P 69 of Unearthed Arcana opens the door to 3 new PrC's based on existing base classes.  I'd like those who DM to give these an eyeball and make a ruling on balance changes they feel should be made.

As far as I'm concerned, do what you want. the rules for PUG say all 3.5, and I'm sticking to that. So long as you don't actually try to play Pun-Pun the omnipotent Kobold, idgaf what you do or play so long as it's within the rules. 

D&D isn't meant to be "Equal," it's meant to be fun. Some of the base races are quite clearly better than other races, some classes are quite clearly better than other classes... it's not a matter of who or what is the most powerful, it's a question of who or what can provide the most fun for someone to play. If it's persistant long term campaign stuff that there are genuine rules that restrict certain things (AKA Ontrix not allowing psionics as a PC thing in his campaign) I'm totally down with that, but I think stuff like PUG should hold to its ruling of "all 3.5" rather than "Whatever parts of 3.5 I feel like dealing with."

If you want to come up with PrC's for every base class out there (PHB or Non-PHB) go for it, if Brian wants to make a class based on Full Metal Alchemist alchemy, I'd be more than happy to work on that with him. I'm all about maximizing options and opportunities, not cutting off paths that can lead to fun.

Yes, there are certain things that I would advise against (such as my builds that end up with near 100 AC at endgame) simply on the grounds of "don't be dumb... things will ignore you and you won't contribute jack shit to the combat other than a TPW is impossible... but you won't get to leave because they'll bar the door, so you become a permanant part of their decor."

The super-hyper-focusing that I personally enjoy doing often leads to characters that aren't really feasable in a game (Both PUG and long-term), BUT I also think that that's where It should be left to common sense and personal judgement of the player since the dumb builds (party effectiveness wise) often end up being no fun.

TL;DR:

D&D isn't meant to be balanced... if everything had exactly equal end-game AC, Damage output, saves, etc etc etc and was perfectly balanced, there would be no purpose of having multiple classes. The whole point of putting time into character generation is to create a unique character with the potential to be great fun, and (hopefully) help the PARTY (emphasys on party mentality, not personal success in our groups). The roleplaying, combat, skill abilities, class features, etc are all supposed to add flavor to a unique person, and should be treated as such. Just as in real life, not all things are equal, and that's a good thing... that's how it's meant to be.

AKA: I say go ahead and play them as written Paladin

just my $0.02

-Z

P.S. (DISCLAIMER)  The above thoughts, ideas, etc were inspired by an ongoing conversation twotone and I have been having over the last several weeks/months/years. No examples cited above expressly nor intently pass judgement or condemn any sort of play style, character model, etc. They simply sum up my personal feelings on D&D as a whole, as well as my own opinions on the need to change rulings for sake of balance.

P.P.S. If a character of crazy optimization is built and the player is dumb about it, falling rocks ALWAYS work wonders... (unless they somehow have meld into stone at will as an immediate action... in which case LIGNTNING or TARRASQUE RAIN will do the trick ^_^)

Powerbuilding is, as always, part and parcel to the system.  We've talked at lenght about topics like "are the divine classes, as written, broken?"

I do take some balance/rp issues with some build concepts.  Making Riddick is a cool notion, but is Riddick really a good party character?  Also, if riddick is in the party, will other party members get a chance to shine?

(Riddick used without permission for example only).

One place where I get hesitant about some builds is when I ask, "Is this good for party play, or is this class too-good?"  Unfettering the rules is an awesome notion.  That in mind, some books (Vile Darkness, Exalted Deeds, Unearthed Arcana) need to be viewed through an objective lense.  Things like "Touch of Golden Ice" are so horribly broken, and even classes out of other books can cause issues, if a player is reckless about how they build.

I guess I try to stay away from "do everything better than everyone else" type builds, and I try to shy away from "do whart the toher members of the party are doing" style of builds, too.  If a party has two barbarians built more or less the same way, eventually, someone will feel a little slighted....Especially when there is such a variety open.

That said, I was actually looking for specific balance notions from PC/NPC point of view.   How would people feel about relagating bard/pally/ranger to PrC's only?  Do any changes need to be made to the class(es) to accomplish this?

