PDA

View Full Version : Class you wish to see



Shiryu
2016-10-12, 08:56 AM
What class you wish to see as homebrew a martial one or a spell-casting gone?

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-12, 09:45 AM
I think broad is better than specific, where classes are concerned. "Fighter" with ability to specialize in weapons and armours is more interesting to me than just "Archer," "Hoplite" and "Knight" might be, for instance. "Wizard" with the ability to specialize in spell schools is more interesting than "Frost Wizard," or "Necromancer" as standalone classes.

I actually think D&D, for instance, could be better with a few fewer classes, and less overlap. Paladins should be a product of Fighter/Cleric multiclass, imo. Rangers shouldn't be spellcasters (they overlap with Druids). Fighters, Rogues and Monks don't need Arcane subclasses (they could just multiclass). I might even prefer if Barbarians didn't exist, and if they were instead a Fighter subclass or build.

Instead of more classes, I'd like to see existing classes (martial classes especially) given far more options for specialization and round-to-round action choices.

Lalliman
2016-10-12, 10:57 AM
You might want to mention what system you want to homebrew for.

I agree with Axekick in that a class should embody a wide range of character concepts instead of a single specific one, but I disagree that arcane subclasses shouldn't exist. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster in particular grant abilities that can't be obtained by multiclassing into a spellcasting class, and that are essential to truly integrating their martial and arcane abilities (e.g. Eldritch Strike, Magical Ambush). Therefor, they have value. I would be happy to see other such fusions, as long as they contain more than just the sum of their parts.

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-12, 01:29 PM
You might want to mention what system you want to homebrew for.

I agree with Axekick in that a class should embody a wide range of character concepts instead of a single specific one, but I disagree that arcane subclasses shouldn't exist. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster in particular grant abilities that can't be obtained by multiclassing into a spellcasting class, and that are essential to truly integrating their martial and arcane abilities (e.g. Eldritch Strike, Magical Ambush). Therefor, they have value. I would be happy to see other such fusions, as long as they contain more than just the sum of their parts. Except it would be exceedinglly simple to make those abilities available through multiclassing.

Eldritch Knights gain the following:

Weapon Bond, which makes disarming the Knight of an bonded weapon impossible and which allows them to call the weapon with a bonus action. This could simply be a spell available to all Wizard/Sorcerers/Warlocks at no penalty to balance. It could even be generalized as Item Bond (A) because why shouldn't it, realistically, and (B) to reward players for creative use if the concept, fitting it into different builds.
War Magic, which allows the Knight to use attack with a bonus action after using their action to cast a cantrip. This could be rephrased to allow a single attack after any non-attack Action as a class feature for all Fighters, playing into their versatility. This DOES make it as powerful as Improved War Magic, but that can be offset by making it available later than War Magic.
Eldritch Strike, which Disadvantages a creatures saves against your spells for one round. This too could be rephrased as a feature for all Fighters: perhaps the power to Disadvantage all saves, or the save of your choice after a successful hit. This, again, makes Fighters more versatile, allowing them to play support for casters, work with environmental hazards, as well support themselves as multiclass casters.
Arcane Charge, which allows you to teleport using an Action Surge. Throwaway. Multiclass Fighters could just learn a teleportation spell.


Similar things could be done for Rogues and Monks

khadgar567
2016-10-12, 01:35 PM
it's your own funeral kiddo 3.5 edition dancer class without renamed bardic music. You ask idea for custom make class here is the opportunity show us what you can brew.

Shiryu
2016-10-12, 01:40 PM
it's your own funeral kiddo 3.5 edition dancer class without renamed bardic music. You ask idea for custom make class here is the opportunity show us what you can brew.

who are you talking to?

khadgar567
2016-10-12, 01:57 PM
who are you talking to?
the one asked the question in the quote aka @Shiryu

Mith
2016-10-12, 02:00 PM
I think broad is better than specific, where classes are concerned. "Fighter" with ability to specialize in weapons and armours is more interesting to me than just "Archer," "Hoplite" and "Knight" might be, for instance. "Wizard" with the ability to specialize in spell schools is more interesting than "Frost Wizard," or "Necromancer" as standalone classes.

I actually think D&D, for instance, could be better with a few fewer classes, and less overlap. Paladins should be a product of Fighter/Cleric multiclass, imo. Rangers shouldn't be spellcasters (they overlap with Druids). Fighters, Rogues and Monks don't need Arcane subclasses (they could just multiclass). I might even prefer if Barbarians didn't exist, and if they were instead a Fighter subclass or build.

Instead of more classes, I'd like to see existing classes (martial classes especially) given far more options for specialization and round-to-round action choices.

My apologies if this is a garbled mess to read. I have a habit to edit sentences while typing that doesn't always work out well.

This would be an interesting throwback to the original 4 classes of Fighter (Fighting Man), Thief, Cleric, and Magic User, in the sense f 4 core concepts that interact to a variety of others. Examples that I am thinking of are the Druid coming online for Neutral Clerics at level 9 IIRC, and Paladins for Lawful Fighters at Level 9 as well. And the ultimate example of the Bard being a crazy multiclass.

So divide the Cleric class into Druid or Cleric for the divide between Nature and Civilization. A Fighter that takes aspirations to Clerichood gains Paladin levels from the multiclass, Barbarian from Nature, or Eldritch Knight from Magic User. A Rogue gains Ranger levels with Druidic multiclass, Monk from Clerical multiclass, and Arcane Trickster Magic User multiclass. For balance purposes, I think it would be funny to slot the Bard as a balance of Fighter/Rouge origins, that then takes a mix Caster path that combines between Arcane and Divine caster classes. The Wizard and Clerics are divided into the standard traditions and domains like regular D&D. I realize the Monk idea may not be the best, but it's the only way I can see fitting the Monk into this framework. Psionics would probably be added on as a branch of Arcane studies, as it is keyed of of Intelligence, just manifested differently.

The way I see this is that Paladins/Monks are not alignment or oath bound, but Domain bound. This of course makes a lot of work for developing who gets what, but I think a good system like this would be more flexible in the end.

