RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
So, I finally picked up the PHB2 last week and, well, I'm saddened deeply by what I found.
Classes:
The Beguiler class puts bards to shame. They get the same skill points, same hit die, same attack bonus, the ability to use their spells MUCH more effectively, and the ability to have FULL caster progression at the cost of... bardic music and bardic knowledge, two abilities that are fairly weak on their own to start with (compared to the ability to be a full caster, anyway). Bards are now obsolete.
The Duskblade is sickening. So you don't have full casting progression? Your spells per day beat out a sorcerer (per spell level, anyway) meaning that you've practically got to TRY to run yourself out of spells in a typical day. You may not have many area effects and your spells are limited to damage and buff/debuff spells but you've got the ability to use heavy armor and a FIGHTER ATTACK BONUS! Add to this the ability to cast as a free action several times per day (and apply touch spells to EVERY MELEE ATTACK YOU MAKE IN THE ROUND) and you've got one seriously powerful class. Now, the class by itself does not make fighters or sorcerers obsolete... but you might as well not bother with the Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, or Spellsword anymore. This class WAY outdoes those in all categories.
The dragon shaman is the other side of the bard-obsoletion coin. While the beguiler gives up the music to become a much more potent caster, the dragon shaman gives up the casting to become better at buffing the party with the auras. I was a little disappointed to see how quickly the dragon shamans gain their auras (they have ALL of the auras available to them by level 13) and was also a little disappointed to see that there were only 7 auras to pick from. At level 20, a bard has about 7 songs to choose from and none of them (in my opinion) are quite as nice as the dragon shaman's auras. Plus, the auras are ALWAYS active while the bard songs have limited uses. I would have liked to see slower aura progression and more auras to choose from (like 12 or so). Then dragon shamans wouldn't have access to ALL of them. Maybe there could be an 'Extra Aura' feat for those people who REEEEAAALLY want more auras. In short, instead of playing a bard, you should just play a multiclassed dragon shaman/beguiler.
The knight I actually think is really cool. No problems with that one. One of my players is going to be picking up knight levels in our current campaign (once he completes the quest he's on and actually gets knighted, of course).
I really liked the sections that talked about different roleplaying concepts for various classes and some of the alternate class abilities were neat. I especially liked the paladin rushing smite variant. While I thought the ability was a little overpowered, I've always thought paladins were a little UNDERpowered, so this brings them nicely into balance.
Feats:
Some of these are just plain terrifying. Bounding Assault in particular. Spring Attack is a tactical nightmare already. Allowing it to be employed against multiple opponents in the same round is just wrong. The follow-up feat (Rapid Blitz, I think it's called) is just amplifying the problem. There's a few more in there that I can't remember off the top of my head that struck me as being pretty nasty as well. Some of the ones that are specifically aimed at higher level characters (Weapon Mastery, I think its called) were pretty neat, though. I also liked the sorcerous heritage feats.
Spells:
These were mostly okay. I noticed a lot of swift action and utility spells, which I like. Regroup is one of my favorites. You have no idea how many previous battles would have been so much easier with this spell in my repertoire.
All in all, the book was worth the money I paid for it, but I'm noticing a distinct trend towards making things more powerful, more versatile, and more elaborate. The power level of WotC's D&D releases has certainly risen considerably since 3.5 first came out and the PHB2 stands as a prime example of this trend.
It's not in the PHB2, but I have just this to say WARMAGE...
Fizz
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
It's not in the PHB2, but I have just this to say WARMAGE...
Yeah, that's another good example. Granted, the number of spells per day is equal to a sorcerer and they lose the ability to have access to utility spells in exchange for Edge, but if you're playing a sorcerer, you're probably playing an artillery piece anyway. If you want utility spells, go with wizard. Otherwise, go with warmage.
Plus, the warmage gets bonus feats, a massive spell repertoire (comparitively, anyway), AND the ability to cast in armor. The sorcerer? A familiar. That's IT. Overshadowed. A lot.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.
I'm not going to bother with the they're not overpowered argument. I'm running a campaign right now that is all non-core classes. I expect that by the end of it, I will have an idea of the true power level of the new classes. From the first session, one thing is reasonably clear: these classes all require more good stats than the core rules to be effective. I don't think there is a single non-core class that can lean on an 18 the way the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or fighter can. The experience so far is that they are not more powerful, but they do offer a greater breadth of experience.
