Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Krusk 02-04-08, 08:37 PM	Notes to read before reading. dislaimer- if you feel druid, cleric, wizard, archivist, and artificer are all berfectly balanced against samurai and fighter please ignore this thread. -if someone could link me to the community consensus of classes ranked by power that would be handy. I cant seem to find it right now. Most people consider it common knowledge that classes with access to level 9 spells destroy all others in power levels by quite a good margin. Next in line are the TOB characters. Followed lastly by the no casters at all. In reading unearthed arcana i came upon what i think might be a legitimate solution to this problem. It is still in it's first stages, and any comments what-so-ever are welcome. Even if simply, "this is not the way to go with fixing balance, here is why" Please include a reason as to why if you are going to post comments though. That helps create a better system. hopefully this is a simple enough system, that won't need huge ammounts of tweaks to the existing game to make it function. It also dosn't fundamentaly change the way the game or certain classes are played. The system- -Assumes limits on more powerful spells as any reasonable DM would do. -Teir A is played as normal. -Teir B Is allowed to gestalt with Teir C -Teir C Is allowed to Gestalt with itself and Teir B -Normal Gestalt rules apply - Dual caster progression prestige classes are not allowed. -Prestige classes are all considered Teir A -You may multiclass as you wish, so long as you do not violate one of the class teir combination rules. TIER A-Top Teir Full caster class means any class with access to level 9 spells. Including but not limited to the following: Cleric; Druid; Wizard; Sorcerer; Archivist; Beguiller; Wu Jen; Mystic(dragonlance); Artificer (eberron); Psion; Erudite; Wilder; Shugenja; Spirit Shaman; Ardent; Favored Soul TIER B-Mid Teir, ranger, duskblade, Paladin, warlock, Binder; Crusader; Dragon Shaman; Dragonfire Adept; Incarnate; Shadowcaster; soulborn; Swordsage; Totemist; Warblade; Healer; Warmage; Dread Necromancer; Barbarian; Rogue; Factorum TEIR C -Bottom Teir Samurai, ninja, hexblade, Monk, bard, spell thief, Swashbuckler; Lurk; Soulknife; Marshal; Noble (dragonlance); Divine Mind; Knight; Scout; Psychic warrior;Fighter -What i am thinking this would do is allow non full casters many more alternatives to counter what a full caster can offer. In addition they will generally have better saves and more class abilities. It should bump up their power slightly, but more importantly it should bump up their versatility. - I left truenamer off this list, as the class does not work. The character always ends up at one extreme or another of the powerscale. If you really want to include it, I would recomend either Teir A or C, depending on the players knowledge of the system. -Please tell me if and why you disagree with a classes placement in the teir system.
UAMDB 02-05-08, 12:08 PM	Thats a different idea. How would PrC and multiclassing work in this system? Could I be a Fighter2/Rogue2 then take a level of Wizard then go back to fighter/rogue?
Krusk 02-05-08, 02:46 PM	Thats a different idea. How would PrC and multiclassing work in this system? Could I be a Fighter2/Rogue2 then take a level of Wizard then go back to fighter/rogue? That is a good idea that I didn't think of at all. I would think for balance, all prestige classes would get lumped with full casters, because there is no way i can think of to sort out the awsomely powerful ones like FB, and planar shepard from the crappy ones, like true necro. Also dual casting prestige classes would be banned, as they are in gestalt. Multiclassing would probably work fine so long as you stayed in the same teir. Wizard 1/fighterrogue 3 is ok. Fighterrogue2/wizardrogue 1 is bad. ninjaswordsage3/wizard is ok ninjaswordsage7/ninjafighter 3 is ok. -i just realized it is not clear, but if someone wishes to play a ninja//hexblade that is ok, just going to be overly suboptimal. i think a lettering system for the teirs is in order to make it easier to read.
