Min/Max Boards

Random thought (literally, just the first random thing that came to mind) playing into the to-hit bonus/AC penalty: What if AoOs considered the provoking party to be flat-footed? Probably also makes them too awesome, though.

That might work actually.  Although ImperatorK is right, we have to keep in mind how powerful this is.  If we make it FF, then no damage increase.  You can currently SA on not-your-turn, although I don't think that will be a problem.  You can already SA against flanked, and that's easier to set up than an AoO.  This would make precision based damage classes slightly better, but mostly those with Sudden Strike, rather than Sneak Attack or Skirmish.

@X-Codes:

Right.  Robilar's Gambit is a minimum of level 12 iirc, and has significant investment required.  Karmic Strike has a larage investment, and the feats that grant more than one attack on an AoO have huge investments.  The PrCs tha focus on AoOs....I'm not sure I even know of any.  Monk's the only class I know of that lends itself well to them, with Decicive Strike.  This new option allows for more classes/feats to be made to work with this specific rule, though we would have to check with existing ones and fix them.

True

Your player is actually correct!  Wizards do not get enough at high levels, sorcerers even more so!  It's jsut that the class feature they get at level 1 (spells) scales ridiculously well with level and is overpowered.  You're going to want to adress how badly the classes are designed too.

Strawman. Where did I state that I want to fix something? That is your problem right there. You're ignoring what I'm saying. I stated, at least once, that I'm not fixing anything. So please, stop with the strawmen.

You never explicitly stated that you wanted to fix anything, though SneeR was claiming that it did, and then you agreed with SneeR, or rather, you disagreed with my statements disagreeing with SneeR.  I've been saying how this benefits well designed classes rather than weak classes and that power doesn't matter for determining how much it benefits from this, and you come back and attack me saying that you don't care about class design.  So either you do think this fixes SOMEthing, or you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

OTOH mundanes/lower tiers will get a boost from those free features and improved hassis.

SO DO CASTERS!  Every tier gets a boost from this!  The boost in independent of tier!  Power level has very little to do with how much the class benefits from this idea!

Stating this as fact, without any proof, won't convince me. And I still don't care about class design.

@previous post: that's not good debate.  You can't just dismiss an argument simply because you don't agree with it.  I'm showing you how it's relevant, and it is very relevant.

And on the monk thing, you took that from someone else.  That's not your statement as to why they're bad.  But that is mostly correct.  There's just a couple discrepancies in it.  The reason the monk does not work: it is a nicely designed class, until you try and get the abilities to cooperate.  The MAD does not play into it, MAD does not indicated a poorly designed clas usually (unless you require three or more stats, while the monk only requires one, it has three more that help it, and then int and cha, and you can reduce that with some choice feats).

First table is 4 tiers of who benefits from this rule, tier 1 is benefits greatly, tier 4 is does not benefit at all.  Underlined are the classes that go up a tier with this, bold are tier 1 or 2 classes (as in JaronK's tiers of power), and italicized are tier 5 or 6 in that scale.  The second table is how well a class is designed.  That takes in to account ability to function within itself, balance within itself, layout design, and ability to hit average power for the class.  Truenamer left off due to being broken, list not exhaustive.  Notice how similar the lists are.

tier 1:Dread Necromancer Ninja Scout Spellthief Divine Mind Dragonfire Adept Druid Rogue Soulknife Incarnate Totemist Dragon Shaman tier 2:Warlock Spirit Shaman Lurk Hexblade Artificer Barbarian Bard Paladin Ranger Wilder Soulborn Duskblade Knight Warblade Swordsage Binder Shadowcaster tier 3:Archivist Favored Soul Ardent Swashbuckler Fighter Monk Wizard Psion Psychic Warrior Healer Beguiler Crusader tier 4:Warmage Wu Jen Shujenga CW Samurai Cleric Sorcerer

tier 1:Dread Necromancer Ninja Scout Divine Mind Dragonfire Adept Druid Rogue Incarnate Soulknife Totemist Dragon Shaman Monk tier 2:Warlock Ardent Spellthief Spirit Shaman Lurk Hexblade Artificer Bard Ranger Wilder Duskblade Knight Warblade Swordsage Binder Shadowcaster Beguiler tier 3:Archivist Soulborn Paladin Swashbuckler Fighter Wizard Psion Psychic Warrior Healer Barbarian tier 4:Warmage Wu Jen Crusader Shujenga CW Samurai Cleric Sorcerer Favored Soul

Well, then increase it more, I was just throwing out random numbers, essentially (30, 40 large, 50, 70, 90?  60, 90, 130? I don't think anything more than 40 for large would be good though).  BUt you'd have to look up reach anyways, right?  And what about something like the Roper, being medium and having 15' reach, does that grant 90' SA?  A human with Abberant Blood and Inhuman Reach, is that a medium with 60 range on them?  With reach, you can have a number of different values for the same creature, with size, you have 5 different values, and will likely only use three of them (medium and smaller, large, and colossal).

