Blind Progression of Character Classes

[Prometheus]

So we technically speaking, the contents of the MM are metagame knowledge and the contents of the PHB are universal knowledge. What if the DM withheld from a player what they will receive each level of a certain class until they reached that level? For most PCs this would be impractical, but what if you say had a homebrew class, than the DM would be able to tweak it and balance as the game advances? Would you accept a character class like that?

Coming next, the Scientologist! (just kidding

EDIT (real examples):

Spoiler

Show

The Mutant: After falling in a vat of radioactive goop or being adjacent to an exploding artifact, the player starts noticing things happening. Clearly, this character wouldn't know what would be to happen to them, but the player would know to expect some supernatural physical abilities (be it Str, Con, or Dex related) and some spell-like abilities. After they gain bristles and webs shooting, they think they are turning into a spider, but then they realize they are getting parts of many different animals when they can grow claws, detect via echolocation, and regenerate

The Mourner: This person loss someone they loved deeply and they don't know what they are going to do next. Again, the character doesn't know what would happen and the player would only know that it would stick to the theme for increasing extremism driven by loss. In this one the DM would take cues from the PC's roleplaying. If it played a vengeful and bitter hunter, it would get tracking, rage, retaliation attacks and some divination something like Bloodhounds. If it played someone who refuses to acknowledge the truth, they might become a spellcaster focusing in necromancy, enchantment, and illusions with a vulnerability to being confronted. In either case, they would have a large will save, some immunities to things like fear, nausea, and death effects, and large hp (due to the drive to resist death).

[Pie Guy]

No, I want to know what I would be getting into when I started, rather than hopefully getting something that is close to what I wanted. And that's only if the dm is a good classmaker.

[SurlySeraph]

I wouldn't much like it, because it would prevent me from planning out my build. But if the DM gave me a fairly good sense of what I got at each level - say, "An ability that improves your Reflex saves" instead of telling me something explicit like "Evasion" - I'd be OK with it.

[mabriss lethe]

Really? I don't think it would work exceptionally well. Most people like to know what they're getting into when they play a character. Your idea,as a DM, of the abilities they should have will probably be vastly different than they as a player would want.

[DSCrankshaw]

Really? I don't think it would work exceptionally well. Most people like to know what they're getting into when they play a character. Your idea,as a DM, of the abilities they should have will probably be vastly different than they as a player would want.

It's basically a "Let's Make a Deal" scenario. If you pick a known class, you know what you're getting. If you take the unknown class, it might be better, but it could very well be worse.

I'd take the known myself.

[Prometheus]

Well the focus would generally be off of the character building strategy and more on surprise, choosing level by level options, and tactics. It is helpful to know there are some people who definitely wouldn't play the game like this.

I probably should have started the thread with this, but here was two examples I was thinking up:
The Mutant: After falling in a vat of radioactive goop or being adjacent to an exploding artifact, the player starts noticing things happening. Clearly, this character wouldn't know what would be to happen to them, but the player would know to expect some supernatural physical abilities (be it Str, Con, or Dex related) and some spell-like abilities. After they gain bristles and webs shooting, they think they are turning into a spider, but then they realize they are getting parts of many different animals when they can grow claws, detect via echolocation, and regenerate

The Mourner: This person loss someone they loved deeply and they don't know what they are going to do next. Again, the character doesn't know what would happen and the player would only know that it would stick to the theme for increasing extremism driven by loss. In this one the DM would take cues from the PC's roleplaying. If it played a vengeful and bitter hunter, it would get tracking, rage, retaliation attacks and some divination something like Bloodhounds. If it played someone who refuses to acknowledge the truth, they might become a spellcaster focusing in necromancy, enchantment, and illusions with a vulnerability to being confronted. In either case, they would have a large will save, some immunities to things like fear, nausea, and death effects, and large hp (due to the drive to resist death).

[Kizara]

Maybe as a lark I'd try it once, but I generally wouldn't accept playing blind.


I need to know what I can do and what I am going to be able to do. I need my build to match my RP concept.


I'd accept DM-based restrictions like "this option is too powerful, please take a similar option that is not so overwhelming" or "I know you want your characater to do X, but X as written is too powerful, lets homebrew a similar but less strong ability" as long as he wasn't an asshat about it.