thecasualoblivion 02-06-08, 01:48 AM	My simple and elegant answer to this, and similar to it was to turn most of the classes into fixed gestalts based on class archetypes. Here is what I came up with, basing my initial list on the 11 PHB classes: first, the non gestalts(haven't decided on nerfing them further): Cleric--As PHB or nerfed Wizard--As PHB or nerfed, and without question no Divine Metamagic/Persistent Spell Druid--As PHB with PHBII shapeshift variant required and the gestalts... Barbarian--Barbarian/Crusader gestalt, with the three martial disciplines Iron Heart, Tiger Claw and Stone Dragon Bard--Bard/Beguiler gestalt, with spells per day as per the Beguiler, and additional spells known from the Bard spell list from the Bard Spells Known table from the PHB Fighter--Fighter/Warblade gestalt, minus the Warblade bonus feats Monk--Monk/Swordsage gestalt, and this one makes me a little nervous mechanics-wise, though I'm fine with the flavor. Paladin--Paladin/Crusader gestalt, and the Cha bonus to will saves for the Crusader doesn't stack with Divine Grace Ranger--Ranger/Scout gestalt(Swift Hunter anyone?), and this one might be a little on the weak side. Rogue--Rogue/Swashbuckler gestalt(Daring Outlaw anyone?), and HD will be D8 for this. Sorcerer--Sorcerer/Warlock gestalt, with casting in light armor, one martial weapon, medium BAB and a D8 Hit Die. If I added Expanded Psionics to this, I would go: Psion--As written Psychic Warrior--I'm not really sure what to gestalt with this, if anything. I'm not sure Psychic Warrior really gains anything from a Psychic Warrior/Soulknife gestalt, and I'm tempted to add Warlock here. Soulknife--Soulknife/Swordsage seems like the best fix, though that will break the Psychic Weapon feats hardcore. Wilder--Gestalt Wilder/X, where X is any single class except Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Psion, or Psychic Warrior. I haven't really gone past the PHB and the XPH yet with this. One of the nice things about this fix is that making classes into fixed Gestalts allows, suppors, and even encourages multiclassing as the ToB classes all multiclass well, and the non-ToB classes (Rogue/Ranger/Psychic Warrior) all benefit from multiclassing into the ToB gestalts.
nonsi 02-06-08, 03:17 AM	Hi thecasualoblivion I'm really glad about the quotes in your sig, because they emphasize some of the advantages of my house rules, which are: 1. No system mastery is required – things come quite decent out of the box and it's really hard to trash a character (unless you really put an effort to it with bad multiclassing). 2. Low level game will be far less swingy (if what you meant was that survival revolves around pure luck too much). 3. It's not immediately obvious that pure spellcasters outclass everyone else. 4. The core classes are far more distinct and yet template-able (well, except the Soulknife, which is quite rigid, but there's not much I can do about it – maybe with some added invocations I can make it into a Warrior-Sorcerer (my Sorcerer) based PrC, but that's just between me and me). 5. The classes in need gain more SkPts. 6. All classes have more features & more options and the classes in need gain more feats. 7. Far less dependency upon the right magical item to save the day.
UAMDB 02-06-08, 08:20 AM	I like the change Krusk. I think it could work. You might have to change a few things as you play test it. If it was not thet fact that I have never had a player try to outshine the rest of my party and I am running a gesalt game now I would try this. I say I never had a play try to outshine the rest of the party, because I think that is the major reason someone says class X is broken or needs nerfing, or Class Y is to weak. I guess I am extremely lucky because while I have a party of characters built effectively, noone trys to beat the others. They play as I feel it is intended to be, as a team game. Good luck with the project.
