PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Tier 1 conversions?



AtlasSniperman
2015-08-20, 05:51 PM
Hey everyone,

Changing the original post for a moment:
Before you rant about the fact that if all classes were T1 it would completely unbalance a game please read carefully. This thread started out that way, however an overwhelming response has led to it being changed to
a) a discussion about tier's
b) a discussion about fluff
and
c) a discussion on how one would create T1 or T2 variants of given classes.

If you would like all classes to be on an even tier, T3 would be a safer bet. If you're simply looking for faithful T1 conversions of classes, stick around.

This post will continue to be updated with links should variants be found. The classes under the original purview of this thread are

Tier 2:
Sorcerer
Favored Soul
Psion

Tier 3:
Bard
Incarnate
Totemist
Lurk

Tier 4:
Rogue(Mundane Trickster-Hypermundane (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431473-The-Mundane-Trickster-Because-who-needs-spells-%283-5-class-PEACH%29))
Ranger(Witch Hunter-Hypermundane (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433945-quot-Suffer-not-the-witch-to-live-quot-3-5-hypermundane-PEACH))
Spellthief(Ziegander's Spellthief (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19737601&postcount=1))
Barbarian(Berserker-Hypermundane (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433533-quot-I-will-crush-you-puny-mage!-quot-%283-5-hypermundane-class-PEACH%29))

Tier 5:
Monk(Ascetic-Hypermundane (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431660-quot-Mind-over-matter-matter-over-magic-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29))
Fighter(Veteran-Hypermundane (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428437-quot-Stand-back-boy-and-let-me-show-you-war!-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29))


The original OP is retained here:

I'm making a compendium of stuff for use in future campaigns(just one big rules thing so everything I allow is in one place) and found myself at the point where I really don't want any classes that can be seperated into tiers because my players tend to only want tier 1 or 2 classes. First thought some of you may have is "Don't allow classes of certain tiers", but I don't like that and will ignore responses to that effect.

I would like to have all the classes I allow be evened out, likely on Tier 1. Though there is another thread for requesting tier 3's, so I'll continue to watch that one for T3 balancing.

Tier 2:
Sorcerer
Favored Soul
Psion

Tier 3:
Bard
Incarnate
Totemist

Tier 4:
Rogue
Ranger
Spellthief
Barbarian

Tier 5:
Monk
Fighter

Tier-Unknown:
Lurk

If you know of any existing variants to boost these classes to tier 1 or 2, or want to have a go at making your own, I am all ears! Please note: Tier 2 classes are included here for if you can make them tier 1, I don't know what Tier Lurk slots into, and I intend to use both Psionics and Incarnum so the Spellthief could benefit from taking both those if that's possible.

I also think that if we can get all of these variants in one place then it'd be useful for anyone in the future. Please no "this class sucks" posts, that's kind of the point of this one and the reason to ask for variants.

Regards,
Atlas

noob
2015-08-20, 06:18 PM
For bards increasing their spell progression works(Can be done with a prc too)
For incarnates and totemists you are going to need to invent lots and lots of soul melds with various roles(very hard)
For rogues I do not know any true solution maybe adding to it a lot of powers you choose each day and stuff of this kind and hybridize it with factotum(since they mostly have the same niche) might add utility(you might also base it on pathfinder unchained rogue then add all those things)
ranger: no idea at all
Spellthief: making him a little better caster might help(like level 7-8 at the end or even 9 but at latter levels maybe something like a spell progression where every spell level is delayed of 3 levels compared to the wizard) but with its own special list until they steal the spells they want
Monk: see pathfinder unchained monk then add up some variant spell-casting.
Lurk: I have no idea
Sorcerer/favored spirit:Use a variant of paragon surge allowing the sorcerer to get temporarily any feat he could take including feats who add spells this power does not allows you to have more than one bonus feat and if you achieve to destroy this feat the power using the destruction of the feat does nothing else than destroying it and the paragon surge variant ends(you know for avoiding DCS) this thing allows the sorcerer to have any spell for some time or have any feat for some time allowing great versatility.

Milo v3
2015-08-22, 02:07 AM
The following are about 1-2 tier, and most are conversions of classes:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?423276-3-5-quot-Five-billion-souls-incinerated-in-the-doom-of-the-gods-quot&p=19434063
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286983-3-5-Base-Class-quot-I-want-to-live-inside-a-castle-built-of-your-agony!-quot
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?301261-3-5-quot-I-have-mastered-the-Elements-a-thousand-times-in-a-thousand-lifetimes-quot&p=15947087#post15947087
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317067-quot-Your-pain-shall-be-legendary-quothttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?336731-quot-
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?336731-quot-Today-is-victory-over-yourself-Tomorrow-is-your-victory-over-lesser-men-quot&p=17173024http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?400609-3-5-quot-Look-whatever-you-re-thinking-do-me-a-favor-don-t-let-go-quot
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?403561-3-5-quot-Hail-to-the-Gods-of-Creation-Hail-to-the-King-of-the-World-quot

Jormengand
2015-08-22, 03:10 AM
Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428437-quot-Stand-back-boy-and-let-me-show-you-war!-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29), Rogue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431473-The-Mundane-Trickster-Because-who-needs-spells-%283-5-class-PEACH%29), Monk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431660-quot-Mind-over-matter-matter-over-magic-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29), Barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433533-quot-I-will-crush-you-puny-mage!-quot-%283-5-hypermundane-class-PEACH%29), Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433945-quot-Suffer-not-the-witch-to-live-quot-3-5-hypermundane-PEACH).

A tier 1 variant of the sorcerer is called a wizard. Psions, allow them to reselect their powers each day at the cost of knowing fewer.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-22, 05:02 AM
Thank you to all three of you!
I think I prefer the Hypermundanes to the Mythos classes, simply because they seem to fit the flavour of the original classes much better.

And thank you "noob" for the ideas on how to work on my own variants for the magical classes, I will continue to look for existing, PEACH'd classes that work there, but I agree more soulmelds are necessary.

Jormengand
2015-08-23, 04:02 PM
Sorcerer Conversion: The Archmage

A sorcerer using this variant only gets as many spells per day as a wizard, minus 1 of each level except first and zero (delaying each spell level by one class level as normal for a sorcerer). However, they can choose as many spells as a normal sorcerer would know each day and prepare those spells, and then they can cast any spell that they have prepared just as a normal sorcerer would. For example, an archmage of the first level could prepare acid splash, daze, mending and prestidigitation. During the course of the day, that archmage could cast two instances of acid splash and one of mending, or one of daze, one of mending and one of prestidigitation, just as a sorcerer who knew those spells could.

Archmagi require, and use, a spellbook to prepare spells (except read magic) in the same way that wizards do. Because their spells are prepared, metamagic does not increase their casting time.

Favoured Soul Conversion: The Divine Servant

Divine servants get as many spells per day as clerics, minus one of each level except first and zero. However, they can choose as many spells as a normal favoured soul would know each day and prepare those spells, and then they can cast any spell that they have prepared just as a normal favoured soul would.

Like clerics, divine servants require no spellbook to prepare spells. Because their spells are prepared, metamagic does not increase their casting time.

Psion Conversion: The Thoughtsmith

Thoughtsmiths are sharply limited in the number of powers they can manifest each day, and gain half as many power points regardless of where they got them from. However, they can re-choose their psychic powers every day. They can't choose psychic powers in such a way that they couldn't have chosen them by leveling up normally, which usually means that they are limited in the levels of powers they can learn. For example, even though third-level psions can use second-level powers and know seven powers, they couldn't possibly have learned three second-level powers because five of their powers were chosen at first or second level, at which point they couldn't have learned second-level powers. Therefore, a thoughtsmith of third level can't learn three second-level powers either.

Bard Conversion: The Worldsinger
Worldsingers have access to powerful magical abilities, but unlike other bards they require great performing ability to power their magic.

Remove the bard's normal spellcasting. Instead, worldsingers can cast from the entire bard spell list, as well as the seventh, eighth and ninth levels of the sorcerer spell list, but can only cast spells with great performances. They attain new levels of spells when a sorcerer does. There isn't a hard limit on how many spells of each level a worldsinger can cast. Instead, a worldsinger makes a perform check to cast the spell. If the worldsinger hasn't cast a spell yet today, the DC is ten plus the spell level. Otherwise, the DC equals the DC of the previous spell, plus the spell level. For example, a worldsinger who casts a 9th-level spell takes a DC 19 check. If the same worldsinger casts a 6th-level spell later the same day, a DC 25 check is required to cast it. Failure does not increase the spell DC and neither does casting cantrips; if a spell's level somehow manages to become negative, the DC is the same as the DC of the previous spell just like for a cantrip. Metamagic increases the spell's effective level for this purpose and the spell still takes as long to cast as if a sorcerer had cast it. You need to be able to cast a spell of the metamagic spell's effective level to use it.

Worldsingers can keep casting spells until they can't pass the perform check to do so any more.



Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with incarnate (assuming you don't mean the dragmag paladin equivalent with whom I am familiar) or totemist to do either of those, and even divine servant was made by largely guessing at how favoured souls actually work (All I remember is "Spontaneous divine caster"). Worldsinger DCs should probably be lowered (possibly 5+stuff rather than 10+stuff) if it's meant for people who won't optimise their perform check, but some of us play truenamers, so... yeah...

noob
2015-08-23, 04:26 PM
Well you should know that even by learning as many psionics abilities and choosing the abilities you know every day you are not T1.
Why simply because the erudite which does exactly what you described is T2 because you do not have as many choices as with spells because there is only two manuals for psionics.
PTS erudite meanwhile is T1 because he can turn arcane spells in psionic faculties.
Meanwhile I like how fast a divine singer would build a city if he use nanohelpers(nearly unlimited spells per day thanks to the ridiculous help).

Jormengand
2015-08-23, 04:45 PM
I guess I could give them something like:

"You can also cast spells as though they were powers. When you do, any level-dependent effects of the spell use the number of points that you spent on the spell, rather than your actual manifester level. For example, you need to spend 5 points to manifest a psionic fireball, but even if you do, it will only deal 5d6 points of damage. You need to spend 10 power points for the fireball to deal its full complement of 10d6 points of damage."

Add that if you want.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-23, 05:10 PM
I'm not sure about the others Jormengand, but I really like the Worldsinger bard variant. It combines Bardic Music and spells in a way that feels more in tune to the Bard concept! Thanks!

And as for Incarnate and Totemist, I'm with "noob" that they only need more and more varied soulmelds.

Ziegander
2015-08-23, 09:05 PM
I hate to be "that guy," but Jorm's hypermundanes are not Tier 1 and neither are the Tome Fighter/Barbarian.

Jorm's Worldsinger can be cheesed for infinite spellcasting, but barring that... it's surprisingly elegant. Consider a 14th level Worldsinger with a +40 total bonus to perform checks and compare how many spells it can reliably cast to how many spell slots of each level a 14th level Sorcerer has and get back to me.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-23, 09:20 PM
I hate to be "that guy," but Jorm's hypermundanes are not Tier 1 and neither are the Tome Fighter/Barbarian.
By all means mate, be "that guy", that's the point of the thread, to find the best T1 or T2 variants of those classes.

I'm not certain on how the balance works so I can't tell. But I would be happy to hear why they aren't T1 and if you can find any variants that would be considered T1.


Jorm's Worldsinger can be cheesed for infinite spellcasting, but barring that... it's surprisingly elegant. Consider a 14th level Worldsinger with a +40 total bonus to perform checks and compare how many spells it can reliably cast to how many spell slots of each level a 14th level Sorcerer has and get back to me.

Okay, This is easy :). First we take the minimum spells/day of a 14th level sorcerer(including bonus for a high enough Cha to cast their highest spell levels):
6|7|7|7|6|6|5|3
Then multiply each value by its level and add them all together.
6+7+14+21+24+30+30+21 = 153
So the sorcerer has a baseline of spells/day of 153 total levels.

And the worldsinger bard, you are correct, is considerably more. Consider if he only cast level 1 spells(pointless yes, but here we go); he would get 50 level 1 spells if he rolled perfectly, being incapable of rolling the 61 required for a 51st. Adding up every number between 10 and 60 gives: 1785. 1785 total spell levels. You are correct, that is INSANE.

So to make it on par with Sorcerer spells/day would be as simple as having a limit to total spell levels per day, rather than a roll. Though that sounds much like a mana system(which I don't mind) but if you wanted to balance Worldsinger to Sorcerer, that'd likely be the best way.

Ziegander
2015-08-23, 10:53 PM
By all means mate, be "that guy", that's the point of the thread, to find the best T1 or T2 variants of those classes.

I'm not certain on how the balance works so I can't tell. But I would be happy to hear why they aren't T1 and if you can find any variants that would be considered T1.

The fault in both Jorm's and Frank & K's classes (if they must have one), in this exercise, is that they don't really do anything other than, "actually, successfully deal a lot of weapon damage in a variety of combat situations." That's still not enough to jump higher than Tier 4. That's still just doing "one thing well." Jorm's and Frank & K's classes still don't add any meaningful power or versatility (or both, which is what you're really looking for) in situations where dealing consistently large of amounts of weapon damage isn't useful.

Being Tier 3 doesn't mean dealing more weapon damage than the Tier 4s (in fact many, if not all, Tier 3s deal less weapon damage than their weapon-damage-focused Tier 4 colleagues), but rather Tier 3s deal enough damage (sometimes with weapons) to deal with level-appropriate encounters and can contribute meaningfully in a number of other situations where dealing damage isn't useful.

So what I'm saying is, the Fighter presented in Races of War is powerful, and well-designed, but it's still a Tier 4 class. It's FAR more powerful than a lot of the WotC published Tier 4 classes, but it doesn't actually do anything that another Tier 4 class can't do. It does the same stuff with higher numbers/better functionality.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-23, 11:02 PM
The fault in both Jorm's and Frank & K's classes (if they must have one), in this exercise, is that they don't really do anything other than, "actually, successfully deal a lot of weapon damage in a variety of combat situations." That's still not enough to jump higher than Tier 4. That's still just doing "one thing well." Jorm's and Frank & K's classes still don't add any meaningful power or versatility (or both, which is what you're really looking for) in situations where dealing consistently large of amounts of weapon damage isn't useful.

[/SNIP/]

So what I'm saying is, the Fighter presented in Races of War is powerful, and well-designed, but it's still a Tier 4 class. It's FAR more powerful than a lot of the WotC published Tier 4 classes, but it doesn't actually do anything that another Tier 4 class can't do. It does the same stuff with higher numbers/better functionality.

Thanks for the explaination :) Do you have any recommendations then on how to achieve the desired classes?

Milo v3
2015-08-23, 11:04 PM
The main issue with trying to develop a tier 1 class is that thematically it's nearly opposed to having a defined identity, since tier 1 classes are meant to be able to do literally everything. A tier 1 fighter should be able to return people to life, win every conversation, restructure battlefields, get into enemy bases without being detected, travel immense distances without issue, be able to disable enemy magic, to restrict enemy movements, to turn enemies into minions, to be super powerful in combat, to be able to deal giant amounts of damage at long range and short range, be able to disable groups of enemies with low chances of failure, be able to buff their allies, to be able to remove the things that are afflicting allies, to ... etc. etc. and each tier 1 fighter must be able to do this. Not just have options to choose from to do some of it, but to be able to do all of them.

Jormengand
2015-08-24, 03:38 AM
The fault in both Jorm's and Frank & K's classes (if they must have one), in this exercise, is that they don't really do anything other than, "actually, successfully deal a lot of weapon damage in a variety of combat situations."

Well, let's see...

Shrug off, Resilience, Overcome Wounds, Always Strike First, Animal Companion, Armour Master, Battlesense, Bonus Feats, Brewmaster, Champion of the Common Man, Combat Coup, Combat Maneuver Master, Craft Flying Machine, Craft Masterwork Flying Machine, Defender, Disappearance, Dominating Shout, Escape Death, Find Planar Rift, Find Rift, Headslam, Healing Hands, Herbalist, Heroic Killing Blow, Horsemanship, Instant Identify, Iron Mind, Jump Master, Killing Blow, Leopard Sprint, Loyal Companion, Magic Resistance, Master of Disguise, Not on My Watch, Paragon, Resolute Shout, Roy's Gambit, Scars of War, Skilled, Snap Out of It!, Sudden Movement, Swimmer, Terrain Master, Trap Mastery, The Speed of Light, The Speed of Sound, Unbound Feat, Untouchable, Wallcrash and Wingclip total 3 class features and 47 tricks that do not fit this description.

Righteous Desperation, Counterattack, Death Mark, Full Attacker, Great Reach, Incorporeal Bane, Master at Arms, Mortal Wound, Snap Shooter, Sneak Attacker, Volley of Arrows and You Have No Power Over Me! total 1 class feature and 10 tricks that fit, or nearly fit, this description.


return people to life, win every conversation, restructure battlefields, get into enemy bases without being detected, travel immense distances without issue, be able to disable enemy magic, to restrict enemy movements, to turn enemies into minions, to be super powerful in combat, to be able to deal giant amounts of damage at long range and short range, be able to disable groups of enemies with low chances of failure, be able to buff their allies, to be able to remove the things that are afflicting allies,

All of these apart from restructure battlefields (which isn't necessary as you can do anything you might have wanted to do in that way, some other way) describe things that the veteran can do.

Milo v3
2015-08-24, 04:42 AM
All of these apart from restructure battlefields (which isn't necessary as you can do anything you might have wanted to do in that way, some other way) describe things that the veteran can do.

Veteran can't even do the first on the list without putting 12 ranks in the heal skill :smallsigh:

It's an understandable limitation to retain the flavour of a character who is mundane but Better, but it holds the class back when it comes to raw versatility and power.

Eldan
2015-08-24, 04:45 AM
Yeah, that. How to see if something is Tier 1:

Build a slightly optimized character at level 15+, with only that class. Think of a challenge. That character must solve it alone. Think of any utility power. That character must have it, alone. If there is anything at all you can think of that that character can't do, it's probably not Tier 1.

Jormengand
2015-08-24, 04:49 AM
Veteran can't even do the first on the list without putting 12 ranks in the heal skill :smallsigh:

It's an understandable limitation to retain the flavour of a character who is mundane but Better, but it holds the class back when it comes to raw versatility and power.

Yeah, but it can just decide, "You know what? I now have 12 ranks in heal because I'm now skilled, and you're now not gonna die on my watch."

Milo v3
2015-08-24, 04:51 AM
Yeah, that. How to see if something is Tier 1:

Build a slightly optimized character at level 15+, with only that class. Think of a challenge. That character must solve it alone. Think of any utility power. That character must have it, alone. If there is anything at all you can think of that that character can't do, it's probably not Tier 1.

There is an issue with though, since the first thing I thought of was creating a demiplane base. But druids can't do it (clerics, wizards, and psions can though). Though I would like to see the veteran make a demi-plane without it breaking the flavour.


Yeah, but it can just decide, "You know what? I now have 12 ranks in heal because I'm now skilled, and you're now not gonna die on my watch."
How dreadfully boring.

Jormengand
2015-08-24, 04:57 AM
There is an issue with though, since the first thing I thought of was creating a demiplane base. But druids can't do it (clerics, wizards, and psions can though). Though I would like to see the veteran make a demi-plane without it breaking the flavour.

Oh, he can't make a demiplane. He can just intimidate a wizard into doing it for him, or sneak onto a premade one, murder the wizard responsible, and assume command over its denizens.


How dreadfully boring.

I guess you must find wizards just upping and deciding they're going to be able to be able to cast wish today frightfully boring too?

Milo v3
2015-08-24, 04:59 AM
Oh, he can't make a demiplane. He can just intimidate a wizard into doing it for him, or sneak onto a premade one, murder the wizard responsible, and assume command over its denizens.

*Shrug* A paladin can do all of those except sneak.


I guess you must find wizards just upping and deciding they're going to be able to be able to cast wish today frightfully boring too?

Makes sense with the flavour of wizards for that to be possible, so while it is abit boring (since it makes wizards the samey, but that's expected for tier 1) it's not too bad. What you just described just sounds lazy and boring.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-24, 05:06 AM
Oh, he can't make a demiplane. He can just intimidate a wizard into doing it for him, or sneak onto a premade one, murder the wizard responsible, and assume command over its denizens.

Wait, doesn't owning a Demiplane in that case break "the vow" that all your Hypermundanes have?

Jormengand
2015-08-24, 05:17 AM
Makes sense with the flavour of wizards for that to be possible, so while it is abit boring (since it makes wizards the samey, but that's expected for tier 1) it's not too bad. What you just described just sounds lazy and boring.

Well, it actually makes sense for the veteran too - he has to keep learning new things, or he dies. So he learns new things.


Wait, doesn't owning a Demiplane in that case break "the vow" that all your Hypermundanes have?

Demiplanes aren't magic items, spells, SLAs, powers, PLAs, or martial maneuvers. Bear in mind that Find Rift basically involves hitching a ride on the result of a wizard's spell.

Milo v3
2015-08-24, 05:20 AM
Well, it actually makes sense for the veteran too - he has to keep learning new things, or he dies. So he learns new things.

Umm... but why does he forget things so easily. At least it makes sense with wizards because it's simply them expending a previously prepared spell rather than them actually forgetting.

Jormengand
2015-08-24, 05:46 AM
Umm... but why does he forget things so easily. At least it makes sense with wizards because it's simply them expending a previously prepared spell rather than them actually forgetting.

Because if you're constantly learning, you're constantly forgetting. It takes practice to fire a volley of arrows that outdoes a fireball, or lop off someone's head with every attack, and you can't do that if you're busy learning how to save someone from the brink of death.

