Post/Author/DateTime	Post
larry_the_titan 02-22-08, 11:55 AM	In a future game I plan on running for a group of friends almost everything would be allowed during the game. Well any 3.5 material is allowed. They are not normally Optimizers so I don't have to worry so much about game breaking stuff happening. There is just one rule that is going to restrict there options. The classes in the Players Handbook will not be allowed. This is meant to get them out of Core only motif which I have been stuck with doing lately with DMs in the past. I just need to know one thing before I throw this at them, will it interfer with the game? I understand most of the class features needed in the game can be replaced by another class in another book with a feat or a class feature of another class. I just need to know if anything of value really can't be gotten somewhere else.
GawainBS 02-22-08, 12:22 PM	A lot of PrC's/feats won't be accessible without the 11 baseclasses... (Thinking of those with Rage, Bardic Music, Animal Companions, Turn Undead as prerequisites.)
dman11235 02-22-08, 12:42 PM	Well, there are a lot of reasons to keep the core 11. First off, no other class is a wizard. No other class is a druid. Spirit Shaman comes close in flavor, but no. Not really at all. Ranger, same deal, but it does have the scout. That's a possible trade. Fighter, the Warblade replaces it. Monk: swordsage. Paladin: Crusader (these last three from the Tome of Replacements (ToB)). Cleric: Favoured Soul is close, but no cigar. Bard, I've got nothin'. Save maybe, possibly the marshal, butit really doesn't do it. Completely different flavor. Barbarian: there is nothing that can replace it. Rogue: well, the Swordsage, Ninja, Scout, and Spellthief can be the ones that replace it, but they all have very different mechanics from it. If anything, the core 11 can replace (with some combination of these 11 and the PrCs out there) most of the non-core base classes. But not the other way around. If ya wanna do it, go ahead. But I'd advise not doing it.
rjsilverthorn 02-22-08, 01:04 PM	Well I can see there being some appeal to trying a game like that, assuming its a more casual game and you are willing to make some allowances for those missing roles. I'm one of those people that tries to play something different in every game. Currently I'm in three games playing a Monk//Fighter gestalt, a Cleric//Sorcerer/war weaver gestalt, a Paladin, a Cleric and a fighter/warblade-gestalt. The cleric/sorcerer was originally going to be a Artificer/Archivist, but certain game limitations inferered with that idea. In the same three games another player is playing a Wizard, a Wizard//Sorcerer gestalt, a Wizard//Artificer gestalt and a Druid. The only reason the druid made it in there was because we were playing a two character game and the DM refused to let her play a second arcane caster. Even then, she never really does much with the druid, those turns consist mostly of, I shoot with my bow. Even the Artificer is getting very little love, she mostly plays like she's a pure Wizard. If I were DMing a game with her, I'd probably prohibit her from playing any arcane caster, just to get her to expand her horizons somewhat.
Bergtann 02-22-08, 01:57 PM	I am currently running a game with the Cleric and Druid banned. I changed the Favored Soul to get turning at level 3, and its worked fine. The FS and Archivst covers the Clerics role. Archivist is also more reasonable in a world with no domain spells. Spirit Shaman and Wildshaping Ranger covers the Druid. If you want to replace ALL the PHB classes...I'd keep Unearthened Arcanas Prestige Bard, and Wildshaping Ranger. Doing without the Wizard/Sorcerer will be difficult. You will have their lesser cousins, the Warmage and Beguiler. With liberal usage of spell list expanding PrCs and feats, that could work. Allow the Dragon Compendium bloodline feats, Sublime Chord and Nar Demonbinder, Suel Archanamach, etc. Could be very interesting, actually.
Shadowhowler 02-22-08, 02:04 PM	I'm one of those people that tries to play something different in every game. Currently I'm in three games playing a Monk//Fighter gestalt, a Cleric//Sorcerer/war weaver gestalt, a Paladin, a Cleric and a fighter/warblade-gestalt. The cleric/sorcerer was originally going to be a Artificer/Archivist, but certain game limitations inferered with that idea. Thats a whole lotta Gestalt... :eek:
rjsilverthorn 02-22-08, 02:12 PM	Thats a whole lotta Gestalt... :eek: We have two gestalt campaigns, one of which I'm running two characters because the player that was our cleric begged to play something else. We have a relatively small play group, a core of three players, which is why our third game we are each playing two characters.
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-22-08, 02:22 PM	With very few exceptions, favoured classes can't be gotten anywhere else. If you're going to restrict the PHB classes, please consider doing away with imbalanced multiclass XP penalties (and possibly throwing humans and half-elves a bone to replace their now-useless flexible favoured class), or allow players to select a new favoured class for their chosen race, similar to the normal favoured class that they may not play.
Jaxgaret 02-22-08, 02:25 PM	A lot of PrC's/feats won't be accessible without the 11 baseclasses... (Thinking of those with Rage, Bardic Music, Animal Companions, Turn Undead as prerequisites.) Rage can be gained via Half-Orc Paragon. Bardic Music can be gained via Virtuoso. Animal Companions can be gained via Beastmaster. Turn Undead can be gained via Sacred Exorcist or Binder. There's probably a fair few that I haven't listed here. Running a game without the 11 core classes should present no problem whatsoever, and IMO sounds like a neat idea.
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-22-08, 02:28 PM	It could be pretty interesting, aye. Might be a good excuse to run a goblin swashbuckler/scout/dervish. :plotting:
GawainBS 02-22-08, 03:13 PM	Rage can be gained via Half-Orc Paragon. Bardic Music can be gained via Virtuoso. Animal Companions can be gained via Beastmaster. Turn Undead can be gained via Sacred Exorcist or Binder. There's probably a fair few that I haven't listed here. Running a game without the 11 core classes should present no problem whatsoever, and IMO sounds like a neat idea. And by going this route, you're severely limiting options, or restricting them to higher levels (probably making it useless) and forcing people to play PrC's that don't fit their character whatsoever. It's a hollow argument.
Roderick_BR 02-22-08, 03:16 PM	I think the OP wants to ban the core base classes to make their players try something new, not replace them with similar ones. I don't see anything wrong with it. Just remember that new classes won't have all the abilities of the base classes. Meleers are easy to use nearly anything, like Warblades, Knights, Scout. Skill monkeys have quite a few around like the Ninja, Beguiler and Factotum. Both arcane and divine casters can be used with a large number of casters. Just pick your favorite ones. Just be prepared for your players trying to find some familiarity in the new classes, often comparing them with the new ones. I even tried to run a game with only ToB classes once (the group played mainly meleers anyway), with a few npc spellcasters. Just didn't get it started for time issues.
GawainBS 02-22-08, 03:19 PM	I think the OP wants to ban the core base classes to make their players try something new, not replace them with similar ones. I don't see anything wrong with it. Just remember that new classes won't have all the abilities of the base classes. Meleers are easy to use nearly anything, like Warblades, Knights, Scout. Skill monkeys have quite a few around like the Ninja, Beguiler and Factotum. Both arcane and divine casters can be used with a large number of casters. Just pick your favorite ones. Just be prepared for your players trying to find some familiarity in the new classes, often comparing them with the new ones. I even tried to run a game with only ToB classes once (the group played mainly meleers anyway), with a few npc spellcasters. Just didn't get it started for time issues. I wholy agree with his intention, but you have to realise that by banning the baseclasses, you block off a lot of intresting PrC's and thus shooting past the target: playing non-core classes.:) In the OP's case, I'd rather encourage individual players to try out something new.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 03:38 PM	In a future game I plan on running for a group of friends almost everything would be allowed during the game. Well any 3.5 material is allowed. They are not normally Optimizers so I don't have to worry so much about game breaking stuff happening. There is just one rule that is going to restrict there options. The classes in the Players Handbook will not be allowed. This is meant to get them out of Core only motif which I have been stuck with doing lately with DMs in the past. I just need to know one thing before I throw this at them, will it interfer with the game? I understand most of the class features needed in the game can be replaced by another class in another book with a feat or a class feature of another class. I just need to know if anything of value really can't be gotten somewhere else. I'd also recommend ousting ToB :rolleyes:
Cartigan 02-22-08, 03:41 PM	Rage can be gained via Half-Orc Paragon. Bardic Music can be gained via Virtuoso. Animal Companions can be gained via Beastmaster. Turn Undead can be gained via Sacred Exorcist or Binder. There's probably a fair few that I haven't listed here. Running a game without the 11 core classes should present no problem whatsoever, and IMO sounds like a neat idea. The problem being those are prestige classes you have to qualify for.
Roderick_BR 02-22-08, 03:46 PM	I wholy agree with his intention, but you have to realise that by banning the baseclasses, you block off a lot of intresting PrC's and thus shooting past the target: playing non-core classes.:) In the OP's case, I'd rather encourage individual players to try out something new. They'd be forced to play only non-core base classes, true. There's not many PrCs for non-core classes, but they should be there. Hmm... Does PHB2 or DMG2 have any prestige class for the new classes there? I know that ToB have several PrCs for the martial adepts, with a few for ToB/core multiclasses.
ashmanonar 02-22-08, 03:56 PM	I'd say you'll have to houserule stuff to make it work, because as was said above, there are plenty of prereqs in PrC's that are based in core classes.
larry_the_titan 02-22-08, 04:21 PM	With very few exceptions, favoured classes can't be gotten anywhere else. If you're going to restrict the PHB classes, please consider doing away with imbalanced multiclass XP penalties (and possibly throwing humans and half-elves a bone to replace their now-useless flexible favoured class), or allow players to select a new favoured class for their chosen race, similar to the normal favoured class that they may not play. Multi classing penalties were going out the window anyway. A few other changes were going to take place anyway. This was the only rule that I had any issues with at the moment. So far I really don't see much of a problem with ditching the classes. The thing was with the ditching of the PHB classes I already ditch 3 of the big 5. Leaving only Archivists and Artificer which at the moment become needed a little more. Wizards are easily replaced considering Psionics will be allowed and several books recently have already had specialty arcane casters. Clerics are easily covered by other classes and smart character design. Druids Wildshaping is a problem in of itself plus the Druid being banned isn't unheard of. Most of the rest is easily replaced with everything else being in play already.
GawainBS 02-22-08, 05:23 PM	Nothing beats a wizard in versatility. A lot of pretty common obstacles become insurmountable without one. I'm mainly thinking of Fly-capability, Detect Invisible, etc. I know, lots of non-core do that, but none of them have it all in one package. About the prereqs for PrC: just becareful that by trying to promoting non-core, you might actually be barring more than opening.:)
Cartigan 02-22-08, 05:30 PM	Nothing beats a wizard in versatility. A lot of pretty common obstacles become insurmountable without one. I'm mainly thinking of Fly-capability, Detect Invisible, etc. What about the Wu Jen? And I don't see anything saying magic items don't exist.
GawainBS 02-22-08, 05:35 PM	Getting a magic item for each and every occasion, for every party member? The Wu-Jen's spelllist is actually a lot worse than you might think on first looks, especially if he's supposed to replace a wizard. You could impose another limit: only 5 levels max of coreclasses. That way, you force people to play a PrC (probably non-core) without problems or to take a non-core class.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 05:39 PM	Getting a magic item for each and every occasion, for every party member? The Wu-Jen's spelllist is actually a lot worse than you might think on first looks, especially if he's supposed to replace a wizard. There are other spellcasting classes besides the Wizard and Sorcerer and that's the point. The fact everyone is arguing "omg, we need PHB classes because all the other classes arn't powerful enough!" really makes me thing this is a good idea.
JaronK 02-22-08, 05:44 PM	I think it can be a decent idea, as there's a lot of fun classes out there, and the best designed classes were designed later (after the designers learned from their mistakes with the core classes). You might want to ban the Archivist and Artificer as well, which means none of the Big 5 power classes are in your game... that can be handy. Honestly, I can't think of a single character concept that can't be done without core classes and the two classes I mentioned above. JaronK
GawainBS 02-22-08, 05:44 PM	There are other spellcasting classes besides the Wizard and Sorcerer and that's the point. The fact everyone is arguing "omg, we need PHB classes because all the other classes arn't powerful enough!" really makes me thing this is a good idea. I'm pointing out the differences between spelllists. A silly example: Without coreclasses, an arcane gish-character suddenly is almost impossible.
JaronK 02-22-08, 05:48 PM	I'm pointing out the differences between spelllists. A silly example: Without coreclasses, an arcane gish-character suddenly is almost impossible. Duskblade? Hexblade? JaronK
Cartigan 02-22-08, 05:49 PM	You might want to ban the Archivist and Artificer as well, which means none of the Big 5 power classes are in your game... that can be handy. Better idea, just don't let players abuse the Archivist by following the single rule-bending idea that actually makes it one of the big 5 :rolleyes: I'm pointing out the differences between spelllists. A silly example: Without coreclasses, an arcane gish-character suddenly is almost impossible. Besides the classes that are innately designed as arcane gish characters :rolleyes:
GawainBS 02-22-08, 05:50 PM	Duskblade? Hexblade? JaronK Those aren't real gishes and you know it. :p
Neutronium_Dragon 02-22-08, 05:50 PM	There are others, but the point that everyone else is making is that none of those other arcane spellcasting classes are able to fill the wizard's shoes in terms of what he brings to the party. Their focus is more narrow and they lack the "ultimate toolkit" capability which he provides. There is one class which can do the wizard's job, but he's technically not an arcane spellcaster: The Artificer from the Eberron Campaign Setting.
Shadowhowler 02-22-08, 05:50 PM	I think it's sort of funny... I see DM's banning splatbooks all the time... or saying "I want a core only game' quite a bit. I have NEVER seen anyone BAN core only or say you must play something non core. I'd love to see what the party looks like if this happens.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 05:58 PM	It would be interesting, you would lose an effective Monk class, and Druid, Ranger, and Paladin class abilities. The Dread Necromancer actually has Rebuke Undead. I would say ban ToB too unless you want a lame ToB laden game.
MC_Templar 02-22-08, 06:08 PM	I think it's sort of funny... I see DM's banning splatbooks all the time... or saying "I want a core only game' quite a bit. I have NEVER seen anyone BAN core only or say you must play something non core. I'd love to see what the party looks like if this happens. I'm going to second this sentiment..... if this games gets off the ground, and works for you... at some point later post a list of character concepts and class choices. I'm curious about what your group would make as well.
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:13 PM	There are others, but the point that everyone else is making is that none of those other arcane spellcasting classes are able to fill the wizard's shoes in terms of what he brings to the party. Their focus is more narrow and they lack the "ultimate toolkit" capability which he provides. There is one class which can do the wizard's job, but he's technically not an arcane spellcaster: The Artificer from the Eberron Campaign Setting. See, the thing is that the reason the other classes have trouble filling the Wizard's shoes is because the Wizard is really overpowered anyway. That said, Archivists can absolutely do it... which is why I suggested banning them too (along with Artificers for the same reason). If you can cover all the roles that a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid can, your class is overpowered, because those classes are overpowered anyway. By the way, my current campaign has no core classes except for the Paladin of Tyranny (which is a UA varient of a core class, and he's only got 4 levels in it). It's a blast, and it's the most internally balanced group I've ever been in. JaronK
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:17 PM	It would be interesting, you would lose an effective Monk class, and Druid, Ranger, and Paladin class abilities. Swordsage, Battle Dancer, or Shou Disciple... these all can cover the Monk thing. Druid can't be done (but that's a good thing!) though you can do shapechanger if you want. Scout covers the archery Ranger thing nicely, and Warblade covers the melee ranger. Paladin could be a Favoured Soul, Crusader or Bone Knight, or possibly Hexblade, depending on alignment. The Dread Necromancer actually has Rebuke Undead. Sacred Exorcist gives Turn Undead too, and could be combined with a divine class for that. Master of Shrouds might too, though I'm not sure on that. I would say ban ToB too unless you want a lame ToB laden game. ToB rocks, and if he wants something new, that's a great place to get it. Everyone I know who's actually played a campaign with ToB classes has absolutely loved it (this includes the DMs). Frankly, I wouldn't mind an all ToB game... and it would still have a lot of variety. JaronK
GawainBS 02-22-08, 06:17 PM	Nobody's saying it's impossible (I myself am currently playing a two men team, a crusader & a wu-jen), but it can get tricky. The one point I keep stressing, is that you might end up barring a lot of PrC's.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 06:21 PM	See, the thing is that the reason the other classes have trouble filling the Wizard's shoes is because the Wizard is really overpowered anyway. That said, Archivists can absolutely do it... which is why I suggested banning them too No, they can't. Not without epic level rule-bending and interpretation. Neither of which should or would be allowed in a realistic game. Swordsage, Battle Dancer, or Shou Disciple... these all can cover the Monk thing. Base classes Scout covers the archery Ranger thing nicely, Scouts are archers but they arn't Rangers. Paladin could be a Favoured Soul, Favored Souls suck, not without massive reworking. Sacred Exorcist gives Turn Undead too, and could be combined with a divine class for that. Master of Shrouds might too, though I'm not sure on that. Base classes ToB rocks, and if he wants something new, that's a great place to get it. And it's broken for 3.5. It's like my DM trying to make old d20 into D&D 3.5 it just doesn't work because they arn't the same thing. ToB should be banned for the very reason it gets mentioned in every thread and because you mentioned it three times in this one as a replacement for classes.