Krusk 02-06-08, 08:41 AM	apparently i had a decent idea, sweet. I am thinking that perhapse the alternate magic systems such as TOM and binder ect would be lumped in as Teir B. I haven't seen much of their play in real life, but online they do not seem to be involved in some of the more broken builds. They do seem to be consistant and decently balanced though. Also i guess i should include psionics somewhere. I may do that later today.
thecasualoblivion 02-06-08, 10:48 AM	apparently i had a decent idea, sweet. I am thinking that perhapse the alternate magic systems such as TOM and binder ect would be lumped in as Teir B. I haven't seen much of their play in real life, but online they do not seem to be involved in some of the more broken builds. They do seem to be consistant and decently balanced though. Also i guess i should include psionics somewhere. I may do that later today. Warlocks should be tier B, though the should never be allowed to gestalt with any class that has Sneak Attack/Sudden Strike. I still have to promote my system for this, as opening the floodgates to unlimited gestalts tends to undermine class/roleplaying archetypes and multiclassing is a little cumbersome if you allow switching one half of the gestalt and keeping the other. My fixed gestalts keep class flavor intact, while making multiclassing more viable than it generally is in the core game.
Krusk 02-06-08, 11:07 AM	Warlocks should be tier B, though the should never be allowed to gestalt with any class that has Sneak Attack/Sudden Strike. I still have to promote my system for this, as opening the floodgates to unlimited gestalts tends to undermine class/roleplaying archetypes and multiclassing is a little cumbersome if you allow switching one half of the gestalt and keeping the other. My fixed gestalts keep class flavor intact, while making multiclassing more viable than it generally is in the core game. My only complaint for your system is that it is a little more restrictive than mine. Mine would leave it open to anyone who wants to find a way to justify their ninja barbarian and other unique class combinations. Good plan to limit sneak attack/sudden strike and on warlocks.
thecasualoblivion 02-06-08, 01:44 PM	My only complaint for your system is that it is a little more restrictive than mine. Mine would leave it open to anyone who wants to find a way to justify their ninja barbarian and other unique class combinations. Good plan to limit sneak attack/sudden strike and on warlocks. I ran gestalts before, and a broken Rogue/Warlock gestalt was one of the results. You just can't allow full sneak attack and full eldritch blast. Ever. A ninja barbarian can still exist, it would just be a Ninja/Barbarian multiclass instead of a Ninja/Barbarian gestalt. A Monk(Monk Swordsage gestalt) and Barbarian(Barbarian/Crusader) multiclass would be a pretty dececent build, and would cover the Ninja Barbarian concept rather nicely. Its a question of degree. Your concept allows more flexible gestalting, while my solution works much better with multiclassing and PrCs.
Krusk 02-06-08, 03:44 PM	I ran gestalts before, and a broken Rogue/Warlock gestalt was one of the results. You just can't allow full sneak attack and full eldritch blast. Ever. Not to totally shoot you down but... How exactly is a level 20 ninja//rogue who deals 20d6 of damage a round at all more broken than a level 20 two weapon fighting rogue who is making 6 attacks (possibly 8 via haste or speed) dealing 10d6 on each. (thats 60-80d6 damage a round on a nongestalt common build) I think you are confusing a half decent semi effective tactic for broken. - also i think my tactic works better for prestiges. Simply call them a Teir A and be done with it. Quite simple.
Eldritch_Lord 02-06-08, 04:59 PM	I have a few issues with this. 1) Tier D is "other", so where exactly do you put them on the scale? You have "uber" "really good" and "sucks horrifically", but I don't know whether D is meant to be "good, but not B material", "bad, but not C material", "worse than C", or "meh, average". It consists of very different classes, which I think should be reclassified and D gotten rid of: Fighter, generally agreed to suck (C); Barbarian, about as powerful damage-wise as a warblade, but less versatile (B); Rogue, very well balanced (B); Knight, basically a feat tree plus d12 HD (C); Marshal, effective buffer but not much else (C); Scout, about rogueish in power (B); Noble, better outside of combat (C); Psychic warrior, very well balanced (B); Divine Mind, bad bad bad bad bad (C); and Wilder, a full manifester! (A) 2) Healer may be a full caster, but it is definitely not up there with the A team. Probably C, and B is stretching it. 3) I'd put Binder and Shadowcaster in there with the (B) list--well done, but not overpowering. 4) If you must have 4 tiers, I'd say to order them Full Casters--Good--Okay--Suckage instead of Full Caster--Good--Suckage--Miscellaneous. That makes gestalting easier, because A = B+D = 2C is better classified than the A = B+D = B+C = C+C = C+D = D+D system you have already. ----------------------------- Otherwise, this selective gestalt is a very good idea conceptually; I might use a version of this in some of my games.