Adam1949
2015-08-24, 08:34 AM
The problem that is arising is the fact that Tier 1 classes are strictly superior to every other option available in the game; they literally CAN do anything, and can swap or learn their things to be ABLE to do everything. So to answer an earlier question: yes, I do believe a Wizard or Cleric, when played completely to their hilt, IS dreadfully boring, because they trivialize everything that the system could possibly throw at them. Frank Trollman & K's mundane-focused material, as well as Jormungand's classes, are extremely-high-Tier 4 (can do one thing very well but is not useful outside of it) or perhaps, at best, middling-Tier 3 (can do one thing well, and can actively contribute outside of that one thing without solving the whole encounter), but they are nowhere close to the same level of power as a Druid, Wizard, Archivist, or Cleric. I don't care what abilities they have, they simply cannot solve everything forever like the above classes can.

As for earlier examples in an attempt to prove that it is that high of a tier when it isn't: the concept of "well I can convince/intimidate a wizard to do X for me!" is still admitting that the Wizard can do it better, and he doesn't have to bully another wizard to do it. Another important fact is that a lot of the Hypermundane's abilities still rely on skills, combat, and the like. A wizard doesn't have to have any skills to cast his spells; even the classic standby of "grapple them and force a Concentration Check" can be avoided by any semi-competent caster and his spells. This is a BAD THING because it makes them overpowered compared to everything else, but it's still something that must be accounted for when designing other classes and comparing them to Tier 1s.

To use an example of tested homebrew that is Tier 2 (because really, who purposefully wants or designs towards that awful Tier 1?), Xefas' Mythos Subsystem fits the description to a Tee. A class created in that subsystem COULD do anything, but they have theoretically-limited resources and thus will be unable to actualize the true ability of Do Everything. A Tier 2 is no less powerful than a Tier 1 in their effects, but they are more strictly-bound because they have limitations. Psions have limited Powers Known that can't be easily improved, Sorcerers have highly-limited Spells Known compared to a Wizard, a Bellator (Tier 2 Fighter-analogue) have Mythos and Excellencies Known that are tough to improve due to the cost of earning extra Mythos Points, et cetera.

It's both very easy and very hard to become Tier 1. If you don't pay attention when designing a class, and do something like give them the entire wizard or cleric spell-list with the same 'limitations' those classes have on their spells known, it automatically defaults them to Tier 1-itude. Conversely, it's hard if not impossible to create a Tier 1 class without spells at all or things that can perfectly imitate spells.

Ziegander
2015-08-24, 11:47 AM
I think we decided my Questellan (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?326029-The-Questellan-D-amp-D-3-5-Learn-ALL-of-the-Extraordinary-Abilities!) was either Tier 2 or Tier 1. It doesn't get spells, but what it does get is just about as open-ended. The execution and gameplay is simple and it doesn't cast spells to boot.

Network
2015-08-24, 08:35 PM
Mythos classes are considered T2 because mythos have a much lower cost-to-versatility ratio compared to spells, and because the mythos classes punish multiclassing by making mythos purchasing impossible for characters that do not have most of their levels in a single mythos class (also discouraging prestige classes). If these problems were solved and if there were enough mythos to solve every possible situation, mythos classes as a whole would be T1.

Tome fighter is a weird one. The only thing that makes it stand out from T4 is the ability to create magic item (like the warlock). A Tome fighter can craft any magic item, but cannot use most of them. On the other hand, a warlock (generally considered a T3 class) can craft and use magic items such as wands and staves, provided it is given time to prepare for any situation. I would say this only demonstrates how Tome classes in general are poorly designed, but that's only in my humble opinion.

Hypermundanes have abilities that are actually much more gamebreaking than what an equal-level spellcaster could do (notably, instant kill on attack rolls from 1st-level onward, for the hypermundane rogue). However, many of the abilities have prerequisites, that you are expected to circumvent in a more or less cheesy way. I'm not going to criticize Jormengand on his design decisions, but it's peculiar. Also note that hypermundanes cannot use UMD or UPD at all, so they do have some limitations that the above classes don't have (even a karsite PC could be an erudite or a binder). I would say they are borderline T2-T1, depending on the cheesiness of the player.


Well you should know that even by learning as many psionics abilities and choosing the abilities you know every day you are not T1.
Why simply because the erudite which does exactly what you described is T2 because you do not have as many choices as with spells because there is only two manuals for psionics.
PTS erudite meanwhile is T1 because he can turn arcane spells in psionic faculties.
By your argument, a core-only wizard is not T1, since there is only one core manual for magic. Meanwhile, many of the best spells from core have equivalent psionic variants, and I'm talking about things like Limited Wish and the like.

The only way erudite isn't T1 is if the GM specifically forbids psionic PCs from discovering new powers or learning powers from 3rd party sources, but allows it for wizard PCs. Which only means your GM enforces unbalanced game tables and wizard superiority, not that psionics is necessarily inferior to magic.

Psions/wilders are T2 because they have a limited number of powers known (except at very high levels, with Psychic Surgery), but a full manifester who can learn a potentially unlimited number of powers from level 1 is T1, like it or not.

Edit: Also, splatbooks are not exactly empty of new psionic powers. Just take a look at Races of Destiny, Stormwrack or Magic of Eberron (all three of which have some utility powers that an erudite would find useful).

Milo v3
2015-08-24, 08:40 PM
Tome fighter is a weird one. The only thing that makes it stand out from T4 is the ability to create magic item (like the warlock). A Tome fighter can craft any magic item, but cannot use most of them. On the other hand, a warlock (generally considered a T3 class) can craft and use magic items such as wands and staves, provided it is given time to prepare for any situation. I would say this only demonstrates how Tome classes in general are poorly designed, but that's only in my humble opinion.
Warlocks actually only considered tier 4... which just makes the tome fighter look even sadder.

Network
2015-08-24, 08:49 PM
Warlocks actually only considered tier 4... which just makes the tome fighter look even sadder.
The warlock and rogue are about the same tier, and I read somewhere that rogues were considered tier 3 (and I mean "were", as in, some people changed their mind), so that must be the origin of my confusion.

Which is kind of weird, really. Crafting magic items makes the artificer tier 1, but cannot push the warlock to tier 3? Seems inconsistent to me.

Milo v3
2015-08-24, 09:00 PM
Which is kind of weird, really. Crafting magic items makes the artificer tier 1, but cannot push the warlock to tier 3? Seems inconsistent to me.

Artificer can craft items from first level, craft items better than anyone else, can use items better than other classes, and gets early access to items since it can make items with caster level above it's class level. Artificer is a class completely focused on mechanics that are fundamentally flawed, while the warlock only dabbles in the area by comparison.

Adam1949
2015-08-24, 09:13 PM
I'll just re-post the prevailing wisdom on Tiering. Note that these were, are, and forever will be subjective to each gaming group and individual; in a campaign where everything is a classic dungeon-crawl and all the enemies are mindless, or fanatically-violent and antisocial, or are magic-detecting-and-punishing traps, the Rogue and Barbarian would be able to solve most problems on their own while the wizard has to hope he isn't stabbed.




>Tier 1:
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

>Tier 2:
Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

>Tier 3:
Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

>Tier 4:
Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

>Tier 5:
Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

>Tier 6:
Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

In theory there is also Truenamer tier (that being a class that is quite literally unplayable by Rules As Written), but we haven't quite reached it yet.

Jormengand
2015-08-25, 09:22 AM
In theory there is also Truenamer tier (that being a class that is quite literally unplayable by Rules As Written), but we haven't quite reached it yet.

As per JaronK, the truenamer tier is not "Quite literally unplayable by RAW", it is "We cannot put this in one tier, because it swings so much with optimisation that you cannot possibly hope to put it in one." For example, a sorcerer played by a new player is high in tier 3, because it will almost certainly be good at one thing (probably blasting) and have some spells (I have never seen a new player not pick up invisibility, fly, dimension door, and so forth if they reach the relevant levels) that are at least very helpful in other situations: it is capable of shining in its own field and also very, very helpful to have around at others. It's dropping about half a tier. A sorcerer played by an expert optimiser is almost certainly tier 2. You're not going to budge it up one easily.

A truenamer played by a new player is tier 6. It doesn't take much to realise that you need high INT (but, like, you need CHA too, right? Oh, and I'll need STR/DEX/CON to go with my medium base attack bonus, and all those amazing utterances that are good in combat, right?) and full ranks in the skill, but you're still only uttering on a 10 if you have INT 16 and truespeak 4, and if you took defensive edge and knight's puissance at first level I'm not sure what I can do to help you. On the other hand, if you let an optimiser have a go with the truenamer, they'll be really good at what they do (dropping 20d6*1.5 damage of your choice of energy on people at level 7 is quite funny) and pretty good at other stuff (the ability to end spells without a dispel check, the ability to turn off people's flying, and all that mean that you're quite a good buffer, and being able to give out extra CL, metamagic, and even actions is pretty powerful. Also infinite healing, but that's just a nice add-on by this point). It's frighteningly good at what it does and pretty good at other things. Oh look, that's just the same as the low-OP sorcerer, only in places moreso.

(Of course, it gets worse if you interpret all the utterances literally, like how Speed of the Zephyr may allow you to teleport from any wall to any floor and vice versa as many times as you like during your movement, making it a powerful teleportation spell at 4th level. But by the time we're there, we might as well let the sorcerer pull similar tricks, so it's kinda moot)

So the sorcerer swings about half a tier, and its normal tier can happily be said to be 2. But the truenamer? Where the hell do we put that? It swings three and a half tiers, and worse, I'm not sure what "Normally optimised" even means for a truenamer. Is skill focus an obvious thing to take? What about quicken utterance? What about mortalbane?



Though honestly, that's the thing I'm seeing with the hypers. People seem to be tiering them a whole lot differently just depending on which tricks they're looking at, so there's a possibility it's just very swingy. But then, you can reset all your tricks quickly enough, so... yeah.

Elandris Kajar
2015-08-25, 05:25 PM
I am jumping in here, but is there a Truenamer "fix" that corrects these issues? It is such a great class by fluff.

Back on topic, you could allow gestalt for weaker tier classes to alleviate these problems somewhat/ get them closer in power level.

Eldan
2015-08-25, 05:31 PM
One could just play a Wizard and use the Truenamer fluff. Or a psion. Or any other caster-alike. Just say your spells/powers/invocations/soulmelds are true names.

"Name of Fire!" - Fireball. "Name of the Wind!" - Gust of Wind. And so on.

Jormengand
2015-08-25, 05:31 PM
I am jumping in here, but is there a Truenamer "fix" that corrects these issues? It is such a great class by fluff.

Back on topic, you could allow gestalt for weaker tier classes to alleviate these problems somewhat/ get them closer in power level.

Yes. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?397500-The-Worldspeaker-revisited-Truenamer-PEACH)

Oh yeah, we had great fun watching a gestalt of every T4 and below stomping all over T1 territory. Take out the truenamers and warlocks and add in the factota and... uhm, all those other high-tier mundane classes that definitely exist, ayup, and you could probably get near.

Grod_The_Giant
2015-08-26, 06:47 AM
For warriors and rogues, I'll offer up my Myth (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!), which-- in my totally-not-at-all-biased mind-- is the closest I've seen to a T1 that doesn't cast spells. (A result achieved by saying "**** logic, if casters become demigods then I can become a superhero"). High level myths can read minds with a Spot check, punch people hard enough to wipe their minds, raise armies with a rousing speech, predict another creature's actions through pure logic, leap into orbit and come down anywhere on the plane, create earthquakes by stomping your feet, build (and destroy) vast structures single-handedly, and hit a dude with an arrow from a continent away.


I am jumping in here, but is there a Truenamer "fix" that corrects these issues? It is such a great class by fluff.
I'm a big fan of Kyeudo's Book of Words (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217713-A-Book-of-Words-An-Expanded-Truenamer-Fix-PEACH&p=11971747#post11971747) fix.

Brova
2015-08-26, 08:19 AM
Sorcerer

Let the Sorcerer take spells from any spell list. Give the Sorcerer Extra Spell (pre-errata version) once per two/three/four levels per level (i.e. once at fourth, once at fifth, once at sixth, once at seventh, then twice at eighth). Either allow that to apply to PrCs or give him some metamagic class features. Possibly Ultimate Magus based. Also, repeal the "metamagic takes a full round" thing.


Favored Soul

Honestly, I'm not sure how you salvage this. Particularly at low levels, the Cleric list has a lot less good individual spells (compared to the Wizard list), which means that picking like three to know sucks. Also, as a divine caster you're expected to know all the cure light wounds type spells. I posted a fix that basically gets a boatload of domains to make up for the problem, and that's probably okay. You could also just use my suggested Sorcerer fix, which can cast divine spells if it wants to.


Psion

This class is fine. Probably. I've not read much psionics.


Bard

Bard is interesting. There are plenty of builds with Bard levels that are totally competitive at high levels, and Bards are pretty okay at low levels. The problems are threefold. First, Prestige Bard exists, and taking some other class instead of Bard is better in most of those builds. Second, the mid levels (where you take a bunch of levels that drop your casting, and maybe some Sublime Chord) are kind of iffy. Finally, there aren't really any high level Bards with the same jack of all trades feel as the low level Bard.

I have no idea how to fix that. Maybe the Jester from here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547) is good enough.


Incarnate

What do you want a fixed version of this class to do? If the answer involves "care a lot about alignment" I want you to back up, realize that alignment is incredibly stupid, and not do that. Otherwise, I'm eager to here what is conceptually interesting you.


Totemist

The Totemist (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50483), created by the same guy who made the Tomes. It's not finished, but is currently usable.


Rogue

Rogue is fine. Just rule on the side of their bonus feats getting any feat, remind people to use abuse magic device, and point them at flasks. Maybe house rule in oozestrike and elementalstrike and/or allow Crippling Strike to work on things immune to sneak attack.


Ranger

There's a Ranger fix here (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Ranger,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)). No idea how good it is, but it seems functional. Alternatively, give Mystic Ranger full casting, a list comprised of decent Druid and Sorcerer/Wizard spells, Wild Shape, and Scout abilities, and you're probably fine.


Spellthief

This guy is a weird sort of pokemaster/Blue Mage hybrid. You capture things with nice SLAs, polymorph any object them into jewelry, repeatedly use Steal SLA to steal their SLAs, and abuse them for fun and profit. That's totally a workable thing to do, you just need to reorder stuff to make that more obvious. Probably strip everything it normally gets out, give it full or near full sneak attack, give it Steal SLA at 1st, let it steal SLAs of 1/2 level, and give it the ability to get one piece of "jewelry" per level (made of a creature of CR = level or less). Then pop in polymorph any object (used only to make Spellthief jewelry) at some point, various planar binding type spells, and call it a day.


Barbarian

The Barbarian fix found here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=33310) is quite effective.


Monk

The Monk found here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547) should be sufficient.


Fighter

The Fighter found here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=33310). Alternatively, the Soldier (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50949).


Lurk

This guy is just a Rogue with psychic powers, right? IDK exactly what the problems are, but maybe give the Rogue some minor casting (basically, all the spells you'd want to abuse magic device wands of) and do the same for this guy with psionics?


So what I'm saying is, the Fighter presented in Races of War is powerful, and well-designed, but it's still a Tier 4 class. It's FAR more powerful than a lot of the WotC published Tier 4 classes, but it doesn't actually do anything that another Tier 4 class can't do. It does the same stuff with higher numbers/better functionality.

Calling the RoW Fighter Tier 4 is kind of nuts. It is, with Tome feats, the most effective combat chassis in the game. To the point where it can compete effectively with Incantatrixes, Dweomerkeepers, and other high OP casters. That's Tier 2 at the very least because it breaks the combat minigame. And don't forget that the Barbarian in the same book gets a pet Wizard as a class feature right around when you start needing utility magic to function. Finally, those classes don't need to spend as much WBL on items to keep up, and as such they can afford to buy all the weird utility items other people can't.


In theory there is also Truenamer tier (that being a class that is quite literally unplayable by Rules As Written), but we haven't quite reached it yet.

Actually, that's Factotum tier. The Factotum class gains IP at a point which is not defined in the rules (the beginning on an encounter) and spends them as a standard action to gain standard actions. Truenamer is simply very bad by RAW.

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 08:23 AM
This class is fine. Probably. I've not read much psionics.
Psion's in the same boat as sorcerer it's got a limited list of known powers, so .... make it prepared?


What do you want a fixed version of this class to do? If the answer involves "care a lot about alignment" I want you to back up, realize that alignment is incredibly stupid, and not do that. Otherwise, I'm eager to here what is conceptually interesting you.
Fixed version would be Everything. Since fixed in this case = tier 1.


Rogue is fine. Just rule on the side of their bonus feats getting any feat, remind people to use abuse magic device, and point them at flasks. Maybe house rule in oozestrike and elementalstrike and/or allow Crippling Strike to work on things immune to sneak attack.

Wait. You seriously think rogue is weird 1. How is that a possible interpretation of the class :smallconfused:

Brova
2015-08-26, 08:31 AM
Psion's in the same boat as sorcerer it's got a limited list of known powers, so .... make it prepared?

Maybe. I don't know or care enough about psionics to really suggest a fix. More powers might work. Maybe something about reserve feat type utility?


Fixed version would be Everything. Since fixed in this case = tier 1.

That's not really helpful though. There needs to be something about the class that is interesting, otherwise just play a Wizard and claim to care super hard about alignments. For the Totemist, that's magical beasts. For the Spellthief, that's Steal SLA. You can design competent classes around those features, which makes them interesting. I genuinely don't know what an Incarnate is supposed to do, so I can't suggest a fix.


Wait. You seriously think rogue is weird 1. How is that a possible interpretation of the class :smallconfused:

I think the Rogue is capable of holding its own in a party with Druids, Wizards, Beguilers, and other powerful classes. I think the tier system is a steaming pile. If you happen to be a Rogue who gets a bunch of attacks and consistently hits people for sneak attack damage (such as a Flask Rogue with a ring of blinking, or any Rogue with an Item Familiar that is a self-activating item of Sculpted grease), you can redmist basically any enemy in the MM within a round or two. That's totally competitive with people casting finger of death or evard's black tentacles. You contribute out of combat by dealing with traps, having a bunch of skills, and abuse magic device.

The Rogue's problem isn't that it is weak, it's that the way in which it is strong is not obvious and relies on some permissive rulings (i.e. Crippling Strike).

noob
2015-08-26, 08:33 AM
"Actually, that's Factotum tier. The Factotum class gains IP at a point which is not defined in the rules (the beginning on an encounter) and spends them as a standard action to gain standard actions. Truenamer is simply very bad by RAW. "
no it is extremely badly written but it is very powerful when you start gating whatever you want at will or when you remove from reality everyone without possible test to resist(no save no sr) thanks to one weird interpretation of what is written

"Psion's in the same boat as sorcerer it's got a limited list of known powers, so .... make it prepared?"
No they are not in the same boat at level 17 by using up px they can learn all the faculties(psionic surgery) then cast any faculty at any time they want and using up px is rather normal at a level at which the wizard of the team is going to use up wishes to boost people in their team and where the barbarian will share the XP cost of item creation with the priest(you can do that without feats with some magic items done for this task).

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 08:37 AM
That's not really helpful though. There needs to be something about the class that is interesting, otherwise just play a Wizard and claim to care super hard about alignments. For the Totemist, that's magical beasts. For the Spellthief, that's Steal SLA. You can design competent classes around those features, which makes them interesting. I genuinely don't know what an Incarnate is supposed to do, so I can't suggest a fix.
The soulmeld system is mechanically interesting, I prefer it over vancian casting. There, enough reason to make a tier 1 incarnate.


I think the Rogue is capable of holding its own in a party with Druids, Wizards, Beguilers, and other powerful classes.
This != tier 1. The rogue is rarely ever useful compared to a druid, wizard, or cleric.... also beguiler isn't a powerful class.


I think the tier system is a steaming pile.
Then there is no reason for you to be in this thread, since it is focused towards finding tier 1 conversions of classes, which means we are using the tier system for this discussion. If you aren't, then your talking off-topic.


The Rogue's problem isn't that it is weak, it's that the way in which it is strong is not obvious and relies on some permissive rulings (i.e. Crippling Strike).
Dude, it's weak as hell. It's main shticks can be covered by level 5 wizards (can be covered by a level three one, but 5 gets enough spell slots per day for it to completely replace the rogue throughout the entire day and still do other stuff).

Eldan
2015-08-26, 08:45 AM
The basic mechanical outline of a Tier 1 should be there in incarnum. IIRC, they know all existing soulmelds and can switch around between them, so all that's needed are more powerful high-level soulmelds that give access to some of the wizard's nicer tricks.

Brova
2015-08-26, 08:47 AM
no it is extremely badly written but it is very powerful when you start gating whatever you want at will or when you remove from reality everyone without possible test to resist(no save no sr) thanks to one weird interpretation of what is written

The fact that the class breaks in half at a level where the game is already broken doesn't make it good. FFS, that makes it strictly worse than the Sorcerer who can already have broken the game. Or WBL.


The soulmeld system is mechanically interesting, I prefer it over vancian casting. There, enough reason to make a tier 1 incarnate.

That's a reason to make a class that uses an Essentia type resource management system. Why should that class keep Icarnate traits like "magical abilities are blue" or "powered by unborn souls" or "cares super hard about alignment"? I'm willing to try and make it work, I just don't understand what is interesting about the class.


Then there is no reason for you to be in this thread.

No, because I think those classes (mostly) suck, and am willing to suggest fixes. The fact that I disagree with the high level criteria doesn't mean I think that all the individual assessments are wrong. Also, I would rather not have this dissolve into a discussion of the tier system, because I think some of the fixes proposed are actually interesting and would prefer to discuss them.


