarian. Looks
:) >like the Assasin made it too. But why no Cavilear? It seems to be the only
:) >one missing from the old 1st edition days ... why not just get them all?
picky-picky...
:) >Lifting the race prerequisits was a welcome change as well. Not that I ever
:) >payed attention to them, but it was good to see that it was officially
:) >decided to "not make sense".
:) >
:) > But here's my problem: the new experience system. While I feel the
:) >idea of a flat scale is good (It gives mages a chance of actually becoming
:) >useful), it makes me very concerned about class imballance. I guess only
:) >time will tell there. But what really bugs me is the XP per level. A level
:) >20 character needs only 190,000xp? Even the quickest advancing thieves
:) >needed 2,200,000xp to get this legendary status. I'm not sure how I like
:) >this one yet.
This way everyone goes at the same rate w/ group XP. And since rogues are not
theives anymore (don't have to be, that is), it will be easier for the DM to (as
suggested in the DMG) not give them the same combat XP as fighters.
:) >
:) >On a side note: it's nice to see a much more balanced weapon system (there's
:) >suddenly a reason to pick something other than a sword), but I think the
:) >weapon speed should have stayed in. Especially sinse you only roll
:) >initiative once now. It's a good deterant from everyone just scrolling down
:) >the damage dice collumn and buying the one with the most dammage dice
:) >(Doesn't matter if you hit harder when your dead first).
No! No! No more daggers win stuff...and we've gone over unrealistic AND
imbalancing it is. And actually, there are more concerns...
-Will I need a feat for this?
-Can I use a shield w/ it?
-Does the critical range and multiplier work out for me and my dice? (I don't
care how much they are supposed to be "random", some will hit certain numbers
mroe than others, and all us superstitious gamers know it! :) )
-Will its damage type work out?
And then you can get into using two weapons...oh yeah, and why not be able to
look down one collumn? All weapon speeds did was add a column to look at.
:) >
:) >Lastly, it's good to see skills that play a much more active role in the
:) >character to encourage players to use them. It gives the game a sort of
:) >stream-lined Earthdawn feel (which, while much more complex, is IMHO one the
:) >most successful skill based/level based hybrid of character advancement
:) >systems I've seen). The game I think opens up character developmentto blur
:) >class distinctions without making the system too complex.
Also, it allows characters to do stuff they have trouble with as players, and
vise versa..."I want to try to tell him that we are....uh...er..."
DM: "Diplomacy check. DC 16."
done.
:) >
:) >Hey, I like the product, it almost didn't look like DnD anymore, which
:) >scared me at first, but now the only conern I have is about the quick level
:) >advancements.
:) >
:) >What's everyone elses opinions?
Um, it isn't that quick. The level advancement has always depended on what the
DM wants. The amount of XP needed is just an arbitrary pointer. So it never
mattered anyway. I in fact had one DM who never even gave XP. He just told us
when we leveled. Also compare the classes at a given level...the fighter will
always be bes in combat. The rogue best out of combat, possibly at misc. skills.
The magic-using classes will be best at magic (duh). The flat XP also makes for
multiclassing with more ease, and makes multiclassing to magic classes harder
choices (as they should be).
------------------
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut (ernieSCR...@DoddsTech.com)
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
Jeremy Reaban
Grand Eleven wrote in message ...
<snip>
> But here's my problem: the new experience system. While I feel
the
>idea of a flat scale is good (It gives mages a chance of actually
becoming
>useful), it makes me very concerned about class imballance. I guess
only
>time will tell there. But what really bugs me is the XP per level.
A level
>20 character needs only 190,000xp? Even the quickest advancing
thieves
>needed 2,200,000xp to get this legendary status. I'm not sure how I
like
>this one yet.
It's not obvious from just the PHB, but it's explained in the DMB.
While the xp requirements are changed, so are the xps rewarded for
defeating monsters/challenges. Rather than being set, the amount
depends on the relative levels of the PCs and the monster/opponent.
Also, PCs no longer get experience points from money/treasure or magic
items.
For instance, if a party of first level characters kills a critter
with a CR of 10 (pretty tough), they get 10,800 points. But if a 10th
level party kills the same critter, they only get 3000. And if a 15th
level party kills it, they get only 844.
So in effect, it's basically the same rate. Although the system seems
to be geared for higher levels, much like the original D&D, rather
than AD&D. So advancement might be a bit quicker. But the system is
built for it, unlike AD&D. 20th Level might not be so legendary (which
was the case in D&D, which went up to 36th. And even that wasn't
terribly legendary)
Peter Seebach
Grand Eleven <gra...@home.com> wrote:
> First off, I'm glad they brought back the Monk and Barbarian. Looks
>like the Assasin made it too. But why no Cavilear? It seems to be the only
>one missing from the old 1st edition days ... why not just get them all?
Because the cavalier (note that it *can* be spelled) was never anything but
a hopped up fighter. You can now do that with feats.
> But here's my problem: the new experience system. While I feel the
>idea of a flat scale is good (It gives mages a chance of actually becoming
>useful), it makes me very concerned about class imballance. I guess only
>time will tell there. But what really bugs me is the XP per level. A level
>20 character needs only 190,000xp? Even the quickest advancing thieves
>needed 2,200,000xp to get this legendary status. I'm not sure how I like
>this one yet.
Yes, but things are worth a *lot* less XP's at higher levels, now. You no
longer rack up XP's for killing hordes of weak things.
Class balance seems pretty decent.
>On a side note: it's nice to see a much more balanced weapon system (there's
>suddenly a reason to pick something other than a sword), but I think the
>weapon speed should have stayed in. Especially sinse you only roll
>initiative once now. It's a good deterant from everyone just scrolling down
>the damage dice collumn and buying the one with the most dammage dice
>(Doesn't matter if you hit harder when your dead first).
Weapon speeds were painfully, stupidly, unrealistic. Speed still matters,
but most of the key features are implemented by providing *reach*.
>Hey, I like the product, it almost didn't look like DnD anymore, which
>scared me at first, but now the only conern I have is about the quick level
>advancements.
It's not a big problem. 2E: I think people went up around every 4-6
adventures. 3E: They're going up around every 4-6 adventures.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
DebiHuman
fighter or a paladin under the 3e rules as this is more of character concept.
And actually it works out quite well in either case.
I converted my half elf female cavelier to a paladin for 3e just to see how
she would turn out. And I am very pleased with the results.
The amazing weath she had didn't fit under 2nd ed as all paladins were required
to be austere but under the new rules this is fine. The DMG even had rules for
extra wealthy characters so keeping all her goodies wasn't a problem. So I had
her tithe a bit (some excesses really are too much and even I have limits).
N.B.
After watching me play on the cd demo, my husband went and created 3 new
character and he hasn't been interested in D&D in years. In fact, he was so
impressed with the new edition he wants to GM a game. He's been the GM of our
group for the last 14 years and never has he been interested in running a D&D
game. He tolerated my AD&D habit, and even played a bit when a friend had a
decent campaign going, but this is the first time he's wanted to run something.
Debby
john v verkuilen
> But here's my problem: the new experience system. While I feel the
>idea of a flat scale is good (It gives mages a chance of actually becoming
>useful), it makes me very concerned about class imballance. I guess only
>time will tell there. But what really bugs me is the XP per level. A level
>20 character needs only 190,000xp? Even the quickest advancing thieves
>needed 2,200,000xp to get this legendary status. I'm not sure how I like
>this one yet.
XP really aren't translatable across editions. Everyone goes up at the same
rate and how much you get for an encounter depends on your level at the time
you have it. Supposedly the various classes are balanced with respect to
each other. It seems more or less reasonable to me, anyway. Encountering a
pack of ghouls for a second level party (and surviving) is an XP bonanza.
Encountering the same pack of ghouls for a twelfth level party isn't really
all that valuable.
Now I felt the rate of advance was a bit high (and I've been accused of setting
things fairly swiftly in the 2E days). Simply scale things down, say to
75% of book value, if you prefer slower advancement.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is
ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of
his senses only to justify his logic." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Reginald
"Wolvorine" <wolv...@toledolink.com> wrote:
>
> > But here's my problem: the new experience system. While I feel
> > the idea of a flat scale is good (It gives mages a chance of
> > actually becoming useful), it makes me very concerned about class
> > imballance. I guess only time will tell there. But what really
> > bugs me is the XP per level. A level 20 character needs only
> > 190,000xp? Even the quickest advancing thieves needed 2,200,000xp
> > to get this legendary status. I'm not sure how I like this one
> > yet.
>
> player, not a DM), but I think XP gains are lesser now, too.
And it also has to do with the concept of Challenge Rating. If the
Challenge Rating of the creature or bunch of creatures is too low for
your PC's party then you do not earn XP, even if they are purposefully
added those creatures and traps in to slow or weaken your party down
(hey, he's playing the Villain, and bad guys are supposed to be cunning
as well as intelligent). ;)
--I.M. Paladin, author of "Effective Ways of Utilizing Cannon Fodders"
Wolvorine
>like the Assasin made it too. But why no Cavilear? It seems to be the only
>one missing from the old 1st edition days ... why not just get them all?
Well, we also still haven't seen the come-back of the Acrobat
(once a favorite of mine), but with the right skills and feats, the
Acrobat isn't needed anymore. The Cavalier, also, can be pretty well
simulated by skills & feats. Then again, they'd both make interesting
Prestige Classes. :) (Paladin/Cavalier, anyone?)
>Lifting the race prerequisits was a welcome change as well. Not that I ever
>payed attention to them, but it was good to see that it was officially
>decided to "not make sense".
Can *ANYONE* disagree with this? :)
> But here's my problem: the new experience system. While I feel the
>idea of a flat scale is good (It gives mages a chance of actually becoming
>useful), it makes me very concerned about class imballance. I guess only
>time will tell there. But what really bugs me is the XP per level. A level
>20 character needs only 190,000xp? Even the quickest advancing thieves
>needed 2,200,000xp to get this legendary status. I'm not sure how I like
>this one yet.
I'm not an authority (I have the new DMG, but am decidedly a
player, not a DM), but I think XP gains are lesser now, too.
Wolvorine - And Sir Victor, in his anguish, cried out that the Lord was a rotten bastard.
