Talk:Ultimate Classes

From LiMaWiki

Contents 1 Speculated potential problem with <8 spell levels 2 New Idea 2.1 Classes 2.2 Benefits 2.3 Costs 2.4 Other Thoughts 2.5 Comments 3 Class Discussions 3.1 Proposition 3.2 Discussion Part of the "Class Discussion" 4 Higher spell levels? 5 Forums 6 Gadgeteer 7 Ultimate Vessel 8 Ultimates and 4e 9 Spells Per Day 10 Marking the classes 11 Outright revamp/update of stuff, or maybe a variant system of rules. 12 Why is this not protected? 13 Ultimate Links

[edit] Speculated potential problem with <8 spell levels

While I've never played with high-level ultimates (though I'm currently playing with low-level ones), I've speculated on a bit of a problem with not allowing level 8 and 9 spells, largely based on the fact that much of the DnD system makes the assumption that the best spells of an x-level spellcaster will be about half his level. This kind of problem shows through particularly well in the case of summoning, which is important because we're still making that assumption in the design of a lot of the classes we're making right here (like the elementalist Druid). It's generally assumed that a summoner will be able to summon allies half his level in CR, and that's not really true with the delayed and eventually stunted growth of spellcasting that we're dealing with here. I'm not arguing that 8 and 9-level spells should be in the game in general; a lot of them, such as Time Stop, are madly broken and exploitable. This issue was already addressed in spell DCs, which now depend on caster level rather than spell level (though this is a good idea for more reasons than just this). I'd like to propose that we find some way around all this; anyone have any ideas? Perhaps this is something that has to be majorly houseruled around or just left for dead, but I'd like to see if anyone has some way of keeping certain spells capable of being up-to-date at the level that you get them. There's no way you're going to be fighting 6 HD monsters, even as fodder, at level 13 when you get cloudkill, for instance. Furthermore, if you want to run a campaign only partly with ultimate classes, some ideas clash when other classes get 0-9th-level spells or abilities. One could argue that there's not much need for classes other than the ultimate classes in a campaign, as they cover a lot of ground, but there are a lot of crazy ideas out there that really aren't represented by the ultimate classes.--Mauver 02:53, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Idea

I know a lot of you aren't really going to like this but here's an idea. Tell me what you think.

--Tombowings 01:27, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classes

These are organized into character types. Like in D20 modern, each would be given a set of traits and could choose a trait instead of being given a different class ability.

Nothing is settled on for these, they are just an idea I had today.

Generalists - Bard, Prodigy, Monk, maybe a bit it of the Nexus.

Fighter - Barbarian, Fighter, Knight, Paladin, Ranger, Scourge, Skirmisher. A Very rough version of a the Fighter is complete.

Mage - Bard, Conjurer, Deceiver, Magus, Necromancer, Psion, Wizard

Monk - Cleric, Druid, Monk, and maybe a bit of the Paladin and Scourge

Rogue - Monk, Rogue, Expert, Ranger.

Other - Incarnate, Sorcerer, est. --Tombowings 01:27, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

I think there should only be 4 "departments".

• Martial - All things combat. Better BAB, good Fortitude saves, low skills, access to combat related feats and abilities, etc.
• Power - All things "magical". This would include anything arcane or psionic. Low BAB, good Will Saves, medium skills, etc.
• Divine - All things divine. Medium BAB, good will, medium skills, divine spells and powers, etc.
• Rogue - All things rogue. Medium BAB, good reflex, bardic abilities, rogue abilities, some ranger abilities, etc.

My thinking is around the classic D&D 4 party concept. Your typical Martial, Divine, Arcane, and Rogue characters. It could be argued that any character concept will fit into one of those 4 categories, if not more than one. One concern I have, for any "class" system we come up with, is that we force some character concepts, around the Paladin for example, to be created by multiclassing.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that middle ground is unattainable. It becomes more complicated that either extreme. For example, if we stick to current concepts, we will have a new class for each character concept, which could eventually lead to dozens and dozens of classes (and prestige classes). At the other extreme we have one "class" and make all choices available for your choosing. This is quite the departure from classic D&D standards, and can be quite overwhelming to those not accustomed to it. However, by trying to attain middle ground between these two extremes, we end up eliminating some concepts at the expense of others. The abilities of Paladins, Rangers, and Monks for instance are split up between categories with no way to combine ideas without multiclassing or prestige classing.

