D&D 3.5: Courtesans

[Magnus Bergqvist]

Well, since ed is doing his variant classes, here is a class I did earlier (so far my first and only attempt at creating a class). I posted it over at the old forum and got some comments on it. I have in this version marked the spells in the spell-list that are unique to that class with italics. Nothing else have changes

Had to zip the pdf due to size-constraints... :(

/Magnus

[ed]

i didn't want this to go neglected. IIRC, the courtesan as a concept was one i liked but i had some quibbles re: how the class was written. will download and review later.

ed

[Magnus Bergqvist]

Feel free to do a variant. =^_^=

/Magnus

[BattleNymph]

Has anyone here ever played a courtesan?

[Magnus Bergqvist]

I have played two houris (which were what I based the class on). Both were elves and both were multiclassed. They had very different outlooks on things. They were both in D&D second edition, so the material wasn't exactly fitting. The first were a houri/thief, and the other were a houri/corsair.

The former were definetly a bad girl, while the second one was in an Al Quadim campaign and that character were just a bit of a tease (like a bellydancer) but were definetly chaste.

/Magnus

[David Argall]

I'd say it needs weakening.

For starters, it would be thematic if the victim's touch AC was sharply higher vs a kiss spell.

[Baelfyre]

There's actually a very well done Courtesan class in Arduin that has a lot of nifty bits. I'll post it if I can dig up my books.

[David Argall]

The Coutesan here is a sorcerer with a whole lot more skill points and skill options, and with a whole lot more special abiities. All it lacks from the Sorcerer is the familiar. So to balance, the spell list must be a whole lot weaker.
Now she does seem to lack the boom spells, but there are plenty of fine support spells, and not a few new spells that hint of power, or may be outright broken. That she is inferior here is open to challenge.

I'd say she should follow the bard spell charts.

[Origen]

The Coutesan here is a sorcerer with a whole lot more skill points and skill options, and with a whole lot more special abiities. All it lacks from the Sorcerer is the familiar. So to balance, the spell list must be a whole lot weaker.
Now she does seem to lack the boom spells, but there are plenty of fine support spells, and not a few new spells that hint of power, or may be outright broken. That she is inferior here is open to challenge.

I'd say she should follow the bard spell charts.

This is true only if you follow the design philosophy that base core classes are the standard by which the power of all prestige classes must be judged. You have assumed this, and your unstated assumption is not shared by all.

[David Argall]

The courtesan is a base class, not a prestige class. pretty much correctly.

[Origen]

The courtesan is a base class, not a prestige class. pretty much correctly.

Then your statement makes even less sense.

The bard sucks.

[David Argall]

Then your statement makes even less sense.

The bard sucks.

Going merely by game purposes, any new class should be no more than equal to existing classes, so the idea that the bard is a weak class makes it even more desireable that the courtesan be weakened.

And by other standards... If we are discussing the courtesan, and we say the bard sucks, then ....

[TinSoldier]

Going merely by game purposes, any new class should be no more than equal to existing classes, so the idea that the bard is a weak class makes it even more desireable that the courtesan be weakened.

And by other standards... If we are discussing the courtesan, and we say the bard sucks, then ....All classes are equal, but some classes are more equal than others...

[Origen]

Going merely by game purposes, any new class should be no more than equal to existing classes, so the idea that the bard is a weak class makes it even more desireable that the courtesan be weakened.

Designing new core or prestige classes against the power level of the dumbest, suckiest, worst designed base class that most people don't want to play reflects neither WotC's design philosophy, nor that of any 3rd party supplement publisher I know, nor should it be implemented here.

And by other standards... If we are discussing the courtesan, and we say the bard sucks, then ....

That was almost funny, David. Hounding you about your total lack of a sense of humor is having a positive effect, if nothing else does.

Now if we could just do something about your writing style. God, reading your posts is like drinking a cup full of sawdust.

[BattleNymph]

What few times I've seen a courtesan played it was mostly just to bring more sex into the game. Here it looks more like an interesting version of a rogue/bard. Perhaps it could be a reasonable class to play after all.

[Origen]

Part of my problem with this class is that it kind of throws the rogue and the bard into the blender, and combines their special abilities without creating much that's new. I think this might deserve a 5-level prestige class, or MAYBE a 10-level if you gave it caster progression.

But I don't think this is general enough to be a base class.

[Magnus Bergqvist]

Origen: That is a fair enough opinion, and was something I didn't think off. It would mean a rather drastic redesign though.

/Magnus

[David Argall]

Designing new core or prestige classes against the power level of the dumbest, suckiest, worst designed base class that most people don't want to play
Bard seems to have quite a few fans actually. At the Nyrond LG site, it is about tied with monk, paladin, and sorcerer in the number of PCs, and not too far behind druid [which has a number of fans who deem it the strongest class.]

reflects neither WotC's design philosophy, nor that of any 3rd party supplement publisher I know, nor should it be implemented here.
Well, that was not what I was comparing it against. I compared it against the sorcerer, not the strongest, but certainly much higher on most ratings. I called the Courtesan much stronger, and suggested it should be weakened by using bard spell advancement and learning instead of the sorcerer charts.