And while I think of it, the difference between the Nature Domain CLeric and the Druid is the same difference between Entwives and Ents in the Lord of the Rings. Nature Clerics like to shape things much like Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, minimizing the impacts of the harsher parts of Nature, while Druids take the good times with the bad as part of a cycle.

khadgar567
2016-10-12, 02:04 PM
My apologies if this is a garbled mess to read. I have a habit to edit sentences while typing that doesn't always work out well.

This would be an interesting throwback to the original 4 classes of Fighter (Fighting Man), Thief, Cleric, and Magic User, in the sense f 4 core concepts that interact to a variety of others. Examples that I am thinking of are the Druid coming online for Neutral Clerics at level 9 IIRC, and Paladins for Lawful Fighters at Level 9 as well. And the ultimate example of the Bard being a crazy multiclass.

So divide the Cleric class into Druid or Cleric for the divide between Nature and Civilization. A Fighter that takes aspirations to Clerichood gains Paladin levels from the multiclass, Barbarian from Nature, or Eldritch Knight from Magic User. A Rogue gains Ranger levels with Druidic multiclass, Monk from Clerical multiclass, and Arcane Trickster Magic User multiclass. For balance purposes, I think it would be funny to slot the Bard as a balance of Fighter/Rouge origins, that then takes a mix Caster path that combines between Arcane and Divine caster classes. The Wizard and Clerics are divided into the standard traditions and domains like regular D&D. I realize the Monk idea may not be the best, but it's the only way I can see fitting the Monk into this framework. Psionics would probably be added on as a branch of Arcane studies, as it is keyed of of Intelligence, just manifested differently.

The way I see this is that Paladins/Monks are not alignment or oath bound, but Domain bound. This of course makes a lot of work for developing who gets what, but I think a good system like this would be more flexible in the end.

And while I think of it, the difference between the Nature Domain CLeric and the Druid is the same difference between Entwives and Ents in the Lord of the Rings. Nature Clerics like to shape things much like Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, minimizing the impacts of the harsher parts of Nature, while Druids take the good times with the bad as part of a cycle.
tl;dr can you dumb the whole text down or check it one more time for easier reading

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-12, 02:14 PM
tl;dr can you dumb the whole text down or check it one more time for easier reading "Check it one more time for easier reading" says the guy who can't punctuate.

If you think the text is long, that's on you.

Mith
2016-10-12, 02:20 PM
I can sort it out. Just realized that I can resize the typing box, which will help, since my problem usually arise because of working with small text box.

Edit: Let's try again. This will also expand upon ideas a bit, and switch up some categorization.

This could tie things back to 5 core classes: Fighter (Primarily Strength based), Rogue (Primarily Dex Based), Divine Caster (Druid/Cleric Wis-based), Arcane Caster/Psionics (Int-based), and Anomalies (Sorcerer/Warlock, Cha based).

I call the 5th class Anomalies more because I cannot classify them any better. A better classification would be appreciated. It's more that the traditional Arcane and Divine classes cannot really explain them very well. I can see both Sorcerers and Warlocks being able to develop a spell set that can be a mixture of other classes spells, so they do not neatly fit into the Divine/Arcane divide. I also feel that if using 5e Warlocks, the fluff should make them a "cheat" in the sense of a bargin for the abilities of a full caster focus (Tome?), a martial focus (Blade?), or somewhere in between (Chain?). So they are fluffed as a power-up with a price, instead of working towards the power yourself.

Bards will wander in as a multiclass option and mess everything up even further. As per usual.

Martial Overview

The martial classes are based on either the Fighter or the Rogue, and the difference between the two is a Strength based skill set or a Dexterity based Skill set. Other marital options will be added on as part of multiclassing.

Caster Overview

All casters are aligned along Internal and External focus. I realize that this is a subjective interpretation, but hopefully things make sense.

Internal focused casters are self relient in the sense that there progression in power is dependent on a self improvement or reflection. This is seen in Clerics, Psionics, and Sorcerers, who all improve themselves through personal revelations, and their power is based on either a personal faith, mental abilities, or particular origin respectively.

External focused Casters derive their power from greater understanding of the world around them. This is seen in Druids, Wizards, and Warlocks who gain knowledge and mastery of the manipulation of arcane power, control over the natural order, or bargaining for power respectively.


Multiclassing

This is where things get interesting. In earlier editions, classes such as Druids, Paladins were only open at later levels to Clerics and fighters respectively, while Bards were a multiclassing mess of Fighter/Thief/Druid.

This write up focuses on martial multiclass to caster for the most part, with the idea that martial combat will be the focus, but some spells will be available. This could be paralleled the other way with an inverted focus. So while the martial to caster multiclass will have a primariy matrial growth with a smaller spell caster growth, a caster to martial growth will have the reverse. Martial and Spellcasting abilities will have to be compared and roughly balanced with each other so that a multiclass from either direction will feel balanced, but with different strategies.



Fighter + Cleric = Paladin

I see such a multiclass also rewriting Paladins to be more Domain based in their abilities then alignment or an Oath in 5e. I see he spell effects of the Paladin being buffs to self and allies more than debuffs to enemies.

Fighter + Druid = Barbarian

This gives the fighter more nature focused abilities, perhaps switching out spells for abilities to be used during Rage. These abilities are more debuffs to the enemies over buffs to allies.

Fighter + Wizard/Psionics = Eldritch Knight/Psychic Warrior

This occupies a mix of all spells. I see at whatever balance point is arrived between the Paladin and the Barbarian, this class is in the middle



Rogue + Cleric = Monk

The use of Wisdom as the basis for Spells, along with the Dexterity and Unarmoured fighting makes this a nice fit to me. I would think that the different domains would manifest as different Monastic Traditions. The "traditional" Monk abilities would likely be equally distributed or placed where it fits the best. I like the idea of Quivering Palm going to the Life Domain, for example.

Rogue + Druid = Ranger

The more Dexterity reliant fighting styles (Archery and TWF) associated with the class I think makes this work out pretty well. I do not think that modification would be necessary.

Rogue + Wizard/Psionics = Arcane Trickster

Once again, I feel like this works pretty well.

Bards

Since Bards are a Jack of All Trades, I think having them be a multiclass option that fits between everyone as part martial/part caster and taking abit from everywhere like the Warlock or Sorcerer would work. Although it could be argue that they just group as a base option under the 5th class. I can see them as a Fighter/Thief/than Warlock or Sorcerer depending if they discovered innate abilities, or sold their soul to the Devil for their talent.

khadgar567
2016-10-12, 02:30 PM
"Check it one more time for easier reading" says the guy who can't punctuate.