One solution I see is to take those concepts and make them into prestige classes. For instance, make it so that the combined paladin abilities be paired up in a prestige class.

A another twist on that would be to work it like is done in D20 Modern. Their Core classes are only 10 levels and very generic, forcing you to later move into specific, occupation-motivated, character concepts. With that in mind, I would suggest making 6 basic concepts for each ability (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) like in D20 Modern and then creating a series of "Ultimate" prestige classes, again having each prestige class based either around an ability score, or a general character type like "Martial", or "Divine".

--Phil 04:38, May 7, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a system with prestige classing. I believe everything can be worked into talents. Also, why can't there be a low BAB divine class, I've never understood this... Anyway, another idea would be to go back to the standard D&D classes (The ones from the PHB) and work talents into those. Also, you don't even really need to have two magic classes at all just call it the "magic user" and then the player can decide where their powers come from. All in all, I think four classes is too simple and cannot convey every character concept.

--Tombowings 23:17, May 7, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benefits

• Smaller list of classes, which means less multi-classing
• It would give players even more freedom than they have with even the ultimate classes.
• Easier to balance
• Easier to add more class abilities.
• Splits classes into "general" concepts instead of breaking the concepts up.

--Tombowings 01:27, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Costs

• Untraditional
• Not quite in the Ultimate style
• Some of our hard work will go to waste.

--Tombowings 01:27, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Thoughts

• I'm not sure what to do with the classes in the "Other" class, but we would find places for class abilities I'm sure.
• When tell me what you think. Ripping it apart is Ok with me, just add reasons to the lists.
• As you can see some classes fit into more than one category, this may or may not be a good thing.

--Tombowings 01:27, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'm in. Clearer and simpler classes mean better classes. --SKRP 15:58, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

That was my thinking exactly. These classes have gotten a bit out of hand. Also, I am deleting the Cleric and Battlemage classes because one can achieve the same BAB and Spellcasting ability be multiclassing. Working on the Knight's Talent Tree. --Tombowings 16:01, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but for those who would prefer the Ultimate Classes as they are now, and so all this work doesn't go to waste, I'd suggest making a new wiki page (pages) for them. This would give people a choice of using either set of classes. Call them "Tombowing's Ultimate Classes" or something like that to keep a distinction. --WorldConquerer 23:05, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

Phil and I have already talked about that, and we are going to put them back on the WotC boards. --Tombowings 00:09, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I knew there would be people that like the existing versions. However, I have to take back my comment last night, Ian. I think we should keep them here, under their existing page. I propose that we start a new section for the new idea, with a different adjective. Something similar to "ultimate", or something that means central. I'll write more when I am at work...

--Phil 02:12, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm working on some of the talents right now. If you have any comments on them, everyone, please say something, cause I'm just chugging crap out right now. --Tombowings 02:54, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

To add more to my original thoughts now that I am at work... We should keep the originals here, exactly where they are so as to preserve links (on the off chance that someone has linked or bookmarked them). This way they can still be useful. In addition, we leave them unlocked so that people may still edit and improve them if they like.

I suggest we create a new name for this project, and start in a fresh area. I can put links for it on the sidebar, just like I have done for all major projects, and we go from there. I like the idea of less classes as I have stated many times, I prefer a classless/single class system. I'd like to see one "Ultimate Class" and then be able to choose my BAB, saves, skills, etc. However, having the classes sorted by occupation nearly takes care of that for me. I then choose the BAB/Saves/Skills combo I want, and then pick and choose the abilities. That works well for me, and isn't quite as foreign to those that are used to classes.

My time is limited this weekend while at work (I work graveyard as a security officer), but I'll read the material as often as I can. In the meantime, I am just basing my opinion on the idea itself, rather than the material.

If there is any way that I can help get the ball rolling on this, let me know. If you need "popularity" for a post on the WotC forums, I'll post just to keep it on the front page and generate interest.

--Phil 03:55, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

How about the "Fundamental Classes"? --Tombowings 16:41, May 6, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class Discussions

I'm going to look at each of our classes in chunks. And show everyone how they fit together. Some will not and we will have to make due. I will have a proposition at the end of my discussion.

• Arcane Classes: These are all very similar mechanically, and the flavor is able to be decided by the player (where your character's powers come from). Everything has the ability to work well together and be dictated by talents.

• The arcane classes are the conjurer, deceiver, magus, necromancer, sorcerer, and wizard.

• Psionic Classes: Mechanically, these are very different from any other class. But flavor wise, they was very similar to the arcane classes; the Psion is like the wizard in that is it gains it's powers from hard work and lots of study; while the Wilder is close in flavor to the sorcerer.

• The Psionic classes are the Psion and the Wilder.

• Divine Classes: the divine classes are primarily divine casters and like the arcane classes, really just have different flavor. Once could also argue that all he magical classes are just one class with many different flavors.

• The divine classes are the Cleric, Druid, and Incarnate.

• Combat Classes: The Combat classes are not to easy as the first set to chunk, The fighter, knight, and barbarian are easy to classify because of there roll in the group is similar (The front line fighter). The Skirmisher and the ranger are not so easy. Both the skirmisher and ranger are opportunists, just like the rogue or monk. The problem is that they also don’t chunk well with either of those classes. The Skirmisher and Ranger are true combat classes.

• The combat classes are the fighter, knight and barbarian.

• Opportunists Classes: Ranger and Skirmisher are not front line fighters, they are Opportunists. They wear lighter armor, mover around the battle quickly, and are generally dexterous fighters. They Monk as well, fits this description, but has COMPLETELY different mechanics.

• The opportunist classes are the Ranger and Skirmisher.

• Skilled Classes: One way or another, the skilled classes are able to use there skills as the primary asset it the party. The bard and monk both almost work there, but not really.

• The skilled classes are the rogue, nexus, and prodigy.

• Arcane Combat Classes: We don’t really have any, the vortex is the closet thing to one, but isn’t truly arcane. This is a very viable role and needs to be addressed as such.

• The arcane combat class is vortex.

• Divine Combat Classes: These are combat focuses classes with divine magical abilities that are generally combat oriented. They have abilities that would work in neither the divine classes or combat classes section. Therefore, they get their own.

• The divine combat classes are the Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, and Scourge

• The Generalist: Well, the bard is truly a generalist and could fit into many of the other chunks of classes. I would say that this deserves a spot and is just as viable as any other role is D&D. The bard also has many leadership abilities that don't chuck well.

• The generalist class is the bard.

• The Monk: The monk is something else entirely and is almost as combat class, almost an opportunist, and also and almost a skilled class. The monks abilities make it unique and unclassifiable.

--Tombowings 00:02, May 8, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition

I think the classes should be divided into party rolls, but there are more than four possible roles in a party. Therefore, I bring fourth the following classes:

Adventurer: Keep it just how it is now. The adventurer is one of the greatest ideas I have heard of in a long time. I believe we should keep it because the adventures brings a way to mix character concepts without the need of multiclassing. This is would also be helpful for creating a generalist character.

The Bard: The bard is a traveler, a generalist, and a leader. With D&D favoring heavily this who specialize, we need an option that has a much broader scope.

• The bard would have a medium base attack bonus, good willpower and reflex saves, a good amount of skills, and medium magic abilities. The bard’s talents that express a leadership and experiences.

The Mage: The mage encompasses the world of arcane magic and with little physical combat experience. The mage will be able to choose a flavor that best suites his character concept.

• The mage would have a low base attack bonus, a good willpower save, a low amount of skills, and powerful magical abilities. Her talents will express magical knowledge, mastery, and specialization.

The Battlemage: The battle mage combines arcane mastery and physical combat ability.

• The battlemage would either have a high/medium base attack bonus, good willpower and fortitude saves, low amount of skills, and a medium magical ability.

