Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 carnivore Mar 19, 2008 5:34:48	i am working on a new thread... and have a question. what Categories would you put the base Classes in? .... would it be like i have it below? Base Classes Primary Spellcaster[indent] Arcane Spells Sorcerer Wizard Beguiler Wu Jen Warmage Dread necromancer Divine Spells Cleric Druid Favored Soul Spirit Shaman Shugenja Archivist Psionic Powers Psion/Erudite Wilder Ardent [/indent] Primary Martial Ability [indent] Supernatural enhanced: Paladin Ranger Duskblade Hexblade Psychic Warrior Swordsage Crusader Warblade Non-magically enhanced Barbarian Fighter Knight Samurai Swashbuckler [/indent] Primary Skill Ability[indent] Supernatural Skill base Bard Lurk Psi-Rogue Spellthief Non-magical Skill base Rogue Scout Ninja [/indent] Support Classes[indent] Support Martial Character Monk Soulknife Support Skill based Marshal Support Supernatural based Healer Divine Mind Dragon Shaman Dragon Fire Adept Warlock [/indent] Jack-of-All-Trades[indent] Binder Totemist?? Incarnate?? Factototum Crafting Powers(infusions) Artificer Psionic Artificer [/indent] am adjusting the post...bear with me .... continue to feel free to post advice :D
#2 phaxi Mar 19, 2008 5:39:28	I'd say monk and soulknife are primary martial classes, and ninja a skill class.
#3 boffer Mar 19, 2008 5:40:39	you forgot dread necromaner, archivist and factototum, as well as Divine Mind and Dragon Fire Adept.
#4 x-codes Mar 19, 2008 5:46:51	I'd say monk and soulknife are primary martial classes, and ninja a skill class. Monk I'm not sure about, but I agree with the other two. Divine Mind is a misc while the others that boffer put up go in the Primary Spellcasters. Theres also Healer, which is a definite misc as well. Spellthief is a skill class, IMO.
#5 carnivore Mar 19, 2008 5:51:59	thanks for the response .... will add them ... :D
#6 carnivore Mar 19, 2008 6:57:54	how would you Sub Divide them ....:D
#7 tshern Mar 19, 2008 7:03:01	I think Artificers should have an entire category of their own. Named Overpowered Pwnage or something similiar.
#8 jameswilliamogle Mar 19, 2008 8:21:43	Incarnates fit the skill-monkey role very well. I'd place them there. Binders are a martial class (Anima Mages are the exception, not the rule). Totemists are too. I don't think Warlocks or DFAs really qualify as primary spellcasters, since they take specialization to get there. I'd put them under miscellaneous. I think these definitions are a bit too narrow... Many of your misc. classes can fill the party Face role very well, for example.
#9 phaxi Mar 19, 2008 9:44:53	how would you Sub Divide them ....:D something like..: For casters: Divine, Arcane and Psionic. Martials: magically/supernatural/etc. enhanced classes (ranger, swordsage etc.), and non-magically enhanced classes (fighter, swashbuckler etc.) Skillz: non-casters (rogue, scout) and casters (lurk, bard)
#10 sinfire_titan Mar 19, 2008 10:15:12	Incarnates fit the skill-monkey role very well. I'd place them there. Binders are a martial class (Anima Mages are the exception, not the rule). Totemists are too. I don't think Warlocks or DFAs really qualify as primary spellcasters, since they take specialization to get there. I'd put them under miscellaneous. I think these definitions are a bit too narrow... Many of your misc. classes can fill the party Face role very well, for example. Actually, Incarnates and Totemists are primary Meldshapers. And the only two in the game. But they make excellent Jacks-of-All-Trades. Kinda like the Factotum.
#11 feintmaster Mar 19, 2008 11:26:57	Miscellaneous seems like it could be renamed "Support." Not only that, but you could chuck a bunch of other classes in the "Support" basket, should you decide to rename it that. Classes like: - Warlock - Dragonfire Adept - Bard Perhaps others...
#12 pfooti Mar 19, 2008 12:29:20	Personally, I'd look to subcategorize. For example, the monk isn't exactly a "Primary Martial Character". I think of the monk as a "Support Martial Character". With grapples, trips, stuns, and mobility, the monk is great for annoying spellcasters or providing the flank that the rogue needs to get the sneak attack. But that's my $0.02, which is especially worthless in this day and age.
