It's going to take a bit of time (a week or so?) but everyone interested needs to make a new Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition character. So far Travis and Jesse have both completed their characters - they are as follows.
Travis: Dregg'd, dragonborn warlock
Jesse: Ash, tiefling paladin
Plenty of character ideas still available, including a lot more races than presented in the PHB. As far as a setting I've decided to go with Garweeze Wurld - the setting of HackMaster and the playground for the Knights of the Dinner Table. I've got cool maps ready to go and it's going to be a lot looser than previous campaigns (like Age of Worms). Not as much overall structure, which means individual characters can explore according to their whims and goals. I'm pretty excited about that aspect.
Anyway, start thinking about it. Mondays at around 8 pm is when I'd like to start, and we can play missing people as well.
Showing posts with label RPGs - D and D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RPGs - D and D. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Age of Worms Startup!
Age of Worms on Sunday, August 24th. Who's up? Startup a little earlier than normal (say around 1 pm or 2 pm) and get this campaign back off the ground. Any plans to stop this? Anyone got anything going on?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
MORE Thoughts on D&D Classes
After I picked up the 4E Player's Handbook on Saturday the 7th, I found myself in a bit of a funk. The book was definitely NOT D&D, and gave me the distinct impression of being a computer or video game. Perhaps if there was no alternative it would work, but since the Pathfinder RPG exists there is hope.
I posted my thoughts on how to categorize the classes a few weeks ago. In that post I postulized that there should be 15 base classes, based around the six ability scores divided between two groups and the mixing of them. But perhaps that's not the way to go. Perhaps there is a different way.
What if there were only 6 base classes, each based on one of the prime attributes? This starts with the same basic premise as my previous post but stops there.
Fighter = Strength
Barbarian = Constitution
Rogue = Dexterity
Wizard = Intelligence
Priest = Wisdom
Lord = Charisma
That includes the two new classes I created to better re-focus the base classes - Priest and Lord. That doesn't mean the other classes go away - far from it. Instead, they are created as prestige classes. This idea was actually presented in the Unearthed Arcana book, introducing the Bard, Ranger, and Paladin as 15-level prestige classes. Well, why not expand that out to the other non-basic classes into 15-level prestige classes.
Does this take a feeling more like d20 Modern? I don't think so, mainly because the base classes were SO generic as to be unusuable and pointless to pursue after the point where you qualified for a prestige class. But this method means that you would start out as one of the basic six, and then by 5th level or so you could focus yourself into one of the prestige classes.
Just another way to look at it. Thoughts welcome.
I posted my thoughts on how to categorize the classes a few weeks ago. In that post I postulized that there should be 15 base classes, based around the six ability scores divided between two groups and the mixing of them. But perhaps that's not the way to go. Perhaps there is a different way.
What if there were only 6 base classes, each based on one of the prime attributes? This starts with the same basic premise as my previous post but stops there.
Fighter = Strength
Barbarian = Constitution
Rogue = Dexterity
Wizard = Intelligence
Priest = Wisdom
Lord = Charisma
That includes the two new classes I created to better re-focus the base classes - Priest and Lord. That doesn't mean the other classes go away - far from it. Instead, they are created as prestige classes. This idea was actually presented in the Unearthed Arcana book, introducing the Bard, Ranger, and Paladin as 15-level prestige classes. Well, why not expand that out to the other non-basic classes into 15-level prestige classes.
Does this take a feeling more like d20 Modern? I don't think so, mainly because the base classes were SO generic as to be unusuable and pointless to pursue after the point where you qualified for a prestige class. But this method means that you would start out as one of the basic six, and then by 5th level or so you could focus yourself into one of the prestige classes.
Just another way to look at it. Thoughts welcome.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
D&D 3.75 Race Updates I
To go hand in hand with the class update article I just posted here's some racial information. More specifically, how it ties into class. In 3rd Edition (3.5) each race had a favored class, broken as follows. I'm also going to include their 3.75 ability score adjustments for reference.
