D&D Core Classes [Rebalancing 3.5]

[AndyJames]

And of course, because it isn't specifically mentioned that they aren't exclusive they're obviously permited to everyone regardless of anything from a previous edition and anyone should know that and basically anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do is an idiot.

Is politeness even considered where you come from?

Regardless, this is off topic. I misread, isn't the first and won't be the last. You were a dick, same thing.

I wasn't the guy who fired the first shot, martyr-boy.

[RobbyPants]

Well, I don't want to give any sort of Concentration boost to wizards.  It also doesn't seem like lore is a Concentration thing to me.

I can see autohypnosis working for it.  Still, I think the fluff can be represented by Knowledge ranks.  Autohypnosis could certainly be taken if you want your wizard to have a photographic memory.

Another way I could see doing this is adding Skill Focus(Knowledge(Pick one)) to the list of wizard bonus feats.  Of course, I don't know who'd pick that over a metamagic feat.

[AndyJames]

Just give a straight Skill Focus feat as a bonus. On top of the bonus they already get.

[RobbyPants]

I was thinking about that too.  It's not like it's overpowered or anything.  What level would you grant it?

[AndyJames]

3, 8, 13, 18

[SiggyDevil]

I'll bet he hates the taking 10 and 20 rules.

He does!

I'm the opposite. I hate randomness so much that I fucking let players Take 10 on their attack rolls.

Seriously, 10 vs. d20 is core mechanic. It's fun to mess with probability and yet still remain within the expected averages.

[Elennsar]

You should try the 2d10 system. Like the d20 system, but with no use of d20s for attack rolls and skill checks and so on.

Still more randomness than you probably really want, but 3d6 would throw things off a bit.

[SiggyDevil]

You should try the 2d10 system. Like the d20 system, but with no use of d20s for attack rolls and skill checks and so on.

Still more randomness than you probably really want, but 3d6 would throw things off a bit.

... I also allow any of those as well. It confuses some newer players though, since they also say "I thought it was a d20 game".
When it comes to numerical averages I say "Whatever works for you."
You just won't be rolling many Natural 20s (more like Natural 18s) with 3d6; the odds are against you. However, you WILL be hitting more on average, which is good if you're just unlucky or have low bonuses.

"Here. Grab some d6s." I say when a player gets downtrodden from missing 3+ times in a row.
Another method, and I plan to implement this in a custom d20-like classless 3-stat game, would be to have a d20 but then an expected alotment of d6s to add to that result. A dice pool if you will.

It would be a d26 game, rather than d20 with action points (such as Eberron, poorly done).

[RobbyPants]

I can't find a link in the SRD, but Unearthed Arcana has a 3d6 system printed in it.  It converts all of the crit ranges to the best 5% approximation on 3d6.  They actually suggest using stronger monsters against the PCs because the bell curve favors the PCs so much.  After all, randomness favors the underdog.

[Kuroimaken]

I was thinking about that too.  It's not like it's overpowered or anything.  What level would you grant it?

Works like a charm, specially since Skill Focus no longer sucks elephantine balls.

[RobbyPants]

Earlier, Psychic Robot worked out an animal companion that is customizable.  The most important aspect about it is that you don't actually pick an animal from the MM; you modify a base set of stats with templates.  That being said, I've posted his version in the spoiler below.  What would you think of adding this back to the druid, and keeping the shapechange ACF in place of wildshape?

Animal Compainion

Animal Companion base ability scores:

12 Strength
12 Constitution
12 Dexterity
2 Intelligence
10 Wisdom
6 Charisma

Then the player gets to customize the animal companion.

HD: 1d8.
Attacks: 1 bite or claw or horn or talon, 1d6 damage.
Speed: 30 feet.

Size:
   Small: +4 Dexterity, reduced natural weapon damage size, -2 Strength, +10 foot swimming and flying speed (if it can fly or swim), +1 flying maneuverability category.
   Medium: No changes.
   Large: +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -4 Dexterity, increased natural weapon damage size, -10 foot swimming and flying speed (if it can fly or swim), -1 flying maneuverability category.

Templates:
   Aquatic: Gains the aquatic subtype with a 30 foot swim speed.  The creature loses its land speed.  Choose another template to apply.
   Bestial: +4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
   Burrower: +2 Strength, burrow speed equal to land speed.
   Hearty: +2 Constitution, +2 natural armor.
   Riding: +2 Strength, +10 foot land speed, two hoof/paw attacks (1d4 damage), quadrupedal.
   Swift: +2 Dexterity, +10 foot bonus to all movement modes.
   Flier: +4 Dexterity, -2 Strength, 60 foot fly speed with average maneuverability, -10 foot land speed.
   