If you think the text is long, that's on you.
haha you know I think this is request treat and you guys derailed in to class archetype discussion

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-12, 02:47 PM
haha you know I think this is request treat and you guys derailed in to class archetype discussion I assume you mean "request thread"? If so, I'm aware.

This thread is asking what homebrew classes we'd like to see. I'm answering that I dont want new classes: I want the old ones to be fixed. That's quite on topic

Shiryu
2016-10-12, 02:53 PM
im Thinking of making some classes myself one for paladin which will be a compination of paladin and little of warlock one for barbarian/fighter and another one spellcasting

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-12, 03:00 PM
im Thinking of making some classes myself one for paladin which will be a compination of paladin and little of warlock one for barbarian/fighter and another one spellcasting
Dont you think those things can be accomplished by multiclassing? I dont think there's a need for classes that just combine existing classes. Classes should be totally distinct, each with their own themes and powers.

Mith
2016-10-12, 03:27 PM
Quote Originally Posted by khadgar567 View Post
haha you know I think this is request treat and you guys derailed in to class archetype discussion
I assume you mean "request thread"? If so, I'm aware.

This thread is asking what homebrew classes we'd like to see. I'm answering that I dont want new classes: I want the old ones to be fixed. That's quite on topic


I was also aware. I just wanted to get this out of my head while it was there. If people find my idea at all interesting to discuss, we can move it to a new thread. Personally, I feel with such a system that treats multiclassing as a means to unlock other classes, one can develop any class within the framework. The Shadow Dancer could be constructed with an Arcane Trickster Archetype and a focus on Illusions and then shadow spells that can be developed and added to the Illusion and Conjuration School.

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-12, 04:17 PM
I was also aware. I just wanted to get this out of my head while it was there. If people find my idea at all interesting to discuss, we can move it to a new thread. Personally, I feel with such a system that treats multiclassing as a means to unlock other classes, one can develop any class within the framework. The Shadow Dancer could be constructed with an Arcane Trickster Archetype and a focus on Illusions and then shadow spells that can be developed and added to the Illusion and Conjuration School. My thoughts exactly! It's better to create a flexible system than to try and include every little thing.

Besides, letting the player put pieces together on their own can make things a lot more rewarding. It's much more fun to plan and piece together your ultimate detective with a Ranger/Divination-Wizard hybrid, for instance, than it is to pick up someone's Arcane Detective homebrew class.

I think class homebrew should focus on making the classes that exist more versatile, not on making new classes.

GorinichSerpant
2016-10-12, 04:57 PM
I feel like shapeshifting should be it's own mechanical niche separate from martials and spellcasting. With there being at least one dedicated shapeshifting class and having druids being half-shapeshifters or third-shapeshifters or however you want to divide it.

Cluedrew
2016-10-12, 06:35 PM
I think broad is better than specific, where classes are concerned.There are systems that take this to an extreme and have only one class, called a character.

I don't think there is a particular ideal "breath" to classes. It depends on the game, the number of classes, the total breath of characters that are trying to be represented and so on.

Class I wish to see? Are we taking about D&D here?

Tier 1 Martial. Probably not going to happen.

Zaydos
2016-10-12, 07:08 PM
What class you wish to see as homebrew a martial one or a spell-casting gone?

What game and edition are you talking about?

Shiryu
2016-10-13, 01:43 AM
Just to let anyone know when i say about classes you wish to see im refering to classes on the future editions or books.

khadgar567
2016-10-13, 01:53 AM
Just to let anyone know when i say about classes you wish to see im refering to classes on the future editions or books.
thanks for clarification

nonsi
2016-10-13, 05:00 AM
Just to let anyone know when i say about classes you wish to see im refering to classes on the future editions or books.

My answer to that would be any set of 25 classes or less that would allow me to play any character concept I could come up and could fit a gameworld that doesn't involve technology.
Of course no single class fulfills such expectation.
Also, the basic 4 (Fighter-Thief-Priest-Mage) are no enough.
You can't mix the basic 4 to come anywhere near a character that dominates a wide array of draconic characteristics.
You can't mix the basic 4 to come anywhere near Muad-Dib (with his more evolved son, Leto).
You can't mix the basic 4 to come anywhere near a noteworthy manipulator of time.
You can't mix the basic 4 to generate what the Soulknife should've been.
You can't even mix the basic 4 to create a decent Bard.

No. 4 classes are not enough. The collection of proposed core classes should encompass such a variety of character concepts that it would be very hard to come up with one that's not achieveable by one of them or by combining two or more of them. Problem is that with options you also get complications. The more possibilities you have the steeper the lurning curve is for beginners. Expanding possibilities while maintaining a relatively moderate lurning curve is an extremely difficult task. On this aspect more than anything else 5e failed miserably.

In 5e they simplified things by drastically reducing the real-life scenarios that the game models. When everything eventually amounts to advantage/disadvantage, there are just too many stories that you'll never tell. When they declared that 5e will allow you to enjoy all the benefits of all previous editions, I definitely didn't expect them to throw away so much of 3.Xe out the window.

That said, the basic 4 are definitely the most essential. I couldn't imagine D&D without them (Druid could easily be a Priest variant).
The Warlock (blasting, invocations, rider effects...) also seems very much core by now.
Bard and Witch should also be their own classes.
I also couldn't imagine Monk being a Fighter derivative or a Fighter-Priest combo. Neither spell out "Mystic Warrior" to me.
Beyond the above - anything else that would complete the picture.

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-13, 05:25 AM
You can't mix the basic 4 to come anywhere near a character that dominates a wide array of draconic characteristics. Sure you can. You'd just need broader options for the spellcasters (equivalent to broadening the Druid Wild Shape, Wizard Transmutation and/or the Draconic Lineage origin for Sorcerers). This is a problem of content, not class.


You can't mix the basic 4 to come anywhere near a noteworthy manipulator of time. Manipulating time would obviously be a magical ability, and so it'd be in the domain of spellcasting classes, not some new class. Again, this is a problem of content, not class.