I don't think the classes are overpowered; I think they are better designed. The 3.0 versions of the core classes were extremely innovative as compared to what came before in 2e, and they did receive a significant series of tweaks in 3.5, but they just can't compete with the game Wizards brings to the court these days. The reason why the non-core classes seem so much better is because they are designed to have synergistic abilities and provide interesting choices in the game. The game should have an arcane warrior as a base class, the duskblade fills this role. The knight is like the paladin, but its abilities actually reflect the role (instead of a hodgepodge of cleric and fighter thrown together back in 79). Rather than wait 14 levels to get cool abilities, the new classes spread out the abilities and give you something to look forward to. They utilize free actions to increase interactivity. They force you to make tough choices regarding which stats are the best.
The other problem the core classes face is that they were not designed with the thought of new core classes being created. The sorcerer and wizard are the most dramatic examples: they get a handful of crappy abilities and are the only full arcane casters in the game. It's very difficult to create a new arcane caster that's not more powerful because the sorcerer and wizard suck.
End of the day, the core classes are still the workhorses of the game. But they're old workhorses, and they could benefit from modern game design. The problem is not that the new classes are so good, but that the old classes have some really dumb abilities (familiar, remove disease, etc).
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The core classes are balanced with themselves. The wizard and sorcerer stack up just fine alongside the cleric and the rogue. They all have strengths and weaknesses and they are fully capable of functioning at approximately the same level. What I'm saying is that the balance of power has been skewed with the recent non-core classes.
The summary of your statement, Sebastian, is basically "it's not that the new classes are overpowered, it's that the old classes are crappy." Well, they're only crappy because of what we have to compare them to now. I'm pretty sure that, back in early age of automobiles, the Model T was pretty frickin' fantastic. Compare it to a Mustang and, well, it sucks.
In my opinion (and its just that, an opinion) an arcane warrior class did NOT need to be a core class. The hexblade and the duskblade both could be done away with. Such a concept is grounds for a PRESTIGE class requiring a combination of martial skill AND arcane spellcasting (such as the spellsword or eldritch knight). It seems silly to think that someone can just be naturally adept at BOTH of those fields without some extensive and highly specialized training, something that is not found amongst 1st level characters (I also think that paladin should be a prestige class, FWIW).
Just my 2 cents. Not trying to start a flame war, just a debate.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The core classes are balanced with themselves. The wizard and sorcerer stack up just fine alongside the cleric and the rogue. They all have strengths and weaknesses and they are fully capable of functioning at approximately the same level. What I'm saying is that the balance of power has been skewed with the recent non-core classes.
I disagree. The problem is that a lot of the power of core classes is locked up in crap. If you took away the wizard's familiar and gave him a relevant ability, he would be more powerful. Also, comparing classes by reciting a laundry list of their abilities is worth about as much as the paper the list is written upon. There are subtle factors that play out in the non-core classes that are not apparent on a first read or outside of play, such as needing multiple good stats. The non-core classes are a lot harder to grok just by reading.
The summary of your statement, Sebastian, is basically "it's not that the new classes are overpowered, it's that the old classes are crappy." Well, they're only crappy because of what we have to compare them to now. I'm pretty sure that, back in early age of automobiles, the Model T was pretty frickin' fantastic. Compare it to a Mustang and, well, it sucks.
To a certain extent, this is true. The core classes do need a tune up. They're abilities do not have synergy and/or are dumb. They don't utilize free actions. Etc.
That being said, there is definitely room in the core rules for simple classes for beginners, and some of the core classes still fill those roles well (cleric, barbarian). And, as long as there are simple classes, there will be people complaining about less simple classes that seem more powerful because they are not so simple to understand.
In my opinion (and its just that, an opinion) an arcane warrior class did NOT need to be a core class. The hexblade and the duskblade both could be done away with. Such a concept is grounds for a PRESTIGE class requiring a combination of martial skill AND arcane spellcasting (such as the spellsword or eldritch knight). It seems silly to think that someone can just be naturally adept at BOTH of those fields without some extensive and highly specialized training, something that is not found amongst 1st level characters (I also think that paladin should be a prestige class, FWIW).
Yeah, I see that a lot and completely disagree. There is a certain player type that seems to have a four base classes mentality and everything else should be a prestige class. I'm of the opinion that that's total bullshit. If you want to string out the goodies (e.g., being able to fight and cast spells) and just have four base classes, more power to you. I find that to fall under the heading "pointless restriction for the sake of a pointless restriction." My players want to play arcane/fighter types, it's a valid archtype that is not represented in the core rules. My players want to play rangers. My players don't want to f!+! around for six levels with piss poor base classes just to do those things. That's called character background in my book.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The summary of your statement, Sebastian, is basically "it's not that the new classes are overpowered, it's that the old classes are crappy." Well, they're only crappy because of what we have to compare them to now. I'm pretty sure that, back in early age of automobiles, the Model T was pretty frickin' fantastic. Compare it to a Mustang and, well, it sucks.