This != tier 1. The rogue is rarely ever useful compared to a druid, wizard, or cleric.... also beguiler isn't a powerful class.

Characters contribute in two ways during an adventure: combat and non-combat. In combat, having enough DPS to kill an encounter in one round is a reasonable way to contribute. The Rogue does that. Out of combat, diplomacy, trapfinding, and abuse magic device all let the Rogue solve problems.

As far as the Beguiler, have you read the class? It casts spontaneously from a list of Sorcerer/Wizard spells that are awesome. And it gets to redeem enemies for full value starting at 2nd.

noob
2015-08-26, 08:51 AM
The delete opponent from reality is low level.

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 09:02 AM
That's a reason to make a class that uses an Essentia type resource management system. Why should that class keep Icarnate traits like "magical abilities are blue" or "powered by unborn souls" or "cares super hard about alignment"? I'm willing to try and make it work, I just don't understand what is interesting about the class.
Tier 1 Incarnate would simply be more focused on being the master of incarnum with planar flavour to soulmelds rather than beast flavour that a tier 1 totemist would possess. You don't even need to remove the alignment stuff for it to be modified to tier 1, especially if you added in an ability that allowed them to infuse themselves with souls of an alignment they choose as they shape their soulmelds that makes them count as that alignment till their meld's unshape.


No, because I think those classes (mostly) suck, and am willing to suggest fixes. The fact that I disagree with the high level criteria doesn't mean I think that all the individual assessments are wrong.
The issue is, your fixes aren't anywhere near good enough since you disagree with the very criteria being requested.


Characters contribute in two ways during an adventure: combat and non-combat. In combat, having enough DPS to kill an encounter in one round is a reasonable way to contribute. The Rogue does that. Out of combat, diplomacy, trapfinding, and abuse magic device all let the Rogue solve problems.
Rogue generally is considered as not having good enough accuracy to get decent DPS, though unchained mitigated that to a degree with it's debuffing (though it still requires hitting the enemy first), and... all those things the rogue does out of combat, the tier 1's do it better. Diplomacy is weaker than enchantment spells. Trapfinding, use a spell that increases your perception or cast the low level spell literally called Find Traps. UMD, don't need it since the spells are simply on your spell list + you can craft items to get more expensive items than the rogue would be UMD'ing. Rogues are pathetic next to a tier 1.


As far as the Beguiler, have you read the class? It casts spontaneously from a list of Sorcerer/Wizard spells that are awesome. And it gets to redeem enemies for full value starting at 2nd.
It's an awesome class, I really like it. But, it's not tier 1, because of it's limitations on spell list, spontaneous casting, lower level list. Which is a good thing. It's a more limited and thematic spellcaster, it doesn't have the versatility of a tier 1, because of how they made sure it fit a theme.

noob
2015-08-26, 09:12 AM
"Diplomacy is weaker than enchantment spells. Trapfinding, use a spell that increases your perception or cast the low level spell literally called Find Traps. UMD, don't need it since the spells are simply on your spell list + you can craft items to get more expensive items than the rogue would be UMD'ing. Rogues are pathetic next to a tier 1."
Well diplomacy have the interest of mind controlling while being ext if you reach things like 150 in this skill and then you can stealthily turn people in fanatics at will but yes it is a lot less good than some other spells like for example when you can mind control the entire universe(there must be a trick for that).
Meanwhile I found back the utterance who delete someone and it is level 3(so you can use it at level 6)(it does this only if you interpret it literally).

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 09:16 AM
Well diplomacy have the interest of mind controlling while being ext if you reach things like 150 in this skill and then you can stealthily turn people in fanatics at will but yes it is a lot less good than some other spells like for example when you can mind control the entire universe(there must be a trick for that).
Umm.... Generally the way people get their skills that high is through magic spells and items.... Which the tier 1's have and provide...

Brova
2015-08-26, 09:17 AM
Tier 1 Incarnate would simply be more focused on being the master of incarnum with planar flavour to soulmelds rather than beast flavour that a tier 1 totemist would possess.

I guess. There's a Conduit in the Tome of Fiends (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45) that's good enough for that (you'd need to write in some upper planes flavored stuff for it though).


The issue is, your fixes aren't anywhere near good enough since you disagree with the very criteria being requested.

Really? The guy with at-will charm person at 1st level isn't good enough? Or maybe the guy with animate dead as a 2nd level spell and planar binding as 4th level spell is too weak? Perhaps the class with full casting, wild shape, and trapfinding is too bad?

I'm trying to avoid getting off topic, so this is the last time I'm going to respond about the Rogue/Beguiler/Tiers. Anyway, here goes:


Rogue generally is considered as not having good enough accuracy to get decent DPS,

A Flask Rogue or melee Rogue with wraithstrike is hitting flat footed touch AC. Of core CR 20 monsters, literally none of them have a flat footed touch AC better than 9. That number is actually higher at lower levels, because things are sometimes tiny.


Diplomacy is weaker than enchantment spells.

That depends. The charm line literally makes people friendly, which while super good with actual diplomacy, is presumably worse than diplomacy as you can make people Helpful or even Fanatic with that.


Trapfinding, use a spell that increases your perception or cast the low level spell literally called Find Traps.

That spell does not let you disable traps.


UMD, don't need it since the spells are simply on your spell list + you can craft items to get more expensive items than the rogue would be UMD'ing.

You can circumvent WBL any number of ways. Besides, the spells in question are utility, which is cheap enough to grab.


because of it's limitations on spell list,

Those limits are that you only get to cast spells that turn people into your allies. Also, Arcane Disciple, Rainbow Servant, substitute domain, and pre-errata Extra Spell.


spontaneous casting,

What? Spontaneous casting is better than prepared casting. The reason spontaneous casters suck isn't because they are shackled by the inability to prepare spells, it's because they don't know very many spells and can't afford to learn situational or downtime spells. If you let me play a Sorcerer that learned like a Wizard, I would never play anything else.


lower level list.

This is unambiguously bad. Honestly though, I think the level of versatility the spellcasting mechanic allows a Beguiler more than makes up for it.

Network
2015-08-26, 11:48 AM
Meanwhile I found back the utterance who delete someone and it is level 3(so you can use it at level 6)(it does this only if you interpret it literally).
I don't know what utterance you are talking about.

Really? The guy with at-will charm person at 1st level isn't good enough? Or maybe the guy with animate dead as a 2nd level spell and planar binding as 4th level spell is too weak? Perhaps the class with full casting, wild shape, and trapfinding is too bad?

I'm trying to avoid getting off topic, so this is the last time I'm going to respond about the Rogue/Beguiler/Tiers. Anyway, here goes:
An archivist or StP erudite could get Animate Dead as a level 2 spell/power as well by learning it from a geomancer death master. Meanwhile, the options you talk about preclude you from taking other options. The best one-trick ponies are tier 2; being tier 1 requires you to be able to do all of the above, and then some.

A Flask Rogue or melee Rogue with wraithstrike is hitting flat footed touch AC. Of core CR 20 monsters, literally none of them have a flat footed touch AC better than 9. That number is actually higher at lower levels, because things are sometimes tiny.
An optimized warlock has abilities equivalent to an optimized rogue, but an optimized wizard can do any of their job better than them for the first 5 minutes of the day.

That depends. The charm line literally makes people friendly, which while super good with actual diplomacy, is presumably worse than diplomacy as you can make people Helpful or even Fanatic with that.
Diplomacy is permanent. Charm effects are short-term and allows a save, and if the target realizes he has been charmed, he will hate you. Charm isn't close to being the most powerful thing spellcasters can do (which also goes against your "Charm Person, therefore tier 1" argument).

That spell does not let you disable traps.
There is a spell for that, too.

Those limits are that you only get to cast spells that turn people into your allies. Also, Arcane Disciple, Rainbow Servant, substitute domain, and pre-errata Extra Spell.
The errata didn't nerf Extra Spell. It clarified that you still cannot learn spells that aren't on your list, which is a clause from the classes themselves. Expanded knowledge is different, because there is a specific clause stating you can learn powers that aren't on your list. Note that Extra Spell has no such clause, and outright mentions that prepared casters have no reason to take the feat if they have an available copy of the spell they want, since they could just write it into their spellbook.

What? Spontaneous casting is better than prepared casting. The reason spontaneous casters suck isn't because they are shackled by the inability to prepare spells, it's because they don't know very many spells and can't afford to learn situational or downtime spells. If you let me play a Sorcerer that learned like a Wizard, I would never play anything else.
Hum... prepared casting has corrupt spells, sanctified spells, and the ability to develop new spells without sacrificing one of their spells known (which can explicitely be used to develop a weaker version of a spell that isn't on their class's list). Also, all prepared casters either have the potential to learn all the spells on their class list, or already know them. Spontaneous casters are either fixed-list casters (which can't develop new spells at all, and need a feat for corrupt spells or a prestige class for sanctified spells) or spells-known casters (which must lose 1 spell known to develop a new spell, and also need a feat or prestige class for corrupt or sanctified spells).

Sha'ir are somewhere between the two (they prepare spells over the course of the day instead of the traditional way, and have a list of spells known that they can prepare even in combat), clerics can cast any sanctified spell spontaneously, erudites are spontaneous manifesters with the ability to learn a potentially infinite number of powers, and fixed-list rainbow servants are just awesome despite being 4 caster levels below their character level, but no other build (that I know of) involves a mix of prepared and spontaneous caster.

This is unambiguously bad. Honestly though, I think the level of versatility the spellcasting mechanic allows a Beguiler more than makes up for it.
It's like claiming that UMD monk isn't a fallacy, since there is a feat that adds UMD to your list. Feats must only be counted toward a class' tier if the class itself gives bonus feats with the abilities you want.

Adam1949
2015-08-26, 02:09 PM
Just hopping in to say that for a Psion, the easiest way to Tier1-ify them is to give them the ability of Psychic Reformation at level 1. This allows them to swap out their Powers Known with 10 minutes of quiet time, thus bringing them up to the Wizard.

Brova
2015-08-26, 06:04 PM
An archivist or StP erudite could get Animate Dead as a level 2 spell/power as well by learning it from a geomancer death master. Meanwhile, the options you talk about preclude you from taking other options. The best one-trick ponies are tier 2; being tier 1 requires you to be able to do all of the above, and then some.

No, a DM could let an Archivist or StP Erudite do that. It's powerful in the exact same way that artifact swords are. Is the Fighter Tier 1 because he gets a magic sword which lets him fly and summon demons?


An optimized warlock has abilities equivalent to an optimized rogue,

Funny. Except less attacks, less damage, and worse skills.


but an optimized wizard can do any of their job better than them for the first 5 minutes of the day.

Yes, and Knowstones, abuse magic device, and wealth loops let the Rogue do a pretty convincing Wizard impression.


Diplomacy is permanent. Charm effects are short-term and allows a save, and if the target realizes he has been charmed, he will hate you.

Diplomacy being better than charm is an argument against your position.


Charm isn't close to being the most powerful thing spellcasters can do (which also goes against your "Charm Person, therefore tier 1" argument).

Uh, maybe you should read the fix that corresponds to (Spellthief). He's looking at any SLA from the MM at will. FFS, he gets at-will wish at 8th.


Hum... prepared casting has corrupt spells, sanctified spells, and the ability to develop new spells without sacrificing one of their spells known (which can explicitely be used to develop a weaker version of a spell that isn't on their class's list). Also, all prepared casters either have the potential to learn all the spells on their class list, or already know them. Spontaneous casters are either fixed-list casters (which can't develop new spells at all, and need a feat for corrupt spells or a prestige class for sanctified spells) or spells-known casters (which must lose 1 spell known to develop a new spell, and also need a feat or prestige class for corrupt or sanctified spells).

Zero of that is responsive. Imagine you had two classes. One is the Wizard. The other is the Wizard, except it can cast any spell it knows any time it wants. Which is better?


It's like claiming that UMD monk isn't a fallacy, since there is a feat that adds UMD to your list. Feats must only be counted toward a class' tier if the class itself gives bonus feats with the abilities you want.

So to clarify, if you had a class with no abilities, and a feat that required you to be that class to take it and caused you to win the game, would that be the best class or the worst class?

Because I suspect the answer is both obvious, and counter to your position.

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 06:17 PM
No, a DM could let an Archivist or StP Erudite do that. It's powerful in the exact same way that artifact swords are. Is the Fighter Tier 1 because he gets a magic sword which lets him fly and summon demons?
One of these requires homebrew, the other is from the rules. That's the main difference with this strawman you've built.

Also, wizard can just make an item that lets him fly and summon demons and become a better warrior than the fighter, ... or you know, use his class abilities that let him do that.


Funny. Except less attacks, less damage, and worse skills.
Same number of attacks (same BAB), same damage (actually abit more since they can get eldritch glaive on every attack rather than the rare times rogues get sneak attack in a fight), as for skills they can use items better than rogues to get skill bonuses or they can remove the point of the skill with invocations.


Yes, and Knowstones, abuse magic device, and wealth loops let the Rogue do a pretty convincing Wizard impression.
Thing is the wizard can do all that as well, except they can do it better and more. Literally anything a rogue can do as a role, the wizard can do better.


Diplomacy being better than charm is an argument against your position.
Doesn't matter, the tier 1s don't even need to use charm, they can simply buff the hell out of their skills better than a rogue can, or use dominate, or use charm or use etc etc. etc.


Zero of that is responsive. Imagine you had two classes. One is the Wizard. The other is the Wizard, except it can cast any spell it knows any time it wants. Which is better?
Considered the wizard's spell list, and the fact that all spontaneous casters can only cast from a small list of known spells, the wizard. Versatility is what causes prepared casting to win over spontaneous casting.


So to clarify, if you had a class with no abilities, and a feat that required you to be that class to take it and caused you to win the game, would that be the best class or the worst class?

Because I suspect the answer is both obvious, and counter to your position.
It'd be the worst class. And the best class. In the same way truenamer is horrible and pathetically broken as a class, but add in external optimization like +skill items, +skill feats, and item familiar and it's basically tier 0.5.

Brova
2015-08-26, 06:28 PM
Could we get back on topic? At least to the point of discussing whether the Rogue is actually good enough?


One of these requires homebrew, the other is from the rules. That's the main difference with this strawman you've built.

No, a magic item that is (say) a +6 Flaming Greatsword, which lets you drop planar binding once a day is totally a thing that exists in the rules. It's a magic weapon with the additional property of being a use activated (or whatever) magic item that lets you use planar binding. And if that seems like a non standard item to you, why yes it is. But so is a scroll created by a Death Master Geometer.


Same number of attacks (same BAB), same damage (actually abit more since they can get eldritch glaive on every attack rather than the rare times rogues get sneak attack in a fight), as for skills they can use items better than rogues to get skill bonuses or they can remove the point of the skill with invocations.

TWF, Rapid Shot, Item Familiar of Sculpted grease, all stuff the Rogue can do.


Considered the wizard's spell list, and the fact that all spontaneous casters can only cast from a small list of known spells, the wizard. Versatility is what causes prepared casting to win over spontaneous casting.

You are missing the point. Imagine you have the Wizard. Same spells per day, same spells known, same way of learning spells. Exactly the same in every respect. Now imagine that there is one change made to this Wizard. He can cast spells spontaneously.

Now. Is this class better or worse than the regular Wizard?


It'd be the worst class. And the best class.

No. Pick one. In an actual game, is this the best class or the worst class?


In the same way truenamer is horrible and pathetically broken as a class, but add in external optimization like +skill items, +skill feats, and item familiar and it's basically tier 0.5.

What? The big payoff of being a Truenamer (at low to mid levels) is that you get to do some damage to a single target. That's the ground floor for a Fighter or Barbarian, and those classes aren't worth the paper they're written on.

noob
2015-08-26, 06:40 PM
it depends of it you try to interpret everything in the most favorable way to the truenamer or if you interpret it normally or if you interpret all in the least favorable way with the truenamer for example the invisibility ability can be interpreted as making the opponent fade in nothingness without save nor sr making him stop to exist making you automatically defeat one opponent per utterance at level 6 then there is many other utterances who when interpreted in the right way have crazy effect like for example take a scroll of wish and use the repairing utterance after each casting(can be done at house and so combined with nanomachines allows you to cast as many times as you want wishes for magic items or for improving them).

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 06:44 PM
Could we get back on topic? At least to the point of discussing whether the Rogue is actually good enough?
It isn't tier 1, so it isn't good enough, it's simple as that.


No, a magic item that is (say) a +6 Flaming Greatsword, which lets you drop planar binding once a day is totally a thing that exists in the rules. It's a magic weapon with the additional property of being a use activated (or whatever) magic item that lets you use planar binding. And if that seems like a non standard item to you, why yes it is. But so is a scroll created by a Death Master Geometer.
+6 would mean this is an epic game, so tier 1 has access to epic spells and thus auto-wins. But, even if it was +5, no you need to use houserules to make that item since there is no property for Planar Binding or Fly on a weapon. Closest thing you can get to that is a +5 Flaming Spell Storing Greatsword. But getting that scroll is very simple to do mechanically, the death master geometer merely needs to have the scribe scroll feat.... which is a prerequisite for geometer... So, obviously a death master geometer can produce scrolls of his spells completely by the rules.


TWF, Rapid Shot, Item Familiar of Sculpted grease, all stuff the Rogue can do.
So? The warlock is still able to do equal DPS to rogues, can use items better, and get higher WBL (since they can craft magic items).



You are missing the point. Imagine you have the Wizard. Same spells per day, same spells known, same way of learning spells. Exactly the same in every respect. Now imagine that there is one change made to this Wizard. He can cast spells spontaneously.

Now. Is this class better or worse than the regular Wizard?

Then yes spontaneous is better. Because you removed all of the traits that go along with prepared or spontaneous casting, when in reality the prepared wizard would have a bigger number of spells known and faster spell progression. We know what a spontaneous wizard is like, it's called the sorcerer. :smallsigh:



No. Pick one. In an actual game, is this the best class or the worst class?
You got the answer based on how the tier system works. Any other answer would be flawed.


What? The big payoff of being a Truenamer (at low to mid levels) is that you get to do some damage to a single target. That's the ground floor for a Fighter or Barbarian, and those classes aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Sometimes I really wish I had a summon Jormengand spell.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-26, 06:47 PM
Sometimes I really wish I had a summon Jormengand spell.

It's happened with the two big threads I've made, I'm sure he'll be here soon XD

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 06:55 PM
It's happened with the two big threads I've made, I'm sure he'll be here soon XD

And now I've just noticed they are already in this thread.

Brova
2015-08-26, 06:55 PM
It isn't tier 1, so it isn't good enough, it's simple as that.

Well, if the tiers were a criteria for balance, then yes, it would be that simple. As the tiers are actually a criteria for what JaronK let people do in his games when he wrote the tiers, I'm not really putting a whole lot of stock in them.


+6 would mean this is an epic game, so tier 1 has access to epic spells and thus auto-wins. But, even if it was +5, no you need to use houserules to make that item since there is no property for Planar Binding or Fly on a weapon. Closest thing you can get to that is a +5 Flaming Spell Storing Greatsword.

The DM is well within his rights to assign nonstandard treasure. Such as items beyond WBL, or the literal Artifact Sword, the Sword of Kas.


But getting that scroll is very simple to do mechanically, the death master geometer merely needs to have the scribe scroll feat.... which is a prerequisite for geometer... So, obviously a death master geometer can produce scrolls of his spells completely by the rules.

Except that there is literally no way to decide to purchase that by RAW. There is no provision for scrolls created by specific people. At all.


So? The warlock is still able to do equal DPS to rogues, can use items better, and get higher WBL (since they can craft magic items).

Where are you getting equal? Also, what WBL? And better items how?


You got the answer based on how the tier system works. Any other answer would be flawed.

No, any other answer would be helpful. If the tiers can't provide an answer to "is this good in a game", they are worthless.

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 07:05 PM
Well, if the tiers were a criteria for balance, then yes, it would be that simple. As the tiers are actually a criteria for what JaronK let people do in his games when he wrote the tiers, I'm not really putting a whole lot of stock in them.
Doesn't really matter, since this isn't trying to get the game to be balanced... sorta. It's like balancing the game around the most unbalanced options present in the system.


The DM is well within his rights to assign nonstandard treasure. Such as items beyond WBL, or the literal Artifact Sword, the Sword of Kas.
So what? Wizards can get artifacts too... infact everyone can. If your argument that classes are on the same power because of DM fiat, you're wrong. Because DM fiat applies to every class, thus is irrelevant for discussion.


Except that there is literally no way to decide to purchase that by RAW. There is no provision for scrolls created by specific people. At all.
Actually there is, since the game tells you how much it'd cost. The price of a scroll is equal to the level of the spell the creator's caster level 25 gp. If the scroll has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create. If it has a cost it has as much right to be bought from a mechanical standpoint as any other item of the same cost. Though DM fiat can alter and decide whether a scroll can be found, as above, that can occur with any item even a cure light wounds scroll, so is irrelevant.


Where are you getting equal? Also, what WBL? And better items how?
Eldritch Glaive, Item Creation, Higher Charisma


No, any other answer would be helpful. If the tiers can't provide an answer to "is this good in a game", they are worthless.
Based on where the truenamer lies in the tier system, your example would get my answer as it's result. Though I completely understand the annoyance and unhelpfulness of the answer.

Brova
2015-08-26, 07:17 PM
So what? Wizards can get artifacts too... infact everyone can. If your argument that classes are on the same power because of DM fiat, you're wrong. Because DM fiat applies to every class, thus is irrelevant for discussion.

My point is that you wouldn't claim a class has an ability because the DM can decide they get that ability.


Actually there is, since the game tells you how much it'd cost.

Yes, but where is the indication that you get to decide who made that scroll? The DM has to fiat that you get the scroll, much like he has to fiat that the Fighter gets an artifact sword.