GawainBS 02-22-08, 06:23 PM	It's not rule-bending, it's a simple application of the rules. A DM can keep it under control easily, though. (Just don't let them discover those spells.)
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:24 PM	No, they can't. Not without epic level rule-bending and interpretation. Neither of which should or would be allowed in a realistic game. We've been over this a number of times. You know full well how it works, without any bending of rules or weird interpretations. If you want to debate the actual facts of it, we can, but so far all you've done is say "no, it's a pun pun interpretation, it's wrong!" instead of actually debating how it works by RAW. And don't even start with "you can only do it via a 3.0 class!" because you know that's false. That said, if no PHB classes even exist in this game, the Bard list becomes inaccessable, since I assume Bardic varients in UA are also non existant. JaronK
Cartigan 02-22-08, 06:25 PM	It's not rule-bending, it's a simple application of the rules. A DM can keep it under control easily, though. (Just don't let them discover those spells.) It's rule bending and absurd rule interpretation. There is zero reason to ban the Archivist because what it takes to break it and make it top 5 is completely absurd application of a bunch of variant rules. Ban the absurd rule application and the Archivist is a great class. We've been over this a number of times. You know full well how it works, without any bending of rules or weird interpretations. If you want to debate the actual facts of it, we can, but so far all you've done is say "no, it's a pun pun interpretation, it's wrong!" instead of actually debating how it works by RAW. And don't even start with "you can only do it via a 3.0 class!" because you know that's false. That said, if no PHB classes even exist in this game, the Bard list becomes inaccessable, since I assume Bardic varients in UA are also non existant. It is patently absurd rule interpretation. The Archivist, without that interpretation and application, is not super uber, and you know it. Something working by RAW doesn't mean it should be allowed, should be accepted, or isn't absurd. See Pun-pun. And you know what would make my day job simpler? Not including your name that is RIGHT THERE in every single post.
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:25 PM	It's not rule-bending, it's a simple application of the rules. A DM can keep it under control easily, though. (Just don't let them discover those spells.) The Warlock being the major issue there. A DM would have to nerf that bit, and say that Warlock made scrolls don't work for some reason (insert handwavey fluff here). At which point it becomes nice and balanced. JaronK
Cartigan 02-22-08, 06:28 PM	The Warlock being the major issue there. A DM would have to nerf that bit, and say that Warlock made scrolls don't work for some reason (insert handwavey fluff here). At which point it becomes nice and balanced. Just remove the ability of the Warlock to create magic items. There is no logical, and barely any illogical, reason for it to do that.
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:30 PM	Base classes It gets the character concept in there. Scouts are archers but they arn't Rangers. They're close enough for the concept. You can make most character concepts that involve "I'm a nature based melee/archery character" with a scout, and that's the main point. Favored Souls suck, not without massive reworking. Suck? They're just less broken than Clerics. They don't suck at all. They get 9th level spells off the Cleric list! And it's broken for 3.5. It's like my DM trying to make old d20 into D&D 3.5 it just doesn't work because they arn't the same thing. ToB should be banned for the very reason it gets mentioned in every thread and because you mentioned it three times in this one as a replacement for classes. You've never played ToB classes, have you? It gets mentioned because it's fun to play. Like, seriously fun. As in, your melee class gets more to do than "I trip it, I hit it, I trip it, I hit it. What, the situation doesn't call for tripping it or hitting it? Aw..." And yes, it replaces underpowered classes like Monks because it's a better version of the same. They said "wow, Monks were a great idea, but we screwed up the implimentation. Let's fix that." Bam, Swordsages are born. And it works really well. And yet, not broken. Not overpowered. Not anywhere near Wizard level power. Just fun and flexible and interesting. And that's really kinda awesome. Like I said, I've never met anyone who actually played with ToB classes past about level 5 and didn't enjoy the experience... both on the player side and the DM side. JaronK
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:31 PM	Just remove the ability of the Warlock to create magic items. There is no logical, and barely any illogical, reason for it to do that. To make the class more flexible? It's easier to just say their scrolls don't work for putting spells into spellbooks (the same issue appears for Wizards, though it's less of an issue there) than to nerf Warlocks, who aren't all that powerful, as a roundabout way of taking down Wizards and Archivists. JaronK
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:33 PM	It's rule bending and absurd rule interpretation. There is zero reason to ban the Archivist because what it takes to break it and make it top 5 is completely absurd application of a bunch of variant rules. Ban the absurd rule application and the Archivist is a great class. Warlocks are not a varient rule. Nor are Domains. Shuggenjas are not a varient rule either, nor are Paladins, Rangers, Druids, or Adepts. That alone is enough to give you nearly every strong utility spell in existance. It is patently absurd rule interpretation. The Archivist, without that interpretation and application, is not super uber, and you know it. Something working by RAW doesn't mean it should be allowed, should be accepted, or isn't absurd. See Pun-pun. Which part is absurd? Name the part! And no, Pun Pun is not relevant. And you know what would make my day job simpler? Not including your name that is RIGHT THERE in every single post. You're getting awfully close to Ad Hominim attacks again. JaronK
Cartigan 02-22-08, 06:35 PM	It gets the character concept in there. Which wasn't the point. They're close enough for the concept. You can make most character concepts that involve "I'm a nature based melee/archery character" with a scout, and that's the main point. It wasn't my point, but it is a point, so you get that. Suck? They're just less broken than Clerics. They don't suck at all. They get 9th level spells off the Cleric list! If they suck, of course they arn't broken. I like the class and the flavor, I don't like the fact the class almost required every single ability score to be good to play it. Spellcasting requires Wis and Cha. Sure, you could focus straight on spell-casting, but the class is also designed for semi-combat so you also need Str and Con. You are also going to need Dex in order to make up for the only medium armor proficiency. Oh wait, he doesn't need Int :rolleyes: You've never played ToB classes, have you? It gets mentioned because it's fun to play. Like, seriously fun. The problem being they overshadow all other melee classes. All. To make the class more flexible? Really? How is the class inflexible without the ability to create any magic item willy nilly? It can use random magic items better than the Rogue/Beguiler/Ninja/whatever. He can find magic items at will. Then there is the fact he is a Warlock so has his own unique schtick. It's easier to just say their scrolls don't work for putting spells into spellbooks (the same issue appears for Wizards, though it's less of an issue there) than to nerf Warlocks, who aren't all that powerful, as a roundabout way of taking down Wizards and Archivists. It's easier to say they can't make random magic items for no reason :rolleyes: Which part is absurd? Name the part! And no, Pun Pun is not relevant. The entire thing. You are digging through every class to find a way to give the Archivist all the spells in the game, then dragging in a broken part of the Warlock to do it. It's an absurd rules application and interpretation that shouldn't be allowed in a standard game and thus the Archivist isn't broken. And yes Pun-pun is relevant, it's the same thing. Digging through books to find certain things that when used in combination with other things break a class and the game.
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:43 PM	Which wasn't the point. I was going by the idea of "even with all core classes axed, you can still play whatever character concept you want simply by using similar non core classes, both base classes and PrCs. They'll be somewhat mechanically different, but your character concept is still playable." So the fact that it's a PrC doesn't change the fact that the option is still there. If they suck, of course they arn't broken. I like the class and the flavor, I don't like the fact the class almost required every single ability score to be good to play it. Spellcasting requires Wis and Cha. Sure, you could focus straight on spell-casting, but the class is also designed for semi-combat so you also need Str and Con. You are also going to need Dex in order to make up for the only medium armor proficiency. Oh wait, he doesn't need Int Yeah, well, it's more balanced. Sure, it's weaker than Clerics, but it should be. That said, you only really need Charisma, as you can dump Wis if you focus on things that don't allow saves (heals, buffs, and some attacks spells). Your low stats are less of an issue when you consider that Righteous Might, Divine Vigor, and so on are all on your list, and a single 1 level dip into Sacred Exorcist even opens up Divine Metamagic if you want to take that route. That's not sucking at all. Really, you just keep a nice high Charisma, with Con and then Strength after that, and let your buffs help out. At least, that's an option. Still, it's certainly a far stronger class than many. Doesn't suck. Just sucks compared to Clerics. It's like Sorcerers or Wu Jen that way... they're fine as classes, they're just often compared to Wizards and thus suck by comparison. But any well made class should suck when held up next to a Wizard. The problem being they overshadow all other melee classes. All. Not true. I could easily make a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker that would blow away any ToB class for damage. It could not, however, be nearly as versitile or fun. It only blows away the underpowered melees... which it really should do. Consider it the fix for melees. Throw out the old ones, use these instead, and suddenly melees are more balanced (though still weaker than casters). Seriously, try it, as I'm sure you haven't (if you had, you'd almost certainly enjoy it). In fact, I'd strongly recommend that the OP encourage his players to try out the ToB classes. They're a huge step up from core melees on all counts (though a good Whirling Frenzy Barbarian would likely out damage one... but couldn't beat them for style at all). JaronK
dman11235 02-22-08, 06:45 PM	Jaron, you forgot to point out that the first time Cartigan said "base classes" two of the three were base classes. You caught the rest, except the fact that Warblades did to fighters what swordsages did to monks, and Crusaders to Paladins. Yes, ToB is more powerful than those three classes (and some others), but no, it is not more powerful than the druid! All three scored at about 6.5 on the class ranking. That's more powerful than balanced (5.0 is balanced: barbarian is closest at 4.99 last I checked), but fairly acceptable. The big 5 all scored above 9.0. Max 10.
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-22-08, 06:47 PM	Wow, you just said favoured souls suck and implied PHB melee classes don't in the same post. At risk of increasing this thread's already high noise to signal ratio, any credibility you might have had just got flushed down the toilet, Cartigan. OP, just out of curiosity, if a player wanted to play a DMG base class (say, an Expert for example) would that be allowed?
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:50 PM	Really? How is the class inflexible without the ability to create any magic item willy nilly? It can use random magic items better than the Rogue/Beguiler/Ninja/whatever. He can find magic items at will. Then there is the fact he is a Warlock so has his own unique schtick. He can't create any Magic Item Willy Nilly. He still needs the various Item Crafting feats, and still pays the appropriate costs. He can just make magic items about as well as a Wizard can. But overall, Warlocks aren't that strong. They're not weak, but they're not that strong, so I for one so no need to nerf them. Frankly, they're the only item crafting class that can make a wide variety of magic items but is still not overpowered, and I like that in a class. I think it's a good thing that you can do that character concept without being broken, which you have to be otherwise (Artificer, Wizard, Archivist, and to a lesser extent Druid being the other classes that can do it). The entire thing. You are digging through every class to find a way to give the Archivist all the spells in the game, then dragging in a broken part of the Warlock to do it. You do realize that the designers intended that Archivist players dig through every class to find a way to get strange spells, right? I quoted that for you last time you brought this up. Remember? It's in the FAQ, too. And yet you call it rules abuse and shoddy interpretation to follow the designer's intent. That's... strange. It's an absurd rules application and interpretation that shouldn't be allowed in a standard game and thus the Archivist isn't broken. Ah. "In my games, I don't allow the Archivist to do what the designer's intended it to do, with the additional use of a Warlock. Therefor, Archivists as a rule aren't broken." And yes Pun-pun is relevant, it's the same thing. Digging through books to find certain things that when used in combination with other things break a class and the game. Really? I never knew there was an FAQ released that said "manipulate form was intended to allow you to create uber god characters." Man. That's a weird FAQ. You'll notice, by the way, that in my last example of the things used, I used only Core and Complete Arcane, whereas Pun Pun requires going through tons of books, including one on the cusp of 3.5. JaronK
dman11235 02-22-08, 06:52 PM	Pun-Pun also requires some 3.0.
Bob Loblaw 02-22-08, 06:56 PM	Instead of banning the core classes, ask your players to develop concepts for their characters first. There may be non-core ways to accomplish what they want. Banning for the sake of banning is going to create more problems than it solves. Sometimes core classes are better choices, other times it's better choosing non-core. If the players are having fun, why take that away just to take it away?
dman11235 02-22-08, 06:57 PM	I've been meaning to ask, you are just looking at banning the classes, right? Not the feats?
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:58 PM	Instead of banning the core classes, ask your players to develop concepts for their characters first. There may be non-core ways to accomplish what they want. Banning for the sake of banning is going to create more problems than it solves. Sometimes core classes are better choices, other times it's better choosing non-core. If the players are having fun, why take that away just to take it away? I think his main issue was that he couldn't seem to convince his players to play non core when core was an option. That said, the general point I agree with. Banning stuff just because you want them to use other stuff is... clunky, as a method. It'll work, but it's usually better to just encourage the use of other classes. JaronK
Cartigan 02-22-08, 06:58 PM	Jaron, you forgot to point out that the first time Cartigan said "base classes" two of the three were base classes. You caught the rest, except the fact that Warblades did to fighters what swordsages did to monks, and Crusaders to Paladins. Yes, ToB is more powerful than those three classes (and some others), but no, it is not more powerful than the druid! All three scored at about 6.5 on the class ranking. That's more powerful than balanced (5.0 is balanced: barbarian is closest at 4.99 last I checked), but fairly acceptable. The big 5 all scored above 9.0. Max 10. I thought Shou was a PrC. I know Battledancer is. My bad. I was purposefully discounting ToB classes.
JaronK 02-22-08, 06:59 PM	I thought Shou was a PrC. I know Battledancer is. My bad. I was purposefully discounting ToB classes. Shou Disciple is a PrC. Battle Dancer is a base class. JaronK
ninjarabbit 02-22-08, 06:59 PM	I think it would work. I agree with not allowing the ToB classes, I think they would be too unbalanced in an environment like this where 3 of the top classes (wizard, cleric, druid) aren't allowed. -Warrior classes: Hexblade Swashbuckler Duskblade Knight Battlesorcerer? (also on arcane classes list) Wildshape ranger? (we shall not mention the samurai) -Skillmonkey classes: Scout Ninja Spellthief Beguiler (also on arcane classes list) -Divine classes: Favoured Soul Shirit Shaman Cloistered Cleric? Shuegenia (sp) -Arcane Classes: Warmage Warlock Wu Jen Beguiler Dread Necromancer Battlesorcerer? And let's not forget the oddball classes like the truenamer. There's more than enough classes to fill the roles.
dman11235 02-22-08, 06:59 PM	Shou is a PrC. Swordsage is a base class. A fairly balanced base class. You can't discount something just because you don't like it.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:03 PM	I was going by the idea of "even with all core classes axed, you can still play whatever character concept you want simply by using similar non core classes, both base classes and PrCs. They'll be somewhat mechanically different, but your character concept is still playable." So the fact that it's a PrC doesn't change the fact that the option is still there. The problem with PrC's is you have to qualify for them. Thus they arn't really replacements for base classes with the same abilities. You have to work the base class into them. Yeah, well, it's more balanced. Sure, it's weaker than Clerics, but it should be. It's less balanced than Clerics rather. Less balanced in a bad way. That said, you only really need Charisma, as you can dump Wis if you focus on things that don't allow saves (heals, buffs, and some attacks spells). Then you have crappy spell DCs which I guess is ok if you are just focusing on self/ally-affecting spells. Still, it's certainly a far stronger class than many. Doesn't suck. Just sucks compared to Clerics. No, it still sucks. The skill list is nonsense and its too divided up between abilities, especially compared to every other spellcaster. Not true. I could easily make a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker that would blow away any ToB class for damage. I'm going to :rolleyes: and that statement deserves it. It only blows away the underpowered melees... which it really should do. "Underpowered" when compared to ToB means all of them except for some maximized Barbarism. Shou is a PrC. Swordsage is a base class. A fairly balanced base class. You can't discount something just because you don't like it. Then only one was a base class and I am discounting all ToB.