[Riffington]

I would do it, but I'd want to give the DM a "wishlist". (She wouldn't have to give me exactly what's on it, but could use it as a jumping-off point).

I think you are definitely correct about our inability to plan for the future. When you take a new opportunity, you never know exactly where it's going to lead. Some opportunities (trade school) might give you a more-defined path... but if a path is well-defined it is because it is directly on the beaten path. In other words, I think that some NPC classes like "Expert" should be able to stay well-defined. PC classes can use a bit of mystery.

That said, if you add mystery, then you take away the incentive/ability to do a "build". You would probably end up with very little multiclassing. If you consider this a bug rather than a feature, then don't do it.

[PaladinBoy]

I once thought of doing something like this. My idea was basically to treat it like a template, and give extra abilities over and above class levels. Obviously, this presents a potential problem with relative power levels, so it might only work if everyone is special in some way.

Unfortunately, that campaign died out before I got a chance to introduce anything, so I don't know how it might work in practice.

[1of3]

Would you accept a character class like that?

I would have asked why we couldn't have made the class together in the first place.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I wouldn't do it in D&D. The requirements just to be viable are incredibly hard, so it would be really easy to get a feat that's useless that way.

[Mephit]

I wouldn't do it in D&D. The requirements just to be viable are incredibly hard, so it would be really easy to get a feat that's useless that way.

Wait, what? How so? If you've got a half-competent DM, he could just tweak everything to balance the game out.

Since when do you need a viable character to play?
Sure, it's no fun if a beginner has to play with an extreme optimiser, but a character below average strength is still viable.

(And don't give me 'Batman Wizard' - if my DM designs the classes, I expect him to balance casters a bit)

[potatocubed]

I'd give it a try, at the very least.

Like all changes which shift control away from the players, though, you have to remember that it makes the game more dependent on the nature of the GM than it was before. If you've got a nice, well-balanced GM (like me ) then everything should be golden. If your GM is a tosser (why are you still playing in his game?) or not very adept at rule-adjusting, it may not work as well.

[clericwithnogod]

Wait, what? How so? If you've got a half-competent DM, he could just tweak everything to balance the game out.

Since when do you need a viable character to play?
Sure, it's no fun if a beginner has to play with an extreme optimiser, but a character below average strength is still viable.

(And don't give me 'Batman Wizard' - if my DM designs the classes, I expect him to balance casters a bit)

So people should create characters that are mechanically sub-optimal to boost their roleplaying cred and give them a pedestal from which to look down on those optimizers, powergamers, munchkins and min-maxers but the DM should tweak things so that their mechanical martyrdom isn't actually a sacrifice in play? And if the DM doesn't go along with it he isn't competent?

[PaladinBoy]

Actually, I just remembered a different idea which I'd had to handle something like this (although I haven't tried this either).

Basically, I'd propose a gestalt campaign, except one of the two classes is my homebrew class, and that can't be changed. How do you think people would react to that?

[Kizara]

Actually, I just remembered a different idea which I'd had to handle something like this (although I haven't tried this either).

Basically, I'd propose a gestalt campaign, except one of the two classes is my homebrew class, and that can't be changed. How do you think people would react to that?

I'd still want to talk to you and hear some details about what your homebrew class would be, and how willing you were to mold it to my character's RPing style.

I mean, if I was going to play a frenzied beserker, I certinally wouldn't randomly want wizard casting. But some warlocky stuff might work.


But that's a good idea, cause you add some flare to the game and connection to your plot/setting without taking any control away from the players.
Also, to an extent, you can give less powerful characters better abilities as well, giving you increased control without having to veto/nerf things. Most optimizers would see that as an increased challenge to overcome the handicap you give the other players, but some might be resentful of favoritism. The best way to handle it would simply be to let the powergamer in on it and present it to him as a challenge, he will likely be very gung-ho about it.

[XiaoTie]

A good idea would be to give that kind of class as a "gestalt" part of the character (without BAB, HD, Saves, etc; just the class powers). I once played in a game that the DM used this, it was pretty fun.