Eldritch Glaive, Item Creation, Higher Charisma

Less attacks (no TWF), less damage (blast is slightly less than sneak attack), "what WBL" was a comment about Chain Binding/wall of iron/flesh to salt, skill points are better overall.

Network
2015-08-26, 07:44 PM
No, a magic item that is (say) a +6 Flaming Greatsword, which lets you drop planar binding once a day is totally a thing that exists in the rules. It's a magic weapon with the additional property of being a use activated (or whatever) magic item that lets you use planar binding. And if that seems like a non standard item to you, why yes it is. But so is a scroll created by a Death Master Geometer.
I said geomancer, not geometer.

The problem here is that a +6 flaming greatsword can be wielded by any character. The team wizard could use the sword as well as the team fighter, unless you are arguing that a fighters-only artifact could be made, which is an oberoni fallacy.

Death master geomancer is cheesy, but is not an oberoni fallacy, since the rules allow it. If both classes exist in the campaign setting and the players are evil enough to use Animate Dead, then it's only a matter of finding a death master geomancer, which the players can do by taking one as a cohort. If neither classes exist and no other class gets 2nd-level Animate Dead, then the GM is probably picky on which homebrews or fixes he allows, and may refuse a class that gets Animate Dead at 4th level.

TWF, Rapid Shot, Item Familiar of Sculpted grease, all stuff the Rogue can do.
Competing with an hellfire eldritch glaive.

You are missing the point. Imagine you have the Wizard. Same spells per day, same spells known, same way of learning spells. Exactly the same in every respect. Now imagine that there is one change made to this Wizard. He can cast spells spontaneously.

Now. Is this class better or worse than the regular Wizard?
I don't know where you are going with that. Of course, the ability to cast any known spell by expending a prepared spell is awesome, and there are actually many ways to get it by the "official" rules. But it doesn't make spells known or fixed-list spontaneous casters any better than prepared casters (if anything, it makes them worse).

No. Pick one. In an actual game, is this the best class or the worst class?
Depends on the chassis. But the class still won't be better than an NPC class; the feat is.

There is a feat that lets paladins prepare wizard spells, just like there is a feat that lets spontaneous casters prepare corrupt spells. While these feats allow for tier 1 builds, they do not push the classes themselves up a tier.

What? The big payoff of being a Truenamer (at low to mid levels) is that you get to do some damage to a single target. That's the ground floor for a Fighter or Barbarian, and those classes aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Lots of game tables don't care that fighter or barbarian are considered "weak" classes.

The real thing truenamer has going for him is the ability to do things that tier 1 classes can't do, or can only do many levels later. Such as a Freedom of Movement effect from level 1 or the ability to provide free metamagic. Or repairing a magic item, for that matter. Even hitting the Truespeak DCs isn't hard if your GM follows the DMG guidelines on custom magic items, namely by allowing a "+30 Truespeak magic item". Wow. Half of the truenamer fixed for you.

Brova
2015-08-26, 07:54 PM
Competing with an hellfire eldritch glaive.

Competing with Craven and Martial Stance (assassin's stance).


I don't know where you are going with that. Of course, the ability to cast any known spell by expending a prepared spell is awesome, and there are actually many ways to get it by the "official" rules. But it doesn't make spells known or fixed-list spontaneous casters any better than prepared casters (if anything, it makes them worse).

The point is that by casting spontaneously from a list of spells that are awesome, the Beguiler is totally competitive with the Wizard. Different strengths, different abilities.


Depends on the chassis. But the class still won't be better than an NPC class; the feat is.

Oh, so the Wizard isn't strong, spells are. Got it.

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 07:59 PM
Oh, so the Wizard isn't strong, spells are. Got it.

Now you're just being hostile to no ones benefit. You know that spells are a class feature of wizard. :smallsigh:

Brova
2015-08-26, 08:01 PM
Now you're just being hostile to no ones benefit. You know that spells are a class feature of wizard. :smallsigh:

No, y'all are making a distinction without a difference. Spells are things that require you to be a Wizard. The hypothetical feat "win the game if your are a Commoner" is a thing that requires you to be a Commoner. If the first counts as a benefit of Wizards, the second counts as a benefit of Commoners.

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 08:12 PM
No, y'all are making a distinction without a difference. Spells are things that require you to be a Wizard. The hypothetical feat "win the game if your are a Commoner" is a thing that requires you to be a Commoner. If the first counts as a benefit of Wizards, the second counts as a benefit of Commoners.

If you don't see the difference between a class feature and something like a feat or item I'm not really sure what to say.

Brova
2015-08-26, 08:14 PM
If you don't see the difference between a class feature and something like a feat or item I'm not really sure what to say.

This is the argument of someone who has lost. If someone disagrees with you, explain why they are wrong. Don't wonder how they could possibly disagree with you.

That said, it seems to me that a spell which requires you to be a Wizard and a feat which requires you to be a Commoner are exactly the same from any character power perspective.

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 08:22 PM
This is the argument of someone who has lost. If someone disagrees with you, explain why they are wrong. Don't wonder how they could possibly disagree with you.

That said, it seems to me that a spell which requires you to be a Wizard and a feat which requires you to be a Commoner are exactly the same from any character power perspective.

Because being a wizard gives you spells as an aspect of it's class. Being a commoner doesn't give you feats, in this case all it does is give you access to 1 additional feat, which you can take by expending the resource that every character and monster in the game with an int score gets known as feats. It is not an actual element of the class. Seriously, you're being hostile to no ones benefit. I do not believe that you are unaware of the differences between a class feature and a feat.

Brova
2015-08-26, 08:26 PM
Because being a wizard gives you spells as an aspect of it's class. Being a commoner doesn't give you feats, in this case all it does is give you access to 1 additional feat, which you can take by expending the resource that every character and monster in the game with an int score gets known as feats. It is not an actual element of the class. Seriously, you're being hostile to no ones benefit. I do not believe that you are unaware of the differences between a class feature and a feat.

Someone is missing the point.

That someone is you.

The point is, what the hell is the difference between a selection you can make from the "Spells" list as a result of your class and a selection you can make from the "Feats" list as a result of your class, from the perspective of the power of a class?

Seriously, Clerics also get spells. Does that mean that we can't evaluate planar binding as a power of Wizards because other people get spells?

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 08:29 PM
Someone is missing the point.

That someone is you.

The point is, what the hell is the difference between a selection you can make from the "Spells" list as a result of your class and a selection you can make from the "Feats" list as a result of your class, from the perspective of the power of a class?

Seriously, Clerics also get spells. Does that mean that we can't evaluate planar binding as a power of Wizards because other people get spells?

Because one is from the class, the other is from character progression. It's not complex. It's really simple. Clerics get spells from their class. They are cleric class features. Clerics get feats. From their HD. Feats are not cleric class features. Wizards get spells from their class. They are wizard class features. Wizards get a small selection of feats from bonus feats and a larger amount from HD. Some feats are wizard class features, but most are not.

Brova
2015-08-26, 08:34 PM
Because one is from the class, the other is from character progression. It's not complex. It's really simple. Clerics get spells from their class. They are cleric class features. Clerics get feats. From their HD. Feats are not cleric class features. Wizards get spells from their class. They are wizard class features. Wizards get a small selection of feats from bonus feats and a larger amount from HD. Some feats are wizard class features, but most are not.

Again, you're missing the point.

The point is not Feats = Class Features generally.

It is that from the perspective of the power of a class, a Feat that requires you to be that class is equivalent to a class feature.

Adam1949
2015-08-26, 08:39 PM
The difference is that most every feat is crap-tastic, or at the very least way less amazing than a spell of equal 'level'. I, for one, would much rather have Melf's Acid Arrow or even Prestidigitation over anything like a generic "+2 to two skills" or even Power Attack, which is the feat that pretty much sets the bar on what a good feat should do for a character.

Anyone, and I mean literally anyone, can get feats if they follow the (oftentimes confusing and overcomplex) prerequisites for them, and they almost never actually are game-changers. Certain ones that do change how you play would be ones like Robilar's Gambit, Karmic Strike, a Dragonmark feat of some kind, Power Attack, those sorts of things; they're feats that actively give you more options and create opportunities. But everyone gets feats (yes, even the "Fighter-Only" feats can usually be gained from roundabout ways). Spells are limited to spellcasting classes and almost never have any limitations or requirements built into them. And the ones that DO have limits or prereqs can be almost hilariously-easy to circumnavigate. Invisibility, Haste, Teleport, even basic things like Glitterdust and Sleep are game-changers from the moment a wizard, cleric, or druid decides to pick them up. They do things a martial character or low-tier class simply cannot access without, hey howdy hey, entering that class.

To Tier-1-ify a class basically requires you to give them access to spells or might-as-well-be-spells that are on-par with the options that the Cleric/Wizard/Druid gets, AND the ability to easily obtain more of said spells or MAWBS. A fighter that gains the power of flight, hasting, being invisible, etc. is still only ever going to be tier 3 at-best because his options are set in-stone without the ability to gain even more powers, even more strengths, even more magic. To go back to page one a bit, the reason that Mythos Classes are Tier 2 is because Mythos Points to gain more abilities are effectively soft-limited by the amount of cash you're willing to shell-out, and that cuts into your other resources like magic items; a wizard has effectively-infinite resources, and thus effectively-infinite spells to gain.


Hopefully that helps cut down on any more arguing.

Ziegander
2015-08-26, 08:58 PM
In this thread: Brova hijacks another one. *High five!*

Brova
2015-08-26, 09:07 PM
In this thread: Brova hijacks another one. *High five!*

Dude. I posted suggested fixes, including a claim that the Rogue was fine. Then Milo responded to me and derailed the thread. If you can't contribute beyond accusing me of hijacking threads I don't hijack, I'm going to put you on ignore.

EDIT: That was passive aggressive. You're just on ignore now.

Milo v3
2015-08-26, 09:11 PM
In this thread: Brova hijacks another one. *High five!*

To be fair to everyone, tier arguments seem like one of the biggest causes of derailment on these boards and this thread is tiers based.

Brova
2015-08-26, 09:45 PM
Alright, let's get back on topic. I'm going to take a little more of an in depth look at the Spellthief.

The original Spellthief class has a bunch of abilities. Most of these are complicated and crappy. For example, you get to steal energy resistance, which you will never do. The abilities you care about are Sneak Attack (combat shtick, damage), Steal Spell (titular ability, actually kind of meh), and Steal Spell-Like Ability (sweet, late). So the core concept is that you bind, fight, or otherwise acquire monsters, turn them into pants with polymorph any object, and then run around borrowing their SLAs.

Abilities wise, I think you cut everything in the class currently. Even Steal Spell-Like Ability is written in a way that sucks. The basic chassis is a Rogue-ish deal. Average BAB, d6 HD, Good Ref, and so on. Some amount of sneak attack, probably full. The core ability is obviously Steal Spell-Like Ability. That currently works in a complicated way that is dependent on sneak attack. It gets changed to "any creature you touch" with the caveat that something that has been polymorph any object'd into your ring is still a creature. The one thing that needs to be considered is level cap. Not entirely sure what to do there. You also get one such creature (of CR = Level or lower) at every level.

That's pretty sweet at 1st level. Core options are Duergar or Nixie, offering either invisibility and enlarge person (suitable for a melee build) or at-will charm person (suitable for a ranged or social build). You can pick up all sorts of weird crap for SLAs. By mid levels you can spam various save or dies and utility spells, plus enough buffs to make melee-ing pretty good. At high levels it gets a little stupid, but whatever. That's kind of to be expected.

In terms of advancement, it needs to get the planar binding line at some point. Maybe 7/11/15 or something. Also needs to pick up the ability to turn captured creatures into more tokens. Probably before it gets lesser planar binding.

Ziegander
2015-08-26, 10:10 PM
The original Spellthief class has a bunch of abilities. Most of these are complicated and crappy. For example, you get to steal energy resistance, which you will never do. The abilities you care about are Sneak Attack (combat shtick, damage), Steal Spell (titular ability, actually kind of meh), and Steal Spell-Like Ability (sweet, late). So the core concept is that you bind, fight, or otherwise acquire monsters, turn them into pants with polymorph any object, and then run around borrowing their SLAs.

Bolded for emphasis. You sneak attack and steal spells: you are Hannibal Lecter, the Pokemaster. Is anyone else following this?


Abilities wise, I think you cut everything in the class currently. Even Steal Spell-Like Ability is written in a way that sucks. The basic chassis is a Rogue-ish deal. Average BAB, d6 HD, Good Ref, and so on. Some amount of sneak attack, probably full. The core ability is obviously Steal Spell-Like Ability. That currently works in a complicated way that is dependent on sneak attack. It gets changed to "any creature you touch" with the caveat that something that has been polymorph any object'd into your ring is still a creature. The one thing that needs to be considered is level cap. Not entirely sure what to do there. You also get one such creature (of CR = Level or lower) at every level.

That's pretty sweet at 1st level.

I know, you ignored me, so you're probably not going to read this, but: what are you talking about? Are you suggesting giving a class Polymorph Any Object at 1st level? I'm honestly not sure what you're suggesting. Every level, your class gives you a magic ring that is a creature that has been subject to the Polymorph Any Object spell, but you can't actually cast the spell, and you needn't have actually even encountered that creature? Is that what you're suggesting? You're not making any sense here.

Brova
2015-08-26, 10:18 PM
You are off ignore, as you seem to be able to follow a discussion.


Are you suggesting giving a class Polymorph Any Object at 1st level?

No, probably around 4th or so. But a very limited form. You get to turn stuff that is helpless or dying or otherwise defeated into a wearable inanimate object. Which you can then use the SLAs of at will. You know, the thing the original Spellthief was doing from 5th onward.


Every level, your class gives you a magic ring that is a creature that has been subject to the Polymorph Any Object spell, but you can't actually cast the spell, and you needn't have actually even encountered that creature? Is that what you're suggesting?

Yes. It's the same deal as how Wizards get spells at level up without needing scrolls.

Ziegander
2015-08-26, 10:47 PM
No, probably around 4th or so. But a very limited form. You get to turn stuff that is helpless or dying or otherwise defeated into a wearable inanimate object. Which you can then use the SLAs of at will. You know, the thing the original Spellthief was doing from 5th onward.

Yes. It's the same deal as how Wizards get spells at level up without needing scrolls.

Oh, I see where you're going with this, but thematics matter. That's not a Spellthief anymore. It's really not even necessarily a thief. It's big-time schtick is neither sneaking or stealing now, it's killing things and than transmogrifying them into magic items.

Wait... no, I still don't think I'm getting this. One part, I got, makes total sense. Whatever you fluff this class up as, it can have as many one "monster item" per class level and it gets them by defeating monsters and not just taking their stuff, but taking them as well, transforming them into jewelry to be worn on their person. Do they take up item slots?

Anyway, what you also seem to be suggesting is that, on top of being able to acquire monsters and turn them into jewelry, that method is just a bonus, because every class level you just have a new one. You didn't buy it. You didn't make it. You didn't find it in a treasure hoard. You just have it. And next level you'll have another one. That's the part, if I'm understanding your position correctly, that, thematically, makes no sense at all.

Now, one way that you could have this make sense is by changing it from being a spellthief, or a pokemaster, and into, wait for it, an Incarnate. Instead of being really weird and beating things up and turning them into jewelry, you are in-tune with soul energy, and can focus on powerful souls and harness their powers for your own ends. It's magic, and with your training you have learned how to draw the power of these external forces into yourself.

For example, you could design a class, we'll call it the Incarnate, that at 1st level has attuned themselves to the souls of any three creatures CR 1 or lower. By expending X resource, the Incarnate can use a spell-like ability possessed by one of those creatures. As they gain levels they can attune to greater numbers of creatures, and gain new attunement slots that can be used to attune to creatures of higher CR. At some point maybe they gain access to the supernatural abilities of some or all of the creatures they attune to. If that makes sense. It ends up being like a Wizard, but not, using spell-like abilities of monsters from attunement slots instead of casting spells from spell slots, and it should be relatively easy to ensure that this is as powerful and versatile as the Wizard or Cleric.


You are off ignore, as you seem to be able to follow a discussion.

I'm so glad you would deign to speak with me, by the way. Senpai noticed me. :smallredface:

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-26, 11:08 PM
[SNIP]
Now, one way that you could have this make sense is by changing it from being a spellthief, or a pokemaster, and into, wait for it, an Incarnate. Instead of being really weird and beating things up and turning them into jewelry, you are in-tune with soul energy, and can focus on powerful souls and harness their powers for your own ends. It's magic, and with your training you have learned how to draw the power of these external forces into yourself.
[SNIP]


I laughed my ass off at this, though I suspect you mean totemist, as that fits the flavour a little better.

Brova
2015-08-26, 11:09 PM
Oh, I see where you're going with this, but thematics matter. That's not a Spellthief anymore. It's really not even necessarily a thief. It's big-time schtick is neither sneaking or stealing now, it's killing things and than transmogrifying them into magic items.

Except that's it's a strategy that works for the actually Spellthief. Maybe it's not what the class should be doing, but it is the best option for the class.


Wait... no, I still don't think I'm getting this. One part, I got, makes total sense. Whatever you fluff this class up as, it can have as many one "monster item" per class level and it gets them by defeating monsters and not just taking their stuff, but taking them as well, transforming them into jewelry to be worn on their person. Do they take up item slots?

Pretty much. No item slot charge, much as the Wizard doesn't need a slot for his spellbook.


Anyway, what you also seem to be suggesting is that, on top of being able to acquire monsters and turn them into jewelry, that method is just a bonus, because every class level you just have a new one. You didn't buy it. You didn't make it. You didn't find it in a treasure hoard. You just have it. And next level you'll have another one. That's the part, if I'm understanding your position correctly, that, thematically, makes no sense at all.

It has to be able to do that. Otherwise it just doesn't get abilities for the first six or more levels of the game, except by DM fiat. And it gets kind of shafted in terms of organic advancement. It is thematically sort of weak, but it has to work that way.

As far as making it an Incarnate, you could. But "SLAs of random creatures" is very much not an Incarnate thing to be doing. It would work as a Totemist I suppose, but I think the core is there for the Spellthief. I mean, this ends up being the tactic a smart Spellthief uses if the class looks anything like it currently does, and as such I'd prefer to cut to the chase and make it the default.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-26, 11:19 PM
[Snip]
As far as making it an Incarnate, you could. But "SLAs of random creatures" is very much not an Incarnate thing to be doing. It would work as a Totemist I suppose, but I think the core is there for the Spellthief. I mean, this ends up being the tactic a smart Spellthief uses if the class looks anything like it currently does, and as such I'd prefer to cut to the chase and make it the default.

Wow, I wouldn't want you as a DM, if "the tactic a smart X uses" is made the default, you must have a bunch of really generic characters who all do exactly the same thing. I.e., EVERY spellthief is walking around with polymorphed monsters as rings on a ring, Every cleric uses DMM, Every rogue has UMD maxed. Man your games must be predictable...

Ziegander
2015-08-26, 11:50 PM
I laughed my ass off at this, though I suspect you mean totemist, as that fits the flavour a little better.


As far as making it an Incarnate, you could. But "SLAs of random creatures" is very much not an Incarnate thing to be doing. It would work as a Totemist I suppose[...]

How does "casts spells derived from coalescing soul energy into oneself," sound like something an Incarnate shouldn't do? How does that sound like a Totemist, who, since everyone loves how the published incarnation plays, is all "attacks by magicking my body into a wild amalgamation of other creatures' bodies through coalesced soul energy?" Yes, they both use soul energy, but one of them is a robe-y wizard guy that throws fireballs and creates magical daylight, while the other should be growing four extra limbs, wreathing them in lightning, and blinking in-and-out of existence while they draw and quarter their enemies in melee combat.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-26, 11:57 PM
How does "casts spells derived from coalescing soul energy into oneself," sound like something an Incarnate shouldn't do? How does that sound like a Totemist, who, since everyone loves how the published incarnation plays, is all "attacks by magicking my body into a wild amalgamation of other creatures' bodies through coalesced soul energy?" Yes, they both use soul energy, but one of them is a robe-y wizard guy that throws fireballs and creates magical daylight, while the other should be growing four extra limbs, wreathing them in lightning, and blinking in-and-out of existence while they draw and quarter their enemies in melee combat.

No offense meant, simply mean that you were talking about animal/creature spirits (I think you used the phrase Creature) which is what the Totemist soulmelds tend to be based off, the Incarnate ones seem to be more humanoids... Boy I hope that makes sense.

Ziegander
2015-08-27, 12:05 AM
No offense meant, simply mean that you were talking about animal/creature spirits (I think you used the phrase Creature) which is what the Totemist soulmelds tend to be based off, the Incarnate ones seem to be more humanoids... Boy I hope that makes sense.

No, I know. I wasn't offended, though I know I did sound like it (I couldn't figure a good way to change the wording so it didn't read as offended). If it helps any, most of the lower-level SLAs you'd have access to are from humanoids (Drow, Aasimar, Svirfbnevlin {or whatever}, Nixie, etc). But I think if we're talking about changing the Incarnate entirely, then this avenue shouldn't be off the table. I only used the word creature, because that's D&D 3.5's generic term for anything that has a statblock. But, yeah, I still don't see an issue with an Incarnate that channels the spell-like abilities of, say, a Barghest (y'know, there actually aren't too many non-humanesque creatures, at least in MM1, with SLAs).