Dwarf -- Fighter; +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Elf -- Wizard; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con
Gnome -- Bard; +2 Cha, +2 Dex, -2 Str
Halfling -- Rogue; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str
Half-Elf -- (any); +2 to any attribute
Half-Orc -- Barbarian; +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int
Human -- (any); +2 to any attribute
The reasoning behind this was not explained to my knowledge, but kind of makes sense. The dwarves are a very martial race, so it makes sense they would gravitate towards fighters. Elves are an inherently magical race so the path of the arcane comes easily to them. With fifteen classes to choose from now it makes sense that the list of favored classes would get expanded. Since the classes are based around ability scores, and the races get bonuses and penalties to ability scores, it stands to reason that the two would be tied together.
Here's the breakdown of classes associated with each ability score:
Strength: Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric, Knight
Constitition: Barbarian, Warlock, Monk, Shaper
Dexterity: Rogue, Filch, Ranger, Bard
Intelligence: Wizard, Sorcerer, Filch, Warlock
Wisdom: Priest, Cleric, Monk, Ranger
Charisma: Lord, Knight, Bard, Shaper
With fifteen classes I think it makes sense for each race to have four favored classes based around their primary ability score. This works in most cases. The elf would have a favored class associated with Intelligence; the halfling would favor those classes based around Dexterity, etc. The two races that this doesn't work for are dwarf and half-orc. Dwarf would have Strength-based classes, while the half-orc would have Constitution. Reversed but it makes more sense thematically.
Dwarf -- Fighter; +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Elf -- Wizard; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con
Gnome -- Bard; +2 Cha, +2 Dex, -2 Str
Halfling -- Rogue; +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str
Half-Elf -- (any); +2 to any attribute
Half-Orc -- Barbarian; +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int
Human -- (any); +2 to any attribute
The reasoning behind this was not explained to my knowledge, but kind of makes sense. The dwarves are a very martial race, so it makes sense they would gravitate towards fighters. Elves are an inherently magical race so the path of the arcane comes easily to them. With fifteen classes to choose from now it makes sense that the list of favored classes would get expanded. Since the classes are based around ability scores, and the races get bonuses and penalties to ability scores, it stands to reason that the two would be tied together.
Here's the breakdown of classes associated with each ability score:
Strength: Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric, Knight
Constitition: Barbarian, Warlock, Monk, Shaper
Dexterity: Rogue, Filch, Ranger, Bard
Intelligence: Wizard, Sorcerer, Filch, Warlock
Wisdom: Priest, Cleric, Monk, Ranger
Charisma: Lord, Knight, Bard, Shaper
With fifteen classes I think it makes sense for each race to have four favored classes based around their primary ability score. This works in most cases. The elf would have a favored class associated with Intelligence; the halfling would favor those classes based around Dexterity, etc. The two races that this doesn't work for are dwarf and half-orc. Dwarf would have Strength-based classes, while the half-orc would have Constitution. Reversed but it makes more sense thematically.
D&D 3.75 Class Updates Part I
Well, I've been thinking a lot about how D&D works, what with the impending release of 4th Edition and the continuing releases of the Pathfinder RPG (D&D 3.75). Seeing the changes implemented in Pathfinder to the classes has sparked my thought process, which boiled down to this: How the heck are classes in D&D defined? I don't think there is any rhyme or reason behind it beyond "hey this sounds cool" and "it's been in the game since the beginning."
It's time to throw that thinking out the window, my friends. I wanted to start with my thought process behin the whole thing. I've struggled a lot with how to classify the classes (?). What separates them mechnically? How could they be grouped? 2nd Edition D&D broke the classes down into the following four categories
Warrior - Fighter, Ranger, Paladin
Priest - Cleric, Druid
Wizard - Mage, Illusionist
Rogue - Thief, Bard
Those were the base classes as presented in the 2nd Edition PHB. In 3rd Edition I started to break it down even further. Thoughts that came into mind included grouping by base attack bonus (low, middle, high), ability focus (feats, skills, magic), or traditional (warrior, priest, wizard, and rogue). Nothing really fit.
Here are the 11 classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Of these classes I've had problems with two specifically - Paladin and Sorcerer. The Paladin was too specific, and basically meant that all Paladins were the same beyond their personality (which with LG characters still tended to be the same). The Sorcerer was not different enough from the Wizard to justify a separate class. It had fewer spells and received new spells less often, which meant that a party with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would always lag behind in terms of spellpower.
