Prestige Classes for ToEE

[Elestan]

I would reserve space for the following from the SRD:

The five NPC classes:

• Adept
• Aristocrat
• Commoner
• Expert
• Warrior

The three "Prestige variant" base classes:

• Prestige Bard
• Prestige Paladin
• Prestige Ranger

The three "Generic Classes":

• Expert
• Spellcaster
• Warrior (Note name clash with the NPC class; possibly rename to "Combatant")

Also note that most of the basic classes have an "Epic" variant.

TBH, I might consider trying to take one enum (127?) and using it to indicate "Don't look at this enum; instead look at this string over here". Then we could use string values for class identifiers, which would be much more extensible.

I would also suggest introducing some kind of group identifier for classes, because people are going to want to enable/disable them by group. So there would be something like "CoreBase", "CorePrestige", "CoreGeneric", "CorePsionic", "CoreNPC", "TomeOfBattle", "CompleteArcane", etc.

 

[Sitra Achara]

I would reserve space for the following from the SRD:

The five NPC classes:

• Adept
• Aristocrat
• Commoner
• Expert
• Warrior

The three "Prestige variant" base classes:

• Prestige Bard
• Prestige Paladin
• Prestige Ranger

The three "Generic Classes":

• Expert
• Spellcaster
• Warrior (Note name clash with the NPC class; possibly rename to "Combatant")

Also note that most of the basic classes have an "Epic" variant.

TBH, I might consider trying to take one enum (127?) and using it to indicate "Don't look at this enum; instead look at this string over here". Then we could use string values for class identifiers, which would be much more extensible.

I would also suggest introducing some kind of group identifier for classes, because people are going to want to enable/disable them by group. So there would be something like "CoreBase", "CorePrestige", "CoreGeneric", "CorePsionic", "CoreNPC", "TomeOfBattle", "CompleteArcane", etc.

Welcome Elestan!

It's certainly possible to expand and generalize the system, but when I started out I felt that until ToEE actually crossed something to the tune of 30-40 character classes it'd be useless, so I opted to keep it simple.

The character class files do internally contain a string identifier similar to what you said.

Regarding epics, that's just a different behavior for the same class after level 20, no?

 

[Elestan]

I would reserve space for the following from the SRD:
TBH, I might consider trying to take one enum (127?) and using it to indicate "Don't look at this enum; instead look at this string over here". Then we could use string values for class identifiers, which would be much more extensible.

I would also suggest introducing some kind of group identifier for classes, because people are going to want to enable/disable them by group. So there would be something like "CoreBase", "CorePrestige", "CoreGeneric", "CorePsionic", "CoreNPC", "TomeOfBattle", "CompleteArcane", etc.

It's certainly possible to expand and generalize the system, but when I started out I felt that until ToEE actually crossed something to the tune of 30-40 character classes it'd be useless, so I opted to keep it simple. The character class files do internally contain a string identifier similar to what you said.

Well, the advantage to making an expandable system before opening the gates to people making their own classes is that it saves rework. Once there are a bunch of 3rd-party classes, changing the system requires either retrofitting them all, or putting extra work into backward compatibility.

Regarding epics, that's just a different behavior for the same class after level 20, no?

Correct, I think; they just stop getting Save and BAB.

 

[Sitra Achara]

Well, the advantage to making an expandable system before opening the gates to people making their own classes is that it saves rework. Once there are a bunch of 3rd-party classes, changing the system requires either retrofitting them all, or putting extra work into backward compatibility.

Not a lot of rework, fortunately. I made sure to define a constant class_enum = xyz at the start of every class spec and use that from there on. So if someone wants to create a class that is not on the list and submit it, it should be an easy change.

 

[Valky]

Not to rain on ideas but I don't see much point of doing the work for epics. Even with the new modules being worked on (KotB and IWD), there isn't anywhere near enough stuff to get a playthrough past level 20 in a worthwhile manner.

 

[Endarire]

Also, remember, in tabletop 3.5, level 20 is frickin' awesome! We're talking "Why aren't you an invincible caster yet?" levels of awesome. Epic just kinda exists for people who want higher level stuff without being notably higher powered.

But adding the 'epic' martial content to the game for non-epic characters is probably appropriate balance-wise. Tome of Battle is probably a better balance point than even epic martial stuff pre-epic.

 

[Valky]

The point is that there's no gameplay to use it on if it's put in. Modding new classes is significantly simpler than creating new modules.

 

[Sitra Achara]

Yeah, that's why I went for PRCs before Epics

I think with solo runs you might possibly break into epic levels, since some people apparently get to level 17 with parties.

 

[Endarire]

With Co8 v8.1 New Content, I went with a 2-member party. We got to level 19 and 20 by the end. We would have been higher if not for crafting lots of stuff.

 

[Elestan]

Not to rain on ideas but I don't see much point of doing the work for epics. Even with the new modules being worked on (KotB and IWD), there isn't anywhere near enough stuff to get a playthrough past level 20 in a worthwhile manner.

