Class Description Template

[Jarno Mikkola]

I think if he says all "types" then that is fine. I take that to exclude special cases as stated.

So a Robe is not a type of an armor ? W'AT ?!?

I just don't want people to be misconstuded by facts ... or then you will have to make the robes usable by Fighters, and if we go with Paladins, Rangers, Clerics etc.. Seriously. After all, in the vanilla game, if they can use everytype as you say, they can also wear the stuff the multi-classes can.

Erhm, just so you know, I don't mind the fact that the fighter might not get all the (mage only)bonuses from the armor, as long as he can actually wear it, as advertized. Also for this, you will need to also make sure to have a Robe wearing avatar for fighters. -whistles and rotates the imp tail on it's talon-

[Ardanis]

So a Robe is not a type of an armor ?

You're the first person I've met, who thinks otherwise

[Jarno Mikkola]

...

Were I you, I would place the Rage abilities descriptions one after another instead of the level based order one you use now. And perhaps you don't actually need to use the extra line between those, as the last is a sum of all it's parts.

 

Edit: I've moved you post here Jarno.

As long as it's not invisible, I am all good for that.

 

So the end result is:

BARBARIAN RAGE: When enraging, the barbarian gains an extra attack per round and a +2 bonus to damage, AC, movement rate, and saving throws versus breath, but suffers a -2 penalty to attack rolls. However, the barbarian will also be unable to perform actions that require concentration, like activating item's abilities or remaining hidden.

After 5 rounds, the enrage effect wears off and the user becomes fatigued for 5 rounds. While fatigued, the barbarian suffers a -2 penalty to AC, damage, and attack rolls and cannot re-enter the enraged state.

FEARLESS RAGE: At level 8, the enraged barbarian is immune to fear effects.

GREATER RAGE: At 10th level, the benefits gained from enraging increase to a +3 bonus to damage, AC, and saving throws versus breath.

MIGHTY RAGE: At 19th level, the benefits gained from enraging increase to a +4 bonus to damage, AC, and saving throws versus breath.

 

SWIFT FOOT: Barbarian's base movement speed is increased by 20%, and by further 20% when enraged.

 

CLEAVE: If the barbarian deals a creature enough damage to kill it, he gets an immediate extra attack for the next round.

 

ROLLING DODGE: while enraged the barbarian gains +4 bonus to armor class vs. missile weapons. ...plah plah plah.

[Demivrgvs]

Barbarian

Ok, this class description is much more problematic:

 

Advantages:

- Rolls d12 for hit points.

- Is immune to backstabbing.

- At 1st level can use Barbarian Rage once per day, and gains one extra use of this ability for every 4 levels thereafter, up to 4 times per day at 16th level.

- At 2nd level gains Swift Foot.

- At 3rd level, gains Cleave.

- At 4th level, gains Rolling Dodge.

- At 5th level, gains Blind-Fighting.

- At 6th level, gains Scent.

- At 8th level, gains Fearless Rage.

- At 9th level, gains Cleave Through.

- At 10th level, gains Greater Rage.

- At 11th level, gains 10% resistance to slashing, piercing, crushing, and missile damage. At 14th, and 17th level, this increases by an additional 5%.

- At 15th level, can use Whirlwind Attack once per day.

- At 19th level, gains Mighty Rage.

 

Disadvantages:

- Cannot wear plate mail or full plate armor.

- Limited to specialization (++) in weapons.

- Cannot use Defensive Stance.

- Cannot use Called Shot.

- Cannot dual class.

 

BARBARIAN RAGE: When enraging, the barbarian gains an extra attack per round and a +2 bonus to damage, AC, movement rate, and saving throws versus breath, but suffers a -2 penalty to attack rolls. However, the barbarian will also be unable to perform actions that require concentration, like activating item's abilities or remaining hidden.

After 5 rounds, the enrage effect wears off and the user becomes fatigued for 5 rounds. While fatigued, the barbarian suffers a -2 penalty to AC, damage, and attack rolls and cannot re-enter the enraged state.

 

SWIFT FOOT: Barbarian's base movement speed is increased by 20%, and by further 20% when enraged.

 

CLEAVE: If the barbarian deals a creature enough damage to kill it, he gets an immediate extra attack for the next round.

 

ROLLING DODGE: while enraged the barbarian gains +4 bonus to armor class vs. missile weapons.

 

BLIND-FIGHTING: the barbarian can fight without penalties in conditions of poor light or total darkness, and even if unable to see.

 

SCENT: an enraged barbarian can detect invisible creatures within 15 feet.

 

FEARLESS RAGE: an enraged barbarian is immune to fear effects.

 

CLEAVE THROUGH: At 9th level when the barbarian deals a creature enough damage to kill it, he gets a extra attack for one and a half round, and can charge to reach the new target with movement speed increased by +40%.

 

GREATER RAGE: At 10th level, the benefits gained from enraging increase to a +3 bonus to damage, AC, and saving throws versus breath.

 

WHIRLWIND ATTACK:

For 2 rounds, movement and attack rate are doubled, but all attacks are made with a -2 penalty to hit and damage rolls.

 

MIGHTY RAGE: At 19th level, the benefits gained from enraging increase to a +4 bonus to damage, AC, and saving throws versus breath.

What do you think? Any suggestion?

 

Furthermore, if I end up re-writing the first part from "advantages - disadvantages" into "class features" (aka considering all kits as separate sub-classes rather than kits), how would you handle things like "Cannot dual class"?

 

Edit: I've moved you post here Jarno.

[Ardanis]

Furthermore, if I end up re-writing the first part from "advantages - disadvantages" into "class features" (aka considering all kits as separate sub-classes rather than kits), how would you handle things like "Cannot dual class"?

"Class features" for me I doubt we can tell for sure if it's a good idea without trying it out in-game.

 

Dual-class - add instead a line with a list of classes the kit can dual to? If there's none, then no dual-class line either.

[Kalindor]

I am not sure that the passive bonuses need a name such as Swift Foot. I find that it just makes me have to look down and find out what it really does. Consider just stating it as "At 2nd level gains a +20% increase to base movement speed and an additional +20% when enraged."

[Mike1072]

I am not sure that the passive bonuses need a name such as Swift Foot. I find that it just makes me have to look down and find out what it really does. Consider just stating it as "At 2nd level gains a +20% increase to base movement speed and an additional +20% when enraged."

I agree. Adding and changing abilities presents a challenge to understanding each new class, so to ease the transition, the information should be presented in the clearest way possible. The naming convention should help readers distinguish what is of greatest importance (compare the appearance and importance of ROLLING DODGE and BARBARIAN RAGE). The description should flow so readers do not need to jump around to take in the whole picture. This will make the class changes more intuitive.

 

So, I think the "At Xth level" entries should list activated abilities by name and passive abilities by description. The activated ability descriptions could follow the table and contain all information related to the ability.

 

I do see your point, but without separate entries how do I reference the various upgrade (e.g. Greater Rage) in the "easy to read" advancement table?

The lines in the table could easily be made redundant. Why not drop them? The upgrades are important to the ability, but it's the ability itself that's important to the kit/class.

I'm tempted to agree, but not enough. If I don't list what you get at each level (e.g. at 4th lvl you get Fearless Rage) in the advancement table and put most of the "upgrades" only in the ability description than I feel we're at square one: you have to read a huge wall of text to track down what you are exactly getting at xth lvl (e.g. somewhere in the middle of a huge BARBARIAN RAGE description there's a "at 4th lvl an enraged barbarian is immune to fear" line). Am I wrong?

After considering this, I still feel that upgrades should be described alongside the ability. The barbarian doesn't improve at 4th level, his rage does. Separating the information would make it more difficult to determine what your rage actually does when you're a specific level, which is something I would like to know when playing. The only benefit I see for prioritizing a level-based listing would be to assist people looking to dual class. However, I don't think dual-classing concerns outweigh concerns that apply to all classes of characters, and they don't apply to the barbarian anyway.

 

I would not use the line "this ability further improves at ..." in the table. I'd leave all that information in the ability description.

[Ardanis]

The naming convention should help readers distinguish what is of greatest importance (compare the appearance and importance of ROLLING DODGE and BARBARIAN RAGE). The description should flow so readers do not need to jump around to take in the whole picture. This will make the class changes more intuitive.

Importance can be subjective...

 

I think we all confuse two different things here - reading the description for the first time, and referring to it during the play.

For the first, I agree that moving all the ability's upgrades together helps to understand better what you're going to get, when you stare at the character generation menu.

For the second, it is very helpful to see a clear order of things to come, with a single quick glance at the header.

 

So what is more important? The first impression, or a handy reference table?

 

We can also implement both solution without any harm, I think - keep the table spreadsheet and duplicate relevant bits in composite abilities' descriptions.

[Kalindor]

I am not sure about this new way of displaying kit properties. I find myself cross-referencing a lot. What do the others think?

[Jarno Mikkola]

I am not sure about this new way of displaying kit properties. I find myself cross-referencing a lot. What do the others think?

You did notice that the "Note"s won't be involved in the kit descriptions, but the rest does ?!? Yep, look at the first post if you didn't get that...

[Kalindor]

I was referencing how each kit has features listed individually as opposed to listed as advantages/disadvantages over the base class. While I definitely see how this is beneficial, I am not sure that it doesn't require cross-referencing to determine exactly what is omitted from the base class's abilities.

[Mike1072]

I was referencing how each kit has features listed individually as opposed to listed as advantages/disadvantages over the base class. While I definitely see how this is beneficial, I am not sure that it doesn't require cross-referencing to determine exactly what is omitted from the base class's abilities.

I think the base class description should differentiate between core features of the class ("Class Features"?) and bonus features for generalists ("Kit Features"?). The actual kits should inherit all core features (with the option to override things like weapon/armor proficiency) and none of the generalist bonus features. They have their own kit features.

 

I think design should be tailored to ensure:

1. kits strongly resemble their base class
   
2. game difficulty is not changed
   
3. each kit retains a similar amount of micromanagement as before
   
4. kits are not given so many abilities that they become difficult to understand
   

I worry about 1 from recent assassin discussions. I worry about 2 from abilities that give immunities or improve damage, AC, or THAC0 before level 3. I worry about 3 from ideas like offensive/defensive stances, and I worry about 4 in general.

