Grunker's Comments on the Classes Thread

Here's the place to talk about the features you would like to see in a sequel to KotC.

THE PSYCHIC WARRIOR

Postby Grunker » Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:53 pm

THE PSYCHIC WARRIOR

The psychic warrior is fine. No comments :)
Grunker
Fire Giant (CR 10)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am

THE PSYCHIC WARRIOR

Advert
 

THE RANGER

Postby Grunker » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:09 pm

THE RANGER

The ranger has a couple of problems. It seems vastly underpowered compared to most classes; its spell selection is bad compared to the paladin, it gains very few class features, and those it gains are underwhelming. Do you use magic ammunition? If you do, the ranger is very expensive. All the other classes need one fantastic weapon, while the ranger needs to replenish its "magic weapon" by using money and time.

- Careful Shot: This ability is useless. On almost every occasion I would not use this ability. My suggestion is the following: Careful Shot 1: The ranger reduces the penalty taken on an Aimed Shot by 1 (to -3). Gained on level 7. On level 14, the Ranger gains Careful Shot 2 (which reduces the penalty by a further 1).

- Aimed Shot is nice, but remember that you give up plenty of attacks to do it. Thusly, it should improve later on, say level 11 for instance. Legs and Arms become d8 rounds, Head becomes D4 rounds and they gain "Heart" which automatically inflicts a critical hit if it hits and the victim does not save.

- Archery Bonus should be bigger. Say +1 at level 5, +2 at level 10, +3 at 15 and +4 at level 20.

- As the paladin, grant the ranger the ability to cast spells as a swift/free action once per day at 10th and twice per day at 20th.

- Grant the ranger Rapid Shot at level 6. Rapid Shot means it can take a penalty of -2 to attacks and in turn is granted one extra attack per round at full BAB. At level 12 grant it Improved Rapid Shot; the penalty remains -2 but it can now make two extra attacks per round at full BAB. This is akin to two-weapon fighting, except the ranger still uses the inferior method of ranged attacking instead of melee attacking.

- Grant the Ranger the "Powerful Shot" ability on level 8, enabling it to add its Dexterity modifier to damage with ranged attacks. This is to make up for the inherent powerlessness of ranged attacks (they can't use power attack and so on).

As a last note, why would I ever use Stun Arrow instead of Hold Arrow? :)
Last edited by Grunker on Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Grunker
Fire Giant (CR 10)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am

THE ROGUE

Postby Grunker » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:17 pm

THE ROGUE

The rogue is mostly fine. I have a few notes however:

Death Strike: Again, percentile-based abilities are bad, especially when they kill. How about instead giving the rogue's sneak attack condition-inducing effects? It gains 5% death chance at level 14 - you could substitute that with a 100% chance of Fortitude save to avoid the "fatigued" condition on each successful sneak attack. At level 18 it gains 10% - upgrade fatigued to exhausted.

Evasion: Rogues should get Improved Evasion later :)

Dexterity: Perhaps grant the rogue the ability to use Dexterity as damage modifier instead of Strength at level 10 or so? Or alternatively make a Rogue-only feat that does this? This is a relatively easily gained feat in Tome of Battle, which makes a big difference for rogues.
Last edited by Grunker on Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Grunker
Fire Giant (CR 10)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am

THE SORCERER

Postby Grunker » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:22 pm

THE SORCERER

Holy hell in a handbasket! I don't have too much to say here, as it's hard to get a complete view of just exactly how powerful gaining access to both cleric and wizard spells is. On the other hand, with the limited spell selection, it should be fine.
Grunker
Fire Giant (CR 10)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am

THE WIZARD

Postby Grunker » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:23 pm

THE WIZARD

I don't have too many comments here, just a note on the familiar:

Toad: This is sub-par compared to the others. A +1 Hit Point per level bonus would be better, I think.