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:06 PM	I agree with not allowing the ToB classes, I think they would be too unbalanced in an environment like this where 3 of the top classes (wizard, cleric, druid) aren't allowed. I find the ToB classes are just about perfectly balanced with the Dread Necromancer, Binder, Bard, Factorum, and Beguiler. They're just a touch under Favoured Souls and Sorcerers, while being a touch above Scouts and Knights. I say this as someone who's in a campaign that does have a martial adept along with a Dread Necromancer and a Beguiler. Also, you forgot Factorum on your skillmonkey list. Factorums just get no love, due to being released in a less known book, but they're a great class. And let's not forget the oddball classes like the truenamer. There is no such thing as a "Truenamer" class. Also, there's no such thing as a "Shadowcaster." The only Samurai class ever released was the Oriental Adventures Samurai. And Complete Psionics was planned, but never released. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. JaronK
dman11235 02-22-08, 07:08 PM	The Favored Soul is a fairly strong class, in the same way the Cleric and Druid are strong: casters that use spells to buff melee. You don't really need dex all that much, charisma is the only real casting stat you need, and strength and con are secondary. You don't need save DCs. And I bet I can name at least one caster it's better than: healer. Also: Warmage. Underpowered when compared to ToB... wow. People have done proofs that ToB is less damaging than barbarians. Even straight barbarians. No maxing required. ToB really only blows away the Samurai, but that's because that class should just not exist. Even the underpowered melee (monk, fighter, paladin) are playable, even against ToB. Those three scored around 4 on the class ranking BTW. @Jaron in EDIT: :rofl:
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:08 PM	He can't create any Magic Item Willy Nilly. He still needs the various Item Crafting feats, and still pays the appropriate costs. But he doesn't need magic :rolleyes: Why don't we just let every class with Use Magic on their list to create magic items the same way Warlock does? They're not weak, but they're not that strong, so I for one so no need to nerf them. I fail to see how taking away an absurd ability nerfs them at all. If their entire usefulness completely hinged on a single ability that had nothing to do with the class, they need to be rewritten. You do realize that the designers intended that Archivist players dig through every class to find a way to get strange spells, right? I missed that quote. I quoted that for you last time you brought this up. Remember? It's in the FAQ, too. And yet you call it rules abuse and shoddy interpretation to follow the designer's intent. That's... strange. You mean the quote that says they were intended to get Cleric domain spells? Sorry, I don't extend that to divine bard spells through divine bard variant or other arcane spells through random divine class variants and splatbook divine class abilities and I highly doubt that is what they meant. Ah. "In my games, I don't allow the Archivist to do what the designer's intended it to do, with the additional use of a Warlock. Therefor, Archivists as a rule aren't broken." Cleric Domain spells != everything in every splatbook applied all together to break the archivist. Ok, I was confusing Battledancer with cloaked dancer. Not familiar with the Dragon classes.
dman11235 02-22-08, 07:12 PM	The warlock DOES use magic. How else is he getting a MAGICAL beam of energy to shoot from his hand?!? And how does taking away an ability to make them less powerful nerf them? Oh wait... Listen to Jaron on the Archivist. He knows it better than I do. But even I can see that this was an intended part of the class.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:14 PM	The warlock DOES use magic. How else is he getting a MAGICAL beam of energy to shoot from his hand?!? Eldritch channeling? He can't cast magic. Listen to Jaron on the Archivist. He knows it better than I do. But even I can see that this was an intended part of the class. HoH is pretty self-contained. I highly doubt the makers took into account anything outside of the PHB in the Archivist's creation in Heroes of Horror which has now led them to be absurdly powerful with the right rule interpretation and book scouring.
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:16 PM	The problem with PrC's is you have to qualify for them. Thus they arn't really replacements for base classes with the same abilities. You have to work the base class into them. And yet the overall character concept can still be done with a PrC. For example, a Ninja is not a monk, but a Ninja/Shou Disciple might be able to pull off the concept. It's less balanced than Clerics rather. Less balanced in a bad way. I'm assuming you think Clerics are not overpowered. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Then you have crappy spell DCs which I guess is ok if you are just focusing on self/ally-affecting spells. That's the idea, if you plan to melee. If you don't, then you can dump Str instead. But unlike a Cleric, you can't be both a dominant melee and a dominant battlefield controller/offensive caster. Much like the rest of the balanced classes, you can't do everything. No, it still sucks. The skill list is nonsense and its too divided up between abilities, especially compared to every other spellcaster. Warmage? Healer? Besides, skill lists are for people who can't cast Guidance of the Avatar whenever they happen to want a skill. I'm going to :rolleyes: and that statement deserves it. The 9th level manuevers do about 100 damage, or do a single for save or die, or similar effects, once in a round, and then you need to refresh. By level 20, I can easily make a Barbarian/FB that does over 2k damage every time he charges... and he can charge a lot. Obviously, a Frenzied Berserker is not necessarily blown away by ToB classes. That said, he's a lot less fun to play than a Martial Adept. "Underpowered" when compared to ToB means all of them except for some maximized Barbarism. Or a Duskblade. Or perhaps a nice Dervish build. Heck, a Binder can pull off the whole melee thing shockingly well. But yes, most melees before ToB were underpowered without a lot of minmaxing, and that's a problem. ToB fixes that problem, so now you can play a melee class without optimizing it all to heck just to keep up with well played casters. They tried other methods of boosting melee classes before ToB (such as adding obviously powerful Fighter only feats like Weapon Supremacy) but it just wasn't enough, so they finally accepted the fact that 11 feats do not make up for a lack of class features, and that Monks had too many contradicatory abilities to compete, and so they fixed those classes by replacing them with ones that were fun and interesting. That's a good thing. Try it. You might actually like it. You're debating from theory and a knee jerk reaction, but those of us who've used ToB (and I'm DMing for a martial adept class right now) have absolutely loved it... and it's not overpowered compared to other balanced classes. Not one bit. Then only one was a base class and I am discounting all ToB. Battledancer is still a base class that's not from ToB. It's from Dragon Compendium, and it's the first base class listed in that book. JaronK
dman11235 02-22-08, 07:16 PM	But...but...it's a magical beam of energy. How is that not magic again? He doesn't cast spells, he invokes invocations. It's two different ways of using magic.
Jaxgaret 02-22-08, 07:17 PM	That said, if no PHB classes even exist in this game, the Bard list becomes inaccessable, since I assume Bardic varients in UA are also non existant. JaronK Virtuoso + Sublime Chord. And by going this route, you're severely limiting options, or restricting them to higher levels (probably making it useless) and forcing people to play PrC's that don't fit their character whatsoever. It's a hollow argument. If only one base class has the ability (Druid = Wild Shape, Barb = Rage, Bard = BM), is that "forcing people to play base classes that don't fit their character whatsoever"? Yours is the hollow argument. Reflavoring is the answer. Those aren't real gishes and you know it. :p A Duskblade is a real gish. It's a fighter-mage. That's what a gish is. And there's plenty of ways to make a gish using non-core classes; to assert otherwise is ludicruous. And you know what would make my day job simpler? Not including your name that is RIGHT THERE in every single post. Wow, getting personal much? Wow, you just said favoured souls suck and implied PHB melee classes don't in the same post. At risk of increasing this thread's already high noise to signal ratio, any credibility you might have had just got flushed down the toilet, Cartigan. I don't like the tone, but I have to agree with the sentiment. You do realize that the designers intended that Archivist players dig through every class to find a way to get strange spells, right? I quoted that for you last time you brought this up. Remember? It's in the FAQ, too. And yet you call it rules abuse and shoddy interpretation to follow the designer's intent. That's... strange. Ah. "In my games, I don't allow the Archivist to do what the designer's intended it to do, with the additional use of a Warlock. Therefor, Archivists as a rule aren't broken." Really? I never knew there was an FAQ released that said "manipulate form was intended to allow you to create uber god characters." Man. That's a weird FAQ. You'll notice, by the way, that in my last example of the things used, I used only Core and Complete Arcane, whereas Pun Pun requires going through tons of books, including one on the cusp of 3.5. JaronK QFT. Factorum Factotum. The Favored Soul is a fairly strong class, in the same way the Cleric and Druid are strong: casters that use spells to buff melee. You don't really need dex all that much, charisma is the only real casting stat you need, and strength and con are secondary. You don't need save DCs. And I bet I can name at least one caster it's better than: healer. Also: Warmage. Agreed. The FS is by no means a weak class. The Shugenja is another example of a weaker full caster.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:24 PM	I'm assuming you think Clerics are not overpowered. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I think you are taking me wrong. The spells are powerful, but the class itself isn't all loopy. It doesn't need 4 out of 5 abilities to live up to its design. Only the Archivist (that I can think of) needs two different abilities relating to their spellcasting and Archivist only uses it for bonus spells, not something directly related like DC. That's the idea, if you plan to melee. If you don't, then you can dump Str instead. But unlike a Cleric, you can't be both a dominant melee and a dominant battlefield controller/offensive caster. Much like the rest of the balanced classes, you can't do everything. The problem is the Favored Soul is too divided. It can't do everything well, but it does more things at once worse than other classes, not just the Cleric. Warmage? Healer? Besides, skill lists are for people who can't cast Guidance of the Avatar whenever they happen to want a skill. Warmages don't split their casting abilities. They don't have class contradictory class skills. Ok, Healers have stupid casting too, I give you that. But they don't have melee in mind either. Miniature's Handbook classes are just silly -_- Shugenja isn't splitting casting ability and isn't partially meant for combat. That doesn't mean the class isn't weak, but that's not what I'm talking about. Battledancer is still a base class that's not from ToB. It's from Dragon Compendium, and it's the first base class listed in that book. I can't find Dragon Compendium.
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:25 PM	But he doesn't need magic :rolleyes: Why don't we just let every class with Use Magic on their list to create magic items the same way Warlock does? He channels magical energy given by Daemons (or devils or whatever). It's a class ability. It's a very handy one. I fail to see how taking away an absurd ability nerfs them at all. If their entire usefulness completely hinged on a single ability that had nothing to do with the class, they need to be rewritten. I don't see how a class that specializes in Use Magic Device, getting special powers related to the use of magical devices, is somehow unrelated to an ability to create magical devices. They do, after all, get special abilities related to magical devices above and beyond what a normal class with it on their skill list gets. Of course removing a useful and powerful ability from a class that otherwise is somewhat lacking in flexibility (it's basically just an archer with different fluff and a few nifty tricks up its sleeve) is a nerf. I missed that quote. You mean the quote that says they were intended to get Cleric domain spells? Sorry, I don't extend that to divine bard spells through divine bard variant or other arcane spells through random divine class variants and splatbook divine class abilities and I highly doubt that is what they meant. I mean the quote that talked about getting Domain Spells, but said that the reason they get divine spells was because they were supposed to be able to look around for weird and "esoteric" spells. In other words, spells from strange sources. In other words, dig around through a few books and see what's out there. That was one of the two quotes I gave you on the subject, both of which agree that that's how you're supposed to use the class. And, since most of the spells you'd want can be found as divine spells in core (domains, adepts, druids, rangers, paladins) or in the book that Warlocks are in (Shuggenjas), I hardly see how this is a lot of digging through books. Yes, UA is needed to get the Bard list. But like I said, it was actually the designer's stated intent that you dig around looking for "esoteric" spells for the Archivist. That's not munchkinry. That's not weird interpretations or absurdity. That's actual stated designer intent. Cleric Domain spells != everything in every splatbook applied all together to break the archivist. Boy, sure is lucky I didn't use every splatbook then, huh? I've quoted two non core books so far... UA and Complete Arcane. And UA isn't used at all for the really good spells, which are the Wizard ones. Sure, Dragon Magic and Complete Mage help a lot, and Masters of the Wild makes it almost stupidly easy, but you don't need those. Ok, I was confusing Battledancer with cloaked dancer. Not familiar with the Dragon classes. It's basically a charisma based monk. JaronK
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:28 PM	Virtuoso + Sublime Chord. That still wouldn't give you the Divine Bard, which needs to exist for Archivists to get all bard spells. It's a varient in UA. I would guess you can't play one if the objective is not to play core classes. Factotum. Wow, I've been spelling that wrong for a REALLY long time. How did I read it as Factorum that many times? Weird. JaronK
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:30 PM	I don't see how a class that specializes in Use Magic Device, getting special powers related to the use of magical devices, is somehow unrelated to an ability to create magical devices. I don't see how they are related. They do, after all, get special abilities related to magical devices above and beyond what a normal class with it on their skill list gets. Which I did mention. In other words, spells from strange sources. In other words, dig around through a few books and see what's out there. Non sequitor. That's what you are reading into, that's not what it says. Or even implies. Limit the Archivist to what it was meant for and it isn't absurdly broken.
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-22-08, 07:30 PM	Just pointing out that Warmage Edge relies on a stat other than its main casting stat, and that Spirit Shamans use both Wis and Cha for their own spellcasting.
Ekko 02-22-08, 07:33 PM	Just going to pop in here: Why do some of you think the Archivist is broken? This isn't supposed to be argumentative, but just asking why some people say it's broken. The way I see it, the archivist is balanced, and has fun, flavorful class abilities.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:33 PM	Just pointing out that Warmage Edge relies on a stat other than its main casting stat, and that Spirit Shamans use both Wis and Cha for their own spellcasting. Then that just leads back to Miniature's Handbook classes are silly -_- Spirit Shamans are just odd...
Bauglir 02-22-08, 07:33 PM	Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). Straight from the SRD. Warlocks use Spell-like abilities, with the adjustment of somatic components. Therefore, Warlocks use magic, which the fluff text describes as "burning in their souls". Magic is literally a part of their very being. You have no arguing room whatever. Please quit saying words to the effect that warlocks don't have magic.