As the character progresses, his animal companion gains bonuses to its Strength and Dexterity scores equal to 1/3 the druid's level, and it receives a bonus to its natural armor equal to 1/2 the druid's level.

The animal companion has Hit Dice equal to the druid's level.

At sixth level, the animal companion gains a second natural attack (1d6 damage for a Medium companion), or it can use its beginning natural attack twice in a round at a -5 penalty.

At eighth level, it gains evasion.

At eleventh level, the animal companion gains a third natural attack, or it can use its beginning natural attack a second (or third) time in a round at a -5 penalty.

At first level and again at third level and every three levels thereafter, the animal companion gains a special quality:

Agile Flight: Gains +1 maneuverability category when flying.
Constrict: 1d6 + Strength modifier points of damage on a successful grapple check. Damage improves by +1d6 for every six levels you have.  This can only be applied once per round.
Ferocity: Can keep fighting even when disabled or dying without penalty.
Improved Grab: As the standard ability.
Hold Breath: The animal companion can hold its breath for up to four times its Constitution score before needing to make Fortitude saves.
Low-Light Vision: The animal companion gains low-light vision and darkvision 60 feet.
Powerful Charge: Additional damage equal to 1d6 + twice Strength modifier on a successful charge attack. Damage improves by +1d6 for every six levels you have.
Rage: Gains a +4 bonus to Strength and Constitution, -2 penalty to AC, on its turn after taking damage.
Rake: Gains an extra natural attack automatically when grappling (1d4 for a medium creature). At tenth level, gains a second claw attack. Otherwise as the standard ability.
Quick Like a Bunny: +10 foot speed bonus to all movement modes.
Scent: As the standard ability.
Tentacled: Gains a secondary tentacle natural attack (1d4 damage for a medium creature).  Gains a +2 bonus on grapple checks.
Trample: As the standard ability, for 1d8+Strength modifier points of damage.  Damage improves by +1d8 for every six levels you have.
Venomous Strike: 1d4 Constitution damage initial/secondary. Save DC equals 10 + ½ HD + Constitution modifier.
War-Trained: When using your animal companion as a mount, it is considered to be war trained.  In addition, the animal companion gains a +2 bonus to its Strength score.

[Midnight_v]

Is politeness even considered where you come from?

Robby: Taking 20 is for munchkins. Or min maxers. Or true roleplayers. Or whatever his term for "guys who I hate" is

.
Fucking whiny hypocrite well we hate you too...

...
I like this one.
Skill Focus(Knowledge(Pick one)) Levels 3, 8, 13, 18

As it actually adresses what we were talking about an alternative to our right giving them bardic knowledge-like abilities.
 I mean ... largely irrelavant abilities. Reminds me of the archivist suddenly. Ah well.

[Midnight_v]

MORE Proposed Druid changes. Ewwww.
So basically we mod astral construct into druidic flavor?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Okay how bout this.
The shapeshift druid (which I hate) is an obvious buttfucking to druids to bring them into lower level power.
We have options with that.

 I agree with you slightly because losing both animal companion and wildshape is bullshit, so if we have to go with the shapshit *read* SHAPE-SHIT version of druid instead let them just keep the animal companion, and be done with it.
 
See thing is: We are nerfing spells (somewhere I haven't even looked in that thread for quite a while) in some cases overcompensating. + strengthning all the other classes... The only thing that I got out of our ranger discussion was ranger get fulll animal companion progression and that some of us have mental blocks when it comes to the proper separation of balance and flavor.  . . and that too many people think that "wildshape ranger" should be a "fighting style choice for ranger" . . .
So..
 MUCH Weaker spells + Low bab + Shapeshit variant (no spells while shifted/absorbsotion of items) + weaker animal companion + ranger getting my powers but weaker = Why the fuck would I play a druid over a ranger?
You won't.
Not realisitcally, from a mechanical point of veiw.
It has ostensibly become the same class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOREOVER
This direction we're taking of "Weakening" needs review from a design standpoint. 
There are more questions that we need do be asking when making these changes, I don't know what they are right this second, I'm not all in, to this discussion right this second.
However, I'm tired of throwing darts at the board and saying "This looks good!" success! Without much review of what we've actually done.
Thing like comparative role, and party composition. Need to be looked at.
It worked when we did the fighter, mostly because we all have years of "Fighters Don't Suck" threads to know whats going wrong there. I don't think we're doing well with that when it comes to some of the other classes.
Druid. Ranger. Cleric. Mass disagreement because of a lack of design focus comparative party role and dare I say...
"Playtesting" *gasp*.
Or at least a serious hypothetical quandry of playtesting.