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-27, 12:13 AM
No, I know. I wasn't offended, though I know I did sound like it (I couldn't figure a good way to change the wording so it didn't read as offended). If it helps any, most of the lower-level SLAs you'd have access to are from humanoids (Drow, Aasimar, Svirfbnevlin {or whatever}, Nixie, etc). But I think if we're talking about changing the Incarnate entirely, then this avenue shouldn't be off the table. I only used the word creature, because that's D&D 3.5's generic term for anything that has a statblock. But, yeah, I still don't see an issue with an Incarnate that channels the spell-like abilities of, say, an Air Mephit (y'know, there actually aren't too many non-humanesque creatures, at least in MM1, with SLAs).

I think the Incarnate and Totemist(at least my way of reading them) are great classes. They really only need more soulmelds, which I think would be a great project for a thread on its own; going through every critter in MM1-5 as well as a bunch of splatbooks to see about making soulmelds. And then glancing through spells for other ideas.

However the Intention of this thread was for a collection of T1 variants for existing classes. I think it's been made abundantly clear by most people who have commented and the arguments that have arised that that is both really really difficult to define, and not worth trying.

Brova
2015-08-27, 06:49 AM
Wow, I wouldn't want you as a DM, if "the tactic a smart X uses" is made the default, you must have a bunch of really generic characters who all do exactly the same thing. I.e., EVERY spellthief is walking around with polymorphed monsters as rings on a ring, Every cleric uses DMM, Every rogue has UMD maxed. Man your games must be predictable...

How is "grab a bunch of monster rings" different from "prepare a bunch of spells"? There are still a variety of different tactics the Spellthief might deploy. Maybe he grabs a bunch of random buffs. Maybe he grabs various summon spells. Maybe he picks up some battlefield control. Maybe he picks up some save or dies. He's basically a funky Wizard. That said, I think it's basically inevitable that the Spellthief wants to be doing something like what I've suggested.

Consider what the Spellthief might be on a conceptual level. Is he a guy with some magic and some thieving? No, that's just a Rogue. The Rogue has abuse magic device, and that's not really distinct from getting some minor spellcasting (I think it's safe to say this thread assumes at least minimal WBL abuse).

So it's obviously a guy who steals spells somehow. But who does he steal spells from? Stealing spells from enemies seems kind of bad. You get a spell you can't really predict, and you took some action that should have killed them. Stealing spells from allies can at least be done in advance, but that's worse than just being another spellcaster. So what's a Spellthief to do?

The obvious answer (to me) is to have a contingent of minions or captives or whatever from which he can steal spells. And the easy way to do that, while maintaining distinction from classes like the Dread Necromancer or Beguiler that have a bunch of minions, is the polymorph any object route.

I suppose you could also go the direction of making the Spellthief a generic anti-mage class, with personal antimagic field, broad immunities, and sneak attack for shanking casters. But that seems even farther from what the original class does.

That's also why I think the concept can't go to the Incarnate. There's already a guy who channels planar power class (The Conduit), and I have no idea what else the Spellthief is supposed to do while being effective.

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 07:33 AM
So it's obviously a guy who steals spells somehow. But who does he steal spells from? Stealing spells from enemies seems kind of bad. You get a spell you can't really predict, and you took some action that should have killed them. Stealing spells from allies can at least be done in advance, but that's worse than just being another spellcaster. So what's a Spellthief to do?
Could just make it that spells you steal as part of an attack that kills an opponent are permanently added to your list of known spells.


That's also why I think the concept can't go to the Incarnate. There's already a guy who channels planar power class (The Conduit)
... I don't get why it's so hard to understand the concept of planar incarnum that's tier 1.... Conduit doesn't fit the flavour of incarnum at all. So please, stop saying The Conduit works as a incarnate replacement.

Brova
2015-08-27, 07:35 AM
Could just make it that spells you steal as part of an attack that kills an opponent are permanently added to your list of known spells.

How is that at all different from the current class?


... I don't get why it's so hard to understand the concept of planar incarnum that's tier 1.... Conduit doesn't fit the flavour of incarnum at all. So please, stop saying The Conduit works as a incarnate replacement.

Because the flavor of the Incarnate is dumb (blue souls) or bad for the game (alignment). Caring about the planes is a thing the Conduit does, and it it the most salvageable part of the Incarnate. You could write a class with the same "move tokens around" resource management system, but there's no reason for it to be an Incarnate.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-27, 07:43 AM
Just because you and I can't think of another "good" way to play a spellthief doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And saying "all spellthieves will do x, so just make x how they do it" sounds to me an awful lot like "people only ever cast spells in combat, so only combat spells need to exist"
As an aside: you might not like Incarnum as a system, it has no bearing on the use of the system or if someone else likes it... I lik blue souls...


Also, I really like the idea of a planes themed Incarnate, it'd fit well with the setting I'm working on, thanks milo!

Brova
2015-08-27, 07:45 AM
Just because you and I can't think of another "good" way to play a spellthief doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Maybe you could suggest a different design for the Spellthief? Or are you just being hostile?

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-27, 07:50 AM
Maybe you could suggest a different design for the Spellthief? Or are you just being hostile?

I am simply disagreeing with the idea that there is and can only be one good way of doing something.

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 07:51 AM
How is that at all different from the current class?
It accomplishes the same thing you were talking about, except without the random out of nowhere Polymorphing...


Because the flavor of the Incarnate is dumb (blue souls) or bad for the game (alignment). Caring about the planes is a thing the Conduit does, and it it the most salvageable part of the Incarnate. You could write a class with the same "move tokens around" resource management system, but there's no reason for it to be an Incarnate.
The bolded is your opinion, completely subjective, and I completely disagree. So ..... I don't really care if you don't like the flavour. But I do like the flavour. And I do like the mechanics of the incarnum. So. Tier 1 Incarnate has a right to exist. Especially since I dislike that frank & k class, I mean for godsake look at it, it's boring a hell. Give me incarnate (which can do the flavour of the conduit + more since it's not just "oooh, I channel evil plane stuff") over the conduit any day.

Brova
2015-08-27, 07:58 AM
It accomplishes the same thing you were talking about, except without the random out of nowhere Polymorphing...

You mean, the thing that makes it interesting? Yah, let's remove that.


The bolded is your opinion, completely subjective, and I completely disagree.

The part where blue souls are dumb, sure. The part where alignment is bad for the game, no.


So ..... I don't really care if you don't like the flavour. But I do like the flavour. And I do like the mechanics of the incarnum. So. Tier 1 Incarnate has a right to exist. Especially since I dislike that frank & k class, I mean for godsake look at it, it's boring a hell. Give me incarnate (which can do the flavour of the conduit + more since it's not just "oooh, I channel evil plane stuff") over the conduit any day.

So you make one. I am not obligated to make things I think are dumb because you enjoy them.

Qoios
2015-08-27, 07:59 AM
How is that at all different from the current class?
I think the point isn't that it is different in its effect, but rather that it is simpler, more elegant way to accomplish said effect, with less baggage. Polymorph Any Object-ing a creature into a piece of jewelry that you repeatedly steal spells from is a cute way to increase the power of Spellthief, and worth doing if you are playing a Spellthief, as they are written.

But, when trying to make a self-contained Tier 1 Spellthief, what do you gain by keeping that odd mechanism, which does not mesh too cleanly with the Magic-Stealer identity of the Spellthief, when you can accomplish the same end result in a simpler, more integrated method, with fewer steps and moving parts to keep track of? At least for the default T1 Spellthief. Then add Pokeballing things as a possible ability, if a player wishes to pursue that. But when it is called a Spellthief, it should feel like Spellthief. Not like whatever thing it is that Spellthieves must turn themselves into to try to compete at higher levels of optimization.


Because the flavor of the Incarnate is dumb (blue souls) or bad for the game (alignment).
These are your personal tastes. Others might disagree. No reason to deny them their toys, just because you have a grudge against the Incarnate's fluff. As pointed out by Atlas, some people like blue souls.

And the alignment thing is only bad because it is built upon the alignment system. But the notion that they draw power from strongly held, polarizing ideals is not a bad idea intrinsically. It is simply that the lens of D&D alignment turns it into a bad thing by tying it to the alignment system's childishly simplistic view of morality and ethics.


Caring about the planes is a thing the Conduit does, and it it the most salvageable part of the Incarnate. You could write a class with the same "move tokens around" resource management system, but there's no reason for it to be an Incarnate.
Except that the Incarnate exists, and was on the list of what the OP wanted T1 Conversions of. If you want to make your own subsystem of T1 classes, you can go ahead and ignore the Incarnate. But if you are contributing to this thread's purpose, then Incarnate is a part of that. Either talk about something else, or get over it, and participate constructively in the conversation about how to make a T1 Incarnate.

Brova
2015-08-27, 08:05 AM
I think the point isn't that it is different in its effect, but rather that it is simpler, more elegant way to accomplish said effect, with less baggage.

And removing the ability to get spells on its own, which is apparently essential to Tier 1-ness. And making it the same as a Wizard who loots enemy spellbooks. And breaking with the part of the original class that was interesting. And only working on the subset of "monsters that have spellcasting" rather than "monsters with SLAs". And creating another Erudite or Archivist, where people claim that the DM will give you disproportionate power, and hence you have that power.

Nope, not interested.


These are your personal tastes. Others might disagree. No reason to deny them their toys, just because you have a grudge against the Incarnate's fluff. As pointed out by Atlas, some people like blue souls.

Sure, and if those people want a class that focuses on blue souls and alignment, instead of the planes, they can make that class. I think that class is bad, and the Conduit already exists for "guy with planar magic", so that's the route I'd go.


Except that the Incarnate exists, and was on the list of what the OP wanted T1 Conversions of. If you want to make your own subsystem of T1 classes, you can go ahead and ignore the Incarnate. But if you are contributing to this thread's purpose, then Incarnate is a part of that. Get over it.

Yes. And I proposed a fix. Namely, take the planar part of the class (the part that is good) and run with it. If you don't like that fix, don't whine at me about how I dislike things you like. Write your own damn fix.

Qoios
2015-08-27, 08:07 AM
You mean, the thing that makes it interesting? Yah, let's remove that.
Interesting to you =/= Spellthief. Again, if you want a Poke-Polymorpher, go ahead and make them as a class. But that is not, and never will be, what the conceptual identity of the original Spellthief is about, and therefore is not what we should try to emulate with a T1 Spellthief. So make that thing (which I would love, because it sounds awesome) elsewhere.


The part where blue souls are dumb, sure. The part where alignment is bad for the game, no.
Still opinion. Regardless of the validity, it is still an opinion, and one that has no place in a discussion of "How do we make T1 versions of this list of classes we've been presented with?" Stay on topic, or start your own topic, please.


I am not obligated to make things I think are dumb because you enjoy them.
Then don't! Talk about other things, which you would like to T1-ize. You don't need to respond to every participant in this discussion to derail their ideas just because you don't like them. Let Milo and Atlas work on their T1 Incarnate ideas.

For clarity's sake, I don't even disagree with the things you are saying. Conduit is interesting to me. Poke-polymorpher is interesting to me. That doesn't make either of those things relevant, here, though. I love Mythos content, but I agree with the poster who said that Hypermundanes were more right of a choice, since they don't have such vastly different fluff from the baselines they are compared to.

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 08:27 AM
You mean, the thing that makes it interesting? Yah, let's remove that.
Umm... I'm saying remove the thing that has no relation to the concept of the class. The interesting thing about the spellthief is that it's a guy who can steal magic from things, not a guy who turns people into rings. You can enhance and increase the power of spellthief without changing the overall concept of the class. By allowing it to steal magic from items, rip magic from corpses, disable magic traps and store them within you, steal magic from the fabric of the plane itself allowing you to cause effects based on the planes traits, if you see a spell you should be able to try and "counterspell" it and add it to your list of known spells. Spellthief should be the sharingan of spellcasters.


And only working on the subset of "monsters that have spellcasting" rather than "monsters with SLAs".
It doesn't need to be limited to monsters with spellcasting, I see no reason you couldn't steal magic from SLA's.


The part where blue souls are dumb, sure. The part where alignment is bad for the game, no.
You can keep the alignment stuff in a tier 1 incarnate without it being bad for the game. For example, remove the alignment restrictions, and simply make it that each day you can pick what outerplane your drawing the souls from today, which decides which alignment is being used. Because a guy who uses outerplane power in a D&D setting Should have some connection to alignment because of how big alignment is when it comes to the souls in the outer planes.


So you make one. I am not obligated to make things I think are dumb because you enjoy them.
Umm... I wasn't asking for you specifically to make one. I simply think that ignoring the point of the thread and talking about classes that have no relation to converting a class to tier 1 is a waste of time.

It's not even hard to make incarnate tier 1, it's basically just changing how the class reacts to alignment and remove the issue that binding reduces item slots. Then either increasing the power level of the soulmelds themselves or adding in a new higher power ranking of binding for soulmelds possibly called "Sealed" or something. (the latter would be easier from a time standpoint, but the former would be stronger overall).

Qoios
2015-08-27, 08:33 AM
And removing the ability to get spells on its own, which is apparently essential to Tier 1-ness. And making it the same as a Wizard who loots enemy spellbooks. And breaking with the part of the original class that was interesting. And only working on the subset of "monsters that have spellcasting" rather than "monsters with SLAs".
None of those things are intrinsic to not polymorphing them into a gem. Mechanisms can be introduced to accomplish all of the SLA emulation you could want, without having to polymorph your target into a gem. Your fluff is cool, but it isn't right for the Spellthief.


And creating another Erudite or Archivist, where people claim that the DM will give you disproportionate power, and hence you have that power.
Or where others claim that the DM will restrict your power, and therefore you won't have significant power. That is an intrinsic problem with these kinds of classes. However, one must assume that the DM will treat all classes equally, or one is creating a biased rubric by which to judge the power of classes. Tiers are complicated enough without having to account for the nebulous metric of DM-leniency as a part of Tiering classes. Thus, the default assumption is a permissive DM that is not making any efforts to rebalance the classes through loot-favoritism or other such aid, but is also not restricting access to anything that a character pursues attaining through legitimate means. This allows for the fairest, and least biased judgement. Oberoni fallacies can easily ensue if this is not upheld.


Nope, not interested.
That's fine, nobody is asking you to be interested. But if you aren't interested in doing what this thread is supposed to be doing, go elsewhere, and post what you want where what you are saying will be on-topic.


Sure, and if those people want a class that focuses on blue souls and alignment, instead of the planes, they can make that class. I think that class is bad, and the Conduit already exists for "guy with planar magic", so that's the route I'd go.
That's fine, but your preference for the Conduit does not invalidate others' pursuit of a more faithful interpretation of the Incarnate as a T1 class.


Yes. And I proposed a fix. Namely, take the planar part of the class (the part that is good) and run with it. If you don't like that fix, don't whine at me about how I dislike things you like. Write your own damn fix.
I never said that I like the Incarnate, or that I dislike it. I said that those who do are valid. I also never said I want a "fix" for it. I hate T1 and everything it represents. T2s & T3s are my haven. Powerful specialists, Versatile generalists. It's the place to be. T1 content becomes too hard to distinguish from eachother by anything but their fluff (and maybe the method by which they acquire their same-y powers) and I don't like that.

Brova
2015-08-27, 08:48 AM
Interesting to you =/= Spellthief. Again, if you want a Poke-Polymorpher, go ahead and make them as a class. But that is not, and never will be, what the conceptual identity of the original Spellthief is about, and therefore is not what we should try to emulate with a T1 Spellthief. So make that thing (which I would love, because it sounds awesome) elsewhere.

I gave a pretty big rundown on why I think that's the conceptual niche that the Spellthief needs to occupy. At the bare minimum, it needs some way to get spells every level, and just having it learn them normally on level up makes it way too similar to a Wizard. Forcing it to pick from the packages of unrelated abilities that are D&D monsters pushes the class towards a unique niche.


Still opinion. Regardless of the validity, it is still an opinion, and one that has no place in a discussion of "How do we make T1 versions of this list of classes we've been presented with?"

Sure it does. You're making new versions of the classes which won't inherit everything the old version has. Whether you should keep alignment or not is absolutely a valid question to ask.


You can keep the alignment stuff in a tier 1 incarnate without it being bad for the game. For example, remove the alignment restrictions, and simply make it that each day you can pick what outerplane your drawing the souls from today, which decides which alignment is being used. Because a guy who uses outerplane power in a D&D setting Should have some connection to alignment because of how big alignment is when it comes to the souls in the outer planes.

You just described the Conduit. Except maybe you'd like to give them the ability to respec their abilities every morning.


None of those things are intrinsic to not polymorphing them into a gem. Mechanisms can be introduced to accomplish all of the SLA emulation you could want, without having to polymorph your target into a gem. Your fluff is cool, but it isn't right for the Spellthief.

Why not? Seriously, it matches the original Spellthief class's function, it fits what a Spellthief is going to do, and it's a niche that is unique and different from the Wizard. Why shouldn't the Spellthief work that way?

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 08:57 AM
You just described the Conduit. Except maybe you'd like to give them the ability to respec their abilities every morning.
An incarnate + the modifications I mentioned =! Conduit at all so I'm rather confused by that reply. :smallconfused:
Conduit doesn't move energy around it's abilities every turn, changing how well it does skills and combat whenever it wants.... Conduit doesn't form semi-existent objects from souls. Conduit doesn't etc. etc. etc. Incarnate and Conduit are not like each other... It's really weird that you keep bringing up that class.


Why not? Seriously, it matches the original Spellthief class's function, it fits what a Spellthief is going to do, and it's a niche that is unique and different from the Wizard. Why shouldn't the Spellthief work that way?

Because Flavour Matters. For Godsake. If the classes mechanics doesn't match the concept, you have failed. Your spellthief conversion doesn't fit the flavour of spelltheif, thus is off topic.

Adam1949
2015-08-27, 09:28 AM
A big thing to remember, again, is that fluff and flavor are both important and unimportant at the same time.
Let's take Incarnum (and, to further that, the Incarnate and Totemist classes, and even whatever this "Conduit" is {which you should really stop shilling so much, but that's besides the point}.). Does it matter if Incarnum works with blue soulfire or red soulfire, or even changing it to Spiral Energy, or Nanomachines, or whatever? Mechanically, no, it doesn't really matter what Incarnum is actually like as long as it does the job (the class abilities, melds, shapes, and feats). But does it tell you what a Meldshaper should and should not be able to do within certain guidelines? Absolutely! It tells us that effects that involve negative energy and the undead go against the spirit of Meldshaping and should be shunted-off to be a special option for feats and a Prestige Class rather than something every Meldshaper can access. It tells us that it's a CON-based subsystem and shouldn't have anything to do with your brainpower or how charming you are. It tells us these things in the baseline fluff, and it's important that a class keeps that fluff.

Part of the "problem" with Tier 1 classes is that they're oftentimes too vague in their fluff. What does a Wizard look like, in-general? What about a Cleric? A Druid? A Psion with access to Psychic Reformation? This vagueness also allows them to get away with huge amounts of power because the writers didn't know how to rein them in; the Wizard can cast arcane magic with pretty much no limitation whatsoever, the Cleric can devote himself to any two domains and wreck havoc, the Druid becomes any animal and several non-animals, a Psion has so many split personalities that it's uncountable, etc.

Something important for upgrading a class to Tier 1, then, is to both keep it vague enough to have a lot of options, while still doing a better job than the current examples at showing off fluff. Without fluff all you have is boring mechanics that make people glaze their eyes over. For instance, the example of a Spellthief that is constantly offered/shilled: sure, it is powerful and all, but at what point is it actually still a Spellthief? It is no longer a thief but instead a murderer (or it simply creates Spell-Like Abilities out of thin air), and it no longer actually cares about spells themselves (since it can just take things like Pounce or something else equally-Extraordinary).
So what WOULD make it a "Spellthief" while still being Tier 1? Easy, it gains Sneak Attack as normal, a handful of utility spells, and the ability to steal ANYTHING from a target. Maneuvers? Powers? Shaped Melds? Invocations? Auras? Divine and Arcane Spells? Extraordinary, Supernatural, or Spell-Like Abilities? Sure! You're still stabbing people to steal their stuff, it's just that now you've been given infinite access to it. In this example, a "Super-Impossible Thief" can sacrifice Xd6 of sneak attack damage to steal an effect of some kind, ANY kind, up to Xth level; throw away 3d6 worth of damage, obtain Fireballs and Iron Heart Surges. Give them a couple of options to steal HP like a vampire, or steal Time and get extra Swift/Move/Standard Actions, etc... hey, now you're looking like a REAL Spellthief!

The important thing to take from all this is: fluff is useful, mutable, vital, and easily thrown away. A Meldshaper will ALWAYS be a constitution-based shaper of melds, no matter how you fluff it. A Spellthief will ALWAYS be stealing things magically, no matter the source. A Barbarian will ALWAYS rage, no matter the reason.

Qoios
2015-08-27, 09:31 AM
I gave a pretty big rundown on why I think that's the conceptual niche that the Spellthief needs to occupy. At the bare minimum, it needs some way to get spells every level, and just having it learn them normally on level up makes it way too similar to a Wizard. Forcing it to pick from the packages of unrelated abilities that are D&D monsters pushes the class towards a unique niche.
Giving a rundown =/= being correct. Thing is, you can't possibly justify it for the simple fact that it does not fit the Spellthief's flavor. Regardless of mechanics, when I say "spellthief", it evokes a certain concept. Poke-Polymorpher is not that concept. It simply cannot be the class' main shtick, or even, I think, a default ability of any significance, and retain the proper fluff.

Plus, Poke-Polymorpher is so cool that it deserves its own class. Tacking it on as a clumsy fix to the Spellthief does a disservice to the concept. And sticking it into the Spellthief, which, as Milo pointed out here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19733306&postcount=98), there are plenty of ways to buff Spellthief without making them into what you're trying to make them into, which is, as everyone else but you seems to agree, not a Spellthief anymore.


