Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nor'Morgwae 07-15-07, 01:21 AM	Okay, I'm not ranting and I'm not telling people how to run thier games, I just want to know why. Why do you build a class for a specific character. Not just a specific character type, I'm talking about the class designed for one, individual PC in a single game that will never see use by anyone else, ever. Wouldn't it be a lot more practicle just to build a new feat or two, maybe a couple new spells? Heck, even a new race with racial HD and/or an LA would be a whole lot easier. Building a good, balanced class is a lot of work and doing it for a single character isn't really what the system was designed for. Why do you go thorugh all of this trouble instead of just building the character from the constituent parts like the system assumes you will do? The player mindset and the desinger mindset are too often at odds for this to work properly. It's good to design a class you would want to play. It's not so good to design a class just so you can play it. YOu can't be objective. 'What I want to do with it' ends up drowing out 'what I should be capable of doing with it' and the result is rarely pretty. Wouldn't it be more condusive to use a system designed to do what you are trying to do with it? True 20 or Mutants and Masterminds are designed to work this way and have solid systems for doing it. Or if d20 isn't even a must then GURPS does a great job of letting you build whatever you want however you want it. And that is only the major ones. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of such games available and all with your specific play style in mind. If you don't want to use pre-existing classes, feats and the like to build a character then why bother using a system designed for that? It would be like builind 10 classes with GURPS and then building a character with one of those. You could do it, but why would you? You could even use D&D setting and material with other game systems. I've seen Eberron, Greyhawk and Ravenloft done in GURPS. Does WotC have their fanbase so well trained that they won't play someone elses game even if it's the game they're trying to play anyway? Could someone clue me in here, because I just don't get it... :confused:
Arcane Guyver 07-15-07, 01:34 AM	Why do you build a class for a specific character. Not just a specific character type, I'm talking about the class designed for one, individual PC in a single game that will never see use by anyone else, ever. Sounds like many PrCs that have been published over the years... ;) I dunno why people feel they need to build new classes all the time. I too get the feeling that many folks would be better served to look into different game systems to meet their desired playstyle.
Tequila_Sunrise 07-15-07, 02:03 AM	The new class threads that I've seen have always been intended to fill a perceived gap in the current classes. Whether this gap is real or not is up to debate, but the same debate could be had about the 1001 official classes published by WotC. I've never read a post about somebody creating a class just for one player, but then again I don't read threads that are obviously ill-conceived. (PEACH my Kamikaze Pokemon Mage Knight Gunslinger PrC!!!)
Dyado_Vesco 07-15-07, 02:30 AM	For myself, well how about that doing so helps me understand the game better, the ins and outs more fully. Maybe becuase for my tastes, I don't see a Class being general enough, or find certain ones weak while others are far stronger so I make a new balanced one. But, the real reason I do any of that is because I myself, and I know others too, have the aspirations of one day becoming a game designer. This is one way of practicing, along with variant rules, new monsters, and different settings. I have a player that questions me on the very same issue, but I ask, why is it ok for me to make a new creature, feature new dungeons and be involved with all other creative persuits but that one, class creation. Its not that sacred, but if you make it so then you limit the very spirit of what roleplaying is about. Imagination.
Nebosuke 07-15-07, 02:39 AM	Why do you go thorugh all of this trouble instead of just building the character from the constituent parts like the system assumes you will do? Wouldn't it be more condusive to use a system designed to do what you are trying to do with it? Because going through the trouble of designing a balanced class is often much less of a hassle than learning a new system and finding a good gaming group that plays that system.