I think a more accurate analogy is to compare a sedan, with say, a sports car. The sedan is your basic no-frills sedan. It gets you from point A to point B. It's got cup holders where you need them, the rear windows roll down, the roof keeps out rain, etc. If will get you anywhere the sports car will get you. It will hold your kids, your groceries fit in the trunk.
The sports car is two doors. It has no trunk. The back seat is non-existent. It's got leather interior and a manual transmission. It is faster than the sedan. It handles better than the sedan.
Which is the better car? I have a hard time saying without knowing how and why you drive. Your analysis is "the sports car is faster!" and my response is "yeah, but the sedan can fit four people." You say "the sports car goes from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds" and I say "uh-huh, but I get 30 mpg."
That being said, sedans are always getting better, and the cutting edge that goes into a sports car's speed frequently trickles down to the sedan.
|
I personally wish that D&D didn't have prestige classes (gasp!). I think the whole concept should be scrapped and base classes given a broader scope. The classes in the PHB2 function to broaden the base classes.
I don't think that any are overpowered. I currently am playing a Duskblade in the Shackled City Campaign and I have 1 or 2 really great "tricks", after that I am a gimped fighter with no feats or a gimped wizard with no utility spells. I hold my own but am no more powerful than a full fighter or a full wizard.
Alot of people read the PHB2 classes and have a knee-jerk reaction to them without weighing ALL the pros and cons. Try playing each class in an on-going campaign (not a one-shot) to get a true range of what they are like before slamming down a hammer of judgement. They actually play very balanced.
FH
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The core classes do need a tune up. They're abilities do not have synergy and/or are dumb. They don't utilize free actions. Etc.
That being said, there is definitely room in the core rules for simple classes for beginners, and some of the core classes still fill those roles well (cleric, barbarian). And, as long as there are simple classes, there will be people complaining about less simple classes that seem more powerful because they are not so simple to understand.
I will certainly agree with you here. The core classes, I admit, have their failings (some more than others). The barbarian and fighter are, in my opinion, different and basic enough to be both A)1st level character possibilities and B)functionally different classes. Making a 'barbarian' prestige class would not make sense. Nor would a 'ranger' prestige class. These are both things that stand by themselves in my opinion. Bards and paladins, however, seem like they might take a bit more specialized training to get into. Perhaps making them a prestige class is a bit much, but I believe that the bulk of their abilities (ESPECIALLY the paladin) should be delayed until later levels.
Bardic Knowledge, for example, reflects a degree of worldly knowledge unrealistic for a low level character. I believe that this ability should wait until level 5. Everything else is really okay with the bard. Paladins, on the other hand, get ALL of their useful abilities in the first 4 levels. If you use the rushing charge variant from the PHB2, level 5 is also useful. Beyond that... pretty much pointless. Either make them a prestige class that increases divine caster level by 1 every other level and retains a fighter attack bonus along with the various abilities the paladin as we know it has or give them a few more abilities and spread them out over the entire 20 levels (becoming an outsider at level 20 like the favored soul does would not be inappropriate, for example).
I agree that familiars are pretty pointless also. I believe that the sorcerer class should get some kind of bonus to their effective caster level (maybe +1 CL/5 sorc levels) and a free Spell Focus at level 8 (Greater Spell Focus at 16?) while wizards should get MORE metamagic-related abilities to reflect their studious nature (perhaps reducing the number of slots higher by 1, to a minimum of 1, at level 12).
Regardless, though, I still feel that the sheer NUMBER of abilities and spells that these newer classes receive put them well above the norm with regards to power level. With regards to your statements about these newer classes requiring more high stats to be effective, I've noticed that it is rarely an issue. With the point-buy method, unless you're being really oppressive, it's fairly easy for a character to wind up with a couple of 14s and a 16 (or 18 with racial boost) which should be more than enough to be effective with. While the duskblade might "need" to have a high Strength, Con, and Intel, none of them need to be higher than 16 to get the full effectiveness of the class (even a 14 in each would suffice since you get stat boosts every 4 levels).
I'm with Fatespinner -- I like the basics.
IMO if you can't construct a fun, interesting, playable character from the basic books, then you can't construct a fun, interesting, playable character. Of course, you don't have to -- Wizards has done it for you.
The really great thing is that you can play that cheesy, overpowered character without guilt, because it's official (which many take to be non-cheesy and balanced).
While my group will toy with other classes, prestige classes, and races, we always come back to the basic rules. As far as we're concerned, you can't beat the pure fighter, cleric, wizard, or rogue (or druid, I just don't like them). We rarely play paladins, rangers, monks, or bards -- and I think one could make an argument to make one or more of them prestige classes.
I certainly don't think all new stuff is bad, and I like the concept (and some of the implementation) of prestige classes, but IMC we end up using relatively little non-core material at any one time.