Justin King
> And it also has to do with the concept of Challenge Rating. If the
> Challenge Rating of the creature or bunch of creatures is too low for
> your PC's party then you do not earn XP, even if they are purposefully
> added those creatures and traps in to slow or weaken your party down
> (hey, he's playing the Villain, and bad guys are supposed to be cunning
> as well as intelligent). ;)
>
Yeah, but although it wasn't called a "challenge rating", this concept
existed in earlier AD&D versions as well. To qutoe DMG 2E, Chapter
8/Experience Point Awards/Group Awards: "A 7th level player chracter who
needs one more experience point to advance in level can't just gather his
friends together and hunt down a single orc. That orc wouldn't stand a
chance, so the player character was never at any particular risk." In other
words, The same is true in AD&D2E; creatures that are very far beneath you
in level cannot give you any XP because they are not any threat to you.
Actually that makes it HARDER to gain XP in 2E becuase XP is all or nothing,
not stepped like with the challenge rating. I just think people will be
maxing at level 20 way too quickly, and rather than such charactders being
something you can truely be proud of, they'll become common place.
David R. Klassen
xp's for an encounter by the total monster HD divided by the total
party level. So if an orc were worth, say, 7 xp's then a 7th level
character would receive 1/7th of the xp's or 1 xp.
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
Justin King
"David R. Klassen" <kla...@rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:39E3421C...@rowan.edu...
Grand Eleven
but
> a hopped up fighter. You can now do that with feats.
>
What's with the pointless jab? I don't think I was rude enough to warrant
that. I never saw the Cavalier as just a "pumped up fighter", but I suppose
you could emulate it with feats. Yet the same could be said of the Assassin,
yet that made an appearance. So again: why not?
> Yes, but things are worth a *lot* less XP's at higher levels, now. You no
> longer rack up XP's for killing hordes of weak things.
>
First off, you never gathered XP for killing hordes of weak things in other
AD&D editions either. Look it up. Both 1E and 2E have rules for high level
characters not getting full XP (if any) for killing lesser critters.
Secondly, challenge ratings hardly look much lower. The WEAKEST monster
would be CR1 in a one on one battle, which is still 300xp. Using the DMG3E
example on page 166 (just taking the statement on Ogre Xp value), Ogres are
Challenge Rating 2, so a lvl 1 character would get 600xp. Jumping over to
the monstrous compendium (2E), a standard Ogre is a mere 175, Leaders are
420, and only the chieftains catch up at 650. In this example , a standard
Ogre would give ~3.42 TIMES the XP in 3E! So it would look like not only are
the XP maxes about 1/10 the 2e values, but XP awards are triple normal. I'm
curious on where you get the idea that it's slower?
> Class balance seems pretty decent.
>
It could be, I haven't played yet (as I stated) so I'm not sure.
>
> Weapon speeds were painfully, stupidly, unrealistic. Speed still matters,
> but most of the key features are implemented by providing *reach*.
So your saying it's realistic that I can swing my two-handed great sword as
fast as stabbing with a knife? I find that hard to believe...
>
> It's not a big problem. 2E: I think people went up around every 4-6
> adventures. 3E: They're going up around every 4-6 adventures.
>
My problem is, in these discussions, I find no one can seem to backup the
statement that advancement is equal rate. Just as you stated earlier, I was
able to point out wholes in BOTH of your arguments. I guess only the DMG can
say for sure when I see how much the higher level critters are worth.
Grand Eleven
explanation does leave alot of holes, mostly you seem to want to merge the
defence a weapon can add with going first, which are two different things),
but my main point is that there needed to be SOMETHING that kept players
from just getting the hardest hitting item every time. It's boring when
every warrior type uses the same gear. Even if it's something as simple as
swinging arc that prohibits the use of certain weapons in certain areas it
would be nice. One of the things I liked about 2E was that there were alot
of factors in picking weapons. I gues sif you consider in threat ratings and
crit values .....(shrug) ... only time will tell eh?
Cerberus AOD
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:08:34 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, Grand Eleven, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:) >Sure, we could debate the legitimacy of weapon speed all day (and your
:) >explanation does leave alot of holes, mostly you seem to want to merge the
:) >defence a weapon can add with going first, which are two different things),
:) >but my main point is that there needed to be SOMETHING that kept players
:) >from just getting the hardest hitting item every time.
Well, monsters who take less damage from certain weapon types do it.
-4 proficiency penalties do it.
Not being able to use a shield does it.
Not having it fit the character concept does it.
> It's boring when
:) >every warrior type uses the same gear.
yes it is. You might want to encourage the people to play a character. Every
warrior type is different. Mine uses a staff. This other guy uses a hammer, the
other guy over here a sword...
> Even if it's something as simple as
:) >swinging arc that prohibits the use of certain weapons in certain areas it
:) >would be nice.
That would be as bad as weapon speeds, and what weapons, aside from exotic ones,
could warrant such a thing?
> One of the things I liked about 2E was that there were alot
:) >of factors in picking weapons. I gues sif you consider in threat ratings and
:) >crit values .....(shrug) ... only time will tell eh?
I guess if you consider threat ranges, crit multipliers, damage type (Monsters
may not be affected by a certain type the same as another), weapon size, range
modifiers (if any), feats needed to use the weapon effectively, whether or not
it fits the character, whether or not a shield can be used with it (you know,
cover AC against spells and such?), and whether or not it fits the character
concept, you have lots of choices that are equally valid. Also, the damage
difference isn't as much in 3e, as lower Str gives bonuses, so having a +2 Str
(or Dex for finesse) will often mean more than the damage die used.
A guy with 1d6+2Str and a guy with 1d8+1Str will be similar in use. In 2e,
unless you have a high Str (read: fighter), you get no bonus, so the damage die
made the difference in most cases. Now it doesn't.
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
"Grand Eleven" <gra...@home.com> wrote:
> > Because the cavalier (note that it *can* be spelled) was never
> > anything but a hopped up fighter. You can now do that with feats.
>
> What's with the pointless jab? I don't think I was rude enough to
> warrant that. I never saw the Cavalier as just a "pumped up fighter",
> but I suppose you could emulate it with feats. Yet the same could be
> said of the Assassin, yet that made an appearance. So again: why not?
Cavaliers were *mook.* Their Abilities naturally increased, which was
something that no one else got -- this was arbitrary and stupid. They
got the mook d12 hit dice; at least it made some sense in the case of
the barbarian. Now all characters can increase their Abilities, and if
you can live without the d12 HD, you can build the rest of the cav's
abilities with feats and skill (minus a few things, like the
dismounting attack, which can be done as a feat).
<snip XP stuff>
> > Weapon speeds were painfully, stupidly, unrealistic. Speed still
> > matters, but most of the key features are implemented by providing
> *reach*.
>
> So your saying it's realistic that I can swing my two-handed great
> sword as fast as stabbing with a knife? I find that hard to believe...
The concept of why weapon speeds aren't valid is was explained to you
clearly before. There are are dozens of threads devoted to this very
topic on Deja News. I'm going to try and make it simple: You have a
1' dagger. I have have a 3' sword. Unless you have telescopic arms,
I'm going to get an attack against you before you can get within range
to hit me with a dagger. Hell, all I have to do is keep you at bay
with the sword too keep you from getting to me at all. If anything,
weapon speeds should be *reversed* if they're used at all.
It's a fact of life that some weapons are flat-out better than others
to use in melee. This is why knights didn't square off with daggers
when swords were available; in melee, reach is A Good Thing(tm). Now,
a dagger is cheaper, more easily concealed, and can be drawn faster
(see below). Real-life weapon experts back this up. My own
(admittedly meager) experience backs this up. If you doubt this, come
down here to where I live and we'll go pick up some plastic weapons and
start wailing in each other. I'll take the sword or polearm, thank
you...
Weapon speeds were included in 1st Edition, but they only came into
play on the round that weapons were being drawn. For example, say that
we start arguing in a bar and we both go for weapons simultaneously.
You'll be able to draw and attack with your dagger before I get my
sword out. In this case, weapon speeds make a lot of sense. (My guess
is that some people started using weapon speeds as initiative
modifiers, and this house rule was included with the core AD&D2 rules.)
<snip more XP stuff>
--
----------===Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman===---------
The Parakeet's Nest: http://www.geocities.com/lordstevil
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mr...@my-deja.com
>
> First off, I'm glad they brought back the Monk and Barbarian.
Looks
> like the Assasin made it too. But why no Cavilear? It seems to be
the only
> one missing from the old 1st edition days ... why not just get them
all?
Well, other then mere combat-stat stuff... what's the difference
between a Cavalier and a Fighter or a Paladin or an Aristocrat?
> Lifting the race prerequisits was a welcome change as well. Not that
I ever
> payed attention to them, but it was good to see that it was officially
> decided to "not make sense".
YAY!
> But here's my problem: the new experience system. While I feel
the
> idea of a flat scale is good (It gives mages a chance of actually
becoming
> useful), it makes me very concerned about class imballance. I guess
only
> time will tell there. But what really bugs me is the XP per level.
A level
> 20 character needs only 190,000xp? Even the quickest advancing
thieves
The number of XP higher level characters get is reduced accordingly.
190,000 XP in 3e is not the same as 190,000 XP in 2e.
> needed 2,200,000xp to get this legendary status. I'm not sure how I
like
> this one yet.
> On a side note: it's nice to see a much more balanced weapon system
(there's
> suddenly a reason to pick something other than a sword), but I think
the
> weapon speed should have stayed in. Especially sinse you only roll
> initiative once now. It's a good deterant from everyone just
scrolling down
> the damage dice collumn and buying the one with the most dammage dice
> (Doesn't matter if you hit harder when your dead first).
Weapon speed, however, is a bit unrealistic. For example... a dagger
strikes faster then a quarterstaff. Against a dummy target, the dagger
user can strike faster, more often. But the reality of the situation
is, the dagger user's going to be hit first... because the staff user's
got reach, which both hits first, and keeps the dagger user away.
Weapons speeds then become impractical, especially since every
combination of weapon has to be concidered... becomes more like Rock-
Paper-Siscors, except with more tables.
No, if I wanted that much trouble... I'd play Rolemaster.
> Lastly, it's good to see skills that play a much more active role in
the
> character to encourage players to use them. It gives the game a sort
of
> stream-lined Earthdawn feel (which, while much more complex, is IMHO
one the
> most successful skill based/level based hybrid of character
advancement
> systems I've seen). The game I think opens up character
developmentto blur
> class distinctions without making the system too complex.