Spider: A +2 bonus on Spell Resistance would be fine, I think.
Grunker
Fire Giant (CR 10)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am

Re: Grunker's Comments on the Classes Thread

Postby Grunker » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:24 pm

That's it from me! Again, thanks a whole whole bunch for making KotC! I really hope KotC2 becomes a reality, it looks so DAMN, DAMN fine!

I hope you are able to use my suggestions, and I'm more than willing to discuss them with you and present more fleshed-out class features once you back with what you might want to use :)
Grunker
Fire Giant (CR 10)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am

Re: Grunker's Comments on the Classes Thread

Postby Tiavals » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:58 pm

I'll hold my own comments until Blue Salamander has said his piece.

But the gist is, I disagree a huge amount about some of your propositions(most seem pretty good). I'll go into more detail about it later.
Tiavals
Mature Red Dragon (CR 18)
Psionicist
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:02 pm

Re: Grunker's Comments on the Classes Thread

Postby Grunker » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:51 pm

Tiavals wrote:I'll hold my own comments until Blue Salamander has said his piece.

But the gist is, I disagree a huge amount about some of your propositions(most seem pretty good). I'll go into more detail about it later.


Great! On the "disagreeing hugely" part: Most of the professional writers on big systems - especially systems as complex as 3.5 - hold to the belief that true balance in a gaming system is an illusion, and I hold the same belief. I.e. it's only natural and good that players disagree a lot on balancing in these types of games, because they are each able to see different problems within alternative sets of rules.

My goal with these suggestions have primarily been to up the power of fighting classes, because I (and indeed most seasoned players and designers) know from a very extensive career with 3rd edition that spellcasters gain a very large edge at a certain point. Clerics basically get to fight like fighters and cast spells on top from level 7. This is the primary reason for the Tome of Battle being made, for instance.

So this, my overall foundation for my suggestions, I hold to. Now, the specific changes I suggest is something else entirely. They are preliminary suggestions for the direction I think the rules should take, so I welcome criticism of them with open arms :)

And indeed, in the end, it is up to BlueSalamander if he even wants to heed my suggestions, both from the perspective of whether he agrees with me, and in terms of the resources required to program stuff.
Grunker
Fire Giant (CR 10)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am

Re: Grunker's Comments on the Classes Thread

Postby BlueSalamander » Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:11 pm

At first I missed the first page of your comments (I started reading on the 2nd page). Gosh you did write a lot, well done and thank you!

I'm giddy as a school girl with expectation
:lol:

- I suggest that you change smite and similar abilities so they are used up even on failed attempts. They are very powerful abilities generally, and should not be free.
You may be right, but I saw this as a way to make the Paladin and the Cleric's Smite ability as more attractive. Paladin is often criticised in the D&D 3.5 rules, it shouldn't be!

For the Barbarian, I would suggest taking notes from Pathfinder, which handles the Barbarian in an excellent manner.
Okay while the added options from Pathfinder certainly seem very interesting, I would question two things - first the power of the class and second the principle that this class is supposed to be something easy to manage. In terms of raw power the barbarian is already the one class with the highest attack bonus and that makes it attractive on this basis alone. Next I think that the Barbarian should be simple - just like the type of character it embodies. I don't see a Barbarian as a tactician who needs to think whether to bite or pounce. It's just 'see enemy - kill enemy' IMO. That's his charm. An additional bite attack would seem pretty minor compared to a normal attack with a weapon. The Pounce ability, as a feat maybe, I'm not sure. Bull rush as part of an attack - see the Knockback feat in the general list of feats.

- Lingering Song is absolutely useless.
What if you're running out of bard ability uses, though?

- Initiating a song should probably be a Swift action, not a free action. Have you implemented Swift actions? If not, just keep it as a free action, it's not that big of a deal.
No swift actions but most (probably all) free actions will be useable once per round only. Just like 5-foot-step or Use inventory in KotC.

by way of power attack and strength bonus
Power attack, Fighting Defensively and Total Defense will not be implemented as I don't like them.

the bard is perhaps not good enough on the terms of just its abilities.
Okay. Personally I like the concept; he's a bit like the Duelist. You do music, help in fighting as long as you have HP, and in some circumstances you use spells. You are saying: give him buffs. Then, how about a bard spell to gain temporary HPs? I don't really get the point of reducing his BAB and HP and then giving him a spell that increases his BAB and HP? Perhaps it's not clear in the page that the Bard also benefits from the effect of his own songs?

