Base and Prestige Classes

[Amechra]

I personally think that something cool would be to take base classes and split them into a buncha NPC classes (at least, power level wise.)

Then, when you're actually playing, each level is Gestalt.

So, for example, let's say you've got the Warrior NPC class and the Adept NPC class. By all rights, that should get you something approaching the Paladin class. It doesn't, but the thing is, it should.

Also, class features should be written to work like IL does, so you can more easily blend stuff like Paladin and, say, Monk together.

[Eldritch_Lord]

My personal feeling on the base class/PrC issue is that a good base class must be at least three of the following:
1) Based on an indefinitely-scaling concept.  "I'm a consummate scoundrel" (rogue) scales indefinitely, for instance, since hiding from people and tricking people is always as powerful as the attacks you're hiding from and the things you're convincing people to do on your behalf; "I'm Errol Flynn" (swashbuckler) does not, since the concept of the acrobatic guy with a rapier hits a ceiling at some point.
2) Sufficiently broad to support multiple characters.  The wizard concept of "I'm a smart, Always Prepared magic-user" can be narrowed down to "I'm a smart, Always Prepared mind-controller" or "I'm a smart, Always Prepared pyromaniac" or the like and still support a character; the fighter as it stands really can't do that, because "swords guy" vs. "tripper" vs. "charger" is enough to be a fighting style but not a character concept.
3) Different enough from other classes conceptually.  The AD&D druid wouldn't have made a good class, since it was "as cleric, except XYZ" and was more of an ACF than a class, but it was differentiated from the cleric in 3e enough to be worth a full class.
3) Different enough from other classes mechanically.  The samurai is different enough from a fighter conceptually to be a different class, but mechanically the 3e samurai is nothing more than a focused fighter.

If a class meets 1/2/3 but not 4 like the wu jen, it can still be a good base class if you can use the same basic magic mechanics and still get quite different classes.  If a class meets 2/3/4 but not 1 like the knight, it can still be a good base class if it's actually as different from others as 2/3/4 imply since you can probably find enough for it to do for 20 levels.  If a class meets 1/3/4 but not 2 like the binder, it can still be a good base class if the one character concept the class does is done well and broadly enough.  If a class meets 1/2/4 but not 3 like the 3.0 sorcerer was before it got the heritage treatment in 3.5, it can still be a good base class if the different mechanics are enough reason to use it.

Those criteria are necessary but not sufficient to make good base classes, though: classes that don't meet point 1 probably work better as low-level ACFs, classes that don't meet point 2 probably work better as a PrC, and classes that don't meet point 3 and/or 4 can probably be folded into another class.

So, to weigh in on the paladin as class vs. cleric specialization concept:

On the paladin though: a Paladin is a Cleric with persist Detect Alignment.  Sure, there's Smite and the special mount, and Divine Grace, but....is that enough for it to be its own base class?  Even if all alignments were accepted?  I submit that it would not be.  Not only that, but the major class features happen after level 1 (mount, Lay on Hands, Divine Grace).  the Detect Evil is a spell, Smite is a spell, Mount is a spell, Lay on Hands is a spell, etc.  I think that the Paladin would be better off as a Cleric PrC, and the Cleric should get more Paladin-y things from the start.  Namely, Smite Opposition, the Auras, and possibly Divine Grace-esque features.  A Paladin should take that base and focus on the combat aspects, improving Smite, the Auras for combat, and martial skills.  It should introduce the Mount as a signature class feature.  Which will not be a new mechanic, do note.  It is based off of summoning spells, which you could already do.  As it is right now, the PrC is way to specific, and this will open up that whole "divine warrior" concept to the rest of the gods.  Now, there are ways to make it better.  EjoThims is my favorite, because it makes a new concept from the combination.  There's the combat specialist, the Fighter, the Divine caster, the Cleric, and the divine combatant, the Paladin.  Also: Crusader.

By my criteria above the paladin meets point 1 ("slayer of evil and protector of good" scales with the evil you face), but not 2 (even with the various ACFs, the paladin class is more of a build than a class), or 3 (there are several other martial/magical "divine combatant" classes), or 4 (as dman mentioned its class features are nothing really unique).

Now, to riff on Amechra's idea for pseudo-gestalt and blending progressions, what I think would be a good base class would be a generic Divine Champion class that can encompass the paladin as well as the soulborn, divine mind, crusader, and a few related PrCs that are basically "the paladin, but more so."  All of the class features from all of those would be selectable for much better differentiation, and you could choose two power progressions for more variety and synergy. Folding all of those together so that you can build a mount-focused divine mind, or a meldshaping crusader with auras, or a paladin with Mettle from Pious Templar and a fancy magical sword from Shining Blade of Heironeous and Delay Damage from the crusader, or the like would allow for one conceptually-strong but mechanically-varied class like the wizard with its specialties instead of a collection of several one-build classes.