Agreed there. Plus skills allow characters to further development, and
story, which are Good Things (TM)
> Hey, I like the product, it almost didn't look like DnD anymore, which
> scared me at first, but now the only conern I have is about the quick
level
> advancements.
The reality is that advancement is pretty fast thru the first two
levels, but tapers off and slows to a crawl later on.
One example, at 20th level, the Red Dragon in the PHB (CR 13) gives you
no XP. Not a single damned one.
mr...@my-deja.com
to the group, which is less then the tens of thousands that lesser
monsters could have given in DnD2
mr...@my-deja.com
> First off, you never gathered XP for killing hordes of weak things in
other
> AD&D editions either. Look it up. Both 1E and 2E have rules for high
level
> characters not getting full XP (if any) for killing lesser critters.
Not rules, suggestions. Tables and the such are rules. Anything which
is arbitrary is not a rule.
> Secondly, challenge ratings hardly look much lower. The WEAKEST
monster
> would be CR1 in a one on one battle, which is still 300xp. Using the
Actually, it would be CR 1/8... which equates to about 36xp split
amongst the party...
DMG3E
> example on page 166 (just taking the statement on Ogre Xp value),
Ogres are
> Challenge Rating 2, so a lvl 1 character would get 600xp. Jumping
over to
600 split amongst the party. But the system is supposed to advance low
level characters quickly. a CR 2 monster is more powerful then a group
of 4 first level characters, so the XP for that at first = 150.
> the monstrous compendium (2E), a standard Ogre is a mere 175, Leaders
are
> 420, and only the chieftains catch up at 650. In this example , a
standard
> Ogre would give ~3.42 TIMES the XP in 3E! So it would look like not
only are
> the XP maxes about 1/10 the 2e values, but XP awards are triple
normal. I'm
> curious on where you get the idea that it's slower?
At low levels it is lower. At high levels, it isn't.
In 2nd E: Mature Red Dragon VS 13th level characters: 16,000 XP
in 3rd E: Mature Red Dragon VS 13th level characters: 3,900: XP
Plus, you're not giving out XP for gold gained anymore. Treasure is
its own reward.
> It could be, I haven't played yet (as I stated) so I'm not sure.
Try it out. Don't be discouraged that you can't create an ubergod
character. To maximise fun, use the suggested system (4d6, take 3
highest, only allow rerolls if total mods <= 0 or no roll higher than
13)
The necessity for 15+ stats is gone due to the more progressive mod
rate.
> > Weapon speeds were painfully, stupidly, unrealistic. Speed still
matters,
>
> > but most of the key features are implemented by providing *reach*.
>
> So your saying it's realistic that I can swing my two-handed great
sword as
> fast as stabbing with a knife? I find that hard to believe...
No. But you're not going to knife me cause you can't get close,
because I have a swinging can opener bisecting you if you get within 5
feet of me. Greatswords were used to rend thru armor. That's why
armies were primarily armed with swords and pikes and not knifes and
darts.
> > It's not a big problem. 2E: I think people went up around every 4-6
>
> > adventures. 3E: They're going up around every 4-6 adventures.
>
> >
>
> My problem is, in these discussions, I find no one can seem to backup
the
> statement that advancement is equal rate. Just as you stated earlier,
I was
> able to point out wholes in BOTH of your arguments. I guess only the
DMG can
> say for sure when I see how much the higher level critters are worth.
It's simple. In 3e, if all the encounters one comes against are equal
level, then every encounter yeilds 75 XP X level.
(equal level encounter XP = 300 X CR. Divide by 4 players = 75 X CR)
The number of XP per level required to level = 1000 X level.
Therefore, the number of encounters required = 1000 X level / (75 X
level)...
1000 X level 1000 40
------------ = ---- = -- = 13.33 encounters.
75 X level 75 3
At lower levels, however, most encounters are of higher level then the
character, thus causing the curve swing in favor of faster growth.
Higher level characters, however, run into a greater range of monsters,
tending towards the weaker side, thus enabling a lower XP rate.
Before, the level gain rate was more or less willy-nilly, depending on
class, etc.
Also, in 3rd, things like item creation, and certain powerful spells
take up XP, thus slowing the level gain even more.
Dr Nuncheon
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <8FQE5.183570$3E6.1...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>,
> "Grand Eleven" <gra...@home.com> wrote:
>> > anything but a hopped up fighter. You can now do that with feats.
>>
>> What's with the pointless jab? I don't think I was rude enough to
>> warrant that. I never saw the Cavalier as just a "pumped up fighter",
>> but I suppose you could emulate it with feats. Yet the same could be
>> said of the Assassin, yet that made an appearance. So again: why not?
>
This must be a different definition of 'mook', because I always think of
it as the Feng Shui "nameless thugs" definition...
> and if
>you can live without the d12 HD, you can build the rest of the cav's
>abilities with feats and skill (minus a few things, like the
>dismounting attack, which can be done as a feat).
Not true of the 1e cavalier - I gave a little analysis in another post,
but there aren't any Feats to give you stuff like the immunity to fear/90%
resistance to mind control, or the increased to-hit bonuses they got with
'knightly weapons'. Still, you *can* reproduce the core idea of the class
- a knight in shining armor.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
Peter Seebach
>In 2nd E: Mature Red Dragon VS 13th level characters: 16,000 XP
>in 3rd E: Mature Red Dragon VS 13th level characters: 3,900: XP
Yeah, but:
2nd Ed: Most characters need >200,000 XP's per level at 13th.
3rd Ed: 13,000 XP's to 14th level.
On the other hand, the dragon is a lot tougher.
>Plus, you're not giving out XP for gold gained anymore. Treasure is
>its own reward.
This makes a *huge* difference.
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> In article <8s14b1$lft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <8FQE5.183570$3E6.1...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>,
> > "Grand Eleven" <gra...@home.com> wrote:
> >> > anything but a hopped up fighter. You can now do that with feats.
> >>
> >> What's with the pointless jab? I don't think I was rude enough to
> >> warrant that. I never saw the Cavalier as just a "pumped up fighter",
> >> but I suppose you could emulate it with feats. Yet the same could be
> >> said of the Assassin, yet that made an appearance. So again: why not?
> >
>
> This must be a different definition of 'mook', because I always think of
> it as the Feng Shui "nameless thugs" definition...
>
> > and if
> >you can live without the d12 HD, you can build the rest of the cav's
> >abilities with feats and skill (minus a few things, like the
> >dismounting attack, which can be done as a feat).
>
> Not true of the 1e cavalier - I gave a little analysis in another post,
> but there aren't any Feats to give you stuff like the immunity to fear/90%
> resistance to mind control, or the increased to-hit bonuses they got with
> 'knightly weapons'. Still, you *can* reproduce the core idea of the class
> - a knight in shining armor.
Right. No need for a separate class. The cavalier is a
fighter with a particular mindset and upbringing.
Roleplaying and selective feat/skill choices can handle that
quite well.
Increased to-hit bonuses with 'knightly' weapons can be rule
zeroed, if the DM, thinks it is appropriate, by allowing
Weapon Specialization to stack for that character, but only
on Knightly Weapons.
Likewise, the high resistance to fear can be a special
fortitude bonus feat. No problem.
--
Deykin ap Gwion
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss
all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours. --Stephen F. Roberts"
Robert Baldwin
<Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <8FQE5.183570$3E6.1...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>,
> "Grand Eleven" <gra...@home.com> wrote:
>> > Because the cavalier (note that it *can* be spelled) was never
>> > anything but a hopped up fighter. You can now do that with feats.
>>
>> What's with the pointless jab? I don't think I was rude enough to
>> warrant that. I never saw the Cavalier as just a "pumped up fighter",
>> but I suppose you could emulate it with feats. Yet the same could be
>> said of the Assassin, yet that made an appearance. So again: why not?
>
>Cavaliers were *mook.*
Feh.
Their Abilities naturally increased, which was
>something that no one else got -- this was arbitrary and stupid.
Most classes have unique abilities. And gaining a couple of points in
the physical stats by 15th level (on average) is hardly unreasonable.
They
>got the mook d12 hit dice;
<snip other issues>
A corrected typo, the d12 was per the original Dragon article.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
incrdbil
>
>Right. No need for a separate class.
then there is no need for a seperate barbarian class then...
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> >
> >Right. No need for a separate class.
>
> then there is no need for a seperate barbarian class then...
How right you are. A barbarian is not a class, its a
cultural distinction. A Berserker *might* be a class, but
it needn't be. A fighter with a couple special feats would
be a berserker. Set up the special barbarian abilities as a
feat tree, and allow access to fighters (or anyone.. I like
the idea of a berserker cleric or berserker illusionist).
Cerberus AOD
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:47:45 -0500, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Deykin ap Gwion, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:) >incrdbil wrote:
:) >>
:) >> >
:) >> >Right. No need for a separate class.
:) >>
:) >> then there is no need for a seperate barbarian class then...
:) >
:) >How right you are. A barbarian is not a class, its a
:) >cultural distinction. A Berserker *might* be a class, but
:) >it needn't be. A fighter with a couple special feats would
:) >be a berserker.
d12 HD feat? :)
Rage I could see as a feat though...
> Set up the special barbarian abilities as a
:) >feat tree, and allow access to fighters (or anyone.. I like
:) >the idea of a berserker cleric or berserker illusionist).
I actually think they did the abilites and skills of a barbarian well, but that
they blurred the distinction between culture and class, which was the main
problem (also calling it a barbarian instead of a berserker, but I'll give a
little creative license there).
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:47:45 -0500, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
> was quite moldy, Deykin ap Gwion, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
> antennae:
> :) >incrdbil wrote:
> :) >>
> :) >> >
> :) >> >Right. No need for a separate class.
> :) >>
> :) >> then there is no need for a seperate barbarian class then...
> :) >
> :) >How right you are. A barbarian is not a class, its a
> :) >cultural distinction. A Berserker *might* be a class, but
> :) >it needn't be. A fighter with a couple special feats would
> :) >be a berserker.
> d12 HD feat? :)
> Rage I could see as a feat though...
>
> > Set up the special barbarian abilities as a
> :) >feat tree, and allow access to fighters (or anyone.. I like
> :) >the idea of a berserker cleric or berserker illusionist).