The Cleric: The cleric gains his magical powers through the energy around him (weather deistic or not). Divine magic is not always presented by a deity, but can also come from long hours of meditation or a mystical connection to the energy of the universe (to name a few).

• The cleric would have a low base attack bonus, a good willpower save, low/medium amount of skills, and powerful magical abilities.

The Crusader: The crusader is an xxx (something about fighter and divine magical abilities that may or may be deistic).

• The crusader would have a medium/high base attack bonus, good willpower and fortitude saves, a low amount of skills, and a medium magical ability.

The Druid: The druid draws his power from the earth and his will to protect it.

• The druid will have a low/medium base attack bonus, good willpower and fortitude saves, a low/medium amount of skills, and powerful combat abilities.

• The druid is split of from the cleric for both flavor and mechanical reasons. The druid class will take over many of the ranger’s abilities.

The Fighter: The fighter is your standard front line fighter. Whether he be a tactical leader or a ruthless barbarian.

• The fighter would have a high base attack bonus, a good fortitude, a medium amount of skills, and powerful combat abilities.

The Rogue: The master of skills. The class will be geared towards a spy, thief, sneak, and other skillful roles (those are just the most common).

• The rogue will have a medium base attack bonus, a good reflex save, and a high amount of skills.

The Skirmisher: The skirmisher is your opportunist fighter. Lightly armored (if any) and mobile.

• The skirmisher will have a high base attack bonus, good reflex and fortitude saves, a medium amount of skills, and mobile combat abilities.

(maybe a monk or psion, maybe not)

--Tombowings 00:27, May 8, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Part of the "Class Discussion"

If I am forgetting a role, please tell me so that I can change what I have written accordingly.

--Tombowings 00:44, May 8, 2007 (UTC)

Too many classes. Old idea is better.--SKRP 10:18, May 8, 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem I was talking about. I agree, why can't there be a low BAB divine class? As of now, the only way to do that is to move into a prestige class. Under your proposition, you'd still have to pick a class and settle for whatever saves and skill it gives you. Again, the only realistic ideas are to make a few (or one) class with options, or just create a new class each time to fit your needs (a low BAB divine caster, for instance).

I think we should just stick to the existing Ultimate format. Your note about adding talents to the existing PHB classes is a great idea though.

--Phil 18:46, May 8, 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am going to work with this still. I know there has to be a way to make less classes that the whooping 36 we have now. I will continue to work on the ultimate classes, but right now, I have no idea left in my head for them (as you may have noticed, I work in bursts). Actually, the more I think about it, not making it an ultimate class gives me much more freedom to do what I want with them.

--Tombowings 00:51, May 9, 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! That's why I was wanting you to rename it. Make it a completely different project. Besides, it is not a requirement that you be the driving force on the Ultimate series. Many people are contributing ideas and if you step back, someone else will press on. That's the point of putting it on a Wiki anyway, it doesn't have to fall on one person like it would on the forums.

Here's my suggestion - create a page with your ideas and goals. Mark up a clear and concise road map and then follow it. Don't move forward until you are sure which route you want to take.

I've noticed that these discussions can get pretty messy here on the Wiki. If you would like, I do have a forums on the site that is available to use. Of course, you can always discuss this kind of thing on the WotC forums as well. Either way, the website is here for you guys and will always be here. Use it any way you wish.

--Phil 02:39, May 9, 2007 (UTC)

I have it starting to be set up. Please don't make it completely public for now as my ideas are still being gotten together, but I know where I'm going to take it.

--Tombowings 02:44, May 9, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Higher spell levels?

I say, this is very good. How do any casters gain higher level spells (like up to 9th level)? Do you just have to continue the spells per day tables into epic progression up to 9th-level spells, or what? --zzo38 24.207.64.154 22:01, June 3, 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm... if my memory serves me right, Szatany either decided that 8th and 9th level spells were "too powerfull" and removed them; or tinkered with spell lists and merged 8th and 9th spells to lower levels - can't really remember, it's been a long time since I've read those. Someone would have to go through whole old ultimate power thread to digg it out (old i.e the one Szatany made, not the one linked here). Malek Deneith 21:09, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

• You said that there isn't a real Arcane Combat Class, but maybe make something like the ultimate Paladin is now, but with arcane casting. Call it something like Ultimate Spellblade or such.