thecasualoblivion 02-06-08, 05:43 PM	Not to totally shoot you down but... How exactly is a level 20 ninja//rogue who deals 20d6 of damage a round at all more broken than a level 20 two weapon fighting rogue who is making 6 attacks (possibly 8 via haste or speed) dealing 10d6 on each. (thats 60-80d6 damage a round on a nongestalt common build) I think you are confusing a half decent semi effective tactic for broken. - also i think my tactic works better for prestiges. Simply call them a Teir A and be done with it. Quite simple. What is stopping your level 20 ninja/rogue from also using two weapon fighting? ;) You can even go insane with this, going: Fighter1/Rogue1 then Swashbuckler2/Fighter2 then Fighter1/Ninja1 then Swashbuckler16/Ninja16 That gets you three free feats, and assuming Daring Outlaw +10d6 Sneak attack, +9d6 Sudden Strike. Three extra feats easily help get you all the TWF feats, and this has full BAB. All of these classes are considered to suck enough to make this theoretically possible under your rules. This build also only requires three stats, those being Int, Dex, and Wis, and even INT for this is debatable. D10 Hit die at every level let you even go with 12 or even 10 Con. Prestiges are inherently tier A, and in my system they are always a single class. The thing is, that free gestalting can allow you to qualify much faster than you really should. Gestalting Fighter does wonders for this. If you can mix and match gestalts, its easy to just go fighter for half levels to get the feats you need really cheap. I don't really like unlimited gestalts as I am a fan of classes being distinct and having a strong identity. The system as written is bad enough with making character class meaningless, and being able to freely gestalt just extends that. You also have to worry about broken combos within the gestalts, especially with PrCs later on. We played an epic game a while back with the ability to freely gestalt up to 10 levels. The most powerful character ended up being a gestalt Fighter/Ninja10, Order of the Bow Initiate 12. A combo based only on two stats(Wis and Dex) attacking six times on a full attack(+21/+16/+11/+6/+1 using rapid shot for one extra and everything -2) dealing 1d8+6d8+5d6 damage on every shot. It had an AC of 61(wis and dex to AC, and I think both were above 30) just for good measure. The point is, you gotta be really careful with this, because if you put this into the wrong hands it can get really out of control. I like my system, fixed gestalts leading to more balanced classes, while maintaining class flavor by making the gestalts based on the actual class fluff. It also allows for robust multiclassing with how excellent the ToB classes are at multiclassing. It also helps keep prestige classes more balanced by not letting characters qualify too easily.
Krusk 02-06-08, 08:51 PM	Thanks for the input everyone. casualoblivion, i can not think of a single instance of sneak attack being broken no matter how it is used. you on the other hand think it is a very powerful ability. We are just going to have to agree to disagree with this one. Eldritch Lord, D was ment to be not quite as good as B, but not as bad as C. Simply the rest. fighter is only in this catagory to prevent people from simply being fighter//x for the want of feats. i simply put healer in there as it is a full caster. I have heard it sort of sucks, but i was going for consistancy. Im going to take into consideration how you would reorder my classes and make some changes. i am definatly looking for input as to how you would do it diffrently in your game. I mostly posted it here to inspire someone good at creating systems to take it and run. - i reordered some things after giving some thought, and i ended up with 2 classes in Teir D so it was dropped. This was back to my original original concept of 3 teirs that each have a more classes in them.
