General Player Reaction to Modified Classes [Archive] - Wizards Community

General Player Reaction to Modified Classes [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ltheb Liadon
08-14-06, 03:18 AM Hello. I have a bit of a quandry. I have been working on modifying the core classes to do several things, such as rebalance them (Just threw out some of the broken /super abusable things), add more flavor to them (a few changes, minor really), and give more of a reason to play what normally come off as "sub-par classes." (Ranger, Sorcerer, & Bard)
Now, my group is a bit conservative, and I have run the changes by them for their opinions. The classes themselves make sense, keep with the flavor (and have mechanical benifits that are worth while but not overpowering), and make several of the classes easier to play.
I plan on (eventually) posting said classes on whichever board (this one?) they belong once I type up the revisions. This may take a while (forever).
I see alot of revisions on the boards
My question is to all of you: If your local DM came and said he had revised the core classes "somewhat," would you mind? If you would mind, what would or would not have to happen for you to even consider playing?
Darkuwa
08-14-06, 04:13 AM If it was an option no, if it was a replacement then yes I would mind a lot.
Wargamer
08-14-06, 04:23 AM I'd generally assume the DM hadn't a bloody clue.

Let's consider your "Sub-Par" classes...

Ranger: Used more in my group than the Fighter is.

Sorceror: About equal to Wizards, generally preferred by players who don't want to arse about with a Spellbook (ie: Me).

Bard: Not broken, just indirect. Much like the "Medikit" Cleric, the Bard is there to support. They aren't often used, but then that's because they don't fit the style of anyone in our group.
Witch
08-14-06, 05:34 AM While the posters above me might think that the core is balanced, it's not.

As such, I don't mind a few tinkerings with base classes, as long as they are an improvement.

I would check them out, and suggest alternatives to the DM if I didn't like them.
Ltheb Liadon
08-14-06, 04:07 PM They would definitely be an improvement to many classes, and any "nerfs" to the more powerful classes (Cleric for example) would be offset by other bonuses and powers.
Example: Clerics might be spontaneous casters, casting any spell on their list or on the domains they can access, but lose alot of the more specialized spells on their base list. (EX: Flamestrike might be only available on the Fire Domain, but the more basic spells like bless or augery stay on their list, making domain choices important) But said clerics may gain more bonuses from having a higher cleric level (in the form of domain-related class features, with each domain being slightly unique) so there is less reason to PrC out of Cleric.
Just an example.
Schmendrick
08-15-06, 04:03 AM It depends on how well I knew and trusted the DM -- both his judgement, and his taste. His classes might be perfectly balanced but have a flavor I dislike (like, say, most anime), or he might have some really cool classes that were "rebalanced" in a completely asinine way.

For the most part I prefer core, so if it were a DM I distrusted to any degree I probably wouldn't play. Then again, I might just jump in there with my own two bits and see about accomplishing what he wanted in a way I did think was balanced.
Witch
08-15-06, 05:54 AM They would definitely be an improvement to many classes, and any "nerfs" to the more powerful classes (Cleric for example) would be offset by other bonuses and powers.
Example: Clerics might be spontaneous casters, casting any spell on their list or on the domains they can access, but lose alot of the more specialized spells on their base list. (EX: Flamestrike might be only available on the Fire Domain, but the more basic spells like bless or augery stay on their list, making domain choices important) But said clerics may gain more bonuses from having a higher cleric level (in the form of domain-related class features, with each domain being slightly unique) so there is less reason to PrC out of Cleric.
Just an example.
By improvements I meant improvements to game balance, not improvements to the power of classes.
I hope you would reduce the base list quite extremely, with that system.
Angel Black
08-15-06, 01:15 PM My question is to all of you: If your local DM came and said he had revised the core classes "somewhat," would you mind? If you would mind, what would or would not have to happen for you to even consider playing?

In fact, no I don't mind. Most DMs do that in one way or another, they houserule this or that feature of a class, and give this or that item some power that helps/controls the power of the character and so on.

The only thing I ask is checking some of the class features changes first in order to know how to roleplay them.
Ltheb Liadon
08-15-06, 11:19 PM The only thing I ask is checking some of the class features changes first in order to know how to roleplay them.