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:34 PM	I think you are taking me wrong. The spells are powerful, but the class itself isn't all loopy. It doesn't need 4 out of 5 abilities to live up to its design. Only the Archivist (that I can think of) needs two different abilities relating to their spellcasting and Archivist only uses it for bonus spells, not something directly related like DC. Healers and Warmages do the same thing (though Warmages less so). There's been a general movement towards making casters split up their stats as time wore on. Melees, after all, need multiple stats (Str to hit and damage, Con for durability, Dex for survivability, generally), so why shouldn't casters? The problem is the Favored Soul is too divided. It can't do everything well, but it does more things at once worse than other classes, not just the Cleric. It does things better if you focus them. They're quite a powerful class... stronger than ToB classes, in fact. Warmages don't split their casting abilities. They don't have class contradictory class skills. They're charisma casters who use Int for their bonus damage, so in that respect they have split casting. Ok, Healers have stupid casting too, I give you that. But they don't have melee in mind either. Miniature's Handbook classes are just silly -_- Marshals, while weak, are a good idea for a class. They make a decent dip at least for a commander type character. War Hulks are quite nice... they look really strong, but in the end they're not bad at all (they're no Frenzied Berserker, certainly, though they make awesome Dungeoncrashers. A Fighter 10/Warhulk 10 with Dungeoncrasher is hilarious). But you know, you don't have to melee with a Favoured Soul (and if you do, you don't need Wis). They're certainly respectable healers, especially when combined with Combat Medic. Basically, they're just divine Sorcerers, always forced to be under the heal of their better prepared caster cousins. At least they have class features. I can't find Dragon Compendium. It's a relatively recent WotC book. The Battledancer is on page 26, if you ever find it. JaronK
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:35 PM	Just going to pop in here: Why do some of you think the Archivist is broken? This isn't supposed to be argumentative, but just asking why some people say it's broken. The way I see it, the archivist is balanced, and has fun, flavorful class abilities. Since this actually takes a lot of explanation, please start a new thread and I'll answer that. JaronK
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:35 PM	Straight from the SRD. Warlocks use Spell-like abilities, with the adjustment of somatic components. Therefore, Warlocks use magic, which the fluff text describes as "burning in their souls". Magic is literally a part of their very being. You have no arguing room whatever. Please quit saying words on the subject. I wish I was cool like you so I could pop around and tell people to do thing and expect them to listen :rolleyes: Warlocks can't cast magic, which I'm pretty sure is supposed to be the balancing factor on magic item crafting. Let's just then say any race with a magical bent who takes a class with use magic device as a class skill can make any magic items they want at 12th level
Angel Black 02-22-08, 07:36 PM	In a future game I plan on running for a group of friends almost everything would be allowed during the game. Well any 3.5 material is allowed. They are not normally Optimizers so I don't have to worry so much about game breaking stuff happening. There is just one rule that is going to restrict there options. The classes in the Players Handbook will not be allowed. This is meant to get them out of Core only motif which I have been stuck with doing lately with DMs in the past. I just need to know one thing before I throw this at them, will it interfer with the game? I understand most of the class features needed in the game can be replaced by another class in another book with a feat or a class feature of another class. I just need to know if anything of value really can't be gotten somewhere else. The Replacements! # Barbarian :Hexblade? # Bard : Beguiler,Dragon Shaman,Marshal # Cleric :Archivist,Healer # Druid: spirit Shaman,Shugenja. # Fighter: Samurai,Duskblade,knigth # Monk: Spellthief? # Paladin:Knigth,Favored Soul # Ranger: Dragon Shaman? # Rogue: swashbuckler,scout,ninja # Sorcerers & Wizards: Warlock,Warmage,Wu-Jen. Things you will miss: - Perform Skill (in-class) - A few Fighter only feats - Rage,Wildshape,and Bard songs as class features(you can use spells instead ) - monk's flurry of blows - Paladin's mount - Domain spells - Sorcerer spellcasting Best things you will get: No monk, no paladin , and no druid.
Bauglir 02-22-08, 07:38 PM	Warlocks can't cast magic, which I'm pretty sure is supposed to be the balancing factor on magic item crafting. Let's just then say any race with a magical bent who takes a class with use magic device as a class skill can make any magic items they want at 12th level Ok, so we now rely on balance? Midgard Dwarves. ECL 12, they get to craft quite awesomely. If you're willing to invest 12 levels, I'm willing to say you should be pretty darned good at crafting. And they're considered rather lousy PCs, too. Also, yes, it is fun to be cool like me. It's one of the many side-effects to being occasionally right.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:39 PM	Healers and Warmages do the same thing (though Warmages less so). There's been a general movement towards making casters split up their stats as time wore on. Melees, after all, need multiple stats (Str to hit and damage, Con for durability, Dex for survivability, generally), so why shouldn't casters? My point from the start being Favored Souls need all of those unless you want to narrow the class focus. It does things better if you focus them. They're quite a powerful class... stronger than ToB classes, in fact. Alot of things do better if you focus them. You don't need Dex above 10. Take heavy armor. You don't need Str above 10, go Archery or use the feat. They're charisma casters who use Int for their bonus damage, so in that respect they have split casting. Which is a class ability, not that it makes since but it isn't splitting spell casting abilities. But you know, you don't have to melee with a Favoured Soul (and if you do, you don't need Wis). Because you would probably be focusing on self-affecting spells. It's a relatively recent WotC book. The Battledancer is on page 26, if you ever find it. I know what it is, I just can't find it.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 07:43 PM	Ok, so we now rely on balance? Midgard Dwarves. ECL 12, they get to craft quite awesomely. If you're willing to invest 12 levels, I'm willing to say you should be pretty darned good at crafting. And they're considered rather lousy PCs, too. Darn native outsiders of Norse gods.
Jaxgaret 02-22-08, 07:48 PM	That still wouldn't give you the Divine Bard, which needs to exist for Archivists to get all bard spells. It's a varient in UA. I would guess you can't play one if the objective is not to play core classes. UA isn't core, it's just in the SRD. Wow, I've been spelling that wrong for a REALLY long time. How did I read it as Factorum that many times? Weird. JaronK Yeah, I noticed that a few times before, thought I would let you know this time.
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:49 PM	Ok, so we now rely on balance? Midgard Dwarves. ECL 12, they get to craft quite awesomely. If you're willing to invest 12 levels, I'm willing to say you should be pretty darned good at crafting. And they're considered rather lousy PCs, too. No no, they're not for playing. They're for summoning with Planar Binding, killing, reanimating as a bone creature, and then being forced to craft for you! ...okay, I might have been playing a Dread Necromancer too long. JaronK
Ekko 02-22-08, 07:49 PM	Since this actually takes a lot of explanation, please start a new thread and I'll answer that. JaronK Done!
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:52 PM	My point from the start being Favored Souls need all of those unless you want to narrow the class focus. And my point being that the class is more balanced because you have to narrow that focus. After all, when you narrow your focus to "dominating in melee and also healing" aren't you basically now balanced with a Crusader? He can do it longer than you, you your buffs are better, and you've got Gate. Which is a class ability, not that it makes since but it isn't splitting spell casting abilities. It still means they want to pump Int, though they don't have to. Much like Favoured Souls and Wisdom, or Archivists and Wisdom. JaronK
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:53 PM	UA isn't core, it's just in the SRD. Yeah, but it's a varient of a Core class. If I told my players "you can't play core classes!" and they showed up with a Cloistered Cleric, a Divine Bard, and an Urban Ranger, I'd be annoyed. JaronK
JaronK 02-22-08, 07:54 PM	Darn native outsiders of Norse gods. Notice: They're not at all magical either. Less so than Warlocks! JaronK
Bauglir 02-22-08, 07:54 PM	Darn native outsiders of Norse gods. Yeah, it's that darned fluff that makes it so reasonable. Which is why I'm inclined to say that a being with magic infusing his very soul having the ability to use that magic instinctively to create magic items that he otherwise couldn't is perfectly reasonable. He can't do it on a whim, which is why he doesn't just cast Time Stop at will, but given the time and concentration (represented by crafting time and costs), he can force the power within him to do what he wants. They're like Sorcerer+ in terms of fluff. Would you ban a Sorcerer from magic item creation? You're perfectly within your rights as a good DM to require a Knowledge (arcana) or (religion) or what have you or a Spellcraft check to know just what the item ought to DO. I wouldn't call that unreasonable. But losing the ability is just silly.
Jaxgaret 02-22-08, 07:59 PM	Yeah, but it's a varient of a Core class. If I told my players "you can't play core classes!" and they showed up with a Cloistered Cleric, a Divine Bard, and an Urban Ranger, I'd be annoyed. JaronK Heh. Agreed.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 08:13 PM	Notice: They're not at all magical either. Less so than Warlocks! But they are Norse god forge dwarves. Would you ban a Sorcerer from magic item creation? Straw man. Sorcerers have to cast spells to create magic items.
JaronK 02-22-08, 08:25 PM	But they are Norse god forge dwarves. And Warlocks draw power from daemons. Both have appropriate routes to magical power, but the Dwarfs have less of it, since the Dwarfs can't cast at all, while the Warlocks have Spell Like abilities (which are magical, see PHB 180). JaronK
Bauglir 02-22-08, 08:25 PM	Hardly a straw man. You're relying on fluff to justify your opinion that Warlocks shouldn't be able to craft magic items. Warlocks have similar fluff to Sorcerers.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 08:43 PM	Hardly a straw man. You're relying on fluff to justify your opinion that Warlocks shouldn't be able to craft magic items. Warlocks have similar fluff to Sorcerers. Sorcerers have to cast spells to make magic items.
JaronK 02-22-08, 08:45 PM	Sorcerers have to cast spells to make magic items. Artificers don't! Neither do Midgaurd Dwarfs! JaronK
Bauglir 02-22-08, 09:08 PM	Sorcerers have to cast spells to make magic items. I know. That wasn't my point, and it wasn't yours until recently. In that case, I refer you to JaronK's post, which neatly points out examples showing that this need not be the case. Also, your statement is irrelevant. It's like saying that Fighters need to wear a Belt of Giant's Strength and an Amulet of Health, as well as take Iron Will, to get a +4 to Strength and Constitution and a +2 to Will saves, and thus Rage is a stupid idea and Barbarians shouldn't exist, despite the extra limitations Rage has (such as a -2 to AC). Letting you do things other classes can't is the whole point of class features. Otherwise Fighter would be the only class worth playing.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 10:20 PM	I know. That wasn't my point, and it wasn't yours until recently. It was my point the second the Sorcerer was brought up as a comparison :rolleyes:
Cartigan 02-22-08, 10:23 PM	Artificers don't! Neither do Midgaurd Dwarfs! Midgard Dwarves are forgers for the gods from some Norse plane and the Artificer only makes things - that is the entire point of the class. And the Artificer still expends XP and gold. Hell, the Warlock is better at dealing with magical items (in every way) than the Artificer. Try again.
larry_the_titan 02-22-08, 10:38 PM	:: Pulls up a chair and sits down and reads how Jason K and Cartigan have turned his one page thread into 5 while he was napping.:: To answer a few questions; ToB will not be banned as I think the classes aren't broken and the mechanics are quite balanced. Archivists and Artificers will not be banned as these players aren't the normal lets crash everything players that everyone thinks are the only thing that populates the Opts Boards. Warlocks and Artificers magic item making abilities will not be allowed to make scrolls that can be copied into spell books. Its the only sane way to run it. I can't decide whether or not to allow Dragon Compendium into the game. I do own a copy and like it but I think of it as being 3rd party. Though I might allow it because that means I can use the Hyper Cube rules at the party for some confusion and fun on all sides. Wow, you just said favoured souls suck and implied PHB melee classes don't in the same post. At risk of increasing this thread's already high noise to signal ratio, any credibility you might have had just got flushed down the toilet, Cartigan. I tend to have the same thoughts when reading his posts. But from time to time he addresses something important so I keep reading them in hopes of finding those specks of gold hidden with in. In this thread I haven't seen anything like that from him. OP, just out of curiosity, if a player wanted to play a DMG base class (say, an Expert for example) would that be allowed? Actually if they wanted to I wouldn't stop them. I do however have my own rules for the Warrior class as I actually think that they achieve what the Fighter fell to do. Create a Build your own class. The Replacements! # Barbarian :Hexblade? # Bard : Beguiler,Dragon Shaman,Marshal # Cleric :Archivist,Healer # Druid: spirit Shaman,Shugenja. # Fighter: Samurai,Duskblade,knigth # Monk: Spellthief? # Paladin:Knigth,Favored Soul # Ranger: Dragon Shaman? # Rogue: swashbuckler,scout,ninja # Sorcerers & Wizards: Warlock,Warmage,Wu-Jen. Things you will miss: - Perform Skill (in-class) - A few Fighter only feats - Rage,Wildshape,and Bard songs as class features(you can use spells instead ) - monk's flurry of blows - Paladin's mount - Domain spells - Sorcerer spellcasting Best things you will get: No monk, no paladin , and no druid. Thank you for your work. I didn't realize that Perform wouldn't be a class skill at all. Your replacement class list is a little off. I will dig through my books and see what I can find. Personally I only know 4 Class types that really need to be filled. Meat Shield, Sneak, Blaster, Healer. For the 4E fans these translate into Defender, Striker, Controller and Leader. They are easily filled by any number of classes and PrCs. The only thing tossing out the PHB classes does is it forces them to go into sometimes unknown territory to get the class features they want.
Bauglir 02-22-08, 10:49 PM	It was my point the second the Sorcerer was brought up as a comparison You're extending the analogy beyond its intent. The sorcerer was not brought up with regards to mechanics, but with regards to the fluff relating to them. You seem to have no problem with them creating magic items. Warlocks have Sorcerer fluff taken further. There is therefore no reason to have a problem with Sorcerers creating magic items on a purely fluff basis. Your problems, apparently, lie with the mechanics, which have been shown to be sound in other examples. Furthermore, you seem to have little difficulty accepting that beings with radically different fluff are capable of the very same task which you object so strongly to a Warlock doing; crafting magic items without spell slots or the appropriate spells known. And the Artificer still expends XP and gold. Hell, the Warlock is better at dealing with magical items (in every way) than the Artificer. The Warlock still spends XP and gold as well. You're misreading the text; when it says "he does not expend the XP or gp costs for making the item", it's referring to a possible failure. It simply means that he loses nothing for failing, but if he succeeds, he follows all the normal rules. You'll notice that the sentence continues after the semicolon to say "his progress is simply arrested." If the sentence did not refer to failure alone, the ability would be a waste of ink, as it would never be useful. Also, it appears in a paragraph about the consequences of his Use Magic Device check, not the overall crafting ability. In addition, Artificers have an XP pool dedicated to crafting and are able to apply metamagic feats to their items, which Warlocks cannot do. Also, being Int based, they are better at the craft checks associated with making items. So no, Warlocks are not better than Artificers at making magic items. They are worse at it. Try again. So far as I can tell, what we've established is that Warlocks do not have a game-breaking magic item creation mechanic, are not unique in being able to create magic items without casting spells, and have fluff acceptable for the purpose.
Cartigan 02-22-08, 11:06 PM	You're extending the analogy beyond its intent. The sorcerer was not brought up with regards to mechanics, but with regards to the fluff relating to them. Which becomes irrelevant when you look at mechanics :rolleyes: You seem to have no problem with them creating magic items. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO CAST SPELLS TO MAKE THEM I fail to see the disconnect that appears to exist here. The Warlock still spends XP and gold as well. You're misreading the text; when it says "he does not expend the XP or gp costs for making the item", it's referring to a possible failure. It simply means that he loses nothing for failing, but if he succeeds, he follows all the normal rules. You'll notice that the sentence continues after the semicolon to say "his progress is simply arrested." If the sentence did not refer to failure alone, the ability would be a waste of ink, as it would never be useful. Also, it appears in a paragraph about the consequences of his Use Magic Device check, not the overall crafting ability. Very well. However, the Artificer does expend XP and gold upon failing. Also, being Int based, they are better at the craft checks associated with making items. So no, Warlocks are not better than Artificers at making magic items. A warlock dedicated to making items? and have fluff acceptable for the purpose. I don't accept "fluff" as an explanation for every little thing.
dman11235 02-22-08, 11:13 PM	I don't accept "fluff" as an explanation for every little thing. Then why aren't you complaining about every single class being dumb and pointless? Mechanics follow fluff. With the exception of the fighter. Just about every class feature is a direct result of the fluff that the creator was going for, Warlocks included. EDIT: Also, yes, they expend spells to make it (sorc). Warlocks expend invocations. Think of it that way. They have an infinite* store of power to draw on. They expend some of it, and they still have infinite. They are pooring energies into it, just not in the form of spell slots. *at will
Cartigan 02-22-08, 11:19 PM	Then why aren't you complaining about every single class being dumb and pointless? Mechanics follow fluff. With the exception of the fighter. Just about every class feature is a direct result of the fluff that the creator was going for, Warlocks included. Then why don't Sorcerers have innate magic item creation, or all the other "natural arcane influence" classes and races? EDIT: Also, yes, they expend spells to make it (sorc). Warlocks expend invocations. Think of it that way. They have an infinite* store of power to draw on. They expend some of it, and they still have infinite. They are pooring energies into it, just not in the form of spell slots. *at will It doesn't work that way for Artificer so I will disagree.