And while a new core class can exceed the worst of the originals, it can't get much better than that. To introduce powerful new core classes threatens an arms race that eventually destroys the game.
Now a powerful new class is always popular, but popular does not mean good for the game, and WOTC knows this and has largely resisted the temptation to put in new classes that push the envelope.

[Origen]

Bard seems to have quite a few fans actually. At the Nyrond LG site, it is about tied with monk, paladin, and sorcerer in the number of PCs, and not too far behind druid [which has a number of fans who deem it the strongest class.]

The 3.0 ranger also had its defenders. It was still a piss-poor, badly designed class.

Well, that was not what I was comparing it against. I compared it against the sorcerer, not the strongest, but certainly much higher on most ratings. I called the Courtesan much stronger, and suggested it should be weakened by using bard spell advancement and learning instead of the sorcerer charts.

So it's like the sorcerer, which by your own admission isn't that great, and you're going to weaken it by making it more like the bard, which you're not quite defending but informing us that it "seems to have quite a few fans?" Got it.

Magnus, David doesn't listen, and I'm not going to play tar baby with him in your thread, but his input it pretty much useless and typical "I'm Argall, and I'm going to keep talking because I have nothing else to do."

And while a new core class can exceed the worst of the originals, it can't get much better than that. To introduce powerful new core classes threatens an arms race that eventually destroys the game. Now a powerful new class is always popular, but popular does not mean good for the game, and WOTC knows this and has largely resisted the temptation to put in new classes that push the envelope.

And God knows, we don't want a design arms race! Thank you for averting this disaster, David!

[Chimaera]

And here I was hoping you'd plop down the list of broken classes published by WotC -- as usual, DA has no clue what he's talking about.

[Magnus Bergqvist]

Magnus, David doesn't listen, and I'm not going to play tar baby with him in your thread, but his input it pretty much useless and typical "I'm Argall, and I'm going to keep talking because I have nothing else to do."

*grin* Lets just say I have some opinions on the constructiveness on his input when dealing with D&D.

The feedback you gave at least started the wheels in my brain to start clicking, making me think of what would happen if it was scaled down to a 5 or 10-lvl prestige-class. That process haven't reached any good stopping-point yet though.

/Magnus

[BattleNymph]

As a relative newbie to the 3.whatever system, it seems to me the Bard and Ranger aren't useless classes really, just in the way the system limits their experience.

The bard is more a value character for role-playing rather than combat. Unfortunately it seems the new rule-set only values combat really. In a world where role playing is used, the bard would seem highly valuable to me.

And my ranger is one of the most powerful characters in our party oddly with her wider range of skills. So I don't feel it's underpowered, at least not in my (admitedly limited) experience.

[Origen]

As a relative newbie to the 3.whatever system, it seems to me the Bard and Ranger aren't useless classes really, just in the way the system limits their experience.

Note that I was talking about the 3.0 ranger, not the 3.5 ranger. The latter is passable, with a couple of notable weaknesses. The former enjoyed a long deep taste of my butt crack. There was no reason to take more than 1 level of the 3.0 ranger. None. Monte Cook, one of the lead designers of 3rd Edition D&D, posted a fix for the 3.0 ranger on his web site. They incorporated most of his work into the 3.5 ranger.

The bard is more a value character for role-playing rather than combat. Unfortunately it seems the new rule-set only values combat really. In a world where role playing is used, the bard would seem highly valuable to me.

The bard is no more valuable for roleplaying than any other class. In fact, if you want to play a REAL jack of all trades, you play a rogue. There has always been an emphasis on melee combat in D&D, but nevertheless, the first edition bard was an AWESOME character class in every way.

The 3.5 bard is a bad spellcaster, a bad skills character and a bad melee character. Nobody even tries to defend the 3.0 bard, because it's pointless. If someone wanted to play a bard in one of my campaigns, I'd use Monte's bard from the Complete Book of Eldritch Might. Monte gave them their own magic system based on chords and harmonies, their own unique musical/magical abilities instead of just mishmashing the cleric and wizard spell lists together and requiring them to sing everything.

And my ranger is one of the most powerful characters in our party oddly with her wider range of skills. So I don't feel it's underpowered, at least not in my (admitedly limited) experience.

You're probably playing a 3.5 ranger, too. The 3.0 ranger had 4 skill points per level.

[Origen]

Here is the 3.0 ranger:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdbasiccharacterclassesii.rtf

[BattleNymph]

Here is the 3.0 ranger:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdbasiccharacterclassesii.rtf

*gak* That one sucks! You're right, I'm playing a 3.5 ranger.

[Origen]

*gak* That one sucks! You're right, I'm playing a 3.5 ranger.

The 3.5 ranger is a decent class. I open up the feat progressions to more possibilities, and allow rangers to trade out favored enemies with training. But overall, it doesn't suck the butt like the 3.0 ranger.

[BattleNymph]

The 3.5 ranger is a decent class. I open up the feat progressions to more possibilities, and allow rangers to trade out favored enemies with training. But overall, it doesn't suck the butt like the 3.0 ranger.

yeah. Being stuck with orcs as your favored enemy even at higher levels kind of sucks.