Most of the basic roleplaying flavor is there, I would say the only classes I planned on giving a mega-overhaul were Cleric, Bard, and Ranger.
Cleric: It doesn't sit well with me that clerics have to prepare spells. "Gee, what miracles will I need my god to give me today?" So I made them spontaneous casters, and with a greatly reduced spell list, their deity or beliefs determine the bulk of the spells they can access. My planned mechanic was any cleric of any deity can have any 2 domains, but picking domains your god does not favor or is opposed to will result in a reduced access to the abilities the domain grants and the spells you get. (A Cleric of Vecna could cast healing spells, but its doubtful that they will get greater than the 3rd level ones) Additionally after a month of prayer and spending a bit (100xlevel) of exp, a cleric with this system could "swap out" domains, but the same restrictions apply. Just don't expect the clerics of the fiery god of justice to have too great an access to healing magic...
Bard: I liked the 2nd Edition flavor of bard - Multiclass incarnate - more than the current. I tried to throw that together in my build, giving it moderate BAB, basic trapfinding skills, and spellcasting abilities of a wizard of half the bards level. Of course the bard still has his music, unique to him, and I may throw in the old school Multiclass bard restriction - You cant or you lose your powers deal.
Ranger: I wanted ranger to be better than a fighter in the woods. (or whatever local the ranger fights in) I gave the ranger the entire two weapon fighting tree at the levels he could first make use of them (So he does get Perfect 2 wep fighting at 16th). He only has one favored enemy, but the bonus to hit (and later to saves vs that enemy) scales with the ranger level. (He can change the favored enemy with a month of study and training, and by spending a bit of exp) Additionally, the ranger gains a host of small benifits to fighting in his sort of "favored terrain." (Evasion and AC and hide bonuses and minor things) As for the ranger's spell selection I was thinking, since not all Iconic rangers were seen as spellcasters (Drizz't anyone?) that instead of getting spells, 1/3rd of ranger levels would stack with Druid Levels for spellcasting.
Again, just toying around with the systems.
Tequila_Sunrise
08-16-06, 02:37 AM As a tinkerer myself, I'm always ready to at least give a DM's new houserules a shot. However, I've found that most players don't share this attitude; the only houserules that most players won't groan about are those that benefit them or rules that simplify the game in a very direct way (ie, turning variant from CD). I've played with mostly newbies who like the idea of learning the game by the book which they can pick up at a local game store and learn on their own without me standing over their shoulder saying "In my game, that rule works thusly..."
Tenzhi
08-16-06, 03:14 AM ::shrug:: I'll try just about anything once.

Heck, I even played in an all-elf *Rolemaster* game once. That combines two of my most-hated things: elves and Rolemaster.