Bauglir 02-22-08, 11:20 PM	I fail to see the disconnect that appears to exist here. Yes, I understand that they need to cast spells. Here's the disconnect: you agree that Sorcerer fluff is acceptable for a dedicated magic item producer. You agree that different mechanics other than casting actual spells are equally acceptable. You disagree that a dedicated character with Sorcerer fluff can use a different mechanic for magic item creation when that character has a different mechanic governing their basic class abilities. However, the Artificer does expend XP and gold upon failing. Honestly, how often is this likely to happen? With ranks and taking 10 and masterwork tools and a competence bonus item and so on and so forth. I'm not saying it's likely that a Warlock will fail, either. I'm just saying that, 99% of the time, the Artificer and Warlock are gonna come out even on whether or not they'll succeed. A warlock dedicated to making items? Is strictly inferior to an Artificer dedicated to the same. The Artificer will make more, due to his XP pool. The Artificer gets crafting feats as bonus feats. The Artificer can drain XP from other, less useful items, to make new ones at no cost to himself other than gp. The Artificer can apply metamagic feats on the fly to items, something a Warlock can only do with specific feats and a specific prestige class. The only two abilities a Warlock gets that aid in magic item use, an Artificer gets as well, only the Artificer gets the equivalent of Imbue Item earlier and the equivalent of Deceive Item later, which makes a good deal of thematic sense.
dman11235 02-22-08, 11:30 PM	Then why don't Sorcerers have innate magic item creation, or all the other "natural arcane influence" classes and races? Because only the Warlock is capable of pulling from its vast source of energies and make these energies coherent enough to congeal in an item, while not necessarily being able to duplicate the items power. The sorcerer only has the ability to call upon his powers to perform specific tasks, and must learn how to do them through research (learn spells). The warlock can just do it. It's more innate than the sorcerer.
Cartigan 02-23-08, 12:04 AM	Great. I don't really care any more. Why don't we just list non-core base classes in relevant categories.
GawainBS 02-23-08, 06:11 AM	Virtuoso + Sublime Chord. If only one base class has the ability (Druid = Wild Shape, Barb = Rage, Bard = BM), is that "forcing people to play base classes that don't fit their character whatsoever"? Yours is the hollow argument. Reflavoring is the answer. A Duskblade is a real gish. It's a fighter-mage. That's what a gish is. And there's plenty of ways to make a gish using non-core classes; to assert otherwise is ludicruous. Well, reflavouring can't get around the fact that for a rage, and thus several PrC's (FB, Bearwarrior, Runescarred Berserker,...) you need to be a Half-Orc, going by the argumentation earlier. A Warrior that inspires his comrades by singing? Virtuoso doesn't cut it, it doesn't grant Inspire Courage. Turn Undead? Why being forced to take things like Prefered Enemy(Not sure about the name.) when taking Sacred Exorcist just to get the turning? The point remains, by removing ALL core classes, you limit a lot of choices. To emulate something a player might be desperate to get, you're forcing him to go for a PrC (or a race, even harder to reflavour) that might be very, very specific in a campaign or in its background or abilities. Not to mention that you're actually forcing them to spread their resources to qualify for a PrC that they didn't want to take in the first place. About the gishes: Duskblade & Hexblade are no true gishes and you know it full well. No higher spell level than 5? Come on. Ftr2/Wiz8/EK10, that's a real gish. 16 + BAB, 9th lvl spells. The only viable way without core is by using Beguiler, but that has a VERY specific flavour already. It's mechanics & flavour are closely related. (Detect Traps, Feint, its skilllist,...) Not that as a character, it would be bad, far from it. Just very specific.
JaronK 02-23-08, 07:18 AM	A Warrior that inspires his comrades by singing? Virtuoso doesn't cut it, it doesn't grant Inspire Courage. Marshal could though. Obviously it's not the singing that does it, but you could explain his aura with singing (or oratory, or whatever else). Crusaders and Warblades using White Raven Tactics can make it work too. Certainly the concept of a warrior that inspires his comrades in battle is totally doable. As for rage, while it loses some PrCs (unless you go half Orc, and I think there's a few other methods), you can still have a similar character concept. "Savage Warrior who attacks his enemies in a frenzy of destruction" is totally doable as a Warblade, for example. About the gishes: Duskblade & Hexblade are no true gishes and you know it full well. No higher spell level than 5? Come on. They are gishes, just not optimized. If you want optimized gish, it would be tough to do as an arcane caster (though Dread Necromancers can do it surprisingly well... I'm playing one now and even in the midlevels I can melee devestatingly effectively), but easy as divine... Archivists don't even need to dip to be leathal melee warriors (though Sacred Exorcist helps). Or you could pull it off with Sublime Chord and Abjurant Champion... it would be a late bloomer, but you could get 9th level spells and 4 base attacks pretty easily that way. Heck, what about Factorum 1/Duskblade 9/Sublime Chord 4/Abjurant Champion 5/Spellsword 1? That's just off the top of my head, and would be a very effective Gish. JaronK
Cartigan 02-23-08, 09:48 AM	A Warrior that inspires his comrades by singing? Virtuoso doesn't cut it, it doesn't grant Inspire Courage. That's a fair point. Turn Undead? Why being forced to take things like Prefered Enemy(Not sure about the name.) when taking Sacred Exorcist just to get the turning? Dread Necromancer gets Rebuke Undead as a Cleric. The point remains, by removing ALL core classes, you limit a lot of choices. To emulate something a player might be desperate to get, you're forcing him to go for a PrC (or a race, even harder to reflavour) that might be very, very specific in a campaign or in its background or abilities. Well if he really wants to Turn Undead, the Sacred Exorcist is probably going to offer more than just that. Not to mention that you're actually forcing them to spread their resources to qualify for a PrC that they didn't want to take in the first place. The point I have been making since he first brought up "well you can replace core class abilities with PrCs.
Half_Dragon_Infernal 02-23-08, 11:10 AM	JaronK: You said Factorum again Cartigan: I agree with your last post. And you do fluff first, not mechanics. You pick your fluff, then pick your available mechanics to do it. OP: Could you post your redone warrior? I would recommend switching it to fighter, and allowing the fighter. A customisable fighter would work. NPC classes should usually be inferior to PC classes, and that's why you should keep the warrior as is.
larry_the_titan 02-23-08, 12:47 PM	OP: Could you post your redone warrior? I would recommend switching it to fighter, and allowing the fighter. A customisable fighter would work. NPC classes should usually be inferior to PC classes, and that's why you should keep the warrior as is. Well the problem with leaving the class as it was made it useless a PC class. I found the class name of Warrior more fitting then Fighter anyway. Here you go directly out of my rules write up; 14. The Warrior Class will be added to the list. Any player can take it. It will Receive Light and medium armor and Simple and Martial weapon and Shield proficiencies. Hit Dice will be D10. It receives Skills 2+int per level and 4 times that at first. It gets a Bonus Feat at 1st and 2nd level and every even level beyond that. It gets 4 skills of your choosing plus 2 knowledge skills and Profession as class skills. You get one good save of your choosing. It Base attack bonus progresses at the good rate. You can only take this class once and it progresses in Level off the choices you make when you first take it. There are a few notes you need to pay attention to as this is not the same warrior class people are used to dealing with. The Class skill list is determined by the player and the bonus feats aren't noted as fighter bonus feats. It can out do a fighter in almost every way let doesn't over power a wizard. Its meant to give the character combat skill and what they need to survive let doesn't give spell progression.
Jaxgaret 02-23-08, 12:51 PM	Well, reflavouring can't get around the fact that for a rage, and thus several PrC's (FB, Bearwarrior, Runescarred Berserker,...) you need to be a Half-Orc, going by the argumentation earlier. So you change Half-Orc Paragon to Rager Paragon, and remove the racial requirement. Bam, done. Was that so hard? A Warrior that inspires his comrades by singing? Virtuoso doesn't cut it, it doesn't grant Inspire Courage. Mythic Exemplar of Reikhardt gets Inspire Courage, and that class has very lenient entry requirements. Turn Undead? Why being forced to take things like Prefered Enemy(Not sure about the name.) when taking Sacred Exorcist just to get the turning? Binder and Dread Necromancer also get Turning as base classes. The point remains, by removing ALL core classes, you limit a lot of choices. You limit very, very few choices, with a bit of cooperation from the DM. To emulate something a player might be desperate to get, you're forcing him to go for a PrC (or a race, even harder to reflavour) that might be very, very specific in a campaign or in its background or abilities. That's the whole point of playing a non-core campaign - to get the players to try something new. About the gishes: Duskblade & Hexblade are no true gishes and you know it full well. No higher spell level than 5? Come on. Ftr2/Wiz8/EK10, that's a real gish. 16 + BAB, 9th lvl spells. WuJen3/Warblade3/Spellsword10/Bladesinger4 is also a gish, and gains access to 5th level spells with a +18 BAB. The mere fact that a build is unoptimized does not change its inherent nature.
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-23-08, 12:56 PM	My understanding was that the term "gish" refers to competence as much as concept, and that a character doesn't qualify unless they manage (pre-epic) at least a 4 attack full attack and 7th level spell/power access.
Jaxgaret 02-23-08, 01:02 PM	My understanding was that the term "gish" refers to competence as much as concept, and that a character doesn't qualify unless they manage (pre-epic) at least a 4 attack full attack and 7th level spell/power access. This post (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-626150) on the CO board by Tleilaxu_Ghola has a minimum restriction of 16+ BAB and 6th level spells by ECL 20. However, that is an "additional" restriction. His true definition of gish is thus: What is a "Gish?": There is a technical definition of gish and it's something along the lines of a skilled githyanki warrior that's either a rogue/wizard or a fighter/wizard. In common useage on these boards, the word has a broader meaning. The easiest way to define gish, as it is commonly used, is a hybrid of warrior and caster. Some hold the believe that a "gish" is strictly a arcane caster capable of melee combat, others broaden the definition to psionic or arcane. For the purposes of this competition, however, I define gish to be any magical system combined with a warrior to create a magically enhanced combat machine. How much a gish focuses on magic and how much a gish focuses on combat is up for you to decide. The guideline and constraints below will help ensure that your build fits this loose idea of a hybrid warrior-mage. Here are a couple links that discuss a more classic definition of the word "gish": shadow mage's gish thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=307309) JosephKell's gish thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=150451)
GawainBS 02-23-08, 01:05 PM	So you change Half-Orc Paragon to Rager Paragon, and remove the racial requirement. Bam, done. Was that so hard? So you just give Rage... Very solid way to go around. Bam, you messed up. Apparently, it wasn't that hard. About limiting: you might just limit taking lots of NON-CORE PrC's thus flying straight past the intention of players trying something new (= non-core.) Shaggy, thanks, that's what I was pointing out. Apart from that, Wu-Jen isn't so Gish-friendly, IIRC. The 6th spell level requirement still makes the Duskblade and Hexblade fall short. But I don't get it why you would go to all those lengths by refluffing each and every PrC JUST to get back every ability from core, while you could simply have kept the base classes and made people attentive on alternatives (if they exist) for their core-class choice. I find that restricting anything in D&D just makes the game change for the worse.
Jaxgaret 02-23-08, 01:12 PM	So you just give Rage... Very solid way to go around. Bam, you messed up. Apparently, it wasn't that hard. Could you explain your point more fully? You didn't really explain how I "messed up". The 6th spell level requirement still makes the Duskblade, Hexblade and Jaxgaret's example fall short. That was an additional restriction for a CO contest. Here is what shadow mage has to say on the more "classic" definition of gish: What is "gish"? Gish is the term used for any fighter/mage build where the character's focus in both spellcasting and martial combat is at least somewhat equal and where both aspects of the character are viable. Spellcasting and Manifesting (for psionics) can usually be used interchangeably. In order for a character to be considered "gish", they must be capable of higher level spellcasting (6th-9th level spells), or capable of attacks with BAB +15 to +18, or a combination of these two things. There are a few very rare exceptions to this rule and these, some examples being the hexblade, bard, 3.5 assassin, fist of zuoken, and warmind) and these are treated as very unusual characters despite their obviously gish-like abilities/tendencies. Note that he includes Hexblades. By extension, Duskblades and my above build are included, since they have better casting than the Hexblade. JospehKell likewise includes PsyWars as gishes. They do get 6th level powers, but they only have +15 BAB at level 20. A character with +18 BAB and 5th level spells is fairly equivalent in terms of "gishness". single-classed psychic warriors are considered gish.
GawainBS 02-23-08, 01:23 PM	Could you explain your point more fully? You didn't really explain how I "messed up". What non-core PrCs are being limited? Here is what shadow mage has to say: Note that he includes Hexblades. By changing the the Half-Orc Paragon you suddenly open it up to everybody (Good), while robbing the Half-Orc of its Paragon. (Bad.) Now, by taking Rage (= Rager Paragon), the character suddenly can become an Orc or Human Paragon, according to his abilities. Sounds pretty messed up to me. Limiting PrC's: You cut off access to certain abilities, which can be regained by other PrC's, thus forcing a character to delay his entrance in the PrC he wanted, while stretching his abilities across some more PrC's, which he had to take just to qualify for the one he wanted. All along the way, half of the PrC's has been re-fluffed, which might upset players who wanted those PrC's on their own. So, why not replacing the core classes with the "Generic Classes" rule from UA? Flavour to fill in to your heart's content, all the basic abilities available. Shadowmage's exceptions are generally too light on the casting side for me to be considered "gishes". I can agree with the Psychic Warrior, but that's a class on its own. Apart from that, a hexblade with his very particular fluff-mechanics combination (Curses) doesn't suit every concept you may have of a Gish. Once again proof enough that you're creating more problems than you're solving.
Jaxgaret 02-23-08, 01:26 PM	But I don't get it why you would go to all those lengths by refluffing each and every PrC JUST to get back every ability from core, while you could simply have kept the base classes and made people attentive on alternatives (if they exist) for their core-class choice. I find that restricting anything in D&D just makes the game change for the worse. You're missing the point. The DM is trying to get his players to experiment and try something new. The reflavoring comes in if a players insists on playing a concept that would normally utilize a core character - which is going against the whole point of what the DM is trying to do. In other words, the DM is being flexible, but is adhering to his "non-core-only" idea. If a player really wants to be a pain in the ass and play a character almost like a core class, they can. But the DM isn't letting the actual core class into play, so the other players can't complain that the other player is using a core class and they can't. Get it?
Jaxgaret 02-23-08, 01:31 PM	By changing the the Half-Orc Paragon you suddenly open it up to everybody (Good) Okay. , while robbing the Half-Orc of its Paragon. A Half-Orc can still take Rager Paragon. It's exactly the same. Now, by taking Rage (= Rager Paragon), the character suddenly can become an Orc or Human Paragon, according to his abilities. Sounds pretty messed up to me. Patently false: Obviously, a character can only take levels in the racial paragon class associated with his race. A human cannot take levels in dwarf paragon—only dwarves are capable of reflecting the highest virtues of dwarfhood by gaining levels in the dwarf paragon class. (Half-elves and half-orcs are an exception; see the Half-Elf Paragon and Half-Orc Paragon sections below.) This precludes a non-half-orc from using the Divided Ancestry ability of the Rager Paragon. Stop grasping at straws in an effort to disagree with everything I say. Shadowmage's exceptions are generally too light on the casting side for me to be considered "gishes". I can agree with the Psychic Warrior, but that's a class on its own. Apart from that, a hexblade with his very particular fluff-mechanics combination (Curses) doesn't suit every concept you may have of a Gish. I just quoted three CO regulars who agree with my interpretation. Where's your evidence? Once again proof enough that you're creating more problems than you're solving. What proof? You've proved nothing.
larry_the_titan 02-23-08, 01:40 PM	The main reason I came up with this idea was not because I was tired of playing the core classes only. It was because of an idea a DM through at me a while back. A single Class Campaign. It is probably not what you think it is. Take one base Class and a group of 4 players. You are only allowed Access to this one base class as written and unlimited access the PrCs. During the Wizard game each of the 4 player brought a different build with one volunteering into being the healer and the rest having to figure out how and what they were going to be playing. Trust me this task isn't easy to say the least. Not having other Base classes to fall back on made the builds and options really limited. The entire point was for my friends to move out of Core and enjoy it. They needed to learn how to work around it in the first place. Missing out on the options that the Players Handbook gives doesn't matter much if your knowledge of the system allows you to do everything you want even when limited from certain options.
Jaxgaret 02-23-08, 01:42 PM	The main reason I came up with this idea was not because I was tired of playing the core classes only. It was because of an idea a DM through at me a while back. A single Class Campaign. It is probably not what you think it is. Take one base Class and a group of 4 players. You are only allowed Access to this one base class as written and unlimited access the PrCs. During the Wizard game each of the 4 player brought a different build with one volunteering into being the healer and the rest having to figure out how and what they were going to be playing. Trust me this task isn't easy to say the least. Not having other Base classes to fall back on made the builds and options really limited. The entire point was for my friends to move out of Core and enjoy it. They needed to learn how to work around it in the first place. Missing out on the options that the Players Handbook gives doesn't matter much if your knowledge of the system allows you to do everything you want even when limited from certain options. I love campaigns like that. The all-Rogue party is awesome.
