Reworking Ranger as a Quasi-Class (the Guardian)

[SmootRK]

You are boiling everything down to pure mathematics, and while I can appreciate some effort to make things 'roughly equal', I do not base everything quite like that. I have no presumptions that this is all perfectly balanced to the exact grain of sand against each other. Mind you, the ultimate goal for these sorts of offerings is to make new and interesting character archetypes available, not to make rules and mechanics that work in every conceivable combination or usage.

Your point on Combination Class experience point issues (or non-issues, perspective pending) is one of the reasons I utilize a different XP model altogether. In the model we use (found in my houserules), these issues are addressed to our satisfaction. Everyone seems mostly happy with their progress, and everyone gets to play the character type they want (for the most part). With the kudos I give the vanilla fighter, i have not had anyone pull out a slide-rule in order to complain that "the other warrior type character got an extra +1, while I had to earn an extra 34.225% more experience in order to earn my +1". In other words, it is working well in practice for us. No one class or combination is dominating game play or seems altogether better than the other characters... and all is Zen while we are gaming.
Then again, I don't game with any Statistical Analysis gurus or Physics Majors who are min-maxing and rules lawyering the game apart... and I would not continue such a game if a player was going down that road. Things must be fun for me as well, and we don't play as a them vs me sort of way.

I will differ with you about the minimum ability scores coming up. When one is rolling btb, this will come up quite often. Even using my own houserules where arrays of scores are used, players must sometimes make very hard choices about ability scores in order to play certain character types (but this is partly due to generally increased Racial minimums that I utilize as well - again, in my house rules).

But, all that said, you have given me much valuable input on such mathematical issues that I will be pondering for a while. The percentage method of applying these (something I picked up from an abstract idea that EGG once spoke of in a dragon magazine article) may not be the best way (hurts certain classes, while giving others a break for the same set of abilities). My paradigm seems to be shifting to an alternate 'static' xp progression that one adds onto the base class (though not costing as much as a full class in a combination class situation). Release 3 of quasi-classes may incorporate such a change across the board.

[SmootRK]

I have been dwelling on the math issue brought up.

- In a nutshell, I am in some agreement that the numbers should be higher.
- Another issue is that I think the numbers should be consistent across all classes, meaning that MU should not be paying more for abilities that a thief pays for the same abilities. Sometimes the particular suite of abilities may seem of better 'use' by some classes (mostly because some limitations do not affect some as greatly as others), but in a strict mathematical sense the abilities are the same regardless of class using them.
- I want to come up with a system that allows the off-chance for somebody wanting 2 such quasi-classes on the same character.
- Another point is that the abilities offered by a quasi-class are not a full character class. One does not get any benefit or adjustment to Attacking Bonus or Hit Dice or Spells, except as the particular quasi-class might adjust in the appropriate way (archer with a bow for instance). The XP 'cost' should still be substantially less than a full class requires.

Now, these differences are mitigated to an extent in my own house rules, but I must write these as independent and interchangeable with the core rules firstly with minimal fuss. Even standard Combination Class works slightly differently with my own house rules (more forgiving for sure).

So, the general thoughts that I am thinking of is an XP Progression instead of a percentage. My initial thoughts are based upon a 1000xp base (with Bards perhaps needing a tad more in order to balance well - either that or tweaking up the requirements for the Bard).

Input Welcome!

[Joe the Rat]

And now we have something that fits the standard class options: Quasi-classes as an option in multiclassing. You have to meet all of the requisites of each, and get the abilities of each class, taking the better HD, saves, AB, etc. from each.

Only in this case, HD, saves, AB, etc. are all "null" for the quasiclasses. In theory, you could offer HD or (limited) spells - or weapon and armor use (though this may be regulated re: mages in armor and clerics with stabby weapons). But anything given in this regard, again, should replace poorer options, not stack with existing options.

[Dimirag]

I like that approach, I was thinking on maybe "buying" the QC levels with XP, but incorporating both cost is the wiser choice.
If you want to incorporate HD into a QC my advice its that do it the same way that race does it: increase or decrease the base HD, you could replace the HD or simply add extra HP per levels but the first option is an already existing mechanic.

[Joe the Rat]

An added thought: For simplicity's sake, use 1/2 fighter XP for calculating the Q-table. It would make sense to just give the table in the quasiclass supplement, but it might be a good shorthand calculation. It also incorporates the post-9 linear progression, scaled back for the Qclass. (adding 60,000 per level instead of 120,000 per level).

[SmootRK]

An added thought: For simplicity's sake, use 1/2 fighter XP for calculating the Q-table. It would make sense to just give the table in the quasiclass supplement, but it might be a good shorthand calculation. It also incorporates the post-9 linear progression, scaled back for the Qclass. (adding 60,000 per level instead of 120,000 per level).

That was generally the idea. I will perhaps have 2 separate progressions to account for higher vs lower powered quasi-classes. For instance, the Bard is (of all of them) the QC with the most perks and abilities. It probably needs a progression that is perhaps even based upon something like 1500xp as the base.

Overall, it would be nice to re-imagine the mechanics in a way that becomes palatable to more people. In play the idea has really worked well (at least in my opinion), and if perhaps a few 're-considerations' of how the ideas are applied, it might better appreciated by more people. I am certainly flexible to consider some such ideas.

Perhaps the ideas can be mashed all together into an "Optional Alternate Combination Class Mechanic, and Quasi-Class Supplement" (certainly not a good name). Perhaps designing a system where even the previously awkward combinations such as Fighter/Thief or Fighter/Cleric might actually work better.