Eldritch_Lord 02-06-08, 09:38 PM	i am definatly looking for input as to how you would do it diffrently in your game. I mostly posted it here to inspire someone good at creating systems to take it and run. - i reordered some things after giving some thought, and i ended up with 2 classes in Teir D so it was dropped. This was back to my original original concept of 3 teirs that each have a more classes in them. Well, the suggestions I made are how I'd do it; were I to implement this, I think I'd go with your post-edit version as-is.
thecasualoblivion 02-06-08, 09:45 PM	Thanks for the input everyone. casualoblivion, i can not think of a single instance of sneak attack being broken no matter how it is used. you on the other hand think it is a very powerful ability. We are just going to have to agree to disagree with this one. Eldritch Lord, D was ment to be not quite as good as B, but not as bad as C. Simply the rest. fighter is only in this catagory to prevent people from simply being fighter//x for the want of feats. i simply put healer in there as it is a full caster. I have heard it sort of sucks, but i was going for consistancy. Im going to take into consideration how you would reorder my classes and make some changes. i am definatly looking for input as to how you would do it diffrently in your game. I mostly posted it here to inspire someone good at creating systems to take it and run. - i reordered some things after giving some thought, and i ended up with 2 classes in Teir D so it was dropped. This was back to my original original concept of 3 teirs that each have a more classes in them. I was just using sneak attack as an example. My point was you have to be a little careful with this or you're creating as many balance problems as you're solving. You obviously aren't concerned about the flavor part of it, but that's a matter of taste.
Krusk 02-06-08, 09:52 PM	snip*d for relavanceI was just using sneak attack as an example. You obviously aren't concerned about the flavor part of it, but that's a matter of taste. sneak attack= ability to deal lots of damage when opponent is unprepared. I am going to let my players decide how they want to flavor their characters. If could be as simple as "my rageing barbarian isnt afraid to take a swing at the opponents weak spot." for all I care. I am 100% unconcerned with flavor for this system. Eldritch lord, if you end up running this let me know. I am not sure if i will get a shot to DM again before my group converts to 4e. -Im running star wars right now and that would have to end before i started another up.
thecasualoblivion 02-06-08, 10:56 PM	[QUOTE=Krusk;15029663]snip*d for relavance sneak attack= ability to deal lots of damage when opponent is unprepared. [\QUOTE] This is kind of a distraction, but hear me out: Thats not really an issue, as its really easy to render the downsides to sneak attack irrelevant: Take this progression: Race--Human--Feat(Two Weapon Fighting) Lv1--Ftr1/Rogue1--Feats(Martial Study--Clinging Shadow Strike, Shadow Blade) Lv2--Ftr2/Swashbuckler1--Feats(Weapon Finesse, Martial Stance--Island of Blades) Lv3--Swashbuckler2/Ninja1--Feat Daring Outlaw Lv4--Swashbuckler3/Ninja2 Lv5--Swashbuckler4/Ftr3 Lv6--Ftr4/Ninja3--Feats Gloom Razor, Imp TWF Lv7--Swashbuckler5/Ninja4 Lv8--Swashbuckler6/Ninja5 Lv9--Swashbuckler7/Ninja6--Feat Two Weapon Pounce This gets you an attack progression of +7/+7/+5/+5 with two short swords, Dex bonus to hit, dex and int bonuses to damage which is not halved on the off hand(and you can dump an 8 into strength), +4d6 sneak attack and +3d6 sudden strike. You can easily have Island of Blades at level 2, which makes the opponents flanked as long as another ally threatens it. You don't need any specific positioning. Combined with a pair of weapon crystals that let you sneak attack undead and constructs, you can sneak attack pretty much 90-95% of the time. You can use a swift action to go invisible thanks to being a Ninja and trigger a full attack with both sneak/sudden a number of times per day, if they try to hit you and miss while you're invisible it triggers Gloom Razor and you're invisible again, and at 9th level the wizard should be casting Improved Invisibility on you whenever possible. This gets even worse as it levels. Combine all of this, and I think you have a pretty broken character. It might be possible to outdamage this, but it would take something similarly broken.