Regards,
Jack
And now, Saern will attempt to mix objective observations with his own opinions! Will it come across as coherent? Stay tuned and find out!
I was going to state a point that coincided with Fakey's (not regarding PrCs, I am very found of the idea, although I have plenty of complaints about the execution), which is to say that duskblades still only have X actions per round, but then I remembered, no, they don't. They can blend spellcasting and sword-swinging, they can cast as a free action (as per the RAW, see below), thus greatly reducing their limitations. I was also going to say that, in any one round, a duskblade can only be as good as a fighter or wizard, like Fakey said, but not really. They're not quite as good as either, I'd say around 75% efficacy, but they can do both roles simultaneously (I'm not going to mix that to get 150%, that's just dumb).
I actually did extensive (well, half a day, but give me a break!) playtesting with a duskblade with a group of friends. We started out comparing it to a straight fighter, a straight wizard, and a wizard/fighter combo heading for eldritch knight, at several different levels. We came to several conclusions:
1. Playtesting is hard! Creating scenarios that are actually indicative of what will happen during a campaign is extremely difficult.
2. Building the fighter and wizard were a waste of time, and so we dropped them completely in favor of comparing just the duskblade and the eldritch knight.
3. The duskblade's swift-action casting ability was too much for us, so it was dropped just for comparison's sake.
4. With that done, the duskblade and eldritch knight became very competative and offered some interesting perspectives, as follow.
5. Duskblades are better at just straight-up killing things. They aren't subtle at all, and really shine against a BBEG where they can just funnel as many vampiric touches and other damage-dealing spells as possible into a sword.
6. Also, spell-storing weapons allow for hideously effective combinations with a duskblade.
7. I would never, ever play one, because they are not nearly as versatile as the eldritch knight. The eldritch knight was able to mix invisibility, fly, and a variety of other spells that a duskblade has no access to, and could also utilize magic items much easier than the duskblade. They may have to work just a bit harder to do what they do, as opposed by the duskblade, but they actually do it better in my eyes, so they remain a very viable option.
8. Spellswords have always sucked, so adding something like the duskblade to preempt them is no detriment to the game at all.
I agree with Sebastian that the game does have room for a arcane warrior right from level 1, which is really impractical without something like the duskblade. However, while the expanded classes are typically better at one thing or the other than a core class, they are hardly archetypical and very hard to bend into something other than what they were designed to be, which is the antithesis of the "blank slate" core classes.
Though I would typically refrain from using them, I do hand it to those expanded classes which cover those few areas that are difficult to capture with builds of purely core classes. There are several in this camp, I know, though none of them jump to mind at the moment.
Also, some, like the warlock, are highly creative. That class, for all the complaints against it, is actually very original and similar to a core class in the archetypical variety one can bring to it, and I say "Kudos!" to the team that developed said class.
The hexblade I also like. Yet another aspect of what seems pretty well defined, the fighter/mage, is revealed, and I like its execution. It was also in the first Complete book, however, before a lot of the present power-creep started coming out.
Now, that's all been pretty favorable towards the expanded classes so far. Time for the switcheroo. As anyone who keeps up with "Place Your Rant Here" knows, I'm pretty liberal. Not when it comes to core classes, however. I don't know why, but in my own personal view, I just like the basics and the traditional aspects of their design. I'm of the mindset that, yes, there need to be limits to what you can build, and some builds should be difficult to achieve. That's a challenge to the players, and when they do find a way to overcome the limits that exist, they should feel proud of themselves.
I like the concept of prestige classes, but enough's enough! Not only are many of them overpowered (I'm looking directly at the frenzied berserker and radient servant of Pelor, which simply augment the best features of a class without asking for anything substantial in return, and thus reek of poor design in my book), but others are just unnecessary.
Cavalier? Be a fighter with a horse and a lance, and take the appropriate feats. This is the same reason I dislike the knight in the PHB2. A knight is a roleplaying position that anyone could, theoretically, achieve, but is often portrayed as being filled by a paladin or fighter. Every problem I have with the knight class would vanish if they just changed the name.
I would much rather see the available feats expanded upon in interesting ways with interesting feat chains opening up, perhaps even creating different categories of feats and redesigning classes to have different allotments of various types... getting too far afield. Back to the premise of this paragraph, I look back to my cavalier example. The prestige class should never have been developed- just expand on the mounted combat feat chain.
I do have to say that when I see a new class in a book, my eyes immediately start to roll and my fingers reach to flip the page. I just think many of them are corney/cheesy/unnecessary/overlap core classes. The worst is the last option, such as found with the warmage compared to the sorcerer. This leads me to ban classes and prestige classes under my "rule zero" right as a DM.
Okay, trying to refocus on the PHB2- I don't like the beguiler as I think it overlaps too much with bards and enchanter-style sorcerers; I'm sick to death of dragon this, dragon that, dragon the other, so the dragon shaman is out, too; I already told you what I think of the knight; and the duskblade I really don't mind, but I do make the house rule of taking away the swift casting. The feats I actually liked, since you know from above I'd rather see feats expounded upon over prestige and expanded classes. I liked some of the new magic items, and some of the new spells. I particularly liked the idea of spell belonging to multiple schools. However, I disliked the themes of a lot of the spells, particularly the new trend of adding descriptive text to them. The spell summon golem just rubs me wrong, too. Not sure why. The role-playing section was basic, but enjoyable, and I really liked the section on retooling characters at level up. In the end, I think it's worth the buy.
Also, a mention about my feelings towards the expanded classes and my traditionalist views regarding the core classes. Obviously, that is a purely subjective opinion. I'm not trying to contest anyone else's view, nor will I endeavor to do so, since two people reading the game in different ways is unavoidable and affects neither one's game. I'm also willing to surrender that it may be an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction, but I seriously don't feel the urge to reconsider them long enough to change my opinion. It's really not worth the effort for what still just ammounts to a game (Yet I take the time to write this? That's why it's "entertainment," I suppose).
Phew! So, was it coherent?
Wow, that's a lot of words for just a half dozen posts! I don't have anything incredibly perceptive to add, but I might as well add in my 2 coppers.
On PHB2 and other new books: I do feel that there is a power creep taking place with each new books that come out. Call me a jaded M:tG player, but that's what I see happening. I'm not saying core is perfectly balanced with itself, but it seems that every time some designer creates a new class he has to ensure that players have a reason to play the new class--buying the book in the process of course. It's naturally to be expected of a business entity to subtly endorse such a trend.
On PrCs and archetypes: I have relatively recently changed my views on this subject. I disagree with the notion that a prestige class should be required to fill a non-core role and I applaud at least the effort to turn more archetypes into core classes. Like Saern I also endorse feats as the best path toward character customization, even more than creating more and more classes; I took this idea to the extreme when I turned all class features into feats for my Fantasia invention.
TS
Wow, that's a lot of words for just a half dozen posts! I don't have anything incredibly perceptive to add, but I might as well add in my 2 coppers.
Ditto.
On PHB2 and other new books: I do feel that there is a power creep taking place with each new books that come out. Call me a jaded M:tG player, but that's what I see happening. I'm not saying core is perfectly balanced with itself, but it seems that every time some designer creates a new class he has to ensure that players have a reason to play the new class--buying the book in the process of course. It's naturally to be expected of a business entity to subtly endorse such a trend.
I agree. Power creep is definitely happening in D&D and I should know - I played warhammer for many years! Try battling an average codex Ork army against, say, an average Space Marine or Tau force and learn the true horror of power creep.
I also agree with FH's position on PrCs - that is, I don't like 'em. They just seem... unecessary. It seems to me you could recreate most of them with multi-classing and a bit of role-playing and imagination, which is what the game is supposed to be about after all. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That being said, in response to Fatespinner's original post I'd like to point out that there is still a place for the now critically outclassed base guys like the bard, and that's with new players. Sometimes it's hard to remember what it was like the first few times you played, but many new players pick their characters not for their strengths but because they like the concept. I just started running a new campaign with three new players and two players with a bit of experience. Two of the new players want to be bards, because they like the whole rogueish minstrel archetype. They don't care about respective power levels and feat progressions and stuff. Sure they might in the future, but that just means they'll have more options to play with over many years of gaming. For now in their innocence they just want to play the character they like, and it doesn't seem to bother them that some other party members may be a shade more powerful. As long as they get to shine once or twice a game they're happy.
I mostly agree with Fatespinner. The Duskblade, Dragon Shaman (I too am sick of the dragon obsession, I mean dragons are cool and all but leave well enough alone) and Beguiler. The Knight is cool (I didn't buy the PHB II for the classes but more for the info on how to roleplay your character like a real person). I also like some of the prestige classes. Why the core classes? Because they have charm and charisma that all of the new classes form the Complete series lack (with the exception of the Warlock and the Warmage). There is a charm to the silver tounged bard or the quick fingered rogue. As for the paladin: paladins SUCK. In every way imaginable, ability progression wise, coolness wise and in every other way possibly concievable (excuse my rantings but I really really hate paladins and take every opportunity to dis them). This is probably why I like the knight because it has a lot of cool ideas and a similair idea without the idiotic stuff like the 'cure disease' and most especially the 'lawful good' crap. But back on topic I generally prefer the core classes and so do most of my players. In my opinion the core classes are great (except for the paladin) and I always come back to them (especially the rogue) even after playing an over powered uber class from a Complete book. I also have no qualms about outlawing a class, race or item that unbalances the game so that might be the best solution; to outlaw what you don't like and let those that like the power creep enjoy it outside your campaigns.