>
> I actually think they did the abilites and skills of a barbarian well, but that
> they blurred the distinction between culture and class, which was the main
> problem (also calling it a barbarian instead of a berserker, but I'll give a
> little creative license there).
Dat's what I meant when I allowed that a berserker might be
a good class, but I still don't see the need. All the
abilities of a barbarian (or the posited berserker) could
very well be handled more cleanly with roleplaying
considerations and a couple feats.
Do we REALLY need to multiclass just to have a psychological
ability to go into a homicidal rage with game effects?
Xeno
<David_S...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>Dr Nuncheon wrote:
>> Not true of the 1e cavalier - I gave a little analysis in another post,
>> but there aren't any Feats to give you stuff like the immunity to fear/90%
>> resistance to mind control, or the increased to-hit bonuses they got with
>> 'knightly weapons'. Still, you *can* reproduce the core idea of the class
>> - a knight in shining armor.
>
>Right. No need for a separate class. The cavalier is a
>fighter with a particular mindset and upbringing.
>Roleplaying and selective feat/skill choices can handle that
>quite well.
Hold on a second. What is it about the barbarian, paladin, and ranger that
renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
Xeno
(Cerberus AOD) wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:47:45 -0500, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
>was quite moldy, Deykin ap Gwion, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
>antennae:
>:) >incrdbil wrote:
>:) >>
>:) >> >
>:) >> >Right. No need for a separate class.
>:) >>
>:) >> then there is no need for a seperate barbarian class then...
>:) >
>:) >How right you are. A barbarian is not a class, its a
>:) >cultural distinction. A Berserker *might* be a class, but
>:) >it needn't be. A fighter with a couple special feats would
>:) >be a berserker.
>d12 HD feat? :)
Not as such, but a feat that gave you the next higher die size for HP might
work. Wizards go to d6, clerics go to d10, and fighters go to d12.
The main problem is reconciling such a feat with Toughness, which gives you
just 3 hp (but can be taken multiple times).
Perhaps Toughness should have given you maximum HP for one level, instead
of a straight 3 hp? I dunno...
>Rage I could see as a feat though...
Yep. The only thing that keeps it from being one is the barbarian's
existence.
>> Set up the special barbarian abilities as a
>:) >feat tree, and allow access to fighters (or anyone.. I like
>:) >the idea of a berserker cleric or berserker illusionist).
>
>I actually think they did the abilites and skills of a barbarian well, but that
>they blurred the distinction between culture and class, which was the main
>problem (also calling it a barbarian instead of a berserker, but I'll give a
>little creative license there).
Definitely. It would be like having a class called "centurion" or "gypsy"
-- they make a good character concept, but a poor class concept. Centurions
can be played as a kind of fighter and gypsies as a kind of rogue. The same
goes for barbarian, ranger, and paladin.
Varsil Savai
wrote:
They rolled successful saving throws versus oblivion? :).
----------------------------------------------------
Consider yourself flamed.
I have erected a spamblocker. Simply remove the
#$% characters if you feel the need to email me.
Habing T Brian
>>Right. No need for a separate class. The cavalier is a
>>fighter with a particular mindset and upbringing.
>>Roleplaying and selective feat/skill choices can handle that
>>quite well.
>Hold on a second. What is it about the barbarian, paladin, and ranger that
>renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
Paladins are clearly a special case... with the spells and turning, etc...
Rangers also have spells, but I don't think a character filling the ranger
niche in the world really needs them, so the case is a bit weaker.
In Unearthed Arcana I couldn't think of any reason to have barbarians
beyond the desire to have a pimpy d12 hit die. Can't think of much of
a better reason in 3E... does rage and illiteracy really take a separate
class.
For the Cavalier? I can't think of any reason at all to separate them out.
Can you? (I don't consider 'well the other classes don't have a reason'
to be much of a reason either.
-bh
incrdbil
>
>In Unearthed Arcana I couldn't think of any reason to have barbarians
>beyond the desire to have a pimpy d12 hit die. Can't think of much of
>a better reason in 3E... does rage and illiteracy really take a separate
>class.
>
not at all--it sounds like the gimmicky distinction you would find in
a lame RPG.
I love 3e's mechanics and all, but I think in class design areas, they
didnt do as well as they could have. They definitely need to spend
some time in their supplements coming up with some new twists on the
basic classes and options. (Especially making fighters less of a
cookie cutter class)
Chris Campbell
>I love 3e's mechanics and all, but I think in class design areas, they
>didnt do as well as they could have. They definitely need to spend
>some time in their supplements coming up with some new twists on the
>basic classes and options. (Especially making fighters less of a
>cookie cutter class)
And giving them some decent non-combat feats.
--
Oh my God! They've killed Kosh! You bastards!
Chris Campbell Sank...@ix.netcom.com
Habing T Brian
>I love 3e's mechanics and all, but I think in class design areas, they
>didnt do as well as they could have. They definitely need to spend
>some time in their supplements coming up with some new twists on the
>basic classes and options. (Especially making fighters less of a
>cookie cutter class)
The DMG suggested all types of ways for the classes to be customized though.
And do we want the DM customizing so that the types of characters fit in the
campaign world? or do we want the players forcing there odd ideas into it?
Too many supplements = too little creativity on the parts of the DMs
in my experience anyway.
-bh
Dr Nuncheon
Xeno <mlsh...@SPAM.memphis.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:19:42 -0500, Deykin ap Gwion
><David_S...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>>fighter with a particular mindset and upbringing.
>>Roleplaying and selective feat/skill choices can handle that
>>quite well.
>
>Hold on a second. What is it about the barbarian, paladin, and ranger that
>renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
Well, Paladin and Ranger are pretty obvious - the spells and other magic
powers. Casting spells is pretty much something that defines a class -
the designers didn't want it to be available as a 'feat'. The same with
turning, etc.
Barbarian - I'd have to say that the Barbarian is in there as an example
of how to set up a class that is 'similar but different' - in fact, it's
even used as such an example in the DMG. I think it's got some special
abilities that are a little too powerful to be allowed as Feats - the
uncanny dodge, for example. If it were a feat, *everyone* would get it.
I know my characters would. If it's restricted to people who put a
significant investment into a class, it's a lot more balanced.
incrdbil
>
>The DMG suggested all types of ways for the classes to be customized though.
>And do we want the DM customizing so that the types of characters fit in the
>campaign world? or do we want the players forcing there odd ideas into it?
heaven forbid the players have input or offer suggestions on the type
of character they want to play :)
>
>Too many supplements = too little creativity on the parts of the DMs
>in my experience anyway.
>
I saw the rather pathetic section in the DMG on customizing classes.
It scremed to me "you will have to buy the supplement to get real
guidelines on this" :)
>
Blackberry
Oct 2000 12:42:02 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>[...]
>In Unearthed Arcana I couldn't think of any reason to have barbarians
>beyond the desire to have a pimpy d12 hit die. Can't think of much of
>a better reason in 3E... does rage and illiteracy really take a separate
>class.
If there were a way in 3E to say, "I want to play a Fighter, but I want to give
up my armor proficiencies and extra feats for an ability to rage and a couple
extra hit points", then it wouldn't need to be a separate class. As it stands,
the fighter who relies on battle rage instead of weapons and armor needs to be a
separate class.
>For the Cavalier? I can't think of any reason at all to separate them out.
>Can you? (I don't consider 'well the other classes don't have a reason'
>to be much of a reason either.
That depends -- what precisely does it mean to be a Cavalier?
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com -- remove "NOSPAM"
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> In article <39e5a912...@news.memphis.edu>,
> Xeno <mlsh...@SPAM.memphis.edu> wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:19:42 -0500, Deykin ap Gwion
> ><David_S...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> >>Right. No need for a separate class. The cavalier is a
> >>fighter with a particular mindset and upbringing.
> >>Roleplaying and selective feat/skill choices can handle that
> >>quite well.
> >
> >Hold on a second. What is it about the barbarian, paladin, and ranger that
> >renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
>
> Well, Paladin and Ranger are pretty obvious - the spells and other magic
> powers. Casting spells is pretty much something that defines a class -
> the designers didn't want it to be available as a 'feat'. The same with
> turning, etc.
Is there any reason whatsoever, though, that the flavor of a
paladin couldn't be easily captured by a cleric/fighter who
roleplayed?
Or a ranger by a fighter/sorceror and selective spell
choices and roleplay?
I think not. Classes are crutches, but subclasses are the
type of crutches used to beat little olf ladies over the
head and take their welfare check.
> Barbarian - I'd have to say that the Barbarian is in there as an example
> of how to set up a class that is 'similar but different' - in fact, it's
> even used as such an example in the DMG. I think it's got some special
> abilities that are a little too powerful to be allowed as Feats - the
> uncanny dodge, for example. If it were a feat, *everyone* would get it.
> I know my characters would. If it's restricted to people who put a
> significant investment into a class, it's a lot more balanced.
Just put it higher on a feat tree. Require other. less
attractive, feats on the way to uncanny dodge. If you
haven't bought your way up to it, you don't get it. No big
deal.
You have to remember that there is nothing a game system can
do to stop a player from trying to be a munchkin. No matter
what design constraints you ry to insert, someone is going
to 'do the math' and figure out something optimum. Balance
is the biggest bugaboo of all time. If your players are a
bunch of min/maxers they'd all try to get uncanny dodgel.
But then, how many of them are multiclass rogue/something
else for the free skill points at lvl one?
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:19:42 -0500, Deykin ap Gwion
> <David_S...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Not true of the 1e cavalier - I gave a little analysis in another post,
> >> but there aren't any Feats to give you stuff like the immunity to fear/90%
> >> resistance to mind control, or the increased to-hit bonuses they got with
> >> 'knightly weapons'. Still, you *can* reproduce the core idea of the class
> >> - a knight in shining armor.
> >
> >fighter with a particular mindset and upbringing.
> >Roleplaying and selective feat/skill choices can handle that
> >quite well.
>
> Hold on a second. What is it about the barbarian, paladin, and ranger that
> renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
Nothing much. The barbarian, as I've already said earlier,
could very well be handled by fighter + RP + a feat or two.
A Paladin is what, exactly? A person called by a
God/Ethos/Philosophy to go out and do the Right Thing(tm).
IMNSHO this has *never* required its own class. In fact,
I've never thought this required them to be Fighter types.
A ranger is what? A Person that spends all his damn time in
the wilderness. *Why* he does it is a roleplaying issue.
*How* he survives could simply be skill. NO need for this
class either.
Dr Nuncheon
>> >renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
>>
>> powers. Casting spells is pretty much something that defines a class -
>> the designers didn't want it to be available as a 'feat'. The same with
>> turning, etc.
>
>Is there any reason whatsoever, though, that the flavor of a
>paladin couldn't be easily captured by a cleric/fighter who
>roleplayed?
We've been over this before, Deyk - you think there isn't, I think there
is. I don't think another round is going to convince either of us.
>> Barbarian - I'd have to say that the Barbarian is in there as an example
>> of how to set up a class that is 'similar but different' - in fact, it's
>> even used as such an example in the DMG. I think it's got some special
>> abilities that are a little too powerful to be allowed as Feats - the
>> uncanny dodge, for example. If it were a feat, *everyone* would get it.
>> I know my characters would. If it's restricted to people who put a
>> significant investment into a class, it's a lot more balanced.
>
>Just put it higher on a feat tree. Require other. less
>attractive, feats on the way to uncanny dodge. If you
>haven't bought your way up to it, you don't get it. No big
>deal.
Even compared to the 'high end' feats existing (like Whirlwind attack),
uncanny dodge is more powerful.
>You have to remember that there is nothing a game system can
>do to stop a player from trying to be a munchkin. No matter
>what design constraints you ry to insert, someone is going
>to 'do the math' and figure out something optimum. Balance
>is the biggest bugaboo of all time.
In that case, why try for balance at all? I take a more moderate stance -
I realize that there will always be minmaxers and the like, and games
should not *over*constrain just because of the minmaxers - but there's no
reason to throw out all the constraints either. That's like saying "we
shouldn't have any rules, because someone might abuse them." Babies,
bathwater, and all that.
>If your players are a
>bunch of min/maxers they'd all try to get uncanny dodgel.
>But then, how many of them are multiclass rogue/something
>else for the free skill points at lvl one?
I don't think it'd be limited to minmaxers, though. *Any* adventurer
would find the ability extremely useful, and if it were generally
available could probably "justify" it based on growing combat skill and
experience. That to me violates one of the ideas behind Feats - they're a
way to make your character unique, not a way to make them the same as
everyone else.
Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:20:04 GMT, Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman
> <Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <8FQE5.183570$3E6.1...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>,
> > "Grand Eleven" <gra...@home.com> wrote:
> >> > Because the cavalier (note that it *can* be spelled) was never
> >> > anything but a hopped up fighter. You can now do that with feats.
> >>
> >> What's with the pointless jab? I don't think I was rude enough to
> >> warrant that. I never saw the Cavalier as just a "pumped up
> >> fighter", but I suppose you could emulate it with feats. Yet the
> >> same could be said of the Assassin, yet that made an appearance.
> >> So again: why not?
> >
> > Cavaliers were *mook.*
>
> Feh.
Eh? Oh.
Bah! Hmf...
> Their Abilities naturally increased, which was
> >something that no one else got -- this was arbitrary and stupid.
>
> Most classes have unique abilities. And gaining a couple of points in
> the physical stats by 15th level (on average) is hardly unreasonable.
What's unreasonable was the assumption that members of other classes
just sat around on their lazy asses while, while cavaliers were the
only ones who bothered to work out. Hell, *I* can go to the gym and
increase my Strength, Dexterity and the like. Why is it unreasonable
that a fighter, rogue or wizard could? It isn't.
> They got the mook d12 hit dice;
> <snip other issues>
Ahah! You cannot respond to my other comments, for you recognize your
own wrongness! I have defeated you. Submit now.
> A corrected typo, the d12 was per the original Dragon article.
The d12 hit die is listed in the UA book, and everyone I know uses it.
If this is the case, however, I feel a little better about the class.
But it still deserved to die.
> --
> Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
> -
> "Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
And the cavaliers died very well.
> "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
Like the guy who thought up cavaliers.
> "Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
My choice is to feel neither, if at all possible; that's why I don't
allow the cavalier in my games.
--
----------===Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman===---------
The Parakeet's Nest: http://www.geocities.com/lordstevil
Habing T Brian
>>The DMG suggested all types of ways for the classes to be customized though.
>>And do we want the DM customizing so that the types of characters fit in the
>>campaign world? or do we want the players forcing there odd ideas into it?
>heaven forbid the players have input or offer suggestions on the type
>of character they want to play :)
I didn't say they shouldn't. But if the players need a list of ideas
to pick from, it means they probably haven't thought it out to the point
that I'd want to bother with it. I have players all the time who
have customized character types.
>>Too many supplements = too little creativity on the parts of the DMs
>>in my experience anyway.
>>
>I saw the rather pathetic section in the DMG on customizing classes.
>It scremed to me "you will have to buy the supplement to get real
>guidelines on this" :)
The real guideline is: "make sure its balanced"
Do you want a fill in the blanks work sheet?
-bh
Blackberry
2000 11:44:51 -0500 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>
>[...]
>A Paladin is what, exactly? A person called by a
>God/Ethos/Philosophy to go out and do the Right Thing(tm).
>IMNSHO this has *never* required its own class. In fact,
>I've never thought this required them to be Fighter types.
A paladin is not just called (anyone of any class could be "called"), but he is
also granted special, magical powers and abilities above and beyond that of
anyone else, in exchage for serving whatever he serves (see other threads).
That's why there's a difference between a fighter who happens to belong to a
religion and a paladin.
>A ranger is what? A Person that spends all his damn time in
>the wilderness. *Why* he does it is a roleplaying issue.
>*How* he survives could simply be skill. NO need for this
>class either.
There is if you want the ranger to have abilities beyond that which a fighter
could have, such as spells. If you propose a feat that allows you to cast
spells, then everyone could take it. At that point, you should just break down
every possible class ability and have players pick and choose to build their
characters, ignoring the concept of classes entirely.
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> In article <39E5EC35...@ndsu.nodak.edu>,
> Deykin ap Gwion <David_S...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> >Dr Nuncheon wrote:
> >> In article <39e5a912...@news.memphis.edu>,
> >> Xeno <mlsh...@SPAM.memphis.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Hold on a second. What is it about the barbarian, paladin, and ranger that
> >> >renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
> >>
> >> Well, Paladin and Ranger are pretty obvious - the spells and other magic
> >> powers. Casting spells is pretty much something that defines a class -
> >> the designers didn't want it to be available as a 'feat'. The same with
> >> turning, etc.
> >
> >Is there any reason whatsoever, though, that the flavor of a
> >paladin couldn't be easily captured by a cleric/fighter who
> >roleplayed?
>
> We've been over this before, Deyk - you think there isn't, I think there
> is. I don't think another round is going to convince either of us.
Have we? I don't recall. We probably have though, and
you're right. We probably won't convince each other.
Note that I don't think having paladins (or rangers) be a
separate class is necessarily bad (although I freely admit
my leanings toward a purely skill based system, despite my
love for D&D, a conflicted personal position, to be sure).
I will flat out state that I feel they represent something
that 3e handles better than any other edition: prestige
classes (a name I hate, but that's what we have).
> >> Barbarian - I'd have to say that the Barbarian is in there as an example
> >> of how to set up a class that is 'similar but different' - in fact, it's
> >> even used as such an example in the DMG. I think it's got some special
> >> abilities that are a little too powerful to be allowed as Feats - the
> >> uncanny dodge, for example. If it were a feat, *everyone* would get it.
> >> I know my characters would. If it's restricted to people who put a
> >> significant investment into a class, it's a lot more balanced.
> >
> >Just put it higher on a feat tree. Require other. less
> >attractive, feats on the way to uncanny dodge. If you
> >haven't bought your way up to it, you don't get it. No big
> >deal.
>
> Even compared to the 'high end' feats existing (like Whirlwind attack),
> uncanny dodge is more powerful.
Yes, it is. But you'll note that the power level of the
various feats isn't terribly balanced amongst themselves to
begin with (as admitted by the game designers). It doesn't
really matter, though, in the end, since following my
inclination to reductive methodology would result in the
ending of the class system entirely, an end that I don't
seek.
> >You have to remember that there is nothing a game system can
> >do to stop a player from trying to be a munchkin. No matter
> >what design constraints you ry to insert, someone is going
> >to 'do the math' and figure out something optimum. Balance
> >is the biggest bugaboo of all time.
>
> In that case, why try for balance at all? I take a more moderate stance -
> I realize that there will always be minmaxers and the like, and games
> should not *over*constrain just because of the minmaxers - but there's no
> reason to throw out all the constraints either. That's like saying "we
> shouldn't have any rules, because someone might abuse them." Babies,
> bathwater, and all that.
I don't necessarily believe it forces you to go that far.
ALl it requires you to do is allow all PCs and NPCs access
to the same skill and feat trees. Balance is achieved by
everyone having the opportunity to the same possibilities.
Choosing to not take advantage of them is a role playing
decision some will make and others won't.
> >If your players are a
> >bunch of min/maxers they'd all try to get uncanny dodgel.
> >But then, how many of them are multiclass rogue/something
> >else for the free skill points at lvl one?
>
> I don't think it'd be limited to minmaxers, though. *Any* adventurer
> would find the ability extremely useful, and if it were generally
> available could probably "justify" it based on growing combat skill and
> experience. That to me violates one of the ideas behind Feats - they're a
> way to make your character unique, not a way to make them the same as
> everyone else.
I can see it now: The next revision allows everyone access
to uncanny dodge. The revision after that takes not of the
fact the EVERYONE takes uncanny dodge, and so makes it a
standard PC ability, and you an get a free feat by electing
to *not* have it.
heh
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> The unfortunate translation of Deykin's Vogon Poetry reading from Thu, 12 Oct
> 2000 11:44:51 -0500 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
> >
> >[...]
> >A Paladin is what, exactly? A person called by a
> >God/Ethos/Philosophy to go out and do the Right Thing(tm).
> >IMNSHO this has *never* required its own class. In fact,
> >I've never thought this required them to be Fighter types.