[Cleric] My only suggestions would be granting a single Domain Power on levels 1, 5 and 15, so it feels like there is some progression in the class besides spellcasting.
Yes that's doable. Your level progression seems lopsided, how about 1,7,15 instead. But there is something cool in having access to two powers right from the start too.

Do the 1/day powers also expend turn attempts?
Yes.

Paralysis: Should be a Fortitude saving throw.
Why? Tiavals even thought that this option isn't good enough as is. Fortitude would make it worse.

Banishment: I would never pick this domain power. It is very narrow, and most creatures will make their saves. Make it dispel all summons in the area automatically as well as banishing other outsiders as it does now, and remove the 1/day rule. Make sure loot stays behind. These changes would make me consider picking it
Okay for removing 1/day. Loot always stay behind. Auto dispel of summons - no, because, your cleric of level 20 shouldn't have his summons dispelled by a cleric of level 1 without a check.
Maybe I should just remove this domain power. It is indeed narrow and the cleric has dismissal and banishment spells anyway. Alternatively, how about a Banishment domain that would only give a +1 bonus to all your cleric Protection from Alignment, Mass Protection from Alignment, Greater Protection from Alignment, Dispel, Greater Dispel, Dismissal and Banishment spells?

Destruction and Healing: Is this a permanent passive, or does it have a duration?
They are permanent. But they lose in usefulness when you get Heal or Harm.

[death knight] Base saves: Should be high Fort and Will, in my opinion, and low Ref. High Ref doesn't make much sense.
Yes, but lots of classes have high Will already, while few have high Ref so I figure a change would be a good thing. They're a bit close to the Rogue after all.

Smite: I would give the Death Knight more Smite attempts. Something like at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18. Especially if you add my change regarding losing Smite attempts if the attack does not hit.
I think I prefer that the Charisma ability be the relevant factor for the number of smites. Also, I'd prefer if the player isn't afraid of wasting his smite (because then he might refrain from trying to smite a high-AC monster).

Life drain: Make this usable as part of an attack instead like smite, but keep the requirement of a standard action. This makes it a natural part of what the death knight wants to do - it wants to attack. So it should say "You can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus that deals an additional amount of damage equal to 1d6 Hit Points per two levels, rounded up. A creature is entitled to a Fortitude saving throw do cut this additional damage in half. The death knight is healed of an amount equal to the additional damage dealt."
I don't like this.

Death Attack: "Extra damage dealt in melee to an enemy who is sickened, nauseated, fatigued, exhausted, blinded, stunned, held, paralyzed, confused, disabled, fascinated, shaken, frightened, helpless, grappled, panicked, pinned, prone, staggered, limping, impaired, or bleeding. This ability only works if the enemy is not immune to critical hits." This makes it worse than sneak attack because the target needs to have a condition applied, but better because it works on creatures that are concealed and doesn't need flanking or loss of Dex to work.
The ability works when you lose your Dex bonus to AC. So it already includes Grappled, Pinned, Held, Paralyzed, Blinded and Stunned.
Now, should it also work when the target is fatigued/exhausted, and should Life Drain make the target fatigued? Good question.

[druid] I am tempted to call it, quite possibly, the most horrible class of all the classes
Possibly. It's probably because I'm not too fond of the druid in D&D 3.5.
If the natural armor bonus is not enough we can increase. The druid has some unique powers. Like if you cast 'Call Ligthning' after resting, you'll basically have an at-will power to deal shock damage in a 10' radius every round. Not too shabby I think. Perhaps a bonus of 1 shock point of damage per level is in order though. I don't intend for any class to be able to summon more than one creature at a time. But Free action summoning spells (not Spell-like abilities) sounds like a good idea. Aspects would be too complicated and possibly overpowered.