Nor'Morgwae 07-15-07, 03:17 AM	To clarify, I have no problem with player made classes. Only player made classes so specific as to be useless to the community at large or classes that try to compensate for someones complete innability to use the system to gain the desired result. I've never read a post about somebody creating a class just for one player, but then again I don't read threads that are obviously ill-conceived. I've seen at least 2 in as many weeks. I guess maybe I'm too forgiving in whose classes I critique. Dyado_Vesco: Those are all good reasons to make good, general use classes. I have no issue with that. That makes perfect sense. What I'm talking about are the classes so specific that the creator is the only one who is ever going to use it. Like a class specifically designed to be a dire-flail weilding heavy armor warrior who can charge, sunder and gains sonic damage and immunites as class abilites. Now, that could probably be altered to make it more general use, like a heavy warrior with elemental abilites (Think Paladin of an element instead of an alignment), but the former is of little use to at least 99.9% of the people who play the game. If you want to be a designer that's great but rule 1 is to remember you audience. The one class, one character paradigm fails misserably in that respect. Nebosuke: So you try and shoe-horn the game you want to play into the game everyone else wants to play? In my experience that doesn't work too well. It just makes everyone dissatisfied with the game. There are plenty of online outlets for gaming, both real time and play by post. If you really want to play something else it's not so difficult a feat. Plus if you don't have the time or interest neccesary to learn a similar system (like Mutants and Masterminds) then I seriously doubt you have the drive to understand the d20 system well enough to design for it. It's easier to learn 5 or 6 systems than to learn one well enough to design for it. EDIT: From personal experience my friends that I usually play with aren't generally open to playing much except D&D (I think it's mostly because of a bad experience with Alternity some years ago) adn gamers are a bit difficult to find in my area. Well, I wanted to try other games and other play styles so I played in several Play by Post games and even tried out an internet game using Maptools. I continue to play D&D with my normal group while playing the other games as well. The biggest lesson I learned from that is to let D&D be D&D. Before that I tried forcing other games into the D&D rules and that doesn't work. It just ****** everyone off. I say this so that it's clear I'm speaking from experience.
OneWinged4ngel 07-15-07, 03:22 AM	Sounds like many PrCs that have been published over the years... ;) Indeed. And those PrCs have been pointed out and parodied (The well-known Elothar joke was a snipe at that, as well as plot-writing abilities) Anyways, Nor'Morgwae, I think the issue is that people are often unaware that the concept they're reaching for is actually already right there in the base classes. They don't actually understand that Disintegrate doesn't have to mean "you shoot a green ray that turns a man into dust." Stripped of flavor, it says "You make a ranged touch attack, and do massive damage and if they die they are difficult to resurrect." I can think of a thousand descriptions for this and call them "new spells," but it would really just be disintegrate. For example, one of my sorcerors had a prismatic "color" theme. When she would use disintegrate, she'd actually draw out a few strands of the universal arcane color that make up the universe from a person, weaving it between her fingertips like a thread, using that attack roll to twist the reality *just* right, so that the person would unravel at the seams, wisps of color floating off on the winds even as their screams faded on the breeze of a life as fleeting as an ethereal dream. I didn't have to make a new spell for that. It was just disintegrate. But some people don't believe you can actually alter the flavor like that (for NO reason, mind, hence why people complain about the flavor of various systems while ignoring their potential). They think you actually make a new spell for no reason. To the others I think you are misinterpreting the OP. He doesn't seem to have anything against generally useful new classes. He is expressing concern with people creating classes for no apparent reason that serve little purpose (often classes that do not fill a new niche, are not mechanically original, and can often even be created EASILY with other classes. And ESPECIALLY classes where it looks particularly obvious that it's actually ONE GUY'S character, just like a Fighter with his feat chain set in stone and called a new class for no reason. Seerow actually pulled a prank where he did this: Filling in the Bonus feats for a Fighter, putting them in the progression, and calling it a "new class." Actually, it was also a CharOp board fighter build, and many of the "Fighters don't suck" people went out and called the class badly underpowered ;)) The real reason they do this, though, is because they don't really know any better. They think they need to make a new class to make that last thing they watched on, say, Naruto, and don't realize that you can make just about everything on that show with, say, psionics (as has already been done on the psionics boards).
