Talk:Dancer (3.5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
Wow, this class looks amazing so far! keep it going! --Gedren56 11:40, 28 April 2009 (MDT)
- Don't forget to put the Category:Final Fantasy and Copyright Disclaimer tags, since this is obviously inspired by FFT Dancer job. Besides that, great job, looking good. -Sarrow 16:25, 27 May 2009 (MDT)
You should seriously think about removing alignment restriction from this class (and all base class in general, except paladin maybe). Seriously, alignment restriction really limit roleplaying and is a pain in the a$$ for character building, if it was a PrC it would be understandable but base class should have no entry condition, ever IMO. --The Zanni 01:34, 23 August 2009 (MDT)
- I agree that classes shouldn't really have alignment restrictions, although some do make sense. But even in the PHB there are a few that have them, Monk (Any Lawful), Paladin (Only Lawful Good), Barbarian (Any Non-Lawful), Bard (Any Non-Lawful), Druid (Any Neutral), and Clerics (Cleric is limited by his chosen deity) all have alignment restrictions. That is 6 out of the 11 core base classes that have alignment restrictions, that is over half of them. But if anything you should just make this class Any Non-Lawful instead of Any Chaotic. -Sarrow 02:19, 23 August 2009 (MDT)
- You can write most dancers are chaotic (don't make much sense IMO) but requiring to be alignment X to be Y base class is stupid. Why can't a lawful compositor be a bard? I could totally see a paladin/bard lass who think her music can redeem even the greatest evil, but without houserule you can't. Not all DM houserule right, so good character concept are often reduced to uselessness by a goddamned stupid rule. I challenge you to give me one advantage of alignment restriction (Paladin use a special code of conduct so9 it okay, but UA really fixed the problem about them anyway). --The Zanni 02:25, 23 August 2009 (MDT)
- You have to think about the concept behind the class to understand why it has an alignment restriction. A bard can not be lawful because of its abilities to manipulate people, which is not lawful, through spells and abilities. So if you were to make a lawful bard and try to use its abilities and some of its spells you would soon change from lawful to neutral or chaotic anyways. I agree that alignment restrictions suck and shouldn't be there because it dampers character creation creativity, but it is there to help define the classes and to make it so that not everyone can be every class all at once.
- About the Paladin though, I actually think that it has the dumbest alignment restriction. I always believed that they should have the same kind of restriction as a Cleric and the abilities just be based off of that. UA did a good job trying to allow for other aligned Paladins but I always saw them as a crusader of their deity but what about neutral deities. -Sarrow 11:52, 23 August 2009 (MDT)
- Nah Paladin are not divine crusader, UA variant shouldn't be called Paladin anyway. A paladin is a knight of good, hope and whatever float your do-gooder boat. For the bard, in that case enchanters should be non-lawful, and all classes able to hurt someone any non-good. Lawful-chaotic is already disputed enough and gameplay-wise it cripple character creation.
- Back to my point, what if a bard use his abilities to resolve revolts and eliminate rebellion. This bard is lawful as a mage who dedicate his life to fry demon with fireball is good. How and out-view of life can stop you from learning abilities? The paladin is sponsored by the force of good, as the cleric. But nothing stop the bard, no divine force, no patron, no concept to follow. Same thing for the dancer, what stop him/her to learn these abilities if he/she non-chaotic? This is why this class should have no alignment restriction. --The Zanni 17:04, 23 August 2009 (MDT)
- Well actually based on the definition of Paladin and its roots it is just a knight that is positioned high in a court. So really any warrior who fights for a cause is a Paladin. About the Bard though, the act of making someone do something against their free will is not lawful or good in its own right, but the use of it could be defined as lawful or good. Just as killing someone with a blade can be seen as a good action if it is to save many. But that is why a bard is not lawful, one is because they are known to use their abilities to manipulate others to get what they want and the other is because they act chaotic (the rarely stay in one place and tend to act very flamboyant), but this is just the way that the core bard is created, this doesn't mean that you can't just houserule a lawful bard just like you could houserule a good drow. As drow in the MM are stated to always be evil. The rules are just supposed to be guide lines and they can be changed and defined better by the DM and the players with the DMs permission. -Sarrow 22:25, 23 August 2009 (MDT)
- Then why the Beguiler is not any non-chaotic, the enchanter? The bard is a buffer, not a master manipulator. They have the option to deceive, and we can't rely on houseruling when we make a class or race. It why no one should make a class with alignment restriction, and PCs usually will metagame about all dancer not being trustworthy because they are chaotic. Or all monk being trsutworthy because they are lawful, I don't say they are but having fix alignment on a class is never a good thing. --The Zanni 22:30, 23 August 2009 (MDT)
 CHA to AC
Generelly I´d say it´s ok to give a AC Bonus of the CHA modifier. But: Imagine I want to play basically a sorcerer or bard or another CHA-based class. And my GM allows the Dancer. Then this one small bit of powergaming that is in all of us says: take one level of Dancer, it won´t decrease your magic ability (or other ability) too much plus you get a massive AC bonus, especially as a unarmored sorcerer or as a bard who could only wear light armor as alternative. This is the reason, why the duelist prestige class has the limitation on canny defense that your maximum bonus to AC by intelligence is your duelist level. A wizard who wants to use his intelligence bonus both for spells and canny defense would need a lot of duelist levels and by that reduces his casting abilities. (the wisdom AC bonus of the monk on the other hand can´t be used in this fashion since all casters-by-wisdom can wear armor anyway. I´d advise you to do the same as done by the duelist here: limit the AC bonus to the level of dancer. (Oh and think about this 2x CHA at 10th level, I´m not sure but could be a little bit too powerfull) (And I really like the basic concept of your class. Good work.)
i think the same. CHA to armor class is good but x2 CHA at lvl 10? maybe tooo overpowered. maybe with evasion at lvl 2 you can take out the x2...
and i think this class need more atk options.
Power - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because it seems overpowered to me. Her Dance ability has no limit on how much times a day she can use it. There are also no rank requirements for Perform (Dance) listed for the dances. I'm going to relate this to the bard so I would think that some of the dances would require concentration checks if the dancer tries to do something else while dancing or is attacked. There is also no time limit for each dance which seems a bit overpowered to me. There should be some kind of time limit for how long she can keep up with the effects of each one. --Boonbies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (MDT)
Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because you definitely got the idea down clearly but some things I had to read over twice before I fully understood what you meant. --Boonbies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (MDT)
Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it is easy to read through but some things I feel should be separated like when you explain what a Dance is. It's kind of just shoved in under Knight's Armored Defense and there is no real name to it, just "Dance". --Boonbies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (MDT)
Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because I love the flavor behind it but it seems like a minimal amount of information. It's just enough to give me a basic understanding but not really in-depth. --Boonbies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (MDT)