[fighter] Survival: This should be one feat that does two things: Firstly, it should double the death cap (from -10 to -20) and secondly it should allow the fighter to keep fighting until he drops to -10. Otherwise, I'm not sure this feat is at all worth it.
Okay apparently this feat is not good enough so maybe two feats instead of three (one cuts threshold from -10 to -15 and the other from -15 to -20). Disagree with fighting in negative HP.

First off, give the fighter d12 HD. This is really not unbalanced.
Maybe. It's mostly to keep the Barbarian's supremacy that the fighter has D10.

Tower-Shield Expertise: This should be one feat that reduces the penalty to 0, again, to give the Fighter some umph.
Okay.

Two-Handed Specialization: Ups the strength multiplier from 1.5 to 2 when using two-handed weapons. Requires 16 strength and fighter level 6+.
There's already a feat called Two-Handed Weapon Expertise (+1 to damage with all two-handed weapons and with one-handed weapons wielded with two hands). Don't you think your feat would make two-handed fighting the only viable option?

Powerful Build: Increase weapon damage and grapple as if half-giant, without actually becoming large, and taking no penalties to AC and Attack. Requires fighter level 5+, non-half giant.
No as this would actually reduce the usefulness of the race Half-giant.

Powerful Criticals: Increase critical hit multiplier for selected weapon group by 1 (for example, from x2 to x3). Requires Greater Weapon Group Specialization.
Good but I thought we were trending towards eliminating weapon specialisations.

[Monk] - Grant it d10 HD.
Maybe.

- My first order of the day would then be changing the damage dice. It's a relatively simple way of upping the monk's power a bit. My changes would be to make all dice one step higher so it would be: d8/d10/d12/2d8/2d10/2d12.
The unarmed damage you mean? yes, I guess you're right.

the monk gains Fatiguing Fist, which applies the fatigue condition on a failed save for 1 round. This is upgraded to Sickening Fist on level 5, then Blinding Fist on level 10, Stunning Fist on level 15 and finally Paralyzing First on level 20.
This proposal is overpowered from level 15, possibly even from level 10.

- Grant monks a +2 bonus on grapple checks on level 4, then another +2 bonus on level 8. This also synergizes with their Sleep Hold.
Okay.

- Grant the Monk the Pounce ability on level 11 (full attack on charge)
We've already discussed this and settled for Tiger's Leap instead.

- As a final order of business make them immune to certain conditions on certain levels. Example could be one immunity each 4 levels, starting on level 4 with immunity to being sickened, then 8th blinded, then 12th slowed, 16th critical hits, 20th ability drain. Or something along those lines.
He already gets Spell Resistance so maybe that's overkill.

The paladin's problem is that it is pretty inferior compared to the Death Knight at the moment
I don't see why and thus I disagree with all your suggestions to boost his power.

[Ranger]- Careful Shot: This ability is useless. On almost every occasion I would not use this ability. My suggestion is the following: Careful Shot 1: The ranger reduces the penalty taken on an Aimed Shot by 1 (to -3). Gained on level 7. On level 14, the Ranger gains Careful Shot 2 (which reduces the penalty by a further 1).
Mmmm. The Careful Shot ability still sounds good to me but upon review the penalty seems too harsh especially considering it takes a full-round action. How about just dropping the dodge penalty. As for cutting the Aimed Shot penalty there's already a feat for that (Aimed Shot Expert).

- Aimed Shot is nice, but remember that you give up plenty of attacks to do it. Thusly, it should improve later on, say level 11 for instance. Legs and Arms become d8 rounds, Head becomes D4 rounds and they gain "Heart" which automatically inflicts a critical hit if it hits and the victim does not save.
Sounds good to me.

- Archery Bonus should be bigger. Say +1 at level 5, +2 at level 10, +3 at 15 and +4 at level 20.
I suppose so.

- As the paladin, grant the ranger the ability to cast spells as a swift/free action once per day at 10th and twice per day at 20th.
I disagree.

- Grant the ranger Rapid Shot at level 6. Rapid Shot means it can take a penalty of -2 to attacks and in turn is granted one extra attack per round at full BAB. At level 12 grant it Improved Rapid Shot; the penalty remains -2 but it can now make two extra attacks per round at full BAB. This is akin to two-weapon fighting, except the ranger still uses the inferior method of ranged attacking instead of melee attacking.
Mmmm. In the current design the Ranger can take Rapid Shot through his available feats. Improved Rapid Shot sounds a bit too much. When fighting with two weapons, the additional attacks incur the traditional penalty of -5/-10/-15.

- Grant the Ranger the "Powerful Shot" ability on level 8, enabling it to add its Dexterity modifier to damage with ranged attacks. This is to make up for the inherent powerlessness of ranged attacks (they can't use power attack and so on).
With a composite bow, they already get the Strength bonus.

why would I ever use Stun Arrow instead of Hold Arrow?
So that they can't cast a stilled spell, manifest a power, or use a breath weapon?

[Rogue] Death Strike: Again, percentile-based abilities are bad, especially when they kill. How about instead giving the rogue's sneak attack condition-inducing effects? It gains 5% death chance at level 14 - you could substitute that with a 100% chance of Fortitude save to avoid the "fatigued" condition on each successful sneak attack. At level 18 it gains 10% - upgrade fatigued to exhausted.
MMmmmmmm.... They already get crippling strike which reduces Strength. Fatigue/Exhaustion on top is just too much.

Evasion: Rogues should get Improved Evasion later
Yeah but I don't want any character to be completely immune to things like Fireball or dragon breath.

Dexterity: Perhaps grant the rogue the ability to use Dexterity as damage modifier instead of Strength at level 10 or so? Or alternatively make a Rogue-only feat that does this? This is a relatively easily gained feat in Tome of Battle, which makes a big difference for rogues.
But then you completely negate any usefulness from Strength, no? I'd rather have every ability be useful in some way.

[Sorcerer] it's hard to get a complete view of just exactly how powerful gaining access to both cleric and wizard spells is.
Very powerful, but then again a character can only cast one spell per round. So it's more flexible but not necessarily more powerful than a wizard.

just a note on the familiar
Considering my own choice would be either Toad or Spider, I don't think I should make them any better. (HP is a lot more important than the saves in the beginning; and SR would come into effect more often than any of the saves) :D
'Say there is a chunk of meat. Pirates will have a banquet and eat it! But heroes will share it with other people. I want all the meat!!' - Luffy in One Piece
User avatar
BlueSalamander
Master Conjuror
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 6:20 pm

Re: Grunker's Comments on the Classes Thread

Postby Grunker » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:47 pm

You may be right, but I saw this as a way to make the Paladin and the Cleric's Smite ability as more attractive. Paladin is often criticised in the D&D 3.5 rules, it shouldn't be!


Actually, upon further consideration, and also in lieu of the "fighting classes are underpowered", I've reconsidered. I think you're right. So keep Smite as is. The reason I jumped at it is because it's a major change from the "red thread" in how 3.5 works, but it makes sense in the vacuum of KotC2 I think. So yeah. Disregard my suggestion.

Okay while the added options from Pathfinder certainly seem very interesting, I would question two things - first the power of the class and second the principle that this class is supposed to be something easy to manage. In terms of raw power the barbarian is already the one class with the highest attack bonus and that makes it attractive on this basis alone. Next I think that the Barbarian should be simple - just like the type of character it embodies. I don't see a Barbarian as a tactician who needs to think whether to bite or pounce. It's just 'see enemy - kill enemy' IMO. That's his charm. An additional bite attack would seem pretty minor compared to a normal attack with a weapon. The Pounce ability, as a feat maybe, I'm not sure. Bull rush as part of an attack - see the Knockback feat in the general list of feats.


OK, we disagree quite a bit here, for a couple of reasons:

1) It's rarely interesting to play characters that auto-attack and nothing else from my point of view. Even if it is from yours, there is no reason Rage Powers would have to be active abilities requiring strategy and tactics! They could be passive abilities, for example "gain Pounce while raging", "gain immunity to some stuff while raging," "gain new bonuses when raging" or so on. You get the picture. These abilities could be engineered so that the "see enemy, kill enemy" thing would remain.

2) Highest attack bonus? It has the same BAB as other fighting classes.

3) The bite attack is an additional attack on top of the attacks it makes already. That is, it can full attack AND make the bite again.

4) The examples I provided was only to give you an idea what Rage Powers are about - not finite suggestions! If you dislike bite, that's fine, but the concept of rage powers is what's important.

5) I hold to the belief that non-casters are underpowered. This is almost a given truth in D&D. If not Rage Powers, something else should really be added, in my mind.

What if you're running out of bard ability uses, though?


I suppose you have a point, it all comes down to how easily accessible rest is... Still, feats are important things, and 2 rounds extra? I'm just not sure it would be good enough.

No swift actions but most (probably all) free actions will be useable once per round only. Just like 5-foot-step or Use inventory in KotC.


That's fine, no reason to waste time on such minor details :)

Power attack, Fighting Defensively and Total Defense will not be implemented as I don't like them.


While this is quite alright - I actually agree with it - it removes even more power from fighting classes. You seem to generally disagree with my suggestions for changes to the non-casters, but do you agree with the basic argument? That non-casters are by nature weaker from level 7 and on, and as good as fighting classes at levels 5 and 6? If so, something needs to be done in my opinion, and if you dislike my suggestions that completely okay, but what to do then? :)

Okay. Personally I like the concept; he's a bit like the Duelist. You do music, help in fighting as long as you have HP, and in some circumstances you use spells. You are saying: give him buffs. Then, how about a bard spell to gain temporary HPs? I don't really get the point of reducing his BAB and HP and then giving him a spell that increases his BAB and HP? Perhaps it's not clear in the page that the Bard also benefits from the effect of his own songs?


A valid point!

How about making them more like Bladesingers then, if you know that prestige class? A Bladesinger may cast a spell quickened a number of times per day, for example. So you could give the Bard the ability to do this once each five levels (5, 10, 15, 20). That is, cast a Bard spell as a free action once per day per fifth level.

That with High BAB, d10 hit points, songs, and Bard spells is exactly the kind of thing that makes a fighting class on par with caster classes; all the stability of fighting classes (not relying of many per day abilities) with some unique, useful abilities that function as a substitute for the power of spell-casting.

The Bard does have the potential to be one of the most interesting classes.

Yes that's doable. Your level progression seems lopsided, how about 1,7,15 instead. But there is something cool in having access to two powers right from the start too.


Both your points are true. I dunno. Maybe spell progression is enough to keep the customization interesting.

Why? Tiavals even thought that this option isn't good enough as is. Fortitude would make it worse.


Paralysis is usually tied to Fortitude unless it can be described as mind-affecting such as Hold Person. It doesn't matter much though. Tying it to Fortitude would make it work on casters though.

Alternatively, how about a Banishment domain that would only give a +1 bonus to all your cleric Protection from Alignment, Mass Protection from Alignment, Greater Protection from Alignment, Dispel, Greater Dispel, Dismissal and Banishment spells?


That's a pretty powerful effect... I'd pick that, probably. I say roll with this suggestion, it's quite good.

They are permanent.


Great, then I applaud them!

Yes, but lots of classes have high Will already, while few have high Ref so I figure a change would be a good thing. They're a bit close to the Rogue after all.


Hmm, mechanically it works, but flavourwise it really doesn't in my opinion. It's not very important though, so I'm not gonna make too much noise on this one.

I think I prefer that the Charisma ability be the relevant factor for the number of smites


But it isn't now... is it? Have I missed something completely? Right now it's based on level progression with a number of smites each encounter.

Anyway, in lieu of my concession with regard to losing smite attempts, I think it should stay as it is (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 per encounter).