[veekie]

Remember also, construction complexity, the more variability the harder it is for a layperson to build a character successfully. There is entirely nothing wrong with a class catering to a popular sub-build, this makes maximum advantage of using classes at all. Consider the Dread Necromancer over the wizard. The spell list is almost completely static, and the concept is narrow(a good half of the class features are based on controlling or creating undead), but it can take that concept far further than the sorcerer or wizard can, because abilities have different power levels, and by wholly focusing on one aspect, everything fits into a greater whole. A Pick Your Favorite sorc specialization can't do that more than superficially.

[Eldritch_Lord]

Remember also, construction complexity, the more variability the harder it is for a layperson to build a character successfully. There is entirely nothing wrong with a class catering to a popular sub-build, this makes maximum advantage of using classes at all. Consider the Dread Necromancer over the wizard. The spell list is almost completely static, and the concept is narrow(a good half of the class features are based on controlling or creating undead), but it can take that concept far further than the sorcerer or wizard can, because abilities have different power levels, and by wholly focusing on one aspect, everything fits into a greater whole. A Pick Your Favorite sorc specialization can't do that more than superficially.

True, but then the Dread Necromancer isn't just one build, you can have minions (via either animation or summoning), blast (particularly with the Uttercold build), debuff, BFC, be a passable gish, heal (with an undead or all-TTS party), and several more, because "necromancy" is a very broad archetype and the spell list is similarly broad.  With the paladin, you can essentially do either a super-smite or an ubermount build, and anything else (healing, tripping, whatever) is done better by a cleric or fighter.

If you had one class that could choose from the divine mind's buffing auras and utility, the soulborn's self buffs and (limited) utility, the crusader's tankiness and lockdown capability, the paladin's smiting and healing, and a few other things thrown in to round it out, you'd have a similar narrowly-focused but broadly-applicable theme for divine combatants.  Building one wouldn't be too hard, seeing as all of the mentioned classes either have access to all the stuff on their list (paladin, soulborn) or basically can't be screwed up by random choices from their lists (crusader, divine mind) and the class features could be largely pre-chosen given the amount of overlap and a need to give this class Nice Things.

Actually, as a thought experiment, if I have some time tonight I'll throw together a potential Divine Champion and see how complex in build and in play it is, and whether that solution would actually improve the divine combatant classes overall.  Further bulletins as events warrant.

[veekie]

But the DN IS one static build. It has basically minimal customization built into the class, you are describing modes of play using that one build.

[Eldritch_Lord]

But the DN IS one static build. It has basically minimal customization built into the class, you are describing modes of play using that one build.

Well, kind of.  A build isn't just the class itself, and the dread necromancer has a lot more "hooks" to build on than the paladin does.  Slap a bunch of metamagic feats on the DN and it becomes a focused BFC/blaster/debuffer, give it the Corpsecrafter line and it becomes a better minionmancer, and so forth, and picking up some key spells for Advanced/Eclectic Learning can make it a better summoner, expand its undead control pool even more, or whatever else; you can do that for a bunch of different roles, and not only will the DN generally do at least a few roles better than other necromancer builds, the different kinds of DN play fairly differently.

Meanwhile, whatever feats you add to the paladin, the only builds it can do that aren't doable by a cleric, fighter, or cleric/fighter are a smite-focused build or a mount-focused build, and even then those two things are outdone by chargers and summoners in terms of power and/or versatility.  You can still customize the paladin to a fair degree with ACFs, different mounts, different feats, etc. despite the paladin having basically static class features, but there's really no reason to use it for 90% of paladin-esque builds when other classes do the same thing better.

So if you take a bunch of classes with very little customization and very few viable builds and combine them, plus the crusader for some extra roles and customization for those who want them, one could potentially turn the paladin (nothing unique and useful, no "hooks" to build on) into the dread necromancer (several unique and useful things, lots of ways to take the class).

[veekie]

That is more a matter for the mundane suck/casters rule divide though. As long as you have spells you have more options than any physical class.

[Shinkuro]

That is more a matter for the mundane suck/casters rule divide though. As long as you have spells you have more options than any physical class.

even the classes from TOB still don't have the options of a proper caster. the reason why is that they are still bound by physics. though not as shackled as other martials, they are still shackled, yes, TOB offers some extreme physical talents that may exceed the real world norm, but they are still mostly physical in nature.