I might want to glance over the classes first and offer suggestions before actually jumping into them, though. But a DM who can tinker with the rules with any competence (and isn't reluctant to do so as necessary) impresses me more than a stodgy DM who always runs things by-the-book.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ltheb Liadon 08-14-06, 03:18 AM	Hello. I have a bit of a quandry. I have been working on modifying the core classes to do several things, such as rebalance them (Just threw out some of the broken /super abusable things), add more flavor to them (a few changes, minor really), and give more of a reason to play what normally come off as "sub-par classes." (Ranger, Sorcerer, & Bard) Now, my group is a bit conservative, and I have run the changes by them for their opinions. The classes themselves make sense, keep with the flavor (and have mechanical benifits that are worth while but not overpowering), and make several of the classes easier to play. I plan on (eventually) posting said classes on whichever board (this one?) they belong once I type up the revisions. This may take a while (forever). I see alot of revisions on the boards My question is to all of you: If your local DM came and said he had revised the core classes "somewhat," would you mind? If you would mind, what would or would not have to happen for you to even consider playing?
Darkuwa 08-14-06, 04:13 AM	If it was an option no, if it was a replacement then yes I would mind a lot.
Wargamer 08-14-06, 04:23 AM	I'd generally assume the DM hadn't a bloody clue. Let's consider your "Sub-Par" classes... Ranger: Used more in my group than the Fighter is. Sorceror: About equal to Wizards, generally preferred by players who don't want to arse about with a Spellbook (ie: Me). Bard: Not broken, just indirect. Much like the "Medikit" Cleric, the Bard is there to support. They aren't often used, but then that's because they don't fit the style of anyone in our group.
Witch 08-14-06, 05:34 AM	While the posters above me might think that the core is balanced, it's not. As such, I don't mind a few tinkerings with base classes, as long as they are an improvement. I would check them out, and suggest alternatives to the DM if I didn't like them.
Ltheb Liadon 08-14-06, 04:07 PM	They would definitely be an improvement to many classes, and any "nerfs" to the more powerful classes (Cleric for example) would be offset by other bonuses and powers. Example: Clerics might be spontaneous casters, casting any spell on their list or on the domains they can access, but lose alot of the more specialized spells on their base list. (EX: Flamestrike might be only available on the Fire Domain, but the more basic spells like bless or augery stay on their list, making domain choices important) But said clerics may gain more bonuses from having a higher cleric level (in the form of domain-related class features, with each domain being slightly unique) so there is less reason to PrC out of Cleric. Just an example.
Schmendrick 08-15-06, 04:03 AM	It depends on how well I knew and trusted the DM -- both his judgement, and his taste. His classes might be perfectly balanced but have a flavor I dislike (like, say, most anime), or he might have some really cool classes that were "rebalanced" in a completely asinine way. For the most part I prefer core, so if it were a DM I distrusted to any degree I probably wouldn't play. Then again, I might just jump in there with my own two bits and see about accomplishing what he wanted in a way I did think was balanced.
Witch 08-15-06, 05:54 AM	They would definitely be an improvement to many classes, and any "nerfs" to the more powerful classes (Cleric for example) would be offset by other bonuses and powers. Example: Clerics might be spontaneous casters, casting any spell on their list or on the domains they can access, but lose alot of the more specialized spells on their base list. (EX: Flamestrike might be only available on the Fire Domain, but the more basic spells like bless or augery stay on their list, making domain choices important) But said clerics may gain more bonuses from having a higher cleric level (in the form of domain-related class features, with each domain being slightly unique) so there is less reason to PrC out of Cleric. Just an example. By improvements I meant improvements to game balance, not improvements to the power of classes. I hope you would reduce the base list quite extremely, with that system.
Angel Black 08-15-06, 01:15 PM	My question is to all of you: If your local DM came and said he had revised the core classes "somewhat," would you mind? If you would mind, what would or would not have to happen for you to even consider playing? In fact, no I don't mind. Most DMs do that in one way or another, they houserule this or that feature of a class, and give this or that item some power that helps/controls the power of the character and so on. The only thing I ask is checking some of the class features changes first in order to know how to roleplay them.
Ltheb Liadon 08-15-06, 11:19 PM	The only thing I ask is checking some of the class features changes first in order to know how to roleplay them. Most of the basic roleplaying flavor is there, I would say the only classes I planned on giving a mega-overhaul were Cleric, Bard, and Ranger. Cleric: It doesn't sit well with me that clerics have to prepare spells. "Gee, what miracles will I need my god to give me today?" So I made them spontaneous casters, and with a greatly reduced spell list, their deity or beliefs determine the bulk of the spells they can access. My planned mechanic was any cleric of any deity can have any 2 domains, but picking domains your god does not favor or is opposed to will result in a reduced access to the abilities the domain grants and the spells you get. (A Cleric of Vecna could cast healing spells, but its doubtful that they will get greater than the 3rd level ones) Additionally after a month of prayer and spending a bit (100xlevel) of exp, a cleric with this system could "swap out" domains, but the same restrictions apply. Just don't expect the clerics of the fiery god of justice to have too great an access to healing magic... Bard: I liked the 2nd Edition flavor of bard - Multiclass incarnate - more than the current. I tried to throw that together in my build, giving it moderate BAB, basic trapfinding skills, and spellcasting abilities of a wizard of half the bards level. Of course the bard still has his music, unique to him, and I may throw in the old school Multiclass bard restriction - You cant or you lose your powers deal. Ranger: I wanted ranger to be better than a fighter in the woods. (or whatever local the ranger fights in) I gave the ranger the entire two weapon fighting tree at the levels he could first make use of them (So he does get Perfect 2 wep fighting at 16th). He only has one favored enemy, but the bonus to hit (and later to saves vs that enemy) scales with the ranger level. (He can change the favored enemy with a month of study and training, and by spending a bit of exp) Additionally, the ranger gains a host of small benifits to fighting in his sort of "favored terrain." (Evasion and AC and hide bonuses and minor things) As for the ranger's spell selection I was thinking, since not all Iconic rangers were seen as spellcasters (Drizz't anyone?) that instead of getting spells, 1/3rd of ranger levels would stack with Druid Levels for spellcasting. Again, just toying around with the systems.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-16-06, 02:37 AM	As a tinkerer myself, I'm always ready to at least give a DM's new houserules a shot. However, I've found that most players don't share this attitude; the only houserules that most players won't groan about are those that benefit them or rules that simplify the game in a very direct way (ie, turning variant from CD). I've played with mostly newbies who like the idea of learning the game by the book which they can pick up at a local game store and learn on their own without me standing over their shoulder saying "In my game, that rule works thusly..."
Tenzhi 08-16-06, 03:14 AM	::shrug:: I'll try just about anything once. Heck, I even played in an all-elf Rolemaster game once. That combines two of my most-hated things: elves and Rolemaster. I might want to glance over the classes first and offer suggestions before actually jumping into them, though. But a DM who can tinker with the rules with any competence (and isn't reluctant to do so as necessary) impresses me more than a stodgy DM who always runs things by-the-book.