Life drain: Make this usable as part of an attack instead like smite, but keep the requirement of a standard action. This makes it a natural part of what the death knight wants to do - it wants to attack. So it should say "You can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus that deals an additional amount of damage equal to 1d6 Hit Points per two levels, rounded up. A creature is entitled to a Fortitude saving throw do cut this additional damage in half. The death knight is healed of an amount equal to the additional damage dealt."

I don't like this.


You might not (why, by the way?), but I fear Life Drain will be a very bad ability if it isn't altered in some way. I specialize this dude in attacking, it will almost always yield more damage (and offense is often the best defense), so if I'm pressed to use Life Drain it will often be because I've already lost. Making a vampiric touch that takes up my ability to attack seems pretty bad.

The ability works when you lose your Dex bonus to AC. So it already includes Grappled, Pinned, Held, Paralyzed, Blinded and Stunned.
Now, should it also work when the target is fatigued/exhausted, and should Life Drain make the target fatigued? Good question.


I don't think it should be strictly better than Sneak Attack - which it would if you made it like sneak attack but also against fatigued/exhausted opponents. The idea was to make it different from Sneak Attack :)

Possibly. It's probably because I'm not too fond of the druid in D&D 3.5.
If the natural armor bonus is not enough we can increase. The druid has some unique powers. Like if you cast 'Call Ligthning' after resting, you'll basically have an at-will power to deal shock damage in a 10' radius every round. Not too shabby I think. Perhaps a bonus of 1 shock point of damage per level is in order though. I don't intend for any class to be able to summon more than one creature at a time. But Free action summoning spells (not Spell-like abilities) sounds like a good idea. Aspects would be too complicated and possibly overpowered.


Okay, an alternative suggestion:

Give it a summoning ability once per day per three levels, starting with once per day at level one. Using is a free action and the creature summoned changes when the druid level increases (as on the spell list). A summoned creature should last three rounds + one round per druid level or something along those lines (so it is not useless on low levels).

Keep the natural armor bonus.

Up the power of the spell list. How you actually do this is up to you, but I honestly think it's needed :)

Okay apparently this feat is not good enough so maybe two feats instead of three (one cuts threshold from -10 to -15 and the other from -15 to -20). Disagree with fighting in negative HP.


It is of course your choice, but I would never pick this feat under any circumstances. If my fighter is down I'm already losing. Maybe in an ironman game it would be kindda relevant, but if not, I don't think it would be.

Don't you think your feat would make two-handed fighting the only viable option?


Not if we also make a feat or two for Sword n' Board fighters and two-weapon fighters :)

As I said, my suggestions are not a complete solution. If you want I can make one (say, six new fighter feats total)?

No as this would actually reduce the usefulness of the race Half-giant.


An alternative can be found (see above). But it would only reduce it for the fighter class, and a half-giant seems more fit for the life of a Barbarian ;)

Good but I thought we were trending towards eliminating weapon specialisations.


I didn't realise you agreed with that perspective. If you do, tie the requirements to something else :)

The unarmed damage you mean?


Yeah, the unarmed damage :)

This proposal is overpowered from level 15, possibly even from level 10.


I concur. Again, it was only an example of the mechanical route you could take. The idea is that the ability as it is now is underwhelming and too random.

We've already discussed this and settled for Tiger's Leap instead.


Tiger's Leap is way worse than Pounce though. I don't think it would be overpowered to give the monk Pounce instead. It would make it what it should be; a fast fighter type that can move easily around the battlefield without too many restrictions.

He already gets Spell Resistance so maybe that's overkill.


I agree, I withdraw my suggestion.

I don't see why and thus I disagree with all your suggestions to boost his power.


I would much rather have Sneak Attack than the pretty weak spells (except for some fourth level spells) of the paladin. That said though, the boost of Paladin power is also a part of the general boost of power to the fighting classes which I think is crucial.

Mmmm. The Careful Shot ability still sounds good to me but upon review the penalty seems too harsh especially considering it takes a full-round action. How about just dropping the dodge penalty.