>
> A paladin is not just called (anyone of any class could be "called"), but he is
> also granted special, magical powers and abilities above and beyond that of
> anyone else, in exchage for serving whatever he serves (see other threads).
And why, exactly, couldn't those special powers be granted
above and beyond that of anyone else to anyone, of any
class, that is specifically called?
GodX: Hey Dude! I want you to do thus and such.
Dude: Ok GodX, I'll do that and thus.
GodX: Here are some special powers to help you do thus and
such. Oh, and here are the responsibilities that go with
them.
> That's why there's a difference between a fighter who happens to belong to a
> religion and a paladin.
That's a circular argument. A Paladin is different from a
fighter because he has special powers. Why does he have
these special powers? Because he's a paladin.
> >A ranger is what? A Person that spends all his damn time in
> >the wilderness. *Why* he does it is a roleplaying issue.
> >*How* he survives could simply be skill. NO need for this
> >class either.
>
> There is if you want the ranger to have abilities beyond that which a fighter
> could have, such as spells. If you propose a feat that allows you to cast
> spells, then everyone could take it. At that point, you should just break down
> every possible class ability and have players pick and choose to build their
> characters, ignoring the concept of classes entirely.
I would argue that would make at least as much, if not more,
sense than encapsulating narrow archetypes into separate
classes.
Xeno
>mlsh...@SPAM.memphis.edu (Xeno) writes:
>
>>>Right. No need for a separate class. The cavalier is a
>>>fighter with a particular mindset and upbringing.
>>>Roleplaying and selective feat/skill choices can handle that
>>>quite well.
>
>>Hold on a second. What is it about the barbarian, paladin, and ranger that
>>renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
>
>Paladins are clearly a special case... with the spells and turning, etc...
All of which could be covered by additional feats, skills, and/or
multiclassing.
>Rangers also have spells, but I don't think a character filling the ranger
>niche in the world really needs them, so the case is a bit weaker.
See above.
>In Unearthed Arcana I couldn't think of any reason to have barbarians
>beyond the desire to have a pimpy d12 hit die. Can't think of much of
>a better reason in 3E... does rage and illiteracy really take a separate
>class.
Heftier hit dice could be a feat (possibly replacing or supplementing
Toughness, perhaps as a postrequisite).
Raging definitely could be a feat.
Literacy would be a skill like anything else ... no one need get it for
free except wizards and possibly clerics.
>For the Cavalier? I can't think of any reason at all to separate them out.
>Can you? (I don't consider 'well the other classes don't have a reason'
>to be much of a reason either.
Does Cavalier represent a character concept foreign enough from existing
classes to deserve its own class?
Does Barbarian? Paladin? Ranger? Bard?
I think the answer to all the questions would be the same.
john v verkuilen
>Is there any reason whatsoever, though, that the flavor of a
>paladin couldn't be easily captured by a cleric/fighter who
>roleplayed?
Did it in our 2E house rules for a long time, quite successfully. Only in
one case did the authentic paladin seem better.
>Or a ranger by a fighter/sorceror and selective spell
>choices and roleplay?
Ditto.
>Just put it higher on a feat tree. Require other. less
>attractive, feats on the way to uncanny dodge. If you
>haven't bought your way up to it, you don't get it. No big
>deal.
Good idea. Make it require about as much as, say, Spring Attack.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is
ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of
his senses only to justify his logic." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
john v verkuilen
>> characters, ignoring the concept of classes entirely.
>I would argue that would make at least as much, if not more,
>sense than encapsulating narrow archetypes into separate
>classes.
There are games that take a kind of "lumpy" approach to being skill-based.
DragonQuest (the old SPI RPG, not the TSR gateway abortion of the early '90's)
skills were pretty broad. For instance, Spy gave you several abilities which
all increased every time you bought Spy. Thief or Assassin gave you some of
the same skills (which were additive, naturally), but also some different
ones.
Seventh Sea skills are also quite broad. When you buy Courtier skill, you get
several subskills (the stuff you actually roll) all at rank 1 and can
specialize within this by adding more ranks. Some skills give you subskills
that are in common with others and these subskills add. If you get Shadowing
from Criminal and Spy, you have Shadowing 2.
I could see a way to make skills for D&D that worked on a similar basis,
allowing a sort of modular approach to character creation, eliminating all
the ad hoc rules of the existing class system. Of course perhaps these aren't
bad, but having some sort of machinery for a custom class system wouldn't be
useless at all.
Basic idea would be like this. There are five basic packages, combat, skills,
feats, arcane magic, and divine magic. Each character has three priorities to
choose.
If you don't buy combat, you attack as a mage. If you buy it once, you attack
as a thief, if you buy it twice you attack as a fighter. If you don't buy
skills, you start have two points per level, four if you buy it once, eight if
you buy it twice. If you don't buy a magic, you cannot cast spells, if you
buy it once, you cast as a bard. etc.
A fighter would be someone with Combat 2, Feats 1. A rogue would be Skills 2,
Combat 1. A mage would be Arcane Magic 2, Feats 1, etc.
Obviously many details would need to be filled in to make it workable, but
that's the basic idea.
john v verkuilen
>incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) writes:
>>I love 3e's mechanics and all, but I think in class design areas, they
>>didnt do as well as they could have. They definitely need to spend
>>some time in their supplements coming up with some new twists on the
>>basic classes and options. (Especially making fighters less of a
>>cookie cutter class)
>The DMG suggested all types of ways for the classes to be customized though.
It did? Did we read the same book? Actually I felt quite pissed about this
section of the book, which struck me as more or less worthless.
>And do we want the DM customizing so that the types of characters fit in the
>campaign world? or do we want the players forcing there odd ideas into it?
>Too many supplements = too little creativity on the parts of the DMs
>in my experience anyway.
Player input is important IMO, but the GM should have a relatively coherent
vision. Supplement searching does NOT help this and tends to lead inexorably
to power inflation. I guess I've become kind of a bastard about this, but if
I don't own it and haven't seen it, it's NOT in my game.
john v verkuilen
>>I saw the rather pathetic section in the DMG on customizing classes.
>>It scremed to me "you will have to buy the supplement to get real
>>guidelines on this" :)
>The real guideline is: "make sure its balanced"
<sarcasm>
Whoa! Now *that's* news. I just *had* to pay $20 to learn that little
tidbit....
</sarcasm>
>Do you want a fill in the blanks work sheet?
Something more than platitudes about "balance" would have been nice, yeah.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>>
>> The unfortunate translation of Deykin's Vogon Poetry reading from Thu, 12 Oct
>> 2000 11:44:51 -0500 reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >A Paladin is what, exactly? A person called by a
>> >God/Ethos/Philosophy to go out and do the Right Thing(tm).
>> >IMNSHO this has *never* required its own class. In fact,
>> >I've never thought this required them to be Fighter types.
>>
>>A paladin is not just called (anyone of any class could be "called"), but he is
>> also granted special, magical powers and abilities above and beyond that of
>> anyone else, in exchage for serving whatever he serves (see other threads).
>
>And why, exactly, couldn't those special powers be granted
>above and beyond that of anyone else to anyone, of any
>class, that is specifically called?
I'm drawing assumptions from the class description of the paladin. It says that
he possesses divinely-granted powers.
1. What would you say it is?
2. What would you call a rogue who is "called to serve a deity"?
2a. What powers would the rogue get?
>> That's why there's a difference between a fighter who happens to belong to a
>> religion and a paladin.
>
>That's a circular argument. A Paladin is different from a
>fighter because he has special powers. Why does he have
>these special powers? Because he's a paladin.
It's not a circular argument. The paladin is different from the fighter in that
the paladin is granted divine powers and takes on correlating responsibility.
According to the 3E rules, a fighter who has devoted his life to service of a
deity receives nothing in return.
>> >A ranger is what? A Person that spends all his damn time in
>> >the wilderness. *Why* he does it is a roleplaying issue.
>> >*How* he survives could simply be skill. NO need for this
>> >class either.
>>
>> There is if you want the ranger to have abilities beyond that which a fighter
>> could have, such as spells. If you propose a feat that allows you to cast
>>spells, then everyone could take it. At that point, you should just break down
>> every possible class ability and have players pick and choose to build their
>> characters, ignoring the concept of classes entirely.
>
>I would argue that would make at least as much, if not more,
>sense than encapsulating narrow archetypes into separate
>classes.
It may. When I first looked at 3E, I saw the potential for such modularity.
Right now, I'm letting the system stand pretty much as it is; if I come up with
a good system for modularization of class abilities, I might use it. I might
not. Arguably, though, there are much better systems out for that sort of
character creation/development.
Habing T Brian
>>The real guideline is: "make sure its balanced"
><sarcasm>
>Whoa! Now *that's* news. I just *had* to pay $20 to learn that little
>tidbit....
></sarcasm>
Hey, I didn't say it was a great book ;-)
I want the 1E DMG and the 3E PhB.
But seriously, it was better than the crap in unearthed arcana, and better
than most of the WW crap people spend more for in soft cover.
>>Do you want a fill in the blanks work sheet?
>Something more than platitudes about "balance" would have been nice, yeah.
2E had those rules... I don't remember everyone jumping for joy about
them....
-bh
The Wraith
wrote:
>The unfortunate translation of hab...@math.sc.edu's Vogon Poetry reading from 12
>Oct 2000 12:42:02 GMT reached theears of the unsuspecting...
>>
>>[...]
>>In Unearthed Arcana I couldn't think of any reason to have barbarians
>>beyond the desire to have a pimpy d12 hit die. Can't think of much of
>>a better reason in 3E... does rage and illiteracy really take a separate
>>class.
>
>up my armor proficiencies and extra feats for an ability to rage and a couple
>extra hit points", then it wouldn't need to be a separate class. As it stands,
>the fighter who relies on battle rage instead of weapons and armor needs to be a
>separate class.
That's hardly a good reason to like the current status quo, is it? If
you are looking at an alternative design for the game which eliminates
the barbarian class, it might as well be an alternative which fixes
the mechanics that cause this necessity.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Robert Baldwin
<Lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <39e4cf3a...@news.rio.com>,
> rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com wrote:
<snip>
>> Feh.
>
>Eh? Oh.
>
>Bah! Hmf...
Er, uh...;-)
>> Their Abilities naturally increased, which was
>> >something that no one else got -- this was arbitrary and stupid.