unundindur 07-15-07, 11:13 AM	A fine post dear 4ngel :embarrass
LoneFlame 07-15-07, 11:15 AM	I've made classes before a specific purpose(as in to do a specific character). My first attempt at this was what I call 'The Aura Sage,' which I designed for the sole purpose of playing one specific character. That one has some good flavor and can be(and was) used for other characters. Now, as time rolled on and I got better at class creation and new a few new tricks, I made what I called the "Yumi Class," based off of an absurd character I've played once or twice. It was a 5-lv class adaptation of Spring Child(a half-breed race I found in some random book), which I modified to be less revolved around nature and more revolved around butterflies. Oh, but it got worse. Shortly afterwards, I made the "Suki Class" which was an adaptation of the Monster of Legend Template(Monster Manual 2, I believe). Needless to say, within a week, I deleted those of my computer after awhile cause I realized how inane and lazy the concept was. However, if you really want to play something different(like a Naruto Ninja or a guy who sees auras or a guy who can create life), go for making your own class. But if you wanna make some that's overly specific like "Suki the psycho ninja chick who stabs her patron deity with an umbrella because she doesn't like him", then you might need some therapy(perhaps even rethink your life) and shouldn't waste your effort on making a class solely designed to 'brutally kill things with an umbrella(not the sword in the handle of the umbrella, but the umbrella itself)'
OneWinged4ngel 07-15-07, 02:02 PM	Naruto Ninja or a guy who sees auras *snip* Just about every character in Naruto has been replicated pretty accurately with psionics. There's a thread dedicated to it. And a guy who sees auras? There's plenty of spells and powers that do that... heck, there's even a use of the SENSE MOTIVE skill that does that ("Size Up" can be flavored as "sensing the power of one's aura"). They're not really unique concepts. You just *think* they are.
LoneFlame 07-15-07, 02:19 PM	But the aura seeing guy starts off doing it and builds upon that ability, using it to buff up Sense Motive and Diplomacy as well as gain other benefits. Probly should've mentioned that earlier, but I didn't think anyone was gonna call me out on it. The Naruto bit was just tossing out in idea that helped start many those threads on the subject. Also, you completely ignored the life creation bit. That one's definitely more innovative than you give me credit for. No one I know thought to do it, let alone actually tried to make it and to get it to work(with a good bit of success I might add).
OneWinged4ngel 07-15-07, 02:49 PM	But the aura seeing guy starts off doing it and builds upon that ability, using it to buff up Sense Motive and Diplomacy as well as gain other benefits. And you can already do that! Seriously! In several different ways! Heck, you wanna know the best Sense Motive around? Detect Thoughts. Only a second level spell. "By reading the man's aura, I know intrinsically his thoughts and motives." Bam. Flavored for exactly that concept. How about Empathy, the first level psion power? That'll give you a +2 insight bonus on bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and sense motive by "sensing one's aura." Want it better? It augments! Want to make it even better? You get Read Thoughts as Telepath level 3! You get "Conceal Thoughts" to mask your own aura. You can get Detect Hostile Intent to sense hostile auras. You even get powers like "Aura Alteration" that repairs a psyche or makes a subject seem to be something it's not! What more do you want? It takes the aura concept all the way for you! You *think* you're being original, but you're really not. Also, you completely ignored the life creation bit. Is that supposed to be some sort of counter? I didn't answer *most* of your quote. Well what do you mean by "Life Creation"? You want a persistent summon or something? That doesn't need a whole new class. Depending on what you mean by "life creation" it either can be done with a Wizard or Druid, or only requires an easy variant. That one's definitely more innovative than you give me credit for. I completely fail to see how. It's not exactly the world's rarest druid concept. Vines spring to life out of the ground to entangle your enemies. A wolf appears out of nowhere. Etc etc.