You can't mix the basic 4 to generate what the Soulknife should've been. The Soulknife shouldn't have been. A spellcaster as specific as "someone who generates a magic blade" would be like a martial class as specific as "someone who uses a sword". Surprise: this should be an option within spellcasting classes, not a class of its own. It should be something players build around, however they see fit.


You can't even mix the basic 4 to create a decent Bard.Yes and no! D&D Bards are spellcasters who use music and performance either to focus their casting (my preferred interpretation) or as a power source/medium (my less preferred interpretation). Realistically, all their abilities could be thrown into the other spellcaster classes as a build option or subclass, because there's nothing fundamentally different between Student of Arcane Magic (Wizard) and Charismatic, Lyre-Playing Student of Arcane Magic (Bard) or Prodigy of Arcane Magic (Sorcerer) and Charismatic, Dancing Prodigy of Arcane Magic (Bard).

But then, my ideal Bard wouldn't be a spellcaster at all for specifically this reason. It'd be a class for those who want amplified social abilities and a variety of proficiencies. None of the basic 4, nor their derivatives, do this, because they all have some martial or magical combat element.

I need to stress that I'm not advocating for just 4 classes. There are fundamental differences between Wizards and Sorcerers, Fighters and Monks, Clerics and Druids that demand distinct classes. I don't think pumping more classes into the game to manage hyperspecific aims is fun or realistic. Broadening the content available within classes is.

For instance, why should Witch be its own class? What makes it fundamentally different from all other spellcasters?

Grod_The_Giant
2016-10-13, 06:58 AM
The ultimate advantage of a class- based system is simplicity. If you go too far down the "fewer customizable classes" rabbit hole, you eventually wind up with something like a White Wolf game that's point-buy in all but name, with all the overwhelming number of options and balance difficulties that entails. Reliance on multiclassing isn't a great solution either, not without better rules then currently exist-- a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 will wind up painfully behind on both combat and magic, most likely, rather than being able to easily blend the two.

So personally, I think 5e hit a good balance. Each class is built around a unique mechanic that determines their role, and archetypes serve mainly to customize that core shared experience. Classes can expand enough to keep bloat under control, while allowing easy access to new ideas in the form of new classes.

So Shiryu, to answer the original question... I'd like to see a more ToB-style martial for 5e, one who has a similar level of round-to-round choice as a spellcasting.


Class I wish to see? Are we taking about D&D here?

Tier 1 Martial. Probably not going to happen.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!

Cluedrew
2016-10-13, 07:59 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!Nice, the other attempt I know of is the Vanguard. Both are quite good. The failure of imagination on the martials side (I don't like the term mundane, as it means boring) is one of those things that always gets me for some reason.


In 5e they simplified things by drastically reducing the real-life scenarios that the game models. When everything eventually amounts to advantage/disadvantage, there are just too many stories that you'll never tell.First off, D&D never modeled that many "real life" scenarios. Second, how does changing how modifiers work cut down on them even further?

nonsi
2016-10-14, 12:14 AM
First off, D&D never modeled that many "real life" scenarios. Second, how does changing how modifiers work cut down on them even further?


3.Xe is by far the best game in terms of coming close to modeling the mechanics of real life (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2). It's not perfect for the simple reason that the real world has just too many variables to model into a complete and yet game-practical set of rules. Nevertheless, no other game ever came close to pose a competition on that aspect.

nonsi
2016-10-14, 12:36 AM
The ultimate advantage of a class- based system is simplicity. If you go too far down the "fewer customizable classes" rabbit hole, you eventually wind up with something like a White Wolf game that's point-buy in all but name, with all the overwhelming number of options and balance difficulties that entails.


I absolutely agree – assembling characters with point-buy is bad. There's no way to get the balance right and in the end you work too hard for low grade results.

You could argue whether or not I got the balance right or if my proposed classes are attractive enough, but I've found it helpful to rely on the combination of racial features, class abilities, class variants, ACFs, feats, skills and skill tricks to create just about any character concept I've ever heard of (well, except maybe the Warshaper's Morphic Weapons feature, which never interested me enough to bother, however…). I'm sure that there are plenty more I haven’t heard of, but for a long time now, the majority of newly proposed features I encounter are easily manageable with a feat or two, or with an ACF for one of my existing proposed classes (e.g. my latest exchange with Valerem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21160852&postcount=165)). On the rare occasions when those don't suffice, I turn to magic-induced permanent changes, but those are truly rare occasions. Every now and then a very specific concept comes to mind – that's when I turn to what I've classified as "Class Combo Feats". Those assist me in touching the point I wish to address w/o the need to wrap it in a new PrC that has all sorts of irrelevant stuff just to justify its existence.





Reliance on multiclassing isn't a great solution either, not without better rules then currently exist-- a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 will wind up painfully behind on both combat and magic, most likely, rather than being able to easily blend the two.


If the above combo had 15th Wiz CL and spellcasting capabilities, I believe the outcome would be decent. Just add Practiced Spellcaster and you get CL 19 effectiveness.

nonsi
2016-10-14, 12:47 AM
Sure you can. You'd just need broader options for the spellcasters (equivalent to broadening the Druid Wild Shape, Wizard Transmutation and/or the Draconic Lineage origin for Sorcerers). This is a problem of content, not class.


Ok, then please tell me how you'd manage this complete package (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777479&postcount=23) without it being too much, given fullcasting. And where would you cram everything it offers in your proposed classes/class-combo?






Manipulating time would obviously be a magical ability, and so it'd be in the domain of spellcasting classes, not some new class. Again, this is a problem of content, not class.


That may be enough for you, but not for me.
I tried to find/homebrew a noteworthy chronomancer ever since the days of AD&D.
It's not until I encountered the Time Thief (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/super-genius-games/time-thief) by Rogue Genius Games (https://www.opengamingstore.com/collections/rogue-genius-games) that I felt I've finally found the direction I was looking for (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777492&postcount=25). In my book a decent time manipulator is someone who "surfs time", not a spellcaster with a handful of time manipulation spells.






The Soulknife shouldn't have been. A spellcaster as specific as "someone who generates a magic blade" would be like a martial class as specific as "someone who uses a sword". Surprise: this should be an option within spellcasting classes, not a class of its own. It should be something players build around, however they see fit.