And actually, you already are doing it by size.  You just added extra words in "reach of that size category".

@johnny:  The Beguiler is not as well made as the DN, which is why it's in a lower tier, and its class abilities are less useful, which is why it goes down a tier in the other chart.  And it's based on work I've done becoming better at class design.  Go find another expert (OW4 isn't around anymore, Ejo should be of help, Prime can help, there's more too) on class design and they will corroborate this.  I may have missed a couple things, but the basic gist of what I was saying should be MORE than obvious if you read the charts.  I could spend the time to actually go through each class and judge them instead of giving several a very educated guess, but there's more than enough to get my point across where I actually know that they belong there.  HOwever, I do not think that taking into account other base classes is a good idea.  Remember, you can only advance ONE of the base classes at a time, so if it's sorcerer, why are you going to take a different base class and advance that?  That just makes you weaker as a sorcerer, and if the other class is advanced, then THAT's the one that figures into this chart.

I think it's a flavorful, slightly less powerful version of Gestalt.
Does it fix balance? I would say no.  However, it's not the end of the world and doesn't break the game any worse than it already is.

This was exactly my point.  The classes that benefit from this most are not necessarily weak classes, they are well designed classes.  So this idea does nothing to fix the problem that he's been stating he's tried to fix.

It is also my opinion that tier 4 (the real tiers) and below classes would benefit the most; because, all they need to get to tier 3 is more ways to solve in-game problems.  This variant facilitates that.  It is also less likely for tier 3 and higher classes to move up a tier under these house rules.

I actually agree with that, but you'll notice that the group you list here tend to be in the upper groupings for class design, and the upper groupings for benefitting from this idea.

As for re-terming the tiers: I defined them.  I can use the word "group" if you want, would that make you more comfortable?  This is a tiered list, so I used the word tier.  That's correct semantics.  I made sure I was clear when I was talking about JaronK's tier list for power, vs my two minor ones for class design and how they benefit from this idea.  It's not a tier system I'm making, I'm just using the word to denote different levels of success in either area.

I think it would fit the intention of fixing the class differential in PrCs better if multiclassing was allowed only in the prestige column of the gestalt, but it is far more interesting to allow multiclassing as normal in the base classes.

The stated goal as of late for this idea was to fix the different powers classes get from taking PrCs.  It started at I think something similar, then SneeR got into it saying how it fixed the caster/mundane problem.  Now it's back to something close to what I can gather was original intent.  And you know what?  I think that this idea acts not dissimmilar to how regular gestalt acts with regards to power.  That is, the ones who gain the most benefit are those who gain a ability to multi-class where previously it would have been a bad idea.  So the ones who gain the benefit are the ones who have class features that benefit them greatly, in both power and character developement areas.  These are the well designed classes.  I'm OKAY with that as a houserule, just don't say that it will balance things, because it will do anything but that.  Just know what it actually does, rather than guessing based on incomplete sample sizes (just taking the sorcerer, wizard, cleric).

Ah, sorry.  Well, I'm not a fan of the spells to begin with, but I mean (thought of this just now, actually), how often do you cast more than one at a time anyways?  Same with AC?

Even when it's competative, it's cooperative.  The game is a way for friends to get together and have a good time, and that's always cooperative, even when it's PVP, or PvDM.

Because the DN has significant class features, which are one of the reason few people PrC with it, except for Pale Master.  The Warmage has insignificant ones, however, but not totally bad like the Cleric or Sorcerer, so it's one tier from the bottom.  Wait, shoot, I put it in the wrong tier, it should be in #3, not #4, because it DOES get class features, just not very many or very good ones.

How well designed a class is is a MUCH better determiner of whether or not is benefits from this houserule than what tier the class is in, power wise.  That's what I set out to show.  And you'll notice, there's bolds and italics throughout the length of the tables, indicating that there's tier 1,2 ,5, and 6 classes throughout the tables.  And 3/4, the ones not bolded or italicized.  Although do note that I might have gotten some of those wrong, I went fast, and didn't really check the more obscure half.  Just noticed this, there's actually one bold in tier 1, 2 in tier 2, 3 in tier 3, and 4 in tier 4, if the Favoured Soul didn't move, which I shouldn't have done.  Odd.  Anyways, this shows who benefits more, and those are the classes that are well designed.  I don't think any class moved more than one tier up or down when I made this.  If I had instead taken the power tiers for this, then they would have moved all over the place from one table to the next.

