So any more X classes? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

So any more X classes?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Dragoncat
Aug 13, 2009 20:25:27 A carbon copy of Danmako's post here, with a the change of one letter.

Salamandyr2000 wrote:
#2
SavevsDeath
Aug 13, 2009 21:08:29 I say no, simply because the classes are balanced quite well and cover an amazing range of character archtypes as-is. I do not believe it would make characters more versatile, or more fun, to make them all 'X' classes that can do everything all the time. Thats how we got the 3.5 Wizard, Cleric, And Druid.

On the other side of that, if you want to be good at everything then you should suck at ALL of those things compared to someone who specializes in one or two of those areas. I.e., you have to spread your attributes thin. Seems fine to me.
#3
Seeker95
Aug 13, 2009 21:17:15
would anyone like to see more A classes transformed into X classes?

1) It expands the class's theme and lets them explore new niches.

I would favor more X-classes for the reason you list here. This is much of why I favor V-class approach over A-class approach. (I would actually prefer an X-class approach that started from two legitimate primary, and then offered two different legitimate secondary stats (a true 'X'.)

However, I do not even begin to profess a way to approach this.
#4
Alas
Aug 13, 2009 21:35:28 An X approach for other classes would certainly be one way to satisfy those folks who've mentioned wanting an Int rogue.
#5
Salamandyr2000
Aug 13, 2009 21:46:54
An X approach for other classes would certainly be one way to satisfy those folks who've mentioned wanting an Int rogue.

Problem with an Int rogue is the same problem you get with a Prescient Bard and a Battlerager fighter. Since their primary and secondary stat are tied to the same defense, they always have lower defenses. And the question becomes, should the options for those kinds of classes by more powerful to compensate, or balanced with the other build possibilities? It's a fine line and you can easily go overboard.
#6
danmako
Aug 14, 2009 0:31:06 Actually the Ranger is a V, using strength for melee....

I like the idea, could you include Fighters within it? Not really, as they have one main stat, but use dex, wis and con in different degrees (weapons and AoO)....so i guess they are an M class!
#7
kletian999
Aug 14, 2009 8:21:16
I say no, simply because the classes are balanced quite well and cover an amazing range of character archtypes as-is. I do not believe it would make characters more versatile, or more fun, to make them all 'X' classes that can do everything all the time. Thats how we got the 3.5 Wizard, Cleric, And Druid.

On the other side of that, if you want to be good at everything then you should suck at ALL of those things compared to someone who specializes in one or two of those areas. I.e., you have to spread your attributes thin. Seems fine to me.

You misread, it's not that the character is built raising all four stats, it's that the class gains a 3rd and 4th build using different secondary stats (like as if Cosmic and Storm sorcerer used CON and INT for secondaries). It offers everything the V class does for a similiar level of work (probably less when you account for the "patch feats" that are becoming increasingly needed by the V classes) but leaves the class better off as a whole.

The same defense stat builds (MC hammeer/Battlerager, Healbot cleric, Wand Wizards) have functioned without special treatment so far, so I'm not sure much would be needed for future varients.
#8
Crimson_Concerto
Aug 14, 2009 12:15:15
Problem with an Int rogue is the same problem you get with a Prescient Bard and a Battlerager fighter. Since their primary and secondary stat are tied to the same defense, they always have lower defenses. And the question becomes, should the options for those kinds of classes by more powerful to compensate, or balanced with the other build possibilities? It's a fine line and you can easily go overboard.

It would much rather have the option to have that problem than not have the option to have that problem. Right now, I have zero mechanical reason to give my Rogue anything other than an 8 in INT, and that's bad.

Besides, I've proposed it before and I'll propose it again:
Slippery Mind: You can use your INT modifier in place of your WIS or CHA modifier to determine your Will Defense.
Tack that onto the end of any INT option for the Rogue, and the problem is solved.

Incidentally, they could have done the same thing with the Prescient Bard, having it add its WIS modifier to Reflex instead of its DEX or INT. It really would have been perfectly in theme. I don't see why we can't add alternate stats to Fortitude, Reflex, or Will when there are so many classes out there that get to add alternate stats to AC...
#9
undrave
Aug 14, 2009 12:28:07 I'm with you. The Bard and the Fighter are almost there (They're almost Y instead of X :p) so why not continue?