Again we differ.
I believe there's enough "meat on them bones" to justify this being a class on its own (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777473&postcount=22).






Yes and no! D&D Bards are spellcasters who use music and performance either to focus their casting (my preferred interpretation) or as a power source/medium (my less preferred interpretation). Realistically, all their abilities could be thrown into the other spellcaster classes as a build option or subclass, because there's nothing fundamentally different between Student of Arcane Magic (Wizard) and Charismatic, Lyre-Playing Student of Arcane Magic (Bard) or Prodigy of Arcane Magic (Sorcerer) and Charismatic, Dancing Prodigy of Arcane Magic (Bard).

But then, my ideal Bard wouldn't be a spellcaster at all for specifically this reason. It'd be a class for those who want amplified social abilities and a variety of proficiencies. None of the basic 4, nor their derivatives, do this, because they all have some martial or magical combat element.


I'd love to see a proposal for a Bard that had enough content to truly stand on its own w/o needing spells.
Maybe the problem is with me, but so far I haven't encountered one that I've found truly satisfying enough to work with.






I need to stress that I'm not advocating for just 4 classes. There are fundamental differences between Wizards and Sorcerers, Fighters and Monks, Clerics and Druids that demand distinct classes. I don't think pumping more classes into the game to manage hyperspecific aims is fun or realistic. Broadening the content available within classes is.


Unlike you, the wiz-sorc split seems artificial to me. I view arcane magic as studied spellcasting, based on formulae, equations and practiced techniques, not intuitive spellcasting.
The Druid-Cleric split is also not absolutely mandatory, that's why I also proposed the Druid as a Pries variant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777415&postcount=13), but the theme is borderline and also has enough content to stand on its own, so I also proposed a separate class.

My initial goal was to make a small as possible collection of classes. I'd prefer it if I could make all character archetypes I've ever encountered fit into 6 basic classes (Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Mage, Warlock, and a noteworthy Spellless Bard) and have all characters derive from them… AFAICT they're not enough.





For instance, why should Witch be its own class? What makes it fundamentally different from all other spellcasters?


For me – because I just couldn't find a formula for this package (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777437&postcount=18) using the basic 6. Other spellcasters don't spell out "Witch" to me.

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-14, 01:35 AM
Ok, then please tell me how you'd manage this complete package (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777479&postcount=23) without it being too much, given fullcasting. And where would you cram everything it offers in your proposed classes/class-combo?
I mean, I'm not a 3.X guy. This is Gaelic to me. But Draconic form (with ability upgrades, natural attacks + mobility options added now and again), Breath Weapon (with increasing damage and effects). That's really not too much to write. A few Transmutation spells that grant a monsters attacks/abilities/mobility in increasing accuracy as you increase spell level, a few Evocation spells that produce breath weapons, there it all is.



That may be enough for you, but not for me.
I tried to find/homebrew a noteworthy chronomancer ever since the days of AD&D.
It's not until I encountered the Time Thief (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/super-genius-games/time-thief) by Rogue Genius Games (https://www.opengamingstore.com/collections/rogue-genius-games) that I felt I've finally found the direction I was looking for (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777492&postcount=25). In my book a decent time manipulator is someone how "surfs time", not a spellcaster with a handful of time manipulation spells.
Again we differ.
I believe there's enough "meat on them bones" to justify this being a class on its own (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777473&postcount=22). "Meat on them bones" is a nonfactor to me, because those abilities (of the chronomancer and soulknife alike) could be made accessible to spellcasters with the same power source anyway. It doesn't have to be "a handful of time manipulation spells". It can be one for every minute of the year, compiled into some pharaonic spell list. What matters to me is that each spellcaster is defined by their power source, and any redundancy in that—having two classes with Eldritch pacts, for instance, who can't learn each others' spells—is just limiting players for no reason.


I'd love to see a proposal for a Bard that had enough content to truly stand on its own w/o needing spells.
Maybe the problem is with me, but so far I haven't encountered one that I've found truly satisfying enough to work with. I've had the same problem. I think it's difficult to come up with a wide array of purely social, nonmagical abilities, since social abilities tend to be quite context-specific. That and creating a character who can get by with no combat abilities at all.


Unlike you, the wiz-sorc split seems artificial to me. I view arcane magic as studied spellcasting, based on formulae, equations and practiced techniques, not intuitive spellcasting. I view Arcane magic as magic. That's it. It's distinct from Divine magic in that it doesn't have a Divine source: it's just just how the world works, no different from gravity or magnetism. Wizards manipulate Arcane magic through study, the same way you might learn dexterity. Sorcerers have an intuitive grasp of more limited Arcane magics, the same way some people just happen to be able to wiggle their ears.


The Druid-Cleric split is also not absolutely mandatory, that's why I also proposed the Druid as a Pries variant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777415&postcount=13), but the theme is borderline and also has enough content to stand on its own, so I also proposed a separate class.I could see Druids and Clerics as one class, yeah, since they both derive their power from some outside, Divine source. I'd only distinguish them in cases where Clerics have specific gods with their own aims/moralities, while Druids are in tune with nature: an indifferent non-person.


For me – because I just couldn't find a formula for this package (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777437&postcount=18) using the basic 6. Other spellcasters don't spell out "Witch" to me. I can see that you're ideal Witch class has archetypically witch-like powers. You're defining the Witch by their abilities and not their power source.

What I'd do is define a power source, then give the class with that power source the spells you want witches to have. Do Witches gain power from eldritch pacts? Give the Warlock those spells, maybe as a subclass with a new pact. Do Witches cast magic intuitively? Give Sorcerers those spells. Witch gods? Cleric. Nature? Druid. Boom.

nonsi
2016-10-14, 05:42 AM
I mean, I'm not a 3.X guy. This is Gaelic to me.


Contrary to you, my days in D&D started long ago with the BECMI red box set. I've been around to see D&D evolving. Up until 3.5, the game has been constantly improving… (minus some AD&D oddities). Then things went south. I can understand why some like what they did with 5e, but for me it's a downgrade.





But Draconic form (with ability upgrades, natural attacks + mobility options added now and again), Breath Weapon (with increasing damage and effects). That's really not too much to write. A few Transmutation spells that grant a monsters attacks/abilities/mobility in increasing accuracy as you increase spell level, a few Evocation spells that produce breath weapons, there it all is.


