Class Specialisations [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Mister_Sinister]

This is an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a damn while, and I would like to finally put it into (hopefully) coherent thoughts.

Essentially, this started when AC and I revised the swashbuckler class for Elennsar here. I had looked at the creature we had made then, and thought 'well, in a way, this is just like the fighter, except with some more options'. This set gears turning in my head. Why, then, can't we essentially 'fold in' a lot of ideas which are now expressed as PrCs, or different classes, 'specialisations'?

Essentially, a specialisation is much like going specialist wizard, or the choice of psion discipline. The key words here are 'equivalent exchange' - having a specialisation gives you equivalent, but more narrow, benefits than being a generalist in your field. Furthermore, there is always the option of being a generalist present. At the same time, being specialised is a big, meaningful thing - it's not something minor, but in fact, very major, and affects how you play, big-time.

As an example of what I mean, let's look at a potential take of the fighter, who gets a bonus feat every level. Now, the swashbuckler specialisation makes him lose bonus feats at odd levels, in return for granting him swashbuckler features at those levels instead. Something like that.

I would like to use this thread as a place for ideas on such specialisations, as well as what people generally think of this idea. To start us off, here are some from me:

Barbarian

- Totem barbarians (minus the suck)

Fighter

- Swashbuckler (essentially a light melee guy using Int)
- Warlord (a leader-type dude using Cha lots)
- Weaponmaster (someone good with one class of weapons to an insane degree, Wis-based)
- Cavalier (mounted asskicker)

Paladin

- Fiendslayer (focused on tricks against evil outsiders)
- Undead Hunter (see above, but undead)
- Knight (much more martial and less religious take on the pally)

Sorcerer

- Infernal (power from devils - lotsa fire and torment)
- Abyssal (power from demons - lotsa acid, chaos and craziness)
- Celestial (power from good outsiders - lightning and fire and goodness. And light, lotsa light)
- Fey (lotsa enchantment/illusion powers)
- Otherworldly (Far Realm... yeah, tentacles and madness)
- Draconic (self-explanatory, really - might be further broken down by dragon type)
- Warlock (essentially, narrower list, more uses)

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

[RobbyPants]

To make sure I'm understanding the idea:

Are you talking about granting a wider list of ACFs to different classes?  Is this meant to be like a ranger's combat styles, but to a greater degree? 

Are you trying to remove classes with this, and simplify it to a smaller number of classes, each with different specilizations?  If so, how does multiclassing work?  Can you multiclass Fighter(Swashbuckler) and Fighter(Warlord)?

[Mister_Sinister]

Sorry for the vagueness.

Yes, like a wider degree of ranger combat styles is a good comparison. I don't believe it's 'removing' as much as 'folding', but yeah, in a sense. And yes, if you did wanna do what you proposed, be my darn guest.

[Shadowhowler]

Meh. No offence, I see where your going with this... but with all the Base class and PrC options out there already... I see no need to further murk up the waters with this. I'd rather just balance what we have so that everything is on a more or less even playing field, and then I'd be happy.

[Orion]

I suspect that most of these options already exist, but some kind of systematic organising of all of them might be useful? Just going down the list, I can think of ways to build some of the things you're talking about, so why not lay out "paths" (for lack of a better word) to those kinds of characters using the available options? Just a thought.

[Mister_Sinister]

@Orion and Shadowhowler: This is designed to replace PrCs and additional base classes - I'm thinking of clearing the water, not muddying it.

[DaveoftheRave]

- Swashbuckler (essentially a light melee guy using Int)

The problem is that a swashbuckler is more like a ranger than a fighter.

The fighter is based around use of heavy armour.  If you want to make a swashbuckler balanced as a specialist fighter then force him to wear light armour only and only finessable weapons.  And then give him bonuses over the normal fighter b/c of his specialty.  Though it is actually simpler to just make another class and base it on the ranger balance point who is already a light melee guy.

(One of the reasons I think fighters are under powered is that heavy armour prof. and ease of use doesn't mean anything and is actually bad)

Here is a random question...I know there are armour specialization feats but is there one that reduces the movement penalty?

[Elennsar]

I can't think of one offhand, but there's been so many feats produced that I would hardly be surprised.
I know there's a couple classes here and there (though not by WotC, I think) that allow for ignoring it, so it could be done in game if one had the right requirements.

[DaveoftheRave]

I know there's a couple classes here and there (though not by WotC, I think) that allow for ignoring it, so it could be done in game if one had the right requirements.

One of the problems with the fighter is that it is designed to be heavily armoured, but heavy armour is awful.  And if you want to play a fighter type that doesn't use heavy armour (like a swashbuckler or gladiator etc.) you get punished for it b/c you're not taking advantage of a class bonus.

Making heavy armour good again and making a feat to remove the movement penalty would go a long way I think to making the fighter better.