LoneFlame 07-15-07, 03:12 PM	Hardly. What I mean by life creation is the ability to make new and innovative, as well as not so new or innovative, creatures that do your bidding. Summoning, Necromancy, Golems... All of these pale in comparison to the greatness of life creation. Life creation has a wide variety of applications ranging from creating a field of corn to creating slaves that are just as crappy as commoners to making a cheap knock-off of a dragon that's nowhere near as good and get killed 2 or 3 rounds into fighter the Ubber Bullet. Persistent Summoning is all fine and good, but it lacks the options(and tediousness) that creating life has going for it. Also, with how it reads, Persistent Spell wouldn't work on summons(besides, a summon monster II creature isn't worth the 8th lv spells lot). It would actually be more work to make an existing caster class to the life creation stuff I had in mind than making a class that does it. All in all, while a tedious class, it is just about balanced by this point in its existence. The most powerful thing you can create is always just a little weaker than anything else of your lv(almost everything that could be exploited has been fixed or written out of the class), your magic is kinda weak(5th lv spells max, spontaneous casting with spells from a modified version of the adept's list), and you'll never hit anything in combat(weak base attack is to be expected for this kind of class). One a plus note, you have a d6 for you hit dice.
OneWinged4ngel 07-15-07, 03:48 PM	What I mean by life creation is the ability to make new and innovative, as well as not so new or innovative, creatures that do your bidding. You can totally make up new creatures to summon. Try using the "summon unique creature" variant (or whatever it's called). I'm pretty sure it's in the DMG (maybe unearthed arcana), though I'd have to check. Also, check out "Astral Construct." You actually create the creature as you like. You could give an astral construct menu for summoning living things, too. Easy peasy. Doesn't need a new class. There's existing options or easily-implemented variants. Why does this call for a new class for just the flavor concept? Life creation has a wide variety of applications ranging from creating a field of corn I believe there is a spell for this already. I don't play druids so much, so I don't remember it off-hand. to creating slaves that are just as crappy as commoners to making a cheap knock-off of a dragon that's nowhere near as good and get killed 2 or 3 rounds into fighter the Ubber Bullet. You can already do this... Persistent Summoning is all fine and good, but it lacks the options(and tediousness) that creating life has going for it. Also, with how it reads, Persistent Spell wouldn't work on summons(besides, a summon monster II creature isn't worth the 8th lv spells lot). Persistent summons would be a *variant rule.* Sorry if that wasn't clear. The thing is, you don't need to make a new class to make a variant, and variants are easier. For example, I wanted a sorcerous swashbuckler that could channel spells through her weapon and fight effectively with one one-handed weapon and nothing in the off hand, straight from low level. Did I make a new class? Nope, I just made a quickie 60-second Duskblade variant. It would actually be more work to make an existing caster class to the life creation stuff I had in mind than making a class that does it. Oh really? How so? I could handle life creation easily by giving a persistent summon unique creature, or by adapting the astral construct idea to living creatures. Bam. Done. Making a class (that doesn't suck) on the other hand takes a good deal of effort when all you really want is a new spell or variant or two. In fact, your main complaint doesn't seem to be that life creation isn't covered already (it totally is, you can flavor a druid that way), but that it doesn't work *exactly like you want it to.* The flavor idea isn't new and innovative at all. It's basically "making plants grow and creating minions." You want to put a new type on permanent minions (animal, I guess), and make them customizable (like an astral construct). You can totally do that without making a new class. You seem to be talking about doing something in a mechanically original way (which is a completely valid reason to make a new class) as opposed to actually making a new flavor concept. All in all, while a tedious class, it is just about balanced by this point in its existence. The most powerful thing you can create is always just a little weaker than anything else of your lv(almost everything that could be exploited has been fixed or written out of the class), your magic is kinda weak(5th lv spells max, spontaneous casting with spells from a modified version of the adept's list), and you'll never hit anything in combat(weak base attack is to be expected for this kind of class). One a plus note, you have a d6 for you hit dice. Where is this class?