1. Anti-Magic Shell / Dispel Magic /… – BAM, you're out.
2. This approach only perpetuates the "why do spellcasters get all the good stuff?" syndrome.
3. There's a whole world of difference between a character that emulates draconic abilities via spells and someone who embodies draconic might – breath weapon, senses, flight, awesome physical prowess… all at once and all the time; one that cannot be dispelled on a whim by every other shmo out there.





"Meat on them bones" is a nonfactor to me, because those abilities (of the chronomancer and soulknife alike) could be made accessible to spellcasters with the same power source anyway. It doesn't have to be "a handful of time manipulation spells". It can be one for every minute of the year, compiled into some pharaonic spell list. What matters to me is that each spellcaster is defined by their power source, and any redundancy in that—having two classes with Eldritch pacts, for instance, who can't learn each others' spells—is just limiting players for no reason.


Very well. Build me a character that can do everything that my proposed Time Bender can. Use any official or unofficial game system you know or are using… I'll even go easy on you and say that you can mix systems if you feel like it.
Go ahead, give it your best shot. Let's see what you can come up with. Just remember not to make it OP.

Same goes for my proposed Soulknife.

And remember – Ex abilities are Ex abilities, not spells.





I've had the same problem. I think it's difficult to come up with a wide array of purely social, nonmagical abilities, since social abilities tend to be quite context-specific. That and creating a character who can get by with no combat abilities at all.


Wait a minute, I never said anything about no combat abilities at all. No class should be entirely stripped of combat abilities.





I view Arcane magic as magic. That's it. It's distinct from Divine magic in that it doesn't have a Divine source: it's just just how the world works, no different from gravity or magnetism. Wizards manipulate Arcane magic through study, the same way you might learn dexterity. Sorcerers have an intuitive grasp of more limited Arcane magics, the same way some people just happen to be able to wiggle their ears.


So what you're saying is that you want two separate classes that are nearly identical twins. How does that go along with your wish to not have classes that emulate other classes?





I can see that you're ideal Witch class has archetypically witch-like powers. You're defining the Witch by their abilities and not their power source.

What I'd do is define a power source, then give the class with that power source the spells you want witches to have. Do Witches gain power from eldritch pacts? Give the Warlock those spells, maybe as a subclass with a new pact. Do Witches cast magic intuitively? Give Sorcerers those spells. Witch gods? Cleric. Nature? Druid. Boom.


With this approach, classes can be narrowed down to just two: Caster and Noncaster. If spells can do everything, then you don't need more than one class for that.
Variants? Fluff.
Powers source? Fluff.
ACFs? Fluff.
Class abilities? Who needs them – you have spells.

Get my point?


The more serious problem with your approach is that folklore-wise and story-wise, witches are not wizards/warlocks/psions/meldshapers/shadowcasters…
Witches are witches. They're somewhat close to druids, but are still distinct.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-10-14, 07:27 AM
I tend to agree that "class features as spells" isn't the best way to go-- it creates weird balance problems where you get things like Find Familiar or Eldritch Blast that are more powerful, more complicated, or both then equivalent spells, and have difficult interactions with multiclassing or spell stealing.

Classes, I feel, should be built around a core mechanic, rather than a power source. Wizards and Sorcerers both use Arcane magic, but (ideally) focus on different mechanics-- wizards on preparation and rituals, sorcerers on spontaneity. (WotC has rarely done that well, but that's another issue). The Fighter's core mechanic is being the best technical combatant; things like the Barbarian, Marshal, or Soulblade merely refine that.

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-14, 03:28 PM
1. Anti-Magic Shell / Dispel Magic /… – BAM, you're out.
2. This approach only perpetuates the "why do spellcasters get all the good stuff?" syndrome.
3. There's a whole world of difference between a character that emulates draconic abilities via spells and someone who embodies draconic might – breath weapon, senses, flight, awesome physical prowess… all at once and all the time; one that cannot be dispelled on a whim by every other shmo out there. So you don't mean to present a class that uses magic to gain draconic powers, but rather a character who is inherently capable of tapping into draconic powers? If anything I'd call that a race, not a class, but if we decide it's something that can occur in any race do the interbreeding or some (legacy of) enchantment, sure, I'd be cool with a Polymorph/Werebeing/Changeling class where subclass (chosen at first level) decides path of transformation. I think I misunderstood your aims.


Very well. Build me a character that can do everything that my proposed Time Bender can. Use any official or unofficial game system you know or are using… I'll even go easy on you and say that you can mix systems if you feel like it.
Go ahead, give it your best shot. Let's see what you can come up with. Just remember not to make it OP.

Same goes for my proposed Soulknife.

And remember – Ex abilities are Ex abilities, not spells.
Realistically? I can't. I don't have the experience to balance a class unassisted, nor the interest to invest time preparing builds I won't want to play anyway. I'm not going to pretend that it's anything less than a daunting task. I'm just saying, realistically, there's no reason why a Wizard shouldn't be able to learn the same magic a Soulknife or Chronomancer uses.


Wait a minute, I never said anything about no combat abilities at all. No class should be entirely stripped of combat abilities. Not stripped of their combat abilties. I mean that they don't gain them as other classes do. A mundane Bard, a class based around social cunning and charisma, wouldn't gain extra or special attacks, improved criticals, exceptional weapon/armour proficiencies or anything of the sort.


So what you're saying is that you want two separate classes that are nearly identical twins. How does that go along with your wish to not have classes that emulate other classes?
Power source, power source, power source.

Class is just a system to control the acquisition of new abilities. Two Fighters might use different weapons, armours and styles. Two Wizards might take different spells entirely. Two Clerics might worship different gods of different domains. What unites members of the same class is the source of their abilities and the trajectory of their group, not the specific abilities/spells/subclasses plugged in.

If any character concept acquires abilities in the same way as an existing class, I'd want its abilites made optional for that class.

Only concepts that are not represented by existing classes (such as the Polymorph/Werebeing/Changeling concept) should have their own classes.