[Demivrgvs]

Class Description

Thanks Kalindor for bringing this up. I've moved here the discussion on class descriptions and I've also added a new poll question to this topic.

 

@Kalindor, I actually supposed the idea behind each kit getting his own full description was that you don't go to see what the kit has lost or gained in exchange, you simply consider it a sub-class, or rather a full class of its own. That's at least how I get it, but I'm not the one who suggested it thus I might be wrong.

 

I was referencing how each kit has features listed individually as opposed to listed as advantages/disadvantages over the base class. While I definitely see how this is beneficial, I am not sure that it doesn't require cross-referencing to determine exactly what is omitted from the base class's abilities.

I think the base class description should differentiate between core features of the class ("Class Features"?) and bonus features for generalists ("Kit Features"?). The actual kits should inherit all core features (with the option to override things like weapon/armor proficiency) and none of the generalist bonus features. They have their own kit features.

I'm not sure your idea of splitting the base class description in two is feasible, and wouldn't that just be a different way to do the "advantages & disadvantages" thing again? Would you post an example of what you have in mind?

 

Personally I'm still slightly in favor of the old "advantages & disadvantages" solution, but I admit that in certain cases (e.g. especially where the kit has many differences over the base class) a full class description would look better, and leads to less confusion (e.g. playtesters were confused about Fighter's kits not listing +1/2 apr at levels 7 and 13).

 

I think design should be tailored to ensure:

1. kits strongly resemble their base class
   
2. game difficulty is not changed
   
3. each kit retains a similar amount of micromanagement as before
   
4. kits are not given so many abilities that they become difficult to understand
   

I worry about 1 from recent assassin discussions. I worry about 2 from abilities that give immunities or improve damage, AC, or THAC0 before level 3. I worry about 3 from ideas like offensive/defensive stances, and I worry about 4 in general.

Man you worry about pretty much everything! Jokes aside I can assure you I have the same worries.

 

I agree with you on 1. I worry about 2 too, but you know me, if something is overpowered it won't last with me. Hopefully players feedback will help on this matter, and I suppose most Revisions players are not looking for power gaming, thus we probably have the same goal. I'm not sure about 3 instead. I don't think a master of tactics and maneuvers such as the Fighter should require the same micromanagement of a Berserker who supposedly just charge into the mass to destroy everything. Regarding 4, feedback is all that matters on this, but I assure you I'm trying to simplify everything as much as I can (that is why I'm spending ages at defining paladins' class progression tables).

[Jarno Mikkola]

There is a simple reason why the A/D doesn't really work on kit description in comparison with the ORIGINAL class, and that's that; there's not enough space to... of course if the disadvantage is a class/kit specific feature, "No dual classing", has "no spell casting"(for Cavalier), that's fine.

IOW, no "- Cannot use Called Shot. " as the player can't see what that is without looking elsewhere.

 

And you should also use game specific terms that cannot be understood wrongly... as the game has no "all", "heavy", "medium" or "light" armors but "Plate and Full Plate", "Chain, Splint Mails", and "Leather, Studded Leather, Hide", "Robe", and "Elven Chain" armors.

[Demivrgvs]

I'm encountering quite a few problems with paladin's kits descriptions.

 

Within their relative topic here I used paladins as a first tentative to describe kits with a full "class feature" template rather than "advantages & disadvantages", but unlike the first poll between "vanilla style vs revised style" where the consensus is clear (2 votes vs 11), on this matter I still don't know what to do (2 votes vs 3).

 

Mostly, I don't know how to handle abilities shared by kits but which evolve in different ways.

For example all classes get Lay on Hands, but:

- the Cavalier gets the standard Paladin version and the same upgrades, thus with the "advantages & disadvantages" I shouldn't even mention that the Cavalier has this ability

- otoh the Undead Hunter gets this ability but at levels 6 and 9 it doesn't cure disease and poison, but rather paralysis and level drain.

Now, with a full "class feature" system the thing is simple, I mention LoH under class features for both classes, and then the full description of the ability is different:

- for the Cavalier I would have

 

LAY ON HANDS: Heals a target for 2 hit points per level, up to 40 hit points per use at 20th level.

At 6th level, it also cures the target from diseases.

At 9th level, it also removes poisons.

 

- for the Undead Hunter I would have

 

LAY ON HANDS: Heals a target for 2 hit points per level, up to 40 hit points per use at 20th level.

At 6th level, it also cures the target from paralysis.

At 9th level, it also restores drained levels.

 

How am I supposed to handle this with the "advantages & disadvantages" template? Should I just make an exception and mention the ability again, as well as the full description?

 

I have the same problem with Smite Evil.

 

Overall, even if I see the benefits of the "advantages & disadvantages" template, I'm starting to convince myself a full class description would be much better, and not just for this particular issue. For example I agree with Jarno (the world's end must be near!) that something like "Cannot use Called Shot" under the Disadvantages isn't actually helping to understand what the class has lost because the player can't see what that is without looking elsewhere.

 

What do you think?