Eldritch_Lord 02-06-08, 11:33 PM	This gets you an attack progression of +7/+7/+5/+5 with two short swords, Dex bonus to hit, dex and int bonuses to damage which is not halved on the off hand(and you can dump an 8 into strength), +4d6 sneak attack and +3d6 sudden strike. [...] Combine all of this, and I think you have a pretty broken character. It might be possible to outdamage this, but it would take something similarly broken. So you can deal 4 x (weapon + 7d6 + Int + Dex) at level 9, while a wizard can surpass that with a single casting of empowered fireball (13d6 or more) if he hits at least 3-4 enemies, or cast cloudkill in a small room and kill every living creature within a few rounds, or cast hold monster and take over your ninja//rogue. I don't see why this is so imbalancing.
Krusk 02-07-08, 02:47 AM	First- You are gestalting wrong. Might be the cause of why you keep getting things you consider broken. you can't take level 1 of a class on one side, and then level 2 of the class on the other. Second-you are writing out the progressions in the wrong format, making it very hard to follow them. Fighter 2/swash3/fighter1/swash 3//rogue 1/swash 1/ninja 2/fighter 1/ninja 4 is the correct format. Keep in mind as you already are gaining the benefit of fighter levels 1-3 on your right side, you will gain no benefit from taking fighter 1 on the other side. Same for swashbuckler. Third- Swashbuckler is an awful class past 3. Ninja is just a weaker version of the rogue. Just somethings to think on. Fourth- A much better similar build using much less complicated things is simply. fighter 2/barb 1 (lion totem)/Swash 3/warblade 3//rogue 9 Grants full BAB, pounce, good fort and reflex, int to damage, int to reflex and some minor manuvers, full sneak attack which is strictly better than sudden strike. Oh and rage thrown in just for fun. Might consider a variant to drop that, because im not sure if you can use manuvers while rageing or not. Spend the same feats on the same things, only you will have more to spend. Not only is this build legal, it gets int synergy from rogue, swash and warblade. Fifth- If this sort of power is what you are worried about, it is the sort I would like to encourage, in order to balance things out. sixth- if you really want to keep debating this please do it via pm/im as it is off topic, and id rather this thread not get ridicilus.
Krusk 02-07-08, 02:58 AM	I just realized that fighter 2/barb 1 (lion totem)/Swash 3/warblade 3//rogue 9 might be a little hard to understand for some who are unfamiliar with gestalt. so ill break it down. fighter 2/barb 1 (lion totem)/Swash 3/warblade 3//rogue 9 Means your level progression goes like so. Fighter//rogue fighter//rogue Barbarian//rogue swashbuckler//rogue swashbuckler//rogue swashbuckler//rogue warblade//rogue warblade//rogue warblade//rogue the // designates the two sides of your class progression. in this case i decided to take my class levels in order, as the build does not depend on order. In reality i would take barbarian 1 over fighter 1, for extra hp and skills. If you want to take your classes out of order, simply write it like this. barb 1 (lion totem)/fighter 1/Swash 3/fighter1/warblade 3//rogue 9 This gives you the logical progression of class order as read from right to left. You went barbarian, fighter, swash 3, fighter, warblade 3. In that order.
Korwin 02-07-08, 03:37 AM	Why is Shugenja in the B-tier? Its a full caster... [edit] ditto Spirit Shaman cu
Eldritch_Lord 02-07-08, 05:31 PM	Why is Shugenja in the B-tier? Its a full caster... [edit] ditto Spirit Shaman cu Well, the classes as they are are sub-par, but they still have 9 level casting and strong offensive spells; shugenja can get fireball and meteor swarm, for example, and the spirit shaman has the druid list.