One of the things I think that pissed me off was when we were discussing the ranger...
I brought up "Nature flavored crusader"
Let me say that again.

Nature flavored Crusader.
Say it yourself. Let it sink in.  The last time people just gibberished past it, but it was important...
 If you've created something that has an inferior ability set to a nature flavored crusader, then you have failed at rebalancing.
Thats pertaining to a druid/ranger.

I'll find the post at the time I was proposing skirmish but that doesn't matter. What matters is that when we design these things we start looking at Roles in the party, how many they can fill *If we do this*.
How do they stack up to tier 3.

Someone should make an Iconic tier 3 party. What are the 4 roles?
Tank
Skill monkey
Healer?
Arcane caster?
Is that right?
One things for certain... I do believe there's a problem with the approach we're using. 
I'm sorry, I have not definate out line but please consider what I'm saying.
There's a piece missing in the design. I think has to do with party comp, but I'm not sure.
I know it has to do with the question "Why do I play a X instead of Y in this instance.

[RobbyPants]

Is politeness even considered where you come from?

Robby: Taking 20 is for munchkins. Or min maxers. Or true roleplayers. Or whatever his term for "guys who I hate" is.
Fucking whiny hypocrite well we hate you too...

I think he was giving a sarcastic response for the person I was talking about.  I don't think Elennsar was calling us munchkins for taking 20.

I like this one.
Skill Focus(Knowledge(Pick one)) Levels 3, 8, 13, 18

As it actually adresses what we were talking about an alternative to our right giving them bardic knowledge-like abilities.
 I mean ... largely irrelavant abilities. Reminds me of the archivist suddenly. Ah well.

Yeah, Andy's suggestions for these levels work well for putting them between the bonus feats.  +3 on different Knowledge skills isn't overpowering, and it helps with the flavor.

[Elennsar]

Correct, Robby. "His term". Is the context that unclear on who the "his" is?

[Midnight_v]

  - what

[Elennsar]

Read Siggy's post on his noob DM. Then read Robby's on how he (Robby) thinks he (the DM) hates the taking 20 rules.

Then read my comment.

Viola. Confusion, begone!

[RobbyPants]

Elennsar was being a bit vague, but his repsonse was a hypothetical response for a DM that believed in auto-fumbles on any d20 roll and who hated the ability to take 10 and 20 on skills.

----------

Back on topic:

I think you have a bit of a point Midnight.  I posted Psychic Robot's Animal Companion here, in a combination of it removing abuses of getting to pick monsters from the MM, and from reading in other threads people's responses to the shapeshift ACF.  Many of them thought the druid should not lose the Animal Companion with that ACF.  Still, I think the worst thing about it is the boost to economy of actions.

[Midnight_v]

Economy of actions is already what the game is about.
Taking away that economy is bad and leads to us not being able to play necromancers.
Look at what we did to the fighter.

If anyone gets more actions then everyone need more actions.

If nobody gets more actions... well they do so we need to deal with that.


Remember this?
When Robby pointed out that rangers have the advantage and gave them dual strike or whatever and rend
 I thought "Good" now both styles are in synch witheach other and closing in on the
8th level...
8D8 crusders strike + 2d6 weapon + thicket of blades + power attack/ followed by white raven tactics on an ally.
So:
8th:  2 attacks as a standard action 1d8 Longsword + 2d6 skirmish/1d6 shortsword +2d6 skirmish
Lets just round and say thats 6d6 damage +  plus an attack from an animal compaion (which will actually dangerous if we increase its levels any.) It could be 8d6 if we spend a feat on improved skirmish and move 20 feat. Which is great for the archer if you want to play that game.
.....
I kinda had it in my mind when everyone was still arguing about the already completed monk. So soon as my the Scout+ranger = 1 class was dismissed I settled in and fully expected 2 pages of debate when people never really adressed the problem with the ranger to begin with.
.... But please... please ..
Do you're own analysis and share it.

People ignored this so hardcore I'd forgotten it but ignoring the skrimish and pointing to the extra action thing.
The natured flavored ranger doesn't need an animal compaion I'm actually giving the rogue more actions to flank with.

[RobbyPants]

I've always had an aversion to blending the two classes, but that's not on a mechanical level.  Still, it might be a good way to handle balancing to a ToB level.

So, let's say we go this route: what do we do about the scout?  Do we still use it?  Do we axe it and say play a ranger/rogue if you want a scout?