I don't have the PHBII yet, so I can't really comment on the Beguiler, Duskblade or the Dragon Shamen, save for heresay. But from what I've read: the beguiler I don't fully understand, the Dragon shaman can wither up and die, and the Duskblade needs to be toned down.
But I do have Complete Adventurer. And in it, the Scout and Ninja classes. The Scout has since become my all time favorite class, and the ninja my friend's.
I personally like the prestige classes. I see them as adding extra specialization and flare and in the trade-off, your character won't be as powerful as a pure core-class character.
I've often wondered what it would be like if some prestige classes could be run as core classes. Might be good for one-shot games. Thoughts?
Additional feat trees would be awesome. Personally, I'd like to see more/varied archery feat trees. ( Don't like having to go through point-blank shot everytime. Just my opinion... )
-Kurocyn
|
As for the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer, I personally like the classes. Are they more powerful than sorcerers? Probably, but that's not saying much, given the general opinion of sorcerers. They are really what sorcerer ought to have been, in my opinion.
The strength of the wizard class, on the other hand, is breadth. Experienced arcanist players will all tell you that the most effective spell strategies involve battlefield control and debuffs. None of these new classes take that role away from the wizard. The warmage, in particular, focuses on some of the least powerful spells in the repertoire.
The beguiler doesn't outshine the bard in any way that an Enchanter already does not. What the beguiler lacks is the Enchanter's breadth of spell selection (see wizard above). The beguiler lacks the buffing potential of the bard (the real strength of the bard). They don't have the buff spells of the bard or the bardic music (which is NOT weak).
I don't have a problem with these classes at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
This is the same reason I dislike the knight in the PHB2. A knight is a roleplaying position that anyone could, theoretically, achieve, but is often portrayed as being filled by a paladin or fighter. Every problem I have with the knight class would vanish if they just changed the name.
So are you saying that you are okay with the abilities that the class receives but wish that it was called something else (like "Champion" or "Battlemaster")? Or do you actually have a mechanical problem with the class in some way? I'm curious because, personally, I found the knight class to be very refreshing and something that, imo, was definitely needed.
There is a strength to the archetypical classes Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue & Wizard as far as class selection, so I can vouch for that. I've always thought the line between Sorcerer and Wizard was too fine - they both get familiars, they share a spell list... As for the Bard...I like the minstrel idea, but I've often thought and please set me right here...that maybe bardic music and certainly bardic knowledge could be covered in a Feat/Feat progression and available to nearly every class. Maybe something similar to cover everyone's favorite: the paladin. I've tried to concoct something like this in my homebrew campaign setting - admitedly I haven't come up with something that I thought would work...but the quest goes on. Crazy idea?
Director of Narrative
|
I'll start by saying that I am a multi-classing addict.
I did it all the time in 2e, with the exception of two memorable characters. Much of the time to my detriment and sometimes it was a boon, but it was dificult and sketchy. I know now why those two were very memorable.
When I first started playing 3e, years after it came out, I was impressed with the ease of multi-classing, and the spark was re-ignited. Most of the PrCs I saw at the time I felt I could recreate with multi-classing and role-play better characters than the class offered.
Now, about the non-core classes...
I like some of them and others I could certainly do without. I pretty much consider them one of those inevitable things that will rear up in any hobby or interest that is dynamic, and simply do not use them in my game, unless a player can convince me, with a really good story, how this race/class/whatever fits nicely in enough for him/her to enjoy the game presented to them.
I like the core-classes. I like some of the new classes, even though I don't like the idea of new classes. One thing not mentioned about the new classes is, "Where were they before?" This of course is only important if you follow/play in one or more of the established worlds. Some revisionist history might be needed to justify some of the new classes. Why were warlocks never mentioned among the Neheli? Were they just called sorcerers then?
Anyway, I think alot of the new classes wouldn't be necessary if they had more five or ten level-progression PrCs that could be gained at levels earlier than 5th or 6th. That would establish a certain flavor in fluff and crunch. I reluctantly like the duskblade,and in a lesser extent the hexblade and warmage, but didn't realize until I read this thread that I don't necessarily believe that there should be a 1st lvl arcane warrior.
I've rambled.
It's not in the PHB2, but I have just this to say WARMAGE...
Fizz
Haha, look at the Dry Lich (Sandstorm) makes all prestige classes for wizards and priests absolutely obsolete!