With this approach, classes can be narrowed down to just two: Caster and Noncaster. If spells can do everything, then you don't need more than one class for that.
Variants? Fluff.
Powers source? Fluff.
ACFs? Fluff.
Class abilities? Who needs them – you have spells.

Get my point?
Not at all. See the above.


The more serious problem with your approach is that folklore-wise and story-wise, witches are not wizards/warlocks/psions/meldshapers/shadowcasters…
Witches are witches. They're somewhat close to druids, but are still distinct.And samurai aren't knights, but guess what the Fighter class can model both of?

Cluedrew
2016-10-15, 10:01 AM
3.Xe is by far the best game in terms of coming close to modeling the mechanics of real life (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2).Let me clarify what I meant, D&D does represent some things quite well (others not so much). So it has good depth. Switching from +/- to advantage/disadvantage doesn't reduce the number of situations you can represent or stories you can tell, although it does cost you some detail. So 5e's depth is not quite as good, but its breadth doesn't suffer for that change.

However neither versions has rules for (at least not sufficient rule for that you could focus a story around it), for building a house, cooking a good meal or making a legal case. Things that are much more closer to real life than fighting a dragon. D&D is not and has never been about real life. It is not even really about the entirety of its fantasy settings. Its about adventurers going adventuring and so that is what it has rules for.

Does that make more sense?


With this approach, classes can be narrowed down to just two: Caster and Noncaster. If spells can do everything, then you don't need more than one class for that.
Variants? Fluff.
Powers source? Fluff.
ACFs? Fluff.
Class abilities? Who needs them – you have spells.This is starting to sound like Mutants and Masterminds. Except that takes it even further and gives you the effects that you can assemble into spells (called powers).

khadgar567
2016-10-15, 03:14 PM
Chronomancy gonna be problem in any case from time alter double accel to doctor who style travel as for class with arcane equvalent i want to put aegis on list

nonsi
2016-10-17, 12:53 AM
So you don't mean to present a class that uses magic to gain draconic powers, but rather a character who is inherently capable of tapping into draconic powers? If anything I'd call that a race, not a class, but if we decide it's something that can occur in any race do the interbreeding or some (legacy of) enchantment...


If you allow innate powers only as racial traits and reduce everything else to spells, then you're throwing out the window every character in every story ever told that ever gained innate powers with experience (e.g. the Avatar benders).





Realistically? I can't. I don't have the experience to balance a class unassisted, nor the interest to invest time preparing builds I won't want to play anyway. I'm not going to pretend that it's anything less than a daunting task. I'm just saying, realistically, there's no reason why a Wizard shouldn't be able to learn the same magic a Soulknife or Chronomancer uses.


Again - this eliminates the justification for having more than 2 classes - Caster and Noncaster.





Not stripped of their combat abilties. I mean that they don't gain them as other classes do. A mundane Bard, a class based around social cunning and charisma, wouldn't gain extra or special attacks, improved criticals, exceptional weapon/armour proficiencies or anything of the sort.


Which would make every Challenge-Rating appropriate enemy they encounter mop the floor with them.





Power source, power source, power source.

Class is just a system to control the acquisition of new abilities. Two Fighters might use different weapons, armours and styles. Two Wizards might take different spells entirely. Two Clerics might worship different gods of different domains. What unites members of the same class is the source of their abilities and the trajectory of their group, not the specific abilities/spells/subclasses plugged in.

If any character concept acquires abilities in the same way as an existing class, I'd want its abilites made optional for that class.


With that approach, I see no reason to separate wizards from clerics - it's just a different power source.





Only concepts that are not represented by existing classes (such as the Polymorph/Werebeing/Changeling concept) should have their own classes.


There are already spells that do those things - why make an exception here, just because you're used to the Druid having them?





And samurai aren't knights, but guess what the Fighter class can model both of?


See, that's where you have your classifications all mixed up. Martial combat strategies are not innate powers - no reason to have separate classes for them.
That's not the case with the examples I brought up.

nonsi
2016-10-17, 01:03 AM
Let me clarify what I meant, D&D does represent some things quite well (others not so much). So it has good depth. Switching from +/- to advantage/disadvantage doesn't reduce the number of situations you can represent or stories you can tell, although it does cost you some detail. So 5e's depth is not quite as good, but its breadth doesn't suffer for that change.

However neither versions has rules for (at least not sufficient rule for that you could focus a story around it), for building a house, cooking a good meal or making a legal case. Things that are much more closer to real life than fighting a dragon. D&D is not and has never been about real life. It is not even really about the entirety of its fantasy settings. Its about adventurers going adventuring and so that is what it has rules for.

Does that make more sense?


Sure it makes sense and I don't argue any of that, but what you said doesn't invalidate what I said. I was talking about the mechanics of real life - the way that skills and martial feats work, the different things you can do in physical combat and the various combat scenarios and conditions. All those are beautifully worked out in 3.5e.





This is starting to sound like Mutants and Masterminds. Except that takes it even further and gives you the effects that you can assemble into spells (called powers).


Spells have very distinct mechanics:
- Each consumes an action in and on itself.
- Provoke AoOs
- Could fail if you get hit
- Require some component(s) - V/S/M/F
- Nullified in anti magic

Innate powers have nothing of those.

nonsi
2016-10-17, 01:07 AM
Chronomancy gonna be problem in any case from time alter double accel to doctor who style travel as for class with arcane equvalent i want to put aegis on list

Nowhere did I claim that a solid Chronomanser should possess the ability to time-travel (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18777492&postcount=25).

GalacticAxekick
2016-10-17, 07:40 AM
If you allow innate powers only as racial traits and reduce everything else to spells, then you're throwing out the window every character in every story ever told that ever gained innate powers with experience (e.g. the Avatar benders). Good thing that's not what I said. I specified that if the innate powers are not unique to a race, it's fair to consider them class (as is the case with Sorcerers)


Again - this eliminates the justification for having more than 2 classes - Caster and Noncaster.Except huge differences in power source and trajectory of growth.


Which would make every Challenge-Rating appropriate enemy they encounter mop the floor with them.Right, which is why I'm saying a legitimate bard would be cool if not for the massive barrier of survivability in combat.


With that approach, I see no reason to separate wizards from clerics - it's just a different power source. Except they acquire their abilities in totally distinct ways and follow totally distinct trajectories? The essence of what class is?