For exemple we need a Warlord prescence key-ed off WIS. It wouldn't be that hard since most warlord powers only have the stat coming in when it comes to prescence specific riders.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Dragoncat Aug 13, 2009 20:25:27	A carbon copy of Danmako's post here, with a the change of one letter. Salamandyr2000 wrote:
#2 SavevsDeath Aug 13, 2009 21:08:29	I say no, simply because the classes are balanced quite well and cover an amazing range of character archtypes as-is. I do not believe it would make characters more versatile, or more fun, to make them all 'X' classes that can do everything all the time. Thats how we got the 3.5 Wizard, Cleric, And Druid. On the other side of that, if you want to be good at everything then you should suck at ALL of those things compared to someone who specializes in one or two of those areas. I.e., you have to spread your attributes thin. Seems fine to me.
#3 Seeker95 Aug 13, 2009 21:17:15	would anyone like to see more A classes transformed into X classes? 1) It expands the class's theme and lets them explore new niches. I would favor more X-classes for the reason you list here. This is much of why I favor V-class approach over A-class approach. (I would actually prefer an X-class approach that started from two legitimate primary, and then offered two different legitimate secondary stats (a true 'X'.) However, I do not even begin to profess a way to approach this.
#4 Alas Aug 13, 2009 21:35:28	An X approach for other classes would certainly be one way to satisfy those folks who've mentioned wanting an Int rogue.
#5 Salamandyr2000 Aug 13, 2009 21:46:54	An X approach for other classes would certainly be one way to satisfy those folks who've mentioned wanting an Int rogue. Problem with an Int rogue is the same problem you get with a Prescient Bard and a Battlerager fighter. Since their primary and secondary stat are tied to the same defense, they always have lower defenses. And the question becomes, should the options for those kinds of classes by more powerful to compensate, or balanced with the other build possibilities? It's a fine line and you can easily go overboard.
#6 danmako Aug 14, 2009 0:31:06	Actually the Ranger is a V, using strength for melee.... I like the idea, could you include Fighters within it? Not really, as they have one main stat, but use dex, wis and con in different degrees (weapons and AoO)....so i guess they are an M class!
#7 kletian999 Aug 14, 2009 8:21:16	I say no, simply because the classes are balanced quite well and cover an amazing range of character archtypes as-is. I do not believe it would make characters more versatile, or more fun, to make them all 'X' classes that can do everything all the time. Thats how we got the 3.5 Wizard, Cleric, And Druid. On the other side of that, if you want to be good at everything then you should suck at ALL of those things compared to someone who specializes in one or two of those areas. I.e., you have to spread your attributes thin. Seems fine to me. You misread, it's not that the character is built raising all four stats, it's that the class gains a 3rd and 4th build using different secondary stats (like as if Cosmic and Storm sorcerer used CON and INT for secondaries). It offers everything the V class does for a similiar level of work (probably less when you account for the "patch feats" that are becoming increasingly needed by the V classes) but leaves the class better off as a whole. The same defense stat builds (MC hammeer/Battlerager, Healbot cleric, Wand Wizards) have functioned without special treatment so far, so I'm not sure much would be needed for future varients.
#8 Crimson_Concerto Aug 14, 2009 12:15:15	Problem with an Int rogue is the same problem you get with a Prescient Bard and a Battlerager fighter. Since their primary and secondary stat are tied to the same defense, they always have lower defenses. And the question becomes, should the options for those kinds of classes by more powerful to compensate, or balanced with the other build possibilities? It's a fine line and you can easily go overboard. It would much rather have the option to have that problem than not have the option to have that problem. Right now, I have zero mechanical reason to give my Rogue anything other than an 8 in INT, and that's bad. Besides, I've proposed it before and I'll propose it again: Slippery Mind: You can use your INT modifier in place of your WIS or CHA modifier to determine your Will Defense. Tack that onto the end of any INT option for the Rogue, and the problem is solved. Incidentally, they could have done the same thing with the Prescient Bard, having it add its WIS modifier to Reflex instead of its DEX or INT. It really would have been perfectly in theme. I don't see why we can't add alternate stats to Fortitude, Reflex, or Will when there are so many classes out there that get to add alternate stats to AC...
#9 undrave Aug 14, 2009 12:28:07	I'm with you. The Bard and the Fighter are almost there (They're almost Y instead of X :p) so why not continue? For exemple we need a Warlord prescence key-ed off WIS. It wouldn't be that hard since most warlord powers only have the stat coming in when it comes to prescence specific riders.