[linklord231]

So what would have to change about the Paladin in order to get him as many "hooks" as a Dread Necromancer?  Give him 9th level spells off a very limited list, a la Divine Crusader?  More uses or broader application of Smite? 

[veekie]

Rather implausible to without basically making it Cleric+, the basic idea I was trying to convey with the comparison is that both are equally valid 'prebuild' class concepts. That multiclassing and more generic classes exist is not a reason that specific, focused classes shouldn't exist. Options are good for optimization, but as part of class design, they are just options and not an inherent good.

Hand the sources to a new player and if he wants to build a magic warrior, he'd have a devil of a time assembling one from a mishmash of wizard/sorceror levels and probably fighter. Odds are it would only vaguely work at all. Instead he takes a Duskblade and achieves function and concept off the bat.

[FlaminCows]

EDIT: Realised this was getting off-topic (for the second time in a row), and with it just being me and Shinku talking about it it would be against the ruurs. Sorry mods! There are just so many interesting people to talk to, I get carried away  ! Moved into a spoiler for now.

(click to show/hide)

That is more a matter for the mundane suck/casters rule divide though. As long as you have spells you have more options than any physical class.

even the classes from TOB still don't have the options of a proper caster. the reason why is that they are still bound by physics. though not as shackled as other martials, they are still shackled, yes, TOB offers some extreme physical talents that may exceed the real world norm, but they are still mostly physical in nature.

Of course, physics. Such as lighting an enemy on fire with a gesture, teleporting, instantly healing mortal wounds, strangling a person with their own shadow from the other end of the room, making your skin hard as rock, or stomping the ground hard enough to cause an earthquake that knocks people off their feet.   

The Tome of Battle doesn't have any issues with physics. Some are literally supernatural, others aren't labelled as supernatural but represent an impossible action anyway, overall I'd say that Wizards didn't have physics on their minds. In fact, the more "magical" martial disciplines are arguably weaker.

One of the biggest problems for all martial characters is that WotC does not bind them to what is physically possible for a trained soldier, and by appearances never considers that a factor when designing mechanics for a class. An experienced fighter in Real Life can do a lot more things than a martial character in D&D - ToB classes included. The IRL warrior won't be able to do impossible things like the D&D one can, which won't matter because most of the impossible things martial PCs can do aren't that great anyway. The reason D&D martial characters are less powerful than D&D spellcasters has nothing to do with physics.

[Shinkuro]

That is more a matter for the mundane suck/casters rule divide though. As long as you have spells you have more options than any physical class.

even the classes from TOB still don't have the options of a proper caster. the reason why is that they are still bound by physics. though not as shackled as other martials, they are still shackled, yes, TOB offers some extreme physical talents that may exceed the real world norm, but they are still mostly physical in nature.

Of course, physics. Such as lighting an enemy on fire with a gesture, teleporting, instantly healing mortal wounds, strangling a person with their own shadow from the other end of the room, making your skin hard as rock, or stomping the ground hard enough to cause an earthquake that knocks people off their feet.   

The Tome of Battle doesn't have any issues with physics. Some are literally supernatural, others aren't labelled as supernatural but represent an impossible action anyway, overall I'd say that Wizards didn't have physics on their minds. In fact, the more "magical" martial disciplines are arguably weaker.

One of the biggest problems for all martial characters is that WotC does not bind them to what is physically possible for a trained soldier, and by appearances never considers that a factor when designing mechanics for a class. An experienced fighter in Real Life can do a lot more things than a martial character in D&D - ToB classes included. The IRL warrior won't be able to do impossible things like the D&D one can, which won't matter because most of the impossible things martial PCs can do aren't that great anyway. The reason D&D martial characters are less powerful than D&D spellcasters has nothing to do with physics.

the stuff is physically impossible in our world, but with the exception of shadow strangling. the others would be physically feasible for a superhuman warrior type in the physics of a moderate to high fantasy setting.

igniting a fire with a gesture, don't think of that, think of superhumanly rapid application of friction

stomping and making an earth quake, sounds like the hulk to me

teleporting, the flash step is an overused anime trope where superhuman characters reach speeds faster than freaking light. mimicing teleportation

healing, you aren't really sealing the injury, as much as you are using your knowledge of pressure points to stimulate adrenaline, allowing one to ignore their injuries as i imagine most nonmagical heals to work. another way to look at hit points, is to see mental and fatigue aspects, as described on the Alexandrian. only the last 6 or so hit points is really a wound.

