Post/Author/DateTime	Post
michel andre 03-26-06, 12:33 PM	Hello. I want the opinions of those who would know: What do you think now of the classes in Unearthed Arcana today. I still like the generic classes; if I had a campaign, I would use the generic classes as the base classes. Except for domain wizards, I think the variant character classes are valid ideas. I love the prestige character classes; in my campaign, I would make the paladin of honor/paladin, paladin of slaughter/anti-paladin, paladin of freedom/avenger, paladin of tyranny/despot into prestige classes. I never liked the gestalt characters. I also dislike domain wizards. I think both are too unbalanced. Which is better: battle sorcerer or war mage? I prefer battle sorcerer. If I remember correcly, there was some confusion about the spells known and spells per day for battle sorcerers; I would just minus 1 from the numbers I see on the the charts in the Players Handbook. I know others have had much more experience than I have with this material. What do you think today? Please! Thanks.
Crimson_Concerto 03-26-06, 01:05 PM	I personally dislike the generic classes. I wanna play somehting different, not generic. :D I also disagree on the domain wizards. I htink they're the only variant classes in that book that I actually like. I don't play paladins, so I couldn't say too much about that, but it does seem that having paladins of other alignments sort of ruins their point. Gestalt is fun to try out once, but hsoudln't be a constant game component. I just like the concept for a Battale sorcerer better than that of a Warmage, but I haven't played an arcane cannon in a while, so I don't think I'd ever play either.
starfire311 03-26-06, 02:08 PM	How are gestalt characters not balanced... I have always though gestalt was a cool idea... but we have never run a gestalt game.... gestalt seems perfectly fine, you just have to remember that everything is gestalt.
Dipteran_Legacy 03-26-06, 05:27 PM	battle sorc vrs warmage doesnt really work. it's like apples and oranges, unless you'r playing a poorly put together battle sorc. battle sorc's, with medium BaB and d8 HD, do better actually entering melee, and using their spells known mainly to learn buffs, only blasting once in a while to clear out overwhelming numbers before engaging them. alternately, you could make an archer build that buffs himself into amazing marksmanship, but either way, buffing is better than blasting. the warmage, on the other hand, is like an artillery platform. they blast all day long, and while they have a decent enough defense to make sure they survive a round or two of melee-just long enough for them to escape from it- they arent really any good at actual scrapping.
technochris81 03-29-06, 04:34 AM	gestalt is good for small groups. say you have two players and one DM. gestalt is perfect. typically you want all four bases covered in any group: -fighter-ish -cleric-ish -wizard-ish -rogue-ish if you had a fighter/rogue and a wizard/cleric gestalt, a small party would avoid getting screwed all the time. there are much more interesting combos, but i just wanted to show you guys how the general "covering all your bases" theory worked. -chris
Mobiledwm 03-29-06, 08:25 PM	Let's see Generic classes: Nope. PHB woks fine. Varient classes: Generally good, but the rogue one with fighter feats is WAY WAY broken. Sneak attack +10d6 does not equal 10+ fighter feats. Note: I think comparing the battle sorc and Warmage is apples and oranges too. Warmages are way more limited than the Bsorc, and the Bsorc is far more powerful when combined with a fighter multiclass. Especially with something like the eldrich knight. Other paladins: Why not, but I have never seen them played. There should be paladins of all four extreme alignments CG. LG, CE, LE. But not neutral ones.
smitipogra 03-29-06, 11:38 PM	How are gestalt characters not balanced... I have always though gestalt was a cool idea... but we have never run a gestalt game.... gestalt seems perfectly fine, you just have to remember that everything is gestalt. What do you mean that gestalt isn't unbalanced? A character basically gets to multiclass withouth giving anything up at all. Sure, everything else is gestalt, but how many DMs are actually going to make a gestalt orc or kobold? It's too much of a pain. Just so we're all clear, I love gestalt and think it's a fun system to screw around with, but I know it's very unbalanced (in the chars favor). Fortunately for my players, I am the kind of DM with the time and willingness to make a gestalt orc or kobold :D .
HalfMunchkin 03-29-06, 11:58 PM	Here is an idea, Battle Sorcerer/Warmage Gestalt. :angelhide :schemes: :devil: :evillaugh
starfire311 03-30-06, 09:21 AM	What do you mean that gestalt isn't unbalanced? A character basically gets to multiclass withouth giving anything up at all. Sure, everything else is gestalt, but how many DMs are actually going to make a gestalt orc or kobold? It's too much of a pain. Just so we're all clear, I love gestalt and think it's a fun system to screw around with, but I know it's very unbalanced (in the chars favor). Fortunately for my players, I am the kind of DM with the time and willingness to make a gestalt orc or kobold :D . When I run a gestalt game, which I admit is rare, happened 1 time. I getalted eevrything in the game even the monsters... I gave the monsters levels in a class equal to their HD, so a 4HD ogre also got 4 levels of barbarian for free. Another way to balance it is by adjusting the CR of creatures by approximatly 2-3. But you must rememebr Gestalt is not just a cahracter option that 2 or 3 characters in a party can pick up and no one else in the world has. Gestalt is just as balanced as using a 50 point buy system, As a DM you must take it into account when designing encounters.
RaspK FOG 03-30-06, 11:38 AM	Generic classes are good if you want to take a d20-Modernish approach with your fantasy gaming, especially for those that go for the Console RPG feel, like Lufia or Golden Sun (a very interesting mix for those that don't want to implement d100 rules for such games, or you could mix and match).
michel andre 04-01-06, 11:54 AM	Let's see Other paladins: Why not, but I have never seen them played. There should be paladins of all four extreme alignments CG. LG, CE, LE. But not neutral ones. I agree completely.
michel andre 04-01-06, 11:55 AM	Generic classes are good if you want to take a d20-Modernish approach with your fantasy gaming, especially for those that go for the Console RPG feel, like Lufia or Golden Sun (a very interesting mix for those that don't want to implement d100 rules for such games, or you could mix and match). This sounds like good advice to me. Thanks.
Lina_Inverse 04-03-06, 05:27 PM	Varient classes: Generally good, but the rogue one with fighter feats is WAY WAY broken. Sneak attack +10d6 does not equal 10+ fighter feats. Id trade 11 feats for 10d6 damage on 80% of my attacks any day of the weak. 1d6 Sneak attack is better than a feat. Gestalt is quite balanced if you just remember there one level higher than normal. A fighter/mage isnt so hot when you realize you cant do both at once. A Fighter/barbarian is incredibly focused on combat, but loses most of its advanteges to duplication.
kelvinaw273 04-03-06, 09:16 PM	Hm. I would have to say: Paladins: Unnecessary, except maybe in a campaign with a very different focus to normal. 'Prestige' Classes: Interesting, and could be fun to work into a normal campaign. Battle Sorcerer: Works OK, I guess. Interesting alternative to the warmage or hexblade. Generic Classes: Only useful in helping you build new unique classes. Gestalt Classes: Work well, but only in small parties, and up the CR of the opposition by 1-2. Character Class AC Bonuses: Penalise some characters who are meant to have unarmoured AC bonuses, ie the Monk. Otherwise a good idea. Armour Damage Resistance: I LIKE this one, I think that it makes the situation of 'man in plate armour stands up to giant' realistic, in that the tin can gets squashed rather than 'missed'. 'Taint' Rules: I intend to use a variation on this in an upcoming campaign.