#13 cannibalsmith Mar 19, 2008 12:38:04	I'd put only 9 spell (or power, or maneuver) level classes into primary casters. I'd put invokers, meldshapers and such into a separate weirdo category.
#14 sinfire_titan Mar 19, 2008 12:39:09	I'd put only 9 spell (or power) level classes into primary casters. I'd put invokers, meldshapers and such into a separate weirdo category. Meldshapers aren't weird. Crab-People are weird.
#15 mr_teapot Mar 19, 2008 13:36:58	I don't think Warlocks or DFAs really qualify as primary spellcasters, since they take specialization to get there. I'd put them under miscellaneous. I'm going to second this. Warlocks aren't really anything like spellcasters, except that they have "spell-like ability" written in the class description. They're more like archers with a better special effects budget. In 4th edition, Warlocks are classified as Strikers, like Rogues and Rangers, rather than as Controllers (like a Wizard) or Leader (like a Cleric). I sort of feel like "spellcaster" doesn't describe very well what the character does. It describes a mechanical subsystem rather than the effect on gameplay the character has: some spellcasters are good at buffing, some are good at blasting, some are good at battefield control, some replace skill characters. I think Beguiler straddles the line between Spellcaster and Skill Character, as they have lots of skills and their spells augment these very well. But their spells are limited when doing things beyond illusions and rogue stuff and social stuff. This is an illustration of the point above, too.
#16 eepop Mar 19, 2008 13:50:45	I think that the groups you are trying to classify them into is off. Classifying them by what class abilities they have (spellcasting vs martial) doesn't really offer much information. For what purpose are you trying to classify the classes? If its to make it clearer which class to pick for which role, I think you need to focus on better defining the roles. In 4E the classes fit their roles alot more cleanly than 3E classes do, but that doesn't have to obstruct the classification. I think Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker are pretty good descriptions of the roles possible. Perhaps in the 3E framework, the best way to classify the classes is not by splitting them up into categories, but instead ranking how well they can fill these roles in the party. Perhaps even they should be ranked on how well they can fill role-pairs at once, like defender-striker, but that would be alot more work. Or perhaps, I don't know what I'm talking about. You decide.
#17 carnivore Mar 19, 2008 14:15:52	the classification will help with a new thread im working on .... how are the changes so far
#18 eepop Mar 19, 2008 15:15:53	Its hard to really give constructive advice without knowing what the classification is trying to help with. Could you provide a couple sample questions that what you're trying to work towards would answer?
#19 carnivore Mar 19, 2008 15:24:44	i am making a Racial optimization Thread.... and will demonstrate the Effectiveness of the race for each Class(sub Class) that someone might want to play this will determine how many posts i need to reserve to allow space for future Additions the actual Role the characters take can be fulfilled by many different classes or multiclass combinations... that is mainly up to the player as to the direction they choose to pursue. some races are not well suited for certain classes(exa: Duergar are poor choices for: Sorceror, Beguiler, Bard,Warmage, Wilder,(other Cha based Casters)etc... why, because they get +2 Constitution, -4 Charisma, thier Primary Stat starts with a penalty) :D
#20 jameswilliamogle Mar 19, 2008 15:26:07	Actually, Incarnates and Totemists are primary Meldshapers. And the only two in the game. But they make excellent Jacks-of-All-Trades. Kinda like the Factotum. True, but Meldshaper isn't in his classification system. I was trying to relate it to my play experience with them, which is: Binder = martial class, Totemist = martial class, Incarnate = skill class. They can't really be simplified that well, though... If I had to subdivide, I'd do: Martial Class Binder (party face) Totemist (natural attack based) Skill Class Incarnate (party face, martial backup) But I think a "jack-of-all-trades" section is important, even if there are only 3 classes that would fall into it (Binder, Incarnate, Factotum).
#21 andyjames Mar 19, 2008 15:32:17	Isn't a Dread Necro an arcane caster, not a divine one?