Sure it does. You're making new versions of the classes which won't inherit everything the old version has. Whether you should keep alignment or not is absolutely a valid question to ask.
Nope. You are wrong. That is an intrinsic part of the fluff. We are not looking for fluff fixes. Keep your fluff opinions and desires elsewhere. What this thread is about is taking the classes that exist, and amplifying their power to T1 levels. Nothing else. No fixes to your conceptual gripes with them. Just powerboosts that enable them to live up to their existing fluff, and compete on a level with the highest tier of power D&D offers, shy of Pun-Pun.


Why not? Seriously, it matches the original Spellthief class's function, it fits what a Spellthief is going to do, and it's a niche that is unique and different from the Wizard. Why shouldn't the Spellthief work that way?
Because that is not a Spellthief's fluff.
I do not know how to say it any more plainly. If it doesn't feel like a Spellthief, it doesn't belong on a Spellthief upgrade, when there are other options that will feel like a Spellthief, and will accomplish the same purpose.

At this point, Brova, please just drop it. You have yet to defend your position by actually addressing the criticisms aimed at it (that your suggestions are cool, but irrelevant) with anything other than saying that you don't like the fluff of the Spellthief or Incarnate, and therefore anyone interested in a T1 Incarnate or Spellthief should instead be interested in these other, vaguely similar concepts that you think are cooler. BUT YOU ARE WRONG. They should be interested in whatever they are interested in, and if that means T1 Incarnates with Alignment sticks up their Blue-Soul-clad butts, and Spellthiefs that never imprison monsters in rings, then you should just move on, and do something else, or make what you want somewhere else. This is not the place for Poke-Polymorpher brewing or Conduit fan-boying. Those both belong somewhere else.


snip
That was thoroughly insightful. A very nice examination of the relevance (or lack thereof) of fluff, and one I agree with wholeheartedly. Fluff matters in a similar sort of way to how authorial intent matters. It does, and it doesn't, entirely based on context. Also, top marks for explaining why designing for T1 is such a fine line, and for those lovely suggestions for an actual T1 Spellthief. All in all, just, thank you for posting, and being a positive contribution to the thread.

Adam1949
2015-08-27, 09:48 AM
That was thoroughly insightful. A very nice examination of the relevance (or lack thereof) of fluff, and one I agree with wholeheartedly. Fluff matters in a similar sort of way to how authorial intent matters. It does, and it doesn't, entirely based on context. Also, top marks for explaining why designing for T1 is such a fine line, and for those lovely suggestions for an actual T1 Spellthief. All in all, just, thank you for posting, and being a positive contribution to the thread.

I try. Thanks for listening in on it! Now granted, I have no clue as to HOW such a thing would look mechanically (Medium BAB, good Ref/Will saves, Sneak Attack at every odd level, natural spells up to 4th level, every even level they choose another group of abilities to steal? Who knows. :smallsigh: ), but at the very least I tried to offer, shotgun-style, what a Super Spellthief could do while both being Tier 1 (or at least Tier 2) and still fitting the baseline fluff.


As another test, what makes an Incarnum class Tier 1? CON to all saves, CON to attack and damage rolls, Fast Healing based on investing essentia into that ability, more Melds that you're able to Shape, more Essentia, more room inside of each Chakra to hold more shaped melds... What else?

noob
2015-08-27, 10:06 AM
The main thing is more different essentia things to create for having more possibilities.

Qoios
2015-08-27, 10:27 AM
I try. Thanks for listening in on it!
I know I can be a very harsh person, so I try to be an equally appreciative person. Wierd way to balance it out, but it's my way.


Now granted, I have no clue as to HOW such a thing would look mechanically (Medium BAB, good Ref/Will saves, Sneak Attack at every odd level, natural spells up to 4th level, every even level they choose another group of abilities to steal? Who knows. :smallsigh: ), but at the very least I tried to offer, shotgun-style, what a Super Spellthief could do while both being Tier 1 (or at least Tier 2) and still fitting the baseline fluff.
Yeah, it is one thing to spitball ideas, it is another to actually write up the finished product.


As another test, what makes an Incarnum class Tier 1? CON to all saves, CON to attack and damage rolls, Fast Healing based on investing essentia into that ability, more Melds that you're able to Shape, more Essentia, more room inside of each Chakra to hold more shaped melds... What else?
Sadly, the biggest problem is the weakness of the actual Melds. Many would have to be buffed, many new abilities would have to be added to the pool, etc. But your ideas are great for improving the chassis of a Meldshaper.

All of this having been said, though, I don't really enjoy playing Tier 1 classes in real games, and my interest in design of such classes is purely theoretical. Actually playing out that level of universal power quickly becomes bland to me, in no small part due to the open-ended and non-specific fluff most of the classes that live in that Tier. That distinction is one of the many reasons I prefer Tier 2 or 3. Usually, class concepts there need a little bit more of a theme, and themes make it easier to create memorable and distinctive characters.

Thus, I would ask Atlas: is Tier 1, as defined here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19722832&postcount=32), your actual goal? If so, I'm not sure I can be of much help, as I usually prefer characters with a little more in the way of limits than that.

This probably comes from DMing. It is frustrating to DM for Tier 1 characters, even ones who aren't trying to break the game. Their sheer versatility makes it a chore to create challenges that they cannot trivially surmount. It becomes a war of attrition, or a game of threatening things that are important to them, but that they didn't think to protect, or putting them on too short of a time-table to rework their entire complement of powers.

I prefer when characters have certain tools, and when those tools are not appropriate, they need to improvise, or prove that their tools are, in point of fact, quite appropriate, if applied properly. Not just switch to a completely different set of tools, or have a toolbox so big that it should be called a tool warehouse.

Ziegander
2015-08-27, 10:41 AM
I think the point isn't that it is different in its effect, but rather that it is simpler, more elegant way to accomplish said effect, with less baggage. Polymorph Any Object-ing a creature into a piece of jewelry that you repeatedly steal spells from is a cute way to increase the power of Spellthief, and worth doing if you are playing a Spellthief, as they are written.

Only, it's not even a way to increase the power of a Spellthief, at all. Let's say you gave the Spellthief the ability to cast Polymorph Any Object on any creature at 0 or fewer hit points, or the corpse of a dead one. They get this at 1st level, at-will. It doesn't even work the way Brova wants it to. The spell can't create magic items and it also can't create "material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine." So, okay, you want to change a defeated Lantern Archon into a t-shirt; it'll be a cotton t-shirt, so it's not valuable at all. Now, not only is your t-shirt not a Lantern Archon anymore (thus not actually having any spells or spell-like abilities or supernatural abilities for you to steal), it then reverts back to being a defeated Lantern Archon in 20 minutes, because let's see: is a t-shirt in the same "kingdom" as an archon? No. Is it the same class of thing? Nope. Same size? Not. Is it even related? It isn't. Does it have the same or lower Intelligence. Technically "does not have an Intelligence score" does not mean it has a lower Intelligence score, but I suppose some DMs will rule that way, so rather than 20 minutes, now you have a t-shirt for 1 hour that is still not a Lantern Archon and still doesn't have any spells or abilities that you can steal from it. Because it's a t-shirt. So Brova would have to overhaul how PAO works just so he can tailor it to work for his version of the Spellthief, and yet Brova keeps acting like this is just something smart Spellthieves do in real games which makes no sense because they can't.

Qoios
2015-08-27, 10:57 AM
Only, it's not even a way to increase the power of a Spellthief, at all. Let's say you gave the Spellthief the ability to cast Polymorph Any Object on any creature at 0 or fewer hit points, or the corpse of a dead one. They get this at 1st level, at-will. It doesn't even work the way Brova wants it to. The spell can't create magic items and it also can't create "material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine." So, okay, you want to change a defeated Lantern Archon into a t-shirt; it'll be a cotton t-shirt, so it's not valuable at all. Now, not only is your t-shirt not a Lantern Archon anymore (thus not actually having any spells or spell-like abilities or supernatural abilities for you to steal), it then reverts back to being a defeated Lantern Archon in 20 minutes, because let's see: is a t-shirt in the same "kingdom" as an archon? No. Is it the same class of thing? Nope. Same size? Not. Is it even related? It isn't. Does it have the same or lower Intelligence. Technically "does not have an Intelligence score" does not mean it has a lower Intelligence score, but I suppose some DMs will rule that way, so rather than 20 minutes, now you have a t-shirt for 1 hour that is still not a Lantern Archon and still doesn't have any spells or abilities that you can steal from it. Because it's a t-shirt. So Brova would have to overhaul how PAO works just so he can tailor it to work for his version of the Spellthief, and yet Brova keeps acting like this is just something smart Spellthieves do in real games which makes no sense because they can't.
Yeah, I wasn't even examining whether the trick itself was flawed, and focusing on the fact the intent was mis-aimed. But you are right, now that I consider it, PAO would not provide the effect he desires from it. I'm not especially familiar with Spellthief Optimization, or PAO shenanigans, so I didn't question his notion that this was a thing folks could do, but now that you've pointed it out, I have to wonder: Where did this concept even come from?

But even if it did work, I still do not think it fits the theme of what a Spellthief iconically is or does, and therefore do not approve of it as a part of a Spellthief: OP Edition. It just seems too...niche of a concept, to shoehorn Spellthieves into.

Although, I could something like it as a type of magic item that could be crafted, as some kind of Spellthief-exclusive Knowstone-esque device. A type of magic item that lets Spellthieves emulate abilities of creatures they'd never encountered, but whose essence was somehow imbued into an object, and upon which a Spellthief could draw. That could be cool. But again, it should be an option available, not an intrinsic part of how every Spellthief must operate. Kinda like how Knowstones are for Sorcerers. Nice to have, but not a part of the definition of what it means to be a Sorcerer.

Ziegander
2015-08-27, 11:07 AM
Ah, I see the catch now. You simply cast it twice. Turn the Lantern Archon into a t-shirt, then turn the t-shirt into a different t-shirt. Now the t-shirt is permanently a t-shirt.

Qoios
2015-08-27, 11:27 AM
Ah, I see the catch now. You simply cast it twice. Turn the Lantern Archon into a t-shirt, then turn the t-shirt into a different t-shirt. Now the t-shirt is permanently a t-shirt.
But, it is still a t-shirt, isn't it? No abilities to steal, right?

I wasn't saying it would work using PAO (for anything other than making a spiffy t-shirt), I was just saying that the idea of magic items imbued with monsters' essences (and therefore able to expand the ability access of a Spellthief) is a cool idea, and worth supporting, even if I don't think it should define the Spellthief, stylistically.

Ziegander
2015-08-27, 11:49 AM
But, it is still a t-shirt, isn't it? No abilities to steal, right?

Right. So the Spellthief's ability would have to be written incredibly wonky to work at all. Like, "No matter what you object you turn the defeated creature into, no matter how many times you use this ability on the creature (or subsequent object), for the purposes of your Steal Spells ability, that creature/object is still the creature it was before the first time you used this ability to change it, and still has whatever spells or spell-like abilities it had then, even if its new form is incapable of using them."


I wasn't saying it would work using PAO (for anything other than making a spiffy t-shirt), I was just saying that the idea of magic items imbued with monsters' essences (and therefore able to expand the ability access of a Spellthief) is a cool idea, and worth supporting, even if I don't think it should define the Spellthief, stylistically.

Yeah, I agree with that. Having an item like that would be a nifty boon to the Spellthief as a magic item sort of similar to a spell-storing ring that is only really good for Spellthieves.

Brova
2015-08-27, 02:49 PM
@Spellthief Fluff: This is not actually a question of fluff. It's just a function issue. If the Steal Spell or Steal SLA abilities work anything like they currently do, the strategy I have described will be optimal. As such, the class abilities should promote that tactic, so that you actually have a class that tries to do what it actually does.

Now people have suggested an alternative. That the Spellthief just gets the spells of people he kills. That doesn't work. First, it's too similar to a Wizard. If a Wizard defeats another Wizard, he gets his spellbook and can prepare those spells. The proposed Spellthief would work exactly like that, except better because it can do that to anything. Second, it's stupid and non-predictable in power. You don't get abilities unless you kill people for them, making it another Archivist or Erudite, and those classes are terrible design.

Now one thing that you could do is give the class some minor abilities like dispel magic or break enchantment, and give him temporary buffs for using those. That works and fills in some gaps in the progression.

It's possible that there should be an anti-mage class of some kind that runs around absorbing ambient magic, taking people's casting, and so on. That seems cool. But as soon as you give it something that behaves like Steal Spell, it will want a bunch of creatures to consistently steal spells from.

@polymorph any object: You don't lose SLAs as a result of polymorph any object. And if you stack it twice it becomes permanent. Per my reading of the original Spellthief, the Steal SLA ability just requires the creature to have a remaining use. I may have skimmed past a function call somewhere though. It's not really a change to anything. It's just making stuff more explicit.

nikkoli
2015-08-27, 03:51 PM
Hi just to interject about polymorph any object, you infact do not lose SLA's, BUT you gain the Intelegens, Wisdom, and Charisma of the new form. It works like polymorph which works like alterself which states you must have the facilities to use any normal SLA or supernatural ability that to keep.

I would think using the spell polymorph any object would then make a shirt with an SLA that then does not have any SLA because now it doesn't have the mental faculties to use the SLA so it would lose them.

Edit: I apologize for continuing to derail this thread.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-27, 04:01 PM
I went to sleep just after the posting of post #92, so I missed everything after that, to which I will reply now.

@#95
Thank you for stepping in with such an eloquent post Qoios, it is greatly appreciated.

@#101
Here begins another turn on the main arguement in the thread, but that's okay, looks like a pretty decent topic for discussion.

@#102
Thank you Adam1949, though Qoios already explained why this post is great. In fact, in the original OP I think I basically stated that I'd like Spellthief to work with both Psionics and Incarnum. So your comment about:
Fits perfectly IMO.

@#106
Rewinding a little here; by the end of page 1, I had had the problems with converting to T1 explained to me. I agree(now) that should one attempt to even all classes out in a form of tier-balance(despite tier's not being the most accurate representation of class balance), then T3 would be the optimum place to do this. That said, this thread was originally created with the goal of finding faithful T1 conversions of existing classes. I personally am looking around for T3 versions, just to see if they exist. But should anyone want advice on the location of or ideas to change classes to T1 variants, this thread was created for that purpose.


That said, an idea for "improving" Spellthief?(JUST AN IDEA) How about giving them the feat "Psithief"(CS p.80) for free and the ability to steal Soulmelds and essentia as a start. Not a big change, but it'd at least increase the creatures they can respond to proportionally to the added classes, Though I do like Milo's Killing blow idea.

Qoios
2015-08-27, 04:36 PM
@Spellthief Fluff: This is not actually a question of fluff. It's just a function issue. If the Steal Spell or Steal SLA abilities work anything like they currently do, the strategy I have described will be optimal. As such, the class abilities should promote that tactic, so that you actually have a class that tries to do what it actually does.
Wrong response, at least within this context. A better response would be to say that, since the abilities as written encourage an optimization method that runs counter to the class' flavor, we should rewrite the abilities to avert that phenomenon in the T1 upgrade. Not that we should accept that these unflavorful things are an inevitable part of the class. Because they aren't. Please, stop saying they are. It is annoying, and empirically untrue.

Also: Your gimmick is not only impossible until 8th level spells are available (and even then, not actually possible at all except by your very liberal reading of the rules). Your attempts to incorporate it into the baseline chassis of the class is approximately similar to saying that because Limited Wish exists, and has some kind of special use for one optimization trick that a person could employ, this class should get Limited Wish as a class feature, at level one, but only for purposes of that single optimization trick. Do you get how absurd that is? Class Design =/= Character Optimization, so stop trying to apply the principles of one to the other.


Now people have suggested an alternative. That the Spellthief just gets the spells of people he kills. That doesn't work. First, it's too similar to a Wizard. If a Wizard defeats another Wizard, he gets his spellbook and can prepare those spells. The proposed Spellthief would work exactly like that, except better because it can do that to anything. Second, it's stupid and non-predictable in power. You don't get abilities unless you kill people for them, making it another Archivist or Erudite, and those classes are terrible design.
No need to make it only available on kill. In fact, that's the biggest thing that makes the Spellthief deserve their name. They steal your magic. Right now. Not after they kill you. Therefore, design of ability acquisition should focus on that. They can get your powers, right now, but it costs them some actions. I'd say that not allowing post-mortem power-stealing actually increases the depth and complexity of the class, and provides that layer of distinction between them and other such classes.

As to the whole "DM discretion controls your power, therefore it is a bad class" complaint: That is inevitable in any class that cares whatsoever about the abilities of its opponents. Or in any campaign of any kind, for that matter. DM determines the rules. It is equally valid for me to say "well, this class is weak, because your GM might decide to run a game on the Storyteller system instead, so you won't even be able to play the class." That is how non-relevant your complaints about DM-fiat are.

If you are worried that you won't be strong enough because your DM won't let you get the abilities you want, which keep you comparable to your peers, then you and your DM have problems that go far beyond class design. Any argument based on DM discretion is utterly invalid when discussing relative balance of classes. Assume your DM will allow anything that doesn't stupidly and obviously break the game, compared to the expected power of your peers. Any other assumption is simply asinine, and only exists to lend artificial weight to unsupported arguments.

Also: Wizard, Archivist, Erudite, et al, are all solidly T1 classes. Therefore, some things about their design must be viable methods of creating T1 classes. Your protestations that they are "terrible design" does nothing to refute this. Those claims are irrelevant to this discussion, and belong elsewhere. Please, make your own threads for debating the quality and/or Tier placement of classes. This thread is for suggestions of how to Tier 1-ize existing classes, with their fluff intact. Nothing else.


Now one thing that you could do is give the class some minor abilities like dispel magic or break enchantment, and give him temporary buffs for using those. That works and fills in some gaps in the progression.
You are finally on the right track, but these abilities are woefully un-ambitious for a supposed T1 class. Take a look at Milo's & Adam's suggestions, start thinking in that realm of power, and then you might be closer to T1. But bravo for actually making a contribution to the actual discussion being had.


It's possible that there should be an anti-mage class of some kind that runs around absorbing ambient magic, taking people's casting, and so on. That seems cool. But as soon as you give it something that behaves like Steal Spell, it will want a bunch of creatures to consistently steal spells from.
And not a single reason included here as to why we should encourage that method, or what makes you think that the ability could not be written in such a way as to make creature-gathering needless. Not that I expected reasons. Just baseless assertions that your optimization gimmick makes sense as a universal truth of the class, even though it is a gimmick that cannot even be pulled off by an existing Spellthief until 8th level spells are available to them (at 16th level). And, with the currently existing Spellthief, would require them to have access to a Steal Spell target that has two castings of PAO available. So, this is an extremely niche trick that you are trying to pretend is a mainstay of Spellthieves everywhere. Which it isn't.


@polymorph any object: You don't lose SLAs as a result of polymorph any object. And if you stack it twice it becomes permanent. Per my reading of the original Spellthief, the Steal SLA ability just requires the creature to have a remaining use. I may have skimmed past a function call somewhere though. It's not really a change to anything. It's just making stuff more explicit.
That is your own ridiculous interpretation. It is not the default assumption. It does require the spell PAO to be re-written.

Non-creatures do not have character sheets, thus, you lack any abilities to steal for as long as you are polymorphed into a non-creature. That is how the spell currently functions. So just stop trying to sell everyone on the notion that it works differently.

Heck, even the notion that double casting PAO makes the transformation permanent is an interpretation, and not a universally agreed upon one. For one thing, it is obvious cheese. For another, it is clearly not the intended function, or they wouldn't have given the table of durations in the first place. Furthermore, it is the kind of interaction that, if it occurred to the spell's designer(s), it would almost certainly have been specifically noted within the rules of said spell.

If you want to bring RAW-abusing shenanigans in, whatever, but stop trying to say they are the default assumption. They aren't. The default assumption is a group of non-idiots, playing with a non-idiot DM. Not a DM who is a stickler for whatever particular arguments support your position, at any given time.

Not to mention, even if it worked that way, there is absolutely no reason to build this into the class. None. Whatsoever. It is a clunky, inelegant way to accomplish a goal that contributes in no way to the concept of the class. Even if it were thematic, there are a million better ways to do it that through PAO nonsense.

If a Spellthief Optimizer wants to get PAO to do such shenanigans, they can find their own way to get it, and do these shenanigans, and they can do it at the level where it exists as a possible option. Not at level one just because you think it is nifty. Seriously, what is your strangely obsessed deal with this?

Brova
2015-08-27, 05:37 PM
No need to make it only available on kill. In fact, that's the biggest thing that makes the Spellthief deserve their name. They steal your magic. Right now.

So you just hit a guy, didn't kill him, and now have spells you can use later. You understand how awful of a tactic that is? Not only is any melee character better than you (because they kill people they hit) any caster is better than you (because they can cast spells now).


As to the whole "DM discretion controls your power, therefore it is a bad class"

That's not the complaint. The complaint is that when your powers are all in the providence of "what the DM says shows up", you don't have a class. You have a list of abilities your DM can maybe give you.


Also: Wizard, Archivist, Erudite, et al, are all solidly T1 classes. Therefore, some things about their design must be viable methods of creating T1 classes.

Wizard, yes. Because just the spells you are guaranteed to get are enough to make you competent. And because you can learn from any scroll, sidestepping questions of getting Death Master Geomancer scrolls of animate dead.

Archivisit and Erudite, no. The abilities they are guaranteed to get suck (seriously, the individual spells on the Cleric list are not good, particularly at low levels, doubly so for Cleric exclusive spells), and they can't consistently get anything else.


even though it is a gimmick that cannot even be pulled off by an existing Spellthief until 8th level spells are available to them (at 16th level).