As for the Bard...I like the minstrel idea, but I've often thought and please set me right here...that maybe bardic music and certainly bardic knowledge could be covered in a Feat/Feat progression and available to nearly every class. Maybe something similar to cover everyone's favorite: the paladin. I've tried to concoct something like this in my homebrew campaign setting - admitedly I haven't come up with something that I thought would work...but the quest goes on. Crazy idea?
Not at all. Check out the Prestige Bard and Prestige Paladin classes (available on the expanded SRD), if you haven't already; they might be just what the Doctor ordered.
This is the same reason I dislike the knight in the PHB2. A knight is a roleplaying position that anyone could, theoretically, achieve, but is often portrayed as being filled by a paladin or fighter. Every problem I have with the knight class would vanish if they just changed the name.So are you saying that you are okay with the abilities that the class receives but wish that it was called something else (like "Champion" or "Battlemaster")? Or do you actually have a mechanical problem with the class in some way? I'm curious because, personally, I found the knight class to be very refreshing and something that, imo, was definitely needed.
You nailed it. I seriously loathe the class as written just because of the name. If it was "champion" or "battlemaster," I would have zero, zip, nadda, zilch, (0) problems with it. I guess it comes from a player I had who enjoyed being a jerk about roleplaying titles applied to prestige classes and such. You couldn't call someone a rogue (as in an outcast) unless they actually had rogue levels (he would badger you to find out if they did or didn't). It was funny to him, annoying to me. It made me realize that there are a lot of things floating around with names better suited for roleplaying applications, and I've grown to detest most of them both for my past experience and my desire for clarity (not having to specify whether one is talking about a mechanical knight, the class, or if one is talking about a knight, as in a fighter in the service to a lord).
Is it a logical stance to take? Probably not. It just bugs me, though, and I doubt it's going to change.
...As for the paladin: paladins SUCK.
*sigh*
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You nailed it. I seriously loathe the class as written just because of the name. If it was "champion" or "battlemaster," I would have zero, zip, nadda, zilch, (0) problems with it. I guess it comes from a player I had who enjoyed being a jerk about roleplaying titles applied to prestige classes and such. You couldn't call someone a rogue (as in an outcast) unless they actually had rogue levels (he would badger you to find out if they did or didn't). It was funny to him, annoying to me. It made me realize that there are a lot of things floating around with names better suited for roleplaying applications, and I've grown to detest most of them both for my past experience and my desire for clarity (not having to specify whether one is talking about a mechanical knight, the class, or if one is talking about a knight, as in a fighter in the service to a lord).Is it a logical stance to take? Probably not. It just bugs me, though, and I doubt it's going to change.
Out of curiousity, what are your feelings on the assassin? Back when 2e first came out, one of the reasons given for taking out the assassin (which had been a basic class in 1e) was because being an assassin was about killing people for money, which any class could do, not a particular collection of skills and abilities.
I can't say the argument resonates with me, but I can appreciate the irrationale well from which it is drawn. I have similar feelings regarding the Plane of Shadow.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
You nailed it. I seriously loathe the class as written just because of the name. If it was "champion" or "battlemaster," I would have zero, zip, nadda, zilch, (0) problems with it.
Duly noted. I do agree that 'knight' may not have been the best choice of name for this particular class. My vision (and I believe the popular one) of a knight is a mounted warrior in heavy armor who charges headlong into battle and fights honorably in the name of his kingdom/liege/deity/etc. This class mostly bases itself around being able to single out 'boss' creatures amongst a group of lesser foes to focus attacks on and to soak up damage and draw the attention of enemies to himself in order to spare the more fragile party members from a severe beating. This class is very, VERY similar to the role of the warrior class in World of Warcraft. So similar, in fact, that I have to wonder if that was the source of the inspiration. Keep the enemies focused on you, have tons of armor and hit points, and keep the enemies in a place where your buddies can toast them.
If I were in WotC's design department meeting that discussed the title for this class, I would have recommended "Warcaller."
You nailed it. I seriously loathe the class as written just because of the name. If it was "champion" or "battlemaster," I would have zero, zip, nadda, zilch, (0) problems with it. I guess it comes from a player I had who enjoyed being a jerk about roleplaying titles applied to prestige classes and such. You couldn't call someone a rogue (as in an outcast) unless they actually had rogue levels (he would badger you to find out if they did or didn't). It was funny to him, annoying to me. It made me realize that there are a lot of things floating around with names better suited for roleplaying applications, and I've grown to detest most of them both for my past experience and my desire for clarity (not having to specify whether one is talking about a mechanical knight, the class, or if one is talking about a knight, as in a fighter in the service to a lord).Is it a logical stance to take? Probably not. It just bugs me, though, and I doubt it's going to change.