Shadowhowler 02-23-08, 02:06 PM	Like I said, I've never met anyone who actually played with ToB classes past about level 5 and didn't enjoy the experience... both on the player side and the DM side. I gotta admit, I didn't like the ToB when I first looked at it... mainly becuase (1) It was so differant and (2) It does tend to out-class the base classes it 'replaces'. However, after really reading threw it, thinking about it... and Talking to others online (mainly Stormwind) about it... I have come to kinda like it. However... I *DO* feel that if you have ToB classes in your game, you should discurage players from playing a regular Fighter or Monk or Paladin. Those Classes are SO overshadowed by the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader that players of those base classes in the same game with the ToB characters will eventualy feel impotant... unless their characters are HIGHLY optimized.
Shadowhowler 02-23-08, 02:08 PM	To make the class more flexible? It's easier to just say their scrolls don't work for putting spells into spellbooks (the same issue appears for Wizards, though it's less of an issue there) than to nerf Warlocks, who aren't all that powerful, as a roundabout way of taking down Wizards and Archivists. I agree. I like the Warlock class, but as a caster class, it is WAY down in the weak department. I would not take anything away from them... I'd think about enhancing them.
Shadowhowler 02-23-08, 02:35 PM	Warlocks can't cast magic, which I'm pretty sure is supposed to be the balancing factor on magic item crafting. Let's just then say any race with a magical bent who takes a class with use magic device as a class skill can make any magic items they want at 12th level I gotta dissagree with you on this one. Hard. Warlocks don't cast SPELLS. They do, however, use magic. Invocations are spell-like abilities. Warlocks learn a bunch of them... but moreover, they have to use arcane gestures to make them working... making them even more SPELL-like. Also, Warlocks are inately magical... having the abilitiy, as you pointed out earlier, to detect magic at will... and such a powerfull affinity with magic items (beter then anyong other then a Artificer) that they can take 10 with the use magic item skill. All of this points to a few things... 1. Warlocks are magical, they use magic, and are filled with magic. 2. Warlocks have an affinity for items of magic, and are highly adpet at the use of such items. This makes it a VERY simple segway in my mind to them creating magic items. They still have to by the craft feats (just like a Wizard) and they still need materials = to half the cost of the item (just like a wizard) and they still pay 1/25 the value in exp to make the item (just like a wizard. The only differance in the final product is, instead of using a specific spell to create a magic item as a wizard does... a Warlock uses his skill with magic items to directly channal his inane magic power into the item. I honestly can not see how you see this as NOT connected to the other abilties in the Warlock class. To me, it's as obvious and natural an extension of their other abilities as Hide in Plain Sight is natural extension of a Rangers Camouflage ability. It just makes sense.
GawainBS 02-23-08, 02:49 PM	Okay. A Half-Orc can still take Rager Paragon. It's exactly the same. Patently false: This precludes a non-half-orc from using the Divided Ancestry ability of the Rager Paragon. Stop grasping at straws in an effort to disagree with everything I say. I just quoted three CO regulars who agree with my interpretation. Where's your evidence? What proof? You've proved nothing. Yes, you quoted people. Awesome. Still, did it proof that all character concepts remained possible? No. I pointed out a concept, you quoted people to redefine the concept, and twisted it around so the newly defined concept is playable. So, to keep it Rage-ability in it, you instead make, infact, a new PrC? Just... Why? Is it so hard to admit that the OP's proposition, while perfectly original and valid and fun, could impose at least *some* problems? I did proof that you would have to go through a lot of hassle to play a lot of PrC's if you can't qualify easily to them due to coreclasses not being available.
JaronK 02-23-08, 06:15 PM	The main reason I came up with this idea was not because I was tired of playing the core classes only. It was because of an idea a DM through at me a while back. A single Class Campaign. It is probably not what you think it is. Take one base Class and a group of 4 players. You are only allowed Access to this one base class as written and unlimited access the PrCs. My group is putting together a similar campaign concept, though instead of using just one base class, instead everyone has the same class concept, but can build in in different ways. In this case, the idea is that everyone must be Ninjas. However, some people are Beguilers (magical ninjas) others use Swordsages for a more traditional ninja, etc. Should be fun. Missing out on the options that the Players Handbook gives doesn't matter much if your knowledge of the system allows you to do everything you want even when limited from certain options. Despite complaints to the contrary, I haven't heard a single character concept that couldn't be done outside the PHB. You might not be able to use Rage per se very easily, but you could do the concept of "Feral Warrior" quite easily with just Warblade. JaronK
JaronK 02-23-08, 06:22 PM	However... I *DO* feel that if you have ToB classes in your game, you should discurage players from playing a regular Fighter or Monk or Paladin. Those Classes are SO overshadowed by the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader that players of those base classes in the same game with the ToB characters will eventualy feel impotant... unless their characters are HIGHLY optimized. Certainly, you wouldn't want a pure Fighter next to a pure Warblade, unless that Fighter was actually an Archer (something Warblades can't do). That said, dips are fine (a Paladin 2/Crusader 18 for example, is just fine, as is Fighter 2/Warblade 18). Also, I find that the difference between Fighter and Warblade is roughly the same as the difference between Warblade and Wizard... the only reason Fighter feels so much worse is that Fighters and Warblades are the same sorts of characters, so you can see the power imbalance more clearly. But in the end, you're right of course. Warblades and Crusaders are there to replace Fighters (mostly). Crusaders replace Paladins. Swordsages REALLY replace monks. That's what they're there for, and they do it quite well... and certainly, in a situation like that of the OP, encouraging people who liked playing those classes to instead go after the ToB classes is a really good idea. JaronK
JaronK 02-23-08, 06:25 PM	So, to keep it Rage-ability in it, you instead make, infact, a new PrC? Just... Why? Is it so hard to admit that the OP's proposition, while perfectly original and valid and fun, could impose at least *some* problems? I did proof that you would have to go through a lot of hassle to play a lot of PrC's if you can't qualify easily to them due to coreclasses not being available. So here's a crazy idea: if the purpose of the OP is for people to try different stuff, why is it so necessary to allow PrCs that are heavily tied to the same old stuff? Frenzied Berserker, for example, is very much just a Barbarian with a few new tricks. Do you think the OP really wants people just mimicking Barbarians? I don't think so. I would imagine it's better to say "Okay, you want to play a feral warrior. You've been only looking at Barbarians for that. But look! Warblades! Swordsages! You could focus on Tiger Claw manuevers!" Then he actually gets something different, instead of a cheap hack roundabout way of playing yet another Barbarian. JaronK
GawainBS 02-23-08, 06:47 PM	So here's a crazy idea: if the purpose of the OP is for people to try different stuff, why is it so necessary to allow PrCs that are heavily tied to the same old stuff? Frenzied Berserker, for example, is very much just a Barbarian with a few new tricks. Do you think the OP really wants people just mimicking Barbarians? I don't think so. I would imagine it's better to say "Okay, you want to play a feral warrior. You've been only looking at Barbarians for that. But look! Warblades! Swordsages! You could focus on Tiger Claw manuevers!" Then he actually gets something different, instead of a cheap hack roundabout way of playing yet another Barbarian. JaronK Because I think a lot of players will want PrC's. :) You're right, I can't know which PrC the OP's players will want. But I think you should never bar a player from playing the concept he wants, the way he wants. That's why I hate & disgust RPGA with a passion. Anyway, I was only pointing out possible problems, some of which can be be solved or circumvented, as was proven. You can't deny however, that working around these possible problems partly remains "opening a chest with the key that's inside.":)
JaronK 02-23-08, 06:52 PM	Because I think a lot of players will want PrC's. :) You're right, I can't know which PrC the OP's players will want. But I think you should never bar a player from playing the concept he wants, the way he wants. That's why I hate & disgust RPGA with a passion. The thing is, using Rage isn't a character concept. Feral warrior that fights in a screaming frenzy is, but you can do that with Warblade or Swordsage quite easily (just say that when his manuevers run out, he's out of angry at the moment). Now, losing some PrCs is pesky, but if they were rage PrCs, they're heavily based on a core class anyway, which I think the OP was trying to get away from. Anyway, I was only pointing out possible problems, some of which can be be solved or circumvented, as was proven. You can't deny however, that working around these possible problems partly remains "opening a chest with the key that's inside.":) Warblade solves that to. Stone Dragon manuever to ignore the hardness of the chest, thus smashing a hole in it. Now grab the key and open it. Go ToB! :) JaronK
Jaxgaret 02-24-08, 12:13 AM	Yes, you quoted people. Awesome. Name another way for me to show evidence for what a "gish" is. It's not in any dictionary. Still, did it proof that all character concepts remained possible? No. Of course not. A gish is quite simple to create with non-core classes. I took a very unoptimized example for a reason; one could easily play a WuJen6/Warblade1/Spellsword8/AbjurantChampion5, garnering a +17 BAB and 8th level spells at ECL 20. There are plenty of other non-core gish builds that are by your (inflated) standards acceptable. I pointed out a concept, you quoted people to redefine the concept, and twisted it around so the newly defined concept is playable. I was making a point about the Duskblade being a gish. And I did not redefine anything, as the term gish was not defined in this thread to that point. I did not twist around anything, I merely quoted respected members of the forums of what their definition of gish is, and it agrees with my definition, because it is the definition. Not your ridiculous "must have 9th level spells" claim. Please stop with the attacking tone. So, to keep it Rage-ability in it, you instead make, infact, a new PrC? Just... Why? Because the player asked for it. No other reason. Is it so hard to admit that the OP's proposition, while perfectly original and valid and fun, could impose at least *some* problems? Is it so hard to admit that the OP's proposition, which is perfectly original and valid and fun, would impose *very few* problems if the players and DM aren't asshats and work together amicably? I did proof that you would have to go through a lot of hassle to play a lot of PrC's if you can't qualify easily to them due to coreclasses not being available. How did you "proof" this? Where? When? The only hassle is if a player insists on playing familiar mechanics. For 99.9% of builds there are alternate mechanics that work just as well for the character concept.
GawainBS 02-24-08, 05:03 AM	Name another way for me to show evidence for what a "gish" is. It's not in any dictionary. Of course not. A gish is quite simple to create with non-core classes. I took a very unoptimized example for a reason; one could easily play a WuJen6/Warblade1/Spellsword8/AbjurantChampion5, garnering a +17 BAB and 8th level spells at ECL 20. There are plenty of other non-core gish builds that are by your (inflated) standards acceptable. I was making a point about the Duskblade being a gish. And I did not redefine anything, as the term gish was not defined in this thread to that point. I did not twist around anything, I merely quoted respected members of the forums of what their definition of gish is, and it agrees with my definition, because it is the definition. Not your ridiculous "must have 9th level spells" claim. Please stop with the attacking tone. Because the player asked for it. No other reason. Is it so hard to admit that the OP's proposition, which is perfectly original and valid and fun, would impose *very few* problems if the players and DM aren't asshats and work together amicably? How did you "proof" this? Where? When? The only hassle is if a player insists on playing familiar mechanics. For 99.9% of builds there are alternate mechanics that work just as well for the character concept. Wujen has a rather gish-unfriendly spelllist, unless you start adding SpC spells on a case-by-case basis. A Duskblade uses his spells for a bit more damage and slight battlefield control. His list is very, very limited. That's not a gish for me. A gish is a kind of "Swiss-Army Knife". I wonder, if the DM & his players work so friendly together, why would he need to forbid certain classes? Wouldn't they simply heed his advice and look beyond core? I don't need to proof anything, it's a simple fact: you're actually closing down a lot of PrC's, or only making them available by going in another PrC first. I don't think this is good for immersion, despite all the refluffing you might wish to do. There's almost always the matter of an out-of-tone skilllist, abilities that would look strange for that character, etc. This does not mean that it will always be the case. It might not be in the OP's situation. In general, however, I've seen it happen all too much that a player really want to play a particular PrC, for both fluff & mechanics. Just something to keep in mind. If the players wouldn't be intrested in PrC's, no problem. If you keep refusing to acknowledge this, it's rather a pity that you're thinking so rigidly. But hey, you've got it easier to become Psionicly Focused. Which is quite cool, given it's my favourite book after ToB. ;)
JaronK 02-24-08, 06:10 AM	A Duskblade uses his spells for a bit more damage and slight battlefield control. His list is very, very limited. That's not a gish for me. A gish is a kind of "Swiss-Army Knife". A gish is just an arcane cast/melee hybrid. Duskblades are, in fact, gishes. That said, you could easily make an optimized gish with Sublime Chord/Abjurant Champion, using Factotum for the perform ranks. I don't need to proof anything, it's a simple fact: you're actually closing down a lot of PrC's, or only making them available by going in another PrC first. I don't think this is good for immersion, despite all the refluffing you might wish to do. There's almost always the matter of an out-of-tone skilllist, abilities that would look strange for that character, etc. But you don't close down any character concepts (including Gishes, see above). There's no need for out of town skill sets either. I mean really, name a character concept that can't be played without the core classes... I certainly can't. There are some specific mechanics you might have trouble using, but not any character concepts. JaronK
GawainBS 02-24-08, 06:53 AM	A gish is just an arcane cast/melee hybrid. Duskblades are, in fact, gishes. That said, you could easily make an optimized gish with Sublime Chord/Abjurant Champion, using Factotum for the perform ranks. But you don't close down any character concepts (including Gishes, see above). There's no need for out of town skill sets either. I mean really, name a character concept that can't be played without the core classes... I certainly can't. There are some specific mechanics you might have trouble using, but not any character concepts. JaronK I would have problems with your above build: why should I be forced to have ranks in Perform to be an effective gish? That's what I meant with strange abilities sneaking in. Same goes for your feralwarrior depicted by a Warblade: A savage that uses his intellect to get the most out of combat? You could ignore those abilities, but then you aren't playing your class to the fullest. On the Duskblade: It can cast spells, sure, but its scope is very limited. That's not what I want in a gish. I want it do be able to do other things than doing damage in several ways. I finally put my finger on what I think of in a gish: Buffing!
JaronK 02-24-08, 07:04 AM	I would have problems with your above build: why should I be forced to have ranks in Perform to be an effective gish? That's what I meant with strange abilities sneaking in. Same goes for your feralwarrior depicted by a Warblade: A savage that uses his intellect to get the most out of combat? You could ignore those abilities, but then you aren't playing your class to the fullest. Then be a Swordsage. Now you're a feral warrior who doesn't need Int, but you still get pounce, feral death blow, and a bunch of other savage abilities. On the Duskblade: It can cast spells, sure, but its scope is very limited. That's not what I want in a gish. I want it do be able to do other things than doing damage in several ways. I finally put my finger on what I think of in a gish: Buffing! Then swap to divine, play an Archivist, and buff away (and use Divine Power/Divine Favor for full BAB and awesome melee abilities). Heck, Artificer 14/Sacred Exorcist 1/Shadowcraft Mage 5 would be a brutally powerful gish right there if you used the right persistant spells. Or be an Artificer, who can also buff like crazy. Or use Arcane Disciple to get a few more buff spells onto your list. Sandshaper would also get you a ton of new spells, including buffs. Binders can also give gish-like tricks, and a Binder 7/Wu Jen 3/Anima Mage 10 would have some nasty melee abilities in addition to great buffing. Or use the divine adapted Anima Mage to play a Binder 1/Archivist 3/Anima Mage 10/Sacred Exorcist 1/Tenebrous Apostate 5 and persist tons of spells per day to melee like a rabid cougar! JaronK
GawainBS 02-24-08, 07:08 AM	Then be a Swordsage. Now you're a feral warrior who doesn't need Int, but you still get pounce, feral death blow, and a bunch of other savage abilities. Then swap to divine, play an Archivist, and buff away (and use Divine Power/Divine Favor for full BAB and awesome melee abilities). Heck, Artificer 14/Sacred Exorcist 1/Shadowcraft Mage 5 would be a brutally powerful gish right there if you used the right persistant spells. Or be an Artificer, who can also buff like crazy. Or use Arcane Disciple to get a few more buff spells onto your list. Sandshaper would also get you a ton of new spells, including buffs. Binders can also give gish-like tricks, and a Binder 7/Wu Jen 3/Anima Mage 10 would have some nasty melee abilities in addition to great buffing. Or use the divine adapted Anima Mage to play a Binder 1/Archivist 3/Anima Mage 10/Sacred Exorcist 1/Tenebrous Apostate 5 and persist tons of spells per day to melee like a rabid cougar! JaronK A Swordsage is bit frailt, with a poor Fort save, d8 HD for a feral warrior as I see it. Swapping to divine? I want the whole Arcane-spells concept, not the worship/faith/inspiration idea.