Zergplex 07-15-07, 04:06 PM	To clarify, I have no problem with player made classes. Only player made classes so specific as to be useless to the community at large or classes that try to compensate for someones complete innability to use the system to gain the desired result. I've seen at least 2 in as many weeks. I guess maybe I'm too forgiving in whose classes I critique. Somehow I have a feeling I was one of the two classes you are talking about, since I admitted the class was created for a specific character. Be careful about generalizing too much, the complete inability to use the system to get the desired result comment seems rather insulting especially with people you have had little interaction with. I don't think you meant it to be insulting though. Just try and see this from another perspective. The people creating these classes can often be people who create broad, and useful, classes as well. Everyone makes a wrong turn at times. To use myself as an example I wanted to make a Jester. The guidelines I used to choose the class was a non-magic user who specialized in thrown weapons. With my DM's help we decided the closest we could get was a fighter or a rogue, neither of which fit the bill for me. We decided to edit the rogue class, removing the sneak attack ability (which didn't fit the concept for me) and lessening it's trap sense bonus to gain other more flavorful abilities that fit the concept. Everything there seems like stuff a good DM and Player will occasionally do to make an interesting concept work. Sometimes working outside of the system a bit can be fun if it's not done too often or without thought. I posted the class here mainly to get other people's opinions on the balance. I thank Nor'Morgwae for his comments on my class and I took his advice to heart, it gave me a different perspective to work with. It's not perfect but I am working out the problems and I hope to hear his advice again if he will give it. I don't however think the class is too specific to be useless or was created due to the inability to use the system to get the desired result. Then again we all play the game for different reasons and maybe my definition of fun is different then yours. I just felt the need to say something since I perceive my thread as one of the thread that may have caused this comment
OneWinged4ngel 07-15-07, 04:10 PM	Don't want to give the wrong idea here... there's actually a case where making a class for your completely narrow and specific character concept with no versatility in build is totally okay: You want to use it for your character, and the existing rules don't cover it particularly well (or would be cumbersome in doing so) However, this isn't the sort of thing you would want to publish for public consumption, which is why it's particularly annoying when WotC does it (thankfully, they do it sparingly, but there are some really lame examples). When you actually go to write it up on the boards, try to make it more adaptable to many people's concepts. For example, something as simple as switching "Power Attack" to "bonus feat" makes it more open for customization in build. Of course, in most cases it's a bit more complex than this, but hopefully you get the idea.
Zergplex 07-15-07, 04:24 PM	Of course, in most cases it's a bit more complex than this, but hopefully you get the idea. I do get what you mean and maybe I should have spent a bit more time before I posted the class. My entire gaming group is gone for the weekend (at a LARP) and I wanted to get some input on the class. With my normal sounding boards away his was the first place I thought of to get an honest opinion on my class. I think a major problem people (including myself) don't think of so much is posting the flavor of the class. Unless you post flavor and background how is anyone going to know what the intent of the class actually was? Why you made it? The mechanics are what we are trying to get help on but the flavor often gives insight on the class. I left flavor text out of my class when I posted it here because I was in a hurry and now I think that was a mistake. Good post 4ngel, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
OneWinged4ngel 07-15-07, 04:33 PM	I think a major problem people (including myself) don't think of so much is posting the flavor of the class. Unless you post flavor and background how is anyone going to know what the intent of the class actually was? Honestly, flavor isn't particularly important for creating a class. People can adapt flavor to their characters and campaigns as they see fit. Flavor is mainly there for *presentation.* It's the shiny colors on the advertisement that catches that average person's interest. A class itself is really a mechanical entity. Flavor is totally mutable (such as in the disintegrate example I gave before. No one is forcing you to abide by the "rules" that say that the ray must be green. Unless you have a total jackass for a DM.) Actually, excessive flavor can be a *bad* thing, because it serves to shoehorn and stereotype people's view of the class and its roles. The flavor for the Fighter is... a guy who fights. That's totally fine. It doesn't need to be "a guy who fights this exact way for this exact cause and has this history." What purpose does all of that serve for a class? None at all, really. The player can make that history and detail for their fighter and his fighting style and whatever himself.