In addition, 3rd Edition took the approach that the party should be composed of four characters - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. All of the encounters are based around the presence of these four classes, or at least classes that fulfilled their function. What did this requirement actually mean? You need a tank, a healer, a skill-user, and a spellcaster. That's the approach that 4th Edition is taking, and I don't really like identifying them as such. Too World of Warcraft-y.
And then it hit me. There are six ability scores - Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These abilities have been with the game since the beginning, and have persisted throughout each incarnation. Why not base the classes around the ability scores? Heck, 75% of that work's already been done!
So you have the six ability scores, and you can divide them into two groups - Physical and Mental. That gives you six base classes. When you look at it like that you start to see how the classes came into being. Fighter? Strength. Wizard? Intelligence. Taking it a step further you can combine abilities between the two groups to create a few more. Bard? Dexterity + Charisma. While combining the aspects of two classes, these new classes took on a life of their own.
With that in mind I started looking at the six ability scores and matching them up between the two groups. Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity VS. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Here's the list I came up with:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom
Dexterity/Charisma
Fifteen combinations. Looking at the list like that you can see some immediate corrollations between existing classes. Bard = Dexterity/Charisma. Barbarian = Constitution. Etc. D20 Modern took a similar approach to this but genericized it too much. They removed the classes and made Strength heroes and Intelligence heroes. Too generic for D&D.
In comparing the list above to the clases there are still a few inconsistencies. As I stated earlier, the Paladin was a problem. What was the Paladin? A martial Cleric? Isn't the Cleric already martial? Isn't the Paladin really just a Cleric with less spells and a few specific abilities? The Paladin gets dropped to remove duplication.
The problem then becomes what defines a Wisdom based class versus a Strength/Wisdom class. So I took a look at a niche that was missing - the pure divine spellcaster. Someone who eschews combat for spells, just like the Wizard. That relegates the Cleric to the Strength/Wisdom niche, which means their spells are going to get reduced (not much) in favor of more abilities. I'm thinking more specific abilities around Domains.
The Wisdom class then becomes a pure divine spellcaster with no combat abilities. I'm going to call this class the Priest since that is what it is. Now things make sense - the paladin is now a Cleric of Heironeous (or other LG ideal) and the Cleric is now able to function as a fighting divine spellcaster.
The Druid is also a problem. What is a Druid but a nature-themed Cleric who can shapechange? The Druid as written gets dropped and its abilities get absorbed into nature-themed Domains. The wild shape gets turned into something else, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Taking the classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB here's what I came up with when applying them to the fifteen combos:
Strength -- Fighter
Constitution -- Barbarian
Dexterity -- Rogue
Intelligence -- Wizard
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard
Sorcerer is too much of a duplicate class to include, and both the Paladin and Druid get eliminated as discussed above. I think the matches make an eerie kind of sense actually - the Ranger is really a Dexterity and Wisdom based class, and the Monk combines Wisdom and Constitution. Now to fill in the gaps.
Let's just populate Wisdom with Priest. It's abilities need to hammered out but getting the concept is the hardest part, which is already done.
Charisma and Constitution are problems, and have been a problem in D&D for a long time. These two ability scores are pretty important for EVERYONE depending on how you view your character, Constitution more so because it governs hit points. Charisma is definitely a "throw away" ability score - few game mechanics are based around it.
The fix for that is to create a game mechanic that is based on Charisma and to base a class around it. In 3rd Edition they tried this with Sorcerer, but failed to make it unique enough. So where to go from there?
I toyed with the idea of making the Charisma-based class psionic in nature. It kind of makes sense - the force of your personality fuels mental powers. But the flavor never really felt altogether there and I abandoned it.
One phrase that kept rolling around in my head surrounding this conundrum was "sphere of influence." I don't know why, but I've always associated Charisma with this phrase. Playing around with some naming conventions I decided to create a mechanic that this Charisma-based class would have access to surrounding the idea of "Spheres."
Some of the names I considered for this class (since I think the name tells a lot about the thing) include the following: weaver, beguiler, psion, noble, wellborn, and patrician. Nothing jumped out at me, though I liked weaver (and Beguiler was a new class presented in PHB II). I've come around to the idea that this Charisma-based class was going to be an influencer of people and have abilities that make the party better, kind of like the Bard.