[edit] Forums

Don't forget, if you'd rather post your ideas on forums, I have those available at http://www.liquidmateria.info/phpBB3.

I've never been able to use it. Can't get the image for registration to load. --Tombowings 07:01, July 30, 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What email address are you attempting to use? I'll create the account for you... --Phil 09:57, July 30, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it won't load, i have no idea why. Well, you know my e-mail: ian@.liquidmateria.info --Tombowings 19:09, July 30, 2007 (UTC)

I created an account on your behalf. Check your email for the activation, and for my email with your password. --Phil 00:28, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gadgeteer

Seems as though you guys might be dropping the Ultimate style as is, so this might be a bit late, but... I've been working on the Gadgeteer for my campaign (it's called Technologist now), and while most of the class doesn't fit in with the Ultimate series (I've modded it for a no-magic campaign, so...) I think something might be able to be garnered some additions for the Gadgeteer entry, especially from the Inventions section. Technologist

I was going to post it to the WotC forums, but most no-magic stuff doesn't get looked at, and anyways the base of it belongs to you guys. :p Traverse 00:13, November 30, 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to repost it anywhere you'd like, so long as you follow these basic rules. --Phil 13:14, November 30, 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I keep looking at the Gadgeteer class (Both the Ulitmate class and the one above) and it could just be me, but it seems very...complicated without having the actual invention point system shown. Sure, it's explained, but that dosn't completly explain the limitations on it. Do you have to start with a ranged weapon, or could you make a sword into a sword cannon or something to that effect? I know that's a silly idea, but it's just the first example I could think of. Chaotic Redder 07:07, August 11, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Vessel

Hello. I was just looking over these classes (I didn't realize that the ultimate classes had been moved to a wiki) and I was wondering if the Vessel is suppose to be more of a backup fighter or something more like a specialized berzerker. I was also seeing if anyone had any more ideas for some of the class abilities. Chaotic Redder 22:23, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

Here's some answers. As one of the few who has put any work into the Vessel, here's how I see it. The Vessel is a class that depends alot on the DM and the player working together, and so is mainly a roleplaying class. It's made for the Dm and the player to have a fun story driven character that can greatly impact the way the story progressess. That is how the Vessel should be played, and it's combat role is greatly dependent on it. Unless we take it in a completely new direction, the basics of the Vessel are that it has small passive bonuses most of the time, but in the moment of need (or at the inopportune moment due to DM) becomes a monsterous powerhouse (usualy in control of the DM) that can often win the day single handedly. But I stress that it will probably only work well when played roleplaying style rather than min/maxing rollplaying. As for the lack of progress on it, there's just not enough people willing to put time into it for some reason. I personally haven't been working on it because it's kinda hard with only 2 to 3 people working on it and my creativity comes in short bursts. I would love to see the Vessel and the Gadgeteer finished though, so feel ENCOURAGED to post any ideas you might have for the them. --RageFist 19:26, August 10, 2007 (UTC)

Well...one thing I thought of was that there should be a definate flavor to the beast, and it is very customizable...but maybe the bonuses should be sectioned off into different groups. I was thinking that there might be a way to give the same customizability, but give the inner beast a 'type' to fit around the abilities. The combat training I like, but something I notcie is that it seems to progress VERY fast, especally the inner beast. I can see that becoming very unbalanced even without min/maxing. Of course that would be mostly because I'm always nervous about someting I could think of abusing. Chaotic Redder 06:48, August 11, 2007 (UTC)

As for beast, why not give it a stronger psionic flavor similar to Kalashtar & Quori?