Zergplex 07-15-07, 04:52 PM	Honestly, flavor isn't particularly important for creating a class. People can adapt flavor to their characters and campaigns as they see fit. Flavor is mainly there for *presentation.* It's the shiny colors on the advertisement that catches that average person's interest. A class itself is really a mechanical entity. Flavor is totally mutable (such as in the disintegrate example I gave before. No one is forcing you to abide by the "rules" that say that the ray must be green. Unless you have a total jackass for a DM.) Actually, excessive flavor can be a *bad* thing, because it serves to shoehorn and stereotype people's view of the class and its roles. The flavor for the Fighter is... a guy who fights. That's totally fine. It doesn't need to be "a guy who fights this exact way for this exact cause and has this history." What purpose does all of that serve for a class? None at all, really. The player can make that history and detail for their fighter and his fighting style and whatever himself. Well I mention this because one problem Nor'Morgwae mentioned with my class was that he didn't understand why I associated a Jester with a thrown weapon specialist. Posting the flavor would have made the reasons I chose the abilities I did more apparent and make more sense of what I was trying to do with the class. Flavor is mutable and that is a very good thing. But flavor can also give insight into the class. A fighter is a combat master, a rogue is a stealthy stalker. They are simple to understand, a Monk on the other hand requires a bit more background and flavor to make sense of (especially to people who aren't familiar with Monk's in our own world, and trust me I've run into a few people like that). I think we missunderstand what I mean by flavor. I mean is as an understanding of what the class is regardless of campaign setting. What role the class plays. These are integral to understanding the class and to recommending how to balance the class. I chose to use my Jester class as a thrown weapons master (drawing on their juggling and hand-eye coordination), another people hears Jester and think's a Bard using jokes instead of song, a third might think a Noble varient with high diplomacy. None of those are wrong when hearing the Jester class name. Without understanding the role I created the Jester for it would be hard to judge the class. Does any of that make sense? You need to understand a classes role to judge how well it is fulfilling it. That requires what I would call flavor, though you might see it as something else.
Nor'Morgwae 07-15-07, 06:08 PM	Zergplex: I specifically left the names out of it because I don't want anyone to feel like I'm picking on them though I actually did have someone else in mind. I'm not so tactless to post to your thread and call you an idiot in my very next post. If you've posted more info I'll take another look at it later today. The classes I'm talking about when I say 'complete inability to use the system' are the ones that take a progression that could have been built with a normal class, or very basic multiclassing, and try to make it a new class all on it's own, like the Fighter parody OWA mentioned. They completely skip the possibility of creativly, or even normally, using material in the game and jump right to making a new class. My perception is the order of creation should be: If you can, do it with preexisting material. If you can't, make a variant (whether is be class, feat, spell, whatever). If a variant won't do it, make a new feat/spell. If a feat/spell won't do it make a new PrC. If a PrC won't do it then make a base class. At least in my view, a class is the last course of action after everything else fails to perform as needed. Make only what you absolutely need for the concept to work rather than just building a class right off the line.
Zergplex 07-15-07, 08:42 PM	Zergplex: I specifically left the names out of it because I don't want anyone to feel like I'm picking on them though I actually did have someone else in mind. I'm not so tactless to post to your thread and call you an idiot in my very next post. If you've posted more info I'll take another look at it later today. I am glad to hear it, you seemed like a very reasonable person in your earlier post and I really appreciated your response in my thread. I assumed it was me since in my last reply I mentioned that my judgment may have been a bit off with my class since it was designed with a character in mind. I apologized for that and did some rethinking on the class in a couple ways. I apologize for assuming you were talking about me and I hope I wasn't too unpleasant in my reply.