After mulling the idea around I settled on Lord. The Lord is my Charisma-based class with abilities relating to spheres (like the Cleric/Priest has abilities surrounding domains and the Wizard has abilities surrounding schools). The name lord has kind of a noble connotation, but I think the name works - it's simple, it's direct, and it can apply to any number of character concepts. The Lord is someone who can stop a swordblow from landing, command men and women to do his bidding, and to control the situation from behind the scenes. That covers Charisma.
With that in mind the Strength/Charisma class almost writes itself - Knight. This fulfills the honorable warrior role the Paladin previously occupied and creates a new class to incorporate more of the sphere based abilities. I'm going to start with the Knight as presented in the PHB II but take it in a different direction.
Four left - Strength/Intelligence, Constitution/Intelligence, Constitution/Charisma, and Dexterity/Intelligence. You could make an argument that the Bard is really a Dexterity/Intelligence class, but I decided to focus it on Charisma instead. One idea I've always liked and haven't seen implemented well in 3rd Edition is the concept of the spellfilch - a thief/mage combo from 2nd Edition. Changing it slightly to be just Filch fills the role of the Dexterity/Intelligence class, which will have abilities akin to the Arcane Trickster prestige class from the DMG.
The two Constitution classes took some thinking. I came up with the idea of a class who cannibalizes his own body for power, and thus the Warlock was born (Constitution/Intelligence). Not sure what its abilities will be at this point but the concept is there. Perhaps a focus on summoning (kind of like the World of Warcraft warlock). Still thinking on that one.
To me, the idea of Constitution and Charisma brings to mind someone who uses their body to change how they appear. With a little creative tweaking this becomes the Shaper - a classed based around the wild shape Druid ability but with expanded abilities. The Shaper could be a totem-based warrior or an avenger of nature.
That leaves Strength/Intelligence. There are quite a few prestige classes that work to fill this niche (including Eldritch Knight and Spellsword) but nothing's really struck me as being the right fit for a base class. What about fitting the lame 3rd Edition Sorcerer into this role? Unearthed Arcana had alternate class abilities for all of the base classes, and one of them was the Battle Sorcerer - access to fewer spells but combat abilities to compensate. Why not turn the Sorcerer into this variant? I decided on that and thus the Strength/Intelligence-based Sorcerer class was born.
That rounds out the list, which looks like this now along with the classes primary focus:
Strength -- Fighter (combat feats)
Constitution -- Barbarian (rage)
Dexterity -- Rogue (sneak)
Intelligence -- Wizard (schools)
Wisdom -- Priest (domains)
Charisma -- Lord (spheres)
Strength/Intelligence -- Sorcerer (arcane combat)
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric (divine combat)
Strength/Charisma -- Knight (presence)
Constitution/Intelligence -- Warlock (
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk (personal training)
Constitution/Charisma -- Shaper (wild shape)
Dexterity/Intelligence -- Filch (arcane skullduggery)
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger (wilderness)
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard (music)
Fifteen classes. The new ones (Priest, Lord, Sorcerer, Knight, Warlock, Shaper, and Filch) I think fulfill existing roles and create interesting combinations that would otherwise have required multiclassing for lesser effect. Each class needs to stand on its own, and it also needs to make sense from a multi-class standpoint.
I'm going to give this post a publish to give myself a breather.
It's time to throw that thinking out the window, my friends. I wanted to start with my thought process behin the whole thing. I've struggled a lot with how to classify the classes (?). What separates them mechnically? How could they be grouped? 2nd Edition D&D broke the classes down into the following four categories
Warrior - Fighter, Ranger, Paladin
Priest - Cleric, Druid
Wizard - Mage, Illusionist
Rogue - Thief, Bard
Those were the base classes as presented in the 2nd Edition PHB. In 3rd Edition I started to break it down even further. Thoughts that came into mind included grouping by base attack bonus (low, middle, high), ability focus (feats, skills, magic), or traditional (warrior, priest, wizard, and rogue). Nothing really fit.