Out of curiousity, what are your feelings on the assassin? Back when 2e first came out, one of the reasons given for taking out the assassin (which had been a basic class in 1e) was because being an assassin was about killing people for money, which any class could do, not a particular collection of skills and abilities.
I can't say the argument resonates with me, but I can appreciate the irrationale well from which it is drawn. I have similar feelings regarding the Plane of Shadow.
Don't have a problem with assassins. How wierd is that?
I have similar feelings regarding the Plane of Shadow.
How so?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have similar feelings regarding the Plane of Shadow.How so?
I irrationally hate the Plane of Shadow along with shadow creatures, shadow magic, and all things shadow related. To me, an fanatastical elements of D&D are very important - chimeras, manticores, things that make you stretch your imagination. Shadow creatures fail this test; there's no stretching of imagination involved. I see shadow things as a cop out in terms of interesting fantasy worlds in the same way that dreams are a cop out in terms of good storytelling. Which is not to say that stories about dreams cannot be good or that the Plane of Shdadows might not have some place in D&D (I suppose if the Plane of Shadow were done by Neil Gaimen, I might like it), but 95% of the time, such stories and use of shadow creatures are crap.
I don't do oozes for similar reasons.
I irrationally hate the Plane of Shadow along with shadow creatures, shadow magic, and all things shadow related. To me, an fanatastical elements of D&D are very important - chimeras, manticores, things that make you stretch your imagination. Shadow creatures fail this test; there's no stretching of imagination involved. I see shadow things as a cop out in terms of interesting fantasy worlds in the same way that dreams are a cop out in terms of good storytelling. Which is not to say that stories about dreams cannot be good or that the Plane of Shdadows might not have some place in D&D (I suppose if the Plane of Shadow were done by Neil Gaimen, I might like it), but 95% of the time, such stories and use of shadow creatures are crap.I don't do oozes for similar reasons.
That's legitimate. I've never cared for the plane of shadow either. In 2nd edition, it was a vaguely defined overgrown demiplane. In 3rd edition it's even worse; the plane is an even more vaguely defined way for the designers to say "oh, sorry we didn't REALLY mean to isolate each and every campaign world."
And yeah, oozes are pretty boring.
I think that the new classes are actually better balanced than the older ones, which is why there's less incentive to play them.
Sorcerers pretty much have nothing going for them as a single-classed caster compared with a wizard. The wizard gets Craft Wand as a bonus feat, and then suddenly never needs to memorize Fireball ever again. Sorcerers get... well, they get a couple spells they can cast an awful lot, making them very good for prestige classes that benefit from not having to lug a spellbook around, but not much else.
Most of the old classes have so many dead levels where you get nothing that not multiclassing is foolish. Prior to PHB2, why would anyone go past 12th level as a fighter? If it offers Turn Undead and full spell progression, why wouldn't a cleric take a prestige class? Clerics have no reason to stay for the full progression in that case. Does anyone honestly ever, EVER take a 20th level in rogue? Compare that to the barbarian, which actually offers incentives for staying in for the full 20. Beguilers, Duskblades, Scouts, Archivists, et cetera all have very attractive abilities that give a player a reason to stay in for the full, or very nearly full, progression.
This doesn't make these classes unbalanced. It points to improvement in the overall design of the base classes and highlights the glaring flaws in some of the original character options.
|
|
I think that the new classes are actually better balanced than the older ones, which is why there's less incentive to play them.
Sorcerers pretty much have nothing going for them as a single-classed caster compared with a wizard. The wizard gets Craft Wand as a bonus feat, and then suddenly never needs to memorize Fireball ever again. Sorcerers get... well, they get a couple spells they can cast an awful lot, making them very good for prestige classes that benefit from not having to lug a spellbook around, but not much else.
Most of the old classes have so many dead levels where you get nothing that not multiclassing is foolish. Prior to PHB2, why would anyone go past 12th level as a fighter? If it offers Turn Undead and full spell progression, why wouldn't a cleric take a prestige class? Clerics have no reason to stay for the full progression in that case. Does anyone honestly ever, EVER take a 20th level in rogue? Compare that to the barbarian, which actually offers incentives for staying in for the full 20. Beguilers, Duskblades, Scouts, Archivists, et cetera all have very attractive abilities that give a player a reason to stay in for the full, or very nearly full, progression.
This doesn't make these classes unbalanced. It points to improvement in the overall design of the base classes and highlights the glaring flaws in some of the original character options.
Exactly what I think. Also there was an article on WOTC's site that looked at how to make "DEAD LEVELS" more attractive for the core classes to try to get more players to WANT to stay with a class. Obviously Wizards knows that there is some issues with the core classes.
Here is the link: Linkity-Linkity-Loo!!!I like some of the ideas presented there but don't think it really fixes the classes all the way.
FH