JaronK 02-24-08, 07:23 AM	A Swordsage is bit frailt, with a poor Fort save, d8 HD for a feral warrior as I see it. Swapping to divine? I want the whole Arcane-spells concept, not the worship/faith/inspiration idea. But Swordsages do get great AC without using advanced "civilized" armour. Once you PrC into Bloodclaw Master, you're really rocking the feral warrior thing, too. Something like Warblade 2/Swordsage 13/Bloodclaw Master 5 would be brutal, and would have decent hitpoints too, nearly as many as a D10 class. Your Fort Save would be +13 base by level 20, which is better than a straight Barbarian. And you even get a rage like ability. Heck, that's a very interesting and fun ferral warrior build right there. If you don't want divine, then Binder 7/Wu Jen 3/Anima Mage 10 might work for you, granting 6th level spells (including the ability to persist three of them per day, how's that for buffing?) along with the wonderful 24 hour buffs granted by three vestiges. If you prefer, you could swap to Binder 1/Wu Jen 4/Anima Mage 10/Abjurant Champion 5 and have respectable casting to go with your 2 vestiges a day and 3 free persistant spells. After all, the point of this is to try out new concepts, right? JaronK
dman11235 02-24-08, 09:36 AM	And as a swordsage you can go with the unarmed variant and take Fist of the Forest. Nothing gets more feral than that.
Otto the Bugbear 02-24-08, 09:38 AM	The main reason I came up with this idea was not because I was tired of playing the core classes only. ... The entire point was for my friends to move out of Core and enjoy it. They needed to learn how to work around it in the first place. Missing out on the options that the Players Handbook gives doesn't matter much if your knowledge of the system allows you to do everything you want even when limited from certain options. I think it's a great idea, and I'd love to play in a game like that. I really don't see any problems with going forward with it. That previous list, though incomplete, was a pretty fair representation of what you'll be getting. It missed out in a few places, but overall the party can cover the four main areas if they wish it -- arcane, divine, melee, skill.
Jaxgaret 02-24-08, 02:04 PM	Double post.
Jaxgaret 02-24-08, 02:05 PM	Wujen has a rather gish-unfriendly spelllist, unless you start adding SpC spells on a case-by-case basis. You can use the Sha'ir from DMC for more spell versatility. A Duskblade uses his spells for a bit more damage and slight battlefield control. His list is very, very limited. That's not a gish for me. A gish is a kind of "Swiss-Army Knife". It's all fine and dandy that you have your own definition of the word gish, but your definition of gish does not agree with the board consensus of what a gish is. The boards here work by comparing consensus, not house rules. I wonder, if the DM & his players work so friendly together, why would he need to forbid certain classes? Wouldn't they simply heed his advice and look beyond core? Even good players can fall into a rut and need a prod to try something new. This type of campaign avoids the problem of some players branching out and playing non-core classes, but some of them still playing core classes. That would defeat the whole purpose of having all the players experiment. I don't need to proof anything, it's a simple fact: you're actually closing down a lot of PrC's, or only making them available by going in another PrC first. Maybe 1% of all PrCs would not be available in a non-core-only game, and another couple of percent will need a bit of reflavoring or restructuring to get to work. 95+% of all PrCs will be unaffected by the campaign non-core-only, and all available base classes will obviously be unaffected. I don't think this is good for immersion, despite all the refluffing you might wish to do. There's almost always the matter of an out-of-tone skilllist, abilities that would look strange for that character, etc. This does not mean that it will always be the case. It might not be in the OP's situation. In general, however, I've seen it happen all too much that a player really want to play a particular PrC, for both fluff & mechanics. Just something to keep in mind. I think you're really overstating the issue, since this campaign will still give a player a wider selection of mechanics to choose from than a comparable core+non-core campaign from a year or two ago due to additional access to splatbooks. If you keep refusing to acknowledge this, it's rather a pity that you're thinking so rigidly. But hey, you've got it easier to become Psionicly Focused. More personal attacks. I'll ask you yet again: could you please discontinue those. I am refusing to acknowledge nothing, as I have answered all of your points. Please explain to me how I am thinking rigidly; I am the one advocating that the OP has options to implement the campaign that he wants, not attempting to limit his vision. That would be your stance.
tenguroEd 02-24-08, 09:22 PM	Well, there are a lot of reasons to keep the core 11. First off, no other class is a wizard. No other class is a druid. Spirit Shaman comes close in flavor, but no. Not really at all. Ranger, same deal, but it does have the scout. That's a possible trade. Fighter, the Warblade replaces it. Monk: swordsage. Paladin: Crusader (these last three from the Tome of Replacements (ToB)). Cleric: Favoured Soul is close, but no cigar. Bard, I've got nothin'. Save maybe, possibly the marshal, butit really doesn't do it. Completely different flavor. Barbarian: there is nothing that can replace it. Rogue: well, the Swordsage, Ninja, Scout, and Spellthief can be the ones that replace it, but they all have very different mechanics from it. If anything, the core 11 can replace (with some combination of these 11 and the PrCs out there) most of the non-core base classes. But not the other way around. If ya wanna do it, go ahead. But I'd advise not doing it. Well I would say that the warblade could also replace the barbarian.
dman11235 02-24-08, 09:38 PM	Almost, but not really. Sure Tiger Claw can represent much of the flavor, but it was really meant to replace the fighter. Barbarian still has its place.
archerpwr 02-25-08, 12:33 AM	Almost, but not really. Sure Tiger Claw can represent much of the flavor, but it was really meant to replace the fighter. Barbarian still has its place. I'd say that ironheart has some barbarian in it too. Ironheart endurance represents rage's con boost pretty well. Punishing stance is damage for AC, which is a poor man's rage.
Otto the Bugbear 02-25-08, 07:10 AM	Not to mention every single damage boosting strike out there. Or the fact that rage isn't really necessary to run a D&D game. (see 2ed)
dman11235 02-25-08, 10:04 AM	I still say it's not exactly the same. It's like ninja vs rogue. It's very similar, but not quite the same. Sure you can duplicate the mechanics total effect kinda, but I just don't see it as a replacement, more of an augment.
Half_Dragon_Infernal 02-25-08, 10:28 AM	Looking at this thread, I'm sort of useless cause i don't have ToB, but I would say that if the maneuvers can do what you say they can, then the Barbarian, although still pretty strong, is not needed. Not even Rage.
larry_the_titan 02-25-08, 11:22 AM	I still say it's not exactly the same. It's like ninja vs rogue. It's very similar, but not quite the same. Sure you can duplicate the mechanics total effect kinda, but I just don't see it as a replacement, more of an augment. The point wasn't to allow them to completely duplicate the classes they aren't allowed. That would completely make this idea useless in the first place. The entire point was to get the players to get out and play new classes with out being able to fall back on the old ones. With the overall goal of them to learn new things. Rage, Bardic music and Wild Shaping are completely unneeded aspects of the game. They shouldn't be the only things that prevent the game from running. If you can come up with something important that is needed I will certainly consider converting it into a feat.
Cartigan 02-25-08, 02:25 PM	Rage, Bardic music and Wild Shaping are completely unneeded aspects of the game. They shouldn't be the only things that prevent the game from running. If you can come up with something important that is needed I will certainly consider converting it into a feat. There is only one class ability that I can think of that is a necessity for a game and that is Trap Finding, and three non-core classes have it.
Shadowhowler 02-25-08, 04:04 PM	There is only one class ability that I can think of that is a necessity for a game and that is Trap Finding, and three non-core classes have it. I wouldn't even say thats a necessity... tho it is certaily useful to have someone in an adventuring party with that ability. I have played in and ran games for party's without the Rogue archtype... and they were good games.
Cartigan 02-25-08, 04:10 PM	I wouldn't even say thats a necessity... tho it is certaily useful to have someone in an adventuring party with that ability. I have played in and ran games for party's without the Rogue archtype... and they were good games. I'm not saying you can't go without it, but it is the only class ability I can think of that provides a necessary service to the game as opposed to just a unique character option - only characters with trap finding can find high level traps (except for Dwarves and stone, but that doesn't really count for purposes of the discussion).
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-25-08, 04:31 PM	Anyone who can summon/call creatures similar enough to the party to set off anything they would, and send them ahead, can find traps. ;)
JaronK 02-25-08, 05:06 PM	There is only one class ability that I can think of that is a necessity for a game and that is Trap Finding, and three non-core classes have it. Artificer, Beguiler, CA Ninja, Spellthief, and Scout all have it. There's even some PrCs that grant it IIRC. JaronK
Cartigan 02-25-08, 05:12 PM	For the third time, I am talking about Base Classes. PrCs are being discounted because they are PrCs and you have to qualify for them. If the Artificer has Trap Finding, then it is 4.
OneWinged4ngel 02-25-08, 05:14 PM	Artificer, Beguiler, CA Ninja, Spellthief, and Scout all have it. There's even some PrCs that grant it IIRC. JaronK Not to mention the Factotum.
dman11235 02-25-08, 05:18 PM	So six non-core base, and then some PrCs. And summoning can fulfill the purpose as well. So any full caster, and some non-full. And you can always just smash the trap. Martial Adepts (I'm thinking mostly about the Mountain Hammer ones) get into that action, and so can any melee heavy base class, as long as they overcome hardness enough.
Cartigan 02-25-08, 05:19 PM	And you can always just smash the trap. By which you mean "set it off accidentally because you couldn't find it." Disabling and finding are separate things.
JaronK 02-25-08, 05:21 PM	Anyone with Animate Dead also can get very handy trapfinders in the form of 1HD skeletons. I like using Chickens for the purpose, but that's just my sense of humor. JaronK
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-25-08, 05:21 PM	Some traps trigger repeatedly - blundering into them and setting them off once doesn't disable them. Times like that, smashing may in fact be useful.
JaronK 02-25-08, 05:25 PM	Well sure, but I thought we were talking about detection, not disabling. JaronK
OneWinged4ngel 02-25-08, 05:25 PM	For the third time, I am talking about Base Classes. PrCs are being discounted because they are PrCs and you have to qualify for them. If the Artificer has Trap Finding, then it is 4. No, it's not four. I can think of nine noncore classes off the top of my head, and I don't have any experience with things like Tome of Magic or Incarnum. I wouldn't be surprised if a soulmeld or vestige granted a trapfinding sort of ability, too. Those 9 are... Scout, Ninja, Factotum, Artificer, Archivist, Cloistered Cleric, spellthief, beguiler, and psychic rogue. Actually, I guess you could take any of the variant bards and then add the one variant that gives them trapfinding, too. So that's another on the list. I don't have my books in front of me right now, though, so I can't check. But seriously, where do you get off proclaiming that there's "just four"? Heck, JaronK just listed five in the post before yours, and you just blatantly ignored that.
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-25-08, 05:26 PM	Send summoned monster ahead and watch for something to pop out and kill it. Smash whatever popped out and killed it. ????? Profit.
Cartigan 02-25-08, 05:32 PM	No, it's not four. I can think of nine noncore classes off the top of my head, and I don't have any experience with things like Tome of Magic or Incarnum. I wouldn't be surprised if a soulmeld or vestige granted a trapfinding sort of ability, too. Those 9 are... Scout, Ninja, Factotum, Artificer, Archivist, Cloistered Cleric, spellthief, beguiler, and psychic rogue. Actually, I guess you could take any of the variant bards and then add the one variant that gives them trapfinding, too. So that's another on the list. I don't have my books in front of me right now, though, so I can't check. But seriously, where do you get off proclaiming that there's "just four"? Heck, JaronK just listed five in the post before yours, and you just blatantly ignored that. I'm pretty sure variant core classes are core classes. And where does the Archivist gain trap finding? I don't recall the Scout getting it but I could be wrong.
OneWinged4ngel 02-25-08, 05:37 PM	I'm pretty sure variant core classes are core classes. Most would consider the Cloistered Cleric to be a noncore class, because it's not printed in the core book, and it's a different class than the Cleric. I suppose you think the Psychic Rogue is a core class too? And where does the Archivist gain trap finding? That should be obvious. Find traps is a second level divine spell. :rolleyes:
OneWinged4ngel 02-25-08, 05:39 PM	(Sorry, my edit button is broken for some reason, so double post...) Oh, and that reminds me! The Favored Soul can learn cleric spells too, can't he? That adds him to the list of things that can get Trapfinding too.
dman11235 02-25-08, 05:40 PM	Scout gets it as per Errata.
Cartigan 02-25-08, 05:41 PM	Most would consider the Cloistered Cleric to be a noncore class, because it's not printed in the core book, and it's a different class than the Cleric. I suppose you think the Psychic Rogue is a core class too? Alot of class variants and substitution levels arn't core. That should be obvious. Find traps is a second level divine spell. :rolleyes: Then your list is very short :rolleyes: Scout gets it as per Errata. No, it gets Disable Device as per errata.
JaronK 02-25-08, 05:42 PM	Cartigan wouldn't like it, but a Favoured Soul/Contemplative could get the Kobold domain, which would grant trapfinding. I actually wouldn't count the Cloistered Cleric, on the grounds that the goal of the OP was probably not to use varients of PHB classes. Certainly, though, there's plenty of classes that grant trapfinding, and a good number that can pull off the character concepts of the Rogue (Factotum being the most obvious one, I can't believe I forgot that, but Beguiler and Scout also do it quite well). JaronK
OneWinged4ngel 02-25-08, 05:44 PM	Alot of class variants and substitution levels arn't core. No, really? What's your point? Then your list is very short What list? How is that even remotely linked to the text you quoted?
Cartigan 02-25-08, 05:47 PM	No, really? What's your point? The point being that it doesn't magically make new classes. What list? How is that even remotely linked to the text you quoted? I meant the other guy's list.
dman11235 02-25-08, 05:58 PM	Then it already has Trapfinding.
Jaxgaret 02-25-08, 07:45 PM	The point wasn't to allow them to completely duplicate the classes they aren't allowed. That would completely make this idea useless in the first place. The entire point was to get the players to get out and play new classes with out being able to fall back on the old ones. With the overall goal of them to learn new things. Rage, Bardic music and Wild Shaping are completely unneeded aspects of the game. They shouldn't be the only things that prevent the game from running. If you can come up with something important that is needed I will certainly consider converting it into a feat. QFT and backs up my earlier posts.
larry_the_titan 02-25-08, 08:51 PM	Artificer, Beguiler, CA Ninja, Spellthief, and Scout all have it. There's even some PrCs that grant it IIRC. JaronK Not to mention the Factotum. For the third time, I am talking about Base Classes. PrCs are being discounted because they are PrCs and you have to qualify for them. If the Artificer has Trap Finding, then it is 4. Man, while I agree with you on the fact that only base classes with no mods should count for this. Your counting skills are lacking. Artificer, Beguiler, Ninja, Spellthief, Scout and Factotum all have trapfinding. That is 6 not 4. Add in a few PrCs and it gets pretty easy to get Trapfinding. And considering my current count of Base classes allowed is right at 45 plus my Warrior Variant. 2:15 is a still a better ratio the 1:11 of a standard core only game.
Otto the Bugbear 02-25-08, 09:47 PM	And even if there were zero with trapfinding, you're the DM. You can still make a campaign run without one in the party. Just don't put in any gygaxian traps! It's like people are arguing against changing the entire game, forcing WotC to publish a game like you're proposing, confiscate all their books, erase the core classes, and force them to play that way too. :rolleyes: No, wait, http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyesbarf.gif
NineInchNall 02-25-08, 10:00 PM	And even if there were zero with trapfinding, you're the DM. You can still make a campaign run without one in the party. Just don't put in any gygaxian traps! DING DING DING!!! Otto wins the thread. Srsly, guys. :rolleyes:
Shadowhowler 02-25-08, 10:37 PM	I'm not saying you can't go without it, but it is the only class ability I can think of that provides a necessary service to the game as opposed to just a unique character option - only characters with trap finding can find high level traps (except for Dwarves and stone, but that doesn't really count for purposes of the discussion). A point well taken.
