Partial Universal Trees

[Sholekar]

There are certain trees that would benefit from being (limited) universal trees. This could also open up some cool build options for future trees that have somewhat restricted access, but not as much as full on class trees.

E.g.

• Vanguard: same tree between pal/ftr
  • Require a fighter or paladin level to access
  • OR advance it based on the combination of fighter/paladin levels (so a 10 pal/10ftr could grab the capstone)
• Arcane Archer: currently has a heavy cost to non racial completionist (14 racial pts is a lot, and 4 are just burned)
  • Require elf/variant
  • Progresses as on live

With semi-universal trees like this, you can have themes that can fit a tree/ group of similar classes, but still restricts based on build choices.

Options that could mix well with this:

• Mystic Theurge (require arcane and divine casting class levels to enter the tree)
• Arcane Trickster
• Other iconic, but neither universal nor class specific, themes/build options.

 

[droid327]

The issue here is weighing balance against lore. Letting you split Fig/Pal and still get access to the Vanguard capstone means there's no reason to go pure Fighter or Paladin Vanguard, since splitting gives you added advantages with little downside

Likewise giving all elves AA for free will have other ripple effects, particularly giving them access to very cheap Imbue dice for builds that arent even archers. 14 points is definitely too much of an opportunity cost to access, but 0 is probably too few.

 

[Sholekar]

The issue here is weighing balance against lore. Letting you split Fig/Pal and still get access to the Vanguard capstone means there's no reason to go pure Fighter or Paladin Vanguard, since splitting gives you added advantages with little downside

Likewise giving all elves AA for free will have other ripple effects, particularly giving them access to very cheap Imbue dice for builds that arent even archers. 14 points is definitely too much of an opportunity cost to access, but 0 is probably too few.

With respect to the currently live trees I think that's fair. A straight conversion might not work for balance reasons. I don't think much would need to be changed about either of those trees to address that.

 

[Edrein]

I'd rather see the entry point to unlocking Vanguard as an universal tree being that you take the Greater Shield Mastery feat. We've already got precedence for requiring a feat for an universal tree via Feydark.

Setting it to GSM means you need a BAB of 13, and are fully committed to the bit as far as using a shield is concerned. Which means for the 5 people that will preemptively complain "but you're taking away from pure paladins/fighters!" the opportunity cost is right there from the start. As the classes that would want vanguard that currently aren't fighters/paladins are all classes with lower BAB progression and thus won't get access to the tree until later in their build lifestyle.

 

[Sholekar]

I'd rather see the entry point to unlocking Vanguard as an universal tree being that you take the Greater Shield Mastery feat. We've already got precedence for requiring a feat for an universal tree via Feydark.

Setting it to GSM means you need a BAB of 13, and are fully committed to the bit as far as using a shield is concerned. Which means for the 5 people that will preemptively complain "but you're taking away from pure paladins/fighters!" the opportunity cost is right there from the start. As the classes that would want vanguard that currently aren't fighters/paladins are all classes with lower BAB progression and thus won't get access to the tree until later in their build lifestyle.

I like that a lot. Feydark feels like no opportunity cost (which is fine. Universal tree) because by epic levels, Magical Training is effectively free. But GSM would really exemplify a requirement for a limited universal tree.

 

[DBZ]

Sure as long as all casters can have blightcaster trees and stuffs