And you know what?  Regular gestalt actually does this same thing, except it helps mundanes slightly more, because it makes it easier for them to get casting.  Both houserules do nothing to change the gap between casters and non-casters, casters still own mundane.  The thing this does is it lets non-casters have a chance to be themselves AND have the casting that puts them up with the casters.  A monk//fighter is still going to have the same amount of trouble compared against a wizard, but a monk//cleric?

Features of those classes are hardly worth the loss in spell levels. That's why they're only taken a dips. For example Mindbender gives Telepathy at first level and doesn't lose the spell level. People take only the first level.

And then with this they become full casting, which makes them more attractive.  A hypothetical PrC that has partial casting, but the abilities it grants make up for those power-wise (so losing very little power, if any by taking the full class) becomes more powerful, making it as powerful or more powerful than the full casting PrCs.  So you obviously did not take that into account.  But that's nothing, it just changes what's powerful and what's less than desireable.

"You meet the requirements and get the PrCs hassis and abilities on top of your base class levels." - this statement is so simple that I cannot possibly imagine that you could not understand it.

And yet I did.  Funny, that.  See, the problem is that that statement is very, very vague.  With a rule, you need to be as specific as you can.  This is a complex game.  See the multiple base class thing.  It can very well be interpreted to mean that you can do that.  And you'll notice that I did respond to it from both interpretations, and that sometimes I was responding not to that statement, but to other statements made by SneeR, so context is key.

Yes.
Not only are spells class feature(s), but they are so good that they allow the casters to be tier 1 or 2 and essentially make other classes obsolete if they want to.

Okay, what?  Do you have a misunderstanding as to what "semantics" are?  Are you reading what I wrote?  I'll say it again: Powerful abilities aren't necessarily class features.  They might be a class ability, but not a feature.  The single most important distinction between the two is that an ability is something a character or class can do, and a feature helps to define the class.  Spells do NOT define any class, as they are ubiquitous.  Or would you say that the base attack bonus of a fighter is a class feature, because it makes them able to swing their weapon?  No, I'd hope note.  Attacks like that are a basic mechanic, much like casting.  Let me put it this way: any class ability that can be frequently seen in a PrC as "+1 existing level" or something similar is NOT a feature, it is an ability.

If this is important to your argument then your argument is weak and can be ignored.

....
wat
....

I'm at a loss for this one.  How can you dismiss an argument without adressing the argument?  And be taken seriously?

They already did. My idea just adds a drop into a sea. So it doesn't matter.

Actually, I was referring to their comparison to otehr top-tier casters, like the cleric or sorcerer.  The druid especially.  Normally, druids don't PrC, because that gets rid of Wildshape (and a couple other more minor abilities).  Now, they would be stupid not to PrC, because not only do they keep wildshape, but they get whatever PrC they chose, and full casting, in case that PrC had partial casting, so like the Master of Many Forms, or Warshaper.

But who said I'm trying to fix something? This houserule was only meant to give something to mundanes/lower tiers.
Mundanes/lower tiers get essentially free features and boosts.
Casters/higher tiers get nothing significant. That's what important.

That's my point though, casters DO get something significant, depending on the caster.  And some mundanes don't get anything significant.  Clerics and sorcerers don't get anything significant, you're right.  But druids do, they get a lot, and so do wizards and psions, although they don't get as much as the druid.  Fighter doesn't get much, monk doesn't get much, barbarian doesn't get much, CW samurai doesn't get much, Rogue does, Warblade does, Crusader doesn't, SS does, DN does, there's a huge amount of discrepancy between who gets what is my point.  The classes you think are going to get the most benefit aren't actually the group you think it is.

I'm not designing a game. I'm giving an idea for a houserule.

There's not much difference.  The only difference is scale, and what the houserule affects affects the scale of the houserule.  One like this has a scale of the entire game.  Every class behaves differently with this.

Give me about 15 minutes (maybe 30, don't know), and I'll post the two tier lists I was talking about.

Let me quote something I read recently: "...and mundanes become not unlike the Monk, lots of abilities that just don't do anything."

And why is that?  I'm curious as to what you think.  I know why the monk fails as a class, I just want to know what you think.  Lots of people can say "oh that sucks so much", but not many people actually know enough of what they're talking about to give reasons as to WHY it sucks.

Okay.  You did NOT say that only one base class gets advanced.  You just said "it's like gestalt".  How am I supposed to intuit that this means "only a base class and a PrC" from that?  Okay, with this new information, what I said still stands though, but it does mean the gap doesn't widen as much.  Still though, what about Mystic Theurge?  Now it's level 29 casting in one class and level 13 in another (or something).  It's not as good, but that's still a RIDICULOUS power increase, getting level 9 spells at level 11.  Or, if that's not how you intend it to work (maybe eliminating dual-progression PrCs, another thing you would need to specify), single class Wizard/Incantatrix.  Heck, you made those PrCs that attempt to balance themselves by eliminating spell levels obsolete, now they are even more powerful.

When creating a new rule, you MUST think of any way it can be misinterpreted, and attempt to counter that misinterpretation preemptively.  We are not inside your head.  I used to have that problem with my writing (I still do, but it's not as bad now).  You cannot assume that we understand implicitly that you intend only one base class to be advanced at once, just by saying "like gestalt".  That could mean that you get the benefits of the classes that you take together, or it can mean two base classes, or it can mean that getting the same feature at the same time means you only get one version of it, or even something else.

Here's your problem in understanding. Fuck semantics, I don't care how you will name it. But the fact is: Casters (the high tier ones) get something, something very good, at each level. Spells. Spells are powerful, it's what makes tier 1s and 2s... well, tier 1s and 2s.
you're saying what? That casters can have PrCs that fully progress their only most powerful feature plus give them some new cool (or not) features in place of their dead levels, but mundanes can't have that because their levels are full of features? Is that what you're saying? That's bullshit man. Monk has a feature at every level and yet he's the worst class.

Am I seriously the only one left who thinks semantics are actually important?  I mean, it's the difference between "and" and "or", if you're given an option, and they say "benefit a or benefit b", vs "benefit a and benefit b", there's a MAJOR difference in what you're getting.  That's why semantics are important.  If the meaning of a statement is determined by the semantics, then smeantics are immportant.  And in the case of what I've been saying, yes, they are very, very, important.  Class ability=/=flass feature.  This is important to my argument, therefore you cannot simply ignore it, as doing so ignores what I'm saying, it does not reflect well on you.

Funny. This is almost the same as normal gestalt, but instead of Class//Class you have Base Class//PrC.

Here's the thing.  Regular gestalt also exacerbates the caster problem.  Or rather, it does not adress it, and casters can become more powerful by takin on another casting class (cleric//wizard, for instance).  And then mundanes can also take caster (a nice thing I played once, I had fun with was cleric//monk).  But does that fix casters?  Or mundanes? No, it does not.  It makes the monk better.....by pairing cleric with it.  That's not making the monk better, it's just having two classes.  The monk is still just as bad (and actually is not the worst class, that goes to CW Samurai, which is barely better than the NPC class Warrior, the monk is actually not as bad as most people claim, still worse than fighter though), cleric is still just as good.

Actually, that brings me to my next point I've been saying for a couple posts now: POWER DOES NOT EQUAL GOOD DESIGN.  Actually, overpowered classes tend to be poorly designed, though this is not universal.  I gave three well designed classes and three poorly designed ones from different tiers: monk, warblade, druid are well designed, tiers 4, 3, 1 respectively.  Fighter, crusader, psion are poorly designed, tiers 4, 3, 1 respectively.  Design relies on making the class desireable at all levels through flavorful, useful abilities.  Balance comes in to play, but mostly to make sure that it is balanced within the same class, not with regards to other classes.  It can be overpowered and still be balanced with regards to class design, this mostly means that you have a stead rate of power increase from 1 to 20, rather than a "suck from 1-5, rock from 6-12, insane from 13-20" deal.

And no, I'm not saying that casting PrCs granting full casting while mundane PrCs don't advance base calss abilities is good.  I have not been saying that at all.  I'm saying that it is a problem with how the BASE CLASSES are designed, and how the PrCs handle how poorly designed they are.  Wizards need to be better designed, and PrCs need to handle it better.  And yes, that is saying that I think wizards, the class, need to be completely, ground up, redesigned.  Traditional spellcasting needs to be ground up reworked.  Every /day caster needs to be reworked.

Now, how this pertains to your system.  If you want this system to work as intended, you will need to rework every mechanic of EVERY CLASS so that it works with this.  Now, which is easier, reworking every caster, or reworking every class and creating a new PrC system?  Otherwise this is just a quick fix that doesn't actually change anything.  Casters are still casters, mundanes are still mundanes, only now casters can have their PrCs and casting too (partial progression casting PrCs now become full, that's just straight power, wizards, psions, and druids distance themselves from the others with actual class features), and mundanes become not unlike the Monk, lots of abilities that just don't do anything.  And actually, it was better for mundanes to have any PrC advance all base classes, that might have actually helped them in a significant way, though again, it helps casters more.  You want this to work?  Try looking at what the actual issues are, rather than seeing a bunch of abilities and thinking "that means power".  That's the mentality that led people to thinking the Monk is a bad class.  I'm actually curious, I want you to tell me why the Monk is bad, power wise.

Yes, believe it or not, it's hard to actually design a game, especially one this complex.