OneWinged4ngel 02-25-08, 10:37 PM	http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyesbarf.gif That is quite possibly one of the sweetest smiley faces ever. http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyesbarf.gif
Shadowhowler 02-25-08, 10:41 PM	Then it already has Trapfinding. That is correct. The scout has Trapfinding as printed in the Complete Adventurer. It was MENT to have disable Device, but that was a screwup, and it was fixed in errata.
dman11235 02-25-08, 11:30 PM	That is correct. The scout has Trapfinding as printed in the Complete Adventurer. It was MENT to have disable Device, but that was a screwup, and it was fixed in errata. I knew it was one or the other. I guess I should have checked first. And I second the Otto winning the thread.
Cartigan 02-25-08, 11:47 PM	And even if there were zero with trapfinding, you're the DM. You can still make a campaign run without one in the party. Just don't put in any gygaxian traps! It's like people are arguing against changing the entire game, forcing WotC to publish a game like you're proposing, confiscate all their books, erase the core classes, and force them to play that way too. That wasn't the point at all. The point was "what class feature actually has a relevant affect on the game outside of making the class unique" the only answer I could think of was "trap finding." It was just a general analysis, not meant to start all this inane crap and get idiotic gifs posted.
larry_the_titan 02-26-08, 09:05 AM	That wasn't the point at all. The point was "what class feature actually has a relevant affect on the game outside of making the class unique" the only answer I could think of was "trap finding." It was just a general analysis, not meant to start all this inane crap and get idiotic gifs posted. I have to agree the picture does distract from the discussion at hand. Plus its not that good of a picture anyway. Original barely but not good in design and use. Now back to the topic at hand. If trapfinding is the only must then 6 other classes already have it. Leaving you with little reason to argue unless you want to go back to the list of other classes you would recommend banning. Since I wanted everything to be used other then the PHB Classes I don't care about what you think should be banned. If anything I would like to teach the group of the power of the Artificer and Archivist as most of there past DMs have been rather restrictive. ToB and XPH are also things I would love for them to use. All of those classes make great Adventurers. I actually always run a Artificer NPC of some kind in my games so players can get Magical items when they can afford them. I also been consider the concept to run one as a BBEG who hunts down Artifacts in order to use there power to make nearly all powerful magic Items. Why shouldn't I atleast give the players the same options.
Jaxgaret 02-26-08, 09:13 AM	Since I wanted everything to be used other then the PHB Classes I don't care about what you think should be banned. If anything I would like to teach the group of the power of the Artificer and Archivist as most of there past DMs have been rather restrictive. ToB and XPH are also things I would love for them to use. All of those classes make great Adventurers. I actually always run a Artificer NPC of some kind in my games so players can get Magical items when they can afford them. I also been consider the concept to run one as a BBEG who hunts down Artifacts in order to use there power to make nearly all powerful magic Items. Why shouldn't I atleast give the players the same options. Sounds like a reasonable and caring DM to me. Keep up the good work. :cookie:
Cartigan 02-26-08, 09:40 AM	I have to agree the picture does distract from the discussion at hand. Plus its not that good of a picture anyway. Original barely but not good in design and use. Now back to the topic at hand. If trapfinding is the only must then 6 other classes already have it. Leaving you with little reason to argue unless you want to go back to the list of other classes you would recommend banning. I was never arguing about anything, I was just making a general analysis - the conclusion being the only class feature that has a relevant affect on the world is trap finding and plenty of classes have it already. And teach them the "power of the Archivist"? You mean that if they take advantage of the rules that allow all other classes and that Artificer/Warlock can make any scroll for a spell that exists that they can have practically every spell in the game if they combine those two rules? I'm sure encouraging that will improve the game, and any future ones they play.
larry_the_titan 02-26-08, 10:41 AM	And teach them the "power of the Archivist"? You mean that if they take advantage of the rules that allow all other classes and that Artificer/Warlock can make any scroll for a spell that exists that they can have practically every spell in the game if they combine those two rules? I'm sure encouraging that will improve the game, and any future ones they play. Already addressed that earlier in the thread. As I hate to repeat myself I will use a qoute. Warlocks and Artificers magic item making abilities will not be allowed to make scrolls that can be copied into spell books. Its the only sane way to run it. Now then as these players are not Optimizers like myself and rarely dealt with game breaking stuff I don't think I will even have to tell them not to do that. If I do I will atleast know they are learning the game better then they had previously. To put it simply they had an almost 2 hour debate during a previous game session about monkey grip and Oversized weaponry. I am not the current DM because if I was the rules wouldn't of been up for debate as I already know the RAW answer to it.
JaronK 02-26-08, 05:16 PM	If you're nerfing the Warlock->Archivist scroll connection, then Archivists should be fine... especially if your group is still thinking in terms of Monkey Grip! Archivists are great ways to make plot hooks. Saying something as simple as "there's a Divine Bard walking around that town across the country" is a great way to make the Archivist player drag the group over to said town. JaronK
ThePope 02-27-08, 04:04 AM	Wow read through the whole thread and... well Cartigan you show an IMPRESSIVE ability to totally negate 90% of an argument by seemingly just ignoring it... Personally I feel tired just watching you get knocked down over and over and keep coming back for more. larry, aside from probably having to spend some time houseruling certain prereqs for PrCs i think that your idea is wonderful. i've gotten stuck with WAY too many DMs who are terrified of non-core stuff and force me to choose builds that i'm not too interested in. (and i'm by no means a wild and crazy optimizer to be afraid of) if ya run a game in the Bay area gimme a call :D
Cartigan 02-27-08, 07:45 AM	Wow read through the whole thread and... well Cartigan you show an IMPRESSIVE ability to totally negate 90% of an argument by seemingly just ignoring it... Personally I feel tired just watching you get knocked down over and over and keep coming back for more. Based on what? My tendency to not take fluff as an explanation for why classes can do something with effects outside of the class? And I do like how everyone insists on flame-baiting in every post because bringing up me is totally relevant to the topic. I'm glad I'm more popular than it is.
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 08:07 AM	Based on what? My tendency to not take fluff as an explanation for why classes can do something with effects outside of the class? I still would like to see you respond to my post about how making magic items is totaly WITHIN the scope of the Warlock class.
Cartigan 02-27-08, 09:26 AM	I still would like to see you respond to my post about how making magic items is totaly WITHIN the scope of the Warlock class. My response is I totally disagree.
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 09:38 AM	My response is I totally disagree. Well, *THAT* was informative... :thinks:
Enigmis 02-27-08, 09:49 AM	Well, *THAT* was informative... :thinks: His point is that warlocks should not be able to create magic items the way. But they do... that's about it.
larry_the_titan 02-27-08, 10:04 AM	My response is I totally disagree. Alright Cartigan, now I have a more defined question for you. Is there a game balance reason why they shouldn't be able to make the items? Consider my earlier ruling being in effect when considering your reasons. If there is still a problem with that, I will consider making other rulings.
dman11235 02-27-08, 10:09 AM	And he also ignores the fact that crunch follows fluff, as I have shown earlier in this thread. They've got the flavor, and then they have the abilities to support said flavor. So yeah. Classes don't use fluff to explain class features, other way around.
dman11235 02-27-08, 10:11 AM	Game balance: no. It's their most powerful ability. It turns them from being underpowered to fairly balanced, on the cusp of overpowered.
ThePope 02-27-08, 11:55 AM	Based on what? My tendency to not take fluff as an explanation for why classes can do something with effects outside of the class? And I do like how everyone insists on flame-baiting in every post because bringing up me is totally relevant to the topic. I'm glad I'm more popular than it is. so if you ignore the fluff text of a class then what are you going to use to determine what a class can and can't do? i mean its like making a character in general, you think about who you want your guy (or girl) to be then you go out and find classes with abilities that support that image. we lowly players mix classes to get our desired effect, the devs just make a class. if you ignore the fluff then what else is there to determine those abilities? your opinion, my opinion... and those opinions are going to be totally arbitrary if we are ignoring the fluff that the devs give out as reasons why they do what they do. well the topic really has been discussed and settled and the thread derailed a long time ago... probably about 6 pages ago.
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 01:28 PM	His point is that warlocks should not be able to create magic items the way. But they do... that's about it. Well, I know that he belives Warlocks should not be able to make magic items. The thing I'm trying to figure out is... why? When I look at the Warlock class, everything about it points to a strong conection with items of power and magic in general... and given the other abilities of the class, making magic items (Which, BTW, they can't do at ALL till 12th level, WELL past when Wizards and Sorcerers can make just about whatever.) just seems to be a logical evolution of their abilities.
larry_the_titan 02-27-08, 01:29 PM	well the topic really has been discussed and settled and the thread derailed a long time ago... probably about 6 pages ago. The Discussion couldn't of been solved 6 pages ago. Cartigan was still arguing with everyone. And half of the posters who thought it couldn't work were still debating. Plus I still didn't wake up from my nap for another page.
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 01:40 PM	The Discussion couldn't of been solved 6 pages ago. Cartigan was still arguing with everyone. And half of the posters who thought it couldn't work were still debating. Plus I still didn't wake up from my nap for another page. Heh. Well, I'd still be interisted to hear how it goes if you do this. I'd like to know what characters your players make if working outside core only, and how the game goes. Keep us in the loop... it's an interisting idea.
Cartigan 02-27-08, 02:21 PM	Alright Cartigan, now I have a more defined question for you. Is there a game balance reason why they shouldn't be able to make the items? Consider my earlier ruling being in effect when considering your reasons. If there is still a problem with that, I will consider making other rulings. I still don't like it, and that is my prerogative, but your change helps balance that game when tossing them and Archivists together. And he also ignores the fact that crunch follows fluff, as I have shown earlier in this thread. They've got the flavor, and then they have the abilities to support said flavor. So yeah. Classes don't use fluff to explain class features, other way around. If your argument is "inherent magical abilities" let you spontaneously generate magic items, I could make a long list of classes that should be able to do it. Fluff and abilities are correlated - I understand that, see my created classes, but you don't have to toss in random abilities loosely related to fluff. This issue was resolved 90 posts ago and now you are trying to derail the thread again for what I can only assume is a trolling attempt.
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 02:44 PM	Fluff and abilities are correlated - I understand that, see my created classes, but you don't have to toss in random abilities loosely related to fluff. Argh!! But... but... in the case of a Warlock creating magic items... they are NOT "random abilities loosely related to fluff". They are a sensible extension of already existing CRUNCHY abilities the Warlock class has. :confused: My brain hurts...
Cartigan 02-27-08, 02:55 PM	But... but... in the case of a Warlock creating magic items... they are NOT "random abilities loosely related to fluff". They are a sensible extension of already existing CRUNCHY abilities the Warlock class has. Then why doesn't the Warlock channel his abilities into adding magic abilities into weapons and that only work for him? Or why doesn't he use his abilities to manipulate the magic in wands/scrolls/whatever? I havn't seen anything that leads me to believe they should be able to randomly generate magic items.
dman11235 02-27-08, 03:30 PM	1) I DO NOT TROLL. 2) I still fail to see how you don't see that the item abilities are strongly related to the fluff and other abilities that the Warlock has.
Cartigan 02-27-08, 03:47 PM	1) I DO NOT TROLL. Then stop. 2) I still fail to see how you don't see that the item abilities are strongly related to the fluff and other abilities that the Warlock has. I disagree, end of discussion. In fact, that was the end of the discussion pages ago.
archerpwr 02-27-08, 06:39 PM	This issue was resolved 90 posts ago and now you are trying to derail the thread again for what I can only assume is a trolling attempt. http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u117/s0crates82/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg
MattLangley 02-27-08, 06:52 PM	I've played with a Favored Soul and they did just fine, in fact my existing cleric would have gone Favored Soul if I didn't want to get spell progression one level later to qualify for a PrC as quick as possible. Based on play experience I have found the Favored Soul to be pretty good actually, hell of a lot easier to manage their spell lists too ;) Tome of Battle, I've played just about every class and PrC combination in the book now and I absolutely love it. Sure I see no reason to play a pure fighter with the Warblade, but it doesn't make me sad lol... if anything something that gives me much more fun options that pretty much eliminates a previous option doesn't cause me to want to get rid of it, just means it's a no brainer to use it instead of the previous lol. If ToB should be banned because they make other classes useless then the same should go for Wizard and Cleric. Btw, I think a game without core classes would be very interesting. It doesn't have to ruin the players fun, just let them have different options.
BlackRequiem 02-27-08, 08:32 PM	I have a hard enough time getting my players to actually use Core. Banning PHB classes wouldn't really ruin anyone's fun here. ;)
larry_the_titan 02-28-08, 10:43 AM	@Cartigan, the main reason I kept directing my questions at you is you seemed to complain the most and clearing it with you seemed like the biggest Test. I figured you would be more Hardheaded then anyone I plan to ask and you approved my method would keep the game from breaking. @Everyone, Thank you for your help and support. I will keep people informed if the campaign starts and what comes of it. If anyone has any worries about game balance in this style of game, it can be address here.
Shadowhowler 02-28-08, 01:54 PM	Everyone, Thank you for your help and support. I will keep people informed if the campaign starts and what comes of it. If anyone has any worries about game balance in this style of game, it can be address here. I don't foresee any balance issues... you may get a little resistance to the idea from your players if they have a character concept in mind that they really wanna try tht requires a base class. When you first drop the idea on your players... I'd love to hear what their response/reaction is. Also, I can't wait to see what sort of characters they chose to play if they are cool with the idea.
Cartigan 02-28-08, 02:49 PM	@Cartigan, the main reason I kept directing my questions at you is you seemed to complain the most and clearing it with you seemed like the biggest Test. I figured you would be more Hardheaded then anyone I plan to ask and you approved my method would keep the game from breaking. I just don't think the class ability makes sense (especially in comparison to a number of other abilities of a similar type), but preventing them from producing scrolls helps stop the game from getting out of hand too quickly. I don't foresee any balance issues... you may get a little resistance to the idea from your players if they have a character concept in mind that they really wanna try tht requires a base class. Honestly, I would be curious as to what that is. The only base classes I can think of that are in and of themselves a concept are the Cleric and Paladin. Everything else is a little more generic. Well, the Bard could be added, but you could just take Perform as a Dragon Shaman or Marshall and pretend you are singing to inspire people -_-
Shadowhowler 02-28-08, 04:15 PM	Honestly, I would be curious as to what that is. The only base classes I can think of that are in and of themselves a concept are the Cleric and Paladin. Everything else is a little more generic. Well, the Bard could be added, but you could just take Perform as a Dragon Shaman or Marshall and pretend you are singing to inspire people -_- I agree that with a little creativity, you should be able to form any character concept using non core classes... but some players may not see it that way. Thus, and idea like Larry's could encounter some initial reservations. Still, I think it's interisting.
JaronK 02-28-08, 04:36 PM	@Everyone, Thank you for your help and support. I will keep people informed if the campaign starts and what comes of it. If anyone has any worries about game balance in this style of game, it can be address here. If you get a player who feels he cannot make his character concept without the PHB, I'd be happy to help create said concept without PHB classes. The only hard one will be "non divine bookish spellcaster." JaronK
dman11235 02-28-08, 04:45 PM	The only hard one will be "non divine bookish spellcaster." Don't worry, I've got you covered: Wu Jen.
JaronK 02-28-08, 06:04 PM	Oh! They use spell books? I haven't played with them much. Okay, neat. So we have that one too. If the Wu Jen flavor isn't quite right, we can PrC out quickly to find something more appropriate. JaronK
dman11235 02-28-08, 06:10 PM	That they do. Flavor isn't the same, but PrCs do cover that, and flavor is similar enough.
larry_the_titan 03-14-08, 08:15 AM	Bumped so people can see the thread again. Still haven't gotten to use this idea let but hope to hear something soon.