#22 banor Mar 19, 2008 15:33:57	IIRC Dread Necromancer is an Arcane class not a Divine one. Also I'd say that Bard is more of a support class than a skill based one. Most of their class abilities are toward being a support character Edit : Ninja'ed ><
#23 sinfire_titan Mar 19, 2008 15:45:11	True, but Meldshaper isn't in his classification system. I was trying to relate it to my play experience with them, which is: Binder = martial class, Totemist = martial class, Incarnate = skill class. They can't really be simplified that well, though... If I had to subdivide, I'd do: Martial Class Binder (party face) Totemist (natural attack based) Skill Class Incarnate (party face, martial backup) But I think a "jack-of-all-trades" section is important, even if there are only 3 classes that would fall into it (Binder, Incarnate, Factotum). Incarnates can cover Martial as well. LN Incarnates do just fine with melee combat, despite their poor BAB and d6 HD. They are actually very good for it.
#24 carnivore Mar 19, 2008 15:52:36	adjusted .... hows that? :D
#25 eepop Mar 19, 2008 15:53:34	Feel free to ignore me, just trying to play devil's advocate here. In a racial optimization thread, how would having it broken down in the current method help you? In the example you gave it seems that the most important aspect is how the charisma penalty effects the character... If thats the case, wouldn't it be more useful to have it classified by what its primary stat is? putting categories like INT Archivist Facotum Wizard CHA Bard Beguiler Sorcerer Wilder
#26 amadithegreat Mar 19, 2008 15:57:39	Factotum is Skill monkey, not everywhere dabbler. At least for most of cases, or at least as long as your DM doesn't allow you to get leadership and store 200 undead minions with extra insight point feat in a bag of holding, then every morning use Feat Leech power on all of them.. You need a new category, called "WIN". It contains: Cleric, Archivist, Druid. These can pretty much fulfill your combat role as well as the melee-ers listed, in addition to their casting. Druids with shaping and others with divine might.
#27 sinfire_titan Mar 19, 2008 16:00:21	Factotum is Skill monkey, not everywhere dabbler. At least for most of cases, or at least as long as your DM doesn't allow you to get leadership and store 200 undead minions with extra insight point feat in a bag of holding, then every morning use Feat Leech power on all of them.. You need a new category, called "WIN". It contains: Cleric, Archivist, Druid, Wizard. These can pretty much fulfill your combat role as well as the melee-ers listed, in addition to their casting. Druids with shaping and others with divine might. Fixed. Polymorphed Wizards are combat house.
#28 andyjames Mar 19, 2008 16:02:09	Beguiler is Int casting, not Cha.
#29 braithwaite Mar 19, 2008 16:03:15	I find it more useful to think of classes more in terms of party role, something like... Tank Damage dealer Ranged damage dealer Melee damage dealer Damage support (buffer...does damage through other's attacks) Utility Social Utility Obstacle Utility Wilderness Utility Battlefield Control Healing Because really, in play, a bow Ranger will have more in common with a Warmage (2 ranged damage dealers) than the Warmage will have with a Beguiler (battlefield control, social utility, obstacle utility) or than the Ranger will have with a Paladin or Knight (tanks). The fact that the Warmage and Beguiler are both Arcane primary casters and the Paladin and Ranger are magically enhanced martials isn't really very relevant.
#30 darksamuari Mar 19, 2008 16:05:33	Ummm.... Barbarian?
#31 carnivore Mar 19, 2008 16:05:38	the way i am grouping the builds in the thread are based on these Classifications.... for Example: HALF-ORCS,+2 Strength, –2 Intelligence, –2 Charisma.... base PHB versions, can Fullfill the role of a Primary Caster... but you need to stay away from Int based or Cha based classes... thus the following: Good options: [indent]Cleric Druid Ardent[/indent] Bad Options [indent]Sorcerer Wizard Beguiler Wu Jen Warmage Dread necromancer Favored Soul Spirit Shaman Shugenja Archivist Artificer Psionic Artificer [/indent] etc.... for the other Categories :D
#32 nexis Mar 19, 2008 16:08:51	Warblades are not supernaturally enhanced. Not sure about crusaders though. Also, it appears that support classes, with two exceptions, means bad classes. :D
#33 carnivore Mar 19, 2008 16:12:15	Warblades are not supernaturally enhanced. Not sure about crusaders though. it depends on what Manuvers they choose Also, it appears that support classes, with two exceptions, means bad classes. :D Support Classes can Make a Group of Individuals... into a TEAM... they can boost the output and Abilities of the rest of the party above what they normally could have done by themselves how you build them, and how you play them determines if they perform poorly :D
#34 phaxi Mar 19, 2008 16:20:13	Isnt bards more of a support class than a skill class?