[Satyr]

Basically, I'd propose a gestalt campaign, except one of the two classes is my homebrew class, and that can't be changed. How do you think people would react to that?

In our homebrew rules, characters have not only a class, but also a heroic path,which offers additional class features when the character advances in levels and represents what the character is, in opposite what he or she does (which is covered by the class) The heroic path is defined at the character creation and can not be changed be changed during the game. This offers an additional layer to the character and helps to individualise the character. This is a great way to diversify characters and offer additional cool stuff (I am all for more character-based and less equipment-based cool stuff of characters).

But, I think that a player's character is mostly the player's issue and should be determined in his creation, actions and developments by the player alone. You can offer asdditional infleuences, like bonus skill points on certain skills which were predominant in the last adventure or which was used genuinely by the character, but you really shouldn't take the character's definition out of the player's hands; this would only and almost certainly lead to internal strive and a reduced identification of the player with their character which is, generally speaking, not a desirable development.

[Kizara]

In our homebrew rules, characters have not only a class, but also a heroic path,which offers additional class features when the character advances in levels and represents what the character is, in opposite what he or she does (which is covered by the class) The heroic path is defined at the character creation and can not be changed be changed during the game. This offers an additional layer to the character and helps to individualise the character. This is a great way to diversify characters and offer additional cool stuff (I am all for more character-based and less equipment-based cool stuff of characters).

I'm intrigued, post some of your material please.

But, I think that a player's character is mostly the player's issue and should be determined in his creation, actions and developments by the player alone. You can offer asdditional infleuences, like bonus skill points on certain skills which were predominant in the last adventure or which was used genuinely by the character, but you really shouldn't take the character's definition out of the player's hands; this would only and almost certainly lead to internal strive and a reduced identification of the player with their character which is, generally speaking, not a desirable development.

I agree.

[woodenbandman]

No thanks, I like to min/max things, and I can't do that if I have a DM that makes up statistics as he goes, because then I won't be able to optimize one area of the class before I get to the next area which may or may not be worth my time/money/feats.

[RebelRogue]

In our homebrew rules, characters have not only a class, but also a heroic path,which offers additional class features when the character advances in levels and represents what the character is, in opposite what he or she does (which is covered by the class) The heroic path is defined at the character creation and can not be changed be changed during the game. This offers an additional layer to the character and helps to individualise the character. This is a great way to diversify characters and offer additional cool stuff (I am all for more character-based and less equipment-based cool stuff of characters).

So, what you're basically saying is, that you play 4th ed?

[Satyr]

I'm intrigued, post some of your material please.

It is motly like the bloodlines in Unearthed Arcana, but a) not linked to other creatures and b) open for all characters without any form of level adjustment. A typical path looks like this:

Spoiler

Show

Path of Kings
This path represents the bloodline of the true kings, whose rule was sanctified by the gods. They represent the pinnacle of their species, the greatest among the people. Even if their dynasty was overthrown centuries ago, the people – and the land itself – still remember.
Requirements: Charisma 13+

{table=head]Level|Ability

1st|Divine Right +1

2nd|Blood of Kings +2

5th|Royal Privilege

8th|Divine Right +2

11th|Blood of Kings +4

14th|Sovereign Strike

17th|Divine Right +3

20th|Blood of Kings +6
[/table]

Special: The true king’s abilities are based on his attendance to fulfill the role as a leader. When the true king becomes a mere tyrant or despot, he loses the path abilities until he atones.
Divine Right: The true king is beloved by the gods. The character gains the listed bonus to all saves.
Blood of Kings: Leadership is innate to those who follow this path and those of lower birth are eager to serve the king. The character gains the listed Bonus to all Charisma-based skill checks and his leadership score.
Royal Privilege: The character may add his Cha modifier +1 as a generic bonus to her AC for one round per two character levels per day.
Sovereign Strike: Once per day, the True King can make an especially powerful and impressive melee attack, gaining +4 to hit and dealing +(character level) bonus damage. The victim of the attack must make a Will save (DC 10 + / 1/2 level + cha mod) or be stunned for 1 round.