Not a fan of switching them to PrCs. They are base classes, we've always treated them as base classes, why "fix" what isn't broken?

Ontrix at June 3, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Not a fan of switching them to PrCs. They are base classes, we've always treated them as base classes, why "fix" what isn't broken?

TBH, the paladin as a PrC makes a lot more sense to me.  Similar to what we (and you SHOULD be finishing your part) are doing with MirrorShard, I'm exploring options that make sense.

To give a snap historicl perspective:

In 2nd Ed, there were 5 groups of classes.  From those 5 groups grew out 5 archtypes:

Mage
Fighter
Cleric
Thief
Psionicist

Expanding from that, Druid was added using the specialty priest rules.  Ninja was really just a theif with flavor.

Then they added Ranger, Paladin, and Bard.   These three classes add significant abilities/RP.

Now, I'm mostly looking at this from a flavor standpoint.  I've always felt that a religious paladin should have some initial religious training.  In NWN (bad example, I know), there is even talk of making paladin into a PrC.

My  Proposal:

Paladin:  Ideals based paladin is still a base class.  That is a calling.  Religious paladin is a Knight of a Church, and as it was for templars, allow for a build based on a combat cleric.  Similar classes include Fist of Raziel (BoED), Hostpitaler (CDiv), and Warpriest (CDiv).

Ranger: rename the PrC "Huntsman" (or "Huntress" as gender appropriate).  It allows for a combat druid with better animal companion, and alternate spell lists.

Bard: No one cares, no one plays them.

FUCK YOU BARDS ARE AWESOME!!!

Moving them to PrCs isn't a good plan. Adding the PrC versions in addition is an even worse plan. Here's why:

The PrC versions of these classes pick up all the same abilities as the base class versions. In the cases I looked at, the abilities the PrC version picked up were strictly better than the base class version. Using them as PrCs, or allowing both, makes the base class a throw away on the power scale. Sure you could take the base class for RP flavor, but you get flat out out-striped by the power of the PrC version.

My statement stands, these classes are not broken, there is no need to fix, or alter, them.

First of all, to explain why BoED and BoVD are awkward/broken/etc, I found this post on the forums elsewhere: 

-

Quote from: lans on August 10, 2009, 03:14:05 AM

Book of Exalted Deeds is 3.5. Just to let you know, again. Unless 3.0 added DR/evil while I wasn't looking.

It was actually written during 3.0, then modified and published right after 3.5 came out (4 months later, IIRC). It's right on the cusp of the changeover, and has elements of 3.0 design in it still, as WotC was still finding its footing with what they wanted to do in the new edition. Note that BoVD was actually originally printed in 2002, during 3.0, and is paired very much with BoED. As such, the two books are often considered "3.25" as it were, along with Savage Species, and all three are notorious for their balancing issues (Love's Pain assassination is just nuts for example) and have very sloppy writing. The result is that they are one of the books least commonly allowed in any given campaign, as far as I've noticed. And a lot of people think BoED is 3.0 simply because BoVD is.

JaronK

-

As for the power balance of classes/PRC's, I reference these pages: 

1.  A tier system for ranking base classes based on power: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0

2.  A tier system for ranking PrC's based on how much they improve/hurt their logical entry class(es): http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0

3.  An explaination as to why each class has been given the ranking it has been given: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0

 In response to Paladin's comments about building a character similar to that of what another character is doing... : if someone is going to play a barbarian, fighter, rogue, or any sort of melee combat build, and someone rolls in with a character that is better at dealing damage or has higher AC or whatever the particular factor happens to be (whether it's the same class or not is pretty much irrelavent)... then the first person has a few options:

1.  get butthurt and throw a tantrum
2.  realize "wow, they have a kick-ass combat build... our party is going to rock that much harder" and be happy with the unique build they have come up with and move on with things.