>>
>> Most classes have unique abilities. And gaining a couple of points in
>> the physical stats by 15th level (on average) is hardly unreasonable.
>
>What's unreasonable was the assumption that members of other classes
>just sat around on their lazy asses while, while cavaliers were the
>only ones who bothered to work out.
The assumption was that the other classes were doing *other* things
off stage, while such work-outs were a primary focus of the Cav.
Hell, *I* can go to the gym and
>increase my Strength, Dexterity and the like. Why is it unreasonable
>that a fighter, rogue or wizard could? It isn't.
What's unreasonable is the assumption that the other classes could do
so *and* do all the other things they were assumed to be doing.
>
>> They got the mook d12 hit dice;
>> <snip other issues>
>
>Ahah! You cannot respond to my other comments, for you recognize your
>own wrongness! I have defeated you. Submit now.
I'll submit a 47K-line long post on the flaseness of that damn
bird-worship cult you're part of if you aren't careful.
>> A corrected typo, the d12 was per the original Dragon article.
>
>The d12 hit die is listed in the UA book, and everyone I know uses it.
>If this is the case, however, I feel a little better about the class.
>But it still deserved to die.
Many who live deserve to die.
Pity there's a law against that.
(A rough paraphrase of Gandalf, or someone defaming him).
;-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
john v verkuilen
>Hey, I didn't say it was a great book ;-)
OK, fair enough.
>I want the 1E DMG and the 3E PhB.
Plenty of used copies of the DMG1....
>But seriously, it was better than the crap in unearthed arcana, and better
>than most of the WW crap people spend more for in soft cover.
Yeah, I suppose, for what it does anyway.
>>>Do you want a fill in the blanks work sheet?
>>Something more than platitudes about "balance" would have been nice, yeah.
>2E had those rules... I don't remember everyone jumping for joy about
>them....
That's because TSR crippled them right out of the box. They even tell you
so in the comments when they said you couldn't recreate the existing character
classes. It wouldn't be *that* hard to do right to catch at least 80% of what
you want. Something like the paladin probably wouldn't be good as a mix-and-
match, but OK, fine. I can handle the rare exceptions.
carbon...@yahoo.com
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
...
> 2nd Ed: Most characters need >200,000 XP's per level at 13th.
> 3rd Ed: 13,000 XP's to 14th level.
>
2nd ED experience points and 3rd ED experience points are different
things. The fact is until we have a chance to run a couple of
campaigns and get a feel for how fast the character can be expected
to rise, we won't know whether the players are rising faster. So
far, our converted 2E to 3E campaign doesn't show any faster rise.
The players are leveling about the same speed they always did (with
converted 2E adventures so far). Perhaps the XPs you get in 3E are
actually worth a lot of 2E xps apiece.
Bluefire
by green apes who left the following ransom note:
Having just played our first game (roughly 20 hours over the weekend)
my players characters have just reached lv 3 (from lv1) bouty fair I
would think - it was combat heavy (started in a gladiator arena,
escaped ect) Had a climatic battle against a goblin camp (48 goblins
2cnd lev goblin cleric, 2cnd level goblin sorcerer, 3rd level goblin
fighter)
worth about 5700 xp's in total - they took out small patrols first etc
whittled it down to the 3 classed goblins and 5 others for the finale
(not the only fighting they did of course - ogre, hell hound,
skeletons, ghouls etc threw about the whole 2000 survival guide at
them except for the dragon)
Bluefire (who needs to get the MM but seeing the DMG only got to ZA on
friday . . .)
John Rudd
>
> mlsh...@SPAM.memphis.edu (Xeno) writes:
>
> >>Right. No need for a separate class. The cavalier is a
> >>fighter with a particular mindset and upbringing.
> >>Roleplaying and selective feat/skill choices can handle that
> >>quite well.
>
> >Hold on a second. What is it about the barbarian, paladin, and ranger that
> >renders them fit to be separate classes that the cavalier would not have?
>
> Paladins are clearly a special case... with the spells and turning, etc...
>
> niche in the world really needs them, so the case is a bit weaker.
>
> beyond the desire to have a pimpy d12 hit die. Can't think of much of
> a better reason in 3E... does rage and illiteracy really take a separate
> class.
>
> Can you? (I don't consider 'well the other classes don't have a reason'
> to be much of a reason either.
>
With a small number of extra feats, and a new cleric domain, I think you
can actually impliment the Paladin and Ranger using the new multiclass
rules.
The results are not 100% the same, but very close (ex: a paladin's
healing ability becomes a domain spell, so he can heal a lot, but it's
no longer a class feature).
The feats required are (I think, I might be missing one): Divine Grace
(which would have some role playing restrictions tied to it), Special
Mount, Prefered Enemy, and perhaps an "Innate Two Weapon Fighter" feat
which duplicates the Ranger's pseudo-feats of ambidextroius and two
weapon fighter (and can act as a substitute for the pre-reqs on Improved
Two Weapon Fighter), but has the same armor and weapon restrictions that
are mentioned for the Ranger using that ability. (there might have been
one other Paladin feat, but I'm not remembering it right now)
Add a new cleric domain named "Paladin" that includes the _3_ Paladin
spells that a Cleric doesn't otherwise have access to (and a few other
spells to round out the domain). Also, there is _1_ spell Rangers get
that Druid's don't ... so add it to the Druid spell lists. (I don't
recall what the spells are off the top of my head .. the Ranger one is a
1st level spell... the Paladin ones are all weapon related I think
(Bless Weapon is one, Holy Sword might be another, IIRC ... and "heal
mount" was one, I think)).
Now, create a Fighter, start him off as a 1st level Fighter/Cleric, and
have him alternate levels as a Fighter and Cleric (Paladin domain and
Health(don't recall the right name of the other domain)), picking up
Divine Grace and Special Mount with his fighter feats as he goes along.
He'll be slightly weaker in HP and BAB than a Fighter, but I personally
find that appropriate. His "remove disease", healing abilities, and
"detect evil" now come from cleric spells ... he can't do them as
innately, but he is more flexible in exchange.
For Ranger, do the same with Fighter and Druid, using the Fighter feats
to pick up Prefered Enemies. Oh, and trade in the 1st level "Heavy
Armor" feat that fighters get for free for the Track feat (as a rule, I
would make fighters get 2 bonus feats at first level (instead of 1),
instead of Heavy Armor, giving them a little more flexability in
conception ... I'm not sure if I would do the same trade for Medium
Armor ... that might get a little TOO flexible).
Barbarian is a little harder. You can make Rage and Uncanny Dodge into
a series of improving Feats (Rage I, Rage II, etc). And that covers
everything except the hitpoints and skill differences (I would eliminate
the _class_ based "Non-Lawful" requirement, and instead make it tied to
the Rage feat), except ... Damage Reduction. I can't figure out the
right way to work Damage Reduction into it.
But I would personally do away with the higher hit die. Why? Because
fighters should be the pinacle of Fighting Ability. A character who
wants slightly more hit points per level can boost their CON (by
expectation, a d12 is only 1 hit point more than a d10 per level). Thus
the reason I'm okay with the Ranger and the Paladin being slightly
weaker on HP and BAB -- they're not pure fighters, they give up some
fighting ability to gain some supernatural abilities.
I'm not so much bugged by the Barbarian not being reproducable ... I
don't like the class at all (both because it's a cultural issue, and
because I don't think anyone should be a better fighter than a fighter,
etc.). So, a Fighter who can take feats that give them Barbarian like
abilities (Rage and Uncanny Dodge), but doesn't exactly reproduce the
Barbarian class, is perfectly okay with me.
What's more, with those very slight modifications, you can still use the
existing classes. So, I (who think like a RISC chip designer and want
to remove the baggage of complex classes and replace them with
combinations of the simpler classes) can have a Paladin who is
implimented as a multi-classed Fighter/Cleric can play my character
alongside a player who has a Paladin implimented with the Paladin class.
--
John "kzin" Rudd http://www.domain.org/users/kzin
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last. (Physics of Quarks)
-----===== Kein Mitleid Fu:r MicroSoft (www.kmfms.com) ======-----
Helge Moulding
>[snip nice exposition...]
>So, I (who think like a RISC chip designer and want to remove the
>baggage of complex classes and replace them with combinations of
>the simpler classes) can have a Paladin who is implimented as a
>multi-classed Fighter/Cleric can play my character alongside a
>player who has a Paladin implimented with the Paladin class.
I think the purpose behind separate classes for rangers, paladins,
and barbarians was to make character generation an easier thing to
accomplish. The 2E rules did what you suggested, using non-weapon
proficiencies and kits to make the four basic classes more flexible.
Then they introduced the Players Option rules, which turned the kits
into a matter of shopping for the bits you liked using character
points.
With the many different classes, character generation is now easier.
You can see the philosophy in the PHB, where each class has three
sample kits included (not kits in the 2E sense). Multiclassing was
made simpler to add the flexibility that you're describing, without
sacrificing the simplicity of stock characters classes.
I think there's something to be said for either approach. I liked
the flexibility of the PO rules, but also appreciate that creating
a new character in 3E takes much less than an hour. Having played in
RPGA Living Greyhawk tournament rounds, I really appreciate that.
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
John Rudd
>
> With the many different classes, character generation is now easier.
> You can see the philosophy in the PHB, where each class has three
> sample kits included (not kits in the 2E sense). Multiclassing was
> made simpler to add the flexibility that you're describing, without
> sacrificing the simplicity of stock characters classes.
>
Without having seen much of the 2e stuff (I stopped playing D&D about 3
months after it came out), I don't know how complex the 2e PO stuff was.
But the things I'm suggesting are:
a) not complex at all, nor time consuming to work with.
b) completely compatible with the standard classes, so those who don't want
to deal with them don't have to.
But the downside of the standard classes is that in a few places they're
fairly inflexible. It's easier to create characters IF and only IF you
want to create (for example) a straight forward stereotypical Paladin. And
if you're okay with breaking rules here and there (and remember, players
don't have the luxury of rule 0), you can get away with things like "My
Paladin cares more about Law vs Chaos than Good vs Evil, so he has detect
chaos". Using my suggestions, you don't have to worry about how your
tweaking affects play balance for those types of issues.
That's important to me: I want a system that is flexible not because
there's a rule that says "it's okay to break the rules", but because the
system is internally consistant and internally build upon primitives that
can easily be changed. If I have that type of system, then I can make
changes without worrying about how it affects play balance, because the
primitives are already balanced against eachother.