At the moment, we have around 25 or so paths aqt hand plus six thatare still in development. I choose the path above, because it is not much influenced by the rest of the houserules, and because it is quite representative - you can create a regal magocrat with it or a warrior king or a a powerful theocrat; you can either use a path to improve your specific class abilities (in this case, it would work extremely well for a Paladin) or to diversiy ryour abilities (a sorcerer king like Tulsa Doom).

So, what you're basically saying is, that you play 4th ed?

At the moment, yes. In this homebrew, no. The idea was stolen borrowed from Midnight D20, one of the best settings that was yet published for D&D. My impression was that the 4th edition put much more weight on a character's role; we put much more weight on the personal and individual specifications of a cahracter and his social, cultural and ideological background. The idea was to make two characters with the same class as diverse as possible, which is not really one of the design goals of t4th edition.

[Mephit]

So people should create characters that are mechanically sub-optimal to boost their roleplaying cred and give them a pedestal from which to look down on those optimizers, powergamers, munchkins and min-maxers but the DM should tweak things so that their mechanical martyrdom isn't actually a sacrifice in play? And if the DM doesn't go along with it he isn't competent?

Oh, come on, I'm getting enough of people screaming 'Elitist!' at even the mere suspicion of that point of view. Don't twist my words around and insinuate those things about me based on one paragraph I wrote.

I interpreted Sstoopidtallkid's words (No, I did not call him a munchkin, I questioned what he said. See how that comes over less offensive?) as if he meant to say that you need to be a powergamer to survive in D&D3.5, which in some game groups of course is the case, but it definitely isn't an innate aspect of the game.
Saying that underpowered characters aren't viable in the game is in my eyes not right. Heck, Diplomancers and Kobold Divine minions might be standard character options in your play group, it doesn't matter a thing. But claiming that that's the standard way of playing D&D (with plus infinity in every stat boost ), would be wrong.
(And yes, so is claiming that you should dump all mechanics and play freeform Greyhawk)

Sorry if I came over unnecessary rude, but I most certainly think you were.


And if you'll excuse my bias, yes a DM who homebrews something new and by doing that gets a TPK at every single encounter is incompetent to me.

[Kizara]

It is motly like the bloodlines in Unearthed Arcana, but a) not linked to other creatures and b) open for all characters without any form of level adjustment. A typical path looks like this:

Spoiler

Show

Path of Kings
This path represents the bloodline of the true kings, whose rule was sanctified by the gods. They represent the pinnacle of their species, the greatest among the people. Even if their dynasty was overthrown centuries ago, the people – and the land itself – still remember.
Requirements: Charisma 13+

{table=head]Level|Ability

1st|Divine Right +1

2nd|Blood of Kings +2

5th|Royal Privilege

8th|Divine Right +2

11th|Blood of Kings +4

14th|Sovereign Strike

17th|Divine Right +3

20th|Blood of Kings +6
[/table]

Special: The true king’s abilities are based on his attendance to fulfill the role as a leader. When the true king becomes a mere tyrant or despot, he loses the path abilities until he atones.
Divine Right: The true king is beloved by the gods. The character gains the listed bonus to all saves.
Blood of Kings: Leadership is innate to those who follow this path and those of lower birth are eager to serve the king. The character gains the listed Bonus to all Charisma-based skill checks and his leadership score.
Royal Privilege: The character may add his Cha modifier +1 as a generic bonus to her AC for one round per two character levels per day.
Sovereign Strike: Once per day, the True King can make an especially powerful and impressive melee attack, gaining +4 to hit and dealing +(character level) bonus damage. The victim of the attack must make a Will save (DC 10 + / 1/2 level + cha mod) or be stunned for 1 round.

At the moment, we have around 25 or so paths aqt hand plus six thatare still in development. I choose the path above, because it is not much influenced by the rest of the houserules, and because it is quite representative - you can create a regal magocrat with it or a warrior king or a a powerful theocrat; you can either use a path to improve your specific class abilities (in this case, it would work extremely well for a Paladin) or to diversiy ryour abilities (a sorcerer king like Tulsa Doom).

Dude, AWESOME... That is just perfect, it is enough that it adds useful abilities without adding complexity, changing power levels or overshadowing the primary class.