[FlaminCows]

In the spoilers, the mighty spoilers, the de-rail talks tonight...

(click to show/hide)

the stuff is physically impossible in our world, but with the exception of shadow strangling. the others would be physically feasible for a superhuman warrior type in the physics of a moderate to high fantasy setting.

igniting a fire with a gesture, don't think of that, think of superhumanly rapid application of friction

stomping and making an earth quake, sounds like the hulk to me

teleporting, the flash step is an overused anime trope where superhuman characters reach speeds faster than freaking light. mimicing teleportation

healing, you aren't really sealing the injury, as much as you are using your knowledge of pressure points to stimulate adrenaline, allowing one to ignore their injuries as i imagine most nonmagical heals to work. another way to look at hit points, is to see mental and fatigue aspects, as described on the Alexandrian. only the last 6 or so hit points is really a wound.

Apart from how much of what you said isn't what the powers do (you aren't rapidly applying friction, you are tossing a ball of fire at range; you aren't mimicking teleportation but actually teleporting which matters for things like proximity triggers and walls; you aren't doing any adrenalin shenanigans because it works if the target is unconscious and bleeding out at negative hit points and you aren't using pressure points because you don't have to touch the subject), you've also undermined what you've said. Magic is feasible in the physics of a moderate to high fantasy setting. Indeed, magic is an innate part of it. So saying "the classes from TOB don't have the options of a proper caster because the TOB are still bound by the physics of the fantasy setting" is meaningless because the spellcasters are just as much so.

ToB characters can do magic. Actual magic, which doesn't work in an antimagic field. "Being bound by the physics of the setting" has nothing to do with the power of the mechanics, which were created independent of it. Warlocks, for example, just cast at-will spell-like abilities. Almost all of them are related to an existing Wizard spell, but cast later than normal and at will. Warlocks function on the same "physics" as spellcasters, but are actually weaker than the "shackled" Martial Adepts.

The reason spells are powerful is a mechanics issue, not a fluff one. They clearly aren't any more or less grounded in physics than other mechanics that are less powerful. The reason I care about is is that the misconception of how the discrepancy came about affects how people fix it. When one believes magic can't be at the same power level as physical actions it cripples their ability to create a solution, instead driving them to try and make fighters supernatural or mages into engineers while failing to address what is actually causing a power difference.

[veekie]

Actually, a simpler approach to the above (_{Don't worry I'd just spin it off into it's own thread if it gets too extensive}), Magic shouldn't be treated as something distinct and separate from the world. Skipping pop culture, myths and legends are chock full of such deeds, performed not with some external magic, but because they are just that good and their gear just that finely crafted. You don't see anything like an Antimagic Field in myths either, because it's not a thing you can turn off, power is woven into every bit of reality.
Magic is organic, and your personal experience/training has meaning spiritually, when a spell attacks you with negative levels and you deal with it fine. Just because one set of delicate actions provide direct, immediate and material outcomes do not mean that different, broader sets cannot attain their own outcomes. Indeed, in a setting with magic as a known, shapable force, warriors of any experience would develop the capability to manipulate it in their own way.

[Eldritch_Lord]

Rather implausible to without basically making it Cleric+, the basic idea I was trying to convey with the comparison is that both are equally valid 'prebuild' class concepts. That multiclassing and more generic classes exist is not a reason that specific, focused classes shouldn't exist. Options are good for optimization, but as part of class design, they are just options and not an inherent good.

That newbies are going to be the ones making the most use of the "prebuilt" classes is a reason to improve said classes, however.  The duskblade is a perfectly functional gish-in-a-can, the warlock is a perfectly functional blaster, both have fairly limited customizability in terms of spells/invocations known, and both can be charop'd fairly well once a player gets the hang of things.  Note that the duskblade and warlock are in Tier 3 (or at least can get there with some effort on the warlock's part), while the paladin is Tier 5; if you hand a party of newbies the prebuilt classes of warlock, duskblade, paladin, and, say, monk, the latter two are likely going to feel constrained and option-less even in comparison to other prebuilt classes.

Essentially, my view is that if we're going to have "newbie classes" they should be like the ToB classes: they do have build choices, but you can't really screw them up; the fighter has been the newbie class since 1e and look what happened to it.  It's fine if the paladin is fairly limited in scope, but that scope should include tanking, buffing, smiting, and the other stuff you'd expect a paladin to be able to do, so it's only dread necromancer-narrow, not 3e paladin-narrow.