The more I look at the 3e classes, the more I think those primitives are
actually already there (though, I'm not sure about the Barbarian and
Monk). I think I can actually come up with a set of feats that merges the
Druid and Cleric, or Sorcerer and Wizard, and maybe even the Druid, Cleric,
Sorcerer and Wizard all together. It's just a matter of reverse
engineering them since WOTC hasn't given them to us up front.
Without those primitives, you can't modify the classes without worrying
that you've unbalanced the classes (assuming they're actually balanced up
front). That reduces your flexability in character creation, by reducing
the number of character conceptions that the system supports (especially
when faced with people who have very narrow minds when it comes to what
they think each character class represents).
My goal is find those character creation primitives such that I can deal
with a small set of flexible classes and use those in combinations (and in
concert with Feats) to impliment everything from the existing class
constructs, to variations on them (one friend of mine compares this to RISC
architectures vs CISC architectures, so I've started taking to calling my
character class shema "RISC Classes"). AND to do so in a way that allows
those characters to operate alongside those who use the existing character
classes (again, promoting choice so that those who like the CISC-like
classes can continue using them, and those who prefer the RISC-like classes
can choose to use those instead).
David R. Klassen
>
> With a small number of extra feats, and a new cleric domain, I think you
> can actually impliment the Paladin and Ranger using the new multiclass
> rules.
*is* the cleric. A Paladin is a warrior dedicated to the cause
of LG and it is due to this dedication that some god(s) decide to
grant him the extra powers. You could emmulate the powers and
abilities with a ftr/cl multi-class, but the cleric is an agent
of the god(s), the Paladin is NOT. Thus I think this archtype is
different enough from the standard FTR to warrent a different class.
The Ranger is a bit muddier. In 1e/2e the concept was that you
have a frontiersman who is out in the world to protect the folks
on the fringes of society or the small border/frontier settlements.
His Good alignment restriction is evidence of this concept. And, again,
due to his dedication to make the frontier safe, some god(s) give
him power and enhance his woodsmans skills far beyond that of simple
training (e.g. the +6 on tracking!). Again, he is NOT an agent of
the god(s), just dedicated to his cause. Thus making the Ranger
into a FTR/DRU multi would be conceptually wrong. Whether this
concept is archtype enough for another class is less clear than
for the Paladin, but I'd go with it.
However, with 3e and the loss of the Good restriction, the Ranger
really looses a lot, conceptually. In this version, one could
begin to have a stronger arguement for ditching it, shifting some
of the powers to feats, and if the player wants spellcasting,
have him multi- with druid.
The barbarian and cavalier are, in my opinion, more social status
and race than class archtypes. And the powers of the barbarian feel
more like excuses to cull it out as a class.
> The feats required are (I think, I might be missing one): Divine Grace
> (which would have some role playing restrictions tied to it), Special
> Mount, Prefered Enemy, and perhaps an "Innate Two Weapon Fighter" feat
> which duplicates the Ranger's pseudo-feats of ambidextroius and two
> weapon fighter (and can act as a substitute for the pre-reqs on Improved
> Two Weapon Fighter), but has the same armor and weapon restrictions that
> are mentioned for the Ranger using that ability. (there might have been
> one other Paladin feat, but I'm not remembering it right now)
>
> Add a new cleric domain named "Paladin" that includes the _3_ Paladin
> spells that a Cleric doesn't otherwise have access to (and a few other
> spells to round out the domain). Also, there is _1_ spell Rangers get
> that Druid's don't ... so add it to the Druid spell lists. (I don't
> recall what the spells are off the top of my head .. the Ranger one is a
> 1st level spell... the Paladin ones are all weapon related I think
> (Bless Weapon is one, Holy Sword might be another, IIRC ... and "heal
> mount" was one, I think)).
However, these new feats and domains are so specialized that they would
really only be taken by those trying to get (or get close to) the
character concepts of Paladins and Rangers...so why not just leave
them as classes?
> I'm not so much bugged by the Barbarian not being reproducable ... I
> don't like the class at all (both because it's a cultural issue, and
> because I don't think anyone should be a better fighter than a fighter,
> etc.). So, a Fighter who can take feats that give them Barbarian like
> abilities (Rage and Uncanny Dodge), but doesn't exactly reproduce the
> Barbarian class, is perfectly okay with me.
Amen!
> What's more, with those very slight modifications, you can still use the
> existing classes. So, I (who think like a RISC chip designer and want
> to remove the baggage of complex classes and replace them with
> combinations of the simpler classes) can have a Paladin who is
> implimented as a multi-classed Fighter/Cleric can play my character
> alongside a player who has a Paladin implimented with the Paladin class.
But a class archtype is more than just a laundry list of defining
powers, feats and skills. There is an inherent concept that sets
it apart from any other class. At least that's my operating definition.
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
John Rudd
>
> John Rudd wrote:
> >
> > With a small number of extra feats, and a new cleric domain, I think you
> > can actually impliment the Paladin and Ranger using the new multiclass
> > rules.
> *is* the cleric. A Paladin is a warrior dedicated to the cause
> of LG and it is due to this dedication that some god(s) decide to
> grant him the extra powers. You could emmulate the powers and
> abilities with a ftr/cl multi-class, but the cleric is an agent
> of the god(s), the Paladin is NOT.
Clerics are not just Agents of the Gods. They can also be agents of
philosophical divine power, which includes alignment oriented powers (and
such clerics are not necessarily priests at all). _THAT_ does fit with the
above conception of a Paladin. Further, not all Paladins are necessarily
philosophical -- many people play them as diety-centric ... and a
fighter/cleric does fit that mold.
Plus, see my stuff below about the difference between the concept of
Fighter/Cleric vs the mechanics of fighter/cleric.
> However, these new feats and domains are so specialized that they would
> really only be taken by those trying to get (or get close to) the
> character concepts of Paladins and Rangers...so why not just leave
> them as classes?
>
I am going to leave them as classes ... if you want your Paladin to be a
paladin, go ahead. I also want the flexability to have my Paladin be a
fighter/cleric, however. Or maybe even have my Paladin be a cleric. Or
build Paladins of other alignments and philosophies (which fighter/cleric
allows me to do, but paladin doesn't). Or build LG Paladins whose exact
powers are slightly different than the paladin's (maybe he's from the Young
Kingdoms, and he's more concerned about Chaos than Evil) ... paladin
doesn't directly do that, without invoking rule 0, but fighter/cleric does.
> > What's more, with those very slight modifications, you can still use the
> > existing classes. So, I (who think like a RISC chip designer and want
> > to remove the baggage of complex classes and replace them with
> > combinations of the simpler classes) can have a Paladin who is
> > implimented as a multi-classed Fighter/Cleric can play my character
> > alongside a player who has a Paladin implimented with the Paladin class.
> But a class archtype is more than just a laundry list of defining
> powers, feats and skills. There is an inherent concept that sets
> it apart from any other class. At least that's my operating definition.
>
No, it's not. At least not in my operating definition. The "inherent
concept" is the character concept. That is seperate from the character
mechanics. The "laundry list of powers, feats, and skills" is the
character mechanics. It is important that the character concept drive the
character mechanics (ie. the player shouldn't try, and the DM shouldn't
allow them, to buy any mechanics that don't fit the concept), but the two
do not need to be inherently welded together.
"There are many ways to skin a cat." The mechanics should be flexible
enough for me to impliment other concepts than the ones the designers
intended (otherwise, the game isn't really flexible enough to impliment a
non-trivial game world). If concept is married to mechanics, then the only
permissible concepts are the ones whose mechanics have been explicitly
defined. I personally think that a game with only 9 PC types is rather
boring (even when you allow minor tweaks via Feats, you're still talking
bout the same basic character concept if you're saying that the class
defines the concept).
This isn't really any different an argument than "Thief shouldn't be a
class, Rogue should". Rogue divorces the skills and mechanics from the
character concept, so that you can use that 1 set of mechanics to build a
spy, scout, etc., and not just a common thief. Thief can now be
implimented as a Fighter bandit, a Rogue, etc. The concept of Thief is not
married to any particular set of mechanics.
Similarly, the concept of Paladin can be implimented with the mechanics of
fighter/cleric, and should not be married to a particular class (such as
paladin).
Habing T Brian
>Similarly, the concept of Paladin can be implimented with the mechanics of
>fighter/cleric, and should not be married to a particular class (such as
>paladin).
But nothing is stopping you from doing that now is it?
I've had several campaigns where the people who called themselves
Paladin's were actually specialty priests.
Paladin has a long history in the game... and if it doesn't prevent you from
doing what you want, and it makes others happy, and it doesn't make the
game overly cumbersome, what's the problem?
-bh
John Rudd
Not much, really. Just need to create the new feats, and a cleric
domain for it. But for some reason, people make a lot of flack on here
about saying "but a Fighter/Cleric isn't the same concept as a
Paladin!", when they _can_ be.
Though, I've just come across a hurdle for doing the Ranger as a
fighter/druid. Druid weapon/armor restrictions aren't just knowledge
issues, but actual spiritual issues (it had been since 1e that I had
even looked at a Druid in any detail, until last night when my 1st level
Ranger made 2nd level, and I had been planning to multiclass him as a
Ranger/Druid ... lucky for me, my DM had also forgotten about that, and
let me ret-con my Ranger from a Finessed Rapier + Dagger and Shortbow
weilder into a Finessed Sickle + Finessed Sickle and Sling weilder).
Ofcourse, that's character concept (as Druids are all part of 1 global
society, all taking the exact same oath, etc). I could easily work it
as the spiritual issue being character concept, and not mechanics ...
and say that multiclassed fighter/druids can use their Fighter weapons.
Or make a Feat of "allowed to use normal weapons" for Druids. Or
something. I'm not sure how much I actually like any of those solutions
though.
The first one fits best with the philosophy I'm preaching about Paladins
and fighter/clerics ... but it leaves a funny taste in my mouth for some
reason. But I should probably stick to my principles and include some
warning about "DM's should pay particular attention to the balance
issues that can come up in relation to multiclassed druids". Further,
druids who aren't Druids (members of the Druid society) wouldn't get the
Druidic language and anything else that goes along those lines.