[Mister_Sinister]

Yeah, but we're talking about loosening what roles the fighter can be built into, not tightening them! At present, there are only two ways to build a fighter which do anything worth thinking about. This is silly, because other classes can be built in more than two ways (at least, any which don't suck donkey penis). Fixing the flaws of one approach does not a fixed class make.

[Kuroimaken]

Okay, I see where you're trying to go with this, and I like the idea. A few questions, though:

1) How would you make a samurai?
2) Why eliminate PrCs? There's a lot more of them for arcane/divine types than there is for anything else. If anything, Fighter types need MORE options, not less.
3) Doesn't that still mean you have the quintessential 3e problem, i.e. Fighters are married to their weapons?

[Mister_Sinister]

1) The samurai, if anything, is a paladin specialisation, although I could argue fighter.

2) Who said anything about eliminating them? PrCs can, and will, have a place. However, they should 'feel' like something you have to be level 6+ to be, which many don't. Remember, level 6 is above the human norm in a BIIIG way (think Michael Phelps here).

3) Not neccessarily. This is only a problem because the designers chose to make it one. The whole idea behind the weaponmaster is that it is HE who makes the weapon deadly, not the weapon. Think him as kinda like a wuxia master - he can pick up a sword, any sword, and be as awesome as another dude with a +5 killy deadly sword of whatever. Weapon marriage need not be there if we design appropriately and not like a bunch of drunk monkeys.

[Elennsar]

1) Either, depending on what exactly we have in mind. But as in "heroic champion", its defniately paladiny.

2) Yeah. 6-10 -might- exist in our world. This is firmly in the camp of people who defy belief. Hannibal Barca, to name a general. Musashi, to name a fighter.

3) Agreement. +5 killy deadly swords of whatever are a sad substiute for the fact that nothing in D&D is really as cool as Excalibur or Anduril or...and thusly tries to compensate for small penises and smaller brains.

This isn't to say magic items shouldn't be potent. But I'd rather have them (and character powers in general) be moderate but awesomely cool than demigodic and a little dull.

[PhoenixInferno]

Remember, level 6 is above the human norm in a BIIIG way (think Michael Phelps here).

Exemplar of Swimming - "OMG, he swims so well, I would go to the ends of the earth for that guy!"

[Mister_Sinister]

Said exemplar of swimming would be able to do heaps better than Phelps ever could - the skill system even says so.

[Elennsar]

An idea from a discussion with Sinister (99%+ of this is his work):
Make fighting styles a bit like cleric domains are now.  For instance, take S&B. This would be written up like a domain, granting certain bonuses at certain levels.

Each class we define as 'martial' gets to pick, say, 2 fighting styles to specialize in.
Maybe one more somewhere down the line.

Semi-martials get one, maybe one more down the line

Non-martials get zero. Multiclass if you want one.

[PhoenixInferno]

Said exemplar of swimming would be able to do heaps better than Phelps ever could - the skill system even says so.

Whatever.  Its just funny.

[Mister_Sinister]

Said exemplar of swimming would be able to do heaps better than Phelps ever could - the skill system even says so.

Whatever.  Its just funny.

That I do not dispute.

[Kuroimaken]

1) The samurai, if anything, is a paladin specialisation, although I could argue fighter.

2) Who said anything about eliminating them? PrCs can, and will, have a place. However, they should 'feel' like something you have to be level 6+ to be, which many don't. Remember, level 6 is above the human norm in a BIIIG way (think Michael Phelps here).

3) Not neccessarily. This is only a problem because the designers chose to make it one. The whole idea behind the weaponmaster is that it is HE who makes the weapon deadly, not the weapon. Think him as kinda like a wuxia master - he can pick up a sword, any sword, and be as awesome as another dude with a +5 killy deadly sword of whatever. Weapon marriage need not be there if we design appropriately and not like a bunch of drunk monkeys.

1) I -think- paladin isn't too off the mark, except the samurai is not necessarily a "champion of good" who is "sponsored by the gods" - the tenets of bushido are considerably more strict and complex than that, in fact, but are still less restrictive than a paladin's code. But I digress.

2) It was mentioned a few posts back. Exact quote:

@Orion and Shadowhowler: This is designed to replace PrCs and additional base classes - I'm thinking of clearing the water, not muddying it.

 
Not meant to be accusatory, of course - just a little jab.

3) Well, ya know how it is. Some movies portray masters who pick up ANY weapon and seem to mantain their overall efficiency no matter what's on their hands after a quick twirl or two (like a Warblade, but taking up a swift action instead of an hour).

[Mister_Sinister]

By 'replace', I did not mean 'wholesale'. Just replace those that it can, to keep the idea of prestige classes, you know, prestigious, meaning 'something which being 6th level for is actually required'.