[edit] Ultimates and 4e

hurry with the classes, 4e is coming :D --Bludgeon 20:55, August 17, 2007 (UTC)

Ah shit... I'm going to start a 4e section so that we can discuss it and get a handle on what it is going to be and what changes are going to be made from 3.5 --Phil 22:20, August 17, 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a LOT --Bludgeon 12:42, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

BTW, any idea why I cannot respond to 4e thread even when I'm logged in? --Bludgeon 12:44, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

I'll check on it and get it fixed. --Phil 03:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure...at all.--Tombowings 18:49, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that 4e is going to be all that good. Sure some stuff for combat, but I sure don't want to spend about 10 bucks a month for the REST of the stuff that should be in my books just because of that internet game table.Chaotic Redder

That $10 a month will be for things that couldn't go in a book anyway, like a digital play area, and internet play. That subscription also gives you their new versions of Dungeon Magazine and Dragon Magazine - which will have small updates 3 times a week and a larger monthly update. --Phil 03:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on some parts, but most stuff looks very promising.--Bludgeon 21:19, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

I just hate the new Tiefling. Other than that, we'll see. It looks like they're really taking some initiative to fix the broken-ness of DnD up to this point, though, which is good. --Mauver 02:48, May 4, 2008 (UTC)

Please DO NOT change everything to fourth edition! Make a separate section for fourth edition ultimate classes. Keep third edition / 3.5 edition ultimate classes in this section. Many people still prefer 3.5e. Some people like 4e. Some people play both. Some people play 4e and 3.5e and AD&D and other games also. Keep 3.5e ultimate classes for people who play 3.5e and for people who play both, and make a completely separate section for 4e ultimate classes, for people who play 4e and for people who play both. --Zzo38 02:13, June 14, 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, we're definitely keeping (and continuing to work on) the 3.5 classes. Everyone knows just how much the Ultimates have been used since work was started on them. (>-.-)>--Traverse 03:13, June 14, 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to 'reverse engineer' several 4e concepts into 3e Ultimates? I like the idea of Skill Groups and Weapon Groups... perhaps put those under Ultimate Variants?

Also, I've often been irked that class feature progression stopped at level 20, continuing advancements of current abilities without anything really new/cool (and most epic feats are weak/boring, and spell seeds... well). I personaly have word docs of pre-wiki Ultimates using Monte's 21st-25th level progression from Arcana Evolved (AE). Now that 4e official reconizes the 3-Tiers advancement levels (making it obvious that few run 30+ campaigns), how much would 'reverse engineering' the 3e-Ultimates core mechanics with offical 3rd-Tier Epic progression? And what of 1st and 2nd Tier... certain classes such as Rogue could benefit from distinctions. --Falconeye 21:52, August 22, 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see this put to work, actually. A lot of ideas have been put out about merging what's good about the two systems... If 3.5 could entirely eliminate dead levels, merge skills, perhaps cut down on +2/-2 gameplay and focus more on actual abilities, and find a balanced way of giving out more feats (I know some people who just give everyone a bonus feat at level 1 and give out feats at every 2 instead of 3 levels from there on), while leaving the thing as open-ended for homebrew as possible (as opposed to the 4e template), we'd be getting closer to an ideal DnD system. 4e is on the right track in many ways, but I think others are flawed. Also, whenever you have new ideas, feel free to write up a whole new page for them and stick them under the variants. Even if you think it's completely unbalanced or disruptive to gameplay; I think one of the main reasons to have this wiki is to put up ideas for evaluation by other people. --Mauver 09:38, August 7, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spells Per Day

I was thinking on this, and something occured to me. What if we set spells per day to assume 4 encounters/day like the DMG assumes (not that everyone should follow that, but the game's practically built around it). That is to say, rather than starting out with 1 1st level spell/day, a wizard would start with 4 1st level spells/day. The character then gets 2 spells/day of the highest spell level it can cast for every level afterward. It's discrete and more easily measured than a character picking up one third and fourth level spell, and then a single fifth level spell. At least, so I would think. --Zyrusticae 19:11, February 1, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marking the classes

Do we really need to mark the pages as a work in progress? I think it is safe to assume that ALL of them are WIP, and that they will never be final. --Phil 01:40, February 7, 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Some of the classes are in an obviously less "complete" state than the others. I think it's good to mark the ones that need the most attention, as opposed to the classes that just need minor adjustments. --Zyrusticae 04:04, February 8, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outright revamp/update of stuff, or maybe a variant system of rules.