Well, let's think about it some. You would take a Careful Shot to hit an enemy that you find yourself unable to hit by normal attacks. Let's say you're a level 9 ranger with Rapid Shot .

The enemy in question has an Armor Class of 30. Your attack bonus is +14/+9 with attribute bonuses and so on. Thus you hit the enemy from 16-20 with your main attack and only on a natural 20 on the secondary attack. Going for this option gives us a fairly small chance, but we have two rolls (making our odds better) and can inflict damage twice. We also have two times 1/20 chances to crit dealing even more damage and hitting automatically.

You could instead opt for a single Careful Shot with a +2 bonus. That gives you one attack with a +16 bonus. This enlarges your range to 14-20. BUT, we sacrifice an entire roll to do it, and with that a full 1/20 chance to crit. The two options seem roughly equally good - but Careful Shot is supposed to a class feature! It should be the clearly best option when used for what it is supposed to do (hitting high AC enemies).

Now we factor in Rapid Shot. It grants +12/+7/+2. This means we hit on 18-20/20/20 respectively. It's another roll as well as a another chance to crit.

Is Careful Shot the best option here? Perhaps, but if it is, it is so by an extremely small amount. And this is using an example where the enemy's AC is very, very high for an enemy you face at level 9, and the ranger's attack bonus (+14/+9) is not that high for a level 9 character.

Thus, I'd still say that Careful Shot is quite the poor ability. Its sole strength is that the Ranger can move after using it, which is of course useful for a ranged attacker, but still, it doesn't feel quite good enough.

- Aimed Shot is nice, but remember that you give up plenty of attacks to do it. Thusly, it should improve later on, say level 11 for instance. Legs and Arms become d8 rounds, Head becomes D4 rounds and they gain "Heart" which automatically inflicts a critical hit if it hits and the victim does not save.

Sounds good to me.


Cool!

Mmmm. In the current design the Ranger can take Rapid Shot through his available feats. Improved Rapid Shot sounds a bit too much. When fighting with two weapons, the additional attacks incur the traditional penalty of -5/-10/-15.


Yeah, I agree... I was just brainstorming :)

With a composite bow, they already get the Strength bonus.


Yep, but I thought you were using Power Attack, so Str + Dex would make up for it. However, you're not, so I agree my suggestion is not needed.

So that they can't cast a stilled spell, manifest a power, or use a breath weapon?


True, I just thought it was a bit... much of the same. But the spell is pretty frickin' good already, so I guess I shouldn't complain.

MMmmmmmm.... They already get crippling strike which reduces Strength. Fatigue/Exhaustion on top is just too much.


Just thought of this before opening the threat, and yeah, I agree. But I still think percentage-based abilities - ESPECIALLY those that kill - are bad. I think you should sub Death Strike for something else.

Yeah but I don't want any character to be completely immune to things like Fireball or dragon breath.


I think for a rogue, which is certainly weaker than a fighter in your iteration, it would be alright. It's not that big of a win, really, especially considering the low HP of the class.

But then you completely negate any usefulness from Strength, no? I'd rather have every ability be useful in some way.


OK, hmm... What about narrowing it but making it better? Something like:

From 10th level, the Rogue may add its Dexterity modifier to damage when it sneak attacks.

This being in addition to the strength modifier.

Considering my own choice would be either Toad or Spider, I don't think I should make them any better. (HP is a lot more important than the saves in the beginning; and SR would come into effect more often than any of the saves)


Not having the three extra HP on level 1-3 (the only place it would really matter much) is nothing next to a saving throw bonus which is useful forever :D

I don't think the spell resistance of the Wizard is high enough to matter except when it gets lucky - a +2 bonus from the spider would make it matter a bit more.

Again, thanks for all your work on this wonderful game. I'm fairly sure I will purchase on release no matter what we agree on :D
Grunker
Fire Giant (CR 10)
Knights of the Chalice
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 11:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ideas for KotC 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron