Coming Soon: Discussion Thread (2017)

[Valefort]

At least that's the goal, if nothing more powerful than existing can be made then that means it was done well.

[AlfarinIcebreaker]

I agree with both of you. The goal with new classes should always be to provide options. It is hard to hit that spot where new class is on par with other alternatives. This prc IMO does exactly that and it is a fine example of a well thought and implemented new class.

[mrm3ntalist]

I agree with both of you. The goal with new classes should always be to provide options. It is hard to hit that spot where new class is on par with other alternatives. This prc IMO does exactly that and it is a fine example of a well thought and implemented new class.

Exactly that. With this PRC, a full ranger build will lose something ( AB, Animal progression and most likely AC from feats ) but it will gain an extra FE, new skills and like any other class RP flavor. It is a decent trade.

The big issue was with the heavy skill investment (44 skill points ! ) which was remedied a bit. It is still the PRC with the heaviest skill investment ( 33? ) and that is for a 5 level PRC.

[Steve]

At least that's the goal, if nothing more powerful than existing can be made then that means it was done well.

Is that in just relation to Ranger, specifically?

Or is that the general idea, with any additional content, that Ranger 30, or Paladin 30, power levels are the ceiling that all new content is balanced against?

Very curious to know if that is the paradigm...and not that I disagree with it!

[chad878262]

It is more about what current builds based on the effective base classes are. Of course we are not going to balance a caster PRC against a non-caster base class. We are going to look at what other caster PRC's can do. Bladesinger was balanced against what you could build with an arcane gish and, despite some off the more angry folks at the time, it is roughly equivalent to a W/EK/DS with some quirks and 'flavor'. With all PRC's we discuss the idea is to not make anything that is more powerful than what can be done with current builds and, in fact to ensure we don't add new powerbuilds to the mix, but as I said, we are not going to balance everything against Paladin/Ranger because as well balanced as those classes are the simple ability to cast level 9 spells automatically makes those who can cast them more powerful than those who can't.

[Steve]

I don't know...I think a Paladin 30 can have a better-than-equal chance against a Level 9 spell casting Wizard.

[Valefort]

Is that in just relation to Ranger, specifically?

Or is that the general idea, with any additional content, that Ranger 30, or Paladin 30, power levels are the ceiling that all new content is balanced against?

Very curious to know if that is the paradigm...and not that I disagree with it!

The general idea for new PRCs as far as I'm concerned is that new PRCs can offer alternatives to a given path or theme without introducing more powerbuilds, not limited to ranger/Pal.

[Steve]

The Server definitely doesn't need more avenues to powerbuilding, but how are new additions meant to appeal to Players if they sit below or even far below that which can be used FOR power building?

I mean, isn't that the dilemma? A PrC may have a boatload of flavor, but if the Server content is balanced toward or against Powerbuilds, and, content isn't demanding certain "flavors" for success—as in, for example, Areas where you couldn't progress unless you had a Rogue in the party—are Players going to choose the PrC?

This is why I'm interested if a Standard is build against, like Ranger 30 or Paladin 30, so as to gauge where Content and abilities be adequately challenged!

The other route, of course, is removing that which is facilitating gross powerbuilding...which we already know what that is!

[Valefort]

It isn't much of a dillemma, everything new should sit below existing options, just not far below so that they remain worthy choices. The server has never been balanced around powerbuilds otherwise so many options would be unplayable, if people want to powerbuild that's their problem.

There is no set standard that I'm aware of, every new PRC is simply weighed against existing content and the various options it offers. Essentially we try to powerbuild with that new PRC and see if we come up with something better than existing, if not : good, if yes : nerf it in some way, ideally by keeping the flavor of this new PRC and diminishing the other benefits.

[kleomenes]

At this stage in the timeline the Harpers are extremely decentralised and independent Harper cells/Harpers themselves may be unaware of the activities of their compatriots in the neighbouring cell. (See the novel "Elfshadow" for reasons why this might not be a great idea) You can play a Harper unaffiliated with the IG Harpers though unless you're very good, they'll probably find you one way or another.

(Vermilion is not affiliated to the Harpers even though I do have a Chaotic Good ranger.)

That is not actually true in this region, especially pre-Time of Troubles. Berdusk (Harper controlled) is just off map past Greenest and in the Sunset Vale there are open bands of "Harper Adventurers" controlled from Twilight Hall, which is the most organised branch of the Harp prior to the Moonstars and currently, on the eve of the Time of Troubles, at the peak of its power. Relations between the various branches of the Harp are good at this stage, Khelben has only really just stopped directly helping out/running things in Berdusk as things are "organised enough" (and we know how he is about organisation)

Don't worry though! Its a common misconception that the Harpers are very disunited and lack organisation. Its partly because of some of the regionally diverse and post TOT Harper novels and the fact they arent focused on the Harper's stronghold (which is, of course Berdusk)

The Harper guild had bad experiences of someone rocking up with a Harper backstory before, so at least while I was active in it, this was not something we allowed to accelerate the recruitment process (without independent verification of Harperness).

As I understand it direct Zhentarim backstories are forbidden on the server, but I don't know how this applies with respect of the fact there will soon be a multiplicty of Harper PRCs (which, in PNP, come with stringent RP requirements akin to paladinhood)

[Steve]

...everything new should sit below existing options, just not far below so that they remain worthy choices.

Why not sit EQUAL with existing options, if there is a Standard that defines appropriate power level?

If everything new is placed below existing options, are we talking those "powerbuild" options?

I ask because it maybe is important to be clear and public about it, which might pre-screen many ideas and suggestions for new content.

It is my belief that there is little reason to build NOT considering ultimate power options. I say that because the majority—if not all—Content is not catering to mid-power or even low power/high Skills building. Or am I missing the knowing of these Areas?

It is apparent that "might equals right" on BGTSCC. It not only solves Events in 99% of the time, it defines PvP and gets your Toon to the best Areas for acquiring Loot.

Just trying to figure out if it can be a different paradigm on BGTSCC!

[Rudolph]

A two-part question about this PrC:
Will one be able to pick Spell Progression for another casting class (divine or arcane) than the one that granted access to the PrC, i.e. other than Ranger or Paladin? If yes, which I doubt but hope for, will the Heroism CL be based on the caster CL of that chosen caster class?

[chad878262]

No, the idea is to progress Ranger/Paladin spell casting only. There are separate PRC's in the works for Harper Mage (Bard/Sorc/Wizard) and Harper Priest (Cleric/Druid/FvS/SS)

[Valefort]

It's impossible to reach equality when you introduce new mechanics though, how can you define a standard when the mechanics are completely different ? I think it's easier to look at each theme/path and look at what's existing instead of trying to define one standard for everything which will be full of holes.

If everything new is placed below existing options, are we talking those "powerbuild" options?

Powerbuilds are what is considered when trying to polish a new PRC so as to not introduce better options, power wise, simply more viable choices.

It is my belief that there is little reason to build NOT considering ultimate power options.

In fact there is a big reason : being challenged, powerbuilds are essentially boring. Content is not even remotely catering to powerbuilds, even low powered builds can go through PvE content with some effort.

It is apparent that "might equals right" on BGTSCC. It not only solves Events in 99% of the time, it defines PvP and gets your Toon to the best Areas for acquiring Loot.

As a former DM you know well that a DM can always challenge a party of adventurers, no matter how much they powerbuilt. PvP is another beast and PvE effectiveness is not exactly the same thing as PvP power. So .. might equals right ? It's relative, for PvE you don't need all that much.

[Sputnik]

Will this PrC require the character to be a part of the Harpers guild?

Will it require an application to the DM team, like Shadow Adept?