ChristopherGroves 02-09-08, 11:42 PM	Krusk - good thought. Truth is this ... some classes can do lots of damage. Some classes can bend reality. Things that can alter reality go into A. Things that are otherwise pretty good go into B. Rest goes into C. I'd put Factotum into A ... Psion/Ardent as well ... yada yada. I'd also stick some PrCs into A ... things like multi-pouncers, etc. (as well as any that is advancing the casting of other A bases). Anything that can get celerity, schism, etc. need to be in A. Depending on how you view the RKV's divine impetus or whatever to work, that could be an A (as could White Raven Tactics ... again, depending on your ruling)
CyperionTheShadeBlade 02-10-08, 03:10 AM	There is one thing i'm worried about. Level 1-5. At these levels some A classes such as wizard and sorcerer are really weak already, and if you allow the other classes to go gestalt, these start-weak classes will be even more screwed, and will most likely not live to get really powerful. The fighter, despite being vastly underpowered at later levels, is actually way better than the wizard at the first few levels. Fixing the fighter is a great thing, and if i where playing a high-level game, this would properly be a good solution to the problem, but giving him more power at the first levels are just making another problem way worse.
Krusk 02-10-08, 03:26 AM	I have only read dungeonscape, but never played or had someone play a factorum. Is it really that good? I know it can be optimised to crazy, but in realty so can a good portion of classes. Heck there are fighter builds that are pretty insane. At level 1 i still say wizards are better. Even vs a fighter. Look at all the level 1 save vs death spells. sleep, color spray ect. All of those can end a fight straight away on a won init. Even at level 1 a fighter can deal with 1, maybe 2 opponents a round. Gestalting a class like fighter with barb or rogue wont do too much amazing at low levels combat wise. It gives them some variety sure, but it dosn't really make them much more powerful. All it really does it let them do some stuff out of combat, or if a rogue oriented class lets them do things in combat. unlike normal at level 1, where casters can win a fight in one round, and then do tons out of combat. I don't want to dismiss your concern out of hand, because I can see your point, in that someone who tried to play an evoker or similar concept would indeed be outclassed at early levels. But the only thing i can think of is that someone who plays that way at lower levels is probably going to play similarly at high levels, where direct damage spells are a worse idea than at low levels. back to christopher groves, i dont know if you caught the note at the top, but all prcs were lumped into A. Mostly because there is no way to classify them into the catagories as some are quite similar, but one is amazing while one sucks. -mystic theuruge? heck they get full casting twice, they are A right? Frenzied berserker, they get no casting at all in any form, easily a C.
ChristopherGroves 02-10-08, 09:06 AM	Putting them all in A isn't bad. I was more thinking some are clearly broken, others less so. Any dual-casting progression goes into A for sure Any single casting progression goes into A if you're an A class to start Big ones like FB also go into A. You could probably get folks helping slot things into the right places. Others could probably go into B quite safely. What I was getting at with the factotum is the classes that have the ability to break the move/standard/full actions on a consistent basis (and I'm not talking about the single 9th level maneuver for a single extra attack - I'm talking classes that can take multiple actions or other game-changing things).
Krusk 02-10-08, 02:37 PM	Putting them all in A isn't bad. I was more thinking some are clearly broken, others less so. Any dual-casting progression goes into A for sure Any single casting progression goes into A if you're an A class to start Big ones like FB also go into A. You could probably get folks helping slot things into the right places. Others could probably go into B quite safely. What I was getting at with the factotum is the classes that have the ability to break the move/standard/full actions on a consistent basis (and I'm not talking about the single 9th level maneuver for a single extra attack - I'm talking classes that can take multiple actions or other game-changing things). I definatly agree that some prestiges are better than others, but i can't think of a blanket way to put some in one catagorie and others in another. Aside from manually doing each and every one. If someone wants to do that Ill gladly add a section in the first post for it, but im not going to do it. It is easier to simply say they are all A and be done with it.
Omen_of_Peace 02-10-08, 04:29 PM	Factotum are much less powerful than any of the other classes in A, but it's true that they make wonderful supports for the other half of the gestalt. Still, I think I'd put them in B. Bard in C is underestimating it, but at least more people will take it that way, which is good. Ardents and Favored Souls should probably go to A, as full casters.