Here are the 11 classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Of these classes I've had problems with two specifically - Paladin and Sorcerer. The Paladin was too specific, and basically meant that all Paladins were the same beyond their personality (which with LG characters still tended to be the same). The Sorcerer was not different enough from the Wizard to justify a separate class. It had fewer spells and received new spells less often, which meant that a party with a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would always lag behind in terms of spellpower.
In addition, 3rd Edition took the approach that the party should be composed of four characters - Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. All of the encounters are based around the presence of these four classes, or at least classes that fulfilled their function. What did this requirement actually mean? You need a tank, a healer, a skill-user, and a spellcaster. That's the approach that 4th Edition is taking, and I don't really like identifying them as such. Too World of Warcraft-y.
And then it hit me. There are six ability scores - Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These abilities have been with the game since the beginning, and have persisted throughout each incarnation. Why not base the classes around the ability scores? Heck, 75% of that work's already been done!
So you have the six ability scores, and you can divide them into two groups - Physical and Mental. That gives you six base classes. When you look at it like that you start to see how the classes came into being. Fighter? Strength. Wizard? Intelligence. Taking it a step further you can combine abilities between the two groups to create a few more. Bard? Dexterity + Charisma. While combining the aspects of two classes, these new classes took on a life of their own.
With that in mind I started looking at the six ability scores and matching them up between the two groups. Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity VS. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Here's the list I came up with:
Strength
Constitution
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom
Dexterity/Charisma
Fifteen combinations. Looking at the list like that you can see some immediate corrollations between existing classes. Bard = Dexterity/Charisma. Barbarian = Constitution. Etc. D20 Modern took a similar approach to this but genericized it too much. They removed the classes and made Strength heroes and Intelligence heroes. Too generic for D&D.
In comparing the list above to the clases there are still a few inconsistencies. As I stated earlier, the Paladin was a problem. What was the Paladin? A martial Cleric? Isn't the Cleric already martial? Isn't the Paladin really just a Cleric with less spells and a few specific abilities? The Paladin gets dropped to remove duplication.
The problem then becomes what defines a Wisdom based class versus a Strength/Wisdom class. So I took a look at a niche that was missing - the pure divine spellcaster. Someone who eschews combat for spells, just like the Wizard. That relegates the Cleric to the Strength/Wisdom niche, which means their spells are going to get reduced (not much) in favor of more abilities. I'm thinking more specific abilities around Domains.
The Wisdom class then becomes a pure divine spellcaster with no combat abilities. I'm going to call this class the Priest since that is what it is. Now things make sense - the paladin is now a Cleric of Heironeous (or other LG ideal) and the Cleric is now able to function as a fighting divine spellcaster.
The Druid is also a problem. What is a Druid but a nature-themed Cleric who can shapechange? The Druid as written gets dropped and its abilities get absorbed into nature-themed Domains. The wild shape gets turned into something else, but I'll get to that in a moment.
Taking the classes as presented in the 3rd Edition PHB here's what I came up with when applying them to the fifteen combos:
Strength -- Fighter
Constitution -- Barbarian
Dexterity -- Rogue
Intelligence -- Wizard
Wisdom
Charisma
Strength/Intelligence
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric
Strength/Charisma
Constitution/Intelligence
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk
Constitution/Charisma
Dexterity/Intelligence
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard
Sorcerer is too much of a duplicate class to include, and both the Paladin and Druid get eliminated as discussed above. I think the matches make an eerie kind of sense actually - the Ranger is really a Dexterity and Wisdom based class, and the Monk combines Wisdom and Constitution. Now to fill in the gaps.
Let's just populate Wisdom with Priest. It's abilities need to hammered out but getting the concept is the hardest part, which is already done.
Charisma and Constitution are problems, and have been a problem in D&D for a long time. These two ability scores are pretty important for EVERYONE depending on how you view your character, Constitution more so because it governs hit points. Charisma is definitely a "throw away" ability score - few game mechanics are based around it.
The fix for that is to create a game mechanic that is based on Charisma and to base a class around it. In 3rd Edition they tried this with Sorcerer, but failed to make it unique enough. So where to go from there?