Do you mean 5th level? Because that's when you get chain binding, and an unlimited number of wishes to emulate polymorph any object. Maybe you ban the Candle (reasonable) and he has to wait til 9th level. Or just buys a scroll.


Non-creatures do not have character sheets, thus, you lack any abilities to steal for as long as you are polymorphed into a non-creature. That is how the spell currently functions. So just stop trying to sell everyone on the notion that it works differently.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. polymorph any object does not take SLAs away, therefore you keep them if you are turned into a hat.


Heck, even the notion that double casting PAO makes the transformation permanent is an interpretation, and not a universally agreed upon one. For one thing, it is obvious cheese. For another, it is clearly not the intended function, or they wouldn't have given the table of durations in the first place.

Your arguments are "that's broken" and "I don't think it should work that way". Neither of those mean anything in a RAW discussion.

noob
2015-08-27, 05:51 PM
Initially it was not a raw discussion but an homebrew discussion on how to change classes for making them more versatile and powerful.

Gnorman
2015-08-27, 06:17 PM
Frankly I don't see how the particulars of Polymorph Any Object are germane to the discussion. You're designing a new class. You can just give him "rings" or "soulmelds" or "whatever" without actually having an in-universe explanation for how he received them.

Network
2015-08-27, 07:30 PM
Tier 2:
Sorcerer
Favored Soul
Psion
Adding more spells known and the ability to trade some spells known (say, 1 spell of each spell level) once per day is enough to make the sorcerer or favored soul tier 1. If you don't want them to spontaneously learn an useful spell in the middle of an encounter, restrict it to when they recover their spells. This won't change the flavor of the class at all, and trading spells known has a precedent (spirit shaman).

This doesn't quite work for the psion. Erudites and characters with Psychic Surgery already have the potential to learn all powers, and the ability to trade in powers pales in comparison.

Fortunately for you, you could take a broken feature from an AD&D 2nd edition splatbook (The Will and the Way) and adapt it to 3.5. This would make the psion tier 1 without changing at all the fluff of the class. The ability in question was called meditation, and it basically allowed psionic characters to improve a power they know (increased range, reduced cost, etc.) or learn more powers than what they were entitled to due to their level.

The ability would differ from the erudite in that it takes time and does not require direct access to the power. The erudite's XP cost for learning additional powers could be kept. The psion and erudite would remain distinct, and both of them tier 1.

Tier 3:
Bard
Incarnate
Totemist
I think homebrewing more soulmelds, some of which copy spells and have a level minimum, could push the incarnate and/or totemist up a tier or two.

Making the bard a full caster with less spells per day (like the Sublime Chord) and the ability to trade in some spells each day (like I suggested for the sorcerer) would make them tier 1, or at least close to it.

Tier 4:
Rogue(Mundane Trickster-Hypermundane) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431473-The-Mundane-Trickster-Because-who-needs-spells-%283-5-class-PEACH%29)
Ranger(Witch Hunter-Hypermundane) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433945-quot-Suffer-not-the-witch-to-live-quot-3-5-hypermundane-PEACH)
Spellthief
Barbarian(Berserker-Hypermundane) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?433533-quot-I-will-crush-you-puny-mage!-quot-%283-5-hypermundane-class-PEACH%29)

Tier 5:
Monk(Ascetic-Hypermundane) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431660-quot-Mind-over-matter-matter-over-magic-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29)
Fighter(Veteran-Hypermundane) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428437-quot-Stand-back-boy-and-let-me-show-you-war!-quot-%283-5-class-PEACH%29)
You already seem to have most of those. I dunno... make the spellthief into a full caster?

Tier-Unknown:
Lurk
Lurk is not really tier unknown. It's basically to the rogue what the psychic warrior is to the fighter. And since psychic warrior is tier 3, so is the lurk. I don't have much to suggest for making it tier 1, though.

Now people have suggested an alternative. That the Spellthief just gets the spells of people he kills. That doesn't work. First, it's too similar to a Wizard. If a Wizard defeats another Wizard, he gets his spellbook and can prepare those spells. The proposed Spellthief would work exactly like that, except better because it can do that to anything. Second, it's stupid and non-predictable in power. You don't get abilities unless you kill people for them, making it another Archivist or Erudite, and those classes are terrible design.
Exactly. That's the whole intent of the thread. You're reciting the definition of tier 1, which is what the TO wants the spellthief to be.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-27, 07:38 PM
[SNIP- But contains a brilliant breakdown of how to improve each class

Thank you! This was very insightful. I agree that to boost the Meldshaping classes(well, Incarnate and Totemist at least) only really needs more soulmelds.
Lurk was put in "Tier-Unknown" because I couldn't find a value for it anywhere and didn't know the tier system or lurk that well anyway. Thank you for the correction, it has been moved.

Brova
2015-08-27, 08:38 PM
Exactly. That's the whole intent of the thread. You're reciting the definition of tier 1, which is what the TO wants the spellthief to be.

{scrubbed} I'm making two separate complaints.

One is that the design suggested is too similar to a Wizard. I'm not saying it's overpowered per se, I'm saying it's boring.

The other is that having a class rely on the DM serving up powers on a platter to get them is bad. Again, not making a power level complaint, making a complaint about designs that rely on DM pity being bad.

Which one of those is your point responsive to? Because it seems like it's neither.

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 09:15 PM
One is that the design suggested is too similar to a Wizard. I'm not saying it's overpowered per se, I'm saying it's boring.
Spellthieves stealing spells is boring?


The other is that having a class rely on the DM serving up powers on a platter to get them is bad. Again, not making a power level complaint, making a complaint about designs that rely on DM pity being bad.
Except your method still required DM serving up powers, since you need a corpse to turn into jewelry.
Still, it might be a potent idea to give the class a basic spell list of spells like dispel magic, detect magic, etc. in addition to the list being formed from stolen magic.

Qoios
2015-08-27, 09:16 PM
Everything you have said in this thread
Okay, Brova. I am officially done trying to reason with you. You referenced Theoretical Optimization thought experiments which blatantly abuse the system, as though they meaningfully exist in real games, or are of any concern to a homebrewer attempting to make (internally) balanced Tier 1 content. You have persistently insisted on derailing this thread with your absurd, concept-inappropriate suggestions for every class you have mentioned. You have failed to even once defend your position with anything other than repeated assertions of your rightness. And you think RAW exists anywhere but in the minds of those who delusionally believe that their interpretation is without flaw or alternative.

Clearly a discourse with you will lead nowhere. I will henceforth be emulating what everyone productively contributing to this thread seems to be doing: ignoring you. Good day.

Brova
2015-08-27, 09:39 PM
Look, y'all seem convinced that my fix is super wrong. Maybe you should post a competing one instead of complaining that I'm rude and "just don't understand the fluff". Absent that, my proposed solution is in by default.

{scrubbed}


Spellthieves stealing spells is boring?

If you kill a guy and get his spells, that's the same as a Wizard looting spellbooks. Not necessarily boring, but certainly redundant.

If you do the Spellthief thing (as the currently written class), that's either terrible (yay, you didn't kill a guy and can cast a spell later!) and/or devolves to my suggestion.


Except your method still required DM serving up powers, since you need a corpse to turn into jewelry.

Except that he gets stuff on level up. And gets planar binding. It's like a Wizard. Good on his own, better if he gets some goodies.

Adam1949
2015-08-27, 09:44 PM
That's not the complaint. The complaint is that when your powers are all in the providence of "what the DM says shows up", you don't have a class. You have a list of abilities your DM can maybe give you.

That's true of any prepared spellcaster, though. If the GM decides that half the spells in the Core Rulebook and none of the supplemental spells exist in the setting, the wizard suddenly stops being Tier 1 as well. Does that mean the Wizard isn't Tier 1 at all times? No, because 'b-b-but the GM fiats!' can make or break ANY class whatsoever.



Wizard, yes. Because just the spells you are guaranteed to get are enough to make you competent. And because you can learn from any scroll, sidestepping questions of getting Death Master Geomancer scrolls of animate dead.

Archivisit and Erudite, no. The abilities they are guaranteed to get suck (seriously, the individual spells on the Cleric list are not good, particularly at low levels, doubly so for Cleric exclusive spells), and they can't consistently get anything else.

You're kidding, right? You actually, seriously think that the 'guaranteed abilities' are what make a class their tier? As mentioned above with the wizard, ANY class is up to the whims of the GM for what you get. The Archivist is a powerful divine-equivalent to the Wizard if he just schmoozes with enough Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, etc... and the Spell-to-Power Erudite snaps everything in half just as easily.



Your arguments are "that's broken" and "I don't think it should work that way". Neither of those mean anything in a RAW discussion.
And your arguments mean nothing in a discussion about designing classes. Your RAW doesn't even work except in your own interpretations, and that is precisely what a designer of a class needs to avoid: no little naggly little personal interpretations, you need to have everything be clear-cut and easily-understood. Polymorph Any Object is a silly thing to grant anyway and, as we've mentioned time and time again, doesn't actually have anything to do with a Spellthief. Unless you didn't read the (fairly well-regarded, I am surprised to say) discourse I wrote on Fluff and Class Design, it should be easy to see that a liberal at best interpretation of how an ability works is not what people are aiming for in the creation of classes, even Tier 1 classes.


If you kill a guy and get his spells, that's the same as a Wizard looting spellbooks. Not necessarily boring, but certainly redundant.
Except a Spellthief has never, in any interpretation except your own strawman, needed to kill someone to get their spells. They attack someone and suddenly gain spells... or in the example I offered, maneuvers/powers known/mysteries/bound vestiges/SLAs/whatever. You're the one adding the killer requirement, not the rest of the posters.


Look, y'all seem convinced that my fix is super wrong. Maybe you should post a competing one instead of complaining that I'm rude and "just don't understand the fluff". Absent that, my proposed solution is in by default.
You do see how conceited and self-centered that is, right? Under what jurisdiction is your opinions and 'proposed solution' the default one? Anyone who thinks their ideas should be the default is full of themselves; I don't believe for a second that my proposed method is the right or proper way, only that it is a potential way to do it. I honestly don't know what else I can say on the matter without sounding rude and thus proving your strawman-blaming-game-of-a-point.

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 09:45 PM
Look, y'all seem convinced that my fix is super wrong. Maybe you should post a competing one instead of complaining that I'm rude and "just don't understand the fluff". Absent that, my proposed solution is in by default.
People have been -.-


If you kill a guy and get his spells, that's the same as a Wizard looting spellbooks. Not necessarily boring, but certainly redundant.
Kill a guy and get able to spontaenously cast one of his spells is different though.


If you do the Spellthief thing (as the currently written class), that's either terrible (yay, you didn't kill a guy and can cast a spell later!) and/or devolves to my suggestion.
I think you've misunderstood my proposal. If you hit someone and don't kill them, you get a spell you can cast for some set period. If you hit someone and kill them, then you get the spell permanently added to your list of spells known. So it's got the benefits of your solution, without having the issue of being complicated as all hell and not matching the flavour of the class.


Except that he gets stuff on level up. And gets planar binding. It's like a Wizard. Good on his own, better if he gets some goodies.
Why would a spellthief innately get planar binding?
I could see them stealing control over an outsider that someone else has summoned or called as a class feature, or getting planar binding through spellstealing.

Brova
2015-08-27, 09:55 PM
That's true of any prepared spellcaster, though. If the GM decides that half the spells in the Core Rulebook and none of the supplemental spells exist in the setting, the wizard suddenly stops being Tier 1 as well. Does that mean the Wizard isn't Tier 1 at all times? No, because 'b-b-but the GM fiats!' can make or break ANY class whatsoever.

What? The rules say you have access to the spells on the Sorcerer/Wizard list, selected at level up. The rules are silent on the question of getting a scroll of animate dead crafted by a Death Master Geomancer, rather than one crafted by a Wizard, or an Artificer, or a Cleric, or a Sorcerer, or a regular Death Master. Or any other class that can make a scroll of animate dead.


You're kidding, right? You actually, seriously think that the 'guaranteed abilities' are what make a class their tier?

Absolutely. If you want to analyze something objectively, you have to either assume no DM pity (and hence no funky scrolls for Archivists) or DM pity for everyone (and hence artifact swords for Fighters). The middle ground the tiers use is dishonest and unhelpful.


Under what jurisdiction is your opinions and 'proposed solution' the default one?

Under the jurisdiction that there is not a coherent alternative. People appear to be too busy talking about how I hate fluff and don't understand the tiers to post anything other than "maybe they should get this ability at some point", or to solve such basic problems as how stealing spells is supposed to work.


People have been -.-

The only congent suggestions made have been "get the spells of people you kil*l" and "maybe some abilities to absorb magic". I've responded to the first one, and the second isn't enough to hang a class on. And can be fit to my suggested fix, as I have pointed out.

*: Or stab. Or whatever. Not actually a meaningful difference. The "just touch" thing is not strategically different, and as I have repeatedly pointed out is tactically awful to the point of not being an option.


Kill a guy and get able to spontaenously cast one of his spells is different though.

Still has the Archivist problem. Also probably not good enough. You're getting 13 spells a level, and that's if you fight only unique casters.


Why would a spellthief innately get planar binding?

Because it guarantees the class access to new abilities. Otherwise it's another Erudite, and that is an unacceptable design.

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 10:01 PM
The only congent suggestions made have been "get the spells of people you kill" and "maybe some abilities to absorb magic". I've responded to the first one, and the second isn't enough to hang a class on. And can be fit to my suggested fix, as I have pointed out.
Actually if you go back through my posts you'll see much more than that.... unless your just ignoring all the abilities that I mentioned which steal magic. Which would be pretty stupid, since we're discussing how to convert a class based around stealing magic to tier 1... So... those abilities are rather important.


Still has the Archivist problem. Also probably not good enough. You're getting 13 spells a level, and that's if you fight only unique casters.
Why aren't you stealing spells from items? Why are you only killing one person in each fight? Is there any reason you couldn't steal magic from people who are buffed, so you can steal magic from people who aren't even spellcasters?

Also, Archivist is tier 1. Archivist is Fine. Any issues archivist has are fine in this situation.


Because it guarantees the class access to new abilities. Otherwise it's another Erudite, and that is an unacceptable design.
Except that ability has no relation to the class... *facepalm*
Is it seriously that hard for you to understand, "Classes should have class features related to the class"? It's not a complex idea, it has been restated in many ways, look at the great post about fluff on the previous page. Just... get it through your head.

Brova
2015-08-27, 10:16 PM
Actually if you go back through my posts you'll see much more than that....

I notice variations on that, but nothing I'd consider fundamentally different. Ultimately though, those abilities have problems (other than the lack of specifics and lack of a class chassis for them). Fundamentally, the are reactive. Some magic shows up, you steal it, you get a marginal temporary or permanent bonus. That's not really workable in a world with offensive magic as strong as 3.5. The solution can be to make the Spellthief a dedicated anti-mage (as I suggested much earlier), but that means that he has no ability to cease the initiative or solve strategic problems. And he's not guaranteed any particular ability. And he's quite likely to be worse than a Wizard who runs around simply preparing whichever spells he stole.


Why aren't you stealing spells from items? Why are you only killing one person in each fight? Is there any reason you couldn't steal magic from people who are buffed, so you can steal magic from people who aren't even spellcasters?

I'm assuming fights against a single enemy of CR = Level. It's possible that you'd fight multiple enemies and steal more spells per level, but it's also possible that you fight enemies of CR > Level and steal less spells per level. Stealing spells from items might do something, but how is that different from just using the item? Are you really running out of wand charges to the point that you'd like to steal the ability to cast scorching ray?


Also, Archivist is tier 1. Archivist is Fine. Any issues archivist has are fine in this situation.

The Archivist is tier "whatever your DM lets you get". That's an issue that is not fine in any situation, as it makes objective analysis of power level, contribution to the party, and class ability impossible.


Except that ability has no relation to the class... *facepalm*

So? How does throwing around a flamestrike or an animate dead relate to the Cleric's status as a holy man?

Qoios
2015-08-27, 10:21 PM
Guys, leave Brova alone. He's* a RAWtard. Nothing can be gained from conversing with him. He has proven time and again to be unresponsive to any kind of reasoning. Just don't bother. He's blighted this thread enough. Just let his posts go unreplied to, and leave him be.

He's arrogant, refuses to participate in a fair conversation, cannot understand his own innumerable fallacies, fails to defend his own arguments in any meaningful way, and he clearly plays the game in a way that is nonsensical, and lacks even the most basic of gentlefolk's agreement. He doesn't even understand that Class Design and Character Optimization are fundamentally different processes. He believes RAW exists as anything other than an empty form of self-validation (and that he knows what that RAW is, even some of the mostly ambiguous of corner-cases). He thinks chain-gating should be discussed in an exploration of Tier 1 Conversions, for pete's sake! We made a valiant effort, but there is no point fighting a losing battle for no reward, here.

*: If Brova is female, gender-ambiguous, gender-neutral, or anything else of the sort, I apologize for the male pronouns. It is simply easier than using non-gendered terms.

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 10:26 PM
I notice variations on that, but nothing I'd consider fundamentally different. Ultimately though, those abilities have problems (other than the lack of specifics and lack of a class chassis for them). Fundamentally, the are reactive. Some magic shows up, you steal it, you get a marginal temporary or permanent bonus. That's not really workable in a world with offensive magic as strong as 3.5. The solution can be to make the Spellthief a dedicated anti-mage (as I suggested much earlier), but that means that he has no ability to cease the initiative or solve strategic problems. And he's not guaranteed any particular ability. And he's quite likely to be worse than a Wizard who runs around simply preparing whichever spells he stole.
You aren't reactive though. Firstly, your making attacks to get new spells (proactive). Second, you are doing things with the spells you have gained (whether permanently or if you only have the spell for int-mod days or whatever). There are really good options for reactive, but there is no necessity to be reactive.


I'm assuming fights against a single enemy of CR = Level. It's possible that you'd fight multiple enemies and steal more spells per level, but it's also possible that you fight enemies of CR > Level and steal less spells per level. Stealing spells from items might do something, but how is that different from just using the item? Are you really running out of wand charges to the point that you'd like to steal the ability to cast scorching ray?
I'd imagine that if you steal the magic from a non-charge item it would be permanently added to your list of spells known. Also, if you steal a spell from a charged item like a scorching ray, you can use that spell as many times as you want spontaneously for as long as you retain the spell rather than having to use up charges, since it adds it to your list of temporary spells known.


The Archivist is tier "whatever your DM lets you get". That's an issue that is not fine in any situation, as it makes objective analysis of power level, contribution to the party, and class ability impossible.
Archivist is tier 1, deal with it. :smallsigh:


So? How does throwing around a flamestrike or an animate dead relate to the Cleric's status as a holy man?
Wow, you picked some really easy examples: Flame strike deals friggin divine damage and Clerics have abilities relating to undead since the afterlife is an important concept for religion.

Brova
2015-08-27, 10:27 PM
He thinks chain-gating should be discussed in an exploration of Tier 1 Conversions, for pete's sake!

You do understand that the entire thing that is supposed to define Tier 1 is the ability to use chain binding or gate or simulacra or planar ally to break the game? That is exactly what JaronK described the difference between T1, T2, and T3 as. I would very much like to have a discussion where that is not involved. Unfortunately, by talking about T1 rather than an SGT type balance point, that is the discussion OP signed up to have.


You aren't reactive though. Firstly, your making attacks to get new spells (proactive). Second, you are doing things with the spells you have gained (whether permanently or if you only have the spell for int-mod days or whatever). There are really good options for reactive, but there is no necessity to be reactive.

Reactive in the sense that your abilities are dependent on your opposition. Ask yourself this. What is a Spellthief (your model) supposed to do if his first adventures involve goblin warriors, giant rats, vermin, and zombies? What abilities is he getting automatically? What is he doing in a fight with a giant lizard?


Archivist is tier 1, deal with it. :smallsigh:

Why? Because JaronK put it there?


Wow, you picked some really easy examples: Flame strike deals friggin divine damage and Clerics have abilities relating to undead since the afterlife is an important concept for religion.

flamestrike is a blasting spell. animate dead is both literally [Evil] and negative energy based. You're telling me those are on theme for a buff-bot/healer?

Milo v3
2015-08-27, 10:40 PM
You do understand that the entire thing that is supposed to define Tier 1 is the ability to use chain binding or gate or simulacra or planar ally to break the game? That is exactly what JaronK described the difference between T1, T2, and T3 as. I would very much like to have a discussion where that is not involved. Unfortunately, by talking about T1 rather than an SGT type balance point, that is the discussion OP signed up to have.
Actually, its the ability to do everything proficiently given preparation. Prepared casting with a decent list, chain binding, gate, simulacra, planar ally, are simply methods of being able to be proficient with everything.


Reactive in the sense that your abilities are dependent on your opposition. Ask yourself this. What is a Spellthief (your model) supposed to do if his first adventures involve goblin warriors, giant rats, vermin, and zombies? What abilities is he getting automatically? What is he doing in a fight with a giant lizard?
Hmm, maybe rip out the positive energy magic that keeps the giant lizard animated would be cool, or just use one of the spells you stole from an ally the night before or or a spell you previously stole from a hireling you page via the spell services rules. That'd be simpler.


Why? Because JaronK put it there?
No... for the reasons that JaronK put it there. JaronK didn't put classes in their tiers from simple whim, and many many many people with far better knowledge of the games systems than I have agreed based on the reasons.


flamestrike is a blasting spell. animate dead is both literally [Evil] and negative energy based. You're telling me those are on theme for a buff-bot/healer?
Again. Class is more than just it's friggin role. The cleric is a superpowered priest, so they get magic that fits for a superpowered priest.
Flame strike is a spell that calls down the wrath of your god, so it's a cleric spell.
Animate Dead is a spell based around death and the afterlife, so it's a cleric spell.
That's why it has those spells. God. I'm starting to think your trolling. :smallannoyed:

Qoios
2015-08-27, 10:51 PM
Actually, its the ability to do everything proficiently given preparation. Prepared casting with a decent list, chain binding, gate, simulacra, planar ally, are simply methods of being able to be proficient with everything.