3.  ask the more experienced players for help in creating unique creative builds that can be super awesome both roleplay-wise and mechanics power wise. (Example given: I'm going to be helping Brian in trying to make a build that will make a spike-esque (from cowboy bebop) characer)

Just because other people play sub-optimal versions of a class or choose to sacrefice optimization in one area in order to gain proficiency in many areas should NOT prohibit someone from focusing in on one thing, and being really damn good at that one thing. I've seen some really good fighters and some really bad fighters... but just because Mr. Jim-bob decides to play a shitty build against all advice, then gets pissy when Jack rolls in with a strong focused TWF build that does better at combat than him SHOULD NOT mean that Jack isn't allowed to play his character.  

If Jack is willing to make the character ability sacrefices and take the time and effort to build and optimized TWF'er, then yes, that character will be REALLY DAMN GOOD at two weapon fighting, but he will have had to make sacrefices in other areas (ranged combat among other things) in order to attain that ability (unless it's one of the tier 1 classes mentioned earlier... then they just reshape the world to their whim. lulz.)

As for the whole concept of using Riddick as an example of an optimized character: yes it's a cool notion, but anyone who has ANY idea how to play a party game like D&D realizes that you can make a character with all of riddick's abilities and skills, but make him less of a lone-wolf d-bag.

Many people seem to think that Character Optimization suddenly means that everyone else in the party gets left in the dust... when having a powerful character or two (or a whole party of them, or however many happen to be there) just makes the PARTY that much more effective at killing shit. If there is an AC optimizer, and the campaign throws a troll and 8 goblins at a reasonably low level party, the AC tank can hold off the troll for long enough for the rest of the party to finish off the goblins then all focusfire on the troll... a party of level 5 characters taking on a band of goblins and a troll is PRETTY FUCKING RAD if you ask me.

Optimization (or focusing on abilities) doesn't have to be an "ALL ABOUT ME" kind of thing... it's just that my character is the only one that I have control over, so I want it to be able to contribute as much to the party's efforts as much as possible.  

Going with Paladin's lesson's through history: Cultural development and the development of skill specialization (the development of farmers only farming, blacksmiths only blacksmithing, etc etc etc) in which several parts of a whole SPECIALIZE in unique skills and talents needed by each of the parts in order to contribute to the whole as much as possible. Because One person can provide blacksmithing for 10, one farmer can provide food for 10, one butcher can provide cut meat for 10, etc... culture was allowed to develop and thus we have society today. Specialization and optimization is not a bad thing... in fact it's just about as good as it gets, when working as part of a TEAM.

-Z

I guess my biggest point for optimization vs dumb stuff like touch of golden ice is this: 

Anyone can look at a single feat or template (touch of golden ice and saint and such) and say "ooh shiny" and become neigh unstopable...

NOT anyone can optimize a regular character. It takes a shitload of time and effort to figure out obscure combinations that will synergize well with each other in order to maximize the use of a given set of feats and class features which on their own are nothing out of the ordinary. 

It's like Magic The Gathering: anyone can win with a deck consisting only of 4 black lotuses and 4 ball ligntnings... NOT everyone can build obscure combo decks that cause flashy epic wins involving 36 cards.

-Z

I guess my only problem with this is a lot of work on our parts. To rework base classes into prc's could take a lot of extra effort, and, as Ontrix said, is there any problem with how they currently work?

Mind you, I'm at work so havnt had a time to check yet the prc versions yet, but my statement still stands.

actually, the work is already done.  there exist in Un.Arc. those three classes as PRC's.  So the work is just up to us as far as "do we want to balance the classes"

Zal, while you make good points, you are straying far away from the point of this topic.  Three classes have PrC varients.  I'm just curious what folks think of them as-is, and what efforts would need to be made to balance them out/justify them RP-wise.

My first post said I was fine with them as-is.  ^_^ I'll make a new thread about optimization at some point. just needed to get my thoughts down while they were semi-coherent. will move/delete posts later this week

I love these classes as printed (Unearthed Arcana).   The mega-benefit of extra caster levels (at the cost of modest nerfs elsewhere) provides a big net increase in power.  I think the PrC variants bring back the coolness and mistique of these iconic adventurers, which the 3.x editions left behind.

(The side discussion about balancing is being addressed in the gestalt pages.)