I toyed with the idea of making the Charisma-based class psionic in nature. It kind of makes sense - the force of your personality fuels mental powers. But the flavor never really felt altogether there and I abandoned it.
One phrase that kept rolling around in my head surrounding this conundrum was "sphere of influence." I don't know why, but I've always associated Charisma with this phrase. Playing around with some naming conventions I decided to create a mechanic that this Charisma-based class would have access to surrounding the idea of "Spheres."
Some of the names I considered for this class (since I think the name tells a lot about the thing) include the following: weaver, beguiler, psion, noble, wellborn, and patrician. Nothing jumped out at me, though I liked weaver (and Beguiler was a new class presented in PHB II). I've come around to the idea that this Charisma-based class was going to be an influencer of people and have abilities that make the party better, kind of like the Bard.
After mulling the idea around I settled on Lord. The Lord is my Charisma-based class with abilities relating to spheres (like the Cleric/Priest has abilities surrounding domains and the Wizard has abilities surrounding schools). The name lord has kind of a noble connotation, but I think the name works - it's simple, it's direct, and it can apply to any number of character concepts. The Lord is someone who can stop a swordblow from landing, command men and women to do his bidding, and to control the situation from behind the scenes. That covers Charisma.
With that in mind the Strength/Charisma class almost writes itself - Knight. This fulfills the honorable warrior role the Paladin previously occupied and creates a new class to incorporate more of the sphere based abilities. I'm going to start with the Knight as presented in the PHB II but take it in a different direction.
Four left - Strength/Intelligence, Constitution/Intelligence, Constitution/Charisma, and Dexterity/Intelligence. You could make an argument that the Bard is really a Dexterity/Intelligence class, but I decided to focus it on Charisma instead. One idea I've always liked and haven't seen implemented well in 3rd Edition is the concept of the spellfilch - a thief/mage combo from 2nd Edition. Changing it slightly to be just Filch fills the role of the Dexterity/Intelligence class, which will have abilities akin to the Arcane Trickster prestige class from the DMG.
The two Constitution classes took some thinking. I came up with the idea of a class who cannibalizes his own body for power, and thus the Warlock was born (Constitution/Intelligence). Not sure what its abilities will be at this point but the concept is there. Perhaps a focus on summoning (kind of like the World of Warcraft warlock). Still thinking on that one.
To me, the idea of Constitution and Charisma brings to mind someone who uses their body to change how they appear. With a little creative tweaking this becomes the Shaper - a classed based around the wild shape Druid ability but with expanded abilities. The Shaper could be a totem-based warrior or an avenger of nature.
That leaves Strength/Intelligence. There are quite a few prestige classes that work to fill this niche (including Eldritch Knight and Spellsword) but nothing's really struck me as being the right fit for a base class. What about fitting the lame 3rd Edition Sorcerer into this role? Unearthed Arcana had alternate class abilities for all of the base classes, and one of them was the Battle Sorcerer - access to fewer spells but combat abilities to compensate. Why not turn the Sorcerer into this variant? I decided on that and thus the Strength/Intelligence-based Sorcerer class was born.
That rounds out the list, which looks like this now along with the classes primary focus:
Strength -- Fighter (combat feats)
Constitution -- Barbarian (rage)
Dexterity -- Rogue (sneak)
Intelligence -- Wizard (schools)
Wisdom -- Priest (domains)
Charisma -- Lord (spheres)
Strength/Intelligence -- Sorcerer (arcane combat)
Strength/Wisdom -- Cleric (divine combat)
Strength/Charisma -- Knight (presence)
Constitution/Intelligence -- Warlock (
Constitution/Wisdom -- Monk (personal training)
Constitution/Charisma -- Shaper (wild shape)
Dexterity/Intelligence -- Filch (arcane skullduggery)
Dexterity/Wisdom -- Ranger (wilderness)
Dexterity/Charisma -- Bard (music)
Fifteen classes. The new ones (Priest, Lord, Sorcerer, Knight, Warlock, Shaper, and Filch) I think fulfill existing roles and create interesting combinations that would otherwise have required multiclassing for lesser effect. Each class needs to stand on its own, and it also needs to make sense from a multi-class standpoint.
I'm going to give this post a publish to give myself a breather.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
D&D 3.75?
Alright, we've got somethings coming down to the pipeline in the next few months. Chief among these, at least on my radar and as far as gaming goes, is the eminent release of Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition. Many of you are not enthused about this, and don't plan on "upgrading" (I use the term only in sense that the number 4 is higher than the number 3.5). I'm very excited but I understand your trepidition.
And you're not the only ones with fears. It doesn't take much digging to find doom and gloom surrounding all information about D&D4E that is coming out in July. Not everyone is going to update to the new edition, and one of the bigger players decidedly not joining on the bandwagon is Paizo Publishing.
The fine folks at Paizo are the people who published Dragon and Dungeon magazines until recently (when the licenses were returned to Wizards of the Coast so that they could create an online version of these fine print magazines). Paizo jumped right into their next project, a monthly hybridazation of the two magazines called Pathfinder. I have not yet taken the time to purchase one of the Pathfinder issues/modules -partly because of the price ($20 each) and partly because I already have a lot of stuff.
Just a few days ago, however, Paizo announced that they would not be going to 4th Edition. Instead, they're going to continue with the d20 system, which they (and many others) feel isn't broken but definitely could use some tweaks. So they announced the open playtest of the Pathfinder RPG - D&D 3.75 to the rest of us. They have Alpha Release I out already available as a free download. There is a lot of interesting things in there, and I'd like to incorporate a lot of it into our D&D campaigns going forward. I will hold off on full incorporation until the rest of the Alpha releases come out (the first one only covers cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, skills, a lot of feats, races, and some spells) but there are things that I'd like to use in the next session.
Here's a breakdown of things I'm incorporating now that affect all characters:
* Starting hp for a character is max class hp PLUS the PC's Constitution score. This is a one time boost. Existing characters get to add their Constitution score to their total hp.
* Racial ability score increases. Essentially all the races get a +2 to a different attribute. Here's the breakdown:
Dwarf - +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Elf - +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con
Gnome - +2 Cha, +2 Con, -2 Str
Half-Elf - +2 to any one attribute
Half-Orc - +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int
Halfling - +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str
Human - +2 to any one attribute
Adjust your PC accordingly.
* New feat progression. Characters gain new feats every odd level, starting at 1st (3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, etc.). The old way was every third level, so this equates to more feats for all characters.
* Character death occurs at -10 - current level instead of just -10. So a 1st level character dies at -11, and a 20th-level character dies at -30. Easy to calculate and should keep PCs alive longer.
* Sneak attacks and criticals apply to all creatures - including undead, elementals, and constructs.
* Sneak attack damage only applies once per round, but is multiplied with a critical (same multiplier as the weapon).
* A wizard can now Overcast. What this means is they can cast ANY spell out of their spellbook by taking a full-round action and making a Spellcraft check. The DC is 15 + (spell level x 3). Metamagic feats cannot be applied to overcasting. If the check fails the caster is fatigued. If the caster is already fatigued and fails the Spellcraft check, he is instead exhausted. If an exhausted caster fails the Spellcraft check he falls unconscious for 1d6 hours. This one I'm going to watch a little more carefully to see if it gets abused (or if it's too hard or too easy to overcast). Thoughts welcome.
* No one in the Age of Worms campaign has a cleric, but Turn/Rebuke Undead is replaced by a Positive/Negative Energy Burst. The cleric can use this ability a set number of times per day (same as Turn Undead) and it creates a burst of energy in a 30 foot radius. Creatures healed by positive energy are healed 1d6 + 1d6/2 cleric levels beyond the first and undead are harmed by the same amount. Undead get a save for half damage. Evil clerics do the same thing except with negative energy.
* Specific feat changes. Cleave becomes the following: As a standard action make an attack. If it hits you get a free attack against another foe in your reach. Great Cleave becomes the following: As a standard action make an attack. If it hits you get a free attack against another foe in your reach. You can continue this for every foe in range but you cannot hit a foe more than once. Dodge becomes the following: +1 dodge bonus to AC.
I'd like to incorporate skill changes as well, but I'll wait on that one. Additional there will be more feat changes but I'll wait to incorporate those along with the combat maneuver bonus (CMB) to replace clunky grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder checks.
I encourage everyone to download a copy of the free Alpha Release I from Paizo's website (http://www.paizo.com/) and take a look at the changes. We'll try these out and see how they work.
And you're not the only ones with fears. It doesn't take much digging to find doom and gloom surrounding all information about D&D4E that is coming out in July. Not everyone is going to update to the new edition, and one of the bigger players decidedly not joining on the bandwagon is Paizo Publishing.
The fine folks at Paizo are the people who published Dragon and Dungeon magazines until recently (when the licenses were returned to Wizards of the Coast so that they could create an online version of these fine print magazines). Paizo jumped right into their next project, a monthly hybridazation of the two magazines called Pathfinder. I have not yet taken the time to purchase one of the Pathfinder issues/modules -partly because of the price ($20 each) and partly because I already have a lot of stuff.
Just a few days ago, however, Paizo announced that they would not be going to 4th Edition. Instead, they're going to continue with the d20 system, which they (and many others) feel isn't broken but definitely could use some tweaks. So they announced the open playtest of the Pathfinder RPG - D&D 3.75 to the rest of us. They have Alpha Release I out already available as a free download. There is a lot of interesting things in there, and I'd like to incorporate a lot of it into our D&D campaigns going forward. I will hold off on full incorporation until the rest of the Alpha releases come out (the first one only covers cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, skills, a lot of feats, races, and some spells) but there are things that I'd like to use in the next session.
Here's a breakdown of things I'm incorporating now that affect all characters:
* Starting hp for a character is max class hp PLUS the PC's Constitution score. This is a one time boost. Existing characters get to add their Constitution score to their total hp.
* Racial ability score increases. Essentially all the races get a +2 to a different attribute. Here's the breakdown:
Dwarf - +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
Elf - +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con
Gnome - +2 Cha, +2 Con, -2 Str
Half-Elf - +2 to any one attribute
Half-Orc - +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int
Halfling - +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str
Human - +2 to any one attribute
Adjust your PC accordingly.
* New feat progression. Characters gain new feats every odd level, starting at 1st (3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, etc.). The old way was every third level, so this equates to more feats for all characters.
* Character death occurs at -10 - current level instead of just -10. So a 1st level character dies at -11, and a 20th-level character dies at -30. Easy to calculate and should keep PCs alive longer.
* Sneak attacks and criticals apply to all creatures - including undead, elementals, and constructs.
* Sneak attack damage only applies once per round, but is multiplied with a critical (same multiplier as the weapon).
* A wizard can now Overcast. What this means is they can cast ANY spell out of their spellbook by taking a full-round action and making a Spellcraft check. The DC is 15 + (spell level x 3). Metamagic feats cannot be applied to overcasting. If the check fails the caster is fatigued. If the caster is already fatigued and fails the Spellcraft check, he is instead exhausted. If an exhausted caster fails the Spellcraft check he falls unconscious for 1d6 hours. This one I'm going to watch a little more carefully to see if it gets abused (or if it's too hard or too easy to overcast). Thoughts welcome.
* No one in the Age of Worms campaign has a cleric, but Turn/Rebuke Undead is replaced by a Positive/Negative Energy Burst. The cleric can use this ability a set number of times per day (same as Turn Undead) and it creates a burst of energy in a 30 foot radius. Creatures healed by positive energy are healed 1d6 + 1d6/2 cleric levels beyond the first and undead are harmed by the same amount. Undead get a save for half damage. Evil clerics do the same thing except with negative energy.
* Specific feat changes. Cleave becomes the following: As a standard action make an attack. If it hits you get a free attack against another foe in your reach. Great Cleave becomes the following: As a standard action make an attack. If it hits you get a free attack against another foe in your reach. You can continue this for every foe in range but you cannot hit a foe more than once. Dodge becomes the following: +1 dodge bonus to AC.
I'd like to incorporate skill changes as well, but I'll wait on that one. Additional there will be more feat changes but I'll wait to incorporate those along with the combat maneuver bonus (CMB) to replace clunky grapple, disarm, trip, and sunder checks.
I encourage everyone to download a copy of the free Alpha Release I from Paizo's website (http://www.paizo.com/) and take a look at the changes. We'll try these out and see how they work.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)