Note that I wasn't saying to implement the epic classes; just to reserve identifiers for them if necessary.

 

[Selween]

Hello there,
First of all, my english isn't perfect (not my native language), I hope that i will not make too much mistakes while writing.

I recently discovered this incredibly awesome game, and after some trials on it (a few hours, barely) to see how far the game go within the d&d rules, i could't resist the urge to see if someone actually worked on mods for it.
And i think you can easily imagine how far from the reality : this forum seems extremely interesting, and i would love to try all of this ! Especially yours, based on classes and prestige classes (i love diversity, and it offers that)
If I understand well, you even add pathfinder classes, wich is fantastic too (i'm a fan of the pathfinder inquisitor, and magus is particularly enjoyable too).

However, i cannot find any instructions to make all of this work, and i have to admit that i'm not really an intensive pc-user...
This is why I'd like to ask you, does this forum have a part for new members ? Somewhere i could find the instructions i need ?

Anyway, thanks for your work !

 

[Elestan]

Favored Soul nearly done, going to be the first new base class available in Temple+.

Okay, so I just took a look at Favored Soul as compared to Sorcerer, and I'm a bit puzzled...it's got the same spell progression as a Sorcerer, a better known spells progression, d8 HP instead of d4, three good saves instead of one, and a whole set of special abilities instead of a Familiar. Are the classes from the Complete series supposed to just be better than the standard classes, or am I missing some other balancing factor between the two?

This relates to T+ in that I have hopes of eventually implementing a more flexible point-buy character advancement system on top of T+, but that requires figuring out point values for various abilities such that the classes are balanced with respect to each other, and I don't see how to reconcile these two.

 

[Sitra Achara]

Hello there,
First of all, my english isn't perfect (not my native language), I hope that i will not make too much mistakes while writing.

I recently discovered this incredibly awesome game, and after some trials on it (a few hours, barely) to see how far the game go within the d&d rules, i could't resist the urge to see if someone actually worked on mods for it.
And i think you can easily imagine how far from the reality : this forum seems extremely interesting, and i would love to try all of this ! Especially yours, based on classes and prestige classes (i love diversity, and it offers that)
If I understand well, you even add pathfinder classes, wich is fantastic too (i'm a fan of the pathfinder inquisitor, and magus is particularly enjoyable too).

However, i cannot find any instructions to make all of this work, and i have to admit that i'm not really an intensive pc-user...
This is why I'd like to ask you, does this forum have a part for new members ? Somewhere i could find the instructions i need ?

Anyway, thanks for your work !

You have to enable PrCs in the configuration utility.

For more info, see the support thread and FAQ.

Okay, so I just took a look at Favored Soul as compared to Sorcerer, and I'm a bit puzzled...it's got the same spell progression as a Sorcerer, a better known spells progression, d8 HP instead of d4, three good saves instead of one, and a whole set of special abilities instead of a Familiar. Are the classes from the Complete series supposed to just be better than the standard classes, or am I missing some other balancing factor between the two?

This relates to T+ in that I have hopes of eventually implementing a more flexible point-buy character advancement system on top of T+, but that requires figuring out point values for various abilities such that the classes are balanced with respect to each other, and I don't see how to reconcile these two.

I think you'll go mad if you attempt something that is absolutely balanced even base D&D is unbalanced.
Other than that, I think it's fairer to compare FS to Cleric.

 

[Elestan]

I think you'll go mad if you attempt something that is absolutely balanced even base D&D is unbalanced.
Other than that, I think it's fairer to compare FS to Cleric.

That's harder to do, because it's difficult to compare power levels between the two casting systems. Intuitively, I would have guessed that spontaneous casting would be considered stronger by virtue of its flexibility, but the fact that Vancian casters get fewer spells per day than spontaneous casters seems to indicate that the game designers put a very high value on the ability to have an open-ended spellbook - enough to not only outweigh the flexibility of spontaneous casting, but also to justify wizards maxing out at 2/3 the spells/day of a sorcerer.

 

[Sitra Achara]

You could look at the delta between Sorc and Wiz and try to apply that to the Cleric. Using that, you trade domain powers and spells for better saves and a few specific powers.
Also, the spontaneous casting flexibility is arguably a lesser benefit to Clerics since they already have it for healing spells.

 

[Endarire]

Why each class is in it's tier

That explains a lot of class imbalance and why such classe are as they are. In short, casters > else. In ToEE, this is still true but fewer sources are available. Pure melee still proves useful sometimes due to no 3D movement and no Persistent Spell. There are also fewer high-level abilities for casters, but also for all classes. Last playthrough was pre-T+ but had an Elf Wizard19 and a Human Cleric20 at the end. Both meleed by taking a weapon proficiency feat. Both took Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, and Cleave. The Cleric also had Great Cleave. Both crafted. Both were quite useful - and more useful than pure melee - once they hit level 11ish. Before then, melee was debatably comparable or even more useful due to those classes getting more feats and BAB sooner, as well as Rage and Fast Movement.

 

[Elestan]

Why each class is in it's tier

Thanks for that; it's an interesting read. I was probably undervaluing specialization, which helps a Wizard catch up to a Sorc in spells/day. Thinking about it, Specialization (let alone focused specialization) seems rather OP, actually; it gives you a 25% (or 50%) increase in spells/day in exchange for the restrictions on spells learned. That seems like too small a price for the amount of power granted, and makes it hard to justify ever building a generalist Wizard.

 

[Jason Liang]

Is it possible for someone to make some of the variant core classes (from Unearthed Arcana)? They seem really cool but mybe I'm too munchkin.

The ones that look interesting (brief summary)

Totem Barbarians (replaces fast movement, trap sense and uncanny dodge for other feats): would make Barbarian/ Rogue much more compatible multiclass

Thug Fighter (fighter with 4 skill points, light armor only, -1 feat): would make fighter a better starting class

Urban Ranger (ranger with city-useful spells [knock lvl 2, invisibility lvl 3, true seeing lvl 4]): better rogue multiclass

Wildshape Ranger (ranger with basic wildshape and fast movement instead of combat style): a more dedicated wildshape fighter than Druid

Cloistered Cleric (cleric with 6 skill points, bonus Knowledge domain, more class skills, lore bonus, d6 HD, wizard BAB, light armor only): would make cleric a better starting class

Domain Wizard (Wizard with arcane domain instead of specialization)

Martial Wizard (Wizard that chooses from Fighter bonus feats instead of Wizard bonus feats, loses scribe): helps wizard qualify for some prestige classes faster

Battle Sorcerer (d8 HD, cleric BaB, light armor proficiency+no spell failure in light armor, light weapon proficiency, but -1 spells known/ cast each spell level): good for role playing purposes and helps differentiate Sorcerers from Wizards

Savage Bard (Bard with druid spells [reincarnation lvl 6], fortitude instead of reflex saves, but can't scribe)

Wilderness Rogue (exchanges social skills for ranger skills, adds Woodland Stride, Camouflage -> Hide in Plain Sight as rogue special feats): Hide in Plain Sight, duh

Martial Rogue (Rogue that gains Fighter bonus feats instead of sneak attack): not sure about this one, seems too munchkin

 

[Endarire]

Jason: I like those variants too. They aren't munchkin (because munchkin means cheating) but extra options.

 

[Elestan]

They aren't munchkin (because munchkin means cheating) but extra options.

Interesting...in my gaming circles, "Munchkin" includes character constructions that are legal, but which are clearly selected for the purpose of increasing character power at the expense of roleplaying quality. I discourage or disallow them in multiplayer games, because if one player does it, the others tend to feel forced to follow suit to avoid becoming inadequate by comparison. Looking at Martial Rogue, I don't know if I'd strictly label it Munchkin (it seems like a valid thing to do from an RP standpoint), but it does seem OP; the mechanical implication is that every die of sneak attack damage is equivalent to a Feat, and that doesn't seem right.

With that said, TOEE is a single-player game, and these are officially published options, so I'd be in favor of making them available.

 

[Endarire]

I'd rather us not clutter this thread on terminology definitions and associations, but "optimization" or "min/maxing" is very different from "munchkin." Optimizers work within the rules to get what they want. Munchkins cheat. It's quite possible to make a mechanically effective character who can roleplay well, and, generally, wise character creation leads to character builds that can actually do what their flavor/story intends for them to do.

Being respectful of a group's optimization level/plot/interpersonal dynamics/norms is separate from one's optimization/munchkin status. These are different variables. Thus, it's possible to discretely cheat but still be respectful of the players, just as it's possible to make something that's rules-legal but disrespectful to the group. For example, some groups are OK with the Cleric using Greater Turning more than once per day without explicit GM permission - even though it isn't in the rules.

FYI, it's possible to get lots of (nearly) infinite abilites on one character using only the 3.5 core rules. Breaking the Core.

 

[Elestan]

"optimization" or "min/maxing" is very different from "munchkin." Optimizers work within the rules to get what they want. Munchkins cheat.

I'll note that Wikipedia's definition differs somewhat from both of ours, so it's probably best to just say that "Munchkin" does not have a universally accepted definition.

 

[deuxhero]

Domain wizard was just broken (You get a bunch of stuff at no cost), but the rest are fine. Martial Rogue isn't powerful in any way, though Sneak Attack fighter (which can explicitly be combined with Thug despite replacing the same features) isn't the worst opinion (as ToEE has pretty few feats).

 

[SwingBlade]

Whew, haven't checked this out in a while, very impressed!

Would anyone be able to tool up the Dread Necromancer base class, and/or True Necromancer PRC? You'll never guess what I'm into.

 

[ikarinokami]

would pathfinder style archtypes be possible?