Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Creating game materials? Monsters, spells, classes, adventures? This is the place!
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:47 pm

Nice and clean - although I have a question about the Ranger/MU getting d8 instead of d6 for HP. The Elf Ftr/MU I thought was based on the average of the dice, and the frail nature of the elves wasn't a factor.

As an aside, I have no idea why it took this long for it to click that the Thug fits the fighter/thief niche: Armor options, better HD, and by trimming skills to control XP, the BAB stays closer to the straight fighter for a given XP amount.
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3717
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:45 pm

I discussed this some time ago with Solo and others. The d6 for F/MU is primarily an Elf thing. But I think a case can be made for it to be an average as well.

However, when I wrote this my thinking was that (race aside), one uses the best case for saves, best case for attacking, etc.... and all the while paying the Sum of XP requirements, which did not make sense. So I wrote the document saying that "unless the HD is limited by race" way.
Personally, I use yet another line of thinking with my house-rules so I could be persuaded either way in this document...

My own house rules supersede these anyhow, based upon AD&D style HD with various changes including the mechanic that Elves and Halflings use one HD type smaller than normal, instead of a hard limit of d6 so that it affects all classes across the board. I think my giant houserule document is discussed elsewhere so that others can see the sort of changes I apply to my personal game.

Thanks for Kudos on Thug... the class option has really grown on me. Yes, the idea is that one can have something akin to F/T (which does not really work well as the Combo-Class otherwise). Different than the lightly armored Ranger types (which is still a great option) that start at fighter with modifications.... the idea was to start with Thief and head the other direction by toughening them up.
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?

See my shirt designs: https://teespring.com/stores/smoot-life
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3717
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:18 pm

Seems I am missing my source file for the release 2 of Quasi-Classes (where the subclasses were removed and made into the above supplement). I need to search on an backup drive for the odt files, but the nearly completed pdf is here. It includes the original quasi-classes and a few more: Archer, Barbarian, (the essentially complete) Bard, Holy (paladin-ish), and Sage.

Spliting the Quasi-Classes from the above Sub-Classes seemed appropriate.
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?

See my shirt designs: https://teespring.com/stores/smoot-life
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:05 pm

SmootRK wrote:However, when I wrote this my thinking was that (race aside), one uses the best case for saves, best case for attacking, etc.... and all the while paying the Sum of XP requirements, which did not make sense. So I wrote the document saying that "unless the HD is limited by race" way.
Personally, I use yet another line of thinking with my house-rules so I could be persuaded either way in this document...
From that perspective, it does make more sense - as you are paying for everything XP-wise (and suffering slow advancement), why not take your best case option for HD as well. Yeah, AD&D mentality is hard to break at times.

The only question then is what other races would qualify? Beyond a hypothetical house rule that allows any race to combo their available classes, that is.

It also occurs to me that a "best HD" ruling makes the full F/T combo almost viable - you are about a level and a half behind a straight thief, but from 3rd on, you're getting better average HP (dwarves are, at least), and can use shields when not actively larcenous. Or if you prefer, you're half a level behind a straight fighter for the ability to be sneaky and open locks and disarm traps without using a hammer.
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3717
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:26 am

Joe the Rat wrote:The only question then is what other races would qualify? Beyond a hypothetical house rule that allows any race to combo their available classes, that is.
For the standard Core races, only elves... but if one uses non-standard options? For instance, Githyanki types, Drow (yes I know, elves nonetheless), Gnome types perhaps.

Again, I use many House Rules, and one of mine is that there are "No Class Restrictions for Race". It has never hampered the game in any way. I still role-play racial stereotypes, making things like Dwarf Magic-Users real oddities, spurned by their Dwarven societies, even ostracized by other Dwarves. But overall, it lets players be creative with their characters...
Anyhow, because of this house rule, the possibilities for characters to combo-class unpredictably (even Humans if they want to). I wrote a little expansion to the Combo-Class section of the Core Rules, which can be found at the beginning of the Monsters as Characters Supplement. It details other combo-classes such as Cleric-MU (for witch doctors or theurgists), MU-Thief, and even Cleric-Thief, which as far as I have explored are all plausible and essentially balanced combo class possibilities.
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?