There are already spells that do those things - why make an exception here, just because you're used to the Druid having them? I'm trying to describe your draconic class, and any similar concepts. I'm trying to say that innate, non-magical ability to transform along a specified trajectory is not a power source covered by any classes yet, and so I could see this sort of shapeshifting/werecreature/polymorph as a class option, unlike the temporary magical transformations of the Druid or Arcane spellcasters.


See, that's where you have your classifications all mixed up. Martial combat strategies are not innate powers - no reason to have separate classes for them.
That's not the case with the examples I brought up. And two different Sorcerers might have innate magic of different sorts for different reasons. That's irrelevant. The point is that, since they acquire arcane bilities the same way (improving intuition), they follow the same trajectory. The same would be true for Warlocks and Witches who makes pacts, or Wizards and Witches who study, or Sorcerers and Witches with innate power.

gtwucla
2016-10-17, 08:51 AM
Yikes, lot's of arguing. Back on topic, I'd say something along the lines of a chronomaster. Sure you could do that with customizable spells, but you could also come up with class specific abilities to make it its own.

Second, a from a fairy tale hero type class .

Zaydos
2016-10-17, 01:42 PM
Second, a from a fairy tale hero type class .

Like Baron Munchausen and Jack (from the Appalachian Jack Tales and the fewer English ones that gave birth to them)? 3.5 Attempt at that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?326799-Tall-Tale-(3-5-Base-Class-Contest-Winner-PEACH)). Like Snow White and the fairy tale princess? Someone converted my 3.5 attempt at that to 5e but I am not proud of my 3.5 attempt at that. Like the mythic origins? I'd stat Sigurd out as a fighter in every edition but 3.x. The more generic guile hero? Rogue does it, might make a Rogue archetype in 5e (and in 3.5 I'd make Tall Tale, and there's Factotum).

Cluedrew
2016-10-17, 06:19 PM
Sure it makes sense and I don't argue any of that, but what you said doesn't invalidate what I said.No, I didn't say it did, didn't even mean to imply it. All I did was give my opinion on a related matter and ask a question. Speaking of which the question, which if you spelled it out in full would be something like: "How does the change from +/- modifiers on a dice to the advantage/disadvantage system reduce the number of types of stories that can be told in D&D?", hasn't been answered. Would you please consider?


Spells have very distinct mechanics: - Each consumes an action in and on itself.
- Provoke AoOs
- Could fail if you get hit
- Require some component(s) - V/S/M/F
- Nullified in anti magic
Innate powers have nothing of those.I think M&M has the first, can mimic the last and maybe the second last as well. Ask Grod_The_Giant and check his D&D in M&M (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF) project. More thought has gone into that than I can give you right now. But they might be closer than you think.

But it is not perfect that is for sure. I believe the underlying Spell Slot system is completely beyond M&M. My point is that M&M seems to taken a similar sort of approach to grouping player ability under a single (or very few) wide umbrella. They then took it even further and let you build those abilities. Still some of the underlying concepts seem similar.


Yikes, lot's of arguing.Does this not happen in this second of the forum as often? That's actually kind of nice.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-10-17, 08:17 PM
I think M&M has the first, can mimic the last and maybe the second last as well. Ask Grod_The_Giant and check his D&D in M&M (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF) project. More thought has gone into that than I can give you right now. But they might be closer than you think.

But it is not perfect that is for sure. I believe the underlying Spell Slot system is completely beyond M&M. My point is that M&M seems to taken a similar sort of approach to grouping player ability under a single (or very few) wide umbrella. They then took it even further and let you build those abilities. Still some of the underlying concepts seem similar.
I think nonsi was being dismissive of the idea of a classless (or largely classless) system, so... <shrug> In any case, you can do some of it; something like Variable (Slow, Unreliable for 5x uses, Side Effect: adjacent enemies can make close-ranged attacks against me) would do a pretty decent job of simulating wizard spellcasting, for example.

---------

One important idea in question here is the idea of conceptual differences verses mechanical differences. 3.5 gives you the choice of a dozen mechanics to fill a given role-- say, walking artillery piece. Not just spells, but entire subsystems, all doing similar things in different ways. It's great for players who get bored with the same mechanics, and it's great for fitting multiple similar characters into the same party and still allowing themselves to distinguish themselves, but it makes balance a ***** and is much harder for new players to pick up on. Something like M&M, on the other hand, approaches the same question from a completely different perspective. It basically has one mechanic for each role, and tells you to flavor things to taste. That's much simpler and in some ways more intuitive, but it can get mechanically dull and it's hard to differentiate, say, two martial artists.

There's not really a right answer as to which approach is better. It's more a matter of taste. I might use 3.5 for a magic-centric campaign where I want everyone to be a wandering sorcerer, but I'd use M&M for a monster campaign. D&D lets me make exactly the sort of martial artist I'm into; M&M lets me have a party with a superintelligent dinosaur with superspeed, a man who can narrate events and have them happen, and Machamp. GalacticAxekick seems to be leaning more towards the "simpler structure with flavor to taste," while nonsi favors "complex structure with many inbuilt flavors." Both are fine ways to approach the game, but they're not terrifically compatible.

Cluedrew
2016-10-18, 12:59 PM
To Grod_The_Giant: You put that far more elegantly than I. My point is that nonsi's caster & noncaster system (especially with his "X? Fluff." list) actually seems to be crossing that divide and M&M I think is a great example from the other side.

nonsi
2016-10-20, 10:38 PM
GalacticAxekick seems to be leaning more towards the "simpler structure with flavor to taste," while nonsi favors "complex structure with many inbuilt flavors."


Just wanted to point out that complexity is not on my agenda.
I'd gladly throw away any proposed class/feat/spell/optional rule in my overhaul project if someone had shown me a way to achieve the same effect w/o losing something in the process.
My goal is having all options on the table while maintaining a solid balance between the characters. How this is achieved is less important, and the simpler the better. My proposed overhaul is not simple - it's just the simplest solution I have so far.

Hanuman
2016-10-21, 04:18 AM
A mythos class :)

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335295-Mythos-Compendium

Southern Cross
2016-10-22, 12:14 AM
A spellsinger class- that is a spontaneous casting class with 9th-level spells that casts spells by singing.