Actually, a simpler approach to the above (Don't worry I'd just spin it off into it's own thread if it gets too extensive), Magic shouldn't be treated as something distinct and separate from the world. Skipping pop culture, myths and legends are chock full of such deeds, performed not with some external magic, but because they are just that good and their gear just that finely crafted. You don't see anything like an Antimagic Field in myths either, because it's not a thing you can turn off, power is woven into every bit of reality.
Magic is organic, and your personal experience/training has meaning spiritually, when a spell attacks you with negative levels and you deal with it fine. Just because one set of delicate actions provide direct, immediate and material outcomes do not mean that different, broader sets cannot attain their own outcomes. Indeed, in a setting with magic as a known, shapable force, warriors of any experience would develop the capability to manipulate it in their own way.

Agreed.  I like the LotR approach where it's hard to tell sometimes what is magic and what isn't, and the elves don't think they do any magic at all.  The elves' magic sets a good precedent for what martial types should be able to do without having people cry "anime!!!!" like with ToB, actually: craft magical items, hide in the open by covering themselves with a cloak and thinking I'm just a rock hard enough, go for weeks with only a single loaf of bread to eat, strike fear into people's hearts with a shout, and other effects similar to low- to mid-level spells.  Then once that stuff is taken care of they can get into more mythical territory and it'll be a smoother transition.

[Amechra]

In my opinion, "mundane" characters have always pulled on some kind of magic.

I really think there need to be more "supernatural" extensions of skills and such; one thing I was musing on today was giving some sneaky class the ability to automatically know when someone sees them/hears them/pierces their disguise, so they can react accordingly.

And that would be low-level.

More on subject, I've always supported the idea of having Beginner's Classes where they do what you want with little effort, but can keep up.

[veekie]

That newbies are going to be the ones making the most use of the "prebuilt" classes is a reason to improve said classes, however.  The duskblade is a perfectly functional gish-in-a-can, the warlock is a perfectly functional blaster, both have fairly limited customizability in terms of spells/invocations known, and both can be charop'd fairly well once a player gets the hang of things.  Note that the duskblade and warlock are in Tier 3 (or at least can get there with some effort on the warlock's part), while the paladin is Tier 5; if you hand a party of newbies the prebuilt classes of warlock, duskblade, paladin, and, say, monk, the latter two are likely going to feel constrained and option-less even in comparison to other prebuilt classes.

Essentially, my view is that if we're going to have "newbie classes" they should be like the ToB classes: they do have build choices, but you can't really screw them up; the fighter has been the newbie class since 1e and look what happened to it.  It's fine if the paladin is fairly limited in scope, but that scope should include tanking, buffing, smiting, and the other stuff you'd expect a paladin to be able to do, so it's only dread necromancer-narrow, not 3e paladin-narrow.

However, those are exactly the things that make a class unfriendly to newbies. A ToB class is complicated to chargen due to the need to select maneuvers on top of feats and gear, with each maneuver having prereqs. These things are simple to you and me, but not necessarily immediately intuitive.

Each chargen option(like maneuvers known, feats, and gear) means a choice, each run time option (like maneuvers readied, spells prepared) is a choice. Newbie friendly classes have tight controls over choices. Quality is not options. The Duskblade has basically no options, it's advantage is it's a solid chassis with synergistic abilities. The Paladin is bad for reasons unrelated to it's structure, MAD, weak/absent class features, etc.

[Eldritch_Lord]

However, those are exactly the things that make a class unfriendly to newbies. A ToB class is complicated to chargen due to the need to select maneuvers on top of feats and gear, with each maneuver having prereqs. These things are simple to you and me, but not necessarily immediately intuitive.

Each chargen option(like maneuvers known, feats, and gear) means a choice, each run time option (like maneuvers readied, spells prepared) is a choice. Newbie friendly classes have tight controls over choices. Quality is not options. The Duskblade has basically no options, it's advantage is it's a solid chassis with synergistic abilities. The Paladin is bad for reasons unrelated to it's structure, MAD, weak/absent class features, etc.

The duskblade definitely has options, it still makes you choose all your spells known.  Choosing 2-6 cantrips and 2 1st-level spells at 1st level is close to the crusader's 6 maneuvers+stance or the warblade's 4, the difference being that if you pick things like stand or rouse for your duskblade you're going to suck more than a warblade or crusader who chooses maneuvers entirely at random.

As the duskblade shows, you don't have to entirely remove all chargen choices to make a good newbie class.  You just need to make the good choices obvious ("At 3rd level you get a class feature that does stuff with touch spells.  You probably want to learn some touch spells.") or make the choices all roughly similar in power, and then make the chassis good enough that you can get along fine even with some bad spells/maneuver/etc. choices.