What's wrong with the core rules? I don't think it's really that spellcasters are overpowered as it is that everyone else is underpowered. Oh, but there are some big exceptions to that.

1. Save-or-die effects. Or worse, no-save-just-die effects like Power Word Kill. This really is the major thing that overpowers arcane spellcasters, as well as contributing greatly to the overpowered-ness of divine ones. I would also consider it to apply to sleep and paralysis spells, and anything else that makes you "helpless", since helpless often means dead anyway. 2. The kind of ridiculous divine spells that make anyone who uses them better than everyone else at their own job. Divine Might is the trademark example. In a hypothetical one-on-one between a cleric and fighter, the cleric can do everything the fighter does, better, and then casts spells. 3. Metamagic cheese. What depresses me is that most of this can be overcome by a DM who doesn't just sit there doing everything rules-as-written. Divine Metamagic[Persistent Spell(Divine Might)} and you're a fighter for a day. Solution? Ban Persistent Spell on Divine Might. It's clearly not meant to be used that way anyway. 4. I just want to devote a little category to the fact that Druids can do everything, and have a companion who can take on a fighter of the same level as the druid without any help (even buffs) from that druid. And then they can wildshape. And cast spells. Guh. I've actually heard praise from druid players for the ultimate classes for the simple fact that you don't have to deal with keeping track of a massive spell list, animal companion, AND wildshape, because even though it makes them obscenely versatile, it's hard to keep track of.

There are others, but here's the real point: I don't think the ultimate classes really fix these problems. They minimize them, but in the process they throw a few things out the window. Heck, they even make some things less fun; the cleric is more balanced, but it's also less fun to play with that slowed spell progression and only one domain to start off with, along with the fact that it's hard to get into melee with that trashy hit die. And in the end, once they've got Hold Person, they can still kill a fighter of the same level with ease. Just as an example of what I want to do, I want to make the healer path capable of healing at short range (and accomplishing something by doing so), the Chaplain capable of buffing at long range (both of these allowing the cleric to stay out of danger and encouraging them doing their job, as opposed to trying to beat the fighter at his own area of expertise), the zealot capable of really smashing heads in the name of Kord, the Friar capable of outright confounding the adversary with philosophical gibberish, etc. Stuff that's fun to play. Keep in mind that the core had those ridiculous prestige classes. I don't want to make things as ridiculous as that at all, but I want to bring the versatility of them back. I want to minimize the effectiveness of the stuff above (particularly save-or-dies), while making everyone else capable of keeping up (so the other classes can get some extra junk as well, particularly the monk, rogue, and bard, I think). This may all sound pretty nuts, but I've seen some big changes made over the past bit that I think this accommodates for. Only certain spells are really "overpowered". I think even in the core rules, a wizard entirely focused on evocations would lose against a fighter. I want to open up even more options as well; I'd like paths to start looking a bit more like sorcerer bloodlines; you have one path, but many options on the way down it. That may not be necessary and perhaps needlessly complicated, though.

Another thing: we've got all kinds of arcane spellcasters right now, and even a nice variety of psionic classes, but not much love for divine spellcasters. I think it's sort of a taboo, considering how ridiculous they were in the core rules, but I'd like to see an Incarnate who isn't so... inferior to the cleric in every way. And a prodigy who isn't so wonky. Though it's still far better done than the Incarnate.

Now that I've made this edit I'm not entirely sure where I was going with it anymore. I think basically what I'm saying is that I'd like to make some major changes. Going to propose some stuff in the cleric discussion right now. If it sucks, let me know. --Mauver 09:01, August 18, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this not protected?

Really this is the question here. If you are not going to bother to monitor every change on every class then why do you not protect the classes that have already been completed? Do you know how easy it is to cheat by simply changing the classes to suit you? Please do something about it.

I'm constantly watching them and reverting stupid changes. Calm down, everything is in order ;) --SKRP 11:09, January 25, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Links

Ultimate Links doesn't work.