Hmm, maybe rip out the positive energy magic that keeps the giant lizard animated would be cool, or just use one of the spells you stole from an ally the night before or or a spell you previously stole from a hireling you page via the spell services rules. That'd be simpler.


No... for the reasons that JaronK put it there. JaronK didn't put classes in their tiers from simple whim, and many many many people with far better knowledge of the games systems than I have agreed based on the reasons.


Again. Class is more than just it's friggin role. The cleric is a superpowered priest, so they get magic that fits for a superpowered priest.
Flame strike is a spell that calls down the wrath of your god, so it's a cleric spell.
Animate Dead is a spell based around death and the afterlife, so it's a cleric spell.
That's why it has those spells. God. I'm starting to think your trolling. :smallannoyed:
Milo, my man, he is trolling. Or, he sees this game so utterly differently, that even if he isn't trolling, he might as well be. Just leave him be, and move on. The thread will be healthier for it.

Brova
2015-08-27, 10:51 PM
Actually, its the ability to do everything proficiently given preparation. Prepared casting with a decent list, chain binding, gate, simulacra, planar ally, are simply methods of being able to be proficient with everything.


These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat,

If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes.

The literal and explicit difference between T2 and T3 is gamebreakers. The difference between T1 and T2 is number of gamebreakers.

And please don't make me explain the difference between versatility and power. Quick question to that effect. Which is better one option that kills anything ever (more power) or three options that kill anything every on an appropriate failed save (more versatility)?


Hmm, maybe rip out the positive energy magic that keeps the giant lizard animated would be cool, or just use one of the spells you stole from an ally the night before or or a spell you previously stole from a hireling you page via the spell services rules. That'd be simpler.

It's a giant lizard, there's no magic involved. It just runs around being giant and a lizard. And the suggestions you give in terms of workarounds are exactly what a Wizard does (copy other people's spells or buy access to new ones).


No... for the reasons that JaronK put it there. JaronK didn't put classes in their tiers from simple whim, and many many many people with far better knowledge of the games systems than I have agreed based on the reasons.

Go read some of the reasons classes are in their tiers some time. For example, the Dread Necromancer is T3 literally because JaronK personally had trouble getting magic circle in a game he played. The Factotum is T3 because JaronK patches the bugs, and then allows a misinterpretation of web content from one campaign setting with a skill from another.


Again. Class is more than just it's friggin role. The cleric is a superpowered priest, so they get magic that fits for a superpowered priest.
Flame strike is a spell that calls down the wrath of your god, so it's a cleric spell.
Animate Dead is a spell based around death and the afterlife, so it's a cleric spell.

So if we fluff planar binding as being "stealing" the creature from its native plane, all your complaints go away?

Network
2015-08-27, 11:21 PM
What? The rules say you have access to the spells on the Sorcerer/Wizard list, selected at level up. The rules are silent on the question of getting a scroll of animate dead crafted by a Death Master Geomancer, rather than one crafted by a Wizard, or an Artificer, or a Cleric, or a Sorcerer, or a regular Death Master. Or any other class that can make a scroll of animate dead.
Animate Dead is a 2nd-level on one spell list. Guess what? You don't need to find a death master geomancer, only convince the GM that they exist. Instead, you will go find a 1st-level artificer, and ask him to scribe a scroll of 2nd-level divine Animate Dead. This way, the archivist gets the spell at the same level as a cleric using a candle of invocation, and there is nothing weird about it (ie. no death master geomancer).

It's a giant lizard, there's no magic involved. It just runs around being giant and a lizard. And the suggestions you give in terms of workarounds are exactly what a Wizard does (copy other people's spells or buy access to new ones).
If a wizard can take positive energy from a giant lizard and make it an arcane spell, there is no reason spellthiefs can't take positive energy from the same giant lizard and make it a cure spell. It's what we call "defiling magic".

For reference, defiling + psionics = DRAGONS. Spellthiefs definitely should have that as an high-level option.

Ziegander
2015-08-28, 12:26 AM
Look, y'all seem convinced that my fix is super wrong. Maybe you should post a competing one instead of complaining that I'm rude and "just don't understand the fluff".

I don't recall anyone calling you rude, but don't worry I'm on it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?437345-D-amp-D-3-5-Tier-1-Spellthief-Rewrite-(A-Work-In-Progress)&p=19737601#post19737601) (not on calling you rude, on posting a Tier 1 Spellthief).


Absent that, my proposed solution is in by default.

Slow down there, hubris. Your proposed solution is not "in" anything. This isn't your thread. This isn't your game. If the OP says your proposed solution is in, then it is.


@Qoios: Look. I get it. You think that the Spellthief should steal spells in combat. Unfortunately, that sucks.

Your definition of "sucks," as regards combat, seems to be any action taken that is not a spell that kills or shuts down multiple enemies or an attack that always hits and always kills anything it hits, so, don't expect too many people to agree with you.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-28, 12:32 AM
[SNIP]don't worry I'm on it... posting a Tier 1 Spellthief).
(paraphrased but kept context)

I look forward to reading it :) I, personally, would like to see it able to work with Psionics and Incarnum, but if not then it'd still be interesting to see a T1 Spellthief :)

Milo v3
2015-08-28, 02:05 AM
So far for spellthief I have:

The Spellthief

Alignment: Any.

Hit Die: d8.

Starting Wealth: 3d6 10 gp (average 105 gp)



Level
Base Attack Bonus
Fort Save
Ref Save
Will Save
Special
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1st
+0
+0
+2
+2
Animation raid 1d4, cantrips, spell desecration, spellthief
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


2nd
+1
+0
+3
+3
Arcane trapfinding, steal spell effect
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


3rd
+2
+1
+3
+3
Animation raid 2d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


4th
+3
+0
+4
+4

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


5th
+3
+1
+4
+4
Animation raid 3d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


6th
+4
+2
+5
+5

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


7th
+5
+2
+5
+5
Animation raid 4d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


8th
+6/+1
+2
+6
+6

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


9th
+6/+1
+3
+6
+6
Animation raid 5d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


10th
+7/+2
+3
+7
+7

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


11th
+8/+3
+3
+7
+7
Animation raid 6d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


12th
+9/+4
+4
+8
+8

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


13th
+9/+4
+4
+8
+8
Animation raid 7d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


14th
+10/+5
+4
+9
+9

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


15th
+11/+6/+1
+5
+9
+9
Animation raid 8d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


16th
+12/+7/+2
+5
+10
+10

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


17th
+12/+7/+2
+5
+10
+10
Animation raid 9d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


18th
+13/+8/+3
+6
+11
+11

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


19th
+14/+9/+4
+6
+11
+11
Animation raid 10d4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


20th
+15/+10/+5
+6
+12
+12

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-



Class Skills
The spellthief class skills are Acrobatics (Dex), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Dex), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Knowledge (all) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex), and Use Magic Device (Cha).

Skill Ranks per Level: 6 + Int modifier.

Class Features
The following are the class features of the spellthief.

Weapon and Armour Proficiency: A spellthief is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword, rapier, sap, short sword, shortbow, and whip. Spellthieves are also proficient with light armour and shields (except tower shields). A spellthief can cast spellthief and stolen spells while wearing light armour and use a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spellcaster, a spellthief wearing medium or heavy armour incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component. A multiclass spellthief still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.

Spells: A spellthief casts arcane spells drawn from the spellthief spell list and a stolen spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time. Every spellthief spell has a somatic component (unless removed by an ability like the Still Spell feat). To learn or cast a spell, a spellthief must have a Dexterity score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a spellthieves spell is 10 + the spell level + the spellthief's Dexterity modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a spellthief can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on the table. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Dexterity score (see Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells).

Spellthieves know all the spells on the spellthief spell list and all the spells currently on his stolen spell list. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his allotment of spells per day for the spell's level.

Animation Raid (Su): A spellthief's attack deals extra damage anytime his target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when he uses spellthief against a target that does not have any spells prepared, spells known or spell-like abilities. This extra damage is 1d4 at 1st level, and increases by 1d4 every 2 spellthief levels thereafter. Ranged attacks can count as animation raids only if the target is within 30 feet. This additional damage is not precision damage but is still not multiplied on a critical hit.

In addition, the spellthief is healed a number of hit points equal to the number of additional damage dice rolled. A spellthief cannot make an animation raid while striking a creature with total concealment.

Cantrips: Spellthieves learn a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells. These spells are cast like any other spell, but they do not consume any slots and may be used again.

Spell Desecration: Whenever a spellthief uses spellsteal on an attack that has successfully killied or destroys a creature, any spell gained from this ability is added to the spellthieves spellthief spell list permanently, rather than stolen spell list. If you have that spell on your stolen spell list currently, adding it to your spellthief spell list removes it from the stolen spell list.

Spellsteal (Su): Whenever a spellthief successfully hits a creature with an attack (including non-damaging touch attacks), he can expend a use of this ability to try an steal some of the magic within the enemy. Add one spell of your choice that the target possess as a known spell, prepared spell, or as a spell-like ability to your stolen spell list for a number of days equal to your dexterity modifier, alternatively you could take a random spell the target possesses but do not have as a known spell that is selected by the GM. When a spellthief steals a spell-like ability, remove any metamagic feats affecting it and count it's spell level as being whichever class gets access to that spell at it's lowest spell level.

The creature then must make a will save (DC 10 + 1/2 spellthief level + dexterity modifier). If they fail the will save, the target also immediately loses the spell slot required to cast that spell or loses use of that spell-like ability. This ability has a number of uses equal to the spellthieves ranks in the sleight of hand skill, which are fully regained after spending 10 consecutive minutes without experiencing combat.

If the target has known spells, prepared spells, or as a spell-like abilities, but you none that do not already have on your stolen or spelltheif spell lists, you or your GM must still select a spell as normal, but it only matters if the target fails the will save (expending the selected spell or spell-like ability), or you only have the spell on your stolen spell list and the spell desecration ability activates (moving it from your stolen spell list to your spellthief spell list). If the target does not have any spells prepared, spells known or spell-like abilities, then animation raid activates.

Arcane Trapfinding (Su): A second level spellthief can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps, and gains an insight bonus equal to his class level on disable device checks against magical traps.

Steal Spell Effect: Beginning at 2nd level, a spellthief can siphon an active spell effect from another creature. Whenever they would use spellthief, instead of taking a spell they can steal an active spell effect from the target. The spellthief can choose which spell effect to steal; otherwise, the GM determines the stolen spell effect randomly. If a spellthief tries to steal a spell effect that isn't present, the stolen spell effect is determined randomly from among those currently in effect on the target. A spellthief can't steal a spell effect if its caster level exceeds his class level + his dextierty modifier.

Upon stealing a spell effect, a spellthief gains the stolen effect (and the original creature loses that effect) for 1 minute per class level (or until the spell's duration expires, whichever comes first). If the spell effect's duration hasn't expired by this time, the spell effect returns to the creature that originally benefited from it.

A spellthief can steal the effect of a spell only if the spell could be cast on him by the original caster. For example, a spellthief couldn't gain the effect of an animal growth spell (unless the spellthief is of the animal type) or the effect of a shield spell (since that spell's range is personal). If a spellthief tries to steal the effect of a spell not allowed to him, the effect is still suppressed on the original target of the spell for 1 minute per spellthief level. This ability does not work on spell effects that are immune to dispel magic (such as bestow curse).

Spell List
Cantrips
Detect Magic, Read Magic, Unwitting Ally.


1st
Borrow Skill, Compel Hostility, Decompose Corpse, Erase, Forced Quiet, Fumbletongue, Identify, Memory Lapse, Negate Aroma, Remove Fear, Remove Sickness, Touch of Gracelessness.

2nd
Anonymous Interaction, Enemies Heart, Pilfering Hand, Silence, Steal Breath, Steal Voice, Touch of Idiocy.

3rd
Absorb Toxicity, Absorbing Touch, Blindness/Deafness, Dispel Magic, Healing Thief, Ki Leech, Lesser Spellcrash, Remove Curse, Remove Disease, Vampiric Touch.

4th
Absorbing Inhalation, Control Summoned Creature, Curse of Magic Negation, Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, Mindwipe, True Form.

5th
Feeblemind, Spellcrash, Vampiric Shadow Shield.

6th
Antimagic Field, Globe of Invulnerability, Greater Dispel Magic, Greater Spellcrash.



Edit: heh, like the new sig AtlasSniperman.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-28, 02:21 AM
@milo on #139

Though I know Physical casting is not a popular thing, I think in the case of a Spellthief, Dex makes a lot of sense.
The Spellsteal and Spell Desecration abilities are exactly how I expected from you, and are nicely balanced IMO.
I think Sneak attack and Detect magic should be kept from the standard Spellthief as they seem like good thematic fits to me.
Thanks :D I thought it'd be pretty amusing.

Milo v3
2015-08-28, 02:32 AM
@milo on #139

Though I know Physical casting is not a popular thing, I think in the case of a Spellthief, Dex makes a lot of sense.
The Spellsteal and Spell Desecration abilities are exactly how I expected from you, and are nicely balanced IMO.
I think Sneak attack and Detect magic should be kept from the standard Spellthief as they seem like good thematic fits to me.
Thanks :D I thought it'd be pretty amusing.


Detect magic is kept, it's a cantrip (which reminds me...). As for sneak attack it's abit generic, many classes get it now a' days, especially with archetypes. Maybe I should turn the animation stealing ability into it instead?

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-28, 02:54 AM
Detect magic is kept, it's a cantrip (which reminds me...). As for sneak attack it's abit generic, many classes get it now a' days, especially with archetypes. Maybe I should turn the animation stealing ability into it instead?

Okay, with the "Cantrip" ability I can now see why you said that. The animation raid ability is good as is, I can't see any problem with it.

Demidos
2015-08-28, 02:38 PM
Specific suggestions for Milo's Spellthief:

So far so good, but a bit tame. You're missing some things like...

--Magic Render: As a standard action (upgradeable to move with a feat) consume (read: dispel) an ongoing spell effect (e.g. a wall of force, an illusion, etc)
--Robber's Safety: SR = Level+12, can drop as a nonaction for friendly spells, if a spell fails to penetrate his SR it is treated as if it were stolen.
--Pickpocket's Eye: Automatically detects and pinpoints magic (items or ongoing effects) within a predetermined radius (think like mindsight)
--Snake's Speed: An extra move action per round to help him keep up with casters and celerity. Your threatened area is also extended by 5 feet.
--Thief's Cloak: Difficult to notice via magical means, providing immunity to scrying.
--Leech's Gaze: As a free action 1/turn, meet the caster's eyes and rip out their magic that way. Why would you have to hit them to steal a spell anyway?
--Residual Magical Remains: Can extract spells from the corpse up to 3 rounds after death, but it now takes a full round action to do so.
--Deadly Feedback: Any casting within your threatened area provokes.
Plus a full BAB chassis with good skill points.


The core concept here is someone who steals magic from others to later use it himself.
Much of a wizard's strength is in gathering information on their targets, choosing and controlling the battlefield, and being able to shut down their opponents in a round or two after that. Brova was correct in that the concept of the Spellthief is fundamentally a reactive one, and that needing to take your abilities before being able to use them is a severe crutch, especially from powerful and paranoid spellcasters. That is 1 more round they get to roast you alive, so you'll need at least token defenses. You should have magic detection abilities because that's your whole schtick. Lastly, give the poor suckers full BAB, they're going up against fullcasters.

What don't you have?
--The ability to make your own super-safe little hideout (Scrying immunity will help here, since its harder to find you. Not as good as a Demiplane, but...)
--The ability to attack safely at a distance via summons, planar bindings, astral projections, etc (The gaze attack helps a bit, it would help more if it dispelled as well, the extra move action helps a little, but this is a weakness. The ability to stay out of melee/harm's way is an important one.)
--The ability to shut down an entire encounter, via glitterdust, sleep, etc (Perhaps add a refraction period during which anyone who lost SLAs or spells cant cast?)

Lets look at some sample scenarios:
1: Battle vs Goblins/Ogres/Skeletons: Pretty standard battle for low level characters. Spellthief is somewhat less useful than a fighter, and the extra move action doesn't even give him pseudo pounce since he doesnt have enough attack bonus for it. The bonus threatened reach keeps him relevant (if its even online yet), but only if he rolls decently. Current T1 could turn undead, cast glitterdust, use animal companion to destroy them, or several other options.
Spellthief vs current T1s
2: Battle vs Wizards/Clerics/Druids: Spellthief is hard to affect with his SR, and gets decent saves to back it up. The Spelltheif can easily shut down the casters if he can get within reach of them. Summons or Animal companions can help keep him at bay, and wall of stone-esque spells can do so as well, but that requires some knowledge of what the Spellthief can do. It is moderately difficult for either side to guarantee victory. T1's have a 50/50 shot at victory, depending on optimization of either side.
Spellthief vs current T1s (slight advantage, assuming no knowledge)
3: Battle vs Magical Creatures: The Spelltheif will probably have to deal with monsters with larger reach than itself, as well as deal with likely spell resistance when casting spells back at the monster. He can steal some of the monster's spells, but is likely less intimidating than an equal CR creature in melee. T1's are more likely to have spells/feats prepared that bypass SR and can better control the battlefield, something spellthiefs notably cannot.
Spellthief vs current T1s


The enemy army is invading in a week? The Spellthief can sneak into the enemy camp and steal their spells to cause havoc, but practically fills the same role as a rogue until he gets his hands on those, and even then cannot dictate what he will get.

Invading the dragon's lair? Again, same role as a theif, except if the dragon feels like casting on him instead of toasting him with it's breath....for some reason.

Even with the changes, this still falls short of T1. It is moderately useful for its skills but is focused heavily on only one thing (stealing spells), and once it has done so it still only has the options that someone else had prepared with a different plan in mind. That puts it in T4 territory, but with the other abilities it gains it probably hits T3.

With that in mind, to the previous list of abilities I would add...
--Reweave magic: By consuming/losing stored spells, the spelltheif can create magic spells themselves. Any spell can be cast, but it takes one minute and a number of sacrificed spell levels equal to at least three times the level of the spell to be created.* This magic can be ripped from a magical item as well, but destroys 750 gp PER SPELL LEVEL of the spell. In effect, you are trading GP value for spells on the fly, at a rate slightly more expensive than scrolls (and slower), but allowing you to assume you have every scroll. Once damaged the item must be repaired to be used, but may be further drained to fuel this ability again if desired.

*Note: Suggestion to DM's, have a time limit of 1 minute for them to decide on a spell, for the purposes of not bogging down the game.

This ability by itself probably gets them to T1/T2, allowing them to cast any spell they need, though slowly (in terms of tactical time) and at a steep price.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-28, 06:43 PM
@Demidos Quick attempt at a rebuttal:

I feel the only thing needed by milo's spellthief at the moment is the spells/day.

The spellthief can steal any spell usable by a wizard to achieve any goal. Since this Spellthief only needs to hit someone with the same spell prepared twice to get the spell permanently on his spell list. Pay someone to "cast" a spell twice, bop them with nondamaging slaps to use spell desecration and get the spell on his spell list. The best part about this is that the spellthief can have spells from any spelllist provided he can find the right person to pay and can convince them to let him bop them with nonlethal twice. Giving the spellthief the ability to take any roll from battlefield control to stealth to healing.

Your arguements assume the spellthief is unable to expand his spell list, which is the foundational point behind this one.

I know milo v3's writing is a little weird, but after talking with him up to this point I understand what he's intending with Spellsteal(su), but it does need to be reworded to make more sense.

Milo v3
2015-08-28, 06:49 PM
So far so good, but a bit tame. You're missing some things like...
Oh, that was just a so far thing of the stuff I did for it on the train. I haven't finished, since I had to work on assignments once I got home with only a few breaks. I haven't even put in the spell slots per day yet. :smalltongue:


Plus a full BAB chassis with good skill points.
Full bab really doesn't feel necessary.

Zale
2015-08-28, 07:53 PM
I was thinking about how to move a Martial Initiator up tiers, other than re-writing Disciplines.

Nice full-bodied chassis, maneuvers known as a Swordsage; Maneuvers readied are as maneuvers known, access to all Disciplines & can switch out maneuvers with ten minutes of work. Warblade maneuver recovery. Already "know" all maneuvers that they're high enough to access like a Cleric "knows" all of their spells.

That has to push things up a bit, right?

noob
2015-08-28, 08:00 PM
Having all the manuvers makes you great at battle but not T1 you can still not summon demons or find people or teleport all the team and so on(unless you are generous with iron heart surge and allows a player to use it to gain a maneuver which does the particular thing you want no matter what you want)

Zale
2015-08-28, 09:11 PM
Having all the manuvers makes you great at battle but not T1 you can still not summon demons or find people or teleport all the team and so on(unless you are generous with iron heart surge and allows a player to use it to gain a maneuver which does the particular thing you want no matter what you want)

Oh I figured that wouldn't move them all the way up to T1, but I hoped it might move them to low T2.

Network
2015-08-29, 12:24 AM
Isn't there an arcane swordsage variant or something that gets spells as maneuvers?

Even if you disallow all spells with an XP or gp cost, this would push them to tier 2 at least. For tier 1, they'll just need a way to learn additional maneuvers/spells or to retrain maneuvers known once per day.

AtlasSniperman
2015-08-29, 02:39 PM
So milo, eta on the completed spellthief?