Is it too much of a pain for you to post the other 24? I mean, are they already typed up? Even if you have to show some houserules too, that's chill. Maybe I'll like your houserules. :)

[Kizara]

And if you'll excuse my bias, yes a DM who homebrews something new and by doing that gets a TPK at every single encounter is incompetent to me.

Any DM that regularly gets TPKs is incompetent unless his players are deliberately screwing around and its all a joke.

Really, I don't care what your group's optimization level is, one of the main points of good DMing is good encounter design. This often involves homebrewing monsters/encounters.

As an aside, I actually prefer characters with a higher amount of optimization and power-level as a DM because it gives me alot more freedom to take the gloves off and be really inventive and nasty with my encounters. Nothing is funner to me then optimizing dragons (don't forget to give them leadership people!).

[Satyr]

The mundane (that is, non-spellcasting specific) paths shouldn't be much of a problem, but the mostly magical ones are bit more complex. I'll make an according thread in the homebrew forum.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Oh, come on, I'm getting enough of people screaming 'Elitist!' at even the mere suspicion of that point of view. Don't twist my words around and insinuate those things about me based on one paragraph I wrote.

I interpreted Sstoopidtallkid's words (No, I did not call him a munchkin, I questioned what he said. See how that comes over less offensive?) as if he meant to say that you need to be a powergamer to survive in D&D3.5, which in some game groups of course is the case, but it definitely isn't an innate aspect of the game.
Saying that underpowered characters aren't viable in the game is in my eyes not right. Heck, Diplomancers and Kobold Divine minions might be standard character options in your play group, it doesn't matter a thing. But claiming that that's the standard way of playing D&D (with plus infinity in every stat boost ), would be wrong.
(And yes, so is claiming that you should dump all mechanics and play freeform Greyhawk)

Sorry if I came over unnecessary rude, but I most certainly think you were.


And if you'll excuse my bias, yes a DM who homebrews something new and by doing that gets a TPK at every single encounter is incompetent to me.

My group lives on the edge. We face enemies that are far beyond what we should be able to handle and win. I really wouldn't like a game where CR-appropriate is a challenge. I wouldn't feel awesome enough. And without knowing what I'm going to get from the class, all other build options start to become impossible to predict the utility of.

[Kizara]

The mundane (that is, non-spellcasting specific) paths shouldn't be much of a problem, but the mostly magical ones are bit more complex. I'll make an according thread in the homebrew forum.

PM me when you do, and thanks.

[Deepblue706]

So we technically speaking, the contents of the MM are metagame knowledge and the contents of the PHB are universal knowledge. What if the DM withheld from a player what they will receive each level of a certain class until they reached that level? For most PCs this would be impractical, but what if you say had a homebrew class, than the DM would be able to tweak it and balance as the game advances? Would you accept a character class like that?

Coming next, the Scientologist! (just kidding

EDIT (real examples):

Spoiler

Show

The Mutant: After falling in a vat of radioactive goop or being adjacent to an exploding artifact, the player starts noticing things happening. Clearly, this character wouldn't know what would be to happen to them, but the player would know to expect some supernatural physical abilities (be it Str, Con, or Dex related) and some spell-like abilities. After they gain bristles and webs shooting, they think they are turning into a spider, but then they realize they are getting parts of many different animals when they can grow claws, detect via echolocation, and regenerate

The Mourner: This person loss someone they loved deeply and they don't know what they are going to do next. Again, the character doesn't know what would happen and the player would only know that it would stick to the theme for increasing extremism driven by loss. In this one the DM would take cues from the PC's roleplaying. If it played a vengeful and bitter hunter, it would get tracking, rage, retaliation attacks and some divination something like Bloodhounds. If it played someone who refuses to acknowledge the truth, they might become a spellcaster focusing in necromancy, enchantment, and illusions with a vulnerability to being confronted. In either case, they would have a large will save, some immunities to things like fear, nausea, and death effects, and large hp (due to the drive to resist death).

I find the idea intriguing. Depending on the implementation, I'd consider trying it if a DM asked if I happened to be interested.

[The Glyphstone]

PM me when you do, and thanks.

Ditto, that is actually a really cool idea.