See my shirt designs: https://teespring.com/stores/smoot-life
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:03 pm

I just wanted to update my notes of the pseudo-viability of the fighter/thief (Did a little number crunching for a related exploration).

AFTER their second level, Fighter/Thief keeps a modest HP advantage (average around 7 over the lifetime, peaking around levels 7-8 in the 12 range), with a couple of weird spots (reversed c. 5000 xp earned, big drop between10-13k). The place where it really breaks down (as Solo had pointed out quite a while ago) is the BAB. Mid-levels, there's an off-and-on advantage for the F/T, but below 4 and over 10 (below 6 and over 15 for the thief), it's an on-and-off advantage for the Thief.

I have not taken the time to put together the saves comparison, but I am guessing the faster progression will match or offset any advantages from the accessing fighter save table.

Barring additional Fighter-only options, some sort of adjustment to XP could make this viable - but it would need to stay higher than straight Fighter so it doesn't exceed the single class performance.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 8054
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:22 pm

I guess my point on the Fighter/Thief is, what's the point? A Thief can fight, after all; adding the Fighter class grants him little to nothing. This is why we dropped it. After all, to use his abilities, the Fighter/Thief still has to abide by the Thief restrictions.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3717
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:31 pm

Solomoriah wrote:I guess my point on the Fighter/Thief is, what's the point? A Thief can fight, after all; adding the Fighter class grants him little to nothing. This is why we dropped it. After all, to use his abilities, the Fighter/Thief still has to abide by the Thief restrictions.
Agreed here. I think that Ranger (fighter with some thiefly perks) or the Thug (Thief with some additional toughening qualities) work better than trying to make the ill-suited combo class somehow fit together.
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?

See my shirt designs: https://teespring.com/stores/smoot-life
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:27 pm

Solomoriah wrote:I guess my point on the Fighter/Thief is, what's the point? A Thief can fight, after all; adding the Fighter class grants him little to nothing. This is why we dropped it. After all, to use his abilities, the Fighter/Thief still has to abide by the Thief restrictions.
Crossin' I's and dottin' T's, boss.
I'm gonna take the same approach on the equally pointless (but almost not redundant) Fighter/Cleric when I get a chance.

Most of the conceptual value behind the combo comes from toughening up (which isn't all that significant), and overcoming restrictions that simply don't exist in Basic Fantasy. As Smoot noted, the Ranger and Thug options fit the conceptual niche from both sides.
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3717
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Additional Fighting Sub-Classes

Post Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:49 pm

Joe the Rat wrote:
Solomoriah wrote:I guess my point on the Fighter/Thief is, what's the point? A Thief can fight, after all; adding the Fighter class grants him little to nothing. This is why we dropped it. After all, to use his abilities, the Fighter/Thief still has to abide by the Thief restrictions.
Crossin' I's and dottin' T's, boss.
I'm gonna take the same approach on the equally pointless (but almost not redundant) Fighter/Cleric when I get a chance.

Most of the conceptual value behind the combo comes from toughening up (which isn't all that significant), and overcoming restrictions that simply don't exist in Basic Fantasy. As Smoot noted, the Ranger and Thug options fit the conceptual niche from both sides.
Yes, and that is part of my point. You see, from a game philosophy point of view, it is my objective to make certain archetypes available to players... not to make rule mechanics that work for every conceivable combination. That is why once I (we) realized that the F/T combo class is not mechanically good (as I believe the F/C is as well), I dropped trying to make it work under that mechanic. The archetype is what was important to me, so redefining the idea as a base class (sub-class) worked better to achieve the ends.

When one way works, that is great. But when it doesn't, it doesn't... so approach the problem differently.
Is it really the end, not some crazy dream?

See my shirt designs: https://teespring.com/stores/smoot-life
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests